is that the teacher probably should have directed him a little bit. We had a bunch of he was um he needed more direction than the others. Again, he ended up leaving
the third and fourth grade. He had the skills to and he was the only one. um early on. >> So I don't know you right children's house.
>> That's how I live in a dressing day. >> Mr. Likewise, I was going to go >> Yeah, it was good, but it was suffocating. >> Yeah. Now it's
called class. >> I fell off. Yeah. What happens? Thank you for letting me >> I don't know. There's no Good afternoon everyone. Hello. Hello.
Thank you for being here. I am calling to order the August 5th, 2025 meeting of ENRAC at 1:00. Um, shall we call the role?
>> Miss Lamers >> here. Scow >> here. >> Miss Anderson >> here. >> Miss Brosmer. >> Mr. Burbank has resigned from the group so he's not in attendance. Uh, Mr. Fitz Simmons here,
>> Mr. Hobck, Miss Jameson, Mr. Donimo, Mr. Lights, >> Mr. Mberg >> here, >> Miss Morrisy, >> Mr. Surret >> here, >> and Miss Whitik >> here.
>> So, we do have a quorum. If anyone joins online, they're going to let me know, but so far, no. >> And Miss Morsy is walking in the >> All right. another grand. >> And then from staff in the room, we have
Chelsea Molton, Brianna Peterson, Keith Abramson, uh Ginger Adair, Morgan Swank, and Samantha West. And we have one visitor. Would you mind introducing yourself? >> Can you read her name into the mic? So we
>> Kelsey Hansen Walter. >> Okay. Thank you. So I did not print out the agenda, but I believe we had uh minutes are the next thing up. Did everyone have the opportunity to read through the minutes from our last
meeting? If anyone did, they might entertain making a motion. Thank you so much. They might uh entertain making a motion that the minutes be approved. Mr. Dono.
So motion is made by John Deronimo, seconded by Bob Fitz Simmons to approve the minutes from the July 2nd meeting. All those in favor of approval? I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries and the July 2nd minutes
are approved. Next, we have a discussion of county council meetings from July 22nd and from August 5th. Would anyone like to kick off comments
about the first of all, how many people watched them or went to them art part? Okay. Uh Jessica, >> so I will not summarize, but I think the key thing that I want to keep in mind as
we discussed today um is the direction that council made on Senate Bill 180 um which was proposing amendments to the bill as stated um to clarify the intention of the bill to relate only to structures damaged by a hurricane in
that event. Um, I know that we're going to talk about where we go as a committee. Um, and I know that previously we talked about an action going to council. Um, depending on the expiration date of Senate Bill 180, but I would suggest given that direction,
maybe it's a little different on how we move forward, if that amendment is effective, we get started a little sooner, something like that. >> Thank you, Jessica. And I would add to that, unless I misheard in yesterday's meeting, uh there will be a legislative
session in November special session. And I would anticipate that this would be addressed in that special session. Um so that's another data point built. >> Do we have any idea the likelihood of a success to getting that amendment through?
>> Um we don't, but what I can tell you is that League of Cities is looking at this. I would assume that the Florida Association of Counties is looking at it. Um, so I'm not a betting person at all, but I
think there is energy to modify it as the previous SB250 was was modified. Um, those are my thoughts. I think unless sorry unless somebody has something else to add I think that those two things
just to reiterate are the salient points for today's meeting. One that our county has agreed to propose amendments and two well actually three points. Three that there's some ground swell among other municipal governments to address the
issues that have the unforeseen issues that have arisen from SB80. and three that there will be a special legislative session in November which is just around the corner. >> So, uh, Bill, >> so are we now deciding whether we keep
going or what? >> In our last meeting, we agreed to look at within the constraints of SB80 what it was that we could do. We were invited to bring our own proposals and staff committed to
sharing with us some of the things that they have identified. Whether or not those things need to be addressed by us is another question. And it seems to me that that presentation is teed up for us to go through now.
>> Uh yes, but I am having a little bit of a technical difficulty. So hang on one second. This is the point at which then the chair entertains anyone who has a good joke. Tyler, >> so not a joke, but um I I didn't send an
email. I dug through most of the ideas that I was thinking might be worth exploring. The only thing that was on my list from many of our prior discussions that is purely a loosening of regulations and would be allowed under SP80 is I still think that including all
oak trees on the specimen tree list is too restrictive and that we should be targeting trees that have a lifespan over 100 years. So that there's going to be at least a 50year from the point of development anticipated survival or average survival of the tree. So trees
like live oaks, absolutely. Trees like water oaks, they don't live 80 years typically. So at midpoint in life, there's less than 50 years of tree life left. I that's the only thing that I had in my list. So um >> I I do have let me sorry for
interrupting. Um I have a presentation that goes through all of the things on our work plan and what we may or may not be able to do by each topic. So is on that list. I I I otherwise don't see a way that our committee can provide any
beneficial, you know, use of continuing to meet unless special session makes an amendment. And so my suggestion would, you know, be unless there's something here that requires our action that we do look at maybe a long-term adjournment.
>> So let's go through. Thank Oh, Bob. Thank you, Tyler and Bob. Yeah, I just wanted to concur with Tyler. That's all that I agree with everything you just said. >> I and there may be others who agree with that, but I think we should go through
the deck because staff has worked on it and they know more than I do. That's for sure. Um, and then we can discuss what our next steps are. Ginger, are you in business?
Do we have time to print flip charts? Sorry, we had a complete network migration. So everything's everything's not where I don't know. Okay. >> So do you see this screen too? Okay.
Okay. Um and one other thing before we start the slide deck too is that we did have a meeting at the airport recently about the low impact development um voluntary program and two of the members of this committee were there and both members
did speak um just uh so uh Jessica was there and Wendy was there. um it's uh work that you already completed because it was about the low impact development program. But just for you know full transparency there was that discussion which I thought went really well by the
way and hopefully we get some some projects coming in the door. >> This committee if we have time at the end might like to hear about that. Thank you. Okay. >> Okay. So uh for new business for today is this PowerPoint that is sort of the post Senate Bill 180 options that we
could consider. So, what I did, uh, you know, Keith and I, um, and Samantha looked at here was what was on your 2025 work plan that was approved by council. Um, and then for each of the nine items that were on the work plan, I have a slide or two talking about, you know,
what are the options given our SB180 reality. Um, so the first thing was the storm water management minimum standard. So, we had adopted the storm water management chapter 72 changes. They had to be
repealed after Senate Bill 180 passed. And so, um, iter means does that mean it would have to be voted on again? Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's out of the code. Yeah.
So, um, our next, uh, topic of work was, uh, to make those same changes in chapter 50. You had all voted on what those changes were and staff was working on those chapter 50 changes. Of course, that work will have stopped. So, unless
there's some other discussion, I think that's sort of where we are on the storm water management. anybody um actually take some of the changes that we might make to just kind of like float them by just you know our city governments to get reactions from
them like you know we were going to have to stop anyway if we were to to get there and county started the conversation so that it wouldn't we get a green right to move forward. Everybody's already on the same page and knows what we're talking about. >> I think we heard from Morgan the last
meeting about that. Let's hear from Morgan again about that. >> Um because it discusses proposals. Um our conservative approach has been that that is not something that would be a good idea, at least not at this time unless they change it. >> Anything else? Okay. Um the second uh
item on our work plan was flood hazard management. You were actually in the process of doing that. Samantha had identified all of the potential changes and um you had voted on almost everything, right? It was pretty much pretty much wrapped up.
>> Um so listed here on this slide are some things that we could potentially still do under SB 180. And um just sort of uh I'll say this is about applies to everything probably that that we've put on these slides is um these are things
we could do that doesn't mean we should do them. Right? So it and is it busy work? Right? And so some of the things that we're going to talk about that we could do it may not be worth the effort that it takes to do that without doing any substantive changes. That's really
up for y'all to discuss. But so with flood hazard management, we could do the cleaning up of the formatting errors, the statute references, etc. Um we could do the sort of plain language um that we got as guidance from um the Florida
Department of Emergency Management and then we can, you know, look at those definitions and ensure they're compliant. Uh if we don't do those things, everything's fine. You know, the ordinance is is fine the way that it is. Um, but those are things we could do if
you wanted to pursue that. It's none of the substantive thing changes that you talked about. >> Good. >> Two questions. Would you rather comment on topic by topic? >> Is that helpful? Yeah. Okay.
>> Uh, on this one, if it's what's on the screen, I have full faith in staff to do those. Yeah. >> Not this board. Could we go ahead and vote on that on this page? >> Sure. Just get that out of the way. Would someone
like Miss Morrisy? I will make a motion that with regard to flood hazard management, the suggested changes as shown on the PowerPoint slide should be
handled by staff in their sole consideration and not by Enrach. >> Motion made by Miss Moresy, seconded by Miss Bliss Jameson. All those in favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Oh, Ginger,
>> I just have a question. >> Okay. >> Um, I'll look at Samantha, but my take on these changes is that if it were up to staff, we would just leave it alone for now. Not actually make these changes, just let it go.
>> That would be in your soul. >> That is that in keeping with your motion. Okay. >> Okay. Motion here. Oh, well, Mr. No more >> when you guys make changes to code that is separate from what we do it goes
through PLDRC right so it wouldn't be at their soul it would have to go through PLLDRC committee >> but that's it they that's procedural and that's >> staff's not going to do it unless they feel like it's worthy of their time.
>> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> Okay, this uh item three was the reclaimed water irrigation landscaping topic. I I really didn't have much to put on this slide because this was a
committee generated topic. So, um I'm throwing it out there to see, you know, what you all think um if there are changes that can be made in the oppos 180 world. I don't know that it's worth tempting the challenge on this one because of SP
180. I don't think that irrigation is necess I mean irrigation is a development requirement. Reducing the amount of irrigation required is not more burdensome. Reducing the cost of landscaping is not more burdensome. So I think that there is a path that this could be viable. But I don't think it's
worth keeping our committee active to beat this one up. I also think that it will not be a publicly popular idea. So, um you know, I think that there are basins where this definitely makes sense and in the flood studies they should be um considering this if not under their
current iteration and like future expansions. But um no, I I don't want to keep meeting for this one. >> Sadly, I concur. >> Jessica, sorry. That's I have a a question for Morgan on this one. Um, in
terms of irrigation maintenance and performance standards that are not tied to development. Um, is it possible that there may be best practices from upkeep and maintenance that could be looked at that would not
impede on Senate Bill 180 that deals with development of properties and approvals rather than maintenance and operation? I think there might be some, but I think the biggest concern is if we make some change and I think I kind of mentioned that before if we make some changes and
it has unintended consequences, we may not be able to go back after that. So that that would again just going with a conservative approach, but that might be the issue. >> So potentially enforcement changes are what you're thinking. Yeah.
Um, and I will say on that, um, the county's, um, irrigation permit program is actually managed by the health department. So, there's a, you know, a little bit of complication there in that, you know, if we made changes to the irrigation uh,
rules, the health department would actually implement them. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Topic number four on our list were wetland alteration permits. And you know, we've been way down the road on wetlands. Um, so some of the things that
we could still do under SP 180 is to reorder the sections to make it uh flow better. We talked about that. Um, remove some of the redundancies in the code, just make it easier for the average person, right? Um, we can add the definitions for the um, uniform
mitigation assessment method. and we could update the um mitigation section to include the um the state required mitigation assessment method and allowing the purchase of mitigation bank credits. Right? We had quite a bit of discussion about how the code doesn't
really match up with the state requirements and I can't even say new state requirements anymore because they're really not new. Um again, this is a a case of we're making it work right now and so you know is the juice worth the squeeze? That's a question for
you guys. Um, but we can't again, you know, make any of the changes that we had talked about that were substantive. You You were looking at me like I was supposed to say something. >> So, we could >> Okay. Well, then I'll say something.
>> I was I was being clairvoyant. Yeah, that's good. Uh my concern with moving forward is uh the potential perception by others uh that this change
would be considered not um not gainful. Okay, depending on how you look at things and um would in and of itself create some controversies and
then who knows where it goes because of the language in the statute. You know, anyone can file a grievance against it regardless of whether or not it's being proposed as less burdensome,
less restrictive. um and um you know taking the very conservative approach which I I think in this climate makes sense. Um I would make a motion that we as a
committee and RACK does not move forward um to consider any of the uh suggestions as shown on the PowerPoint under wetland alteration permits. I >> at this time.
>> Thank you, Tyler. And we do have a motion made by Ms. Moresy to not move forward on this. Tyler. >> So, I don't think Enrach should be participating in moving forward, but I do think bullets three and four should be addressed by staff. This is housekeeping that when the legislation
came out that changed or the the administrative code changes came out that brought you ma'am and mitigation bank purchase and other things in place we changed our operating procedures at the county but we didn't change the written rule and that should be reconciled to match that I don't think
is making things more burdensome or ownorous I would you know obviously defer to the attorneys on whether there's a risk of that but I am less concerned about reordering or removing redundancy ies things of that nature. I am just making the code match with our
operating practices and I I again don't think ENRAC needs to be involved with that process. >> Jessica, >> I would agree and I would just add I don't know if we've done a review of the changes this year on mitigation banks at the state level and if we need to add
any cross references to that now that you can go like outside of different areas and things. >> And likewise, I agree with I agree with both Sarah Lee's motion and with Tyler's concerns. So, I'm kind of going to ask Morgan because when we
first talked about wetlands, we were very clear that those last two points add the definitions for you, ma'am, and update for consistency with state law was something that we were likely going to be just fine with. As a body, I can't
anticipate our votes, but Sarah Lee does raise the spectre of unintended consequences that could this be perceived as new regulation that would bring brimstone and hellfire down upon us >> or Doge.
>> Or doge. Yes. Well, I I that same thing. Um, I mean, anyone's going to have the ability if they think something is more restrictive to submit the notice and then we'd have to address that within the time frame. Um, so if we put in the effort and someone sends it out, we
would have to do like we did with the storm water um, and repeal it if it was considered to be. Um, so I I don't know that it falls under that. I know that we when we talked about some of the updates of things that we were doing, but they're not in the code. it it we are
still adding something specifically to the code that is more restrictive. So again there is that concern is even if it's how it's being done in practice it it is something that is implemented in the code that's going to be more strict than what is currently there.
>> Okay. So, Jessica, >> say the only thing I'd say is that I would hope that the state government would appreciate us coming into conformance with their current standards, but you never know.
>> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have a motion on the table which is >> okay. That >> we had discussion, so I was wondering if someone did wish to second it. >> I'll second it. >> Yes. Who was that second? >> Right over here. Ah,
>> thank you, Bill. So, motion made by Miss Morsy, seconded by Mr. Lights. All those in favor of not addressing this. Any opposed? Motion carries. Oh, you're not. I'm sorry. Wendy's a
note. Is Anderson's a note. Dr. Anderson. >> Okay. U fifth on our list was coastal protection. Again, this is one where we hadn't really fleshed out what we wanted to talk about. Um I I think uh Wendy, you were the one that was talking about
this when we put it on our work plan. And so um if if you have specific ideas, that would be great. It was kind of related to our um beach and dune ordinance, right? enforcement,
>> right? >> And so again, is this a place where there might be state rules that need to be um that we need to be more consistent with if there's any change there? And um you know particularly in the context of
having um planted dunes in front of seed walls and you know earlier this spring we basically gave a pass to 190 people to not have to move those in and um so you know I I don't really know what's possible
those >> right so right now the code um regulates the construction of uh coastal armoring uh seaw walls um dune walkovers uh regulates sand placement project requires a permit for the county in
addition to whatever permits are required from the state and we have standards that are in excess of the state standards. So if you build a new seaw wall our code says that you have to plant or create an artificial dune in front of that seaw wall and plant it with native species. The council waved
that requirement after the 2022 storms. Um so none of the seaw walls that have gone in since the 2022 storms have had to do that um dune replacement. Um for a period of time we were um asking people
to pay into the dune restoration trust fund so that we could do that work later. Um those fees that the folks that paid those fees were refunded to them. Um, which all sounds sort of um bad I
guess, but um we did get $77 million from the state of Florida to do a dune restoration project. Um, so the county is managing that project. It's ongoing right now in the area south of Sunglow Pier to Pon Inlet. And so our coastal
division is placing sand in front of properties and planting those uh dunes. It's 18 cubic yards of sand um per linear foot. So, while the waiver seemed, you know, really angsty um at least in that area,
we are we are putting sand back on the beach that's going to happen in New Simra as well. There's a project starting this fall in the New Simra Beach area and then um we are exploring additional sand options to extend the placement um north of Sunlope Pier
moving to the north county. So um hopefully that work will be done. It'll be done by the county. Um in terms of you know are there things that we would want to do with the Beach and Dune ordinance that would be less restrictive? I mean I don't personally
see less restrictive although you know we our hands were a little bit tied when the state um waved the requirements for um vulnerability um and it was basically everybody gets a seaw wall right that's that was new um
used to be there some state criteria so um I don't I don't know about you know if there's an appetite for being less restrictive in the speech and doing ordinance >> Jack then Serling Yeah, I um I have a couple different things. One is about enforcement as she
mentioned it. Um and are there issues that are on the books that haven't been fully enforced? And if they are are uh can that be an element that can we can in fact enforce rules
and would that be a a problem relative to 180? That's the first question. The second is in the case of um all of these subjects in a broadstroke basis um I realize we can't do any of this and and
you you probably know that I'm discouraged by the whole fair as we all are but in thinking about it is there a way that we can do something similar to what we did with uh with
other projects and specifically LI to build more incentives, okay, outside with, you know, an incentive, a voluntary method, if you will, and then um put that in place and in fact use some of our tax dollars to facilitate
good things uh and the if a developer or a builder want not wants to in fact take that position and get that incentive, that would be just fine. And I would assume that would not in fact be a a problem. It would also give us a
benchmark going forward to where we could move into more of a hybrid position in a lot of these things if in fact the rules changed in time. And uh this this was a new thought on my mind because I I like the incentive element. Uh but it's a it's a stick and carrot
kind of position and we've we basically have removed the stick possibility. perhaps we should make the carrot larger where we can. Um so th those are the two subjects that that came to mind when I gave it thought. >> Okay. Can I answer the first question?
Um there are things and and you know since we're talking about coastal protection, you know, in the beach and dune ordinance that are very difficult to enforce and and um one of those is the requirement for the dune in front of a new seaw wall because the way the code is written is that the dune has to remain for the for the life the
functional life of that armoring project. And we um in the past and moving forward will also have a real difficulty in if those dunes get washed away from a storm or whatever compelling people to put the dune back. Um there
hasn't been a lot of um support for uh forcing people to put back sand in front of their uh seaw walls after they've been impacted, you know, by a storm. So the code requires that that dune remain for the life of
that armoring structure. The reality is that's been really difficult to enforce. Um so to your point, yeah, we have rules that you know are really tricky to enforce and um you know then then I guess begs the question is there do you
want to have the role right? Um, the second part is is more, you know, a philosophical thing for the whole group to discuss. Although, you know, one of the things that Morgan's been telling us is if we did adopt some sort of incentive based thing, um, if we decided
we didn't like it later and we were still under the confines of SB80, taking away that incentive might be considered more restrictive. So, we could we would be stuck, for lack of a better word, with that incentive. Um, but I I think that's um a really
worthy topic for discussion is are are there incentives if if we can't compel people to do things through regulation, are there ways that we can move in the right direction? >> And forgive me that would be general to all of the >> Are there other areas that we I I wasn't really referring specific coastal
protection. Are there other areas that we're not enforcing uh that in fact we could enforce and not be in a problem with 180? >> The other um code that we have a really hard time with um compliance is our uh
class 2 ordinance and and we do have a slide I think we have a slide about that. Yeah. um where we require folks to retain a certain amount of native vegetation on site. We require a certain amount of storm water on site. These are on single family
residential sites. Um and compliance with those requirements over time is really low. So at the time of a development or you know a new home being built, we make sure that they meet all the requirements. But over time, the BMS erode, people take out the vegetation, a
new homeowner comes in and doesn't have any idea why there's these BMS around the edge of the property. That's another one that's um we have a really hard time maintaining compliance. And we typically enforce based on complaints. I mean, that's not only how we do it, but and
we'd have to have an entire team of folks just doing these Indian River Lagoon um compliance inspections if we were going to try to maintain that over time. So, that's another one. It's really difficult to keep going
thoroughly. >> I I was going to say specific to this slide, I was going to echo Wendy's comments. Um I was not convinced I had new ideas for it um because we as a
committee have yet to discuss this particular issue. However, I have been very concerned and really bothered by what I've seen uh happen uh along our coast over the last several years. Um,
and that being said, um, my my comments were going to in some ways echo some of what Jack said that perhaps by the time we get to the end of this PowerPoint because I'd like to see
some of the other comments andor um, concerns. I think the issue of enforcement of existing is something that we as a committee may want to make a statement about
um to our council. And um so what I was was going to say was um if the issue of enforcement goes beyond coastal protection, which
I'm thinking it does, that perhaps hopefully if some time allows, we as a committee could discuss that and just see if we can come to any kind of agreement about some sort of statement to council because my concern is um
there are rules on the books and the intent of those rules is worthy. Otherwise, they would not have been considered and they would not have been
adopted regardless of how old they may be. and that we I I am not convinced we are serving our community by not enforcing. I understand there's challenges with enforcement and
that there could be subsequent decisions to not enforce, but I still think that we may want to have some sort of statement made by this committee. Coastal is my privilege in recognizing myself.
Coastal is something very near and dear to my heart, having grown up and living along the same stretch of beach for 60 years. So, I've done my own little longitudinal study of what's happened
over that time and my own little unscientific surveys talking to beach walkers about what their understanding is of what makes for a healthy beach and involvement with League of Women Voters to put on a hot topic in an attempt to educate the
public about speech dynamics and enforcement is an issue. It it's an issue with with all of these things. And I
sometimes feel that one of the biggest challenges is trying to educate the public, not just about what rules are, but about why they exist. Because there are reasons. There are reasons that we don't let everybody, you know, drive
jeeps down the doom anymore. Hm. Yeah, that it's going to hurt the D. Um, so maybe that discussion of enforcement
matters. The other thing I would say is because I love the coast and have worked personally on a lot of things in my own area, it's really complicated because at least up in the public part of the beach, you're dealing with various different entities. Valuchia County, the Department of Environmental Protection
at the Florida state level, Florida Department of Transportation because State Road A1A, now what's it called? Jimmy Buffett Highway. Um, isn't that it? I think. Yeah, the Jimmy Buffett Highway is an evacuation route. Um,
so it's enforcement. is probably easier than trying to change regulations with all the different entities that are focused on that one little little spot and FWC and of course the feds as well. So all of these
entities have say so over different things about what happens on our beaches and our dunes. Jessica >> on coastal protection without changing any rules or making it stricter. There may be to kind of the point on
enforcement and process there may be something and I don't know if it's this committee but I'm keeping a list of things that we could talk about at the end and this one is under coastal um could look at how to better educate coastal properties on our sea turtle
lighting and how it interacts with FWC and that fun joy. So, we have one full-time position that is our lighting specialist and and her job is to enforce the lighting ordinance during sea turtle nesting season and spend the entire off season either
whipping into shape those folks that never came into compliance or um and doing education. Um and in the nesting season, we also have a um a lighting um a part-time like during season position that helps. Um, so we do spend a
significant amount of time and energy doing that. Um, we spend a significant amount of time telling the same people the same thing every single year, taking the same people to codeboard. So
yes, agreed. Um, yeah, we we we do asended as if you want several times to continue building.
you must put a doom back up there and we'll talk about 10 more time that just simply says that you are clearly trying to be on construction control line and that's on you and that is your choice as a free American to live on construction
control line but if you do this is what you have to do so you know I don't know what's a carrot amongst a stick here but it seems like the old violin comes with the price of
protecting her playing on that example. I think that could be and whether it's a characteristic could be a carrot if we're allowing for existing illegally non-conforming structures or non-conforming structures that are
destroyed to a point to go back to their current position. But I think it would be a stick if they got a permit to build in the coastal construction controlling. Yeah. Well, and the code now does require that. It's about the the vertical seaw
wall structure. It's not about whether the house is in the CCCL, right? That that the our building official or our building um department does um regulate those that construction seawward to the control line. But the dune replanting
requirement exists. The council waved it. Right. >> Okay. Oh, I'm sorry, Tyler. >> So, I just I think my understanding of the CCCL must be a little bit different and what its intent and application is.
Um, in my permitting experience with CCCL, it's the line that is assumed that could erode during a catastrophic storm event and the dirt be gone. So, if we didn't build there, the dune would be gone. If we do build there, the dune's going to be gone. We're required to have
deep pile or deep enough pile foundations and uh structural supports for everything that's built so that all of the structures remain and the non critical peripheral structures if they
are designed to not remain they drop vertically and are not able to be washed away so that the debris can later be removed. There isn't a restriction that says you can't build beyond that line. It is just a the ground might not be there. So you have to meet new structural requirements to build there
and it gets permitted by FD and your foundation has to be above the expected wave crest height with storm surge and the tip of the piles in the ground has to be below the scour elevation with enough area to support your structure.
So it just I might be ignorant to the you know other purposes of it but that is what the implication is. It doesn't really have anything to do with you have an obligation if you build here to make sure that the dune stays. So I would definitely think anything in that direction would be considered a burden
burdensome nonsb 180 compliant thing. >> Okay. So uh Bob >> just a short comment on dune restoration in general. Um, I've been watching it my entire life. I've lived on the coast my entire life in Florida
and uh, you cannot do spot improvements. So, you know, to have and that may be the reason the council, you know, waved it. You can't come in and in one, two, or three, or 500 foot section redo a
dune and not do it on both ends because the next time a storm comes along, it's attacked at the side and it's not doing what it naturally does to slow the impact of the wave down, which is all being confronted at one point. As soon
as you get around the back of something on erosion, all bets are off. So, and one other comment on maintenance, if you will, or of regulations or or regulating, you know, enforcing those.
Um, if we have that discussion, it needs to be on a whole lot of things, not just uh the coast. >> Thank you. >> Which was what I was about to say that Go ahead, Mr. Dono.
Um, we used to refer to the beach area as barrier islands. >> They are. >> And there was and there was a reason for that. >> So, I would love to talk about coastal restoration, but uh, you know, it it
does take a comprehensive approach from everything that I've ever learned. What we have said in this section just to spit it back out to the group is two topics have emerged for discussion
visav all of the items on our list. One was the discussion about incentives and the other was a discussion about enforcement but I have not heard about anything that we are going to attempt to do visav coastal that correct committee. Okay.
Okay. So, Ginger, please move on. I haven't been on the mic this whole time. Hopefully that got on the record. Um, this is an area that Keith's group spends a lot of time on um on enforcement. At the time of the development though, we we ensure that
that everyone is in compliance with this rule. It's just that the sort of falling out of compliance over time is an issue. >> The build in Jeff, >> is that only new homes that are built or does it retro to homes that are already
in place? >> It's not retroactive for homes that were built before a certain date. But if you what is it 400 square feet? >> 200 >> facility 200. >> Yeah. So if you added an accessory structure or something, it would trigger
the requirements. >> Uh when was this put in place? Do you know >> 1987? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, John. Um what what's happening uh with that
requirement on keeping the water on the site is um builders now are uh actually doing a stem wall on the perimeter and then filling it all in. All right. And so u and I did it and my next door
neighbors got a you know 4ft wall in in their front yard but an 8ft wall in their backyard. Um and and there's some logic to it except what what happens to the house that's existing between two of those
you know there's a thing called the venturi you know when the water comes through and it's channeled you know so um it's like that consequence I you know it's um I mean I've always um I I like
to think in terms of how we build. Uh we've had flooding. We've had flooding forever. Um and we'll continue to have flooding. Um and how did people deal with it? How did the indigenous indigenous people deal it? They built to compensate for it.
They built above the ground. They didn't build on the ground. They built above the ground. They're still building it above the ground. If you look at hot wet climates all around the globe, it's above the ground and then the water goes underneath. Oh, sometimes it sits
there for a few days, you know, but it percolates through. Um, so, you know, we started building on the ground and, you know, it's that unintended consequence. >> Well, I think there's two issues here.
So, the class 2 ordinance or this um Indian revolution ordinance was intended to address water quality. It wasn't typically it really wasn't about water quantity and it's and it's um it wasn't about what elevation you build on for flooding either. It had no
um like it the whole point was to hold that storm water on site so that the nutrients could be taken up before it flowed off site because in this area so many there are so many existing lots of record that were just platted without any infrastructure that um you know the
idea was that there's no way to get that water quality improvement on any kind of largecale basis um because a lot of these are you know lots along these man-made canals they're smallish lots there's not a lot of rightway. Um so the
requirement to build a higher because of flooding or um you know storm surge and those sorts of things is related but not this this ordinance necessarily um and and how people so people have to do that and they have to meet these class 2
requirements. So Bob, I was trying to remember the Indians name or Ias AIS and the way they solved this problem, they left the barrier islands when the storms came. They moved their whole settlement to
higher ground would be wise to do >> which is just thought I'd throw that as a footnote. But to Cra's point, these existing regulations are more about water quality, trying to address that.
I'm sure everyone has heard um one of the one of the manifestations of water quality, which is the die off of seaggrasses in in in the area. Um, is there anything actionable from ENRACK's point of view
at this time on this? >> Tyler. >> So, I'm going to say no. I'll end this with a motion that we move forward and disregard the last two items as potential actions for our committee. Um, but the reason I say no is
uh FD with the storm water rule rewrite that went into effect last year now requires that all of our storm water system permits have maintenance standards with inspections and otherwise. That is a burdensome and ownorous um responsibility. There's
annual reporting requirements. all of that. That is really what would be necessary here to give more teeth to Keith's group is to have self-reporting requirements for the folks that fall under this. I don't putting my lawyer hat on, I don't see a path that doesn't
create some type of a rule violation. If there is one, I think it's something that staff could take under their own um direction and you know what's the directive to uh under see. So, I'd like to move that we go ahead
and disregard items five and six as potential actions for us. And five was the last one that we moved on from >> comment >> a discussion question. Would that include u us not trying to get better
enforcement? >> I'm gonna It probably should defer to Morgan. >> I don't know. I'm just saying I'm saying I'm I'm I'm saying before I vote for that, which I would generally agree with. Uh that that doesn't seem to include enforcement on the current rules
which are in place. >> Yeah. I'm just specifying that as a committee, we shouldn't be right. I don't think we should be discussing uh >> code changes. >> Code changes. Right. And so, yeah. So, I would I would agree, but as long as it's not including the enforcement of
existing rules, which I'd like to hear from Morgan on this because would that would the enforcement actually create more of a burden? Uh, because it wasn't enforced and now it is enforced and so we could be challenged on that. >> I just want to say it is enforced. It's
just that the the amount of non-compliance often exceeds our either enforcement e sometimes we don't know that someone's out of compliance until someone complains and there's you know a lot of it and a few
of us >> well we maybe we say inadequate enforcement uh come on Keith work with me Keith I have a song I'm sorry. I don't mean it to be that way. I I really don't. I really, you know, >> my comments are going to be that most of
the enforcement issues are not even the property owners doing. Uh these retention areas are 6 in deep. They have uh St. Augustine grass that fills in in two years. And you know, they're like, I
put my retention there. And they did. We have pictures of it. It was fine. and come back, it just fills in. So, I mean, do we really want to go door to door to door and go your retention pond filled in, your retention pond filled in, you're I mean, we're we're not going to
have political will to do that. And it's just it is when it's But if they ever come back in for another permit, that's when we're like, "Hey, you you've got to reinstall this." And the vegetation requirement is 35% of
the lot. That's a lot. So, do you want a pool? Do you want, you know, what size of your driveway? What size of your house? Your, you know, septic. >> Okay. We had a motion. Uh, I'm sorry,
Morgan. Um, so I was going to mention um I think a a statement to council about enforcements or how things are being enforced is is outside of the um NRAC purview. So I understand you all wanting to talk about that and wanting to be involved, but I think that does fall
outside of what you're um tasked to do. So sorry to throw that in there, but I was I was going to actually >> Why is that? Why is that? because we're supposed to work on ordinances, updating ordinances, not making other kinds of
recommendation >> within ordinances and and the fact that ordinances aren't being enforced would not be within our purview. Is that what you're saying? >> Okay. >> That said,
forgive me. I think we certainly are free to say so as citizens. So to formally say we are not taking a role at this time at this time on items five and six that we've just seen. It was
made by Tyler, seconded by Sarah Lee. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. >> Trees. um everyone's favorite topic, but um as most of you who have been here,
you OG members will recall um we did have some recommendations that allowed flexibility in the tree ordinance. And I think that would still be allowable under SB 180. Um I I'll just go on record as saying, you know, some of the flexibility
um makes makes sense and and we're in favor of that. We also had some things that, you know, we thought maybe could be tightened up, but we can't do that. So, if if we only do some of the things here, we're making the ordinance um less burdensome. It's not being balanced by
additional requirements, uh due to SB180. But, so, uh, one thing we talked about was reordering to make the code flow better. I think this is um more of an issue than it is in the wetland code because we have different rules for
single family versus um commercial and it's confusing the way that it's written right now. So, I think we had some good suggestions about how to make that really clear if you're an applicant. Um we talked about lowering the minimum tree replacement size from 2 in to 1.5
caliber in um more based on nursery standards. Um, we talked about allowing the county forester to wave or modify the minimum tree requirements based on site conditions. Remember, that's the um rule that says you have to have one tree
per 2500 square ft of lot area. And there are times when we have um sites come in that are, you know, already devoid of trees for whatever reason. That used to be a pasture or whatever, right? And so um that's not something that we can modify right now. It
requires a waiver from the DRC. Uh we talked about allowing the county forester to modify the specimen requirements based on site conditions. Again, some sites, you know, just don't have specimen trees or there are some extenduating circumstances. Um talked about removing some of the
redundancies, just making the code easier to understand. Um talked about allowing the county forester to waiver modify that um 20% lot clearance requirement. That's on a new subdivision. The code says um at the time of a new subdivision, you can only clear 20% of the lots at any given time.
That's a um a rule that we often find um being requested as a waiver to the DRC um because a lot of times new subdivisions there's an economy of scale of of clearing more at the beginning. Um so that's often a waiver request.
And um this is really wordy and you don't necessarily have to read the whole thing, but um making some edits to the language in the um tree replacement trust fund to just further clarify what that trust fund can be used for. Um it's
it's not more burdensome really or less burdensome. Um so those are the things that we identified. Yeah, that's it. uh that we could still potentially do on tree protection if you wanted to move forward with those.
>> Wow. Um I just wanted to touch on the specimen tree protection comments that um that have been made. So by allowing me to modify or wave the specimen requirements that gives that flexibility in there. I would caution that based on
the ordinance that we have, if you have a certain number of specimen trees on the lot and you now take those away, you have to have you have to keep more specimen trees. So, if I was, you know, a developer, I would argue that now I
have less specimen trees, so I have to keep more of them, >> larger, >> a larger percentage of them, and that could be seen as more burdensome. However, if I'm allowed to wave or modify based on species or age or condition,
I I don't see a way that you can say that's more burdensome. So, we have heard those comments and this is our answer to that without creating a problem in the code according to SB80.
>> Thank you. Uh Jessica, then Bill, >> this is another one that I'm in favor of it happening. Um but I think we've kind of had in rack direction on these points and I don't know that we need to look at the language again or if that would be super productive, but if we have another meeting and it's ready, sure. Um but I
wanted to say I think there were other items that we agreed on that were additional exemptions for like county road projects that I think could still be added without issues. Okay. Those are already adopted in. >> Is that true? >> No. Okay.
>> Voted on them, but I don't think the rule the ordinance got changed. >> The the road projects are exempt except for historic trees already. >> It's the historic. We added them to historic. Yeah. Yeah. So, um I would like to understand the
issue with the Laurel Oaks. Um I haven't talked to Rob Bob about it, but I talked to our engineer and um on a project that we you had to x-ray some trees or something to it. just seems like that
whole laurel oak um specimen tree thing is a real problem and I think it would be good to talk about possibly removing laurel oaks from specimen tree requirements because they're just going to fall apart very
soon anyways. So I would like to simplify the code in that way >> again that could run a file of SP 180 and then you would throw out all the specimen tree requirements at that point because we couldn't go back we couldn't
go back and and change the ordinance again. What? I don't understand. >> So, the I'm sorry to jump in on this. The base replacement requirement is 15% across sectional area. When you get into
specimen tree, you have a higher replacement rate, but then there's also a matrix. So, like I had a 5 acre project. It was a city of land project, but I had less than 15 specimen trees. So, I couldn't cut a single specimen tree down, and it locked my project
down. If id had 25 specimen trees, the client would have paid more in penalty for replacement or tree fund or whatever. But they >> that's not the case. The replacement value doesn't change if it's a specimen tree or a regular tree. Where we have
asked for additional replacement is if someone comes in for a waiver from the specimen requirements and we say okay you don't have to retain all of the specimenies that are required if you add additional mitigation for those specimens that you're taking out but the
across the board replacement is 15%. It's not higher for specimens. >> Okay. My apologies on that one. It is in city of dand. Okay. But but so um >> but but you're right. That is where I was getting it wrong. but it can lock you down on the flexibility of your layout. That's the point that Keith is
making and I don't think that it's an invalid point. It I I don't disagree with the premise that it is problematic to me that Laurel Oaks, Water Oaks, other there's trees other than oak trees. It's just we don't usually run into them being classed as specimen
trees on our site. So, I'm not picking on the entire list. I'm picking on what, you know, has affected me. But in that light, I don't know that there is necessarily a I don't know how to break that
issue. Yeah. >> Yeah. I would certainly like to have a discussion about the trees and the changes that staff is suggesting there that uh you know, I I believe we need to do some work on that. Um, you know, I'm
also one that believes that uh Laurel Oaks shouldn't be on the specimen list at all. Uh, and there's many cities in the state of Florida, Dand being one of them, where as soon as a laurel oak gets to be 20 in in diameter, it's not only not a specimen tree, it's regarded as a
hazard. Um, because typically that's what they are. Morgan, I have a question for you though because Keith made a comment that had if we eliminated uh a tree like let's just, you know, hypothetically we're going to eliminate
Laurel Oaks from the specimen tree list. How would that be in conflict with uh 180? It seems to me that would be lessening the burden, not increasing the burden. Well, I think what they were talking about is uh once you deal with
that with the specimen trees, then it changes the the percentage, right? There there's an issue there where if you're removing things on the site and now you're required to plant replant more, then that's going to be more burdensome. So, I I think if I was understanding
correctly, that's what they're discussing is it's changing what you have to replace. I think he did say that but he also said something about different that if you take it away now then you can't put it
back later >> right >> well well so so here's here's an example I think maybe to help clarify so if you have uh 40 specimen trees on your site because you're counting more oaks then
your percentage of replacement, you know, it's per acre, right? So, how many specimens do you have per acre? The higher your number of specimens per acre, the less percent you have to retain, right? So, if you have eight specimen trees per acre, then you have
to, you know, or let's say between five and eight, then you retain 50% of the specimens you have, right? So, you've got a lot of flexibility about which of the specimens you take out. If you have less than three specimen trees per acre, you have to retain 80% of them. So you
have a lot less flexibility in your site design because you have to preserve a larger proportion of the specimens you have. So that's where we we were thinking that that may become more burdensome because you can't design your
site the way you want and still meet the specimen requirements. Now, if um if we you know make changes that says that and right now that would require a DRC waiver and typically if you're going to DRC for a waiver from the specimen
requirements, we're asking you to do something else, right? Do you provide additional tree replacement? Do you provide additional tree preservation area? Something to offset the waiver that you're requesting. Um what we have proposed is that those um f those the
ability to be flexible at the staff level rather than have to request that DRC waiver. And then that's something that's negotiated um you know with the applicant and with Keith. And so you could say well you know I I can't save the 80% of the specimen but I can save
75 but I'll give you a little more tree preservation area here and then that doesn't have to go through the DRC process. So that's what we're proposing it. Um, you know, totally up to the committee how you want to move forward and honestly whether you want to have
like a meeting to discuss like I guess today we're kind of deciding do we want to talk further about stuff and then you know we could do that in future meetings if that's where you want to go. John, then Jessica, then Tyler. >> I remember the conversations and seeing
the list of all the specimens, but what I don't remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, we never finished tree ordinances. >> That's correct. >> And we never voted on this list. >> Correct. >> And so since we haven't voted on this list, how come it's being recommended
then? >> Well, yeah, let me be clear. It's not gosh, we're not making a recommendation. This list is just things you could potentially do under SB80. It's not that we've decided should do them. It's just here's what's left after you take out
all the SB80 things that you can't do. >> Okay? >> This doesn't touch the list. It just allows more flexibility with what you have to keep. You don't have to keep 100% of specimen trees. When you you hear that you're like, "Oh, I gotta keep all." You only have to keep the percentage based on,
>> but you declare an 18 inch >> water oak laurel oak. It becomes >> a specimen >> a specimen on that property. It dies two years later and then that's burdensome
because now you have to replace that specimen. >> Not on not on No, not >> or you have to get a permit to remove it. So, are you talking about commercial property? You talking about residential property >> either or? >> It doesn't affect residential. The specimen tree requirements doesn't
affect residential property. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, this is you're talking about subdivisions and commercial. If that tree dies in in a couple years, it it died. If it dies in 10 years, 20 years, you don't have to come back and replace it. It's it just died. >> But if I want it removed because of its
health, I have to come >> to you to get special permission or I have to get a permit to any tree, any protected tree on any commercial property, even a 6-in tree, >> right? >> And if you have a a development and you
have specimen trees on there that are in poor health, you don't have to pay to replace them. We can we can discuss it. We can look at it. We can meet on site. >> Um, you know, if you have an arborist, we can get together. I don't think um, you know, in general when we meet an
arborist on site or someone on site, we we generally agree. we look at the trees like yeah these are these are in poor health and if they are in poor health and they meet the definition deteriorated there's zero replacement for those um >> but if you just take it without going through that process then you're in
violation that's my point >> yeah that's any tree any tree above 6 in it doesn't matter whether it's a specimen tree or not on commercial and subdivisions on private land if you're owner occupied you're exempt from the tree code
I was going to say because we're trying to get through the full list and it sounds like we want to revisit this one that perhaps we will end the same way we started this journey >> which is one more lesson on trees. Um but I I wanted to note that I can see
where removing the available tree species could be a violation because you're limiting your options. So, I would agree with that caution with the math. Oh, Tyler has an idea, but we'll hear it. >> He only plays a lawyer on TV.
>> Okay. So, we can't change the rule, but we can make it the applicant's option whether or not a laurel or water oak would be considered a specimen tree. It's not more burdensome for them to decide that their laurel oaks are specimen or their laurel oaks are not specimen. >> So, a one to one trade of a specimen for
a laurel. Well, no, it's just a either on your project you're going to consider all oaks as specimens or just live oaks specimens applicants discretion, not okay. So, >> they're oaks though other than laurel oaks and water oaks that >> well and so that's why I rephrased it at
the end to be just live oaks or all oaks. Um, so I would add the so one of the hesitencies that we run into with clients sometimes is the county has a system that they call the Amanda system that if you make an inquiry on a parcel, there is a record taken on the parcel.
So if you go to purchase land, you can call the county and you can ask for all of the inquiries and other things that have ever been discussed with them since Amanda came into existence about that parcel. So, if you as an applicant go ask Keith for permission to wave one of these criterias and your project is
going to be killed if he says no, when he says no, that is then available in the due diligence to whoever you go to sell your property to. So, a lot of people are afraid to put information into public record with the county and discretion actually does act as a
barrier against applicants. And I mean, I I see some people nodding yes, some people nodding no. I'm just telling you my experience as somebody that works in this industry. It's not an opinion. It's just my lived fact. Um, and so with that, when we give
discretion to an applicant, it is upfront. They know that they're going to be able to do what they want. When we codify things and we don't make them discretionary, they know upfront what they're going to get. The other caution that I would have is Keith is a pretty reasonable forester. There are foresters
that don't like trees. He is currently our county forester. In the future, we could have a county forester that doesn't particularly like trees. Giving too much discretion to the county forester that cannot be peeled back could be a bad thing for the county long
term depending on who Keith is in the future. Um, just devil's advocate on that. >> I am I would say that I've never had someone call me and ask me uh how many specimen trees they have on the property. Um
that's typically something that you get a question about wetlands like have you been out there are there wetlands we get and you know yes we have been out there yes there are wetlands that does happen quite a bit. Um and the other thing is historic trees. So if we've been out there and this is and there's a historic
tree that information gets you know passed around and that could potentially be an issue for for someone but specimen trees they've never called to ask me how many specimen trees they have on the property. Thank you. So I think Bob, John,
Jessica, Bill. So, >> okay. Bob, Jessica, Bill. >> So, I agree that Keith is a reasonable forester and you can work things through. So, I wanted to put that down on the record. I disagree with uh my my
colleague over here. I think that discretion is a good thing to give uh the forester for forester or any other director of a department within reasonable bounds. And so that's something that that I agree with. But mostly I agree with Jessica. It's time
to move on. I move that we keep this item open uh and for discussion. Okay. Uh, habitat protection was another one that we wanted to tackle. Um, the
discussion originally when we were talking about the work plan was, you know, we have these rules that protect trees and and we protect wetlands, but we don't necessarily protect habitats. um as a you know on in their own right we talked about scrub habitat and some things like
that um but we don't have any current rules that address this except in the sort of peace meal way that we do which I know you know Wendy doesn't um she we've talked about having a more holistic approach but because we don't have any current rules any proposed
rules that deal with habitat would be more burdensome or restrictive so say agreed with the caveat that I think that there is potential in terms of carrots of building in some additional habitat
protection and like the having certain classifications of the best habitat counting towards areas of like the cluster or conservation subdivisions, things like that that could be expanded on that would be more incentive based. And there are others I'll talk about at
the end, but just to as an option for future discussions, >> so Oh, sorry. >> Sorry. >> I I think there's an opportunity there too for uh educational aspects along with Jessica. I think we could have the
conversation on potential educational opportunities that may exist. >> Are you suggesting that we create a new ordinance? Oh, just build stuff into the existing with incentives.
Well, >> I learned >> I personally don't want us to take this topic on because of the this isn't just a single layer onion. Um, you know, we create an incentive rule. There's got to
be a basis for how the habitat zones are defined. It's got to be something that stays regularly updated, so on and so forth. I see this being something that could have unintended consequences and need to be repealed and not be able to be repealed. John.
>> Um, it says no current rules, but I had to hire a biologist to tell me I didn't have any gopher turtles, you know, on my site. >> For gopher tortoises because that's a protected species. >> Well, right. There's a protection for the gopher tortoise and its burrow, but there's not protection for the gopher
tortois' habitat. Right. There's we don't have rules that say if you have habitat that um contains scrub jays or you know habitat that protects gopher tortois that you have to protect the habitat itself you have to protect the burrow or relocate the the tortoise. Um
but we don't have anything that deals with you know any of our like unique habitats in particular. We we get we get at it through trees and we get at it through wetlands and and gopher tortoises. protected the animal and its burrow, but but not sort of
holistically. >> It's kind of like you can have your house and we'll protect your house, but we can pollute all the air and the water around it and take out every tree and make it I'm using the gopher tortoise analogy. It doesn't matter where the
house is. Right. Just to cover over that discussion. Uh I agree with Tyler. I don't think that ENRA should do a habitat day on my list at the end. I do think that we could get some benefit from this group looking at
the conservation and cluster subdivisions. And I will just note that there is a very easy map data layer that the state contains that has habitat rankings for priorities that we could rely on. And I've even seen a presentation by a
county staff on habitats. Okay. Is there I guess we're not doing anything with this. No motion has been made. Okay. So there, Jessica,
>> that's not I was going to make a motion that we do not set aside habitat as a additional topic. >> Correct. >> Do we have a second? >> Oh, thank you, Michelle. So, motion made by Jessica Gao to not take on habitat
protection at this time and seconded by Michelle Whitick. All those in favor? I any opposed? Motion carries. >> This was the last item on our list. Um I I asked for this to be on the list, but
you guys sorted it low. Um so the pollution control minimum standard is um is in chapter 50, but it's not one of the environmental minimum standards. There's a little subtlety there. We haven't talked about this standard at all. It is not a land development
standard. So, it's not subject to the Senate Bill 180 restrictions. It is a rule that talks about pollution and what you and the fact that you cannot pollute the water, air, land of Valuchia County.
Um, it references state statutes that um deal with certain types of pollution, air pollution, etc. Um, and it's very very outdated. The um the reason that I wanted to look at it originally was that
um it was this was written in 1971. Really good year. Um it's very old. Um and the code enforcement process is is really ownorous. I mean it's preodern
code enforcement, right? And so the code says that the um environmental management director, which it's not titled that, um can convene the pollution control board if there's a issue in the county, a pollution issue in the county. And the pollution control board is the county council. And so
rather than follow our code enforcement process where we, you know, do all the things we do, notices, and then ends up in the code enforcement board, um we'd had to convene the county council as the pollution control board. Since I've been here, we've never done that. Um
so I have wanted to update this standard to um bring it into the sort of modern code enforcement process. I think that is all something we could do under SB80. It's not necessarily something that like that you all need to discuss, but we can
discuss it, right? It's one of the um minimum standards. Um so if that's something you're interested in, we can bring it back. I have um I I kind of know what what needs to happen on it, but you know what? 14 heads are better
than one maybe. So So there are things we could do on this one if you want to or staff could do it. >> Build in Wendy. >> What kind of pollution are we talking about? Like when would you >> it um >> enforce this?
>> So uh it this is the ordinance that allows us to inspect solid waste facilities. We um use this to inspect uh private wastewater treatment plants and look for um any kind of non-conforming um practices at wastewater treatment
plants. It allows us to um investigate complaints of somebody's dumping oil on this site or somebody's got junk cars here and they're polluting. Um if there's, you know, a landfill doing really crazy things outside of their permits, it it allows us to do enforcement on that. Um otherwise we
would have to rely on the D to do enforcement which you know um so anytime we get a complaint about somebody you know dumping paint down a a storm water great or something that's this pollution control ordinance that gives us the authority to investigate
and potentially um take an enforcement action. Um what we do now because pollution control board is really like an ownorous situation is that we compel people to comply um
really through you know saying we'll take them to the pollution control board and we get compliance um generally and and there's some state backup to that right because generally if they're doing these things they're also violating state rules but um like a lot of things the D doesn't have the response time
that that we have. So, we're often the first person to investigate these sorts of um pollution incidents. Wendy then Jessica necessary updates to the consisted of state codes state
to report back to us on just to review not necessarily to approve but just I'm kind of curious to see what changes are made. >> Jessica you had a comment before me. Okay. Motion made by Wendy Anderson for staff to move forward with us with this
and for us to just have a look see at it to review it, not necessarily to vote on it. Um, and Jessica G seconded it. And then my discussion question is to make sure it is not under 180. When
do they get the permit from the county? Because I know there's no permit. Okay. So, it's not tied to a development permit for them to start operations. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Uh Michelle, we conferred ahead of time. Okay. Once again, the motion was made and seconded
to um have staff make the changes that they've that they know they need to be made on this and just to share those with us um once they are made. Correct?
All those in favor? I any opposed? Motion carries. >> That was the end of the slideshow. Okay, we are at the 2:30 mark, which is generally when we take a short break. Um, and I believe we had two
actually just one item to talk about because we've been advised that really talking about enforcement is not something that's within our remit as a committee, but um incentives.
Uh, so we might want to take a 5 10 minute break. think about incentives and come back and have that discussion. Thank you very much for reminding me about that. So 5 10 minutes Maybe I
Oh, I got a minute. All right. It's all I can't help you. >> I can give you the names of site contractors. What do you want me to do? At the end of the day, I know it's
happening because I'm getting those homes. I'm not going to figure Calib, Just a little bit. >> I think we can kill.
>> We did leave two. Nobody understands problems that I believe are not however for anything that got >> superior. We still have three people. Um, let's give it just one
more minute. We can sing the Enrach anthem or something. I've been working on it. Yeah. Gosh. And I could tell it like do this all uh Cardi B or do this all uh Edie
Gourmet. It's really >> Yeah, that's too late for that one. I don't want >> that every single thing in the system reference against everybody else
to your doctor. >> There's nothing on the back end they're going to do with that. Great. >> Bunch of articles. One of the fun things is the meaner you are to try to do something. >> So I insult him right now. Like I just
add something >> like and I I don't know how to say it but it's got to work better. >> We're going down. >> We're getting a net loss. Did you go out to try to find them? Do we need to send out the Monty's or
Mounties? Okay, I'm using Jack's Gavl. We're back in order. Okay, which would we like to do first? Hear about the low impact development meeting or discuss incentives? Pardon?
Okay. I agree with that. All right. >> You are our expositors, Jessica and Wendy. >> Yeah. I say, well, I got a nod, so I'll go first and then Wendy can supplement. Um, so VCard hosted a joint event, I
think, with FPZA. It was a joint event between VCard and the Florida Planning and Zoting Association. Um, where Sam came and went over the incentive L program. um all of the best management practices and all of that kind of process that we know about in depth. Uh
I think because of the joint partnership with FPZA who Sam did a separate presentation for as well on the program. Um we had more people from the elected official level at this one. Um so the policy makers were in the room which was really good. Um and I think we heard a
lot of questions afterward about how they could implement this in their local governments. So I thought it was well attended. Um it was a good discussion. We had um the county go over the led program and then Ferguson Waterworks went over some of their technologies for
green storm water infrastructure. So Wendy, anything >> and um you know and engaged. So, I happened to be sitting at a table with New Smart Beach folks and one of their city planners, I think, and um one of their commissioners and then some of the
attorneys, some of the torch guys. So, um so I was, you know, I I really like uh Chris Bachton's presentation style. I mean, he's he's a very clever salesman and, you know, he did a good job of kind of explaining um why LI matters. I mean
he did he did the you know 5 minute primer that you know we've all spent days and days and days listening to but he did it in 5 minutes by using a single page out of that you know le bible that um is so popular that goes around and and kind of shows the pike to pond you
know hardcape you know hard hard engineering versus the soft you know kind of more um green infrastructure solutions and um but then did go through I mean yeah now he's he's selling his own products and services but you know just gave some examples of different
contexts where we could use this and then kind of linked it into some of the items in the technical manual that were um you know that were part of the incentive packages. So, um Sam of course did an amazing job um kind of outplaying the um the incentives and how to use the
technical manual. Um I think she was she was very clear and I was very excited at the end to hear several of the city commissioners say um you know including from New Beach like we would like to duplicate this or replicate this in our
own county in our own city code and um and so you know again we we're not going to put it in chapter 50 right now because we can't but um or maybe we can I don't know can be but um you know but it is nice that that voluntary arily the
cities are are looking to adopt this. So um and I and I had a follow-up conversation with Brian Ashley that commissioner that was sitting at my table um the next week and you know and and basically just said look you know I'm going to send you a PDF of this book. I need you to look at all the
pretty pictures and familiarize yourself with this um and you know we'll circle back and have another conversation soon because you know he's willing to to take the lead on that in East Beach. Um Chris Cloudman was there also from Dand. He has been an ally proponent for many
years and so you know he too you know is interested in maybe trying to bring this to the forefront again as uh as an incentive package for Dand and um yeah so that's I I thought it was a really really good event and I hope we can do
more of that to try to reach you know even bigger audiences of um stakeholders. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Who who who called the meeting? How did it come about? >> It was a a Valuchia County Association for Responsible Development, a seminar, educational seminar. I see.
>> So, we got Sam >> because that's that's terrific. I mean, that's really good. That that you know, it's encouraging that you something that we were participating in is going to another level and being addressed. I think that's fantastic. Were there any
um uh developers or builders there? I mean, was that the majority of the crowd? So because it was a joint event with FPZA, I think we had a pretty broad range of local government um staff members, policy makers, elected officials, you had engineers, you had
land use attorneys, you had developers, it was a pretty broad range audience. >> That's that's really terrific. >> And I I think Sam has done well a standalone one for FPZA U members that VCard one and I believe she's taking it to the Marine Resource Council conference as well.
>> Great. So yeah, >> that's that's great. Thank you. >> And then um so cities could just adopt it even in spite of 180 because it's totally voluntary and with incentives, right?
>> Yes. That's which is why we were able to keep our L as well. As long as it's voluntary, it's not more it it's not more cumbersome, more >> good. And then how many do we have in so far approximately? Um well, we have one
PUD that's going to implement some of the LI standards. They already have it in their PE development agreement. It was approved by council last night. Um so whenever they come in, they're going to they said they're in full implementation. And I also was speaking with one of our older projects that um
is coming back from the grave, I could say, out in New Simrna and they're going to be redoing their entire home, their entire project for town homes and going to be implementing L. So, I was speaking with him two days ago about it. So, do for sure. Jessica,
>> this is completely tongue andcheek, but for the record, if Mike Woods ever watches this, we have a race to see who finishes the first LI project. And I don't think it counts if it's in a PUD. I think you have to do the full staff review level. >> So, I can still win. That's my
>> That's That's nice to have some good news. That's That's really good to have some some good news. Um so who wants to kick off discussion about additional
incentives? Ms. Gal Esquire. I only have two topics that I think if the committee wanted to look at, it could be something that wouldn't take too much time. And if we're going to look at trees, we are having at least one more meeting before we maybe pause,
which I think we also need to decide on how we're pitching this to council. Um, and that's the a review of the conservation and cluster subdivisions to see if there's any cleanup in there to help them be utilized more. um whichever one doesn't count wetland acreage. I'm
really pushing for us to count wetland acreage as the set aside. Um and then the second item we talked about a bit as we've gone through these processes, but not as a standalone. Um but whether we look at anything that contemplates a
voluntary um transfer of development rights program to preserve flood plane a lands environmentally sensitive features and cluster development where there are services to support it. I >> have just a couple thoughts on that. Um,
and it it should tie I think could tie into like where do we go from here with council is that both of those things are outside of the chapter 50 environmental minimum standards which is what the resolution that created the committee stated. I I think that the council could
absolutely say those are worthwhile things for you to look at, but I feel like the council probably needs to say that because they're not, you know, within the the very specific um resolution language. So,
um Wendy, is is your card up for speaking? That is a beauty. >> Yep. I don't think I can tell you. common open space. So they're they're utilizing some of their storm water as
counting as common open space. Yeah. anywhere. Go ahead. John me Bill um I want to support that notion of demonstration of um the value. Um I started a masters
of real estate program and I to my great amazement discovered that developers are conservatives. They don't want to change a thing. I mean, they know how they made money last time and they're going to do it this time that and if you try and
tell them try that and and if you go back to some of the smart growth I mean that's what smart growth discovered uh formbbased codes discovered uh you have to demonstrate uh its economic value.
So I think if this one comes out somehow it needs to be uh uh promoted ma marketed. >> I think that's that's kind of along what I was going to say too. I get very interested in how these things are going to be marketed. The back when I met
Jessica, Bill, and Tyler at a VCard meeting a couple years ago, I had done some research and had found out about a development over in Orange County called Sunbridge. and they had been denied their cup limit as they wanted it. And rather than say we give up, they said, "Well, how do we turn this into
something positive and came up with this idea of a naturehood?" And I don't know, I have not been to see it. I would like to to know if they're delivering on what they said they would deliver on. Um, and they're I also that was the closest
example I could find in Florida. I found many other examples of low impact development or yeah low impact development and how it could be marketed because that's something I'm very familiar with
and it's very important. You know, if you if people have an idea that the landscaping that they want to buy should look like valley, should look like much of what goes on, they need to be told why actual real Florida landscaping
could be a point of pride for them. Bill, >> so who would do a study like that? Somebody Stson Well, look at that. Okay,
back to Oh, sorry, it's hiding by my laptop. Um, on Sunbridge, it is beautiful. They did the native plant um conference there a few years ago. Um, and it is great and I think that was only a first phase. I will caution similar to this county,
Sunbridge had a lot of incentives. It had state land grants. It had county incentive. So when you look at that as an example of why doesn't every developer do that because not every developer is given millions and millions of dollars to do that. Um, >> we get an example >> correct of what you can example,
>> right? Exactly. Um, I wanted to add on to um, Wendy's comment on the cost effectiveness and the study would be great. I was surprised at the VCard seminar when Ferguson was going over typical asphalt and concrete cost versus the LI structures and how the LI
structures could be more cost-effective as long as the code permits them. So, I think we're chipping away at the barriers um, to show that that impact. Um, I also wanted to see if we are ready to consider what we want to propose to
council as next steps. >> I think maybe um my thoughts to start the discussion or we've talked about coming back to discuss trees. I would like to hear the team's thoughts on the two topics I brought up to see if council would direct us to look at those
as a wrap-up. Um, and then I would suggest that we ask them to toll this board and our terms until such time that we are authorized to move forward under Senate Bill 180.
>> Yes. >> Any discussion? Uh, Jack. Yeah, I I uh I would agree with with that certainly, but uh back to the element of enforcement, which I know we've said we are not to really address. I still think
because it falls to me within the providing input uh on policy and goal setting, which is what we are to do. uh that we still should do as Sarah Lee suggested uh make the comment to council
uh that in fact enforcement of current ordinances uh should be enhanced and so I think that something should be coming in that it may not be within maybe this is a second motion versus the first one but I wanted to make the point clear that I think enforcement should be
something at least we should speak to even if we can't do anything specifically about >> in terms of sorry >> turn now that I've seconded your motion I was going to actually respond to what Wendy was saying um looking at Sunbridge
and looking there was another community that was planned one of the things that in my rabbit hole of research in the last year I've run into is those communities had master landscaping installation master landscape maintenance and they were utilizing a uh biompost product so I have some friends
that have a vacation property that they're putting and a human waste composting biocomposting facility next to that is owned by the company that provided the compost to um that. So there's a problem in our farmland in the United States and with all compost that
we have access to that are municipal waste treatment systems are where our industrial waste goes to. So we have high concentrations of things like POS chemicals that we can't get out of that industrial waste that goes in POS and other chemicals, but it it's specifically those we don't have a
treatment process for. So we're taking that and we're putting it in huge piles that we that we turn into compost and then we're going to put it just spread it through our communities. So, you know, John brought up that developers are conservative because they want to
know that they're going to make money again. We also want to know that we're not going to do something really stupid that's going to have a bunch of stuff that we have to go remove and now we have a hazardous waste that we have to deal with. There's a reason that conservativism happens and it's to avoid unintended consequences. So, with le I
think there's some great techniques. We've been adopting them for years within, you know, my circle of influence, the engineers I know we where it makes sense for us to incorporate something we do, but it's not always cheaper. It's not always better. And sometimes you have a client that they're
just they're conservative because they've had something where they tried it new and they had a huge afterthe-ffect expense that they got exposed to. So I I just want to put that out there because sometimes the you know things will get said that can paint a picture that you know developers
aren't just self-interested trying to make money. A lot of them live in the community that they're building in and they want it to be a nice community as well. So you know as we have those types of conversations you know I don't think that's what you were meaning you know.
>> Yeah. I I I I think that we do have some challenges with how we spread pollutants as a result of that. And I think that it's something that we're going to continue to see unintended consequences. As we try new ideas, we're going to find that they do things that we don't always like. And so I I have from the beginning
been a fan of prescriptive code and minimalism as what we tried to push. Now that we've been kind of neutered on being able to do most of those types of things, I I think that it's just it it should be good for everybody to have in their mind that we don't want to move
faster than we have the knowledge of what we're doing. And the my hesitance with LI has always been that it's being promoted by the people that are selling it. the people selling the compost, the people selling the plants, the people trimming the plants, the people, it's
Ferguson water products as a main sponsor, they have a lot of great technologies that they sell, but they also are profiting from it. And so I I have always been of the opinion that we should have a level of skepticism and be doing our research about what is actually going to occur before we buy
into what's being presented. Um, and I will note I had an employee that went to the VCard presentation. He said it was wonderful. So, um, you know, not that anything that's happening is wrong. I don't want to sound like I'm speaking against it, but
>> agreed there. Um, you never know 5 10 years down the line how it looks and we'd want that before we require it. Um, I was going to answer Jack's point, which is I think depending on how staff sees this presentation to
council going on the current status and work plan and suggestion, whether it's a staff presentation or our wonderful chair gets to do it. I think that we could focus on she's like what we get to we could focus on you
know a statement somewhere along the lines of we believe we have strong protections for the environment and our code right now and while we can't make changes we recommend the continued implementation of those to the highest extent for enforcement >> second
>> I could amend my motion to include that yeah okay we have a motion to, as we've already read, move forward with tree preservation to take two items
that are not necessarily ENRACK that Jessica noted to present those to the council to ask if that's something that they would be that they would like us to look at and make recommendations about to also make
a statement to them that we have very good ordinances, but that They we would recommend that they be enforced to the greatest extent possible. Yeah, something like that. Did I leave anything out? >> Okay.
>> The talling of the term. >> Uh okay, that that because that we didn't discuss. We discussed it at our last meeting. The idea of pausing. So I have a question on that before we vote. Discussion question. Um, I walked into the meeting
thinking that I would be very much in favor of pausing rather than disbanding, especially because it sounds like we have a date for something to happen, which is November. So, we may be back
together. So would we under this motion that you have made, motion maker, Miss Gal, does this mean that we would meet in September and discuss trees and then pause until November or keep going on
trees until I I'm just going with the housekeeping of it, the practicality. >> I'll let Jinder answer first. Maybe if they're trying >> um I I sorry my suggestion would be um that
we meet again next month and we deal with trees and um between now and then I can talk to our leadership and find out if they have a preference on how we would go from here. Um you know of course Clay is gone. Um so I I'll talk
with Suzanne Konchen and find out you know uh what what they think. I was kind of hoping that in the last couple of council meetings some discussion of ENRACH would sort of organically come from the SB180 conversations and it didn't. Um, but I think that we can
certainly, you know, tackle the tree issue in in our next meeting and then maybe get a little bit more clarity on the other two, the voluntary transfer of development rights and the the review of the conservation and cluster subs to to see what does that really mean? >> Um, and talk about it briefly at the end
of our next meeting. and then take at take take whatever recommendation at that point to council, right? Tee that up and and be ready to say something. I I'm not sure that we're super ready to have a statement for council right this second. Um I mean maybe we
can tidy that up while we're here, but um I I'm not sure I completely understand what we want to look at in conservation and cluster subs. And um not that we this would mean we shouldn't do this but they h there have been
conversations about TDR in the past um and it you know it's sort of the urban growth boundary like you know there the um smart growth committee did talk about that in the past too. So I I wouldn't mind doing a little research on what
what we've done before you know >> before we make a a recommendation to the council. So we need discussion. We need information and discussion. >> Yeah. And I think with that insight to try to answer your question, I like that
program of work. If the team does maybe I'm going to say if we can mandate ourselves that the next meeting we finish trees. Not no more. Just one. Just one. Just the next meeting on trees. Yeah. We four
hours guys. Three. Um that would be good. We can talk about the history of the others and maybe get more kind of board direction on if we want to take that on and pitch it. I see it as a pitch of a revised work plan to council given Senate Bill 180 for their review.
>> Um that contemplates the tolling and the here's what we've wrapped up. Here's what you know we think we can do. And I think the trigger would be that we would reschedu our regularly scheduled meetings when there's a change to Senate Bill 180 that allows us to proceed with
more intensive development under the or regulations under the work plan. >> And on that I think we vote oh John and then Jack and then Tyler. >> Yeah. And I was going to add just because we think there may be a special
session in November, we may not. And even if we do, we won't meet until the results of that December or even the first of the year. So it could don't hang your hat on November meeting. But um the other thing too, tree ordinances,
if we revisit that at our next meeting, which sounds like we are, can we go back through just to make sure whatever we've advised or not changed, but considered changing, make sure it doesn't conflict
with 180 as well and have that presentation for us as well. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, that's easy. My >> my question is a simple one. It it concerns management and uh Clay's departure and so do we have a
replacement or what what is the situation there? >> Um a replacement has been chosen but not announced. So we don't know who the person is um publicly or officially at
all. Um, my un It's not Keith. It's not an internal candidate. It's not somebody that's already here at the county. Um, and I can't remember if they I think they they probably won't start until the end of September or the beginning of
October. Right. In the interim, Carol McFarland, who's our planning and development services director, is the interim growth director. Yeah, >> Tyler. >> So, I think my thoughts are that
realistically we have a meeting next month. We get through trees and then there's nothing that we have as a committee that we think we can talk about unless council releases additional purpose for our committee and we're asking to tentatively cancel October moving forward until something changes.
Right. That's what the motion that we're about to vote on. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that that was clear >> and I I just want to make sure that I'm clear that we're talking about pausing so that our terms don't run out because that was a grave concern that we talked.
Okay, good. Thank you. So, any further discussion? All right. All those in favor of meeting in September trees and sending our questions to council and probably not meeting again until we can actually
changes. All those in favor? I. Anybody opposed? >> Um, can I throw a wrench in the works? >> Oh, golly. >> So, we have 45 minutes left. We could talk about trees.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Well, you don't realize that everybody thought this meeting was going to be 15 minutes today. We have one sticking point with what we proposed and it's specimen trees and we're not changing anything else other than what's on the
pages that we provided and the only issue that we've uncovered through that is the specimen. So you have the opportunity now. We can do another meeting about it later or you
can discuss this. The one sticking point there are but that the only thing I heard push back on was the specimen tree requirement. only I I
so the the committee already um voted on the reorder to make the code flow better. Um it was approved the uh move to 1.5 the committee already voted on and approved to make better uh or to make that change. Um the really the only
thing that's in here is the uh waiver to the 20% which I don't think anybody has an issue with the modify of the specimen requirements um and the modifying of the minimum standards. So if you have a 5 acre a lot and you're building a house
on it, do you think you should have to plant one tree per 2500 foot lot space for the entire 5 acres or do you think they should just have to plant one tree per 2500 acres for the project area? I don't think anybody would be opposed to that. So that leaves the the one issue
which is the specimen trees. >> So which has nothing to do with Senate Bill 180. It's just about how we disperse the funds and doesn't affect that at all. So, I would like an opportunity to review that. Um, have that sent resent
back out to us. When did we last work on trees? >> When did we last work on trees? About a year ago. >> Think I think we've discussed it every meeting we've had. >> Let me ask it another way. How hard would it be to bring all of us, not
Tyler, up to speed on what the specimen tree sticking point is? Could that be done right now in these 45 minutes or I'm I'm hearing from John that he wants to revisit so he has a good grasp of that issue.
>> Well, not only that issue but everything in that tree ordinance that we I need to refresh my memory before we go back and okay say we approve everything. >> Yeah. Because we can't it on this presentation right there. That's it. >> Yeah. Well, everything else would run a
foul of 180. >> But we could, here's what we can do. we can give the, you know, we we've gone away from the sort of uh strike through and underline format, but maybe the easiest way to do this is to go back to
that because we did the reordering um and we could give you what a tree ordinance would look like that would comply with SB 180 based on the things you've already voted on and anything
then that you want to discuss or might be controversial like the um specimen trees um you know we could talk about that we could provide that prior to the meeting wouldn't necessarily have to take a lot of discussion at the next meeting um if if everybody's brain is tired
today add one I know we voted on a lot of things and I know that was I was under the assumption we voted on a lot of these things to put it in the in the whole tree ordinance
package and then we were coming back to vote on the whole package. Um maybe I'm wrong, but I I that's what I was under the assumption is that okay, we're going to add this line to it, but we haven't seen the final version to
vote on the full final version. In my opinion, that's what I thought we were doing. Okay, >> maybe I'm wrong, >> but the final version that you can approve now is different than what you already voted on because some of the things that we talked about and voted on
would not be okay now based on SB 180. So, so the the universe of things you can make decisions about got a lot smaller, but absolutely we can bring that back what we are. Here's the work you already did. Here are the things you can't do anymore.
Did council approve the changes? We >> No, no, no. We never finished. We did not finish these. >> So then how can one just because of timeline we preempt 180? Is that what you're saying? >> For instance, if any of the things we talked about would be more burdensome
either in process or right then now we can no longer consider those. So one of the things we talked about is um the tree preservation area. Should the tree preservation area percentage increase if you're in the Norma area or in the eco
the very, you know, more um sensitive parts of the county? You couldn't even consider that now because that would be more burdensome. So, >> but how how could that be exempt from 180 if council hasn't approved it? >> No, we never got there. It's never got
>> Okay. >> Yeah, those are the things. This is all that's left >> of all the work we did. That's all that is left to say so about. >> I got you. >> If this whatever gets approved on this, we will change the ordinance and then
you can see it. >> Okay, fair enough. >> I think it's important to have Bob here cuz his head is into the tree ordinance more than anybody's in this group. So, I would like to wait for him to be able to tie in.
And then second of all, we had a um exemption or something about rideaways with historics that also could stay in because that is a >> Yeah. But things like um the look back period
that'll go away. We in our proposed look back period change that'll go away, right? Yeah. Okay, we voted and then Ginger had the monkey wrench. Okay, so the vote stands. So, we'll see you in September, which is
the Wednesday after Labor Day, right? Yes. Going once, going twice. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. You know what? I twice today. and still mixing it up