All first >> chairman >> here. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson >> here. >> Member Berdette >> here. >> Member Tucker. >> Member Miller. Member Delgado >> here. >> Member Browning
>> here. >> Alternate member Young. Alternate member Rosa >> here. >> Good. Sounds like we have a quorum. All righty. Let's uh let's do the pledge of allegiance. Oh, we got Bill Young. Welcome, Bill.
Just in time. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Righty. Next up, I'll entertain an approval of the minutes from the October 15th meeting. Motion for there or comments and discussion. After that, move that we approve the m the minutes.
>> Okay. Member Dogado motions. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> All right. Member Thompson second. So any discussion changes? Okay. Hearing none. Uh everybody if you approve say yes. Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Good. And any oppose. Great. There we go. On to old business. No. Petitions and requests. How can I forget? My favorite section. All right. Who's up? Stan. >> Yes. >> All right.
My name is >> Yep. turned on there. >> My name is Stan Johnson and I didn't want to be on TV tonight, but I don't know what's going to happen. So, but anyhow, I brought you some maps that I've looked at many times and the the
question is is where does the water go, especially in the area of u the um uh project that was um refused denied last night. Um, and that's in the area of Baker subdivision
in that area. So, uh, this is a this is a map that was in is that's in the u uh 1966 stormwater master plan of greater Titusville. So, it includes areas outside of the city of Titusville.
And so it has for that area which is uh includes Baker subdivision. It shows that drainage does pierce the um the divide which is like the Atlantic ridge. It pierces the divide and goes through a
um it's called u bloody Mary ditch to uh uh St. John's Street and also goes also by another ditch. it goes it splits and goes to South Street. So it has it
divides there. the um uh uh the this particular master plan uh done by this city of Titus by Black Crow and ISUS in 1966 uh shows that the drainage uh has a an
old canal that was also that pierced the um um the ridge and also goes all the way to um almost the St. John's River. It mainly just goes in the wetlands before
the St. John's. Uh so it there's there's a uh this particular uh canal that was constructed in in perhaps about the 1930s uh has been disrupted by a construction
of overlook terrace and uh it's I think the people's name is Dobson who have a a pond there. So it's it's like a division there where the canal used to be and it's now it's it's to be restored
according to this master plan restored and with a a large area alongside of it for m maintenance maybe 20 ft wide or so for equipment. So I'm mentioning to you that so that's
that's what I have here. Uh, unfortunately today I received a uh a drainage map by that that Mrs. Thompson gave me and I'm not sure it's done by is it done by Kimley Horn? Do
you know that that what you sent me in the email? >> What I sent you today in the email was a Google Maps. I mean >> it has errors on it. >> I put those on myself. Oh, you put the yellow arrows on there
>> and the red arrows depicting the um >> the division between the St. John's Basin and the Indian River Lagoon Basin. >> The red arrows were based on current DP map the of the basin. >> Okay. I'm not sure who is who did a D
map. I'm not familiar with that. Uh I thought maybe it was Kimley Horn or somebody. I don't know who did it. >> Okay. But but in 19 and um oh it's about 20 2014 is that um
um geocint consultants did a lomar for the u baker subdivision. That's a letter of map revision was sent to FEMA and at that time uh they said that there's there's the the drainage uh goes goes two ways and in big storms. It goes it
goes over the um I want to say break breaking point where it can go to the St. John's River or or to go to Baker subdivision. So um um this is another map. This map was done in 1997.
It's supplements it and it and what it shows is that uh uh Baker subdivision is up here and the uh ditch goes ditch goes through here. Uh the uh
Bloody Mary ditch. But uh the arrows here, you see the arrows here? They go, there's one, two, three, four, five, six, six, uh cross drains across I95. Here's one that's 2T by six, two of
them, six foot x 5 foot box coverboard. Here's a 9 foot by three foot box covers. And what I've done is I've I've I've observed during or after hurricanes uh that all four of these the first four here you can't even see the old canal.
I'm going to ask for another 30 seconds. May I have 30 seconds? >> Go ahead, Stan. >> Okay, just 30 seconds. That's all. So the first four the first four you can't even see the distance. And the and the the one that's operating mostly is this last last one down here. the 6' x5 and
this one is very slow which is a 6 foot by 4 foot box cover. So that's that's all I wanted to share with you. So it's it says it's going to and also FDOT has a drainage map that I've seen shows it
also going to St. John's. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We're going to be looking at drainage an awful lot in the near future. I'm certain. Anybody else? >> Mr. Wright, welcome.
>> Thank you. Good evening. I've given out packages um for everyone to take a look. I was here in March of last year, 2024, and there was a unanimous approval to go
forward as far as the city getting involved in the Cumberland Farms League. The first two pages that you're looking at is a letter from my attorney that was sent today to the city attorney and also to the city manager.
And the reason I'm here today is uh because since last year I found out that the Shell station is also has been leaking for nearly two 20 25 years. And I found out from the city inspector
that those those tanks were welded 10 years ago. Welded, not replaced. The next page you'll see is what the approval was with TEC in March of last year.
And then the following pages, you'll see the size of the balloon that if I may approach the the counter, I can just have you pass it out so you can't see the sides.
>> Where you going, St? I'm still talking. Um, so you'll see the size of the plume as you are looking at that and then the shell station which is right across the street
and you can see a picture of the water tap which is about three and a half to four four feet below the ground. And in that same package, you'll see my comment that I sent to
FD and the Department of Natural Resources. I tried to be very polite. I shouldn't have been that polite, but it's too late now. The very last page, you'll see that there is a environmental report from
Freeland. This is the environmental report and it's been highlighted. And if you take a look, they're basically referring to the contamination moving northeast. I don't know if you guys ever heard of
contamination going the other direction. Unless they have detour signs out there that make sure that the contamination moves the other way. I also have a petition that I'm going to
share with you and that is a petition that we've got all the signatures from the residents and the businesses. I am sure they are totally unaware as to what's going on on the ground.
And we come to a point where I cannot get financing. As you may already know if you've been in the real estate field, the lenders are not interested in doing any kind of financing in the under.
And this has been going on for at least 35 years. So I am presenting this to you now with the intention to see what is the next step because now things have changed. In addition to Cumberland Farm, we have
Shel Station as well. These are all the signatures from the um residents and the businesses. And you can see how many we have. We're still getting more. I don't want to have the residents and
businesses to go against the city, but I may have no other choice to have a discussion about what we have found out. It is not my responsibility to let the residents and businesses know what is on the ground.
This is continuing. Um, this has been going on for several years. I had meetings with the uh Tina Turner or Tina whatever her last name is and Dan Diesel and nothing happened in that meeting. I
have discussed this with the current mayor. Um he doesn't believe that the city should be involved and so I am really at a standstill not being able to move forward because this contamination has taken well over at
least nine acres as you see on the map. and is continuing going further east. This used to be a contiguous 22 acres. I have subdivided it in multiple parcels. When a lender looks at one parcel like
the assisted living or the hotel, they want to make a loan on that particular parcel. But because everything was contiguous at some point in time, they obviously want to see why this is still pending
and you can imagine why any lender would not want to um do the loan. And that's where we are. We have already done the infrastructures. All the pipes and everything is below the ground. The roads are already in. Um all the curbs
are in the FPL lines. If I can have three more minutes if that's okay. >> Go ahead, please. >> And so the infrastructure cost me about 7.1 million.
We have done 12 acres facing US1. Everything below the ground covers the two restaurants on US1. It covers the 153 room hotel right behind the car wash. It covers the assisted living and it
also covers the multifamily. The problem is the assisted living is situated between the hotel and the contaminated area. Whether there are gas coming out of the ground, we that never been checked.
There's been no records of any uh whales that was done on the north side of the country club or the Hopkins side. There's been really no uh discussions with the residents or the business
owners coming from Department of Natural Resources or the FD. And this is really alarming because the city should care for the citizen. forget my project for a minute. But if the city doesn't care for the residents
and businesses and they're not willing to disclose what's going on, then whose responsibility is it? I am going to be presenting this to the county commissioners as well. I've been asked by my attorney if they can go ahead and
put me on the agenda and to be able to either get a yes or no. And that's what I'm expecting hopefully today. and also my presentation to the city city council. I know certain things about politics
here in this city and I just hope that this the TEC continue to do business and does not go away. As a developer I usually want the other way around. I don't want TEC to exist but that's not the case. We
want to do projects that are helpful and there is a need in the city for these type of projects. And that is pretty much what I'm hoping to get accomplished. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> I don't see any, Jesse. Um Oh, wait one moment. Member Brownie, please. You said you have how much expended on site infrastructure? >> 7.1 million. >> And
I haven't had time to go through this report in detail, but I'm curious as to when these uh ground these geotechnical samples were done um before or after you started with your site infrastructure.
>> Well, it's been going on for number of years. And it's further moving closer and closer to the phase one which is on US one. So you got 12 acres on US1 portion which is the first phase of the project. The contamination is on
the second phase which where the mall is. We have a little mini mall there right now. >> Right. I live down the street so I'm >> okay. >> I've been looking at anticipation with that site going vertical. >> Right. Right. I I was just wondering um
how much of the groundwater contaminate the ground contamination was uh foreseen before you started construction. That's just a a curiosity. I'm not trying to pin you down on anything. Um but it it
seems like um from my experience geotechnical work um should be cut and dried and absolutely certain that you don't have any problems before you start spending millions on infrastructure. That's not a criticism but it just makes
me curious as to the time timeline. Um, it almost seems like you spent all this money on infrastructure and then you discovered leaks um under what portions of the ground you
want to build on. That that seems odd to me. >> Well, let me answer that if you if I may. Number one is that the plans and the civil portion of the project was already done before we found out that this is going on in that section of the
of the phase two. We had to divert some of the water pipes, sewer lines and everything else from Hopkins coming into the project literally going around it to be able to feed the phase one. So we've
made some modification because of that and so knowing the fact that FD and Department of Department of Natural Resources they believe that I just have to wait more delineation and more shaking and it's almost like watching
the paint dry. is pretty much what this is. >> Yes. I'm just curious um at the rate of that it's leaking, how soon before it gets to the Indian River? >> It's already gone to the Sed River. >> It's it's made it to the river already. >> Definitely. If you look at if you look
at the map, the water tab is just like three and a half feet. And you know the contamination is just flowing right into the river. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. >> Did the mayor pontificate on why he doesn't think the city should get involved?
>> Well, I've already been to two meetings with two mayors and they feel exactly the same. I I'm really shocked to and I've you know done projects in multiple other cities in Crossville, Tennessee,
Nashville, Birmingham, Alabama to South Haven, Mississippi to Jackson, Mississippi. I've never really had this kind of resistance from any mayor not caring for the citizens or the residents. Forget Jesse Wright for a minute. Let's say this project gets shut
down and nothing happens because I can't get financing. But what about the residents? They have the right to and they have a right to know what's going on. I don't want to be the one disclosing that, but
if I have to, I have to. >> What role does the Bvard County Natural Resources Department play? Well, I've sent out emails and multiple calls and conference calls with them.
They're basically saying that everything that the uh Cumberland Farms um consultants are doing is within the within the scope of what they're supposed to be doing. But, you know, if they're supposed to be the referee and
I'm the victim and they are the ones that have to clean up their crap, if you and I were the neighbors and my sewer tank erupts to your property, I need to be the one cleaning it.
So, you shouldn't suffer because the fact that my sewer line leaked in your property, but I I guess I cannot get that through to them. Have you tried getting an elected state legislature
person involved? >> I've already gone to two senators and two congressmen, Markopoulos, um Ashley Moody and two other ones.
But all they're doing is just sending letters and they're not really getting we're not getting any results. >> Chairman, please. Sir, >> I have a question for Miss Thompson. Uh do you have any concern that this is
creeping northeast towards the lagoon? >> Absolutely. >> I do too. >> Yeah. >> Um I I don't know. It's it sounds to me like um I'm I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a I'm not
the king, but um sounds to me like somebody needs to go to superior court quickly uh and get some sort of injunctive release or or something to stop this creep >> towards the uh Indian River Lagoon.
>> Yeah. If if action is not taken quickly by somebody, um it's going to get into the lagoon, then we're all going to be griping and complaining very loudly about that. So, what's what's the action? What's the
environmental action? Um I I don't know what that is exactly, but it seems like some environmental action needs to be taken to mitigate the creep. Is that offline or is that sound reasonable at all?
>> Well, Michael, a year ago, we thought it was only Cumberlands. Now, we know there are two Shel station across the street that is owned by Indian guy. And so, now we have a double leak that we're dealing with. And again, it is really interesting that if this
was in California, I wouldn't be here talking about this. >> No, he wouldn't. If this was in California, the bulldozers will come in and take everything out. >> But now we know there's two gas stations that are leaking. The water tab is like 3 and 1/2 ft and it's certainly going
into the lagoon. And these are the tenants and some of the residents on US1 facing the lagoon that have signed up for this. And so my issue is if I start a lawsuit,
we're going to have to move forward as far as going against the FDOP and Department of Natural Resources. It could take two or 300,000 and several years. Well, I mean, the only alternative would
be to put a moratorium on backyard barbecues along the riverfront. Um, not to be so flippant, but it's really this is a really terrible situation. >> And more importantly, I'm not even sure about I think they call it OVA. Probably
you know more about it about gas coming out of the ground. They've never measured that. It's in the letters. >> It should have be measured, >> right? Because if you Right. And that's something that we've been saying I've been saying for years. If you don't measure it, you don't understand it. If you don't understand it, you don't
control it. And that's where we're at. >> I had to disclose to Jazz and Ballet that's been my tenant for been there for 20 years, Miss Mary, >> right? >> They're moving out next month from 12,000 square ft. >> Wow. >> It's so close to them. I don't want the kids at 12, you know,
12 years old and get exposed to that. I'd rather just do away with the rent they're paying 7 or 8,000 than them being safe. go. >> Uh behind my house is an old gas station. It's been closed for 20 years.
And um every now and then I say once a year um somebody I forgot now who it was. I think it's the county comes in and puts down wells and tests the water. and they gave me a 29page report on the data
they've been collecting for 10 years on the pollution that's coming from the tanks that were there before. I assume that's why that land hasn't sold in all these years is because nobody will buy it because of the contamination that's
leaking out. So if that's a problem then that there is a problem and we probably want to look at other gas stations along the waterfront that's been here for years to look at them too. Uh, so I'm offering more problems to the problem of
um um I when I drink or well I use city water but when I water my plants and my vegetables in my garden um I try to smell the water to see if it stinks bad. So um I had it tested and they find some
things at the city water. Uh but they don't say it's too bad but um We have more than just him as a problem. >> May I ask for this committee to do a vote now to send another message to the
city to do something? Is that proper to do this? We can't do it at at this meeting. What we can do um is put it on an agenda as an agenda item um at a future meeting. Okay? >> And and I definitely agree that this is
something that that should go forward. Um, I don't see any other names up here. Oh, yes, I do. Okay, good. Leave your lights on if you want to speak. Hector, please go. >> Yes. >> You and I talked the last time you were here.
>> Yes. >> We talked about going across the street and putting some wells down to see if indeed the neighbors across >> right, >> we're getting. Uh we also talked about getting some measurements of the asphalt
and the test port the 42 43 the ones that are in line. >> Correct. Correct. >> Just open them up and put a measurement device. Has any of that been done? >> What you and I discussed I sent to the Cumberland consultant people to be able
to do that and their their response was that we're going to continue further going east as they're now getting close to the entrance coming into the mall. And they they did two more drills there. >> Correct. >> And the results are basically fairly the
same. I mean, I see them coming in testing. I see the what is coming out of the ground and their only concern is that they think this is the only issue with Cumberland. But if the tanks were welded 10 years ago per Chris the
inspector of the city then they don't they are not that is not under scope that is not in the scope that look at that as well because that is also a double issues of having to have the contamination coming in under
Cumberland into my property and then going to the lagoon. So I mean it's a devil's jeopardy in a way. >> Right. But bear with me I'm talking from last year. >> Right. Right. >> And I go crumbumber on a lot. So get gasoline and stuff like that.
>> I did see action in terms of new new wells being drilled. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Going east towards the river. >> Correct. >> And there was more than one that was put in. There were Okay.
the results of those two which were new >> within 30 days. >> Right. But they they were they went into those wells to see what was happening. >> Correct. >> So therefore the data is from last year sometime right.
>> Correct. >> Uh did they share that data with you? >> They do share the data but it's basically the same things I get every three months. I mean it's not really any >> there not really any changes. is like piss waters. How can I explain that? It's
>> Yeah. Yeah. What I'm getting at is are they showing the migration going east? >> Oh, absolutely. >> But then the report you look at for Shell says going northeast. >> Right. Right. I'm I'm putting the shell aside. >> Right. >> Okay. I'm just I'm just trying to stay in the in the Cumberland to your
property. >> Correct. >> And then you and I had the conversation about the kids because there's a dance school right there. >> Correct. >> That that's very important. uh that we keep that in mind if we are outgassing
again we talked about it's not that hard to measure hydrocarbons in the air uh you can take air samples and and go here it is and it's there or not >> I mean the fact that they're drilling further and further to the east means
that it is going in that direction right which is obviously the logical thing but when you look at shell what they say it's going to the Northeast. That doesn't make sense to me. And my brain kicks it out and say there's a problem. Maybe there is a I don't want
to bring that up here, but >> like I said, I I'm I'm trying to stay with the Cumberland Farm and the neighbors across the street. >> Correct. >> Which is many. >> Have they has there been any effort to put up a well, a test well on the other side of the street?
>> I personally didn't want to do those wells. I've asked Cumberland Consultant to do it. They came back and said it's not necessary because it hasn't gone that far. So there's really no data on country club. >> Well, how do they know that it hasn't
gone that far if they haven't drilled a well? >> They're only concentrating on this project and Jesse, right? Not really on the businesses and the residents across the street. Because can you imagine if they open that up and they see there is
more stuff underground then it's going to be an issue with them and also the residents. That's some politics sometimes gets involved. >> Okay. So So they they did not follow up
with putting whales on >> there's been no whales put in on country club or >> but on on country club, right? >> Yeah. just like we discussed and also there hasn't there hasn't been any >> measurements taken in the area where the
population right now goes in and out >> 100% >> and no air samples we're taking no surface samples right >> were taken >> all surface samples no air samples no >> I I' um couple of things Jesse thank you
um I'm going to bring it back to the board Um, I think we should move this topic to uh to our agenda items at the end of the so we can discuss it more. Jesse, you're welcome to hang around with us. We've got a lot of work to do first with some wetlands. >> Sure. If you're going to be putting this
on agenda, can it be December? >> We don't have a meeting in December. >> It'll be January. >> It'll be January. >> It'd be nice if we had a a a dinner or something, a Christmas party, a holiday party, wouldn't it? You know, just for the environment. Anyway, um it will have
to be January unfortunately, but we will get a chance another opportunity to talk about it this evening. And >> I can just stay on if you don't mind. >> I have no quarrel whatsoever, sir. Um in fact, I would encourage it because um I just don't want to read for the board's
sake. Just so you guys all know, we are the Titusville Environmental Water Resources Board, right? And our goal and objective number one is to study the general conditions in and around surrounding the city of
Titusville and make specific recommendations to the city council regarding the environmental effects of existing conditions, future and private development projects subjects of particular environmentalwater
resource concern and issues regarding environmental sustainability. Leaking gas tanks are not environmentally sustainable. In order to improve information available to city council in their decision-making role,
so this is this is right up our baywick right there. Number one and specific responsibilities, just to clarify it, is to respond to requests for concerns on subjects of environmental water resources and environmental sustainability issues from the city
council, city manager, other appropriate city committees. To me, a citizen is we work for you guys. So, this is something that I think that we need to raise and it seems like everybody here has has an interest in doing so. So, we'll discuss
this again later on, but we really need to get on to our our >> I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Just Just one last thing. I live across the street, so I can see them. I can see the murky water. >> Oh, dear. >> Why can't we just make a motion right
now to add it to our next meeting agenda and be done with it? Well, because I'd like to talk a little bit about what we want to add to the meeting agenda and that's more than I want to clarify deeper what we're
going to discuss because I want it to be impactful as member uh said we really need to look at all gas stations or consider all prior systems. So, this is a systemic water resources
issue throughout the city. Um, just like storm water flooding is a systemic issue throughout the city. Not every place got flooded, but it's still a citywide issue. So, to me, water water is one. We
only have one water. And whether it's storm water or portable water or sanitary sewer, all three systems run with water. And we need to be thinking about them in that way. They all affect one another.
Anybody else? All right. On to the agenda then, which is old business and wetland conservation and finish the discussion on wetlands that you guys started last time.
Mary, are you ready? Would you like to Mary, would you introduce yourself please when you get yourself settled there >> for the record Mary Spar live in Coco. >> Thank you. >> And I really care about your weapons,
especially the big ones which we want to save. >> Yes. Do they have um accessible the chart from last time >> there? I I gave the >> It was included in the packet. Yeah,
>> it's in the packet. Yeah. >> Okay. Um >> yeah, >> you need to look at that chart. pull it up because we we're gonna see what we can do on this tonight. Which um
>> it should be page 10 of your packet. >> Yeah. Unfortunat you know what? I I printed out a bunch of charts. I can't believe I left them. >> Thank you. >> I do that every time. I print them out and I leave them on the printer.
>> Yeah, it's page 10. >> Okay. So, um, y'all got your chart, right? >> Do they do they have the, um, information that he was going to put on the computer? >> Yeah.
>> Um, okay. So, I think we can go ahead and start with um, this one. And then I had a um, yeah, it was a Yeah.
Okay. So, can you pull it up? We'll do this one first. >> This one? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's >> the Well, if you want to do the >> You want to do the presentation?
>> I think we're going to try to do this one first. If Is that okay? >> Yeah. This is great. Wow. Excellent. You all can see it. Okay. I gotta say we
are on a roll. I could not believe last night when they turned down the city council five to nothing. They turned down PD South.
and PD South has a little over 34 wetland. So, what I want to show you is some is a difference in the um
environmental consultant bioteex documentation and um the stuff. the other little um little graphic. Is that right, Michael?
>> Michael helped make this. He did. He He did it. Um the other graphic from um Kimley Horn. Okay, >> that's the one she's talking about. >> We Okay, what we're talking about is box two.
And if you'll remember that box two on the chart, um, you know, was an example of a wetland that spilled over onto another property and then the guy said,
"Well, I don't have um a 5 acre wetland on my parcel, so I don't have to preserve it." And that one we discussed last time. Um, in talking to Michael
Um it became pretty apparent that um I needed to present an another example of um someone possibly thinking that a wetland on their property
um might stop at their property and not not you know be um continuing on to another um another property. So, what the f what the first um
picture shows is that triangle at the bottom is where PD South is. It's a Singleton and uh 405. And um now what I want you to notice is
that all the blue says WL5 and or is it W5? Maybe it's W5. Anyway, but it all says five number five because they got all these wetlands. Um
you know you can see in the whole diagram one is in the north two is in the north three is in the north but it may be part of five we don't know and four is in the
north but in the south all that stuff is part of one wetland those four little pieces that they have. Okay. Now, um
notice that he says that there are 50 05 acres in wetland five. That's a lot of acres. And um now he's not showing it continuing on toward the south or the
east, but that's okay. Um, what I wanted to show you is that in in the next picture, if you can draw that up, >> Lily, in the next slide, please. >> It just did. Oh, okay.
>> He's going to do >> the next um Yeah, graphic. >> Okay. Um, I don't know if we can zoom in on that a little, but what they have here is on the far
left they have that um green thing labeled WL1, wetland one, and it's 0.47 acres. >> Right. Well,
that wetland obviously goes onto another property and is greater than five acres, right? >> Mhm. >> And then they have a little bit more toward the east WL2
47.85 acres. Well, and they got it kind of going down to the very south. You can um kind of um get the picture a little bit more. Um
yeah. And then that whole wetland goes, you know, over to the east and that's all 47.85 acres. Well, um
actually we know it's over 50 acres, but they're calling the one on the end, one on the left, um wetland one instead of identifying as part of the same wetland, wetland two. And then they
got wetland three um you know right around some of the town homes kind of um in the center and they say that's 2.37 acres.
Well, it's part of a wetland that's um over 50 acres. So, what I'm the point I'm trying to make is that it it doesn't have to be a small property that um could be
misinterpreted by people. see if, for example, we don't want the um applicant to get away with fi filling wetland 3 2.37 acres when we know that's part of a
wetland that's over 50 acres, right? It's these pieces that spill out. And I think the biotech, you know, had it um more correct, right?
And now I got to say that the city wasn't fooled. Even though biotech said wetland one, wetland two, and wetland three, they knew that, you know,
um they the amount of wetlands that um you know are in Pey South is over 50 acres and they knew um you know that they should all be
conservation land. But this is misleading for um the public because when I looked at it at first, which it was quite a while ago actually because this thing um you know was continued um
before it was I believe um in um October of 204. But when I looked at this stuff at first, I thought, "Oh, here's a couple wetlands that maybe they can they can
fill in, I was I was um a little confused. But now I see when when I look at the environmental report that there are none of their wetlands that according to conservation elements strategy 1.6.3.2,
two which says that um wetlands 5 acres and greater shall be designated conservation. There is there is no wetland that um should be
taken out of conservation and um filled except for a small portion possibly for um one resident per five acres.
So that's what I wanted to show you is that um you know besides in box two with the small wetland um smaller wetland um I mean the smaller
property um the larger properties can have this uh same spilling of their wetlands over um the um property line. And you'll see um that on
the first um picture, the biotech slide um that um there's green why there's green, I don't know. There should be blue down underneath, but
it's a tricky business and we got to close the loophole. So now any questions about that or should we get on to Hector's um problem from last time there? Well, I can't say problem but question that I didn't have the answer to. I have the
answer now. >> Okay. Well, I think I may have an an answer to this one that we we talked about it briefly yesterday, but I would like to bring it up for you guys to all think about as well. And my idea is that the wetland delineation,
the wetlands are wetlands whether that's on that man's property or woman's property or somebody else's property. So I think we should completely disassociate the wetland delineation with the property itself. If the property has a wetland, we need to find
out if that wetland extends into neighboring areas and and where and how far and how big they are. Because in this example here, that 3 acre, 2 point whatever acre wetland that they've got in the middle where it's isolated and cut off, they could just as easily fill
in, but is technically part of the same conservation space and should therefore be preserved as conservation space. And this makes it appear it doesn't. The same thing happened when they let the the land go for the Hilton. I think it
was like three and a half acres and there were 2.6 acres of wetlands. It was connected and abudded directly 15 other acres of wetlands and they let it go because they only could control that their own property. But wetlands spill,
flooding moves from one land to the other. And storm water is every bit of part of our water resources. And I think it's something that we need to we need to seriously consider in this direction that we disassociate the land. When we go to do the wetlands and define the
wetland delineation, you know, the property is it's it goes beyond the property lines. it has to so that we can have a complete accounting for how big the wetland is until it closes the loop and comes back again. We we need to know the size. So that that's
my thinking on on this. >> So somehow um how do you want to handle this? Do you want to um let me ask you something else about this um when do you know when
staff is going to be starting to look at this stuff? Have they started looking at this stuff or do you know anything about their plans for looking at this stuff? Like how soon do we need to get this information to them? Can we have it would be nice if you know
they could be at least looking at this stuff before January. >> All I know is that it did uh jump to the top of the list for advisability projects. >> Yes. >> Um how they go about coordinating what working
through those advisability lists. I'm not sure because right now they still have, you know, their daytoday like processing that's still backlog too. I think um I might ask some questions of staff and you know um
maybe um you know if that's okay and maybe bring a representative like Michael from the TEC um to to talk about when they're going to start and if they're going to start I need to revise the wording
in that box too, you you know, add to it because he's absolutely right. I I think it's pretty obvious. Um, and would that be okay, you know? >> Yeah, I can I can ask. >> Yeah, we'll ask if they the timeline and
if if if we need to come in and talk to them about it or, you know, just you can contact contact us and we'll deal with it accordingly because we don't want to waste any time. We're on a roll. We are
on a roll. So, um, the next thing we've got to discuss is box one. No, it's right here. Um,
okay. Now, um, do we have the do they have the comp plan before them? Because I printed out some. If they didn't think the, uh, future land use element, do you all have
that or do you want another copy? I got plenty of copies. >> She's referencing the comp plan. >> The comp plan. Future land use. Okay. It's policy 1.6.2.
This is what Hector was asking about. >> Yeah. Okay. So, um what he was asking about is >> Do you want me to put this on the screen? >> Yeah, you can put that on the screen. Um
what Hector was asking about was um you know that when the city gets a wetland delineation um you know from an applicant uh the
delineations will be accepted by the city of Titusville and the future land use map will be amended accordingly. And now here's what he's asking. The conservation land use shall be amended to include all wetland areas on the site
to be preserved unless such wetlands are preserved by a conservation easement as part of a plan development or other master plan development. That's the portion we were talking about. The
Oh gosh. Yeah. I'll tell you what. you take this. Uh, okay. So, now I hope you all become people that can stand up and I know a bunch of you do
stand up in front of the city council and um advocate for the wetlands and advocate for other smart decisions. But as far and a lot of these decisions
involve comprehensive plan amendments. Now these comprehensive plan amendments is very important to realize that they go through two phases. this they go through two phases when
they're in sending up the information to the state and then when they get the information back from the state and and send up another package. Okay.
So the first stage is called the transmitter, right? Um and um they were P PD um South transmitter hearing was uh last night.
That thing is going nowhere at the moment for sure. But um what we have here, this example is Park Avenue subdivision which is where Huntington Park is. It is
the um plan that is a basis um for Huntington Park but had to be tweaked several times uh because you know they found more wetlands and uh
they couldn't build as many houses they thought they could. Um, so this was in 2018 and so we're going to talk about the transmitt the first paperwork that went to the
state first and then we're going to have after a couple slides we'll go into the Park Avenue subdivision adoption because something very interesting happened between the
transmittal and adoption, the PNZ board changed and um they got a very strong um advocate for wetlands actually former
city attorney and he was appalled at what they were trying to do. So, okay. Now, what's going to happen? You're
going to see that in the transmitter, they're going to try and get away with this loophole. Okay. So, the first um slide here is existing
and proposed land use. Okay, you all realize that there's land use and then there's zoning. And land use is the overall category and zoning is a um
you know more minor category, but they have to have both. Okay. So you'll see that future land use map that was existing at the time, right? and it had conservation and low density
residential. Well, guess what? They're trying to get away with um making it all low density residential
and and these are two-sided. We'll wait till she passes them out. It's very interesting. We'll save those for later. I'm sure they'll be helpful with someone. Oh. Um, does Jeff Greenberg want one?
>> Does anybody in the audience want one? >> Thank you. >> And you want one? Okay. NRA, she'll get she'll get Michael's. Okay. All right. So,
he's trying So, what happened is in Huntington Park subdivision um excuse me, Park Avenue subdivision, they tried to um not put conservation land use on this.
And when they do that, they're disconnected from the limitations on development. Of course, you're supposed to have a conservation easement.
Now I think we discussed last time that those are not um necessarily in perpetuity not at this point in time but anyway they tried it and the future land use was going to be
all low density residential. So the here's their rationale. The next slide is their rationale. Okay. The area of conservation, land use and o zoning the applicant is proposing
to change is larger than five acres. Now that's the cutoff. That's where the 5 acre rule the conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2 uh takes effect. So it's larger than
five acres. However, the project will protect wetlands via conservation easement or other restrictive covenant through the PD zoning and master plan which is consistent. They're pointing out that it's
consistent with policy 1.16.2 of the future land use element of the conservation of the comprehensive plan. And so here's here's what the city's saying. Based on the information provided by the applicant, staff has
determined the proposed change does not violate the policies in the comprehensive plan. So they sent this up to the state. State believed it. But now we're going on to the Park
Avenue subdivision adoption. So you'll see it's a little different. They have changed their mind. They changed their mind because the PNZ was up in arms after they heard
what their former city attorney had said. Um, now there's a couple things about this existing and proposed land use in the adoption
um, paperwork that was sent up to the state. This is part of the paperwork sent up to the state. First of all, you'll see that the green um, areas have changed in shape. There's more wetlands
than they thought. because they got a wetland delineation and they have to uh change the conservation land use to ma to match the uh wetland delineation.
Okay. Do you have any questions about that? Please ask your questions if you haven't met because we don't want anybody to have a question that they wish they might have asked.
Now the next slide shows that they do retain the PD zoning which they can it's the land use that has to be conservation. Right? So this is the existing zoning.
It was um R1B for the supposed uplands which you change a little and O R for the wetlands that um yeah so um that's open space and recreation
um zoning. So, they're using uh they they can they can still have the PD zoning, but they got to change um the conservate um they they they've got to have
conservation land use on the wetlands. So, now you're going to see what happened at the planning and zoning commission and and the city um wrote this up because
um the applicant was just I mean, oh, just let us have a little more time and we'll change it. I watched the video. It was a couple years ago and u so you can read this thing on the next slide.
It says the applicant has submitted a revised application for the comprehensive plan portion of the request. The amended application proposes to place the conservation land use on those wetlands
greater than 5 acres in size and place low density residential land use designation on those portions of the property not designated with the conservation land use designation as amendment. In other words, they place
the low density residential um land use on the uplands. So now, um, what
the attorney, former city attorney was insisting on was that they have got to follow conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2, which we'll call the 5acre rule. they've
got to do it. They can't have this loophole. So, what he was saying basically is this loophole is um creates an inconsistency in the comprehensive plan. In addition to the
fact that we can't count on conservation easements um from let's say a state agency like the water management district, we can't count on
that anymore. So we got to remove this loophole which you um you know voted to uh have them look into. And so, um, Michael made these slides. I really
appreciate it. The next one says, "Any questions?" Are there any questions? >> Okay. >> Um, anybody else? Any Okay, then I'll I guess I'll start. Um,
it seems since conservation easements don't work and o zoning can be changed that we really don't have anything that's quite as sticky as the conservation land use. >> That's the zoning we have that sticks. >> Yeah. So,
>> absolutely. >> I see that as number one is that we need some kind of zoning that works with conservation land use that sticks. >> Okay. Now that is all done in the LDRs. Um they okay. Um
>> but that could >> as long as we as long as we have the conservation land use that is where the um limitations on um
impacts you know um like residential units um is is found. So in the uh LDIS which we are not going to get to right at the moment there are two accepted
um categories in conservation land use. One is that O and the other one is the PD. So you can have PD or you can have O R.
Either one of those. And um I think that that's I think that um there's there's some um you know developments I've seen where the PD would work better as long as you have
the conservation land use. um the O is generally what's picked but there are some um that I feel that the PD is appropriate.
I also I I know we've been using this 5 acre rule since since that was the delineation point that the river management district decided that anything smaller than 5 acres we're not going to come out and look at. So, our ordinances were built for 5 acres above
and 5 acres less. My question is, since they're not doing much of that anymore, do we need a 5 acre minimum? And why aren't all wetlands preserved? >> Okay, so that um the that kind of stuff
is a question um for the conservation element um not the future land use element. we need to kind of keep this as it is. Um I think there are things that we can
definitely do um to um protect some of the smaller wetlands. Um and that language that we can look at after we get the future land use element done um
is in the conservation element. Um >> okay. And uh um you know I've thought of I've thought of several things that we might be able to improve on for the protection of the smaller wetlands. Um
so definitely we we will be going there. Um I do not think that we want to change the five acre cutoff, but instead um we'll need to see if we can adjust some
of the language um for flooding um and you know drainage into the Indian River Lagoon, that kind of stuff perhaps. Um >> well, the reason that I bring that up is because we've kind of seen that with Brookshshire already. some homes that were built on an area that was a wetland
that was filled in, you know, the hard pan underneath still catches the water. So now they've got water coming through their concrete pads. So even though they're they're they're high. So it it's to me we need to do more work in that area and the conservation element is where
>> conservation well yeah element is where that and you keep that. >> My last one was the criteria the quality criteria. We use this quality rating for wetlands. And to my interest, I think from an environmental standpoint, how
navigable a wetland is is not as important as its function biologically in the environment to me. And so there's a couple of things like whether I can paddle it or not uh really are not high on the list. And so we might want to
consider, you know, maybe the quality cuto off criteria is something like four, you know, on on what's considered really valuable because anything above that in in my book is um and and that probably would also go in the conservation element too.
>> Are you referring to the ma'am? >> Yes. >> Um the state of Florida >> require we we're g this very interesting thought. um hold on to it because we are going to be discussing um that for sure
um because that's a water management district thing and um so um anyway that I'll remember that we need to um talk about that especially with in
regard to something else I wanted to bring up tonight. >> Okay. So, >> do you want me to go back to your chart now? >> Um, so are we ready to go on to something else? >> Any other questions? I should say
>> Mary since it was my question. >> I know. >> Okay. We're still in the same dilemma that we don't have specific language so that they don't get around this because
if we don't specify then you get this kind of stuff coming from whoever is reviewing at the time. >> Okay. So, um, if we delete that, um, little phrase, unless such wetlands are
preserved by conservation easement is part of a plan development or other master plan development. Um, yeah, we need to get rid of that. Is there something else you thought we should be getting rid of or just that? >> Well, we we that would help a lot.
>> Oh, yes. >> Okay. Because that will establish a guideline by which they can measure you know, it's got to be measurable. >> Exactly. That's a state law. Meaningful and predictable. Um, you
know, it has to be, you know, >> so if if we all agree that that language that you just read will will close some of that loophole. >> Yes. And there's there's plenty other
loopholes which we're going to be going on to. So, just delete the last You're proposing to delete the last sentence, Hector? >> Yes. >> That sounds like a motion, Hector. >> Okay. >> Um, can I can I >> We're discussing. >> Okay.
>> Can I um make a suggestion? Well, >> we we do not know what the what the staff feels about and any other upland areas to be permitted for preservation for state and or federalistic wildlife
species. We need some uh input on what they want to do. We do not know what the situation is right now. You read some of these reports and stuff's blacked out about the uh species on site.
I think you've seen some of those. Well, >> yeah, but I I I think if you stop that, you know, >> or other plan or other master plan development, that's what we need to recommend.
>> So, do we want to identify this last sentence then to hand over to Lily to work on with staff? >> Yeah, cut it there. And >> I thought we did that last month. >> That's what I thought, too. >> Yeah, I thought I thought we might have made a motion for that. I'm looking for
it in the I'm looking for it in the minutes, but I know we talked about this last month. >> Yeah, >> we don't know, >> but I don't remember making a motion to strike through >> apply it.
>> That would help. >> Well, this it sounds like we're going to develop several bits and pieces that we're going to want to toss over in a basket to staff to look at. >> Yeah, we that's what we need to do. And then we need to figure out what their
plan is for looking at it because they got to realize now we are on a roll. We're on a roll to tell you the truth. I was so excited and I think so so many other people were last night.
What we need to do is we need to get this um you know suggesting to them we need to go on to the conservation element and guess what in the conservation element
the there's language about um you know acquiring or doing something you know to protect um these um environmentally sensitive lands because that swath of wetlands that's going from
north of the city down, you know, through State Road 50 needs to be protected in some way. And we got to do it. And now's the time because
everybody's all pumped up about the flooding. >> Yeah. and and just imagine what would happen if those wetlands were filled. >> Yeah. >> I mean, be kind of a disaster. >> So, let me um let me bring this back
together again. We It looks like we've got a few things that we need to go through and pieces of text like this part of 116.2. 116.2. Yeah. That last sentence that we just talked about. >> Yeah. will be the first one that we're gonna
>> We've already done that. I think we've we finished that one. >> Yes. >> And we um >> And we decided that we wanted to remove that, but you're suggesting we should send that over to staff with that suggestion. >> Oh, we don't Yeah. Yeah. Send it your
suggestions to staff. We'd like to have them >> requires a vote from us to make that happen. That's >> I think you might have done it, but >> we did that. If you did that last meeting, then that's fine. And if not, I thought >> But Hector had Hector had a question and I couldn't answer it. So I said, "Let me
think about this." You know, >> are you ready to make a motion, Hector, to move this on to staff to look at for possible >> That's the right thing to do. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> Can I know exactly what we're having a motion on? >> Okay. The the motion is on on the future
land use element policy 1.16.2, Two, the last sentence that begins, the conservation land use shall be amended to include all wetlands on the site to be preserved unless such wetlands and preserved by a conservation easement as
part of a plan development or other master plan development in >> and that's where we stop because they need to look at the rest. We don't know anything about and any other upland areas. We should ask separately for them to look at
>> any other upland areas to be permitted and preserved. >> That would go with strategy 1.16.2.2. We need to ask him to look at the last part of that along with
strategy 1.16.2.2 two, which says, "When conservation land use is present on a specific site, a property owner shall submit a preliminary environmental assessment, including a wetland delineation when wetlands are present prior to any future
development. If the environmental assessment assess indicates that state or andor listed f or federal listed wildlife are present within the area of the site that are designated as
conservation land use. Um you know and it goes on and on. We need a that last little bit of 1.16.2 goes with strategy 1.16.2. 2.2. We need
to ask them what they're they what is the current state of looking at these listed species because we don't know unless you know Lily because every time I look at a report you know they say well here's you know
and we've we have found blackout don't know what species it is in the report. Well, I can give you some answer on part of that because um back in I think it was 201617,
Mr. Perro came from an area known as Sterling Forest in an area behind it. They were starting development on lots that were approved many years earlier and there were gopher tortoises there.
There were seven lots and we actually had the TEC meeting on site. We had FD biologist on site. Mr. Parrot was there. He had already gone through and flagged 115 baby gopher tortoise holes on the
seven acres that were there. I guess the land had been cleared and left and they didn't build on it and gophers like nice soft land to dig in and so they moved in and um and I found out at that time that they were as Mr. Parrot had said they
were pouring sand on top of these gopher tortoise holes to put up house pads and they had already had their permit. They had already done their due diligence and having removed gopher tortoises or so they said. Um but once the permit had
been let um it's out of the city's hands. I thought that was an atrocious situation and I worked to find a resolution and I found one in uh
Valuchia County. um there if the land use and habitat h excuse me the habitat and soil types are indicative of a threatened or endangered species then
they require a wildlife assessment require not optional here it's optional here it's if you find them on your land you're supposed to follow through and do the survey um I've seen realators here
follow that survey with buckets for the gopher tortoises to catch and drown and shotguns to take out the scrub jays. >> So I know how these things work. If it's not done on the up and up, things don't work well. And right now the honest is
entirely on the developer to say that there are endangered or threatened species. We could, I think, should utilize our GIS data set which tells us what habitat and soil types are there.
And if those match gopher tortoises and scrub jays and indigo snakes and dusky seaside sparrows or whatever, then we should actually require a wildlife survey and make sure that things are done properly. But as it is right now,
we don't even get to see any development. We never got to see Brookshshire. We never got to see the development we talked about last night at city council. That never came before this board. Unfortunately, on our behalf, that's entirely up to discretion of the
administrator. But I believe that as a water resources board, we're not going to be able to do proper justice to the citizens and the flooding of this city if the water resources board doesn't oversee what's happening. So, we need to find a way to fix these
things. And I agree with you. The bottom part of 116.2 should be included in 16.2.2. That needs to be rewritten, but that needs to be handed off to staff to look at. I think we've had a motion and a
second. I think we're clear on what needs to be done. Lily, are you good with it? Well, >> I just want to make sure that Lori is good with it. >> The minutes. Yeah. >> Yeah. because that's really important that and the way I understand it and this is
what we talked about at the last meeting that last sentence starts out with the conservation land use shall be amended to include all wetland areas on the site to be preserved that the part of the sentence
after the word preserved would be removed. That was my understanding as well. >> And then and then the last about a dozen words where it's after where after the two words plan development that last
section of the sentence would be moved to strategy 1.162.2. >> Okay. So the section defined by the phrase by a conservation easement as part of a plan development PD or other
master plan development that's cut. >> So are you asking >> that's that's a period and that part is cut and then the remaining and any other upland areas to be permitted for preservation for state andor federal
listed wildlife species moves to 1.16.2.2. two >> moves to a request for staff to look at. >> Right. >> Along with 1.6.2. >> Okay. >> Right.
>> All right. She's making sure Lori understands the motion. >> Make sure we all understand. We're asking for we we can't write this stuff. >> I know. >> We make suggestions. So, we we're take we're asking them to look at this last
>> part of 1.16.2 to along with 1.16.2.2. >> Yeah, correct. >> So, should that be like maybe a separate motion? >> Yeah, >> that would make it easier that we we take out um
Well, Lori's got my notes, but we would take out the first part. Okay, thank you. That we we that the the first motion would be that we would remove the following. >> We have a motion on the table. We'll have to pull that one back if we're
going to make another motion. >> Well, I I think this needs to be two motions. >> Does the motion you were the second, so >> Okay, >> I'm good. >> Okay. So, this could just be a friendly amendment. >> Friendly amendment. >> You okay with that? >> I'm okay. All right, let's go for it.
>> So, so Lori already has that and I'll state it again. Then the motion would be that for the last sentence in policy 1.16.2 2 that um it would start out saying the
conservation land use shall be amended to include all wetland areas on the site to be preserved. Period. And then the following words would be removed unless such wetlands are preserved by a conservation easement as part of a plan
development or other master plan development. those words would be removed. And then the last part of the sentence where it says, well, this would be where a second motion would come in. So that
would be my motion. We're going to remove from the last sentence those words. Is everybody okay with that? >> Yes. Unless such wetland areas are preserved by a conservation easement as part of a plan development or other master plan
development, we are recommending that staff consider removing those words. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, we need another motion. >> Wait, wait, wait. Or you can have a second motion. >> Wait, we got a vote. >> That's right. >> I'm sorry. >> You missed the best part. Why are we
here again? >> Okay. So, is any other discussion? All right, hearing none. Lori, can we have a roll call vote, please? >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Berdett, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes.
>> Member Browning, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Rosa, >> yes. >> Chairman Mek, >> yes. >> Okay, second motion. >> Now, we need to talk about the last dozen words in the sentence. What we want to do,
>> right? And so, Mary, let me me make sure I'm clear on that. You want to see that the the last phrase of that sentence >> be a separate strategy or combine with
another strategy and you mentioned staff looking at one of the strategies. >> Yeah. Okay. If you look at um strategy 1.16.2.2 >> next page. Yeah. It covers the same topic and I really don't, you know, know
what's going on. We just like the staff to look at this and um figure out what they would recommend doing. I have um previously from the last meeting we had
made the motion to add using best available and appropriate data in that section and then I think the motion was made by Miller to find where to put that um within 1.16
as a whole. Yeah, this whole section. So he had from the last meeting there was a motion um I can read it >> please >> made a okay so made a motion
recommending that city staff review and find the best place within the comprehensive plan feature land use element wetland policy 1.16 to include the language that decisions on these smaller parcels are made using the best and available appropriate data i.e. GIS
or staff reports. Tucker seconded. He later amended his motion to state that when parcels less than 5 acres are being considered that all available and appropriate data be used to determine if they are part of a larger wetland falling under conservation requirements. Browning seconded.
So he had left that to me reads >> okay >> we'll figure out a place to put that. the the piece of the sentence that we're under discussion as as I understand it is the part where andor >> and any other
>> upland areas to be permitted for preservation for state and or federally listed species. It's the issue of the species that has been taken out that we need to move into 1.16.2.2. >> It's a different >> Okay. Yeah. So in that our last conversation I had stricken through the
whole thing. I think you had talked about removing that whole part, >> right? So that last bit I think is what the second motion was that Laura Lee made was that we integrate that with 16.2.2. >> Okay. >> Okay. So we're done with that, right? Or do we
still need another vote? >> So you're saying that it's redundant because it's talked about in 1.16.2.2 two >> that it doesn't need to be >> um
>> one's one's a policy, one's a strategy. >> I don't think redundant is a word. I think that they're part of the same subject, >> right? >> And you know, staff needs to look at that along with strategy 1.16.2.2.
they, you know, when they're looking at a topic, they might as well look at everything in that topic. So, they need to look at this and see what's going on and what they would recommend. We really don't know, right?
I guess I think that's why I was trying to because this trying to it sounds like what you had mentioned before you had talked about at the last meeting to use all the data that was available including wetlands and GIS maps and u
wildlife species reports and all those things >> soil types. Yes. >> Yeah. I think what happened if if I remember correctly is that you know like you said um you know they made the motion about the best available data and
then at one point Jason said something about the GIS and he seemed to know quite a bit about this. Um um I think that what happened was there was um some differences of opinion on
where to put that language. So, you know, we can leave it open. We don't have to. >> No, we don't. We just need to set the policy. >> We just, you know, um, we can leave we leave that open when
they're, you know, determining um, if something's five acres um or, you know, uh, or more. Five acres more or le or less than five acres. Um, you know, they
they need to they can't they can't be just like for the hotel just be looking at the hotel property. They need to look at blue heron
to the south and they'll find out that they got a wetland that's, you know, greater than five acres. But I think that was um a different topic than what Laura Lee is talking about now. Totally different topic.
>> An answer. >> You want go ahead? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yours. >> So I think you're right. So we're we're talking about a policy and so we can't move that to a strategy. But it m it would make sense if we just take that
middle part of the sentence out and leave the rest of it there as part of the first part of the sentence and and remove the word other in front of upland. You don't need the word other because we're not talking we didn't talk about
other uh uplands to begin with. So why would we use the word other? So the sentence would bear with me. The sentence would read, "The conservation land use shall be amended to include all wetland areas on the site to be
preserved and any upland areas to be permitted for preservation for state and or federally federal listed wildlife species. That makes sense. >> Yes, I agree with that.
I'd second that if that's a motion. >> Well, it's >> change it again. >> So, if by taking the word out other out, yes, it it makes complete sense. >> It does. I agree. >> U >> and so does me um member Browning.
>> If I may. Um, so it says the conservation land use shall be amended to include all wetland areas on the site to be preserved along with any upland areas to be permitted for preservation for state and
or federal listed wildlife species. >> Doesn't that policy all flow and make sense? >> And we don't need to move that last couple of sentences to strategies as policy. So is that verbiage? Okay. Is that
>> along with any? >> Yes. >> Is that a motion, sir? >> It can be. >> It can be. >> I'll second it. >> Well, there's a second to your can be motion. >> Okay. So, let me try to make a motion
out of that. I move that the um last couple of sentences uh that's excuse me let's start over. My motion is that the text after the
um uh this is a tough one. So um I guess my motion is that we would strike the words and any other >> and just substitute along with any
>> upland areas to be permitted for preservation potato. So remove those three words and any other >> and add um and the motion is to um substit substitute the text along >> with any upland areas to be permitted.
>> Does that make sense? Yes. >> Yeah, I'll second that. So the sentence according to the motion in the second will read the conservation land use shall be amended to include all wetland areas on the site to be preserved and
your phrase >> along with comma >> along with along with any upland areas to be preserved for preservation for state and or federally listed wildlife species >> to be permitted for preservation. Right.
Yes. Yes, that is it. >> Yeah, I like that. That makes complete sense. >> Okay. >> So, the first motion removed the middle part of the sentence, >> right? >> And then the second motion um >> incorporates the last one. >> Yeah. Fixed it so then it made sense by
taking out those three words and and substituting three other words. >> Right. >> Are you okay with that, Lori? >> Great. She's got it. Okay. >> All right. I second that. >> Too late. You have to be third because
Bill got it. >> But that's okay. >> Do we really Do we really need two motions for this? >> We can. Oh jeez. Let's >> No. Yes. >> Yes, we do. We do. You You have to clearly remove the middle part of the
sentence and keep that separate. Take that out and then then change the >> Didn't we do that last time? We did do that last time, but >> the first one, you take a second. >> We did the first one. We don't need to redo it.
>> Boy, one motion or two. >> Let's do two. Member Browning, you have the floor. It's your motion. >> Did we not already do one? >> I thought we did, but >> we did. >> You both are insisting we need two. >> Man, I'm okay with two motions. We have
a couple of members that same intent on number one motion striking out. I I don't know why you can't strike it out and add a few words in the same motion. I don't understand that, but I'm willing to make it into two motions if
that pleases everybody. >> One motion's already been made. >> That's what I thought. >> That's what I thought. >> Yeah, just leave it. >> Lori, would you read back the motion so we know where we're at? >> No, sir. I cannot. >> You cannot. Okay. However, I mean, I
will make clear of it with the recording. >> Okay? >> I mean, I have it. I know it, but I cannot read it back. >> Okay. >> However, we're just It's just the words. >> We're just yanking out the middle words in that last sentence, right? >> Okay. Can I have a roll call vote,
please? >> Member Berdett, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Rosa, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. Member Browning. >> Yes. >> Chairman Maid. >> Yes. All right.
Now we can move on to something else. What's next on your agenda? >> Okay. Um I just want to show you something that uh um why this stuff is so
important. And um if I have it here. Wait a minute. What? >> Um just a second. We may we may need to wait till next time for that council.
Oh, I think you have that is um Oh, here it is. It's on these slides. It's a slide. Uh, you know, it's not a
slide. It went with these two diagrams. >> We'll finish that. >> Um, these Wait, the the ones >> you had. Here they are. >> These ones where we had the these two >> last night.
>> Yeah. Okay. Is there a um text file with those >> or not? >> No, I didn't give them the text file. Okay, m we they passed it out though. We have a hard copy. >> All right. I'll tell you what. How How Oh, you got it.
>> Lily printed it and gave us all it. I don't have that. I saw that. >> It was in the handout. She >> I didn't get the hand out. I already printed everything. >> Well, >> do everybody have it? >> You two want to sit together?
>> Do they Do they have it? Will >> most of us do. Um maybe you two can share. I hope >> I do have >> I know these live >> Okay. Now Laurley and Michael Mjack went to the
meeting last night and they saw what was going on. Okay. The wetland delineation from biotech showed that
there were 10 and a half more acres than this guy, the applicant uh had thought he had. I mean, he's he's buying
questionable land. We all know this. It's 3/4 wetland and in that 3/4 wetland were 10 acres that they may not have thought they had 10 and a half acres.
So what what the applicant did at least I think we'll see if Laura Lee and Michael agree that they were they were trying to act like oh this is a big selling point for this this is a big
selling point. We're putting you know 10 and a half more acres into conservation. Okay. Well, what happens was that their conservation land use was increased
would have been increased by 10 and a half acres because and if you look at these quotes here's the attorney quote I mean this was big on slide one it was
one of the two points that and affordable housing that they that we're actually putting 10.818 is additional into conservation. Like, aren't we maybe shouldn't say this, but aren't we wonderful?
>> Isn't it already in conservation? >> No, it wasn't. See, >> because of the wetland delineation, right? When the wetland delineation came along, the city made them
just the um the wetland lines and grow the wetlands. But um of course this thing didn't pass so that's not happening at the moment. and the consultant
um you know Kyle he said the project also increases the conservation land on the project by 10 plus acres. So I mean you think Christmas had come,
you know, but um anyway, so we didn't want um this thing to be
approved. So I mean I just told them I said you know that they were forced to do this by comprehensive plan future land use element policy 1.16.2
because 1.16.2 two, you know, says, and that's a part in, you know, big letters, when the city receives a wetland delineation on specific sites, the delineations will be accepted by the city of Titusville and
the future MA land use map will be amended accordingly. So they have to stomach this because it's not some sort of voluntary gift or some, you know, Christmas
present to the, you know, their to the city, you know, they're not they're not just doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They have to do it. And that's what we need to realize the
power of this language. And so um that's what I want to point out in this one of my thoughts. I wasn't here at the meeting last but I did see the discussion
here in the second block. We have any ad language ensuring the best available and appropriate data shall be used to determine whether a wetland continuing onto adjacent property is 5 acres or more. I'm not sure that that's as clear
as it really needs to be because it seems quite simple that if a wetland touches the boundary of the property that it continues beyond that property. Mo most wetlands do not honor property
boundaries. um that as far as I know. So I think the simple thing to do is if there is a if the wetland touches the edge of the property, they must also continue on to the next parcel in whichever direction it touches until the end of the wetland is delineated and
loops back to itself like a closed lake because we need to know its size, right? And that's the question regardless of the parcel of land that we're dealing with. So this I think needs to be extended to also include properties
adjacent when a wetland adjoins a a boundary a property boundary because as you saw what they did there on PD South the way they cut the boundary off with the road the road actually is a dyke going through that wetland. When you see
the bigger picture, it's quite obvious that it was all one big wetland and it's all been subdivided and parcelized into smaller pieces. But the reality is that it if it adjoins the property line, then we need to look outside that property
line. And if it's only if it's a wetland, you know, if it's if it's upwind, it's not an issue if it adjoins the property. That's one thing I think we might want to add into that box there. Well, I I think that part of, you know, that's part of the reason that
Jason added all that nice language about using the best technology, right? >> But you're going onto somebody else's property. And that was the problem that we ran into with the hotel property, >> not with GIS. All we can look at the GIS
map and look at all the properties around it and look at the soil types and the wetland types and we can get close enough without it being physically delineated to know whether it goes beyond that parcel. We don't look beyond the parcel. Same problem we're having in the space industry. Nobody looks at
what's already been done and whether the current effects are even what they said they were going to be. So we end up with cumulated effects that that we don't know where they're coming from because we don't go back and look and see what happens. This is one of those instances where it's clear, yes, you need
available data, but if you don't know what to look for, having the data doesn't do you any good. You need to look at the adjacent properties when the wetland condition when the wetland touches the boundary. Period. If it goes beyond, if it touches the boundary, you
can expect it to go beyond. So the question is, does it go beyond well enough to connect to wetland on the other side like it did with PD South? >> So we have to find a way of not just using the best data, but using the best technology and and techniques and common
sense to make this work because water water doesn't follow the boundaries. Water flows downhill as Stan keeps saying and it's always will. So, >> but I think the language of touching the boundary is very very powerful. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> More than the technology. >> More than the technology. Well, it's it's low tech technology. >> More than the techn more than the GIS, >> right? Don't even need divining rods. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that's very important language to add to that. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other comments? Is there an existing part of the future land use policies that we can look at altering or do we need to create
a whole another policy >> that was decision that's >> do we have a a you know we don't have a natural resources department so I don't know if we even have a separate wetland policy within the comp plan as per say
maybe that might be something worth u >> I think that's the the discussion last time was that they you know there there was some you know batting around of um you know where to place this language
because the state uh law requires the um you know the the best available data. Um but but to put that in there, maybe we should dump this problem on staff and figure out how to
I mean they need to address this with the best. We can't have another situation like um >> the Hilton >> the hotel um and they were not fooled by PD South.
>> No. So, I don't know if you want to do that and then that would kind of I think wrap up what we could give them. Um, you know, that they need to find a place.
>> All right. Well, let's do that. Let's kick it over to staff and just staff understand the question. >> Maybe we need to make it in a motion. >> We need to make it into a motion, >> but we don't have the specifics of where to make the motion to. Where do we modify it? That's
>> Well, see, well, that's what staff needs to figure out is where it go where that language goes, right? We know what we want. >> Okay, >> we want wetlands that are on other people's properties to be counted, you know, so that you can't have a 2acre
wetland on your property and a 10acre wetland next to it. >> The wetland delineation does not stop at the property boundary. It stops at the wetland boundary. Right. I mean, you're going to follow the pond all the way around till it
comes back to your somewhere. >> So, somewhere we have to figure out how to how to fix that or put that fixed literally into the into the comp plan. >> Can I get a motion? >> You want a motion? Okay.
Coming up. I'll make a motion that we add the words that if the wetland touches the property line then it needs to be considered as part of the wetland >> because the wetland doesn't know where
the property line is. >> So therefore that's just a boundary that is created by an institution. You have to follow you have to follow the wetland all the way when it comes a boundary, >> right? >> So,
>> and >> it's just not a consideration. They they have to continue following the wetland delineation until it terminates back at their property. >> But if the wetland touches a property here and there and there and there, all those properties need to come, >> right? Like these are connected,
>> right? >> Okay. I'm not sure your motion covered that. >> Okay. So, I thought covering the the the fact that it touches the property line >> the wetland delineation must continue beyond
>> and continue beyond >> until that wetland is fully delineated. >> Okay, we can add that. >> Okay, I can second that. >> Okay, so let's see. >> That's what we're giving to staff to work on. Figure out where to put
Exactly. Okay. Is that clear to >> staff and and how to word it? And >> are you going to add anything about using the best available data such as GIS? >> We're not we're not removing that's already in here.
>> That's already that's there from before. It's still in your chart here as to suggested clarification. That's >> Oh, we're going to correct the chart or >> No, I'm just accepting that's in the chart. We're well, we're adding this. >> But what are you going to give to staff? You're
>> What we're going to give to staff is a request for work. We want them to change or look at changing the flume and the comp plan to figure out the best way to make sure that when we go to delineate a wetland
for a parcel that if the wetland touches the boundary, the delineation continues until it comes back to the parcel. In other words, the wetland isn't open ocean. It's going to be a closed body. It's going to revert back someplace if
it touches the boundary in one location. There's a an area that it covers. So, the wetland obviously goes beyond the property. So, the point is that if it goes beyond the property, we need to continue delineating that wetland to find out its size. Its total size is
important, not just how much is on the parcel. Can I make a comment? Um, I think what you got to you got to keep delineating it until you know if it is more or less than five acres.
That's what I mean you I agree that's a great idea about when it touches the property land and and you need to because I mean for example this was a >> well my my proposal is stochastic it will come back with exactly the same
answer every time regardless of the wetland it will always have to come back to itself because it's a closed system. >> Oh that's true. All right, whether it's larger than 5 acres or not, that's where the cut off may be for them to say, "Okay, that's enough. We're too big." But to know precisely, we really need to
know and they that external delineation, I would think maybe, you know, potentially may not have to be to the same resolution as the one on the parcel, but close. In other words, what I'm thinking is we might be able to get
by with what we have in the GIS. Although, >> yeah, that's not >> Let's take this um one from >> um >> Yeah, it should be PD South for example. Um,
you know what they need to find out is, you know, like is this wetland on the left hand corner, you know, a separate wetland, >> right? >> That's smaller than five acres,
>> right? they can like you have, you know, use the best available data and all that and like that wetland five which we suspect goes under the road. um you know
that I mean the the one in the center you know but I think what the um objection might be and that's all we need to know for the project in other words do they have conservation land or not are they
have it I agree it would be nice for example in PD south to know if that wetland five, you know, that wetland that um comprises 76%
of PD south, you know, how big it was. Is it >> right >> 100 acres? Is it 200 acres? Is it um you know, maybe even bigger than that? um
that would be very interesting in in valuing that wetland and in the potential that we may have to save it. Um but for the practicalities of deciding on
um you know whether some wetlands in PD South can be um fallen fall underneath that 5 acre threshold and are subject to different
rules that they may possibly be filled. Um that that's what we need to know because >> well I think the rule that we just proposed and we haven't voted on yet but we've we've got a motion would resolve this issue right here with PD South. It
would take that little wetland in the corner and show that it's a part of a 100 acres or whatever to the southsoutheast of it. And it would do the same with the one in the middle. And when you look at the big picture, you see that even that wetland three is even though it's connected underneath the
roadway, it it's apparent that this was all one original wetland before development moved into this area, you know. So common sense also helps. But having a rule that allows us to take into account when the wetland adjoins
the property boundary, we step beyond and we look further. That's that's really what we're asking for and we've got to work that in here. So I agree >> we that will solve the problem of whether it's five acres or less or more. >> I guess what I was wondering is what I'm
trying to get at is you have to delineate. Let's take Py South. you have to delineate until you find out um if this wetland is 225
acres. You have to delineate all that or for the purpose of your future land use um category shown on the future land use map. Um, can we
stop when we find that it is greater than five acres, >> right? >> I mean, like let's take the hotel um and the Blue Heron um you know to the south.
I mean, I looked at that and I know there were questions by staff, but h how far um this guy had um three acres
he Okay, let's say he he had three acres of wetlands on his site on the hotel hotel site, which maybe, you know, more or less. But do you just need to go down
blue heron until you find out that he has um you know say three more acres or two more you how far do you need to go? Do you have to follow a a huge wetland all the way around?
We're talking about the applicant um and the city working together to decide on the land use whether it's conservation or
um he could do for example um that was I believe was commercial that he wanted um you know some sort of commercial uh land use
>> Laura Lee. >> So I I agree with Mary. I think that if you I mean in the case of these wetlands along 405 they are hundreds of acres and so that that developer would have had to you know
delineate several hundred acres of wetlands and I think that's burdensome and I I don't think it'll fly. I think you're better off to go with what Mary's suggesting that you just look at the adjacent wetlands and determine if the
combination of what's on the applicant's property and the adjacent wetlands is more than 5 acres. I think that's all you need to do. >> Sounds like a friendly amendment. >> Sure. >> Does that that satisfy the maker of the motion?
>> Yep. satisfies my second too. >> It describes a process, right? So, so therefore, I can live with that. >> Yeah. It just puts a a cut off on when to stop looking, >> right? Yeah, >> that's fine. An upper limit. Any other discussions on that? Going once, going twice.
>> All right, let's call the question. Can we have a roll call vote or do we need to res You want to hear the motion again? The motion was when, if I may paraphrase, when a wetland touches the boundary of a
property, we need to look at the adjacent parcel to determine if the wetland is greater than 5 acres. It's a combination of what's on the applicant's property and >> and the adjacent property because the
wetland the wetland does not follow property boundaries. >> So that's basically the motion rephrased paraphrased. Everybody okay with that? >> All right. Bill, you all right? >> Yeah.
>> All right. Don't forget to turn your mic on when you vote this time. >> Don't forget to turn your microphone on when you vote this time if you want it to count. >> Okay. All right. All right, Lori, let's have a roll call, please. >> Member Browning, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes.
>> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Rosa, >> yes. >> Member Bernett, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Chairman, >> yes. >> I'm always last. >> We do have a public speaking card. We have a public speaking card. >> Yeah, I think.
>> Sorry, >> Jeff. Jeff has a card. Jeff, you want to come up and add? >> I know you guys are running late. >> Hi, I'm Jeff Greenberg living here in Titusville
on Heritage Drive. And uh anyway, this is a topic that's very very uh dear to me because of the community and the things that are going on the community, even my backyard, which happens to have a what used to be a a nice little
ecosystem, but it's gotten degraded, shall we say. Um mostly what I want to say is I think there's some very important questions that have arose tonight relative to wetlands. I've dealt with the subject back in the
state of Wisconsin for nine years and it's a complicated one. You know you listen to about delineation five acres or what is a wetland? What's the definition? And we're dealing with the difference, the contrast between policy and science.
And they're not always this. Matter of fact, a lot of times they're not the same at all. So we have to be very careful because technically wetlands could be a definition based on elevation, relative elevation, which puts a lot of
roads and houses and things in wetlands that are already there. Um Mike brought up the the concept of biological activity as part of a wetland uh constituation. The uh all the
critters and all the different chemical biochemical operations that are going on. So I would think that one thing that seemed to be very missing in all this is we I think it'd be better to have um maybe even some sort of confab on these
topics and definitions. talk about using GIS. All GIS is not equal. There's and deciding what's good. You say the best data, who decides what's the best data. I'm very biased. I'm a I'm an earth scientist. I'm an environmental scientist. And when people who don't
have that background go into it, they don't necessarily come up with the right answers. I think about things like the tree team and and you see something that comes codified as policy and then you talk to an expert on trees and they go, "How'd they get that? That's not right.
So wetlands is really incredible uh as a as a as a theme. Bigger theme perhaps might be storm water in general. You know, we talk about the wetlands and development, but we also think about this the storm water and its destination
as it's getting redirected into the IRL as the uh major contributor of degradation of the IRL. So anyway, I would just recommend maybe I don't know how the the commission could do this, but maybe to have some sort of a it
doesn't have to be formal, but some sort of a gathering to discuss some of these issues and to look at things more broadly. Um, forgive me, I I avoided the meeting last night because I got in trouble with a couple people that were involved by being too
vocal, which I can be. And I realize that's true, but I really really do care. And I think that the science side of this is something that wasn't really I mean it was only alluded to in a few cases. And I wouldn't leave all the science
definitions up to forgive me staff because there's others of us that also have direct experience, long experience with some of these things too. And we don't have that government attachment which I think sometimes is freeing. we don't feel constrained by what we can uh
what we can deal with. So, it's just a recommendation. Think about it. And you know, we could have snacks or something. I don't know. Anyway, um lots to talk. I mean, I just think about a thousand questions. I won't ask those, but things
that came up tonight that people were dealing with just the delineation of a wetland again, too, because you're not even talking about stuff just at the surface. you're talking about groundwater movement and that goes way beyond what's obvious at the surface. So
anyway, thank you. >> Thank you, Jeff. Um I hope you'll continue to to come back with and work on these uh statements with us as we we work to modify our comp plan. I think it's one of the most important documents the city has. So, thank you for your
input. What's next? We are running out of time. Is there anything else we want to go into the third or fourth box or are we going to call it done >> for the night? What do you >> I'm not sure what we're doing.
>> I'm sorry. >> We don't have anything under new business. If we're moving with the >> Well, I guess we're that's what we just did. All right. Is there anybody else want to say anything tonight for petitions and
requests? >> Yeah, I'd like to say something. >> Go right ahead. >> Okay. Um, I was in a workshop this week, uh, renewable energy workshop, and, um, uh, I learned that three states, uh,
have a requirement that if they, the state builds a building or a facility and they have parking, they have to put solar powered parking canopies over the cars. So they're trying to minimize the solar
farms while you have the energy produced on the land where you're going to use it. So uh if three other states are doing it like Pennsylvania, Virginia and I forgot the other one that um maybe that's something we want to do here if we have all these developers coming
here. Uh their thing is to put pillow on state land, but maybe you can make some kind of re uh recommendation or somehow work through the city to see about that if someone builds a parking lot, uh they put solar or whatever it can supply it
to the grid or to the building they're using, uh so that uh you have renewable energy being used. So that was something I learned in in a workshop the other. I didn't know there was some states that required that by law. So, I thought it'd
be something we should look at maybe. >> I know there are states that require that you have EV accessible setups in your new homes and and apartments and so forth. So, >> um we can probably look, you know, we did a we did some work on on solar
voltaic years ago when they put the PV panels on the visitors center, remember? and Scott Larice didn't want to change out the meter and for a year they just sat there generating energy that nobody collected and now we got the right meter and it's generating something but we
never did get the Florida Solar Energy Center to monitor it for us. >> I know they get paid to do it. They they don't get enough state money to do things. >> I see that's a problem. In fact, there Well, >> do you think we should go forward and and try that again and and see what we
could do about moving the city closer toward PV panels, not just on parking, but on city buildings and pavilions and so forth? >> That was my other thing I was going to offer at this time. Um, >> it sounds like an agenda item. That's why I was >> Yeah, you may want to put these on the
agenda. These two things on the agenda. The other thing I was going to offer up was um I the one of the councilmen uh a month ago or so we I was talking and um I mentioned that uh uh their zero energy
homes and uh if we're letting the developers like this guy who's trying to get this thing we're dealing with tonight if he's building some uh these buildings uh they should be all zero energy homes. Okay. And I don't know if you know what that is, but the
councilman Lanne, I guess it was, that asked me if I would do a presentation to the city council and tell them what that meant, what what the definition of it was. Uh, but we may want to make a re recommendation for the city to look at
making a ruling that all new buildings be zero energy uh buildings. Um what I'm looking at um is that it's sustainable so that um if there's a power outage, you're not sitting there in the dark
waiting for FPL because we're an FPL town. You're not sitting there waiting for FPL to come and save you with electricity that you have your own. Um and you have a building. Um, so if you
know that my house is right over here, it's 1902. It was built in 1902 and the city got a generator for electricity in 1905. So the third first two years of the ownership of the owner of the building,
there was no electricity. So they use candles and oil and things and wood to power things. So nature has been here all along. Uh if you know Socrates
3,000 years ago, Socrates wrote a book on how to solar power your house. Okay? So his house was solar powered because he didn't have electricity 3,000 years ago. We did it in my house in 1902 1903.
Uh so nature so what a zero energy house is is you're using nature to do most of the energy con uh uh production and consumption. Uh but could but because we're electronic world you also add solar. So if you have a zero energy home
it doesn't mean you're you have these salesmen who call you up and harass you. I I I I upset them when I talk to them. But uh um you don't need 10 kilowatts if your house is built right. You can do it
with two. My house is 2.6 and I'm going to add another uh 1.1 here in the next couple weeks. So um I'm trying to get through the city, but uh so that means I'm less than five. I don't need 10 because of the way my
house is built. Okay. It uses nature as Socrates talked about. Thank you for your report. Anybody else have any reports while we're >> uh Yes, I do. Um >> please, sir. >> One of my pet big pet peeves is litter.
And I don't know if anyone else um has noticed this in Titusville this past um summer. We had a contractor come through that installed fiber optics. And I don't know if you've seen these in your neighborhood, but I'm sure they're clogging up our baffle boxes everywhere.
There's probably hundreds of thousands of them in Titusville. This is a cordage that they use for pulling the fiber optics through um through the conduit. And this says um 1,250 pounds. And I'm guessing that it's going to take 1,250
years for it to degrade. And um the workers are leaving their plastic bottles. And there's just tons of electrical tape and I just didn't know if anyone else has seen this in your neighborhood. Yeah, I figure everyone has seen it, right? Yes. >> And um like we're way behind the
eight-ball as far as stopping this from ending up in the river. >> And I just wanted to ask if anyone else had any suggestions. I've seen it and all this um DRIS Drius um in my neighborhood. Um we put that on the list for future
agenda items. >> I will add that to our >> I guess the the item is followup from utility contractors in the field. uh close followup so that this uh crap is not on the ground for
months and months and months after the utility has been completed >> and then they run over it with the lawnmower. >> Exactly. >> I wasn't sure if I should bring that up or not. I don't want to like that's a good agenda. >> I know everyone has seen this in your
neighborhood. Do you want me to add add to that is uh if you look at my house across the street, the power lines and the cable lines and old AT&T uh when they upgraded some of the lines a year or so ago, they put the new lines in and
just cut the old ones and they're hanging. Mhm. >> So when I drive down the road, I can see cables hanging from power lines and telephone poles and telephone lines and power lines just hanging down because nobody wants to take the time to pull them down because that means extra
labor, extra cost. And I think we need to say something for the city to tell these contractors if we're giving them a license to do work in town, they need to clean up their act. >> Exactly. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, we'll put that as another.
All right. So, here's what I've got for agenda items or let me finish reports first and then we'll go through them. Anybody else care to have a report of any kind about any subject? >> I have a question. >> Sure.
>> Okay. All right. I have one. Um, I was able to attend the low impact development conference um with Lily and Laura Lee and Jason was there. I don't know anybody else, but I mean it I
learned an awful lot about what we could be doing with storm water. When we look at the like the planned development that we saw today, um PD South, they're still using dry retention
ponds as their means for managing storm water. Um, we learned so many different ways how they can simply use swailes and rain gardens in the same way and distributed throughout the neighborhood so it looks natural, loving, and
inviting instead of being these huge ponds that never get treated or taken care of properly. Um, and so the the gist of it was that we can do it differently and we can do it better and we can do it cheaper, which was really
the stunning thing I think for the whole thing was that it actually cost less. So once they started learning that, then it's becoming an educational thing. And so when we go out for Earth Day next
year, we need to be talking about photovotayic. We need to be talking about trash pickup. We need to be talking about what we're doing with wetlands and how important they are. We need to let the public know that this is what makes our environment so special
here are these wetlands and the biological wildlife that they support. Um so I think we should also strive to to get our city to provide more incentives
for LI. Um, I think it should be a requirement that that every plan development should be LIID. Um, it just makes sense if they're doing a plan, then the plan should have a low impact. Um, so what I have is uh for agenda
items are my first one was the one from Jesse Wright. We need to uh we need to do something about gas stations that are licensed to have tanks in the ground and
what to do when people abandon them and how we can make the people that caused the incident to pay for the recovery. That may mean, in my book, maybe the city bonding to have the property
cleaned up and then dealing with the the results of paying for it later, maybe in court. But someone like Jesse Wright should not be impacted by a permit given to somebody else on another parcel of
land. It's it's an invasion, not to mention the the toxicants that come with it. So, I think there's going to be a lot of discussion. I think it's not going to have a very clear answer as to where we're going to go with it, but
we certainly as a city need to stand by our citizens when we let permits that something's going to be safe. They have to know that the people around them are going to have a safe life to live theirs as well. So, I think we need to talk about
leaking gas tanks, gasoline, and that's got to be one agenda item. The second agenda item that Bill raised is uh really about energy. Um going
forward, we know energy costs are increasing. Although solar voltaic uh technology has reduced the cost of electricity, it seems our charges from FPNL keep going up. So to me, we we talked about zero
energy, we talked about photovoltaics through the city, we talked about sustainability, and I'm thinking that this would fit under our sustainability process. So we've got a tag for that, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, I was as he was talking I had pulled up the sustainability action
plan. All of goal three is effectively what he's talking about. >> Okay. So, let's put that on a future agenda item as the second one. And then the the third one is uh litter in the city and um litter and by contractors
and so forth. I mean, it's not just contractors, it's it's everybody. And maybe um that's a that's another topic we should start talking about. That's a good an education topic. Florally, >> I I don't want to see them all crammed on in the next meeting though. I I want
one one per meeting because we're like Mary said, we're on a roll and I do not want to stop the momentum that we've got on working on this wetlands language and it's complicated and it takes a long long time. And you know, we we've gone down that path before when we'd have
three or four things on the agenda and we're here till 9:30, 10:00 and everybody's burned out and tired. And >> I think >> if we could meet twice a month, we would have no problem. >> Yeah. >> Um the difficulty is that when we do meet, it's it's so far apart that it's
it's hard to make real progress when you only meet for a couple hours. So the other alternative is to either not talk about it which means putting it off till mumble months or we talk about it for a few minutes or 10 minutes and then we
move on and we make some progress on several things. I don't know which other way you prefer to go, but I would think that when I have my meeting with Lily next or whoever's chair next, we'll decide what the format and how much we can put on
the meeting to try to keep it to two hours. But I think these are all topics that are worth discussing. >> So, if I may, I'll be the bad guy again. >> Please. Uh I think we need to
face up to the fact that uh there are a lot of topics and perhaps this commission should meet more than once a month uh so that we can tackle more topics and we can we can have more discussions once
a month. uh you're running into a wall every uh every so many hours and so I don't know the mechanism that it would take but it should start with perhaps floating the idea to council
that just like zoning meets it seems like every other day >> uh just having that that was his humor but anyway I think that I would like to make a motion that uh we
explore having the commission meet >> twice a month. >> Uh if that's if that's uh something that the rest of the commission can >> What's the motion? >> The motion is to uh
go to go to council and ask for permission to meet twice a month. >> I second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussions? >> It's going to it's going to boil down to
money and funding and paying Lily to to work. >> We can have we but if we don't start the discussion, we're not going to know what is it going to take and how we how do we get there? >> Uh last year we were only broadcast every other meeting and now we're
broadcast every meeting. So, >> and there's that four-letter word, storm water, >> right? >> And so, so therefore, you know, maybe we can get uh if we can increase the garbage collection and uh and the
recycle, maybe we can get a portion of that money. I don't know. I there are many ways of increasing budgets. Uh and so, but I would like to float the idea that uh okay, >> maybe we can meet more often than we're
meeting right now. So, you want me to put a motion? >> You did. >> I did. >> And Kevin seconded. >> So, is there any discussion on that or we all understand the motion or Yes. >> I don't think we're ready
>> for um for a vote on this honestly until we have a good bit more discussion. >> Okay. >> That's that's one opinion. >> I'm good with that. I said I just want to float the idea and leave you guys with the idea we're not we're not going
to see each other till next year. >> Yeah. >> So, so therefore that that leaves two months uh roughly uh the rest of November and all of December. Uh so to think about it, but I just wanted to leave you with that. That's a happy Thanksgiving.
>> I don't think it's a bad idea >> from me. >> Well, we have a motion and a second. We could still televise every other, >> you know, like if we >> we can we can find a way to >> if we had two meetings a month, we could still go back.
>> We can have the tea and crumpets and Yes. >> Member Berdett. >> Yes. >> Member Dogado. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson. >> Yes. >> Member Rosa. >> Yes. >> Member Browning. >> I abstain. >> You cannot.
>> You cannot. >> Unless you have >> and my uh vote is no. >> Chairman Mjek. >> Yes. >> This is just advisability from staff. Okay. Anything else that we want to add to the agenda?
>> Are we through with reports? Chairman, are we through with reports? >> Do you have more reports? >> Uh, I would like to take my report time and ask staff a question. >> You ask a staff a question. You have to take your report time.
I learned today, Lily, that um there's this thing called Senate Bill 180. Are you familiar with it? >> So, I am not familiar with it. I read uh a Senate Bill 180 today, but it looks like it was passed um some months ago.
>> Yes. >> And now there are proposed changes >> to Senate Bill 180. >> Yes. And what precipitated this um information coming out to me was a question that I
had asked um uh Chairman Thompson to question Brad Parish about was why were the three tree ordinance changes not being put before council for
a first and second reading? uh because they moved to put those before um council uh for a first and a second back on July 22nd. So the answer from um community development department was
well Senate Bill 180 is holding this up. That was the answer without I I don't understand what proposed changes. Do you have any uh in information about what changes are holding up the first and second reading on the tree ordinance
changes? >> Well, yeah, mostly because Kay also asked the same question and I had um emailed her back. it it's currently from what I understand being it's a lawsuit going under for pushing
back on this bill that it's restrictive and burdensome for local governments to be able to make any change that's due that's deeming a legis um change to the comp plan as adding burdensome or restrictive policy. So that because of
that if you some uh developers have been enforcing that rule in other municipalities if you try and pass anything they'll sue you and you get caught in litigation and all the crazy things that come with that. So, I think
out of this, they're waiting until the lawsuit goes through. I'm feeling confident that it's going to get rolled back because it's I can send you more information. Um, the Thousand Friends of Florida
planning podcast that I had shared talks a lot about it. Um, and a lot of also chapter 25190 of the Florida rules kind of go through why this holds up a lot and I'm pretty sure some years like the
valuation and assessment reports and all those things have been held up because of that bill. It's no one's favorite right now. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Amber Young. Um, I don't know if everybody knows, but
um, there's a group called 1000 Floridaas and there's another group called Rethink Energy. They're in Tallahassee and they do environmental legislation. They're nonprofits that promote and put legislation before
the Florida legislature. So, if you don't know about them, you might want to Google and find out about them and get on their newsletter list. >> What is that or again, Bill? >> The one organization is called 10,00.
>> I have that one. I know about that. >> Okay. The other one is Rethink uh Rethink Energy. >> Rethink Energy. Thank you. >> Thank you, Bill. Anybody else have any last closing comments
before I say yes? >> Um, so, uh, Chris from Molier was here last night because the council had to approve the contract for the nanobubbles and as we were walking out, um, he, uh,
he made a comment to me. He said that he has he has been to city council meetings all over the world. Hundreds of city council meetings, you know, through his job. And he said mo most of the most of the people that he sees at city council
meetings are angry citizens and that he had never seen a city council meeting like the one that he saw here last night. He said he had never seen as much passion for a community from community
members as what he saw last night. And he said he he concluded by saying that he was proud to be associated with Tit the city of Titusville and the nanobubble project. But I thought that those were really good words that I
thought people would like to hear. >> Yeah. He was really impressed with what he saw. The uh behavior of the room, the behavior of the council, the professionalism, everything was really good last night.
It was a big win. Well, the last thing I have to say is meeting adjourned.