WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=GS1bz0dRfGA

Part: 1

1
00:02:26.959 --> 00:03:03.200
Good evening. I'd like to call the May 20th Titusville Planning and Zoning Meeting to order. Can we please all stand for the pledge of >> allegiance? for all. >> Can we get a roll call? >> Chairman Eton, Vice Chairman Scully >> here.

2
00:03:03.200 --> 00:03:18.480
>> Secretary FA >> here. >> Member Rice >> here. >> Member Grod >> here. >> Member Graham >> here. >> Member McDaniel >> here. >> Alternate member Sidler >> here. >> Alternate member Troutman >> here. >> Thank you. We have quorum tonight.

3
00:03:18.480 --> 00:03:42.000
So, we're going to have a motion um or discussion on the minutes. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as presented. >> Oh, thank you. >> I second. Awesome. Thank you. >> I will pass it over um for the quasi

4
00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:58.400
judicial confirmation procedure. >> Oh, my my apologies. Uh we can vote um uh call a roll call vote on the uh minutes. Thank you. >> Secretary FA, >> yes. >> Member Rice, >> yes. >> Member Graham, >> yes. >> Member Sidler,

5
00:03:58.400 --> 00:04:13.680
>> yes. >> Member McDaniel, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Scully, >> yes. >> Member Grod, >> yes. >> Thank you. All right. Now, we're going to pass it over to for the quasi duo. >> Good evening. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi judicial item must

6
00:04:13.680 --> 00:04:29.680
complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath on the card. The cards are located on the table in the front of chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation and then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open for public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal

7
00:04:29.680 --> 00:04:49.120
if they desire. Witnesses may be cross-examined and all photographs, sketches, or documents for the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the city. Members, please disclose any exparte communications or site visits at this time. Seeing none,

8
00:04:49.120 --> 00:05:13.919
we're going to open it to petitions and requests from the public present. My name is Stan Johnson. I'm a professional engineer and I've come to you with something that uh is going to come to you on on June the 3. It's a

9
00:05:13.919 --> 00:05:30.560
project with uh um let's see how many 56 town homes located at the northeast corner of Singleton and 405 which is South Street. So, what I brought to you is is something that I'm asking these

10
00:05:30.560 --> 00:05:48.720
guys to do is I'm asking them to look at their stormwater master plan. Stormwater master plan. In fact, is I even bought a stormwater master plan and gave to um Brad Parish because the city

11
00:05:48.720 --> 00:06:06.080
hasn't been applying it, which is really illegal. So this is this is an enlargement of u uh of of part of plate 51B and it shows it shows drainage for this

12
00:06:06.080 --> 00:06:20.800
project goes across uh South Street and then goes through um what what has been uh a canal dug years ago and then it goes supposed to go

13
00:06:20.800 --> 00:06:41.919
across 405 here and then across I95. Well, uh I think all of you remember that I have repeatedly said is that once it goes under I 95, there's no clearing of the

14
00:06:41.919 --> 00:06:59.840
legal positive outfall. So, uh in other words, it hasn't been inspected, it hasn't been enlarged, it hasn't been maintained. And that is also the eve and the ditches u from um the project to uh where it crosses near Fox

15
00:06:59.840 --> 00:07:15.680
Lake Road intersection frost lake road and state road 405. So we've got a problem there. We got a big problem is that is that our infrastructure is really not prepared for putting this in and this the city

16
00:07:15.680 --> 00:07:30.639
needs to look into it. So, I'm asking our city council, well, not our city council, but but our city uh employees to look into this matter. And this again, you see it, this is the storm water management plan.

17
00:07:30.639 --> 00:07:46.479
Okay? So, I'm asking for uh asking for uh you be prepared before June the June the 3 to uh have the staff have a thorough investigation of this resoning

18
00:07:46.479 --> 00:08:21.639
application. Are there any questions? See, >> thank you. Thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments from the public? >> All right. Seeing no old business, we're going to move into new business.

19
00:08:21.919 --> 00:08:44.240
>> Thank you, vice chair. This is item 9A, conditional use permit number 6, 2025, river Palms number two. Uh, this item begins on page nine of 41 of tonight's agenda packet. The applicant, Robert Codsy, on behalf of the owner, River Palms Riverfront

20
00:08:44.240 --> 00:09:01.760
Development 2 LLC, is requesting a conditional use permit, CUP, to alter the shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon and to construct buildings and parking lot and retention area within 50 ft of a bulkhead line. The applicant stated purpose is to develop office and medical

21
00:09:01.760 --> 00:09:18.240
buildings. The property is located on the east side of South Washington Avenue or US Highway 1 and south of the Riverside Drive intersection. The Bvard County partial ID number is 22 35 10 a 6.01.

22
00:09:18.240 --> 00:09:34.880
The shoreline setback is 25 ft for all buildings and structures. Buildings and structures will be located within the existing 25- ft shoreline. However, after alteration and fill in the lagoon, the proposed proposed buildings and structures will be located 25 feet from

23
00:09:34.880 --> 00:09:53.680
the new shoreline. On uh page 20 of your agenda packet is a page from the applicants uh excuse me from the application page. It's the narrative. And so I just wanted to point out the section that um has uh initiated the

24
00:09:53.680 --> 00:10:10.000
reason for the conditional use permit. So, uh, in the applicant's narrative, it says, "Pursuant to section 29-27, any proposed development located within 50 ft of a bulkhead line or altering the shoreline shall be processed as a conditional use in accordance with

25
00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:26.160
chapter 34. The subject property is proposed for development as two class A office and medical buildings." So, it's not necessarily the use that's causing the conditional use permit. the uh proximity to the shoreline bulkhead line and the altering of the shoreline. And

26
00:10:26.160 --> 00:10:42.240
that's again um or I should say that that is because it's within the Titusville shoreline overlay. That's what this se where this section comes from. Um two corrections I wanted to point out to the board. The first is on page 15. I'll give you a moment to navigate to

27
00:10:42.240 --> 00:11:00.160
that page. Page 15 of of the agenda packet on the top p uh section five is a section that talks about landscape buffers. Uh the staff comment reads uh the last sentence that the arterial road landscape yard is 30 ft. And that is

28
00:11:00.160 --> 00:11:15.839
true. However, that only applies to certain segments of arterial roads. This segment of US1 where the property fronts on US1 uh is not this section of the code is not applicable. and a 20ft landscape yard is what is applicable and that is what's demonstrated on the

29
00:11:15.839 --> 00:11:30.880
concept plan. Um and so they do meet that standard. And then on page 17 is the other correction and that's related to the length of the shoreline. On page 17,

30
00:11:30.880 --> 00:11:47.760
line 22, the paragraph reads, "The shoreline is approximately 400 linear feet located between two existing bulkheads." And that linear length is incorrect. The uh length along the shoreline is is almost

31
00:11:47.760 --> 00:12:03.959
double that. So, I just wanted to make that correction. And that, excuse me, that length is uh provided on page 28 of your agenda packet. That's the concept plan. If you navigate to page 28,

32
00:12:06.399 --> 00:12:38.720
and that's the big page, so it may take a little while to load, but page 28, if you look towards the water, Of course, now mine is freezing. Um, so in gray shading, it says the

33
00:12:38.720 --> 00:12:56.480
linear length is actually 843 feet and 8 in. And so I just wanted to clarify that that uh is a mistake in our staff report about the length of uh shoreline for this property. It is 843 feet plus or minus uh several inches.

34
00:12:56.480 --> 00:13:11.920
Lastly, I just wanted to point out the parking on page 15. Again, if you'll um go to that page, what page? >> Page 15. Let me see if I can close this and open it again because I am

35
00:13:11.920 --> 00:13:36.320
struggling here. Is anyone else having technical issues? Just want to make sure it's just me. Okay, page 15. There we go. So, on page 15, uh there's a section on parking. It's section 8 and the standard reads the

36
00:13:36.320 --> 00:13:52.720
criterion off- streetet parking and loading areas where required shall not be created or maintained in a manner which adversely impacts or impairs the use and enjoyment of adjacent and nearby properties. And then it continues for existing structures which is not applicable in this case. Um and so the

37
00:13:52.720 --> 00:14:08.800
staff comment reads the proposed development does not appear to meet the minimum number of parking spaces for office and medical uses. The buildings will have office and medical uses which have separate parking requirements per section 9.16 of the transportation technical manual.

38
00:14:08.800 --> 00:14:25.199
Assuming each building will have a separate use and there's a calculation there. Um a minimum of 148 required parking spaces whereas the applicant is proposing 118 spaces uh using the the demand for only an office. Uh

39
00:14:25.199 --> 00:14:39.519
insufficient parking could have an impact on adjacent or nearby properties. Um, and with that, that summarizes the um the overview of the application, and I believe the uh applicant will follow with their presentation unless you have

40
00:14:39.519 --> 00:15:51.279
any questions for staff. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions for staff? This podium used to be bigger. Good evening, chairman, members of the planning and zoning commission. My name is Kim Zena. I'm here on behalf of River

41
00:15:51.279 --> 00:16:09.600
Palms Riverfront Development 2 LLC. Um, that is the name of the owner, the applicant. That's not the name of River Palms 2 is not the name of this development. I'm not sure how that came to be. Uh, what I wanted to make crystal clear is this is not a site plan review. This is a concept review. And a lot of

42
00:16:09.600 --> 00:16:26.240
the comments from staff, as far as we're concerned, are site plan issues. But we do have our engineer of record Dave Mensel who I will be asking you to treat as an expert to go over the concept plan. If you had the chance to review the uh traffic report, there's a new concept plan with just one entrance

43
00:16:26.240 --> 00:16:42.959
because that's what FDOT requested and also the staff report said to to combine the accesses as well. So that's been done and that will be presented to you for you to rely on um in making your decision. With me I have Ian Ascu, the applicant's

44
00:16:42.959 --> 00:16:58.639
representative, Lisa Tolen, the expert environmental consultant who also provided to you a report which was then rebutted by the city attorney's office today and Dave Benzel the engineer of record who will discuss the concept plan traffic the breezeway and concurrency

45
00:16:58.639 --> 00:17:14.160
issues. Uh this is a redevelopment project. It was formally built with two buildings which were um torn down years and years ago. This is only for office space. We are withdrawing the use for medical buildings. That was when the application went in, but they're not

46
00:17:14.160 --> 00:17:29.840
intending to use medical, so you can take that out of the U request. Uh, at its core, this is a private property rights issue. Um, the applicant owner has fought to get even to this point. I

47
00:17:29.840 --> 00:17:45.600
don't know if you've seen some of the information back and forth that took us to get to this point. They submitted this back in June and it's taken this long. A letter from me, conversation with the city attorney's office to get this to you to review.

48
00:17:45.600 --> 00:18:02.720
Um, as I said, there's seven central principles for private property. Possession, use and enjoyment, exclusion of others, right to dispose of property, due process, just compensation, and relief from unfair government burdens. U, I provided a package to you that goes

49
00:18:02.720 --> 00:18:17.200
through some of the history. Uh, first off, there's been um a couple of manifestos from Mr. Siver submitted to you all and says that the DA, an old DA from 2007 governs this

50
00:18:17.200 --> 00:18:35.120
property. That permit has agreed that DA has expired and no longer um affects this portion, the seven plus acres of this portion. These office buildings were not the first choice. The applicant came with multif family, single family, and were turned down the office use of

51
00:18:35.120 --> 00:18:50.320
the only thing that's still permissible due to an intensity and far review for this property. The owner must be allowed to utilize its property. Um, also too, we were not advised of any deficiencies until we received the staff report last

52
00:18:50.320 --> 00:19:06.960
Thursday. So that's why you've been getting this information somewhat late in the game because there's nothing in the application that says you need to meet ABCD and E and hours of operation and things that again parking site plan issues, storm water site plan issues. So that's why you've received some of this

53
00:19:06.960 --> 00:19:24.160
information and some of it you'll be receiving tonight. Um what I have on the first page of this document that is a picture from Google Maps of the vacant property. It is the details from the property appraisers website um for the property. I have for you the

54
00:19:24.160 --> 00:19:38.640
private property rights element which was mandated by the state of Florida legislature, the property detail page just for the ownership um and the deeds that are involved in this. There's a warranty

55
00:19:38.640 --> 00:19:55.280
deed from 2004 that's in the chain of title that was transferred to Moraurice Codsy. Moraurice Codsy is one of the managers of the applicant. They have owned this property, Mr. Codsy, since at least I mean since 2004. They have

56
00:19:55.280 --> 00:20:10.080
worked on trying to develop it. You know, there's been very couple of ls in the economy that's made development very slow. Um it took a while to get the River Palms condo up and going. It's now fully sold out 2004 turned over to the to the residents.

57
00:20:10.080 --> 00:20:28.640
Uh so um this property owner has paid taxes for undeveloped land since 2004. Uh most recently $3673.11. Uh there's been allegations that the city was unaware of this transfer of

58
00:20:28.640 --> 00:20:45.280
land um to River Palms uh development which is uh not at all correct. On page seven of the packet, um there's an email to the building official with the quick claim deed and this was in April of

59
00:20:45.280 --> 00:21:00.960
2019. So the city was aware and that was necessary to transfer those 3.19 acres for the condominium that was approved. The building plans were approved, building permits were issued as builts were done. It's been sealed, people are living, then turned over to the condo

60
00:21:00.960 --> 00:21:20.640
association. So, the city was certainly aware the property was going to be transferred. Uh, page 11, 12, and 13 is the letter I submitted. This is about when I got involved with this project when um the owner was told that they could not move forward with the CUP because it violated

61
00:21:20.640 --> 00:21:37.039
the DA development uh the development agreement. So, this is the letter. Um again the city had said you can't develop this seven acres at all. I got involved went through the the code went through the comp plan and made this

62
00:21:37.039 --> 00:21:55.760
letter that said you know you are treat retroactively treating residential square footage as intensity and intensity is far far as different than dwelling units per acre. And it goes on to explain um the property is not seeking to

63
00:21:55.760 --> 00:22:10.400
transfer and has no need of submerged lands to develop these commercial buildings. They need to stabilize the shoreline, but that stabilization and infill which will be permitted by the state is not being used for intensity or density.

64
00:22:10.400 --> 00:22:26.559
Page 14 of the packet, this is going back to August of 2024, uh, Miss Christy Anderson said that the development agreement for River Palms Development is expired and no longer valid. March 25th, 2025, on page 15 of

65
00:22:26.559 --> 00:22:43.039
my packet, the development agreement for River Palms Development is expired. Then May 9th of 2025, Christy Anderson advised the owner that there was a conditional use permit

66
00:22:43.039 --> 00:22:58.799
needed because this proposed development was within 50 ft of a bulkhead line or altering the shoreline. So this is awkward. There's no specific standards for this conditional use permit. Is is awkward. Is it does it just apply to the 50 ft? Does it just apply to the

67
00:22:58.799 --> 00:23:15.120
altering of shoreline? Do you have access issue if you're just applying to 50 feet of the of the riverfront of the property? So, there are no specific criteria. We're doing our best to to follow along with the code. Um there is no bulkhead line. This is a um rock

68
00:23:15.120 --> 00:23:29.280
revetment type shoreline that has it's been eroded over the last number of years needs to be stabilized. So, uh an application was submitted. We received an incomplete letter on the

69
00:23:29.280 --> 00:23:45.840
applicant. On June 27th of 2025 and that was uh page 17, July 1, 2025, this application for CUP was deemed complete. There was nothing mentioned in this letter, page 18 of the

70
00:23:45.840 --> 00:24:01.280
the development agreement. FAR, traffic study, parking deficiency, environmental concerns, shoreline stabilization, engineering or site plan issues or requirements. So, the applicant believed this to be complete until we got the staff report last Thursday.

71
00:24:01.280 --> 00:24:18.480
On July 1st, Mr. um Eddie Galindo, page 19 of my packet, sent an email did giving tentative dates at that time. Um there was a Titusville Environmental Commission scheduled. It was not scheduled when we got rescheduled. I don't know at what point that should

72
00:24:18.480 --> 00:24:33.360
have been scheduled. I know one other recommendation is this be sent to TEC. Uh but based upon your code and what TEC is, the staff could have requested their input long ago and they have not. So we would ask to move forward tonight.

73
00:24:33.360 --> 00:24:50.320
Page 20, October 2nd of 2025, we then get a letter from Mr. Parish, page 20 of the packet saying that the CUP is inconsistent with the governing DA for this property, which again makes no sense because Mr. Parish has already said the DA is not active.

74
00:24:50.320 --> 00:25:06.559
Page 21, the concurrency application was indeed requested as part of the CUP. And then with the staff report, page 22, this is from your um packet from staff. It doesn't look at total water capacity. It doesn't look at wastewater. It does

75
00:25:06.559 --> 00:25:23.840
look at traffic circulation. Seems to be that we're fine. And then says a traffic stud is required, which is why you have a traffic study that was provided to you. And we have extra copies tonight. Uh the um last document in your packet is section 28326 the shoreline mixed use

76
00:25:23.840 --> 00:25:42.240
ordinance which again um this is for to show you the purpose. The intent is to encourage and enhance a mix of residential semi-public uses tourist use and commercial uses etc. This height is 50 ft. This provides the uses. There is

77
00:25:42.240 --> 00:26:00.320
nothing in here that says you can't have office buildings at three stories. If it because they do allow you to have commercial uses and they do allow 50 ft, that shows that the the the size and height of the building is consistent with SMU and the conditional use

78
00:26:00.320 --> 00:26:23.360
requirements because there's no specific standards doesn't say commercial has to be any um lower than 35 ft or 50 feet. The requirement for the CUP of 2927 says this should be reviewed according to

79
00:26:23.360 --> 00:26:40.000
chapter 34. Chapter um section 3471 conditional use permits are uses that would not be appropriate to a zoning district without compliance to more stringent development standards or conditions. The list of cups are in the

80
00:26:40.000 --> 00:26:57.080
use table. There is no use. There is no cup for altering a shoreline or being within a bulkhead, which we don't have a bulkhead. So again, there are no specific standards. Were somewhat in new territory to my knowledge here.

81
00:26:59.760 --> 00:27:16.880
The code repeatedly anticipates altering of the shoreline. Section 30-64, alterations in the shoreline protection buffer and surface water protection permit. So, the code does anticipate permits being issued for altering the

82
00:27:16.880 --> 00:27:36.799
shoreline 34-74 C. This is the uh condition the conceptual plan issue in the conditional use. The applicant may submit a conditional use permit with a conceptual

83
00:27:36.799 --> 00:27:52.880
pan plan that exceeds the minimum application requirements. There's no conceptual plan required. Such conceptual plan if presented shall be deemed to have been relied upon by both such bodies in reaching its decision concerning the request.

84
00:27:52.880 --> 00:28:08.799
This conceptual plan submitted will be deemed binding on the applicant. So, it's attached to the traffic study, but Mr. Mr. Mensel has a a full copy and also has some renderings for you to show which will bind the applicant should this be approved.

85
00:28:08.799 --> 00:28:25.039
Regarding the CUP review criteria, the first criteria is it must be consistent with the comp plan. The city um staff report says it may conflict. We do not believe it conflicts because this isn't you being used for density or intensity. They're using the submerged lines are

86
00:28:25.039 --> 00:28:41.760
being used to stabilize the shoreline. the ingress and egress uh the staff report says should be fine recommends that we uh only have one and that's what's been done as you'll see uh the nuisance factors these are commercial buildings there are many

87
00:28:41.760 --> 00:28:58.399
surrounding commercial uses you have a Taco Bell across the street that's open till 2 or 3:00 a.m. in the morning concurrency solid waste potable water waste water u Mr. Mr. Mensah will talk about screening or buffering when there's adverse nuisance, sight or

88
00:28:58.399 --> 00:29:16.720
noise of less intensive uses. Uh we are agreeing the hours of operation will be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for use of the common areas of the building. Signage and lighting applicant will meet the city code requirements upon site

89
00:29:16.720 --> 00:29:33.919
plan review. If we hadn't put in a conceptual plan, how would we show that on a conceptual plan anyway? But that is a site plan issue. Parking will meet code requirements. Mr. Mensel will testify that we do meet code requirements for simple office use

90
00:29:33.919 --> 00:29:51.120
buildings. Yards and open space. Mr. Mensel will testify about the breezeway. It is greater than 25%. As to 10 and 11 compatibility, this is a mixeduse zoning district. Uh this these buildings are smaller smaller than the River Palms

91
00:29:51.120 --> 00:30:07.440
condominiums to the north and they are similar to other commercial buildings. General compatibility is met when the zoning code for SMU is met since the CUP has no specific criteria. We will um with that we'll request approval of the

92
00:30:07.440 --> 00:30:22.640
CUP and um in our opinion there is nothing else that can be built here but office buildings. And with that, I would like Lisa Tolen to come up and talk about

93
00:30:22.640 --> 00:30:39.480
the shoreline issues. I would also ask that she be um considered as an expert and ask that you find that and ask any questions to determine that. Does anyone need copies of that report that was sent to you?

94
00:30:43.360 --> 00:30:59.799
>> Um Mr. Mr. Chairman, I staff was was that report included in the package we received electronically? >> In other words, I've read this report or I have not read this report. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you.

95
00:31:02.399 --> 00:31:16.399
>> Good evening. My name is Lisa Toland. I am president of Tolen Environmental Consulting. My mailing address is 4092 Sparrow Hawk Road, Melbourne, Florida. and I'm here to discuss the environmental issues relating to um as

96
00:31:16.399 --> 00:31:35.120
Kim described the uh evening out of the shoreline and the installation of the rock reventment and then the policies that you have before you. I did prepare that report. Uh I wasn't going to go through that report in detail. If you haven't had an opportunity to review that report, um

97
00:31:35.120 --> 00:31:51.679
please let me know and I can beef up my remarks because I just didn't wanted to reiterate everything again. Could you also give them your qualifications so they can turn? >> Sure. Um, right now I'm a president of Tolen Environmental Consulting, a firm that I have headed for 24 years. Prior

98
00:31:51.679 --> 00:32:06.559
to that, I was the assistant department head for BVAR County Solid Waste. Prior to that, I was the department head for Bvoulevard County Natural Resources. I serve as a scientific adviser to the Bvard County Board of County Commissioners for environmentally

99
00:32:06.559 --> 00:32:22.240
endangered lands acquisition and management. Um, I have done seaggrass surveys throughout my entire career and I don't know if there's anything else to add, but if you'd like to ask any questions of any, I'd be happy to answer.

100
00:32:22.240 --> 00:32:37.600
>> Thank you. >> The board will need to buy motion determine whether or not to qualify this witness as an expert. >> Awesome. >> Thank you. Do we have a motion on uh qualifying? >> I'll motion to qualify. >> I second. Thank you. Is that a roll call

101
00:32:37.600 --> 00:32:54.240
vote for that as well? All right, roll call vote, please. >> So, I'm just going to go and do a brief overview of everything. Um, not just one second. Uh, you can do a roll call or a voice vote on this. >> All right. All in favor? >> I I >> All post. Thank you. >> I apologize.

102
00:32:54.240 --> 00:33:09.600
>> Now, just one second. Since you asked for a question, I have a question for you. >> Sure. >> This is one thorough report. So, um, can you go over some of the negative findings of the estuary, the state that it's in right now, the salinity levels? Can you let us know that? >> Yeah, I'm going to go through that here. I'm going to kind of go through if I can

103
00:33:09.600 --> 00:33:25.200
do it now if you'd like and talk about like the background conditions a little bit and they are described in the report and I think that pretty much um kind of reiterates what Kim has said and I will preference my remarks today. I apparently lost my glasses on the way in. So if you see me going like this,

104
00:33:25.200 --> 00:33:39.919
this is because I cannot read my own text. But basically, you know, the existing conditions are that it is a pre-developed upland and a nearly barren shore uh uh waterway in the sense that we have no seaggrasses. We have no

105
00:33:39.919 --> 00:33:55.840
submerged aquatic vegetation um in front of the project site at all. Um when we did the analysis, you know, typically we see something. So we're kind of like, what could what could explain this situation? And then as we started reviewing the site plans and the

106
00:33:55.840 --> 00:34:12.079
development plans for the projects around it, we came to understand that, you know, you have several culverts in the area that are discharging um I guess it's an FDOT pipe discharging, you know, pollutants from the roadways and stuff at that point in the river. I think

107
00:34:12.079 --> 00:34:33.200
there are three fairly large pipes in there. And when you look at the water quality data, there is actually if you look at page, for those who haven't read the report, let's see, there is a figure on the back of the

108
00:34:33.200 --> 00:34:50.399
report that shows these regional photograph of my study area. And when you look at that regional photograph here, this is a study area here with the blue outline of the property. And this red dot here is a monitoring station that's actively

109
00:34:50.399 --> 00:35:06.560
monitored 247 by the St. John's River Water Management District. When I wrote my report up, I pulled the data from yesterday. So the data you're seeing in this write up is yesterday's data. And basically yesterday's data says, you know, it's a stressed system. It's a

110
00:35:06.560 --> 00:35:22.720
very stressed system in that region as a whole. Um, you know, you have very low levels of oxygen. You're just barely above the five level that's, you know, recommended for even reasonable. I think you're up 5.13. You're double the nitrogen levels in

111
00:35:22.720 --> 00:35:38.400
that area. Um, your uh light penetration is significantly reduced. I think you have a value of 45 point something if I recall off the top of my head. and the standard would be 30. So what you have is a situation where you have a lot of

112
00:35:38.400 --> 00:35:53.920
nu nutrients. You don't have a lot of light. You have um you know you're actually have carbon dioxide levels at far far exceed atmospheric levels indicating that you're just in this like system that's utrifying. It's getting too much

113
00:35:53.920 --> 00:36:10.400
nitrogen. It keeps you know that cycle that we all hear about at these meetings so much is that you get these big nutrient builds up. you get these big explosions of algae blooms, everything dies, fish die, oxygen gets consumed. And so in this area, you're kind of

114
00:36:10.400 --> 00:36:27.119
right on the brink of, you know, that as far as how low the oxygen is, how high the nitrates are, how low the light penetration is. So that's existing conditions right now. Um, that answer your question. >> Well, so it so it begins to, right? So,

115
00:36:27.119 --> 00:36:42.480
you gave us a status of what it is today, but you didn't give us historical because as far as what I'm concerned, from what I understand, the lagoon has had a nice rebound over the last couple of years. It's doubled in seaggrass growth, and your report speaks to the most grim state that it's at right now,

116
00:36:42.480 --> 00:36:58.560
but not the growth that it's currently experiencing. >> To include some of the um things that we've done here right off of uh Parish Road here, putting those those those things in the water to help grow back that >> boxes. Yeah. So, so, so the lagoon has been recovering um and it's going to

117
00:36:58.560 --> 00:37:13.440
continue to recover as long as we don't continue to put things in it. Would you agree? >> Somewhat. I mean, I'll give you a qualified yes on that one. Okay. in the sense that if you could get the water clean enough in this area that you could

118
00:37:13.440 --> 00:37:29.280
start recruiting something to grow there from a practical standpoint. You know, I agree that um the sorrel program through the Indian River Lagoon save our uh Indian River Lagoon program is doing great things in the lagoon, but you know, it is a huge huge problem that you

119
00:37:29.280 --> 00:37:45.359
know we're slowly slowly picking our way through for this area. You know, it is so heavily degraded that you're not even seeing what we would call kalurpa out there, which is an invasive nuisance species that would recruit even in the most polluted waters.

120
00:37:45.359 --> 00:38:02.400
>> What was I'm sorry. One more. Well, we we're not seeing what out there. >> Colorpa. It's a kind of submerged aquatic vegetation. >> It's a non-calcarious green algae, which >> just means it doesn't form like a a reef system. So out there, you know,

121
00:38:02.400 --> 00:38:20.000
if things were even to start to prove today, you know, you might be able to generate conditions for an exotic, if it continued to improve, then you might generate conditions sufficient for natives to out compete the exotics. But it's a very, very, very long way away.

122
00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:36.320
And you know, I guess kind of putting my natural resources hat back on. You know, one of the things we always struggle with is where like where can you and where should you, you know, and when you look at all the resources in within the system, you know, at some point I always

123
00:38:36.320 --> 00:38:51.119
say you there's only so much environmental money we have. So what's the best environmental value for our buck? And so would you direct development some other place or would you put development here? If I was putting my natural resources

124
00:38:51.119 --> 00:39:07.119
hat on, I would sit there and go like, "Yeah, is it possible that someday in the future we could get this part of the lagoon?" It was productive, I think, back in 2015 maybe. I'd have to look at that data again, >> but so yeah, so theoretically it's

125
00:39:07.119 --> 00:39:21.920
possible that it can return to productivity. It's a long ways away. And then you're sitting there saying, >> you know, if not here, where, you know, if you can't put something here, where can you put it? So recently I saw a a really nice program if you will on

126
00:39:21.920 --> 00:39:36.960
Philippines and how they banned people from entering a particular beach for four years and they were astonished at how quickly that area was able to recover once they stopped going there. And I totally agree with that. And if you guys are willing to retrofit those

127
00:39:36.960 --> 00:39:52.640
pipes, you know, you're stopping the pollutant source. But I don't think it's a correctable condition. And I don't, you know, in the short run, I'm not going to say it's gone for, you know, it's there's nothing we can ever do because that would be an overstatement. But in the short run, I mean, the

128
00:39:52.640 --> 00:40:09.359
reality check is you're not going to pull those pipes or, you know, retrofit all those pipes and change all that pollutant anytime in the near future. So it is a heavily stressed area. It's an impacted area. If you know if your choices are here or there, I would you

129
00:40:09.359 --> 00:40:26.640
know unless you know there is even worse um which would be difficult you know why not here is the question. >> Member Gerard. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have several questions. First of all you're the expert on what you've spoke about

130
00:40:26.640 --> 00:40:42.480
environmentally. The attorney of record mentioned the improvements historically and the attorney of record mentioned the uh shoreline being altered and existing conditions and earlier staff represented that the length of the property is 800

131
00:40:42.480 --> 00:40:59.200
plus feet as opposed to the staff report of 400. Are you the expert that's going to be able to answer questions regarding the historical buildings that have been there that were spoken to by >> No, I think that would be more of the engineer of record. I mean, I did state in my report that I did look at aerial photographs and I did see buildings on

132
00:40:59.200 --> 00:41:16.800
the aerial photographs in 199 um >> once it hits the mean high water if you know and any listed species on the uplands I can speak to too. >> So you've been to the site you've you've been to this site obviously >> I have. >> Okay. And so the statement by the attorney was there was existing

133
00:41:16.800 --> 00:41:32.960
revetments and uh structural improvements to the shoreline and this is really a restoration of that existing for that whole 800 plus feet of distance. Is that factually correct? >> I think what you're seeing here factually is that you have a bulkhead to the north of the property, you have a

134
00:41:32.960 --> 00:41:48.800
bulkhead to the south of the property. You're having a property that's kind of taken a beating between the two. But I don't know. I've seen when I was out there doing the seaggrass surveys, I saw remnant rock in the water like that would be indicative of a pre-existing

135
00:41:48.800 --> 00:42:04.560
shoreline, but I could not see enough structure to sit there and say here is where the revetment began and here is where the revetment. >> So there's no expert here that can substantiate the claim of the attorney that there's already an existing improvement along the 800 plus feet of shoreline. You're stating that you saw

136
00:42:04.560 --> 00:42:21.359
some remnants in some portions, some of which may have occurred as remnants of the development areas north and south of us. Is that more accurate? >> I think I'm hearing what Kim said differently. I thought I heard Kim say that the opinion was developed and that the Well, >> I'm sorry. What matters is what I heard and I heard that the shoreline had been

137
00:42:21.359 --> 00:42:37.680
altered and this is just a replacement. >> No, I think the shoreline had had some rock on it in sections of it for sure. I can sit there and say that it was stabilized already in the area of the 800 plus feet. I don't know if I could say that off the top of my head. >> You're able to testify to that, right?

138
00:42:37.680 --> 00:42:54.400
>> I'm just trying to I'm trying to get confirmation of the state. >> I tell you it's not me, right? >> Okay, that's fine. So, you can't answer those questions accurately >> as far as the pre-existing conditions with a pre-exist the the the statement about the

139
00:42:54.400 --> 00:43:10.880
replacement. This is the request and the request more particularly the conditional use to do this uh shoreline alteration is that it's because it's just replacing what was there. That was the general statement you made I believe or do you want to correct yourself? >> I will answer that

140
00:43:10.880 --> 00:43:27.680
>> when you come up. Okay. But that's my question. >> I'm going to say I'm going to defer to Kim on that one because I only saw indications that there was a reventment in the past. how long it how wide it was or how long it was. I could notify today. >> It was a whole 800 plus feet along the shoreline. >> I I could not testify to that today.

141
00:43:27.680 --> 00:43:55.440
>> Thank you. >> So, the question begs, who is the expert here tonight you can present that can answer those two questions? >> I'm not sure I'm not there already. I'm asking questions. We'll go to member Rice in the meantime.

142
00:43:55.440 --> 00:44:11.440
>> Are you done with your presentation? >> I haven't really started, but if you want to just jump into questions, whatever the commission is comfortable with >> your presentation, ask my question. >> So, you know what I wanted to talk briefly about was I just wanted to go like on a point by point briefly um

143
00:44:11.440 --> 00:44:28.640
discussion from staff's comments to here. And again, I apologize for all the squinting. Um you know for the first one that I'm going to address would be for the future land use the flu policy 1.1.7.3 submerged lands within the Indian River Lagoon shall only be utilized for water

144
00:44:28.640 --> 00:44:45.359
related development i.e. marinas docks ramps etc and only after review and permitting by the appropriate state and federal agencies. So, my response to this pretty quickly is I'm going to handle the easy stuff first, which is everything after the and um we are going

145
00:44:45.359 --> 00:45:01.839
to get the appropriate federal and state permits. We will be required to get a federal 404 permit for this project. As part of that 404 review, there is a public interest determination. We will have to demonstrate that we will not impact water quality, aquatic resources,

146
00:45:01.839 --> 00:45:19.119
seaggrasses. Um the feds go one more than the state and say not even submerged aquatic vegetation, SAV. So um there is a pretty rigorous system in place as far as the regulatory review for the impacts of the fill and the reventment. Additionally what at the

147
00:45:19.119 --> 00:45:36.079
state level we will also get a review by the St. John's River Water Management District. Um again this is for a you know just an evening out of a shoreline and this installation of a reventment. We are not putting filling in the shoreline and constructing buildings on

148
00:45:36.079 --> 00:45:53.440
it. um which is a huge you know intensity use difference. The code already contemplates as Kim says you know the installation of a revetment. It's in your LDRs the 364 e reference and staff report is a reference directly back to your standards for installing

149
00:45:53.440 --> 00:46:10.079
and building a revetment in the river. So I think the exception is can you you know if the if the shoreline goes like this can you fill in this part to make your reventment or do you have to and that's what we're really arguing about right now. Um

150
00:46:10.079 --> 00:46:27.599
as far as and then the water management district also has a series of public interest determinations similar to the federal governments. They will review everything um as sovereign submerged lands um for which the state you know has an extra level of interest. They um

151
00:46:27.599 --> 00:46:42.640
do a very very detailed review on any activities that would involve the use of their sovereign submerged lands. Um in addition the applicant will have to mitigate and provide compensating uh mitigation for any impacts it creates to

152
00:46:42.640 --> 00:46:59.280
the shoreline. um they will have to pursue both federal and state uh mitigation. And for this basin, this is basin 21, the Northern Indian River Lagoon Basin. One credit of mitigation for this basin currently stands at

153
00:46:59.280 --> 00:47:16.160
$750,000. It is running out that bank rapidly. Um gossip on the street is the next one coming in will be more closer to the million dollar mark. So, if we're just filling in 2 acres along the 800 ft of shoreline, it's a, you know, it's it's

154
00:47:16.160 --> 00:47:33.680
long, but it's not wide. Um, you know, you're looking well over $200,000 in mitigation costs to, you know, compensate for the filling in to put the rebetment on top of it. Um, so there is a mechanism to make sure that there is

155
00:47:33.680 --> 00:47:50.160
no net loss of function within that system. That is the guiding principles of federal law. It is the guiding principles of state law. As far as the everything before, I think that's where we get kind of in the gray zone and where we take some exceptions to the

156
00:47:50.160 --> 00:48:06.480
code. You know, one of the things that I when I was reviewing this and you know, I don't always work in the city of Titusville. When I went in there and I started looking at that water related development, you know, and I started really looking through the charter, the comprehensive plan, the LDRs, and it's

157
00:48:06.480 --> 00:48:23.599
not a defined term. and water dependent is not defined in city code and the county charter or the LDRs. Um I think the closest thing you guys got is functionally dependent but not water dependent. And so I said well what can we use as a as something to say what is water related

158
00:48:23.599 --> 00:48:38.800
etc. Um, and so I went to the actual submerged lands rule, the Florida's submerged lands rule, 1821, and they do provide a definition for um, water related activities. And if I can read it

159
00:48:38.800 --> 00:48:58.720
without my glasses, a use or activity which does not require direct access to the use of the water, but which provides goods or services directly to water users. So within that context, you don't have to have an activity in the water. It

160
00:48:58.720 --> 00:49:15.040
doesn't have to be a marina or a boat ramp by the the state rule, the state definition. and lacking one of your own. Since we're talking about submerged lands, I just went to the submerged lands definition what water related was. So, >> I'm sorry. Could you read that one more

161
00:49:15.040 --> 00:49:35.119
time, please? >> Sure. >> Give me a moment in my classes, >> Mr. So, sorry. So, 1821. quote

162
00:49:35.119 --> 00:49:51.440
a use or activity which does not require direct access to or use of the water comma but which provides goods or services directly to water users is a water related activity. So I think you

163
00:49:51.440 --> 00:50:07.440
know within your etc category in that um staff comment and in your future land use policy I think you have the latitude to decide what is water related and water use. I mean arguably you could go anywhere from in a commercial project if

164
00:50:07.440 --> 00:50:22.960
I was saying if I have a Guy Harvey apparel store in there am I not catering to water users? you know, I mean, you could make that argument if you know, and if you had somebody who's giving a massage, you

165
00:50:22.960 --> 00:50:38.079
know, like, you know, it's it's really what you want to try and extend this concept out to. Um, you know, I know like anybody who's doing any kind of, you know, relaxation or um, mental health

166
00:50:38.079 --> 00:50:54.880
therapists, you know, one of the things that we look at when we're looking at endangered lands and things like that is, you know, the under representation of blue spaces and the value of blue spaces. And one of the value of blue spaces is it creates blue minds, you know, which a blue mind is one that's

167
00:50:54.880 --> 00:51:13.599
less stressed, um, less anxious, um, has, you know, there's plenty of documentation. People who sit by the water have lower heart rates, lower respiration rates. So, I mean, how far you want to extend that, etc., I think is within your purview to extend that.

168
00:51:13.599 --> 00:51:31.440
Um, I just was handed the attorney's report. um disputing my finding that you don't really have authority under the mean high water. Um I'll let the lawyers argue that out. My experience as I don't think you really do. Um and and and the

169
00:51:31.440 --> 00:51:47.280
example that I like to use when I'm talk to people about where the boundaries come and go is like you know the classic one is I had a dock project in the city of Sebastian and the person who built the dock thought being creative you know cities can't regulate docks you know you

170
00:51:47.280 --> 00:52:03.359
can't as a city say how big that dock has to be where it has to end that's that's outside your purview you're preempted for from in statute for residentials for sure so they built the dock and they built it to be a commercial dock and then they went and

171
00:52:03.359 --> 00:52:19.760
they tried to connect that dock that dock to the land and the city of Sebastian said oh no no no no you cannot have a commercial dock attached to a residential property and so that is really the demarcation line for and that's how I've always looked at it and

172
00:52:19.760 --> 00:52:35.520
the ordinary high water the city has absolute authority to say what can attach to it you can't have commercial uses attached to your property, but you don't have the authority to regulate what goes on, how things are constructed

173
00:52:35.520 --> 00:52:51.960
um underneath the ordinary high water line. So, that's my pitch on that. Um just say we're going to disagree on that aspect of it all. Um, moving on.

174
00:52:52.880 --> 00:53:09.520
The next one I'm going to answer is the alteration may conflict with CME uh coastal management element 1.2 protecting marine grass beds, coastal grass beds, marine species. Um, no environmental studies submitted. I do apologize about that. I do believe it

175
00:53:09.520 --> 00:53:22.880
has been submitted as part of this application package. Um we did coni complete an SAV within the parameters required in the methodology established by uh both the Army Corps of Engineers

176
00:53:22.880 --> 00:53:40.319
and FG um for aquatic resources. We our survey basically encompassed 1.6 acres of the river bottom for 23 acre impact adjacent to the shoreline. We extended our survey as per the protocol uh 50

177
00:53:40.319 --> 00:53:57.520
feet beyond the actual impact area. When I was kind of just rough measuring, you know, I think the widest width, and we'll let the engineer speak to that, is about 23 24 feet. So, our survey area is more than double beyond the actual impact area. And you know,

178
00:53:57.520 --> 00:54:14.240
unfortunately, we found nothing. You know, we found um no SAV or no seaggrass. Um, we classified it per the codes that are required to be classified as 5400 open water baron substrate which is what it was classified in 2023 by the

179
00:54:14.240 --> 00:54:29.599
St. John's River Water Management District. Um, so one of the things like and I think if you read the whole context of the code, um, sorry I'm skimming through my notes

180
00:54:29.599 --> 00:54:46.400
through the squint and you know not and I think you see a lot of ration reason that you don't you know you don't have good quality there. you have the the pipes. The area right beside the project site is prohibited for shellfish harvesting which is the only classification

181
00:54:46.400 --> 00:55:04.880
given for when um water quality parameters exceed all you know reasonable consumption for human beings. Um so you can't harvest shellfish from that area because of the pollutant levels. Um can it have impacts to you

182
00:55:04.880 --> 00:55:21.359
know manatees? That was a second issue. If you look at the full citation of the policy that staff um submitted, it says marine resources such as manatees and seaggrasses. Well, uh and shellfish, sorry, manatees and shellfish. So, it's

183
00:55:21.359 --> 00:55:38.400
prohibitive for shellfish. So, we're not going to do any damage to shellfish harvesting um from manatees. Manatees typically have three major um stressors on them. pollution, lack of forage resources, uh, seagrasses

184
00:55:38.400 --> 00:55:54.799
and boat strikes. So, you know, you have this background pollution. I don't think we're going to add anything to that pollution. I know we won't because we'll be required by the both the federal and state review to prove that we won't. Um, since this is an impaired waters, I'll let the engineer speak to that. You probably have to do additional storm

185
00:55:54.799 --> 00:56:11.040
water management on top of it to try and um bring it down as the uh first councilman said. Um, and we have no boats, you know, we're not any adding any boats to the system. So, we're not doing anything to manatees, you know, that beyond existing conditions because

186
00:56:11.040 --> 00:56:26.400
we're not adding boats. We're not adding additional pollutants and there are no seaggrasses or any sav um during lean times. You know, manatees will eat gray seal area and things like that. There's not even that that we found when we were there. Um

187
00:56:26.400 --> 00:56:43.839
so we don't feel like there's any issues under that policy 1.2 marine resources. Um staff comment LDR section 3064G uh the fivepart technical demonstration

188
00:56:43.839 --> 00:57:00.640
for um you know the reventment. Again, I think you know that goes to the concept that you do allow, you know, revetments and and you know, impacts along the nearshore of the Indian River Lagoon. Um the response was for water quality. You

189
00:57:00.640 --> 00:57:16.559
know, I think my answer was, you know, the rock reventment really is there to stabilize the energy that it's receiving from its northern and southern neighbors who have the um bulkheads. We're not proposing to s install a bulkhead in line with those um which would be you

190
00:57:16.559 --> 00:57:30.799
know permissible under state and federal rule. Um so we're not adding any kind of water quality. Rock preventments don't you know cause pollution. In fact, mostly, you know, what it's going to do is stop turbidity from entering into that system right there and allow maybe

191
00:57:30.799 --> 00:57:49.200
some shallow um water quality clarity to improve because every time you keep eroding that shoreline away, you just keep washing it off and creating that turbidity cloud. So, the reventment will stabilize some of that. Um loss of shoreline vegetation. We did not

192
00:57:49.200 --> 00:58:06.160
um we didn't see any shoreline vegetation. The only shoreline vegetation we noted and it is on our maps on the package of the seaggrass survey. We did find a few clumps of white mangroves recruiting along the shoreline which we noted and they will have to be permitted. So on this figure

193
00:58:06.160 --> 00:58:22.240
right here you'll see along the shoreline a couple dots where it says white mangroves. Um we will obtain the appropriate permits we need under the um mangrove preservation act. But the mangrove preservation act is reviewed

194
00:58:22.240 --> 00:58:37.760
and enforced through the St. John's River permitting process. So we will indirectly comply with the mangrove protection act, you know, through the St. John's permitting process or directly through application for a mangrove altering or

195
00:58:37.760 --> 00:59:01.359
trimming permit. Um, sorry. So, adverse effects on adjacent property owners. Um, I would say that it's the other way around. We are being adversely affected by our adjacent property owners. We will not be adversely affecting them by protecting our own

196
00:59:01.359 --> 00:59:18.880
shoreline from their impacts. Um, waterward extension. Again, we are not proposing to extend to place any sort of development accessory uses or anything other than we are stabilizing and you know aligning the shoreline to put in a

197
00:59:18.880 --> 00:59:35.040
rock reventment. Um flow of water navigable hazards. Obviously reventments run parallel to the shoreline so they're not going to go perpendicular out and cause any navigation issues. again um the federal government would review that stringently

198
00:59:35.040 --> 00:59:51.760
if they even came close to any kind of navigation hazard would not allow it. um storm water shoreline vegetation. I'll let the engineer address address about the uh an engineered storm water management system that would be required as part of the rock reventment. That's

199
00:59:51.760 --> 01:00:07.200
fairly typical across most jurisdictions. And if the engineer did not design engineer, you know, design an engineered like storm water swale system or something like that that would treat the I don't know what the standard is in Titus. let him speak to that, but

200
01:00:07.200 --> 01:00:23.520
typically it's the first uh one in the 24-hour storm. Um, whatever that standard would be, he would have to meet that in that standard and provide an engineered storm water management or we would have to provide 10 ft of densely planted native vegetation, which I

201
01:00:23.520 --> 01:00:39.200
would, you know, present the plans for that to the city for approval. Typically, we would do that as part of the site plan review process and say, "Here's the zones, here's what we're going to plant, here's the mixtures of planting material, here are the gallon sizes, here's the nursery quality." All

202
01:00:39.200 --> 01:00:56.720
that's written up in a detailed planting plan and schedule that's submitted as part of the site plan review process. I think I've covered most of the comments that related to um environmental resource issues. If there are any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

203
01:00:56.720 --> 01:01:12.160
>> Member Gerard. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh to follow up, I had several questions. I think I can focus on your environmental expertise. I'll try to focus on that in my questions. >> The first question would be since you experienced 24 years in Bvard County, you're familiar with the shorelines

204
01:01:12.160 --> 01:01:28.240
degregation that has caused some of the pollutant problems and other matters that relate to that. Is is that a fair fair statement on my behalf? >> You testified your experience. >> Yeah. So, I don't understand the question. Over my 24 years, have I seen a degradation of the river? >> Yes. >> Yes.

205
01:01:28.240 --> 01:01:44.079
>> Okay. And historically, you probably are familiar historically with shoreline development in this area of Florida, more particularly in Titusville, and that uh that shoreline development has seen major alterations where fill has occurred. In fact, federal government buildings were built on fair phil where

206
01:01:44.079 --> 01:02:00.240
the post office is and very extensive fill operations uh hundreds of yards into the river. You're familiar with those >> for the federal lands? Well, just any fill that's occurred as you drove the street of US1 and looked at the shoreline for your client looked at the property. You've seen the fill

207
01:02:00.240 --> 01:02:16.160
operations that occurred historically along the Indian River Lagoon. >> I think any fill like fill proper fill fill to create >> fill back fill fill. >> So maybe we need to kind of define terms a little bit. So for me, putting in a

208
01:02:16.160 --> 01:02:33.359
seaw wall and back filling because you know typically the same thing happens on a seaw wall. If we were to put a bulkhead line in, we would just attach it to the other two bulkhead lines that are in place. We'd back fill it to that point and then we'd, you know, so if you're calling that filling of the

209
01:02:33.359 --> 01:02:50.240
ending or that to me I think that's minor. So, so if you have >> relatively, you know, total impact, you know, we I'd have to kind of take a step back and think about that for a minute. But as far as filling in to create

210
01:02:50.240 --> 01:03:06.319
structures and filling in to change um you know, flow patterns, you know, things like that. I think you know something along the lines of Cape Canaveral Hospital, you know, things like that. I understand. Um, I have not seen much of that within the past 20

211
01:03:06.319 --> 01:03:22.000
years because they really started to to crack down on that. >> I'm sorry to misunderstood my question. You're familiar with Titusville Shoreline where Phil has been a at least major minority of the shoreline alteration historically much of the shoreline along.

212
01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:36.960
>> In that context, I would say the major that would be the majority of the shoreline alteration, but not the minority the majority of the actual fill volume. >> Right. Right. So, so you're familiar there are sites in Titusville that had a large if not a majority of the property

213
01:03:36.960 --> 01:03:53.839
that has resulted in development results from filling in backfilling a seaw wall and installation to provide the property based on submerged lands much like your client's doing. That's a observation I think you could say you've seen right

214
01:03:53.839 --> 01:04:09.920
back filled sites hundreds of yards and width into the inter coastal waterway historically speaking that's been done >> hundreds of yards I again in 20 years I I have not seen that very many times where you have hundreds of yards of >> well if you go to the postal service

215
01:04:09.920 --> 01:04:24.799
building just down the road you'll see hundreds of yards if not a quarter of a mile of distance backfilled behind seaw walls. Now would you as an environmental scientist with your 24 years experience would you agree with me and I'm not an

216
01:04:24.799 --> 01:04:42.079
expert that an undulating and natural shoreline in the lagoon would be better serving the lagoon's ecological operation itself like a kidney working to clean the water up. Would it work better as a natural

217
01:04:42.079 --> 01:04:59.359
shoreline had that been the condition historically or would it be better to fill it in with seaw walls closing in that back filling it and creating a vertical wall to the water's edge? >> Yeah, if we had gone back to statehood and had done it properly from the word

218
01:04:59.359 --> 01:05:15.680
go, of course, like leaving everything natural along the shoreline would have been the more ideal conditions. I do have to qualify it to say, you know, that's, you know, that's a little idealic and it's not the situation we're in currently. So, when we're looking at

219
01:05:15.680 --> 01:05:31.760
a property that is in between two bulkheads, you know, I think the state has recognized the need for stabilization just to, you know, protect your property rights and your property value. >> I'm not talking about property rights at all. >> Yeah. No, no, I'm just saying that >> conceptually

220
01:05:31.760 --> 01:05:46.480
>> you don't want to do it, but at some point when you've already let the, you know, the horse out of the barn, >> you got to figure out, okay, now you have all these horses running wild. How do we contain them from eating the next guy's stuff, you know, and that's what's happening. So, if they're eating our

221
01:05:46.480 --> 01:06:02.640
shoreline, we are trying to just stabilize that portion of it. So another question posed I I would pose is in terms of your testimony regarding the regulatory agencies you spoke about Army Corps of Engineers, St. John's Water Management District, the permitting

222
01:06:02.640 --> 01:06:20.000
opportunity. You gave us an analogous issue and sat at Sebastian Inlet where the regulatory agencies allowed somebody to build a dock and that the local government really didn't have jurisdiction to inspect or review or build the dock >> because it's below the mean high water line. that position. The question I've

223
01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:36.640
had is your client is here for a reason. You're representing your client, the attorney of record representing the client for a reason. You didn't just go to the state and apply to get a seaw wall and fill it or reitment and start doing the work like the example in

224
01:06:36.640 --> 01:06:52.000
Sebastian in the in the boat dock. Your application was tended tendered to be reviewed, recommended by this commission and the city council to either grant or deny or condition this conditional use. You did do that application on behalf of your client.

225
01:06:52.000 --> 01:07:07.760
>> Yes. And I think the difference >> that's an easy answer. Yes. Is easy. >> Well, I think it's has to be qualified because I don't think it's really fair just to do the yes no because the reality check on that one is >> I really don't need I don't need the explanation. It's just simple question. You're making an application

226
01:07:07.760 --> 01:07:22.720
representing your client for a conditional use to alter the shoreline. Correct. >> Correct. >> You didn't just go to St. John's and start permitting and start constructing what they regulate. As you testified, they regulate. >> Yes. >> Correct. It would be foolish to invest

227
01:07:22.720 --> 01:07:38.319
hundreds of thousands of dollars in mitigation to be told no at the end. >> Mr. Chairman, I have a question for our attorney if I may. Um, Titusville created, and it may be yourself or it may be uh the planning staff, Titusville created a conditional

228
01:07:38.319 --> 01:07:54.079
use zoning regulation that basically reads to me, as I said, that Titusville has the jurisdiction to consider, provide for, allow, or disallow shoreline alteration, including in this case what's called evening out

229
01:07:54.079 --> 01:08:11.039
the uh natural shoreline. They they created that rule. That's what we have before us tonight. Correct. >> The city created the conditional use permit. Yeah. >> So would it be fair for me to conclude that without approval of the conditional use? It wouldn't matter if Army Corps of

230
01:08:11.039 --> 01:08:27.440
Engineers said, for example, fine, put in a seaw wall hundreds of yards into the water body, back fill it, go build your buildings under the local government building code and building permitting procedure. But for the purposes of filling, they couldn't do

231
01:08:27.440 --> 01:08:43.120
that. They could apply and you could get a permit, but if they started doing shoreline alteration without an approved conditional use, they would violate a city code. Would that be a conclusion? >> That's correct. Applicants have to meet local, state, and federal guidelines. >> So, the conclusion I would reach is that

232
01:08:43.120 --> 01:09:00.080
without this conditional use, it's moot what the Army Corps of Engineers may or may not allow or what St. John's may or may not permit or their permitting process or the cost of tea in China as it would be for mitigation the planning schedule all that's important for those

233
01:09:00.080 --> 01:09:16.640
regulatory agencies that have that jurisdiction but without the city's approval of this request is applied on behalf of the applicant. They really can't go get any permits without violating the city rule. Is that a fair conclusion? They can obtain the state

234
01:09:16.640 --> 01:09:33.279
and federal permits without the city having issued its permits. But if they could not undertake the construction of the project without having all three. >> Thank you. That's my question. >> Could the applicant apply for the um shoreline hardening outside of a C?

235
01:09:33.279 --> 01:09:49.040
>> Is the What do you mean by shorine shoreline? Um the so the chapter 30 uh division 4 governs the shoreline protection permitting process and um they could but they would still need the cup as provided in section 2927.

236
01:09:49.040 --> 01:10:05.360
>> Okay. >> Member Graham. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um when your client uh purchased this property, uh he knew that uh there was a uh easement

237
01:10:05.360 --> 01:10:21.600
there for the DOT storm water conveyance and I believe um some of that might even be the city of Titusville. Is that correct? >> I'll let the engineer speak to the drainage issues and where the pipes connect. Well, that being the case and you know this is over the rights of some

238
01:10:21.600 --> 01:10:38.239
submerged lands and type things, he the the applicant you would think would know that um purchasing this come with potential liabilities uh in regards to water quality and shoreline quality because he purchased the property that

239
01:10:38.239 --> 01:10:54.000
was already set up that way. and then whether it affects his application or not. You know, you would think that can't just go back after you purchase it and say, "Everybody else is tearing this up, not my client." You know, um it is

240
01:10:54.000 --> 01:11:10.480
he knew it upfront whenever he purchased the property, you would think. >> I think you'd have to speak to him and there's a representative of that organization here. >> Okay. >> Member Rice. Um couple questions I'd like to page three of your report.

241
01:11:10.480 --> 01:11:27.600
first. And at the bottom of the page, it says, "Under 33 CFR 324A1, a permit will not be issued unless the district engineer determines the proposed activity is in the public interest." And you've said the public

242
01:11:27.600 --> 01:11:42.000
interest thing three or four times in your in your presentation. This is private. This is a private enterprise. So, what is the public interest? the public interest. How they can you get a permit >> from this guy if there's no public

243
01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:58.080
interest? >> Say that last question again. >> What is the public interest of serving the public, which means the the the citizens of Titusville, to be able for them to issue a permit for a private development?

244
01:11:58.080 --> 01:12:13.440
>> In this case, you know, there's two levels of federal and state review. from the federal perspective, you know, they look at everything within the navigable waterways of the United States to be held in, you know, trust for the

245
01:12:13.440 --> 01:12:28.880
citizens of the United States of America. So when they do these public interest determinations, the determination is what what would be contrary to the public interest. And so they look at establishing standards that would say it is contrary to the public

246
01:12:28.880 --> 01:12:45.280
interest to degrade water quality. Therefore to ensure that we are protecting the public interest we you must demonstrate all these water quality that your project is not contributing to any water quality uh violations or degradations or sometimes in pamper

247
01:12:45.280 --> 01:13:00.080
waters your project has to actually show that it's improving conditions. >> Yeah. you have to do that anyways with with storm water and and anything you discharge to the river, you're going to have to do water quality. I want a very specific answer of what have you all

248
01:13:00.080 --> 01:13:16.239
identified as the public interest to be able to do this in specifically. Give me an example. >> So, and I think you're asking more of a um a legal term from the public interest determination from an environmental

249
01:13:16.239 --> 01:13:31.520
perspective. the public interest determination is established through what is basically like it's not contrary to the public interest. So they take that position. You're not taking seaggrasses. You're not taking listed species. I hear what you're saying is

250
01:13:31.520 --> 01:13:47.280
that that's that's similar to what is already in there. I think that when they add that public interest determination for submerged lands, they tend to be more strict in it because they they sit there and say you have to affirmatively demonstrate that you're not doing anything. that's would harm the public

251
01:13:47.280 --> 01:14:02.560
interest. >> I I don't think you really answered my question. That's okay. Let's assume you're right on where our jurisdiction begins or ends. Okay. But I think our city attorney is correct. Okay. We wouldn't issue you a permit unless you

252
01:14:02.560 --> 01:14:18.640
signed a water sewer service agreement that annexed all property into the city of Titusville. So the minute you filled it, you would have to annex or you wouldn't get a permit, a building permit from us anyways. But once the >> land all that land's going to be in our jurisdiction anyway. So either way you look at it, however the lawyers figure

253
01:14:18.640 --> 01:14:33.520
it out, >> you still need a permit from the city of Titusville and those things will still fall into our jurisdiction. I think it's a timing issue is you know when does it become jurisdictional to the city of Titusville and my position is it becomes jurisdictional for the city of

254
01:14:33.520 --> 01:14:51.520
Titusville once it be once you get above the ordinary high water line for this system >> and that once you reestablish that okay I understand >> so we move the ordinary high water line it's all yours now >> um on page six of your report um it it

255
01:14:51.520 --> 01:15:07.120
clearly states a formal listed species survey for species is beyond uh SAVV has not been completely completed at this time. So how do you know what what you really do have if you haven't done that that analysis yet?

256
01:15:07.120 --> 01:15:23.520
>> That's for the upland portion and we would have to do that before site plan approval. Yes. And for, you know, an existing developed site, you know, I think when I was looking at the aerials, you have some cabbage palms out there, but typically, you know, when we're out there, we look at all the shoreline vegetation, whether there's any nesting

257
01:15:23.520 --> 01:15:40.000
um waiting birds in there. Um particularly um great blue herand love that area and those uh um cabbage palms. Um we didn't see anything like that or you know, osprey nest we look for. Um, so we would have to come back out and re reassess the upland portion of the

258
01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:55.199
property because we didn't really do a formal assessment of the upland portion of the property just to make sure we didn't have any issues like gopher tortoises out there. >> Okay. But if you found something, could it stop the permitting from one of the state agencies if you found something there?

259
01:15:55.199 --> 01:16:10.719
>> Not for gopher tortoises. You still have to get another permit. >> I didn't say just goph for tourists. If you found other species that were there that utilize that shoreline as it is, could it have the potential to stop the permitting through St. J's or the Army Corps?

260
01:16:10.719 --> 01:16:26.159
>> Again, you know, you have to look at like what is reasonably likely. And so when you look at what is reasonably likely, you know, one of the things that I look at when I even was skimming through this is what we call the IPAC site. It's the US Fish and Wildlife Service sites and it states what species are likely to be present in the area and

261
01:16:26.159 --> 01:16:41.280
then we review it for how likely is that to be on this property. To actually stop a project for a listed species, you would have to be within like a boundary of a critical habitat for that species. That species would have to be um

262
01:16:41.280 --> 01:16:57.440
documented on your site or that your site had some unique foraging opportunity for a listed species to come in and utilize. And by removing that foraging opportunity, you effectively um altered their life cycle. And that's the

263
01:16:57.440 --> 01:17:14.080
trigger for listed species. Do does your project substantially harm, harass, or take a listed species? And the harm component would be if you're taking um habitat or forage. This one there is no critical habitat. I can say for sure for listed species on

264
01:17:14.080 --> 01:17:30.400
this property. There's, you know, and we even for the seagrasses, we documented that you're well above the this is the critical habitat zone for uh Johnson seaggrass as well, which is an endangered seaggrass. >> Member FA >> um back to that definition that you gave

265
01:17:30.400 --> 01:17:47.280
us, which was the um water dependent activity. How important is that to this program, >> this project here? >> Yep. Um I don't think water dependent is relevant at all because the the statute

266
01:17:47.280 --> 01:18:02.960
or the future land use code that was uh provided to us said water related >> and so lacking a definition that's where I went to the definition within the submerged land rules which does define what a water related activity is and it says it doesn't have to occur in the

267
01:18:02.960 --> 01:18:19.600
water it h you know it has to occur in it would be in the uplands adjacent to the water it have to support water user in some way. >> Which paragraph is that definition of water related activity? Because in the code it does, paragraph 77 does say

268
01:18:19.600 --> 01:18:35.120
water dependent activity. And it kind of bounces off the uh modified definition that you gave us today, but it's not quite what it says. And so if I may, I'll read what the paragraph 77 says for water dependent activity. Not I can't

269
01:18:35.120 --> 01:18:50.239
find water related activities. Okay. And so what it says here says means an activity which can only be conducted on in over or adjacent to water areas because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereign

270
01:18:50.239 --> 01:19:07.520
submerged lands for transportation, recreation, energy production or transmission or source of water and where the use of the water or sovereign submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. So I can find >> what's that code for specifically? Well,

271
01:19:07.520 --> 01:19:25.840
so this is your stated 1821-00003. >> Okay. >> Yep. So I don't see water related activities in 18.21-003. I do see water dependent activities in that very same. >> Can you continue down the definition and see if water related? >> That is the definition

272
01:19:25.840 --> 01:19:40.480
>> for water related. >> No, there is no water related. >> Let me go back and check my citation on that because we were like scrambling from Thursday. So we might have a miscitation on that. But I did see it. So I will verify that and uh submit something back to you personally.

273
01:19:40.480 --> 01:19:57.360
>> All right. Thank you. Member Troutman. >> Uh yes, I have a question regarding uh the shoreline. Uh are y'all proposing a harden or a living shoreline? >> We were proposing a rock reventment. Typically, you know, you would put a living shoreline in when you had if if

274
01:19:57.360 --> 01:20:13.760
we had opted to put in a bulkhead line. Um bulkhead lines have no, you know, resource value. So a lot of cities and municipalities and and local governments unincorporated areas do require what they call a living shoreline which means that you have to put a revetment in

275
01:20:13.760 --> 01:20:30.080
front of the seaw wall to create habitat for species because you know in between the rock itself you do recruit seagrasses and sav >> I the reason why I bring this up is the D prefers that approach you know they they

276
01:20:30.080 --> 01:20:47.360
heavily really want you to go that way regard prefer that approach if you're using a bulkhead. >> If you're using a bulkhead >> and the projects that I've used, you know, you talk about my experience using bulkheads and back filling is that you use a bulkhead and back fill and we'll let the engineer talk to that when you need more of a foundational

277
01:20:47.360 --> 01:21:03.920
stabilization. You know, you're putting weight on it. >> Okay. Uh to the board, I would just recommend that if y'all do approve, I try and approve maybe with the living shorehead, but that's on y'all. >> Thank you. Honestly, I feel like that would be redundant because a living

278
01:21:03.920 --> 01:21:19.199
shoreline, the difference is the revetment and we're putting the revetment in which provides the habitat value. So to put something in that's contrary to the resource and more expensive doesn't make sense to me. >> Member Jordan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um along the

279
01:21:19.199 --> 01:21:34.800
environmental questions I had earlier, you made a couple of statements. I think I recall correctly. um baffle boxes that have been installed are beneficial to the lagoon's water quality. I think you spoke about baffle box installations.

280
01:21:34.800 --> 01:21:51.520
>> I think I was trying to follow what uh the gentleman beside you was discussing >> with baffle boxes installations >> limited. I mean I don't do a lot of the soil work. uh then you probably wouldn't be familiar that Titusil's public works program has recently installed both

281
01:21:51.520 --> 01:22:08.000
baffle boxes down south of this site uh at a storm water collection outfall from a pipe u and I think it's ah not mcgra but the park they developed I can't remember the road coina coina road extension into US1 there's a whole

282
01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:25.120
development there that was uh predicated on baffle box installations and the baffle boxes are serving the purpose I believe there's another baffle box installed here at the end of Main Street on the inter coastal. Again, my understanding of the benefit of a baffle box is it removes pollutants as a

283
01:22:25.120 --> 01:22:40.480
principal source point intercepts them and tries to mitigate them. Without them, you have a direct runoff as you stated in testimony about your knowledge of the pipe that's outfalls directly in there and affects the lagoon. Is that fair for me to conclude that baffle

284
01:22:40.480 --> 01:22:57.280
boxes are beneficial to the lagoon's quality? And I'm going to let the engineer handle that one because I feel like that that is going to be a question that's dependent on when it's installed. Like if can you retrofit something like of this size to have a baffle box on it? I

285
01:22:57.280 --> 01:23:13.040
don't know that. >> That's fine. So uh the the next question I have regards if well maybe the engineer will speak to that too. in regards to the statement you made that that we need to do this because it's I think that I would just

286
01:23:13.040 --> 01:23:29.600
summarize it a bit. It's already lost. So, let's just give up. That's what I gleaned from. >> Well, I I would kind of rephrase it. It you know, it's already heavily degraded. The impacts proposed are not significant relative to like filling in all their ownership of >> That's a fair assumption, but then

287
01:23:29.600 --> 01:23:44.560
again, you aren't speaking about the environmental issue. I'm asking questions about the benefit of baffle boxes. and you want me to ask the engineer, not yourself, but you want to testify that the water quality is so bad, we really can't improve it. And I was trying to query you on if baffle

288
01:23:44.560 --> 01:24:00.400
boxes have been installed, if in the future baffle boxes were installed, would the water quality potentially improve? You were the environmental expert. I'm asking you >> well I'm saying that I'm not a storm water engineer and I don't know the nuances of the velocities and things and

289
01:24:00.400 --> 01:24:19.480
treatment levels of baffle boxes especially as they relate to pipe pipe diameter >> but I can say that you know are there other meth methods of improving water quality within the in river lagoon. Yes. >> Thank you.

290
01:24:20.320 --> 01:24:44.239
>> Seeing none. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Gerard. Um, regarding what you had asked her about filling in the shoreline. My statement was that there had been buildings on there and that there had been a shoreline that had

291
01:24:44.239 --> 01:24:58.960
eroded and that this was going to stabilize. That was the intent of what I was trying to put forward just as an overall statement. and Ian um Ian asked you can talk about how the shorelines eroded since they purchased it in 2004 from the storms and the hurricanes and things like that.

292
01:24:58.960 --> 01:25:14.400
>> I did understand your introduction. So if the question still remains I will have that question for your expert since now I understand >> that to me is a fact issue and the representative I ask you can answer that question. >> That'd be great. >> Okay. Um and with that do you want to

293
01:25:14.400 --> 01:25:35.760
come up and talk about the the shoreline and the buildings and the pads? I'm sorry. Can you talk to us? >> No, no, no. >> My name is Ian Ask. You represent Tricon Development. Robert Cotty

294
01:25:35.760 --> 01:25:52.639
specifically about the shoreline question that you're asking. All right. Both of the properties, we're talking about the property River Palms one and River Palms 2 to the north. Both of the properties had existing shorelines when we purchased the properties. Both were

295
01:25:52.639 --> 01:26:08.320
severely damaged during the hurricanes around 2010. The northern property had a seaw wall, a hard seaw wall which completely collapsed and failed very badly. That was the shoreline to the north.

296
01:26:08.320 --> 01:26:24.960
That was River Palms One. That shoreline was restored during the river palms one development into a new natural coina shoreline which exists today. The southern property was a coina based shoreline which was also severely

297
01:26:24.960 --> 01:26:42.639
damaged during the same hurricanes. The presence of the seaw wall to the north create additional negative impact on the property to the south especially the northern portion of it. If you go there today, the northern side of the property, River Palms 2, was the most

298
01:26:42.639 --> 01:27:00.719
impacted and eroded by the storms and most of the previous revetment has been washed away. And from the center of the property to the southern end, the coina is still present. So your testimony which was my question

299
01:27:00.719 --> 01:27:18.239
correcting the distance linear to 850 80 feet. Your testimony is that reitment existed prior to your purchase historically on the entire length of that 800 ft linear feet along the inter coastal water where the Indian River Lagoon. That's your testimony. That was

300
01:27:18.239 --> 01:27:33.920
it. >> Yes. And and to the and to the north it was actual seaw wall. And did does your real estate documentation have any evidence to support your statement on the record that there was reitment along the 800 feet of shoreline? We're under >> there has to be there has to be a survey

301
01:27:33.920 --> 01:27:49.120
that was done during that time that would refer uh in any aerial photograph or historical photographs looking at Google Earth and Google maps and even Bard County property appraiser maps that there was reitment along that shoreline.

302
01:27:49.120 --> 01:28:05.600
If there was, it was probably only limited to where in the second question you use terminology buildings existed on the property. The building it appears I think in some of the documents that just recently were submitted as a photograph of what was a real estate office that I

303
01:28:05.600 --> 01:28:21.360
believe may have been a conversion from an old homestead that was there when it was a natural shoreline. But that portion of the property is limited in scale compared to the remainder of the property running south from that old homestead turned into a real estate

304
01:28:21.360 --> 01:28:36.800
office. That's a building on the property, but I don't see any evidence of other buildings, just that one and it's been raised. Do you know where the other buildings were? >> Uh the other building there were buildings to the northern on the northern property. There was a hotel

305
01:28:36.800 --> 01:28:52.960
there. There was three Howard Johnson Hotels and uh amenities building, >> but we're not talking about that. >> I'm not I'm not exactly sure of what was there on the southern property. I know there's a slab now. >> Yeah. >> And there's actually five, if you go to the property now, there's five entrances

306
01:28:52.960 --> 01:29:08.719
cut off US1 going into the property that at one time had to have been driveways. There's not one, there's five. Well, >> so something had to have been there that caused people to come off US1 into that property all the way from the northern

307
01:29:08.719 --> 01:29:25.199
side all the way to the far southern southern side of the property. >> I I understand but you don't have testimony about my questions answer what was the second building. I know of one I agree with there was a building on it but you can't testify to the record or for our evaluation about the other

308
01:29:25.199 --> 01:29:40.320
building or what building it was or when it was there or how intent you don't have any evidence of that. Correct. >> I'm not aware of exactly what it was, but I do recall uh my understanding was there was multiple buildings and there was a existing shoreline,

309
01:29:40.320 --> 01:29:57.440
>> but again your presentation is to tell us what you know, but you really don't know the answer to that question. You think, but you don't know. >> Uh we know that there was a slab there. You can go there today and based off the pre the conditions today, you could see a slab. You could see driveway entrances

310
01:29:57.440 --> 01:30:12.800
going into the property. Is the slab the the concrete areas that are there in the photograph? >> It's there existing today. >> But those two they're in the photograph aerial photograph. You see two concrete areas. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's where you call a slab for a building. >> Yes. Two buildings. >> But you don't know that there was a

311
01:30:12.800 --> 01:30:29.199
building there. >> You can't testify to that. >> I'm I'm a little young for that. But I do know that I've from my understanding there was two buildings there. >> Okay. But the point is we're all under testimony and I'm making clearly sure I get the testimony on the record we evaluate. So the answer is you don't

312
01:30:29.199 --> 01:30:46.000
know if there were buildings there, but you know from the photograph there was a building there that was raised. >> Well, like you just said, there was there's two slabs there >> on the property that appears in the >> photograph and also the evidence of the driveway cuts from US1. I show that

313
01:30:46.000 --> 01:31:01.120
there was multiple entrances to the property probably to separate buildings. >> Could I ask the attorney a question? I think this may be one for you, not the expert and the engineer. >> Sure. driveways that are on the property. The property itself historically has been

314
01:31:01.120 --> 01:31:16.880
owned in different ownerships and over time consolidated into one uniform ownership which started the whole River Palms project. There was one unified ownership. You came in earlier and introduced a disagreement about the separation of ownership. That's for

315
01:31:16.880 --> 01:31:33.120
somebody else to be concerned with. But in the case of multiple property ownerships along federal US federal highway US1 there are multiple driveways. Is it potential that when US1 became a

316
01:31:33.120 --> 01:31:50.159
improved US highway in fourlane which I believe was in the 60s uh that ownerships would have been provided for driveways through the road widening program through DOT as opposed to not providing a driveway to a property owner. It could have been they had a

317
01:31:50.159 --> 01:32:05.920
homestead like the photograph indicates for the real estate office that was there. But having a driveway does not necessarily conclude there was ever any development there. The driveways could have been provided as a a a DOT

318
01:32:05.920 --> 01:32:22.080
regulated access point because they don't want to cut people off. >> No, I I concur. He's just giving you factual basis testimony that he knows, he's aware. Sure. So, >> so what we've concluded is we don't know that there were buildings on the property. We don't know how historical or extent of reitment existed on the

319
01:32:22.080 --> 01:32:39.360
property. There's no testimony so far to consider that. So, >> but but the issue is the 11 criteria of a CUP. It's not what was there and what's altering the shoreline and whether or not it meets the criteria of the CUP. We've gone pretty far a field from that. >> Sure. But the point that I'm making is

320
01:32:39.360 --> 01:32:56.000
that you've made statements for our consideration that I can't find factually supported. >> Well, you've just had testimony which is factually supported. >> I think the testimony was qualified. I think I don't know. He said there are two pads. I know there was one building. I've actually seen surveys of two pads.

321
01:32:56.000 --> 01:33:11.600
But again, >> but tonight we don't have anything for our consideration of record that stipulates, shows, identifies survey data. This building was here. It was built 1960 or 59 or 50. You don't have any of that. >> Again, we have testimony of what he

322
01:33:11.600 --> 01:33:26.000
knows. You can take it for what it's worth as you answer my question. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Now I have Dave Dave Mensel, the engineer of record. I'm going to ask him to give you a little bit of his background and ask you qualify him as an

323
01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:45.760
expert. >> Uh my name is Dave Menzel. My company is Mai Design Build. Uh the company's been in existence in Bvard County since 1985. Um you know, we design and build things.

324
01:33:45.760 --> 01:34:03.440
Um I'm a I'm an I'm a PE. I'm a special inspector and a general contractor. Um, and I'm the engineer of record on this project for the work that we're doing. Um, I'd I'd like to answer a couple of questions that that came up

325
01:34:03.440 --> 01:34:19.600
when you were talking earlier. >> How long you been an engineer? >> Since 1985. We started the company. I've been an engineer since 1975, maybe something like that. >> Have you testified in public hearings as an expert previously? >> Yes. I'd ask me to be qualified as an

326
01:34:19.600 --> 01:34:37.199
expert on this. >> Do we have a motion to qualify as an expert? >> Mr. Fing? >> No, I'm not. >> Make a motion. I move that we accept his testimony as as a as a professional. >> Do we have a second?

327
01:34:37.199 --> 01:34:52.480
>> Let's see. >> I'll second it. >> Um, all in favor? >> Any opposed? >> All right. >> Okay. Yes, I did. What I just handed you is the updated concept plan and the renderings that has one access point into the property that Mr. Mensel has

328
01:34:52.480 --> 01:35:08.639
designed. >> Yeah, there was a change since we we actually got in touch with DOT regarding the entrance and exit. We had a we had a double one an entrance in an entrance out with like an island and they didn't want that. They wanted a single entrance

329
01:35:08.639 --> 01:35:24.960
where they were attached and in out that was 24 ft wide. So that's the change that was made from the previous plans that you may have seen. And uh there is also a fire truck exit uh on the north side of the property

330
01:35:24.960 --> 01:35:40.800
that is necessary because of the travel distance for a firetruck. Um and that was actually the reason we widened the entrance so that we could avoid that. Um but to to answer some of the questions that that came up that I

331
01:35:40.800 --> 01:35:57.440
can answer is the the breezeway came up. The breezeway requirement is 25%. The breezeway the way this is designed is 67.3%. That's the open area that is between the buildings and on the ends. uh the

332
01:35:57.440 --> 01:36:15.360
concurrency we didn't have time to get a you know an approval from the utility department here but the if you take through the department of health if you take the uh equivalent uh residential unit numbers for toilets and sinks and

333
01:36:15.360 --> 01:36:31.840
bathtubs the the the amount of water usage that's required for these two buildings okay is equivalent to about 12 residents three-bedroom residences. So, it's not a large, you know, it doesn't

334
01:36:31.840 --> 01:36:47.119
have a large capacity of of sewage waste that goes out of there. Uh it's just an office building. So, the uh the office building is three stories. It's um the first floor is parking, covered parking

335
01:36:47.119 --> 01:37:03.280
with an elevator and a small lobby. The second floor and the third floor are identical. They have a um a common bathroom, so there won't be any more bathrooms added to the building. Uh building's all concrete.

336
01:37:03.280 --> 01:37:20.800
They uh the floors are just under 7,000 square ft um for each floor. So we got four floors in the two building that are 7,000 square ft. The um the parking is actually when we change the driveways, we got a few more parking spaces. So,

337
01:37:20.800 --> 01:37:38.719
the parking is 124 parking spaces and it's it's enough it's adequate for to meet the requirement for office space in Titusville. Um the compensatory storage, we've done that before. The the bulk of this

338
01:37:38.719 --> 01:37:55.280
project is built on the high ground. Uh the compensatory storage is the uh the area that is primarily to the east of the flood plane line which is at elevation four and the majority of this property is elevation 8 and it drops

339
01:37:55.280 --> 01:38:09.840
pretty quickly. So um I did preliminary numbers but I wasn't uh you know certain that I didn't know that we had to do the final numbers but I can make that work. Okay. I can I I've got that to where

340
01:38:09.840 --> 01:38:28.320
that'll work. Um the u I got the parking the spaces. U um I think that was that was the general comments that I wrote down that you you wanted my expertise on. So I can answer any questions you have of me other than

341
01:38:28.320 --> 01:38:46.000
that. >> Member FA. >> Good evening and thank you for coming tonight. Okay. >> Thank you. So my first question is one of the biggest issues that that I think that's been a been a big question so far, right, is the shoreline. Um, what

342
01:38:46.000 --> 01:39:02.239
does modifying the shoreline provide you versus if you don't modify the shoreline? >> Okay. The the the modification of the shoreline is to give us a setback line that will allow us to build the the buildings because the site is very

343
01:39:02.239 --> 01:39:17.440
narrow. >> Gotcha. And I don't know if you're aware, but Florida statute 18.21 specifically prohibits that kind of action. >> I don't know if you guys know that or not. So that is strictly prohibited in

344
01:39:17.440 --> 01:39:38.400
18.21. And so if you're asking to do something that is not allowed by Florida statute, my question then is what options do we have? Um, leave it where it's at.

345
01:39:38.400 --> 01:39:58.239
>> Thank you, sir. >> Member Rice. Um, compensatory storage. Just talk about that a little bit because you have to do storm water plus you're filling 238 acres of submerged lands. So

346
01:39:58.239 --> 01:40:13.920
you have compensatory storage you have to offset and make up that somewhere on the upland portion. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So how are you going to do that? Because I'm really >> you're going to excavate it out and get it down to an elevation of three. The the flood plan seasonal high water table

347
01:40:13.920 --> 01:40:28.400
because that >> four >> anything below seasonal high water table if you take the soils out you'll get some volume. I get I get I get if I take it from four to three and I take it on each end and turn, you know, on each end

348
01:40:28.400 --> 01:40:43.520
of the property and underneath the parking structures. Okay. I have enough room for the the compensatory storage including the pipes in the the the the retention area is is allowed because it's

349
01:40:43.520 --> 01:40:59.199
>> uh it handles flood. Okay. >> So, are you doing that under the parking area? You said >> under the parking area on each end there's a there's an area of parking that sticks out on the north end and the south end that you drive through the building to get to. >> Okay. That those areas would be

350
01:40:59.199 --> 01:41:14.400
structural that would be a structural parking lot would be open underneath and it would allow the water to flow under it. >> Okay. >> Okay. And it all it's all the the whole area that we're talking about is we're talking about like one foot of water.

351
01:41:14.400 --> 01:41:31.440
the the um the retention areas which are retention tanks in the back that treat the water before it goes into the river. Uh you know the calculations that we that we did actually that we don't expect any of that water to ever leave the tank. It's going to perk down

352
01:41:31.440 --> 01:41:46.960
through the percolation rates out there are very good obviously because it's right by the river. But the the bottom of the for it to perk correctly from the seasonal high water table to the bottom of the soil in those tanks has to be at a minimum of one foot and then you have to have a decent

353
01:41:46.960 --> 01:42:02.320
percolation rate. >> Right. And the mean high water is about zero. It's a little above zero and that it we we're putting it at three. >> It's a seasonal high water table that it'll be predicated on. >> Yeah. But the seasonal high water table is not very it doesn't change very much. >> Have you got a geotech report yet?

354
01:42:02.320 --> 01:42:18.000
>> Uh yes we do. Has staff seen that? >> We use that. What's that? >> Has staff seen the geotech report? >> Uh I we we haven't gotten to that kind of detail. wasn't really required. But we we have done we have done the uh the drainage calculations and the drainage

355
01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:35.119
calculations work with the box that's on that preliminary plan because we wanted to make sure we we met it because we're only allowed to have 30% coverage of a retention area on the on the back side of the um

356
01:42:35.119 --> 01:42:51.360
>> of the property. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Member Gerard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for you're the engineer that's going to answer the couple of questions the environmental representative couldn't. Correct. >> Well, I I don't know that I can, but I'll give it a shot. Okay.

357
01:42:51.360 --> 01:43:07.040
>> We're just trying to get testimony here. So, um, >> when I asked the question about the presentation so far alludes to that this is a lost cause of the shoreline, you know, in bad shape and the inter lagoon's in bad shape. So, we just need

358
01:43:07.040 --> 01:43:22.800
to kind of level out the line and that's what your proposal is to do. So my question was and the degragation of the lagoon is being mitigated in local governments more particularly Titusville with installation of baffle boxes and there have been several I mentioned earlier you probably heard me the ones I

359
01:43:22.800 --> 01:43:38.239
know about are north and south of this site. um the outfall from the drainage culvert to the inner coastal in this case the Indian River Lagoon um could be in the future as it has in the past mitigated with installation of baffle

360
01:43:38.239 --> 01:43:54.880
boxes if that occurred and using the examples where it already has occurred would baffle boxes in your engineering expertise improve the water quality in the area where this water quality is degragated because of the culverts that exist to date

361
01:43:54.880 --> 01:44:10.880
>> okay I'm not very familiar with what a that box is that you're talking about. We >> we we designed the systems, but I will tell you the the pipe that that directly discharges from the DOT >> is in the phase one property. It's not

362
01:44:10.880 --> 01:44:27.199
on this property. Okay. And we're we're building a box directly behind the building to do I think what you're talking about. What it does is it stores the water. It takes all the impurities out of it. drops it down into the bottom of the box cuz the box is open

363
01:44:27.199 --> 01:44:42.639
>> and the water percolates down and then heavy storm goes up and there's a small weir lets the water discharge directly into the river which would basically dump over the edge of the wall and into the coina. >> So it wasn't about your storm water

364
01:44:42.639 --> 01:44:57.840
retention design. It was about the mitigating event of installations that would intercept runoff that currently was stated by the environmentalists as causing a detriment to the shoreline and led to a decrease in vegetation habitat.

365
01:44:57.840 --> 01:45:13.280
And the the the the whole point was the summary I made the presentation is to be it's already lost so why worry about it. But you don't have any real more information to answer. >> No, no. I I just I just know that, you know, when when we're finished with the

366
01:45:13.280 --> 01:45:29.679
the project right now, the project just drains into the river. Okay. What we're going to do is >> from the project right now is from shoreline that's in a natural vegetative state other than some improvements that weren't removed. What was testified, but

367
01:45:29.679 --> 01:45:46.239
not confirmed to be uh concrete improvements. >> Yeah, I I agree. But there's no um leaves and things like that aren't contained. Whereas in the box and in the storage we have any impurities that would not want to be put into the river

368
01:45:46.239 --> 01:46:01.040
will go into the box. >> I fully understand that's that's the nature of on-site mitigation for storm water management in general. That's why they have a rule. But my question was the testimony was we have a degraded system. The vegetation's gone. There's

369
01:46:01.040 --> 01:46:17.520
no endangered species there. the water quality is bad and all this is because we have these coverts that run water into the inter coastal waterway. And my question was, but where baffle boxes have been installed by public services and those baffle boxes installed for

370
01:46:17.520 --> 01:46:35.119
reasons that reason I understand to be intercepting storm water that would otherwise run off and pollute the river or has been recognized as polluted in the river. So we restore it by doing that to mitigate it as well as possible. So the whole point was it's potential as

371
01:46:35.119 --> 01:46:50.080
it has been experienced in the past that the city on its own valition could be working to do that. We have no idea but they certainly have examples where that has been done and that's to prelude that the city doesn't take a larger scale which I think I understood they did with

372
01:46:50.080 --> 01:47:06.320
a stormwater treatment area uh by the old dre where they did a big intercept rather than just a baffle box. So, I'm looking at this from evidence that there are and certainly a forward thinking to improve water quality in the Indian

373
01:47:06.320 --> 01:47:22.560
River Lagoon to do so through improvements that are intended to do it. Counterpoint made is we should just approve this because it's already degraded and it's just evening out the shoreline. >> Well, that's what I glean from. >> Well, I can't answer your question because I I don't I don't know that it's

374
01:47:22.560 --> 01:47:39.600
ruined and it can't come back. That kind of thing. That's her job. >> That's what she testified to. Yes. Okay. But I I can tell you that what what we're doing is in the design that we're we're preparing because we're required to is to clean up the water that is running off into the river that's on the

375
01:47:39.600 --> 01:47:54.239
property. All the water that's on the property will be fed through pipes into a box. It'll stage up with which will allow the impurities in it to to drop down to the bottom and the clean water to dump over the weir that's at the top.

376
01:47:54.239 --> 01:48:10.880
So, that is an improvement on what's there. I can't go any further than that. I don't know what a baffle box is, but you could probably stick a baffle baffle box right next to the weir and dump it in there if that helps even more because the way the calculations work, we don't

377
01:48:10.880 --> 01:48:27.280
expect any water to leave the tank. It's all going to go down through the sand. Okay, >> that part I got. I guess I would ask what you mentioned is that and this goes back to what I spoke about in the regulatory agencies and I asked the attorney that what's before us that you

378
01:48:27.280 --> 01:48:44.239
and the associate uh experts have testified to and represented is you're requesting the city approve a conditional use for shoreline alteration. That's what you're requesting. We've heard that you don't want us to see the plans, that you don't have to submit the plans, but you

379
01:48:44.239 --> 01:48:59.119
submitted the plans and you've shown these to us. But the real issue is the city's regulation on shoreline alteration, which means as I asked and I think got confirmed, without this approval, it doesn't matter what you

380
01:48:59.119 --> 01:49:14.480
would design it to for Army Corps of Engineer or what you would design it to to St. John's you have to get it approved to even begin that design or implementation of the design from the state regulatory agencies. So the reason you're here is to request the shoreline

381
01:49:14.480 --> 01:49:29.840
be altered through the installation of reitment extend the shoreline some number of feet and you testified just a few minutes ago that's in order to meet the setback which you cannot meet unless you improve that shoreline evening out

382
01:49:29.840 --> 01:49:47.360
as it was stated. Is that correct? Do I understand that to be what you're doing? >> That that Yes. I mean, >> that's all I need. >> Okay. >> Sheer, >> I just wanted to clarify your point on 1821. I use that uh the Florida

383
01:49:47.360 --> 01:50:03.679
administrative code for reference for the water related activities definition because I was looking for something in statutes or in the codes to give some kind of guidance on the issue. But 1821 is strictly for sovereign submerged lands which these are not sovereign. And

384
01:50:03.679 --> 01:50:20.960
for the rest of the commission to uh or the council to understand that um by right of statehood or virtue of statehood, Florida owns all sovereign submerged lands below mean high water line. Um they are held in trust by the governor and the cabinet acting as the

385
01:50:20.960 --> 01:50:37.360
internal improvement trust fund for the benefit of all citizens of Florida. So you could not take a private proper project and put that in uh public sovereign lands um without some

386
01:50:37.360 --> 01:50:53.920
extraordinary uh public value because it has to show benefit to the citizens of Florida. These lands were released by the state of Florida to the owner. They are not sovereign and they are not subject to 1821. >> Okay? So definitions matter, words

387
01:50:53.920 --> 01:51:10.560
matter. And so when you say that there is a definition for water related activities and then you site 1821-00003 and then I don't find that definition in your cited reference then I need to see

388
01:51:10.560 --> 01:51:26.159
where you're citing and I will provide that to you >> because otherwise what you're saying is that I that it is correct that that is not private land that is still owned by the state of Florida and so then your whole dissertation that you just said then then becomes is kind of in question. Would you not agree?

389
01:51:26.159 --> 01:51:41.679
>> Uh, no. I don't agree with that because you know the whole point of bringing in the water related activities definition from 1821. >> There is no water related activities in 1821. I'll get you regulated. I I'm just pulled it up. I went to the website and pulled it up. So, I mean, I'm not I'm

390
01:51:41.679 --> 01:51:56.560
not going to argue. I mean, it's it's in there. So, you keep saying water related activities. There is no code saying there is no definition in the Florida guidelines that state water related. that so that's it it's not there

391
01:51:56.560 --> 01:52:11.679
>> okay I will provide the proper citation on that you know we were again this was something that we got Thursday and we've been working diligently trying to pull everything in and we may have a proper improper reference there we will get that proper reference to you for water

392
01:52:11.679 --> 01:52:28.800
related activity the whole point of the reference was to go back to the city code and the language which says shall not have unless it's water related activities and then it has examples you know boats marinas and then it has the

393
01:52:28.800 --> 01:52:47.760
all catchall e etc and so what does etc really mean you know and so that's why I was looking for are there other things besides the ones that are in the rule that you guys could consider as you know a way a reason to allow the fill in the

394
01:52:47.760 --> 01:53:06.000
shoreline and that's where I started looking for other definitions of water related activities because you don't have any definition of water related activity in city code. So I was just trying to give you all some guidelines to say hey here's something you guys can consider. From my perspective etc means

395
01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:22.080
you have you know whatever you feel is your best judgment as a water related activity. >> Okay. So are you familiar with Florida 1821? >> Yes. I don't know the details of the statute off the top of my head. >> No worries. No worries. So where in 1821 that you're citing does it allow to

396
01:53:22.080 --> 01:53:38.400
extend the shoreline to to be able to grow to to to be able to use that growth as a setback where in 1821 does it allow >> nowhere because 1821 is specifically for sovereign submerged lands and there's a different regulatory it's called a

397
01:53:38.400 --> 01:53:55.280
proprietary authorization. So you have to go through for sovereign submerged lands you go through a regulatory authorization which is you have to meet all these technical standards and then there's a proprietary authorization and so for sovereign submerged lands they have all these regulatory standards and

398
01:53:55.280 --> 01:54:10.719
then it's attached with a proprietary authorization here 1821 does not apply because it's not sovereign it's one of a it's an unusual situation in Florida 1821 almost always applies >> so in our packet I've not found anything

399
01:54:10.719 --> 01:54:26.239
that says that you guys own the water. I've seen my report seen lots of regulations. The regulations themselves state that the ownership stops where the water begins >> unless it's been actually titled to a

400
01:54:26.239 --> 01:54:41.360
private entity. And that that does happen. It happened here. Um it happened on Lake Point set. um the owner there was given actual title to Lake Point set and wanted to do a subdivision in you know by putting a wall around that and

401
01:54:41.360 --> 01:54:57.040
um below the ordinary high water line of Lake Point set. So there are places throughout Florida where the state has seated ownership of sovereign lands back to a private individual. And typically if those aren't seated back to the city,

402
01:54:57.040 --> 01:55:12.800
they're the private individuals. But >> so I I agree that there have been times that it has happened I I just don't know if it's been this situation. I think something that can be applied uh provided for either through the attorney or the owner that he has that title

403
01:55:12.800 --> 01:55:27.440
because there was a tit I as soon as I saw it it's such a rare thing I was like everybody thinks they have solvents emerge lands just because the property appraisers map goes out there it's like I own this I own this I'm not I don't have to apply to this and typically the property appraisers map doesn't really

404
01:55:27.440 --> 01:55:44.719
deal with you know the sovereign issue and um so we always are the first one to tell them they don't really own that bottom sorry And very very like I said, it's it's almost never happens where you have the actual state giving away the the private the sovereign land back.

405
01:55:44.719 --> 01:56:00.960
>> Okay. Thank you, >> member Syler. >> Thank you. >> You need anything more from me? >> Maybe a couple questions. The do we have a survey, recent survey, an original survey showing the land loss that you're

406
01:56:00.960 --> 01:56:18.000
looking to prevent? I I have not seen one. I just have a current survey which is this. >> Okay. So, we don't have anything to compare the shoreline to from >> I think I think we could go back through some historical mapping that would be aerial photos that would probably show

407
01:56:18.000 --> 01:56:33.840
the the degradation. Okay. >> We've done that on other projects. >> All right. And then um we mentioned the the north condominium properties. I think it's the same owner and they developed that and they filled in they

408
01:56:33.840 --> 01:56:49.599
put in a a a bulkhead. >> I think that was there. That was that was the wasn't the property on the north with the condos where the Howard Johnson was that actually stuck out further. >> The actual the north side that bulkhead

409
01:56:49.599 --> 01:57:06.239
was uh there from uh pre-existing the ownership by this the current property owners. >> We call it being Yeah. And actually um the project involved uh restoring the seaw wall. >> So you put in uh restored that seaw wall. Did you fill in there?

410
01:57:06.239 --> 01:57:23.440
>> Yes, we did. >> Okay. So and then we talked about how the water now is just billowing up on this project shoreline is the creation and the building of that which was not a natural occurrence. By creating this and

411
01:57:23.440 --> 01:57:38.400
building it back out, it has now caused and changed the the flow of the water. And now because we added and we built in addition, it is now causing problems to the same

412
01:57:38.400 --> 01:57:55.760
person's property, but that was self-induced. >> It was pre-existing. I don't know if it's self-induced because it it it's been there for a while. And we can probably look at the aerials on that and give you an exact exact date when that seaw wall was originally put in. >> But the seaw wall was not there as

413
01:57:55.760 --> 01:58:10.719
man-made. So the seaw wall and and mother nature through the hurricanes and everything else is going to do what what she does and she destroys. So by again building it back up and putting in

414
01:58:10.719 --> 01:58:28.080
condominiums, we've now created this flow that is beating the shore. >> Well, >> and there's no evidence that there was a bulkhead or 800 square ft of of protection there to the middle

415
01:58:28.080 --> 01:58:42.880
properties that they were there was evidence on the northern and the southern, but not in the 800 ft. And now you're asking to create a barrier to protect it when a barrier we don't have evidence that a barrier was actually

416
01:58:42.880 --> 01:59:00.159
there. >> Typically, you know, you don't need an evidence of the barrier was there before to to afford the protection. Now, what what happened historically was that seaw wall was in by rule. You couldn't take a failed seaw wall and and put it back. Um

417
01:59:00.159 --> 01:59:15.199
they would uh as the gentleman said, require a living shoreline. It was considered a maintenance activity um because only sections of the seaw wall were damaged following a hurricane but the structural integrity of the seaw wall was um good at the time of

418
01:59:15.199 --> 01:59:31.119
application for the northern property. So that seaw wall is pre-existing by a long time and all the applicant did and to show intent you know like the state does acknowledge that there is you know some filling allowed to stabilize shorelines. The rule says that you

419
01:59:31.119 --> 01:59:47.119
cannot fill and you cannot repair a sea a seaw wall that is failed. >> Period. So they did go in by rule you're allowed to go in 18 inches in front of the existing seaw wall just from a practical constructibility standpoint and back fill from there. So the only

420
01:59:47.119 --> 02:00:03.360
additional encroachment into the lagoon on the northern side was an additional 18 feet if they took it and I'd have to pull the plans but I think most of the retrofit was done on the existing face of the seaw wall. >> Okay. And so this >> put in 18 inches in front or was it

421
02:00:03.360 --> 02:00:17.920
existing face? >> Either way, the seaw wall was existing long before >> but with without and on this project without the addition of a bulkhead or a seaw wall in the fill this project will

422
02:00:17.920 --> 02:00:35.119
not fit on the site as is. Correct. >> That that's correct. >> So without the approval of something that says that we can't permit because it's not allowed for building purposes you can't fill in to build a

423
02:00:35.119 --> 02:00:51.840
structure on it. That's what we're being asked to do today. Am I understanding this right? >> Correct. >> I I would say yes. that their proposal I earlier mentioned that the testimony is that the engineers testimony was that

424
02:00:51.840 --> 02:01:07.360
the fill allows compliance with the required setback without the fill in this case the revetment extending 26 feet into the inter coastal waterway the Indian river lagoon they can't meet that setback I

425
02:01:07.360 --> 02:01:22.159
think the the real rhetorical question is can a building be built on this property under the conditions it exists in without the reitment proposal which is the shoreline alteration. The attorneys represented this in the beginning gave us all this thing about

426
02:01:22.159 --> 02:01:37.599
depriving property rights and focused on that on page one of the first document. The question still begs can you build a build? We know there was a building. There's been testimony there was there's photographs that support that there was an office building on the property

427
02:01:37.599 --> 02:01:53.679
before and it met the setback or it didn't but it certainly existed. I would think that a building or buildings could be built on this property without having to alter the shoreline and that's what I get out of this. That's what I'm getting the whole request to be.

428
02:01:53.679 --> 02:02:10.000
>> Thank you. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. >> If you don't mind, I just wanted to clarify. uh the river palms one and n the seaw wall was completely removed and a natural shoreline was installed and that natural shoreline is not having any

429
02:02:10.000 --> 02:02:27.360
impacting on the neighboring property. Those impacts were made at the same time that the seaw wall collapsed on the property to the north. So that is a full natural coina shoreline to the north of this property. Just to clarify, I I'm I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I I

430
02:02:27.360 --> 02:02:42.800
you've said this before, but I'm trying to come to grips with a natural coina shoreline like it's a shelf or a cliff, but there's no coina on that shoreline. Now, >> I'm talking about on the property to the north. >> Yes, I understand. But you you allude to

431
02:02:42.800 --> 02:02:59.760
this environmental benefit of a natural shoreline. Coina, I just find it hard to swallow that coina in this part of Titusville is a natural shoreline. I don't think it is. >> That's what it's that's what it's called. That's a part of a natural. >> It's an attempt to create artificially a

432
02:02:59.760 --> 02:03:16.400
natural shoreline, but itself it is an alterated. It's an alteration of the shoreline. >> Reason natural is because it's a natural material. It's not a man-made material. It's not concrete. It's not rebar. >> It's not things like that. This is a natural substance. >> Right. >> So that's why it referred to as a

433
02:03:16.400 --> 02:03:31.920
natural shoreline. >> I understand. >> I just wanted to clarify that it's having no impact on the neighboring properties whatsoever. It it takes all the wave breaks into the rocks and it's completely contained within that. So may I ask you some didn't they test didn't

434
02:03:31.920 --> 02:03:48.320
somebody testify that the water was coming in and it wasing >> at the same time that the seaw wall broke next door? It was the most severe erosion on the property. The sea line broke next door. The property next door rode at the same

435
02:03:48.320 --> 02:04:04.239
time during the hurricanes. I think what happened >> but it was presented this evening that the the north and south were causing the erosion and the beating of the shoreline and now you're telling me that the north

436
02:04:04.239 --> 02:04:19.840
side is not >> that was during the hurricanes. I said that not presently. >> The erosion already occurred and it's not getting any better because of what occurred. >> The what we constructed to the north side is a benefit to all the other

437
02:04:19.840 --> 02:04:36.960
properties. It's not causing any turbulence or anything that's affecting the neighboring properties. That's the same thing we're proposing here. >> The question I was >> and I I need to clarify. Okay. >> I'm sorry. The question I also wanted to follow up then I don't know that you're the applicant represented to answer it. Sounds like you would be in all the

438
02:04:36.960 --> 02:04:52.719
documents I've seen presented as testimony and evidence for consideration. I don't see maybe I mis looked at it, didn't read it right, couldn't read it. Maybe I didn't have my glasses. I had to take them off because I'm getting a headache. There's nothing that illustrates this claim of erosion

439
02:04:52.719 --> 02:05:09.920
on this property. You've testified, everybody has testified about erosion on the property, and we're going to put this revitment in to kind of line up the shoreline, meet the setback requirement. And we're doing this because there's been this erosion. But I don't see any

440
02:05:09.920 --> 02:05:26.719
supporting evidence that the shoreline, if it's eroded, how much erosion over how long a period of time. However, you did just state that there was erosion during a storm event of a hurricane's magnitude or two hurricanes, but nothing says you lost five feet of property or

441
02:05:26.719 --> 02:05:42.560
three trees fell in the river or whatever happens with erosion. >> There's no evidence supporting your claim that there's been erosion here that's before us tonight. Is that correct or not? >> If you go to the property, you can see it for yourself. And like he said earlier, uh there could be historic

442
02:05:42.560 --> 02:05:58.400
surveys that could be compared to the current survey that would reflect that. >> Well, that's the evidence would be helpful if you supported your claim, but right now there's nothing before us. >> Just didn't know to bring that tonight, but we we could probably find something like that. And like I said, if you go to

443
02:05:58.400 --> 02:06:13.920
the property, it's very obvious what's occurred. There's undermining. There's things that are way past the land that you can tell have been eroded. actually >> that where the thing if you walk that shoreline >> actually if I looked at the aerial photographs in history I don't I don't

444
02:06:13.920 --> 02:06:30.800
support what you're claiming I don't see drastic erosion over at least the past 40 years from aerial photographs it looks to be what it has been a skinny piece of land >> well I'm I'm looking at this survey here and and these parking lots that look like to be parking lots coming off the

445
02:06:30.800 --> 02:06:47.119
street don't meet your setback so something had to cause that to erode to reduce the setback from I don't know that the code required the setback in the time in which that was built, but you don't know what was built there and you don't know when that was built, but you're presenting evidence that you just

446
02:06:47.119 --> 02:07:03.840
claimed may answer the question. So, where's the documentation we're supposed to consider that supports your claim right now? >> Let me There's no need in your code for evidence to show how much has eroded. All we have to meet is the criteria of the CUP that says you we should be

447
02:07:03.840 --> 02:07:20.320
allowed to alter the shoreline and we're not creating problems by doing so. The question is up to you if we meet the 11 criterias of the CUP code, not if we're replacing. We're just explaining why we're doing it, that there has been erosion, but there is no need in your code for evidence to show we lost 5t, 10

448
02:07:20.320 --> 02:07:35.840
feet, 15 feet or 25 ft. >> So, so again, rhetorically then that means we shouldn't really consider the testimony about erosion. It's a moot point. It's just explaining the situation. >> I'm good with that. But >> okay, >> member FC,

449
02:07:35.840 --> 02:07:52.159
you know, back on this this whole erosion thing. Um, so what does Florida what is Florida law that covers erosion and when erosion happens that it changes your property boundaries? Is there a law that covers that? >> Again, this is a conditional use permit.

450
02:07:52.159 --> 02:08:06.880
>> Understand? This is a do we meet the 11 criterias to get the conditional use permit for altering the shoreline so the property is usable? >> Okay. So then is altering the shoreline to increase their setback is that authorized in Florida law? I

451
02:08:06.880 --> 02:08:22.800
>> I I'm sure it is. I'm sure if you can get the permits from the state of Florida, from FTP, from St. John's, from Army Corp, is your code. You have to decide if it meets your code. That's up to the attorneys. You have to decide if we meet your 11 criteria. And your staff

452
02:08:22.800 --> 02:08:38.320
report doesn't say we don't. It says it may conflict. It says submerged lands can't be used for intensity or or density. We're not using it for intensity or density. We're using it for setbacks. >> Okay. So, what I'm doing right is I've used whatever um references your

453
02:08:38.320 --> 02:08:54.239
professionals your who we've deemed to be professionals. I've used their references to validate your claims. It's all I've been doing. Okay. So in accordance with 1821, it specifically addresses the use of using shore, excuse me, reventments to increase the

454
02:08:54.239 --> 02:09:11.920
shorelines to meet setbacks. 1821 says that that cannot be done. >> But it's Florida administrative code for sovereign submerged lands. We have a survey that shows we own the submerged lands. >> Great. So back to sovereign submerged lands. So then how do we define or measure or identify sovereign submerged lands? Then that goes back to the

455
02:09:11.920 --> 02:09:29.199
statutory statutory 19-year rule which says that when erosion has occurred, which you guys have been talking about erosion, when erosion has occurred, it moves your boundaries back to the land then and then that land that is now that new after erosion returns back to the state. So I'm only using your arguments

456
02:09:29.199 --> 02:09:45.840
to either validate or challenge, if you will, what what you're saying. And as what you're saying, I don't find any grounds that support what your your position. >> Okay. Well, the eroded land still belongs to the owner because it's part

457
02:09:45.840 --> 02:10:00.960
of their land. So, it doesn't >> it does not. According to statute, again, going back to Florida State Statutes 177.28, it defines what happens when eroded land happens that that land then returns back to the state. I'm reading it here.

458
02:10:00.960 --> 02:10:15.679
>> I know, but that's for sovereign submerged lands. We're not adjacent to sovereign submerged lands. The eroded land is not adjacent to sovereign submerged lands. The sovereign submerged lands is beyond the survey lands. >> Okay, >> that's that's a whole another that's a whole another series of case

459
02:10:15.679 --> 02:10:32.079
law dealing with what happens with lands and accretions and erosions and and things like that. That's not what we're dealing with here. We're we're dealing with land that we own that has been eroded. My client has owned. So Florida administrative code, she was trying to use that to to give you a definition which I agree it's not in Florida

460
02:10:32.079 --> 02:10:47.280
administrative code at least not the current one but there is no definition of Florida of a water dependent uses in your code. >> All right. So help me um what is the Florida code that govern that that governs um sovereign lands? What is it? What

461
02:10:47.280 --> 02:11:03.280
>> I don't know but we're not dealing with sovereign lands here. So it's irrelevant. >> So what are we dealing with? >> We're dealing with property owned by my client. He wants to fill in so he can build on the land. >> Okay. So based on what regulation can I look up to support your claim? >> You have the entire evidence of what we

462
02:11:03.280 --> 02:11:18.800
have to do through permitting to fill in land. You have the evidence of I have to refer back to Florida 18 which then says that we cannot use reventment to increase your setbacks. So I'm asking to support your claim and you're saying well we don't have it. So I Okay, cool.

463
02:11:18.800 --> 02:11:34.400
No problem. I will use what I do have available which is Florida code 1821 >> which doesn't apply because it's sovereign submers man. And you've had an expert qualifies as an expert telling you what would be done to fill in this land which was just done to the condominium to the north. >> Okay. So let's go to the condominium to

464
02:11:34.400 --> 02:11:49.760
the north because the other claim here is that the DA does not apply. Correct. That that earlier you said that the uh >> the development agreement does not >> does not apply because it expired. >> Correct. >> Can you explain to me how the development agreement expired >> by its terms? It had a it had a term limit.

465
02:11:49.760 --> 02:12:05.599
>> Okay. Term limit of what? So >> it had a date. a >> it had a date and it says it terminates on this date and it terminated and you have your planning expert your planning manager said it's expired. >> Okay. So you had said earlier that because according according to the

466
02:12:05.599 --> 02:12:22.880
development agreement that there was an email sent out that stated that the land had changed that you did a quick claim deed, right? And the date of that email was in March >> 2019. >> 2019. All right. So when did the quick claim deed go before that? And then excuse me when was the claim date done

467
02:12:22.880 --> 02:12:37.760
initially and did it happen during the time of the agreement because I don't know this date here and was there prior knowledge before March that you were going to do that because that was according to the agreement >> right again the DA is not at issue here

468
02:12:37.760 --> 02:12:53.360
and not to mention the the city approved the plans for 3.19 acres of a condominium. They knew under condominium law that would have to be deed to the condominium for common elements. They knew they approved it. >> They had to know.

469
02:12:53.360 --> 02:13:10.560
>> So the DA is is at is it's an issue because you mentioned it when you first spoke. You mentioned the the DA. So I'm I'm again I'm only talking about what you what you brought up. Okay. So my question is what was the expiration date of the DA? First question I have. >> I don't have it with me. I have to look it up. >> So we don't know when the D expired.

470
02:13:10.560 --> 02:13:26.400
>> I'm sure Mr. Severs will know. >> And then did that DA excuse me. Did the transfer that did the quick claim deed transfer happened prior to the expiration of the DA? >> Likely. >> Okay. So then was there a conversation made prior to the expiration of the DA before the quick claim deed went out?

471
02:13:26.400 --> 02:13:42.960
Then the email goes out saying that we've done that because that would be in accordance with the with the development agreement that was made. So were the terms of the development agreement um kept in good faith? That's my question. >> There's been no lawsuit about the DA. It's irrelevant. It's expired. any issue

472
02:13:42.960 --> 02:13:57.520
about the DA now is statute of limitations has run challenged it. >> Well, I have not challenged it. >> I'm asking the question today. >> No. >> U because it's part of your it's part of your whole thing here is that the DA is a part of this whole thing. So if you didn't bring it up, I wouldn't even know

473
02:13:57.520 --> 02:14:15.040
it existed. And then so thereby goes, if you didn't bring it up, I didn't know whether or not somebody upheld the end of the bargain part of that DA because it looks like kind of like an endound if if you know if I may say so, right? that that this happened after the excuse me, there was a date of expiration. You did

474
02:14:15.040 --> 02:14:30.639
the quick claim deed before the expiration of the of the DA which you can't tell me when it is when it was. I don't know when. And then later on, months later, then you do this application and then and then now here we are. Because with the DA being active and being enforced, this whole development can't be gone anyway because

475
02:14:30.639 --> 02:14:46.239
you've already agreed to not develop this land. So, if in the DA there's an agreement to not develop this land without prior city approval >> and then you do it anyway, now we're looking. So, I'm just trying to get this whole this whole puzzle piece put together developed

476
02:14:46.239 --> 02:15:01.280
>> and I need your help. No, no. On this parcel is not >> correct. >> This parcel was originally part of the other parcel. >> Correct. >> Okay. And a part of that DA that you guys would not develop this southern parcel without prior prior prior city approval

477
02:15:01.280 --> 02:15:17.920
>> before therefore. Okay. So, the DA is germanine to this conversation. >> No, it's not. I brought it up because it was in the record of the city and it had been brought up by Mr. Severs in his two manifestos to the city. I do not believe it's Germaine. I just wanted to give you

478
02:15:17.920 --> 02:15:36.320
the history of this property. >> Okay. >> Member Gard. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You made a statement that puzzles me just a few minutes ago and I'll have a question. And I think you're going to be the representative answering these. I hope I got the right one. Um, you you you made

479
02:15:36.320 --> 02:15:53.840
a comment about the River Palms condominium and the ownership being separated and early on you said because the building official accepted a description that obtained a building permit. I I did think I heard you say that, didn't I? >> That's correct. >> Okay. You were just speaking about a

480
02:15:53.840 --> 02:16:09.520
relationship between this agreement that you indicate your opinion is it's it's it's null and void because the planning manager, Mr. the planning the community development director, Mr. Parish, determined that it was void. But the

481
02:16:09.520 --> 02:16:26.239
agreement when it was in effect and you said I think the word you used was the city should have known that this got separated because they issued a building permit. The agreement wasn't with the building official. It was with the city of Titusville. And your party to it when

482
02:16:26.239 --> 02:16:41.920
it was in effect would be incumbent on you to alert the city that you were creating that condominium tip fall and that it was time to separate the ownership which would have been compliant with that requirement as opposed to I suppose the building

483
02:16:41.920 --> 02:16:58.319
official saw the building permit so that meant the city knew it happened. Wouldn't you think that an agreement with the city, as important as that one was, would be incumbent on you representing your client to advise the city, you've reached maturation of the condo. We're going to turn ownership

484
02:16:58.319 --> 02:17:14.080
over to it as opposed to I got a building permit. It was a legal description that separated. So, >> it's it's my opin opinion. The city knew exactly what what was being done. They were on notice from the community development director, Peggy Busaka, >> to the city manager. Everybody knew was on notice. There's no document where you would have

485
02:17:14.080 --> 02:17:29.120
>> it's all in the records >> would have >> all in the city records they were on notice >> there you're stating that there's a record where I'm asking did you directly advise the city of the separation of property or do you testify you

486
02:17:29.120 --> 02:17:45.920
representing your client that this was a de facto acceptance that therefore the city accepted no one actually did the real step which is say city of Titusville we are separating the ownership >> I think it's constructive notice I I constructed notice. I understand. Thank you for answering my question.

487
02:17:45.920 --> 02:18:02.719
>> Member Graham. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we we've talked about a lot of the items tonight and uh this uh this DA is a big one. I hope you can understand. Um we didn't get all the information for this

488
02:18:02.719 --> 02:18:19.040
until earlier today. It's a lot of information to digest. Um I think that's been a common denominator here. what I think everybody feels and and with that you guys are asking for us to vote on

489
02:18:19.040 --> 02:18:34.880
something that we haven't yet absorbed uh both sides what's right and what's wrong and so I think you see where a lot of questions have come from it's because we're trying to figure it out as we go along as well and I hope you you can see

490
02:18:34.880 --> 02:18:50.639
the pace we're not saying it's a bad project or any of that but it is a lot to absorb And especially when we're talking maybe had it three hours really to to deal with it where a young lady over there says, "Well, it's short time.

491
02:18:50.639 --> 02:19:05.760
We had it since last Thursday." We haven't had it a day yet. >> So, I hope you uh can see a little bit of confusion on our part, too. >> I didn't realize that, sir. I assumed you got it on Thursday as well. And and if we need if you all need need more time, we're happy to postpone this for a

492
02:19:05.760 --> 02:19:23.679
month if that would be palatable to you. if that's what you would like, if you'd like to absorb it. If you'd like to take testimony and then continue it, that would be understandable as well. >> Thank you. I'll leave the rest up to the committee to digest it. So,

493
02:19:23.679 --> 02:28:50.600
>> thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm going to ask for a fivem minute recess if that's okay. >> Thank you. First card. >> Angelo Langling.

494
02:28:52.399 --> 02:29:09.920
>> Good evening. Angelo Lang, I was gonna speak. Mike. Yeah. Sorry. I sent out an email, so I'm gonna kind of like I know everyone got the email, so I won't even reread the email. I'm assuming to cut time down on that, but I

495
02:29:09.920 --> 02:29:24.720
think a lot of the stuff you already went over. You were talking about uh baffle boxes. I know what they are. I mean, I I don't understand. Maybe different type of engineer, but engineers know what a baffle box and how good it is and what it does. But we have

496
02:29:24.720 --> 02:29:40.560
in our condo from 1805, we have retent dry retention ponds which I'm sure you know about. I won't even go go into that. They do work. They're limited in use. You know that there's a weir that dumps a lot of the water out into the water on high level which you all know.

497
02:29:40.560 --> 02:29:57.680
Um so pretty much the same thing is being permitted or they're trying to permit as part of the uh building over there. So they do work, but I'm not real a real real big fan of those because they do dump some water into and it's always the overflow on the weir. There's no filter there. There's nothing. So,

498
02:29:57.680 --> 02:30:13.439
you know, nitrates can go in there and so forth. So, that's one aspect. The traffic safety is another aspect. It's right next to a high school. I mean, it will increase the volume. I'm sure I'm sure they give you a traffic study, but I heard they gave it to you tonight, which wasn't able to study that, but I'm

499
02:30:13.439 --> 02:30:30.080
sure you are able to study it. So, it's going to increase the traffic flow. We already had accidents out there. And you talked about the uh litigate. I think the um the part where it was uh I think the engineer said 124 parking spots. They needs they need 100 and I think it

500
02:30:30.080 --> 02:30:49.280
was 148, but they were talking about they really don't need that. That went back and forth. I don't know where it stands on that. Um but that's another aspect of it after they're building. Why can't they just build a smaller building as mine? Why they have to add such a big

501
02:30:49.280 --> 02:31:05.920
building um for the cove the filling? We all know you're filling in you're affecting the habitat over there. I've seen the habitat might be birds and so forth. We have manties over there. Not that particular area, but out next to our um retention area, we have manties

502
02:31:05.920 --> 02:31:22.000
that stay on the freshwater pipes that come in from the the storm water. Um so that's it. I just want to um Titusville is historic and um it has beautiful shorelines and hopefully the committee can vote to save

503
02:31:22.000 --> 02:31:43.680
that because I think some buildings are allowed but some buildings should just be put elsewhere and that's pretty much all I have to say. Thank you. K St. An >> K St. Anland Avenue. The Indian River Lagoon is one of 28 estuaras designated

504
02:31:43.680 --> 02:31:59.680
by Congress as an estuary of national significance and as such is protected under the US Environmental Protection Agency. The lagoon is not a lost cause as it generates an annual economic

505
02:31:59.680 --> 02:32:17.280
impact of 28.3 billion dollar annually across the 7ount region. Indeed, the lagoon is hugely significant to our community. To prove my point, the city has built 14 baffle

506
02:32:17.280 --> 02:32:32.720
boxes at $500,000 a piece to reduce the pollutants going into the Indian River Lagoon. And they have to be vacuumed out periodically at great expense, not like this

507
02:32:32.720 --> 02:32:48.399
gentleman's. This EUP would be inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan which seeks to preserve, restore, and enhance coastal resources to asssure that future ecological benefit while maintaining and upgrading the quality of the Indian

508
02:32:48.399 --> 02:33:06.080
River Lagoon. The city's shoreline includes natural resources which shall be preserved from encroachment and development. The comp plan seeks to protect rivers, estuaries, and the coastline from environmentally destructive alterations.

509
02:33:06.080 --> 02:33:20.960
The Indian River Lagoon Council indicates res quote, "Restoring health to the Indian River Lagoon requires every level of government, every agency, every county, every city, and every

510
02:33:20.960 --> 02:33:37.040
citizen. No single effort can sustain it without shared responsibility and commitment. That's what I'm asking of you tonight. Recommend denial of the CUP as the lagoon should be protected from

511
02:33:37.040 --> 02:34:02.319
environmentally destructive alterations as per the comprehensive plan. Thank you very much, Thomas Perez. Good evening. Thomas Perez, Washington Avenue. Uh, the alteration of the shoreline with

512
02:34:02.319 --> 02:34:19.840
Phil in order to create new land uh to accommodate development is inconsistent with current policy. Current policy states, quote, "Submerged lands within the Indian River Lagoon shall only be utilized for water related

513
02:34:19.840 --> 02:34:37.600
development, marinas, docks, boat ramps, etc., and only after a review and permitting by the appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies. Submerged lands within the Indian River Lagoon should not be utilized for any land use,

514
02:34:37.600 --> 02:34:57.840
density, or intensity." uh staff. Well, the request is inconsistency inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and land development for development purposes. This should never be considered.

515
02:34:57.840 --> 02:35:15.280
Okay? It's just not in our plan. It's not allowed. We need to divorce ourselves from past practices of filling in portions of the lagoon. The lagoon belongs to everyone. It should not be encroached for the

516
02:35:15.280 --> 02:35:31.840
individual interests. No seaggrass at this site as a criterion. Uh is also something that um shouldn't be considered. Lack of seaggrass is not the expected normal for

517
02:35:31.840 --> 02:36:58.319
the lagoon and it's not appropriate to make it a a criterion for development. Any encroachment on the river is not in the public interest. Thank you. Dwight Severs. Before I get started, I want to make

518
02:36:58.319 --> 02:37:15.520
sure that certain documents are in the record in this proceeding. First of all, all of you, I think, received my letter of May 19th, 2026, as well as the request for production. I want to ensure those are a part of the record. And as I took the oath, I would

519
02:37:15.520 --> 02:37:31.280
attest those are true and correct based upon my my knowledge and review of records as such. In addition, in the documents you have before you, I provided a revised sketch exhibit one. I

520
02:37:31.280 --> 02:37:47.200
made two corrections with it. There was a mistake I found on the property appraisers records. They uh made a mistake on one of the dimensions. They said it was 379 ft on what I have referred to in the drawing

521
02:37:47.200 --> 02:38:02.960
as the Manzo property. It's actually 397 according to the survey. In addition, I included in there the density that's on the Howard Johnson sites. There's 3.17

522
02:38:02.960 --> 02:38:17.920
acres or 3.19. I've heard two different numbers. uh which is 31.5 units per acre on the hire Johnson site. So that's in the record. I included a

523
02:38:17.920 --> 02:38:35.840
unity of title deed which is marked as exhibit um 2B in the document. The property owner deliberately wanted this 11.52 acres in one track. So he

524
02:38:35.840 --> 02:38:53.359
recorded a unity of title and he did that in 2005. I've included the PNC minutes of July 22nd which is exhibit 5E. I've included in exhibit 4D Peggy Busaka's letter and I

525
02:38:53.359 --> 02:39:09.040
made a public records request. There was a one response and there was another response by Peggy Busaka to the email. So I want to make sure you have that information as to what she said, what the engineer said on behalf of the

526
02:39:09.040 --> 02:39:24.720
developer and what her response was. You need to see that. In addition, I included in a separate exhibit, paragraph 11, exhibit 5, an excerpt out of the development agreement, which goes to the very provision that says, if you

527
02:39:24.720 --> 02:39:41.439
want to develop this in phases, thou shall develop it and keep it in compliance with the land development regulations. And you have to have the city's approval. It doesn't delegate to the building official or anybody else the

528
02:39:41.439 --> 02:39:58.000
authority to do that. Follow the agreement. In addition, I included the permit that was issued on March the 26, 2019 as requested by River Landings Hotel. I

529
02:39:58.000 --> 02:40:17.359
included a couple of filings of River I would request more time. I haven't really got to my presentation because I want to make sure the documents are in the record. >> I'd like to grant an extra three minutes if that's appropriate or five minutes if

530
02:40:17.359 --> 02:40:37.200
it's necessary. >> Can get a voice vote on that. >> The 2019 filings of River Landing showing the Maurice Kodsky and Robert Kodsky. There's con conversation about the transfer of property to river palms

531
02:40:37.200 --> 02:40:53.520
refront development too. They're the same individuals. So there's no BFP for value without notice or anything. We're all dealing with the Kodskys is who we're dealing with. Turning to what I'd like to say simply

532
02:40:53.520 --> 02:41:09.200
is my suggestion initially was to table this item because I do not feel as though it's appropriate for this applicant to submit this application. There was a never request by them. I find it interesting that council would

533
02:41:09.200 --> 02:41:26.399
suggest that the building official somehow consented or approved to a transfer when he has no authority to do that. In addition, she said it incurred in April 2019. It didn't occur in April 2000. Yeah, I

534
02:41:26.399 --> 02:41:42.479
given you the documents. It occurred in October. I think it's October 2nd or 6, 2019. you have the documents in front of you as to when that occurred. So clearly uh there was no request. Yes, the

535
02:41:42.479 --> 02:42:00.720
agreement expired on April the 6, 2019 according to its terms and as such just as a little background so you can understand what occurred here. As you know, I was the city attorney at that time, been the was the city

536
02:42:00.720 --> 02:42:16.319
attorney for 40 years, very familiar with certain things. I was heavily involved in the 2000 bond issue for $10 million to buy riverfront property to save riverfront property and preserve the view of riverfront

537
02:42:16.319 --> 02:42:31.920
property. In addition, I started purchasing property when the first purch was with Mr. Rio del Soul which is across from Ellen Sito. We paid several million dollars to acquire that. It involves submerged

538
02:42:31.920 --> 02:42:48.240
lands as well. In addition in 2005 6 and 7 there was a strong desire by the council and the public to continue to protect and preserve riverfront property. And that's one of the things through the development agreement as you

539
02:42:48.240 --> 02:43:08.160
may see and and observe is that one of the exhibits I have for you and I'd like to briefly touch upon it is this document which is 1A. They wanted the entire property in one

540
02:43:08.160 --> 02:43:23.040
ownership. They developed this with 100 units on this entire property. We agreed ultimately through negotiation 125 units. If they were just developing the upland plans of the entire property,

541
02:43:23.040 --> 02:43:44.080
they could only have 76 units. They they have uh they put a 100 units here. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing the beep. So I guess if to consider the information being provided we extend Mr. Severs another five minutes. >> Okay. Is there a second?

542
02:43:44.080 --> 02:44:00.160
>> All right. All in favor? >> I with regard to this property as such as I've said the Howard Johnson they built on is 31.5 units per acre.

543
02:44:00.160 --> 02:44:16.319
That is in violation of the comprehensive plan if that's solely what's there. They've created a new project which is a nonconforming project because they didn't include some of the other land as a part of it.

544
02:44:16.319 --> 02:44:34.240
They agreed that the density overall was 10 units per acre over the entire tract because you you divide 10 11.52 by uh 125 that's what you get. But if you're talking about if and that would

545
02:44:34.240 --> 02:44:52.160
encompass at least this track should have been a part of that track. Clearly that's what they agreed to. Honor your agreements as such. I'll answer the question on the manso track. This was a putt putt golf course.

546
02:44:52.160 --> 02:45:08.240
They poured some slabs, put some snack bar buildings on it and that's what it was many years ago. I visited it. So I'm very familiar and obviously the divorce realy there was a building almost on US1

547
02:45:08.240 --> 02:45:24.800
where divorce realy was that was what uh what what in fact was there on this diagram I'm just reflecting to you at the 10 units per acre for 100 units it takes up all of that at

548
02:45:24.800 --> 02:45:42.640
15 units per acre by the code it takes up at least that why are we permitting and allowing ing someone to create a nonconforming use by transferring a deed. They agreed to this

549
02:45:42.640 --> 02:46:00.000
as a part of their agreement. The city will agree to allow the project to development phases if the developer elects to place the phases in separate ownership. The transfer in ownership is subject to city's review and approval that the separate ownership will provide

550
02:46:00.000 --> 02:46:19.120
that this development of this project is in compliance with the development agreement and the land development regulations. There is no way this complies with the D land development regulation. It doesn't comply with the breezeway requirement of

551
02:46:19.120 --> 02:46:36.160
25%. I feel somewhat sorry for the residents there. If their insurance company learned that this is a nonconforming project, what are the consequences for them? The developer should be required to keep

552
02:46:36.160 --> 02:46:51.600
his word and honor his word rather than trying to slip something by which is frankly what occurring. If the agreement has expired as of the effective date of the agreement, April

553
02:46:51.600 --> 02:47:06.720
two 2019, then the land was in not in this new owner. It was in River uh Landing Hotel, Inc. from the city's records, that's the way

554
02:47:06.720 --> 02:47:24.000
it should be reviewed and viewed today. So, I would respectfully urge Either you table the item until they get their act together and comply with what they said they would do

555
02:47:24.000 --> 02:47:41.439
or alternatively deny it and add this in addition to not meeting the 10 15 or criteria add this as a part of grounds for denial. Be happy to answer any questions if you

556
02:47:41.439 --> 02:47:59.600
have any. So, Mr. Severs, so just so that I have this Yes, sir. >> understand this correctly and I want to make sure that those in the audience and those that are viewing can see what we're talking about. >> So, what you're saying is that this piece of land, which is where those two condominiums are across the street from

557
02:47:59.600 --> 02:48:15.439
Titusville High School, >> they were supposed to be three up to 4,000, >> okay, >> square feet, but they're not that. >> All right. It's connected to that vacant land just south of Titusville, which is this shaded area and that clear area. >> Yes. >> And then based on the totality of the

558
02:48:15.439 --> 02:48:31.120
entire area, they were able to build the 100 units here. >> Yes. >> Because of the totality of the area. >> Yes. >> Now that it's built and the agreement has been expired, they're saying that we're going to now build on this other

559
02:48:31.120 --> 02:48:49.439
piece that we used that um density for this piece. Yes. >> Which is against the agreement that they originally agreed upon. >> Well, also you see the yellow area. >> Yes. The Yes, >> there was supposed to be a south entrance. Why the building official didn't require Matt? Mr. Rice was well

560
02:48:49.439 --> 02:49:06.479
familiar on a previous PNZ meeting about that as well as have the property retention was supposed to be right there. The surface growth properties. The reason why this was so important, which is 400 feet out of the 800 feet,

561
02:49:06.479 --> 02:49:22.160
was because we in negotiating this were trying to preserve the view of the river. >> Okay. >> Which was mandated by the citizens and council of Titusville. >> H Okay. >> Now, we're going to suggest to have a

562
02:49:22.160 --> 02:49:38.560
building right there. >> All righty. And so this this top piece here >> Yes, sir. >> actually extends into the water. Yes. >> So this is unbuildable land. >> Correct. >> That they're using to use that to increase their density on this other piece here.

563
02:49:38.560 --> 02:49:55.600
>> Correct. Which which we negotiated because there was some confusion as to whether submerged lands could be counted in residential density. There was a compromise at that time and the developers agreement was entered into and

564
02:49:55.600 --> 02:50:12.000
compromised as I said the uplands 5.05 acres could only allow 76 units on it per the code. >> Uplands being this area here not including the submerged lands. >> Correct. >> All right. And last question I have is

565
02:50:12.000 --> 02:50:29.120
that the same owner that owns the green shaded area also owns this which is also the person that entered into the original agreement. >> Yes, it was all they deliberately put it. They didn't want them in separate parcels because they wanted to claim the

566
02:50:29.120 --> 02:50:44.960
right to use the submerged lands over here in this property to build over here. Right? >> So then they deliberately excluded it. So they're using this again submerged lands for density reasons on both properties. They're the one that they've

567
02:50:44.960 --> 02:51:01.279
already built on >> and they want to use the same submerged lands for density on this other parcel here. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Sever. >> Member Rice. >> Just refresh my memory a little bit. I know

568
02:51:01.279 --> 02:51:18.000
that the Bert Harris claim that settlement with that Bert Harris claim when you consider all the property what was the maximum density considering all the property that the applicant owns what was the maximum density allowed under that settlement

569
02:51:18.000 --> 02:51:34.560
>> under the Burge Harris claim they claim they were entitled to $5,460,000 because of the reduction in density and not allowing owing this merged lands. They claimed, you can see it in their

570
02:51:34.560 --> 02:51:54.000
letter, which is in the documentation, they could build 198 units. Okay. >> It was a compromise, >> but the settlement included how how many units could they build completely? >> Yes. 125. They built 100. They could

571
02:51:54.000 --> 02:52:10.080
have built 25 on the south end. >> Okay. So the only left according to this >> and there would be I I thought there was going to be one entrance to the south right >> on the south side of what they built. You recall? >> I recall there was one on the north that

572
02:52:10.080 --> 02:52:26.000
never got constructed also next to the the condos. >> I do recall that. >> Okay. >> Member Gerard. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. receivers using your experience 40 years as a city attorney and working through this

573
02:52:26.000 --> 02:52:43.600
creation of the development agreement. Um I've got I think two questions. The first is uh you just mentioned an important topic and we've had discussions along this line on other projects and other discussions related to creation of nonconformities.

574
02:52:43.600 --> 02:52:58.960
So if I understood what you said is at the time of the implementation of the development agreement, the property conformed and was consistent with the comprehensive plan and that created the development that exists today 100 units

575
02:52:58.960 --> 02:53:15.200
at the River Palms one project >> in the let me just say at the time of the agreement there was a dilapidated Howard Johnson's which we had severe problems with with migrants and people

576
02:53:15.200 --> 02:53:31.520
breaking in there. >> Yes. I I I read I read that agreement to understand raising the building on the second extension. The first extension was to raise the building was get more time and raise the building. But my question is more critical what you mentioned about the subsequent heirs to

577
02:53:31.520 --> 02:53:46.880
the original ownership the condominium known as River Palms that exist today as a nonconforming use of the zoning district and an inconsistent density of the comprehensive plan. You you mentioned that in your presentation.

578
02:53:46.880 --> 02:54:04.479
>> The maximum density allowed in the comprehensive plan and I've given you a copy of that is 20 units per acre. the ordinary you are allowed 15. If you meet system certain criteria as a conditional use, you can add to that by five units.

579
02:54:04.479 --> 02:54:19.840
A >> and the question begs that in that uh I think it was in the original development agreement as well as the first amendment. There were a a couple of very important clauses and one of those it stipulated that if it became invalid,

580
02:54:19.840 --> 02:54:39.600
voided, nullified that those properties currently developed would become non-conforming uses inconsistent with the comprehens. So when you were the city attorney and this document got created, the development agreement, would that

581
02:54:39.600 --> 02:54:56.160
document have been uh as part of due diligence provided to all the subsequent heirs, all the condominium unit owners when they purchased so that they knew that upon an invalidation of that their possession of

582
02:54:56.160 --> 02:55:12.640
property as a non-conforming use is affected. in the title search the uh the agreement would show up whether or not a title examiner thought there was any significance they may said well it's expired I'm not looking at it I don't

583
02:55:12.640 --> 02:55:28.319
care what it says I don't know >> but it's recorded upon the public records >> okay so point being is that one assumes all the condominium owners know that that determination that this is invalid has rendered them as nonconformities and

584
02:55:28.319 --> 02:55:45.680
inconsistencies things like that. >> My my simple concern is in 2000 uh whenever the CO was issued 2020 2021 you have 31.5 units per acre

585
02:55:45.680 --> 02:56:02.800
on 3.17 or 3.19 acres and that's not allowed by the code. The consolidation of density on the track developed as river palms is what's non-conforming and inconsistent because of that density as a separate piece of

586
02:56:02.800 --> 02:56:17.279
land. It's not the same piece of land. It's not as big. >> And and I assume if it was handled properly by what the agreement said, you're supposed to make a request to have a phase.

587
02:56:17.279 --> 02:56:35.200
If they would review it as to compliance with the code, compliance with the comprehensive plan, you're amending the CUP. It would be a public hearing process. The city is the one that entered into this agreement after public hearing, not

588
02:56:35.200 --> 02:56:52.640
the building official or the development director. >> The city earlier I mentioned, but I guess my the thrust of my question is not your participation in the creation. It's what has created a nonconformity, an inconsistency, which is part of our

589
02:56:52.640 --> 02:57:08.319
presentation material that was in there. The document said it's not to be considered uh relevant to the request because this piece of land is now non-conforming based on the agreement. My question is reconstituting the property. If this was what we were

590
02:57:08.319 --> 02:57:23.040
hearing, a request phase two, as you referenced it, if this was a crest inclusive of all the land whereby the request was evaluated on its improvements, it could have been 25 more dwelling units. I think is what you

591
02:57:23.040 --> 02:57:39.920
stated. It could be 25 more units, but it would all be part of a plan consolidating all the ownership so that compliance and consistency and conformity remained as opposed to creation of nonconformities and inconsistencies with the plan by I don't

592
02:57:39.920 --> 02:57:56.720
know how you say it. I guess it's like the proverb robbing Peter to pay Paul. We took this property and measured it to that, increased its density, and now we're going to walk away from it and let it flounder as a nonconformity. I mean that that to me is kind of an odd circumstance actually a new project

593
02:57:56.720 --> 02:58:12.399
that's been >> I I agree. I agree. >> I just kind of concerned whether these as public notice goes I'm sure the residents of the condo will understand and from gleaning more information from this information we get tonight and other meetings come to understand what

594
02:58:12.399 --> 02:58:29.359
that means to them if that's the case. Conversely, if it were to be presented as a constitution of all the lands, as his original development agreement did, you could develop this property in concert with the rules and regulations in effect today with allowing the

595
02:58:29.359 --> 02:58:58.960
properties that exist as river ponds remaining conforming as opposed to cutting them off and saying, "See you later." >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And that's what should have happened. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. Lori Severs. I'm Lori Severs. I live on Riverside

596
02:58:58.960 --> 02:59:14.720
Drive about three blocks north of this project. I would just encourage everybody and just from the questions that I've heard from you tonight, it's obvious that you

597
02:59:14.720 --> 02:59:30.319
are prepared and reading the material. Please read what Dwight has prepared. You wouldn't believe the state of our office right now. He has been working on this for days and days and it's very important that everybody understand

598
02:59:30.319 --> 02:59:47.000
what's going on. I just want to speak to the filling in of a portion of the river because we live on the river. We see the condition and we've been there 23 years in July. We have seen

599
02:59:47.120 --> 03:00:03.680
forests of seaggrass disappear. Um we live at the Grace Street um lift station and we know that any water that comes out of there has

600
03:00:03.680 --> 03:00:20.160
definitely had an impact on the health of the river. And so we've seen such a decline um in the state of the river, the disappearance of different kinds of fish, the blue crabs that used to be there. I know you've heard all of this before,

601
03:00:20.160 --> 03:00:37.520
but the river is coming back and the filling in of the river to the north of us is not going to help that situation at all. I don't understand how a person can say that by putting a revetment there that that's going to

602
03:00:37.520 --> 03:00:53.680
help improve the condition of the river and also by building a building there that would have um certainly have some kind of uh pollutants running into the river even though they claim they will have some kind of a box to collect all

603
03:00:53.680 --> 03:01:10.880
of that water. we get a storm like we had last October, 500year storm, where is that water going to go? It's going to flow right out of that thing into the river with all of its pollutants and whatever.

604
03:01:10.880 --> 03:01:26.960
So, it I don't understand either how with these pollutants in the water, they're not going to stay there. It moves up and down the river. Water flows. I mean honestly it's kind of a ridiculous concept when you think about

605
03:01:26.960 --> 03:01:43.200
it. So I would just en encourage everyone to take this very seriously. It's a a serious issue facing the people who live on the river and the creatures that live there as well. And thank you for your time.

606
03:01:43.200 --> 03:02:10.160
>> Thank you >> Doug Stewart. Jay Peters. >> I'm Jay Peters. I live in River Palms and quite frankly I'm really concerned about what we just discovered about presented as an owner of our complex. We

607
03:02:10.160 --> 03:02:26.560
had no idea this is going on. Um I would recommend if that is the case splitting up the lot that the land is gifted back to us because if we're not conformant that's a huge issue. I grossly deny or the the there are dolphins, there are

608
03:02:26.560 --> 03:02:43.600
manatees, there there's a lot of activity in that cove. There is no erosion. Our dining room faces that parking lot in that area. We've been there three years. There is absolutely no erosion. And there's a lot of confusion from what the presentation

609
03:02:43.600 --> 03:02:59.359
was. one minute they're saying that the our our um retention wall is causing erosion to the lot and then there's then it's not there's a lot of confusion with the presentation. So I I highly suggest that you deny this. Thank you.

610
03:02:59.359 --> 03:03:14.560
>> Thank you. Great. >> We have a question. >> No, I don't have a question. former statements just to let you know the whole problem with non-conforming uses, okay, especially in residential is that if your building is destroyed more

611
03:03:14.560 --> 03:03:30.800
than 51%, you can't rebuild it, okay? You have to comply with the current code, >> right? >> And that's that's the problem with non-conforming uses or you need to get a variance to do that, but I don't think you can vary density. Quite frankly, I don't

612
03:03:30.800 --> 03:03:46.800
think that's allowed. So, but the the complex was built based on the whole land, the two phases for that. >> So, you don't want to have a non-conforming use on the piece of property. That's what you try not to design to, you know, or have >> because doesn't that present a liability

613
03:03:46.800 --> 03:04:03.040
for us as owners of River Palms? >> I mean, in essence, >> it's long term. It could be a liability. >> Yeah, that's that's a huge problem. I mean, I think you guys need to really consider that. And again, my suggestion is they donate the land to our complex. Thank you. Thank you

614
03:04:03.040 --> 03:04:36.399
>> Jill Dobson, >> Tony Chlo, the historic Norwood House. I I had a presentation all prepared and it's sort of been shot to pieces because what I was going to speak about is that rarely do I agree with the decisions that staff

615
03:04:36.399 --> 03:04:54.359
makes about zoning. They always come down in the favor of the developer for some reason no matter what comes out. and I was very impressed with their study um with their summary and their uh recommendations.

616
03:04:54.479 --> 03:05:11.200
So, I'm going to just briefly go on to what I was going to say um that in this time of heightened awareness of the necessity to protect and resurrect our Indian River Lagoon, especially here on the stagnant, prone to sewage spills

617
03:05:11.200 --> 03:05:27.520
north end. And in this time of active citizen efforts and private money to restore the few un undeveloped strips and to maintain those places along the lagoon, it's preposterous that I thought

618
03:05:27.520 --> 03:05:44.000
it I thought at first it was 400 ft and then I learned tonight 843. It's more than preposterous. It's ludicrous that 843 feet of shoreline is is is requested to be casually destroyed

619
03:05:44.000 --> 03:05:59.359
to build build maybe an office building, maybe a medical office building. You know, it wasn't clear. It wasn't part of their application for a and then it's going to be two stories with a parking

620
03:05:59.359 --> 03:06:15.279
garage on the bottom. Now um people have gone into about the policy the flu policy 1.1.7.3 that submerged lands within the in the lagoon shall be utilized for water related development only. Um I don't

621
03:06:15.279 --> 03:06:31.120
know that a doctor's office is water related. Um, and it's true that they really want to alter an infill not to protect the river or to enhance the river or for the public interest, but so that they can

622
03:06:31.120 --> 03:06:46.240
get the setback for their buildings because we do believe in setbacks. And um the part about that they they they hadn't presented any kind of um studies,

623
03:06:46.240 --> 03:07:02.080
environmental studies and things. How how are we supposed to know what they've given to you privately since the agenda was published? I think I think um Mr. City Attorney that the public should always be aware of all the additional

624
03:07:02.080 --> 03:07:19.359
things too so that we can speak coherently here. Um, I wanted to point out that the 2015 Peril of Flood Act required the city to adopt comprehensive plan policies to address the risk from sea level rise and that this property was identified at risk for flooding and

625
03:07:19.359 --> 03:07:36.160
they're going to put the garage on the bottom floor. Let me just say one more thing, please. 30 seconds. On the bottom floor on on a 25 foot new infill and just imagine Oh. Oh, and their retention pond was going to be dry storage around

626
03:07:36.160 --> 03:08:08.000
the buildings. Think about the king tide, hurricane winds, the rain we had in October. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Laura Ward. Laura Ward, River Edge Drive.

627
03:08:08.000 --> 03:08:27.399
Um, I was going to try to persuade you to um postpone, but after hearing everything, I kind of think you get it. This was a really dirty deal that was done and

628
03:08:34.319 --> 03:08:48.720
you. We all know they're not asking to fill the river to make it better. That's not why they want to fill, not to do anything to help the

629
03:08:48.720 --> 03:09:05.200
river or to help us. They want to fill the river for the simple reason that they can't build their project without doing that. And that's just enough right there that you should deny it. We all know that a

630
03:09:05.200 --> 03:09:27.359
straight line isn't the way to do a shoreline. We all know that a natural configuration is better. I just think it's simple. Thank you very much. Thank you,

631
03:09:27.359 --> 03:10:00.000
>> Michael Mek Titusville. um long ago and 10 12 years ago when I was on the TEC we we debated the idea of hardened shorelines and we came to the

632
03:10:00.000 --> 03:10:15.359
conclusion that we shouldn't have them we shouldn't support them and they should be in the future no longer conforming because well one they destroy the benthic macro invertebrates and everything in front of them up against the the edge of the lagoon which

633
03:10:15.359 --> 03:10:32.720
destroys the living edge of the lagoon where most of the life benthic life lives. The other thing is that on the edge of a seaw wall, say you put up a seaw wall but your neighbor hasn't, you're going to undermine the edge of

634
03:10:32.720 --> 03:10:48.479
your seaw wall because the ocean's not going to stop just because you seaw. It's going to end up coming around it and undermining it from the backside. It always happens. It's why they get damaged. The waves come up, they come down, they wash away the sand from

635
03:10:48.479 --> 03:11:03.600
underneath, they become undermined, and they fail. Wash, rinse, repeat. This is what we're going to be doing at Parish Beach at at the park there. Every hurricane that's going to come through, it's going to damage the concrete. We're going to be fixing it every year, every

636
03:11:03.600 --> 03:11:21.600
time that something happens. Well, I read this. I started reading and I cut out all the fluff. I let the cream float to the top and I read her first bullet and I deleted all the nonsense. Fill approximately acres waters of the

637
03:11:21.600 --> 03:11:37.680
Indian River Lagoon. That's all I needed to read. We don't fill the waters in our lagoon. Our comprehensive plan says we don't do that. We the environmental commission recommended that we always go forward

638
03:11:37.680 --> 03:11:55.520
with latoral plantings, not hardened seaw walls to protect us because we understand what the mangrove do to block the wave action when we have a storm. Building another hardened seaw wall does not benefit that. And doing what I just

639
03:11:55.520 --> 03:12:11.920
heard and member Fasin, thank you for making that point so very clear. This is simply double dipping. This was already spent land and they're trying to build on it again. Please deny this request. I concur with staff's recommendation.

640
03:12:11.920 --> 03:13:25.680
Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Laura Lee Thompson. Do you have an extra one? >> I'm sorry. >> I took it all. >> It's all right. Lori Thompson, Mims, Florida. So, um,

641
03:13:25.680 --> 03:13:42.479
I'd like to refer you to page six of the applicant's response to shoreline and environmental issues, the five-part technical demonstration, paragraph two, down by the bottom of the page, it says, "Loss of shoreline and aquatic vegetation. The Tolen Environmental um

642
03:13:42.479 --> 03:13:59.040
company completed a subaquatic vegetation survey of 30 stations across 1.6 acres and found no seaggrass, rooted macro algae, or subaquatic vegetation in the study area. The fluke's classification is 100% barren substrate

643
03:13:59.040 --> 03:14:15.600
confirmed independently by the St. John's River Water Management District 2023 seaggrass coverage map. There's no submerged aquatic vegetation to be lost. TEC cited the St. John's River Water Management District 2023 seaggrass

644
03:14:15.600 --> 03:14:32.000
coverage map. I just gave you the newly released St. John's River Water Management District 2025 seaggrass coverage map and it clearly shows dense continuous seaggrass coverage offshore of this property.

645
03:14:32.000 --> 03:14:47.600
According to um St. John's River Water Management. This is not an ecologically barren, submerged area, at least not last summer. I agree that there was no seaggrass there in 2023. I agree that there was no 20 or no seaggrass there in

646
03:14:47.600 --> 03:15:05.680
2024. But in 2025, last summer, we had an explosion of seaggrass along the shoreline of Titusville, Florida. and and and it started this big mass of seaggrass started right here at this 800 foot piece of property and except for

647
03:15:05.680 --> 03:15:21.439
where the post office sticks out and where Washington arm sticks out that seaggrass goes from this point all the way down to the NASA causeway and so I watched it all summer long at the Rotary Pier and in June we had a massive carpet

648
03:15:21.439 --> 03:15:37.760
of haladouli seaggrass real close to the shore at the Rotary Pier Well, by by the end of September, it was gone. The w the bottom was barren where the seaggrass had been in June and July. And and so that's what seaggrass does.

649
03:15:37.760 --> 03:15:54.960
And it and it comes from a seed bank. So this these seed banks are all up and down the lagoon and they pop up seaggrass when the conditions get good enough for the seaggrass to start growing. And so I believe that um there's probably if you went and looked

650
03:15:54.960 --> 03:16:09.279
right now, there's probably seaggrass coming back because the beginning of growing season and there will be seaggrass in front of this property this summer. That's my guess just based on on what I saw a half a mile away at the

651
03:16:09.279 --> 03:16:26.720
Rotary Park. Um as far as the erosion, you can look on Google Earth. The historical maps go all the way back to uh 1995. And if you look at that shoreline, um the shoreline was pretty much in line with the um Could I have

652
03:16:26.720 --> 03:16:43.680
like two more minutes, please? >> I'll make a recommendation the same as before. Five minutes to make sure you conclude it. >> All in favor? >> I >> thank you. If you look at the 1995 um Google uh Earth map, it shows that the

653
03:16:43.680 --> 03:17:00.560
shoreline was pretty much right in line with the ends of the two concrete pads that stick out. So, it didn't extend out into the river. It was pretty much in line with those two concrete pads. And there was a little bit of shoreline that

654
03:17:00.560 --> 03:17:17.439
stuck out beyond the concrete pads on the north side of the of the concrete pad that's in the middle between where um River Palms is now and the middle concrete pad. But it wasn't much and it was nowhere near this line that they've

655
03:17:17.439 --> 03:17:34.479
drawn that they want to put this wall of rocks in a straight line out in and in the middle of the river basically. And then they want to fill in between the rocks and the shoreline. Rock revelments. Well, the worst thing you can do for seaggrass is put in a

656
03:17:34.479 --> 03:17:50.160
vertical seaw wall. Well, there you can't do that anymore. So now, since you can't build a seaw wall anymore, the worst thing you can put in as far as seaggrass and the benthic creatures that live in in the sediments is to put in a rock reetment because when the waves

657
03:17:50.160 --> 03:18:05.600
crash into the rock reetment, there's backwash. They they don't they go backwards back from the same direction they came from. So it's like a washing machine in front of the rocks. And all of the stuff that's in the water column, the the leaves from the oak trees and

658
03:18:05.600 --> 03:18:20.960
the mangroves, the the seaggrass, the macro algae, it gets ground up. The rocks are like a grinder and all of that stuff gets ground up and it sinks to the bottom and it turns into muck. That's one of the things that happens. And you

659
03:18:20.960 --> 03:18:38.640
can and also um the uh the what did what did the the turb turbidity cloud that was mentioned by by the environmental consultant that happens in front of rocky vetments and you can see that when you drive down Riverside Drive when

660
03:18:38.640 --> 03:18:54.560
we're having a hard um easterly breeze in front of Dwight's house and you'll see that there's a there's a ribbon of brown cloudy water that's all along the shoreline that is from all the ground up detritus and stuff that's happening from

661
03:18:54.560 --> 03:19:11.200
the waves grinding up everything in front of, you know, in in the rocks because most of that shoreline is covered with rocks. So rock revetments absolutely do nothing to help the Indian River Lagoon. They do protect the property that that they're in front of

662
03:19:11.200 --> 03:19:27.520
to a to a degree, but if we get a hurricane and and the then the water level comes up three or four feet in the river, the waves wash over the rocks and they undermine the land that's behind the rocks and then then it caves in. So

663
03:19:27.520 --> 03:19:45.040
they really don't I mean if they really wanted to protect that shoreline and help the Indian River, they would put wave breaks out in the river like what we have on the south side of the Titusville Causeway. Put wave attenuation devices out in the river and then plant a vegetated shoreline behind

664
03:19:45.040 --> 03:19:59.840
the breakaters. That would be the best way to protect that shoreline and be environmentally friendly. But that's going to cost a lot of money. So these guys are going they're going for the cheapest thing that they can do to protect that shoreline and it's not the

665
03:19:59.840 --> 03:20:19.040
best thing for the river. So maybe we could do like the Sebastian concept, you know, let them put the rocks out in the water, but then when it comes time to fill in, you can say, "No, Titusville, you're you're in our area and you can't put the fill there." So they would just end up with a bunch of

666
03:20:19.040 --> 03:20:35.279
rocks out in the middle of the water. And and again, that wouldn't help the river. Um our our citizens and visitors to this county are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fix the Indian River Lagoon and and the river is getting

667
03:20:35.279 --> 03:20:51.840
better. I see it all the time. I'm out there all the time. The seaggrass is expanding. Titusville is the only municipality on the whole length of the Indian River that has a bunch of seaggrass in front of our shoreline. that that there is some in front of Cape Canaveral and the Banana River, you

668
03:20:51.840 --> 03:21:07.120
know, but the Indian River, we're the only ones that have seaggrass and we need to keep it that way. Um, approving projects like this is not going to help our seaggrass and and it's not going to help the river. So, I would

669
03:21:07.120 --> 03:21:25.279
ask you to please deny the CUP. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh, one more thing. Freshwater is bad for the Indian River. And so even if they put in all these things that filter their storm water, when you put that much imperous surface on a piece of

670
03:21:25.279 --> 03:21:41.600
property that right now is the rain is soaking into it, that that water is going to go somewhere. And if it if it goes down into the bottom of an exfiltration trench, it is still going to end up in the Indian River. It'll go into the ground and the ground water always moves towards the river. So,

671
03:21:41.600 --> 03:21:58.160
you're going to be putting a lot of more fresh water into the river and and if you um and if the the p the surface ponds overflow, they're going to go into the river, but that that water won't be treated. So, that's another thing to think about. Thank you. >> Thank you,

672
03:21:58.160 --> 03:22:25.040
>> Earl Johnson. Earl Johnson, Titusville. Um, well, I'd say u all that you've heard from the applicant uh and you definitely got an earful from the applicant. Um, in my opinion, uh, really doesn't make much whatever they said really has very

673
03:22:25.040 --> 03:22:41.680
little bearing on the matter. It seems to me that the cup violates the uh, multiple policies in the comp plan. It's to me it's just that simple. Um and and as staff cited and uh member FA

674
03:22:41.680 --> 03:22:57.200
mentioned too, these these policies are are strictly right there and the CUP violates them. It's really just that simple and I think that's the only criterion you really need to apply to this application and it should be denied

675
03:22:57.200 --> 03:23:22.640
based on only that consideration. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Stan Johnston. Stan Johnston. I've been a member of this community for over 55 years. And I'm I'm a registered professional engineer

676
03:23:22.640 --> 03:23:39.359
and land surveyor. Uh my uh land surveying license though is on is an inactive license. So I've done a number of work for the Manzos. The Manzo owned several properties on the river and on one of them I did the

677
03:23:39.359 --> 03:23:55.120
uh Manso Park and it was I don't know why you call it but it was like uh we put sand in there and and put a a filter over it a cloth filter over it so the water can go through the sand and out and then rocks on top of that whatever you want to call it whether it's a

678
03:23:55.120 --> 03:24:10.560
revetment or whatever it is and so that's what we did and actually St. John's River Water Management District. What they did is they just gave me this is what you're going to do. You can't do seaw walls. You can't do so such and such and such. So I just just did what they did what they said. That was real

679
03:24:10.560 --> 03:24:27.439
easy job for me. The other thing I did is I worked on their project that you're looking at right now. Mr. Sever said it was 397 ft frontage. I did the topo for that. I use also for the topo I use the 1974 aerial uh that

680
03:24:27.439 --> 03:24:44.720
the city has done by Cusira. It's aerial topography map and I use that locating trees and so forth. When I went when I went down to the water level I had I couldn't see the top of the top of the ground because the

681
03:24:44.720 --> 03:25:00.000
there was a wall of dirt wall of dirt almost vertical that's uh over six feet taller. That's what I was looking at on this over 300 foot stretch of property. There was no there's no evidence whatsoever of

682
03:25:00.000 --> 03:25:16.239
any kind of revetment. There's a few rocks there, but there's no no evidence of revetment for that section of the property that you're looking at. None so often. I'm I'm telling you that as a surveyor and uh and I've looked at the property and and other people are in agreement with me. I have a second thing

683
03:25:16.239 --> 03:25:32.080
I want you to look at. Second thing is this is serious. This is your culture breezeway. When I worked for the for Bvard County, they had breezeway requirements and they had a definition for breezeway. They

684
03:25:32.080 --> 03:25:48.560
violated it back and again and again and again. As a as an employee of the city of Bvard County, I kept my mouth shut. But when I came to when I came similarly, when I came to the city of Titusville, I asked for a definition of breezeway. They would never give it to

685
03:25:48.560 --> 03:26:04.000
me. So, as far as I'm concerned is that is that this these are the project that was done before this. It looks like to me it it it violates my breezeway definition. And that's serious. I think that the city of Titusville should give you a

686
03:26:04.000 --> 03:26:19.600
definition of breezeway that they can apply. Now, what I see is gates, fences, parked vehicles, and so forth disrupting. I can't see the river. I don't call it a breezeway. So, uh, I would like you to look into

687
03:26:19.600 --> 03:26:49.120
that matter also. That's very, uh, important to me. Any questions? You sure? Two, one. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Kathleen Buren. >> Christopher Childs. >> Hey guys, long time no see. So, um, if

688
03:26:49.120 --> 03:27:02.960
you if you disregard everything that the honorable Dwight Severs gave you, which is considerable and and a lot, I know it could be litigated probably. It's got so much information. But even if you disregard that, I think it still comes

689
03:27:02.960 --> 03:27:20.880
down to the comp plan, the FLU 1.17.3. Unless you think that a drinking fountain and a medical office building complies with a water related activity on the water, I I don't think that they're meeting the comp plan. So, I

690
03:27:20.880 --> 03:27:38.160
think it comes down to that. And if anyone needs to know anything about baffle boxes, watch Gold Rush. It's great about it about explaining baffle boxes to you. So, thanks. >> Thank you. >> That was the last card. >> All right. Thank you. Uh we'll bring it

691
03:27:38.160 --> 03:28:02.800
back to council. >> Oh, my apologies. We have a rebuttal. Uh thank you chairman, members of the planning commission. I'd like to uh talk specifically about a few things that were said by the public. Uh first I'd

692
03:28:02.800 --> 03:28:17.840
like you to look at the survey that's in your packet. All of that yellow that is deed land. It's not yellow in your packet. The cane surveying survey dated 2524 by Joel Seymour, registered land

693
03:28:17.840 --> 03:28:33.680
surveyor. Everything they're talking about is private property. It's not submerged lands. So when they're saying you're putting something in the middle of the river, you're not. You're putting it on their property. It was deed by the state

694
03:28:33.680 --> 03:28:51.200
of Florida to someone and it's their property. So it's not the middle of the river. It is private property. It is private property rights. Um, regarding the transfer of the deed, um, it was sent to Mr. Adams, the

695
03:28:51.200 --> 03:29:09.040
building official, on April 3rd of 2019, apparently, according to the date Mr. Severs gave during the DA period, and there was no objection made. There was no detail in the DA as to what was to be done for review. The DA was negotiated

696
03:29:09.040 --> 03:29:25.040
based upon the $5 million lawsuit filed by the Kods. The Kazi had at least two lawsuits against the city and Mr. Severs has been involved in both, intimately involved in both. And so this DA provided 125 units and height that was

697
03:29:25.040 --> 03:29:41.840
in excess of the code that was allowed at the time, still in excess of the code that is allowed at the time. It provided that the covenants running with the land and that indeed it would be non-conforming if they didn't meet the code when this agreement expired. At the termination of the agreement, all

698
03:29:41.840 --> 03:29:57.279
the existing codes shall become applicable to the development of the real property and this pro property was subject to the real property. So that being said, we're now under the current code for the new property and the current code is SMU and we are trying to

699
03:29:57.279 --> 03:30:14.160
make to meet the criteria of the code. The new conditional use for altering the shoreline came in after they purchased the property after this development agreement expired. So we're here asking for a cup for altering the shoreline. Not whether you like the use because the

700
03:30:14.160 --> 03:30:29.359
use is allowed but we can alter the shoreline to meet the setbacks. So that is the purpose of the reason here. Um the other issue is that this is a DA that has expired seven years ago.

701
03:30:29.359 --> 03:30:45.840
There's been no lawsuit filed on it and as I said it's too late to file it. And if you want to say it was not executed in good faith or it was breached, fine. But that's not what we're here today to talk about. We're here to talk about a cup for altering

702
03:30:45.840 --> 03:31:01.760
the shoreline. Um, Miss Laura Thompson provided a 2025 document. It's not clear what the light blue is versus the dark blue. Um, you have conflicting testimony from the

703
03:31:01.760 --> 03:31:23.439
woman you deem to be an expert, Lisa Toland. And again, this would be something that would be determined at the permitting stage at all levels if the CUP is granted. Your city code does indeed anticipate

704
03:31:23.439 --> 03:31:39.359
altering the shoreline and provides detailed codes section 30-64 which is the reason Miss Tolen provided that report because this was pulled into the staff report when we had no idea it was going to be required. It's in

705
03:31:39.359 --> 03:31:55.760
criteria 11 of the code which is a very generic requirement proposed changes out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city and then they pulled in this alteration of the shoreline and whether it would

706
03:31:55.760 --> 03:32:12.880
degrade the shoreline which is why you have the report you had today. It pro it brings in section 30-64 which there's no way from the cup ordinances or the city code we would know that the alteration of the shoreline setbacks in the

707
03:32:12.880 --> 03:32:31.520
degradation and the seaggrass study would be necessary under your code regarding the flu discussed that says you shall not use the submerged lands for anything other than w water related development. There is no definition in

708
03:32:31.520 --> 03:32:47.200
your code of water related development. So the staff report says it may conflict. It doesn't say it does conflict. Says that the land shall not be used for density or intensity. Again, we're not using it for setbacks. We could go to the board of adjustment and ask for a variance. And if this is

709
03:32:47.200 --> 03:33:04.160
denied, that's the next step. But at some point, this property is going to be used. The city does not get to dictate ownership. The public does not get to take gifts of property ownership either. And when you're looking at the staff analysis,

710
03:33:04.160 --> 03:33:21.359
you have it may conflict with flu policy, but there's no definition. So when there's no definition in derrogation of private property rights, the uh the tie goes to the owner and applicant. Ingress and egress is not an issue. The nuisance factor that's also

711
03:33:21.359 --> 03:33:37.279
going into adversely affecting water quality which is not one of the nuisance factors raised in in code in criteria three that's traffic lights order smoke clear electrical not whether or not we're going to degrade the water

712
03:33:37.279 --> 03:33:52.479
uh shall not cause adopt the levels of service uh the report itself says that storm water and potable water is not an issue traffic report provided for you says there's 486 average daily trips.

713
03:33:52.479 --> 03:34:08.560
The current volume is 26,940 in your staff report which is less than 20%. So traffic is not an issue and not a concurrency issue that's violated in these criterias. Uh we did not provide signage that's a site plan issue. We've

714
03:34:08.560 --> 03:34:24.800
given you the hours of operation. We've reviewed medical office from consideration required yards and open space. I believe there was a comment that there was an error in the staff report. Regardless, our engineer testified we made the we

715
03:34:24.800 --> 03:34:41.920
met the breezeway criteria. And then general compatibility with the adjacent properties and other property in the district. This is compatible with the SMU because it's one of the approved uses and it doesn't exceed 50 ft. Then there's the proposed buildings are

716
03:34:41.920 --> 03:34:57.680
the staff report even says the proposed buildings and uses are generally compatible with the surrounding area and zoning. And then whether the proposed change is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood. It says it may be considered out of scale due to the request to alter the

717
03:34:57.680 --> 03:35:17.920
shoreline, but it doesn't explain why. It goes back to flu strategies and code sections unrelated to the concepts in this particular ordinance. It does again talk about the new rock revetment and code section 30-64 which

718
03:35:17.920 --> 03:35:35.920
we've answered all those questions by the expert. Again, the request is to alter the shoreline. If you are going to deny, you need to have a reason to deny based upon the conditions of the code. The conditional use criteria is generally

719
03:35:35.920 --> 03:35:56.000
the simplest to meet of any land entitlement and we believe we have met it here today. We are not seeking density. We're seeking intensity under the floor area ratio. So we have not used up the density on this site.

720
03:35:56.000 --> 03:36:12.560
Didn't even use the density agreed upon in the development agreement. >> But that's not >> me. It's not applicable. >> Correct. I am just responding to Mr. Severs. I'm responding to comments. It's not applicable. You might not like it.

721
03:36:12.560 --> 03:36:35.040
Obviously, you don't. I've heard lots of comments about dirty pool. But that was something that happened long ago and the city's been well aware of it and done nothing about it. Uh again, we believe we have met the criteria. We have met the comp plan and because there's no definition of water

722
03:36:35.040 --> 03:36:50.560
related activities, water related development, there's no reason to deny this CU. Thank you very much. >> I have a question for you before you go. >> Member F. >> Yeah. Um, so you you continue to call

723
03:36:50.560 --> 03:37:06.000
that land that is submerged land private land. And so I I've asked you to state the regulation that allows you to own that land that is submerged land and deem it private land. One moment. And so when you say that we need a regulation

724
03:37:06.000 --> 03:37:23.680
to back what I'm saying, I'm going back to the state of Florida's mean high water line. I know you're familiar with the mean high water line. So, what does the law governing the mean high water line mean to you? >> That's not an issue to be addressed.

725
03:37:23.680 --> 03:37:38.640
There's a definition actually in the city code which I would look to before I would look to the state. >> Why does it not apply? >> Because we're dealing with altering the shoreline of private property, >> right? But we first have to define what that private property boundary is. >> It's defined by deed and survey. And so

726
03:37:38.640 --> 03:37:55.120
the mean high water line is what is used to define the boundary between the water and the land. Now if otherwise if there's something otherwise that I can go to I'm asking you to support your standing that the submerged lands are

727
03:37:55.120 --> 03:38:10.960
actually indeed private land because without the submerged lands being deemed private land then you're right. Then I'm trying to support your your argument but you're not giving me anything. I I I don't I don't understand why you won't accept the deed or the survey as showing us private property. I

728
03:38:10.960 --> 03:38:26.000
>> because the high because the main high lane tells me that from the 19-year average of wherever that high water line mark is from a 19-year average everything above that line is private property. Everything below that line returns to the state even if it happens

729
03:38:26.000 --> 03:38:42.160
during erosion. So you can tell one moment. So you're telling me that the submerged lands are private lands and I'm I'm asking you to define show me the regulation that allows you to have that after erosion has occurred. After erosion has occurred.

730
03:38:42.160 --> 03:38:58.399
>> It's it's a concept that doesn't make sense in legal terms because is private property by deed and survey. So what you're asking is not a concept that makes sense in the context of private property ownership. >> Okay. But I understand that at one point in time, let's say that entire land was private property prior to 1970. And

731
03:38:58.399 --> 03:39:14.160
again, if you have a deed that sws that after 1970, I'll go with you. But since 1970, if that was if that was all land and the the law now states that if erosion has occurred, your boundary has moved and that lands then returned back to the state. You're you you're you're

732
03:39:14.160 --> 03:39:29.200
contending that that doesn't apply to you in this case. And so I'm asking you, can you show me where I can go to that that this this now submerged land still belongs to you? Still belongs to you. >> If we did not own it, we couldn't fill it in. Correct. That's and that's my

733
03:39:29.200 --> 03:39:44.720
point. You don't own it. And so you can't fill it in. >> But but they do own it. >> You you could only own if we allow you to. >> There there's there if you want to deny it, that would be a great basis to deny it on. >> Well, no. I'm I'm asking you to show me. >> I I I have to show you. >> I can't tell you anything more than a

734
03:39:44.720 --> 03:40:00.160
survey and a deed. >> Okay. Well, so then on So on Bard County Property Appraisers, there's a sketch plan, >> right? There there's a sketch plan. >> The property appraisers office also has all disclaimers. can't use it for legal purposes. >> So, every time you send me someplace, I

735
03:40:00.160 --> 03:40:14.960
go and I look there and I can't support your findings, but then you tell me that that finding is no longer valid. >> Send you to the property appraisers. >> No, you said go to the sketch to the deed, right? You said go to the deed. >> I said go to the deed >> and that deed is found. I can go to >> and go to the survey which is in your record.

736
03:40:14.960 --> 03:40:30.319
>> Thank you, ma'am. Member Gerard. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. um in your rebuttal um and I'm not sure which of your experts will be the one we need to ask, but the the the environmental expert was the one that submitted her

737
03:40:30.319 --> 03:40:46.560
study and the report and the analysis and made testimony under and lay person I don't misrepresent Miss Thompson as a lay person by any measure, but you testified on the rebuttal that she is an identified expert. You wanted to make

738
03:40:46.560 --> 03:41:02.000
sure we knew that. Miss Thompson presented this document and I got I drew the conclusion this is a little newer document than your expert provided in the study. My question is why did your expert not provide a more

739
03:41:02.000 --> 03:41:18.479
current map if one's promulgated and in effect by the St. John's Water Management District? >> I apologize about that. That would be just more related to just how quickly we were turning things around and had not downloaded the new 2025 maps coming down

740
03:41:18.479 --> 03:41:33.840
to our GIS system. >> This is the quickness since you had this submitted in 2025 in June. >> I got this project. >> Oh, you did? There was ample time in all of this to illustrate what documents you would have supported. >> Correct. >> No, sir. Because that's not a criteria

741
03:41:33.840 --> 03:41:50.560
in your code to do a seaggrass study. >> I understand. But you submitted testimony and evidence from an expert that was a dated map. Does that sound right? >> The No, >> that's not right. >> In the sense that I actually physically went out to the site and reviewed the property and conducted a seaggrass

742
03:41:50.560 --> 03:42:08.000
survey per the codes on that property and >> but the evidence you submitted in your study is not current evidence. Is that a fair statement? >> No, it's No, I don't. I think you have a conflict between an aerial interpretation of a map and we don't know what if this light blue area is

743
03:42:08.000 --> 03:42:22.880
open water then it's completely consistent with my report. If this light blue area shows something other than open water so you have two if you look at the map that was submitted to you have two color codes a light blue color code and a dark blue color code. The light blue color code isn't identified.

744
03:42:22.880 --> 03:42:39.040
I'm I have to go back and pull this on my system. I'm just relying on your expertise that this >> right and my expertise says I was in the field I walked that site and there was nothing there um as part of the as she said as part of the review per process

745
03:42:39.040 --> 03:42:54.479
we don't first of all we don't know that this map conflicts with my report because we don't know what the light blue means if it's open water >> but I'm hoping an expert might have one one more question >> well if it was labeled an expert could interpret the data >> but you are familiar map did not guess I

746
03:42:54.479 --> 03:43:10.560
could ask it didn't are you familiar as an expert that the St. John's Water Management District updates maps that represent such information as this document represents that states it's a seaggrass continuous is the parenthetical thing >> offshore of the site that dark blue

747
03:43:10.560 --> 03:43:24.800
area. >> No, that they update information that this information is updated on some reasonable basis >> based upon aerial interpretation and and some some ground truthing on the ground, but I physically was on the property.

748
03:43:24.800 --> 03:43:41.439
>> Okay. My question is to you, are you familiar that these maps are updated? >> Yes. >> And this might be an updated rendition. >> I agree that this would could be an updated rendition and I need to look at it. >> Would you agree that the lay person stated that the seaggrass can kind of eb

749
03:43:41.439 --> 03:43:58.160
and flow so to speak like a tide. It can go away and come back again. Do you disagree with her >> in areas like if in that offshore area if this dark blue is continuous seaggrass? >> Simple question. Do you agree or disagree with the lay person's statement? More accurately stating that

750
03:43:58.160 --> 03:44:15.680
that this grass could appear and disappear as the eb and flow of a tide might do washes it away and brings it back. Nature does that. You could have been at the site when there was no seaggrass in your on-site visit. But in fact, seaggrass could be there later or

751
03:44:15.680 --> 03:44:37.120
before. You didn't survey it 247 365. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We're going to bring it back to the board. >> Member Fac

752
03:44:37.120 --> 03:44:54.399
for our attorney. Um I've been talking about the mean high water line. Um, is the property that she's claiming to be private property the submerged lands is that indeed private property or does this main highway line actually apply? >> Yes, it's private property. The

753
03:44:54.399 --> 03:45:10.960
submerged lands are reflected in the deed. Um, the Florida Constitution itself uh purports to allow for alienation by the state. You know when statehood happened at 84 1845 the navigable waters of the state became vested in the public but the internal

754
03:45:10.960 --> 03:45:25.600
improvement trust fund has authority to alienate those as they see fit and they've done so in this case. >> All right. And then when erosion happens of said property line uh private property does that not move the line or does it still stay the submerged land still belongs to the owner? It

755
03:45:25.600 --> 03:45:42.080
>> it would be akin to building a pond in your backyard. The fact that there's now water in a different place doesn't change the property rights between the two. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Member Rice. I have a couple questions to staff. First to the city attorney.

756
03:45:42.080 --> 03:45:59.199
Does notification to the building official constitute notice by the applicant per the developers agreement. Is that an official notice? Is that considered an official notice? Prior to this hearing, I didn't look deeply into the terms of the development agreement just because the nature of what's before

757
03:45:59.199 --> 03:46:16.000
you is just the the cup and whether it meets the 12 criteria. So I I would have to look deeper into that. >> Okay. Well, my next question has to do with developers agreement too because where I struggle a lot is that we have a situation that

758
03:46:16.000 --> 03:46:32.000
is we're creating a non-conforming lot on a parcel if we approve the cup that the applicant was directly involved in at one time. Does the developers agreement and the

759
03:46:32.000 --> 03:46:49.760
criteria in the devel developers agreement and those items that were supposed to be done such as notification such as not making a non-conforming lot is it still binding in today's environment even though it's surpassed because what what I heard several times

760
03:46:49.760 --> 03:47:06.479
is that the v that the agreement that was in place ran with the land not necessarily with the agreement and And and the reason why I'm saying it that way is because the variance if you had a variance variances always run with the

761
03:47:06.479 --> 03:47:21.680
land. You can change zoning, you can change all kinds of things, but the variance always runs with the land. So in my logic because of what was said tonight that the agreement runs with the land,

762
03:47:21.680 --> 03:47:38.399
although the agreement dies, but the conditions of the agreement run with the land. Is that a correct statement? >> Um, I I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I The agreement would run with the land during the life of the agreement, but the agreement expires on its own terms. The variance doesn't provide for

763
03:47:38.399 --> 03:47:58.319
its own expiration, which I think is the distinction here. So what happens when you make a when an agreement sunsets and you all of a sudden you have a non-conforming situation that was created because of that agreement

764
03:47:58.319 --> 03:48:14.800
and that's where the notification the official notification comes into play. Okay? Because that could have been challenged at the official notification that land was going to be separated. Okay. or deed it over because the agreement was based on all

765
03:48:14.800 --> 03:48:29.840
the land. And so it's it's germanine to to whether the non-conforming use is relevant or not relevant. Was the official knowledge, the official notification by the applicant through the building

766
03:48:29.840 --> 03:48:47.600
official a correct course of action? That's the >> I I can't speak to that at this time. >> All right. And then to staff real quick with the CUP, the the the conditions that you outlined

767
03:48:47.600 --> 03:49:03.920
in the report, are those set in the CUP ordinance that these were the things that they needed to do or were those things that were generated based based on staff's interpretation?

768
03:49:03.920 --> 03:49:21.760
>> Are you speaking to the CUP review criteria? Yeah, the the regroup criteria that you have listed that I think there was 11 of them, >> right? Those are the the typical review criteria for a conditional use permit established in the land development regulations >> section 34-76 of the code.

769
03:49:21.760 --> 03:49:36.479
>> It's in that section. >> Yes, sir. >> 3476. Okay. So then what I'm sort of amazed at quite frankly I think you were being very kind to even submit this application because there was a lot I mean I had

770
03:49:36.479 --> 03:49:53.600
three pages of notes of things I was concerned about because the application didn't address them until I saw a bunch of documents today and and so I think the proc the CUP was probably prematurely submitted

771
03:49:53.600 --> 03:50:08.960
for approval to to this board before all the information had been satisfied on the cup criteria. That's just the way I look at it because it it you can see what what has transpired tonight was there was a lot of questions

772
03:50:08.960 --> 03:50:26.640
because we got a lot of late information that we just didn't have. So, you were being kind and submitting it, trying to expedite things. I get it. But this case was a tough one. Member Jer.

773
03:50:26.640 --> 03:50:43.439
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question for staff. Testimony tonight from the experts um for the proponent of the project have centered around what I see three things. They are doing a conditional use because they have to. And regardless of the

774
03:50:43.439 --> 03:51:01.120
permitting agency's authority over the design and construction of the proposed revetment infill to achieve as I understand 0.1 required breezeway setback so we h can't meet the setback on the standard of land that exists

775
03:51:01.120 --> 03:51:18.319
today to build something unless I expand the land to meet the breezeway setback. We heard testimony say that this plan which is conceptual uh and it's not really subject to review. It's the review of the plan for what purpose

776
03:51:18.319 --> 03:51:34.560
which is to do the fill and the revetment to expand the land to meet the breezeway requirement is contingent however by the testimony on the plan which shows two buildings that are 7,000 square feet per um floor. I think that's

777
03:51:34.560 --> 03:51:51.359
what was testified to. And that 14,000 square feet would exist in uh one building and 14,000 thereabouts square feet in the other of the two buildings. That's what I heard tonight. Is there any requirement in the city

778
03:51:51.359 --> 03:52:08.880
code that land supports the absolute capacity maximum of intensity as reported by the attorney not density since they're talking about office space and floor area ratio as opposed to dwelling units that was testified

779
03:52:08.880 --> 03:52:25.199
earlier about the applicability of the development agreement that we're not going to build the 25 units. It's all about office space. It's not about medical, but it's about the two buildings, 7,000 square feet per floor, the required parking, all the supporting

780
03:52:25.199 --> 03:52:40.160
infrastructure for the required parking, storm water drainage, all the requirements of stormwater drainage that improve the size or dimensions. We heard testimony about tanks and it's going to go in the tank and that's good, but I would conclude the more impervious

781
03:52:40.160 --> 03:52:57.120
surface, the bigger the tank. Seems logical to me. Um, and we've heard this about the plan, the two buildings foot, 7,000 square feet per floor, and that to do that, achieve that plan, I have to meet my setback requirement, the breezeway.

782
03:52:57.120 --> 03:53:15.120
The third question is, can this land support a building in a mixeduse development scenario of some size, any size, or is it the land can't be developed because it can't meet all the requirements? So, nothing can be built on it. So the question for me for staff,

783
03:53:15.120 --> 03:53:31.040
will this land support a development that meets the standards, but it certainly wouldn't meet the standards that's been submitted because we know that they have to fill land in to meet that standard. So that's the simple third question.

784
03:53:31.040 --> 03:53:45.840
>> Okay, loaded loaded question or questions. Um are to restate that. Are you asking whether um the scale of the devel the development that's proposed tonight is required and could the applicant be

785
03:53:45.840 --> 03:54:02.160
proposing instead something of a smaller size? >> Yes. Not depriving reasonable use of land is property rights are inherently allowed to to to achieve that. that's been testified to and supported by the attorney recommending that you know if

786
03:54:02.160 --> 03:54:17.920
you if you don't let me do something then you're taking away my property rights. So for property rights can something be built on this that makes the mixeduse zoning district on the current land as it exists today vision square feet commercial office

787
03:54:17.920 --> 03:54:34.479
envisions ratio of parking envisions ratio of impervious to storm water retention envisions compliance with setbacks. I'm not a site designer, but I would say it's it's likely >> probable. >> However, um there was mention of the

788
03:54:34.479 --> 03:54:50.560
erosion at the of the shoreline, and so there is likely a need for some stabilization to occur. And the code as it's written, section 2927, which is the um the section of the code that initiated this

789
03:54:50.560 --> 03:55:06.960
request for a CUP, states that any alteration of the shoreline, requires a CUP. So even if they were to scale down the request, if they are going to improve the shoreline, restore the shoreline in some regard, alter it, um they would still come before you for a conditional use permit.

790
03:55:06.960 --> 03:55:23.439
>> Sure. And if envisioning that some reasonable use could be uh uh provided on the property based on the code, the setbacks etc. that in the event that such a proposal might envision through cup process a fill less building less

791
03:55:23.439 --> 03:55:39.439
parking less fill less reitment less distance of the 883 ft. Would that be reasonable for me to conclude downsizing the scale? it it might be easier and it certainly would afford less of an impact if it's an impact

792
03:55:39.439 --> 03:55:54.239
we're looking at from this fill material and this revetment. So in other words, make it smaller, meet the code and then come back if that code requires you to do an alteration that could be a process >> potentially. Yes. >> Okay. And and I guess the last part of

793
03:55:54.239 --> 03:56:12.080
that same box of questions about uh development potential and it testimony earlier was about how there's a Taco Bell across the street and there's a apartment building condimenting to the south and there's a restaurant and we heard that I think earlier um and one of

794
03:56:12.080 --> 03:56:26.960
the buildings that was utilized in the analysis was River Palms and that this would not be uh disharmonous or intensive in terms of what it would look like against River Palms's 100 dwelling units on the remaining acreage existing

795
03:56:26.960 --> 03:56:43.760
as a non-conforming use inconsistent with the plan. I'm not sure we should be considering the intensity of something measured against a nonconformity. That would just complement nonconformity by saying, well, this great big building is what I measure my myself by. Therefore,

796
03:56:43.760 --> 03:56:59.279
I need a great big building or I may have a great big building because this is however my measurement is against a nonconformity. the applicant has stated it's a non-conformity because the DA is invalidated and in an analysis of u the

797
03:56:59.279 --> 03:57:15.279
properties for floor area ratio relationship around that is this proposal at its current size um equal to or greater than the floor area ratio of properties around it as testified tonight using the examples of

798
03:57:15.279 --> 03:57:31.840
the Taco Bell and the apartment building and if you use the example of um um river palms. The only problem I have with using that is it's a nonconformity and it's inconsistent. So I don't think it should be considered as a measurable

799
03:57:31.840 --> 03:57:48.720
application. Those other ones however that I would assume conform and aren't inconsistent would be measured. Is this proposal as it's presented in order to warrant the CUP to do the fill and put the revetment to expand the property to meet the setback is it excessive to the

800
03:57:48.720 --> 03:58:26.000
other related properties around it? Does it is it disproportional? Is it greater in floor area ratio than other surrounding properties development except that using the example of River Palms? So, the two-story town homes to the south of the property had a floor area

801
03:58:26.000 --> 03:58:49.279
ratio of uh 0.51 and the project um as proposed has a floor area ratio of 0.55. So, it's similar. Um um that's what we have as far as an analysis of the similar floor area ratios at this time.

802
03:58:49.279 --> 03:59:05.120
>> So the the development proposal that's similar but you read a number that is greater. The point I'm trying to get to is its intensity is predicated on requiring filling the property. If you didn't fill the property, you would

803
03:59:05.120 --> 03:59:21.199
naturally reduce the intensity. Reducing the intensity would not necessarily mean it's less harmonous with the other properties. It may even be closer to balancing that as opposed to being larger, greater in scale and scope. And again, all of that's contingent on but I

804
03:59:21.199 --> 03:59:38.560
need this 14,000 square feet I think is what it would be. Is that 714? I'm sorry, 34. What is it? 714. So 1414 is 28 or something like that. um that's intense on this property requires the improvement through the

805
03:59:38.560 --> 03:59:55.199
CUP. If the CUP is not granted, you could still build something, but you have to meet the standard and the setbacks and the intensity would be under the maximum. Certainly, it wouldn't be at the maximum. Um, and it would still be reasonable use of land provided for

806
03:59:55.199 --> 04:00:11.600
because it meets the code because it's a long skinny piece of land and somewhere you could situate a building on that that would be meeting the zoning code, whatever that is, meeting the comprehensive plan for intensity. That that certainly seems to me it could be done. And it seems to me that what I see

807
04:00:11.600 --> 04:00:29.199
is very intense in comparison. And it's only intensity is given to if you fill in the river to get enough real estate to meet setbacks to fill in retention and all those supportive improvements that are born from the bigger the project the more the supporting

808
04:00:29.199 --> 04:00:46.479
infrastructure to support that becomes reduce the intensity of the project meet the setbacks everything falls into scale more so than what's proposed that's how I view this for everybody's understanding that's what I'm looking at in the conditional use analysis thank

809
04:00:50.640 --> 04:01:05.600
member fac. >> So Google is my friend. Um and and I I enjoy googling and so so sir this comes to you. Um I know as a as an entrepreneur I know what this term means. It's and it's it's

810
04:01:05.600 --> 04:01:21.359
bootstrapping. Um you know as an entrepreneur that means you're going to dig it dig it out of boots. You know you're going to just try to make your business work as hard as you can. But in this case, what does bootstrapping mean and does that term apply? >> I'm not certain what you're looking at.

811
04:01:21.359 --> 04:01:38.000
>> Okay. So, Google tells me that bootstrapping occurs when a property owner intentionally takes an action such as illegally expanding a building or subdividing a lot improperly or or artificially inflating floor area ratio to create a zoning violation, which is what we would do if we argue if we do

812
04:01:38.000 --> 04:01:54.640
this. Then it says, ' Then use that self-made violation to argue that the city must grant them a variance or an exception because the property is now unusable or non-conforming under standard codes. Then there's a legal defense for that, right? It's called self-hardening,

813
04:01:54.640 --> 04:02:09.760
excuse me, self-created hardship. If the owner goes therefore before the board, you know, the board can then argue that this is a self-created hardship because they've already used said portion of the of the land on the north side and they

814
04:02:09.760 --> 04:02:27.160
are now asking to nullify the original agreement calling it a hardship and then use said that same set said land for the south portion and again that term is called bootstrapping. I didn't know that.

815
04:02:30.399 --> 04:02:50.160
Thank you. >> I'm sorry. Did Did you guys understand all of that? Did Did you catch all of it? >> All right. I see I see some confused looks there. All right. What's the pleasure of the board? All right. Well, you got to close that.

816
04:02:50.160 --> 04:03:06.399
Can I close out that back to us? We'll close out the public hearing that public portion. >> All right, back to the board. >> So again, so as I as I looked at that term bootstrapping and I understand what it means now. Um, and again

817
04:03:06.399 --> 04:03:22.399
by not wanting to talk about the DA, but she brings up the DA, but don't talk about the DA because the DA doesn't apply here because the DA expired. But hey, but because of the DA, right, we now have the opportunity for the city of Titusville to make the north portion non-conforming.

818
04:03:22.399 --> 04:03:38.160
31 units per acre and then we're going to use that same land to reallocate it to the south side. That's a self-created hardship and the ownership never really changed. So the underlying owner owned the north

819
04:03:38.160 --> 04:03:55.920
and he owns the south and he owns all of it and he himself entered into the agreement himself. you willingly willingly entered into the agreement and then thereby says that the agreement expired. Well, that's a self created

820
04:03:55.920 --> 04:04:11.600
hardship. The city didn't do anything. No one else did. It's not a new buyer that bought the land unknowingly. What had happened? This is a self-created hardship. And that term that strategy that they that's being employed according to Google here, right? It's

821
04:04:11.600 --> 04:04:28.319
called bootstrapping. So um when asked that can we defend that I believe there's a legal framework to defend a choice that we should make. We can then we we we identified the

822
04:04:28.319 --> 04:04:47.760
strategy and then you can identify the legal defense for said strategy. >> Member Graham. I'm sitting here like the rest of y'all and and we're trying to take all this in and there is just a plethora of information. Uh some that we are privy

823
04:04:47.760 --> 04:05:04.239
to or see that some of the audience doesn't. And then uh I think in all fairness that we should consider tableabling this like I said before to try to take in some of this information and see what is pertinent

824
04:05:04.239 --> 04:05:22.239
and what isn't. The DA is a big thing to me. Um, I I'm I'm not disputing whether it's valid or not valid, but I'd like to get to the bottom of it really if it is valid because if it was valid, all this this nonsense, it speaks for itself. But

825
04:05:22.239 --> 04:05:38.720
being that as it is, um, it would give us time if this, um, CUP actually has enough merit to stand on its own, even if the DA doesn't come into play. So for me,

826
04:05:38.720 --> 04:05:54.000
I would like to uh maybe make a motion that unfortunately we table this for a period of time to be named by all of us to allow us to get our heads wrapped around all kinds of information over

827
04:05:54.000 --> 04:06:11.279
here that was just dropped in her lab for the most part this afternoon till today or till till now. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I have a question. >> Would you be able to add to that as well

828
04:06:11.279 --> 04:06:28.720
that they work on getting their permits and seeing what they can move forward on that aspect of it? Because if they can get permits from St. John's waterway and all that, that would show that that runs in line. Does that make sense?

829
04:06:28.720 --> 04:06:46.479
It it kind of does, but I think for us, we need to determine how much time we may need to get through it. Maybe it's just two weeks or maybe it's 30 days. But I know for me, I I don't like to rush to judgments. Um, you know, developer has rights. You know, uh, the

830
04:06:46.479 --> 04:07:02.800
community has rights and then we have laws that we got to follow. And a lot of these things were talked about and thrown together. And I think the wise choice would be able to digest it and then um as a group hopefully come

831
04:07:02.800 --> 04:07:25.439
together for what's right. That being said, I'll make a motion to table this for uh 30 days because I don't believe we're going to get our head wrapped around it by the next meeting. And if there's no objections, I'd like

832
04:07:25.439 --> 04:07:42.640
to make a motion table it for 30 days. >> Just to clarify, your next meeting, your meetings in June are on the 3rd and the 17th. Um, so it'd be helpful to pick one of those already scheduled days rather than a 30-day timeline. >> What was the two days? >> The 3rd and 17th.

833
04:07:42.640 --> 04:08:02.800
>> Third and 17th. >> Has anybody got a opinion about that? >> Yeah, I do. Um, and again, again, attorney, I do apologize for that term of bootstrapping being being thrown out just now andor self-created hardship. If the term

834
04:08:02.800 --> 04:08:19.199
bootstrapping and self-created hardship are applicable in this situation, how do we move forward? The sole question before this board right now is whether or not under the 12

835
04:08:19.199 --> 04:08:35.840
factors listed in section 3476 whether or not the applicant has satisfactorily uh provided and arranged for those factors to be met. You can either find that they have not and deny. You can find that they have and approved or you can approve with conditions. But that is

836
04:08:35.840 --> 04:08:50.960
the only question before this board right now whether or not the applicant has satisfied those 12 factors. >> All due respect to the members I think there's a motion on the floor so we get a second but we're not >> Is there a second?

837
04:08:50.960 --> 04:09:09.199
Seeing none the motion fails. Member Gerard. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. uh in deliberation of this for the last four hours there about um and the questions I've certainly asked I've tried to address the concerns which is the basic concern I have uh in the review of the

838
04:09:09.199 --> 04:09:23.840
application uh I just mentioned that the application is predicated on filling which is based on the need to have excessive building sizes excessive defined by the fact they can't meet the setback to enlarge the

839
04:09:23.840 --> 04:09:40.399
project whereby the property could be developed I don't think I've heard any evidence presented tonight that says nothing can be built there. Not even nothing. But reasonably speaking, offices could be built there, just not to the size and scope proposed, which results in the conditional use to fill

840
04:09:40.399 --> 04:09:57.760
the river. I can't support that filling for that reason to achieve a breezeway and a setback that's by amended land area, amending it by filling it. It doesn't matter if the district and the army corps permitted it. That's rare regulatory authority. This is a local

841
04:09:57.760 --> 04:10:14.319
government issue. It's a request to alter the shoreline. I don't find anything in support of the plan that's been proposed as a need. It's a want. And I appreciate wants, but I think the need here is to develop the land in accordance with the regulations that are

842
04:10:14.319 --> 04:10:33.680
in effect and to deny this request for conditional use to alter the shoreline to support excessive building construction. Thank you. Any any second on that motion? >> I'll second it. >> All right. We have a second from uh member um FA. Any discussion before roll

843
04:10:33.680 --> 04:10:49.359
call vote? Member Rice. >> Yeah, I just want to add that I'm going to state my reason for voting in favor of the motion. I find that the shoreline mixed use strategy

844
04:10:49.359 --> 04:11:03.680
1.12 one 1.12.3 support moderate scaled mixeduse development on US highway 1 that benefits from the proximity of the water font is not in compliance. I find that

845
04:11:03.680 --> 04:11:20.640
natural resource policy 1.17.3 submerged lands submerged lands within the Indian River Lagoon shall only be utilized for water related development and specifically states marines docks and boats and ramps which sort of signify what the intent of that code

846
04:11:20.640 --> 04:11:39.120
was. I also say that it it I question whether it meets the coastal management element based on the evidence that was provided with maps and things tonight when it comes to uh seaggrass beds and revitalization of of that area. I also

847
04:11:39.120 --> 04:11:55.840
find that as a result of the applicant's actions that the land to the north becomes non-conforming and um there's there's questions around there legal questions need to be answered but I find that that's

848
04:11:55.840 --> 04:12:11.520
unacceptable. So those are the reasons why I'm going to vote in favor of >> Mr. Chairman, in my motion that for that deny like to incorporate member Rice's analysis as part of that motion's basis. >> Thank you. Can we have a roll call vote?

849
04:12:11.520 --> 04:12:26.960
>> Can we just make sure the second stands after the amended motion? >> Erin, does that second stand? >> Yes. >> Have a roll call vote. >> Member McDaniel. >> Yes. >> Member Grod. >> Yes. >> Member Rice. >> Yes.

850
04:12:26.960 --> 04:12:49.040
>> Member Graham. >> Yes. >> Secretary FA. >> Yes. Yes. >> Vice Chairman Scully. >> Yes. >> Member Sidler. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, I just want to reiterate for the members of the public who attended tonight who may not regularly attend

851
04:12:49.040 --> 04:13:06.159
these meetings, just as a reminder that this is a meeting of the planning and zoning commission which recommends uh action to city council. And so tonight's vote is a recommendation to city council, not a final action. So I just want to make that clear to the public for people who are not uh fully aware.

852
04:13:06.159 --> 04:13:22.720
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> M Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. There's been a lot of discussion from the commission here tonight and there's been members of the audience that are, I guess, perceiving that this determination that the River Palms One is non-conforming and inconsistent. Uh

853
04:13:22.720 --> 04:13:38.319
would staff be open for conversations with these affected people to see if you can explain to them what that means? I don't think most people understand that effect of nonconformity and inconsistency. It would be helpful if those people who are affected by it

854
04:13:38.319 --> 04:13:56.560
would talk to staff and maybe understand what that root the technical side of it if you're willing to do that. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Um now we're going to have any final petitions and requests from the public present. Seeing none, going into report, city

855
04:13:56.560 --> 04:14:12.159
staff, >> uh just a quick report on um at during the last meeting, we had a discussion on um the wetlands maps that we typically include in the applications. Um, our staff did reach out to the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands

856
04:14:12.159 --> 04:14:28.080
Inventory staff um to ask them if it would be helpful to their staff whenever we notice the maps are inconsistent with uh development in our air area. Um, and they they wrote back to us and confirmed that they they update their

857
04:14:28.080 --> 04:14:45.439
data on a much larger scale and so they don't have a process for incorporating new data at the parial level or site level. um they operate on a on a much larger scale of um propert areas that are 40 acres and larger which is larger than the the area of the city. Um so it

858
04:14:45.439 --> 04:14:59.920
would have to be incorporated as part of a regional scale. One thing that was helpful uh that came out of that conversation was um they let us know that on the the wetlands mapper tool that they have on their website um you can click on the polygon that shows

859
04:14:59.920 --> 04:15:16.080
where the wetland is that is indicated. So like the wedge property for example where the Cumberland Farms gas station is the wetlands mapper shows a polygon that shows that there's a wetland there that we obviously know is not there because there's a gas station there. But if you click on it it will tell you what

860
04:15:16.080 --> 04:15:31.760
date the aerial photograph was used to base that polygon off of. So whereas our map showed that the data was accessed last year in 2025, the the aerial photograph that fed that data was actually taken in 2009 prior to that

861
04:15:31.760 --> 04:15:48.159
site being developed. And so that helps us understand why that was showing up on the wetlands map. So, just a little more background information and we did reach out to the the federal data um researchers to see if if we could collaborate a little bit better and and we weren't able to update the maps, but

862
04:15:48.159 --> 04:16:04.319
uh just to give you some up some feedback on that. >> Remember Rice? >> So, uh how often do they update their maps if it was 2009? >> I did not get that information from them, but uh that's another good question. Next time I reach out to them, >> I also want to thank staff. I don't know

863
04:16:04.319 --> 04:16:20.880
if I'm reading it right, but I did see the watermark draft across the document and I think I was thinking that >> that's a sore subject because I had another uh member tell me that they weren't able to read the document. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Eddie. Uh city attorney,

864
04:16:20.880 --> 04:16:34.720
>> no report. >> Thank you. I just want to say thank you to the board for giving me the grace um and figuring all this out and any uh any member reports. >> Awesome. Good job. >> I >> I definitely appreciate it. Otherwise,

865
04:16:34.720 --> 04:16:38.920
we are adjourned. Thank you so much.