And I was printing my own. >> And I was printing my own. >> My own all along. Yeah. see if we can follow the agenda at this time. >> I guess we'll u call this meeting to order. Um Lori, can I have a roll call,
please? >> Chairman Mjek >> here. >> Vice Chairman Thompson >> here. >> Member Berdett. Member Tucker >> here. >> Member Miller. Member Delgado >> here. >> Member Nico >> here. >> Alternate member Young
>> here. >> Alternate member Rosa >> here. >> Now we can have a pledge of allegiance. Please join me. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> First up is the approval of the minutes. >> Anybody care to make a motion or so on the minutes?
Um I I move that we approve the minutes from the November November the meeting in November. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion?
Hearing none then. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none passes unanimously. petitions and requests from the public, which we apparently have none. That's surprising.
>> I did want to um jump in too. We have our assistant city attorney here as well to swear in our new members because I know we're a little behind >> on two of the three new members as well. >> Shall we have that first? >> I was going to off ask about that.
>> Yeah, let's let's move that up. >> Okay. >> So, we can have them as part of the election of officers later on. All right. Um, I handed out oath statements to the three new members. Um, we'll go ahead and start with Jason Miller. If you could raise your right hand and read the oath into the record.
>> I, Jason Miller, do solemnly swear to support, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the United States and the state of Florida against all enemies, domestic and foreign, that I will bear true faith, loyalty, and allegiance to the same. that I am entitled to hold office under the constitution and that I will
faithfully perform all the duties of the office of Titusville environmental commissioner for the city of Titusville on which I am about to enter. So help me God sworn into office this 14th day of January 2026. >> Thank you and Mr. John Nico if you could do the same.
I, John Nico, do solemnly swear to support, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the United States and the state of Florida against all enemies, domestic and foreign. That I will bear true true faith, loyalty, and allegiance to the same. That I am entitled to hold office under the Constitution, and that I will
faithfully perform all the duties of the Office of Titusville Environmental Commissioner for the Tit City of Titusville and which I am about to enter. So help me God. Sworn into office this 14th day of January, 2026. Thank you. And Mr. Kevin Rosa, if you could do the same, please.
>> I, Kevin Rosa, do solemnly swear to support, protect, and defend the Constitution and the government of the United States and the state of Florida against all enemies, domestic and foreign, and that I will bear true faith, loyalty, and allegiance to the same, that I am entitled to hold office under the Constitution, and that I will
faithfully perform all the duties of the office of Titusville Environmental Commissioner for the city of Titusville, on which I am about to enter. to help me. God sworn into the office on this 14th day of January, 2026. >> Thank you all and welcome. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And welcome all of y'all. This is going to be wonderful. We got a full house and and we're a very active group and don't be afraid to jump in and and say something. Okay. Um
hope people do. I'm thinking to myself, >> you look at me. >> Okay, I'm not going to live that down. All right, I'm going to look this way next. >> It's okay. >> Just scan the room. Hey. >> Oh my. Okay, so wetland conservation,
that's next up under old business. And um >> Oh, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Could I make a suggestion if it's okay? >> Sure. um this wet these wetlands discussions are really um they're really
difficult and and you know they they they tear up my brain and I was wondering if you know so that we don't have to like break up in the or try to set an end to our discussion I was wondering if it would make sense if we
move item 7B and item 8A to go in front of 7A so that we can we can by the time we get around to the elections and this the
semiannual report, we're going to be brain dead and and and that way we can just we can get these very important items taken care of while we're still semiconscious and then then we can jump into the wetlands discussion.
>> I have no objection. Everybody else that that sound good too. Okay. So, we'll do elections first, then the report, and then we will do the wetlands discussion till we're dead. >> Actually, this the report comes before elections. But I don't think it matters. So, yeah.
>> Either way, you want to work on the report now, we can do that. You call it. >> We have to make a motion. So, >> well, we got to discuss it first. >> We have to have a second. >> Oh, on are we what? >> If you're going to change the agenda. Yeah, we have to have a motion in a
second and and then we can discuss it. >> Motion second. >> Well, you got to hear the motion. >> Are you making that motion? >> Motion I'm making is then we do the uh these two items first before we do what?
>> Which item first? >> How about the election first? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, let's see who we got up. I just have member Young.
No other discussion. Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. I guess we have the elections and then we will do the semiannual report and then we will do wetland
conservation. >> I I'd like to make a nomination. >> Okay. Floor is open for nominations. >> I I'd like to nominate Mike my Jack for chair. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. Any other nominations, please? >> Uh I don't have a nomination, but I'd be happy to serve as vice chair if it's it seems like it's really just running the meetings in your absence, which I do a lot of in other settings as well. So,
I'd be happy to do that. >> But we're talking about the chairs, >> vice chairs, >> nominations for one, >> one at a time. Yeah. >> Okay. Hearing none. I guess I'm the chair again. So, now we need a vice chair.
I would be happy to nominate Laura Lee. >> But Jason, if you really want it, if you really want it, >> I don't I don't feel I truly don't feel strongly. I just >> in other groups like this I'm a part of. I know this is always a battle. And so I always like to say like if it's just running the meeting, I can do that. But
no, if if you're if you're want to continue on, please. >> It's more than running the meeting. >> Oh, yeah. >> It's more than that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Today there's already no audience, but usually there's 20 to 20 people out there fighting with you. >> 20. >> I'd be happy to
say this is this is the most I've seen at the two meets I've been to. But yeah, no, >> if I might make a suggestion, we we haven't had a an official secretary or third person identified. So when when I take off in the summer, the vice chair is going to be the chair.
But what if the vice chair is not here? We've >> this says that most >> it would go to the most senior person is what we what we elected to do. Um but we could bring the secretary back is all I was suggesting in the discussion >> or you can just be the the senior person
a >> after the vice chair. >> It can be the senior. >> Okay. I'm not going to touch that one. Go ahead. Any is there a we got a second to that nomination? >> Second. >> Okay. So, any other nominations for vice
chair? We can make it an interesting. >> Okay. I don't hear any. I guess I guess you're elected. All right. That's two down. Is that it? That's all we have to do, right? I think so. Just the two elections, right? Okay. You got us again, Lily.
It's a semiannual. Oh. Oh, you're asking. No, I'm good. Yep. Tracking. >> Okay. We're going to make some magic happen this year, right? >> All right. Let's go to the semiannual report. >> And I believe we have a copy here.
Does anybody have anything they would like to add? >> I do. Okay. Please go ahead, Laura. >> Okay. Um, number one, um, there's a bullet that says recommended explicitly adding condominiums to multifamily ordinance requires requirements, and
that's in there twice. So, I don't think it needs to be there twice. Then the other thing I I noticed I mean in addition to adding condominiums to the multifamily um ordinance requirements and that was for the tree
canopy. We also um we also we we actually created three ordinances that we took to the city council. um one that fixed the made an adjustment to the critical root zone. Another one that required that a minimum of 50% of the
trees and shrubs um being put into developments be native to Brevar County. And then there was the multifamily tree canopy requirements that went beyond just adding condominiums. >> I think I had that in my last one like
the previous semianual. the three different but I can add that back too. I was just trying to come up with >> I couldn't remember what month that we did them. Um so you we did >> the last semiannual would have been at the end of >> July. July.
>> Yeah, we probably did. >> Oh, we did. Okay. >> I remember that one. >> Yeah, because this says June 2025 and I think that's when we did them and that's so that's why I threw this in here. >> They haven't been broken on yet, have they? No, they're sitting on them
because of um SB 180. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> All right. So, scratch. So, you want to scratch the last line, the second recommended explicitly explicitly adding condominiums to multif family because
it's up there four lines earlier or three lines earlier. >> Yeah, that was my bad. I can do that. >> That's okay. >> Other than that, this is brilliant, Lily. No, it's >> it's it's the best um semiannual report I've ever seen
for this for this committee. Don't you agree? >> I think so. It's one of the most comprehensive I've seen in my time here. >> So, thank you. We are really really proud to have you with us. >> Yeah, we are. >> Yeah. >> I I do see one small omission and that's
just the membership changes. It doesn't list John. >> Oh, well, John Should we add John to that? >> It says it's for June 25 through December. So, >> yeah, I think when I wrote it, he hadn't been voted on yet, so I'll add him, too.
That's a good point. >> Okay. No additions. Shall we motion to approve this. >> Can I >> Does anyone want to present it to to council? >> Do I >> Does anyone >> Does anyone >> Doesn't have to be you,
>> Jason. >> Anybody? >> When When would that be? I'll ask because I need to spend some time with it first because it's it's still kind of new to me. I I'm happy to do it. >> I I'll let you know. Um, I'll propose it
for the next council meeting under you the other boards and commissions section. I think it's on the 20 Oh, wait. >> 27th. >> Did is that the one that got changed to the 29th? >> I don't know. I thought >> one of them towards the end had got a weird I'll have to check their calendar,
but the next meeting I can try and put it. If not, it'll be just the next one, but I can let whoever's doing it know when it gets >> I don't mean to put you on the spot. I just thought >> No, I I truly don't mind. Yeah, I'm happy to do it as long as I got a couple weeks to to look over it and prepare for it. So, yeah, I'm fine with that.
>> Excellent. Wonderful. >> Yeah, you would have a couple weeks. And the good the good part is that it's right at the beginning of the meeting, too, you know. >> Yeah. And then you can split >> three hours or try to figure out what time to come in. It's right at the beginning. >> Yeah. >> But then again, you might get interested
in that bleach plant or or the overwhelming >> I might. >> Yeah. I'm I'm happy to do it though. Totally. >> Wonderful. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yeah. So, it is on the 29th. >> On the 29th >> is the next immediate one. >> So, that's on the Thursday then. >> Okay. They'll be happy to see a new
face. They get tired of looking at me and Mike. >> Well, it's glad to have you. Wonderful. Well, that's two things down. No, we didn't vote on this, did we? I need a motion to approve the uh semiannual report and Jason presenting.
I so move. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Hector. We have a second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. Any opposed?
Okay, on to the fun part. Now we can burn our brains out on wetlands. Um, I think it might be advantageous if we ask uh Miss Mary Spar to come up and sit at the table um so that she can interact with us more freely. Would that
be okay? For those in the audience, Mary has many, many years of experience studying wetlands in the county and and here in the city. And um she's graciously providing her time to help walk us through some of the bugs that we found
in our comprehensive plan and our future land use map, particularly with regards to wetness. >> So we consider her a subject matter expert, >> right? Right. And you all should have uh the binders that um Brad actually suggested we put together. Yeah. So the
idea is that you can bring those to all the future meetings and do markups and line item suggestions and look at the same sort of section. I'll have to get Mary one as well. >> Um so everyone's looking at the same content moving through this. And I think
it was too late to get it into the agenda for this meeting, but there was the um striketh through version as well that you had with the proposed amendment as well as arguments for that amendment. So it's a bit more of an elaborate version of the one that you have in your
packet. >> I see. >> And then so the theory would be you just have a series of those that become the result of >> Great reference. when we when we vote to make changes, will we get updated copy with red lines and so forth so we can
keep ours current as we as we move that forward? >> Yeah, I'll I'll add those to your agenda packet. Um, and I do want to ask too before we leave what items you want to have in your agenda packet moving forward instead of me dumping everything that you've ever looked at since you
started talking about it, >> right, >> for the next meeting. >> Very good. Thank you. Yeah, this technical stuff. Anyway, um if you don't mind, I'd like to just um talk for a minute about that
comprehensive plan amendment. Um that you I'm not sure what you I think what you have is uh this one that has all the motions. Is that right? And then you may have
some comments for me. I don't I believe you might. Do they? >> Looks like >> Okay. I I have some extra ones. I brought a ton of handouts just in case. I really didn't know how long we were going to have, but um it's uh page 12 in
your agenda packet. >> My exploding agenda packet. >> Okay. So, um, what we have here is is a really well written amendment.
Um, and that's you're doing and what what we need to do as I see it and let me know if you can't hear me because I'll try to scoot up a
little. Um what what we need to do is we TEC is coming up with amendment and it this is my opinion it needs to go to staff because you're going to be a
team with staff. It's not just you. It's you and staff that's going to be proposing the comprehensive plan amendment to the council first.
Okay. So what you have is you have an amendment which gets rid of the main bugs, the main problems which if you'll remember um
I don't know can I ask is there is there a could we put a chair up there for Kevin? Okay. Yeah. I just want to make sure you I keep looking. I look over there in here. >> Oh, AC I get it. I get it. Okay. So, um
yeah, the main bugs um in the policy as written are one it is not consistent with the main wetlands policy which actually is
strategy 1.6. 6.3.2 in the conservation element and that's the one that says that wetlands five acres or greater are to be designated conservation land
use. So, um, this amendment before you put the strike through allowed
a an applicant to submit a development proposal. uh you know a comp plan amendment for their particular project that would have wetlands 5 acres and
greater taken out of the conservation land use. And if you remember those slides, I think they're in your packet that Michael made um about Park Avenue subdivision. They originally proposed
that um the they would change the conservation land use on this humongous wetland that was going through their property to uh I believe it's low density
residential and the council located. But when it came back, the state even didn't blink. When it came back
to the PNZ, guess who was on the B&Z? The former city attorney who had been the city attorney for 40 years. And he did not like it because he knew it
conflicted with strategy 1.6.3. 6.3.2 to and um the applicant started getting real nervous and he
decided that he would just go ahead and do it the way Dwight Severs wanted and he did and it came back and they had um the conservation in the right place
these this huge Portland, they had the low density residential in the uplands and but they could keep the um PD zoning the PD zoning because
zoning is different from land use. Land use is the overarching category but zoning is much more detailed. So, we got that. This amendment fixes
that bug. And the other thing is that I think we discussed that there's been a change uh in the state of Florida on the water management district, St. John's River Water Management District, and and just the
general um tenor of how Florida handles its conservation lands. They're not really looking at these conservation e easements to necessarily be permanent or even some of these conservation lands.
um to I mean some people don't um and um the water management district has um been persuaded when an applicant comes up and explains
that they would like the conservation easement removed, they would uh say, "Well, okay." Now, they haven't done it very many times, but we do not want to take a chance of
having a huge wetland uh changed to a different designation. Um and then the easement taken away because the conservation land use is the only
place where you get that one unit per five acres residential density limit. So we fixed the bugs. In my opinion it looks good.
But I do have some com comments. And Lily and I were talking the other day and she uh asked me, you know, well, she told me what she thought and I I totally agree that, you know, you can format the presentation of
this a little better. So, I I um had her send out um that that you should have in your packet the amendment and then some comments on it. Do you have that? >> Yeah. Does everybody find it in their Do
you have it in your binder? >> No, I don't. >> You have it in your You have it on your >> Yeah, I have extras. And if um if you do you have it >> huh? >> It's in our packet.
>> Oh, it's in your pack. Well, I tell you what, >> page 12 of the packet, but >> Lily can take these up and whoever needs them >> hard copy >> can uh >> can go ahead and take one and um >> I'm sorry, I don't know your name,
>> David. Okay, David. >> Oh, you have one. One more. >> Okay. I mean, do you have a paper like that if you want? >> Okay. She can do >> email it. >> Yeah. >> Did you email? >> I'm Mary. I live in Coco, actually. I've
just been a long time. >> I got it in email. >> Pardon me? >> Somehow. I got >> Yeah, this one's email. >> Um, >> you're on the >> been around. I can't tell you. >> Sure.
Okay. So, we're going to go through the purpose which amendment aims to head off potential problems resulting from the fact that conservation easements are no longer guaranteed to be permanent. And also, it
eliminates the existing conflict of future land use element policy with conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2. I'll let you look at this. and so this sounds like a set of arguments for and against the amendment change that we talked through last
meeting essentially. >> Correct. I'll wait till everybody's done digesting it. make sure we're good and then we'll talk. >> Yeah, I was ready to jump into fixing
the flume. >> Oh, I have I have >> So, I guess I guess I'm a little confused on where exactly we are right now. like we we have this proposed amendment, >> right? >> Are are we not just prepared to go
forward with that proposal? >> I think we're going forward with this, right? >> And I think we're going to correct the other half of this, the the flume changes. Is that not correct? Do I misunderstand? >> Um, where we where are we going next? Mary, >> can I say something?
>> Oh, okay. Yeah, this is just a first amendment, >> right? We've we've dealt with this. >> Okay. But I I have something to say. >> Okay. Please do. >> Okay. Personally, I'm good with it as is, but I'm not sure staff is.
>> Okay. >> Um, and that is because there's a long convoluted history of how to handle the small wetlands.
Should they be in conservation land use? Can somebody just take theirs out if it's less than five acres, which I believe staff thinks they can? This amendment as written does not if they're going to preserve the wetland um seems
to say no, they can't just take it out and if they're going to preserve it, they got to leave it in conservation. >> Um >> it's already conservation, right? It it may or may not be now depending on how
out how the uh conservation land use is um uh um delim delineated on the map. Um so
in n in 2019 um I attended the tree team. we decided that we were going to uh to get practical and and attend some of these meetings with some
of these um you know projects. The first one we attended was a very long meeting. It was a P&Z discussing Brooks Landing which is up north of JJ Road.
Well, the citizens that lived around there were quite up in arms. And one guy was very smart mathematically. I mean, he he had all this these figures down. He figured out how many units
the developer of Brooks Landing should get. But then um your um community development manager at the time um was taking that meeting and she pointed out
that um you know they they could if they're going to preserve a wetland they either could or couldn't um you know leave it in conservation land use. But if they if they you know
if they wanted it to um be taken out of conservation land use then they had to get an easement and there was a question about whether the water management district would take an easement on some of these small wetlands and so I really don't know what
happened but um basically what she was saying was if you take it out If you're if you leave it in conservation, you're stuck with that one residential unit per five acres.
If you if you take it out and um let's say you have a 3 acre wetland there, which they had they had some that were nearing that size. Um you
could trans you could you could you could change it to that. Uh they they it was res 2 in the Brooks Landing. They could change it to res 2 and then they could um transfer the density out and get more
units. So the guy you know his great calculations um you know he faced a little dilemma um and
so it's complex and as far as I'm concerned whatever staff wants to do with it they need to let us know. I mean, I'm not going to have a fit if they want to do it the way they're doing it just so they don't
conflict with strategy 1 6.3.2, but this is very complicated. So, it says arguments against a proposed amendment is currently proposed. TUC is proposing language that gets rid of the two major problems.
Additional input from staff is needed to accurately re reflect the options for wetlands less than five acres in size. Now, additional input from staff because they're the ones who know what's going
on and we got to work as a team. It says, "Although TEC will be focusing on major inconsistencies and confusing language, it is prepared to work as a team with staff to get the minor details exactly right. So, in other words, we'll
be glad to hear what they got to say. We want to work with them. They know what to do about this. where the what I'm presenting to you over the next few meetings
is the big inconsistencies and sources of confusion. So, I'm suggesting that that Lily, you know, if you prove what you did, you know, if you think that's what you did, then Lily can take this
back and, you know, give it to Brad. I mean, some of those people been around for a long time. Brad and Eddie in particular, I mean, they've seen this stuff. They'll they should know
what they want to do with it. If they want to make some caveats for smaller wetlands, do it. You know, we just we need their help. It's as simple as that.
>> How does the St. John's Water Management District uh influence this these decisions? >> Okay. Um >> is there oversight by them? um not of the zoning and the um the the in fact
that's a topic I hope to broach tonight. Um the the land use planning uh encompasses the future land use element language and um some of the conservation element
language. In particular, the land use planning uh does encompass the density uh language in strategy 1.6.3.2 of the conservation element. So they are
um really not involved with this particular with the future land use. They're they're just they they shouldn't be involved. This is this is something that has to take place by the city, not the water management district. And we'll get into
that. It's a really important topic. So, everybody look forward to it. >> Can I say something? Um, I handed out this to some people. I didn't have enough to give one to you, but you can have this. I mentioned in other previous
meetings that I have a a conservation eent on my land. >> Yeah. >> It's 20 pages long. I remember seeing >> calls me a lawyer. Okay. In South Carolina as my
um steward of my land has written this thing based on this write up we have here. He looked at and says uh what you're dealing with is politics not law. Because when you make a conservation easement you affect tax laws. So if
someone's changing a land to all out of a conservation easement, are they also taking tax laws advantages? See, so I think there's more going on than some land uh this guy here, comprehensive
person saying, "Well, we'll just throw it out." Okay, I don't think that's really legal. I think somebody could sue about this that you're not following the proper laws of following right proper things statues of what is a conservation
easement or not because what I have in South Carolina doesn't fit what you're describing here and so I don't know I think we should be looking at something like that to see read what my uh steward has written and look at what you have
here you know you just can't according to him you just can't do that. He's saying you must have a different law in Florida than you have in South Carolina. But when you're dealing with tax laws, that's federal, not state. Okay. So, I think we need to look at this a little more seriously.
>> The attorney sitting down below, maybe we can pose a question to him. >> Would you like to say this? >> Can I make a comment? Um, I was horrified when I found out that St. John's was taking away these conservation easements. That's not us.
Believe me, not us. That is the state. And and if the the litigation that's going on now, I mean, the uh split oak people tried their best. I have the I
have backup information for this. um from and um just for the record um Lily if you want to hand out this they can read it. I'm not going to do I still have it. Wait a minute. What
did I bring it? I had it in a huge pile. I I I'll bring it next time. I have a couple articles from the Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel. They're just horrified, too. It's not us. It's the state of Florida. It's just like they try to put golf
courses in conservation land. Well, politically probably a wrong thing to say, but >> do we need how many holes per acre as a minimum or maximum? >> We don't need to do anything. Oh. Oh, yeah. I know what you're talking about. Holes. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Well, of course. Yeah. We don't But we don't. That's not us. Um, it's a state. >> Well, I'm not saying we're the one who threw it out, but that's >> Well, all we got to do is not be dependent on it, >> right? >> We got to protect ourselves from it. And
that's what this does. We're protecting ourselves from something like your attorney says is a problem. this exactly why you have you have struck through this language
because your attorney knows what he's talking about and we smell a rat. >> Did you want to comment? >> Is there a question legal question posed to me at this time? >> Is there a legal question posed to me at
this time? I don't want to just comment and speculate. If there's a specific question, I'm happy to >> I can't hear him. I have to talk louder. >> If I don't want to comment and speculate. If there's a specific question for me at this time, I'm happy to answer it. But if not, I'll just stay quiet. >> Do you have a specific question, Bill?
>> No, I'm just saying that that I'm okay with what we're trying to do. I'm I'm all in favor of what we're trying to do. What I'm saying is someone who has had this happen to them may want to sue somebody like the state about what was how they were wronged. Okay, that's you
know and I don't want us to get ourselves in a position where somebody will say, "Oh, you undid my conservation easement and have us be part of that lawsuit. I I'd rather them sue the right guy and not us and I I want us to stay out of it."
>> We are. It's exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what the caveat's doing. We're protecting ourselves. We're protecting the people that own land in Titusville. We are not going to be Titusville, the T
citizens of Titusville, the business owners in Titusville are not going to be uh have um you know their wetlands uh conservation easement. Um
that are five acres and greater. um without they they are not going to have it without the residential density limitation. We have by
this amendment makes that residential density uh restriction of one unit per five acres. It makes it there always whether they have an easement or not. We're not
going to take the chance and so we're probably doing exactly what you want. >> Okay, Mary, going back to >> move up move closer to the microphone if you're >> Mary. going back to
how much this amendment is fixing versus what is left for the staff, you know, to continue. Help me out with is it we're doing 80%. >> 90 >> 90%.
>> And then the staff has only because of a of this >> we don't even know if they'll want to change it. We need to send them the What we need to do is send it to them for comment. >> Okay. >> No, no. Okay. That's all I'm asking. I was just going on your on your comment of >> It's all I'm asking.
>> We're trying to do the majority and and I'm just trying to >> We are doing the majority. >> Okay. But I'm just trying to figure out if there is something left for them to do in the same in the same arena. Is it a large port another large portion that
we don't see or or just a smaller portion of >> It's small and it's dribbled down over the years. I I they I think that until we get we all we need
to do is send it to them say do you have any comments? Do you have any objections? We don't know if they do if if they have some suggestions. >> No. And I think the reason I we had talked about this particular framework of suggestions is that you're starting
the conversation so we can move forward and look at the whole package together. So the next change you're ready to make, we're ready to look at. >> Okay. Good. >> Member Thompson. >> Well, I think the 10% that's left are the wetlands that are smaller than five acres that are on people's properties.
>> So I think we're going to get to that later, right? >> Staff needs to give us input. I don't know what to do about them. She would like staff Mary would like staff's input before >> so do we need a motion then to send this to staff and then ask their ask for
their >> comments on what to do about wetlands less than 3 acres >> if they have some yeah if they have >> if they want to make any changes well that's what we need to ask for we need some input >> so we want to propose this change to staff for their review and come back
that's your your motion is that a second Maybe. >> Yeah, I was going to make the motion or second it, which All right. >> Oh, um I make a motion that we send the work that we have accomplished um >> flume policy 1.16.2
>> 1.16.2 um you know along with with including the striketh through and and the um the three words that we added we send that to staff to get their opinion on it. >> Right. >> That's our partner.
>> That's it. Right. Okay, >> I second. Okay, any other discussion? >> Would they also consider the the discrepancy in the tax the federal taxes and that issue or no? >> Would they address that?
>> It's not written in the amendment as we have modified it, but we can always ask and send along additional questions. But I think we should make this motion go first and then we can certainly add to it. Anything else? All in favor say I.
>> I. Any opposed? >> Okay. Motion passes unanimously. >> Did you want to bring something up, member Nico? >> No, I'm just listening right now and trying to understand more before I Okay. make a statement or ask a question. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Turn your microphone off so when I see your light on it comes up here and says you want to talk. So, Bill does this all the time. >> All right. So, we have we're waiting on staff's input on 116.2. Did you want to jump into um
into the uh the concert? What was it 413? Yeah, I've got my stuff here mixed up. >> I'd like to jump into um something that you did not get that you were supposed to get. I have an email if Lily can pass
it out. >> Okay, >> it's this should be short and sweet. Um it's another request of staff. Okay, >> let me keep going. There you go. Take a breath. We got a lot to do.
You go ahead and read this. It's supposed to be in your email, but slipped through the cracks. Lily, as a representative from city, um, are we being redundant and asking staff to answer these questions when we could
just ask you >> what what question specifically? like >> like the one we just passed a motion on and asking for staff's input on our recommended changes. >> I don't want to speak on behalf of staff because I am just one person but I think
it is help most help more helpful to have a whole comprehensive view of all the changes you're making so we can look at it all because it might be affecting other areas and like Mary had mentioned you changing 1.16.2 has a lot to do with
strategy 1.6.3.2 too. So if you make both of those suggestions are all you know maybe there's 20 at the end of this at the same time we can actually absorb it all and it might be a little easier than peacemealing it adjusting and then you making another change and then adjusting and it might be easier because
what you're really doing is starting the conversation ultimately >> we are and we're I'm I I think from what Mary's asking is we're trying to make this an iterative design process where we have suggestions and ideas but we need feedback from staff on each after each meeting to know whether or not
we're moving in the right direction. That's kind of the way I'm thinking of it and I think that's what Mary's asking for is that we get a a thumbs up, thumbs down or or some multi some change. >> The problem is that I don't know what staff thinks and we'll get, you know,
there may be no objections to this. There may be no objections, you know, um to that policy is written, >> right? you know, there may be no arguments against >> and it' be nice to go forward
>> otherwise we could be going off >> in this this particular next request. Um, okay. About asking for them to tell us what kind of GIS capabilities. I know Jason
mentioned this uh the you know the first time we had this meeting and you guys had a really great discussion you know people were looking at the maps you know we're just doing great um and you really understand that box two
even though I have in the new chart expanded it like Michael suggested to be you know small or large properties But we need to know before we continue with box two.
Um, which I suggest you put on hold until you get some more information. We need to know what GIS staff can do. And I mean, I gotta say, I got an email this morning from the Geological Service,
United States Geolog Geological Service, and they had a couple new tools for for finding uh, you know, what the land cover was. And I mean, out of the clear blue sky, get the ste things are changing rapidly. And we don't know what
our staff can do because if you remember the quote hotel, which I don't think John um is aware of, but the rest of you probably are. Um the hotel was a property was around 3
acres. Well, 2.86 acres of it was what I mean. And I mean, you look at the map and it looked for sure like it was connected to Blue Heron to the south, but the applicant claimed
he couldn't go on the Blue Heron property and get a wetland delineation. So, what the heck? He wanted he wanted us to say that that wetland his portion being 2.86
acres was not 5 acres because only 2.6 acres was on his property. Now does that make sense or does it make sense that the wetlands is larger? Well staff was in a bind. It could do nothing. It had
asked a different department for input and it didn't get it, but it didn't ask the GIS. And I know Jason thought that uh there was really some good capabilities out there with the GIS. Our problem was we don't really know what
staff can do. So here's an example. They could tell they could show us what they can do about getting an idea about whether the when you have a small portion of a
wetland on your property, whether that wetland is in its entirety 5 acres or greater. And so what I'm suggesting is you have Lily
send back a question to to to um you know her boss to have him get some input from the GIS staff on what they can do and for and give us for example the hotel thing. It's already
built as I think I mean some people are saying. So I mean we're not trying we're not trying to attack the hotel parcel. We just want to avoid it and in the future. That particular motion by council
opened up to me Pandora's box because if we only have to limit the wetland to the size of the particular property owner, well, wetlands don't care about property lines. And we've said that in in the last meeting. We wanted to look at the
wetland delineation outside of the property, but one that you know part of the property that's affected to determine if that wetland indeed extended beyond 5 acres or not. That's that's the the limiting factor. In the past, my understanding has been that our
use of GIS needed to be ground truth because the imagery that we had was off by, you know, give or take 30 feet, 10 feet, 3 meters, whatever. It wasn't ground truth until somebody went out there and looked to find out where the
wetland plants and so forth live. So, I guess my question is for the attorney is, can we use something that may not have the precision of a few feet, maybe
even tens of feet as to where the wetland is, but I know our GIS indicates where wetlands are that extend beyond various properties. So, can we in our analysis of what is wetland and what isn't, can we disassociate the wetland
from the property line >> for the purpose of delineation of a wetland? >> I would defer to staff on that one. That's not exactly a legal question. >> Yeah, that's me. Um, that is a qu we can ask, if I'm hearing you correctly, GIS
to >> Well, we'll go back to Mary's example. The the the Hilton had 3.6 acres. It had 2.6 acres of wetlands, but it was connected directly adjacent to 15 other acres of wetlands. >> Do you consider a road as cutting off
that adjacency? Because I looked into it briefly. >> It was a dyke. I mean, if you go back and into what it was, it was all a wetland before they even put in the great outdoors. So, this is just more peace meal nibble nibble nibble. Get rid of more wetlands
as far as I'm concerned because the wetland was greater than the three and a half acres that they owned. Yeah, I can I'm seeing what Mary wrote about the >> but my my question I think is more legal because what our what our ordinances say
they they don't they don't seem to differentiate or require that a property owner look at wetlands that extend beyond their own property. >> No. >> See and that's the fault >> their property and they do the property line >> and that's the fault because the wetlands don't care where the property
lines are. They grow beyond. But if I let's say I have a 20 acre wetland and I cut it up into five acre parcels each and each one gets three and a half acres of wetlands. I can fill each one of those independently because I'm only looking at my little box. But the
problem is water extends beyond. It affects the lagoon. It affects our drinking water, our water resource. These these things go beyond just a property line. And right now we're associating wetlands with property lines. And I think that's a fallacy.
>> Well, can I comment, >> please? Anybody? >> I'll comment. I don't think staff wants to do that. How do I know? I'm reading what staff wrote.
The wetlands on the subject property are adjacent to and appear hydraologically connected to the wetlands on the city- owned property to the south. combined the entire wetland on and off the subject property has the potential to be
five acres or more in size. So what I'm thinking is they at the time did not ask GIS. They asked another department. We need to find out what they can do because
um chapter 163.3177 says that you need to use the best available data. Now, I don't think staff thought that the applicant's reasoning was the best available data.
We need to find out what tit Titusville's best available method of getting the data is and can it do the job and we don't know. And that's why we
need to ask staff what the GIS um ask, you know, Lily needs to ask her boss to ask the GIS staff to take this as an example and see what they can do and bring it back
to us and let's see what they can do and see if that is the best of if they think this is the best available data. I mean I mean seems like
>> Can I make a comment? >> Please go right ahead. >> So um kind of going back to October and the the motion that I made to to look for a way to include that best available data. Um, I would almost heir towards
us not digging deeply into that because I feel like we might actually end up hamstringing staff in the future. As Mary said, these technologies are always changing. So, if the understanding is that anytime this comes up, staff is going to use the best information
available, which is what that previous motion was, then that seems to be the the best option we have because something might change or a certain property might have older GIS information and you need to to get there on foot or something like that. I just
feel like if we if we say that you must use if we find out what the capabilities are and then we say you must use this then I feel like that limits us or is going to require us to change this again in the future when a new technology
becomes available. >> Can I say something? >> Well, go ahead. Uh I do have a little background in GIS and I do realize what you do is you you upload source files and these source files are to the public
or anybody working within the GIS program and uh so if you're going to ask for a GIS map today then anybody who's working in GIS would just go to the most current source file. So, it's not necessarily
what is the most advanced technology that the city of Titusville has. It's just what are the source files that are available to anyone. And so, if they give us a map, it's working off of information that is available to everyone. And my question for you is
when let's say we get a map that uh shows um the different layovers. So, if we get a map that shows that it has um more than five, what I'm trying to
understand is if we do a map that shows the wetlands less than five acres and it and it seeps over into other areas of wetland, what what what kind of answers are you looking for from this map?
I'm looking to find out whether um that wet in particular that wetland on the hotel property extended out to be 5 acres in size. >> You're trying to prevent the property owner who has less than five acres from
being responsible for surveying the wetland outside their own property. >> Well, they they don't have to survey it. What that's not their responsibility. That's true, but the city suspected that
um it it was over five acres. It looks quite a bit over five acres. Um what we need to know is can you do this or do we have to be do we have to be hamstringed by some rationale?
>> Let me see if I can bring bring this part of it to a closure. There's the GIS stuff is anywhere from 90 98% of accurate down to 70% accurate. Okay. So, if you first look at that at a
70%, you know, we're close and the wetlands extend well beyond 5 acres. Even with that GIS data, you're within the error range. And any engineer would say that's close enough. That's over five acres. You don't have to worry about it. The problem's going to come
into play when these things are only 70% accurate and you've got 5.4 acres of wetlands and now you're within the margin of error and now you have another issue. You understand what I'm saying? >> Yeah. >> So, you can accept a certain amount of error and I believe that right now
that's what we do. We validate that error by actually having people go out and ground truth it. Well, we can ground truth the property that the person has responsibility for. But I completely agree with you that we could use GIS to determine whether the wetlands, the
topology, and and the soil types and the habitat types, which are well documented in our county, probably better than most counties in this state, that that is is as accurate as it's going to get for now. And for the purposes of calculating 5 acres or more, I think is more than
accurate enough. But that's the question I think you want us to ask of staff. Yeah, I think we we need to know what staff thinks is that is is the way to handle this because >> so >> I don't believe staff was very happy with this. >> Okay.
>> It just happened that a combination of circumstances we won't go into made this thing pass. >> Right. And we want to prevent that from happening again. >> Exactly. You can't we cannot comp we
cannot jeopardize our wetlands 5 acres or greater in size just because somebody claims they can't go on city property >> or they only own three acres of it. All right, you've heard the discussion.
Can I have a motion for a question for staff on on on what we would like to ask? Well, but before we do that, >> okay, >> there is a problem like any spec specification with versions. Version one, version two, version three. Okay,
if we're not using the latest version, then that that's a problem that we're all talking about. So, this is a problem that every engineering company has. Am I using the latest code?
Okay. And that is something that staff needs to be on top of that they're using the latest version file of GIS, not two years ago, three years ago, the latest version. And that's going to
mean that the city's going to have to keep up with the latest versions as they come out. And you're going to have to make decisions based on that version. when you make the decision. >> Okay. My question then that if if staff
is having a problem with that, is it because they have to pay money to get the latest versions? >> That opens up a whole Yes, sir. That a whole set of questions on how do you keep up >> maintenance management and and so forth >> and so forth. Okay. This is this is the
old Microsoft ver issue. Okay. which version of Microsoft are you using? And and do you have the latest the latest version of it? >> But if your boss says you don't have money in your budget to go buy the latest, you use the oldest. Well, but but again, this is this is an issue that
that appeals to be added to this segment of the of the dialogue that if they're not using the latest version of the day of the data management that is available, then I can come in and go, you know what,
here's the latest. I win. And I do that every time because that's been proven in the court of law time and time again in engineering issues. You got if you you got to use the latest version. And so there's an upkeep for the city
that we're proposing along with the words. I just want to make sure that happens because that's that's what I used to deal with a lot. and uh and so if they don't keep up with it
uh then that's a problem. >> Yeah. >> So from what I understand in in GIS it it is a large database and it's called EZRI and any person who's working in this program can go to EZRI and you can look it up on online and you can look at
all of the different source files. So I don't think this is a question of whether or not we have the latest technology. It's just a question of of our GIS person knowing to go to EZRI, which is the large database, and selecting the most recent files.
Okay. Um, member Thompson, >> I'm ready to make a motion if there's no more discussion. >> Well, we have discussion after a motion always. >> Okay. So, I I make a motion that um Lily
posed a question to staff. Can the latest version of GIS mapping show that wetlands combined on two properties are five acres or more >> second
>> I'm not sure I understand that on two properties it just has to extend beyond the existing >> beyond the the the proposed >> right >> so how would I word that Um, show that wetlands extend beyond two or
more properties are five acres or more is how I would suggest amending that. >> Okay. So it would it would read, can the latest version of GIS mapping show
that wetlands so that a wetland can extend beyond a single property boundary to be 5 acres or more in size? >> Okay. In other words, we're trying to ask the question,
can we disassociate the wetland delineation lines from the property lines because wetlands go beyond properties? It's it that's really the basis of it, right? So, we want we want to know that question that answer.
You understand the question that we're Okay. Anybody else want to have a discussion about it so they can understand it too? Is the question that microphone >> microphone sorry >> is the question that the GIS map shows the properties that are 5 acres or more
in the wetlands that run beyond that >> way around it's can we use GIS to show whether a wetland on a parcel >> extends >> extends beyond >> a five acre >> a par a parcel less than five acres or >> in other words we're trying to find out
if the wetland goes beyond >> absolutely yeah no I and I can pretty confidently say yes that can be that information. >> Yes. And so the question is can staff use that through GIS? >> Yes. >> As an accurate marker to get that 5 acre
plus or minus. >> We can see which 5 acre parcels uh we can see the wetlands that extend beyond the 5acre parcels. >> Correct. That's that's what we're trying to do. >> Yes, I believe that can be done and I'm sure there's source files that can show that. >> I think we said it with 19,000 more
words than Lily needed. >> We're trying. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> As soon as we get the answer, >> Bill, you look confused. You okay? >> Okay. >> All right. Well, then I'll call the
questions. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Yeah. >> Hearing none. Motion passes. >> Okay, Lily, you've got two questions now for us. That's great. >> Man, that's a lot of progress. Hopefully, we get good answers.
Okay, Mary. >> Okay. So, um I don't want to run beyond 7:30 because Do you all need a stretch for a minute? >> No, I don't think so. >> You You good? >> Yeah. >> But I'm going to get up here and talk to you. Just talk.
>> Do you need a break, Mary? We can take a five minute break if you need one. >> There's something really important. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I want to see you all. Okay. So in 1995
um I um assumed a little volunteer job um with the Sierra Club. It was um it was actually nobody was taking it and I was
interested. It was called conservation chair. 1995 happened to be the time um that Bvard County had a very very
they had a very very strong um property rights uh advocacy group. I mean these people were fierce. So now it was made up mostly of realtors
and developers. Um and what they wanted to do was something that has been contemplated various times in the county and is has been contemplated
by the city of Titusville. It's nothing new. Nothing new. But um you need to know that um it has a long history. So in 1995,
um these people persuaded the county commission uh to get rid of their most important wetlands
policies by a comprehensive plan amendment just deleting them. You're just going to get rid of. So what did they want to have him get rid of? The residential density was limited to
one unit per five acres. You sure heard that? And this is the same type of language is in the the future land use element. Okay. They wanted to get rid of all
restrictions on commercial uh development in wetlands. And so this went to the state in December of 95.
Well, the state had a fit. they um to they didn't like the county's reasoning. The reasoning is because um you know that there was just too many
limitations on getting rid of on the wetlands and they they didn't want to deal with it anymore. And not only that, but the county
would have had at that point to defer all its the plan all the regulation of wetlands to the regulatory agencies which is the St. John's River Water Management District, the Army Corps of
Engineers. There was some regional um thing at the time and to defer their planning uh um responsibility by
deleting all these policies to to the regulatory agency. Why do they say that this was good? because there's too many agencies and they don't want to have to um add their
voice to to the discussion as well. Well, the state just said no, you can't do that. You have a land planning responsibility and do not tr do not adopt this amendment.
See because you have a transmitter transmitter went up to state states having a fit came back the county had to deal with it and in adoption they put back the residential density
should be limited to one unit per five acres. They sort of fixed up the commercial um but not to the point where it satisfied the state. um and the state um
you know said it was not in compliance and um this triggered litigation which lasted several years. So what we need to discuss
is that there's a difference between what the city has to should be doing in terms of land use planning which is required by the growth
management act and what the permitting agencies do by their rules. There's a difference in the kind of things that the city should do in the way of planning from these nitty-gritty things
that the water management is going to do like the slope, you know, this all this. And let's face it, if there's going to be two layers of, you know,
rules, you're probably going to get stronger rule, you know, a stronger decision about the rules. And if you just have one agency,
the water management dis district doing all the stuff because the water management district is not looking at the big picture. They're not looking at all the wetlands Titusville has
or this um what Bvard County has. Um they're looking at a peace meal. one things comes is just like the stuff at the the the space center. You know, you got one project and then the next project and the next project and is
they're not looking at things in the big picture to try to prevent some, you know, that that things accumulate. They're not doing accumulative analysis.
And land use planning is the overall way of um seeing that things are done right. It is your comprehensive plan. It's your comprehensive plan
and um then the subordinate ordinances and um that should team up with what the water management does in terms of all this nitty-gritty stuff that's very technical that I might
not understand. Right? So what happened in 95 was the water management district itself was outraged. They they um sent
their representative to visit each commissioner and tell them what they thought. And not only that, um, they sent they sent the county a paper,
uh, a position paper that the board adopted. It was written by somebody called Margaret Spontac. And, um, this particular time stuff was done by facts. it, you know.
So, I got this thing at uh McCroy's, you know, the dollar store in Meridon, picked up the facts, you know, and uh it what happened is it
started getting all faded. So called the water management district and they faxed down something from the file and um
somehow that was much better and um so that's what I have for you tonight to look at one page of that so you can find out um what's the difference because we have to understand the difference
between land use planning and permitting. So, I'm going to have Lily hand it out. Okay. >> Do you have a question? Okay. >> Make it so.
>> All right. >> Can I tell a story? >> Okay. Uh, I came to Florida. My dad brought me to Florida in 1953. >> Is it a good story? >> I don't know. You'll tell. You can tell me. So, in 1953, I was a kid. Okay. So,
when I went to about uh got to be 18 and went off on my own, my dad says, I listened to my dad tell stories. And the story was uh since we came down from Baltimore uh to work at the space center, my dad um the story I used to hear from all the
Florida people uh the orange grove people and the cotton people was that uh you sell land in in the winter because the Yankees don't know any better and you can sell them a swamp because in the winter it's dry, in the summer it's wet.
Okay? And so the land was cheaper if it was wet. If it was high and dry, it was more expensive. So they could get the cheap land and sell it to the Yankees and make more money. So in a in a concept that's what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with developers who
are trying to make more money, not caring what the people are doing, and using this this this problem of of fooling people and trying to not care about wetlands and things like that that uh so think about that. I heard that for
years. You sell land to Yankees in the winter because it's dry. Is that the kind of concept we want people to move here and the people who live here have to deal with? Go ahead. >> And so, you know, what we got here in
Titusville is topography that is unlike any other rest of the county, >> right? We have very dynamic typo topography here that's made up of um ancient beach dunes with wetlands in between them and um all all of most of
the high and dry stuff in Titusville has been developed. >> Yeah. So what's left are are large mostly one large huge wetland system on the west side of town that's been
bisected by State Road 405, Singleton Avenue and Harrison Street >> and I95 >> and I95. Yeah. The the the place where the water from the wetland should go >> has cut off by I95.
>> Right. So this is what we're doing. >> Five foot diameter drain right in the middle of it that comes out into the Indian River Lagoon. >> That's right. Yeah. So we're we're funneling the water from the wetlands to the Indian River Lagoon. But all what we're dealing with now and and you know
we did it with um PD South and now PD North is coming up. these two pieces of property that are at the intersection of Singleton and State Road 405, they're like the last big pieces of property that's high that are left, you know, and
um and so what what we're doing here now is trying to protect the these wetlands. They're really important for flooding. We just saw what happened when we get a lot of rainfall in a short amount of time. people's homes were flooded. I mean, there some
of them some of them are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get their homes put back in order just from a rainstorm, right? >> And so, we don't want to keep we don't want to keep filling in these small wetlands or part of a wetland that's
only three acres on one piece of property because when you fill that wetland in, the water that it was absorbing is going to go somewhere else. That's right. >> So, this is this is what we're dealing with. And um I I really appreciate
Mary's time and staff's time and all of y'all's time because this is really really important for these large conservation areas on the west side of town and their relationship to the flooding that's only going to get worse
as time goes by. Thank you. Well, we are an advisory board to the city council and they have graciously extended our time for an additional few meetings um in the next well this winter
spring so that hopefully we can come up with some suggestions on how to solve some of our flooding problems. I've always thought that that we really only have one water. I
know the Indian River Lagoon Coalition likes to say one lagoon, one community, one voice. To that, I'll add one water. Our storm water, our sanitary sewer, our portable water, our raw water resources.
These are all the same water. And right now we deal with them with three different engineering solutions that don't cooperate. And I think if we want to solve in the
long term our future flooding problems, we're going to have to stop building in lowlands. We're going to have to start looking at every cubic foot of fill that's added for any new house or building development, whether commercial or
industrial. I think we need to to seriously consider a remapping and a remmanagement of how we handle our water. And wetlands are where water go. a local minimum. Mathematically
speaking, water's going to flow to that local minimum. One example is the Royal Oak Golf Course. Another example is the wetlands to the west. If we don't come up with a comprehensive plan, a suggestion, some kind of
recommendation for the city, then our time here is mostly useless. So we need to come up with a way to manage this overall system so that our water becomes reclaimed and reused. Our storm water
becomes our raw water resource. Our portable water then becomes something that we manage with respect and we make sure that our sanitary sewer lines are are filled and complete. We still have areas of our city where we
don't have sewer and we need it. We have people that in the next five years are going to need septic upgrades and we won't have the capability to provide them an alternative and I find that to be abhorent too. >> Yeah. So we need to to look at one water
at water as a overall comprehensive issue and that may mean that we start using GIS in a more effective way to address these issues of size of wetlands and where they're located. We need to be
smart. No, we need to be smarter than we've been. And we can be. We're the Space Coast for God's sake. You know, there are more smart people in this part of the state, in my opinion, than anywhere else. We've got rocket scientists. Come on. I'm a retired one.
We got one here, too. So, you know, we have we have resources. It's a question of partnering with the city and making something that works. And I think that's what Mary's asking. these I heard something at city council the other day that that talked about you
know a couple of people came up to talk about the flooding that they had experienced and the city was saying well it's it's just a one in 500 year event 13 15 16 inches that we had within one
month of that time there was 48 inches of rain in Port Dakota and there was another 32 inch rainfall on the southwest side of the state these heavy rainfalls are going to be more common. We we we have to stop thinking of a 500year
2% chance because that percentage chance is rising logarithmically as the atmosphere heats up. And that means there's more moisture stored in the atmosphere. That means there's going to be heavier rain. And that means we
need to do something to figure out where we're going to put that storm water when it comes down. not in the future, but as it comes down. And right now, we're woefully inadequate. I know we have a storm water master plan going into place, but it needs to also incorporate
all of our water resources. We have to look at it as as a whole system. And um I hope that's what we're getting to with with this. >> Okay. Well, let's jump in. Um if you look at the cover page, you can see what
this is. Um it actually had a uh one and a third other you know parts other pages to it but um I just decided that um we needed to get the basic things. Okay. So
um then we have the the other side which you know obviously it was you know facts and if you can uh let's go through this. If you can just
read the first um paragraph and then look up and then we'll know that you've read the first paragraph and then we'll talk about that for a minute. Lily, do we have the capability of bringing a hard copy like this and
showing it to the audience so that we could scan it so they can see it when when it's handed to us? They use I don't even have a dish. >> They use an overhead projector at these county commission meetings. It's sitting
right there at the podium. >> Yeah, it's part of the podium and then they can electronically um send it on. >> I don't think we have like like a camera thing. Yeah. Then project >> I don't >> Can I put in a request for one >> in this economy?
>> You can pull it out of our budget, you know. >> Okay. Okay. So um they want a partnership for wetland with protection. So what partnership do you think they're talking about here
>> between the St. John's and the municipality? >> Yeah. And what's the municipality Titusville going to do? >> Well, that's what we're here to recommend, I think. >> Okay. What kind of thing would you do? Land use planning or permitting?
Land >> land use plan. >> Land. Okay, got it. Believe me, there are a zillion people who don't get this, but you've got to because you got the job. Now, who does permitting?
>> St. John, >> right? >> Or Army Corps of Engineers or FD. It depends on what the permit is. Right. >> So, so um it's very interesting to see
um what Margaret um who I I've actually met, she's very nice lady, um suggest says that the tools for land use planning um conservation future land use
category. um incompatible land uses in predominantly wetland area. Titusvilles, this is all the old language um that uh Titusville's had. Um
then we'll get into the conservation element for promoting policies which identify acceptable activities in wetlands areas. And then wetlands overlay zoning. That's what we got with the um
the uh conservation um land use over overlay and um setbacks and up buffer zones that can be dealt with when we get to the conservation element. So, um, this all the stuff that
historically Titusville has, um, used, though, I got to say that the one unit for five acres was put in in 2010. >> Before that, there were only conditional
uses for wetlands five acres or greater in size. Um, so >> I remember >> the old language is is um
has got some real pluses. Um, so now as I said, this was sent to the county who decided that they would just throw out their
major land use planning stuff and then she's going to say that permitting is not planning. How true. Federal, state, regional, and even local regulation programs issue permits for
development in wetlands. What these programs do not do is plan future land use and identify and implement long range goals, objectives, and policies based on a comprehensive assessment of natural
resources and their wise use, conservation, and protection in light of future growth, rejection, and community needs. So what the permitting agencies do not do is look at the
big picture. And now we get to in that second sentence um down under permitting is not planning. This is really important sentence. It is a losing proposition
to attempt to achieve proper land use planning through a regulatory program. By the time a developer requests a permit application, it is too late for planning. All that can be done at this point is to minimize the negative
impacts as best the regulatory agency can. And then she says, "The burden has been passed on to the permitting staff rather than dealt with as a land use policy and a natural resource protection policy in
the comprehensive plan and implemented through local government land development regulations. >> Space." >> So what now? >> We were just commenting. So, we should send this to Space Florida.
>> Yeah. I I think uh right I Let's I Well, we all know what's going on. Okay. So says local government planning
is the most effective tool in addressing cumulative impacts of development because water management district's not going to do anything about it. >> Right. >> Permitting programs are set up to permit development. How true. which has been identified by a
local government to be appropriate for that specific area and to allow development according to adopted guidelines. It is the responsibility of the local government to first decide which land uses and activities are appropriate in a
comprehensive analysis for specific geographical areas within their political boundaries. The total or communive impacts of the activities on a given area are usually debated at the local government level when the land use
designations are determined for local government comprehensive plan. I think I've seen some of that too. Okay. So Margaret makes a point. Everybody get it? Now we're going to jump to Titusville.
Like I said, the uh county made some changes, but not enough to satisfy the state agency. So, we got into a legal battle which lasted quite a while.
So now we have now we are we have 20 minutes almost and we are going to start a very uh important thing we need to fix in
the future land use element and it is Um, the last sentence in policy 1.16.4. I'm jumping on the chart to the fourth box, the last question. So, I'm going to
have Lily hand this stuff out and it's um probably what you might be shocked to shock to find out. It's quite pretty.
Okay, this should be routing up. >> Is that is that a future land use policy or or conservation? >> Your fourth point of confusion on your uh >> future land use policy 1.16.4. Okay. >> And I have
>> I have copied it out. This is a very problematic little policy, but we're going to tackle the first problem, which is the last sentence first. >> Oh, yeah. The very thing she said wasn't
working. >> So, guess what? All I want you to do is read the last sentence in flu policy 1.16.4. for and see if you think it makes sense. >> It's about wetlands impacts.
>> No. >> Why does it say the regulatory agency is doing that? because that's not the regulatory agency's job, >> right? But that's >> their job is permitting, not land use regulation.
>> Ah, you guys are so smart. That's wonderful. I'm impressed. >> Well, hopefully you can move it along and finish by 7:30. >> All right, so guess what? This is one of those
confusing points that needs to be clarified in the um comp plan. >> Okay. >> So, problem with last sentence in flu policy 1.16.4. It has been interpreted to allow
Titusville staff to defer all decisions on impacts to wetlands to St. Johnson River Water Management District and other regulatory agencies >> that is abdicating Titusville's responsibility for its land use and planning.
>> Period. >> How many people agree with Michael? Can you raise your hand? >> That's good. >> That's helpful. >> Yeah. Okay. That's what if if you interpreted it that that way.
that you should just dump the responsibility. You you >> we have the city of Titusville has abdicated its responsibility over wetlands to the St. John's River Water Management District regardless of whether they're less than or greater than 5 acres. They've just pushed it off
and the St. John's River Water Management District said, "Sorry, years ago, we're not doing anything less than five acres. You're on your own on those." And that's where we ended up with this 5 acre delineation because they weren't going to look at small stuff, piddly small stuff. It didn't
matter to them. Well, it matters to us. >> It does matter to us. So, let's now I'm going to point out that I've seen the policies change the interpretation of it. Now, you have staff now that is not
thinking that way. They are thinking of their land use planning responsibility. You are working with good staff. Now what we So we got a chance to get
this cleared up. Um but you will there was a very bizarre incident in 20120 and um I have an excerpt from it.
This is um okay what what has happened both in the county and and here what's been tried this this little trick they try is okay I'll get my permit then I'm going to
show it to the local government and they can't do anything about it I got my permit they're just going to have to accept it n o not acceptable It's any
>> but what happened is in 2020 um there was a project that um you'll remember that Tadisville maybe shouldn't say this but Tattisville um you know had a need for more
development at certain points in time and you know there was pressure there's pressure um on you know people to make this happen. I mean so
um this bizarre um project um they it was decided that the guy the applicant whose name I've took taken out um should go to St. John's get the permit to fill in the wetlands. fill in the
wetlands and then go ahead and tell Titus Rail that you would like you would like the uh land use changed from something you could do in wetlands
to something you uh you know couldn't do if the wetlands weren't filled. >> I'm not sure I understand you. >> It was so bizarre. Okay. Okay. Wetlands that can be filled or wetlands that aren't filled. I mean,
>> okay. What they wanted to do was um they could put a um little open space park, you know, with the wetlands in conservation land use. Okay.
Well, it was conservation land use and then they did. So, they are using that, you know, that's fine. But see what they did was they went to the St. John's, they got a permit to fill it in because
St. John's not, you know, go uh looking at all these details, they got their permit, they filled uh in wetlands in that area and then they wanted to they were asking the council
to subdivide the park. I mean what was on the future, you know, they they had located for a park, you know, but they were they were going to you were there asking council to change their mind
um because it was filled. So was it wetlands? Um so um if a wetland's filled they were claiming that that was no longer a wetland.
So um they didn't have to deal with conservation element policy 1 point you know well actually 6.3.2 to in the the limitation on uh
residential density of one unit per five acres. So here so what happens is guess what the PNZ chairman is Mr. receivers.
The PNG chairman was a Titusville city attorney for 40 years. Not um a good person to argue with. And Mr. Kintas, I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right because I always
called him Gabriel. Um he was a respected Titusville planner who no longer works for the city. Actually liked him. He's a good guy. He tried to do the right thing, but sometimes he didn't know, in my opinion,
what the right thing was. So, so um Chairman Severs asked the applicant how he got a permit from the city of Titusville to fill the wetlands and destroys trees and vegetation when
he did not have the land use and zoning. And uh Chairman Severs asked the applicant if he received a per permit to fill in the wetlands before changing the land use and zoning
um and reszoning reszoning from the park to the you know the residential. >> And so this guy says they received a permit from the St. John's River Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers.
And Mr. Severs is getting a little bit huffy. Um, and I don't blame him. He he actually apologized, you know, because he's getting all worked up a little later in the meeting. Says, "Chairman
Sver said he does not care about the St. John's River Water Manage District because they do not control guess what? Land use and zoning. In other words, they're not doing the land use planning. It's the zoning. Now, in the bold, I have
what you need to read first. Just the bold part. So he's questioning staff. Okay. Staff was there. There was only one staff member there besides the assistant
city attorney. Okay. So, and the assistant city attorney said nothing. So, Dwight Severs, he asked staff if the city of Titusville has jurisdiction over land use and zoning. Well, he knows very
well what the answer is. And Mr. King said yes. And then he Mr. Kingd said that the conservation land use does not control the filling in of wetlands.
>> Seems um >> well, can we fix that? >> That seems like a fault. >> I don't think it's true. >> Oh, good. Because the the conservation land use says that you can only
have one unit per five acres in wetlands, >> right? >> But I mean, so um >> but if you're five, >> but you got the permit. So in that sense the conservation
what's controlling the filling of the wetlands should be not only a water management district but his land use and zoning as well. his land use, which
he has. He had conservation land use and he shouldn't have been able to fill those in, but he figured if he got a permit, he'd try it. And then he filled them in and they're
no longer wetlands. So now he says that Gabriel said that one of the objections that has been raised in the past is that land use cannot be changed in conservation areas until the wetlands are filled. Well, this is the
rationale that was going on there. Um and you know staff was in the mix. Um, you can read that. It's kind of um
strange. >> Lily, I'd like to know what staff's opinion is on filling small wetlands. Is this something that we can reasonably control and manage >> conservation >> within our conservation through our comp
plan? >> I think that's that's where Mary what Mary's getting at. Yeah, that's not the topic for tonight. That we have to finish the future land use first. >> Okay, >> because that's not conservation. >> You have five minutes. That's why I'm saying.
>> Okay, so um anyway, so Mr. Severs, he's he's get he's mad. Chairman Sver said the rationale seems to be to fill in the wetlands so the land use and zoning can be changed.
Well, he's right in target. The guy's totally right. >> Mr. Siver says he's never seen this done this way. And then he and he says, "Typically, you would apply for the land use and zoning you would like on the property before
you get any permits." So, that's the overall thing. You get the you get the land use and the zoning and then you go get the permits and the and and when you apply for a permit
you have in mind something that's compatible with the land use and zoning. >> Compatible >> right >> in theory. >> Yeah. And that and Okay. He says, so he said, typically you would apply for the
land use and zoning you'd like on the property before you get any permits. Now, interesting that the applicant said he agrees he has never seen this done this way before. It's always done up front
and the applicant said this is why was spelled out on the plan because it was always done upfront before development started. So, in other words, they doing something a little roundabout. Okay. And then um Dwight, he says he does not understand how the permits were
issued. Um he me he what he means is the permits by Titusville to you know the um site plan stuff and stuff like that. The permits for that. He said uh without the correct land use and
zoning. Chairman Sver said is he understands that the city of Titusville still controls land use and zoning. And he said if the city of Titusville thinks that an area should remain wetlands and conservation because it meets the criteria of the comprehensive plan, then
the city has a right to say that whatever the St. John's Water Management District says. So, in other words, the city's going to weigh in, it's got a decision, and then the water
management's going to weigh in, and only what is okay in both is going to work. You can't It's not just the St. John's decision.
you. Um, so I think that there is a lack of clarity with regard to what this last sentence means because it seems to imply,
as Gabriel said, that the allowable impacts shall be based on what the regular atory agencies say, but that's not true because there's something missing.
It's what the land use any any um any um rules about the land you say and what the permitting agency say. you're not. So,
um, and you know, I think there's been a little wavering from time to time by staff about how to how to interpret this
particular language that got um dumped into the plan in 2010. about what happened before was um
before before two well I don't know if I want to go there right now anyway things got changed in 2010 and it's been you know I mean I've been talking with Brad since
>> what changed the future land use plan or >> yes. Okay. >> Yes, that changed and then what happened was after they they ch you know through a comprehensive plan amendment to the state they changed the future land use
element the conservation land use regulations. Okay, they changed them. >> Okay, >> they tried to change the conservation element language and it was too much for the state to stomach. So they said no
and the city backed off and put their old conservation element language in there, but it didn't match the new >> future land use element, conservation
land use language. So there's a mismatch and that's what we're dealing with. That's where the confusion arises with regard to um
you know how what role the regulatory agency say and and what happened. Oh, I've gone over 7:30, but I'm just going to make one little statement. Um uh we'll we'll
find out. um next time that the uh same thing happened with county they they had to deal with this too and it was in 2003. So, so hopefully you've got a taste of of this particular
problem here and hopefully um we can discuss next time a possible solution uh a change in this language that that
would be more accurate. So, that's all I got to say. >> What language would you like us? What language would you like us to look through over the next couple of weeks before we return >> so that we can be prepared for next week, next meeting? >> Um,
okay. I don't want to spill the beans on what I'd like because um >> I want to try to move this along, Mary. I I don't want the leaguer what we already know and what we believe >> and and I think >> you've laid it out, but we need to we need to move forward with where we're
going to go next. and that I was planning on doing tonight, but I don't think I think we should quit unless you want to see it. I mean, I'm glad to to present it and that I >> I think what he wants to know is there a
particular section of the >> the flume >> flume that you want us to study before the next meeting. >> Okay, I think I got it right here. It's the last sentence that we're studying. And then you can also look at the whole
policy because that the whole policy 1.16.4 is where we're going next. >> Okay? >> And um what we're going to discuss next time is um fixing up 1.16.4.
>> Okay? because that verbiage in the first sentence I have analyzed um you know different documents and I know I think Brad feels this way too that
um that first sentence is not necessary. We'll go through that next time. >> Okay. So, I got a solution to this problem. And I think that, you know, there's there's
we're really getting into the tough stuff now. And and I um I think we can fix it. >> Of course, we can. >> All All I need your your I really appreciate your attention. and I just can't thank you enough for for your real
effort that you're making here. We we have a job to do and um I'm just so glad that the city council gave us um timing. Lily, would you like to did you announce when the next TUC
meeting is? >> Yeah, it's part of reports. It's later in the agenda. >> Oh, okay. So, we'll listen to Is that okay? Do we quit now? >> I don't want to I don't want people to get I mean, we we need to stop when
we're all alert and um you know, you guys have done a wonderful job and I want to thank you all. >> Okay, so we're going to study Flume 1.16.4. >> Yeah. The first thing I the first sentence I'll give you some reasons why
I think we don't even need it because I think Brad agrees with that because I had a different solution and he didn't like it and I think uh he's good with getting rid of it and we can talk about that. >> I wrote the same thing down just cutting
it. >> Okay. Good. Good. Then I think the the next thing is just reports if we're done with this discussion. So Lily, would you like to lead us off since you've got probably the most to report on? >> Yeah, the the main thing is the uh
projected future form meetings for TEC. It's January 27th, 5:30 to 8. Thursday, February 26th, 5:30 to 8. Thursday, March 26, 5:30 to 8. And Thursday, April
30th, um 2026, 5:30 to 8. mainly is due to the availability of this room particularly. >> So we have Tuesdays. >> So >> so the Tuesdays because council had
moved their meeting to Thursday >> Thursday. So >> basically the last th with the exception of this month the last Thursday of every month. >> Every month. Okay. >> Through April. >> That's wonderful. >> Put it on. >> Is that okay with everybody? I mean,
this was proposed to us, so I I assume so. >> I was just going to ask if we need to vote on it or is this just >> This is part of Lily's report, so we don't really vote on that. >> This is where she tells us what we're worth. And >> yeah, you get an email. Um, other thing
is the Arbor Florida Arbor Day event on Friday. That's uh I'll be there. I'm sure members of TEC will be there. Yes, we should all be at the the um Pritchard House on for Arbor Day Friday morning 11 o'clock >> this Friday. >> This Friday. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> We're going to be dedicating a tree for the 250th year anniversary >> hosted by the Pritchard House. >> It's at the Pritchard House and the tree is being donated by the Florida by the Titusville Garden Club uh tree farm.
>> And I will um working on a half sort of halftime report. on the urban speaking of trees, urban forestry management plan. Um, and that I do need help with getting more people to vote for that vision statement. Uh, one
particular downfall that I've noticed is just lack of engagement overall in terms of people not filling out the surveys or, you know, just from the public. It's been really >> difficult. >> Pardon? Is there something we can do to to
>> If you could tell your friends, neighbors, HOA boards if you're on them, groups, just direct them to the urban forestry management plan project page. There's going to be another community. I just don't want to go to council again and say like, "Oh, this has been low."
>> Yeah. Three people showed up. I I get it. Can you send us all the links so we can forward that out to our groups and stuff? >> Okay, >> that would be that we I'm sure we'll all do that. And Lily, you and I have talked about this. Do you have access to all
the HOAs in Tarzo so that you can send them emails? >> Um, >> with like stuff like this so that they know and they can post it. >> So I did uh the mayor actually organized a roundt with HOAs and hit all their
contacts and I sent them that as well along with a bunch of other stuff about sustainability as well. So I I am trying and I do outreach events, social media. >> Yeah, I know. >> You get all credit. It's just a conversation you and I had a long time ago, >> right? Yes. And I did I did see
>> and it did come. So they do get notified. >> Yes. Okay. >> What about the stormwater workshop? >> Yeah, that one keeps changing every day. >> Yes, that Yeah, >> it's changed again. Well, it was going to become a poster card of, you know,
this is what each department does, but wasn't taking any input from the people like who were flooded and that got rearranged at the last city council meeting. So, they're going to >> But is it still going on on January 22nd? >> Yep. >> We all need to be there if possible.
>> We should be there, too. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> January 22nd. And I would also high, speaking of other upcoming events, encourage you to register for the community conference in March the Saturday 7th. That's another
something I've been working on, one of my initiatives, too. So, come out. >> Okay. Register for Lily's conference. >> So, how do we do that? Where do we do that? >> I'll send you the link, too. There's um it's online. >> Okay. >> Perfect. >> It's actually under the communities tab
because it's not just community development. I've got like HR coming, public works coming, finance is coming. So you can sit on like a budget hearing sort of ask them about how city funding works. I've actually I got a lot of buyin from this as >> Can we get funding for the TEC?
>> You did this last year, didn't you? >> No, no, I did the sustainability awards which I will be doing again. >> Okay. >> I'm going to try and push for that again this year. So that's going to come up in April along with Earth Day and along with everything else. >> What day is that in March? March 7th is a Saturday.
>> Yeah. And it's just a morning like sort of crash course conference style. You have different breakout rooms and led by different departments, fire, police, >> to meet all the directors, you know. >> Yeah. That once you become a city council member, you can't talk to
anymore. >> That's right. >> So, the stormwater workshop on January 22nd is at 5:30 p.m. here, right? In the council chambers. Okay. >> Yeah, that'll be good.
>> Is that gonna is there going to be stuff? >> Okay. I guess we have member reports. >> I don't know. You know, some kind maybe not. >> Any reports? >> Any reports for the week? Any meetings you've attended? Anything interesting you've learned?
>> Okay. Jason, nobody got >> the city was kind enough and and gracious enough to host the first uh county commission workshop for the Save Our Indian River Lagoon half penny
sales tax right here. And it was brilliant. Yeah, it was really, really good. >> And uh I I really appreciate the city stepping up and and letting us use this facility. Uh the talks were good. It's on YouTube. I recommend that everybody
look at it um because the presentations were amazing and you're going to learn so much stuff about the um happening sales tax and all the accomplishments that have been made already, you know,
and there's going to be a big push. Um, I think this the county commission looks like they're going to go ahead and approve um putting it on the ballot. So, we're going to have to work really hard to get it passed again so that we can
keep the improvements that are happening in the lagoon continuing. >> Absolutely. Bethanne, >> no. No. Oh my. Well, that just leaves me. Um, well, I
the city's uh sorrel uh the presentation here I thought was absolutely fabulous. I also attended the one down in Palm Bay U Monday. Laura Lee, your presentation brought tears to my eyes. I I remember not as
long as you because I haven't been here that long, but I do remember growing up here and still seeing sawfish, short to sawfish in the in the lagoon as a child. And um it it it strikes me that many people here today, people who have come
in the last 10 years or less, um they see water, they see wildlife, but they don't know what it was and they don't have a understanding of where we want to be. Um we have so much going for us.
The Indian River Lagoon is a national treasure and it's it's a unique estuary in Florida and I hope we can do our best to to save it. I know that what we're doing here with storm water and with our
wetlands are all going to come to fruition because we all care >> and and everybody that participates in this process is going to come out a winner, including the lagoon. So, If there's nothing else, I'll entertain
a motion to adjurnn. >> I motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. >> Very good. All in favor say I. >> I. >> We'll see you in a couple of weeks. Thank you all for your participation so much.