Nov 04, 2021 Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board

OKAY. UM. TODAY, IS, UH. VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN AGENDA, PLANNING AND ZONING. AN APPEALS

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:13]

LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE BOARD MEMBER. LOPEZ IS NOT PRESENT BOARD MEMBER MILEY HERE. BOARD MEMBER PRESSLER. YES LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE BOARD MEMBERS. WINNER IS NOT HERE. THANK YOU. UM. NO ONE IS HERE TO DO A INVOCATION TODAY. TO WAR. YOU DO IT? OKAY, PLEASE. BY ALL MEANS.

HEY, MAN. THANK YOU. UH MR NEEDLES WENT TO LEAD US IN THE OF ALLEGIANCE. TWO. AND TO LIVING, ALL OF WHICH STANDS. INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WRONG. THANK YOU BOTH. UH, APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. FEEL A MOTION. ON THE FLOOR.

[APPROVAL OF AGENDA ]

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

THE APPROVAL. THANK YOU HAVING MOTION SECOND ROLL CALL, PLEASE. BOARD MEMBER MILEY YES, BOARD MEMBER, PRESSLER. PLACE CHAIR PALMER. CHEERS TO HAYEK. YES. THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE ITEM IS THE REGULAR AGENDA. APPLICATION NUMBER L D R 21 81 21. THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND

[2.  

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

[00:05:02]

KIND OF MITIGATION BANK. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, TO BE ABLE TO SHOW ON A MAP. WHERE THE PRESERVATION AREAS WITHIN THE VILLAGE ARE LOCATED. SO LET ME GIVE YOU A SUMMARY. WHEREBY THERE ARE TWO PROVISIONS ONE TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO SET ASIDE OPEN SPACE. AND IF SOMEONE'S MITIGATING WETLAND IMPACTS THAT THEY CAN DO SO IN THE VILLAGE. NEXT LINE. SO IN TERMS OF ENCOURAGING LAND PRESERVATION THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY WE. WE'RE TASKED WITH THIS WAS TO ENCOURAGE LAND PRESERVATION. SO SOME OF THESE RULES ARE WHAT YOU SAW THE LAST TIME INCENTIVES FOR PERMANENT OPEN SPACE AND MOST OF OUR DISTRICTS. I BELIEVE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IS EXCLUDED. AND NO EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP. AND NOW EFFECT ON DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY. OR DENSITY AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NEXT LINE. SO I'LL LET JEFF GO OVER THE INCENTIVES BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A FEW SURE. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. UM THIS IS UNCHANGED FROM THE LAST MEETING, BUT JUST TO REITERATE SOME OF THE INCENTIVES FOR VOLUNTARY LAND PRESERVATION ARE AN ADDITIONAL STORY OF HEIGHT OR 12 FT. REDUCED PARKING UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 20% REDUCTION.

REDUCED LOTS STANDARDS. UM IF IT'S A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH NUMEROUS LOTS OR EVEN A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION, UM THE LOTS CAN ACTUALLY BE SMALLER AND THE DEMAND THE SETBACKS AND THE WIDTH AND THE OTHER REQUIRED DIMENSIONS CAN BE SMALLER. UH THE LACK COVERAGE CAN BE INCREASED, WHICH IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THAT THAT'S COVERED WITH BUILDINGS, UH, AUTHORIZED UP TO A MAXIMUM INCREASE OF 20. AND THEN UH, WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE SOFTER INCENTIVES WHICH ARE PROCEDURAL AND FEES, EXPEDITED SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW, EXPEDITED BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND. UM A 10% REDUCTION IN THE SITE PLAN FEE. NEXT, PLEASE. AND THEN, UM, THE OTHER PRONGS OF THIS OF THIS ORDINANCE.

BESIDES PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR PRESERVING OPEN SPACE IS SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE LAST.

THE LAST VERSION, UM, WASN'T TALKED ABOUT QUITE AS MUCH. BUT IT'S. REQUIRING WETLAND MITIGATION TO OCCUR INSIDE THE VILLAGE WHEN POSSIBLE. UM, THIS IS NOT. THIS IS THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY COMES UP IF IT DEVELOPER. CHOOSES TO FILL OR ALTER WETLANDS INSTEAD OF PRESERVING THEM, UM, ON SITE. UM. IT ONLY APPLIES TO FEDERALLY DESIGNATED WETLANDS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IMPOSING ANY NEW REQUIREMENT ON A DEVELOPER OR LANDOWNER. BUT IF A LANDOWNER WISHES TO ALTER OR FILL WETLANDS, UM THEY WILL USUALLY HAVE THE OPTION OF

[00:10:06]

SO THIS IS SIMPLY AN OPTION THAT DEVELOPERS CAN AVAIL THEMSELVES OF, UM IF THEY DON'T WANT TO PRESERVE A WETLAND ON SITE. THEY DO HAVE A MITIGATION OPTION MOST OF THE TIME. IT JUST REQUIRES THAT THEY GIVE CONSIDERATION TO MITIGATION IN THE VILLAGE. BEFORE THEY GO OUT AND DO IT IN A WETLAND BANK SOMEWHERE ELSE. NEXT, PLEASE. UM THIS ONE HERE? I THINK WE JUST JUMPED AROUND A LITTLE BIT. UM THIS GOES BACK TO THE OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION AND. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SLIDE IS ESSENTIALLY THAT, UM. THE COUNCIL HAS TO DECIDE TO DETERMINE THAT THE OPEN SPACE THAT IS PROPOSED FOR PRESERVATION ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INCENTIVES WE TALKED ABOUT. THAT IT'S SOMETHING DESIRABLE.

YOU KNOW THAT IT SERVES AS A BUFFER, MEANINGFUL BUFFER BETWEEN TWO USES, UM GEOLOGIC FEATURE WATERSHED FOREST, ANIMAL HABITAT, ET CETERA. UM I USED THE EXAMPLE ONCE, IF IT WAS A JUNK YARD AND SOMEONE SCRAPED THE JUNK OFF OF IT AND WANTS TO PRESERVE IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THE COUNCIL HOSTILE AWARD. ALWAYS INCENTIVES FOR PRESERVING, YOU KNOW, PIECE OF EMPTY LAND. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT, UH, A MINIMUM OF EITHER 10% OF A DEVELOPMENT SITE OR AND AT LEAST AN EIGHTH OF AN ACRE, UM, HAS TO BE PRESERVED TO QUALIFY.

AND THE OVERRIDING, UM. OBJECTIVE IS THAT THE RESULTING DEVELOPMENT SO WITH ALL THE INCENTIVES THAT ARE AUTHORIZED, THE RESULTING DEVELOPMENT STILL HAS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S AROUND IT. NEXT LIVE. I'M NICKY GOING. OKAY SO I'LL HELP OUT WITH THIS. SO I MENTIONED THAT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ITEM THAT WE MADE A FEW REVISIONS, SO I'M KINDNESS EITHER NEW OR REVISED PROVISIONS. AND. ONE OF THEM I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER WHEREBY, WHERE ELIMINATING THE RESOUNDING REQUIREMENT FOR PRESERVED WETLANDS, SO IN ORDER.

TO ATTEMPT TO FULFILL THE COUNCIL'S WISHES. WE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL. PRESERVATION LANDS LAYER ON OUR INTERACTIVE MAP SO THAT IT CAN STILL BE SEEN ON THE MAP AND TRACKED AS SUCH, AND RATHER THAN THE REZONING. THERE WOULD BE, OF COURSE, INDICATING IF A PLAN IS REQUIRED UM, THAT IT BE. DELINEATED ON THE PLATINUM SOME WAY PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 12 7.

AND THE THINGS THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE. PRIORITIZING WETLAND MITIGATION WITHIN THE VILLAGE VERSUS OUTSIDE LOCATIONS AS JEFF JUST EXPLAINED, AND THEN, UH, REQUIRING A DEVELOPER TO SUBMIT A SKETCH IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION. OF WETLANDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PRESERVED FOR THE VILLAGES OPEN SPACE INVENTORY. NEXT LINE. THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS WERE REMOVED AND I BELIEVE THEY WERE ALREADY GONE IN THE VERSION THAT WAS IN YOUR PACKET. NEXT LINE. SO THE PARAGRAPH GO BACK TO THE TWO PARAGRAPHS. SURE. BUDGET WHICH I DON'T WANT TO. I DIDN'T INTEND TO READ THEM BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GET ALL OF THE FACTS CONFUSED ABOUT WHICH ONES WERE KEEPING AND NOT. YEAH THOSE TWO WERE THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT FOR REZONING THAT WAS ELIMINATED. AND SO WHAT STILL REMAINS IN THE EVENT THAT THE APPLICABLE UM REGULATORY

[00:15:07]

SURE. THANK YOU OUT THERE. UM. JUST JUST AS HEALTHY, A INDICATED, UM YOUR PHRASE IT AS A AS A PROPERTY RESTRICTION OR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT BASICALLY. WHAT. AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM THEY DEVELOPERS VOLUNTARILY, UH, SETTING SIDE THIS ADDITIONAL LAND AND EXPERIENCE FOR THE INCENTIVES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED. WHAT THIS DOES IS SIMPLY DOCUMENT IN A IN A FORMAL WAY BY RECORDING IT AND THEN MAKING IT A COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND THAT. PROMISE FOR OBLIGATION GOING FORWARD AT PROPERTY IS GOING TO REMAIN IN THAT STATE AND BE PRESERVED. THIS IS JUST FOR CLARITY DOWN THE LINE. UH WHEN A PROJECT GETS DEVELOPED WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND INCENTIVES AND STILL ON, THERE'S NO CONFUSION. RE 5 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN FOLKS SEE THAT NICE, PRETTY LAND THERE AND START THINKING HEY, WE COULD PUT SOME ADDITIONAL CONDOS THERE. UH IT IS RECORDED IN, UH, IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. THAT AH, THEY HAVE ALREADY AGREED NOT TO DO THAT. THANK YOU. AND NEXT SLIDE. ONE OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS WE WENT IN AND REVISED WAS THE DELINEATION OF THE PRESERVED LAND. UM. IDENTIFIED AS A PRESERVATION AREA RATHER THAN AS A REZONING.

AGAIN THE REASONING REGULATION IS NO LONGER IN THIS ORDINANCE. AND WHERE TWO OR MORE ACRES OF WETLANDS ARE TO BE PRESERVED ON SITE AGAIN THAT REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE PLANTED SHOWN ON THE PLATTE IF A PLAT IS ALREADY BEING DONE. NEXT LINE. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. TO APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENT. NEXT SLIDE. AND WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING OF THE BOARD TODAY IS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THEY SHOULD APPROVE. A APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR NOT APPROVED. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. NEXT LINE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME OR FOR JEFF. I HAVE MANY QUESTIONS. WELL, WAIT FOR THE CHAIR. AND YOU RECOGNIZE, PLEASE? I HAVE MANY QUESTIONS. UM. TO ME. THE INCENTIVE FOR A DEVELOPER IS PRESERVING LIFE ON THIS PLANET. I DON'T SEE WHY THE ONLY REGULATORY AGENCY WE'RE REFERRING TO IS THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION OR THE FEDERAL LEVEL. I WOULD. I JUST DON'T SEE OUR AUTHORITY IN THIS AT ALL. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT I SEE IS THAT IF THEY DON'T WHATEVER WE'RE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THEY ARE ASKING FOR WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT. AND, UM. BEYOND THAT, WE'RE OFFERING INCENTIVES. BOTH OF WHICH SEEMED TO BE MISTAKES.

IN MY VIEW. UM JUST THE FACT THAT WE'RE OPENING THE DOOR TO MITIGATION. I DON'T SEE WHY

[00:20:03]

IT'S ALREADY LOUD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SAYING OTHERWISE. BUT WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT, WE WANT YOU TO DO IT HERE. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING MITIGATION. WELL WE COULD CREATE THAT LANGUAGE FOR THAT UNDERSTOOD, BUT I JUST WANT TO. WE WANT TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE STARTING WITH HERE AND WHAT WE'RE DOING FROM THAT POINT AND WHAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO DO THE BUFFER ZONE YOU CAN JUST BEFORE THEY GO TO THE NEXT SO TO CLARIFY YOU CAN MITIGATE. IN THE VILLAGE AT THE MOMENT, IT'S ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. YOU COULD DO THAT TODAY. WELL HE SAID THAT WE HAVE WE HAVE NOTHING IN OUR CODE THAT WOULD PREVENT IT. UNDERSTAND OKAY, SO YOU'RE I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST SAYING CHAIRMAN UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL CODE, RIGHT? A STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES, WHATEVER THEY REQUIRE, IS REQUIRED EVERYWHERE, RIGHT? IT WAS IN THE STATE. SO THAT'S IN PLACE? YES AND WHAT IS THE BUFFER ZONE? IS IT HOW MUCH IS IT? IS IT 10 FT. I WAS UNABLE TO FIND THE BUFFER FOR THIS STATE. BUT MARTIN COUNTY 50, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE SCOPE OF THIS ORDINANCE, UM, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. UM, UNDER THE STATE RULES. IS AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 25 FT AND A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 15. HOWEVER IF, UM YOU'RE PROPOSING A WALL OR SOME OTHER SUITABLE BARRIER CAN POTENTIALLY BE LESS THAN THAT. SO THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE STATE REQUIREMENT. I THINK THAT HOLDS TRUE FOR THE COUNTY AS WELL. IF IT'S UM, ACCESSORY USE LIKE. A WHILE, A DARK, SOMETHING LIKE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET EVEN CLOSER. WELL WHAT IS IT FOR MARTIN COUNTY, WHICH DOESN'T MITIGATE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT MY COUNTY YOU'RE SAYING? MARTIN COUNTY DOES NOT MITIGATE THEY DO NOT MITIGATE. THEY HAVE THEY HAVE. THEY HAD NEVER HAVE. RIGHT AND THE CITY OF STEWART. THE MUNICH CODE IS 75 FT. MARTIN COUNTY IS 75 FT.

[00:25:03]

BECAUSE OF THE YOU DIDN'T GET A COPY. I THINK. I DIDN'T YOU HAVE YOURS, OKAY? UM THE ANNUAL CEO TO THAT SEQUESTERED BY LIVE OAKS IS £487, MAHOGANY £623 AND A PALM TREE IS TOO. SO UM, THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS THAT FLORIDA IS DITCHING PALM TREES TO FIGHT THE CLIMATE CRISIS. AND I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND NOT ONLY THAT OLDER GROWTH IS SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE THAN NEW SPEC TREES. I THINK YOU CAN DISCUSS THAT. MAY I? YEAH. SO.

ONE WAY WE COULD ADJUST THAT POTENTIALLY IS FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. FOR THE ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED THAT WE NOT PERMIT PALM TREES TO BE PART OF THAT. SO. BECAUSE THE CODE RIGHT NOW DOES ALLOW, UM, TO MEET YOUR TREE REQUIREMENTS. HALF. UM TO BE DONE WITH PALM TREES, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULD MAKE AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IF WE WANT TO SEE LESS PALM TREES IN THE VILLAGE. I THINK THAT ADDRESSING THE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A GREAT IDEA. BUT JUST BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY A 17 PAGE DOCUMENT. IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT. THAT NOT TO TAKE AWAY FROM IT. BUT AND UNLESS MR THE ATTORNEY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ACTUALLY, CHAIRMAN. I. SUGGESTION UM, UH, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO FOR ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE P C. A B TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS WHAT. POLICY CHANGES. GENERALLY THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL, BUT I'D SUGGEST YOU COULD TALK ABOUT THAT AT A DIFFERENT TIME, EVEN IF IT'S IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONSIDERING THE AGENDA ITEM BEFORE YOU. I. AT THIS MEETING TONIGHT, BUT I'D RECOMMEND. UH REFOCUSING THE CONVERSATION TO THE ORDINANCES BEFORE YOU IF YOU WANT TO PULL IT OUT AT THAT, AFTER YOU CAN PULL IT OUT AGAIN, BY ALL MEANS. TRUE. YOU HAVE MORE. YOU HAVE MORE WANT TO MAKE SURE I GIVE YOU THE TIME IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. UM I JUST FEEL THAT IT'S WEAK, EXTREMELY WEAK. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THESE WHAT THE MINIMUMS ARE WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL SHOULD BE OUR GOAL.

UM YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE OUR VISION RAISED. OUR STANDARDS SHOULD BE HIGHER. AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE OFFERING INCENTIVES. DEVELOPERS NEED TO REALIZE THAT IT'S A CRISIS AND THEY NEED TO STEP UP. AND WE DON'T NEED TO OFFER THEM ANYTHING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE. SO I JUST I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND. UH THERE THE FEDERAL RULES ESSENTIALLY PROTECT LAND. FOR EVERYBODY, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CORRECT SO YOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT. NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE RULES TO ABIDE BY. THERE'S A BUFFER, WHATEVER IT IS, IF IT'S 25 FT. IF YOU DON'T SATISFY YOU CAN GET IN TROUBLE FOR NOT UH, SATISFYING THAT ROLE CORRECT. SO THEN THIS INCENTIVE. AS IF YOU TAKE ADDITIONAL LAND. AND

[00:30:06]

TOO TO PRESERVE MORE LAND THAN YOU WOULD NEED TO UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT? OKAY? OKAY? WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY AGAIN, YOU KNOW, GIVING UP MITIGATION JUST HAVING THAT WORD. THAT'S A HUGE CONCESSIONS. IT OPENS THE DOOR TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE WHERE YOU LOSE WHATEVER YOU HAVE. AND HAVING A MINIMUM BUFFER.

WHATEVER THE STATE REQUIRES, IS CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH. UM. YOU CAN SEE THAT WETLANDS ARE DAMAGED ALL THE TIME. UM. I JUST. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS, UM. THIS IS JUST TOO LOW. IT'S JUST TOO LOW IS GIVING AWAY THE STORE. OKAY I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE IT. IT UM IS STRONG ENOUGH IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. OKAY. THANK YOU. DID YOU? DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE? IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. I WAS, UM, SLIDE, THREE TALKED ABOUT ALTERING THE WETLANDS. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT. UM I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THEY CAN UM. I'M ASSUMING THEY CAN BUILD ON IT AND TAKE IN AND THEN TAKE THAT AND GO CREATE SOMETHING SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT'S OKAY SO. SO THEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY DESTROYING WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, TOO FOR DEVELOPMENT. YEAH IN IN A MITIGATION SITUATION. UM. IT COULD BE, UM, PERHAPS ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S WETLANDS IN ONE CORNER, AND MAYBE FOR WHATEVER REASON. THAT'S THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY. UM IS. UM YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPER PRIORITIZES USE OF THAT PIECE OF THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE MAYBE THE DIMENSIONS OR ACCESS OR STRAIGHT FRONTAGE AND WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. AND UM, MAY PROPOSE TO THE REGULATORY AGENCY. FILLING PART OF THOSE WETLANDS AND THEN RECREATING THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE PROPERTY OR ANOTHER PROPERTY UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OR IF THE VILLAGE DID AT SOME POINT. WHETHER IT'S A PUBLIC OR PRIVATELY, UH, OWNED AND OPERATED WETLAND BANK, UM, PURCHASING CREDITS THERE, BUT THAT'S THE THAT'S THE CONCEPT OF MITIGATION AND. RIGHT NOW, UM, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE TOWN'S REGULATIONS PREVENTING MITIGATION. SO WE'RE TAKING A BABY STEP HERE AND SAYING THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS ORDINANCE IS WE'RE NOT TRYING TO IMPOSE NEW. UH REQUIREMENTS ON DEVELOPERS IN TERMS OF ANYTHING THAT MIGHT AFFECT WHAT THEY CAN BUILD. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, WE STARTED TAKING A BABY STEP AND SAYING. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO MITIGATE IT ANYWAY, UM PLEASE DO IT IN THE VILLAGE. UM SO AT LEAST WE RETAIN THAT WETLAND IN THE VILLAGE SOMEWHERE. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. YEAH, I JUST LIKE TO JUST GO TO THE POINT. SO ON MITIGATION. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A WETLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF A PROPERTY THAT COULD BE FOR HOUSING OR SCHOOL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO IT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG MITIGATION ALLOWS YOU FIRST IF IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR PROPERTY. YOU COULD MITIGATE IT. ON THE SAME PROPERTY, RIGHT? AND IF YOU CAN'T. YOU COULD MITIGATE IT.

YOU COULD MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN. AND THAT'S IF THAT'S IF WE APPROVE IT, SO IT'S EVEN THOUGH I JUST WANT TO IF FOR ALL OF OUR UNDERSTANDING, YOU'RE NOT DESTROYING THE WETLAND. IF THERE IS A WETLAND, YOU'RE MAKING SURE THAT IT'S KIND OF. ESSENTIALLY IT'S A NO NET LOSS POLICY, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE WETLANDS THAT ARE FRANKLY. UH SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. YOU COULD HAVE. YOU COULD HAVE A SITE THAT LOOKS LIKE SWISS CHEESE WITH THE LITTLE TEENY PIECES THAT THE HOLES ARE VERY SMALL, YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S MORE CHEESE THAN HOLES AND IT MIGHT BE THAT WILL A. YOU CAN'T REALLY USE THE PROPERTY THAT WAY WITHOUT FILLING SOME OF IT.

UM AND BE IT MIGHT BE MORE THEY MIGHT BE MORE FUNCTIONAL AND MORE VALUABLE. IF THEY WERE ALL COMBINED IN ONE PART OF THE PROPERTY, THEN YOU DEVELOP THE OTHER PART. SO. THERE'S ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON MITIGATION, BUT THAT'S SOME OF THE RATIONALE FOR MITIGATING. I THINK MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE SOME VERY OVERZEALOUS DEVELOPERS. AND I'M JUST

[00:35:01]

WHAT YOU CREATE. WOULD IT BE BETTER. SO I HAVE SEEN SOME CODES THAT HAVE PROVISIONS FOR MAN MADE WETLANDS. AND. THAT ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE WHAT IT IS. WHEN YOU MITIGATE TO ANOTHER LOCATION. WE COULD HAVE. REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR PRISTINE. OR I JUST QUALITY THAT, UM MOMENTS REMOVING MY BIG BIG PUSHES. I DO NOT WANT US TO BECOME UM. I DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THE COMMUNITY TO LOSE AS A WHOLE. I'M GOING TO THROW SOMETHING OUT FOR THE FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, UM YOU CAN TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, BUT IT'S JUST AN IDEA. UM I HEAR EXACTLY HEAR EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. AND I THINK THAT, UM I THINK THAT.

THESE ARE THINGS YOU SHOULD PURSUE, RIGHT IF YOU IF THE BOARD CAN. COME TOGETHER AND DEVELOP. THE LENGTH, YOU KNOW, DEVELOP THESE POLICIES FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL.

GREAT WE CAN TAKE THAT FORWARD. UM. AND I ALSO THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS LIMITED IN SCOPE INTENTIONALLY AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE WANTED IT TO PASS WITHOUT A WHOLE LOT OF FANFARE. UM WE WANTED TO, AT LEAST AT LEAST GET THIS DONE.

AND WHAT YOU COULD DO? UM, RATHER THAN TRYING TO BUILD ALL THAT INTO THIS ORDINANCE, AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW. THIS ORDINANCE, AT LEAST IT IT PROVIDES A MECHANISM FOR PRESERVING OPEN SPACE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY NOW AND AT LEAST IT ALL IT REQUIRES DEVELOPERS TO LOOK INWARD FOR MITIGATION RATHER THAN AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO SOME WETLAND BANK. THAT'S. 40 MILES AWAY, SO THIS IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW WHAT YOU COULD DO AS YOU COULD RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL VILLAGE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS WITH THE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU DON'T THINK IT GOES FAR ENOUGH. AND THAT, UM, THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT. THE VILLAGE SHOULD TAKE ADDITIONAL STEPS TO ENHANCE PROTECTION OF WETLANDS. AND PERHAPS, UM, MINIMIZE THIS MINIMIZE MITIGATION AS AN OPTION, BUT THAT THAT THAT EURO BUT THAT YOU STILL RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE. I SEE. THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY HAS HIS HAND UP. GO AHEAD. UM, MR WADE. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. UM I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE NO.

ONE CAME UP WITH THE MISIMPRESSION. WE'VE MENTIONED THAT OUR CODE RIGHT NOW DOESN'T

[00:40:06]

IF YOU IF YOU CAN MOVE IT TO THE CORNER, GREAT IF IT'S REALLY EXPENSIVE TO MOVE INTO THE CORNER. THEN MAYBE YOU CAN MITIGATE, BUT YOU CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE. YOU KNOW IN THE VILLAGE IF IT'S IF IT'S POSSIBLE RIGHT, SO THAT IF THERE WAS A. PIECE OF WETLAND AREA. IT'S STILL THE VILLAGE STILL MAINTAINS THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF WETLANDS OR OPEN SPACE. I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE RIGHT WORD, BUT SORT OF A SCHOOL GOES THERE. YOU CAN TRY AND KEEP IT WITHIN THE VILLAGE BOUNDARIES AND NOT LOSE IT TO SOMEWHERE ELSE. IF IT'S IF IT'S THAT IS POSSIBLE. IS THAT? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? SO TO GO TO YOUR POINT. THAT BALANCE.

YOU KNOW, KEEPING IT WITHIN THE VILLAGE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN IS ONE WAY TO TRY AND TRY AND TRY AND FIND THAT. I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF OUR CHAIR IS SPEAKING AS A DEVELOPER, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE PROPERTY THAT HAS WETLANDS ON IT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I'M A DEVELOPER. I'M A LAWYER. I'M A BROKER. ENDING AND I HAVE DISCLOSED AND EVERY SINGLE MEETING WHAT I HAVE, AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCLOSE THIS. DO YOU HAVE PROPERTY WITHIN THE VILLAGE THAT HAS WETLANDS ON IT? UH YES, SOME OF THEM. SHOULDN'T YOU BE RECUSING YOURSELF FROM THIS DISCUSSION? NO BECAUSE, WELL, MR WEIGHT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BECAUSE MR WAIT, DO I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF? FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I NEED TO. YEAH CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS. UM THIS IS A WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A REGULATION OF GENERAL APPLICATION, OKAY? AND THIS REGULATION AS IT STAYED HERE, IF ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO MITIGATION, IT IMPOSES ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. IT IS. SOMEWHAT DEVELOPER UNFRIENDLY. IF YOU WILL, WITH REGARD TO MITIGATION, IT IS PUTTING FURTHER CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPERS. UM, BUT. PUTTING THAT ASIDE. THIS IS THIS IS A REGULATION OF GENERAL APPLICATION THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE EVERYWHERE WITHIN THE VILLAGE. IT APPLIES TO ANY PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE VILLAGE. I WOULD SUGGEST UNDER THE RELEVANT RULES FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL UNDER STATE LAW, THAT, UM, A GENERAL FACT THAT ONE IS A DEVELOPER OR OWNS PROPERTY. WITHIN THE VILLAGE. WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS WETLANDS ON IT WOULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR RECUSING, RIGHT AND JUST TO THE ADVICE THAT WAS GOOD. ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP THE SAME WAY THAT YOU KNOW YOU HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST PERSPECTIVE. MY PERSPECTIVE IS A DEVELOPERS PERSPECTIVE, AND THAT'S WHY THEY MADE THIS BOARD CONSISTED OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES WITH DIFFERENT UM UM, BACKGROUNDS AND WE ALL CHIME IN SO. IN TERMS OF CONFLICT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT ON THIS MATTER. THERE'S NO RULE TO BE CONFLICTED OUT. SO MY PERSPECTIVE IS A PERSPECTIVE.

[00:45:01]

WE'RE HERE TO APPROVE, DENY OR MAKE A MOTION, SO I DON'T MIND IF WE HAVE A DISCUSSION. BUT YOU KNOW IF IT HAS TO BE RELEVANT TOWARDS THIS ORDINANCE AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ORDER, SO I MEAN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON THE SECOND FATE PAGES IS THE DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION. OKAY SO THE PRICE THAT A DEVELOPER PAYS RIGHT FOR MITIGATED PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY AFFECTS THIS ORDINANCE. I THINK IT DOES. OKAY? OKAY SO CONTINUE ME ASK A SECOND QUESTION WHEN YOU HAVE A MANMADE WETLAND. DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, STATISTICS THAT SAY WHETHER OR NOT THOSE FUNCTIONS. UM AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL, OR THEY MOSTLY A FAILURE. I HAVE NO STATISTICS. I THINK WE SHOULD KNOW THAT BECAUSE THE SOILS CAN'T BE RECREATED. SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WHOLE MATTER THAT'S NOT IN THE CODE, THOUGH IT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION. I'D LIKE TO ASK THIS QUESTION ALL THIS TOPIC THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS A YOU KNOW, SHE IS LABELED ME AS A DEVELOPER. WHATEVER OUR PERSPECTIVES ARE.

THIS IS REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS, WHO HAVE EXPERTS NOT USING THE TERM EXPERT, BUT THIS IS A HEAVILY REGULATED. UH, SECTOR SO TO SPEAK, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, EVEN IF WE DON'T DO EVEN WITH NOTHING TODAY, ALL THE WETLANDS IN. IN THE VILLAGE ARE PROTECTED. THAT'S AT SOME SOME LEVEL CORRECT THAT THAT'S A MINIMAL PROTECTION OF STATE AND FEDERAL AND I THINK THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. I MEAN, WE SHOULD EXCEED THAT. WE SHOULD RAISE OUR, UM OUR SITES. OKAY? I UNDERSTAND. DID YOU DO? YOU HAVE. GO AHEAD. IF YOU DO YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND. GET INTO THE WEEDS OF THE ORDINANCE. AND COMMENT AND AT LEAST DISCUSS THAT, BUT IF YOU IF YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE MORE. THINGS TO QUESTION OR ASKED BY ALL MEANS. WELL GOOD THAT WE PROVIDE THAT MAYBE AT A LATER TIME SOMEONE HELPED TO FIND THAT WHETHER OR NOT MITIGATION IS SUCCESSFUL, OR IS IT A FAILURE? MAN MADE.

MAN MADE RIGHT MAN MADE WETLANDS WOULD BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT WITH MR JEFFERSON. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION. IS IT ALLOWED AND OTHER AREAS IS MAN MADE WETLANDS ALLOWED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR MARTIN COUNTY'S CODE. OKAY? SO. I'M GOING TO TRY AND GO THROUGH THIS IN A SUCCINCT WAY. AND I. AND PLEASE EXCUSE ME, BECAUSE THE IT'S WRITTEN ONE THROUGH. WHATEVER AND SOMETIMES THE PRESENTATION GOES, YOU KNOW, JUMPS FROM MITIGATION, TOO, SO I'M GOING TO GO SECTION ONE, SECTION TWO. IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? ALL RIGHT, SO. ESSENTIALLY. OKAY, IF YOU LET'S START WITH SECTION ONE. SO BEFORE BEFORE SECTION ONE. CORRECT ME FROM WRONG IT'S ENTITLED 3-6 10, OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION INCENTIVES. OKAY SO THAT'S FOR WHEN THE DEVELOPER LAND HAS ALREADY PROTECTED IF IT'S WHAT IF IT'S A WETLAND. THIS IS IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND. AND PRESERVE MORE LAND THAN THEY WOULD HAVE ORIGINALLY, IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. LOOK AT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC SEX SECTION? I'M SORRY. IT'S PAGE PAGE 14. PAGE 14 OF THE PACKAGE. OKAY, SO. ARE YOU OKAY? AM I ON THE WRONG

[00:50:18]

MERELY REITERATING ANOTHER CODE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WE'RE SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UM YEAH, NOW. I THINK WE'RE ALSO WE NEED TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT ARE THE INCENTIVES AND THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THAT. AND WHAT ARE WHAT ARE NOT. OKAY UM, OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW IN THE INCENTIVE, OKAY? GOING BACK TO SECTION ONE RIGHT NOW. IT SAYS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL PROVIDE AN EXECUTED DEED RESTRICTION PROHIBITING ALTERATION OF THE DESIGNATED PRESERVATION AREA. CORRECT THAT IS A FOREVER ITEM. YES, IT IS. OKAY SO I DON'T I THINK THAT THE DEVELOP A PROPERTY OWNER, RIGHT? SHOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE. IT SHOULD BE DOMINANT AT PERMITTING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE IN ADVANCE. AND IF SOMEONE CHOOSES NOT TO GO THROUGH WITH THEIR PLAN. THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOREVER GIVEAWAY THAT. PROPERTY RIGHTS VILLAGE IS NOT GOING TO REQUIRE. IS NOT GONNA TAKE THAT EXECUTED DEED FROM YOU GO AHEAD AND RECORDED BEFORE YOU'VE GOT YOUR ENTITLEMENTS, RIGHT? YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR ENTITLEMENTS FIRST. RIGHT SO ON THIS SECOND, ALL THOSE PIECES ARE ALL GOING TO COME TOGETHER. YOU'RE GONNA GET YOU'RE GONNA GET YOUR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND. PART OF THAT IS GOING TO BE, UM YOU'RE GONNA ISSUE OR CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR DID RESTRICTION.

YES. SO. MY MOTION FOR SECTION ONE IS TO ACCEPT WITH THE CHANGE. NUMBER ONE. TO GO FROM

[00:55:07]

THE GOING FROM 10 TO 5 WOULD REDUCE THE MINIMUM. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, 10 IS THE MINIMUM.

YES, BUT IT WOULD IT WOULD ALLOW MORE LAND TO BE PUT IN PUT IN THE PROGRAM. RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 10% OF YOUR SIZE. YEAH, THERE ISN'T SO IF YOU IF YOU REDUCE THE SIZE WHEN THAT ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PUT IN MORE LAND INTO THE PROGRAM, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. POTENTIALLY IS THAT AMOUNT? IS THAT WRONG? JUST THINK THROUGH. THIS IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE. LACK COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH DISTRICT. OKAY? WHEN YOU START WORKING THROUGH THE PERCENTAGE IS, UH. IT DOESN'T MEAN NOT REALLY AMOUNT TO MUCH. SO IF IT'S AN ACRE OF LAND OR A SMALL PIECE, IT DOESN'T AMOUNT TO MUCH, BUT ON. I THINK IT'S WRITTEN FOR SMALL PIECES. SO IT SAYS, AT LEAST 1/8 OF AN ACRE AND THAT'S 10. BUT ON A LARGER TRACT. IF IT'S ONLY 5. THAT SHOULDN'T PROHIBIT SOMEBODY FROM WANTING TO ADD MORE OPEN SPACE. WHEN THEY'VE GOT NO. OKAY, SO I'M GONNA I'LL START AGAIN AND TRY AND MAKE IT CLEAR. YEAH, CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. I APOLOGIZE. I JUST HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR YOU.

WERE YOU PLANNING TO PROCEED THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE SECTION BY SECTION MAKING MOTIONS OR.

THAT MAY TAKE A LONG TIME. UM OR. OR DID YOU WANT TO SHARE WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENT SECTIONS? I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST OKAY. GLAD TO OPERATE THOUGHTS, 17 PAGES AND I WAS TRYING. I THOUGHT THAT THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO GO THROUGH. BUT IF IT'S CONFUSING, I CAN DO IT ALL TOGETHER. SO WHAT I'M WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST BRIEFLY SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE. AS YOU POINTED OUT THAT DEVELOPERS PERSPECTIVE AT THE TABLE. SO UM, SO I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM RDS. THESE ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. YOU WANT US TO ADD AND OUR REVISIONS? SO MR WADE JUST ASKED ME IF I WAS GONNA I WAS GONNA DO IT SECTION BY SECTION.

SO I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. AND THEN TALK ABOUT IT FIRST, AND THEN TRIED TO IT ALL TOGETHER IN ONE LUMP SUM TO TRY AND MAKE IT EASIER AS THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY JUST REQUESTED, SO. MOTION TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND GO BACK TO DISCUSSION. SERVES SECOND.

YOU JUST WITHDRAW. OKAY, WITHDRAWAL, OKAY? SO I THINK THAT NUMBER ONE. IF YOU HAVE A BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A BIG. IF YOU HAVE A SMALL PIECE OF LAND, THE 1/8 ACRE MAKES SENSE THAT 10% MAKES SENSE BUT ON A BIG PIECE OF LAND. 10% OF YOUR PROPERTY. MAYBE I'M SORRY.

YOU'RE RIGHT. 10% COULD BE A VERY LARGE PIECE OF LAND, SO THAT MEANS IF YOU HAD. 100 ACRES. YOU CAN ONLY DO IT IF YOU HAD 10, WHICH IS 10 ACRES. SO THAT'S THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE ON A LARGE PIECE, SO THAT'S WHY I SAID 5. OKAY? UM. THIS IS AN INCENTIVE, SO THIS GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT. AND THEN THIS IS VOLUNTEER. THIS THIS SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY. SO THIS SHOULD BE. IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO ADD ABOVE AND BEYOND. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO. BUT IF HE DOES. THEY'RE GIVING THE INCENTIVES OF REDUCED PARKING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WHICH MAKES SENSE, OKAY? THE WAY THAT THEIR VILLAGES PRESENTED IT. IS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRING TO DO THAT INCENTIVE.

THAT YOU DO A DEED. A DEED RESTRICTIONS. OKAY, A DEED RESTRICTION. BASICALLY IF YOU HAD A PROPERTY, RIGHT? YOU'RE GIVING AWAY A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR RIGHTS FOR FOREVER, SO. A DEED RESTRICTION IS A FOREVER THING. SO. SO. AS LONG AS IT'S MUTUALLY AGREED. AND IT'S LONG

[01:00:06]

SO THAT MAKES SENSE AS LONG AS THE DEED RESTRICTION HIS ONLY DONE WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD.

BUT IF YOU DON'T BUILD, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS. DOES THAT DOES THAT MAKE SENSE FOR IS THAT GENTLEMEN. WOULD YOU? CAN YOU EXPLAIN SENTIA LEE? WHAT HE'S SAYING IS IF. DEVELOPER COMES IN. THEY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE INCENTIVES. AND WE. GET EVERYTHING THAT DEEP RESTRICTION, EVERYTHING DONE. UM, AT LEAST IN WRITING SOME SORT OF WAY. THAT. OH GOSH, I DECIDED I DON'T WANT TO BUILD. I'M MOVING TO ALASKA. HE IS SAYING IF HE NEVER BUILDS IT. THAT. THERE WON'T BE A DEEP RESTRICTION AND THAT IS HOW IT WORKS, RIGHT? BUT SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPELT OUT HERE. UM BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE USING OR TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE INCENTIVES. WE WOULDN'T BE GETTING THE, UH YOU KNOW THE DEED RESTRICTION OR THE PRESERVATION EASEMENT OR, HOWEVER, WE END UP DOING THIS SO THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS, ANYWAY. WE CAN ASK THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY IF, BUT IT'S CLARIFICATION. LANGUAGE MIGHT, BUT THE OKAY, GO AHEAD. YEAH, NO. AND, UM. NO THAT'S JUST AS HEALTHY AS SAID THAT'S PRECISELY HOW IT WILL IMPLEMENT. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER WHAT THIS WOULD BE IS WHEN A PROJECT COMES THROUGH. IT'S GOING TO BE COMING THROUGH WITH A, UH, MAJOR MASTER SITE PLAN OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. IT'S GOING TO SHOW THOSE ADDITIONAL, UM, THAT ADDITIONAL. LAND BEING PRESERVED. PARDON ME, THERE'S POLICE GOING ALONG OUTSIDE. UM IT'S GONNA BE SHUT. IT'S GOING TO SHOW THAT LAND ADDITIONALLY PRESERVED. IT'S GOING TO SAY YOU'RE GETTING THOSE INCENTIVES FOR THIS THING AND A CONDITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT'S ULTIMATELY ISSUED IS GOING TO BE. UH THE RECORDING OF A, UM OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH REGARD TO THOSE PORTIONS, AND, UM AND THEN ONCE YOU HAVE ALL THOSE ENTITLEMENTS THERE, THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE, BUT IT. IT'S GOING TO BE JUST AS HEALTHY AS SAYS IF IT'S IF IT'S NOT. EVER IMPLEMENTED, THEN IT'S NOT GOING TO COME TO ANYTHING. THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF, AND THERE'S NOTHING TO CLARIFY HERE. IT'S GOING TO BE JUST CLARIFYING AN IMPLEMENTATION BECAUSE THIS THIS IS THE SAME THING ABOUT 50 DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS DO WHATEVER HAVE. IS IF YOU GOT THE SITUATION WHERE YOU GOT DEVELOPMENT ORDER ISSUED, YOU CAN START MOVING DIRT AND THEN. DECIDED NOT TO DO IT ALL. NOT ALL MANNER OF DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE INCORPORATED INTO A PLAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU DO THAT, BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO UNDO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU DIDN'T PROCEED TO DEVELOP, THIS IS THE SAME AS ANY OTHER. SO CAN CAN THIS BE DONE AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL, SO IF YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN AND YOU PUT FORTH. THE WETLANDS IN THERE AND YOU SUBMIT IT IS THAT IS THAT MAKES SENSE. IN THIS SCENARIO, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. NO BECAUSE WHAT DO YOU WHAT DO YOU MEAN? YOU MEAN THAT THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LEVEL WHEN YOU'RE CHOOSING TO GO FOR THE INCENTIVE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ZONING DISTRICT? ALRIGHT. MY QUESTION IS WHEN YOU'RE GOING FOR THE INCENTIVE. RIGHT SO YOU YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU'RE DOING IT WITH A DEED RESTRICTION. SO IS THAT THAT IS A DEED RESTRICTION OF THE SAME THING AS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. BASICALLY IT'S THE SAME BASIC. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT TERMS FOR THE SAME THING. IT'S A RECORDED DOCUMENT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND THAT SAYS THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HERE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING EXCEPT LET IT BE CONSERVED. SO THE THING IS YOU. COME IN AND SAY, HEY, I WANT TO APPLY. I WANT TO DO THIS PROJECT AND I'D LIKE TO DO GET THIS ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND ALL THIS STUFF AND YOU SUBMIT AND RECORD A. A DEED RESTRICTION OR CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH YOUR INITIAL APPLICATION. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. IT HAPPENS. IT'S A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL ALL THE WAY AT THE END. YEAH, OKAY.

THESE THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE PRODUCED. WHEN YOU COME FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. WE'RE GOING TO

[01:05:04]

AND THAT YOU'VE SAID THAT THAT IS HOW IT WORKS. CORRECT. GETTING THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS, BECAUSE IT WOULD SIMPLY BE A DEVELOPMENT ORDER CONDITION ON ISSUANCE. AND THEN IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO, UH, PROCEED FORWARD, AND THEY DON'T DO IT. OKAY? OKAY, SO WHEN.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT CODE SECTION IS A GOOD THING. THE 5% COULD BE ADJUSTED AND AS LONG AS THEY MAKE THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT'S ONLY IN PERMITTING AND MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE DEVELOPER. THAT AND THAT'S THAT'S THE BENEFIT. OKAY? SO WE'LL COME BACK. I JUST WANT TO KEEP GOING THROUGH THROUGH THE ORDER ORDINANCE. UM ARE YOU ARE YOU PROPOSING THIS CHANGE TO 5% I'M GIVING EVERYBODY MY YEAH. THESE ARE MY COMMENTS WERE NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING YET, AS YOU HAD THE FLOOR AND YOU WERE TAKING YOUR COMMENTS. I'M NOW TAKING THE FLOOR AND GOING THROUGH AND SAYING MY COMMENTS. UM ON THE ON THE. ON THE MIDDLE ON THE MITIGATION. CAN YOU LIST THE PAGE, PLEASE? I'M SORRY ON SECTION TWO. SECTION TWO PAGE. AH 17 MY COMMENT. TO GO TO, UM, VICE CHAIR. PALMER FORGIVE ME TO GO TO YOUR COMMENTS TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN, AND EVEN MR ANITA'S CONCERNED TO SOME LEVEL UM FOR MITIGATION. YOU KNOW IF YOU CAN MITIGATE IT ON SITE. AND IT MAKES SENSE IN TERMS OF COST. GREAT IF YOU CAN'T DO IT IN THE VILLAGE. AND MAKE SURE THAT THE PRICE OF THE VILLAGE IS THE SAME PRICE AS SOMEWHERE ELSE, SO THAT ENCOURAGES DEVELOPERS TO MIX TO DO IT WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN IF IT'S AVAILABLE OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE MY THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS THERE. AND THEN. SO CHAIRMAN JUST JUST SO I CAN HELP. REFINED THE THOUGHT THERE. WOULD. IT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE YOUR PROPOSAL THAT. WITH REGARD TO THAT, THAT THEY THAT A MITIGATION WERE TO OCCUR. IT WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR IN THE VILLAGE. IF. IF IT COSTS THE SAME AS MITIGATING OTHER PLACES. OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK FIRST TO DO IT. I MEAN, IF THE DEVELOPER CAN DO IT ON SITE. GREAT BUT THEN TO HAVE THE OPTION. TO UH MITIGATE IT WITHIN TO MITIGATE IT WITHIN THE VILLAGE. AND YOU KNOW AT THE AT. THE SAME PRICE AS WHAT IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE SO THAT IT'S DONE IN THE VILLAGE. AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO THAT THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH JUST SAYING THAT THE STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES IF YOU CAN MITIGATE ON SITE. BUT FOR HERE, AND IT DOESN'T CREATE ANOTHER ISSUE WHERE IT'S. IT'S INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE GOING TO PREFER THAT ANYWAYS.

BUT OKAY. ANYWAYS AND TO FURTHER GO TO YOUR POINT IF YOU CAN'T DO IT IN THE VILLAGE. I BELIEVE IN YOU. YOU TELL ME THIS. YOU COULD. TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE IN THE SAME BASIN TO AS A. UM YEAH, YOU CAN'T. YOU CAN'T JUST DECIDE. THAT YOU WANT TO DO IT IN SOME IN SOME PARTICULAR CORNER OF THE STATE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE WITHIN A SERVICE AREA OF, UH, WETLAND BANK. OKAY AND ASSUMING THERE'S SOME I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR FIELD, BUT, UM, EACH WETLAND BANK, UM HAS ONE OR MORE TYPES OF WETLAND ENVIRONMENTS THAT IT THAT IT PROVIDES MITIGATION FOR AND YOU TYPICALLY HAVE TO MITIGATE WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA OF A COMPATIBLE BANK, RIGHT? SO TO RECAP, AND MR ATTORNEY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WOULD BE TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE. DO IT IN THE VILLAGE. IF IT'S AVAILABLE THE SAME PRICE AS IT WOULD BE ANYWHERE AND THEN IF YOU CAN. THEN YOU COULD DO IT IN THE IN THE SAME FACE. AND IF YOU CAN'T DO IT IN THE VILLAGE WELL, YEAH. DOES THAT? ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR ATTORNEY CHAIRMAN TO BOIL IT DOWN BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO TRY TO GET REALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR. IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGING DOCUMENT LANGUAGE. A LOT OF

[01:10:07]

COMPANIES IS IT GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. UH, MIDDLE OF ALL OF THEM, UH, ANY ANY VERSE STAFF HERE THAT CAN STAB A GAS AT ANY OR STAB LITTLE. EXCELLENT. UH, BOTH, UM WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS SOME OF ITS OWN WETLAND BANKS. UM PRIVATE ENTITIES. I MEAN, IT'S A BUSINESS, UM PRIVATE ENTITIES. GET INTO THE BUSINESS, OKAY? IN A EACH HAVE THEIR OWN. UH UM FLUCTUATING PRICE ON. WHAT A CREDIT. A WETLAND CREDITS WORTH? UM. AND UM, THAT'S BASED ON ANY NUMBER OF FACTORS. UM THAT CAN CHANGE OVER TIME. AND, UM OH, UM. AND IT ALSO MAY DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF WETLAND THAT YOU'RE MITIGATING. SOME ARE MORE DIFFICULT THAN OTHERS IF YOU MITIGATE IN THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN. RIGHT AND YOU SAY THAT YOU CAN MITIGATE HERE AT A PRICE THAT'S MATCHES SOMEBODY ELSE. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN BUY AND SELL A WETLAND.

AND THAT'S MY FEELINGS. IT'S JUST NOT FOR SALE, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY BEEN FACTORED INTO THE PROPERTY THAT YOU BOUGHT WHEN YOU BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY. THE PRICES BEEN REDUCED, SO YOU'VE ALREADY MADE A PROFIT RIGHT THERE. IT'S BEEN CONSIDERED IT'S PART IT'S BEEN FACTORED INTO THE PRICE. AND NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE A BIGGER PROFIT BY MOVING IT.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHERE IT IS. AND I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE RECREATED NOT TO ANSWER IT

[01:15:08]

SO IT WAS. IT'S A POSITIVE FOR PRESIDENT. PRESERVATION WAS MY POINT. SO. SO I HAVE YOUR FIRST TWO NOTES. CHAIR. UH ONE. AND SECTION ONE FROM 10% TO 5, RIGHT. AND. JUST ABOVE SECTION THREE. SAME COST OR LESS, UM, IN THE VILLAGE WHILE SAME CROSS YEAH, AND THEN TO GO BACK TO SECTION ONE, SO NOT ONLY THE 5% BUT ON THE ON THE DEED RESTRICTION TO ADD LANGUAGE OUT MICE WHEN I MAKE A MOTION TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT IT'S VOLUNTARY. THAT IT'S DONE AT THE TIME OF PERMIT, AND IT'S MUTUAL. SO THAT IF THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T OCCUR.

NOTHING HAS BEEN LOST BY THE DEVELOPER, WHICH I BELIEVE IT'S JUST CLARIFICATION. WHICH LINE IS THAT? IT'S UM IT'S AFFECTION. 3-6 0.10 RIGHT AFTER SECTION ONE AND AROUND LINES, 60. ON THEIR VERSION. SURE. YEAH, CHAIRMAN. YEAH AGAIN. I ASK BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I IN STAFF ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THESE DOCUMENTS AND SO ON. THE PROGRAM IS VOLUNTARY. RIGHT? IT IS EXPRESSLY SO BY ITS TERMS. OKAY? HE DID IT. IS THERE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT GENUINELY I'M ASKING IS, IS THERE IS THERE ANY BELIEF THAT THERE'S ANYTHING THAT LEADS ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT? SO IF IT'S IF IT'S OBVIOUS AND IMPLIED THAT IT'S VOLUNTARY, THEN THEN THAT'S GOOD. IT'S EXPLICIT. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY AND THEN THE MITIGATION WE DISCUSSED. AND THEN. YEAH. SO. SO JUST TO GO TO UNDERSTAND AGAIN IN SECTION 14. L D R CHAPTER. THAT THAT SECTION YOU, YOU AND T IN THE BACK. SO ON THE LATEST VERSION. ARE BOTH TEA. AND YOU THERE WAS ONE DELETED. THEY'RE BOTH THERE.

OKAY. WHAT PAGE WAS THAT? AND OR IS IT SPEECH? 27 I BELIEVE IT'S UM IF THE DEPUTY CLERK WOULDN'T MIND, I BELIEVE IT'S 34. 34. YEAH. 1000 LANGUAGES AND THE PARENT 10000.27.

SECTION 14. OH, YES. I APOLOGIZE. I'M MISS WITH YOU ALL WERE JUST REFERRING TO WHAT SECTION? ARE YOU REFERRING TO? TO THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS WHERE IT SAYS ALL SITE PLAN.

REVIEW OF THE CREATION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. PROJECTS WERE TWO OR MORE ACRES OF WETLANDS. THAT OKAY, ALL RIGHT. YEAH UM OKAY. IT'S SLIDE NUMBER 11 IF WE WANT TO PUT THAT UP. YEAH.

THANK YOU. UP SO. YOU IS WHERE TRULY YOU AS WORDS VOLUNTARY AND THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM. TEAK CAPTURES EVERY PROPERTY THAT'S TWO ACRES OF OR MORE. SO THAT'S

[01:20:02]

UM BUT YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW IT ON THE PLATTE IF YOU'RE PLANNING. NOW THE CODE THE EXISTING CODE ACTUALLY DOESN'T SET A MINIMUM SAYS IF YOU HAVE ANY WELLONS, YOU'VE GOT TO ACTUALLY SHOW THEM ON THE PLATTE. WE'RE JUST SAYING. HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE. UM IF IT'S TWO OR MORE ACRES, IN OTHER WORDS, ARE FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE WETLAND. UM THEN WE WANT YOU TO DELINEATE IT ON THE PLATTE. BUT PLANNING IT IS DIFFERENT. IT'S NOT REQUIRED ONLY IF YOU'RE ALREADY GOING THROUGH THAT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PLAQUE JUST BECAUSE OF THIS. IF YOU'RE ALREADY PLANNING IF YOU'RE ALREADY DOING IT. YOU ALREADY HAVE TO DO IT IN THE CODE, THE CODE SAYS. IF YOUR PLATINUM AND THERE'S WETLANDS YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM ON THE PLATTE WE'RE JUST REITERATING THAT HERE. OKAY SECTION 12-7. I THINK IT'S LETTER M. AND THEN YOU IS SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LAND PRESERVATION INCENTIVE AND YOUR PLATINUM. YOU'VE GOT TO DELINEATE AND IDENTIFY THAT PRESERVED AREA ON THE PLATEAU.

IN A VOLUNTARY SITUATION RIGHT NOW. VOLUNTARY SITUATION, MR. MR ATTORNEY. IS T OF VOLUNTARY SITUATION. SOLD ON ONE SECOND. I APOLOGIZE. I'M JUST DOUBLE CHECKING HERE. SO WE'RE THAT THAT THAT. THIS T REQUIREMENT IS. IS MEANT TO BE SOMEWHAT DUPLICATIVE OF SUBSECTION AND IN OUR PLANNING REQUIREMENTS. YES, YES. YEAH CAN I I'M GOING TO MAKE A SUGGESTION BECAUSE I'M I'M LOOKING AT EM RIGHT NOW. IT'S ABOUT. 20 LINES LONG OF SOME VERY. VERY DETAILED.

AND AS I RECALL VERY WELL REVIEWED LANGUAGE, UM DIGGING THROUGH FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISIONS TO MAKE SURE IT. IT HAD ALL THAT STUFF IN THERE. UM. UH, HOLD ON A SECOND. ARE YOU SURE THAT. I'M LOOKING. I'M SEEING REFERENCES IN M TWO. DEAN, HIGH WATERLINE AND NAVIGABLE WATERS. I'M SORRY, GUYS. WE'RE MAKING SAUSAGE HERE LITTLE BIT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. SO DO WAIT. DO A SEARCH FOR, UH, D W SECTION E DOES HAVE DOES REFERENCE THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRESERVE AREAS. UM. BUT YEAH, I'M SORRY. GO ON SEARCH FOR WHAT? JUST DO A SEARCH FOR CAPITAL D CAPITAL W. CAPITAL G. AND IT SHOULD GO TO THAT. LET ME READ IT. SO, IT SAYS. PRIOR TO PLAT RECORDATION. A CAD FILE REFLECTION P. YEAH OKAY. YOUR PARDON? MINE MY MEMORY. YEAH NO. NO PROBLEMS. I WAS LOOKING AT THEM. BUT AS I LOOK THROUGH EM, THAT WAS, UM. DEALING WITH THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WATER ISSUE THAT WAS DEALING WITH NAVIGABLE WATERS, NOT UM WETLANDS. MR. ATTORNEY, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? WHY DON'T WE DEAL WITH THIS? ORDINANCE AND THEN KEEP. T FOR NEXT TIME BECAUSE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT

[01:25:06]

PLATT, IF YOU'RE PLANNING. THAT'S ALREADY STATED IN A DIFFERENT WAY AND ARE PLANNING UM. OKAY SO PLANNING PROVISION. OKAY, SO WHAT IF YOU WHAT IF YOU PLOT THE WETLAND IN THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BUILD. OR THE, UH, SOMETHING HAPPENS. YOU'VE GIVEN AWAY YOUR PROPERTY, RIGHT? YOU'VE GIVEN AWAY. NOT AT ALL. NOW. YOU HAVEN'T. YOU HAVEN'T YET ONE BIT. YEAH YEAH. SO YEAH. WHAT WHAT WHAT WE GOT HERE. OKAY IS WHEN YOU WHENEVER YOU PLATT AND YOU PUT ANYTHING ON A PLAT, OKAY? TWO THINGS FIRST OFF ONCE YOU'VE PLANTED AND HAD A PLATFORM ACCORDED, UH, YOU'VE ENGAGED IN A DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AT THAT POINT, STATUTORILY, AND FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT, YOU HAVE TAKEN A RAW PIECE OF LAND AND YOU'VE CHOPPED IT UP INTO LITTLE PIECES YOU CAN SELL. IF HOWEVER, A DEVELOPER WERE TO PLATT THE PROPERTY, CHOP IT UP INTO PIECES, BUT THEN DECIDE. UH. I DON'T WANT TO SELL IT I DON'T WANT TO. I DON'T WANT TO SELL OFF THESE LOTS TO BUILD HOUSES OR I DON'T WANT TO BUILD HOUSES. I WANT TO GET RID OF ALL THIS AND HAVE IT BE A COW PASTURE. UM THEN THE DEVELOPER CAN COME IN AND SEE TO VACATE THE PLATTE. OKAY THAT'S THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE, UH, PROCESS TO VACATE A FLAT AND. THAT VACATES EVERYTHING THAT'S DONE ON THAT PLAQUE WHEN YOU DEDICATE ROADS. YOU KNOW ON THAT PLATT YOU CAN VACATE HAVE THAT VACATED AND SO YOU GET BACK THAT LAND THAT WAS DEDICATED FOR ROADS? SAME THING HERE, YOU DELINEATE WETLANDS.

THIS IS NOT EVEN SAYING THAT IT IS DEDICATED FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IT'S SIMPLY DELINEATING AND IDENTIFYING. WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN RECOGNIZED TO BE SUCH SO THIS BYE BYE. DELINEATING IT OR SHOWING IT ON THE PLATTE. IT DOESN'T IMPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. IT ONLY DOCUMENTS. THE STATE OF WHAT HAD BEEN DELINEATED BY THOSE OTHER AGENCIES. AND ALL OF THAT, IN A PLAT CAN BE VACATED, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER. UH DEDICATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS LIKE PIECES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ROADS OR WHATEVER CAN BE VACATED. OKAY SO ON THIS ITEM, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S COMING FROM ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE THAT I DON'T HAVE ON ME, JUST SPECIFICALLY ON T. AND BECAUSE THAT'S THAT THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE VOLUNTARY PROGRAM. I'LL WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC SENTENCE. I'M READY. TO I'VE THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PATIENTS WITH ME. I KNOW THAT I'M LONG WINDED AND MAYBE TWO ANALYTICAL HERE, BUT. IF WE COULD, IS THAT IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYBODY SO THAT THIS WHOLE. I CAN I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING EXCEPT

[01:30:01]

VERSION REALLY WANT TO GET THIS DONE? YEAH WELL, WE'LL HAVE TO KEEP VISITING THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I CAN READ YOU THE LANGUAGE AGAIN. THAT'S IN THE CODE. I WANT YOU TO HAPPEN. SO, MR MR MR WAIT, TOO. YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S JUST A RECORDATION WHEN IT'S PLANTED SO AT WHAT POINT IN TIME? IS IT WAS IT? IT'S RECORDING WHAT WAS DONE ON THE SITE PLAN, CORRECT.

SO. AND THIS THIS ACTUALLY YOU ALL HAVE BEEN THROUGH A PLANNING PROCESS BEFORE, BUT LET ME BACK UP AND JUST GIVE IT TO YOU ALL, REALLY, BASICALLY. BECAUSE THE PLANT THAT YOU ALL HAVE THAT THE TRACTOR SUPPLY ONE. IT'S NOT. IT WAS A PLAT. BUT IT WASN'T IT WASN'T TYPE OF PLATT LIKE WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHEN WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS COME IN. WHEN YOU HAVE MORE TYPICAL TYPE OF PLATT. YOU'RE TAKING A BIG, RAW PIECE OF LAND, RIGHT? AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO CHOP IT UP INTO A BUNCH OF. LITTLE PIECE. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TRACTS OF LAND FOR THIS. IT'S GOING TO HAVE LOTS TO PUT INDIVIDUAL HOUSES ON IT. IT'S GOING TO HAVE OTHER LOTS WHERE THE VILLAGE IS GONNA BE ABLE TO PUT A LIFT STATION. IT'S GOING TO HAVE ROADS.

RIGHT? UM ON THE PLATTE IT THE PLOT IS THE LEGAL INSTRUMENT. WHY WOULD YOU CHOP UP THESE PIECES OF PROPERTY INTO THE SMALLER PIECES OF PROPERTY AND DEDICATE. THINGS LIKE THE ROADS SO THAT THAT PROPERTY USED TO BE BEFORE IT WAS DEDICATED. IT USED TO BE OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER. AND THEN THEY DEDICATE THAT ROAD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. WHY SO PEOPLE CAN DRIVE ON A ROAD AND GET TO THESE LOTS. OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SELL THEM. PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE HOUSES ON UM. SO THERE'S ALL SORTS OF DEDICATING THOSE PIECES IN A PLAT OR OTHERWISE DELINEATING DIFFERENT THINGS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU YOU SHOW ON THERE WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A UTILITY EASEMENT RUNNING FROM SOME PARTICULAR PLACE TO ANOTHER. I THINK WE SAW SOME OF THAT ON THE. TRACTOR SUPPLY ONE YOU SHOW WHERE THAT IS, MAN IS.

WITH REGARD TO WETLANDS. ALL THAT'S REQUIRED IS AND WHAT'S REQUIRED CURRENTLY, OKAY? IS THAT IT MUST, UH, SHOW. UH ON IT PRESERVE AREAS. OKAY WHEN YOU SAY WELL, THE REQUIREMENT IN THE WHEN YOU SAY SHOWED IS THAT THE FINAL PLATT. HAS TO SHOW UH LOTS. ROADWAYS EASEMENTS, PRESERVE AREAS, BUFFER AREAS, MAINTENANCE AREAS AND OTHER SPECIFIC INFORMATION.

UH, WHICH APPEARS IN THE MAP PORTION OF THE PLAQUE. SO THOSE ARE ALL STANDARD THINGS THAT ARE SHOWN ON ANY PLATT. PRETTY MUCH IN ANY JURISDICTION. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S TYPICAL FOR A WETLAND TO BE SHOWN ON A PLATTER? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY, IF THAT IS THE CASE. OKAY. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IF A DEVELOPMENT. CHANGES OR DOESN'T GO THROUGH. THAT YOU CAN THEN.

WITHDRAWAL THE PLANTING OF THE OF THAT ITEM. OR YEAH, AND THAT THE PROCESS BY WHICH YOU. SEEK TO WITHDRAW A PLAT IS CALLED VACATION OR VACATING A PLAT OR REPLANTING. YOU CAN PLATT OVER YOUR LANDING? YEAH YOU CAN RECORD A NEW PRESSURE. YEAH, YOU COULD MAKE IT. YOU CAN VACATE A PLAT, WHICH WIPES IT OUT AND REVERTS IT BACK TO ITS ROB NEEDS SOME BOUNDS. WE'RE ALL LAND, OR YOU CAN REPLANT WHICH BASICALLY. PLATTS RIGHT OVER IT, AND IT'S LIKE TAKING YOU GOT YOUR FIRST SHEET OF PAPER. AND THEN YOU PUT YOUR SECOND SHEET OF PAPER OVER IT, AND IT'S AS IF THE FIRST PIECE ISN'T THERE. YOU SEE MY CONCERN, WHICH RANGE OF IT MY CONCERN ON THIS ITEM, WHICH IS NOT THE VOLUNTARY MATTER. IS THAT THIS IS ALREADY REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE. AND LET ME FINISH MY THOUGHT AND TELL ME IF I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IT'S CURRENTLY REGULATED SO TOO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF THE VILLAGE.

THAT THEN SOMEONE WHO WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEIR PLANS. THAT THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IF WE DELETED THAT T RIGHT NOW, FROM THIS ORDINANCE, YOU'D STILL HAVE TO

[01:35:02]

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. TO APPROVE. APPLICATION NUMBER LD R 21 81 21 WITH. CONDITIONS AND CHANGES. THOSE BEING NUMBER ONE. CHANGING THE 5. CHANGING 10% TO 5. IN THE IN. SECTION 3-6 10. LITTLE ONE. UM. NUMBER. TWO ADDING LANGUAGE. TO THE SAME SECTION. LITTLE THREE AND THEN SUBSECTION FIVE. JUST CLARIFYING. THAT. THE DEED RESTRICTION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S EXPLICIT SOMEWHERE ELSE TO SAY THAT IT'S VOLUNTARY. AND MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE DEVELOPER. AND THE VILLAGE. OKAY? AND THEN. AND TO ADD THAT IT'S SUBJECT. TO THE, UH TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. THAT IT. AND THEN THE NEXT SECTION OF SECTION TWO. I'M SORRY, SECTION YES, SECTION TWO. NUMBER LITTLE TOO. AND I. JUST TO BE JUST TO BE. I'M SORRY, CONSISTENT AND YOU WEREN'T GOING BY ORDINANCE SECTIONS. YOU'RE GOING BY CODE SECTION. SO THE FIRST ONE YOU SAID IT WAS CODE SECTION 3-6 10.10 CORRECT NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE SECTION 4-7. YES. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. AND IN SUBSECTION TWO TWO. ESSENTIALLY CLARIFY WITH THE LANGUAGE. THAT THE MITIGATION. CAN BE DONE ON SITE IF IT'S A REASONABLE. AND. I HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IF YOU WANT. IF YOU WANT ME TO SUGGEST IT FOR YOU, SO LET ME FINISH MY THOUGHTS ON THE WHOLE THING. AND THEN YOU CAN ON SITE IF IT'S REASONABLE. UM. UM, IF YOU GO OFF SITE YOU DO IT IN THE VILLAGE. IF IT'S POSSIBLE. AT THE SAME PRICE AS OTHER AREAS.

AND THEN IF YOU CAN'T. WITHIN THE SAME BASIN WITHIN THE SAME BASIN. SO AT LEAST WE'RE IN THE SAME. REGION. AND THEN SO. ON THAT THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. DID YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION

[01:40:02]

SECTION SECTION L D. R. 3.21 YOU KNOW IN THE CODE SECTIONS SECTION THREE. FOR FIVE. SIX.

SEVEN. EIGHT. 9 10 11. NO, NO. YEAH ALL THOSE ALL THOSE SECTIONS. UM. I DON'T. I DON'T HAVE ANY. I'M RECOMMENDING TO KEEP IT, AS IS AND THEN TO YOUR POINT. IF T IS A GOOD ITEM, I DON'T WANT TO LOSE IT. SO INSTEAD OF GETTING RID OF IT. MAYBE WE CAN VISIT IS IT? YOUR SUGGESTION IS TO JUST GET RID OF IT OR TO TABLE. OKAY, SO TO DELETE THAT. TO DELETE DELETE THAT ITEM FROM THE ORDINANCE. AND THEN WITH YOU. AGAIN TO JUST. PUT IN LANGUAGE THAT ONE PLANTING. YEAH SO IS SO HERE UNDER THIS IS THE VOLUNTARY SECTION AND YOU. SO AS LONG AS IT'S VOLUNTARY AND MEETS MUTUAL. AS THAT IT'S MUTUAL BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND VILLAGE. BY REFERENCING 3-6 0.10. IT NECESSARILY IS ALL OF THOSE THINGS SO AS LONG AS IT'S VOLUNTARY AND AS LONG AS IT'S DONE AT PERMIT, THEN THEN THEN IT'S. IT'S GOOD THERE, SO THAT IS THAT IS MY MOTION, AND I'M SORRY. IT'S SO LONG. I WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR CLARIFICATION AND COMMENT. AND PLEASE, BY ALL MEANS. UH, I WAS GOING TO NOT FOR DISCUSSION. NOT FOR DISCUSSION, OKAY? IT WAS SECONDED. YOU DON'T NEED TO SECOND FOR DISCUSSION, OKAY? UM, I OPPOSE MITIGATION. BUT THE THING THAT I UNLESS I MISSED IT, I DON'T SEE THAT A, UM OR RATHER THAN WE'RE DEFER TO THE FEDERAL OR STATE BUFFER ZONE. I THINK WE COULD STAY AT OUR OWN BUFFER ZONE. AH! ON THOSE THE WETLANDS I THINK WE SHOULD. AND I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE 100 FT. SO ON ON THAT ITEM, THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I DO KNOW WHAT YOUR POINT THEY DO 25 FT. NO I DON'T KNOW IF I'M RIGHT.

[01:45:06]

ANY BARRIER THAT WILL PREVENT RUNOFF FROM GOING STRAIGHT IN. IT COULD BE A WALL. IT COULD BE, UH, LANDSCAPED AREA THAT'S A MINIMUM OR MINIMUM, 15 FT. WIDE AND AVERAGE OF 25 AROUND THE ENTIRE WETLAND. UM BUT THE IDEA IS TO PREVENT SECONDARY IMPACTS AND AGAIN IF YOU PUT A WALL THERE, ACCORDING TO THE STATE, UM YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY EVEN HAVE TO HAVE 15 FT. WHAT IS MARTIN COUNTY SAY REGARDING A WALL? I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW. WELL ANOTHER FEDERAL LAW IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO NET LOSS OF WETLANDS. I MEAN, THE GOAL IS TO STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF WETLANDS, AND IF YOU HAVE SUCH A MINIMAL BUFFER THE WETLAND IS NOT GOING TO SURVIVE. SO UH, JUST A FEW YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, YOU'LL FIND OUT THAT IT'S LOST OR GONE. IT JUST KIND OF SLIPS AWAY. IF YOUR BUFFER IS SO SMALL IS THE MINIMUM AND THAT'S MY OBJECTION WITH THIS ENTIRE THING IS THAT IT'S MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM, WHAT IS ALREADY REQUIRED AT THE STATE. OR FEDERAL LEVEL. AND WE HAVEN'T RAISED THAT STANDARD AT ALL. UM. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AN INCENTIVE. WE'RE TRYING TO GET A LITTLE MORE BY INCENTIVE, AND I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT WE OWE THE DEVELOPER ANYMORE ANY CONCESSIONS AND SUCH AS THE FIVE STOREY LIMIT. UM. IN SOME AREAS THAT MIGHT HAVE A FIVE STORY. I DON'T THINK THAT MARTIN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IS PREPARED TO FIGHT A FIRE AT FIVE STORIES. THAT'S ISN'T THAT WHY THEY HAVE THE FOUR STOREY LIMIT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN. APPROVAL OF FIRE MARSHAL WOULD REVIEW THE PLANS AND IF THE FIRE MARSHAL WAS UNABLE TO START TO SERVICE THAT BUILDING AND THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME. I THINK IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT, UH, ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WHEN WE'RE ALREADY AT THE MAX HEIGHT. I THINK THAT THAT IS A VALID POINT THAT. YOU KNOW, COUNCIL IF THEY WOULD OR IF YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT IF YOU'RE ALREADY AT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE VILLAGE, AND YOU KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO GO. IF YOU'RE ALREADY AT THE FOUR I'M NOT SAYING IF YOU'RE AT ONE, THEN YOU CAN GO TO BUT IF RIGHT NOW IN THE PLAN, THEY ALL AGREED TO WHATEVER THEY AGREE TO AS THE CAT. YOU KNOW, IN THIS SITUATION. I MEAN, DOES THAT. DOES THAT MAKES SENSE OR DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. UM MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S NOT A CAP PER SE OKAY, AND THAT EACH DISTRICT HAS A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES. THIS THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT GET RESOLVED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN. YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC WORKS. ENGINEERING UM, PLANNING FIRE DEPARTMENT, ALL LOOKING AT A SITE PLAN AND THIS INCENTIVE SECTION. I THINK IT SAYS NUMEROUS TIMES, YOU KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT HAS TO WORK. AND EVEN IF IT DIDN'T, UM YOU CAN'T APPROVE SOMETHING THAT THAT YOU CAN'T SERVICE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE FIRE EQUIPMENT, THEN. EITHER HAVE TO GET IT OR YOU CAN'T BUILD THE THING. SO WE'RE NOT IN JEOPARDY OF CREATING A SITUATION HERE WHERE YOU'RE ALLOWING SOMETHING POTENTIALLY, THAT CAN'T BE SERVED AND YOU'RE CREATING A PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD. THESE ARE THESE ARE ALL ALL OF THESE INCENTIVES, UM HAVE TO BE AGREED TO BY THE VILLAGE. IT'S THE MAX. IT'S AN INCENTIVE AT THE VILLAGE CAN APPLY IN THE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE OPEN SPACE. I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. FOR THIS. IF YOU WANTED TO ADD THAT TO BE TO MAKE SURE THAT FIRE DEPARTMENT MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN ACCESS THAT STORY, YOU KNOW, BY ALL MEANS.

[01:50:04]

JUST TO WHATEVER THE MINIMUM IS WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL WELL, I THINK IF YOU DO MITIGATE. AND YOU REQUIRE OR INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT. TYPE OF LAND STAYS WITHIN THE VILLAGE IF IT CAN BE. YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE BECAUSE SCHOOL WAS GOING TO GO TO A CERTAIN PIECE OF LAND. YOU WOULD MOVE IT WITHIN THE VILLAGE. YOU KNOW THAT THAT WETLAND YOU WOULD JUST MOVE IT IN AN AREA WHERE IT'S NOT AS THAT LAND IS NOT AS USABLE, BUT IT. LIKE THEY SAY IT'S STILL A NET NET EFFECT IS THAT THAT'S FEDERAL LAW. AGAIN WE'RE NOT IMPOSING ANY MORE THAN WHAT IS STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. AND I THINK WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, USUALLY YOUR LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES PUT HIGHER STANDARD. I MEAN, WHY? WHY ARE WE AT THE FLOOR OF STATE AND FEDERAL. I THINK THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE VIEW POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL VIEWPOINTS? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I THINK NOBODY IS GOING TO BE CONVINCED. TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION. AT THIS POINT. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS THEIR VIEWPOINTS DO HAVE OTHER COMMENTS. WELL, THE BUFFER I THINK SHOULD BE INCREASED. YOU KNOW, UM, WHAT LYNN SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN THE BUFFER SHOULD BE INCREASED ABOVE THE MINIMUM. I KNOW. MARTIN COUNTY HAS A LARGER BUFFER. I DON'T KNOW THEIR REASONING, BUT I KNOW THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FOR THEIR REASON TO PROTECT THE ACTUAL WETLAND FROM THE SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. THEY THINK THAT 25 FT IS ENOUGH NOW, IF MARTIN COUNTY DID IT FOR ANOTHER REASON, IN ADDITION TO THAT CAN'T SPEAK. THE CITY OF STEWART UNICODE IS 75 FT. RIGHT AND THAT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE SHOULD BE IN AS WELL. SOME MEMBER PRESSLER I HAVE MADE THAT NOTE THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING 100 FT BUFFER. AND YOUR STATEMENT. WETLANDS SHALL BE PRESERVED. ARE YOU SAYING.

NO MITIGATION PROGRAM. IS THAT WHAT RIGHT I RECOMMEND? NO MITIGATION THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, OKAY? THEN YOU DON'T EVEN OPEN THE DOOR TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE AND YOU'RE NOT HAGGLING OVER EIGHT EVERY LOT. WITHIN THE VILLAGE. BECAUSE IT'S A BACK AND FORTH BACK AND FORTH. AND I THINK, REALLY, IN THE END, IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND YOU KIND OF END UP WITH NOTHING YOU'RE SAYING KENNETH WETLAND, CAN YOU FILL IN A WETLAND AND RECREATED OVER IN ANOTHER LOCATION, AND I. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY THAT ARE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE THERE'S CERTAIN SOIL CONDITIONS. THERE'S CERTAIN PLANTS. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. AND I JUST DON'T THINK YOU CAN. TRADE, YOU KNOW, TRADE BACK AND FORTH. THANK YOU. YES, YOU HAVE A QUESTION. MY. I'M SORRY. YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE MAKING A NOTATION, UM, OF THE REQUEST

[01:55:04]

MEMBERS. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I WANT TO TRY TO HELP. REFOCUS EVERYBODY HERE.

WHAT WHAT OUR DISCUSSION PRIMARILY HAS BEEN ADDRESSED TO WITH REGARD TO THIS ORDINANCE IS THAT SOME MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO PASS ONE OR MORE ADDITIONAL DIFFERENT ORDINANCES. MHM WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WILL BE MOST EFFECTIVE TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF THOSE SEEKING TO ADVANCE THOSE OTHER POLICY INITIATIVES. IS THAT. DISCUSSION BE DIRECTED TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND STAYING WITHIN THE MATTERS WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE, AND THEN.

IF THERE IS A DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU BELIEVE THE BUFFER SHOULD BE LARGER. OR YOU BELIEVE THAT MITIGATION SINCE SIMPLY NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE VILLAGE.

THAT. YOU THEN ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES AND BRING IT BACK FOR YOU ALL ON AN AGENDA TO FORMULATE A RECOMMENDATION. TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

BUT WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT? IS THIS ORDINANCE IN THIS APPLICATION, WHICH WHICH HAS A VERY SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER. I UH I WOULD I WOULD RECOMMEND IN THE STRONGEST TERMS AGAINST PLACING SOME SORT OF, UH, CHANGE TO THE BAT TO THE BUFFER IN THIS ORDINANCE. NOT NOT AGAINST THE MATTER, GENERAL. IT JUST THIS IS NOT THE VEHICLE IN WHICH TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. UM YEAH, QUESTION AGAIN. I'M JUST TRYING TO REFOCUS YOUR CONVERSATION. SO YOU ALL ARE HANDLING THESE THINGS MOST EFFECTIVE. THANK THANK YOU EIGHT AND JUST TO EXPAND UPON THAT POINT OF ORDER. THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE ON THE MOTION THAT WAS ACTUALLY MADE NOT ADDITIONAL ITEMS. THANK YOU REMEMBER, MILEY I APOLOGIZE. WHEN DID YOU HAVE MORE COMMENTS? NO. SO. SO TO BRING EVERYBODY BACK. THERE'S A MOTION FOR THIS ORDINANCE.

WHICH INCENTIVIZES TWO. DEVELOPERS TO ADD MORE THAN THE MINIMUM AND IF THEY ADD MORE THAN THE MINIMUM THERE IS YOU KNOW? PARKING HEIGHT. THINGS OF THAT THEY'RE GETTING INCENTIVES GOING. BUT IT'S THE ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED CORRECT. YES. OKAY IF YOU WANT TO REPEAT IT, YOU CAN. YOU CAN. MEMBER PRESSLER. YES THAT THAT IS HIS MOTION WITH HIS CHANGES YOU IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. SECONDED IF NOBODY SUPPORTS THAT, THEN THERE WON'T BE A SECOND. UH AND THEN WE DO ANOTHER MOTION. IF YOU DO AGREE. THEM YOU SECOND AND LIKE. THINK ABOUT WE OPENED ITS PUBLIC COMMENT, TOO. DO YOU? DOES? EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT MY MOTION WAS? WOULD YOU LIKE? YES. YES, WE DO. I'M SORRY. YES, PLEASE. I DO. AT LEAST I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY. I DO. BUT I MY ONLY THING WITH WHAT YOU PROPOSED? YES WAS. IF I WAS TO AGREE WITH IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE UNDER THE TERMS THAT. WHEN HE, UM RESTATED WHAT HE. YES WELL, WHAT HE SUGGESTED THE APPROVED LANGUAGE SHOULD BE THAT WOULD. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT LANGUAGE OR THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY AND TO GO TO YOUR POINT. I SAID THAT YOUR LANGUAGE WAS GREAT. AS LONG AS IT. I BELIEVE IT'S HAD THE SAME THING THAT I WAS SAYING SO AND YOU'RE BETTER AT WRITING IT THAN THE LET ME SAY IT. THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, ACCEPTED

[02:00:10]

YEAH YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I HAVEN'T HEARD A SECOND YET. IF THERE'S NO SECOND, IT DIES. AND SOMEBODY ELSE CAN MAKE A MOTION. I THINK THAT THIS IS A COMPLICATED ISSUE. I THINK IT'S A HARD ISSUE. I THINK IT'S A HARD THING TO BALANCE. THE DEVELOPER, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE RESIDENT ENVIRONMENTALISTS, BUT IF WE STICK TO THE FACT THAT WAY, JUST SAID WHAT MEMBER PRESLEY WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS THE BUFFER. HE WAS SAYING TO ADDRESS THAT IN MY CAREER TO ADDRESS THAT UM IT IN ANOTHER YES, I'M UM. YEAH, WE'VE BEEN ASKING YOU TO FOCUS ON WHAT'S IN THIS ORDINANCE. YES THE BEST THE BIG THING. I MEAN, IF YOU IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS, YOU'RE. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN'T SAY, UH HOW TO WORD THIS, BUT IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS, THE DOOR TO MITIGATION IS OPEN. YOU HAVE ALREADY IS A LANGUAGE IS THERE TO ALLOW MITIGATION? YOU'RE IN THE DOOR. AND THEN TO SAY THAT FROM ONCE YOU'VE OPENED THE DOOR TO MITIGATION, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE TO DO, BUT THIS DOCUMENT WOULD DO IT. THEN YOU'RE GOING TO LATER ON AT SOME LATER TIME PUT IN A BUFFER, WHICH WILL BE QUITE A HASSLE BETWEEN THE MINIMUM. UH YOU KNOW THE STATE OR FEDERAL MINIMUM. TO TRY TO GET MORE.

BUT, UM. YOU KNOW SO SICK THAT WOULD WHEN THEY WHEN THEY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT. THEY WENT. THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE. AND I KNOW WE HAD. THEY WENT OVER THIS AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WANTED. UM SO WAIT AT AT WHAT TIMES IT WOULD WHAT SHE'S SAYING. OH, IF WE AGREED MOMENT, THIS WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THE FUTURE. SO TO THE. THE WAY IT WAS EXPRESSED, AND I THINK IT'S A IT'S A FAIR WAY TO SIT TO SAY IT. UM BUT I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU DIFFERENTLY. THE DOOR WAS OPEN FOR MITIGATION WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED. UM AND IT WAS FURTHER MEMORIALIZED IN BEING OPENED. WHEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED. IT IS THE CURRENT POLICY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT MITIGATION IS PERMITTED WITHIN. UH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. UH THIS WHAT IS IN THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT CHANGE ANY OF THAT, EXCEPT IT DOESN'T POSE A SMALL ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION. IT MAKES IT SLIGHTLY STRICTER. BUT THE ABILITY TO DO IT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. ALREADY EXISTS HAS EXISTED SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE COMP PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. BUT AM I CORRECT? WE DON'T HAVE TO UNDERSTAND SOMEONE WANTING TO MAKE THE RULE DIFFERENT, COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THE STATE OF THE MAP. THAT'S THE MINIMUM. THE STATE AND FEDERAL. I'M SORRY.

[02:05:06]

WHEN THAT MITIGATION IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. CURRENTLY TODAY.

MADAM CLERK. I'M SORRY. DID WE GET A SECOND? NO, NOT AGAIN. WE DIDN'T HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, EITHER. SO. SO WHEN, WHEN, UM MEMBER OF PRESLEY, DO YOU. SO YOU'RE HEARING WHAT HE'S SAYING. UM. ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT HE'S I KNOW YOU'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH A SAYING BUT AS IT CONSISTS, AS IT CONCERNS THIS BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS ALREADY BEEN DONE BEFORE WE GOT HERE, THE COMPREHENSION PLAN. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAY THAT IT'S AT A MINIMUM. THIS WOULD JUST FOOT FURTHER INCORPORATE THAT. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, OFFERING INCENTIVES TO TRY TO GET A LITTLE MORE, BUT IT'S STILL THE MINIMUM. IT'S ONLY STAY OUT, PETE PARAGRAPH AFTER PARAGRAPH ITS STATE AND FEDERAL. STATE AND FEDERAL THAT THEY'RE THE REGULATORY AGENCY AND I FEEL LIKE. OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS A REGULATORY AGENCY. AND SHOULD I THINK WE SHOULD RAISE THE STANDARD? SO WAIT. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING ABOUT THAT RIGHT THERE? CAN WE JUST ADDRESS THAT SO WE CAN MOVE ON? UM YEAH, I'M JUST GOING TO TRY SOMETHING HERE. UM I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, IS, IS THAT, UM. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REQUIRING MITIGATION WITHIN THE VILLAGE IS BETTER THAN NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION IN THE VILLAGE, BUT NOT AS GOOD AS PROHIBITING MITIGATION. RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. YOU WANT NO MITIGATION. BUT YOU DO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS STILL BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW WHICH IS YOU CAN MITIGATE 50 MILES AWAY, AND THAT DOESN'T HELP THE VILLAGE. BUT YOU'RE ALSO CONCERNED. THAT IF. YOU GO ALONG WITH THIS ORDINANCE, AND YOU ARE AND YOU VOTE FOR THE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOW THAT REQUIRES MITIGATION IN TOWN. YOU FEEL THAT IT'S SORT OF BEING, UM. SORT OF CONTRADICTING YOUR ULTIMATE GOAL, WHICH IS THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE MITIGATION AND THAT IF YOU WERE TO IF YOU IF THE BOARD WERE THEN TO PRODUCE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE. SAYING NO MITIGATION AND LET'S AT 75 FT BUFFER THAT YOU FEEL IT WOULD BE HARDER TO DO THAT TO ADVANCE IT BECAUSE YOU VOTED FOR THIS WON'T HAPPEN. OKAY UH, MOTION DID NOT. RIGHT SO, UM, A COUPLE OF POINTS ON THAT, UM, NUMBER ONE, UM. YOU I DON'T THINK THAT.

TAKING THIS STEP SOMEHOW PRECLUDES THE SECOND THE YOUR YOUR ULTIMATE GOAL. UM BUFFERS ARE NOWHERE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ORDINANCE, RIGHT? UM THE MITIGATION DOES. OKAY UM, SAYING THAT IF MITIGATION IS AUTHORIZED THAT IT HAS TO BE IN THE VILLAGE. IS A PARTIAL MEASURE. IT IS. IT IS A PARTIAL MEASURE. IF IT'S IF LATER YOU WERE TO ADVANCE AN ORDINANCE.

IF YOU GET THE BOARD SUPPORTS AN ORDINANCE AND TRANSMITS IT TO THE COUNCIL, SAYING. UM WE'VE REVISITED THE ISSUE. UH WE'VE HAD THOROUGH DISCUSSIONS. WE'VE QUIZZED OUR EXPERTS, YOU KNOW, RESEARCH, ETCETERA. WE BELIEVE THAT. MITIGATION IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST, UH, OF THE VILLAGE EXCEPT PERHAPS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU MIGHT SPECIFY OR NOT. UM YOU'RE YOU'RE THAT ORDINANCE WILL HAVE THE SAME OF THE SAME CHANCE OF PASSING COUNCIL AS IF YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR THIS ORDINANCE. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE TYING YOUR HANDS AT ALL. SO I THINK I THINK THAT YOU CAN. THERE'S A THERE'S A THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS YOU CAN GO. YOU CAN. YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THOSE THINGS IN IT. YOU CAN SUPPORT IT. UM, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT. YOU DON'T THINK IT GOES FAR ENOUGH AND YOU WANT TO DO BETTER? YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND REVISIT THE ISSUE AND THAT YOUR VOTE AND YOU CAN. THESE ARE THINGS YOU PUT ON THE RECORD YOU KNOW THAT YOUR VOTE IN NO WAY INDICATES THAT YOU THINK THIS IS SUFFICIENT. BUT IT'S BETTER THAN WE HAVE NOW. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SUPPORT IT FOR NOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SUPPORT IT AT THIS TIME OR. YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO IF THIS,

[02:10:07]

[02:15:04]

BOARD MEMBER MILEY YES. FOUR MEMBER PRESSLER. I'M VOTING NO TO INCLUDE THE REDUCTION OF THE 10% OF THAT WOULD BE PERMANENTLY ROUTE PRESERVED, REDUCING THAT TO 5. SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I WILL VOTE. NO. VICE CHAIR, PALMER. YES. CHEERS TO HAYEK. I'M GOING TO VOTE. YES AND JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS YES, YES. ANYWAY THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. I KNOW THAT THIS WAS A TOUGH ISSUE AND DOES NOT PASS. WE NEED A FOUR ALL FOUR OF YOU TO AGREE. OKAY? WELL, DON'T IS THAT CORRECT? WHOLE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, WHICH IS FOUR VOTES. I THOUGHT THAT WE JUST NEED A MORE GORRITI OF CORUM. MR ATTORNEY. GIVE ME A MINUTE HERE, ER.

SUSAN, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? I'M NOT LOOKING AT ANYTHING. THAT'S JUST MY UNDERSTANDING.

OH NO, WE HAVEN'T SPECIFIED IN THE, UH, IN THE CODE. GIVE ME GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND, EVERYONE. I APOLOGIZE. OH, WHERE IS HERE WE GO.

L. C A DO YOU, UM. SAYS EACH DECISION OF THE BOARD MUST BE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT AT A MEETING IN WHICH A QUORUM IS IN ATTENDANCE AND VOTING. YEAH, SO THAT'S SIMPLE MAJORITY. CORRECT SO THAT WOULD BE MOTION PASSES. HOW MANY YESTERDAYS WERE THERE? THREE. WE GOT FIVE PEOPLE THERE OR HOW MANY PEOPLE GOT THERE FOR REMEMBER, SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. I'M SORRY. IT SAYS THAT THREE MEMBERS SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. SO WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT. YEAH. MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESIDENT THE MEETING.

YES. THE MOTION PASSES. YEAH. OKAY? THANK YOU AND I AGAIN I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS WAS A COMPLICATED ISSUE AND A LOT OF PAGES AND I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND I RESPECT EVERYBODY'S OPINIONS. AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS FROM ALL SIDES, SO I

[02:20:06]

[DIRECTOR'S REPORT]