Okay. This is us. That's not me. Okay. >> All right. It's uh 5:30 and I guess we'll call this meeting of the Titusville Environmental Commission to order. So, I guess we'll start with a call to order and then a roll call, please. Lori,
>> chairman, >> I'm here. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson >> here. >> Member Berdett >> here. >> Member Tucker >> here. >> Member Miller >> here. >> Member Delgado >> here. >> Member Nico, alternate member Young >> here.
>> Alternate member Rosa. >> Here. >> Boy, the gang's all here. So, we definitely have a quorum. Would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Vote here. John Mo's not here. >> John Nico is not here. Okay. Um, yeah,
we'll have to decide which alternate votes. >> I guess the oldest one, but that would be we have to decide which alternate gets to vote if we have a vote on something today. >> Isn't that just part of like whoever gets put up here?
>> Well, here I'll take a nap. >> I mean, that would be my sub. whichever whichever alternate gets placed up here >> in in in my book you you get to participate in the discussions the problem is just the vote legally we have
to decide who's filling in >> you pick whoever's sitting up there >> okay that's that works for me is >> I assume >> that would be my >> is that is that a motion bill >> he was up there now >> can can I have a motion for that bill >> sure I move that that happens
>> okay >> I second that >> okay any other discussion. All in favor say I. I. Okay. There we go. Any opposed? Okay. Likewise. All right. So, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the minutes.
>> I make a motion to approve minutes from the previous meeting. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Got a motion. >> I have some changes. >> Okay. Changes. Let's hear them, please. >> Okay. Um the the first one is um
figure out what page it's on. It talks about tracks. T R A C KS and I think it should be tracks like T R A >> CTS. >> CTS. >> Yeah. Not train tracks. >> So Lori, there's two places where it
says the word tracks. Um, and it is in the third paragraph and the sixth paragraph. I'm sorry, what page? >> Um, I'm looking to see what page. Okay. Page
one, the last paragraph. It says um property was forced to put all wetlands into tracks instead of an easement. Okay. And then the other one is um
six paragraph. What page is that? Okay. One, two, three. Okay. So, the next one will be on page two of five in the third paragraph. Okay. And then the second um correction
is on on the motion where we we did the paragraph that's on page four of five. Okay. Okay. So, we had had that long motion, the paragraph. Um,
so in the um the last sentence is member Tucker seconded. The sentence before that it says the city shall apply the land use planning policies and density density requirements for protecting wetlands and their functions as stated
in the future land use element objective 1.1. 1.16 or 1.1 1 point yeah 1.16 I think that should be 1.16 >> and then the conser and then it says and the conservation element that should
also be objective 1.6 >> 1.16 right >> no I think it's 1.6 six. Give me a minute here. >> Oh, from the conservation element. >> Yeah, I think they both should be 1.6.
>> Yeah, cuz the others the 116 is from the flume, >> right? >> No. Objective one. >> Oh, it does. Okay. 1.16. You're right. >> 1.16. >> Yep. They're both 1.16. The future land
use is objective 1.16 and the conservation element is also no the conservation adj uh I'm sorry conservation element is objective 1.6. If you look at the comp comprehensive
plan conservation element wetlands policies >> yes >> it's objective 1.6. six. So the future land use is objective 1.16.
That's correct. And then the conservation element, you need to add objective 1.6. And then on page also on page four of five um
the third line up from the bottom it says vice chair Thompson was unclear about 1.16.2 and if that suggestion was to leave the language as it is instead of I'm going to finish that sentence.
Instead of making the TEC's recommended changes to future land use element policy 1.16.2 that doesn't make sense the way it's written. >> I'm not going to lie, that was a lot
harder than I thought it was. >> And and and you you did a wonderful job on the minutes. I I mean there was there was a lot of really complex stuff that was discussed at the meeting and um I mean you had to run the meeting after
Brad left and be Lori also. So it was an impressive showing. I I'm I'm congratulate you. So thank you. Those those are my recommended changes for the minutes. I have one recommended change and that's at the top of uh page three
of five where uh the first sentence is chairman my how asked how to find the most accurate data not date it's data and use LAR and then to categorize the areas that's the only one I saw
>> oh yeah yeah good job catch >> any other recommendations ations, changes, discussion, hearing none, seeing none. Um, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> All right, we're done with the minutes.
On to petitions and requests from the public present non-aggended items. First, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Johnson, on being able to get up and walk and move as easily as you are having >> Okay. >> having had the surgery that you just
had. I I just had surgery on I had a hip replacement and the next day I was in no pain. I walked out of the hospital. I don't know how that happens. Any I'm glad you guys are here. Uh this is a big
deal what you going in TEC and I've talked with my wife about doing a an autobiography and and and I think that the title will be how to make enemies and lose all your friends. That would be the title of the book that I might do.
So, uh, with that understanding, I just want to talk about some, uh, dishonesties, uh, false reports, cover-ups, and corruption by the city of Titusville. It's not a popular subject, but um,
uh, it's it's it's it's not nice for me to talk about. So, uh, we have unmaintained legal positive outfalls under I95. Big deal. Big deal. Violation of law for
59 years. We have uh uh in in 1985, the city of Titusville passed uh I only get three minutes. Oh, I thought it was five minutes. Um uh and um so they uh have passed a
freshwater management study that is based on a principle that called the guy Hzburg principle, but it doesn't apply to the city of Titusville. That's been going on for over 40 years. It's nonsense. No professional engineer will will oppose me on this this matter. Yet
the city of Titusville still holds it to be true. Gman Hsburg principle applied to the city of Titusville. So, in other words, the city had built dams and so forth. They built dams. Here's questions for dams. How can you build a dam
and not not survey what with the dam floods? How can you build a dam without compensatory storage? How can you build a dam without uh contacting FEMA? This is the city of Titusville. The city of Titusville. And what I'm talking
about is dishonesty, false reports, corrups, and corruption by the city. So, uh, I'm not very popular here. I just thought I'd mention that. Also thought I'd mention something else, and that is, um, um, Elizabeth Avenue.
Uh, that's a I know it's called Elizabeth Town Homes, corner of Elizabeth Avenue and Whispering Hills Road. I used to own both both sides of the streets of Elizabeth Avenue. So the city has approved a survey for this
project knowing the survey is incorrect and the city has constructed the the the owner has constructed numerous numerous improvements without a correct survey. Survey is off for foot
goes into somebody else's property. I know that because I uh the city's city has a survey of it and there's another survey. So there's it disagrees on the survey and and this is crazy what happened. The city passed in 2021
a what's called a uh sketch plat 8 foot wide driveway for street known as Mockingbird Lane. 8
foot wide one way serving six R3 lots. Six R3 lots. They call it a driveway. Whereas Mockingbird Lane has been a street in the city of Tyville for years and and I used to own the property and I and I allow it. It it's it's got a a 20
foot wide concrete apron that I approved as a property owner and uh it's got houses on the street with addresses Mockingbird Lane. There's even a there's even a street sign out there that says Mockingbird
Lane. So, I talked to the engineer about it and the engineer says, "We're not going to we're not going to show that on the survey. We're not going to show on the survey that it's a it's a street sign, stop sign out there." They didn't do it. They got away with it and they're still
getting away with it about five years later, four years later maybe. So, um uh what I'm talking about again is dishonesty, cover-ups, and corruption by the city. I can't give you a reason why they do that, but they
certainly don't like me. They've come to my church. They've come to my house. I'm talking about the Tisville Police Department. And it's it's not it's not good. So, I'm going to close at that. If you have any questions, I I'll be glad to answer any questions. Thank you.
That's all. >> God bless you guys. Keep it up. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Okay. Hearing none, I guess we'll move on into old business.
So, we're back into water resources and flumes and comprehensive plan. Mary, would you like to come up and join us or would you rather be at the podium? Which is your more preferred place? >> Be more comfortable at the table. >> Would you be more comfortable at the
table? whichever is more comfortable. You can set up next to Kevin if you'd like. >> Hey, Mr. chairman, while while she's getting herself set up, there was something I wanted to mention that I just came across the other day, and y'all might have seen this already, but um you know, we've been talking a lot about the conservation easements. And I
have not gotten around to getting a hold of the the water management district yet, but there is a uh a pair of bills right now in the legislature, SB290 and HB433. And within these bills, there is language that would allow any purchased
conservation lands after 2023 to be determined if they are suitable for agricultural use. And if they are, the lands may be surplused for agricultural use with the state retaining an easement. Revenue from the sales would not return to the water management district, Florida forever, or
whatever other programs um purchase land in the first place, but rather to the Department of Agriculture. So, um I I don't think the conservations we're talking about within town are probably uh in danger of this, but um you guys know I'm on the eels and this
is very significant for the lands that we have uh through eels Florida Forever, the water management district, some of the bigger lands and all that. So, um, I got this through Audabon and, you know, they've got the link to to send the automatated emails and all that, but I
just want to bring that up because it is obviously, like I said, directly related to the the conservation easements. >> What was the House bill number? >> Uh, HB433. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And 290 SP 290, right?
>> Just just a quick question if I could. Are we talking tens of thousands of acres? Are we talking a thousand acres? Are we talking a central Florida issue >> only? Uh or is that you know what >> where in the state are we talking about?
>> Well, I will admit that I did not go through and read the bill. I read the I read the summary Ottabbon sent, but from what I read, this has nothing to do with any particular part of the state. It is conservation easements that are purchased by like I said the the they reference Fuller F forever water
management district. It would seem to me that that would include eels. It says that it does not include um state parks, state forests and wildlife management areas which would be administered typically by FWC. Um but you know not
not all EOS lands are under conservation easement specifically but a fair number are. And so I it it I see no limitations on acreage or anything else. It just makes it to where any conservation ement can be looked at for agricultural use.
>> Okay. Well, thanks. >> All righty then. >> Um >> yes, Bill. >> Today they had a workshop. I don't know if anybody heard of it. 10,000 Friends of Florida. Anybody heard of them? >> Okay. Well, they had a workshop today
and they talked about that. So it's they talked about the bills that were before the state and what they meant. So you learn it through eels. I heard about it through 10,00. So during the legislation, state
legislation when they're meeting, they have weekly meetings about how the progress of the bills are moving. So the bill he just mentioned, I heard about it this morning. So you could join them next week or so and find out the progress because they monitor the progress of the bill, how it's going
through and how it's changing. And and when I heard it this morning, then I thought, well, that's going to impact us or but good. So, uh, you brought it up. So, good. So, I'm I'm backing you up that anybody here wants to check on that. That's a way of doing it. Go to
their their web page, 1000f.org, friends of Florida. Good. >> Anybody else? >> What is that? In response to the loss of a lands to development and now there's the the agricultural community starting
to freak out and say we need more lands. Is there a reason for the this bill? >> I don't know the background, but I would imagine that that is what it is. Um because even at eels, we get sometimes uh land that we want to purchase for
conservation use, but then we get others that come in and try to get us to set it aside as agricultural easements, which is another which we do sometimes if it's so heavily disturbed that preservation isn't an option any longer. But um I would guess that that is the source.
this morning. >> What they said this morning was the cattle ranchers want another place to put their cows >> and they don't want the cows damaging the land. >> So they put them out on the St. John's River Water Management District lands. >> Yeah, they could be back out on Simol
Ranch. >> Yeah, they can poop and it get in the river and we can swim and drink >> it. What I got to put up with here? Okay, let's get on to wetlands, please. Mary, you want to pick us up where where we left off?
Okay. Um, I hope you got an email that Lily um sent you. I hope you noticed it. It was about your update to um flu policy 1.16.2. And um
anyway, I included some attachments with that. Um I included one about the chronology of um the language that you wanted to have the
strike through with. And then uh also your Park Avenue subdivision slides. I had that. And then um you know talking about conservation easement I did find um on the water
management St. Joseph River water management um on their website and I put that in your um the emails well it's the uh St. St. John's River Water Management District policy on releasing conservation
easements because Jason um had u wanted to make sure that we all understood what the status was. And so, um, I hope you've read that. Um, it basically says that a a property owner, um, may ask the
district to consider accepting mitigation credits or another piece of property in exchange for releasing a regulatory conservation easement. And this isn't very common, um, but it tells a little more details
about their policy. Um, so that's important. What I really wanted to say in that email was I know you all were um very
pleased that Brad came and everything he said was right. Everything he said was right. It's just that I had this piece of information that I don't think he had at the time and it
um it found another way of allowing plan development that's PD zoning um to be allowed
um so that wetland areas could be counted as open space. No. Um it there was an ordinance that um was
adopted between this Park Avenue subdivision transmitt to the state and the Park Avenue subdivision adoption. And that ordinance allowed
uh that ordinance change allowed um PD zoning in addition to O which space and recreation zoning in uh conservation land use.
And what that did is it made that caveat that you wanted to strike through unnecessary. It's not necessary now besides the fact
that it conflicts with conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2 which is the 5 acre rule. Um and it that
uh caveat would also be a problem if a conservation easement were to be released uh by the district for example. So, uh, Lily and I met with Brad and he said
that you're fixed to that which is um, to strike through that language which says first it says the conservation land use
shall be amended to include all wetland acres on the site to be preserved and And then you struck out unless such wetlands are preserved by a conservation easement as part of a plan development or other master plan development
um along with any other areas to be permitted for preservation for state and or federally listed wildlife species. And all that's in the email. So, I hope it works for if we send you
some emails before the meeting. Not trying to overload, but is that okay? >> Mhm. >> If we send you a little bit of reading material beforehand. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, your job,
now that he said your fix is okay, is to confirm that you want that fix. And if you do, um, you're going to need to vote on a
rationale. >> Yeah, my lights on, >> which you don't have. >> Yeah. But um I might as well have this rationale passed out before we vote on whether you're going to confirm because it kind
of tells what's going on. >> Okay. What was that motion? >> This is the rationale for your striketh through stuff. And like I say, Brad was just missing this piece of information
and um you know, I don't want to spend too much time here. We go through the slides again. >> Oh, he's got them up. Okay, we will go through the slides again then. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. just let them make sure they get
their papers. >> Um, >> are the slides in our packet by chance? >> It's It's up on the >> I understand. >> Yeah. Great. >> Bill's going to bring some more over here.
Hey, that's it. >> Just him. We have You have one, right? Oh, thank you. Okay. So, read it over
then we'll go through this. Yeah, whatever you however you want to. I'm just giving it to you. You can figure out what you want to do. >> It's kind of repetitive. Okay. You can do any way you want. Okay. So, are you ready for the to look at
slides again? Okay. Can we go right up to the I guess go right up to the top. Um, is there a first slide there? That's >> No, it can't be. There's one ahead of Yeah. Park Avenue subdivision transmitt.
This is the first time it goes to the state. They'll look at it and see what they think. Okay. And this was in on it was sent up on um or it was voted
on by the city September 25th, 2018. Now, before that time, you know, we had the South Carpenter
Estates, which wasn't a uh conservation subdivision. And then earlier that same year on February 27th, 2018, they added that caveat because if you'll remember, they wanted to have
more um conservation subdivisions and clustered subdivisions so that the wetlands would not be impacted. And that was in February.
And then in September, the Park Avenue subdivision um transmitt went up to the state and the state checks the future land use.
And you'll notice the existing one had both uh low density residential and conservation, which is the wetlands. But they were going to put everything including all those wetlands in low
density residential. That's the the picture on the right. So there was no more conservation there because they were going to get an easement with the district and they were going to use plan
development zoning. Okay. Now let's move on to the next slide. They are basing this
decision to get rid of the conservation land use on the wetlands. On that new caveat says that this is consistent with policy 1.16.2
two of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. Um, and they give the language says the project will protect the wetlands via conservation easement or other restrictive covenant through the
PD zoning and master plan which is consistent with policy 1.16.2 of the future land use element. In other words, they're using the new caveat to get this through and have all low density residential on that property
which is now Huntington Park. Okay, on to the next. Now, state came back, they approved it, they weren't batting too many eyes.
Next slide. Now, they have to go through another vote. It's called the adoption. I know some of you are quite familiar with this process, but it has to go through another vote by the city council
and by no less the PNZ again. Well, guess who was appointed to the PNZ just right before this? The former city attorney Dwight Severs. Now,
he took one look at that transmitter and he decided that this was inconsistent with the 5 acre rule, the conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2
and he was not happy. So um they PN the the PNZ which is for state purposes called the LPA. They voted
to de to recommend denial of transmitting what they had. This is what they so they wanted to deny what was originally there and a few slides back.
Okay. So, what happened? It was really interesting. I watched the tape. There's this uh staff member who is a senior uh planer. His name was Trevor Trap Hagging. Some of you may remember him.
Anyway, um after they voted not to recommend just having all low density residential And Trevor's sitting there and I just knew the light bulb had gone on either
before this meeting or during this meeting. So he says, "The problem is that we don't allow PD zoning in conservation land use."
Okay. So this will this meeting was on January 2nd. A month and a half later, the si the um city
voted in favor of an ordinance that put that allowed PD zoning and conservation land use was the wetland conservation area uh part of the LDR is the ordinance. So,
what happened is um Trevor knew what to do. He knew exactly what to do. He's not going to go through the comp plan or go through the ordinance, which is just fine. So, this thing comes back
after and and and here's what they proposed the second time. the uh the applicant changed um their mind. They decided that they would have the
conservation land use over the wetlands and the low density residential just over the uplands. And so um this this idea did not conflict with
conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2. It was okay. So the PNZ voted to adopt this. The city council voted to adopt it.
and um all was well. So if you'll go to the next slide there, you can see on the right that they made all the zoning PD.
It had been R1, B, and O R, but they made it all PD. And and that is because they wanted to um promote cluster development
and um give credit for open space in wetlands. So that's and that information about that hearing is what Brad did not have and the ordinance and I had the ordinance um from some research done a
few years ago. I got it from Wanda Wells. So, um, in other words, um, to sum it all up, um, your strike through is fine
and everything Brad said was fine. He dismissed a little piece of information and now he says it's fine. Yes. So, you can approve what you um
already um voted to approve before if you'd like. And then you can also if you'd like hopefully because Lily wants this rationale.
Lily wants a rationale. So, I wrote it for her. Okay. says the the rationale for the change is if you agree with them once more the wording and strike through was added in 2017 to accommodate cluster development
patterns including conservation subdivisions using plan development PD zoning. At that time PD zoning was not allowed in conservation land use. This was changed on February 27th, 2018 with a passage of ordinance
6.6-28 2018, rendering the language and strike through no longer needed to accomplish its original purpose. Since 2017, problems with the language have have surfaced.
And if you go on to the next slide, okay, this was their stuff that they sent up with adoption with adoption of uh Park Avenue subdivision. It said that the applicant
has submitted a revised application for the comprehensive plan and it places conservation land use on those wetlands greater than 5 acres in size consistent with conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2.
Number two, in place the low end of the residential land use designations on this part part of the property not designated with the conservation land use designated as amen is amended. In other words, this
reasoning recognizes the argument that P&Z raised. Does that all make sense? I see some nodding of heads. >> I just need a clarification. So, >> yes.
>> So, we made a motion on January 14th to ask staff to review what we had done with our striketh through and then Brad came back and said that the striketh through was a bad idea. And now you're telling us that it it wasn't a bad idea
that we need to keep it. >> Yes. >> Because he He was missing a piece of information that I knew I had. And that's why I asked you to please let me talk to him.
I I knew I knew when he started talking that he didn't have what I had. Okay. So once he got what I had, he understood and it's okay. And I think
he really tried to give you some good information and we ought to be very thankful that he came to the meeting and gave you all that information. It's just that sometimes when you're it happens to all of us. We miss something sometimes,
right? So what you had is fine and you but you need to reaffirm it >> with the vote >> and then the rationale will give to Lily
and she can give it to Brad. >> Sounds like we need a motion to >> you need to approve both >> both. Yeah. >> Both the re original >> two motions. Yeah. a motion for for the uh the strike through that we asked for
review on and then a motion on on the rationale. >> So, >> okay, I'll make a motion that we um recommend approval of the changes that
we recommended. Um I don't remember when we made that motion. >> 127. >> Huh? On on the 27th. Yes, we pose the question of staff on the 14th. On the 127 it says member
Thompson made a motion to staff to review the comment on the proposed language added to 1.16.4 where that's a different that's a different thing. This is 1.16.2. >> So let me let me try again. >> That says the 14th of January made a
motion to recommend changes that have been discussed on the flume 116.2 as amended. Yeah, we must have made a motion on the 14th. >> It's not reflected on this TEC motions sheet. >> It's not here. I think that it just says
we need to ask staff to look at our thing. >> That's I thought what we just did and then we got the answer back via. >> Yeah. So, all right. Let me try again. Um, I make a motion that we do a final approval of the motion that
we made regarding future land use element policy 1.16.2 and keep the striketh through in that we um that we recommended I believe on January 14th, 2026.
>> Second. >> Okay, got a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? >> So with with us making this, we won't have confusion again in the future. >> Correct. >> Well, I I wouldn't go that far.
>> Slightly less, maybe. >> All right. Can I have a roll call vote, please? >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Berdett, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Tucker, >> yes. Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes.
>> Member Miller, >> yes. >> Chairman Majek, >> yes. >> And now the justification, the rationale. We need a motion for that. >> I I move that we accept the rationale as
submitted by Mary FAR for the strike through that we just voted on. >> Okay. Have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. H Hector beat you out that time. >> Any other discussions, changes, recommendations?
>> Okay, let's have another roll call vote, please. >> Member Miller, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Berdett, >> yes. >> Member Tucker, >> yes. >> Chairman Mek, >> yes.
Okay, that's done. Well, thank you. Are we going to go on to the next topic? The next topic being >> Can we go back to that last slide? I got a question about that. >> The particularly the conservation and
then the low density residential. One more back if you can. Yeah. in in the one on the left. >> Wait, that's way that's that's the that's conservation and >> low density residential.
>> Yeah. >> And the one on the right's all PD zoning, right? >> Both of them had all PD zoning. >> But the one on the left had conservation land use and the >> the land use was um at the land use is
what was different. They both had the PD zoning. They both have PD. One is conservation, one is >> but I didn't have a slide for that. >> Okay. Well, what I'm trying to get at, Mary, is that if we do if conservation
land use can have one unit per five acre and that's fixed. Why don't we just consider conservation land use to be permanent? and and then when they want to do a PD zoning like this, they get to transfer their one
unit per 5 acre from the conservation space into the into the upland space. >> We're going to have all this huge discussion on this. We're going to have a huge discussion on this. So, if you can just >> hold off, >> hold on. >> All right. >> Okay. So,
>> the next topic is what happened to your other motion for 1.16.4 before, which was the one that you had to um avoid deferring
the um deferring everything about the wetlands to the water management district. In other words, what this you made a motion to um come you you tweaked some language
that I had and and you know changed some things about it and so I ran it by Brad. Okay. Well, here's what happened. Um let me get this folder out. I got all
these things in folders. I'm very disorganized at home, but I got the You should see the papers are wrong. It's disgusting. Um, okay. So, um, I handed out this paper last time and it
was said problem language and flu policy 1.16.4 for and it had a discussion at the P&Z and and part of it was between Dwight Severs
and a planner um Gabriel now I think his last name is um pronounced Quintess Quintas um I had pronounced wrong last time anyway. So, so Brad, he's reading this and it says,
"Chairton Severs asked staff of the city of Titusville has jurisdiction over land use and zoning." Mr. Quintas said yes. That's a planner. Mr. Quintas said, now this is what Brad
did not like. He said, Mr. Quintas said that the conservation land use does not control the filling in of wetlands. If someone, and this especially, if someone has a permit from St. John's River Water Management District, the city cannot stop that.
Well, it's like Brad knew there was stuff the city could do and he said, "That's wrong." He said, "I want you to fix this so this doesn't
happen again." In other words, he wanted your language beefed up. And it's not that easy to try to do it, believe me. So, what happens is I worked on it and
and he, you know, the deal was I try to work on it. You know, if Lily wanted to work on it, that's fine, too. Um any So what happened is I worked on it, sent it to him Monday, but I know Royal Oak was yesterday. I know he's been very busy.
So I haven't I know he saw it, but I haven't got his feedback. So what we're going to have to do with this one, which just applies to the last sentence in policy 1.16.4, for we're going to
have to just uh defer it to another meeting. We don't have the answer. Okay. We have to get buy in by Brad and we and
he hasn't had time to look at it and study it and make sure that he wants um what I suggested for beefing it up. And the other thing he said he had some
information about the um you know data uh sources and the I don't understand all this stuff but uh what's used to determine the um extent of wetlands that
might go beyond the property. Um I told him that uh if we could defer that to another meeting because we've got to get going on some of this other stuff, right? So that's going to be
deferred as well. We'll we'll come back to all that. Um, I know some of you understand all this stuff a lot better than I do for sure about the data collection, but that that's on hold to. So, now we're ready
to start our big project, which is the Lieberman example. Now, did you get an email about that one? Uh Mary, Mary Hector, uh may may I ask you a question on going back
to keeping other entities from dictating anything to the city? Uh is this what we talked in 1 uh 16.4? >> Uh yeah, the water management.
>> And and if that's the case, page 18 of 22, >> they could what? page 18 of 22 on the package has I believe the notes that you were you might have been talking about. I just I just want to get
it straight in my mind because I I know that >> Okay. Wait, is it >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's the stuff. That's the stuff we He's look He's looking at to see if we beefed it up, right?
>> We don't have an answer. >> We don't have an answer. >> I I I understand, but I just want to make sure that that was the stuff that >> that's the stuff. That's the stuff >> that we were talking about just for Exactly. For the sake of anybody else that >> Yeah, you had some really good thoughts. I remember. >> I don't know about that.
>> Flew kind of over my head. Some of them I got to say. >> All right. So, that's the one we're talking about. But we're not talking about it tonight. >> No, we're not talking about But >> we're not talking about We're talking about something more understandable tonight. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Then the next topic is one of the most uh I'll just say interesting examples of what somebody tries to
do with their property. It's called the Lieberman property. It's on uh State Road 405. Um, okay. You got a bunch of documentation and I'm going to see if we can get I got
paper copies. Would you like them? I had them for last time. Okay. So, um, Lily, I'm going to put you to work and I'll bring some up,
too. We got a lot. Lily made those copies for us, which is great. Would you like Okay. >> Shane back there. He might be able to put it up.
>> That's okay. I think Oh yeah, if you can put the map up there. >> Yeah. Um, I'll need a map. >> Oh, here they are. Come. Um,
Lily, I need If there's some more maps, I I don't have any map. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Here's the object of this. Really, really want you to understand
this. If you have any questions, please ask. Okay. Okay. So, this first map here, which is up on the screen, is what
the Lieberman, Mr. Lieberman, wanted to do. Um he wanted to the Okay, so there's
the uplands are just near the road and you can see it says proposed development area. Well, a lot of that is the uplands, but what happens is that stuff in the um
checkered um green is how much he wants to fill. Um he wants to fill 5.42 acres of a
125 acre wetland. And then it also shows kind of around the edge around that yellow edge secondary impacts. He the water management district figures that
you know if if you fill a bunch of wetlands you're going to have an effect a little bit beyond that wetland boundary. Right? So that's the secondary impact. And what
happens on the on the, you know, south there, he's impacting another person's property, which really upset Jolyn. >> Okay. >> Mhm. Now, we're going to put that aside for a
second and go on to the next map, which see if we can get it. Lily's going to get it for us. >> There we go. >> Okay. Now there's his little project, you
know, around that bend on 405. >> Wants to bought eight apartment buildings and then the parking, you know, um behind it.
It's what he wants to do. and he knows that the wetland line weren't quite right. Well, that's all true, but um after they adjust the wetland lines,
he's going to fill in he wants to fill in 5.42 acres of this wetland. So, I sent you part of K's transcript, which is huge, right?
Oh, you don't know it's huge. It is huge. Believe me, it is huge. Okay. So, if we can Okay, so I guess we better look at this. Um,
we need to look we'll we'll look at this um paperwork while you well I read what Brad said because I'm going to read from K's transcript. Okay.
I'm going to read what Brad said and you it goes to the first page of this handout. Right. He said, "Brad, this is Brad. Council members and citizens, I want to point you to page 378 of your packet. I will
identify the findings and our recommendation, and I'll go through a few of the pages to give you an explanation of why we came up with these findings in this recommendation. Now, you see down a little ways on that page. Um, what we want is this." Yeah.
Hold on. Lily's going to get um Lily's going to get the right thing cuz we're looking at this paper. It's all stable together and it's got some findings. Okay. Now, see those findings there?
He's going to go um he's going to talk about them. findings that we identified was that the item could be supported in the comprehensive plan and zone reszoning with the following. The upland portions of the property can be made contiguous
under one land use category in the zoning district with a minimal impact to the adjacent wetlands. He says minimal, but you'll see he has something else to say a little later. That's based on comprehensive plan future land use elements
1.14.6 6 and 1.16.4. Okay. They could be made contiguous if he the guy filled in. Right. It says in addition reszoning is consistent with his zoning in the area as described in the 2016 South Street small area plan.
Okay. And then in addition, the remaining 100 plus acre wetland may be protected in a conservation easement or deed restriction. That's consistent with comprehensive plan future land use element objective
1.1.7. Okay. Then he says, and you notice a little arrows, however, there are items that could be identified to be not in support of this amendment.
And this is what I want you all to look for as we go through this. What is the problem that Brad sees? What's the problem that Brad sees? And you
as a TEC are going to be deciding if there's anything we can do about this problem. Okay. So, let's look for what this problem is that he's having with this
Lieberman thing and and try to figure out if there's a way that we can solve it. Okay. Items that do not support the comprehensive plan amendment and resoning. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the area to be designated with
highdensity residential land use and R3 zoning by impacting a greater portion of the wetlands than what appears to be necessary to make reasonable use of the land.
And he he talks about conservation element strategy 1.6.3.2. two. Okay. It says, "If this is approved, we recommend the following condition. A conservation easement or deed restriction of the 109 plus acre wetland
portion of the property as described in the conceptual wetlands impact mitigation and management plan B report." Okay. Now he's um he's pointing to he's pointing to our our map. We'll go on from there.
Okay. Now, here's from K's transcript. If I can have your all attention when we he says this is what Brad's saying. When we look at a comprehensive plan amendment, we identify comprehensive plan policies and
objectives that are related to the project, whether it's in support or against. In this case, we found those objectives and policies and identified what we believe are most relevant.
So, we didn't go through the whole entire comp plan, but technically when you go through one of these land use amendments analyses, you are really looking at the whole document together. Okay? It's not picking and choosing one particular policy to say it's
inconsistent or not. It's kind of looking at everything together. The reason I say this is because the first step was which probably sounds familiar to you. The first step was they provide us a
wetland survey to identify where the conservation land use line should be. Okay, we all know that that's policy 1.16.2, right? Then the next question is do they have
reasonable use of this property? How much of an impact should they be allowed in order to have that reasonable use? Now he's talking to the city council. He says how much of an impact should they
be allowed in order to have that reasonable use? This is something you are going to have to determine. In other words, the council is going to have to determine if they have reasonable use of their
land. Okay. So then he says something you all know um on page 388 of your packet. Let's see what we
Okay, we um so um yeah just and it says on 388 of your pack loot kind of future land use element
strategy 1.16.2 to and then you know this when conservation land use is present on a specific site the property owner shall submit a preliminary environmental assessment including a wetland delineation when wetlands are pre present
you all know that the reason for this is to allow the property owner to justify being able to change the boundaries of the conservation land use and that's what they're doing here Now, please turn to that next page of your
handout. Um, is page the bottom it says page 388. And I got some little arrows down at the bottom. Okay. And this is future land use element policy 1.16.4.
and he is zeroing in on the first sentence of that. You all worked on the last sentence last time. Okay. says impacts to areas designated as
conservation land use designation shall be considered if it is unavoidable due to absence of feasible and or practical alternatives for reasonable use of the
land. So they're talking about um reasonable use of the land or the reg and then it goes on you know or the regulations creating inordinate burden or whatever
says. Um the allowable impact shall be based on site specific evaluation determined through the permitting process conducted by all regulatory agencies with
jurisdiction. So he says again we're not at a site plan stage or not at a permitting stage. So look at this policy to see if they are really is there an argument here that somehow we're preventing them from having
reasonable use of their land. Okay. So that's something you can take a look at, you know, and um then on that page also of your handout, I got
up about a third of the way down, I circled 98. I thought you might want to know that the proposed development increases um what he would get by 98 units. He's asking for 98 more units than he's
allowed. Okay. Now, it's continued on the next page for a little ways. Now, if you look on the handout at page eight of 12,
I got one arrow says the applicant's environmental report describes the functional value of wetlands on a scale of zero not present to 10 optimal. The current functional value of
the on-site wetlands are rated a score of eight. This score is between a moderate wetland and an optimal wetland. Um, well, they said he hasn't seen many.
This is a really nice wetland. Okay. So, now we're on to the last page of the handout. >> Mary, what are they using to score the wetlands? >> Is you, ma'am? >> Because I'm sitting here looking at our
policy, our conservation element policy 1.6.4, which is impacts to wetlands. It uses size, capacity, potential as wildlife and fisheries habitat, provision of habitat, rarity of vegetation, degree of prior adverse
impacts, and potential for recreational use. There's only seven. So, how do they get eight? >> Oh, a score of eight. >> Yeah, >> they have a score of eight on a scale of zero to 10.
I see three, but I see seven, but I don't know what the other three criteria are. >> You're basing it on this uniform assessment. >> But we have in our own >> comprehensive plan, we specify what to use and it's a different scale.
>> That's my question. >> That's not the FD uniform assessment. That's >> this is ours, >> you know. Um I don't know the answer. Uh uh you know I know that um
as far as the district um you know you can get the applicant's handbook um you know it's just by going in the website. >> Well I just wondered if our strategies are using our policies or whether our strategies are using some other policy.
>> Well we're supposed to use the state um method. >> Okay. which >> I think Brad had a little bit of he he didn't quite understand what was going on. And I I think for good reason. Um
not because he couldn't comprehend it, but because there's something a little bit strange. Um yeah, I don't I I'm sorry. I don't know anymore. >> Okay. All right.
>> Okay. So, the last page of your handout is we're on Okay, there's two arrows. One's we're going to go into strategy 1.6.3.2,
into the conservation element. Which hopefully you have managed to figure out is that wetlands 5 acres or more in size shall be designated as a conservation land use.
And then it goes on about wetlands less than five acres. But we're concerned in the future land use element only about that first part that wetlands 5 acres or greater in size
shall be designated conservation land use. Okay. and he um he's going to comment. He says another important policy, this is from K's ver verbatim transcript. Another important policy that you need
to consider is on page 391. This is the last one I will mention. Comprehensive plan conservation element strategy 1.6 or policy 1.6.3 specifically strategy 1.6.3.2
it states at a minimum wetlands 5 acres or more in size shall be designated as conservation land use and wetlands less than 5 acres will be subject to review to determine what protection if any says. So staff's coming.
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait. You didn't finish because then it says said review shall be based on the functional criteria specified in strategy 1.6.4. >> Okay. >> The one that I just read, not the state FD. And it says shall be based.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. That's in the conservation element. And we haven't gotten there yet. You you may want to do something about that. Um it's just that what what we're what can Yeah, that's
something we'll take up in the future. What we want now? >> What can we do now? >> Okay. What you can do now is you can't for >> the future is now. Yes. >> Yes. So what what you can do now is this
is a future land use element. It's focusing on wetlands. I I mean it's a conservation land use which focuses on wetlands 5 acres or greater in size. I mean you may have conservation land use on some smaller
ones that you're going to preserve, but mainly this is for wetlands five acres or greater in size. That's a conservation land use. That's what we're working on. All these things in objective 16 1.16.
>> Okay. So Mary, I'm sorry, but >> yes, go ahead. >> Well, we're working on the five acres. Okay. Correct. Set that aside. >> But the criteria of 0 to 10 seems to be different. >> That's you, ma'am.
>> Okay. And and so depending on which one I want to use may apply to my wetland issue that I'm presenting to whatever board. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. There's a conflict between the function the the ones that are stated on our conservation
element and the and the um ma'am criteria. >> Exactly. If you're going to grade me, I I want to know what you're going to be grading me once one through 10 and it's is in conflict. >> Right. >> Oh, right. Right. >> That's a big deal. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, the permitting standard is
you ma'am. The land use planning standard is what's in the conservation element. We have land use planning where we the city looks at it first from an overall point of view. Is this
what are the most valuable wetlands? What wetlands do we want to save? Um you know how should we protect them? Should it be by size? Should it be in some other way? Um you know their
functionality. Um the so the land use planning standards you will see in the conservation element. Strange but true. The permitting agencies are different. There's a difference between land use
planning which the city does and the um permitting stuff that the district does. We do land use planning overall.
We're working on land use planning right now. The district uses a cut and dry method. It's called UMAM. And before UMAM was used, it was at the discretion of the
consultant. And that was not good. And I know that county staff was glad to see you, ma'am, even though they don't I'm sure they don't they realize it's not perfect in every way, but it sure was an improvement because
permitting is permitting. I mean, they want a permit. >> Uh, Mr. Chair, I don't know if this totally answers your question like what you're asking, but I just pulled up the the UMAM website real quick on FDEP. >> Yeah. >> And it says it evaluates functions through consideration of ecological
communities, current condition, hydraologic connection, uniqueness, location, fish and wildlife utilage, time lag, mitigation risk. It it seems like what we have in that uh similar 16.4. It almost sounds like more like examples of what is being looked at and
then they go back to that um man for the actual navigable waters as well which we don't >> right you know and so that's I think how they're getting a higher a higher number than than just the seven. The other thing I I noticed was we're saying it's strategy 1.6.4 but in the in the
conservation element it's actually policy 164. We don't actually have a strategy 1.6.4. We have a 1.6.3 6.3.2, but we don't have a 1.6.4 after that. >> Uh, yeah, I think you I think that
I don't have the conservation element right here with me. He may have >> You want my copy? >> No, you you're probably right. >> Copy. >> Functional value. Um, yeah. Um, >> am I following this wrong or is that
supposed to be >> No, what what is it saying in the conservation element? 1.6.4. >> What strategy >> on the back page? >> Oh, I see his policy. >> Yeah, that was a that was a mistake in the staff report.
>> Okay, >> thank you. >> Just clarifying. >> Well, you guys are getting all this detail. Well, we can't work on the future stuff, so we might as well work on this. >> Hey, we're we're gonna get Okay, now I want
You see that last uh You all see that last um thing that I got the um Wait a minute. Let me just finish Brad's stuff. K um wrote got it so nicely for us. It
says okay so staff comment on um strategy 1.6.3.2 is subject property contains approximately 114 plus acres of
wetlands. So the question is now this is his method. Do you look at the particular this particular strategy to prevent this or do you look at other policies and strategies that I've identified on the previous pages to help you make the determination of one?
Are they entitled to be able to change the boundary of the conservation land use with a proper wetland survey? That's to get the wetlands lines right. How much of an impact can they be allowed to have in order to make a buildable area appropriate for multifamily development
under the current land use and zoning they're proposing? Then the third question, how much of that impact should they be allowed? So, okay, you see that down toward the bottom of the page, I
got that line by that paragraph that says, "This is what staff came up. This is staff's conclusion. This is what they think. The upland proportions of the property can be made
contiguous under one lane use category and zoning district with minimal impact to the adjacent wetlands. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the area to be designated with the high density residential ranges in R3 zoning by impacting a greater portion of the
wetland than what appears to be necessary to make reasonable use of land. The applicant is proposing to impact 5.42 acres of wetlands with bill. The applicant could remove the proposed
impact to the wetland located at the south property boundary, thereby reducing the impact to 3.5 acres. This alternative could also eliminate potential secondary impacts to wetlands on the adjacent property. So they think
staff thinks the guy's asking for too much too much too many too too great of impact to wetlands. Now staff might be willing to give them some on the south
portion of their property, but um you know staff is presenting this to the city council and they got to make a decision, right? So that um
so that concludes that. So um we're going to um now I'll go on to what the applicant has to say. You can put this paper away if you would like or just just keep it
aside. Okay. Has anybody got an anybody got an idea what the main problem is? >> So, Mary, that's what I was about to ask you. Like, what I can see a number of different problems or proposals to fix this? What
what what do you where are you where are you trying to lead us on this? Like what is it you think? >> I'm trying to first thing I want you to do is figure out what problem is Brad are Brad and Eddie Eddie Glendo struggling with? What did they just pull
their hair out about? What is the issue for them? >> Well, I I can't read their mind. So, can you tell us what you what you perceive as the problem? >> Let's see if anybody else knows. Is it the dilemma of of how to decide
what is the reasonable use of the property? >> Yes. >> What is reasonable? What's >> definition? That's exactly what it is. >> Mhm. >> Because policy 1.16.4 says
that um impacts will be considered. That's the first sentence. impacts will be considered if they to give them reasonable use of the land. And they and they're wondering what the heck is is
reasonable use of the land. And here they are facing these guys, you know, and they got to deal with him. Um and and they're
they tried their best to figure out what reasonable would mean and then the city council's got to decide. So that's what the problem is. It's exactly what the problem is. So are you
are we looking to define what reasonable is or remove that so that there there is no reasonable occasion to fill wetlands. >> We got yeah we actually I got some um
ideas for you to consider after you after we go through this. I don't know if we'll get through them today, but but the county doesn't have that problem. >> Okay. I >> They don't sit there deciding what's reasonable use of land.
>> I guess I'm feeling a little frustrated because we've had all this information. I I've read through all this. Like, I understand not just the reasonable part being a hangup, but I can see some other elements of this that that could potentially be an issue as well. I just I' I'd like to understand where it is
you're you're trying to get us on this. >> I'm I'm trying to get you to see that you probably need a fix. >> I think we see >> future land use element policy 1.16.3. >> Didn't you say before you had some
calculation came out with 12 for somebody earlier when you first sat down? Is that is that what we're trying to get is something really small or it's up to us to decide whether it's small or large that that 10% or 12% would be enough? >> You know, that's that that's the kind of
stuff that's going on in you know the applicants going to talk about. But what happens is what what we have to do is see
if there's a way of avoiding this dilemma for st I mean is it fair that staff has to decide all this stuff when somebody asks for a land use change
or is their way of fixing it so that they won't be sitting there tearing their hair out. >> So, >> what does the county use? >> Well, >> I'm going to steal our thunder, huh?
>> All right. >> But we could be here all night if we don't. So, let's make it a current. That's what I'm trying I'm trying to >> I know. Let's move it along. >> All right. Um Okay. So, um, we can go back to what happened a little
later. You want to see what the county does? I'll show you. I brought a couple years ago. I actually, you know, we're going through some of this stuff at TDC before. I don't know. I know some of you were here, but not all of you. But
Bethanne was here. Lower Lee was here. Michael was there. Um, Hector I think may not have been at the time >> when we were talking about this the last time. >> Um, this was a few years ago. >> Yeah.
>> Um, let me see what I Wait, hold on just a second. I got to get this. I got one more folder. You want to see what the county does? You're going to see what the county does because I brought their staff report. They are not fooling around. Natural Resources Management Department
Zoning Review and Summary. All right, Lily, >> I'm going to have to punch. >> You got some some county uh conservation element policy in our packet. Is that what you're >> We had that. We had that before. We had
those two key policies. Now you can see the application. I don't know if I got I we can start a couple down this way because I printed probably didn't give enough copies on the D. There you go. For you too.
Yeah. Here's one. >> Did you do you have enough up there? Because I have >> one short. Okay. Um, okay. There you go. Can take that.
Okay. >> What >> did you get? Did you get one, Jonathan? >> All right. Everybody got one, right? >> Did Kevin get one? >> Did Kevin get you got one? Okay. >> All right. >> Did Jason get one? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So,
I don't know if you've I I know some of you been to some county meetings. For sure, seeing you there. Um, so what the county does, they come in for a um they come in for a
reasonzoning or uh or land use change. Um this one was a they wanted to um have a reszoning.
Um it's about and this is about multif family. This is about apartments right says MBV engineering for legacy west Melbourne LLC AU to RR215 wants to develop a multi- family
project. This is in 2023. It just I happen to have it. I could have gone to I mean this happens every time. They all You go up there, you get one of these papers. It tells what natural resources thinks of your
project. Right. Summary of maps, resources, and noteworthy land use issues. Right down in the middle there. So they got wetland protection, flood plane protection, and the um IRL
septic overlay. Okay. So you read that and you'll see I got a little um pencil mark per section whatever down to there. That's the ordinance which duplicates their comp plan. You can read that and see what they tell
these guys every time they walk in there. So, it looks like the big difference to me is that they've got this 1.8% maximum in regards to uh uh what do you say? uh multifamily parcels.
>> Correct. >> So, >> so that would clarify issues like the Liberman was Lieberman. Am I saying the right thing? >> All right. Um >> Yeah. So, that that would put it more in
black and white with the Lieberman. What does tit >> What does Titusville have? Does it have any anything like that percentage? >> No. >> What does it have? I'm >> saying just the five the one dwelling per five acres.
>> One unit per five acres. That's in the in the future land use element policy 1.16.3. Do you guys want to jump to that? You want to jump to the solution? >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Let's move on. All right, we'll jump to the solution.
Not what I predicted, but you guys are raring to go. Okay, >> put your foot on the gas there, Mary. >> Okay, now I'll get these two down here, Lily,
and you can get the other ones. There you go. While you're passing that out, I asked some questions about the very last sentence. >> Sure. Um, and it says, "No site
alteration shall adversely affect the existing surface water flow pattern and development within floodplane areas shall not have adverse impacts upon adjoining properties, >> you know. So, if we're looking at these
PD North and PD South properties, you know, aren't aren't the development of the uplands on those properties going to have impacts on adjoining properties. >> Sure. and that this what you need to do
you know and I I haven't done it but you'll need to go through everything in the comp plan related to flood plan which as I believe um conservation element objective 1.12
I could be wrong is the Lieberman property the wetlands the 114 acres of wetlands on that is that considered flood plane or is that something different? Yeah. But um Okay. It is um
but the in the um Yes, it is. Um it is um I think what we have is I mean you'd have to look at he wasn't
looking Brad did not look at the flooding policies in the staff report. He looked at the wetland policies. Um, I can't comment on what he thought of that, >> but if anybody's looking at PD South,
>> it's a very good consideration because it's all over the comp plan in the Bvard County comp plan. Oh, okay. Did you get one of these? >> Mary, out of curiosity, do you know where the county came up with that 1.8%?
>> I sure do. I was in the room. >> Would you care to explain? >> Yeah. Okay. It's one unit for five acres, right? >> Okay. So, um, we spent two years. Well, what
happened is um you know that inspired placemaking they did our little Yeah, this guy's the manager of it now, the head guy, George. He um he showed up late at county commission when they were going to ask
that their project bypass all the wetlands rules in the comp plan and have their own rules. That's what he was going to ask. Well, mistake to show up late because guess who was there? The environmentalists.
And they didn't like that. They wanted um this is for um the Vieiera DRI for Vieira West. Yeah. Well, so they were so Mary Bolin was commissioner and she heard bunch of
us, you know, I spoke. Morin RP spoke, you know, and there were other, you know, people speaking and and she said that um she wanted the environmental organizations to be part of this
discussion with the Vieiraa company. So we went to these meetings for two years and um things were getting pretty bad. Um Vieira company was taking a hard line on
some of this stuff. And so we get in this room, it was hot and we were all crammed in there and you know u Moren and I were there and you know there were four attorneys sitting in a
room and and um you know previously this Jay Axom who was one of the inspired placemaking or he worked with inspired placemaking he had found the standard for um
how much impact a residential unit would have. It was 4,000 square feet in the state law. So, um, we're we're anyway, Ernie Brown, he he he starts a
meeting like we are not getting to from point A to point B and something's got to be done or else, you know, or else your project's not going to be improve approved, he meant. So what happens is um
you know they they uh sat there and um they had two attorneys and then so one of them Jay Decater
he asked about this one unit for five acres you know it had been proposed it to be a mathematical ratio well that flew over. You know, he he was acting like it flew
over his head. I'm not sure it did. So, he said, "Can we use a percentage? Can we use a percentage?" Well, what this was was a step toward progress. He was making a concession that will go
with your wetlands policies, but we want this as a percentage. So, it didn't take long. They started they they pulled the four attorneys. Two from the county, Scott Knox and um
I believe it was um Christine Leapour and then they had Jay Decar and Duke Woodson for their attorneys and they pulled the attorneys and said, "Is it okay to use a percentage?" All four of
them said yes. Then they started on the staff. Is it okay to do this? People were saying yes. They asked the environmentalist, is it okay to use a percentage? And they calculated the percentage of
you know what uh unit of 4,000 square ft uh you know what percentage of five acres that would be and it's 1.8%. So, um that broke the ice and uh the
rest of it was just downhill in u county approved uh um the Vieiera DRRI and now you have that Diea city. >> And where does that 4,000 square foot come from that you mentioned? >> You know, um it it comes from state
thing uh state um statutes. And if you'd like to know, I'll have to look it up because I have another paper um from the county that tells exactly where it's from. I can I can get that to you next time. >> I can probably find it, too. I was just curious.
>> It's it's um you know, but you know, so that's where that came from. >> Member Thompson, do you have a question? >> Oh, no. >> Sorry. Okay. >> Sorry.
So, um, these are the kind of things you're going to have to What did I do with that paper? Oh, I give it to you. Um, do we have Okay. So, um, we have Would
you like to look at these choices? >> Mhm. >> Okay. First of all, um, policy 1.16.3 do we somehow I got here it is
states permitted uses within the conservation land area shall be limited to residential uses of one unit per five acres. Ned goes on conservation, recreation, blah blah blah.
The problem that Lieberman faced is guess what he this one unit per five acres was for single family homes. It was not for multifamily.
There what there is is now no provision for multifamily to impact wetlands. >> Right? >> And if you want to if you want to add that
what problem would you be solving? >> Reasonable use. >> Reasonable use of the land. you would have a reasonable use. You wouldn't be fighting over it all the time. >> Right. >> Right.
>> Does everybody understand that? >> Yes. But that sounds too easy. And there is >> but it's not it's easy but you know it it might sound too easy but this is the easy one.
Well, the thing is multiple families bring multiple numbers, >> right? >> Instead of a singular number, one unit, >> right? >> So therefore, it is a floating number that you're creating, >> right? >> If you build four, you get this number.
If you build 12, you get this number. If you if you build 90, you get this number because you're dividing by the same number, which is the one in five. And and so >> wait a minute wait a minute it's not it's not multif family units that you're
you're compounding. >> No but multif family units create an area issue. >> So therefore >> Oh you mean there's more impact from it is not a one per five acres anymore. >> Right >> now it is uh whatever number of
multiples per five acres. So what it is is is the impacts not the impacts is the size of the uh wetland area to be filled.
That's what you got to decide. Do you want to do this? And the only reason you would do this is to is to let people know right off the bat, you have limited
opportunity to fill wetlands in Titusville. You could get only 1.8% of the conservation land. That's all you can fill. You can't fill anymore. Don't
even think about it. Don't do what Lieberman did and ask for 5.42. Just don't even think about it. Now, would a person fill 1.8% of a large wetland like
this? I don't know, you know, but at least they know that they can't get away with 5.42 units. I mean, shoot, excuse me, acres.
So that's what you're facing because nobody wants to um allow multifamily impacts in wetlands. >> Right. >> Right. But
>> so the so the definition of one unit per five acres, that's one 4,000 square foot unit divided by 5 acres is 1.8% 8% of the area. >> If we applied that to Lieberman, then the most that his impact would be would
be 1.9 acres because that's 1.8% of the 109 acre wetland. What? Yeah. Right. >> Again, I go back to >> 2.052 acres. >> It's Yeah. Well, I rounded. So, >> Right. Right. But but but again, it goes
back to the fact that multif family provides a number that is different every time. But the density requirement of the value stays the same. That's that's the point is that we set a bottom a bottom level that that's the value of one residential unit, not one
multi-residential unit, but one 4,000 foot residential unit per five acres, >> right? But >> so we've changed from from the units to the percentage and that's what Jay Decar representing the Vieira company wanted.
I mean, and you know, I spoke to, you know, some of you know Darcy at the county. Um, you know, I asked her about this. I asked her about this particular example I handed out. You know, I called her and
I said, "Do you ever deviate from this?" No. They either meet the criteria or they don't get their site plan approved. And um you you know and she you know I said you
know well you know you're treating single family like in multifamily with the same percentage is that a problem is a detectctor's question >> right >> she said this is the way we do it I said have
ha have you um you know made exception no it's cut and drive. And so you got to make that decision. That's why this thing says three possible choices because there are three choices you can
pick. >> And again, that's the easy solution. You can apply that to multif family and you get and keep it as a one family. But the thing the bottom line is the load on the land is totally different. >> Yes, >> I agree with that.
>> Okay. So, so therefore that the reasonable question has not been answered because it is not apples to apples and orange to oranges >> and there the reasonable question. >> Okay. So >> I tried I tried to get an answer and and
uh it it's I got the answer. This is the way we do it. >> V can yeah VR can use whatever they want and the county can use whatever they want and >> so you got to decide do you want to do this? Is it worth
um you know heading off more Lieberman type um requests and I looked at the future land use um you know map and and it appears that
there's you know other properties that are you know have multifamily you know beside beside these five acre wetlands in fact PD north even has um you you know, uh, commercial, uh, you
know, land use for part of their things. So, I mean, this is up to you. You're going to have to make a um, a choice. >> Member Miller. >> Yeah. I I've got a couple, I guess, definition or kind of clarification
questions. So, the first one, um, and forgive my ignorance on this. When we talk about multifamily developments, are we talking about a neighborhood with just random examples, six single family homes or are we talking about a
fourstory apartment building? >> The ladder. >> The ladder. >> Apartment building. Okay. >> Could be town homes, too, where they're adjoining walls. >> Okay, great. Um, and then residential portions of mixeduse development. I'm I'm sorry. I'm looking at the the third
option you have here. It says uh to include residential portions of mixeduse development projects. When we talk about residential portions, is that just looking at the footprint of each
individual house or is that including sidewalks, parks, stuff like that that are within that development? >> Second. Um >> I guess I'm directing that anywhere that >> um
what these mixed use thing uh projects have in for example the Vieiraa DRI is they have like uh you know the
uh commercial area of um you know down on um whatever um that you know that one road that goes south um that you know they have a they
have a commercial um portion and you know they have residential near it. So it's only, you know, they they put these things in tracks. So it's only
the um residential uh you know um tracks that are the um >> but you you also >> important >> I apologize. You also have in here though that commercial and industrial are not permissible. So what would be an
example of a mixeduse development that would be permissible at all? Because if commercial development is simply not permissible from from the proposal here on conservation land, then it seems like a mixeduse development
would not be permissible either. Am I >> uh well the commercial portion of it would not be uh permissible. That language I know
is something that staff wanted because I pulled that from the 2040 plan which um I'm not a fan of. >> Okay. But Mary, let me give you an example. >> Yeah. Uh, on one side of the street I'm going to have multi multif family.
On the other side of the street I'm going to have single family. >> Right. That's all residential. >> It's all residential. >> Yeah. >> So they're all they're both going to build to the 1.8. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> If if provided that you know that will
be the number. But what I'm saying >> residential is going to go with the 1.8. >> Right. So, so I'm going to have uh like in the in the example that we're talking today, uh a three-story building versus a single house across the street.
>> I know what you're saying. You there's more impact from this the threetory building here. Absolutely. >> Life life is not the same. You know, the impact is >> I realize that. I realize that and that's a tradeoff. >> And that's trade-off numbers. >> I know. I know exactly what you're
saying. You're right. You're right. Okay. So, so >> see none of this is that like the perfect answer, is it? Is not >> it's a tradeoff. >> Um, and >> all right. >> So, basically there's three choices
here. If you manage to >> Billy, you have a question. >> So, we have no detached garage or do we have a attached garage? Do we have a shed? Sheds aren't allowed. unattached garages aren't allowed and the road to get there. So if you have a long
driveway, does that count too? Was that >> all? Um okay. So >> um >> I think the 4,000 square feet covers the house, the driveway, the sidewalk, >> all all that stuff. Yeah, that's that's
the general >> all of it is 4,000 ft of >> Now, in the county, if you're building a single family home, um it gives uh stipulations for exactly what um can be
impacting the wetland, but I don't believe we have that in Titusville. Um >> you could use a multiplier on multif family, >> but but it is the impact is going to be greater. You're correct. So that's the
tradeoff with I mean I don't think we're arguing about this. We all agree the impact's got a point. The impact is greater and is putting a percentage there.
You know a good idea because staff it's cut and dried. you know, staff doesn't have and the city council doesn't have to go through this
um ringing of hands. The applicant, let's say there's an applicant out there that is eyeing one of these big wetlands because Laura Lee told me that Lieberman now has a for sale sign.
Let's say somebody's um looking at that. Is it best to let them know right off the bat? >> Yes. >> Um you know or that you know this is
what you can't get away with. >> No, this is what's reasonable. This is what this is what re is reasonable and you can't ask for anymore because >> we don't need to go through this dilemma
is it is so that's what you're going to have to >> have to determine >> and and and again I go back to my point if you're talking reasonleness versus fairness is a totally different conversation
>> right >> totally different conversation because in the same street example that I use >> nobody's arguing with you >> that violates that and and so >> I know >> therefore it's a matter of the what is
the emphasis that we're trying to promote what emphasis are we trying to promote >> if we're trying to promote multif family uh in in in certain areas versus not if we're trying to do single house all
around then that's a different number but it's the reasonleness versus the fairness is a totally different discussion because that for sale sign is can come in and say I don't want to
put any single families all I want to do is multif family so therefore is that number fair and reasonable >> member Tucker Sorry, I >> just wanted to say that the bottom line is we're trying to protect the wetland,
right? >> Yeah. >> Not promote multif family or single family. It's just to to find a common ground to protect the wetland. >> So, it's not going to be perfect. It's not going to probably accurately
uh represent the impact of a multif family, but it's a start and it's better than what we have now. Correct. That's for you to decide. I'm throwing it out there for you and I think you you
made a very thoughtful statement. Um so I don't know if you wanna think about this. I don't know if you want to vote on a recommendation tonight or what would you like to do?
>> Well, I think member Tucker makes a very very good point. The whole the whole goal is to protect the wetlands, >> right? >> And you know, site plans and all that that can come along later, but right now we're trying to protect the wetlands. My dumb question though is all right, we're
we're working on all these potential changes to policy 1.16.3, but you still have policy 1.16.4 lurking behind it. Are are we going to change the language to 1.6
16.3 and then eliminate 1.16.4 four or >> you certainly would eliminate the words about the reasonable use of land >> the whole first paragraph or two sentences. >> So if we modify 1.16.3 to include
a percentage now you've given them a reasonable use of land. So then we could take out um >> all the nonsense, >> specific all the wording about um inordinate burdens and
>> specific um vested rights and reasonable use of the land. Okay. What you take out there is the reasonable use of land. And I have some other reasons why you you could easily get rid of the other stuff. if I got a paper on that which probably
is a little complex to go through um you know at this hour but I do have one written for that because some of this involves Bert Harris law some of this involves a vested rights title has that
some of it involves permitting language duplication or you know mimicking of permitting language you know that sentence first sentence in 1.16.4 for we need to understand that
but and I think we do not want to go ahead and and uh work on that tonight except I'll say that lower le's absolutely right you know we give them a reasonable standard then you take out that stuff above the reasonable standard
in 1.164 but you guys got to understand this because who's going to fight for the wetlands you know when it comes up for the city council you all hopefully will need to be prepared to show up.
You know, this is your decision. If it goes to the LPA, the same thing. This is a major comprehensive plan um amendment uh package
that fixes a problem because of the language put in there in 2010 which does not match the conservation element. >> My lights again >> and that's a piece of history.
>> Go ahead. which we won't go through at the moment, but but you're getting the idea really fast. But you have to understand all this and why and it has to be something you you want,
not necessarily what I want. >> Member Thompson. So, I I was at the city council meeting when, you know, the Lieberman debate happened and um I remember, you know, Joe Lynn was wanting to
cut cut the five acres basically in half, you know, and get it down to two two and a half acres or something like that. But the um the applicant was adamant that they had to have the five
and a half acres or they wouldn't be able to fit their parking lots and and stuff in. They wanted to put parking all across. I mean, we're talking about a little skinny narrow teeny narrow strip of land that wraps around that curve on
405 and putting up eight multi-story apartment. It would have been hideous. >> Yeah, it would. But but they said that they could not make enough money if they didn't have these parking lots at the back. It all boils down to how can they
make as much money as possible on the land. And so if you restrict their use of the land, they're not they're not going to be interested. They're not going to buy the property. They're not even gonna they're not even going to want to play ball. >> And I think that's what the 1.8%
accomplishes. Yeah. is it it it cuts it gets rid of this ambiguity of reasonable use of the property that that we get into a debate with on every single project, right? >> And it and it gets it down to a cut and
dried formula of this is how much you can impact the wetlands, >> right? Well, the thing about it is also that this we get into this argument when it's multifamily. We don't get into to the there's a
conditional use permit for the for the uh you know single family in in the wetlands. But you you know you're right because the fact of the matter is um you know I look at some of these projects
and I think are they trying to up the value so they can flip it >> many times. >> I mean we've probably seen some examples recently. This this might have been an example. >> I mean the guy's trying to sell it now.
He he tried to put in, you know, I mean, and you look at some recent projects because I've seen it just too many times that they go in for a land use change, try to get a higher uh, you know, category of land use where there's more
units. All they want to do is make money by selling it. And yet we got all these wetlands sitting out there, you know, um and um you know what we're going to be working
on when we get to the conservation government, we're we're going to be working on try uh seeing if Tadisville can have some sort of program to um you know save these weapons.
That's the first item that we'll we'll study when we get to the conservation helmet and um you know I know that things are happening behind the scenes. I think Jason may know you know stuff.
>> Member Miller. >> Yeah. I just want to say I I totally agree with what's been said about you know this 1.8. It's it's not about giving them the opportunity to to make room for more houses. It's about preserving the wetlands and that and that's what we need to be doing. Um,
personally, I would like to take Mary's uh options here and digest those a little bit. Um, I don't feel comfortable moving forward with something on this tonight. Personally, um, as much as I like to make votes and get things done,
I I I I would really like to spend some time with this myself and and review some of it. um especially with uh Lauri's comment about how it relates to 1164 as well. So that's just my two cents. I I would like to uh I think table this until the next meeting personally.
>> Okay, >> good idea. >> Member Young, >> I've always disliked in all the years I've been here uh the developers developing something, taking their money and running away, then we have to live with their problem. Can't we make a rolling that the developer has to live
on the property he's developing so when it gets flooded and his water rises up in his house and he's swimming in it on his couch that he gets to live for his mistake. Can't we make some kind of ruling that he has to live in? So if
we give him a a permit for a multi- uh multi- you know uh family place that he has to live in one of those multif family places, can't we? Is that a requirement we can do? >> I don't think so. >> All right. So, we're going to continue
to work on this um and pick it up, I guess, at the next meeting on this particular topic. Um is there anything else that you wanted to cover tonight? We're after 7:30 already. >> I got another one. >> Yeah, I think that's it.
>> That's it for this evening. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions from staff before we move on to petitions or >> suggestion? >> Well, I'd like your suggestion. I don't know how you're going to implement it. Okay. Um,
do you care to make any comments, sir? It's time for petitions and requests from the public. >> Please come up to the microphone and that way you can be heard. Yeah. Who you are, where you from, name your virtual free zone for stuff like that. But,
>> um, yeah. Uh, running for city council, all that fun stuff. David Hobart, uh, there should be a study. I Wherever that 4,000 square foot study the state did, do they have a multif family >> study? That's a part of law.
>> Uh, that's part of law. Um, yeah, I'm sure this is old old stuff. So what they did >> is tiny for a single unit house anymore >> cuz just a quick Google said about 11,000 square feet on a single residence
now. >> Um >> that's a huge house. 11,000 square feet. >> That includes yard. >> Oh, we're not include we're just counting impervious surfaces >> for runoff and storm water drainage. It be about 11,000 square feet. But, uh,
you should look to see if there's a multif family impact and maybe just change the percentage, not have two different percentages, just find one in the middle. >> I'll let Hector come up with the mathematics and we'll just use his formula. >> Yeah, I'm Yeah, there's there's more
than likely a multiplier on that. I I do like the percentage thing that'll keep the shady de developers out of it. >> Yes. Hope so. >> And yeah, that's what I think. I've learned a lot today. >> Okay. But I I would like to go on record
>> that there is a there is a cost and a price for a wetland. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and that has to be part of the equation also. >> Mhm. >> So I was just going on the strict math. I'm an engineer. So therefore that's what I do. I jump to numbers and I I
want to know the genesis of the 1.8. I want to know the genesis of 4,000. I want to know the genesis of >> I know all those things so I can put together a formula and see again I was trying to answer two questions >> is it fair and is it reasonable
and can it be both okay and so that's in my mind that's what my mind was racing to that so I I want to be no ambiguity >> as to what I was going after uh it's it's just a matter of that I was trying to answer the reasonleness and the fairness
>> so you're saying Because let me see if I can flip this around. Because it's a multif family unit going in because the impact is therefore greater than the amount of impact allowed on the wetlands should be less >> something like that.
>> So how do we how do we come up with a multiplier? Is it how many units per how many family dwelling units per unit times the multiplier? >> Again, I was just trying to get to a point to at least have a dialogue. Sure. >> That says they're not the same,
>> right? >> And so >> and and so and so therefore, you know, if if the council obviously if this council decides that yes, it is >> the right thing that it is one number, then that's where we're need to go. But
at least let's start let's let's think about it that says they're not the same. And that's why I brought up the example of across the street from my multif family, I'm going to have a single family. >> Yeah. Because even
doesn't make sense. So >> doesn't make sense at all. Yeah. >> To have >> the 1.8 for both of them. >> And the load is not the same. >> We all know that. So that's where I was going. >> It's good. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. Thank you for having me. >> All righty then. Moving on. We didn't have any new business, so I guess we go to member reports. Member Tucker, let's start on ladies first and >> no report.
>> No report. >> So, tomorrow there's going to be a um public meeting by the St. John's River Water Management District. They had done a feasibility study to identify their next round of projects that they're
going to fund with water management district money. As usual, the north end of the county got >> almost nothing. >> They they threw us a bone. They're going to do like a $ 1.5 million upgrade at
the Chain of Lakes Park, you know, but the south end of the county gets tens of millions of dollars to redivert canals away from the river. I I feel like our ship should come in eventually where we get something up here. So, I'm going
down tomorrow, but you can also um see it on a webinar. You don't have to drive all the way down to Palm Bay to their office. Um, if anybody's interested, get in touch with me and I'll send you the link where you can register for the
webinar. But I I'd like to see representation from the north end of the county, you know, and somebody besides me going, "How come we never get anything up here in the north end of the county?" I mean, I've been told it's because we're working on the lowhanging
fruit first, the easy stuff, and your topography in Titusville is so difficult to work with. We don't want to touch it, you know. So, here we are. I mean, that's that's why we're sitting here having these discussions, >> you know, trying to trying to trying to
protect our wetlands. Um, our topography is very, very different than it is down in the central and south part of the county, but that should not be a reason why taxpayer money is not being divided up
fairly in the county. So, that's my rent. >> Anybody that might be interested, let me know right now so I can >> Why don't you send it to Willie? >> I'll send it to Willie. Yeah, send it or I'll be there. I'll send it to you right now. >> No, I'm already registered. >> Oh, you are? >> Yeah.
>> Oh, good. >> Are you going down there or are you going to >> No, I was going to go virtually. >> Okay. Well, can you send Mike's link out to um Mr. McMun McMun's link out to all of these guys? >> Excellent. >> Register when you get home if you're
interested. It's from 10 to 12 tomorrow morning. It would be well worth I would think well worth your time to see how this process works and and ask some questions about hard questions about when are we going to see something up here in
Titusville like maybe stop draining the wetlands on the west side of Titusville into the Indian River Lagoon like we've been doing for the last >> We got to show them that it's actually happening first. Oh, we got we got we
can show them. I mean, they know. I've I've made sure they know. >> Thank you. Anything else? >> That's it. >> All right. Member Delgado. >> Uh the only thing is uh it's it's outside maybe of us, but tonight today there's a very special thing happening
across the way at the Kennedy Space Center and at Air Force Base. You have three rockets from three different companies >> on three different pads getting ready to lift off >> within a month. Tonight, ULA and the
Vulcan goes up. Uh sometime later on the week, Falcon 9 goes up with a crew replacement and Artemis hopefully will go at the beginning of March. And I'm going to take you back just 20 years. If anybody would have said that,
>> yeah, >> you would have been uh not chastised, but you you would have you you would have been frowned upon. Uh I I almost got fired because I worked for a lady >> that was very visionary and uh it was my
job to promote that kind of stuff and I never was afraid of getting fired. I always figured somebody would hire me. Uh so, but uh think about it. We got three companies with three different rockets sitting at the pad >> at their pads. Each of them independent.
They're totally different. You talk about zoning, >> totally different pads. >> Okay. Is something that we have never seen as a population. So, >> it's exciting. >> Well, if you can if you can stay up till about 3:00 this morning, uh the first
one goes off. The other one's going to be more reasonable. It's going to be sometime during the day. the Falcon 9 and Artemis is going to be sometime in March and that's a lunar so it's whatever the moon is doing and that's all I have sir
>> okay >> I thought of one more thing he Hector jarred my memory >> so um talking about starship um somebody I forget who who even brought
this up to me like yesterday but that's how bad my brain is somebody had attended something down in the um Cape Canaveral area, this the city of Cape Canaveral, and they were they were um oh, I know what it was. My sister's
partner was at a a dedication thing that was going on out at the lighthouse yesterday, and he was talking to somebody from City of Cape Canaveral. And you know there's there's this concern that the lighthouse may not be able to
um take the vibrations from Blue Origin's uh New Glenn launches. And then that led to the discussion of they he was told that the city of Cape Canaveral right now is doing massive studies of
the the structural integrity of their buildings in Cape Canaveral because they are concerned that the vibrations from Starship might impact their buildings. And they were basing this fear on what is happening in Bokhica with the
structures in Bokhica that are being heavily damaged from from the um Starship launches. And there was a concern that there's no contingency th those people that are getting the structural damage
in Bokeh Chica, nobody's paying them for the what's happening to their structures. And so that's a concern. I just thought I'd throw that out. >> Um I don't know if this kind of suits a report or maybe your future agenda item, but um something that I've been looking
at a lot and thinking about with the uh I can't remember the documents, but a lot of the stuff that Lily gave me when I joined the board, and it's uh you know, future plans and and areas of of focus and such for the city. And one of the things that's in a lot of that is uh interest in the city purchasing
conservation lands. Um that comes up frequently in those documents. And um if you guys don't know, I'm big into mountain biking and I've been I've been looking at properties around the city to try and build mountain bike trails. And one of those properties I looked at was Wellfield number three. And I had previously asked city council to allow
me to build trails there. Still waiting back on that. But regardless, my point is that as I looked at that wellfield and then as I look at those uh those comments and those uh those goals of conserving land, we have I believe just
over 260ome acres in Wellfield number three. Um and not only is it not being conserved, it's being destroyed. Um if you've if you've ever been out there, there's a real nice pave path that goes through it. The rest of it is completely
wide open, unfenced off. There's uh trails all through there. Kids going out there with their trucks, dirt bikes, everything else. If you go up to the top of the hill where the water tower used to be, there's a there's a fire pit there, like a a purpose-built fire pit where kids are going up there and having
parties. And I just think that might be something for us to discuss in the future. like we have and and I don't know exactly like the operations that happen on the wellfield but I feel like we have the opportunity to preserve 260ome acres of land which happens to be
right next to an eels property where the Titusville mint grows and if there's not already Titusville mint on that property there probably would be if it were put under conservation. So I just wanted to throw that out there as something uh food for thought and maybe something to discuss in the future.
Bill Uh my wife makes good cookies and if you want to feel our house shake uh because we're on the river, okay, and our house is on blocks and all the glass and we
have to make sure that no glasses fall off the shelves. So if you want to come and watch a launch, let me know and you can come and watch launch and eat a cookie and feel the vibration in my house. So, uh, we've talked to the
insurance people about this and, um, they said that they'll think about it. We have to get a hold of the other company since, um, since we're on the river. Uh, we have a very difficult time having insurance >> at all. >> It gets cancelled uh, every three years
and we have to go find a new company uh, because we're considered a hazard being on the river. Um, so if you want to have a a TEC party at watching the launch, let me know and uh we'll try to arrange
that. Um, so talking about houses, um, and I mentioned earlier the 10,000 friends of Florida, they they do a, uh, during the election, uh, the Congress, I mean, our state legislature meeting, they have updates on all the bills and
they have a affordability bill. And we've talked about the new houses and I brought that up before that these builders building houses that can we make a mandate that they be zero energy homes and I'd like to see um us look at
that again uh once we get through this this effort here to how to make the buildings more efficient. Uh since my house is 1903, there was no electricity in the town in 1903. They put an Edison generator in in
1905. Okay. So they lived without electricity, no air conditioning, no TV >> for two years. Okay. Uh so um this this idea of zero energy homes is you know
they built a house so that you know you could live with it live in it without air conditioning back then. And we're stupid and we can't do that. Okay. So I I like to you know the Florida Solar Energy Center where I worked at, we had
a lot of research and testing u of houses that were built to require no external energy. It was all produced on the house. Um so I'm not big on solar farms but when I think uh if you come to
my house you'll see that I don't care what FPL does. Okay. So um that concept of of these developers developing these housing projects um I because I do this I have a number
of uh people who come to me and ask well about solar and I and I ask them well what's your electric bill and I meet some old people like me who bought their house 30 years ago and their house payment is $400 and their electric bill
is $400. $400. My mind mine some months I get $29. >> Do you pay FPL $29? >> I pay a lot more than that. >> Why? >> Cuz they have four kids.
>> So I like to see the city this concept of affordable homes and affordable housing. I think they've got their head up their ass if I can be incorrect that way. But um uh >> No, you can't. I apologize for being rude, but um u I I
think um uh Socrates 3,000 years ago lived in a solar powerhouse and he wrote a book on how to design a solar powerhouse 3,000 years ago. And everybody does that, right?
>> Remember Bernett? >> I don't think I can follow that one up. Um, I did I was able to go to an event up in New Smyrna Beach. Uh, I think there were just a couple of various uh political candidates there. Uh, it was
very interesting. They answered a bunch of different questions on like uh agriculture environment. I think they talked about uh SP 180 a little bit. Um, I think one of the things that stuck out the most was uh one of the candidates
for um I believe it was governor. He talked about wanting to put money into research uh to combat the fungus that affected uh citrus in 2000. and uh basically put
money into whoever can create a strain uh of uh fixing that problem and bringing back the citrus industry. Uh he would put money into it and such was very interesting. Uh >> I have that
>> I got a tree from University of Florida EAS >> microphone. We just got an orange tree uh back in November that came from Ephus uh from University of Florida that is
supposed to be bred to not get the fungus. >> So, we're waiting. It's only been in the ground what four months. So, we'll see. Well, you come by and see and how long see how long it lasts. Uh >> if someone's already done it, that's good. >> But so, somebody's already working on
it. I guess no one told him that Ephas was doing that. But um we have a tree that uh >> so we've had many trees die and we're hoping this one lasts. So >> all right. Well, yeah, that was the that
was probably the most interesting part of it to to me though. Um that was that was all I had. >> Very good. Thank you, Kevin. >> Not at this time. Thanks. >> Okay. I um I got a chance to take a a
tour of Wellfield 4 with um our wellfield manager and um Councilman Muscoso. So, we got a chance to tour the various different wells and the test wells. Um it's not at all like Wellfield 3.
There aren't tracks and, you know, four-wheel drive vehicles running through there. In fact, it's fenced off and and closed. Um it's right along the u the coast to coast connector the bike path there uh by MIMS. So that was pretty cool. The other thing is uh
working with our Indian River Lagoon roundt. I filed um a SEAR report for uh SpeakUp Bvard asking that our county look at pulling together some kind of space force task force um a task force
on space um essentially. Um so that as Hector was just describing, we've got three different rocket companies out there with three different rockets, but they're not using a common delu system. They're not using any kind of common safety uh man safety system or anything like that like they do at the FAA
airports and so forth. So, um anyway, I'm going to be making this pitch to the county and see if we can get somebody to wake up and try to fix some of the problems that we have out out there that are coming. So, anyway, that's all I have to report. Staff, if you'd like to
finish up with us. >> Sure. I have a couple things. I just wanted to follow up on the um March 7th community conference that I think I sent you an email. Registration for that closes on the 27th. So, I'm highly highly encouraging all of the board
members to attend. This will be a pretty unique experience. Um public works, HR, planning, finance, code enforcement, all be there. It's one of the I think only opportunities you see every single pretty much every single department coming out. And um we're recognizing
that a lot of people who try to watch council and it's very confusing and we don't know what's going on and this is an attempt to kind of address some of that. So anyone who's if you tell your friends to go and register um we do have a fire code restriction of only 150
people but nowhere near that right now. So >> okay >> we're good. >> That's the 7th. March 7th. >> March 7th on a Saturday morning. did that intentionally to be accessible for the public, but especially the boards. I definitely want to get all the, you
know, PNZ, TEC, everybody um to go to that. And then, uh, couple other things I've heard from other cities. Melbourne has a, don't hurt me on this one, Florida Friendly Landscaping Seminar, but it's a
really big deal over out there. Um, and it's also free to attend. It's well attended. Last I talked to my friends in Melbourne, they said 400 people and it's a bunch of um >> Yeah. Yeah. So, they're serious about landscaping out there. So, if you guys
want to go, it's also open. It's not just Melbourne residents. That's March 21st. They also do a really big collab with KBB. And I don't know if you've noticed, KBB has been very active in our area as well. We have a North Action team. Their South Action team does trash Bash. We have one now, too. But if
you're know of anyone who's trying to get more involved or active in the community, um we have a north area action team that's looking for volunteers actively. And then uh another thing, Cape Canaveral is doing their sea oat planting on the 14th, Valentine's Day, Saturday, if you have nothing else to
do. Um and and I'm I'm I don't know if this went um public yet, but I'm surprised Laurley didn't mention it. I had heard March 3rd was going to be the nanobubble ribbon cutting. Thank you. Yes. >> Um I just got an email about that today.
So >> it did. Okay. So as another reminder, March 3rd, that's the ribbon cutting um for the nanobubble at 10:30. >> At 10:30, naturally it says figures. >> Tuesday. >> It's hard to have a meeting.
>> How many places can you be at one time? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But this is a big deal. >> Yes, it is. >> It is a big deal. I got my fingers and toes crossed. >> Willy, the March 7th community meeting that's at the senior center. Is that right? >> Right. >> At what time?
>> Uh, it's actually it's all mornings from 8 to noon. There'll be different breakout sessions and rotating rooms. People can choose which um session they want to speak or hear from. And there also be a vendor hall too. So I I believe um like FOT is coming. Um the
TPO will be there. you know, a lot of those other supporting permitting agencies. So, it's I can't stress enough how hard it is to get everyone in the same place at the same time. All those agencies, too, that all support us. >> Can it be announced at the city council
meeting somehow and highlighted and not not at the city manager report at 11:30, but like at the beginning of the city council meeting? >> Yeah. I because I think a lot of people watch it on TV and on consent agenda.
>> No, >> have it up front like like before petitions and requests, you know, when you fill your boards and vacancies, what are you know, right at the beginning. >> I mean, if TC wants to talk, >> I don't know. I don't know how to get
I'll ask Brad, but I Yeah, in the um ma city manager report, I don't know what other way to slip that through. >> I'll check. >> Okay. Anybody have any last closing comments? >> Yeah, I want to thank Mary for all of
the time. Oh, and oh, and Kay, she was up until after 1:00 in the morning, you know, going through the tape of the city council meeting, stopping and starting it so she could put together that, you know, four-page
um verbatim discussion for us. So Mary and Kay are working really, really hard on this and we really really appreciate y'all's efforts. >> Absolutely. >> We really do. This wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for you, Mary.
>> Well, I I really appreciate all your attention and you know, I appreciate that you're getting enthused about what you can do. It's just great and it's true. You're going to be a team
with staff and we're going to hopefully get some good policy changes. On that note, I'll call the meeting adjourned. U there's ones they have and um and one thing on is raising chickens in your
backyard. >> Very good. Thank you everybody.