Okay. So, it's it's 5:30. We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. Um Lori, can we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Mjek, Vice Chairwoman Thompson >> here. >> Member Berdett >> here. >> Member Tucker >> here.
>> Member Miller >> here. >> Member Delgado >> here. >> Member Browning >> here. Alternate alternate member Young, alternate member Rosa >> here. >> All right. Thank you for taking your
time to come out to the meeting tonight. Um, we go ahead and uh Oh, we have a quorum. Obviously, we have a lot of members here tonight. That's great. So, everybody stand for the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America and to
the for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> And so the first thing I want to do is welcome Jason and and Kevin. Um we're really really glad to have you guys on the board. I know you're going to be
really good additions. Um and uh and and and I hope you're ready to work hard. Um Kevin gets to vote tonight. Is that correct? They both get to vote. >> Well, I think Jason's a regular member. >> Oh, >> yeah. He's a regular member. Yes, but
Kevin gets to vote tonight. Okay. I told you that you'd probably get to vote. So, here we go. Um, so the first thing we have is the approval of the of the minutes um from the last meeting. Um
I I have one minor correction and that is in the very very last sentence where it's talking about Lily um doing a presentation for the marine resources council. If we can add Marine Resources
Council low impact development um that would be good because it it is a low impact development uh conference and it's a big deal that Lily is going to be presenting. We're really proud of her and uh so I I'd like to have the low
impact development added into the minutes so that she gets really good credit. Does anybody else have anything that needs to be changed? see anything. Can I have a motion, please, for approval? >> Motion of approval.
>> Second. >> All right, we had a motion by member Tucker and a second by member Browning. All those in favor of approving the minutes um from September 10th, say I. >> I. >> I. Any anybody opposed? No. Okay. So
that passes unanimously with the addition of low impact development to the last sentence. Um petitions and requests from the public present. Does anybody want to speak? Oh, okay. Moving on to old business. Um
we don't have any old business, so we're going to move on to new business. Oh, I I wait. I did want to say one more thing. when we were talking about the minutes. I want to thank member Browning for his work on the white paper about um
um our uh request to the council to to use a lion share of the tree mitigation fund for the um urban forest plan. Um it was included in the city council's meeting packet last night. It looked really
good, Michael. So, we really appreciate you doing that. Um, the council last night uh voted to postpone making any kind of decision on that until after the urban forest um
um meeting, public meetings take place and we and we and we come up, you know, this consultant comes up with a proposed plan. So, that's going to be really important. I'm going to need you guys' support, you know, when when that comes up because um we we kind of got thrown a
wrench in the works last night. Um when when when the mayor announced that they have they're they're look they've sent out an RFP looking for a consultant because they want to do more gateway projects.
I'm serious. I mean, the list, it's like um a full page of of new gateway projects that that they want to work on. Um, I mean, it it's it seems like it seems like the mayor is
determined to to use up every penny of the of the mitigation fund on planting vegetation at places like US1 and Knox McGra, US1 and Country, US1 in Harrison,
US1 and State Road 405, and the list goes on and on and on. So, um, this is something we need to keep our eye on because they could they could conceivably burn up every single penny in the tree mitigation fund planting
more flowers. Although, last night the mayor did mention the word trees when when he Yeah. when he was talking about it. So, maybe they're going to add some trees, too. This was not our vision of what the
mitigation fund was going to be used for. So stay tuned. More will be coming. Um so our are our >> Madam Chair. >> Yes sir. >> Uh while we're on that topic
um I I was a little surprised by what we're talking about. Um but I'm not unhappy about it. Um would I have liked um the mayor's proposals to be uh coordinated more with
the urban forest master plan or management plan? Yeah, I think the Titusville tree team would have preferred that. TEC would have preferred that. But looking at the good things he did it, this is about trees
and um planting the right tree and hopefully canopy shade trees along heat islands. All these are heat islands, all these roadways. That's a good thing if they're doing if the consultant and and AECOM is a great consultant. They do
they do really good work. Um they bought EDA a nationally a globally uh acclaimed firm uh couple decades ago and AECOM is a global firm and they have uh great people and they do great work. So the
that's not a bad thing uh in it in on its face. We we would hope that they're um we're going to get some input on on that at some point. But native trees and canopy shade on heat islands, roadways throughout the city, uh that's not so
bad. So I think we should try to look at it positively and see where we can uh meld the urban forest management plan with um as that develops um with whatever the consultant AECOM
comes up with. But generally, uh, if I see the the mayor and council moving quickly on getting canopy shade throughout the city, doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. I'm just uh a little surprised at at the lack of um
discussion with anybody. Not that we needed to approve anything, but um this is all good stuff. So, >> thank you for that for that comment and and and I agree and and actually K that's exactly what Kay said, too. you know, this is the hand we've been dealt,
so let's be positive and and move forward. I I I I feel like, you know, when it it seems it seems odd that um council is
approving the expenditure of of money during member reports at the very very end of the meeting rather than having it be an agenda item where the public has a chance to comment on it. But but yeah, I was happy about that. >> That's where I have heartburn.
>> Uh that was a little surprise. Yeah, it was new business. Um, wetland conservation. Um, what I did, I I made these packages up for you guys to try to make things simpler because when you're tackling the
comprehensive plan, I'm I'm sure that you all looked at the link that Lily sent you and and saw how massive. >> Chairwoman, >> yes. >> I'm sorry. There's a petitions and requests before new business. >> Um, nobody nobody wanted to talk.
>> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, we already did that. >> Oh, I apologize. >> Nobody ran to the microphone. >> Okay. None none of the two audience members wanted to talk. So, thank you for that though. Um,
so I I try to make it easy for you guys because the two things that we are going to mainly focus on, the the thing that we really really need to do is to straighten out the the language between
the wetlands language that's in the future land use element and the wetlands language that's in the conservation element. and make sure that those two elements are talking to each other and
make sense because right now and and I I included in your packet this um paper that Mary wrote which really does a good job of explaining how we got where we are um with I mean this goes all the way back to 2010
when um for for the TV audience when the Titus submitted um the ear amendments to the conservation comprehensive plan. This this has to be done like every five years or so. You have to go through the whole comp comprehensive plan and make
changes and stuff. And so um the the amendments that the city uh submitted included policy changes to the conservation land use category and also to the future land use changes. And what
happened is the state determined that the future land use element changes were found to be in compliance and that and they were um they were consistent you know and good proposed changes uh to the wetlands policies.
However, the uh proposed amendments to the conservation element the state found to be not in compliance and that was due to uh proposed major changes to the wetlands policies. So, in order to deal with the state's objections,
um the city council at that time decided to return back to the existing pre-ear wetlands language and abandon their proposed major wetlands conservation element changes.
um the the D the Department of Community Affairs, which we no longer have one, but at at that time, they stated that the historical way that Titusville had of protecting wetlands and their functional valuables in the comp plan
was acceptable. And so that created now this troublesome mismatch particularly between the future land use policy um 1 16.4
which contains major changes that were included in that year update in 2010 and then the older conservation element language which was put back into the um comprehensive plan. Um
so there's been some you know interpretations of the future land use policy 1.16.4 for that could be interpreted um to allow a subjective determination of property rights like it's not written in
stone this is what you can do with wetlands. So, it's placed a large and unnecessary burden on staff and and and also on the city council because, you know, I've I've watched them struggle
with different interpretations of our wetlands policies for different projects that have come along and and so um you know, I I appreciate y'all's support at the last meeting when you voted to go
ahead and make wetlands uh policy ies are our next project to work on because I think that a out of all of the things that we talked about, this is the thing that will best help both staff and the
city council um be able to make determinations on what's allowable on on wetlands. So, um Mary also made a chart that you know
this thing that looks like a chart and it's got the with the confusion points on the left hand side and the suggested clarification on the right hand side which I think will be really really useful to to guide
us through this process. And so I I think I've talked enough. Um do we have any cards? >> Yes. One card. Okay. I assume it's Mary. >> Yes. So would would it be out of order
if if I if Mary could sit with Lily at a microphone because I think we're going to have a lot of questions of Mary throughout this process. Would that be okay? I you have a problem with that?
>> Anybody on the council have a problem? >> I Madam Chair, sir, I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> Has has staff seen this? I I didn't realize who wrote this because Mary's name was not on it. Thank you. I wanted to thank who put this together because
uh it's some good work. Um, but now that I've figured out that Mary was the one that authored it, has staff seen this to verify that all this um this is just a this is a lawyer's
question. Has this been seen by staff? >> Yeah, Brad and I have >> the staff got any questions about um the information that's on here at all? No, I think it's just pretty clear that, you know, we got to dive into it to see
what to do about it. But I I don't think that >> the staff doesn't have any questions about what's being stated here as far as you know, >> not to my knowledge. No. >> Okay. That that was my only question at this point. >> Yeah, Brad Brad and Lily were kind enough. We met for over an hour a couple
weeks ago and went over all of this and uh got the blessing and they're they're grateful for us to have the courage to step up try to do something.
>> I have one more question. So, it's been 15 years since U DCA uh rejected that one uh E on conservation in the conservation area.
Um why why are we 15 years down the road on doing something about this? I I don't want to criticize. I just want to ask. I mean, it seems like this should have been addressed. If there was questions about it, why wasn't this addressed
years ago? >> Is that a question for Mary? >> That's a question for Mary because she has been working on wetlands policies both for the county and city of Titusville for >> Okay, I'll back off a long time. So, if
if if you don't mind, Mary, um you can you can stand at the podium and make your comments that you were going to make, but then if you could proceed over next to Lily, that would be great. And maybe Lily will share the documents with with you that I gave because I don't
have another packet. >> Okay. Um, >> uh, I have what you have. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. Mary's bar. I live in Coco. Um, and I have seen the policies for
quite a while like counties 30 years and years 15. Okay. So, um, first of all, I'd like to say thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You are brave and you are courageous to tackle this problem. And I, you know, I honestly believe that your job to give feedback
to staff is extremely important. As a matter of fact, what happened was um before you decided, you know, Laura Lee called me up and she said, "Well, I'm thinking of asking our next big project be wetland. What do you think of that?"
Well, I said that would be great. I said, but I was planning on stay and I'm going to stay away from the meeting because I don't want to h um have any influence on your
decision about what uh you're going to tackle next. So, I actually um watched it and I was delighted delighted that you picked this off because it's tough.
It people think this is too dang confusing and they just stay away with it. They They understand flooding. They understand trees. Um, but this wetland stuff, it's not
that it's that hard, but it's so complicated. And so to the new members especially, you're jumping in the middle of this. And if there's anything I can do to help
clarify things, uh, I would be delighted to do this. Um just what we've got to do is we've got to take a step at a time.
And the first step, you know, as you discussed last at your meeting last time, uh, has to do with the comprehensive plan because that's the o overall document that, um, has policies that are
reflected and explained better in the LDRs in the in the in the ordinances. But in this particular case, the Titusville ordinances
are weak. There's one little ordinance and it just doesn't cover all the bases. So, you're smart to zero in on the comp plan. And what you need to do is start with the
future land use element because that is where um a developer might see uh that there isn't a consistency between the
future land use element and the conservation element. In particular, we're looking at conservation land use. Unfortunately, and I hope it's cleared up very soon,
the in the future land use element, there's a typo and it says conservative land use. Well, this is not a political statement. It should be conservation land use. So, I don't know really if you um if that typo is going to be corrected
as soon as possible. It's just Scrivener's error. They don't that correction is not going to disturb anybody up in Tallahassee. So now I suggest that we take a look at the
future land use elements conservation land use category which is the policies under uh future land use element um 1.16 and if we get you need to decide if you
think the things that are brought up that I might think are a problem, you think are a problem. And then you you've got to understand how it works. If you have a question
and you think, "Oh, this is this is just too dumb a question to ask." Don't think that way. think this is the courageous question I'm gonna ask
because I'm a little afraid, but I'm going to take the courage and ask this courageous question because chances are you're not the only ones. You'll be like the wetlands version of
the tree team. you'll know it and you'll be able to advocate it because if there's anything I have a fear of is that after 15 years as he rightly pointed out um
you know if it drags on and on I'm going to get too old to participate because you know how old I am now way up there. Um so um and I told Brad
this a couple years ago as far as Mr. Brownie's question um we started seeing the problems when some of the large wetlands were um proposed for development and that was
not in 200 uh 10. It took a few more years because um a friend of mine you know um we we were um you know walking around in Tadisville
um and uh she says well you know they're going to try and develop here. So, it took a while for, you know, the little wetlands to be used up and then
um for them to start thinking about going into wetlands that are five acres or greater in size. And that's key, five acres or greater in size.
And um then the whole thing got dragged out. um staff was overwhelmed. You know, this is a you know, they had stuff to do. Um you know, and
actually I've had conversations with Brad since 2019. So, here it is, 2025, and we haven't got it fixed yet. Um so
um just buck them up and we're going to just have a wild ride trying to understand this. Do not hesitate at all to ask any question on your mind.
Okay, >> that's it. So um I guess the logical place to start would be with your chart. You think so? Okay. It's a chart and um the the document that says future land
use element wetland policies, conservative land use. So that's what you need, the future land use paper and the chart. Okay. So, >> should I explain the chart or do you
want to explain the chart or what? >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So, this is one version of this chart, the latest and greatest. Um, what we want to do is clear up the confusion
and the inconsistencies. In my opinion, that's what we need to do. We do not need to rewrite all the wetlands protection language, most of which is in the conservation element.
All we want to do is clear up that mismatch between the future land use element and the conservation element and get rid of the loopholes that are now in the
future land use element because there are loopholes even though the state okay it um since it doesn't match the conservation element there are loopholes. So
the first the first um see if if this makes any sense. Okay. Um the first point of confusion um has to do with the heart of the
wetlands policies. The heart of the wetlands policies is conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2. So you can read that first paragraph there.
The second paragraph and then we'll talk about it. >> So you'll need both documents. I'm sorry I told you you only needed one, but do you need the conservation? >> No, that's only reference to it. I quoted the whole I quoted it. You they
don't need that. You don't need just just what you got is fine. So, okay. Um, on that first um box, conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2 to
um has a nickname and this was Joe Robinson. The council member Joel Robinson's nickname for it went he um he
um one council meeting he said what about the rules? What about the five acre rule? And so we're calling this the 5 acre rule because it says as a minimum wetlands 5
acres or more in size shall be designated as a conservation land use. Now what this means is that
they have a land use which is reflected on a map called the future land use map. and
the the wetlands that are five acres in size or greater way back in 1990 I believe it may have been 91 I have the papers from the state but Titusville uh
this was attorney Dwight Severs they decided that the most important thing they could do was preserve wetlands 5 acres or greater in size. And they were
um kind of not giving this much attention to the little wetlands because, and I hope that this will be explained further, that swath of wetlands, the forested wetlands that goes uh from the
north um to the south. Um oh um and I know that there's a map of it and it it covers um you know a lot of properties that um are
you know running north and south through TDIville. Um, those wetlands are extremely valuable and that's one reason I've gotten interested in Titusville's wetlands because you've got the best wetlands.
You've got the best wetlands. Those wetlands, five acres and greater in size, they are extremely valuable. And there's been a push and I know that Laura Lee and Michael Mjek in particular um have advocated
for seeing what we can do about preserving them. But right now we don't have that. All we have is a limitation of um one well we'll get into that. We have a
we have um yeah a limitation of one residential unit per five acres and that is the same type of uh limitation that Bvard County has >> May I ask a question?
>> Yes. >> This relates to the policy 1.16.2 2 and it talks about the map of 1988. The question I have is about the county's map. The county wetland code
references a map um an assessment of wetlands that was done by a consultant back in 2013. And my question is this, does the county's map include all the municipalities in the county?
>> No. It doesn't only the unincorporated. >> Okay. And another thing that is interesting is that the county's wetlands policies
um they don't have an overlay which there's an there's an wetlands conservation you know the land use um they all have this um this
wetlands conservation overlay and um you know you can see you can get a map and I suggest you do I suggest you ask staff for a map of the conservation land use because they can produce it. They actually produced it for me. >> So can I can I ask a couple questions please?
>> Sure. So, so the my question is number one, the the 1988 inventory map, is that still the data that's being used in our future land use map? >> Well, has that been updated? >> It's been updated. I believe it was
updated a couple years ago. Is that true, Lily? >> I have to check. >> Okay. Uh anyway, but the fact of the matter is the conservation land use on the map has not been updated and it doesn't get updated
until um somebody wants to build there. >> Sure. And are are we able to pull up that land use map to look at it? Is that available to us here? >> Yeah, that might be helpful if you if you can pull up that future land use
map. >> Yes. So, it's I believe publicly available on our website. Is it >> um same way as you get to the same applications for development, there's the future land use and zoning map. Um
>> I can send it to you after or Yeah, maybe she can show you. Yeah, you might be able to pull that up. I know that um you know there's a we talked about this, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. See all that green there? >> Um, it you don't even have >> We don't have it yet. >> You don't have the Do you have the website in front of you? >> Yeah. >> So, you got to click on the Google thing first. You got to
>> on on your computer, get get out of what it's on now and and get it to your desktop. So, this is the zoning and future land use that we're looking at. Okay. Thank you. >> There's a layers button on the side and
if you check off future land use, you'll see all the green swaths that she's talking about. >> Yeah, we're still having troubles up here. >> The um there's a GIS button on the homepage. You have to click the right
arrow to toggle over It's >> on the homepage where all those circles are. >> There's an arrow. >> There you go. Click on the Google. >> You got to get on the internet. Click on the Google thing. There you go. And then you want to go to titusville.com.
>> This a good exercise for them. You know, it's not the easiest. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think we're going to need those. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. >> So, once you get the titus.com website Yeah.
>> Well, you did something wrong because I went right to it and I'm technically challenged. >> You're right. >> Thank you. You can help them. where all those little circles are. Remember Brownie? There's a right hand
arrow on the right hand side. Click on that arrow. If you click on the arrow, there's new a new set of circles comes up and then then it should say GIS maps. >> Yep.
Nobody's coming to help. Where do you find those? >> If you go back to the on the right hand side, there's like three things layers. >> I don't have that. >> Click on that. Right here. >> Oh, yeah. The map layers. Okay.
>> So, that'll bring up all the different things. >> Yeah. >> Show you. Um, so you can add or take away the should >> you can add or take away uh >> different layers. So the future land use, but then you also have like I added
the areas of critical concern. >> Um, so I'm going to >> shorine overlay on there. Lots of different things. >> I'm going toclick zoning and parcels and just use land use. >> If it gets confusing, you just click some of those things and I'll clean up the data a little bit. >> Okay. Yes.
How did you get all those colors? >> So, that's just all those different layers that you click over there. And some some of them take a minute or two to load. It looks like like mine didn't come up right away when I clicked it. I had to wait a second. >> Yeah. Zooming in and out definitely has a big impact on this one. What it's
going to show you. >> That's good. >> The green is what we want. >> Yes. On the top right. Yeah. click into it >> three three icons in from the top right there's a it's three lines with dots next to it. If you click that it brings
up the legend that shows what all the colors mean. >> Yeah. And you can also click the parcel that you're you're looking into and it'll bring up the future land use code and it'll say conservation. Well, anyway, I think there's a a good exercise because um it's not the world's
easiest actually in my this my experience to go through, you know, this GIS stuff, but it's very helpful when you need the information. And if you see all that green, that's what is now
identified as conservation land use. and conservation land use um is it includes the wetlands that are it includes wetlands that are five acres and greater in size. It also includes
some smaller wetlands and at one point in time it included some habitat for listed species, but I think that um a lot of the scrub jay population in the city is no longer in
existence. >> Yeah, there there's essentially no scrub jays in the city. There are some out at Fox Lake and around that area, but in the city itself there's not. >> Okay. Wait, is Fox You mean Is Fox Lake Park in the city?
>> I don't know if it's technically within city limits. The the park might be, but the the eels lands. >> Oh, the eels land. Yeah, that's outside of the city. Outside. Yeah. And um you know um so what I wanted you to notice about
this is um that these the there's an extensive swath of green um you know running north to south in Titusville and we need to protect it.
But as my chart says you know um well let's go through the first part says the conservation plan
companies and plans conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2 two states that at a minimum wetlands 5 acres or more in size shall be designated as conservation land use. Um, and this is very important because
there's a density limitation of one unit, one residential unit per five acres. Okay. But um there's also a couple um problems.
Um so first of all, when a applicant uh comes in to develop, they need to submit a wetlands um delineation to the city.
And um this the the um city is going to revise the boundaries of that conservation land use on their property to match
their wetland delineation. question. >> Does the county have the same thing where they move the the conservation lines around on a piece of property? >> No, because they don't have this
overlay. They do not have conservation land use though. This was, you know, I have document that shows that in at the time that Kisville's um comprehensive plan language for um
for the conservation element um and the future land use element were written. These overlays were really in favor, but the county doesn't have one. it.
They just require the delineation. Palm Bay is another city that has very similar language to Titusvilles in the counties. Um, and they don't have that overlay as well either. Titusville is
the only place that has conservation land use. this overlay um with all you know that shows um all the conservation land and it has an ordinance to match which
is deficient um because it's just not detail but what happens here I don't know if you've been following what's happened with the um the water management district and things in general in
Florida when you Say you have a conservation easement over wetlands. You have some conservation easement on some property that you think that's going to be preserved
in perpetuity. You think that the water management district is going to keep all their uh wetland um you know their conservation easements on the wetland. You think that that's going to
go on forever? Not now. The water management district has changed its rules. And this came up to my dis total shock a few years ago. And I have the um
articles from the Orlando Sentinel. Um is you cannot count on uh property conservation property in the state of Florida being preserved in
perpetuity. And it's not just a wetlands, but you see split oak for example. What happens is that your um future land use policy
1.16.2 to um if you get that out that piece of paper. Like I said, this is complicated and buckle up because nobody I mean people are not volunteering out the street to look at
these con these these uh policies because it's not the world's easiest to do. But the reason it's not easy is because it's complicated. So well-meaning staff, I've read the historical documentation.
Well-meaning staff and a developer um you know um thought that okay if at the if they have a conservation
easement that'll be in perpetuity. So, I don't need to they don't need to keep this conservation land use designation. Now, the conservation land use is the
only thing that says you're limited to one residential unit per five acres. But staff thought, okay, well, it's conservation ement. It's going to be preserved in perpetuity.
That was before all this stuff happened about four years ago. So, policy 1.16.2 to allows
um you to ask for um a future land's category of planned development. Um and if you have the conservation easement, you can get rid of all
that. you can get rid of the conservation land use. But once you get rid of the con if if that but if what happens is that now the water management district's policy is
um a land owner can go to the district you know cry and say oh my easement needs to be removed and um you know the water management district
may say Well, okay. We'll do we'll have a vote on this. And um which they have done. And so we've got
to get rid of that loophole that allows you if you have wetlands 5 acres or greater in size to remove the conservation land use. that conservation land use is the only thing that's
preventing a bunch of houses there. >> There's nothing else nothing else besides that. Yeah. >> My understanding is the county has a no net loss policy.
>> Yeah. >> With wetlands and the city does not. Um, >> is that correct or not correct? >> Yeah. Do do we say some of the no >> I think we we have a no net loss of wetlands.
>> So no net loss. We we do >> one thing about um no net loss. Um it's not known net loss of wetland acreage. It's supposedly no net loss of wetland
function. And um in you know, the people will kind of joke about it. Um, I'm talking about county staff because they know they know
what it means. You know, it's not no net loss of wetlands. It's no net loss of wetland function. And now we got some strange things like you can
mitigate. >> There's very tricky verbiage with that. I'm on the EELS SMC and and we hear that all the time when we get mitigation donations from developers. Um, a lot of times it's not it's not truly a one for one. There's also loopholes on that
where they they can actually even though it's it's supposed to stay within Bvard County and and most of the time it does, there's actually loopholes where they can uh use mitigation lands outside the county, but it is it's definitely not that that no net loss system with the
mitigation lands is definitely not a perfect system. We see that with deals quite a bit. Well, the county allows for recompense or compensation, monetary compensation
as an option. Um, the priorities are avoidance, uh, minimization of the impacts and then, uh, mitigation as I understand it. But um I was just uh
amazed to discover that um >> we'll also take money um to kind of help >> grease the skids and uh I don't know another term to use except that. I'm sorry, but >> I actually didn't know that was part of it. I know that we get the eels gets
these mitigation lands frequently, but it's not necessarily always the same. It's not always a one for one. It's not always the same type of eels is obviously concerned a lot with scrub for the scrub j populations and it's not always a one for one. The scrub properties we get are not always the same as what we're
>> Okay. I don't want to digress too far from Mary's presentation. So, >> let me just make one comment. You're talking about the mitigation that goes to um the county. uh the water management district gets arranges for
the mitigation but they do not regulate uh wetlands that are less than half an acre in size and so they do not I mean they don't they don't require mitigation for that those so that's it's a very fine point
>> and I think that um you know we could get in a fine point but let's let's get back to The the fact of the matter is, do you want to remove a loop? Do you think it's important to
remove a loophole that will allow removal of some uh wetlands five acres or greater in size from the conservation land use? Um,
I mean, I think you you're just asking for trouble if you don't get rid of it now. I mean, it was well-meaning, but the time has passed. You got to protect these wetlands because nobody else may do it for you.
And so, that is, I think, your first thing you got to look at. Do you want to make that fix? >> So, um, can you explain what that loophole is? Where is the word the is the wording in? >> Yeah. >> 1.16.2.
>> Yeah. Okay. It's toward the end. Um, it's I I I don't have your print out, Lori Lee, but I got one print out. It's after a comma that says unless such wetlands are preserved by a conservation
easement as part of a plan development or other master plan development and it all so I don't have that language right do you Oh, I see it. I see it. Never mind.
>> I mean, it's a very easy fix and I don't think you run into any trouble with anybody disagreeing with it because circumstances have changed. And nobody's nobody's criticizing the
fact that somebody wanted to do this in the first place. It was well-meaning, but >> so >> got to be careful. >> I I know that I'm I'm new to all this, but it it seems to me that a recommendation from this commission
to the the council to remove that verbiage would not necessarily fix everything, but I mean that's that's going to remove that loophole. Is that am I understanding that correctly? >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. I mean, it's I I don't want to cut short your presentation because
obviously you have a lot of knowledge on this, but I also don't want to, you know, get get so far that we lose track of the fact that it this this is potentially an easy fix now to simply make that recommendation. Am I am I understanding the procedure of this?
>> You're totally correct because that's what we got to do is we got to go along and find things you want to fix. And when you see something like that and you think it needs to be fixed, then you need to bring it to the attention to T
Tec because that's on this chart. And if you if TEC thinks that needs to go and they make that recommendation, they tell staff that's what they want.
>> Okay. So, so let me ask you this. So, um, I'll just I'll pick park preserve at the corner of Knox McCrae and Park Avenue. There's a 14 acre track, twothirds of which is a is a lake, but
there's like a five acres of wetland on the south side of that. And and I think that's a conservation easement. So, you're saying that that conservation easement is is not not safe? Do they have a conservation land use
over it? >> I can't tell. I'm on the property appraisers website right now and it just says um what does it say? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Southside of Park and the corner
Knox McCrae. And it and it if you go into details, it says um it's owned by the Park Preserve Homeowners Association.
It's it's a um park preserve track three and then in parentheses it says remain undeveloped. I I can't see a land use anywhere on on the property appraisers website, but I I know that, you know, the
the engineer for that for that, you know, that property was very proud that that five acres was never going to be developed. >> Do you see it, Lily?
So, you're looking at South Park Avenue and Knox McCrae, that intersection. >> Yeah. And then there's a whole bunch of houses, but then um if you go to the uh west of the houses, there's like um
>> Ali Bird Drive and >> LIV Lane, >> what looks like uh conservation >> and then and then if you if you if you click on the lake >> and the red line, it shows the lake, but it also shows
>> that's the lake attra attractive land >> to the west of the lake. >> So if it has a conservation land use that's all you need. >> Huh? >> You don't need any
if you have a conservation land use that will have the one unit per five acres kick in. that that is the backs stop. That's your protection. You can always get a
conservation easement from the district in addition. But you can't. But if you take away the conservation land use and say, "Oh, I'm just going to get a conservation
easement from the district." You may be in trouble. And I think that that's what is it Jason Miller? Jason was saying um >> Okay. Yeah, I see where it's on our
Titusville map. It It is green and it says conservation. >> That's all we need. That's all we need. And and they could certainly have an easement in it, too. It's best if you have two things, but you don't want to if you're going to give up one, you sure don't want to give
up the conservation land use. So we we want to get rid of that whole entire sentence, not just the part after the comma. >> You want to get rid of unless such wetlands are present by a >> conservation
to as part of a plan development >> or other master plan development and the rest of that language is going to have to be sorted out by staff. I do not know what their policy is about
the wildlife species that we're hitting things that we we're not trying to micromanage staff's you know uh redo of this language. We are just pointing out what needs to go
and that's one thing that needs to go and the other thing is the way this um language works is that
in the next thing strategy 1.16.2.1 2.1 it says when conservation land use is present on a specific site a property owners shall submit a preliminary environmental assessment
including a wetland delineation when when wetlands are present. Um, so if they're they got conservation land use on their property, they have to submit a
uh wetland delineation. Well, guess what? Not all the wetlands in Titusville and even some not five acres five acres or greater do. Some wetlands just don't have this conservation land use. So what
you need to say is um unless some you need to say if um the if in strategy 1.16.2.1 2.1. When conservation
land use um is present on a specific site, a property owner shall submit a preliminary environmental assessment including a wetland deliminate
delineation when wetlands are present or suspected. I mean 1988 you missed some wetlands there. We're not talking about
what planet go can do or what your GIS department can do. So, um, if if the cities got to know, I'm sure they do, that
if if there's a property where there might be a large large wetland, five is greater in size. But when the wet the wet um the way this works and the same thing in the u
technical manual unless you have conservation land use you don't necessarily have to submit a wetland delineation. Now I'm not sure how staff enforces this you know at the you know at the project
level. Um, you know, that'd be a question to ask, but if there is such a loophole that would allow um a wetland 5 acres or greater in size
to slip through the cracks. Um, and because you didn't submit any wetland delineation, uh, that loophole needs to be closed and you need to say, um,
when wetlands are present or suspected in that. Um, >> so, Mary, can I can I make sure I understand what you're saying? So, you're you're talking about uh lands where it's not on the um
conservation land use map. >> Yes. >> But there are apparent wetlands there, >> right? >> It's up to the property owner to say, "Hey, I've got wetlands." But if they don't, then >> they're free to do what whatever they want with it. So, we need a way to
I guess check that property or check their what they're declaring to verify whether or not there are actually wetlands in there that they are not reporting. Is that what you're saying? >> I am. >> Okay. >> And and part of this is is complicated by the fact that these wetlands um don't
follow property um boundaries. You may have only a half of a wet half of an acre of a wetland which goes over into another property and this the total wetland would be you know uh
five acres or greater in size. So that's why you need um and like I say I haven't you you know uh discussed I try not to bug staff to tell you truth but I'm sure I bug them enough. Um,
but I haven't had a chance to go through this nitty-gritty. It's um, it's not exactly the top change we would need to make, but it's such a simple change that all you need to add is a couple words.
So that you know all suspected wetland areas if you have a have um you know property with suspected wetlands on it that um you have to
submit a wetland delineation. >> Okay. >> Would that be an additional policy then that need to be added? >> Okay. That's in the first box. All it is is a two-word change to strategy 1.16.2.1.
>> So, Miss Mary. >> Yeah. >> So, I see where you would add or suspected those words. Um, and then would it be enough to at the end of the
text that is there just just make the statement that all wetlands 5 acres and greater in size are designated conservation land use and will always remain in conservation. >> That is in a different policy. We'll get right to that. That's in a that that's
we haven't gotten that far yet. >> No, I'm in I'm on strategy 1.16.2.1. And you said um revise the language in strategy 1.16.2.1 um as well as the policy 1.162. But both of those would need the
language that you mentioned here which was um that all wetlands 5 acres or greater in size are designated conservation land use and always remain in conservation. That was part of strategy 1.16.2.1
where you added the words or suspected that and I'm just asking if that text that you >> um you know I'd like to think about that because that language is um you know about designated conservation land use is actually found
in the uh conservation element. So, if we can just kind of uh push that discussion aside. I mean, I I don't think we need to decide on the final recommendations tonight. That's for sure. But you need to get some sort of
feel for what the problems are and >> Okay, Miss May. >> So, if we have uh plan urban development
Like in this case where you have the architect engineer decided to keep a large portion of the land as conservation and then he put it down on his uh plan uh development
or other master plans. Is you want to take that verbiage out out of 1.16.2, right? because you want to stop at unless such as. And so there there's a bunch of uh
ways that a plan urban development can come in and say I'm going to leave to these five acres of wetland. And so how you want to deal with that then
versus you got to leave these five acres of wetland. >> You follow what I'm saying? >> Okay. If I'm developing a planned urban development like they did Knox McCrae and South Park, they decided that a
portion of it by the water and all that that that was going to be their wetland. And as Madam chair said they were very proud that they did that and they should be. They left a big chunk of land there. So, how do we handle that? Where the
owner of the property comes in and recognizes that yes, there may be a a wetland that they need to deal with, but I'm going to do that versus this. >> Okay. Would you take care of it in the PUD section?
>> Exactly. What do you take care of? and they go to staff with a PUD and say this is my plan. >> Okay, >> am I making sense? >> Um I'm not sure. Okay, let me just make a general comment.
the only um wetlands that you have to um you know have a conservation land use on are the ones that are five acres in size or
greater. Okay. What Titusville has done is basically I don't know if I should use the word sacrificed but it it has not
taken the initiative in its responsibility for land use planning. it has not uh taken the initiative to strongly protect anything under five acres in size and that's a problem
for the conservation element. Um it just Titusville um you know you can see that people are developing these small wetlands is more or less their option. They deal with the
water management district on this. Um because there is not uh strong land use planning language in
the conservation element. And the comprehensive plan is supposed to do land use planning, not permanent. Um so
um I don't know if you you understand right Lor Lee about that what he's asking I'm not sure >> well I I there's a whole other part of
the comp plan for plan unit develop plan P plan PUDS and So the >> okay you're talking about PUB. Um >> yeah there and and there there is wet
there is language pertaining to wetlands in the PUDS but I didn't print that the PUD part because I thought we were going to just >> yeah what >> concentrate on the future land use and conservation elements and then tackle other stuff later.
Okay. That's um there was like three developments that were PDS. Is that the one you're talking about? >> I I if it's possible, um I would like to be able to study this
a little more and because we all, you know, I mean this isn't I'm not saying, you know, what I got here is the world's greatest. It isn't. I mean, I've revised it multiple times. >> Oh, no. I'm trying to understand the scope.
>> Yeah. And if I could have your question. >> Okay. >> If if you could send it to Lily, like write it down and then you got my email, right? It's a strange email. Can too. >> Well, basically the question is what happens to the PDS and the PUDS. >> What happens
>> to the PDS? Okay. Your uh >> Okay. PD is a land is it um >> is it's an urban development. It's a type of urban development. >> Yeah. It's a land use. Right. >> Right. Yeah. The BDS are plant urban development which is another type.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. And and and so within that they're going to have conservation uh if if they have five acres or more like >> Yeah. >> This example the example that I'm going by and that that's common that that
happens where a portion of the land gets put into conservation. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that's handled at that level. But if we take out uh from unless such wetlands are
preserved which is what it happened then you take out that portion of how that is administered in the PDS or the PUDS. >> Oh you're talking about 1.16.2. Yes, ma'am.
>> Oh, okay. >> You see, if you take out there there, then you take out the PDS and the PUDS and how it's handled by staff and the city. >> No, I think you think so. >> No, because by taking this language out, then it would just mean that those areas
that um have conservation land use in the PUD would would would still have the conservation land use, >> right? This is a this is a loophole that allows uh a developer to remove the
conservation land use from their areas that they are um designating as um conservation easements. And what Mary is saying is that the state no longer recognizes conservation easements as
being protected. But if you >> Well, I can't say the state doesn't. They may act like it is, but I gotta say the um you know, friends of Orange County and >> Yeah. Right.
>> the you know um and the Orlando Sentinel think it's you just can't um you'll count on it. But um it's really confusing because there's a PD um zoning
there. PD zoning has nothing to do with that. Uh PD land use which was I you know I looked at them all and they're kind of ancient developments. um you know I can't I don't have that in
front of me right now but um yeah um let um I think even now you know there's some new category for some urban um you know uh mix yeah
I don't know we'll need a we'll we'll need to get that cleared up. But um it is a loophole. Um it is a loophole. Let's put it that way. And it has nothing to do with the PD zoning.
Nothing. Um so I can sort of weigh in in a general >> Yeah. theme that I'm picking up here as a potential like summary of what it I'm
hearing you'd like staff to look into is removing the future land use policy 1.16.2 to that allows for the conservation easements and plan developments um in lie of conservation land use
designations for wetlands 5 acres or more in size. And that is absolutely something that was identified in your natural resources plan as a line item. It's vague, but it is like I keep going back to that same part that we can take
that and start bringing well I guess I should say you should probably recommend a motion to ask council that we start diving into that staff does everything about flu policy 1.16.2
that designates that loophole that Mary's talking about. Yeah, this whole thing is going to take a lot of massaging by staff because this language is not the world's best. And um I'm just trying to point I think
that's if that would be helpful that I think that you know maybe the plan should be that you think that staff should look into the B if you think it's a loophole then ask staff to take a look
at it and I got to say that I know we have the natural resources um plan which I don't have the latest and greatest of but um so but what is
the most accurate is the knowledge of staff. You're very lucky. You have an excellent staff to work with and have them look at it and hopefully you'll be able to partner with them.
That's what we want. partnership um and teamwork. And so how about if we if we ask staff to look at these this
policy 1.16.2 and one strategy 1.16.2.1 and see what they think. >> So can I ask I guess a procedural question with this? Are we are we making a recommendation to council to have staff look at this or are we just making
a a re or a request to staff to evaluate this? Like as far as a motion goes, >> I was advised because of the nature that this is extremely complicated. It will take more than several hours to chunk through that you would have to go before
council and ask that f we focus on that because it's not going to be a quick by any means. >> We did that last night >> that I watched and the only motion that I saw they passed was about the tree
part and it kind of it got really confusing. They started talking about trees and then wetlands and then flooding. And then when they wrapped it all up into their final motion, it was yeah, go forward with the urban forestry
plan and using the money for that. >> No, that that was different. So I I I asked for advisability during petitions and requests, which was totally separate than the urban forestry thing. And >> right when you brought up the wetlands
part and then Stokele brought up the flooding which the whole conversation left us kind of confused on what it is they wanted by the end of it that it would be
clearer for staff to see exactly what it is you want us to work on. And that's what I read off was the removing 1.16.2 to all the parts that Mary's talking about the line after unless or adding suspect whatever that looks like is
going to take a lot of time and then asking just saying to council as part because you did ask them about taking on wetlands they're all for that I did hear that part but exactly what about that there's like five different things we
could tackle from the LDRs to the comp plan that was never fully clarified so what I'm suggesting is simply stating that in a motion and we'll focus solely on this policy 1.16.2 to all the removing confusing language that leads
to the conservation land use designations of five acres or more in size. All of that as it's written in page 34 of your natural resources plan, which is what I the theme I kept hearing during this whole discussion.
We'll tell council that's what staff has teas were recommended for staff to look into. So I need to come back at at the ne next meeting and ask for advisability to simply strictly focus on
um objective 1.16 in the future land use element and that will take care I mean there's two pages of 1.16 two and three and four so if we if we
strictly focus on objective 1.16 first >> 1.16.2. So, council's already approved your natural resources plan. You've been consistently talking about one
particular line item in that plan that says consider removing flu policy 1.16.2 that allows for the 5acre and all that. That that's what I would suggest you present to council that staff focuses solely on that for however many hours it
takes to fix. We'll bring that back before you and just start working through it because it's going to take a long time. >> I I I I understand that.
So, I I would make a motion to request to to put to council to have city staff look at policy 1.16.2 and specifically that last line regarding conservation easements and see if we can come up with better language
to remove that loophole from the verbiage. >> Second. >> All right. So, we've had a a a motion by member Jason. Forgot your last name. Yeah. And and it was seconded. Did you get Did you
second it member? All right. All right. Jonathan. So, um the motion was by member Jason and seconded by member Berdett and um is there any any other uh
discussion or questions? I like the motion. >> All right, there's no other discussion. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. We got something done, guys.
Okay. This is for this and this, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Should we go on to the next bullet? I mean the next box. >> That was only policy. Oh, sorry. So, that that was policy
1.16.2, but then you have the strategy 1.16.2.1. Do we want to include that or make another motion where um we're talking about including a wetland
delineation when wetlands are present or suspected >> prior prior to any future development. >> I have kind of been taking notes as you like all of the suggestions of after present adding or suspected removing unless all of that is policy 1.16.2 to
the strategies are like subsections in the policy. So I I hear that as the same thing. >> I agree. Yeah. >> Okay. So that that would cover then strategy 1.16.2.2 also.
>> Yeah. Because what happens is this language needs to be cleaned up and um staff needs to do the main work. The the whole Um
okay so all this um you know 1.16.2 to the strate two strategies um that all needs review by staff and I
know they've looked at this language before when they um put forth the 2040 plan which um never did make it and I don't think um you know that's another story um
but if staff can if staff can look at this and and try to work as a team with the TEC because your help is very valuable. I can't stress it enough. They
need you and you need them. So, if that's what you mean, Lily, to look at all this stuff here on the first page and um then we can go on to some other loopholes and then we'll
>> I think just just 1.16.2 is going to take a good amount of back and forth. That's I feel like my suggestion would be that we we tackle I suggest we tackle this kind of one large issue at a time, right? Like let's let's tackle this first loophole. Let's get some good
verbiage in there and then that will give us more power to go back to council later to address these. I I completely agree with you, Mary, that these all need to be addressed. Well, actually, I do not think that this is going to
um be a big problem to clean up, you know, the strategies. The reason I'm saying that is they've already made a stab at cleaning them up in the 2040 plan, which went nowhere because
evidently the state didn't like one of the things. I don't think it was this, but um >> do we do we have access to that verbiage that was that was put in there originally that the state rejected?
>> Uh state never rejected the 2040 >> I'm sorry. What they what they found to be non-compliant? >> He's talking about going all the way back to 2010. >> Um I Okay. Um I have uh Okay.
Um, >> do I have that? >> It just I'm I'm curious because >> it's on a state site. >> It It sounds like from what you're saying that that verbiage that the city originally had could have been effective, but the state found it not to be in compliance.
>> Well, I got to say one thing. >> When it came back for um well, let's put it this way. Um they they had they had some language and staff tried to fix it. But nobody liked it.
Well, if there was somebody, I mean, I got the midnight from it. Um, it just, uh, people couldn't stand it. Um, and this was the developers and the environmental community. So, Dwight kind of threw up
his hands and said, "Well, let's go back to the original language." Um, and now we have the mismatch. Um, I'm not sure if I saved that, but it is um
on the state site um you know, Florida jobs um.org. Um it's I think it's going to be complicated to look at I'd like to go on to the next um thing
if we could. Is that okay, >> Madam Chair? >> Yes. >> U if I may. Uh I I I agree with biting, you know, eating the elephant one chunk at a time, >> right? I I I do agree with that.
And and I'm also hearing Mary saying that um I mean she's she's looked at this hard and for a long time and um I I this phrase keeps coming into my head and it's uh death by a thousand
cuts. I have the concern about this second block here um which Mary wants to go on to about uh parcels less than five acres. whenever we do it. I think it's critical that we do it pretty soon. Um, a lot of
these projects are not large projects uh and involve wetlands over five acres. And I'm really concerned that we figure out what to do with these parcels that are less than five. And um they the wetlands typically, you know,
are um not they're not all within one parcel. there on multiple parcels and it's a difficulty um trying to figure out how we avoid death by a thousand cuts.
Um I I just really think uh if it's possible for us to at least get to the second one and discuss it. um this idea that uh acre parcels less than parcels less than
5 acres uh that contain portions of large wetlands um how are they dealt with? >> Yeah. Um I I totally agree. I think if we could just go through this the these things aren't this first one was a
little difficult to understand but this um second box if I can uh um you know comment okay there's these properties that have these portions of these wetlands that are five
acres of greater in size and they should be conservation land use. Well, these a property owner, we know it happened. A property owner had
a parcel that was uh I think it was uh between three and four acres. Now, turns out that it was almost all wetlands. Almost all wetlands. And guess what? the
cityowned property south of that. It abuted um you know your um Blue Heron the one is what one over the
other. Okay. It it um it abuted Blue Heron and they knew okay this was Brad and Eddie. They knew darn well that
those wetlands needed to be in conservation land use and there was a limitation of one unit per five acres and the applicant I mean his job was not to convince I
mean to convince and staff. He knew what they thought there. His job was to convince council that oh my par was only um 3 whatever
acres and so how could I have a wetland five acres and greater on it? you know, disregarding the fact that um you know, it might be part of a larger
wetland. And to top it off, oh, I can't go and get a delineation on the Blue Heron property. That's not mine. I can't I can't go in there. Well,
this is this is a little ridiculous, but council bought an argument five zip and it had to do somewhat with personalities um which won't be identified
um but um state law requires that when you're um submitting a comp plan amendment that you use uh the best available and appropriate
data. So somehow staff needs to figure out they want to solve this problem. Believe me, I've I've heard complaints. They don't like it. The people are trying to get away with this stuff. And it doesn't
m The property could have even been bigger than five acres but have still have less than five acres of wetland. So they've got to figure out how they can
um specify that you know you you can you you have to use the best um available and appropriate data or that they you have to use to determine
the um size of the wetland or they have to use the best available and appropriate data including EIS analysis or something like that. They need to figure out how to close this loophole.
And all they need is um right now your recommendation to close this loophole, they're going to have to think of this language. I'm not suggesting it. I mean, I suggested in
general, but there They know how they have got to have been thinking after being a little bit um myiffed at the outcome of that um that they've got to be thinking about how in
the world to close this loophole and TEC is in a wonderful position to say do something. That was last night, you know, when I when I asked for the advisability, they jumped right on. >> That was the the first thing they said
is like the wetlands that are connect smaller wetlands that are connected to big wetlands, how do we protect them? That was the first thing that they talked about. >> So even the council recognizes that there's a problem here.
So that's something else that you know you could ask um you know that you council could be asked specifically to close this you know if staff can work with TEC to close this
loophole. So would that mean adding another policy or another strategy? >> How about another sentence? >> Another sentence another sentence to to what? >> Yeah. Add language where? >> All right.
So, um I um think it should be added in um policy 1.16.3 would it says permitted use within the conservation land use area shall be
limited to residential uses of one unit per five acres. Um, you know, it goes on um and you could add some sort of language
about these wetlands that spill over um from one property to the next. And like I say, I this is an example in my second um box. There's a lot of variation in that, but
it it's that wetlands that spill over from one property the to the next, you know, they've got to think of a way that they can, you know, use the state requirement and think of a way
based on that, maybe the GIS or something that they can stop this stuff because it's like Lauri said, I mean, that was what Jolyn um that was what Jolyn
brought up right away last night. She knows she, you know, >> they probably had GIS for quite a while. I mean, why didn't I'm not sure why it didn't work before and council voted
five to nothing to approve the project. >> Um >> um they they didn't Okay, you see the way it re It it doesn't say now that they have to use the best and appropriate data. It doesn't say that
um it doesn't say anything about the wetlands that spill over from one property to the next. And that's what the problem is. So it's not like they didn't have the tools before and they didn't they did have the tools because
>> was stated in its report that they thought this was part of a 5acre wet >> but um they you know it's a loophole because it's
not tight enough language to stop somebody from using So, do you think the most appropriate policy for this language to be worked in might be U 1.16.3?
>> Yeah. Stick something in there and >> it it's most uh relevant >> because they've got >> policy. >> Yeah. Um they have got to um and that goes on to the next book. They have got to define
how this one unit residential unit for five acres is going to work. I I think that that's like policy 1.16.3 is talking about the um residential uses
of one unit per five acres. That's something that's totally different than what we're talking about protecting smaller wetlands that are connected to bigger wetlands. I I personally think that it needs to be a separate policy
because I think it's going to be confusing. >> They could do that. >> Yeah. I think it needs to be its own separate policy that stands on its own and it would be a lot stronger than trying to tack it on to another >> policy. you put a couple strategies
there because that's a very good idea. Um, >> yeah, I agree. It doesn't really fit under that 1163. I I I think it would make sense under one of the one of the 116.2 use strategies when when you're
looking at the delineations of those wetlands and then requiring use of that like the language says uh best available and appropriate data because that's where they're they're outlining where those those wetlands actually are and so
they would have to show that it extends onto another property. >> Yeah. I mean there's all kind of good ideas that Jason's was a good one too. I mean, what we're talking about is is not a small wetland that's connected to a
larger wetland, but a small portion of a wetland that is part of a large wetland because um it's not necessarily that that it's well
maybe it's connected, but I mean it's a small portion that's connected to a larger your wetland like um you know >> and and we're still talking about properties that fall under the conservation land use. Like we can look
right I mean I'm looking at properties right now that are less than an acre but they they are under the conservation land use. So we're just saying that if these come up council needs to look at this and see that it's connected and
then >> well the the thing about it is the way that um the 24 plan was written and the um which like I said did not go anywhere. Um
and the the the way um Oh, wait a minute. Um I lost my train of thought. Um I I just lost my train of thought. Can we can we see the language from the 2040 plan?
>> I got it. But >> okay, I'll I'll look. >> I gota I gota I got to make a caveat. The Sierra Club uh opposed the 2040 uh language. Um
>> um do do you know why? >> I sure do. >> Why did they oppose it? >> Because that language um said that they're going to defer
the uh decisions on wetlands to the water management district and these permitting agencies. And they were going to basically um abdicate
their responsibility for land use planning. >> Well, then we don't want to we don't want to use that then. >> Well, I got to say and and I mean it didn't go anywhere, but uh it's it and and staff
staff knows it, but you know, it was stopped I believe you know um you know but it's not what we want which brings this to another box but >> but Mary before we leave that
would it be uh Jason thought growing on that your comment on suggested clarification if we go back to policy on 16.2 too. Okay, you can once you take
out that that end uh if if it happens unless such as and you take all of that and then you add your add language so that the best available you know under that and that stays
within policy. >> Yeah. I mean you've you finding all kind of good >> does that make any sense Jason? Yeah, I I I totally agree with you and I I think with where I'm at on this is it the language makes sense and yes, >> it's not necessarily for us to figure
out where exactly it makes sense for that to rest. >> So it it would just again be a a situation of us requesting to have staff find a place in the policy to include
that verbiage, >> right? because you don't want to micromanage staff. They wouldn't like it. >> I mean, >> all right. Well, I I would like to make a motion to request that staff find a place in this policy with the possible
suggestion of somewhere in 1.16.2 or 1.16.3 to where the best and most appropriate data i.e. GIS is used in making these decisions as to whether or not to allow development
on these smaller parcels that are connected to larger wetlands. That was kind of long-winded. I apologize. >> Second. >> So, my motion would be that we ask staff to investigate the best place within
this policy to include the language that decisions on these smaller parcels are made using the best and available appropriate data data. i.e. GIS or staff reports on the ground.
>> But that still doesn't say smaller or wetlands that are smaller than five acres that are part of a large large wetland should be protected. But you your idea of having a special case
for the smaller plots I think is a great idea and that itself Again, I'm I'm going back to the to the fact that 1 point 1.16.2 is your is your policy, your your top
policy. Then we can have sub things underneath. So providing a small section for the less than uh acreage can go into uh
you know a subp part of uh 1.163 uh and that could be 1.63.1 for the smaller part for the smaller area since.3 is for one unit per five acres >> because what we're what we're talking about We had a special set for them.
>> What we're talking about is still these conservation areas, right? Like when you look at where am I? I'm looking at a little spot on Holder Road right here and it's it's marked as conservation, but I've got properties here that are 2 acres um less than 0.2 acres. They still show
up as conservation lands. So this would this would simply force the decision makers to look at this and see that developer says I'm only on one acre so I don't have to follow that. But when you look at this you can clearly see that it
is part of that larger wetland. And so that verbiage in my mind would force them to look at that data before they say okay yeah you're less than an acre so you can do whatever you want. >> Yeah. So, I agree with that. But I think
that there also needs to be verbiage that stipulates that if a wetland that continues onto an adjacent property is part of a wetland that's 5 acres or
or greater in size, then that needs to be protected. And I don't I'm not seeing it. I mean, I I I see where it says, you know, use the best uh available and appropriate data to
determine whether a wetland continuing onto adjacent privy is 5 acres or greater in size, but does it need extra words that say and should be protected?
because you can you can determine that it's 5 acres in size. Well, but well, I guess maybe the um the language >> isn't the question in the lang isn't the the language in the question or the what she says is the point of confusion to
the left. How should the city How should the city ensure that small parcels less than 5 acres that contain portions of large wetlands continuing on to adjacent properties are assigned to conservation land use on the wetland map. Um some of
that language would be part of what you're talking about is wouldn't it? Um, we're trying to assign the proper land use for that smaller parcel which is included in the larger wetland area.
>> Can I amend my motion? >> Sure. So, I would like to amend my motion to state that when partials less than 5 acres are being considered that all available and appropriate data
be used to determine if they are part of a larger wetland falling under the conservation requirements. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'm good with that. as long as long as you know we've determined that
it this that the smaller thing is part of a five acre wetland that most of it's on somebody else's property is that it would be protected but because it is part of a wetland that is 5 acres or
greater in size then by default it would be in protection then on once you've determined that it is part of a of a five acre or greater in size wetland. All right. So, um we've had a motion by
um member Miller and seconded by member Delgado or did Okay. Um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. So, I I think that's probably
enough for tonight. Uh, that's a lot. That's a lot for staff to digest. And it's 7:30 and I'd like to get out of here early again one more time. See what that's like.
If, uh, you guys okay with that? So, um, Lily, thank you so much. Mary, thank you so much. We, uh, I look forward to the next chapter. So, I I this is a lot for staff to have to work through. So, I'm
not sure that we'll have anything back from staff for the next meeting to chew on. So, we probably should just plan on the next meeting. Just pick the third box and just keep on working on the boxes.
>> I don't want to put a lot of pressure on staff. Yes, ma'am. Uh, I'm going to make a comment on the third box. Um, because I think that's very complicated and I think you're right. We need to um, you know, I have ample time for it, but I
have not I've discussed this with um, Brad, but I do not have his opinion. And um if if I I'll just go through it and we'll you can get a taste of says how is
compliance with the wetland limitation of one unit per five acres to be assessed. Should the density limitation be interpreted as a percentage such as 1.8%
of the conservation land use? Now I do not have his opinion. He has seen that um two major developers have used this. This is Honeyut with
Rick Kern. They have voluntarily used 1.8% of the conservation land. and Bruce Moya MBV, the one we um who um was not actually required, but they
did this on their own. The one who um had the opportunity to use that and did not um is a consultant you've heard from before. Um and there's a great difference
between 1.8% 8% and 12%. Um, and Brad Zen know the math but I don't have his opinion on the second question because technically it says one unit per five acres. Now the county they
expand they have a percent 1.8% 8% you know they use the property total because they use all they they protect all the wetlands not just the ones five acres and greater very well I mean you're going to do it you get a piece of paper
explains the rules this is what it is period but I think we need to make absolutely sure that um you know what how staff feels on
residential unit of one unit per five acres. Is um single family the only type? You know that the Lieberman property was going to build they were going to build all these
um apartments. I mean it was it was um different and so we see if staff can just look at
that. Um you know staff needs some before we discuss it we might want to have some idea of how staff feels about it. I mean, yeah, I know that Lily said that
they didn't find any problem with it, but you know, you got to just double check you. We want to work as a team with staff. And if staff
doesn't like the idea, I think they I think they think some some, you know, maybe a percent Okay. I, you know, they need a weigh indefinitely on whether it's just single family or you can have
multifamily development um as part of your 1.8% um of the wetland alone um you know because some of these wetlands are huge. For
example, um the one on the Leverman property I believe was 120 acres. That's all I got to say. And um thank you so so much for trying
to understand it and asking questions. >> Thank you. Okay. So, we're going to um wrap up the discussion on um wetlands confusion and uh move on to
petitions and requests from the public present. So, I there is no public present. So, we'll move on to um reports. Um Lily, we'll start with you. >> Yes. So, I have um some upcoming events
I wanted to make you all aware of, but also to ask for your help potentially for the October 25th Harvest Festival, uh reserved a vendor booth for the city
on behalf of the city to have a booth there to collect surveys for the urban forestry management plan. Um, I'm going to be jumping back and forth between that and the Rotary's Brewfest.
So, I was going to ask if there's any way anyone from the TC would like to volunteer to help man that table that day. And if there's more than two of you, I do have to note
have it notorized or advertised, sorry, through the clerk's office. So, I have some questions. Um, are the are the surveys printed for people to make their answers on or are we going to have like an iPad there that they're
going to >> they're going to hold on to an iPad and do the survey? How how is the survey going to be done by the public? >> It's so I'll have a tablet. Um, also a bunch of handouts. really just someone there to explain the project is and I
can put the QR code too. So when I did National Night Out with the same thing most people just took the flyer just just knowing that it's going on and it also invites them to attend the vision um craft the vision. So it's just
getting the word out there about the urban forestry management plan and to fill out the survey and to come to the event. >> Okay. So most people chose to take a flyer and not fill out the survey on the spot, >> right?
>> And then and this is at the Enchanted Forest. This is a really nice place to be, guys. It's nicely shaded. Um we the TEC had a booth. Was it last year? >> Last year we had had our own TEC booth at that event and it was fun. Um
>> and you're more than welcome to talk. Yeah. TEC talk like too. You don't have to >> Right. Yeah. It's a it's a huge opportunity to talk to a lot of people and uh it was very productive last year. Um I I have I'll find out tomorrow
whether our church is having a regional conference or something on that Saturday that I hope I can get out of. But I'll know tomorrow whether I have to be at that church thing or not. If I don't, I'll be there the whole time at your booth. Yeah, I can send a follow-up
email just just gauge interest, but I did want to formally state to all of you that if more than one of you is there has to be advertised. >> Why don't you go ahead and advertise it just on on the chance that there might be more than one of us there. >> Okay.
>> And if and as another reminder of sunshine, like don't talk about things you would vote on and everything, >> right? >> Uh so, okay. So, with that, I I guess just a a gentle reminder, November 10th is the urban Oh, thank you. Appreciate it. Yeah, that
really helps me out a lot. Running around all over the place. >> What are the hours? >> 10 to three. >> 10 to three. >> Yeah. >> And I'll be there to help set up and break down. >> And you're going to set it up. So, that's even better. We don't have to set it up, >> right?
>> Um >> three at Enchanted Forest on the 25th. November 10th is the visioning workshop for the urban forestry uh management plan. So that'll be a kicking off our first public engagement that's going to be here and the consultants will be
here. Um all but one council members will be here. So that should be interesting and fun. And then also November 4th is the um resilient Titusville exposure analysis presentation at the Tom Stathithm
community building at 5:30. So that's the 100red-year flood, 500year flood um future and existing maps that they've uh come up with the sensitivity analysis and everyone who submitted the identify a flood survey and how that overlays
with the new maps as well. And we'll also have our storm water management uh sorry flood plane managers there to help answer questions too. But that might be a good opportunity for tec to come out as well. That's for resilient
titisville. Um yeah >> there is a survey for the urban forest that I hope all of you guys will take. Um the website web page is at the bottom of the flyer that's in in the um in your
packet. Um but yeah, please please take the urban forest survey and then try to come to the community visioning workshop and the resilient titus. So I mean both of these are projects that the TEC has worked extensively on. So, it would be
really nice to have some TEC members actually at at these two events. Well, three counting the harvest thing. Anything else? >> Um, no, just as a reminder, too, November is our last meeting and then
December we have off. So, that will be a reset. Um, but no, that's that's all I've got. and and didn't we change the elections to January instead of November? Okay, good.
All right. >> Uh I had likely planned to attend the Enchanted Forest uh y >> harvest festival. Uh I don't think I'll probably be there for the whole duration, but I had at least planned to stop by. Not at this time.
>> I was going to report about the um council's notices uh last night at the meeting about the tree um initiative and hiring a landscape architect, but you stole my report on
that early. So, I'm good. Thank you. >> I was going to report on that, too. So, it's it's done. >> And uh yeah, I'll help out with the with the harvest. I can do that. And uh
also since I live in a condo community, I'll probably print them and uh put them in the so everybody can see it or just send it to whoever the person the the institution that takes care of our meetings and all that so they can post
them. >> Thank you. >> Member Miller, >> I have nothing. Thank you. >> Tucker. >> No, ma'am. >> All right. So, that concludes our meeting. Once again, I I want to welcome member Miller and member Rosa. We're
glad to have you guys and look forward to working with y'all. Thank you very much. We'll see some of you at the Oh, go ahead. >> We have that future uh agenda items just to clarify that that comes after the reports.
>> Okay. keeping wetlands as >> Yeah, we're just going to keep working on on Mary's chart >> and keep plugging away and then it it will be a pleasant surprise if you have anything from staff to bring back to us. Okay. >> But um we're we're not going to expect
it. We'll start on block number three. And and Mary, thank you again. I can't thank you enough. This is um >> it's amazing that we're doing this. >> All right.