Can I have a call to order here, please? And a roll call. May Ley. >> Um, Chairman Mjack. >> Yes, ma'am. Here. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson. >> Member Berdett >> here. >> Member Tucker >> here. Member Miller
>> here. Member Delgado >> here. >> Member Nico >> here. >> Alternate member Young >> here. >> Alternate member Rosa. >> Thank you. >> All right. Looks like we have a quorum. So, if you'll join me for the pledge of
allegiance, please. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All righty.
I guess next up is approval of the minutes. I hear a motion. I moved. Oh, >> I was waiting for somebody else to do it. >> Your microphone's not on. I >> I move to approve the minutes of our previous meeting. >> I second.
>> Very good. We have a motion in a second. Are there any discussion? Any comments on the minutes? Any additions or edits? Okay. Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed?
passes unanimously. All righty. On to petitions and requests from the public present. I believe we need five minutes on the clock. Billy, >> please. Thank you. >> Uh Stan Johnston at the last meeting. Uh
what happened to Lauri? >> She's out of town. She's at a restaurant tour convention, I believe, in Washington DC. This was uh something that you ordered from uh the city. I don't know if they've got it to you yet. >> Pardon?
>> Yes, we have. >> Okay. All right. So, um there's a there's a page in here. It says that a a lot of pages are 11 are are are bigger if you get the uh report. So, I haven't requested a report. In other words, these ones that are 11 by
17, they're probably at least 24 or 36 if we if we still have them. I doubt that we have them. The um uh uh one one plate that I've highlighted is this plate that has it's 11 by 17. I just did
half of it and someone only got one of This uh this particular plate 11 by7 is especially interesting because it shows 16 sections that the city is sp is to use for um details of of crosssections
of the um ditches and canals and they range from width of 70 ft to 170 ft. We have no ditches in Titusville that are that way. Not one of them. Not one of them. So the uh the the uh epiphany
that you can conclude from this is that uh that since this was done in 1966 and we have no ditches or canals like this is that we've been lied to
for 60 years. The people that we have trusted have not done their job. This is a big deal and it has to do with my profession, engineering profession
and other people. So, uh I'm not sure how we can blame anyone. It's been passed on. It's it's something like a generational curse or whatever you might want might call it. But um this city has has has lied to us regarding sustainability,
regarding flood control and the flood that we had back in October and November of last year. It should have been much reduced had we followed the our instructions and our rules that we we had already have. But
the city has lied to us. So I don't know what we what can what can happen what you can do but you have this book is you say you have it now or we're going to have it get
>> it was emailed to us >> it was emailed to you >> I think you should get a hard copy because you can't you can't uh there's only so much you can do with an email this is many pages so so I I was hoping that you would have I expected you would
have this instead of something that's email. You you you emailed you copied yours. >> I got it sent to me because I whenever I get something whether it's the Minnesota or something >> whenever I they send me something I
print like if it's this big I print the cover and the table of contents so I know what's in the book. >> Excellent. >> Then I look at it electronically so by hand I can find it electronically I can say it. So I have a I printed this. So this is I have electronic copy.
>> There's a page there pages in there. It says what is to be done and it and it lists these sections and it lists the cubic feet per second that is to happen in the in the cross-sections for uh so that it it won't erode and for also that
for some uh for our culverts and so forth so that they will have sufficient velocity for cleaning. being self-cleaning. We don't have any of that. The city is is uh in other words, the sustainability that we have and our
budgeting has been dishonest. So, I'm I'm giving something to you. Any questions you might have, I've got just a few seconds left. So, if anybody has any questions of me, I'm here. And then I'll leave.
I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, I've started to read through that. Um, I'm not I'm not completed I haven't completed it, but there is some legitimate infrastructure that's been put in place. Why are you saying that there is not?
>> What legitimate infrastructure have has been put in place? >> Well, according to the plan is you're saying that that plan is completely bogus. Pardon? You're saying I'm saying that that this is bogus? >> No, I'm saying that this is real and
what what you have is bogus. >> So, you're saying there are no canals or ditches in Titusville? >> I said that of there's 16 sections there. The narrowest one is 70 ft wide. The the biggest one that goes to St.
John's is 170 ft wide. We have none no ditches that I know of that have any of those typical sections. Not one. >> Thank you, Stan. >> Thank you. Thank you for your question.
>> Um Lily, can you uh remind us when the new storm water master plan is going to be? What's the schedule on with that? I know that's in the works, but >> yeah, if I'm and I'm I'm not 100% correct, but I believe it's in like the budgeting process at this point.
>> Okay. So, it's in work. We're going to come to a solution here, Stan. It may take a while, but we'll get to it. Anybody else petitions and requests? Okay, seeing none, let's move on to old
business. Wetlands, our favorite subject. Somebody told me it's all about land management. >> Uh, chairman. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Pette, >> uh, if if I may, uh, I just had a comment to make because I have to actually leave before 6. >> Yes, sir.
>> Um, I just wanted to make a comment um about one of the city council agenda items from yesterday. um had to do with drilling down into the brackish layer of the aquifer. I'm sure we'll be probably discussing it uh quite
a bit more soon. Um but while I agree that we obviously do need to plan ahead for future future uh portable water sources, uh obviously I I don't really agree that that we should be drilling into the
brackish layer of the aquifer and pulling wooling water directly from the lagoon. Um uh instead I I really believe that we probably should be pursuing uh something
more along the lines of storm water reclamation. Uh, not only does this alleviate many of the issues we already have um with storm water, but it pro it helps protect and restore the lagoon at the same time. And uh in the long term,
it's often cheaper than desalinization and uh lagoon intakes. Um I believe uh council had said that this would be discussed a little bit more. Um, was that going to be discussed more tonight
or would it be pushed more to the next meeting? >> It's not currently on tonight's agenda. Um, I'll add one comment to that and that is that we are the water resources board for the city
>> and it strikes me as a smack in the face that it wasn't even addressed to us before it was presented to council. I would have think thought that this board would have had a say on something so
environmentally critical as our water raw water resource. But that's just that's my perspective. See, I you may not know, member Berdette, but I along with Jim Egan, who was in the Marine Resource Council director,
uh were on a citizen science board with the St. John's River Water Management District to study putting in a del plant in the Indian River Lagoon. We wanted to put in a 30 million gallon a day plant colllocated with the FPL power supply because short runs made for cheaper
power for such a heavy load. And so we started looking at that and the thought at the time was well we'll just put the effluent right back into the lagoon. That's we're just taking the fresh water out. But what we're putting back is not something that's naturally found
existing on the surface of the earth. It's highly reactive and we figured out in a fairly short amount of time and modeling that we couldn't even put a five million gallon a day plant there because it would the banana river would have been dead in two years and the rest
of the lagoon in five. So it's what you do with the effluent. That's the real question. Whether you suck it out of the ground or whether you suck it out of the lagoon, you have to deal with the effluent. And the only solution that the management district came up with was to
send it out 17 miles into the Gulf Stream where it could be mixed because if you start dumping it offshore, you're going to kill your offshore wildlife, too. So, there's a there's a real diminishing set of returns when you start looking at desalinization.
You have to find a way to deal with the effluent. And if you can do that, you know, maybe turn it into salt and sell it to the people up in Maine. I don't know. But that that's what I know about del. Um it's it's going to be a hard pull to
actually make it work. The better alternative, I think, is taking our storm water and pumping it into the ground and recharging the artificial, you know, artificially recharge the surficial aquifer and push that salt layer further down, which gets rid of the brackish water entirely. and it
restores our aquifer to where it should be. Right now, we're not doing either. We're continuing to cover up and we're continuing to run it into the lagoon and not putting it in the river or the ground. Those are all problems that we have to fix.
All right. Oh, boy. I got other lights. Yes, ma'am. Um I just wanted to comment on I I watched the city council and it was um member Stoko that said the uh storm water people had given them apparently
they had asked for options of portable water source for increased development and she's the one that said we should run this by the TEC before we make a decision. So I think that's what you're talking about. >> Good. >> That'd be great.
Okay, back to the board. Um, on to wedlands. Mary, please. >> Quick question. Can we put that on the agenda for next next meeting? >> Yeah. So, the plan currently is to have what that was presented to um on your next agenda.
>> Yeah. >> I don't know if we're talking about water. Can I say something? >> I got it. >> If you wanted to say something. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh I I think I've said this before. Um when I was a kid, we moved here in 1957. My dad put down a well and we went down
five feet and got water. U when he turned 60 um he uh we put another piece of pipe down. We put a piece of pipe in 57 20 foot. another one when he was 40, another when
he was 57. So we had a 60 foot pipe going down to get water for the well for ordering the grass. So in 19 uh I mean in 2025 I mean 2005 2005 it was a 60oot
piece of pipe and water was 55 ft down. So, in the years I've lived here, the water has gone from five feet down to 55 feet down to get water. I just thought I since we're talking about water, I might mention those who
haven't been here that long. What's happened? Thank you, Bill. I'm just waiting on Mary to get set up. Yeah. >> Yeah. Alrighty then. What are we looking at here?
>> Looks like another Kimberly Horn subdivision. >> I think this is going to be Mary's example. Should we have done this earlier? All right. We hope to accomplish uh some resolution on
flu policy 1 16.4. And if you'll remember, you suggested that the last sentence in there which read the allowable impact should be based on site specific evaluation
determined through the permitting process conducted by all the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. That that should go. And there was a substitute sentence. No wetland shall be impacted by development activities without appropriate land use review and
approval by the city. The city shall apply the land use planning policies of this objective in a manner consistent with objective 1.6 of the conservation element which pertains to wetlands.
Permit approval by regulatory agency shall not substitute for independent land use review and approval by the city. And the city's land use review and approval shall not be influenced by any action taken in response to a regulatory
agency's permitting decision. In other words, you can't just get a permit and then say, "I can do what I want to do." Um, I do have one quick question for the attorney um on this page here. Um, flute policy
1.16.4. Okay. Um, this has to do with the way you write legal language and obviously having no training in legal matters other than as a volunteer.
Um, it says in that I'd like to know what he thinks. Um so um now we have our attorney David and if he can look after the striketh through
the second sentence after the striketh through says the city shall apply the land use planning policies of this objective um in a manner consistent with objective 1.6.
The question is on the of this objective um do do we need to um is of this objective sufficient um you know to identify all the policies
1.16 one two three and four. >> Yes, it would be everything within 1.16. >> That's just what we want to know. Thank you so much. It's good to have an attorney here.
Okay. Now, here's what you have to decide. What are you going to do with that first sentence? So, that's why we have Oh, by the way, there's
something on the back of this paper, flu policy 1.16.4. 4 and we'll look at that when we look at again at policy 1.16.3.
So you got this paper here. Let me scoot up this tab. And it says that there was a relatively minor change from you know the pre200.
2010 was when the big changes occurred and they did not match the conservation element in several ways. and conditional uses you know within the conservation land use for if
there's no practical alternative to ensure reasonable use of the applicant's policy. Now pre202 there was no provision for
residential uses of one unit per 5 acres that was put in in 2010. Um now in 2010 it did say impacts to area designated as conservation land use shall be considered if it is unavoidable due to
the absence of feasible and or practical alternatives for reasonable use of their land. So you got just a minor change, but what have we done to policy 1.16.3?
What did we do last time? 1.16.3 was the one that says >> one unit per five acres. >> Yeah, there's one unit for five acres. That's a and we extended that if you'll remember. Right.
>> Right. >> What did we extend it to? >> To 1.8% of impact. >> The 1.8% for what? >> Wetland impacts. for for what kind of land? >> Cons uh conservation land >> conservation land use on what kind of
development >> was it all kinds of development? No, it wasn't. What was it? >> Didn't include PD if I recall? >> No, it has nothing to do with PD. Nothing to do. >> Well, it's single use. >> Yeah, family residences.
>> Okay. So, what you did last time, um, as a matter of fact, I got it right here. Um, use, okay, it said allowable uses within
the conservation land use area shall be limited to residential unit uses of one unit per five acres, so and so, so and so. The preceding limitation of one dwelling unit per five acres within the conservation land use may be applied as
a maximum percentage limiting wetland impacts to not more than 1.8% for residential development. You'll remember it has nothing to do with commercial or industrial
right >> so far. But we omitted that in the language. >> Pardon me. >> Didn't we omit that in the language? The industrial and commercial. >> It was never there. Never. Oh. Oh, I know. Oh, yes. I know what you're talking about.
Um, yeah. You had commercial industrial uses are not permissible in the conservation land use category that you added to, right, John? Good point. you we stated the fact that there's no
provision for impacting these large wetlands which is and wetlands that are to be preserved. There's no provision for doing that to impact these for commercial industrial development.
Okay. Now, so what we've done, we have given a reasonable use with the 1.8% for all residential development.
And the county has that too. It's exactly the kind of thing they have. I mean, there's there they have a little difference because they don't have the conservation land use overlay. Now, you should have got an email from
me. Did you get it? >> Yes. >> It was It was some email correspondence with Darcy McGee. Anyway, so we'll get to that later. Um because we want to talk a little more
about what Darcy said, maybe tweak this language. I really really appreciate that question by the way. on the cumulative impacts and also your discussion. I mean it is super important for you to raise your
questions because you know I mean we're volunteers and we're working together and you know everybody's in input helps us to get a better product. Not everybody's not
going to think of everything. So, and now we have a chance to figure out what to do with that first sentence in 1.16.4.
So, if you can go back to um this paper here, two changes to policy 1.16.4 before in 2010. Okay. So they had conditional uses and before
that and now they have impact series that um you know and it discusses that's for reasonable use. Um it's it's not a big change but
the big change is in 1.16.3 because now we have a reasonable use. Okay. So now you're going to have to toggle these
two papers because the first sentence in this one flu policy 1.16.4 Four says, "Impacts to areas designated as conservation land
use designation shall be considered if it is unavoidable due to the absence of feasible and/or practical alternatives for reasonable use of the land. In other words, they don't have any
reasonable use of the land. So, they're going to What this says is um like Lieberman, you get to ask for impact so that you're going to have
reasonable use of the land. Um because he didn't have any 1.8%. He had nothing because he wanted multifamily. So what I want to know is if we
if we put the reasonable use in there last time in 1.16.3, do we need to consider impacts if there's no reasonable use? If I mean if we if we have a reasonable use, does that part of
the sentence need to be there? You know what? Do you get what I mean? >> Sure. Why Why would you have this additional verbiage if it's already covered in 16.16.3 rather? >> That is what So
>> So this is just just additional wording that's not helpful. >> Okay. So you might think about striking part of that. What part would you what part there do you have a reason to consider getting
rid of? >> Or in the first sentence we could say impacts to areas designated as conservation land use designation shall not be considered if it is unavoidable. and then follow. >> Well,
>> that's one thought. Is there another thought? >> Yeah. If if we break it apart, >> if it's unavoidable due to absence of feasible or practical alternatives for reasonable use of the land, well, we've already defined reasonable use. That's
1.8% of the land. Or the regulations create an inordinate burden on an existing use of the land or a vested right to a specific use of the land. Well, what kind of burden would we be creating if we've already got a
predefined vested right of 1.8%. >> I tell you what, >> why do we need them at all? >> That's what we're going to discuss. Let me make the suggestion. I would say
um that you could get rid of if it is unavoidable due to the absence of feasible andor practical alternatives for reasonable use of the land because you already got that. Does that make
sense? So if you got a pencil, you can cross out if it is unavoidable due to the absence of feasible land or practical alternatives for reasonable use of the land. So we can get rid of that part, right?
>> Mhm. >> So now I'll let you all see if you can cross it out. cuz that's just not the situation anymore. We got it covered.
So on to the next point which is the tough one. Um now back to the um
back to the paper two changes to policy 1.16.4. I'd like you to read to yourself. Um, we're going to talk about the clause. It says or the regulations create an inordinate burden on an
existing use of land or a vested right to a specific use of the land. Um, so I would um ask you to read to the bottom of that page to yourself
and then we'll talk about it. I I feel like we talked about this at the last meeting. Um I don't I don't see any part of that first sentence that seems to be necessary at all at this point. I mean, maybe some kind of
introductory sentence to lead into the the other part that we added, but it seems to me like we've we've done enough in the previous strategy to essentially just eliminate that opening sentence.
>> Any other comments? >> No, I I agree. I think the first sentence that we wrote uh down at the bottom section covers everything in the top. >> I don't know if we're ready for a motion. >> Can I um >> before we get to that?
>> Just let's go on because we got to make sure we understand. All right. So, the Okay. The city of Titusville has vested rights procedures in the LDRs.
You don't need this sentence to file a vested rights complaint. This vested rights is covered by Bert Harris. But the main thrust of Bert Harris act is the inordinate burden which is just a little bit beneath a
taking um of the land. So, um, we had a meeting, Brad, Lily, and David. And um you know actually
after the meeting with Brad, you know, David and Lily and I went down to the legal office and I um mentioned to David that um Bvard County's vested rights section also has
a Bert Harris um little section. What these sections do is they tell you exactly what you need to do. Here's what you need for your evidence. Here's who you need to contact. Here's how you go about it, you know, and Titusville could easily add
that. I mean, if if they have a need to to do something about Bert Harris, which they may or may not, um, it's a possibility. I mean, it's not like out of their realm, right? I mean, they'd have to think about it if
they wanted to add it, but it certainly um can be done. There's information only. You can file a Bert Harris challenge. You can file a vested rights challenge. It's just that Bvard County
has procedures for both. They're kind of interlocked. here's what you have to have all the documents, you know, and all that and what you do. Um, but Titusville only has a vested right. So, I mean, if they want to put
in something about vested rights, maybe they'd want to consider it there instead of right in the middle of future land use targeting of all things conservation land use. I mean,
that's my opinion. What you the big problem with uh filing a claim for B under B Harris is the main hangup that a land owner is
going to have is that five acre rule. If they have a wetland that's 5 acres or greater in size, they are quite limited in what they can do. And that is old language.
You know, I have the document from 1989 where, you know, it's in there, you know, that it as a solution. Um, so
that was 89. 1995, uh, July 1st is when Bert Harris act went in. They have no ability to use against the 5 acre rule, a Bert Harris claim, which is why it's
so important to keep that five acre rule. We've got to keep it or these big wetlands may be toast um over time. Hopefully hopefully we'll do something about keeping them.
Um so now um if you'll turn over to the back of this. This is complicated. Okay. because we're discussing the clause that says or due to significant
site constraint or a practical design modification constraint. Now, doesn't that sound a little bit nebulous? Well, guess what? It's permitting language.
Now, we're not supposed to be doing permitting in the first place. That's what we discussed last time. Let the water management do district do it. So I know that this is complicated. So we'll go through a little bit of it.
Okay. Comment to the my comment. The phrase significant site constraint and or practical design modification constraint is similar to regulatory permitting language that has been in Florida permitting agency's applicants
handsbooks for many years including 2008 and 2009 when the language in policy 1.16.4 was being revised. I ordered those just
to make sure that you were seeing language sign similar to significant site constraint. Of course, it says practicable design modification in these handbooks. Now,
here's something interesting. You wonder why we have land use planning. Um, so I'd like you to read those two things indented on by
yourself. This is straight from the latest applicants handbook of the district. Perhaps next time if we do this, we could have the words up on the screen for people to see because the dead space dead air doesn't help people watching at home.
>> That's a great idea. Willie, we need to coordinate that. I have the ones of the maps, but I wasn't I didn't know this was going to be presented. >> Okay. Yeah, we were kind of um Yeah, I'll need to coordinate a little better with you.
Uh sorry, but you know, we hardly knew what we were doing before yesterday's meeting. We were just winging it, right? Okay. So, now does that make sense or probably a little bit
confusing? Is it? >> Yeah. I like the original wording. >> So anyway, okay, you read the um stuff from the applicants handbook. So now see that paragraph. It starts with basically
this is my comment on the district's language. Basically, what this language is implying is that in some cases, an applicant's project can be granted a permit even if it is not going to really
meet the environmental criteria, you know, because it says the modification um can't be turned down. Um you can't just require them to do something totally different, you know.
Anyway, it says this can happen if enough mitigation is offered. You know, there it's somewhat of a oh, I shouldn't say this, but game um in my opinion, you know, because they
they offer enough mitigation and they can do it. And that's why we have to have the city ability to do land use planning intact and why the city's land use planning has
to include the provision that large wetlands um are limited and then their impacts to 1.8%. >> I think the 1.8% 8% could apply to all wetlands actually >> um
>> of any size because the 5 acre rule >> that's a topic that is a topic for the um conservation element which we do not want to get into now because the conservation land use does not
necessarily cover all wetlands that are small. It covers the ones that are going to be preserved and we had a discussion about that yesterday. I wanted to make absolutely sure.
Okay. Now it says this can happen if enough mitigation is offered. You remember that memo from Margaret Spontac? As Marcus Fontac stated in her memo, partnership for wetlands protection, the
need for land use planning and permitting, 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. The burden has been passed on to the permanent 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 use development regulations. And then the last paragraph says, "Titisville's land use planning policies
should not duplicate permitting policies of the regulatory agencies. Land use decision should not involve evaluating whether wetlands impact can be considered due to significant site constraint and or practical design
modification constraint. This is my opinion. Therefore, this phrase is not appropriate in pro policy 1.16.4. And that's what you're going to have to decide if you think if you think this
language starting with or the regulations create an inordinate burden on an existing use of land or invested rights to a specific use of land or due to a significant site constraint or practical design
modifications. you know that they can consider impacts. In other words, you got to decide if any of the rest of that first sentence should be there or if it's all unnecessary.
The first part because they have a right to vested rights or Bert Harris challenges and the second part because we don't want permitting language muddying
our land use planning evaluation. >> Member Miller. Yeah, I think I'm going to make a motion to strike through that complete first sentence of flu policy 1.16.4.
>> I'll second that. >> I can do that as a chair. >> Any discussion, please? >> I I have a question. Um why not strike the entire policy? The last sentence too. Um permitting pro process conducted
by all the regulatory agencies within the jurisdiction. >> Oh, that's struck through. It's already >> um if the it's where >> Oh, you're right. It's already strike through. Strike through. >> You're fixed to it starts at no wetlands. >> This removes the remainder of what was
1.16.4. >> The only thing that I would add to the discussion is is this the place where we should put not just residential but also commercial and industrial? >> Yeah, I got it. I I'm not there. I got
this. I I I That's coming right up. Next paper >> ahead of you again. All right. Anybody else? Any questions? All right. We got a motion. Let's have a roll call vote, please. >> Member Miller. >> Yes.
>> Vice Oh, sorry. Member Young. >> Yes. >> Member Delgado. >> Yes. Member Nico. >> Yes. >> Member Tucker. >> Yes. Chairman Mjack. >> Yes.
>> All righty. We have dispatched with 1.16.4. Is there anything we need to do back at 1.16.3 or we done? >> Yeah. Let me get my act together. Okay. >> I got I'm terrible with when I get too many papers on a desk.
Some people are organized. Not me. Um >> Dan's example Okay, that Okay. So, um Lily, what do they have um back there?
Do they have three different maps? >> Yeah, the maps that you provided. And I believe that can be brought up on the screen. >> Okay. In the meantime, we we're going to um
get another paper pass out. Um, can you can can he pull up the first map, Lily? Or I don't know how to >> Which map? >> As for Yes.
Um, wait a minute. That's the second one. >> Can he pull up the one that's Huntington Park? Does he have hunting to park? >> I don't know. >> Yes. Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay. What I want to show you is if you did you get a map here? >> Okay. Huntington Park. >> Got it. Yeah. >> We've looked at it before. >> Yeah. >> Several times. >> Uhhuh. >> Okay.
>> Even when Brad was here. No, you got one, David. Yeah. Okay. So, um, what I want to show you, this is a major developer here, MBV.
I want to show you that MBV engineering knows exactly how to use that 1.8%. And I think they voluntarily did. They got a huge amount of wetlands. Now, right in the middle, there's a
bridge between the um eastern northeastern part and the western part of their development. And they in order to you know be able to get in
and out of the western part they obviously needed some access which they're providing over the wetlands. They got some sort of bridge and it says public rightway typical.
Okay. Well, guess what? How much do you think they filled percent of those wetlands? >> No idea. >> Well, by your little paper, I would guess 1.8%.
>> That's exa it and it is exact. >> Mhm. >> Amazingly, it's exact. They knew what they were doing. I'd like to and I they may have come in in under conditional uses because we
didn't really have a provision for subdivision but they know how to use that percent. So I think they may be very happy to have this allowance. The other thing you might want to notice is um that they unlike uh Lieberman
they have um okay you see that kind of brownish one which is the wetlands bordering that is a light green and then a darker green and then the
street you know but that light green is Um, some sort of buffer. Can somebody read that fine print? Buffer open space. Is that is it what it says?
Okay. I know. I need new glasses. Okay. So, um, now they got a buffer. They got a buffer all around this. So, do you think they have any secondary effect impact they
have any secondary impacts to any neighboring properties? No, they don't because they got a buffer because they may have some impacts, but the water management district says this buffer is enough.
But not in Lieberman. If you remember, they had they were impacting with their secondary impacts the property to the south, which was not good. And I think we discussed before that
they have compensatory storage because they're in the flood plane. And you can see they have a bunch of trees there. tree tree preservation recreation track. Um
they did not fall under the tree ordinance but they did this voluntarily and they would have actually um qualified for the incentives. So, I mean, this is not rocket science
to to these engineering firms like MBV. And now we're going to look at another one. Um, the second map if if they can um Oh, draw it up. Oh, I forgot to tell you on
the first map it says, do the wetland limitations apply? It is conservation land. Yes, Huntington Park. Yes. But there is no impacts to any lots on this. None.
No lots are impacted by wetlands. Um, okay. Now, Verona Village. That's Rona Village D, right? Is Is
there Is it That looks like it's C. Wait a minute. >> That's D. >> D. Okay. Okay. So, um do we have a print out of village D?
because I don't have it. Yeah. Oh, thank you. Thank you. That helps. Okay. Yeah, this is very helpful that I can
see it here. Um, thank you. Um, okay. So in village D you'll notice that that gray the gray is the wetlands impacts and you can see some like on a road mostly on
roads. Oh thank you give David back. Um, so take a look at that. So the wetland impact guess what
it's 1.8% 8% of the it's not of the conservation land use because Verona is a special case. I don't know how this exactly all happened
but they got out of their conservation land use. They don't have they should have conservation land use on this on the wetlands in this. They should have it. Um because like this one this white one
up at the top that that's huge wetland. They have huge wetlands. But what happened is in 2016 they changed to um planned um
development or planned blend unit development. Anyway, it's one of those um land use categories. They should never have gotten out of into that category in my opinion because
of strategy 1.6.3.2 of the conservation element. But what's done is done and we can't we're not going to waste our time trying to figure out how they did it. But nevertheless, nevertheless,
this is Honeyut and Associates, another huge firm here developing. They have zero houses cited in wetlands. There may be a just
very slight impact to some lodge. Very, very slight. and they did not have to comply with with any wetlands uh limitation because they do not have the conservation land use. Um
they have PD zoning but they don't have conservation land use. They have they they have um I think they have PUZ zoning which was uh way back then in PUD
I don't know land I could be wrong but anyway they don't have they don't the wetlands impact limitations are one unit per five acres um do not apply. But guess what? Their engineer
voluntarily limited the wetlands impacts to 1.8%. He knows just what to do. He just doesn't push the envelope. Okay?
So, they can do it. This is my point. They know how to do it. They're not They may not be upset at all by this 1.8%. They may think, "Okay, this is tell me what to do and I can handle this."
I hope that's what they think. That make sense? >> Yes. >> Now, let's go on to the next one. Verona Village D, a different uh company.
Now note they are not bound by the conservation land use one unit per five acres in not in any way. So guess how guess you can see you can
see this gray here. They got gray on various lots in that third map. Everybody seen that? So, wetlands impacts. It looks like they didn't voluntarily
decide to stick to 1.8%. Maybe it just didn't occur to them. Or maybe, guess what? They wanted to, I should say, pack the maximum amount of houses that they could in there, which
is not incumbent. You know that. So the number of houses cited in wetlands that excludes the impacts and ledgers is not zero like the other two but 11. which tells you that some companies
might voluntarily do um what they think is the right thing to do. And others um I mean they may think that impacting
bunch of lots is the right thing to do. I have no idea but they have a different perspective, let's put it that way. And um this is a problem if you lose the conservation land use designation.
Does that make sense? If you don't have a conservation land use designation, you have no restrictions on how much of that wetland
you can impact. It's up to the water management district. So, are you ready to talk about the policy now? All right, I got to tell Let me put this stuff away. I just
going to be better organized. Okay, now I want to make sure you all understand this situation here. So, wait just a second.
Okay, so here's the deal. We had a meeting yesterday, Brad, David, and Lily, and myself. Okay. Um, you know that language you suggest? Oh, I'm sorry. I I'll get this in one
sec. Okay. Uh, I'll I'll pass this out in one sec. Let me just tell you what happened in the meeting. Okay. So, I um I gave
I gave Brad your language. Well, and I've told him, you know, this is what he suggested and you passed it for 1.16.3. And I had just a a little bit one more
sentence added to it. And then um he's looking at it again, you know, giving it a second look and he thinks it's got too many words
and and it might not be sticking to one topic. So, we got to present some alternatives to him. And I got two alternatives.
And I suggest that you you considered having Brad look at both. Okay. The first one is a small tweak of what you did last time based on
the email from Darcy who suggested that I mean who said that the county evaluates this uh 1.8% project by project. So we may get this handed out.
Oh, sorry David. You should be Okay. Okay. when you get that. Like I say, I just I really appreciate the question because
if we're going to do this project by project, I think we need to make those changes as it now reads with a strike through and underline. It's just moving some words around in that policy.
If you can read that to yourself. >> Why don't you read it out loud for the people at home, Mary? >> Sure. Allowable uses within the conservation land use area shall be limited to residential uses of one unit per 5 acres conservation,
recreation, open space, and stormwater management system consistent with the policies of the conservation element and the land development regulations. The receding limitation of one dwelling unit per five acres within the
conservation land use category may be applied as a maximum percentage limiting wetlands wetland impacts to not more than 1.8% of each residential developments total
conservation land use on a cumulative on a cumulative basis. Commercial and industrial uses are not permissible in the conservation land use category. And the reason I'm suggesting this
change is to clarify that the 1.8% is to be applied project by project just like Darcy in the county do. It m it's going to make it much easier and it was not clear that we are applying it project by project the way
we had it before. >> I see. >> While we're on that, can I suggest that we take the s off developments? If you want to do it case by case, >> it's singular. Then
>> 1.8% 28% of each residential development's total conservation land use. >> Possessive. >> Oh, possessive. >> Yeah, >> I know. I got I think what's confusing is I got that the Oh, I got too much
underline there. Okay. Sorry. >> Sorry. I need to remove that. Um, I'll remove that underline. Let's pretend it's removed. So, you would need to you would need to
consider that making that change um to your recommendation in a motion if you if you think that's good and then we'll go on to the strategy. So the only recommendational change then
is really it's this is going to be for per project on a case by case basis. Correct. >> Right. Okay. >> And to and to to give RA Brad this exact language with the change there that you're just tweaking your your
recommendation from last time to be this. >> Okay. Member Miller. >> Yeah. I would make a motion to accept the change to 1.16.3 as has been proposed here. >> Second.
>> Got a motion by member Miller and a second by member Tucker. Any further discussions? >> I have a question. >> Member Delgato. >> Mary. Mary. We have two Veronas examples. >> Yes. >> By two different engineering companies.
>> Correct. I get it. Yeah. >> Apparently, not that we want to stop that at all, but we have two different results. >> We have two different what >> results from the two same project. Verona D.
>> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. >> Versus B. >> Yes. Yes. Correct. So when we're talking project by project, is that in implied and this is more to the attorney also that Verona is a
project? >> No. Each way each village would be a project. But here's here's the deal. They do not have conservation land use. They have a different kind of land use
which they somehow managed to get in 2016. >> Okay. They got it. >> And and so they're they they don't have to follow the rules. Yeah. one company did and one company
I'll say pushed the envelope >> because I think you know you can see the number of 11 lots impacted by wetlands >> but where I'm going is if we're sticking with policy
then the whole thing is to avoid that example >> exactly where two veronas >> are handled different. >> Exactly. >> And not only different by the body that approved it, but also by two engineering
companies. Correct. >> Finding different solutions to the same verbiage. >> Well, they did, but they weren't they weren't obligated by the verbiage of one unit per five acres because
they got out of it. Um >> they have a different >> they have a different land use. >> If you go into the um if you go into the future land use element um it's that
um it's that one um that has to do with plan development or something like that. Maybe you can find it. Just hold on a second. He's going to see if he can find it on his computer. Mary, is it PUD plan use development?
>> If it's on the if it's in the future land use, >> is that it? >> And it should give the PUDS and there's four of them >> down at the end of that. >> Believe it's objective 1.19.
But I think the the point here is that since neither of those projects were subject to the conservation land use area, none of the verbiage that we are tweaking now or that is in place now was applicable to those projects at the time that they were developed. So what we're
doing now wouldn't have applied to those projects at the time, but projects that are in the conservation land use area only. If you have any questions for the attorney, please ask him because >> well, as a follow on to that, so how did they get there?
>> I'm not familiar with the the nature of those projects specifically. >> That is approving basically. >> Okay. It was the same set of rules. >> No, it wasn't the same. >> No, no, not today. But back then they
the rules were made differently and >> they were several years apart, >> right? They may be several years apart, but just basically the same people are still there. I mean, the I I find the logic
to to go the way that they found a way around it because the because the policy was not enforced. Therefore, they were not under >> the reason they're not under. >> How do how do I how do I avoid that?
>> Okay. Yeah. How do you avoid that? by your fix to 1.16.3, but they're they have just flown the coupe. They're they they got out of it and there's nothing we can do about it. You can't put
>> at the end of that policy. You should see that there's uh four developments, you know, big projects that are PUDs. But what happened is as far as those village D and B D
happened in um in uh 20 when was it? Anyway, I I can't exactly remember, but
um I think it was 2023 um the the spring and um be the one with all the impacts happened after D was just two different engineering
firms. And you know, I'm not saying that they they all didn't know the what Titusville was trying to do with one unit per five acre. I'm sure they did, but but they, you know, the rules just didn't apply to them. And and we got to
make sure that we, you know, get these rules tightened up so they're not loopholes. And that's exactly why you deleted in 1.6 16.2.
Unless that that wording that says um unless such wetlands are preserved by a conservation easement as part of a plan development or other master plan development because
they they can get they could I mean they got out before that e caveat was even written but I mean bygones are going to be bygon We just don't want you can see from the
bygones you want to close this close this loophole and in all the wetlands that are 5 acres or greater in size um have to be in conservation land use. >> We need to do we need to repeat that because what happened is we need we need
to learn from history. It's already happened. I'm not I'm not advocating going back. I that's >> No, we're not going back. >> That that's how I I don't work that way. But I do learn from that. >> Yeah, exactly. So we learn. >> So therefore, what I'm what I'm looking at is trying to get a dialogue that
says, do we have enough in the policy right now to prevent this happening? >> Well, >> that's a question that that I can in my mind I cannot answer yet. >> That's why we're tweaking this one, too. We are tweaking this one, too. and we're
going to go back and look at 1.16.2 again, but I haven't got enough information to do it. >> I'm going to suggest a possible solution or possible reason that this happened, and it's the same reason for the land swap that happened at Holloway's
property that Brad brought to us a few weeks ago. When the land's in the county and it's brought into the city, it doesn't matter whether it's wet or dry. It doesn't matter whether the county has it as a state zoning or a zippy mark. When it comes in and gets annexed into
the city, it's virgin land and they get to make it what they want. And if they did not make it conservation, then you have what we have. That's what they crafted. So fixing how we annex property and
actually addressing wetlands that we annex as conservation land needs to be looked at as well. Great idea >> because that's how this came in. That's how came in. They annexed that land and said, "Oh, this isn't estate planning. We'll just use the one unit per acre and
they applied it to the wetlands as well." So, instead of one per five, it was one per one. >> Boy, that's a great idea. >> Well, that's my that was my point. You know, we need to be able to close the gates >> now, whether it be annexation or whether
it be >> that's the only time it's not defined. Once it's annexed, it has a definition. It has a land use and it has a zoning, but it has it has to come in first and get annexed first. And what that gets annexed as, that's that's the real question.
>> And that may be the solution, but we need to look at >> we definitely need to look at that in a in a future meeting. >> Okay. So, should we go right on to the strategy? >> Yes. >> Don't we have a motion? >> Oh, we have a motion and a second. >> Oh, I'm sorry. We have a motion and a
second. We need a vote, right? >> We do. Is there any other discussion? Just to be sure. No. Okay. >> Um, >> so the motion is on the replacement of 1.16.3.
>> Member Nico. >> Yes. >> Member Delgado. >> Yes. >> Member Miller. Yes. >> Member Young. >> Yes. >> Member Tucker. >> Yes. >> Chairman Mjack.
>> Yes. >> Okay. We dispatched with that one. >> Now we have a new >> strategy. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, there were two sentences in there and this had not been run by staff. This is what I wrote the morning
before the last meeting to try to make it appear to an applicant that the 1.8% was not just some entitlement that they could do anything with. But this first sentence impact to wetlands
and conservation land use c in the conservation land use category shall not cause secondary impacts to adjacent properties. That's fine. Okay. Now,
um staff and this includes Lily, you know, when we were having a discussion, David and Lily and um they and and Brad I think made the made the comment they're going to have some
sort of storm water uh big workshop and stuff and if we start talking about compensatory storage at this point in time it might be premature. we might want to just, you know,
put that, you know, on the table and save it for later and and not include it with our recommendation because we don't know what is going to be done with the language about the um
the compensatory storage in the hundred-year flood plane because I know I think Michael mentioned this last time, Lily mentioned it. Now they're looking at indongation areas instead of just the hundredyear flood plane. And I
think David and Welli were talking about how um you know boundaries of wetlands uh change and all this. So, it might be more prudent to just delete that last
sentence and just have our strategy um be the first sentence, which you know, like you can't just impact your neighbor. >> So, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> Are we going to have to define ination areas?
>> No, no, no. No. We all we're doing is putting off all we're doing is is removing um that and letting some other people discuss it. >> We're just we're just not getting in their hair and trying to,
you know, make a policy when they're working on something. You know, it's the wrong the timing is wrong. >> Let's be courteous. You know what I mean? let them do their thing and then we'll, you know, I'm sure you'll be looking at it. Is
>> we can always add another strategy 1.16.3.2 that just addresses the compensatory storage issue and not mol it up, >> right? You could always do that, too. >> But but all I'm saying is that when this
goes back to Brad, you might want to just have it be one sentence long. So Laura Lee brought this up briefly at the last meeting. She mentioned that inundation areas is >> the thing that we're looking at now instead of flood planes and it also came up several times on Saturday at the
community conference. Right. I think this makes a lot of sense because as you just pointed out like once they get the the storm management I'm sorry storm water management plan updated um the verbiage that is in that will be
what we then want to add to this. So by cutting that out now we're saving ourselves work down the road as well. So I I would move to strike out that second sentence of 116.3.1 um that we had included at the last
meeting. >> Second. >> Good. Got a motion in a second. The strategy will read, "Impacts to wetlands and conservation land use category shall not change, shall not cause secondary impacts to adjacent
properties. Any other discussions? Hearing none, let's have a roll call vote, please. >> Member Miller, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. Member Delgado.
>> Yes. >> Member Nico. >> Yes. >> Member Tucker. >> Yes. >> Chairman Mjek. >> Yes. >> Okay. I can't stuff any more papers in my binder. >> Well, you're going to have to have one
more and that's it. >> Oh dear. >> One more. >> I need a bigger binder. >> Uh, so got that one away. Well, let me tell you about this one. So um when you're trying to solve a problem,
it always helps to have an alternative, right? So we uh we got this motion you made, which is in my opinion very good. Okay.
Uh but now since Brad he's got a couple things on his mind too wordy and maybe more than one topic. Okay. So guess what? We got to have something
else to have him look. I'm not going to ask you to vote on this. I'm gonna just ask you if it's okay that I uh give this to Brad
and I want you to know what's going on. You know, no surprises. No surprises. We don't know what Brad's going to say, but it's best to have an alternative, right? that's not too wordy and may have only
one topic per whatever, right? So, that's what we're going to consider now. And I got some new topics. So anyway, the the policy that we want is what
what you just is based on the wording you just did um voted to accept some words out of it. So let me go ahead
this out. So, what I want you to um read is that first policy. You'll notice it's quite a bit shorter because we aim to please Okay, back to the future land use
element. Okay, so I'm going to read this in case, you know, because Lily had suggested it. Okay, this one's shorter. Allowable uses within the conservation land use area shall be limited to residential units
uses of one unit per five acres. Um, now I took out the word oh yeah conservation and passive recreation. Um,
now I took out open space because obviously it's going to be open space and I took out storm water management system because guess what? Guess who had their storm water management system, their storm water ponds right next to
the wetland, if not in the wetland? Lieberman. And it was so I think we're and passive recreation is what I think they have in mind for this just like in the eels program you know
and then okay I got rid of consistent with the policies the conservation element and the land development regulations you Put those side by side and see that that's this is less wordy. If you want it less
wordy, here's something less wordy. says a preceding limitation of I got I just put the limitation of one dwelling unit per five acres and
then I got rid of within the conservation land use category and it says may be applied as the maximum percentage limiting wetland impact to not more than one.8% 8% of each residential development's total
conservation land use on a cumulative basis. Now, the one where he thought there was two topics was commercial industrial uses are not permissible in the conservation land use category. He thought that was
another topic. So, we're going to split it out. Wait a minute. What did I do here? Okay. So, the first strategy, I don't know if he wants this in there or not because I don't know if people know that this thinks this is obvious, but if you uh
get a small impact, you're still in the conservation land use. That's up to him. I don't know if he thinks that needs to be stated or not. Who knows? Does that make sense? Any questions
about policy 1.16.3 or strategy 1.16.3.1? >> Where you going to put the industrial commercial >> and 1.16.3? >> Okay. All right. Now, the next one may need to
be tweaked the wording a little, but I think everybody wants if they if they're going to impact this wetland, we want it we want them to save the remaining part of the wetland. I mean it they if they make a small
impact and are planning on making a larger impact as a cumulative impact a little later you know you may have to put some of you know proportional or something I don't know
I'm going to let him deal with that but anyway this one says mitigation for allowed impacts for residential development notice it says for residential development in wetlands designated as conservation land use shall consist of preservation and
maintenance of remaining wetland acreage. That makes sense. That first sentence, that's what we want, right? >> I just cut the word residential. >> Oh, no. I wouldn't. >> It's generic then.
>> You know what? It says elsewhere it's residential, which but here it would be generic and that would be useful later on. >> No, we only want residential impacts. We don't want any other impacts.
We do not want the other kind of impacts is industrial and commercial. We do not want those. You know what I mean? >> Yeah. But by removing the word residential, then this could apply to those as well.
>> By keeping the word residential, >> or we could add industrial and commercial. >> No, we don't want them. You're joking. You're joking. Michael's trying to pull my leg. Ah, you didn't get away with it.
So, it's implied that when it says remaining wetland acreage, that's per request like they're not going to mitigate somewhere else. It's going to be on >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Exactly. because because um I was
looking at one of these I think it was I think it was village uh B and they were going to you know just buy credits but and and and those credits are mostly out of the county now that's not what we
want. >> So is that strong enough language to get the point across? uh that it won't be offsite. This is this I could put the word on site
meaning I don't know because we want we just want that if there's two wetlands we want like if they're impacting one we just I don't know. Let me think about the if I want to put the word outside. I'll put a question mark because you know this is
just it's not something you got to vote on as far as your recommendation. I suggest you don't because this is too fluid. Look at it. I'll look at it before we may.
Okay. So, and it and then it says a required preservation shall let a minimum be proportional to the cumulative wetland impacts. I don't know that's good language or not. Um >> I'm trying to think of what what the
advantage is of that. What what's the what does that really do? Well, that this is um what I'm thinking is if they only impact a little, they're only required um to save, you know, a certain amount.
And then if they, you know, if on that particular project they impact a little more, just a little later, they would have to save the whole wetland. you you know >> well let's say the project also has an additional 100 acres of wetlands associated with it besides maybe five
that they've impacted they need to maintain the 105 acres the five they've impacted and the hundred not just the five >> well it it's dependent not on how much they not what the percentage of the
percentage like how much of the 1.8% 8%. I think this needs to be discussed like with the attorney before we uh take it a I mean this is just a thought.
>> I mean we'll have to figure this out. Okay. Mary Mary is it's beyond that because when you use the word proportionally you're talking math you're not talking words
>> okay and so you really have to run every case >> just starting from 1% to 100%. You're absolutely right and you have to tell >> and see how you're going to deal with that because otherwise I can gain that >> my engineer
>> maybe we should just stop and say yeah you know if we leave it conservation land use shall consist of preservation and maintenance of remaining wetland acreage. Leave it at that and then say
and shall be documented by deed restriction. How about that? >> The required Yeah. The required preservation shall be documented by deed restriction is clear enough. >> Does that sound good? Get rid of the troublesome. >> Well, the word proportionality you're
asking for math and I can go and gain that. >> Yes. >> Easily. >> Yeah. I think I think you got a point. So um >> so we're going to strike at a minimum be proportional to the cumulative wetland impacts and shall
>> so we're going to strike >> rem have required preservation shall be documented by >> deed restrict did you get that email I sent you this morning about the deed restriction >> is it >> I did I actually had a comment about
that um I think for the purposes of the goals that this body is trying to reach Getting a conservation easement executed in favor of the city would be more beneficial than a deed restriction because the conservation easement also allows for access by the city to
inspect. >> But the conservation easement isn't permanent. >> If it's in favor of the city, the city would be the only party that would be able to release it. So, >> it's for all essential purposes than permanent. >> Unless the city chooses to go another way, but at least then we wouldn't be
relying on some third party maintaining it. the city would have control. >> Right. Right. >> So what we need to do is have that, >> you know, with some deed restriction or um conservation >> conservation land use.
>> Tell you what, David, what conservation e >> conservation easement? >> Conservation easement >> because there's >> and what what should you say? What is you said something about the city? What was that wording? language I would use would be uh conservation easement executed in favor
of the city of Titusville. >> Hold on. Executed in favor of the city. >> I don't want to go down a huge rabbit hole on this, but just a quick question. Would that would the city council in the
future be able to vote to cancel that easement? That's correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, I have a question that if it says by redeemed restriction, how do you know that they actually do that? I mean, is where do you go to, you know, if we're
voting or the planning committee is looking at this and saying you got to do a deed restriction? Does somebody come back and check it's done? How how is to say that that somebody needs to verify that? Obviously, that's language that could be worked on, but the issue also
with the and it would be recorded. You could check by seeing once the deed is recorded if the the restrictions been added. But the difficulty with a deed restriction is enforcability because typically with deed restrictions, the only third party having enforcability rights uh would be somebody owning a
benefited land. And since the city doesn't own any adjacent property, it would be difficult to argue that the city has independent enforcement rights of that restriction. That's why the conservation easement in favor of the city gives the city both enforcement rights and entry and inspection rights.
>> And if I remember from our conversation, a conservation easement can be used to provide a tax incentive to the property owner, >> right? >> They should receive a um reduced assessed value. Although because the
land is already classified as a means on which they couldn't develop, that would probably be pretty minimal. Their assessed value on the land's going to be low to start with because currently it's unbuildable, >> right? >> But there are more than one for there are some possible federal tax implications that I'm not an expert in
federal tax law, but there there's possible tax benefits. Yes. >> The the I have land that's a conservation easement and it took a lot of paperwork and money to get it changed and put onto the deed. So that's, you know, I mean, the effort it's going to take verifying that done. I mean, I made
sure it's done because I was the one doing it. Here you got a developer doing it, and I'm not sure how much control we have over that. >> My understanding is that that usually gets handed over to an HOA at the time
that the the PUD is finished. >> But >> so are we leaving deed restriction in or striking it out? Could we put and or something or and or or something? >> For the goals that I believe the body's trying to achieve, my recommendation
would be to delete the deed restrict or the deed restriction language and include only conservation easement language. >> Yes. >> Um and I can work with Mary on draft language to tighten all that up with the concerns that have been >> the city um you know
deciding they're going to release it. That's my only fear. But if they release it, maybe we could I don't know. We we'll work. We'll figure this out. Something like that. Okay. >> Okay.
>> And then strategy 1.16 >> 3.3. Um you know that other paper I gave you the first one where is it? >> Okay. It's policy. Oh,
1.16.4 where you marked that where you got rid of the first sentence. On the back of it, I'm going to refer to this policy, flu policy 1.21.1.
Oh, it's not the partial. Sorry. I I thought it was going to do the partial. This is the whole thing. This is um a policy that gives densities or intensities of use um for each future land use
category. Do you see it? >> Mhm. >> Okay. You can look down the third from the bottom is conservation third line. >> Yep. >> The objective is 1.16. The density,
that's a residential use, is one dwelling unit per five acres. The intensity, it's a nonresidential use. It says NA. Guess why? Because there's no commercial or industrial
allowed there. That's uh been in there for since 2010. I know. I try to uh you know the state sites a little um
sketchy as far as all the documentation they have from all the amendments in certain local governments and I I just couldn't find anything earlier than 2010 for this thing. So anyway, so um
but we know it's in the comp plan right now. Okay. So let's let's use this to our advantage. And uh you know, if that says we're only supposed to have one dwelling unit or
five acres, um then that's what we're supposed to have, right? consistent. So this strategy says consistent with policy 1.21.1 which states density and intensity
limitations, commercial and industrial uses are not permissible in the conservation land use category which is what we wanted in the first place, right? And then the last one is a strategy. That first sentence from the strategy impact from that we had impacts to
wetlands and conservation land use category shall not cause secondary impacts to adjacent properties. So, what I'm hoping you'll do in the next five minutes is not really take a
vote, but just kind of maybe we can have an informal raise of hand if you think this is okay to bring your language and this one to Brad so we can start a conversation about where we're going to
go that there's more alternative, you know, you can't just, you So, let's just open our, you know, vision um and see let's see what we can do that we can all agree on.
And that's what I'm hoping. I don't have any problem with this going to Brad. Okay. >> Yeah, I don't have Yeah. Yeah, I mean I don't I definitely don't have any problem with the conversation. I will say the 1.16.3
seems irrelevant to me. Um just because we have I feel like we're just referencing the same like we're referencing two different policies back and forth off each other. So it's repetitive. And if we're talking about trying to reduce verbiage, then that seems like a place
to reduce verbiage to me. Not saying it's a hill I'm going to die on or anything. Just my initial thoughts. That's not really relevant. >> Oh, this is 1.16.3. Oh, yeah. But we don't have it in in my You have it in yours. You have it in yours, but I don't I took it out of
mine. I moved it because Brad said there's two topics, you know, in in this in one topic per thing. That's why I moved I moved it from the last sentence like you got it to its
own strategy and I you know gave it some uh >> yeah I just moved it because um >> okay I I missed that I missed that you had taken it out of the other part I understand >> so it sounds like we need to go back
>> maybe if people just you you know, just like you said three, you said you don't have a problem with if we can get, you know, more opinions of whether people have or do not have a problem with this going to Brad as well as your motions,
then we'll be done. I don't think there's a problem with that at all. Everything that I've heard so far, we need to be in sync with our city staff. So, it's perfectly fine that we hear his concerns and incorporate them as well. Okay.
>> How about the other people on the We We've heard from Bethanne, Michael, and Jason. What about John, Hector, and Bill? Are you okay with that?
>> Yeah. >> I hear no objections. Mary, >> you okay? I think we're at a point where >> Okay. >> We need to take it and send it. >> Okay. >> Get some feedback. >> Exactly. Okay. Thanks a lot. Do you I
don't know if anybody knows. It says something about Oh, yeah. Cuz I'm not going home 50. I'm going garden. So, that won't be a problem getting on the 95. Okay. Thanks so much for all your
>> attention. Thank you, mayor. >> I'll see you next week and not in two weeks. Excuse me. Two weeks. Hopefully, you have some input. >> That means we get to move on to new business. O just how much new business do we have?
There is nothing on the agenda for new business. So, I guess that brings us back to petitions and requests. Seeing none, then we will move on to uh our member reports.
Anybody do anything interesting the last couple of weeks? Well, as with several of the rest of you, I went to the community conference on Saturday. Really did a fantastic job with that, as did all the presenters. Um, I would say my only disappointment
is that I didn't get to see all the presentations and I had to pick, you know, one of the three for each session, but um, I thought it was really good. And I I think that one of the things that was really neat in my eyes is afterwards when we were having lunch, got to sit and talk with some people
that um, are new to the area and and didn't understand a lot of the processes. Mike, I think you were sitting there with me talking to the the one woman. Um, and so I thought that was neat that we had some new citizens there that were able to to learn more about some of these city processes. Um, and
and how much all the presenters like harped on that like they they all said repeatedly like this is how you can get involved. We want to hear from you. You can come these meetings or this that or the other thing. Applied for this thing. So I thought it was really good. I thought it was a really good thing. Um, and I know they talked about doing
another one next year. My thing would be, and Lily, I know this is probably unlikely, but do one sooner than that. Um, you know, if if maybe the momentum from this and the people that did attend could get more people there that aren't
already involved with the city because, you know, I think most of us most of us were there, I think. Um, but that's what was most of the people I recognized from other city um engagements. So, you know, to to maybe capitalize on those few
people that were new to the processes um sooner than a year might be good to get more of those citizens that aren't already involved involved. >> Excellent. >> A thought Delgato. >> Now, the only thoughts on that is that
we do have a lot of snowbirds and so therefore it's February, March, and a lot of them are here, but come September they may not. And so we may have a different set of people. >> That's true.
>> And so maybe think about doing it twice a year. >> I know, Lily. I >> I thought the snacks were pretty good. So >> was great. >> Do you have a report, Bill? >> A report? >> Anything you did this weekend?
>> Well, I agree with him about the the conference. Um, I thought it was not attended as well as I thought it should be. Um, so I'm not sure how to do that except stand on the street corner with a sign says, "I'm hungry. Come to our
meeting and we'll feed you." Uh, >> community development for food. Huh. >> Yeah. So, but um, Earth Day is coming up and um, yes, >> I don't know if we want to do something for Earth Day or not and make an awareness of it and talk about it.
Um, >> so >> we used to attend at at the Enchanted Forest every day. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Enchanted Forest has an activity. They have a big event with exhibitors. Uh um Mary's I mean um Kay is usually at
the other one with um her exhibit. Um, I don't know that we have an exhibit there, but we may want to make uh somehow the people know that there is such a thing as a tec. Uh, because when I talk to people around town and I tell
them about this, they go, "What?" And I don't think we get any very much publicity. uh um we've had certain people in the past years come and discuss things that affects them but I think a lot of people
don't know we exist and I I and so that conference we had uh last weekend there may should have been a a table for us to show people that we are uh doing this um
uh there's a you know number of environmental groups around and um uh we should be somehow getting them more involved with us, but maybe we don't because we don't want anybody out there arguing with us. So
So it's easier this way with no audience fighting you, but uh >> So is that a motion for us to attend the TEC that is to attend Earth Day Festival of the Enchanted Forest? We have a popup and a table and banner and stuff.
>> Okay. Okay. I so move that we not they're full for this year but next year for us to have make up an exhibit to present at that >> they're full >> the uh the Earth Day next year at the uh >> What's wrong with this year?
I asked him I was going to put an exhibit there for another group I'm with. I'm with a group at our church called Creation Care where we're trying to save the earth >> because the Bible says to save the earth and we should be stewards and we were going to put an exhibit there and they said we're already full. We already have
all the exhibitors we can handle. >> Oh boy. >> Well, seems to me I'm on the board there, too. >> You're on the board there. So, you can you can make room for us. >> I'm the vice chair of the Enchanted Friends of the Forest. Yeah. Well, then I move that we can either get in this year or at least do next year.
>> I can try to I can try >> a table of booth and a handout to >> find space and I'd like to I got Laura Lee to do a presentation. So, they're going to have to find a space. >> Okay. So, >> I do want to loop in. We were in it last year and I'm surprised Teresa hasn't reached out. So, I don't I was waiting
for that, honestly. I'm kind of surprised to hear it's full, too. I'll I'll ask her, though. >> Yeah, let's let's because it's it's just it's the 18th. It's just middle of next month, so there's not a whole lot of time. >> And I'd like to see us get a flyer, a one pager or or a folder thing that says
what we do to hand out to people that could sit in the lobby downstairs and when we go to events, we could give it to people that tell them who we are and what we do and what how they can interact with us. It just be one page, very simple. But we need to make ourselves more aware, make the world or
the city more aware of us. >> Sure. make us more accessible to the citizens too. >> Good idea. >> I just want to say to that point um we I think most of us attended the nanobubble uh project and it would have been nice to maybe have had like a name tag for
those who didn't know we were part of the te the tec. >> I ordered those. >> Oh, you did? Okay, cool. No, that was just my suggestion. I didn't know if we we got those or not, but that would have been a good way. Are >> they going to be the nice gold ones like they have on the other >> Should we get t-shirts, >> Lori? Do we want t-shirts or hats for
TEC on it? >> There we go. We can represent >> no report. Yeah, I was going to talk about the bubbler for sure. I mean, that that's a a big deal which uh it's just yet unproven technology. I think that's what's what's the most exciting thing to
me is that we're cautiously optimistic. Um I got a chance to to talk with um u Dr. Austin Fox who did the analysis preliminary analysis of the muck underneath the um that area and and
found that it was just atrocious. And while while the way this you know you think of bubbles always rising but these bubbles are so small they just stay suspended in the water column and their surface tension has enough push to want
them to separate some. So they naturally disperse horizontally through the water column. That's great. It fills the entire space. The trouble is that it presses against the muck, but it doesn't actually penetrate into the muck. It's a
surface contact thing. So, the amount of of absorption and oxygenation is only going to occur at that surface layer and you don't want to stir it up because you don't want the muck to be dispersed through the lagoon. So what he's looking at in the future is is something similar
but using electrolysis and applying the probes directly into the muck itself causing the oxygen hydrogen dispersion to to occur locally and that then puts the oxygen in the middle of the muck which is where it'll have the most
positive effect. So there's they're going to be doing this for 6 months. Then they're going to do an analysis for 6 months and figure out, you know, how good it is, whether it's been effective and how so. And um and then we'll know. So it'll be about a year.
>> Would that eliminate that top? >> I believe so. And and and it's a question of how much it will degrade and and and erode. And and the thinking is that you know the the materials there for it to oxygenate, which is what it needs. the question is how long and you know what what's the other activities
that go along with it that make it functional productive so anyway that that remains to be seen but that's a was a great effort by the city uh and personally by Laura Lee so uh kudos to her I don't have anything else do we
want to talk about things to put on a future agenda item >> tonight I just wanted to make sure we hit the future agenda item portion specifically So yeah, you are going in the right direction. >> Yep. Let's let's do that now. Things
that you want to that you're thinking about or are you too tired to >> Well, can I'll add to that. So your um dual meetings for the month, the last one will be I believe in April 30th. So you have the March 26th, April 15th, and
April 30th. It has also come to my attention about the status of Senate Bill 180 might not be getting the fix that we were banking on during this legislative session. Um, and David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
that is on hold. So, if that's something if TEC wants to continue the wetland conversation throughout, you know, the year, however long you want to talk about it, but also council has put on your agenda a couple other items. And I believe some TEC members have expressed
other interests um as well. So, I wanted to make sure you we were all on the same page for the next three agenda items. Are we doing wetlands all the way through April or are you mix Oh, obviously the next one's going to have the brackish water as well,
>> right? How much longer do you think we're going to need? Another two or three meetings. >> Okay. So, what the next one's going to have the what now? >> Uh the brackishwater um >> desalinization. >> Desalinization. Yeah. Tool from public works that was before council is coming
to TEC. >> Okay. So, when is this going to happen? The next meeting. >> That'll be at the next meeting. Yeah. >> So, there won't be discussion. >> That's up to the board. >> There will do both. >> So, maybe a shorter one. Yes.
>> Okay. So, um yes. Um what I >> maybe we can get some feedback too. What I planned is and I've really been trying to bear down on it and um make sure we can complete uh what we have to um we
have to resolve this um you know the policies uh 1.16.3 with Brad and then get his okay on 1.16.4 um 1.16.2
2 will have a strategy regarding the um situation with the hotel where they had a small wetlands which which actually was part of a larger wetland. So that's what we have to do left. And also um
the there's another situation that he uh kind of alluded to which I need to ask him about if that needs fixing. Um my aim was to get every bit of the wetlands done
um through you know by the end of April or if not the first meeting in May. I don't want to hanging over our heads. I do not want to go next year. Uh >> no I want to move on. >> I mean I'm getting old. Let's face it.
And uh it is what it is. And um so we have some stuff in the conservation land conservation uh element. I thought that next time since we we we will not have a
video we we we will um zero in on um those policies. But the first u meeting in March um I'm hoping that Laura Lee's video on the wetlands that you know that the drone with Dylan that Dylan took
that and made a video um of the wetlands um you know swath um running north and south the wetlands that are five acres or greater in size mostly greater. um we could look at that
little video and discuss um part of the conservation element um how we'd like to beef up the language about acquisition. >> Mary, if I could just ask um I know you're you're doing meetings like right up until the the dates of of these
meetings, but if you could send us as much of that stuff as you can in advance to give us a chance to go through it. I mean, I I I know you want to tell us the story, but I I it's it's frustrating to get some of this stuff as we're sitting here and then have to try and work through it. So, you know, the more that
we could get in advance, that would be very helpful. >> Thanks so much for your comment because I didn't know, you know, how you felt about this because, you know, you don't want to send some stuff to people that aren't going to read it, you know, and you don't want to say, "Oh, I got homework." I mean, I'm you're not in
school and >> I'm going to read everything you say. But um the thing about it is now I got to say on this one uh you know um I I was working uh on it you know I actually had to go out and buy some groceries
amazingly today but otherwise than that and my dog you know I had to follow up today quite a bit of this stuff and um so it was not ready but if but I could if I have it ready. You know, now you
did get some of this stuff in your um your agenda packet, but like for example, the um >> Yeah, and we we did get some of it. But even just like if you could tell us like which item specifically you're planning to address and that kind of thing. That
way we can just dig into a little more. So >> because actually you know we we didn't know till after that meeting what you know I brought three folders for three uh different policies and uh
we um did not get to anything in one of the folders which is 1.16.2. So, what I know, I'll tell you what. Um, I'll send you what I know and we'll hope for the hope for the best. And and when
it comes to the march, um, you you know, I can send you what to look at in the conservation element. The conservation element should go faster because, um, actually, it's a lot easier to deal
with, I found. um you know because it's in pretty good shape. Um thanks for the comment. >> We'll do. So if I could summarize March 26th >> wetlands and brackish water
dalinization. Okay. >> And then April 15th, April 30th, I have empty but there are still the brownfields discussion that came up at some point in the past. the litter discussion that came up as well and then parts of the natural resources strategies that could still be
actionable even without SB80 now that could be reviewed as well. So I wanted to put those in your mind. Yes. >> For topics. >> Very good. That sounds good. Anything else that anybody wants to add that they want to discuss in our meeting going forward? Yes.
>> Uh like today we stay Mr. Mr. Johnson was here talking about the ditches and the issues, >> right? Uh with the rainy season coming, uh I think it'll it'll be to our advantage to try to to try to figure out
where are we? Are we going to clean the ones underneath 95? You know, where are we? What is DOT doing? Uh if are they cleaning their portion of it? Not all of it is ours. Where are we? >> I'm going to ask Sandra to be here as well at the next meeting. So maybe that
could be a time. >> That'd be great. That would be great. I got a chance to ask her um during the community conference about reclaiming our our storm water and pumping it into the ground, artificial aquifer
restoration and um and and rerouting it as a major plan. and they seem to indicate that that would be more than 20 years off that they weren't at all that's not even where they're I mean they're they're so busy trying to fix what's broken today that I don't think
they have the wherewithal and when you think about it our storm water evolved it wasn't designed it evolved during a period of time when we didn't have storm water management so we just had ditches and we just made the ditches bigger and bigger and bigger as we added more people we never really thought is this
really where it should go. Is this what we need to do with the water? And unless we, she said to me, unless we, the TEC, make some recommendation in that direction, they're not going to be looking in that direction. So, that may
be something we want to discuss in the future. >> Can I say along that line that at the city council, they member Stokal indicated that they wanted an answer towards this in the next five years. >> So, good. That's way closer than 20.
>> Yeah, I would hope so. >> The world has changed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And the river has gone down and we know partially why >> and we still do not know what is the contribution of this city to that river
on our fault lines. >> Right. >> We have no answers. We can only speculate on volume. >> Yep. >> But we do not have a plan and we need to have a plan. We we need to try to do something with the water that we're
putting on the river. We are causing problems and we can fix that. There's engineering for that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There sure is. >> So, I would like to see that on the agenda. >> Okay. >> And pursue it and work with public works
and see what they can do and what kind of budget they have and and what are their main concerns. So that we get another 500 year reign, at least we we would have an idea how to handle it a little better. >> Hopefully it could be managed
>> and and manageable. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And so to me that's a priority because the people are a priority. >> So what do you want to call this initiative? >> The initiative is just uh >> redirecting storm water, >> redirecting or looking at the the
drainage. Uh you can use a lot of words for that. I'll let Lily figure out what the >> storm water management. How about that? >> Storm water management. So generic. >> Is that just for like a future date or one of the three upcoming? >> This is going to be one of the three that'll be reoccurring because we think
as long as we're continuing to push excess fresh water into the lagoon, we have a problem to solve. >> Absolutely. >> So redirecting storm water litter, brown fields, and the natural actionable natural resources plan. >> Yes. Well, I we I thought there was a
discussion a long time ago about some of the sewer um septic tanks dumping into the river. Is that still a problem or did that ever get fixed that they put those septic tanks on the city sewage or are they still dumping into the river?
>> I asked about that. Um, we the city of Titusville currently does not have a plan in place to get people in the city of Titusville on septic hooked up to sewer. And the problem I I live with it in in
my neighborhood by Royal Oak because it was built in my home was built 1960. So, we've already had to replace our septic tank just a couple years ago. Had there been a sewer line in the street where all we had to do was hook up. I wouldn't have had to buy a septic tank for
$9,000, I would have put a lateral line in for two and had been done. But because it's not there, I had no option. I had to rebuild it. And now in a few years, I'm going to have to upgrade it again because of state requirements.
Again, the city has failed us and not put the line in ahead of time. And I think that's one of the things that city needs to be doing. proactively to dismiss our our septic tank problem is going to be to put in sewer lines so that people can hook up. They have the
option to hook up. Now, the way I recommended that they do it is that they apply a a lean on the property that is benefiting from from the sewer line. The lean goes against the property, 10-year lean. They sell the house, the lean gets
paid off, they have 10 years to pay it off, but they're the ones benefiting from it. So that to me should mean that the city is is not out any cost to have it put in that the residents that benefit from it earn it and and we we
move forward. We get the septic tanks erased eventually but that hasn't happened yet. I just want to comment. I don't know where the city falls or what they're doing, but I know Bvard County has a freeze on permitting for septic at the
moment until they can figure this out. >> Yeah, but that was that came with a mileage restriction. >> If you were by the river or near the river, your permit would not be allowed. But if you were in uh South Carpenter,
>> well, >> that's that's over two miles or three miles. >> Our daughter's been looking at property in MEMS. Property in MEMS is not not not the river side. >> They will not issue a permit. >> But are you on the are you on the east side? >> On the west side. >> On the west side.
>> Yes. Okay. >> I knew I I know that the program does have a mileage away from the road. >> From how far? Yeah. >> I think it's three. I want to say three, but that's a memory thing, so I I'm probably wrong. >> We can have a meeting about this.
>> Well, I have a quick question. So, uh, do we have any data that shows how many residents throughout the city of Tattisville are on septic and two, um, Sorrel U has programs that support, yes, >> a lot of residents who are on septic how to move away from that.
>> And likewise, they pay more if you're closer to the river than if you're farther from the river. >> True. So, but we're talking about everybody, whether it's near or far. >> And and I'm thinking if we're if we're talking about this now, down the road, we maybe develop some kind of um something with our sustainability action
plan or some kind of program where we are as a city supporting um you know, replacing the septic tanks and hooking into the city sewage if that's possible. >> Just my suggestion. >> Whatever gets pumped, it goes to Blue >> Heron. So you better do something about that
plant because that plant is nearing 20 20 25 years and so it's nearing its capacity if not is there it may be there already. So the population has grown there's we need to look at that also. Pumping is the easy part.
>> Yeah. Yeah. More discussions. Anything else anybody wants to bring up? So, are you I'm sorry. Deter so that I can prepare the agendas. >> Are you asking for any of these to be
earmarked on future agenda dates or just at some general time and we'll talk about that at the next meeting? >> I think you can put them on the agenda and we can talk about them each for a few minutes at least so we figure out what we want to do with them. there could be a lot of information tagged
with that item like just what you're talking about with the subject to sewer. Um if that were to be an agenda item to have the full plan that um public works has presented to council all the history like to have a better discussion >> that should be after we're done with the wetlands I think. >> Okay. So I'm not going to put that any
of this on March 26th. >> Yeah. I think we need to get rid of the wetland stuff and I think we need to move that to council so that we can move on with with these other issues. >> Okay. First things first, except that we have to also do the
running water salt water. >> Thank you, Lily, for keeping us organized. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, then I call the meeting ajourned. Thank you everybody for your time.