and the like okay there's a tiny bit of a delay so when you want to talk push and wait just a second before you talk hello Bliss can you hear us I did just then he did I I could I heard something okay good afternoon everyone happy New Year I hope everybody had wonderful holidays um I'm officially calling the meeting to order and uh could we please take the role Melissa Lamers Jessica GW here Wendy Anderson uh Tyler uh sent his regrets Sarah Le morisy Bob Fitz Simmons John hoblick Jack seret Bliss Jameson um Bliss is online and so once we know we have a physical Quorum we'll ask that you vote to allow her to participate online uh Bill lights Barney LEF Alex zilinski Suzanne Shyer and we have a brand new member Donna brosmer welcome so if you would um entertain allowing Bliss to participate remotely that would be the time to do that do we have a motion do we have a second the motion is made by Bill lights and seconded by Sarah Lee morisy any discussion all those in favor any opposed motion carries and hi Bliss you get to participate from online good to hello thank you have you here you're welcome and before we get into our business um I would like to welcome our new member Donna how do you say your last name rosmer rosmer thank you we'd like to welcome uh Donna who we have waited for for a very very very long time so we're so so we're glad that you're you're here um I think this is the day of the most number of absences we've ever had thus far uh yes I'm going to get a ticket so it they're all full they're all full this is a very um collegial group of people uh we don't agree on everything and that's the point in great part but we work very well together so I think you'll enjoy being among us and it might be good to take just a couple minutes for the folks in the room and you to introduce ourselves okay would you like to kick off Donna tell us about you oh there it is hello and thank you for having me um my name is Donna brosmer I spent most of my uh professional life in Palm Beach County um I was there for about 40 years and during that time I served on a variety of advisory committees including the one that updated the comp plan um in my professional work I did major annexations and other land use related things for local governments and um and at one point um I had made the comment at orientation that I'm kind of in the middle on the issues that you all tackle um because I was a water lobbyist most recently in Colorado for nine years um but in in Colorado water is a property right so I was a property rights person and I am um but I also was in my early activist days um the defendant in a slap suit uh filed for $2 million filed by a developer who was unhappy with me so I've been on both sides of of these issues and I also owned a landscape nursery for 10 years um so I'm a little bit all over the place in terms of having some egg background and a lot of public policy background I worked in public policy for 30 years um and uh so I hope some of that will be useful here and thank you Wendy would you like to finish up that flank and then we'll start around this way with Jack after you sure um I'm Wendy Anderson I'm a professor of environmental science at Stetson and also um a member of the Board of Supervisors for this alucia Soil and Water Conservation District and I um I like to consider myself in the middle too but also kind of all over the place um maybe not everybody in the room would agree but anyway um I like to think I'm bringing an academic perspective to our conversations and um and also you know with some experience working alongside developers to help them kind of get up to speed on low impact development other kinds of strategies for um smarter planning thank you Wendy Jack Ben okay well U yes I'm Jack seret and I'm a business consultant by trade um uh and my background here is weaker than most of the other folks including yours um but uh I did have the honor of being a member of Eko uh on on that board for five years and also the growth management commission and so I've got an active interest in U in environmental causes and how it fits with growth and development uh within valua County and I'm John hoblick I uh live in Delon Springs Florida I have a a nursery Farm operation up there cut Fage uh represent more of an agricultural perspective along with being a a part-time farmer I was a a full-time president of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation uh for 15 years and we had that time about 150,000 members uh representing agriculture across the state so I come from uh a background of policy as well understanding uh not only what happens here in belush County but across the state and how it all ties together uh appreciate the opportunity to serve on this committee does Andy feel comfortable you just walked in we're introducing ourselves to our new member Donna brasmer thank you s hi welcome uh s morresy i Am a uh professional professional urban planner came here uh long enough ago that I'm not going to say how many decades it was um but uh did uh City Planning uh for one of our local municipalities for a number of years and then moved over to the school district where I spent the bulk of my professional career being uh the planner for the school district and uh acted as a developer um because we were in the midst of building a lot of schools so have a little bit of uh both sides of the equation when it comes to development except that my development experience is primarily public sector and I now um do Consulting in the K12 uh School planning field and I am a board member of the League of Women Voters uh which uh takes an active interest in many of the policy issues uh facing facing all of us oh I'm sorry that's okay I'm Bill lights I'm an ecologist by trade um I grew up in Titusville been here all my life in Florida um I'm an environmental consultant work for a small um engineering planning and landscape architect firm and we do permitting for all sorts of development um change you know comp plans and um do environmental permitting like uh erps with the Water Management District and d and the Army Corps of Engineers um back 20 years ago I was working for a really good um planning firm and we helped uh develop the Florida Green Building coalition uh development certification Pro program so I'm very interested in good growth and um on this board to um help keep things simple and not uh kind of watch for additional um restrictions and uh regulations that make things difficult to develop thank you Bill I'm Melissa Lamers uh I been in valua County starting in 1965 I'm not afraid to say I'm old um and I grew up on and live on the North Peninsula in Orman by the Sea which is an unincorporated area of the county as it at its northernmost extreme professionally I'm a marketing Communications uh executive traveled the world with that lived some interesting places and chose to come and devote time to my other great Passion which is intersection between science and public policy for the benefit of the environment and that's why I'm here and it's a great privilege to serve okay last one I'm Jessica gal I'm a land use and environmental attorney here in the county um started in law school from a public policy background so worked with Earth Justice surf riter Foundation save the manity club all those fun groups um and then came over to the private development side um for practice and so try to bring some of those lessons with us to kind of find balance and smart growth for the community thank you Jessica and with that oh Bliss do you want to tell us about yourself sorry okay uh thank you uh my name is bliss Jamison I am the President of the southeast valua manufacturing and Technology Coalition uh we promote Valia County specifically Southeast Valia as a great place to live and work and do business um we also well I also am a realtor uh that is my Revenue Source um specializing in airport um residential and Commercial properties and vacant land use so I deal with a lot of developers and Farmers thank you Bliss and with that we can go on to our first agenda item which is the selection of chair and vice chair for the coming year I open the floor to nominations Sly um I I guess I have a question uh my question is Melissa and Jessica are you willing to continue to serve in the roles that you are in then I'm going to make a motion and that motion is um it's the way to my motion is to uh have Melissa Lamers continue as chair and Jessica gal continue as our vice chair any additional nominations or discussion that's out in the hallway right I'm hearing voices that may disqualify me um in that case all those in favor of accepting the Slate of Melissa Lamers and Jessica GW uh please hi any opposed motion thank you very much and with that we will continue moving right along through our uh agenda with the approval of the December 6th minutes and that was a very um action-packed and piy meeting has everyone had the opportunity to read those minutes all right I will entertain a motion for their approval or Amendment Bill like moves to approve the minutes of December 6th any seconds Sly I have an amendment to ask about anyway and unless we're cutting our meeting short uh the and I and I don't think we are there was a correction on page four where it said the meetings would last between to one to three and I think it should have been 1 to four good attention to detail Mr seret thank you so much uh would you like to amend your motion to accept the amended minutes Bill lights amends his motion to reflect a change in meeting time from 1: p.m. to 4:00 p.m. rather than 3 p.m. which is in the in the current minutes the minutes will be amended do we have a second second seconded by jaet all those in favor of approving the amended minutes any opposed the minutes of December 6 2023 are approved thank you so two of the the our two deliverables to the County Council um as reports are the annual report for the year that has just passed and uh Ginger's going to talk to us in addition to to reviewing that report and approving it Ginger is going to talk to us about the um Council agenda item and it's actually my understanding my reading that we also have to submit our work plan for 2024 which we did um create in our in our last meeting so as everyone had an opportunity to review we reviewed the annual report in the last meeting and made a few little um corrections to it does anyone have an additional correction I have just one okay uh the addition of Miss brasmer of Donna to the list unless that doesn't unless she shouldn't be I I don't think so because she was appointed in 2024 okay thank you alrighty any other changes to our wonderfully drafted by m morrisy annual report do we need to move on this or we okay thank you so much and thank you again for for working on that sarily um and would since it will be part of the council agenda item shall we also discuss the work plan did everyone have an opportunity to review that that came out yesterday sarily you have a comment well I did review it and I agree it's what we discuss but I do have a question because I I'm not crazy about how I voted but I'm willing to stick with it I just have a question our priorities four and five which uh updates revisions to the Indian River Lagoon overlay standards and then um standards to address adaptation to sea level rise and promote resilience in terms of the priority that we've established on this work plan and what all is moving forward um especially with regard to those two items is do you envision our sequencing to be compatible with your the county staff's work in these two areas uh well that's a great question um partly um you know our work plan is based on the direction of this committee right so obviously we have a capacity to to do an amount of work in any given period of time um but you know we we kind of shuck and Jive as the council gives us priorities and as you'll give us priorities so um I think that could work um you know we're certainly in the trenches right now with the low impact development audit tool and we have a timeline to hopefully um start bringing that back late spring early summer um the staff is right now doing the audit tool and and we'll have something back so I that probably fits pretty well like number three I think is pretty well timed because we'll be talking about trees hopefully today maybe one more meeting and then kind of go back and hopefully finish up Wetland so I think we're good up until three oh we have two threes on this list oopsie no we we had said that oh okay okay that's okay okay um oh right okay and then so I think those are all good I think that it gets a little fuzzier when you get out to four five and six and we kind of I think talked about this where um you know there's always the ability to move things around as we get closer to those um so I I I guess it doesn't stress me out I guess if that's what you're asking can we can we fit that in it also kind of goes along with like number five in particular goes along with a lot of the work we're doing right now with our vulnerability assessment and the resilience work um so I think you know I think the timing will be okay yeah John yeah yes um and I looked at this list too and said wow um we've got a lot of work to do uh and 11 meetings and I don't know the realistic uh value to this being done in 2024 uh however it's not a bad thing to have it on there uh but I I don't think the way we move as a committee that we're going to get past number three or four uh throughout this year just input and by putting it in there does that lock us in Council or no okay if I if I may just for a second um one of the things we discussed last month was our approach to how we would be a little bit more efficient because we're all scarred from the Tre ordinance experience so we are asking and we'll see it we'll see it in practice today if we get there quick enough we have asked staff to highlight the big issues but not get us hung up on the numbers of each little ordinance item so that we can discuss what matters and they can craft the language and we can review that did I fairly state that which if you recall and why we're scarred was we were trying to go through every single line item of the ordinances so hopefully hopefully we have learned something in in the past year I'm optimistic Suzanne and then Wendy yes yes we missed you but we understand Suzanne I have a question pertaining to this list has any of um as the county or anyone in this meeting because last meeting was my first meeting um brought up any funding in any of these categories because funding would make a difference I would think so like for example there's money for IRL projects for example I'm just pointing that out there every category probably has its own set of Grants or funding available so has funding ever been discussed either by this committee or has staff ever brought it up it's the remit of the committee Suzanne is to examine the Land Development codes oh oh no I know yeah I get it neutral to neutral to to the funding okay well funding matters to me even with the goals of the committee so I have the question standing May so can I jump in here real quick when we went through in clay irvan by the word way nice to meet you um this body was an out outcome of a discussion we had regarding our permitting process so the focus was solely on looking at the Land Development regulations and how those can be updated and improved upon as they pertain to both chapter 50 and chapter 72 of the code there wasn't necessarily a direction to start looking at expansion of water quality programming or environmental programming that would involve say acquisition or uh other types of capital expenditure tied to those purposes is is that okay so let me reward this in a general not pertaining but pertains to what I'm asking does any one of those categories have more money funding involved funding I guess the critical question is what do you want to fund never mind I it's a legitimate question but I don't know another way to ask it so I'll ask it I'll get with you after the meeting here let me try to interpret tell me if this is right so um our mission here is to look at the code and rewrite the codes um we did get funding for low impact development we got a grant through Department of Economic Opportunity to help us look at low impact development codes throughout the state and make recommendations for us and we are using that work so that Grant uh wrapped up I know June of last year year right but we got a body of work through that Grant we're using that as we go forward with loan pack development I I'm not aware of other grants out there that help us um look at our code and modify our code certainly there's lots of grant funding out there to implement projects um and we do the staff does look at those things for for project related costs like right now I'm uh in the middle of writing a $50 million Noah Grant that's due this week that if you if you think that I'm crazy I am right now um so we do look for grant funding for project related things it's just often not there's not money to do the kind of work that we're looking at now with the exception of that low impact development grant that we did get and we can tie into the Department of Commerce because annually they put out approximately 25 sometimes up to $50,000 in local assistance grants that funding cycle has not been opened up yet we'll look at that if we can meet their criteria typically it's tied to an economic development perspective but we have been able to utilize it for other similar types of uses does that help some yes and then I'll talk to them afterwards as to the rest I don't want to hold up the meeting and I want to apologize for my breach of etiquette you might rethink your votes in not having staff introduce themselves so we can we did meet Donna uh last week uh with the exception of clay so yeah sorry clay who just introduced himself and we also have uh over here hiding in the back of the room Todd Hannah he's U with our environmental permitting activity so I I do it is important to remind everyone and especially Suzanne our annual report actually indicates that we moved low impact development up in the priority schedule to work on it because you did have a grant and so when there is monies made available that relate to the work it might not fund specifically writing the ordinance but it relates to the work we are recognizing it and rep prioritizing as necessary and even your work on uh sea level rise vulnerability assessment is tied into it and the regional planning Council as well as the state is coming forward funding work that will become critical to this effort thank you sir so thank you for bringing us back to that topic that's that was the nature of my question um Ginger can you can you explain in a little bit more detail for us um the vulnerability assessment is something that is State mandated or is that something we're doing and or that's something we're doing in partnership with East Central Florida Regional planning Council how does that effort then Dov tail in with a thing that was on the consent agenda yesterday that was a resolution to demonstrate leadership to the Army Corps that uh for a coastal resilience feasibility study like where does that fit into the package and and what are going to be the deliverables from those will they be developing new ordinance language for us for the county that we would then review before it went to council can you just talk a little bit about all those pieces sure so um we currently Environmental Management currently has a resilient Florida Grant to uh revise our vulnerability assessment based on state criteria so the state um two sessions ago required that um local governments have vulnerability assessments that measure um vulnerability to um sea level rise and storm surge and have they defined the critical assets and so um we actually in Vol County had a vulnerability assessment and we had adopted sea level rise curves already we had done that work um in partnership with the planning Council um but the state said everybody has to use this same um curbs the same predictions and you need to identify your critical assets so uh they funded that work as well so they said hey you need to do this but also we're going to give you the money to do it so that was good um we contracted with the regional planning Council and we're getting preliminary results right now the final project won't be done really till the end of the year but basically that's looking at the Noah 2017 um sea level rise projections the intermediate High um is the upper bound of that and they're um using that and also storm surge based on higher sea level rise to identify where our vulnerable areas are in particular what they're calling all these critical assets which is I mean kind of what you think they are right like hospitals and schools and um uh infrastructure type stuff so um and the reason to do that if you were a county that maybe hadn't done it before is that the resilient Florida program has significant dollars available to do mitigation projects for these vulnerable critical assets if they've been identified right and so this will p position all of us this the county and the cities to able to go after that grant funding to actually um make changes to these assets to make them more um uh what's the right word um less less vulnerable more resilient less vulnerable right so so that's happening right now we're also doing a whole series of um public engagement related to that we're doing like Social Media stuff on Facebook real basic like what does resilience mean what what does sustainability mean those sorts of things but we're also doing a series of public meetings the first one is tomorrow for elected officials and um government officials but there'll be a um a public one as well and then there'll be a second set for each of those groups that's coming up so that's what we're working on um and that will inform I think the work of this Committee in that it will I give us an idea of the amount of vulnerability we have in the county um there'll be a sort of phase two to that which takes into account rainfall this current one doesn't but um in areas rainfall has actually been a real big issue and we've seen that just anecdotally right so um there'll be more to come on that but so where that I think fits in with us is we'll see that there are areas of this County that are vulnerable and then the question is and it's not going to come out of the work from the planning Council um but then the question will be should there be regulatory um solutions to some of that right should we help people understand how to build in these areas or or whether to build in these areas now those are policy questions outside of the work that's being done so that would be maybe this committee it would certainly be the County Council like does that then inform some change to our regulatory framework um the other study the thing that went to council yesterday is actually being managed by our Coastal Division and that is um in response of course to the storms that we had in 2022 we had we lost like 6.6 million cubic yards of sand um and the state gave us a significant amount of money like $80 million to do um sand projects on the beach to bring sand back part of that is being used uh to fund a plan right like okay you got $80 million to put sand on well what what's the right way to do that and so um there's there's that study which is being funded by the grant money and then um there's also this idea of um you know there are places in Florida and other areas where they they have a managed Beach where um sand placement happens on a regular basis and they become Federal projects and so there's a partnership with the Army Corps to um to do this study for a beach management plan and that really would then identify how to become one of those managed beaches so that when we have these significant erosion events we're eligible for FEMA money to bring sand back we are not right now because we don't have a beach management plan and that was a a decision by the County Council you know many councils ago um but so they they do all tied together of course you know nobody no one group in the county has the bandwidth to do all of this so that's Coastal Division that's really their baileywick we're involved in that and it will inform less I think about regulatory decisions and more about um you know budgeting and and how often and where and when do we do renourishment is that the critical element about the coastal project is that's what keys us into the Army Corps process because otherwise we would not have eligibility for the federal funds for it they won't undertake any renourishment if there's been any mitigation is my understanding that I'm going off in a different direction I'm GNA take it down to a more basic level if you put the sand on it and you touch it and you're not using their money you own it and you're not going to get their money ever again yeah or if you put up a camp wall in the N habitat natural habitat Zone yes okay back to our work plan any further question Suzanne you have your another question any other questions about the work plan I'll entertain a motion but we don't need to move on that right not necessarily this work plan is already attached to the council agenda item the agenda item is scheduled for February 20th which is a an evening meeting it starts at 4 p.m. um I'm not clear yet about whether this item will be on the consent agenda or whether it will be a discussion item the agenda conference is next week tomorrow tomorrow and we'll know more then and so I'll I'll let everybody know but um if we assume that we're going to do a a small presentation right either if it's on consent and gets pulled or becomes a discussion item um uh I will do a brief introduction and presentation of the annual report and the work plan um hopefully the chair or at least some you know representative from the committee can be there to provide remarks as well um and any of you who would like to attend and um you know put in a public participation card that would be wonderful but I don't I just don't know quite yet where on the agenda it's going to be I would imagine it's going to be for discussion purposes I don't think it will uh stay on consent so recapping all of that I intend to go to that meeting I've already put it in my agenda and it would indeed be wonderful um for as many members to be there as possible and uh perhaps speak in public comments I think that we've spent something like 450 hours just as this room not to mention all the work that we do at home reading studying understanding um and I think that matters that's my editorial on that but support for for the work that we've done so thank you and you'll be we we uh Suzanne so um I personally think think it would be a stronger message if there was a vote even if it's not required to show that the committee stands for this hopefully hopefully unanimously especially after the last so I'm going to move that we uh pass to support that work plan that's on the screen any second no second Jack sett seconds a motion by Suzanne Shyer all the any discussion all those in favor I thank you our next agenda item um is the topic of the wonderful Goofer toris uh I'm sorry Jack questions one is the in the case of the County council meeting we in a long list of all of them or are we alone in in discuss oh great question yes so the council has talked about discussing all of the boards and you know which ones are needed and what they do can they be combined yes this is just a meeting about our work plan and annual report um whether the council brings up how they feel about this committee or how they want the committee to go forward I you know I cannot predict but but this is just about us it's not um combined with any of the other boards and so this is really isn't the meeting that is evaluating whether we should exist no this is our this is our required report okay by Statute but no nothing to say that that conversation won't happen right I just I don't know right we should be prepared even if it's on the consent agenda we should be prepared to talk about our work plan and our annual report and it may morph as an avid Council Watcher it may morph into a discussion about this committee let me ask a a philosophical question that that uh that maybe it's inappropriate but maybe and perhaps clay could answer I did I did view the uh the meeting yesterday which you were kind of put on the hot seat and uh you know because I think what we do is we evaluate the uh these issues um to get ahead of them in other words you know a lot of these codes haven't changed in many years and yet the county has and so is there a relevant connection to to us doing this work to preempt the kind of problem we've ended up with in the Bader uh tank farm is there is there a parallel to us getting ahead of that versus uh dealing with it after the fact there's you always want to have your codes up to speed and consistent with your goals objectives and policies uh it is always a tool that staff can utilize in providing information to landowners when they're doing their due diligence and trying to figure out what to do it's also there to help protect you as a staff member when you identify a flaw and a plan and indicate where staff would approve with a condition or deny so yes it does provide a valuable tool to the staff here as we go through and review different applications to ensure that we're up to date yeah thanks thank you go for tortoises oh Jack question there a different there it's on it's kind of on the same subject my question here is you know when we talked last time we discussed addressing the subject of of the committee with each of our U you know council members and and I was wondering if that took place did did did did we have that conversation or is that something that's still left out there I did not I should have but I didn't um has anybody had a discussion with there anybody who's been on the committee a long time sarily Lee okay great Bill take the temperature of your appointer okay I I had the conversation and the uh and and and got the support uh in the case of Troy Kent is he has sounded like a very strong supporter of this committee so but that's at least worth worth me mentioning who appointed you Bill and would you do you feel comfortable sharing the temperature in that room um I we're kind of going into uh government and the Sunshine violation by conveying over because it's going to be an item that the council is going to be discussion discussing and they will be taking final action on I don't I don't mean to play attorney Chris just that makes sense actually thank you you can say that you talked with them and can indicate some things but I I just yeah they do have the potential to list okay let's air on the side of caution and cease this discussion but we should talk to our members thank you now Jack may we move [Laughter] on Ginger take it away okay I'm gonna start but Keith's gonna do more of the talking so uh I think you recall we have talked about it here that at um a a meeting in the fall one of the council members brought up the goor ordinance and and was concerned that perhaps it was um getting in the way of um folks trying to develop their lots and it was maybe burdensome or you know not working so um we have a little PowerPoint that just sort of gives the facts about our go tourist ordinance and um we shared this information with vCard and to ask their opinion because they were very um uh involved in the Go tours ordinance adoption they actually were very helpful in getting that approved because of the things that were going on in the county at the time um they were supportive so we reached out to them and um they have provided feedback to the Council on their thoughts on the gor's ordinance and you have that information um but so I'm going to let Keith do a little brief presentation about sort of what we do and then we can talk about the vCard letter I don't know that there's any action that we need to take but I wanted to follow up on that issue because we have talked about it okay um the G toris ordinance um protects G toris and their Burrows um and a 25 foot buffer um goer toris is a keystone species and it protects you know uh more than 300 different 350 different other species um I don't want to read it word for word but you know we enacted the go tortoise ordinance um and you know we go out and we look at each individual site so we get an inspection for a house any type of structure we have boots on the ground the the state doesn't so that's why we enacted our ordinance FWC doesn't know when we're issu issuing clearing permits they don't know when we're issuing building permits so our inspectors go out and utilize our mapping system yeah I just love to talk up our County when I can there's a neat little Point left out of that that clay can tell me if I'm wrong or Ginger maybe this is such a balanced County between our environmental work and our development work that we were actually asked to draft this ordinance as a model for the use of the state and I am particularly proud of that as a longtime Valia County person so I just had to say that sorry so we we utilize our mapping system to determine areas that our potential go tus habitat anything that comes in with our building permanent process that's within those areas get an inspection by our inspectors um again we're looking for construction activity within 25 ft of the burrow or anything that's going to impact the burrow um typically if there's some structure or something that can be moved or relocated you know we advise the the owners of the parcel or the the applicants you know hey if you shift something over here you won't have to do a relocation you know there are there are tons of of times when the um relocation and is unavoidable and at that time they go through and get their permits from FWC and um do their they the hire Bill and he comes out and does the relocation removes the us to a recipient site and uh and the construction moves on [Music] um you we the ordinance allows for a fee the the fee was adopted by Council um it's it's $100 um and that's way lower than hiring a consultant to come out and check the property um so it's it's it's extremely low but if there are go for tortoises on site then they're still going to have to uh hire uh uh a consultant to come out do the surveys and do the relocation so our fee is is basically just to come out check see if you have the habitat see if you have the tortoises and then provide information and assistance to the owners and OCC applicants to move forward their process what oh yeah it it does have does not have higher standards than the state so again here you see some of the prohibitions that you can't you know you can't kill can't harm can't harass can't um uh fill the go for tortois Burrows or in their entrances or impact them clearing grading Paving within 25 U feet of the the burrow is prohibited and again BL County does not have additional standards so here's just a schematic of how the building permit review Pro process goes and kind of explain a little bit um you know is it in within that area yes um then you know we're going to do the inspection if there's a tree or Wetland review the applicant doesn't get charged an additional fee so for those areas that already have a tree fee on them or they're not getting charged that $100 go tourus review fee that that is at that point in time free so yeah if they have if they have Burrows um will the Burrows be in acted if so they need a permit if not we would have them put in go for torist protection and put in S Fencing to keep the the uh G toises out of their building site and then we would issue their permits this just covers the types of FWC permits uh again um and then like we said we have reinspection fees if you if you you're not you call us out to do the um go course protection and we come out and it's not installed you're going to get a reinspection fee you know it's going to fail you're going to get the reinspection fee you know we'll tell you why it failed we'll have to come back out and do another inspection if you're impacting we come out and you've already cleared the site and you've already impacted Burrows and and and their buffers then you have a late fee of $499 so in this slide you see how many inspections we've done um 37% of the total inspections that we've done actually got a review fee the rest of them were free only 4% of the ones that that had go for horses had a second inspection you know a repeat inspection okay so some of the benefits of our go for go for toris ordinance um you know it's low cost cost um versus private Consultants we've actually talked to several consultants and that was the range of the fees that they charged just for to come out and kind of check that's not like a full survey or any relocations um and you know we discussed this with FWC multiple times then they've told us that um bcia county has a low rate of um Disturbed site permits because of our process um and it provides better protection for the go for tortoises and the other species Wendy and then Suzanne microphone please sorry going back to the map I see that the cities are excluded from the go for tortoise overlay do the cities themselves have equivalent ordinances that they are enforcing inspecting and enforcing also or the cities just kind of exempt from this because obviously there can be go for tortoises inside of um yeah City Limits the uh our go course ordinance is not a minimum standard so it's not required throughout the county it's only chapter 72 and I'm not aware of any City or or municipality in bluch county that has their own ordinance but the FWC rules apply Suzanne can you go back to the slide that had the fees on it please the $499 late fee is that regardless of the number of gopher tortoises yes none of our fees are per tortois our fee is just about the site um when you get to permitting you know if you have to relocate them then the FWC costs are per tortoise or you know they're lumped or you know a certain number but ours is about that development site that permit there's one fee for us to go out and inspect it there's another fee if we go out to inspect and you didn't do what you were supposed to do and we have to come back right so that's staff time and so there's a reinspection and then the the late fee is is just per site if you did bad things before we got there so I'm a little confused then FWC does their own inspection or you guys report to FWC we would report it to FWC let's say we had U uh previously been out to the site and had GPS points of the Burrows um we would notify FWC here are G the GPS points here is a picture of the burrow um and we also place a placard on site that explains you know you know what the burrow is what a go for tortois is um and the requirements of Permitting on site um so we would take that information we would send it over to FWC they would have to get a disturbed site permit with FWC uh they could also send out an officer and and do a criminal case if they if they choose I would say that's very rare could could we recap and I'm going to go to John in a second could we recap that as saying that the county is an inspection arm and that the permitting is FWC correct yeah it's like I said earlier in the presentation that we're the boots on the ground um the biologists in Okala or Tallahassee wherever wherever they're at they're not out here inspecting the sites making sure that you know people aren't clearing uh uh Burrows or their habitat or their buffers we're the ones issuing these building permits these clearing permits we're doing the inspection and then you know we're helping the applicants uh be compliant with State and County ordinances thank you John did you still have something and then Wendy well what drives the the inspection it is basically our mapping system and it Maps out uh habitat by soil type and vegetation type um and we actually go a little bit beyond those those types of areas to ensure we cover all of that um but yeah that's what what drives it when our perming system flags that this parcel is in one of those mapped areas but we also we have other inspections tree inspections Wetland inspections on other properties and sometimes you'll find them in areas that aren't mapped but it's very rare the the go horse map is pretty broad so it catches most an average citizen if I'm in your color code then I know I need to get a permit but if I've got no not not a per inspection sorry inspection right and then um but what if you're one of those that is in the white or the gray or the blue areas and there are goer tortoises and you don't get an inspection and well I mean most of the areas yeah yeah yeah most of the other areas EXC me um that are I'm color blind so I'm just gonna I'm just going to pick out some of the areas some of those areas are that you've mentioned are Wetland and you're not going to find them in that area and some of the areas that you've mentioned are within the Incorporated areas and you know you're not going to get a building permit or inspection from us um you know there you could all do the cities ins no okay so if you're an incorporated area then you're not required to have inspection irregardless right you're always required to comply with state law right so it's the property owner's responsibility to you know but for the state law that's not that's not your jurisdiction that's their it's not and so we're not doing the inspections um so if we don't do an inspection for whatever reason you're not on our map or you're in a city you know th those go Tores are are still protected it's just that um it's on the property in order to make sure they do what they need to do one final question pertaining to agriculture there is an exemption for agriculture right yes there there are exemption for bonafied agricultural um uses and activities as in the state ours matches the states okay just to kind of feed on to that if you um look at the response that we got from vCard into in regards to it you'll see that the service that we provide is a preventative measure not only is it preventing injury to the habitat or the the animal but it's also protecting the private property owner because after the fact permitting through FWC is now an easy process and it can become expensive it can become cumbersome so if we can as part of our standard permitting review process and I'm going to brag on our Manda permitting system because we're able to take the gis data that's available and it's translated into the individual Parcels so a parcel shows up as for a building permit it's flagged so Keith and his staff and Todd and his staff are aware that so what you'll see then is it it basically condenses and eliminates potential problems with property owners that they would be facing because of the species being on their property and it helps get a more effective and efficient method of addressing is there a protected spey there's making sure it's protected and getting it taken care of and avoiding down the road implications yeah we've also had people show up um or or call in and state that a lot that we issue a tree removal permit for had go for tses on it and they've called FWC and we've been on site boots on the ground we know there were no go for tus Bros there and we've worked with FWC they called us like no there were no go for Tauruses there we did the in we did the inspection and you know the officers you know take that information and provide it to their biologists and you know it kind of offers a level of protection so this is not the County's responsibility but it does raise the question that that Wendy started out asking I think so in the cities yes the gopher tortoise is a listed species and yes it is protected by all the weight of fwc's ordinances and laws but there is if there is no inspection arm like there is for an incorporated Valia County then really it's just up to Citizens calling FWC those go for tortoises don't have the layer of care that they receive through the county is that correct well what You' wind up is it's a self-reporting requirement for developers it's a self- require reporting requirement for homeowners and the fact is if they don't and it's called into FWC they're facing some serious consequences we run a lot of people just they don't know they don't know about go for tortoises I mean so people are building a house we show up we're like hey you've got to go for tourist they're like what is that you know and so sometimes they're they're adjacent to the site and we do you know we always try to provide education and explain what they're we always hand them we always have these placards ready and hand them hand them out thank you I suspect Jessica's going to talk about what I was going to say unscrupulous developers and private the vCard letter um I did want to say one that I think that the county Rule and hats too because I'm vard chair so I'll touch on that in a second um the county rule is one 100% a public service in my mind it is an absolutely amazing thing that the county takes on to protect the species and provide protection to Property Owners there is always a requirement in local governments for large scale development not you know single family home permits that when you submit your surveys and things like that you have all listed species and things noted and so that's where they should be reviewing that at that phase um but they don't have the proactive steps like the county does um I just wanted to say as a precursor to the vCard letter that are recommendations in there I think that we just have too many lawyers on our committees um so apologies but the key from vCard was that it's an amazing program we're 100% supportive if you wanted to go an even further step to help protect the property owners um because sometimes they don't know because it's the builders and things like that that's where the vCard recommendations come so that the property owner is not dinged the the developer that didn't advise them is gets primarily it's the contractor that yall are wanting what we read into vCard was instead of tagging a property owner for something that the contractor did on their property and we're looking at it it is allow under code enforcement law because this is how we would handle it it's just that um unfortunately the way code enforcement is forced through state law to to be implemented it's better to go after a property owner because you can't attach a lean to that property trying to go after contractors and folks like that can be very difficult especially if they're let's be very honest Fly by Night and they show up and they come in grade fill get your sight all great you know ready for construction and they're gone yeah there's just no way to stop them from passing on that cost they're going they're going they're going to add it to something else they're going to pass on that cost that's just and there is we are looking at that right I think what part of the inspiration was just on full background is Orman does that for their tree removal violations they violate the tree company instead of the owner so they might have some insight it's it's been wonky and enforcement on our side to see that but we were like what do you mean you're enforcing against the company but they're the ones who should know so that's why they do it that way so you're going after Bob the neighbor down the street with a chainsaw okay any more discussion for Suzanne sorry um you had said that vCard uh had reviewed this when it was put together I couldn't tell from what you said did anyone else originally work on this when it was all drafted before it was environmentalists the county staff the Builders Association and Bard to my understanding back in the early 2000 when this was first coming to light there was basically a a coalesence of all entities who are focusing on this from develop the development side as well as the environmental side so it was identified and FWC was involved in the discussion about how it could be put together County staff was as was other uh environmental groups they were part of it and it took Keith how many years almost three yeah to finally come to fruition something like four years yeah four four years 2006 to 2010 Jack Suzanne did you have more on yeah um when was the last time the fees were reviewed the fees get what fees yeah the fees go up every year with the with the CPI Consumer Price Index every year they go up a percentage and we we didn't in uh Institute the fees right away in the first several years we did not charge the fee at all um as you know folks got used to the process so um the the ordinance passed in um 2010 and I think we have in here yeah I think it wasn't until like the Dex say 2018 2018 until we started charging the fees so um and now they we they go up by the CPI every year so they they go up with inflation and one more question when was the last time it was reviewed the ordinance reviewed um not since it's been adopted which you'll see is like really good compared to the Wetland ordinance and the tree ordinance which are you know 30 years old so M's a simple question based on vcards U requests that is the 14 days reasonable it said that you you know I mean we we typically review it before then right okay yeah I thought yeah I just just as an aside to following up on part of Suzanne's question um I don't know about this the past 6 months or so but the environmental Council always received notification as well just like vCard if there are comp plan changes that are environmentally focused or things like that so the county does continually seek the opinion of various groups to weigh in on on things one thing about permitting I need to kind of clarify and it has nothing really to do with the actual environmental standards and it has more to do with State manded shot mandated shot clocks for us as local governments um up until probably two years ago each local government set its own time frame for review completion acceptance processing and how many requests for additional information they could have unfortunately in my opinion the state has come in and mandated very specific standards initially they kind of used a one-size fits all model that was uh adapted for the water management districts for our site planning our Land Development regulations and to a certain extent our building but then they truncated it even more such that if a local government was not able to get a single family building permit out within 10 days of it being deemed complete in no additional rais for add request for additional information that for every day after 10 the local government gave up 10% of their fees and so what we at valuan County used to do would take nonbuilding code items such as zoning and environmental Land Development development engineering and we would broadcast the plans out to all of our reviewers and the reviewers could enter in their comments and as soon as they put it into Amanda it was sent to the applicant so they were getting realtime comments from our reviewers so that that way we could do it as as expeditiously as and thoroughly as possible but because oh and I forgot we're only allowed three Ri rais so therefore we couldn't just have the blast of each individual because they counted as one so now what we are doing is we can't send out all of our rais until everybody's completed their review realistically we cannot have environmental being able to do all of the things they have to do within that 10 time 10day time frame and because it's not tied to the administration of the florid building code it is not associated for a building permit so what we've done is we've bifurcated our permitting process so before you can get a building permit you have to get clearance that your zoning Your Land Development your environmental your land your engineering aspects all of that is clear before you we will accept the building permit so that that way I'm joining in with y'all I've got crickets but anyway I just wanted to let you know that that was the situation because right now there is some concern from the amount of time it's taken to get building permits and I have to tell you it's not because of our County staff or our County process it's us having to adapt to what the state has mandated for us to do so um when we start seeing is 14 days yeah those are reasonable but it's going to have to be a situation that it can't be tied to a build permit it's got to be one of those situations and just for your information that now is going to be no longer 10 Days the original House bill was one day now it's I believe three or five Cal or no it was originally One calendar day which meant we would have to have people working Saturdays and Sundays because we have the ability to submit 24 hours 7 days a week through our electronic online permitting so now it's out to I believe five business days which will give us a little bit of relief but I'm still looking at a Manpower shortage and a situation of diverting resources focusing solely on permitting rather than some of the other tasks that we could have them doing if yall don't mind me that was the chair calling me I'll be right back and Jack if you're through chirping oh oh oh oh Jack was dinging pinging okay okay so acknowledging that our current permit is or current ordinance is not more restrictive than State um although it's it could be allowed to be um so my question is is I have two questions one is a biological question is the 25 foot did you say radius or diameter from the burrow entrance H total okay so total diameter 25 ft that protects the burrow and the animal inside the burrow but it doesn't take into account at all the foraging range and home range of the animal and so is it even effective and this is a biological question is that even an effective protection area if it's not protecting anything about the required habitat and foraging range is I I guess another way to say it is that just a meaningless level of prot protection really and so before you answer that my other question is um related is I know we have we do have some um recipient sites within the county right do we still okay okay so all right I thought we had some of our Tiger Bay or tamoka or something okay um how far away do our tortoises go when they get relocated are they going out of I mean they're going out of the county obviously and you know looking at the experts across the room and um and and again if you're putting them into bu into sites that are already I mean have they been evaluated for what density is appropriate is there enough food in those places um wouldn't it be better if we could relocate them as close to their original home as possible as a general principle and um invoking low impact development every chance I get you know one of the principles here is to is to set aside the native habitat and green spaces within the building site and you know and again within Victoria Park when we when that was approved and developed 20 some years ago you know 450 acres of conservation land was set aside and some of the goer tortoises from the built areas were relocated into those conservation areas as far as I can read in the FWC permit so wouldn't it be nice if we could actually just relocate them you know a few hundred feet away rather than across the county or across the state so well that's multiple questions but so depending on the habitat type uh whether that's enough forging area you could have a burrow in an area that's poor habitat and that you know let's say it's completely covered with um um sand live books and there's not much forging area then obviously you wouldn't have enough area there you could have an area where uh they have every you know every they need to forage and it would be better sight and that 25 ft is probably still not enough but it it may do the job so it's very dependent on uh the site that you're looking at you um you can relocate the tortois up to 100 miles but that was uh suspended by the governor I don't know if that was ever reenacted was that was it reenacted recently a couple of months ago I think I remember seeing an email about that but yeah so within 100 miles that's that's the distance unless it's suspended um by the governor um you know obviously if you have enough area for on-site relocation that's what you know we recommend it's cheaper that way I'm sure bill you guys if there's on-site relocation I've seen you guys do a bunch of on-site relocations um yeah we want to keep as many tortoises as we can it's just you know they have to go to a recipient site if there's they don't have enough forage area they don't have enough space and we don't have any currently in the county um and I think the one that we are going to open up that's on County property I think that's just going to be for County projects it's not going to be for the to the public that answer did to get it all right Bill 25 foot is just the regulatory um distance you got to pick a distance and um when you relocate them it cost $6,000 per tortoise to send them to the recipient site and they are you know you can only go 100 miles north south it is of course better to leave a tortoise on his own property and if you can certain FWC permits you can't relocate on site so anytime you can you do um Port Orange has a recipient site but they only have it for their own city um and then now the county will have their own but there are no other sites in mitigation yeah a we mitigation right no it has it's a go towards it was for a previous development from years I used to be the but so they don't accept they don't accept yeah there's nothing open to the public in the county right and your development was probably before they did the relocations back when they had itps yeah and you would identify where your tortoises were and then um preserve that piece of L and and then move your tortoises into there the whole thing the reason why this ordinance is in place is because the state went from itp's incidental T in tement to just relocation and then the county jumped on board and said well we can help and identify if you have tortoises or not U the rest of the cities and counties throughout the state almost all of them you're just on your own and there is no kind of Watchdog and that's what the Count's doing in relocation sites they have to meet um a whole host of criteria by FWC that you've got to do uh we were part of some of the stuff that you know Bill and them have done with other recipient sites and you know carrying capacity vegetation studies uh surveys for how many tortoises you have there you know availability you know all that goes into it and then it has to be in an area that's going to be um you know set aside in perpetuity uh and managed in such a way so you're talking about fire you're talking about plantings you're talking I mean it's it's a lot of work Wendy you still have is that right if we have finished talking about go for tortoises to everyone's satisfaction yes Ginger wrap up so um at one point there was a discussion that this was going to go back to council for discussion um we will be having a workshop with Council about um what permits we require and why and you know what state mandates Etc that that's going to be Workshop that we don't know a date yet not yet so we would expect that this discussion rather than come up as a separate agenda item to councel this will um be discussed during that permit Workshop so um we'll keep you informed once we know when that's going to be um should be a fun day they have a lot to talk about so um this will just get kind of wrapped up with that thank you very much Ginger and um the reason I kept asking if we were through with gopher tortoises is because right on schedule it's time for our break so that we can go through the rest of the of the meeting so my watch says it's 225 right now uh reconvene 235 just for everybody's information the preliminary draft for the agenda for February 20th shows that the enra annual report and work plan is is in the uh action items so it's not on the consent agenda and it's uh towards the end of the agenda the good thing is that it's not a large agenda please contact your council member for clarification on that not many how you doing would you right all than yeah watchy I didn't hear any of that sorry believe alladi really Ginger looking she's sending signals I noticed you yeah codeing thumbs up we support from behind Dr Anderson was new I want the real answer oh oh kid I had a brother-in-law pass last week so sorry ask bad really the uh that's really the wrong question yeah what's count for hey Bliss see that you have your hand raised and I just want to let you know that the chat doesn't work for us so if you um have something to say you you'll probably just have to like shout it out and we'll stop for you okay thank you 25 okay thank you so much what that's what I thought um I'm calling the meeting back to order late at 2:40 and we'll take on the tree ordinance and uh Suzanne has let me know that she'll have to leave a little bit early today but I believe we still have Quorum and so does my vice chair okay so in the vein of of we're going to talk about the big issues and not the little minutia um we're going to kind of do a little bit of a refresher on the the tree codes um at a relatively high level try to get through um a presentation about you know what we have and so for a lot of you this will be review um and then we've tried to highlight what were the issues either that we heard from Council or that we heard from the citizens or that the staff had identified as problematic or something that needed to be fixed but but really at a high level so Keith is going to take us through the presentation we put in a couple of slides just um as a reminder about the purpose of the committee let me see yeah there's like three uh three yeah the first the first couple slides are just about the committee the purpose so I forgot about that do we need to go over the purpose or we good yeah okay so um the basic purpose of inra is um uh according to our home room Rule Charter is recommending recommending minimum standards to protect the environment recommending corresponding implementing ordinances so that's chapter 50 and chapter 72 um and any recommend recommendations you have we would take to council so the charter requires that we have uh environmental minimum standards and uh to protect the environment and to prevent the destruction of County resources that belong to general public and other standards deemed necessary to protect health safety and Welfare of the citizens of County so this is portion of our chapter 72 this is our for um unincorporated areas remember chapter 50 is for Incorporated chapter 72 is unincorporated so you'll hear us say that over and over and over again so we just want chapter 50 is whole County chapter 72 is unincorporated so it's just the purpose and jurisdiction of the trees you trees are good and it goes on you know beyond that and the jurisdiction of this division like I said just stated is in the unincorporated areas so this is where we start with our our minimum standards again in chapter 72 um Land Development C so some of the basic minimum standards that we have in chapter 50 um are the the the uh there you need a permit to remove trees and you have one tree per 2500 square foot of lot space after you do your permitting you know you apply for your your permits that's what you're left with um it also requires 15% of the development to be in tree preservation areas but it allows for waivers to that so uh based on site specific conditions or you know if the municipality chooses to wave that section they can per chapter 50 requirements um it also requires the replacement of trees that are removed and also has standards for historics and speciment so here's a uh slide of what we um brought to County Council about CH potential changes to the um tree ordinances of chapter 15 chapter 72 some of these you have uh voted on and and um asked for changes some of you haven't we haven't discussed yet and we'll get into you know what you've looked at and what you voted on in in future slides so this is chapter 72 the the basics of of that um uh discussing you know residential owner occupied property and residential uh not residential but residential vers commercial there's two different ways we um we permit the tree removal on those sections um deals with treat protection how trees were replaced when they're removed um and the minimum standards on each individual lots and again it also deals with specimens and his works and how they're um saved and protected so here are some of the exemptions and possible changes um the red stars are ones that you have uh voted on um we don't have the particular action up there but um for the elimination of historics and specimens I believe the vote was to eliminate that exemption on on or occupied Lots um given exemptions for requirements from the owners homeowners insurance yeah right so just um for the benefit of those who weren't here when we talked about this a year ago um So currently residential owner occupied property is is exempt from tree permitting uh once you own a h once you have a house on the lot and you live on it it is your homesteaded property you don't have any tree permit requirements and that includes historic trees so while you're building your house we will protect those historic trees once you move into the house and maintain a residence there you're exempt and so we had talked about a possible change being eliminating that historic tree exemption so that historic trees are protected regardless of whether it's own or occupied just historic trees in the county are protected and you would need a permit if you wanted to remove of it the discussion that we had was um lengthy and the and just keep in mind too any of these things that you already voted on you could bring them back up for a different vote but we just wanted to point out what the work that already got done I'm not suggesting we start again just saying um that uh just because it's been voted on doesn't mean you can't still discuss it or whatever but so the vote for that um as I recall was to eliminate the exemption for historics but to put in some language that said if there's an issue with your homeowners insurance that you could provide some documentation that you you're being required to remove it because of that and then that would be exempt Ginger um may I ask this is bliss uh may I ask what that vote was you know nine to two or whatever uh I'd have to look it up so um I'll get back to you on that thank you yeah and while you're looking it up um I vividly remember the discussion because I was a big part of it but we did not vote on agricultural Lots with Bonafide ause and if you review all those minutes from page two line 31 all the way through Page seven it does not mention Bonafide agriculture or uh in there at all in those minutes so I would respect or ask that we respectfully remove that second part well that's not saying that we have done it I said just the stuff with the with the star at the end of it we have that's just possible changes to it and that's something that we could still we did not discuss it it was not discussed or voted on yes further up in that paragraph yes yes okay yeah yeah yeah so yes so if it had a Bonafide agricultural use it's still exempt that's not necessarily we did I do remember we did discuss that please speak into to the mic right sorry Bliss cultural zoning but not have an agricultural exemption from the property appraiser right that is basically the litness test we utilize because again if someone is utilizing it for agricultural uses and it has the exemption it should from the property appraiser it should have full rights under the far Florida Right to Farm Act if however we have one acre piece of land that zone A3 and is basically used for a single family home I think that's a bit of a stretch of the intent okay I can respect that but if you got a 40 acre plot that's owned at A3 or whatever that zoning under agriculture and it's not currently being utilized as Bonafide agriculture but is still zoned for it should be exempt because you still the reason you have a exemptions or a assessments is because you are looking at the potential for future agriculture growth and and and and let's also kind of clarify we have so many different agricultural zoning classifications you have for resource which requires 25 acres you have A1 which requires 10 um all the way down to rural residential and Rural agricultural um the transitional areas are where we start getting into allowance of more of your suburban type of uses so those are the areas that we feel are secure there when you have those larger tracks I don't think you're seeing any problem with them getting the exemption from the property appraiser even as because it's either going to be silver culture grazing or those types or pasture right so I don't think it's going to affect that I can tell you what we can do we can look and see how many A1 or zoning cast Parcels we have that don't have that exemption and see if that's if we're misrepresenting what should be done there okay I would like to see that please you got it yeah I just want to make sure I understand what we what we're going to do so uh can you restate what you said we're gonna do sure as I'm talking to you I'm gonna be typing to Chris chromer making asking him to start running the report it's basically pulling all of the parcels that have A1 or F FR zoning and to determining how many of those have a exemptions awarded by the property appraisers and then those that do not those that do not we going to study to see first of all why they don't have it and how this would impact them yes sir so just A1 and F FR do you not want to look you want to look at all A's or do you want to look at A1 and A2 because a A3 and A4 are transitional and ra is Transitional and for personal use do which I mean we can look at all the things that are not transitional or personal use and then get all that stuff back so you're looking at like silver culture that's typically going to be in like RC FR well I mean if we're looking at the large tracks which are obviously going to be utilized for agriculture because I'm just going to be upfront we're concerned about folks saying that they're a farmer when in reality they're a developer and that's and so so when you start looking at anything five acres or less yes you can be a gentleman farmer and you can figure out a way to get the ACT classification so you would be exempt from our tree preservation regulations except for that one acre where your home may be but I think that your M and a valid concern is that are we overstepping for these larger tracks which are obviously going to be utilized for farming and those types of things to be able to make sure so I would like to be able to do the initial review at A1 and fr and then also then if we start seeing that there's a greater preponderance of uh overstepping then we start looking down at the some of the other agricultural zones because you can't have a legitimate a operation on five acres part of your Fern operation for example or you can have it as a holding pin or whatever for your cattle operation you know you there are some uses for smaller acreage but I hear what you're saying you want to look at those that are multiuse for residential Etc I get that okay thank you good question Suzanne so I'm asking you to repeat what you said concerning there's no permit required there was no permit required but there was a vote for historic trees for permitting is that what I understood so uh under the current ordinance historic trees are exempt on single family owner occupied Lots the vote of the committee which I just looked up was unanimous was to remove that exemption so that an a historic Tree on a single family owner occupied residential lot would no longer be exempt from permitting you would need to come and get a permit if you wanted to remove it except that we put in the exception being an emergency letter from a homeowners insurance company requiring the removal that's what was voted on if I may Suzanne just to kind of make it a little easier because I sure wrestled with it there's one standard for large developments and another standard for individual homes that are going to be built and then within that there was the contradiction that if you own the lot and you haven't built on it yet and you're going to build on it and there's a historic tree you had to get a permit but as Ginger pointed out once you've homesteaded that once you've built the home on the property you could take down that tree with no permit at all the change that the committee thus far has voted on was to require a permit after homesteading as well for an historic tree why I just talk about some of the exemptions real the current exemptions and and explain those and and how we treat that and then the possible exemptions because you weren't here when we first ran through this and maybe maybe that will help explain it to the new members does that sound good so on the left side you'll see that we have current exemptions in the Land Development code so all residential owner occupied properties all trees on those properties are exempt even historic and specimen trees so that means you don't need a tree removal permit to cut them down you don't have to have our permission to do anything even even if you just built the house you protected the historic tree through all the development once you get your Co you move into the house you you can cut it down the next day so that's that's one of the exemptions we currently have um property agricultural Zone properties so you um you have some like um ra is exempt and that's primary um for person an agricultural transitional area for personal use it's not you don't really see Bonafide agricultural uses in ra typically um A3 A4 which are also transitional agricultural you'll see a lots of you know one acre 2 acre lots in those in those agricultural zoning classifications and there um A4 is exempt A3 any the code says anything over two and a half acres is exempt and that's even if they're just building a single family residence and has nothing to do with Bonafide agricultural use um so that's the trees in certain zoning classifications um uh of course when we talk about trees it's always about condition so even if you have a historic tree if it's deteriorated to the point where death is imminent it's something that we would exempt so even even in a situation where if you guys voted that you wanted to see historic trees protected on Lots like you had previously done it's still always about condition they can come back with a certified Arborist you know they can they can do certain level um inspections they can determine that hey this tree is completely Hollow it imposes a significant Hazard and the tree needs to be removed and then we wouldn't require permanent or replacement for that tree as well so again always about condition um the plants grown for sale are typically like nurseries like if you had uh yeah uh nurseries things tree oak trees grown in rows and you were going to excavate those trees out wrap them in burlap you should like uh what we call B&B nurseries bald and burlap nurseries if they you know uh let those go and then those trees get large enough you know we would consider those as part of trees being planted for sale and would be exempt from permitting and replacement requirements and then we have the N uh nuisance species that don't require any permit for removal like you see up there Brazilian um pepper and camper and and Chinese Tallow and all of those types of of plants and then on the right side we have potential changes and the ones with the star like I said were things that that you had voted on um um or this board had voted on so so um the possible changes were identified either by discussions with Council things that we'd heard in the public or things that we've seen over the years that work or don't work real well um so that's this list of possible changes that doesn't mean that's the entirety of possible changes but it was sort of the universe of like let's narrow it down um and and um so we can go through that some some things the committee took action on some things they they didn't take action on before so um those are you know all of that is on the table um yeah so I guess yeah um and yeah all right so there there's um something on here that that should be highlighted so the increase in the rebuttable presumption time frame number two the board did vote on that and you voted to increase it from three years to five years okay and can you tell me the vote on that nine to two you know whatever um it was uh motion carried six to five with momberg lights gal Fitz Simmons and HBL opposed okay I do believe I was absent for that vote and I'd like to go on the record of saying that uh had I been there I would have voted no and so therefore this motion would have died and um therefore it is not you know a mandated uh recommendation for this committee Bliss yes noted intent wise um it's not how the voting record works I think for the committee um but we had a long discussion at that meeting about the vote of a commission being the board's voice but that we as individuals maintained the right to reach out to County council members directly to say you're getting recommendations from inra we just wanted to provide there was a robust discussion on this item and if we have thoughts that are different from that recommendation that the board approved um which we could only modify I think by motion for Recons consideration but that's too late Chris can answer that um we can say here are our concerns there and it's ultimately up to council I remember we went back and forth on that and generally the way it works is when someone's on the prevailing side of a motion they're the ones who are entitled to bring it back for a vote okay thank you for the explanation so the rebuttable presumption is in the general exemptions and it's basically that if you have an ultural piece of land and you clear it and you come in for um a rezoning a special exception or anything in that criteria it's presumed that if you cleared it within three years of that application that you did it in with the intent to develop the property and then all the tenants of the tree removal uh and replacement requirements of the Land Development code apply does that make sense okay and I have an issue with that um I mean that is presuming that somebody was going to sell the property you know what if um I don't know whatever they're growing is uh had a downturn and you know it's not selling and they changed their AG use from um trees to grow in hay for their cattle yeah that's acceptable it's when you go um it's not changing the agricultural use it's changing the land use or or a special exception or rezoning or coming in for a final sight plan it's about something that's non-agriculture um you could certainly go from you know silver culture to Hay to you peanuts to row any roow crops to Cabbage you could you could do any of that but if you clear an agricultural property and then come in and say I I want to build a subdivision here and change land use then the rebuttable presumption applies there are ways that you can rebut the presumption in the code and if you feel AG grieved by the county Foresters decision you can always appeal my decision to the DRC and then they can ultimately appeal the drc's decision to County Council so it's not an end all be all there are paths um you know to rebut that presumption yeah and I I just see this as a burden on the farmer you know because they've already been through vucha County Property Appraisers um qualification to get the ad classification for Bonafide use to begin with um I think it ought to really be up until the day that the property changes zoning so as long as it has a you know approved Bonafide a operation under Florida best practices management um um you know I feel like this is double jeopardy I mean they they operate um legitimately I'll say when we've seen this happen um it it's typically not your youra your actual farmer right like so if you've been farming this property for years and you know what whatever your operation hay cows whatever um it doesn't prevent them you know was it John that was you that said you know the last the farmers's last crop is houses right it doesn't prevent somebody from converting agricultural land to something else what it's intended to prevent is people saying hey I know and because it takes multiple years to get through a site plan process I know I'm going to grow houses here so I'm going to cut down all the trees now I'm going to wait a few years and then I'm going to put build my houses and I'll be I won't have to do any of the tree stuff because the trees are gone when I come in for my site plan and you tell me I need a tree survey well that's easy because I have no trees so it doesn't keep people from converting it just keeps people from cutting down all the trees in anticipation of a development and so the discussion was is three years sufficient and and a lot of the discussion back then um last year was I mean it takes more than 3 years to get through a development process so maybe three years isn't sufficient the vote of the committee was to increase that rebuttable presumption to five years and there is definitely an out so if you're the property owner and we say oh we think you cut down all those trees in anticipation of development there are ways that you can prove to us that that did not happen um and then of course there's the appeal process so that's that is where we ended up last time was extending that to to the five years well I remember some of this conversation I was gone for some of these votes um I still think that uh take Sila culture um I think you're penalizing the silver culture you know farmer I think you are devaluing that property and when it is a Bonafide agricultural use I still think it's a burden and it should be removed B so Bliss um right now silver culture if you have planted tree farm it you don't have to um count those trees for development do you anyways you do yeah okay while it's a silver culture operation it's exempt it's just if if you're you know warehouser and you're like okay well I'm going to build a neighborhood I'm G to cut all these now and then you come in with your site plan or your subdivision rezoning or whatever Jessica I just want to clarify because I know we talked about this a lot but we're revisiting um I say we're back this is why we're all still on trees there are you know take Consolidated smoka they don't exist anymore so we can talk about them well they do but in a different form they had a lot of Timber crop that they obviously planted to have ready for development at some point so they would come in they' take that all down and Timber it which is a bonafied agricultural use and then develop their site and so in that instance they wouldn't have they were't in the county anyways but they would have the record of they have their best practices they have the receipts from the sale and the takedowns that would be exempt they would just have to if somebody said we think you did this in preparation for development they would say we didn't here's the proof of the Bonafide agricultural use and they'd move on correct management yeah yeah I mean yes you you can reut the presumption there is a list that you can do that and if I disagree with with your list you can always appeal my decision and then if the DRC reviews it and they disagree with you and they you know then you can appeal that to council you can take it all the way up and then ultimately that decision can be made by Council John and this is just a what if I and I agree with if your normal agriculture practices are what they are however let's just say a silver culture operation did clear their land and even after that Harvest that that producer fell on hard times and he was wound up forced to sell his land now that it's been cleared would that potential buyer potential developer even buyer fall under that Clause as well even if that farmer decided to sell yeah that would all be part of that rebuttable presumption that you right but I'm just I'm just saying so I'm hard times I'm broke uh the Harvest didn't get me out of the hawk that I was in I got to sell the land a developer comes along wants to buy and develop it does he fall under that three or five year presumption yes technically but here's here's what we would take into consideration you have a Timber management plan right that those trees were harvested because it was the time to harvest those trees right based on your plan you grew them for whatever 30 years whatever Now's the Time to harvest I harvest and replant if that is consistent with the timber management plan and then there's some something that comes later that's a different story than you know I I have this property and I'm going to clear it and I I'll come see you for my development here in a couple years right so so there is room for common sense in the rebuttable presumption we we we've only used it a handful of times and in every case when we've brought it up it was like there's nice wooded property that now isn't wooded right and now I'm going to come in for my development it's not the case where it's a real farmer that's you know moved on thank you well I see it as inequitable and I see it as penalizing this farmer and um I just I just do not think that uh as long as it uh is a Bonafide classified you know by the valuch County Property Appraisers um agricultural use uh I don't think there should be this should be even included in the rebuttable um presumption and I definitely don't think the rebuttable U presumption time should be increased thank you Bliss I have a question for Chris uh I think you clarified a few minutes ago that to change this Vote or to bring it up again it has to be the prevailing opinion cor so this is a closed Topic at this time yes correct all right um in the interest of proceeding with these deliberations i' feel better about closing out this topic if we may thank you all right so we've covered the top two topics on the POS uh possible changes um you know what we would uh be discussing in the future or or having you take a look at is removing some of the um zoning classifications in our exemption list and adding conservation which is the C so again in our general exemptions ra is exempt and ra is um it it's basically transitional Agriculture and it's for personal use it's not for uh commercial agricultural use uh as well as mh4 that's that's personal agricultural use it states in the zoning classification that you can raise animals for your person personal use not for sale so we didn't feel like that belonged in the exemption categories for um for the zoning um and again in the general exemptions uh there is language for um uh exemption for A3 over 2 and A2 acres and because of that over language it requires you to have 2.51 not 2.5 so we would want to take out that over and just for A3 and just make it across the board for all the zoning categories 2 and 1/2 acres or larger or two 2 and a half acres or larger so it's not 2.51 does that make sense so you know much smaller Lots you're talking about one acre you know two acre lots they would no longer be exempt um and the A3 category anything 2.5 and over would be exempt right of the way the word the language is written most lots a lot of times when people do a subdivision they subdivide into lots that are 2.5 and so right now the way the language is written the intent was probably that they be exempt but they're not they have to be greater than 2.5 so that it's really just a uh fixing unintended consequence of the way something was written um and then you did vote on there was a lengthy discussion about road projects and Land Management produ projects and you guys did vote to add this exemption however adding this exemption um would not comply with the chapter 50 requirements so we couldn't add this exemption until we got to change the chapter 50 requirements so we we discussed that I just wanted to you know make you aware of that again you just very briefly explain why it's a little more difficult to change chapter 50 than chapter 72 for the benefit of our two new numbers right so chapter 50 you know that's something that's going any changes chapter 50 would have to go out for comment to the cities and it's unlikely that any of the Cities would want to self-impose additional restrictions that's true for most new restrictions but this is an exemption so I would think it would be pretty easy for the cities to go along with the exemption could me it's just a a the process itself is greater because it requires review by the cities whereas changes to chapter 72 are just County ordinances and not that there's not a lot of process to change a County ordinance but not the same level of Outreach to the cities so to not move forward with the this because we haven't updated chapter 50 means that we continue to have restrictions on how we're treating trees in airports roadways Etc are you all doing a work around right now for it I mean I thought this was one of those where we were just trying to update the language to reflect what you actually do uh yes so um for one I don't want you to think we're suggesting that we don't make changes to just pointing out that there's a a higher level of coordination um on Airport protection we have to follow FAA rules so while the ordinance doesn't specifically um exempt uh trees on airports because the federal government requires certain trees to be removed we haven't um required permits for that right so um we uh road projects sort of the same I mean do there not like do comes to us for a perment to to remove trees but it's not specifically stated that it's an exemption so it's a little bit of a a weird we're in a weird place there because we see trees going down that technically need a permit but we know they're not going to get a permit so um Land Management activities uh kind of the same thing right well they're doing good things on County Conservation lands so we wanted to just make it more clear um but if you add C to the exemption list that it really takes away the the uh the Land Development stuff because all those are result under conservation right we were talking about add airports but if you add if you do the C1 then under the ad airports the Land Management activities would automatically be right because all of our Land Management Properties are zoned conservation so if you add in uh the conservation land as exempt then it handles the the bullet five also yeah I I do remember that this was a long long discussion and it seems like we were trying to approach this and by one of our more balanced efforts and um to Bill's point about this not necessarily being hard for the municipal alties to say yes to since it's and I think there was some discussion too about coming in line with not just airport regulations was there not something too about roads anyway that was yeah there was a lot of discussion about roads and that's the last bullet what I mean is this is either a moot point or it's not and if it's moot let's not spend more time on it but if it's actionable let's do that's kind of I wouldn't imagine that you would open up chapter 50 for one change like there will be lots of things that you will look at in chapter 50 and that are going to draw eyes versus this so yeah I mean if you opened up chapter 50 for this one thing it probably would go but there would be several things you would look at and you'd want to change so you not trying to look at it in a silo I'm trying to look at it as you know so shall we keep a record of possible chapter 50 actions until we okay great thank you yeah we are that works I just wanted to note it so everybody knew what we were discussing Suzanne and then Wendy do you still still have another okay Suzanne this is only for unincorporated valua correct well um so the words on this slide are about chapter 72 which is unincorporated Evolution but what we've tried to do is highlight anything that so you can't add exemptions in your implementing ordinance um because that would be inconsistent with the minimum standard if that exemption does not exist in the minimum standard you can't add it in your implementing ordinance right so for instance a city can't say and we're going to exempt everything because it's inconsistent with chapter 50 so we're just trying to point out that as we add exemptions or if you vote to add exemptions that requires a change in 50 as well they have to be consistent yeah so each municipality has their own tree ordinance most yes so I'm a little shocked by the current residential owner occupied property Homestead including for historic trees under exemptions that's in our code that's our code says that you're exempt some of the cities have a different um standard for that the minimum standard says that's exempt so the C so we can all say that's exempt but you can have something that's more strict and some cities do the county code is not more strict in that regard the county code is they're exempt so the city of Beach from what I'm seeing has a had I haven't looked at it like recently if they've redone it but they had a more strict than this yeah in some ways it is but uh they require 10% replacement we require 15% replacement so some yeah as far as chapter 17 goes so some things are more strict some things are less they do require permits so just to just to recap chapter 50 that all the municipalities sign on to to if they're going to do their own enforcement then they can they the chapter 50 is the floor they can go higher if they're going to enforce it and there's only one municipality is that oakill did you say or Edgewater that asks County to be the enforcement arm all the municipalities in towns have their own tree okay okay and refresh my memory I'm sorry as to how many municipalities there are there 16 so 16 different ordinances yes um the the new rightaway alignments um section there was there was a motion but it got withdrawn um you did move unanimously to approve adding the um Land Management activities as an exemption but the other parts uh the airport protection road projects there were there weren't votes on that um that you did vote [Music] um you voted on state and federal land exemptions but the vote the motion failed so um oh wait here there was a strike to eliminate that um motion passed 10 to one so the um adding an exemption for federal land failed so it would just stay the way that it is now in the code yeah I think so too yeah right the one more thing on this page the remove unclear language for planned I forget what RS are right thank you oh we just said that okay yeah so basically right now the um the the unclear language in the plan right aways is it the code states that in planned public and private rights away um historic in specimen trees are the only trees that require replacement so you have all the other trees in planned public and private rights away that don't have any protection or don't require any replacement in in opened or already planned rideways because we have some rideways that are unopened but they they are technically planned um the only trees that require any replacement or approval for removal or historic trees so you could have unopen rideways that've been unopen for decades and decades that have you know tons of trees in them um and they do not require any permit or protection well I have a question so what the the situation there is like Orange City area or um Daytona Park States or something where the rideways haven't been opened to get to the lots that are already sold and somebody needs to build a house and therefore somebody forces them to open that rideway right to get to the house is that happen well and therefore they need to pay for the tree removal and replacement of the trees in that rideway so they can get to that house is that what we're talking about don't have now you could see it that way yes you could you could make that determination but um I think for us the biggest thing is is the planned public and private rights away so you're coming in for a new development you're clearing all this rideway and the only trees you have to protect or rep or replant or repay into the fund are the specimen historic trees like with the Pud or something so you're coming in new development yeah so so you know like when uh when a site so two issues the currently um existing public or private rights away are exempt it doesn't say existing open public rights of way right so there was a question about should it say open rights of way so that's one issue existing the second one is a planned right away so that would be um a Greenfield lot and someone's coming in to put in a subdivision and they're creating public RightWay as part of that subdivision right now except for specimen and historic trees all the trees in that what will be a new public rideway are exempt so you're building your subdivision you're putting in a whole new spine street whatever if it's open it's going to be a public right away there's no tree replacement required for those so in that subdivision lots of trees are coming out they're not being replaced so that was really the question is should we remove the exemption for Planned public right away to require it to conform with the tree removal and replace requir so respectfully that's not exactly what's written there if we go back to it because it's saying remove unclear language but we're also talking about adding or taking away an exemption adding a stricter right so one thing is the clarity on the already open rights of way that you mentioned and then the the the other question which is a a bigger determination is right now I'm going to put in a road and I can take out every single tree except specimen or historic and I don't have to put any of them back do we want those trees to have to be put back in some measure right so two two things on that item actually Jessica a historic statement I guess in a question um I thought that we landed somewhere pretty clear we might not have voted but I thought we landed on an exemption of public right away as a group because we had tad come in we talked to engineering we and so that was that was more about the projects portion because this is this was separate the exemption for for public projects in public RightWay is the would fall in the at airport section right so then I'm wondering he did like that topic we talked about a long time so I'm wondering what's the difference then if there is a public road project that we are exempting what do we need to say about language for planned I think in my mind the planned RightWay should deal with private RightWay and not public because we're exempting public road projects so uh I get I get you but most of the time when someone's building a new subdivision it's a public right of way they're they're creating new public rideway out of nothing um most almost all very few only gated communities are creating streets that aren't open to the public and so um so there was a distinction there was road projects that require the removal of trees so like an existing Road and they have to remove trees for something a widening a realignment something like that excuse me versus a new subdivision goes in and I'm creating new rideway should should the developer be responsible for replacing those trees okay so then I guess is there a way that we can because I don't want there to be a question on whether the county extending an arterial or thoroughfare I think those are plan to be exempt in our minds the discussion on subdivision roads that are then dedicated to the public I understand which brings me to my next question which is when you do true preservation and it's been a while since we did this so I apologize it's a set asde right so you have a percentage of trees that you save and so is it that when the plans come in when they calculate their existing condition they just exclude those areas different okay so remember in the in the tree ordinance there are sort of the the few main tenants one is you have to preserve 15% of the site that's the whole site so you're not taking out any the roads or whatever the whole site then then there's what has to be replaced and that is where the planned rights of way there's no replacement required except for specimen and historics so you're still getting the whole 15% it's the replacement calculation that would change if we changed that exemption the exemption that says you don't have to replace trees for Planned rights away so then on can you take us through and maybe not today if it's not easy and typical you get your tree survey it's 100 acres and you have thousands and thousands of trees how do you calculate the preservation the replacement the replacement okay let me yeah so you can and this this isn't usually what happens but you can have an actual tree survey of the whole thing um where every single tree is located and then there's a table right you you you go through as the developer and you identify which trees have to come out based on your plan and you provide us a list of all of the trees that are coming out you do the math um if the site is relatively homogeneous in terms of the tree cover you can do what we call a statistical tree survey where you can pick some um some plots that are representative do a tree survey within those and then you expand that to the whole site you still have to identify every specimen tree and every historic Tree by location right so if you're doing a statistical analys which is what I see the most and that's what I was thinking of if you're doing that then when you calculate your replacement do you do that square like 100 by 100 you do the math over everything and then you subtract out your RightWay area yes okay I see I see and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to ask this question I think we discussed it and it's tangential to the right of way discussion but relevant so a portion of each development must be set aside for protection of trees that's one requirement and how many trees we just talked about that but we also require that each individual lot have a minimum number of trees correct so the tree protection area is one thing and one calculation and the lot is another and another calculation there's two ways you can develop a subdivision you can you can clear the whole subdivision and go under one tree removal permit or you can clear the infrastructure and the roadways and in basically your retention areas and you can leave all the Lots wooded and then you can come in individually with individual tree permits and clear the lots and provide replacement on the individual Lots you keep the trees on the lot that you want to keep um that's not as popular today typically they want to you know wipe everything fill everything bring in the roads so so where I'm taking us somewhere else but I I do want to bring it up again to me there's sort of an inherent tension between having a tree preservation area and the lot requirement and where I'm going with that I know that not everybody believes that clustering density is a way to go but we've talked about it a lot uh within the context of Li for instance so that you have more of the houses in an area and are able to leave more of the wild area wild and I believe we started to discuss but didn't really conclude or resolve the individual lot tree requirement as something that could be an impediment toward more tightly clustered homes I'm just kind of speaking from my my memory on that the smaller the lot the fewer the trees so if you end up with a really small lot you might have to you know put one or two trees on the lot one compact Simpsons stopper okay well placement calculations that apply to to if you if you clear it all as part of the subdivision the developer has to provide those removal and replacement calculations even on the Lots if they leave the Lots wooded and they come in individually to get a tree permit only the trees that are in those zoning setbacks remember are protected the the where you're going to build your house we assume you're going to have to remove those trees and we don't require removal and replacement except for historic trees right so keep that in mind thank you that's the critical point But at the very least regardless of how you handle removal and replacement whether you do it with the whole subdivision or you do it lot by lot at the end of the day every lot has to have one tree per 25 200 feet of lot area so if you have a small lot then you just like you said you can have a compact one one tree depending on the size of lot so at regardless of how you calculate all the removal and replacement and in the end you have to have that minimum number of trees if you save trees that means you don't have to plant any of course but if for whatever reason they have to be cleared and graded um when you go back to plant you got to get at least to that one per 2500 okay thank you so back to the original right of way uh bill go ahead I'll I'll come back okay sorry that was very clear thank you um but I'm going to go back to so I think are there actually three things the tree preservation area 15% the um the lot requirement of how many 20 every tree per 2500 ft and then replacement tree CS yes so that what we're talking about is the replacement tree C so you'll always still have your 15 on new subdivisions you'll still have your 15% tree you'll still have your minimum lot requirement but we're talking about the replacement trees and that's in the roads and that's only protected because specimen and historics and protected are six Ines to his to specimens that's the thing we're missing here right yes okay what was your idea with the deck go through all of this and circle back for decision points is that what we'd like to do rather than because this seems to be a decision point and we have 20 minutes ready to make a vote on something I say make the vote and if you want to just say hey this is one we want to talk more about let's put it there and we talk more about it at a future please speak into the mic oh sorry Bliss I was saying we could do it either way if if you're at a point in in any of this discussion where you want to make a vote because you're ready you got it it's in your brain and you want to make a vote do it if it's just something you want to tell us hey this is one we want to talk about again tell us that we'll bring that back with more information or whatever for more discussion that that's my recommendation Miss G thank you so there are we've clarified that we did vote already on the rebuttal presumption which means that there are three that we have not voted on so the first one is remove mobile home 4 and ra exemptions and add conservation for from the exemptions and to add conservation to the exemptions I I will make a motion to adopt that recommendation any discussion of removing mh4 and ra exemptions from zoning the zoning classifications those zoning classifications and adding C bill I don't understand what that means thank you is anyone speaking I can't hear you oh I'm sorry I did I'm I was speaking I apologize okay right now in the code it says in the agricultural use exemption section if the property is classified A1 a A2 A3 over 2 and a half acres A4 RC mh3 mh4 over two and a half acres and a few others that um and or they're classified as agricultural land by the property appraiser they're exempt The Proposal here is to take a couple of those out is so mh4 right now it says if your mh4 over 2 and a half acres you're exempt uh the proposal is to say if you're mh4 you're not exempt regardless of size and um ra which is the both of those are those sort of transition where the zoning categories talk about those uses are not commercial EG those are you can have a stuff but for personal use however if you do have commercial a on those lots and you have the exemption you're still exempt and ra is what again sorry and you're going to add conservation to the exemption yes and we're removing their their exemption for for trees yes they would need a tree removal permit unless they have an agricultural exemption and is that only historics or all trees that that would be all trees they would be just like any zoning classification that's not in the list you calculate you do a tree survey you calculate do replacement yeah I we have seen agricultural exemptions on other zonings that are not listed on here and they're they're still exempt as well you're clear on the C okay all right there was a motion to adopt the recommendation that reads as remove mh4 and ra exemption zoning classifications or remove the exemptions from the zoning classifications and add C and I was that seconded I believe that's what I thought Jack seconded it do we have any further discussion all those in favor I any opposed no Bliss thank you one opposed and one two three four five six seven eight in favor thank you carries keep going Jessica I okay next one um to clarify the language that in R3 I think is what we're were talking about R4 wherever it is it is for lot two and a half or larger not over two and a half whatever language you find appropriate for that well that's for all ad classifications so that's what we're saying is we're going to basically remove the parentheses that says you know over two and a half but take that out and then it would just be for all zoning classific a zoning classifications under the list you've got to be 2 2.5 and over right and you're exempt that are in that in in those categories or you have your agricultural exemption and then you're still exempt so then the larger than 2.5 right now that's what it says now that's a problem because a lot of them are actually just 2.5 and then they they're technically not EXA yeah so right now it's 2.51 if you take out the over that that section of it it goes to 2.5 so a ton of your A3 Lots right now are at dead on 2.5 right so this adds a bunch of A3 lots that aren't exempt it adds exempt Lots but it also would go across all the zoning classifications that are listed they would have to be 2.5 or larger right or have or have bon Bonafide act yes instead of 2.51 right bill yeah so you would have an let's say you had an A1 lot that was one acre right now you're exempt if you approve it this way you wouldn't be exempt unless you had a Bonafide agricultural use with one UR I was going to say it's just expanding the exemption to go down to 2 and a half or above but it's also adding smaller lots and you have to be two and a half yes so it would read right now it reads said property is classified as all these things and some of the classifications have the little parentheses over 2 and a half it would read then the said property is 2.5 acres or greater and is one of the zoning categories or has a Bonafide a use are there any of the zoning classifications whose minimum lot size is under two and a half mh4 we took it out right so so no okay any further discussion of the Motions I don't think we made a I thought I thought you did oh oh I thought Jessica hold on just to be clear so A3 can be 1 acre so they could be lower than two and a half but if you had a a exemption then it doesn't matter what size and then I'm not sure about the oin categories because OTR o and OCR those are specific to the oin local plan I not sure what their minimum lot sizes are off top of my head should we perhaps bring this back so it's just completely consistent before we voted on it that's that's completely up to you guys uh but I would just say say that like the A3 and the mh4 they're are if they're already under 2 and a half acres now they they they're not exempt already so that really doesn't change anything for the mh4 or 2 point you know so if you've got an A2 lot that's one acre is it should it be exempt is it is it truly agriculture well if it is truly agricultural it'll have an exemption and then it will be exempt so you know I don't get you know too bogged down in it I mean you're going to add a bunch of A3 Lots you're going to take away some 1 acre you know maybe A2 or something that's non-conforming already right um you know that's is completely up to the board if it hasn't been done yet I'll make a motion to proceed with these changes second I don't think we got to the motion second okay so it's been moved to add a 2.5 acre egg exemption requirement it's been moved and seconded any further discussion all those in favor I hello okay good all those opposed motion BL Bliss did you vote Bliss no I was stalling while I thought about it um no okay okay thank you so Bliss is opposed yes okay that was what I understood next Jessica okay the last one is probably something that at least part of it will have to come back um my suggestion is to split out right way being constructed as part of a development and public right of way projects somehow so so we could try to figure out how to say that like so if if the intent would be if you're creating a new road be as part of your new development that wouldn't be exempt but you know County Roads whatever could be so we can maybe figure out how to say that yeah you could just make the motion to tell us to do that and this is going to come back to you guys once the once the ordinance is completed and then you can see all the language before it goes so I don't want to get back into the Trap of line by line just tell us what you want and if it that's what's approved that's that's what we'll put in there and and then we'll bring it back but or John just said which was it's private Construction of something that will become a a public right away it's not exempt I think we I say well because we have a project that's constructing dun Avenue and so a private developer is constructing a county thoroughfare and so we think we'd have to say that's not on the county thoroughfare Road system or something like that right private yeah Bill yes let's split it out bring it back to us and then we can look at the strike out and delete right and see how it reads okay okay and I guess do we need to move that Jessica so moved any second all any further discussion all those in favor I any opposed for the record John hoblock was looking at the ceiling for Bliss exactly thank you I'm not opposed thank you Bliss we miss you I miss being there it's much better in person yes it is I I think we did com I think we should bog down more yeah I move I move that we bog down on trees that's in the Wetland discussion where we're going to bog I can't wait right now we're just getting treed yeah so we kind of just covered a lot of this um we were talking about the difference between one and two family residential and and what applies um in the development like you said um historic trees apply throughout the lot um tree removal and replacement calculations apply except for in the buildable area of the lot um you they're the minimum requirements which we've discussed um specimen trees don't requ don't aren't required uh as part of your residential you know tree permit application um in the tree preservation areas don't aren't required on individual lots and the reason we have this here just um for reference is that right now um the code is very unclear if you're uh someone coming in to try to get a treat permit you don't know which bits apply to you not all the same bits apply to every kind of development so we we say this here because we have a plan to rearrange things in a way that will'll say if you are a single family lot existing single family lot here's what you need to pay attention to and if you're something else here are the things you need to pay attention to so we're not necessarily proposing a change here but just to say that there are different things that apply to a different people and it's really unclear right now if you're reading the code so and just it it triggered something that I've seen in in my neighborhood House was built on a lot was there for 50 years and the house was raised because there was a plan to build a new house on it tree survey was done because I saw them I actually saw the tree surveyors is that homesteaded property it's a a third category that's a good question new owner new owner not Homestead okay it says owner occupied so you have to live there if you knock down the house maybe if you've got like a um RV and you're still living there then that would still fit under that category I mean we try to look at everything with some common sense and see where where you fit into those exemptions uh but like Jinger says we provided with you uh provided to to you I think this time and previously a reorg where we're moving things um you know moving all those permit applications if you're subdivision if you're you know so it's clear you know exactly what's expected at your application of every step so you know we can make this smooth so what's actionable on this s slide is you know we're clarifying what does apply we've already decided that historic trees are added to the applies side of this and so the two questions that remain are to add speciment Tre requirements or no just it's just a clarification this is just informational yeah when you're doing theor under the single family are we going to have language that either notes there may be State exemptions or copies in that state exemption in terms of the occup occupied single family primary residence with the arborus report or do we just I don't know if we have an education note well I mean if you're in that process you wouldn't you would already not be exempt so like if you're okay so um if you're owner occupied right you live in your house you're still exempt except for historics right we just changed the historic thing but you're still exempt for everything else so um the that state law doesn't doesn't matter because we already call you exempt so the only difference would be um if it's a now once we make the change if it's a historic Tree on your lot and you want to take it down um you still have to come to us first so we have chosen so far to not change any codes in response to that state law like it it still applies but we we didn't think it may it required us to change our ordinance language okay and I think we're still sticking with that yeah because if state law change you don't want to have it in there if it doesn't yeah okay right like I said we still have exemptions in there for condition so if they submit that to us we look at it and like yeah you know you don't you don't need a permit it's we still have those conditions in there we're not pling on taking out any of the exemptions about the conditions of the trees whether they're dead or deteriorated or death to dead to the point where death is imminent or POS sign ific an Hazard we're going to leave all that in so yeah this is just informational I think the next few slides are as well how you protect trees um you know during development currently it's one foot for every inch diamer of the tree go to the next one you know it just kind of shows how how we currently protect trees um and you know how we utilize some boring Directional Boring methods to to not impact trees and to not require replacement for trees and a typical tree detail that goes on plans and the top portion of the picture is typically how people think about trees that you that's where the roots are and that's it but most of the time uh the root system far exceeds the drip line um two to three times the size of the crown and the bottom portion that says 9 95% of the roots in top three feet probably 80 to 90% of the roots are in the top 8 inches so when people say oh just want to do a little root raking well that little root raking took out 80 90% of the roots P but you know when you root PR a tree to transplant you you do the drip line um and and that tree survives well not always but a good a good portion of time if you know yeah if you know what you're doing and you do it properly yeah right so is there an exception to that 95% root Zone Yeah so basically industry standards are you can you can impact up to 20 to 30% of the drip Zone which is already significantly you know significant smaller than what the the true root zone is information only slide okay so yeah so you you can do root pring pruning techniques you can mitigate some of you know like I said you can do Directional Boring there are things I mean we follow Anie standards you for pruning and and Industry um standards yeah so I'm gonna in should do this yeah okay we have three minutes that's why so potential changes for the tree protection um languages for clarity and remove the the tree well language like um tree Wells are are a huge problem um you know they they typically don't improve you know survivability of trees um it's it's kind of outdated industry standards have gotten away from from tree Wells and it's just really not necessary in the code so this whole section of the code about U protection during development the only changes are sort of language changes for clarity right um like what how we Define the drip line one foot per inch of tree diameter right we do that now but it's not defined in the code um and then we have language right now that says tree Wells shall be constructed around trees to be preserved when fil material we will be deposited within the drip line nobody does that and it doesn't work so we're just proposing to get rid of the tree well language it's really the only anything substantive in that whole section the rest of it is just really like being being more clear so this is a decision Point yes I moved that we remove prove the tree well language and do you also want to move that we make language changes for clarity yes okay any discussion bill so by removing the tree well language what I think I just heard was that you have to put in a tree well when you're inside the drip line is that right and filling inside the drip line put in a tree well I agree tree Wells are lousy they do not work but so by removing that language what that's going to make happen is if you get inside that tree line tree drip line you're going to have to assume that tree is just impacted and you're going to have to pay for its replacement is that no not necessarily there there are things you can do like you said if you're putting trenching utility lines in there you can directional bore you can you can do root Cuts you can do um drenches to the root system you can do Iration to the root system you can do there are ways to mitigate impacts to the root system well this is what what this would require basically which we already do is if you're going to be in that area you may have to put in put together a root Zone protection plan right and then you know provide that and if those trees do die in the the course of the development then you're going to be on the hook for them any additional discussion or questions oh blz oh so we don't know who it is it's aliens um however we have a motion and we have a second all those in favor I all opposed Bliss are you voting Bliss hello is she abstaining not abstaining sorry I I thought I was talking to you um I'm I'm I approve I'm a yes unanimous thank you so that means we will start um with Tre removal and replacement next time and definitely um good place to start and we'll be all fresh and that's a big topic Mr HBL the slide that you all put up there for section one under exemptions had more information on it than what was sent to our PDF for um there's more detail on that than what we got okay uh is it because mine's not um where' we go here exemptions I stopped there with trees go to the there it is you on slide nine I'm on slide nine certain zoning classifications and then I got remove mh4 and ra you sure you're seeing it all yeah I think you're Nots sorry yeah I think you had bottom yeah I think he did I did that okay hold on that's yeah thank you it's zoomed in yeah you need to just resend me you need a you need a new computer you know clearly it's not working I think it's you but I'm not sure why yeah you're zoomed in you could check the it should be posted on the web page as well so if you go on to the enra web page hopefully it's there okay hopefully I everybody should have gotten the same thing but weird things happen so who knows just my Lu we were ending on a high note it is now y'all hiding stuff from me is what you're doing okay thanks you don't need a motion for that I think everybody did a great job today we got a lot done we're redeeming ourselves from our initial uh run with tree preservation and schools out thank you I think it's Donna's appearance here clearly clearly she changed the whole complexion she one just took by