Good evening everybody and welcome to the July 15, 2026 meeting of the Titusville um environmental commission. Um Lori, can we have a roll call, please? Chairman Mjek, Vice Chairwoman Thompson >> here,
>> member Berdett >> here, >> member Tucker >> here, >> member Miller, member Delgado >> here, >> member Nico >> here, >> alternate member Young, alternate member Rosa. >> All right. Do we have a quorum? Do we have enough?
>> Yes. Voter. Voters. Good. Awesome. Okay. Let's have a pledge of allegiance. of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
All right. So, next on the agenda is the minutes. Does anybody have anything that they see that needs to be altered in the minutes? And we had lots of motions last last month. So, great job, Lori,
keeping track of everything. Yeah, we really appreciate you and Lily and David. You guys all got a really really nice shout out from Jason last night. It was he did he did a great job presenting our semiannual report and
uh gave a nice nice shout out to you guys which we appreciate that. We appreciate y'all because we would not be getting we would not be getting all this work done if it wasn't for you three and Mary. That's right.
Thank you. >> So, anybody want to make a motion on the minutes? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> All right. A motion by member Nico and seconded by member Tucker. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed?
>> All right. The minutes are approved. Um, that leads us to petitions and requests from the public. Well, since Mary's going to be sitting at the table with Lily, unless you have something that's not on the agenda you want to complain
about or draw our attention to. All right, old business. Here we go. Wetlands, you're on, Mary. elastic there. Well, I heard Jason say that we're going
to get this done tonight and now we're starting early. So, let's do it. We've worked on this a long time and we're ready. We have to clean up a couple things. Um,
and what I'd like to start with is um the objective one, natural resources that we have some cleanup work to do
with that. Um, do you see that paper that Lily printed out says objective 1.1 natural resources? Okay. Yeah. And if you can get your paper
that says rationale for conservation element amendments. I'm sorry this was in the packet. I finished it up around noon today. We'll go through that too. It's um one page.
[snorts] It's got Yeah. It's got the rationale for the conservation element objective 1.1 and then objective 1.6. >> It's also page 25 of 39 in your packet online. >> Okay.
>> Oh, good. Good. Okay. Um, now what we need to do, um,
we're going to go through the rationale of some of these policies. Um, real quick because we've already discussed this. Um, just a second. Let me get my paper here
that I marked up. There it is. Okay. Now, this should be old news to you that um the recommended changes to CE objective 1.1 language aim to
broaden the focus beyond listed wildlife habitat to include environmentally endangered lands. That's what we're trying to do. Over the years, populations of federal and state listed species have decreased
within the city limits. While the need to acquire and protect environmentally sensitive environmentally endangered lands, especially large forest and wetlands, has increased.
The edits to the following objective policy and strategies have been recommended in response to this reality. Okay, now you all know we worked hard on this to get the environmentally endangered
lands be the focus besides listed uh wildlife. So you see that we made um a small change to objective 1.1 to broaden that focus to include the environmentally
endangered lands. And then if you go down to policy, I'm looking at your sheet here with all the policies. This the second policy. Uh
you Lily looked into that for us and found out that it was never implemented. So we decided to get rid of it. And then, you know, we've discussed this before, policy 1.1.3
that we needed to include Bvard County um as a governmental entity w um with which will cooperate to um
inventory, identify and define the endangered lands and then try to acquire and conserve these environmentally endangered lands. Um, and we discussed that before that was
all approved. And then strategy 1.1.3.1, the city shall develop a procedure to identify such lands. review and evaluation shall include at a minimum
the following. We discussed these um criteria for the um environmentally endangered lands and we modified the second one with regard to wetlands. We now have wetlands five acres or
greater in size and crucial adjoining portions of their respective watersheds. That was your wording for it. It's good too. And then uh
we had to split that up. Now the seventh one, critical or essential habitats for state and federally listed species and lands providing habitat connectivity.
Uh we worked on that language and improved it. And all these this stuff on this page is to broaden the focus to include the environmentally endangered lands in addition to uh listed species habitat. Does anybody have any questions about
page one? >> Can you remind me why policy 1.1.1 was strike and and if and I'm not sure how we could >> achieve number one on 1.1.3.1
without that list. >> Okay. Um actually >> sorry. >> There you go. Welcome, Jason. You made it. You did great last night. You did absolutely great. We're going to try to do what you
recom you said we were going to do is uh get through this wetland stuff. Um yes, actually um the US Fish and Wildlife Service has
um information about this, uh listed species habitat. They have a lot of information. They have, you know, maps you can go into. It's it's all like interactive online and and then um so
they are really keeping up to date. We just in Titusville, I mean this dropped this fell by the wayside. And in addition to that, um the um FWC, you know, the Florida
uh Agency for Listed Species, they um keep really good tabs on species that are listed in Florida, but not um across, you know, not not for the whole United States. And and one of those
that's just listed in Florida is a gopher tortoise. And actually what we're mainly concerned with in these list of species um is this uh Florida scrub j and the gopher tortoise because we know they
need our help definitely. Uh and so this t city did nothing about you know um depicting on a map by 2012 which will
indicate the presence of state and federal listed wildlife species. You know they just didn't. So we know where to get the information now. It's easy to it's easy to get. Is that
information specific to like this region too? >> Yeah, you can get it for certain properties. I tried to do and I got I got the information for the species. Um, you know, if you go to US Fish and Wildlife Service, uh, like for example,
you put in that and then then the Jacksonville office, they'll come up with an, uh, a company that, um, works with them and, uh, and then under that company, they'll direct you to click on
a certain thing, a certain link, and you can, um, you know, zoom in on a property to find out what the listed species are and I I managed to do that. I managed to get that far. >> No, as long as we have those resources
available and we would be duplicating efforts if we I understand more now. Thank you. >> Very good. Yeah. Yeah. Good question. >> Okay. So, let's go on to the next page. And here we have um
Oh, Jason, I'm sorry. We're looking at uh >> Okay. Okay. >> And and you got your rationale here? Yes. >> Good. Good. Okay. Okay. So, um
policy. This is a big decision you need to make. um policy 1.1.5. Okay, you can see um what we had at the June TEC meeting.
Um it was judged to be questionable as to whether it was strong enough and would um result in
making sure that an applicant has uh satisfied the permitting requirements of the state and federal agencies. So there's two choices
that um you have there for ensuring compliance with the um state and federal requirement um before the commencement of development. And um
I'd like you to pick one if you like one of them. It would be great. we narrow it down to one of those two choices, possible improvement choice one or possible improvement choice two. So, let you take a look at that and see if
anybody's got any um you know preference there. Who decides what is appropriate? How how is that decision made? Whe whether whether whether the
environmental study is even required. Is it is it by habitat if somebody has scrub? Who determines if you know >> if the study is appropriate? >> Um okay. So an environmental study is
required by um w with wetland delineation by policy uh 1.16.2 of the future land use element and that um so if you got wetlands on your
property that is um a place that requires it. Also, um if um it's if there's evidence um like of
uh prior use or current use of of the property biolisted species um that there's requirements in the um I believe in the tech manual and um you
know, you'll see in this code here um that you know they require that um they they're talking about actually a management plan, but I've seen I I've seen for the listed species
um you know where they suspect um language. I believe it's in the tech manual. Um you know, I didn't bring that along, but it didn't um it would be in in uh I think the environmental
review tech manual or something. >> I'm not sure exactly where that would be, >> but but there is a requirement for those two places to to have this study. um where there's wetlands and then uh where
the uh listed species are suspected um to have been or possibly be. and stuff. >> Well, I just wanted to clarify the second one of wetlands is pretty much
you give everybody knows, you know, but where the species was suspected. Does that cuz Gulf tortoise is uplands. So, is that clear enough that if we're
trying to protect the Gulf of Tortoise, the upland areas should be required as well or at least that clarify that? >> Yeah. Where [clears throat] >> Okay. So, um
do you think you might be able to check on that? >> So, in the uh section 2.6 six of the environmental protection tech manual. It states that the developer shall uh provide with any um site plan or subdivision proposal identification of
location of critical habitat for threatened endangered species um degree of disturbance to those habitat as well as general vegetative type uh on the site. So that's in there for all site plans right now. It's not specific to species, but it identifies
critical habitat. >> So, this has to be done for each property and it's part of the formal site plan site plan approval. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, it seems like the city would be the ones to make that decision, enforce that policy.
>> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah. That for the um you know, for the study. Yeah, >> there just uh for the board's information, there's also a provision in here that when one or more individual threatened or endangered species are
documented to exist on a proposed development site, no development activity uh can cause direct or indirect harm to the species habitat uh or shall be allowed until a development permit has been approved by the city. >> Well, it's nice to have an attorney here. [laughter]
>> Okay. So, so I have I have a question. So, when I come from out of town and I want to do business in Titusville and I've got my eyes on a piece of property, is that part of the list of things that I would get as a contractor
or developer or owner of that piece >> that says these are things you need to do. >> I [clears throat] am not intimately familiar with the process. My understanding is that there's a a development checklist that gets uh provided to any applicant for site
development, building permits, things like that. >> Right. But I guess I'm going back to the study. Do I have to do an environmental study to do you know? >> I I don't know. I can follow up and see what our checklists look like,
>> right? Because that that that will be the key word. I know. I know that. Um when I talked to um Brad, he really wanted the word study where it was in this language. That word study,
you know, seemed to be the word he was looking for because I had something different at one point for one of the policies. I had documentation and he didn't like that. He likes study.
So, do you have anything to add, Lily? >> Just that we do require environmental reports I that are submitted to us typically by like a qualified entity. So, when we get a like class 2
site permit in the packet will be bunch of information usually one of those will be the environmental report along with the traffic study along with all the other stuff. So yeah, we do. >> So, so it is listed somewhere. >> Yeah. >> If if I were to come in and and say,
"This is what I'm going to develop >> and it's one of the things that will cue me to go do this environmental." >> Okay. >> Right. Before you can get your site plan approved, we do have to have an environmental report. >> Okay. And it's listed that way. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> I know. I was just trying to pull one up as an example to see like what it all looks like. >> It's just that I I do on procedure. Is it happening, do you think? >> Yeah. Yeah, I've got a bunch of them. I'm not really quite sure. >> Okay. >> I mean, and this is old language, too,
by the way, about the environmental study as appropriate. That's your old language from way back when. So, it's been in there for an age. We're not changing it. The only place where I was thinking of
changing it is um actually in the future land use element, but it did not fly. >> So, anybody have any preference for possible improvement choice one or
possible improvement choice two? I mean, as I look at it, choice two seems more appealing to me because it does not specifically state the agencies. You know, it leaves it open. I don't know what other agencies would be involved, St. John's or whatever else. But the
fact that it it it says, you know, the required by federal state agencies. It doesn't specifically say what agency. I think that's appealing to me because it leaves it more open like you have to get it from whoever is the the ruling body in that case. I agree. It's It's not as
ownorous sounding as possible improvement choice one, but it says the same thing. It's just simpler and cleaner. It number two says the same thing as number one as far as the regulatory, but the
difference I see is it requires the applicant to submit evidence and number one doesn't. But in the beginning of that sentence, it says applicants shall submit evidence of compliance with permitting requirements.
I prefer I prefer the first one just because it already infers that the applicant has to go through this process. And then the second one it says if and it >> if and whereas the first one it seem it seems more actionable like you you
>> well but it's Oh, excuse me. Down here, if any permit, if any permit >> says, >> whereas the first one it >> but but it's really saying the same thing because the the first one is
>> it is >> evidence of per requirements >> preference. >> Yeah, >> I see what you're saying. >> And it does show, you know, the first one says evidence. The second one just says that the applicant will submit documentation showing compliance. So, I mean, that's just a different way of
saying the same thing. >> I feel like again, I I like the the number two just for the fact that it doesn't specifically name what agencies it is because then that leaves it open to if there's >> agencies. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Thank you.
That's exactly what I was trying to say. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We want to make a motion. before we do that. So Jason, even though it doesn't delineate agency A, B, C, D, and D and whatever,
who does that then? Does the city have a list of agencies that the applicant shall apply to? Well, my >> because otherwise >> my my assumption I guess Lily correct me if I'm wrong, but as you go through that check sheet, there's going to be so like
you look at the the various GIS models and everything, there's going to be, you know, any any plot is going to show if it's within Titusville city limits and that's going to show if it's within, you know, if they find a registered species, then that's going to refer them
to Fish and Wildlife or um I'm sorry, Florida Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife. life. So, it it's not necessarily a list of agencies they would all have to go through. It would be based on that study
>> and what they find. Um, and you know, I guess the the only example that's coming to my head is in addition to these two, if there was a a water issue, then like St. John's Water Management District would be involved. And so that's where, like Laura Lee said, if there are additional agencies that have to get
involved, that second one being kind of vague encompasses all that vice just saying you got to go to FWC or US uh Fish and Wildlife. It it opens it up to that broader >> okay >> interpretation. So maybe I'm not thinking straight, but >> I mean I [laughter]
>> So So I come in the plot is is within the city the city of Titusville. Okay. and the city of Tatis will come and says, "Well, you know, these are the things that you got to follow." Okay. And but the agencies are not listed
and >> well, but that that's part of that environmental study. Like when you commission that study, you know, you're you're hiring an agency to do that. if they find gopher tortoises, part of that agency's job that's that's doing that survey is to say, "You've got gopher
tortoises, so these are the people you have to talk to in order to um uh >> Yes, I'm having a hard time talking tonight. I apologize." But yeah, it's not so much that there's a list of agencies. That's that's part
of that environmental study. When you do that study, whatever the the organization is you hire to do that, that's their job is to identify those species and then identify for you what steps you have to take and what agencies you have to go through to appease those requirements.
>> So, you're relying on a contractor. >> Yes. >> Okay. which I mean you're relying on a contractor to identify the species as well, you know, because the city doesn't have a branch that can go out and inspect all these properties to identify
endangered species. It'd be awesome if we did, but that's just not not realistic. So, all this stuff, you're you're relying on a contractor. And I believe the city could reject one of those reports if they saw that or they felt that something on it was
inaccurate. But you're with something like this, you you have to rely on a contractor because that's how you get these reports done. Just like with the city, when the city does, you know, we talked a couple months ago about the um the reverse alinations for the brackish
water, you know, that's relying on a contractor to give us that report. And it's the same kind of thing for this like you have to reply. There's just not another option. Okay, I'll think some more about it. >> Um, I
>> I'm okay. I'm okay with it at that level. >> I I would Laura Lee, I would make the motion to accept uh improvement choice number two for uh policy 1.1.5. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
So, the motion was made by member Tucker and seconded by I'm sorry, made by member Miller and seconded by J member Tucker um to accept possible improvement choice two for um the wording for policy
1.1 1.1.5. Geez, [laughter] did you get that, Lori? I did. Thank you. [clears throat] This is important, so we probably need a roll call. >> Member Berdett, >> yes.
>> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Nico, >> yes. >> Member Tucker, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Miller, >> yes. >> All right, so the motion passed unanimously. Now we can move on. Okay. So, um
I think that's that's good. You know, thank you for laying in it. All right. Now, policy 1.1.6. We went over this in detail and um
what this also involves is broadening the focus um to include all the environmentally endangered lands and different ways of protecting these
lands, the alternate methods. Um, and this was okayed by you. It was discussed in detail and so I'm assuming we're okay with it.
And then also strategy 1.1.6.2 to um we moved a sentence which was in the um in policy 1.1.6 into this strategy.
Um you know it's it it says that the selection criteria in determining these properties shall uh place greater weight on the selection of lands which appear on inventories of endangered or threatened
species even though public use and recreation may not be appropriate. And we changed that to a simpler way of saying it. environmental value shall be prioritized even where public use may be
limited or inappropriate. Um and that broads focus that is the exact um way of valuing the properties that the EO program uses that the uh public use is secondary to
the environmental value. Yeah. So now um 1.1.7. This was a tough one because it didn't make sense. We fixed it up and we moved the list of agencies
from strategy 1.1.7.1 into this policy. So there wouldn't be any strategies. It fit nicely. Now, since the last meeting, I found out
that um the uh Florida um the department Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that only handles plants. So, I don't think we want that in there. So, I got rid of
that. And then I can't believe that I am still having problem with this acronym because I got FWCC for yeah what I call FWC and then I got it
on the next page is FWC. I think we ought to just decide what we want because I this is not I I certainly intended to clear it up and make it consistent. I think you should just go with FWC. I'm
almost never see I mean sometimes you would see FWCC, but I don't think I've ever seen FFWcc. >> Oh, and I feel like we talked about this last meeting. It's like when you go onto their website, it's FWC. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You know,
>> like right here, it's myfwc.com, everything just says FWC. The only reason I would caution against that is because the full acronym is used elsewhere in the comp plan. So that would create an inconsistency with those other portions of the comp plan.
>> Good to know. >> Well, >> so there's a whole bunch of places you got to change it. I got to say that my late husband um was the section leader uh in Toadachi um you know and um that
that's FWC property. He worked as volunteer for FWC, you know, and and FWC took over um from the park service in 2013
and I mean I I think that well I'll give my own personal print if you don't mind. I think that he he he I have never never heard it called, you
know, that was that first acronym since the f for since it was, you know, back in the days when we elected the members of that, which we did at one point in time, but that was I think the other
policies outdated, you know. Um I mean you you go to to you know it's FWC and um >> so h how much trouble would it be to I mean what would we have to go through a
whole ear process or um send it to the state to change all the f FWCC's throughout the whole comprehensive plan to FWC? No, what we do is it's okay. We'll just fix it in this and then then
you know they can you think that'll work? Just fix it in this and it'll be >> When you say fix it in this, you mean leave it as the full FFWCC acronym? >> No, just put FWC. I don't know. That's my opinion
>> there. I don't think it's going to lead to any confusion or direct conflict. If some portions of the comp plan have the full acronym and one place says FWC, I functionally it won't cause any issues. It's just an inconsistency for you to
consider. And the FFWCC acronym is used in four places in the comp plan. So, it's not like there's a million of them. All right. Well, you guys have to decide what to do. I'll do anything you want.
>> Do we need to vote on it? [snorts] We can vote on it. >> Before you do that, can I ask a question? >> Yes. >> Since you're striking out the agriculture one that deals with plants, what about the endemic plant? The >> This policy only deals with endangered
the listed species, the wildlife species. an endemic species only to a certain point. >> The um there there are policies on the plants and they're in a different section of the conservation element. >> As long as it's not [clears throat]
>> a loophole. Yeah, it >> I I was just looking to I was just on the the division of agriculture website, which I spent a lot of time on there because I started a nonprofit last year and that's who you go through for all that. I can't find anything on there about protection of endangered species anyways. Like it's all it's all about
agriculture and and developing agriculture. There's nothing on there like I just looked for Ty Mint and there's nothing on there that even >> So is there anybody that's watching out for endangered plant species? >> I feel like FWC still does and maybe
>> that um Department of A and Consumer Services is watching out for the >> Well, he just said it wasn't listed. >> What about >> No, he said that endangered species. He means endangered what? Um, animal species are not those direct. >> No, I'm talking about I'm talking about
plants. It didn't it didn't show anything on there about protected plant species. >> Really? >> It's all It's all uh like agriculture. It's that's a weird department. Like that's where you go for your concealed carry permit to f 501c3
and to plant a field. So, I'm not real sure how that works, but I I didn't see anything on there about >> Well, I'll sure take that rationale out. Thank you. We'll just get rid of it. How about that? >> Yeah,
>> that's good. Nothing like a person in in the no because they have a nonprofit. >> Yes, >> I'll fix that. >> So, you're taking out policy 1.1.7? No, >> no, >> I'm taking out a rationale. I'm taking
out the rationale out of the rationale page. >> Um >> Oh, >> up up up up at the rale for other TC recommendations are >> page. >> And it's a sentence like
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which is [clears throat] omitted because it only handles listed plant species. That must have been old information that I got. So, whatever. No problem. >> I'm taking out a rationale statement,
which doesn't have to be. >> Okay. So, now we Okay. Will you guys vote on what what acronym you want to use for? One other point, not to dwell on acronyms for too long, but there is no
point following this where the agency is referred to by the acronym. So, you really don't need to have an acronym there at all. You could just leave it as the full agency name and not have an acronym after it and then not have to decide between the two.
>> I say we ignore it and move on. So what's I guess what's on the floor is go ahead and leave the full name spelled out and take out the acronym. >> Is that for all of them? >> Yeah, >> you got to be consistent. [clears throat]
>> We can do it for all of them. We'd have to do it in the other policy. >> For the sake of consistency, let's just keep the name and the acronym, but let's decide on an acronym and just leave it exactly as it is. Leave it the same just because it's spelled out and that would make sense. Maybe
>> that's what I proposed. >> Is that a motion? >> I'm gonna Yeah, I'm [clears throat] going to make a motion to uh keep it as it is. >> I second that. >> But you're going to keep seeing two is going to be FFWCC. Well, and the reason I say keep it as it
is is because it's spelled out and that would only make sense if there if they're reading it, they could understand the action. >> Okay. >> Otherwise, it would just be fish and wildlife coun. >> Is there a second? >> I did. All right. >> All right. The motion was made by member Nico and seconded by member Miller
Miller to leave um Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission the words followed by the acronym FFWCC. Um I guess we need a roll call. >> Member Miller.
>> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson. >> Yes. >> Member Delgado. [clears throat] >> Yes. >> Member Berdett. >> Yes. >> Member Nico. >> Yes. Member Tucker. >> Yes. >> I'll change it in the next policy, too,
because I got I don't know. I must have had a typing u glitch. I have two of them there. I'll pick FFWCC. Okay. Thanks for deciding.
And then um if you'll remember um we're on to the next page and we want this is part of the we're on to page four or four.
We're almost done. >> See strategy 1.1.8. 8.3, right? So, um that was a smart move on your part to um get rid of on existing conservation land
because we know that um FWC wants to go for tortoises um to have more places to live and they want potential introduction sites. Right. So that's
really good. We did that. And then to ensure compliance, um, this is your next big thing to decide. This may be too wordy for you. >> Are we on 1.1.9? Is that what you're talking about? >> Yeah. And this you want to look at
again. This is this is a little different. This is where, you know, they're they have a site and they're they start a development and all of a sudden they find a list of species. Now, what are they going to do?
Um, so would the same language that we used in um possible improvement choice two, would that work here? because it looks like >> that's what I was saying
>> right now it it has the language from possible improvement choice one >> so to keep it consistent um let's see if that works >> yeah it is it is very very very similar language in that it you know
specifically identifies those agencies like we talked about before >> so instead just change it to I guess required by the app cool federal or state agency. So it would it would be the same if any permit, clearance or consultation is
required by any agency, they submit documentation showing compliance with all requirements before recommencement of development because they've been stopped. Mhm. >> But are are we're not
we're not requiring management plans, are we? >> Didn't we take out all the references to >> that was struck out on the on the 1.1.7 the management plan aspect? We took our management plan and changed
it to be it would be designed to minimize harm to the listed species in the habitat. >> Okay. The reason we did that on 1.1.7 is not necessarily because
um of the it it had to do with the um any public or private use of such land greater than three acres in an area.
I mean any anything you want to do. I mean, maybe you want to put a basketball court up there. Um, on land greater than three acres shall require a management plan. We struck it out because I thought it was a little ridiculous.
I mean, and to top it off. Yeah, I thought it was a little ridiculous, but I mean, you can change this 1.1.9 however you want. How about how about we strike out for which no
management plan has been adopted and just say that if they find >> Yeah. >> listed wildlife species are are found on a site undergoing development activities >> um said activities shall cease until
until they they make things right with the state agencies. So let's see more Um why why don't you throw that idea out? So it would be like if one or more individuals of state or federal listed
wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development that should have a permit. >> I might weigh in on the idea that in the event that this would happen then their previous submitted environmental report
would be considered inaccurate and therefore they should probably redo that. >> Yeah. But but they may not have had been required to have an environmental report. >> I'm not quite sure and maybe this is a different question to ask staff what
exempts an environmental report because from what I know on a class two permit where you're doing land clearing and all of that it's required that should be included. >> Right. >> Isn't that what you said David?
What she said. just that um the environmental report is required for any land clearing class 2 permit like big infrastructure >> type [clears throat] permit >> from the technical manual that you read off earlier.
>> Well, what if somebody's clearing a lot for one single house and there's gopher tortoises on it? >> I guess I'm a little hazy on what the threshold is exactly for what triggers class two to class one. And I know there's like minor things you can get
away with that don't require all the site plan review permits. Like if it's just a accessory unit, maybe that's considered small. But then if you try to put in like a driveway, then that's a little bit of a different story. If you do three little things at once, it's a it's a big project. Then now you're in a
class two. There's I know you're looking at me like there's the threshold I think for the projects you're considering like these big plan developments they do get an environmental anything class two
>> would see that goes back to my the point that I raised on having the checklist okay so you either qualify for environmental study or you
And then what is the criteria for you to not qualify for needing uh that study? And so then you can go into your 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, and what all the way to ZZ and the driveway.
But this is exactly where I was going. This this could be the actual conversation with staff. >> I understand your question. I what criteria would not require an environmental report? Exactly. And I'll follow up with an email when I get
>> and and where is it defined? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. So, I just I just kind of typed out something different in my mind because I couldn't I couldn't wrap around it without seeing it myself. So to to kind
of tighten this up, get rid of the management plans, um, and to to generalize the agencies, what I said, and obviously this is just real quick off my head, but when when one or more individuals of state or federally listed wildlife species are
found on a site undergoing development activities, said activities shall cease until the applicant submits evidence of compliance with permitting requirements of all applicable federal federal and state agencies. Evidence of such
compliance shall be submitted to the city. >> Yeah. Um, when one or more individuals of state or federally listed wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development activities,
said activities shall cease until the applicant submits evidence of compliance with permitting requirements of all applicable federal and state agencies. Evidence of such compliance should be submitted to the city. and Grammarly is
telling me I got some issues in there, but that can be cleaned up. >> Is there a time frame that should be submitted to the city so this doesn't go on >> before work before work resumes? Yeah. >> Well, we can just Well, we can add evidence such compliance shall be submitted to the city
>> before work resumes. There you go. >> There you go. >> For development activities resume. >> That sounds better. Yes, >> there you go. >> Oh, I I literally can't believe I just
[laughter] >> Yeah. Evidence such client shall be submitted to the city before development activities resume. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. So you got when one or more individuals
of state or federal listed wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development activities. said activities shall cease until the applicant
>> submits >> submits >> evidence of compliance >> evidence of compliance >> with permitting requirements >> with permitting requirements of >> all applicable federal and state agencies. >> Okay.
All applicants with permit require of all applicable >> I just typed this in word Lori I could like email this to you real quick if that is helpful
>> okay permitting a wait all applicable what Jason >> uh all applicable >> federal agencies >> yes federal yes state and federal agencies Please. >> Okay. Before development activities resume. Is that we have?
>> Yes. Evidence shall be submitted to the city before development activities resume. You know, >> it would help if this was typed out. I don't know if we can do it, Lily. >> I can send you.
>> Okay. When one or more because Lori's going to have it and she can send it to us. >> Yeah, if I can get my >> When one or more individuals of state or federal listed wildlife species [clears throat] are found on a site
undergoing development activities, said activity shall cease until the applicant submits evidence of compliance with per evidence of compliance
with >> what Jason >> I'm sorry >> all applicable >> evidence such city I'm Sorry. >> Set activities shall cease until the applicant submits evidence of compliance
with permitting requirements of all applicable federal and state agencies. Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the city before development activities resume. And I'm making this way harder on myself
than I need to. >> Sounds really good. >> Yeah. But what that means then is that my environmental report missed it. >> Although >> not necessarily because I mean to tortoises move, snakes move. You know
what I mean? That's my point. >> Yeah. Well, and that's and that's why we're saying that those activities have to cease if it's found. If a tortoise wanders on the property, you're done. This, although it's very well meaning, this has the West Coast. I found a fish
that wasn't supposed to be in my in that lagoon that I was working on and now I got to stop everything. Okay. And I don't even know where the fish came from. Okay. So, the same thing as dirtis that
it's going to come into the property and overnight it's going to be there and then the next day uh code enforcement come and said but you have a turtle. >> Mhm. >> And you go but I didn't. >> I didn't. >> And now you do. >> I didn't before.
>> Okay. So, that that is that is >> Yeah. >> What we're going down to, right? >> That that's the way I see it. >> Maybe you need to have a tortoise burrow and not just a wandering tortoise. Again, I I just want to know >> well and I think that's where >> where we're going and what we're
thinking. Yeah, this is going to do. >> So So here's what I am thinking. If we're we'll stick with the tortoise example, tortoise one, you're you start clearing the next day. You come out and there's a tortoise, right? So you stop work because there's an endangered species there. You stop work. You call
FWC and you say, "Hey, I found a tortoise. I've got a previously approved permit for clearing. there's a tortoise here now. They come out and say, "Oh, yeah, that's the burrow on the property next door." They send out one of their trained people to move it. You move the tortoise and you resume work if that's
what the agency says. Or they say, "Okay, well, let's look around. Oh, there's their burrow in the middle of your property. Now, you have to stop and redo your plans because there is a burrow there." But that's not up for us to decide. That's up for that agency to decide, you know, because those are already developed and and and complex
laws. So, this is just saying that if an endangered species is found, they've got to stop and go to the experts to see what the next step is. I think the question is if if there's an environmental uh survey done and there
is an existing wildlife that comes to that property after the survey is done um what do you do at that point >> right >> so >> you stop >> you stop >> call the experts >> and call the experts that's [laughter] that's the suggestion
okay um >> so what >> what do you think about with the old language. Um, it basically says you have to stop. So, I don't think we're doing anything different than what the old language said.
>> I I feel like we're just making it a little more succinct and getting rid of those management plans that we said we we didn't want in there to begin with. I also don't know how like management plan as a term if that's the same as the environmental assessment because in that
assessment they'll say we believe there are up to six tortoises here's our you know we have to go get our permit from FWC we have to file this amount and they kind of go through their action it could be I don't know if that's what we consider
>> so that that's why in my mind that's why we we are getting rid of the management plan because When I hear management plan, I'm thinking Fox Lake sanctuary management plan. This is how we are going to manage the sanctuary. That's a very in-depth document that has to go through a lot to develop that. That's not going to be
done for a 3acre lot where you're putting a building up. So that that in my mind, that's why we're getting rid of that management plan because the management plan is not what they're doing. They're they're mitigating that concern for that species based on the permy requirements, but
that's not the same thing as a management plan. >> So, could you use environmental report as an interchangeable term to the management plan and just say that we need another plan of action that you're going to do now that you found this tortoise, which is something you would already kind of do in the environmental
report assessment process. Anyway, that's all I was kind of getting. sending them to the agencies and it's up to the agencies to tell them what to do. >> But those agency reports don't come to us directly, >> but we're saying they have we're saying
they have to. That's why we're saying compliance shall be submitted to the city. When that developer gets that document back from FWC saying yes, you're good, you're doing the right things, they have to submit that to the city before development continues.
So, who does this the work stoppage? Is it is it the city of Titusville or is it the state? >> No, this would be this would be the city of Titusville. >> But the city of Titusville, >> but code enforcement, >> the state makes the determination.
>> We are saying they have to stop. The city of Titusville is saying they have to stop and that would be code enforcement which is an imperfect system. Yes. But that's as I understand it that would be code enforcement. So, code enforcement gives them the official the initial uh warning to stop and then they have to go to the state to get the
environmental report again or to determine whether that wildlife on the property is uh going to stay or not or whether or not they can move forward with their development. >> Okay. And then um and then at that point, let's say uh the state agency um
denies development, then is it up to the city to enforce that policy? >> It's within the city, I would say. So, yes. >> Okay. Because they they have to provide that document to the city in the end anyways. And it's okay. So, >> I mean that that's all that's all code
enforcement as far as I as far as I can tell. Just just to get clarity here of who's doing what to your point. >> Yeah. >> I mean some obviously someone has to enforce all this. We are dealing with city policy. >> The city's taking the direction from the state as to what to do with that that
Okay. >> Yeah. >> I don't know if there's any I don't know if there's any >> sorry >> if there's any more motion a motion to make. This is just getting clarity. >> Well, I think we have to vote on whether we like Jason's language or not.
>> I would >> make a motion. >> Make a motion. >> I I I would make a motion to approve the language that you wrote for um >> 1.1.9. Thank you. >> Second. >> Second. So, a motion was made by member
Nico, seconded by member Tucker to change the language of policy 1.1.9 to what Jason said, >> which I did. >> I agree. Again, if you would like, when one or more individuals of state or
federally listed wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development activities, said activities shall cease until the applicant submits evidence of compliance with permitting requirements of all applicable federal and state agencies. Evidence such compliance shall
be submitted to the city before development activities resume. >> Member Berdett. Yes, >> member Delgado. >> Uh, yes. >> Member Miller. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson. >> Yes. >> Member Nico.
>> Yes. >> Member Tucker. >> Yes. >> All right. >> All right. And the um the next thing we we discussed this before um
you know we got rid of policy 1.1.10. 10. Is this not um appropriate to have the recreation and open space element which steals the parks tell you know um
have to set policies for um protected conservation lands and what you can do on them. Um it's just like we don't want soccer fields on wetlands.
And then um 1.1.10 that um is something that um is put was put in this particular part of the
conservation element. Um I don't know if they had no other place to put it, but it's reasonable language. It's also found in um the county um comprehensive plan. You just need a
policy that deals with uh environmental damage um you know and holding the person responsible for re uh restoring um the area. And so, you know, we
discussed that that was, you know, it may not look like it's fitting in here, but it's got to fit somewhere. So, let's just leave it. And with that, we are done with objective 1.1.
>> Do do we need to vote to accept this? I think um >> you already did from your June like youeded everything with the exception of two of them. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, um
I'm trying to figure out what's the most efficient timewise to do. Let's We want to finish, right? >> We have 1.6 and 1. >> Let's do 1 um six.
Okay. Now I've made some changes to this since you saw it last. So this is more difficult to um first of all you all have it. Anybody
who doesn't have it okay you're okay policy 1.6 I mean one you know that's fine. And then strategy under it um we discussed um before 1.6 strategy 1.6.1.1
um we added those words in order to achieve no net loss and wetland function to uh comply with one of the uh goals of the natural resources plan. And now we're on
the tough one. All right, here's the deal. Um, before you look at it, just and I have your attention. I want to tell you what's going on. We have got to deal
with um the possibility that someone is going to suggest um impacting a wetland that is uh
greater than five acres not by residential use as Lieberman tried to but by industrial use or perhaps commercial use. We have to deal with it.
And the way we're going to deal with it is with conditional uses. And that's the way um this comp plan
kind of provides. Uh it's a little bit vague and this is language that is quite old. about conditional uses. And we need to tighten it up because
it's easy to um abuse something that has criteria that are wide open. So if you look at strategy or let's look at policy 1.6.2
proposed land uses which are compatible with the functional wetlands shall be identified with conservation land use designation and the future land use map and further addressed in the land development regulations. Okay, we have those conservation land use. We went
through them in great detail in flu um in the flu uh policies um for conservation land use. Now
this language which is old said in addition to the permitted land uses identified in the future land use element which would mainly be for wetlands 5 acres or greater in size. Conditional uses may be considered as
provided for in the land development regulations with criteria based on the mitigation policies of US uh fish and wildlife service. Um well we know that US Fish and Wildlife
Service we're not going to we're not going to use any of their criteria. says, "At a minimum, the criteria to be considered for approval of a conditional use shall include, the use is ecologically sound,
the use is water dependent or water related, and there is a document in public need. The use is the least environmentally damage alternative damaging alternative." No, here's a biggie. There is no
practical alternative to ensure reasonable use of the applicant's property and any of unavoidable damage or loss of wetland shall be mitigated to ensure no net loss of wetlands and no loss of wet
functional value. Now, I did uh Lily asked me last week um for um you know the documents to put in your agenda package. This is put in your agenda package so you could look at it.
I gotta say, I spent a long, long time trying to figure out how to um word these conditional use um
criteria um and not open up a big loophole. It is not easy to get this language just right. And what I decided to do was
to include as much of Dwight's language. It's Dwight Severs. He wrote this stuff. Um as um possible, but tighten up a few things.
And then make sure we had uh industrial and commercial um covered in a way that uh their conditional use
would not um be taken advantage of by somebody who wanted to um develop as much as they could in large footlands. Right?
All right. So now what you got to do is we got to look at the rewrite of this. Okay. So it says in addition to the permitted
uses identified in the future land use element for conservation land use conditional uses may be considered as provided for in the land development regulations. That's pretty much what he said before.
All conditional uses shall be ecologically sound or the least environmentally damaging alternative. Okay, that's I picked up on number one
of the um you know the uses that are now in the comp plan. The use is ecologically sound and the use is the least environmentally damaged alternative and just put them together. Chances are
[snorts] you're going to have some damage. So those are um you know in one sentence all condition uses shall be ecologically sound or the least environmentally damaging alternative. Now here's this
part about the mitigation he has that in number five and any unavoidable damage or loss of wetland shall be mitigated to ensure no net loss of wetlands and no loss of
functional value. that's using his language. And then you'll notice that up up above there that number two is about water dependent uses
and he says the use is water dependent or water related and there is a documented public need. Well, I said additional use specific criteria to be satisfied for conditional use approval
include for water dependent or water related uses there is a document of public need. So that's pretty much like what he had and then um there is a policy
later on 1.6.5 6.5 and it discusses you know um right away for public roads or utilities that these provide direct public benefits
which would exceed those lost to the public as a result of degradation or destruction of wetlands. So for for I put for right away for public roads or utilities direct public benefit
shall exceed those lost to the public as a result of the degradation or destruction of wetlands which is like [snorts] the language in policy 1.6.5. So I'm pretty much sticking to this stuff. [snorts] Now
turn the page and here you come to the biggie. This is what I would recommend that we have if it's on page 204. If you'll just turn to the first sentence for this is a um
use specific criteria for conditional use. It's for commercial and industrial land. And if you can read it over to yourself. Okay. So, wait till everybody's digested it.
I'm I'm not getting it. >> All right. >> I I feel like there's I feel like I'm missing words or something. >> Like it's not coming together for me. >> Okay. What we got? Let's say you have a piece of in uh Okay, it turns out that there's a bunch
of uh industrial lands um for example [snorts] near the airport on airport property or whatever, right? We know that they want to get and let's say that they
they want to fill a wetland that might be five acres or greater in size because they want to have their project there and they want they
uh they want the chance to uh build the exact project they want to build. Now we all know that these projects are desired by the city, right? But what happens if in the wrong place
there's this large wetland? Well, what they would have to do under under this policy is they would have to get conditional use. So this is in the case of properties
with commercial or andor industrial land uses. Let's take example airport which include portions of designated conservation land use which might be a wetland that's
a fair amount larger than five acres. So in that case they got this industrial commercial land use and they have in the middle of that a
piece of conservation land. There is no alternative to ensure any reasonable use of the upland portion of the applicant's property without impacting wetlands 5 acres or greater in size.
What this means is they in in this industrial um land use, we're not expecting them to have or they shouldn't expect to have, you know, um
any use of that wetland that they want they want. But if it's in the middle of their uplands and they want to put a big building and here right in the center of where they put a big building is this wetlands is
greater than five acres. They're allowed to um be reviewed for a conditional use. um
if they don't have any reasonable use of those uplands, we're not we're not saying that, you know, they should have the ability to just, you know, demolish the wetland,
but on the other hand, they do have industrial or commercial use and they do have a right to reasonable use of the land,
but we don't want to just say, "Okay, you know, you have industrial use." Industrial is great in Titusville, so we'll just let you do anything you want with the wetlands. No. Um, you have to go through the
conditional use process. You would have to go through the conditional use process. um if you cannot work around the wetland. In other words, there's no alternative to ensure any reasonable use of the upland portion
of the applicant's property. Maybe they they could, you know, rearrange the layouts. Maybe they could think of a different project. But this would have to go through um the conditional use process which
I leave to David. >> Okay. I I I understand now. I wasn't I wasn't making the connection to basically the opening paragraph that is saying that in this case >> you've got go through the conditional use process. That makes sense to me now. Thank you. >> So So then does the staff help them
decide what's reasonable use for their property? They would have to and then they have to either go to the board of adjustment and appeals or planning and zoning to get conditional use permit. >> The cup would go to PNZ and then
council. >> The sta staff is the one planning staff is the one that helps them determine what a reasonable impact to the wetlands would be. No, we well
>> they help them determine what the future land use could be. >> I think staff would make that uh part of their presentation on the cup, but the determination of reasonleness would be in the hands of the board deciding on
the cup. So what we have here is a tightening of uh Dwight's language. He said on number four on page one of four, Dwight said
there is no practical alternative to ensure reasonable use of the applicant's property. Well, what we're saying is there is no alternative to ensure any reasonable use of the
upland portion of the applicant's property without impacting that wetland. Shouldn't the comma come out and the word and go there between use and there and make it one sentence? Wait, can you
repeat that please? The comma after the word use. Shouldn't you just put the word and and make it all one sentence to make it Let me look at it. It's like you're deal have two different ideas here. if you have comma um
I don't think so. I think um that the properties in case properties with commercial industrial land uses which include portions of designated conservation land use and I know that's a mouthful but that's the condition
and if you'll just think of the airport >> um >> I think member Tucker is right >> but then you left you're starting with there and it's dangling because it doesn't have anything to connect too. >> Yeah. I I think you do need the word and
because you you've got >> No, I be because because we're connect I see what you're saying. >> Okay. Um the reason we're we're not seeing it
eyes that if you'll turn to the page before that this is one of the criteria starting with additional use specific criteria to be satisfied
for conditional use approval include in the case of properties with commercial or industrial land use which include portions of designated conservation land use. That's >> I see. I think you're right.
>> It's still in there. It's just a different way of saying >> yeah if if you look here additional use specific criteria to be satisfied for conditional use approval include
and then we have for water dependent and then we have for right away and then >> I should put four properties that's what I should put because then we have three in a row for water dependent
for right away. >> Yeah. Get get rid of in the case of and just put four properties. >> How's that sound for for properties with commercial? >> Does that sound better? >> Yeah.
>> It still seems weird. I know it's >> because I I know you want to include all these things you just struck on the page before, but you're talking about industrial land uses which include portions designated conservation land
use. >> Oh, that could be a period. >> Hey, uh and >> which incl Oh, I see what you're said, Beth. And you caught some. >> Okay. >> But it's probably not what you thought you caught.
It says if we put four properties, she's got a good eye. She She did some of the other tweaking for properties with commercial andor industrial land uses which include portions I forgot the word of
designated conservation use. That that >> that makes more sense. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. [laughter] Ah, nice thing about having uh many eyes and the Tyville Environmental Commission.
>> All right. >> She was always good in English. >> It's nitpicky. I know. >> Hey, it helps. >> Trying to close loopholes. >> Hey. Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, you tend to read this stuff
too fast, you know, because I I read this multiple times, but I knew what I wanted to say. So, I was thinking in my brain, you know, portions all of designated [clears throat] conservation land. No, it's not what it says. It says portions designated
which include All right. How do you guys feel about that? Well, actually, we're looking at the whole thing, >> the the paragraph and the um
additional things. One, two, and three. >> I think it looks good. >> Yeah, it makes sense to me. >> Is that okay? That that one You have a vote. >> Should we go make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion. >> Uh, >> I move to adopt I'm sorry. Before I do that, do we want to do we want to go on to that next strategy as well and include that in the motion? Yeah, it kind of uh fits.
Okay, this one this strategy >> 1.6.2 at >> um this strategy um was actually referred to in last night's um you know uh city council meeting. Okay.
So, what happens is um the future land use Okay. So the future land use element um says that um you know
that the conservation element will will um direct um the commercial industrial parcels um
you Oh, I said shouldn't say deep direct. Um, do you can you pull up um stratey 1.92? He'll read it.
1.9.2 >> 1.92.2 Yeah. 1.9.2 >> 1.9.2 reads, "Negative impacts of commercial land uses on environmentally sensitive areas shall be minimized and/or eliminated. The conservation element objectives and policies and
performance requirements shall be utilized in determining the appropriateness of commercial land use designations." >> And also 1.8.5 8.4 >> 1.8.4 reads, "Negative impacts of industrial land uses on environmentally sensitive areas shall be minimized
and/or mitigated. The conservation element objectives and policies shall be utilized in determining the appropriateness of industrial land use designations and the specific intensity of the of use authorized by the land development regulations. >> Okay. So unfortunately that was never
done. So this is um a recommended strategy that um is similar to some language the county uses.
Um actually I do believe it's the work of your former um community development director when you worked at the county the similar language.
Um, so what you have to do is starting now, starting as of the date of adoption of the date of adoption of this comp plan, which will be a while because we got that lovely bill, Senate Bill 180 still
sitting there as of the date of adoption. Subdivided commercial and industrial parcels. That means if you split your property that subdivided commercial and
industrial parcels that also include portions of conservation land use. So, if you got some conservation land use and on your property and you're going to subdivide it,
if you're going to, let's say you got a wetland, you got industrial property and you want to split it in half and you know you got a wetland on it. You've
got to make sure that each parcel has [snorts] sufficient uplands for the intended use and for any buffering necessary to inclure wetland functionality.
In other words, now we're doing what that said in those policies that the conservation element is supposed to to make sure that there's no problems with the environmental
um features and um sensitivities. Um, and so what we're doing is saying in the future, guys, make sure that you don't split your property into so many little pieces that
you know um you you can't use them without impacting the wetlands and you're going to be crying, oh, I need a conditional, you know, use, you know, starting Now,
you better plan to either keep your your um prop your property, your parcel the size that it is, or if you want to split it up, you better make sure you got enough
commercial or industrial land um to um have a viable project. um without impacting the wetlands. You got to have enough uplands.
>> But aren't you dictating the price of land by doing that? >> We did the the future land use element told Titusville to do this, right? [clears throat] >> Can you clarify the question, please?
Oh, my my statement was by by doing the the uplands scenario, aren't you actually pricing land by by doing this? In other words,
there's a bunch of land that does that, but there's a bunch of land that doesn't do that. >> Well, we're not saying anything about the land that exists now. you know, all the parcels that are are there now, that's f we're not dealing with them.
We're saying you can't start splitting these parcels into two small pieces now. Um, I don't get that. Because when you start telling me that
they're going to be multiple uplands and I cannot engineered my land to make it fit what you're trying to do, >> right? Right. >> So, so you're actually pricing land.
>> What I'm doing is saying you can't subdivide it. Is that the right word, David? I want to say >> as far as is dividing into different parcels. Yes. >> Yeah. So what what I'm saying is now
you got a piece of property fine if you want to split it. If you can have some reasonable industrial or commercial use without impacting
wetlands 5 acres acres or greater, >> it it's really in my mind just different verbiage from like when we talk about the uh I'm sorry the one was it 1.8% of wetlands that could be developed for a house or whatever. like you're we're
we're simply designing how much of this you can use to still protect the wetlands. It's it's the same idea in my mind. Um it's just a different application. We're just saying that you're going to buy this land, you can
subdivide it as long as that subdivision does not compromise the functionality of that wetland. We're talking about subdividing industrial into two industrial pieces, not a subdivision. Um, >> I understand. I'm going to put a
warehouse, but I'm going to put a very large warehouse. So, by doing this now, you're not forcing me, but you're going to put me in a position >> to to to go look for another piece of property that will that will meet that
requirement of of the uplands. Well, if you have if you own that piece of property right now, you can go for the conditional use, but you can't make two
it split it into two pieces and say, "Oh, I want a large warehouse here and I want a large warehouse here." And then due to that fact, you would have to impact a wetland that was greater than five acres.
What? Um I mean it's I gotta say that this language is not only in the um commercial and uh and the industrial um
part of the um you know uh future land use element of the county. But this language is also uh um the similar language is also used
in the residential portion uh the wetlands uh language. It it's I have honestly I have never heard a word against it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I just I see as an extension of
that, >> you know, that 1.8 policy as well. It's just we're saying that you can build on it, but you can only build so much. And that's >> Well, you can build if you have the property today, you're grandfathered. >> Yeah. Right.
>> You're grandfathered. But but don't don't make these undevelopable undevelopable industrial or commercial parcels and then start crying, oh, I got conservation land and it's a
wetland that's 7 acres and I've got to impact it for my parking lot. You know, we don't want to cry in that. We're trying to prevent the problem and and in and the future land use says that we're
supposed to use the conservation element policies to uh protect the environmental features. >> So that applies to industrial >> too, >> right? And this is a commercial
industrial specific. >> Yeah. So I I see it >> commercial industrial specific >> um and um we have the we have the residential portion covered. We have the 1.8%. We
don't need to fix that. just we're just, you know, you start seeing uh possible problems crop up and it's time to do something to prevent it.
I mean, our wetlands in Titusville are very important. And I'm not saying a 0.008 008 um acre wetland needs to be protected like that. But it's the ones that are
five acres or more in size that have been protected since uh 2000. >> So, uh Hector, I don't want to step on your toes, but I'm ready to make a motion on this. Um I I would move to accept as written the suggestions for
policy 1.6.2 to um up through an including strategy 1.6.2.2. [snorts] >> Before we do that, please who who's left out once this thing becomes
approved and it's the law of the land, if you want to call it, use it. >> Nobody right now is left out. Nobody who has there no lots that even are purchased that have been platted now
that have been pl if they're pl if they're platted now. Let's um you know they're fine. It's just don't carve them up in the future without um making sure
there's sufficient uplands. We we can't do anything. Let's say there's there's some small industrial parcels that are almost unbuildable. Well, I mean, Titusville's going to have to deal with it.
But let's not create more problems for the city than we already got. I don't know. I I just feel like we're setting the price of real estate for the future, you know? I'm sorry, but I in my mind what I'm going through is I'm going to
go look at uplands and I want to and I you know I'm going I'm going to ask my real estate company to look for those so that I can have a bigger portion of the land. >> Well, made usable for my project which
is a very large warehouse but that goes on anyway. >> You're doing that anyway now. I mean that's the way it's being done now. This I don't see where this really changes anything. >> It's not I don't think it's changing. >> No, this does change it because it doesn't allow you to break it down.
>> Well, if if you should it doesn't stop you from breaking down. It just stops you from breaking it down to the point that it impacts those wetlands. Just like with the uh the development we talk about all the time where they wanted to,
you know, they wanted to fill in that portion of wetlands. It wasn't just that wetland. it was going to impact all that huge portion next to it. So with this, it's saying that you can still divide it up as long as there's sufficient wet sufficient upland remaining to protect
that wetland. It it's it's the same again, it's it's doing the same thing as the 1.8 for residential development, just addressing it from the commercial side. And like Mary said, it's already in policy um in two different places. We're just putting it into our comp
plan. And I think if anything, it's protecting the value of the property. Again, it's it's not I don't think it is. I think what we're trying to do is legislate. >> Yeah. But legislate the value of land
based based on this requirement. But if you go back and look, you know, like at the date that um strategy 1.6.3.2 um was adopted.
Um the smart um you know real estate um savvy um speculator has to know that there's a problem in
Titusville if he's got wetlands five acres or greater in size. I mean, he has no Bert Harris recourse. That policy is predates
uh actually I I'm sorry I said 2000. I I I misspoke. I mean um I mean um it was um 1990. it. It's they started out in uh 1989 and
and I lost a little track of it, but I know 1990 strategy 1.6.3.2 was in the Titusville comp plan. I apologize for saying 2000 instead of 1990.
>> That that's fine. Okay. So, this is what you're try this is the opening that you're trying to close, >> correct? for commercial industrial and you have a similar plug for
residential with a 1.8 >> a different plug. Yeah. >> A different plug but >> county uses the same >> or similar. >> Yeah. >> Is that that's what you're trying to do here? >> Prevent problems. Again,
I I feel very somewhat uneasy because of the inventory of commercial property that is left. If you go by 407, that's a perfect example of, you know, a it looks like a lot of wetlands are being converted
uh to and it's going to be big warehousing going in there. Well, if you have a wetlands that's less than five acres in size, um Titusville is lacking in uh sufficient regulation for that. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, they they can go ahead and do
probably get away with it. It is what it is. The wetland 5 acres and greater are protected. >> Yeah. And I think that's one of the things that's worth reiterating is this. This is not every property. This is not every wetland. This is only the wetlands
that are 5 acres or greater in size. So that's in commercial. Yes, >> I I made the motion. >> Motion made by Jason. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion made by J Member Miller and
seconded by member Tucker um to approve all of policy 1.6.2 with all of the um changes that were that were made including adding strategy 1.6.2.2.
Um and we'll need a roll call vote. >> Member Nico, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Berdett, >> yes. >> Member Miller, >> yes. Member Tucker.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Onward. Policy 1.6.4. We discussed um and you'll notice that there's number nine on the next page. We went through this very carefully. You approved it.
Sorry, mayor. Did you say 1.6.4? Are we si are we skipping? >> We we already approved that. It's okay. We we talked about that a lot. >> Thank you. >> And drainage to the Indian River Lagoon or St. John's River is on the next page.
>> Okay. Now, um >> 1.6.5. Um this is um you know I think I probably mentioned it briefly last time that you know it could be abused
and I think that part of it one number one um could be abused and And number three is is just too subjective
and that could be abused. But we moved number two into um one of the other pol the conditional use policy. So what I'm proposing is we put the buffer
specifications that are in the tech manual in instead of that. You know, I've heard different u council people say, "Oh, we don't have any requirement for buffer." Well,
you know, you don't want to trigger any Bert Harris stuff. Um, but there's an old language, old language that's in the tech man. We already got it.
>> And I'd like your opinion on whether we should move it. >> I mean, let's get rid of that policy and substitute this buffer language. And it's and I put the tech manual language
um below there and you'll see that it's >> So So you're just suggesting moving the language from the tech manual into the comp plan. >> Yeah. >> It stays in the tech manual, too. You're just adding that language to the comp plan. >> Correct.
>> It's in the tech manual. >> What's What I'm sorry, Mary. What's the value of putting it into the comp plan versus just having it in the tech manual? >> Is this like the 25 ft buffer that St. John's requires? >> No, because this we would only use it if
they don't require a 25- ft buffer. If they don't require one, then the city can require one. So, if St. John's has not required a buffer for a developer on a wetland. We can add our own buffer.
>> That's what I'm suggesting. But I know I know this is not, you know, um it it's it's a general policy and um
I think it's great because I I hate to see I mean wetlands become completely dysfunctional without their buffers. So, I think it's I think it's necessary. >> Do you have any opinion, David?
>> Uh, no opinion. I was just double-checking and I don't see it yet, but I'm fairly certain that there was a bill introduced last session that would have preempted the ability to regulate wetland buffers, but I'm also fairly certain it did not pass. So, I'm just
double checking that. >> Would that have been um to regulate it um when the St. John's does, you know, require it >> or Yeah, I don't >> don't remember the specifics of the
bill. >> Yeah. Well, probably we should find out. So, so Mary, what would trigger the need for a buffer when it was not considered a needed
piece of uh remediation >> was not considered >> what would trigger it? I mean, you know, >> okay, if St. John's hasn't. Okay. So um >> other than I think I need one or I should need one or something like
that because they you know when when you look at it and you start talking about soil runoff and uh trap sediment and all those things all those things take engineering okay they're not
I feel or I want that those should come with some kind kind of engineering that says given the slope of your laying on all of this and your sediment is going to move at and you're going to take this this
particle of sand from here and put it over there. >> Okay. So, >> you're absolutely right. You're getting it. Yeah. Because these are general things and I'm asking the question, do you want to do do you want to do this? Do you want to try it or not? I have
mixed feelings on it. Well, I you know >> and and I see exactly what Hector is saying. You know, it's not um you know, clearcut
criteria and uh and so we can either put it in there or not. I mean, >> well, before we kill it, I'm just bringing up >> Well, you're bringing up a fact. >> The engineering side of it. >> Exactly. that that says do do we do we
know enough to create a 20ft buffer versus a 40 foot buffer >> and what kind of buffer >> and what kind of buffer and and and and so >> that's all that I'm that I'm trying to get out and trying to get some
my fellow members and and also staff and also legal that says how do we define this other than I think I need one. I do love the idea of requiring it, but I I agree with you, Hector. It's it's there's so many elements to it that
would be considered. I I don't know that. >> Yeah. I mean, the other option is just leave it in the tech manual. It's not going anywhere. >> So, I I just thought I'd bring that up for at least for discussion. >> Did you want to move it here so it would be more visible because most people
don't go to the tech manual? Is that the purpose? >> Exactly. Okay. If it's in the tech manual, we're not adding anything egregious. We're just repeating it here. Uh did confirm the bill did not pass. Um
and that's correct. I mean, whether you move it or not, this is enforcing code. Uh so moving it doesn't functionally do anything besides visibility. Um as far as if you wanted to add sorts of standards, that's something you could explore. And I think other cities do
have uh encode more standardized but just kind of considerations for this portion. Now >> you mean more like specifics for the actual buffers. >> Engineering reasons. I'm moving a soil particle from point A to point B.
Okay. And how do I fix that? So, so again, I I just brought it out for more thinking and and discussion. Uh >> I I appreciate the the discussion and the consideration, but I think it's just
important to include that we allow those buffers to exist or create be created and then the specifics can be figured out later depending on that parcel or that wetland. because I'm sure it's going to be unique
for each situation. Uh >> they are and will be >> they will be. So again, mentioning starts the dialogue with staff
and as to how big, how long, how wide, you know, how much water you want to run through it or whatever the media may be, >> then that's okay. >> Do you want to include that in the language? And right here where it says uh the width of the the width of the
buffer shall be sufficient to prevent erosion. Um >> now in this case my engineering opinion of that is that you don't have enough data to even say those things.
>> Okay. and and and and so but again it begs the question of okay city tell me how big do you want the buffer >> unless this is your your call I I I have mixed feelings on this one
>> yeah I I I would make a motion to uh not include this paragraph in the comp plan and just leave in the technical manual Is there a second? >> I can second that. >> All right. There's a a motion by member
Miller and a second by member Delgado to um not include the proposed language for policy 1.6.5 in the comp plan because it's already in
the technical manual. Um, any more discussion? >> Okay, Lori, we need a roll call. >> Member Berdett, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Miller, >> yes.
>> Member Tucker, >> no. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> no. >> Member Nico, >> no. Now what? >> What do we do when there's a tie? That's
never happened. >> I've actually never had a tie. >> If there's a tie, the motion does not pass. All right, let's move on because we're almost done. >> Just a sorry, a point of clarification. So, that was a motion to um
not make the change. Correct. >> Yeah. >> But that motion failed. >> Yeah. >> So, I I think the matter >> trying to think how to work through this. >> Well, so this we need to decide if we want to accept this change. So it to
exclude it failed then either we need a motion well then a motion would have to be made to accept it right >> or another to not I mean you have to take some action on it still is what I'm saying >> and that action would be to basically
eliminate policy 1.6.5 because we already moved um action two over to a different area. So, we're only left with just that little sentence about activities and then number one and
number three. So, we would we would vote then on whether to leave that in or eliminate it entirely. >> Yeah, I think you discussed those this before getting rid of that policy. You know what? But we what we didn't have
what we really didn't discuss in detail was this um you know substitution. I mean so we we've already voted at some point in time in the in the past to eliminate
policy 1.6.5. >> I I'm not sure. Lily, do you do they need a motion to >> No. In your um past meeting, you opted to exclude including this any talk of
this change when you formally passed all of the ch other changes. >> I think we said we needed to think about it more before we decided on it. >> So, I think we need a motion then on whether we're going to keep the old
language of 1.6.5. I would strongly advise against it. >> So, somebody make a motion. >> I move to eliminate policy 1.6.5. >> Second. >> All right. The motion was made by member
Miller and seconded by member Tucker to eliminate the language in policy 1.6.5. Roll call. Vice Chairwoman Thompson. Yes. >> Member Delgado. >> Yes. >> Member Nico.
>> No. >> Member Berdett. >> Yes. >> Member Tucker. >> Yes. >> Member Miller. >> Yes. >> All right. That motion passed. Um, so I think we're done now with objective
1.6. >> Is that right? Is that right, David? Do we have to do anything with what's on the back? >> Oh, there there's stuff on the back. >> So, we're not going to they the um part about the buffer um >> just remains in the tech manual.
>> It just remains in the tech manual. Okay, >> that was my question. Uh so that does get that tech manual language is still included even though the policy is >> I think it's actually in two tech manuals. It could be >> just in the tech. It's not in the comp plan at all
>> at all. Okay. because that was that was going to be part of that, >> right? >> Yeah, I understand. Okay. So, I got a new policy on the next page and we're gonna see if we can wrap
this up soon because I'm going to condense what we're going to do about other policies down to two questions for you. Okay. So this has been a thought strategy one. Okay. First of all, the
policy says mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands which possess significant functional value as determined by a functional assessment will be addressed in the land development regulations.
Fine. Now I got a couple new strategies. I think um last time I had I had suggested we get rid of that and just put about the wetlands mitigation bank, but I think we need it to support this
both these strategies. So, I'm proposing that we we keep the language which is now in policy 1.6.6 and take a look at these two strategies. one which
I'm using the word may that means you can do it and you know kind of get it on their radar screen mitigation within the city limits may be addressed and encouraged in the land development regulations coordinated with the regulatory agencies
shall be required thus so that somebody else outside the city wants to supply mitigation with tetitus with a Titusville property that would be including, for example, you know, buying a Titusville,
you know, wetland property and um preserving it, you know, so we're getting more focus on somebody coming in and and they're starting to look for mitigation. Instead of looking outside of the county, start looking at Titusville.
we can have those kind of, you know, uh, land development regulation. >> And if I may, I can elaborate on that a little bit because what's happening over at the space center is the we're running out of um, freshwater
wetland credits in basin 21. So there, and they're also horrendously expensive. Um I think we're down to only like one or two credits that are left in the be anyway. So these pro these um businesses that are impacting freshwater wetlands
over on the space center are writing checks for m in mitigation banks that are like on the other side of the state or up in the up in the central part of the central part of the state. Nowhere near Bvar County. So the the mitigation
is actually taking place a long way from us. So we're we're proposing that, you know, potentially if a company out at the space center needed some wetland mitigation, they could maybe buy one of
these wetland pieces that's in that area that we're trying to conserve. Um, you know, like the 405 wetlands. Our strategy is to get those wetlands into public ownership so that we can start digging some ditches and canals and some retention areas so that we can
do something to address the flooding, the terrible flooding that's taken place for years here in the city. So, we're trying to create a a way that a business, you know, that's looking for
wetland mitigation could potentially buy uh one of those properties, like maybe the Lieberman property and then donate it to the city to take care of their wetland needs out on the space center. So, we've been in conversation with the
St. John's River Water Management District. They're in favor of it. um it seems to be viewed favorably by um Space Florida, you know. So, what we're trying to do is set the stage so that we can
start sticking up for Titusville and try to, you know, get something for us for a change and instead of being run over all the time. >> We we literally just talked about this at the our EEO SMC meeting this morning as well. >> Oh, really? What they say? >> Just basically the same thing. you know,
we're looking at a couple properties that are beyond the budget of the EOS program. And so trying to find develop like literally suggesting those properties if you have a developer that you know is going to need mitigation, say, "Look, there's this property that
is on our list of uh uh environmentally endangered lands that we want to preserve. You can buy this and then donate to us as your mitigation." and and we talked about several properties that that's you know we've got a few people on the board that um deal with
land acquisitions and that kind of thing and they're going to start suggesting that to some of the developers. So the second strategy um we discussed last time and you guys thought it was a good idea that um it's just a may establishment of a
wetland mitigation bank within the city may be addressed in the land development regulation. So you'd have that option. Uh mitigation by the city should be coordinated with state regulatory agencies to achieve optimal
participation by applicants required to provide mitigation. So what I'm suggesting is that the way this policy 1.6.6 six and the strategies read,
you know, just as is right now that, you know, you take a vote on this because we haven't totally covered it before and I think I changed um you know, I'm restoring policy 1.6.6. So, you need a
vote on whether you approve of this writing of policy 1.6.6. six with its two strategies. >> So, actually it will become policy 1.6.5 because we threw 1.6.5 off the island.
>> Good point. I'll make the motion to accept what is now going to be policy 1.6.5 uh presented to us is 1.6.6. >> I'll second that motion. >> Does that include also the new 1.6.6?
>> Yes. Everything within that policy, >> including it's a separate policy, >> including the strategies. Well, but there's another policy at the bottom under the strategies. >> No, you already accepted that one in the last meeting. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. We have >> to reumber it.
>> Yeah. >> All right. So, there's a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second the motion. >> All right. Motion by member Miller and seconded by member Nico to accept the um language for what would become policy 1.6.5 and the two strategies. Um
need a roll call. Member Berdett. >> Yes. >> Me. Member Delgado. >> No, because I would like a little more discussion. >> All right. Well, let's back up and have discussion then. I I'm sorry. I should have asked if there was discussion
before we called a vote. >> Okay. >> All right. So, >> have your discussion. >> Okay. uh [snorts] 1.6.6.1 uh works only in this around the city limits which is all that we can do. Uh
and then uh we established this wetland mitigation bank. >> That is a may that is a may that was um >> I was told that one commissioner was ve one council member was very interested in having a mitigation bank here. Now,
what that would involve is you pick a large wetland that is not in too good of a shape and um you know, you sell mitigation uh credits um for improvement
of that wetland. Let's say it had a bunch of Brazilian peppers in it or something like that. This is a May. It's not a uh thing that they have to do. these are a couple options they might want to look at. Th
>> this is done a lot at the county and state level. Eels uses this technique. Um and this is just essentially bringing an existing and proven technique into the down to the city level, I guess I would say. >> Do you know what a mitigation, you know, are you familiar with these mitigation
banks? >> In reality, no. >> The city could actually make money off of it. >> Yeah. money-making thing. Yeah. Um, you know, Farmington had a a huge one up um, you know, just north of the county. They
had a huge mitigation bank and and um, it was for a large wetland uh, you know, area that um, needed some restoration. Well, I mean, it it didn't last that many years that
they they they got they made a lot of money off of it. And what I think that the council member was thinking was that this would um you know, allow the preservation of a
wetland that was potentially a really good wetland. And I've seen like in down in the south part of the county there's this one mitigation bank called Mary A Ranch and um you know in Mary a
um you know that lasted for years people buy mitigation credits and Mary a would keep getting improved and improved but finally um there you know I think it's either closed or on its way out because
you know this there there's a real need for um mitigation options for um developers who want to impact wetlands. >> So, in a simplistic way, I can buy swamp land and set and sell it back.
>> Uh yeah, why don't you approve it? It's a big piece for sale up in just south of Oakill. >> It's had a big sign on it for years. It says could be a mitigation bank. So you it has to be approved by all the
regulatory agencies and everything and then and then there's a lot of rules that apply. I mean it's it's pretty labor intensive and to be honest with you um I I think that our our staff is they're not as interested in establishing a wetland mitigation bank
here because of all the regulations that go with it. They would rather just have land donated to us. It's much easier than once once the land gets donated then we we own it and we can do whatever we want to with it. >> So, but you know just in case I I don't
see a problem with including this. I mean just in case that the opportunity comes up. I mean maybe they may look at establishing a wetland bank and we might make so much money off of it we can hire staff to do the work that needs to be
done. I mean because that's what it would take. it was is, you know, but if you can make enough money off of it, who cares if you have to hire a couple of staff people to do the the actual work if you're going to make money. But I I think that it's okay to have this in
here just in case that opportunity arises. >> And this and and the word may it doesn't obligate us to do anything. It just gives us the option if the the opportunity presents itself. I know I talked to Darcy, my friend at county,
and uh she said that, you know, from time to time they'll have this conversation with the regional planning council, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and um you know, they're still thinking about it, but they haven't gotten that far. Um you
know, so um it's just an option. I guess it puts us in a market >> that again we're pricing real estate uh because swamp land just went up
uh in my opinion but uh I we shouldn't be out of out of out of the game so I'm okay with it. >> Okay. So, the motion was made by member Miller and seconded by member Tucker. Did you second it? No. Member Nico.
Roll call. >> Member Bernett. >> Yes. >> Member Delgado? >> Yes. >> Member Nico? >> Yes. >> Member Tucker? >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson? >> Yes. >> Member Miller?
>> Yes. All right, we have nine minutes till 8 o'clock and I would like to suggest that we look at two things in the other document. We are not going to go through all this, you know, carefully written
rationale. Okay, if you look at this thing, we got two things you need to vote on. You have gone through these policies. You have approved them all. Um, you've looked at some of these
rationale. Not all of them, but most of them. >> I'm sorry, Mary. We had a sidebar going on. I I missed which page we're on right now. >> Oh. Oh, this this thing. And we're going to take five minutes hopefully and be done.
>> Can you What's the title of it? Flu objective 1.16 language with ration. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Oh god, >> we've been through all this on page one.
Look at page two. I um it occurred to me that our um recommendation this is for preventing situations like the hotel which had we're not going to say hotel anymore but um
well it was for the hotel um where they had three acres of wetlands that were part of a really large wetland and they said, "Oh, this wetland is only three acres." But they forgot to um consider the fact that that wetland was in
actuality much larger because it, you know, continued off property. Now, Lily's got it printed out in color, and I would like you to consider deleting the words right down here. Beyond a wetland
delineation adjustment. Oh, I got two um I'm sorry, I got two quote end quote marks. Beyond a wetland delineation. Get rid of that first. End quote. Beyond. You You want to get
rid of the words beyond a wetland delineation adjustment because I think it's just too too complex. And if you'll read it over it, it you can it means basically the same thing.
And um I'm suggesting we make this tweak to your recommendation. >> So So all we're looking at right now is just deleting that that brief phrase from what we've already approved, >> right?
>> Yes, that's right. Deleting four words or five words. I move to accept the change to strategy 1.16.2.1 to delete the words beyond a wetland delineation adjustment. >> Second.
>> Motion was made by member Miller and seconded by member Tucker to delete beyond a wetland delineation adjustment from strategy 1.16.2. 2.1.
>> Need a roll call, Lori, please, when when you're ready. >> Member Miller. >> Oh, yes. Is there discussion? Seeing none, do you do you have this piece of paper? >> I do. >> You do? Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Member Miller. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson? >> Yes. Member Delgado. >> Yes. >> Member Berdett. >> Yes. >> Member Nico. >> Yes. >> Member Tucker. >> Yes. >> That's good. Now we got one more thing.
>> That'll be it for tonight. Policy 1.16.3. the last sentence. There's nothing wrong with what you decided, but now we're seeing that it's just
not smart to include this sentence because we want We we want to um be flexible with the um
conditional uses in industrial and commercial uh properties. Um I mean land industrial and commercial projects.
Um and there is nothing wrong with the rationale that we have. Nothing's wrong. It's just not a smart move to have that still in there.
We need to focus on the tightening of the conditional uses. I I have heartburn over this because it it's killing what we've we've been talking about doing with the wetlands,
which is storm water management systems, you know, to to a reasonable I mean, we're we're trying to stop dumping water into the Indian River Lagoon. I want I want that ended that practice.
So that means we have to redivert the water west towards the St. John's River flood plane, which means that we going to have to dig some new ditches and canals through the conservation wetlands to
eliminate using the Indian River as a storm water dumping ground. Right. >> So, you know, we have this flooding problem in town. I
mean, it's it would be great to put all of the all of the wetlands into conservation land use, but they they've been using them for a hundred years as a storm water um receptacle, and they're going
to keep using them as a storm water receptacle. We got we got to figure out how to get that storm water. Num number one, it would be nice to get it back into the ground where we could use it for drinking water, you know. So,
so there's there, you know, we need some strategies on how to do that, but I I'm not I'm not sure that I want to remove the words and storm water management systems consistent with the conservation element
in the land development regulations. I wait a minute, where are you? Huh? I'm not sure where you're at. >> I'm I'm on maybe I'm in I'm in the wrong thing. I'm
on policy 1.16.3. >> Okay. >> Am I on the wrong one? If I am, forgive me. I'm sorry. >> I'm not seeing the management plan on the Senate omitted. Mary, which >> what which one are we talking about? >> Policy 1.16.3
>> will consider deleting the last sentence. >> It's um Okay, >> okay. So, um I've had this discussion with um staff
um and you know we the way we have this um [snorts] allowable uses within the conservation land use shall be limited to residential uses of one unit per five acres
recreation I is conservation and passive recreation. Um, >> I think we added th that phrase storm water management systems consistent with the conservation. >> No, that was old.
>> That's old. Okay. >> Uh, that was old. The reason um that that was deleted was um not not that um you couldn't have what you say, you
know, to um to have some of these. We we didn't want um too much water dumped into the uh wetlands
like um the Sylvester wetland and um I get I get that. I mean >> that it's not saying that um
I mean the city's been using the wetlands for a hundred years as a storm water receptacle. Maybe that's why that language was in here to begin with. >> But what are we going to do with all the water
>> this the flooding? How with if we can't if we can't if we can't dig some new ditches through the wetlands to move the water west, what are we going to do with it? Oh, I agree that you should be able to
do that. But but by by deleting this language from policy 1.16.3, we're eliminating the opportunity to do that. It says storm water management systems.
Those are ditches. Well, maybe we should um get rid of what, you know, restore what we deleted. Yeah, I I I agree with you, Lordly. I don't I don't see I don't see a reason
to remove that. Like, I get the rationale that Mary has below so that a development isn't using a wetland as as a storm water pond. But, I mean, >> with with the new with the new >> with the new rules for new development, they can't do that anyway. They're
supposed to hold it on site and they're supposed to they're encouraged to use low impact development. They're doing all kinds of it's the older developments that have no storm water systems that are continuing to use the wetlands as
storm water and we're trying to correct that. But I I don't I really don't want to see that >> language removed from this and and the new development they can you know they're only required to hold the first one inch of rainfall and then
after that they can discharge it into the closest water body. So even new development is using our wetlands as storm water receptacles. So I if you take that language if we take
that language out of there we're >> should it be >> we're definitely getting rid of you know where the majority of the city storm water is going. >> Should it say something like public storm water management systems?
>> We may need to think about this one. It's It's too late, I think, to make decision on this. >> We need to postpone this one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We did a lot. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. >> We did do a lot tonight. >> We tried Jason to finish it like you.
>> That's all right. We'll just have a nice meeting next month. We'll have Vinnie's presentation and then we'll continue. We can't do anything with this until Senate Bill 180 goes away anyway. So, >> okay. And we'll discuss what to do with the commercial industrial We've reached a point where we don't have to have two
meetings a month. So, you know, let's just do it right. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Well, so that means get my agenda back out. >> So, well, you know, we'll just um
work on it next month. We'll think >> we'll work Yeah, we will work on it next month. Happily, thank you so much. New business. I don't think we have any. Do we have any new business? Okay. Petitions and requests from the
public president. I don't see any public. Kevin, you want to make a petition and request >> reports? Lily, you got a report? >> Sure. Just a quick update on the urban forestry management plan. As of last
night, um we are moving forward with a lot of the prerequisites actually in the urban forestry plan, specifically the resolution and also uh tree planting event on July 23rd at 9:00 a.m. if you guys are available to come out. That's
going to be also with a proclamation sort of announcing the urban forestry plan as well. And we've been posting about that on our social media. And then just to reclarify as well like the difference between the coordinator which is the role that I've taken and then the
urban forester I'm mostly just working on trying to get us through the prerequisites part the actual start of that work is reserved primarily for the urban forester but I'm also working on the scope of work for said forester. So that's kind of where we're at just to
give you an update. Um, other than that, for your next meeting, I just have the wetlands and Vinnie's presentation, unless at some point you do want to talk about outreach. I know that was tabled at the last um communication or last meeting and I
think there's probably about four or five other things that we have put on past future agenda items to talk about. I can bring all those back again on the next meeting or we could just keep talking about wetlands. Up to you all. Um, but maybe yeah, save that for the future agenda's item on 11. That's the end of my report.
>> Thank you, >> Lily. Um, the you you talked about the urban forester and we're getting ready to hire someone eventually. >> Who's writing that? Uh,
>> so I'm I'm drafting Yeah, I'm drafting the initial scope because >> I mean for the most part I'm probably the most indoctrinated with the urban forest urban forestry management plan as being part of helping create it and I also know what I can and can't do as
part of that plan. So a lot of it is in like the immediate short term trying to get a contractor. I've asked um Liz, the one who helped us write the plan, to send me examples of RFPs for other urban foresters, so I can use that as a
baseline to make sure we get someone up to >> not only an RFP, but I think we need a statement of duties. >> Yeah, that's included in the scope of work. >> Yeah. Like everything that they're going to do, how often are they, you know, working? Is it, you know, in this
immediate short term because we're not at the point where we're able to hire five FTEEs to take on everything. We're just we're taking it in phases of what we can finance at this point. >> I I envision >> Yeah. >> going out to a private provider at first
and buying them by the pound, >> right? >> Uh and so that's in my vision, that's what that's what I'm thinking of. but hiring this person, then we need to make sure that we
integrate him into Kevin's uh area somehow because who's going to supervise them? We know, you know, we got to think of all those things just not hire someone because they have a license to be an arbor. I mean, we have to integrate that
with the city manager and how that fits into the whole employee scheme of the universe, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. As long as we're thinking [clears throat] along the same ways. >> No, they won't be working in a silo. >> Okay. Yeah. And so, and secondly, if you
don't mind, the the line uh the budget line has that is that are we going to be able to see that in the 27 budget? So that well the resolution is underway to be able to move the landscape trust fund
um to be able to fund the urban forester. That was what happened last night. >> So they approved it. It's got to go through a series of I think PNC maybe. I don't know. It has to go through or two readings I believe because it needs an ordinance for the to adopt it. But they
moved forward with the resolution. So we're good and then hopefully we'll be able to get to that stage. that's still not going to be for until that gets passed. Theoretically, I can't reserve any funds until it's passed. >> If you look at the um agenda packet for
the city's council meeting last night, that's got the proposed language for it. And uh I mean, it's like a dream come true for us. >> It really is. and for for a lot of people that that provided a lot of their time, all the citizens that that work
for many many years. >> Uh and we know a lot of them >> uh and and so it's it's a great victory I think for the people of Titusville. That's why I'm want to make sure that we do this right and and that we separate
the line the line funding from the actual duties and who is this person? uh responsible for because one will pay for the other but there will be some money left to it so that that person can
start day one uh start thinking oh what do I do now you know without having to go and ask for a penny here and a penny there >> and I think you know what what Hector's reiterating is that we want to make sure
that there is a line item in the city's these 2027 budget. >> 27 budget, right? >> You know, we we got the funding now. We we have we have the urban forest trust, >> right? >> They're taking away the landscape trust
and changing the name to the urban forest. We have the money. We just got to make sure that we have permission to spend it in 2027, I think, is what you're saying. >> Right. Well, we got to be able we whoever gets [clears throat]
selected to be that person has to be able to say, "I'm going to need a $1.95 to uh to go buy supplies or go do this or go do that." uh on that line. That's where the line >> Yes. I think you should read the
resolution and everything that was changed in it because it does unlock those funds. Now that for for exactly what you're talking about there, >> right, they got to unlock the funds first. I >> Yeah, I'm very much aware of that. And then because the the devil is in the
details of what the line funding can do, >> right? >> Okay. Thank you. We did make a motion though to have a a line item in the 27 budget. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. The line item is not the issue. The issue is how is it implemented
and and how is and how do you move the funds? >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Yeah. >> I'm forgetting something. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> So, yeah. Well, what do you guys want to do at the next meeting? just keep keep on plugging away on wetlands and and then have fun with Finny. Is that
enough? I think so. Let's just let's get this done. Yeah. All right. Member reports. Member Berdette, you have a report? >> Uh I don't think I have anything tonight. Uh, I just would like to mention that um
the Main Street Titusville uh last night um received some funding uh through the city and those funds will allow this program to begin and revitalizing the downtown area. um with that program I I act as a volunteer and I'm been
attending the meetings and it's uh they have this organiz new organization has formed and it's uh recently applied for a new grant um and it's in that process now but the grant is something that we've talked about uh here with the TEC
uh addressing the impacts of the rocket launches um we've we've addressed it from an environmental perspective but this new grant with uh Main Street Titusville Well, it will touch on the impacts of historic preservation and the rocket launches and how they impact uh our community uh given that it's were
the closest to the launchpads. And so I see this as a um a real good step in the right direction for Titusville and an opportunity for the TEC to um collect this information and use it to our to our advantage as well in determining good decisions for the city. So, it's
something I think we've all been wanting and and and it's possible that, you know, we may get this grant through the Main Street program and it could answer a lot of questions that we've had for a long time about the impacts of these rockets. >> Yeah. So, uh just kind of an EELS report. We did have SMC meeting this
morning. It's been kind of a long day for me, but uh and I missed last month's eel eels meeting. So, a lot going on with program right now. Lots of uh land purchases in the works, lots of appraisals going on. We will actually be closing on our first property in over
four years uh here in the next couple weeks, which is pretty cool. It's a it's a tiny property, part of an out parcel, but still just to see it happening, especially for me. This is the first property since I've been on the committee. So, really cool. I won't go over all the properties because it's too much to cover, but I did want to say
that the July 21st county commission meeting, there is an agenda item to move forward with $17 million in uh commercial paper loans for land acquisition. This is basically a uh streamlining the process of being able
to purchase lands while the and I I language is probably going to get screwed up here. while the bonded money is being collected. So essentially, we're at a point now where we are negotiating with uh land owners, but we don't have all that money to actually
execute. So the commission is going forward with $17 million up to $17 million in commercial paper loans to fund these purchases that will then be repaid with the bond money from
the referendum. So, I hope I said that right, but it is very good news. We had one of the county commissioners at Arterine this morning. I can't remember his name. I apologize for that. But he was very excited about it and and is pushing hard to get this. So, um, Eels is definitely going forward with a lot of land fores right now, which is really
exciting. >> I don't remember. >> Yes. Couple things. Uh you were talking about noise uh measurements and all that. Starting tomorrow will be the earliest, but it looks like there's going to be uh out of Bokhica there's
going to be a Starship 14 uh launch and so there'll be some opportunities if we can get some data from them. Uh, as far as noise for us left out of the
year, uh, it's going to be mostly Falcon 9 and maybe a ULA here and there, but that's about it. Uh, they're not ready yet and they will not be ready until early next year. So, you're not and the
same for Blue Origin. So, they at least that's what I'm looking at. and and and also going back to the Cape uh they did announce uh a future uh proposal because
they're going to upgrade the the sewage plant at on the NASA side. There two there two plants, one on the Air Force side, one on the NASA side. on the NASA side, they they announced that they're upgrading that because they're almost like they've been at capacity for a long time, but
now the population is larger again. The population is growing and so there'll be a lot a lot more uh stuff going on. So, and again, thank you all for great job with the urban forest stuff. That's that
that was amazing. Truly amazing. Thank you. So, I got to go sailing in the Mosquito Lagoon with the Girls and Boys Club kids this morning, the young ones, and we had a really good time. And the water was really, really clear, and the seaggrass
is amazing, and it was just wonderful. And um Lily, when is that a harvest festival? You guys can get it on your calendars. The um Enchanted Forest Harvest Festival. Lily's going to have a booth again.
>> That was tons of fun last year. Yeah, we have a lot of >> Yeah, >> October 24th and I requested paperwork to reserve a spot. So, >> October 24th, >> I will send out an invite. >> Yeah,
>> again. >> Just be jumping all over. >> At least [laughter] we're closer this year. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's right. It's actually Yeah. >> Future. I got one or forgot. >> Forgot. >> Sorry. Uh Manso Park for the last two
years have been uh been the site of a grass uh >> restoration >> restoration and experiment uh project that ended. It got not it did not get funded for the third year. So, two years
have been funded, but it has not been it was not funded and D was there and removed all of the grass uh retaining areas. >> The cages >> the cages are gone. >> Okay. >> And uh and so they the data is being
compiled and D will release the data eventually in time sometime in the future, but that project is over. So, and and they were they were very pleased with what they saw. They I talked to them personally. I I I went over and talked to the person that was
in charge of removing all the cages and all of that and they were very pleased with with the amount of grass >> project, right? >> Yes. >> Zoo. Okay. >> That was in cooperation with the Brevar Zoo. >> Yeah. >> So, that project ended and they didn't they didn't have any funding for anything else to put there. So, I just
thought I want to bring that up. >> Okay. Thank you. for future agenda items. I know we said wetlands and uh Vinnie's presentation, but if I do get that Rollins College study, do you want me to put it on your agenda for next time or leave it?
>> I'd like it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that'd be great. >> Thank you very much.