REGULAR AGENDA

Application #LDR-21-8121 - A request to amend the Village of Indiantown Land Development Regulations to revise open space, preservation, and tree mitigation regulations.

]

CORRECTION ITEM NUMBER FIVE. APPLICATION NUMBER LD R 21 81 21 A REQUEST TO AMEND THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN LD. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO REVISE OPEN SPACE. PRESERVATION AND TREAT MITIGATION REGULATIONS. GOOD EVENING, SO. A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING. STAFF WAS ASKED TO FIND A WAY TO AMEND. THE CURRENT CODE TO ADDRESS PRESERVATION IN OPEN SPACE. WE GOT A CLEAR DIRECTION FROM THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. TO FIND WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE IT. AND ENSURE THAT WE HAVE MORE PARK LIKE AREAS IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO WITH THAT STAFF WENT TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND. DEVELOPED A SERIES OF INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PRESERVATION. ON THEIR LIGHTS, BUT ALSO TO GIVE THEM OPTIONS OUTSIDE OF PRESERVATION JUST WITHIN THEIR PROJECT THAT WOULD SERVE THE INTERESTS OF. EITHER THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE OR THE VILLAGE IN SOME OTHER LOCATION. AND WITH THAT, I'LL INTRODUCE TO YOU MR JEFF K DEMS. FROM SEPI, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT. AND HELPED TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE. GOOD EVENING, MR CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JEFF KAY ADAMS WITH SEPI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION ADDRESS. 33 50.

NORTH WEST 53RD STREET, SUITE ONE. OH, ONE, FORT LAUDERDALE 33309. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE ORDINANCE HAS TWO PARTS TO IT, UH. AT ITS CORE. IT'S VERY, VERY SIMPLE ORDINANCE ONE IS TO RECOGNIZE AND MAP REQUIRED PRESERVATION AREAS. SO THESE ARE AREAS THAT HAVE TO BE

[00:45:03]

PRESERVED AS A RESULT OF, UM FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS PROTECTING WETLANDS. AND NUMBER TWO TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO SET ASIDE. DESIRABLE PARCELS OF OPEN SPACE ON PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY SO PART ONE, WHICH IS RECOGNIZING AND MAPPING REQUIRED PRESERVATION AREAS. UM. THIS WOULD APPLY TO PRESERVATION AREAS, THESE WETLANDS THAT ARE FEDERALLY PROTECTED. UH, THAT ARE TWO ACRES OR LARGER. NOW REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE, IF THEY'RE PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THEY'RE PROTECTED AND THEY CAN'T BE DEVELOPED BUT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ONLY REQUIRE THE REZONING OF THOSE. WETLANDS CONSERVATION DISTRICT IF THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO ACRES, AN AREA. THIS HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DEVELOPERS DEVELOPMENT YIELD FOR A PARCEL SO IF THEY COULD GET 100 HOMES OR 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON RESIDENTIAL BEFORE, THEY'D STILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT, UNDER THE REGULATIONS. AND, UH, THE WAY THAT THIS WOULD OCCUR IS THAT THE DEVELOPER WHEN SUBMITTING A SITE PLAN WOULD ALSO SUBMIT A REZONING APPLICATION, UH, WITH LEGAL DESCRIPTION. UH AND A GRAPHIC SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA THAT'S GOT TO BE PRESERVED, AND THIS IS GENERALLY ENFORCED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. OCCASIONALLY IT CAN BE THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. BUT IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S AN OUTSIDE AGENCY, A STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY THAT ADMINISTERS THE WETLAND REGULATIONS. THAT DEVELOPER DOESN'T HAVE A CHOICE. THEY HAVE TO PRESERVE IT. UM. IT IS CONCEIVABLE, IN SOME CASES THAT, UM, NO WONDER MARTIN COUNTY'S CODE. ALL WETLANDS HAD TO BE PRESERVED ON SITE. YOU COULDN'T MITIGATE THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE? UM UNLESS IT WAS A TAKING UNLESS THE WHOLE PROPERTY, UH, WAS WETLANDS, AND IT WOULD JUST BE A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

IN THAT CASE, THEY'D ALLOW IT. UM. NOW YOU'VE GOT YOUR OWN REGULATIONS, AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE ANYMORE. SO A PROPERTY OWNER COULD OPT TO MITIGATE SOMEWHERE ELSE, WHETHER IT BE OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE OR INSIDE THE VILLAGE WITH THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DO IS SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO MITIGATE IT. IN ORDER TO BETTER DEVELOP YOUR SITE. THEN YOU NEED TO MITIGATE IT WITHIN THE VILLAGE. IF THAT IS FEASIBLE, AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS IF THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THE ARMY CORPS, WHICHEVER EXTERNAL AGENCY AS REQUIRING PRESERVATION. IF THEY ALLOW AH UNDER UNDER THE APPLICABLE RULES AND LAWS, UH, THE DEVELOPER TO MITIGATE SOME OR ALL OF THOSE WETLANDS RATHER THAN PRESERVING THEM ON SITE.

THIS ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO DO IT IN THE VILLAGE. IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IN THE VILLAGE, SO IN OTHER WORDS, LET'S SAY, UM, A LARGE PROPERTY IN THE VILLAGE OR THE VILLAGE ITSELF. ONE DAY ESTABLISHES A WETLAND MITIGATION BANK. WHICH IS SIMPLY, UH, AN AREA OF PROPERTY THAT IS, UM EXISTING WETLANDS OR RESTORED WETLANDS AND THEY GET THE LICENSES AND APPROVALS FROM THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS. TO PRESERVE IT AND PERPETUITY AS WETLANDS AND MAINTAIN IT THAT WAY AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY GET TO SELL CREDITS. SO IF I DEVELOPER WAS GOING TO MITIGATE, SAY, ONE ACRE OF HIGH QUALITY WETLANDS.

YOU KNOW THAT DEVELOPER WOULD PAY FOR A CREDIT WITHIN THAT WETLAND BANK AND PAY THE FEE FOR THAT. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IN THE EVENT THAT ANY MITIGATION IS PERMITTED BY THE REGULATORY AGENCY THAT. THE VILLAGE SORT OF GETS THE FIRST BITE AT THE APPLE. UM, IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IN THE VILLAGE, PLEASE DO IT IN THE VILLAGE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

OH AND GO BACK, ACTUALLY, AND JUST TO SHOW YOU. THE MAP SIMPLY SHOWS, UM HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT SITE AND THE WHOLE THING WOULD HAVE BEEN. UH THE AREA THAT'S GREEN. THAT'S SHOWN US CONSERVATION WOULD HAVE BEEN, UM LOW RESIDENTIAL OR LIMITED RESIDENTIAL AND THE ORANGE TO THE LEFT. IS, UH, I THINK THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED JUICE. IN THIS CASE IT GETS RESOLVED THE CONSERVATION AND ON THE ZONING MAP. THAT'S WHAT YOU THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY THE SECOND PART OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO ENCOURAGE LAND PRESERVATION.

AND THE GRAPHIC YOU SEE, THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT PARCEL WITH A GREEN SPACE AT THE UPPER RIGHT THAT'S BEEN SET ASIDE AND PRESERVED THAT OTHERWISE, UM, WOULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. AND THE POINT OF THIS PART OF THE ORDINANCE IS. TO TRY TO INCREASE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS BY OFFERING INCENTIVES TO THE DEVELOPER. AND UH, THIS WOULD APPLY IT UP TO ALMOST ALL THE DISTRICTS. UH I THINK THE HEAVY

[00:50:03]

INDUSTRIAL IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULDN'T APPLY TO BECAUSE. IT'S DIFFICULT TO CREATE INCENTIVES IN A DISTRICT THAT HAS VERY FEW STANDARDS IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND HAVING INDUSTRIAL IS THAT DISTRICT. SO AGAIN, THIS ACTUALLY PRESERVES OPEN SPACE THAT WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE PRESERVED CREATES THE CONSERVATION LAND ON THE ZONING MAP, ONCE AGAIN HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DEVELOPERS ABILITY TO BUILD WHATEVER THEY. WE'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING UNDER THE REGULATIONS IF THEY DIDN'T SET ASIDE, UH THE OPEN SPACE AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE'LL LOOK AT SOME OF THE INCENTIVES. A LOT OF THESE, UH, DUPLICATE THE INCENTIVES THAT THE VILLAGE CURRENTLY PROVIDES FOR GREEN BUILDINGS WHICH IS LEED CERTIFIED BUILDINGS. UM AND WE THOUGHT WHY NOT OFFER THOSE SENTENCES? SAME INCENTIVES? UM A LOT OF DEVELOPERS DON'T WANT TO DO GREEN BUILDING AND WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, ESPECIALLY, UM IT'S LESS LIKELY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT. SO LET'S OFFER THE SENTENCE FOR GIVING THE VILLAGE SOME GREEN SPACE. UH AND SO THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THEY WANT. THE ADDITIONAL STORY IS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. REDUCED PARKING IS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL. REDUCE LOTS STANDARDS. THAT MEANS SETBACKS. UM LOT BUILDING COVERAGE, UM, LOT DIMENSIONS AND SO FORTH. UM, AND THEN AN EXPEDITED REVIEW. AND THAT TYPE OF THING. THIS IS NOT A FULL LIST OF INCENTIVES, BUT IT'S IT GIVES YOU THE IDEA AND THE POINT HERE IS A YES TO INCENTIVIZE IT. BUT ALSO IF YOU'RE GOING TO OFFER AN INCENTIVE AND MAKE THE LEAVE THE DEVELOPER HOLE AT THE END OF THE DAY. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE SOME OF THE STANDARDS SO THEY CAN FIT THE SAME DEVELOPMENT ON THE PARCEL THAT'S NOT BEING PRESERVED.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THERE ARE SOME MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO THIS NUMBER ONE IS THAT THE LAND HAS TO BE. SUITABLE FOR CONSERVATION. AND WHILE NO OPEN SPACE IS A BAD OPEN SPACE, UM AT THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO GET TO REDUCE ALL SORTS OF STANDARDS. UH AND MORE INTENSELY DEVELOP SMALLER PART OF THE PROPERTY. THAN UM, THE PIECE OF LAND BEING PRESERVED, WOULD NEED TO BE VALUABLE IN SOME WAY FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. THAT COULD BE A BUFFER. UM FOR EXAMPLE, TRACTOR SUPPLY WAS APPROVED RECENTLY. AND THERE'S A LARGE WOODED TRACKED BETWEEN TRACTOR SUPPLY AND THE COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT BEHIND IT. AND THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THAT DEVELOPER PRESERVE THAT 100 FT OR SO OF FOREST. THIS WOULD OFFER AN INCENTIVE TO DO THAT. UM. I JUST SPECIAL GEOLOGIC FEATURE LIKE A SINKHOLE, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE COULD BE A WATER BODY ANIMAL HABITAT OR JUST JUST FAR AS THE LAND THAT'S THAT'S, UH. YOU KNOW NATIVE VEGETATION AND IS DESIRABLE TO KEEP. I WOULD HAVE TO COMPRISE A MINIMUM OF 10% OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE AND AN EIGHTH OF AN ACRE. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT. THE RESULTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH EVERYTHING AROUND IT AND WHAT'S ALLOWED AROUND IT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, UH BY ALLOWING WE'RE NOT GIVING A DEVELOPER CARTE BLANC TO REDUCE ALL SORTS OF STANDARDS, AND HERE IT IS, VILLAGE. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. THE VILLAGE HAS TO DECIDE THAT THEY WANT THE OPEN SPACE PRESERVED THAT IT'S WORTH PRESERVING THE OPEN SPACE WHERE THE RESULTING DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET, UM AND THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S AROUND IT SO. THIS ALSO REQUIRES THE DEVELOPER TO SUBMIT A REZONING APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION.

IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING THE VILLAGE WITH. A DEED, RESTRICTION OR EQUIVALENT DOCUMENT ARE PERPETUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO. THAT IS THE ORDINANCE. IN A NUTSHELL.

I WILL NOTE THAT THERE WERE SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD. AND I'M HAPPY TO GO OVER THOSE WITH YOU AFTER YOU OPEN THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT JUST TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT I COULD THEN PERHAPS ADDRESS. UH PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST OR DISCUSSION FOR BOARD. AND THAT'S THE BOARD THE BOARD CAN DISCUSS AND THEN WE CAN GO TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT. LET'S LET'S LET'S DO PUBLIC COMMENT. 1ST 1ST PUBLIC COMMENT I HAVE IS A LETTER FROM SCOTT WATSON. MM ON SECTION TWO IN THE EVENT THAT THE APPLICABLE REGULATORY AGENCY AUTHORIZES MITIGATION FOR WETLAND ALTERATION ON A DEVELOPMENT SITE. THE MITIGATION SHALL OCCUR WITHIN THE VILLAGE. IF A VIABLE MITIGATION OPTION EXISTS AS DETERMINED BY THE REGULATORY AGENCY. THE VILLAGE COUNCIL MAY AUTHORIZE MITIGATION OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE BASED UPON A FINDING OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. RECOMMENDATION OF THE REGULATORY AGENCY OR BOWL. MR WATSON'S COMMENT IS THE WORD VIABLE IS NOT DEFINED.

[00:55:02]

THE COST OF SUCH A REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE COST NEUTRAL TO THE LANDOWNER, MEANING THE COST TO MITIGATE IN THE VILLAGE SHOULD BE NO HIGHER. AND THE MITIGATION OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE LIMITS. NUMBER THREE. ALL SITE PLANS WITH AT LEAST TWO CONTIGUOUS ACRES OF WETLANDS TO BE PRESERVED AND IN A VILLAGE MITIGATION SITES FOR WETLANDS OF AT LEAST TWO CONTINUOUS ACRES SHALL NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL SUCH WETLANDS ARE REZONED. CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING A COMPLETE REZONING APPLICATION AND APPLICABLE FEE TO INITIATE THE REZONING. MR. WATSON'S COMMENT IS THIS REQUIREMENT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, IN MY OPINION, IS ALSO A TAKING OF PROPERTY UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. OR SECTION FIVE OF THE 10TH ARTICLE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. JUST BECAUSE LAND HAS BEEN DESIGNATED A WETLAND DOES NOT MEAN THE OWNER OF SAID LAND DOESN'T HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS TO USE THE PROPERTY AS A WETLAND, OR THAT THE PROPERTY SUDDENLY HAS NO VALUE. ON THE CONTRARY.

THE WETLANDS CAN AND WILL BE USED BY MANY LAND OWNERS AS AN AMENITY TO THEIR PROJECT. YOU ALSO READ LD R SECTION 3-2 0.13 CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT C. CRITERIA FOR CONSERVATION ZONING. NO DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ARE APPLICABLE TO CONSERVATION ZONE PROPERTY. THE CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT. WILL APPLY TO PROPERTY ENCUMBERED BY AN IRREVOCABLE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. MR WATSON'S COMMENTS ARE PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORDS IRREVOCABLE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, WHICH IS NOT DEFINED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IT IS ALSO VERY PROBLEMATIC IF FOR ANY REAL WORLD WORLD REASON, SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE EXAMPLE DRAINAGE ISSUES, ETCETERA. AND THEN FINALLY, TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY. THE VILLAGE WANTS THE LAND OWNER TO PAY FOR RESIGNING, ETCETERA. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS AND SHORT REVIEW THE ISSUE AS I JUST BECAME AWARE OF THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE YESTERDAY. I ALSO HAVE EXTENSIVE COMMENTS FROM MR MITCH HUTCH CRAFT, WHICH I WILL SUBMIT INTO THE RECORD. THEY ARE TOO LENGTHY TO READ INTO THE RECORD. THEY WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES. ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF SUCH COMMENTS. AND. THE NEXT ITEM I HAVE IS THIS IS BARBARA CLAUDIUS. THANK YOU, BARBARA. MY NAME IS BARBARA CLOUDLESS.

I'M A RESIDENT OF INDIAN TOWN. BOTH, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION FIRST. UH, YOU DON'T MAKE. ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR MEETING. AND I HAD SOME PUBLIC COMMENT. I WANTED TO MAKE PRIOR TO THE MEETING, WHICH DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A SPECIFIC GUIDANCE. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS YOU COULD ADD IT IN THERE ON YOUR AGENDA. AND THEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT, NO, NO LOSS. BUT IF YOU DO, IT GIVES PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY. TO ADDRESS HERE. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO IS. THIS IS THE NUMBER OF PAGES FOR JUST. ONE ORDINATE. I MEAN, YOUR WORK IS AMAZING. IT'S VITAL. IT'S INCREDIBLY INCREDIBLY INTENSIVE IF YOU DO IT PROPERLY. AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT GO INTO SERVING THIS VILLAGE IN THIS CAPACITY. ALTHOUGH. YEAR COMMENTS MAY BE TOTALLY IGNORED BY A VILLAGE COUNCIL. THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE. THEY HAVE THE ULTIMATE SAY SO. BUT IT HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON THE VILLAGE RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE. AND.

CONSEQUENTLY I DON'T KNOW HOW EARLY IN THE PROCESS YOU GET THESE. BUT THIS ONE ORDINANCE IS A MASSIVE RE BRIGHT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND IT USES. TERMS THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH AND ARE REQUIRE, AND A LOT OF STUDY. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPARE. TWO. WHAT. YOU HAD BEFORE AND WHAT IT'S REALLY SAYING. AND IT WOULD GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU HAD PLENTY OF TIME IN ADVANCE TO SUBMIT YOUR QUESTIONS TO MISS JEFFERSON IN ADVANCE SO THAT SHE CAN COME PREPARED. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. AND THAT'S ANOTHER SUGGESTION ALTOGETHER. BUT AS A NEWSPAPER REPORTER, I ALSO WANT TO

[01:00:07]

CAUTION YOU THAT. THESE ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT FREQUENTLY LAND. A VILLAGE OR A COUNTY COURT. THESE ARE VERY, VERY, VERY SENSITIVE. UM. TOPICS WHEN IT COMES TO A LANDOWNER. IF YOU ARE IN A POSITION THAT YOU CAN DECIDE THAT PART OF THEIR LAND IS CONSERVATION, WHETHER THEY AGREE TO IT OR NOT. YOU'VE SET YOURSELF UP FOR A MAJOR LAWSUIT. AND CONSERVATION EAST MINT ARE PURCHASED. SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THAT THAT MEANS THE VILLAGE BUYS THAT LAND. BECAUSE THERE'S VALUE IN THAT LAND EVEN IF ITS WETLANDS THAT'S GENUINE VALUE. IT'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS FOREVER PERPETUATE. I MEAN, IT'S FOREVER. BUT IT'S ALSO WITH FULL AGREEMENT OF THE LANDOWNER AND YOU'VE COMPENSATED THEM 50 TO 60% OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THAT LAND. SO YOU WIND UP IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. AND I PERSONALLY AM IN. TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENT. UM BUT JUST BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT? HOW THEY'RE APPLIED. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UM YOU OPEN FOR THE BOARD. IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENT? COMMENT? SURE, OKAY. PLEASE DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD. WELL I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS. HOWEVER I LIKE TO SAY THIS TO YOU. MS. CLOUD IS THERE? UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EDUCATION. THAT YOU PROVIDED. HOWEVER WE HAVE A STAFF HERE THAT IS VERY EDUCATED, AND I THINK THEY HAVE PUT IN CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WORK AND THEY HAVE EDUCATED US.

ON WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND WE DO GET THINGS EARLY IN ADVANCE, AND WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. TO OUR STAFF. SO THANK YOU, UM, FOR THE EDUCATION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO INFORM YOU THAT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL, THE STAFF IS WELL EDUCATED. PLEASE, MR CLAUDIUS.

NOTHING ELSE. I JUST WANTED MY MAN. OKAY? THANK YOU. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR. I DIDN'T GET YOUR NAME. I'M SORRY. MR JEFF, IF YOU JUST APPROACHED MIKE AGAIN, THANK YOU. UM ONE OF THE TOPICS YOU MENTIONED WAS THE HISTORY OF WETLAND PROTECTION IN MARTIN COUNTY. UM AND MARTIN COUNTY HAD. A LONG HISTORY OF NOT HAVING ANY MITIGATION, NOT ALLOWING IT AT ALL. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT AND KIND OF BRING US UP ON THAT. AND UM, THE SECOND PART OF THAT QUESTION IS ABOUT MITIGATION. UM. IS IT SUCCESSFUL? HOW SUCCESSFUL IS IT? AND THE THIRD QUESTION IS A BUFFER ZONE AROUND WETLANDS. I DON'T DIDN'T UNLESS I MISSED IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE WAS ANY SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT. UM. YOU KNOW WHETHER IT'S 100 FT. OR OR WHAT? BUT WHAT IS THE BUFFER AND SHOULDN'T THAT BE INCLUDED AMENDED. OKAY GOOD QUESTIONS. I'LL TRY TO TRUST ALL OF THOSE. UM. MARTIN COUNTY IS DIFFERENT THAN BROWARD, MIAMI DAY IN SOME OF THE OTHER, MORE URBANIZED COUNTIES IN THAT THEY DON'T.

ALLOW MAYBE MITIGATION UNLESS THEY'RE GONNA WIND UP IN COURT OVER PROPERTY RIGHTS, TAKING, UM. I THINK THAT IN A MORE URBANIZED COUNTY, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ALLOW MITIGATION BECAUSE YOU TYPICALLY FIND SMALL POCKETS OF WETLANDS, AND THAT MAY NOT EVEN BE HIGH QUALITY WETLANDS THAT MAY NOT BE HOME TO ANY. HABITAT AND THEY'RE COMPLETELY ISOLATED, AND IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR THAT TO BE DEVELOPED AND A LARGER. PRESERVATION AREA TO BE MAINTAINED INSTEAD, AND FOR THAT MONEY TO GO TOWARDS MAINTAINING THAT LARGER PRESERVATION EVERYWHERE. IT DOES SERVE MORE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTION THAT WETLAND SERVES HABITAT, ET CETERA. UM NOW. IN TERMS OF MARTIN COUNTY. NOT ALLOWING IT.

[01:05:01]

I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG HOW FAR THAT GOES BACK. I KNOW THAT'S THE CASE NOW. I KNOW THAT THEY REQUIRE A 75 FT BUFFER. IN MOST CASES, UM FROM THE EDGE OF THE WETLAND. THINK THE CITY OF STEWART THE MUNICH CODE IS 100. CITY CAN REQUIRE MORE THAN THAT. BUT FOR THE COUNTY I BELIEVE IT'S 75. DO YOU KNOW WHY I MEAN OR CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? THE HISTORY OF WHY MARTIN COUNTY? UH, DOES NOT ALLOW MITIGATION. UM I CAN'T. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WENT ON. UH, THAT GOT THEM TO THAT POINT. BUT I CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOU THAT THE BENEFIT OF NOT ALLOWING IT AND ACTUALLY REQUIRING THEM TO BE PRESERVED. IN A PLACE LIKE MARTIN COUNTY, WHICH WHICH HAS A LOT OF NATURAL AREA. IS TO PRESERVE THAT NATURAL AREA. UM AND, UM YOU KNOW, AN ALTERNATIVE COULD BE THAT YOU HAD TO MITIGATE IT WITHIN THE COUNTY. BUT, UM. CLEARLY THERE WAS SOME REASON THEY WANTED IT TO BE MITIGATE ON EVERY DEVELOPMENT SITE, AS OPPOSED TO EVEN SAY, JUST KEEPING IT WITHIN THE COUNTY. AS IT IS WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE MITIGATING WETLANDS.

YOU'RE NOT ALWAYS ALLOWED TO JUST CHOOSE ANY PLACE. YOU WANT TO MITIGATE IT. UM, THERE'S A.

UM TRYING TO THINK OF THE WORD. UM. THERE'S A BASICALLY IT'S ALMOST LIKE SENATE DISTRICTS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS. UM EACH WETLAND BANK HAS A SERVICE AREA. THAT'S THE WORD I WAS LOOKING FOR. AND UM, PROPERTIES WITHIN THOSE SERVICE AREAS IN PLACES WHERE MITIGATION IS ALLOWED. USUALLY HAVE TO MITIGATE WITHIN THAT SERVICE AREA. SO THIS IS THIS IN THE COUNTY YOU'RE SAYING OR WHAT? THIS. THIS IS IN MARTIN COUNTY, BUT ELSEWHERE AS WELL, UM, IS IT THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR? YES, YEAH. SO UM, SO DIFFERENTIATE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SURE, VERSUS THE STATE OF FLORIDA WELL, ALREADY SAYING THAT MARTIN COUNTY DOESN'T ALLOW IT, PERIOD YOU HAVE TO. YOU HAVE TO PRESERVE IT ON SITE. OKAY, OKAY, UNLESS IT'S A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. BUT IN OTHER PLACES WHERE YOU CAN MITIGATE AND THERE ARE THERE IS AT LEAST ONE VERY LARGE MITIGATION BANK LOCATED IN MARTIN COUNTY. UM MOST OF THOSE CREDITS MOST OF THAT MITIGATION OR IS BEING SERVED IN OTHER COUNTIES. THE LAND IS HERE, BUT. THAT THE CREDITS THAT IT'S PROVIDING OR FOR PRESIDENT FOR DESTRUCTION OF WETLANDS AND MORE URBANIZED COUNTIES. UM. SO UM, I'M SORRY THAT WHAT AM I ANSWERING IT AT THIS POINT MITIGATION, THOUGH. I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PAYING A FEE FOR DESTROYING THIS WETLAND? YES. OKAY, WELL, THERE'S NO COMPARISON. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A DOLLARS AND CENTS ISSUE, BUT, UM. WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE IN? YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MAY SAY, WELL I HAVE A WETLAND ON THIS PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MY PROPERTY, AND IT WAS THERE WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, BUT I WANT TO MITIGATE IT, SO I WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER WETLAND OVER HERE IN THE CORNER. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO HIRE A BULLDOZER TO GO OUT THERE AND SCRAPE THE SURFACE OFF AND PUT THE PROPER PLANTS AND THAT SORT OF THING AND CREATE A WETLAND.

RECREATE WHAT I'M GOING TO DESTROY IN THE MIDDLE. UM WHAT IS YOUR OR DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE? WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE SUCCESS OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE. I'M NOT A WETLAND BIOLOGIST. UM I CAN ONLY TELL YOU FROM A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE. AH, THAT. UM IT DEPENDS ON THE QUALITY OF THE WELL AND BEGIN WITH THE WETLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY MIGHT HAVE BEEN LOW QUALITY. AND IF YOU RE CREATE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, A BREAK EVEN. BUT FOR LARGER, HIGHER QUALITY WETLANDS AND PRETEND TO, UH, DEPENDING WHERE THEY WERE LOCATED. MAYBE THERE'S A VALUABLE, UH, WATER BODY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. OR SOME OTHER HYDROLOGICAL FEATURE WHERE THE WETLAND AND GIVEN LOCATION MIGHT HAVE MORE VALUE MIGHT HAVE A SPECIAL VALUE. AND IF YOU RE CREATE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, THERE'S THE POTENTIAL THAT IT HAS LESS. AS WELL. GENERALLY I THINK IT IS A BIG QUESTION MARK. UM AS TO WHETHER WE CREATED WETLANDS IN A SMALL RECREATED WEAPONS ARE REALLY COMPARABLE, YEAH. BECAUSE SO I'M SORRY. WHERE YOU GOING TO STILL FOLLOW YOUR MARTIN COUNTY QUESTION, OR DID YOU FOLLOW UP? THE THIRD PART WAS THE BUFFER ZONE. UM WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER. I DON'T BELIEVE THE VILLAGE HAS A BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY, SHOULDN'T WE HAVE ONE? I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A MISSING PIECE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PRESERVE A WETLAND WITHOUT A BUFFER. UM THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT, UM, WANTED WHEN WE DRAFTED THIS ORDINANCE, WE DID IT IN A WAY SO AS NOT TO CHANGE

[01:10:02]

THE DEVELOPERS ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NO BUFFER REQUIREMENT.

UM THEY HAVE TO JUST YOU KNOW THEY THEY'RE REQUIRED. I SEE. THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING. YOU'RE ON MUTE. MR UH, MR WILLIAMS. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING MENTIONED. WE DON'T HAVE A BUFFER REQUIREMENT. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE PRIMARY AGENCY THAT'S GOING TO REGULATE WITH REGARD TO THIS IS THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. AND THEY HAVE BUFFERS.

UM I DON'T LIVE AND BREATHE THIS STUFF EVERY DAY, BUT I WAS JUST WORKING THROUGH SOME STUFF FOR ANOTHER INDIAN TOWN PROJECT. MY RECOLLECTION IS. AH THERE REQUIREMENT IS A MINIMUM OF 15 FT. AND THEN WHAT IS IT AVERAGE OF 25 FT. MINIMUM OF 15. FT ALEX, WE'RE JUST WORKING THROUGH THIS ON THE RIGHT ONE OF OUR OTHER PROJECT. THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS STANDARDS WITH REGARD TO ALL OF THESE THINGS. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN IMPOSE, UH, STRICTER STANDARDS AND WHEN IT COMES TO MARTIN COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE. AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

THEY'VE IMPOSED VASTLY STRICTER STANDARDS. UM WITH WITH THE EFFECT THAT CERTAIN TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PARTS OF THE COUNTY SIMPLY AREN'T FEASIBLE. UM YOU KNOW, EVENT I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING. I JUST DIDN'T WANT FOLKS TO THINK THAT THAT THE BUFFER WAS ZERO OR ANYTHING LIKE THIS BECAUSE ANOTHER AGENCY DOESN'T POSE MINIMUM STANDARDS. AND ALSO HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER WETLANDS. OVERSIGHT OF WETLANDS. IT'S UH, THE. DP AS WELL AS THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. IF OUR GOAL IS WETLAND PRESERVATION. AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUFFER OF 15 FT. I REALLY HAVE DOUBT BACKED. I DON'T THINK THAT CAN BE DONE. JUST WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR QUESTION ABOUT MARTIN COUNTY JUST LET ME KNOW BEFORE BECAUSE I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION REGARDING THAT IF YOU MAY. WELL, UM. YEAH I'D LIKE TO. I'D LIKE TO, UM I THINK THERE SHOULD BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A BUFFER THAT IS CERTAINLY STRONGER THAN 10 OR 15. FT. AND CHAIR PRESSLER. I'M MAKE A NOTE OF THAT. AND THEN THAT'S CERTAINLY THE BOARD'S, UH, IT'S CERTAINLY ARE YOUR. PURVIEW TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

YOU CAN MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS YOU SEE FIT AS TO HOW THIS ORDINANCE COULD BE AMENDED OR SHOULD BE AMENDED. I WILL JUST TELL YOU THAT FROM FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE REASON WE DRAFTED IT THE WAY IT IS. IS. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING THAT THAT'S UH.

THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT, JUST THAT THAT THAT OFFERS A BENEFIT WITHOUT IMPOSING NEW STANDARDS. I THINK THAT WE CERTAINLY COULD LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS A SEPARATE, UH, EXERCISE, BUT IN THIS ONE I WAS AVOIDING ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, UH, THAT WOULD AFFECT THE DEVELOPMENT. MR. JEFF, COULD YOU PLEASE? UM. UH HUH. EXPLAIN WHAT ARE THE, UM MISS JEFFERSON MENTIONED THE. ETHICAL AGENCIES. SO WHAT IS THIS? WHAT IS THE STATE OF FLORIDA DO OR OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY? COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT TO US? SURE. AND THE ONE THING I'M NOT. I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER IS WHEN A GIVEN AGENCY HAS JURISDICTION VERSUS ANOTHER, UM AND PERHAPS MR VOSS KNOWS THAT OR PERHAPS MISS JEFFERSON KNOWS THAT, BUT UM.

UM WHEN THEY WATERMAN IN SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WHEN YOU NEED A PERMIT FROM THEM FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT, UM THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK THEY'RE GOING TO, UH, REQUIRE A WETLAND SURVEY. THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO INSPECT IT. AND DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE WETLANDS AND THEN REQUIRE THEIR PROTECTION. UM. IN SOME CASES, ANOTHER AGENCY HAS JURISDICTION. UM. I KNOW THAT IN SOME COUNTIES, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, STATE, UM, DELEGATES AUTHORITY TO A LOCAL COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY, UM, SO IT CAN WORK IN DIFFERENT WAYS. AS FAR AS WHICH AGENCY HAS JURISDICTION OR WHETHER THE COUNTY ITSELF DOES THE ENFORCEMENT. TWO. SO MY LIKE I MISSED. YOUR QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE THEIR STANDARDS BY THOSE THREE ENTITIES OR WHOEVER IS THE APPLICABLE ENTITY AT THE STATE LEVEL FOR THE BUFFER STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS, WETLANDS AND MITIGATION AND EVERYTHING REGARDING. THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IT, OKAY? WE WOULD NEED TO BRING YOU A SPREADSHEET TO THAT YOU KNOW, JUST JUST IN A NUTSHELL FROM 30,000. FT, UM. WHAT WHAT CONSTITUTES A WETLAND IS SOMETHING THAT'S FAR TOO TECHNICAL TO GET INTO HERE, AND

[01:15:02]

I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO TELL YOU, BUT THERE ARE VARIOUS CRITERIA AS FAR AS THE HYDROLOGY. THE PLANTS THAT GROW THERE ARE GROWING IN THERE. BUT THERE. SO ONCE WE AGREE ON A WETLAND AS A WETLAND AT THE FLORIDA STATE LEVEL, JUST BRIEFLY. LIKE YOU SAID IN MARTIN COUNTY, THEY REQUIRED A 75. FT BUFFER. WHAT IS IT AT THE STATE? IS THERE A STATE LEVEL OR I AM NOT SURE OF THAT ANSWER. OKAY? WAS THERE IS A REQUIREMENT, BUT IT PRECISELY IS. I DO NOT KNOW. I'M TRYING TO FIND IT NOW. OKAY? BUT IN OUR CODE IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT THOSE ARE THE THREE AGENCIES THAT WE REFERENCE IN THE LAND LANDSCAPING CODE WITH REGARD TO MEETING THEIR STANDARDS, OKAY? OKAY? DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A DISCUSSION? I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS IF NOBODY ELSE DOES. UM I THINK, UM JUST HAVING. I JUST GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. IS IT? IS IT NORMAL FOR SO I JUST WANT TO STEP BACK AT 1000 FT. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE THEY'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE WETLAND. AREAS. BUT IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT IS THAT NEST IS A TYPICAL OR IS IT NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY REZONED THE PROPERTY? SO, FOR INSTANCE, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LET'S SAY OPEN SPACE, IT CAN BE DESIGNATED ON A SITE PLAN OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. IS IT TYPICALLY DONNA'S OR REZONE? UH I MEAN, I MEAN SOME OF THE COMMENTS. WERE MADE OF THAT COULD BE SEEN AS IT TAKING UP SOME SORT. SO I'M AGAIN. I'M NOT TRYING, BUT I JUST I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S LIKE WHAT'S NORMAL CAN BE DONE IN, YOU KNOW, EITHER WAY. MAYBE WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS GET INTO THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION.

THAT'S WHERE I WANTED TO GO. YES BECAUSE OUR GOAL HERE IS TO CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OPEN SPACE AND PRESERVATION. THAT WAS OUR DIRECTIVE FROM THE COUNCIL AND SO WITH THE UH, THERE. COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED. UH WE'RE NOT OBJECTING TO THEM, SO I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD. SURE I DISTILLED THE COMMENTS DOWN INTO, UH, WITH SOME, THERE WAS SOME COMMONALITIES THAN AND I CAN ADDRESS A LOT OF THEM AT ONCE. UM THERE WAS THE CENTRAL ONE, PERHAPS, WHICH IS THE TAKING OF PROPERTY AND. AGAIN THIS IS, UH FOR THE WETLANDS. THIS IS PROPERTY THAT IS REQUIRED ALREADY OR BY UNDER UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO BE PROTECTED. UM AGAIN, IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO MITIGATE IT, SO BE IT. YOU KNOW, WE PROVIDE FOR THAT. UM BUT IF IT HAS TO BE PROTECTED ON THE PROPERTY, UM ALL WE'RE SAYING IS WE WANT TO SEE ITS OWN CONSERVATION. UM. THERE WAS THE THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT TYPE. UM UH, IRREVOCABLE CONSERVATION IS MEANT OR WHAT HAVE YOU? UM I BELIEVE I USED THE WORD DEED RESTRICTION IN HERE. WE CAN. WE CAN TALK FURTHER INTERNALLY ABOUT THAT, UM, JUST TO ASSURE, YOU KNOW, ENSURE THERE WERE NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. BUT. BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THERE THAT IT WOULD BE. IT WOULD BE PRESERVED. UM UM, SUBJECT TO A FORMAL INSTRUMENT THAT WOULD BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND I IMAGINE UM. THE APPLICABLE AGENCY IS GOING TO HAVE SOME SIMILAR TYPE REQUIREMENT. UM UM, BUT WILL RESEARCH THAT A LITTLE FURTHER AND TALK ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT? THAT'S THAT'S MOST APPROPRIATE. UM SO JUST TO ASK YOU WHEN YOU ON A SITE PLAN WHEN YOU'RE SUBMITTING THAT, FOR APPROVAL, SETS FORTH, OPEN SPACE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WHAT CAN IT BE DONE? OR IS IT DONE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT IT SURE CAN PERCENTAGE OF LAND AND DESIGNATED AS WETLAND AND IT BUT IT'S IN THIS WITHIN THE SITE PLAN, SO TO SPEAK. SURE. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW IT'S BEING DONE HERE RIGHT NOW. DOES IT STILL DOES THAT STILL PROTECT THE SAME LAND? AND YES, THIS. THE REZONING IS ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION THAT THAT IS TRUE, IS IT IT'S GOING TO BE A DUPLICATIVE LAYER. YES, UM AND I THINK THAT. THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS THAT GET AT THIS. FIRST OF ALL, UM, THAT IT WAS THE TAKINGS QUESTION. LIKE I SAID, UM, THIS IS PROPERTY THAT YOU ALREADY CAN'T DEVELOP.

AND WE'RE NOT DETERMINING THAT YOU CAN'T DEVELOP IT. UH SOMEBODY ELSE'S OKAY AND YOU SUBMIT A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND YOU DEVELOP AROUND IT. AND WHATEVER BUFFER REQUIREMENT THERE IS. YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THAT. UM WE'RE NOT THAT THE FACT THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRING

[01:20:07]

IT TO BE ZONE CONSERVATION. DOESN'T AFFECT HOW YOU CAN DEVELOP THE REST OF THE SITE.

IT'S AS IF YOU DIDN'T ZONE AT CONSERVATION AT ALL. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE. OKAY, SO, UM. YEAH THE CONSERVATION CATEGORY IS CONSISTENT. WITH THE USES OF A WETLAND PARCEL. IT HAS TO BE PRESERVED. UM SO WE DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S TAKING GOING ON HERE. UM THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT GROSS VERSUS NET. UM, IN ONE OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS. UM. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WHAT WHAT. THE KING'S RANCH FOLKS WERE ASKING IS OKAY. UM SO ARE BUILDING COVERAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS, UH, 70% OF THE PARCEL. IS THAT GOING TO BE 70% AND REMEMBER THAT THE WETLANDS THERE'S TWO SO WE'RE FOCUSING ON OUR WETLANDS HERE, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE VOLUNTARY PRESERVATION. I THINK, JUST JUST AS SET FORTH. THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION IS THERE WAS SAID. I THINK WE STICK TO. I MEAN THE WAY THAT YOU PRESENTED IT IS THAT THERE'S WETLANDS AND THEN INCENTIVES RIGHT WITH THIS TOPIC, AND THEN WE CAN. OKAY SO UNDER THE WETLANDS IT THERE'S NO CHANGE. THERE'S JUST NO CHANGE AT ALL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IT'S A DIFFERENT COLOR ON THE ZONING MAP, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE. HOW YOU DEVELOP THE REST OF THE PARCEL. UM AS COMPARED TO THE WAY WE DO IT TODAY, UM, IN TERMS OF. ONE OF THE OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE REZONING WASN'T A PROBLEM WITH ACTUALLY CHANGING THE MAP. IT WAS ASKING THE APPLICANT TO TAKE ON THE QUOTE UNQUOTE BURDEN OF. THE APPLICATION FEE AND THE PROCESS WHEN WE COULD DO IT ADMINISTRATIVELY AND WE'RE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. YES. YEAH SO YOU'RE SAYING TO INSTEAD OF DOING A REZONE IT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY. WE WOULD DO THE REZONING. THE VILLAGE. THE DEVELOPER WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO DO IT. THE DEVELOPER WOULD ONLY HAVE TO JUST PROVIDE US ILLEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH OF THE AREA THAT'S BEING PRESERVED IN THE VILLAGE WOULD TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY. WHATEVER.

WHATEVER TIME THEY SEE FIT. I'M NOT. I'M AGAIN. I'M KIND OF RELYING ON YOU. AS AND AGAIN.

EVERYBODY ELSE CAN ASK A QUESTION. BUT WHAT'S NORMAL AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA? I THINK YOU COULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOAL RIGHT AND INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO I MEAN OTHERWISE YOU'D HAVE. ON EVERY DEVELOPMENT, YOU'D BE KIND OF REZONING. ON PROPERTIES THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A WETLAND THERE, SO I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT, BUT. BUT ON 1000 SQUARE FOOT LEVEL, I MEAN, THIS IS SET UP IN TERMS OF A REZONING WAY. I THINK THAT YOU COULD DO IT. YOU KNOW WHERE DEFINITELY THE WETLANDS THAT ARE PROTECTED, BUT IT CAN BE DONE WITHIN A WITHIN A SITE PLAN. IT CAN THIS BUT THIS, UH THIS HAS ANOTHER PURPOSE TO IT, AND ONE OF THOSE PURPOSES IS TO RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THESE PARTIES. THESE CONSERVATION AREAS ON THE ZONING MAP ON AN OFFICIAL MAP. UM SO YOUR COMMENT IS AS WELL TAKEN YOUR CORRECT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE BECAUSE IT ISN'T NOW, UM. I MEAN, YOU'RE STILL REQUIRED TO GO AND SHOW WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE RIGHT? SO YOU STILL ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOAL OF SHOWING WHERE IT IS ON THE MAP? IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING IT RIGHT WITHOUT WITHOUT A TRANSFER. WITHOUT A TRANSFER, SO TO SPEAK. OKAY UM, I'M JUST I'M JUST I'M JUST ASKING. IT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF PROTECTION. UM BECAUSE NOW THE ZONING IS IN LINE WITH THE ACTUAL PRESERVATION. STATUS OF THE PARCEL, YOU KNOW, ON THE ACTUAL, UH, NATURE OF IT AS UNDEVELOPED DOUBLE. OKAY, OKAY, UM. AND THEN THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT, UM, THE TERM VIABLE. UM, WHEN WE REFERENCE. I'VE SAID OR WHEN WERE REFERENCED MITIGATION. THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT, UH, IF THE REGULATORY AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION DETERMINES THAT, UM, MITIGATION IS VIABLE. THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE TOWN IF THE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE. IN AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THE FOCUS ON THE WORD VIABLE IS. IS REALLY THAT IMPORTANT SENSES THE AGENCY'S DETERMINATION.

THEY'RE EITHER GOING TO SAY YOU CAN DO IT OR YOU CAN'T. UM BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO YOU KNOW WE'LL TALK TO MR VAZ ABOUT THAT AND SEE IF. YOU KNOW IF THE WORD PERMISSIBLE IS PERHAPS A BETTER ONE TO USE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT REALLY CHANGES THE OUTCOME. UM BY THE EFFECT OF THE ORDINANCE WELL, WOULD YOU MIND SAYING, I THINK PERMISSIBLE GETS AT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT? I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. SORRY WOULD YOU BIND? UM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND FOR ALL OF US HERE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE VALUE OF WETLANDS AND WHY WE SHOULD CARE. UM YOU

[01:25:07]

KNOW, THE FACT THAT FLORIDA LOST ABOUT HALF OF ITS WETLANDS PRIOR TO 1970 THE VALUE IN PREVENTING ALGAE, BROOMS, ALGAE BROOMS LIKE WE'VE HAD IN THE WATERWAYS HERE IN MARTIN COUNTY. UM THE FLOOD CONTROL THAT IT HELPS WITH AND WHY, YOU KNOW WHY SHOULD WE? WHY ARE WE GOING TO SO MUCH TROUBLE TO TRY TO PRESERVE WHAT LANDS? OKAY UM, I THINK YOU COVERED SOME OF IT, AND I'LL JUST AGAIN EMPHASIZE HERE THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO INCREASE THE AREA OF PRESERVED WETLANDS. IT'S JUST RECOGNISING THEM ON OUR ZONING MAP AND PROVIDING THAT ADDITIONAL LAYER OF. OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND PROTECTION IDENTIFICATION, BUT WETLANDS SERVED MANY PURPOSES.

UM THEY'RE CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT. UM THEY, UH, RECHARGE THE. THE AQUIFERS FROM WHICH WE GET OUR DRINKING WATER. UM WHEN THEY'RE IN SYSTEMS, UH, UM, SUCH AS I MEAN, THE EVERGLADES AS A WHOLE, THEY FILTER NUTRIENTS OUT OF WATER. SO FARMLAND, FOR EXAMPLE. ROADS YOU KNOW, THERE'S FAST FATES COMING OFF OF FARMLAND, AND, UH, AND RESIDENTIAL LAWNS AND THOSE TRIGGER ALGAE BLOOMS, UM, AND A WETLAND. FILTERS THAT WHEN THE WATER DOES FLOW THROUGH WETLAND, THIS THE SAME CONCEPT WITH BIO SWALES THAT WE SEE IN MORE URBAN AREAS. IT'S A WAY TO FILTER SOME OF THE. THE RUNOFF FROM ROADS YOU KNOW THAT CONTAIN OILS AND OTHER OTHER CHEMICALS AND HELP FILTERED OUT BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE GROUND OR TO THE STORM SEWERS AND WHATNOT. UM. SO CLEARLY, WETLANDS ARE QUITE IMPORTANT. THERE'S COASTAL WETLANDS.

THERE'S UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BRACKISH WETLANDS. THERE'S FRESHWATER WETLANDS. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPES, AND WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO MITIGATE WETLANDS, YOU CAN'T JUST MITIGATE ANYWHERE YOU WANT. YOU HAVE TO FIND. A MITIGATION BANK THAT HAS A SIMILAR TYPE. WELL IN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MITIGATE THAT YOU'RE SEEKING TO, UH TO PEOPLE OVER OUR BUILD ON SO. UH THERE IS A RECOGNITION OF THE VARIOUS CONTEXT YOU SEE WETLANDS IN, UM AND THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES THEY SERVE. SO A COASTAL WETLAND WILL HAVE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT I MEAN, THE FOOD CHAIN ESSENTIALLY STARTS AT A COASTAL WETLAND. THEY'RE VITAL. FAIRLY WELL, SOME OF THE BOTTOM, UM MEMBERS OF THE FOOD CHAIN, AND YOU SEE THAT WHEN, WHEN THOSE NO LONGER HAVE THEIR HABITAT. YOU KNOW THAT KIND OF SNOWBALLS THROUGH THE ECOSYSTEM. THANK YOU JUST TO. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE WAY THAT YOU PRESENTED. IT WAS HELPFUL IN THE IN THE WETLANDS ISSUE AND NOT THE MIDDLE MIDDLE, NOT THE INCENTIVES. MR. MR WADE, CAN YOU JUST. VERIFY THAT THAT'S BASICALLY PAGES. AH 90. THROUGH. 90 YEAH. 15 AND 16 OF THE 16. I.

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

[01:30:04]

JUST TWO PAGES. 15 AND 16 IS THE ONLY PLACE BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE IS ALSO ON PAGE. UH, GIVE ME ONE SEC HERE. IT'S UH FIVE. AND SOME OF THE LANGUAGES LISTED AFTER EVERY REGULATION TABLE FOR EACH ZONING DISTRICT. OKAY THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. THE THRUST OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLANDS, THOUGH, ARE ON PAGE FIVE OF 16 OF THE DOCUMENT OF THE ACTUAL DRAFT ORDINANCE. OKAY? DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY UM, MAY I MAKE A MOTION OR AS AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION OR DO I CALL FOR EMOTION? H, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION, OKAY? UM. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL THAT MR JEFF EXPRESSED BUT WITHOUT HAVING TO RE ZONE. SO THAT IT CAN BE DONE IN THE SITE PLAN IN TERMS OF THE DATA. IT SHOULD. SO THE SAME WAY THAT THERE WOULD BE OPEN SPACE. YOU COULD HAVE IT AS A LINE ITEM IN THE GRAPH. AND I'LL SUMMARIZE THIS AGAIN AT THE END, SO THAT IT'S NOT CONFUSING. WE'RE WRITING IT DOWN TO JUST JUST ACHIEVE THE SAME GOAL. AND NO MATTER WHAT, MR MR JEFF, CAN YOU JUST. VERIFY THAT IF YOU DID IT THAT ALTERNATIVE WAY. IS THE WETLAND SET FORTH AS WHATEVER IS DEFINED AS WETLAND. IT STILL GETS PROTECTED. JUST A DIFFERENT WAY. OKAY? I MEAN, IF THAT'S I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FACT BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO PRESERVE WETLANDS, RIGHT BUT IT'S NOT JUST WETLANDS. IT'S VOLUNTARY PRESERVATION AS WELL. RIGHT? OKAY SO WE HAVE YOUR FIRST. WELL, I'M JUST I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE BEFORE YOU WRITE DOWN. SO I'LL MAKE IT SHORTER. UM. SO EMOTION. I'M GOING TO START AGAIN. EMOTION, TOO. UM. CAN WE. FORGIVE ME WITH THE INCENTIVES AND THE WETLANDS.

CAN WE DO EMOTIONS SPECIFICALLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT MR WEIGHTS, EDITS TOGETHER, SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A BIT OF CONFUSION. SO I GUESS CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE INCENTIVES FIRST, BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION? SO GOOD. YES, YES, YOU MAY AND YOU ALSO MAY STAY. RECOMMENDATIONS YOU'RE MAKING TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL, FOR EXAMPLE, BOARD MEMBER PRESSLER WOULD LIKE US TO INCLUDE WETLAND BUFFER. AN ACTUAL NUMBER REFERENCED NOT JUST THE AGENCY. SO I'VE NOTICED THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION AND I'M ASSUMING WHEN THERE'S A MOTION MADE THAT SHALL MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THAT IF THE MOTION. DOES NOT INCLUDE. I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND A NUMBER ON THAT 100 FT. WE'D LIKE TO. WE'RE GONNA HAVE I MEAN AGAIN. THIS IS SUCH A COMPLICATED ISSUE WITH SO MANY LINE ITEMS. SO I MEAN, IT'S I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, BECAUSE IF WE MAKE A MOTION THAT COVERS THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE. FOR INSTANCE, ON THAT ISSUE. HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE WITHIN THE WHOLE ORDINANCE? SO I MEAN THERE'S THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THEY HAVE THEIR REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT'S RIGHT. WHAT YOU MAY DO IS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO REVISIT CERTAIN ITEMS AND OR RECOMMEND THAT. THE VILLAGE COUNCIL CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE. YOU CAN EACH MEMBER MAKE THEIR MAKE IT RECOMMENDATION ESSENTIALLY OR WE TAKE THE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION. TO BE HONEST, THAT IS PART OF WHAT YOU DO BEFORE YOU ARRIVE HERE AS YOU MAKE YOUR NOTES. SUCH AS YOU KNOW, WE MORE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. UM ETCETERA, AND YOU HAVE THOSE NOTED WHEN YOU GET HERE. AND THAT'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION. AND IF THE OTHER MEMBERS AGREE, THEN YOU VOTE. WITH THE MOTION. WITH WHATEVER YOU AGREED TO WRITE. AND CHAIRMAN BOARD MEMBERS. UH I THINK IT MAY BE ABLE TO BREAK THIS DOWN A LITTLE BIT FOR YOU AND. I'LL BE A AND STAFF. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG AGAIN, BUT, UM, BASICALLY, WE HAD. TO PROTECTION MECHANISMS, LEGAL PROTECTION MECHANISMS BUILT INTO THIS ORDINANCE, ONE TO EITHER EITHER FOR PARCELS THERE MORE THAN TWO CONTIGUOUS ACRES OF WETLANDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PRESERVED. OR LANDS, UH, BEING PRESERVED TO GET THE

[01:35:03]

INCENTIVES WE'RE DOING. TWO THINGS WERE REZONING THEM TO CONSERVATION AND WE'RE PUTTING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THEM. CORRECT IT'S THE SAME MECHANISM. 42 DIFFERENT THINGS.

CHAIRMAN THAT JUSTICE SUGGESTION, IF YOUR CONCERN IS WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THOSE TWO MECHANISMS, THEY REZONE. THEN YOUR MOTION COULD BE SIMPLY, YOU KNOW. RECOMMEND THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS, UM, BUT REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT TO REZONE TO COME CONSERVATION. UH IN BOTH INSTANCES AND RETAINING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CONSERVATION EASTERN. WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER MATTER CONCERNING THE BUFFER. CERTAINLY THE, UM. THE UH PC A CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT A THAT A BUFFER SPECIFIC BUFFER NUMBER BE INCLUDED. I WILL TELL YOU AS A PRACTICAL MATTER. I WOULD SPECULATE THAT STAFF AND I WOULD. PROBABLY RECOMMENDED THE VILLAGE COUNCIL THAT THIS THIS EXACT ORDINANCE IS NOT THE BEST VEHICLE TO DO THAT. THIS IS GETTING IT. IT'S GETTING GENERALLY AT THE SUBJECT OF WETLANDS. IT'S GETTING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. IT DOES NOT IMPOSE. SUBSTANTIVE UM, REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE.

THE DIMENSIONAL PROTECTIONS OF WEAPONS SO IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST THAT IT BE DONE AS A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE DOWN THE LINE. BUT CERTAINLY YOUR RECOMMENDATION CAN BE A MEANS TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL THAT THAT YOU RECOMMEND IN THAT DIRECTION. AND MR WAY JUST TO UNDERSTAND. YOU SAID THAT. THIS APPLIES TO ANYTHING THAT TWO ACRES OR MORE. BYE.

AUTOMATICALLY OR. VOLUNTARILY IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S NOT PROJECTS TWO ACRES AND MORE. SO IT WAS ONE THING TO POINT OUT AND KEEP THIS IN MIND IS THAT IT'S UH, SITE PLANS WITH AT LEAST TWO CONTIGUOUS ACRES OF WETLANDS TO BE PRESERVED. OKAY SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

PROJECTS OVER I'M GOING TO GUESS YOU KNOW, OVER FOUR OR 56 ACRES, 10 ACRES, MAYBE. I DON'T KNOW. BE VERY SITE SPECIFIC. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT QUARTER ACRE HALFAKER. DEVELOPMENT AT ALL HERE FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES, BECAUSE, UM, THIS FIRST PIECE ONLY KICKS IN WHEN YOU'VE GOT TWO CONTIGUOUS ACRES. TO BE PRESERVED, SO IT'S LARGER CHUNKS OF WETLANDS THAT YOU WOULD BE DOING THIS REZONING REQUIREMENT OR CONSERVATION EASEMENT REQUIREMENT ON OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND IT WHAT. WHAT IS THE FLOOR FOR THE FLORIDA OR THE APPLICABLE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAT HAVE STATE LEVEL? WHAT IS WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT ON THE TWO ACRE. THAT IS NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. THAT'S THAT THERE IS NOT AN EXACT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH AN EXACT ANALOG WITH REGARD TO THAT, UH AND PERHAPS SOME OF THE PLANNING STAFF IS YEAH. SO IT'S TWO ACRES HAS HAS NO RELATION TO ANY. ANY OUTSIDE LAW. OKAY WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT NOR FOR THIS ORDINANCE, IF YOU IF YOUR PROJECT IF YOU HAVE A 20 ACRE PROJECT, AND YOU HAVE THREE OR FOUR ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY TO THOSE WETLANDS AND THAT YOU THEY WOULD BE REZONED TO CONSERVATION IF YOU HAD THE SAME PROPERTY, AND IT ONLY HAD 1.5 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS WEAPONS. THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY TO THE WETLANDS. THE STATE. THE OUTSIDE AGENCIES ARE GOING TO REQUIRE PRESERVATION. REGARDLESS OF THIS, THE ONLY THING THAT THIS DOES WITH REGARD TO WETLANDS IS DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE GREEN ON THE ZONING MAP. AND LABELED CONSERVATION ON THE ZONING MAP OR NOT. AND A TWO ACRES WAS THE THRESHOLD WE PICKED SO THAT IT'S MOSTLY THE LARGER SITES AND THE LARGER AREAS OF WETLANDS. OKAY I'M GOING TO QUOTE WHAT YOU JUST SAID. YOU SAID THAT THE OUTSIDE I MEAN THE OUTSIDE AGENCIES. YOU KNOW, PROTECT THE PROTECT THE PROTECT THE LAND, NO MATTER WHAT. SO WELL, THAT'S NOT NOT EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. IT'S IF THEY PROTECT IT. IT'S IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE, MAYBE THRESHOLDS LIKE A QUARTER ACRE WHERE THEY SAY, GO AHEAD AND PAVE OVER IT. IT'S SO SMALL. OKAY? FINE. IF. THOSE AGENCIES ARE REQUIRING THE WETLANDS TO BE PRESERVED. AND IF. THERE'S TWO OR MORE ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS, THEN IT WOULD BE REZONED CONSERVATION ON THE ZONING MAP. THAT'S ALL SO. IF THEY WANTED

[01:40:01]

TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE INCENTIVES. UNDERSTAND THAT'S THAT'S NOT THE WE'RE TALKING WETLANDS. OKAY YEAH, THE INCENTIVES. THE INCENTIVES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HERE, DEVELOPER AND YOU WANT TO YOU WANT TO PRESERVE SOME LAND AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE INCENTIVES. UM THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER THING. UM, AND THAT'S COMPLETELY OPTIONAL ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP HERE ON THAT. THIS SOMEHOW, UM. THAT THIS SOMEHOW TRACKS WITH STATE LAW FEDERAL LAW. IT'S COMPLETELY APPLES AND ORANGES. OKAY, BECAUSE IF THE IF. AH STATE OR OR OF A STATE AGENCY IS NOT REQUIRING THE WETLANDS BE PRESERVED. THIS DOESN'T MATTER. THIS DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT AT ALL DOESN'T AFFECT THE PROPERTY. IF THE FERRET IF THE GOVERNMENT IS SAYING YES, YOU MUST PRESERVE THESE. YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THEM AND THEY HAPPEN TO BE TWO OR MORE ACRES, CONTIGUOUS.

DEVELOPER HAS TO DO IT BECAUSE THE STATE'S TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO DO IT. AND THEN THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES. IT GETS RESULT. CONSERVATION. THAT'S ALL IT IS. IT REALLY DOESN'T DO VERY MUCH EXCEPT CHANGE THE COLOR ON THE ZONING MAP TO SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE BUILT ON ANYWAY. BECAUSE ANOTHER AGENCIES DECIDED THAT SO THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION, SO.

I'M GOING TO JUST MAKE MY COMMENTS AND THEN SO BASICALLY. I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS WITHOUT HAVING TO DO REZONING. I THINK THAT IT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE SITE PLAN WITHOUT THAT ADDITIONAL LAYER. SO AND. YOU KNOW THE MIDDLE, THE MITIGATION. I THINK IT'S GOOD TO PRESERVE. IN TERMS OF THAT WORD PERMISSIBLE, OR UH, FEASIBLE. WE JUST HAVE TO, YOU KNOW. IT SHOULD BE WITHIN THE VILLAGE, BUT NOT IN AN ADDITIONAL COST AS TO WHAT IT COSTS IN OTHER PLACES, SO IT SHOULD BE IN THE VILLAGE. BUT THE COST FOR THAT SHOULD BE FAIR, SO TO SPEAK. UM. SO IN TERMS OF THAT, AND THEN AND THEN, FOR THE FOR THE INCENTIVES AGAIN, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE TO REQUIRE TO BE REZONED. IF IT'S JUST DESIGNATED ON THIS ON THE SITE PLAN WITHOUT HAVING TO RE ZONE OR. IF IT JUST DESIGNATED ON THE SITE PLAN, CAN YOU? CAN YOU NOT ACHIEVE THE SAME GOAL IS MY QUESTION. WELL YES, I THINK WE'VE WE'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT AND. IT'S YEAH, IT'S UH YES, THE ANSWER IS YES. WE HAVE NOTES THAT YOU RECOMMEND TO REMOVE THE REASONING. REQUIREMENT. WHETHER IT BE BY STAFF OR THE APPLICANT. YOU RECOMMEND IT BE TAKEN OUT. AND IN THE OTHER. THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IT FOR ANOTHER WAY THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO TO THAT EXTENT BUT STILL PRESERVES THE WETLANDS WHICH COULD BE DONE ON A SITE PLAN OR WITHIN THAT PROCESS, IF THAT CAN'T BE DONE. YOU. YOU EXPRESS THAT IT CAN BE DONE THAT WAY. OKAY? I HAVE SOMETHING. YOU STATED THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ON THE LAND ANYWAY. WHEN YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT, UM, WHERE YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER? YEAH. WHAT I WAS SAYING. IS THAT, UM. THAT THE WETLANDS PORTION OF THIS ORDINANCE ONLY APPLIES IF. UM THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN'T DEVELOP A CERTAIN AREA OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S PROTECTED WETLANDS. BUT THE SO ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT THEY CAN. UM DEVELOPED A CERTAIN AREA OF THE PROPERTY. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T. UM UNDERTAKE ANY ACTIVITY ON THAT PROPERTY, DOES IT? UM THERE, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ACTIVITY THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRESERVED WETLANDS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO HAVE A BOAT DOCK THERE AND HAVE PEOPLE YOU KNOW, PADDLEBOARD OR KAYAK IN IT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I THAT BECAUSE YOU YOU KEPT SAYING THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ON THE TARGETS, THEY CAN'T DEVELOP IT. THEY CAN IMPROVE IT AND DEVELOP IT. THEY CAN'T. THEY CAN'T FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH THEY CANNOT IMPROVE IT, BUT THERE STILL IS A VALUE IN THE SENSE THAT IT COULD BE USED AS. PART OF YOUR SITE PLAN. IT COULD BE USED. IT IS, IT COULD BE USED. IT IS IN. THIS DOESN'T SAY ANY DIFFERENTLY. IT'S. IT'S A IF YOU HAD AN AREA IN YOUR IN YOUR SITE PLAN. YOU HAD TOWN HOMES AND ONE SECTION AND SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED IN ANOTHER, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SEPARATE ZONING CATEGORIES FOR ONE FOR ONE FOR THE TOWN HOMES AND ONE FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED. STILL, THE SAME SITE PLAN STILL THE SAME SITE. THIS IS JUST SAYING, THIS IS THIS PART. IT'S ALMOST

[01:45:02]

LIKE LIKE ZONING IT FOR AN AMENITY. UM LIKE IN A GOLF COURSE THEY'RE OFTEN THE GOLF COURSE ITSELF IS OFTEN ZONED RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE WHERE ALL THE HOMES THAT AROUND IT ARE ARE OFTEN ZONES FOR SINGLE FAMILY OR WHATEVER. DOING THE SAME THING HERE. IT'S STILL AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SITE. IT'S STILL AN AMENITY. UM YOU CAN THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WHOEVER WINDS UP, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS DEVELOPED PROPERTY. STILL CAN USE IT AS AN AMENITY WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF FEDERAL LAW. AS FAR AS WETLANDS ARE CONCERNED, IF IT DOES ALLOW. YOU KNOW, UH, BOARDWALK AROUND IT FOR BIRD WATCHING. YOU CAN DO THAT. IF AS LONG AS THESE THINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THESE OTHER AGENCIES ALLOW. THIS ISN'T SAYING ANY DIFFERENT. AND IT'S NOT IMPOSING ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. JUST CHANGING THE COLOR ON THE ZONING MAP. IT'S REALLY WHAT IT'S DOING. OKAY? I'M GOING TO MAKE A. RECOMMENDATION AND MAKE A REMOTE. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT I RECOMMENDATION TO THE TO THE COUNCIL IS TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL, BUT NOT THROUGH REZONING. IF THERE'S MITIGATION THAT IT CAN BE DONE. WITHIN THE VILLAGE, BUT AT A COST THAT'S NOT GREATER AS IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE ELSE. IN BOTH. IN THOSE INSTANCES.

CAN I ASK EVERYBODY QUESTION BEFORE? SINCE THERE IS NO SECOND ON THE MOTION? DOES EVERYBODY FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE? DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, OKAY? FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. TO PRESERVED THE WETLANDS. THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A REZONING. TWO. THAT WETLAND IS. GOING TO BECOME, IT'S NO, IT'S NO LONGER GOING TO BELONG TO THE LAND OWNER. WHOEVER THAT IS. IT'S NO LONGER GOING TO VOTE. THEN NOW, IS THAT NOT OKAY? OKAY? NO NONE OF THIS IS REQUIRING THAT OWNERSHIP OF ANY PROPERTY AT ALL CHANGE HANDS. OKAY? DID THE MUSCLES. YEAH IT IS REQUIRING CHAIRMAN TO YOUR CONCERN YOU HAD BEFORE THAT THAT THE WHOLE A WHOLE REZONING PROCESS BEGUN THROUGH WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN PROPERTIES. UH, IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH A PROJECT. SO YOU KNOW, NOT THAT ANY PROPERTY CHANGES HANDS. OKAY? TO REMIND YOU AGAIN THAT, UH, STAFF HAS NO OPPOSITION TO ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEVELOPER. INITIATE A REZONING FOR THE WELLONS. UM, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM, ELIMINATING THAT. UM THE ORDINANCE WOULD STILL REQUIRE THE TOWN THE VILLAGE TO DO THAT. BUT THE PROCESS AND THE COST AND ALL THAT WOULD NOT BE PUT ON THE DEVELOPER TO DO IT, OKAY. UM WITH ALL THE INFORMATION PRESENTED. BEFORE US TODAY AND WITH UNDERSTANDING OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED. I PUT A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION OF THE R 21-81 21. YEAH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, BUT. CAN I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE GO TO ROLL CALL? ARIA IS THIS AN ISSUE THAT CAN BE TABLED JUST BECAUSE I STILL DON'T. FULLY UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE IT'S CONVOLUTED AGAIN. NOT THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REGULAR CONCEPTS, BUT IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN I MEAN? WE'RE GETTING I'M MYSELF. I'M JUST UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER PROPERTY. YOU KNOW? PER MR JEFF. IS THAT SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO JUST IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN UH, CHAIRS. THE HAYEK CURRENTLY HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND YOU YOU MAY DISCUSS. OKAY. MAYBE THAT'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. SO. TO GO BACK TO DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD

[01:50:05]

BEFORE WE TAKE A ROLL CALL. PLEASE, MISS. UM THIS ORDINANCE DOES COVER A LOT OF DIFFERENT TOPICS. EVEN BESIDES THE WETLANDS, WHICH I DO. YOU KNOW, WANT TO RECOMMEND EITHER AN AMENDMENT OR THAT IT GO FORWARD TO THE FULL COUNCIL TO INCLUDE, UH YOU KNOW A HEALTHY BUFFER BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WHAT'S THE POINT OF TRYING TO TRYING TO PRESERVE YOUR WETLANDS? IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BUFFER, AND IT'LL JUST DEGRADE. OVER TIME, AND YOU HAVEN'T PRESERVED ANYTHING. YOU'VE FAILED AT WETLANDS PRESERVATION. UH THE SECOND THING IS THERE OTHER BUFFERS SAY BETWEEN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. UH YOU KNOW, I RECOMMEND WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND A BUFFER OF, SAY, 15 FT. PUT SOME NUMBERS IN THERE. UM I YOU SPEAKING OF THE GENERAL BUFFER UM. REGULATION IN TERMS OF IT. INDUSTRIAL IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. YES YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE NEED SIMILAR BUFFERS FOR OTHER DISTRICTS? YES, OKAY. I'D ALSO LIKE IN THAT INQUIRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STATE LEVEL BUFFER IS. AND WHAT IS ALREADY INCLUDED. IF WHAT LINDA'S DESIGNATED BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THAT INFORMATION WELL, I'M SORRY. WHAT IS OUT WHAT IS INCLUDED WHEN YOU HAVE A IF IT DESIGNATED AS AT A WET AS A WETLAND ON A STATE LEVEL OR. FEDERAL UH, LEVEL WHAT IS THERE A BUFFER AND THAT SITUATION? YES THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING TONIGHT AND WE'LL BRING YOU THE NUMBER, OKAY? SO AGAIN. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW HOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN. MAKE A MOTION WITHOUT HAVING THAT INFORMATION AND AGAIN. I'M NOT TRYING TO NOT ADDRESS IT. BUT.

I THINK THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO KNOW. BEFORE BEFORE WE MAKE EMOTION.

WELL, YOU. YOU COULD. AMEND THE MOTION TO SAY THAT. THE BUFFER SHALL NOT EXCEED. WHAT'S REQUIRED BY ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ORDER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OR DP. AND THEN THEY'RE THEY'RE NUMBER WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE COMPARED TO ANY NUMBER WE ESTABLISH. MY SUGGESTION JUST CAN TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, BUT IT'S UM VERY MUCH IN LINE. WHAT MR VOSS. UH, MISS JEFFERSON ALSO STATED. THE SCOPE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS NON REGULATORY. IN TERMS OF WE'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT IMPOSING NEW DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ON DEVELOPERS. IN FACT, WE'RE DOING THE OPPOSITE BY. BY REDUCING THEM SO THAT THEY'LL PRESERVE LAND AND WITH THE WETLANDS WERE NOT AIDING ANY REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF WHAT IT DOES TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP AND WHATEVER. WAY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DEVELOP BEFORE THIS ORDINANCE CAME INTO BEING. WHAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO JUST BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S IT'S REALLY OUTSIDE. THE SCOPE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS RECOMMEND, UH, THAT THE COUNCIL TAKE UP THE ISSUE IN A SEPARATE ORDINANCE. UH AND THAT WE THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF. TO EXAMINE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW. AND DETERMINE WHETHER WE NEED TO INCREASE THOSE LOCALLY AND THEN THE COUNCIL CAN DIRECT US TO LOOK INTO THAT ISSUE AND COME BACK WITH ANOTHER ORDINANCE. STUDY MY RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. SO WHAT? I'M WHAT I'M HEARING NOW IS THAT. THERE SHOULD BE MORE THOUGHT GIVEN TO HELPING. THAT COUNCIL REACHED ITS SKULL OF ADDITIONAL PRESERVATION, NOT JUST THROUGH. THE INCENTIVES BUT TO COME BACK AND MAYBE REVISIT THE REQUIREMENTS WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE. THAT MAYBE THOSE NEED TO BE YES. IF THEY CAN BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY UNDER SEPARATE ORDINANCE, THEN THAT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE SENSE. YOU KNOW IF THIS IS REALLY NOT THE PLACE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. I CAN CAN. I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO THE DISCUSSION AND BECAUSE IT'S THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON HERE. I MEAN, YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M SOME RIGHT. YOU MAY DISCUSS AND DECIDE WHAT YOU LIKE TO DO? NO. I FEEL LIKE WE

[01:55:02]

COULD GO AHEAD AND, UH. VOTE ON THIS AND THEN ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES SEPARATELY OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS SEPARATELY FOR SEPARATE ORDINANCES. SO WHERE ARE WE RIGHT NOW? WHAT? WHAT WHAT? WHAT OCCURRED, WE HAVE EMOTION ON THE FLOOR TO PROVE THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED.

OKAY? MM. SECOND. AND WE HAVE TO. WE HAVE TO ROLL CALL ON THAT, ESSENTIALLY, OR CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND IT? WE CAN. THE PERSON THAT MADE THE MOTION. CAN OFFER AN AMENDMENT.

THE SECONDARY MUST ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE AN AMENDED MOTION. OKAY I THINK FROM MINORS. YEAH FROM MY FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO JUST ACCEPT US THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN. SO WHOEVER MADE THE MOTION THAT WAS THE MOTION.

I MADE THE EMOTION AND THAT WAS THE MOTION BECAUSE I CAN I UNDERSTAND. WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME? OKAY, NOW, IF YOU WANT ME TO AMEND THAT, BECAUSE. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OR YOU WANT TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. I CAN DO THAT. YEAH. SO I THINK I THINK I THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THIS IS A COMPLICATED ISSUE, AND IT'S GETTING LATE. NOT THAT I'M I MEAN, WE CAN SIT HERE AS LONG AS WE NEED, BUT LET'S I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR US TO THINK ABOUT IT AND THE NEXT MEETING. WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND IT. NOW THAT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION. THAT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN, GRANTED, IT IS GETTING LATE. MY MOTION TO APPROVE THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TIMING SURE HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY BUT I CAN'T. I CAN'T RESPECT IF YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO TABLE IT BECAUSE. YOU MIGHT NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH INTO WHAT. THIS IS ALL ABOUT AND IF THAT IF YOU WANT ME TO AMANDA, I DON'T HAVE ISSUE WITH AMENDING. OKAY? I WOULD I WOULD APPRECIATE. I'LL MAKE A FRIENDLY EMOTION. I MEAN, A FRIENDLY A MAN. TO MY MOTION. TO INCLUDE. EVERY TABLE TO TABLE. TO CONTINUE TO CONTINUE THE ITEM. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DATE AND TIME CERTAIN WADE. UH SURE. YEAH. ARE WE, UH, CONTINUING IT TO THE NEXT MEETING? I THINK WE'RE ALREADY THAT WOULD BE NOVEMBER FOUR.

RIGHT I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD BE NOVEMBER. 4TH IS THERE IS THE IDEA IS THAT IF WE'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL. PROVISION FOR A SECOND ORDINANCE, WE WOULDN'T BE BRINGING THAT SECOND ORDINANCE. NOVEMBER FOUR. DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT? DON'T DON'T EXPECT TO SEE. THE SECOND ORDINANCE FOR THE BUFFERS AND. YOU KNOW SOME OF SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS. BETTER NONRESIDENTIAL HAVE TO HAVE BUFFERS THAT WILL COME SEPARATELY. BUT NOT AT THE NEXT MEETING, RIGHT? SO AS LONG AS THAT'S UNDERSTOOD IS THERE IS THERE IS IN DOING THAT. DOES THAT AFFECT ANY TIMELINES OF THE VILLAGE? OR AS I MEAN, THIS IS. NO MR CHAIR. THIS IS JUST STAFFS. UM WAY OF. FOLLOWING ARE DIRECTIVE FROM THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND. SO THE END GOAL AS LONG AS WE REACH IT. WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY? SO. WE HAVE A MOTION 1ST AND 2ND FOR TABLING IT UNTIL WHAT DATE WE HAVE. WE HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 4TH AT SIX P.M. I WOULD ALSO NEED THE SECOND OF THE MOTION TO AGREE TO THAT. THE 1ST AND 2ND. OUR AND ROLL CALL. BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ. YES. REMEMBER MILEY? YES FOR MEMBER PRESSLER. NO. VICE CHAIR. PALMER. YES. CHEERS. SO HAYEK YES. I'D LIKE TO JUST THANK EVERYBODY FOR DOING THAT AND JUST UNDERSTAND IT BETTER BEFORE WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, SO I DO APPRECIATE IT. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA. NEXT ON THE AGENDA.

[6.

Application #LDR-21-8122 - A request to amend the Village of Indiantown Land Development Regulations to provide procedural guidance for the processing of Temporary Use and Special Event applications.

]

[02:00:05]

DO YOU WANT TO JUST MENTION THAT THAT ITEM. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HEARD OR GRAHAM. THE COVER MEMO FOR STAY WITH THAT. I DID THE COUNCIL WITH A WORKSHOP ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS ORDINANCE, AND THEY REQUESTED A SECOND WORKSHOP. SO RATHER THAN HAVE YOU HERE, UH, THE DRAFT. WE WILL. ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. HAVE THEIR WORKSHOP AND BRING THIS BACK TO YOU, UH, MOST LIKELY. IN DECEMBER. DIRECTORS REPORT. WE CAN ALSO EXPECT TO

[DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

BRING TO YOU A. ADDITIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT WHICH WILL BE TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT OUR PERMITTED USE TABLE. AND LOOKING AT THE ECONOMICS USE DISTRICT. AND CLARIFYING. THAT THEY CONDITIONAL USES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESSES. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. MEETING ADJOURNE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

REGULAR AGENDA

Oct 07, 2021 Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board

REGULAR AGENDA

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item