##VIDEO ID:zbbXJ9iMnQM## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e have a core and I'd like to get a motion for approval of the minutes of last meeting next week we have any minutes we do not apparently all right so moving on thank God for no quaza go by likeon I know I I don't point at that I understand Hooked on Phonics there it is all right so um we're moving on to new business listen you only got me for a couple more months and then I'm out uh n ph-1 comprehensive plan Rick did you really want to move this to the end no I'm disrespecting our time they prob wouldn't speak to us again well I don't well they have to um all right comp comprehensive plan Amendment 24-23 Three Lakes Golf Club and requested by Ledo and Associates on behalf of Three Lakes Golf Club LLC for a text Amendment to the Martin County growth management plan amending the text of the rural lifestyle future plan use designation to change the number of bedrooms per minute with the golf Cottage so I will turn it over to staff which appears to be plot oh you can't hear me thank you sorry and good evening good evening this is a very short evening piece of text that's being proposed for change uh as you may know the rural lifestyle future luse designation was created um in September 13 2022 it was amended in 2024 it is applicable to either properties with a minimum th Acres or minimum 3,000 Acres um currently uh the rural lifestyle feature land use designation allows a maximum of 54 golf cottages and six bedrooms per cottage for a maximum of 324 bedrooms the proposed text change that the applicant has made uh I'm scrolling through the text that's not changing so that I can get to the part that is proposed for change all of this that I'm scrolling through is not proposed for change uh the applicant's proposed change would change the number of bedrooms from 2 to 12 permitted per golf Cottage but it would not change the number of uh or the maximum number of cottages and it would not change the maximum number of bedrooms associated with a uh a project and so we see it as having no um no effective change in the impacts on the uh public facilities and on the on the community and we see it as having no effective change on the surrounding properties because these would all be located within properties that are at least a th000 acres in size so with that uh I'll finish this uh presentation and say staff recommends approval of this proposed text change uh gentlemen you have any questions I do gentlemen our ostds is still permitted on Rural Amendment developments it is an option but uh the applicants all have the the ability to do um extend water receive Water and Sewer Service also is it staff's um belief that that a 12-bedroom uh un uh development could handle or could be treated with an ostds currently you have some pretty large houses out there in Palm City farms and such which are on septic systems uh although I agree staff would very much prefer that all of these uh be on sewer the I mean this this the Three Lakes was was originally proposed and approved not on sewer but on septic tank it's always had the option of having Water and Sewer this let plan use designation as proposed from the beginning has always had the ability to get water and sewer that was one of the main things that was included in the proposed uh initial Amendment well Three Lakes was originally approved not as a rural land use Amendment Three Lakes uh the original site plans were approved under the agricultural future land use designation yes that's correct all right I appreciate it any other questions um Baba know you just came in the question I had was that um the number of bedrooms was not increased it's still going to be 324 bedrooms correct so one Cottage could have 12 the other could have two that's correct okay so I'm just trying to understand because it was a little ambiguous in uh the language here understanding that any other questions Rick Tim okay for the record uh my name is Morris KD here on behalf of the well I didn't ask you to come up oh I'm sorry I'm sorry you're ready Morris KD yeah come on up to the podum I'm just kidding give me hard time um yeah just yeah just to to just respond to you uh Jim uh the original project was approved on uh well and septic but that severely limits what you can do on the property even so there I don't in my opinion you couldn't build this project on well and septic and I think if you're adjacent to the urban service District you almost have to connect and and we are connected so we we have extended the water and sewer to the project at at at Three Lakes and this this request came up again we're not changing the number of golf Cottages allowed or the number of the maximum number of bedrooms that are allowed but you know they have been successful in their membership drive and what they're learning from the members is that there's some members that want to have a a quaint two-bedroom Cottage um and and there's some uh corporate members that want to host a corporate retreat where they get up to 12 bedrooms so so that range is 2 to 12 bedrooms and and the the fact is it could result in less buildings if you get to that the maximum number of bedrooms you know if if we're building but right now we just don't want to be stuck with Building 54 six bedroom units because it doesn't respond to the the the needs of the membership and and our request doesn't increase the intensity of use or otherwise uh you know change the original intent of of having golf Cottages in this particular underr lifestyle okay gentlemen any questions for our applicant yes so Elise Elder Deputy County attorney just for clarification purposes this is a a text Amendment to the Future land use designation this is just not applicable to Three Lakes it's applicable to any rural lifestyle I just want to clarify that for the record because they're talking about Three Lakes in particular and that's not really what this is about I read it y okay no got questions no I didn't I was an observation okay I have any questions uh no further questions okay they're members of the public it looks like yeah no of course um we'll move on to um public comment at this time I don't have any pieces of paper in front of me sir ice cream man I'm pretty sure you have a different name than that um we'll go with that not to be disrespectful give me just a minute and then yes ma'am my name is Gary earler I'm a resident of Martin County actually Port Salo um my question I guess is I will direct this to the board and not staff but as long as the golf Cottages don't exceed the maximum size in square footage they're getting smaller 12 bedrooms 54 is 54 no matter how you cut it I mean I can't see 12 bedrooms one's two one's 12 as long as uh I believe I looked through it and I can't remember it off the top of my head but um we're basically looking like Bungalows and my next question is does a site plan call for a WWA yet and then and I also just want to make the statement Sarah's head's going to pop when she sees this thank you okay um we have another public comment sir Bruce Bruce as much as I can't even pronounce qual I can't pronounce your last name as well so please introduce yourself from hwn Martin County resident longterm Martin County resent I'm a little bit confused on this why would they go to 12 Cottages per house I don't understand I don't understand the concept of this whole thing why would they go okay from 2 to 12 is it are they only considering bedrooms or are they actually considering freestanding buildings so is is one lot going to be able to have 12 additional buildings is that what's is that's what's being stated here I'm not quite sure how this is how this is coming across here can anybody answer that question I can't answer that right when you have your public comment so continue your thought process and we can answer yeah well well that's my public comment is it's very confusing because we don't know what we're dealing with here if we're going to sit there and go to talk about bedrooms within a specific house or are we talking about individual buildings so if if it's individual buildings why would you even consider putting 12 buildings on one lot versus having smaller ones on the other lot I don't understand the benefit of that I don't understand the benefit of that so my public comment is I I I can't be comfortable with something I can't understand so I'll let you guys try to explain it and if you can't explain it well it is what it is I guess we'll get we'll get the applicant to Pardon we'll get the applicant to right and yes clarify that but look at it this way you got that many bathrooms yeah bedrooms and bathrooms and that's all you're allowed to have so it doesn't matter whether you have if you have two cottages and you got two bedrooms now you're going to have one Cottage with four bedrooms or you're going to have one Cottage with 12 bedrooms but you're going to have the same number of bathrooms so it doesn't matter I mean like Morris said the applicant said is it the the you're going to have less buildings the big more bedrooms you put in there the less buildings you're going to have well buildings that you're going to have but you're still going to have the the the commensurate number of bathrooms correct for Resident correct yes we got Shilling growth management director for the record I'm not sure this is on but um so I I'll try to help so there are there's a maximum of 54 golf Cottages six bedrooms each M the applicant is proposing to have flexibility not exceeding the 54 golf Cottages but Simply Having one building that may be there's first of all there's no Lots here is and this this is a private development so there's no conveyance of of property uh the the golf Cottages are are accessory to the golf course so there's not if you if I don't even need to go there but that's the end of that um the buildings will be as flexible the applic the applicant is proposing the flexibility to have one one building that may be two bedrooms one building that may be four bedrooms one building that may be in fact 12 bedroom boms but all of that is in the equation of 54 Total Building total Cottages with a maximum of six bedrooms each so the in this case maximum of 3244 total that's right which I mentioned earlier total gross do you have is there any change in the number of bathrooms between all the bathrooms aren't part of the equation time is up but we I understand your question sir and I will respect that and we will bring the applicant back up to ask those questions um Mr Morris crady can I ask you to come up Sir um again Morris C for the record I I I think you did explain it um it's bedrooms not buildings so we're just adding more bedrooms and to the existing number of of buildings that are allowed and just to be clear you know not every rural lifestyle project is allowed um 54 buildings it's only because we have three golf courses that we have 54 buildings and up to 300 in our case but you know the the actual um policy is that you can have up to uh 18 or one hole or one Cottage per hole or 18 Cottages per golf course so it's it and there's only one other rural lifestyle project or at least um there's a couple of other but there's only one other under construction and they're not proposing any Cottages because they're they have a residential product you know we don't have a residential product and again these aren't Cottages that are on Lots they're not for sale they're part of the operation of the golf club they're an amenity they're they're an amenity right an accessory to the golf club yeah so any other question Jen um well I mean I guess it it does beg the question when we're talking about bedrooms are we talking about bathrooms or are we talking about bedrooms no oh sorry that I uh most of these Cottages each bedroom has their own bathroom I assumed as much but there are also other bathrooms associated with a with a an establishment right right and and again that we haven't designed the 12 bedroom unit yet but there may be shared bathrooms in there because that's going to be set up more like a you know for for um a group you know whether it be a corporate retreat or they may have a sports team come down that want to stay all in one building versus spread out over you know you know uh smaller buildings and really you know we're we're actually um limiting the height to two stories right now there is no height limitation so but all we're doing is putting one six bedroom uh Cottage on the top of another six bedroom Cottage versus spreading them out so it's that's it's but it's all the the same in terms of total numbers of buildings and total numbers of bedrooms allowed so okay uh Dennis sir did that answer your question good point still do come down to how many there's number of bedrooms Consolidated I understand that understand how try to loc all the bathroom understand Madam chair uh there is no code provision that limits the amount of bathrooms in these buildings the the the code provides for a maximum currently of six bedrooms per Cottage with a maximum of 54 which is one per whole in this case uh 318 hole courses there is there has not there is not now nor has there been a limitation on bathrooms in golf CL cottages for and and in fact in residences so there's there's not a limitation on the bathrooms what you may be thinking of at times is there's a limitation on if it was on a septic system to the amount of flow and so forth but there's not a limitation on a on a a facility with respect to bathrooms that are connected to the Martin County uh sewer system that's maybe helps and I and I apologize I I brought up bathrooms and I I misspoke I apologize got it gentlemen uh I don't see any more members of the public no okay any other further comments on the issue well yeah I mean I I am really shocked at how many times rural land amendment has to be amended in order to make it reasonable for the developers uh every couple months we have a pretty dramatic change in the way rural lus amendment is going to be used or or changed um in order to make it work for particular developers I I think that doubling down in a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea that's my opinion okay in my opinion it's we're not changing anything you are we're got the same number of bedrooms the same wait wait hold on and same same number everything I you're not changing any density intensity or density it's the same it's just the same thing okay it of course it's the same thing for this project but it's going to change for the future so that I could come in and leave frog with a different development is that what you said that I'm just saying that this amendment will be applicable to all real lifestyle um projects so if one of the other ones wanted to change a golf Cottage configuration and have seven bedrooms in one and two and the other they would be able to do it it's not just for three legs is the only thing I wanted to say but it's the same bedroom it's under but it's under the the development I think I heard uh it's one Cottage per hole correct everything else is the same but it's it's not just applicable to Three Lakes because they were talking a lot about the pro Three Lakes project so I just wanted to clarify that so if they took this to another one that came in the the intensity and density is going to stay the same yes it's the same it's really not changing anything there it's not changing the number of bedes correct configuration is is whether you have how many buildings 54 54 buildings or you have six buildings correct it's the same number of bedrooms it's the same number of everything does it matter whether it's a two-story or a single story it doesn't it doesn't matter correct it's the same and so if you can if you in my opinion if you can consolidate them down to a smaller footprint a smaller impervious area for the environment that would be a good thing and especially if they go two stories your your imprint your footprint is going to be less so is it changing anything you got the same number of bedrooms the same number of intensity and you can squeeze them into a smaller space I'm good with that Bob do you have any other questions we used to run Cottage on Cape Cod I never saw a 12-bedroom cottage well not a you never you never went to a a cottage that cost in this amount of money okay any other additional comments we have from staff I sorry gentlemen all right um personally reading through this um hearing the intensity of the utilities that's always one of our utmost um concern concerns um with the environment and things that in general and with rck on you know consolidating and not using a you know environmental friendly uh footprint and things in general so with that being said um either make a motion to move or make a motion to vote vot on okay to approve or to approve I won't be seconding that I'll second it okay all in favor I'm opposed okay I it passes the 3 to one okay thank you gentlemen thank you for your time H they limited themselves to two stories throughout the whole rural lus Amendment all right we are moving on to np-2 comprehensive plan Amendment 24-10 uh sanitary sewer systems element I'm going to hand it over to Sam you don't look like Paul but I'm going to give it over to you is that just says PA well I'm Samantha love lady principal planner with growth management I have here um Leo retti from he's the technical services administrator from the utilities department and most of the changes that we have done in this chapter are um they've been um placed in there in response to a bill that passed um it's HB 1379 and other information is updated or deleted that is no longer relevant and updated some t to to new local conditions um also there are exceptions in chapters 10 and 11 for um to receive Water and Sewer services and we've added a policy I mean we've added to an exception a second policy and it's a Martin County um utility um partial the county owns it and they want it to be part of the landfill property so I have Leo here if you would like to go through specific changes in the um in the chapter like say for instance this is being deleted because it talks about from 1982 to 2014 it's not Rel relevant anymore can we while we're on that that paragraph sure um go back to the last uh item that we've faced um you know we're talking about ostds and the capacity for an ostds uh considerably outside of the urban service boundary or District what is because we've got the Sewer Authority here what is the capacity for current ostds would it be able to handle a 12-bedroom house well um again Leo ret with Martin County utilities uh Martin County utilities does not permit uh septic systems that's done through the health department and uh my understanding with the rules for permanent septic systems for each bedroom you add you have to increase the size of the tank and the drain field I do not know if you could do a uh a 12 bedroom house on a septic tank or not there's limits to how many gallons per day are Peri with those flows I mean we can we can look up that information and find out but it's also based on square footage not necessarily bedrooms anymore it also based on the soil type that you're putting that on and what kind of perk you could get what kind of how that would work these are all very good points and why I don't permit the septic systems and health departments they're the experts in this that's why the state does it even then Jim um well we're going to probably get to it but um has has the priorities of where you extend water in sewer or sewer in particular into the county changed at all are those areas that are within the primary urban service district and on the the shores of the St Lucy or the the lockah hatche rivers still higher priorities than elsewhere within the county for converting to to uh sanitary sewer uh that's good question Martin County engaged in a study comprehensive study of where the septic systems are and identified 24 areas where they felt uh there were priorities and it wasn't just uh whether it was in a CRA or if it was on the shoreline it had to do with the density of the communities uh whether uh they had Central drainage uh proximity to the waterways there were a whole bunch of criteria that we went through and we ranked all these communities and then slowly we've been shipping away uh at these uh at these properties uh one of our programs our grinder sewer program has ex made sewer available for 2500 homes in The Last 5 Years and the majority of those homes are within a quarter mile of the North Fork South Fork or the St Lucy River Estuary Indian River Lagoon so we've um um we we've been following that report working our way through uh the various communities and all of our septic the sewer projects are for projects that are currently uh served by Martin County utilities where you service availability so I guess my question is is there a there is a clearly a priority list is there a priority of whose Services you are going to extend first I mean I guess my question is there are proposals to extend Water and Sewer well outside of the urban Services boundary now are we prioritizing those high priority neighborhoods that are on your list over those developments that are well outside of the urban service boundary so uh Mar County Utilities is not funding the extension of utilities to uh folks like out at the Three Lakes facility uh that is completely 100% uh developer driven uh we're we're not we're uh we're prioritizing uh with our funding and grants and assistance with public works and C to do projects in the in the kind of core uh areas that are closer to the waters okay so if we're talking about um higher priorities for those utilities that are in freestanding urban service districts currently that are they being served with with sewage treatment on a higher priority than those neighborhoods that are on the high priority list now if if uh these other neighborhoods you're speaking about are developer-driven so uh developers are paying for the the cost of those extensions not including the Martin County ones I'm sorry including the Martin County ones which which the the one next to the uh transfer station and also the one that is that is part of a an assessment uh Martin County utilities and solid waste Transfer Facility along with 7js industrial area and so the Martin Gale Commons um mixed use well not mixed use it's a is some of that brought on by a lawsuit once we outlawed package plants and they took the package plants away from those people that I think if I remember right correctly with the lawsuit that they filed I think that we had we had to let them have water and sewer and oh that's you have to defer lease for that okay if you yeah if right there was one of the Commissioners not too commissions not too long ago that would cost us $22 million in one lawsuit and then when they pulled the package plants away some of the developers or some of the people Property Owners sued the county and got their got the right to put water and sewer there and so the county is required if I remember right Paul do you remember remember what I'm talking about they're allowed to have a package plant uh but the county was not required to extend those utilities to them well they took the package plan away they were they outlawed the package plan they were allowed to have a package plan I believe s JS had a package plan s j and had take it away yeah so now they got water and sewer going there and also that they are paying for some of it if I remember right yes they're paying their proportionate share of the cost for the extension of those Mains but the reason we're we're having to run it out there is because package plants were outlawed no uh the the the package plants were um the trans if I'm I'll try the the transient Services areas around the Four Corners were eliminated at some point and there was a pre-existing PUD known as marale Commons I believe which is a commercial component that has approvals through a PUD for various square footages of commercial and so forth on lots that project I believe you're to some extent that there was litigation involved in that project and it does provide for uh the availability to hook up to Water and Sewer should it be uh um and I think that's privately funded like you said right the encouraging part is I live just across the street and as soon as I see that sewer pipe go in front of Stuart West yes I'm going to be in front of you saying I want water and sewer in Stuart West yeah so I think we need to Circle back to um the agenda that's in front of us at the moment the Autumn um any other additional questions at this point I just wanted to point out um that 9 acre parcel the parcel lines are not being shown because our GIS system is being updated right now so the parcel lines aren't showing but it's roughly this rectangle here okay it was formerly a facility owned by Waste Management that uh Martin County utilities had purchased recently okay so um continue to go through your updates there please is there anything else you wanted to point out see like for instance table-1 the figures have been updated as with table dash 10 take 10-2 and then I don't believe there's much in the way of goals objectives and policies this is the partial number that gets attached to the landfill that was already an ex section and this just adds the 9 acres to it and this table is updated and and the change we made here is that we went from 100 gallons per day per capita per person for level of service to 195 gallons per day per ERC an ERC is equivalent residential connection a single family home with would be considered an equivalent residential connection and in in the utility World it makes sense to talk about uh is this commercial project or industrial project or or retail project of of sorts equivalent to is it 10 homes water and waste water is it 20 homes is it 50 homes ercs so uh the non-residential level of service that 0.1 gallons per day per square foot purely covers commercial it doesn't cover office it doesn't cover Warehouse it doesn't cover restaurant so instead of trying to list all of the components here we use 195 gallons per day per ERC to cover all uses within a county that and that number comes from our ongoing uh Master Plan update that's what we use for our long-term predictions for our utility department so we we do it in gallons per day per ERC not gallons per day per capita can I ask a question about um what level of treatment the waste water is coming from that for reuse water is it a high level of denitrification in that reuse water or is it and I'm not sure whether that's a a portable water question or whether that's a uh a sewage utility question but my question is what level of denitrification what level of treatment is the ReUse water coming from the utility plant the uh I don't have an exact uh nitrogen or phosphorus number for you but they do meet the state requirements for use and reclaim water for things like recreational fields and golf courses and and for landscape irrigation MH so we meet all all of those rules and is there is the does the county have any regulation or stipulation about proximity to water bodies and or what level of groundwater pollution that might be causing uh DP does have rules that uh require the not not putting reclaimed water into facil that have outfalls to Waters of the state so if you had a pond that was isolated a golf course that was isolated had no outfall you could put reclaim water to that facility but if that pond system dange system had outfalls that connected to the one of our outstanding Florida waters the St ly River or any River Lagoon or or um any other other waterways uh they would not be able to receive reclaimed water would that include the St Lucy Canal uh yes yes any Waterway appreciate it shaking his head okay continue Sam thank you and like this is some of the cleanup that we're talking about um updating you know the terminology for Indian town since they Incorporated and I don't think there's much more and except for adding you want to talk about that can you go back to that last underline paragraph I think I I may have just seen it strike through and thought it was underlined well any state um statute reference that was wrong we updated the citation on that so you might see some strike through and underline I think on those things under utility yeah for instance this is uh Indi toown utility talks about being investor owned it's now a municipal utility so we uh struck through that and corrected it and changed from five government owned to six government owns uh sewage facilities treatment systems good y see none of this is so this policy is being deleted because it's outdated yes it's it's a uh the study's been completed we've did our uh and the the $280,000 study that we talked about referred to as the captech report uh captech had done analysis of these communities so uh it says here we shall complete that's been completed it's been implemented and we're uh we're well into five plus years into implementation of that that uh the uh pushing that study forward understood so do we have a complete understanding of what 1379 actually says yeah yeah we do so so essentially there's uh rules and and we added uh a goal at the very end of this to to address that and we looked at what Palm Beach County was doing they have seven uh different Wastewater utilities that uh operate with under their umbrella and uh they did a complete analysis of what this uh the companion house bill Senate Bill uh meant to this and we modeled our response to after after their response uh the the one thing we want to be careful in doing and the same thing palmach County was careful not doing was that we didn't want to take the entire uh I guess there a chapter in the uh statutes now um which referen as a house bill Senate bill uh we didn't want to cut and paste and copy all of the detail into our comp plan so that you know we we don't change our comp plan every year just like you know these House Bill C bills come up uh annually so we didn't have language that was going to be outdated uh one year after it so we do make reference to it and uh we we talk about uh the feasibility of of uh connecting and also uh what our capacity so where where could we connect we have two waste water facilities uh we have our projected flows for those waste waterer facilities and then we also have um the other thing that we look at is the other thing that the uh the rules required is uh how would those utilities be extended to serve those areas and since anything a community with 50 residential lots we don't have anything like that in Martin County Utility service area that we' you know extend utilities too they would be required any developer would be required to extend utility lines uh at their cost as is in other locations of our comp plan and our Land Development regulation so uh just like the Three Lakes project since we're we're talking about them tonight uh our rules require them to on their own nickel to extend utility lines to serve their project so that meets the requirements of the house bill Senate bill can you can you meet those increasing requirements to to achieve those high levels of of uh treatment or do you have to reduce the level of treatment as capacity is approached no we we don't reduce level of treatment we have a a unified approach we are the the beauty about plants is that they're scalable uh if you know you reach a certain level and you add another treatment train to it so it's not like we just run out of capacity and we have we can't move forward uh we can continually add uh capacity as it's needed and we overbuild our PL so that as uh septic to sewer projects come along and uh you know houses are built in infil INF areas we have capacity at the plant so that those homes can be connected if you were a utility with limited septic uh with with limited sewage treatment capacity you wouldn't engage on a septic to sewer program like we have because uh it would force you to build infrastructure uh in order to achieve that that that goal thank you okay and with that we have gone through the chapter and so if you um have any more questions staff recommends um approval to the board of County Commissioners any other additional questions I'd move it forward to the well I guess we might want to ask public if they've got any I don't have any com I don't have this based on the item so um that being said there's no applicant which is the county no public comment I'd move for staff's recommendation for approval no second all in favor I I I okay it is pass thank you thank you thank you thank you Leo samtha I apologize I said Sam I like that's okay you know I'm the youngest of six kids I answer anything I'm the youngest of five so all it's all good it's all good all right so you're going to stay up there in the seat there um we're moving on to n ph-3 comprehensive plan Amendment 24-11 potable water Services element Miss Samantha take the floor again my name is Samantha Lov lady for the record with growth management and I'm going to be joined by Ann Murray she's the county Hydro geologist with the utilities in solid wave good evening that's a solid title yep and um again a lot of This was um housekeep keeping in terms of updating um things like Indian town and um we revised some planning periods State Statute um has changed the planning periods for comprehensive plans so we um updated planning periods throughout this chapter um the planning period for the upra coast water supply plan that will remain intact that gets updated every 5 years and so um the all the statistics and everything in there are brought into the chapter directly from the Upper East Coast water supply plan they'll start planning a new water supply plan an update to the water supply plan probably in what two years and so we'll be looking at that again so those time periods for that section remain but all other planning periods will change again we're adding that 9.5 acre parcel owned by the county to the list of exceptions to receive Water and Sewer we're making revisions to 111 and 112 and um minor revisions to policy 11.4 B um to recognize changes and conditions and let's see for instance if if you look at these citations to State Statute some of these have been updated because when there's legislation things get renumbered so and here again is the 20-year planning period That's required by State Statute now this is part of the Upper East Coast water supply plan information so that's staying the same you can see the references there this stays the same this stays the same same all of these stay the same don't they feel like we were just here as a matter of fact I we just really did the upraise coast water supply plan just it feels like yesterday yes we'll be back again tomorrow right you ready Ann we got lots of questions for you I do have a couple question I know we got to let her fire away go get hit it so what what testing are you doing for forever chemicals and um how close to extraction Wells are we thinking about some of those pollution potential sources uh fire stations have been demonstrated to be one of those um do we know and I know this is city of Stewart rather than than Martin County but does the airport uh well is that cleaned up do we know what levels around the county we have for pasas and some of the other forever chemicals that are becoming concernful first of all I want to assure you that Martin County utilities water is safe that we meet all standards and we've been monitoring so we do that as part of um bring it in an bring it in bring it in are we at you know two parts per trillion or are we someplace I I just want to say that we're meeting the standards at this point I'm not going to I you don't know well I do know we're meeting the standards um at the point of entry into our distribution system we have done testing through a consultant we've been monitoring uh not only our uh assets at the water treatment plant wastewater treatment plant components but also we're starting to work at our um a continuation of work at our assets in the field other in other words our wealth mhm so yes to answer your question our stipulation is that we meet um drinking water standards at the point of entry and tour system and we are meeting those standards okay have have we identified any hotpots that are concernful you know because these these um constituents are omnipresent they are um Ubi they are playing in the background of our water system of our groundwater system much of the time they don't have any Source they're just there so we are in a new effort that we are um embarking on in um October we'll be looking um well we actually did an evaluation of obvious Source water as part of a preliminary to this work and we haven't identified anything that is um stand out you know at this point we do know there's connection to um septic tanks we do know there's connection to a f foam um and we're trying to put those pieces together to understand stand it better but I can tell you what playing in the background and nothing is standing out as a particular asset that is concerning at this point also I want to point out that the reason why we have such a good treatment system is because we depend very heavily on um Ro treatment and that is um that membrane treatment is a safeguard to uh past constituents so so so we talk about pasas pasos as sort of two really sort of obvious examples but there are a plethora of other ones out there that are probably equally dangerous but don't yet have EPA standards for are we aware of those are we are we trying to monitor where we are so what we do is we um we look for the 42 I think constituents the analytes that are um on epa's radar so we go above and beyond we're not just we're not just looking at a couple of of constituents the new drinking water um standards do include um I think the six alog together uh so we're obviously looking to meet those regulations okay um I I I asked the the sort of the the previous question about reuse water and whether there are standards for reuse water that are comparable to pable water um yes I um and to answer your question at this moment we are meeting um Advanced treatment standards that are stipulated by D um D and those are for um water quality um purposes waterers that get into the Waters of the state waterers go to groundwater and we are meeting the three parts um per three parts per million for um total nitrogen and the one part per trillion or million for total phosphorus so we're we are meeting those standards at this time okay and do you think the capacity for that will change or are we at our limits for the amount of reused water that we can supply at those higher standards so um with that in mind with an expanding Wastewater system because we're bringing on more um septic tanks and into Central sewer um we are reviewing uh we actually have a part of our CIP we have an advanced treatment pilot that is scheduled for next year we're also looking at evaluating our witer treat our wastewater treatment systems to determine additional uh treatment that would be an alternative to that so yes we've got our eye on the ball to make sure that we continue to meet those standards appreciate it if you tested what do you say on phosphorus and nitrogen on on waste water those two components yes yeah both what what what was the number three and one rain rainwater doesn't meet that depends on whether it's thunder and lightning Madam chair if if I can interrupt not to be disrespectful but we're on this um comp plan Amendment and I feel like we're getting way off subject of the details of what this amendment is encompassing so if we can since we're public hearing on this amendment we kind of need to stick to that um to some degree so let's keep going on thank you Miss Samantha please continue okay now we're into section 11.4 B and this is um section that's been rearranged somewhat because um of existing conditions um the like Martin Downs a lot of conditions have changed in there you would you like to elaborate sure this is just um essentially it's a forecast of what we're what we're doing to meet demands in the future this is always a moving Target for us we um we evaluate through our Master planning um exercises to determine how we're going to meet demands in the future and from time to time things change so this really presents an update to how we're going to meet those demands said okay continue and all of this is included with what she was just saying and this again changes the planning period from 5 and 10 to 10 and 20 in compliance with statute I don't believe there's again the partial number for the 9.5 Acres we are amending um figure 111 and 112 because of changing conditions for instance um this little section here is now included in the service district and this is not um an updated freestanding urn Service District we did amendments to that I think you'll recall eight months ago a year and so this updates that to include here and this updated shape and the same thing with 112 so you just have these revisions on there and that is the chapter right if you have any other questions I I'd move for staff's recommendation for approval I'll second it okay all in favor I I I passes all right thank you thank you thank you for answering my questions my pleasure she's going to stay for got miss Ann Murray again all right this will be a short one yeah okay yes this will be very short welcome to this LPA all right NP h-4 comprehensive plan Amendment 24-12 solid and ardous waste um so miss uh love lady and miss an um this is very general it's uh updated references to the Village of Indiantown updated dates terms and statistics and there's no changes to the goals objectives or policies so this is a cleanup to acknowledge Village of Indian Town again clean up this is updating from 2008 to 2022 what there's a a big jump in the tons of waste is that because we're that's how much um are being transferred to the transfer station okay so from 2008 to 2022 it makes sense when you think of the population changes yeah I was going to say that's not a huge dump sorry not discrediting your com do you have anything to say about this we've all reviewed this hopefully as you guys get the agenda I think we could go ahead and make a motion to okay this cuz some of these are just I mean they're incidental changes have any outstanding questions me um I I do have a question because it came up a couple times we recommend incineration um as a potential when when have we ever incinerated I I don't think we ever have okay that's not in this one yeah it is where there's a couple couple couple lines down we we were recommending looking looking at incinerating and if you know I think it was for energy production that would be one thing but oh I see yep but I don't think we did no and that's just to reduce the tonage being incinerated so let's see if there's any other one that's I think that it's just general language but not you know it jumped out at me when I was reading it and it jumped out at me again when you were yeah I not heard of anything since I've worked here no is that something you want to strike make a motion for it it's it's it's uh inconsequential unless we have a proposal and then it becomes consequential well I mean how they're incinerating is also yeah yeah and if it was a plasma incinerator that was producing energy then I'd be all in favor of it and if we want to look at that as an alternative I'm all in favor of it but if we're talking about as an alternative to landfill or shipping it to okachobee I'm not in favor we're way past that in time I think I think so too I think it's a very general statement okay can we get a motion to pass the staff's recommendation I'd move for staff's recommendation for approval of this to the board of County Commissioners I will second it all right all in favor I I I all right um we are moving on ladies you can say U we are moving on to n ph-5 comprehensive plan Amendment 24-13 drainage and natural groundwater aquifer a recharge element I want to start all right again for the records Samantha love lady and Ann Murray and the STA staff report in this looks to be quite intensive but overall it's updates for statute um updates for the bmap and tmdl programs Florida um Florida administrative code and then also we put in um things related to resiliency and C level rise which are also related to State Statute and although it's a looks like a lot of changes there's really proba the language really it is it's just it's just updates to make sure that we have one of the things that concerned me about the resiliency language is that it talks about sea level rise but it really doesn't reference saltwater intrusion and in some of the ecosystems that is that is as important as the sea level rise and it it would cost a sentence more to include it and I think it would be more inclusive if it was there um salwat intrusion should be covered in um in potable water as well but and it is mentioned but when we're talking about storm water and sea level rise saltwater intrusion into those marshes is is an issue um but I don't I also think that in some areas where we have clearcut the the vegetative coverage we're having some pretty serious sediment problems as well as water uptake problems and it does help a vapo transpiration to have those tree covers there and when we lose that as a policy we're not doing ourselves any favors I do believe it's covered under groundwater protection under um sediment um there's there's sediment um policy and I'm not didn't see it I mean it may not be in this in this particular chapter it's not there but we we uh in chapter 11 I think we have extensive policies that cover that another question acknowledged right here of accumul this is on the bottom of the river though it's already happened [Music] um and and I think that you know there is language in there that talks about the dredging during the IRL South proposal um being environmentally sensitive but I think it's worth doubling down on that that turbidity is a big issue um and and we can't forget it that you know if we start dredging it could be it could be a real nightmare well not that it's my field but I am aware we have extensive uh turbidity monitoring uh program yeah that would not be part of this particular Amendment well it I mean it has to do I mean it is actually in this um the the whole proposal for the IRL South is part of this one um also you mentioned green infrastructure you know when the um Treasure Coast Regional planning board was providing the workshops or the listening sessions the most common request from the Community was to increase low impact development in green infrastructure um it's mentioned twice in here as an alternative um it can work in connection with storm water facilities and storm water planning um I also think that it's probably a good idea to cover ourselves because the modeling that we're using for the amount of rain that we're receiving these days is 30 years old um and it needs to be updated and just because South Florida Water Management District hasn't done it yet doesn't mean that we don't have to accommodate it and you know we're just adopting a seven-year-old storm waterer rule you know we really have to be proactive about this because we are in the beginning of a very dramatic change in my opinion of of how much water we're going to have to deal with and we're growing to my knowledge the resiliency planning that's been done is very much upto-date information from from the work that's been done here in Martin County right yes well I mean most of it is about sea level rise um very little of it is about the heat the rain and the other things that we're going to have to accommodate I I believe that um that that resiliency plan covers um all of those areas and that was reviewed on the coastal element I believe some of my comments are were were also in the coastal element right and um just as a reminder we're really only updating these chapters to um comply with State Statute I I understand but we can't right I me we're we're trying to do the E so that we can amend our comp plan so that it's the best comp plan possible if our standard is only to meet the state standards then then that's a shame and I you know I I I'm not trying to be disagreeable I'm really not I understand and I'm not either but um that's the mission of these amendments that's um really what we're limited to and if there's other studies that need to take place or anything like that we can take a look at these chapters later you know if the board wanted to initiate anything but um we're sticking with mandatory changes at this point and I think a lot of this is by reference because things change and if we are very specific in some of the the aspects of th that planning and Reporting then then amendments would have to occur by reference we have um a much more robust tool to make sure that we're keeping up with the the latest needs and the and actions that the county needs to take um any other questions I have something to add but um so when it comes to South Florida Water Management um and I understand where staff's coming from you are in any development regardless of being Martin County whatever it is you are limited on what they can and what they require for you to do and I get where you're coming from just know that pushing that limit is going to take Beyond this board here to make those changes um so that's my two cents in that maybe 5 cents worth but any other comments okay motion we we approve okay second okay to see some increased language about resiliency in here are you making a motion to amend the motion no I just I I would I will support it because I want to move it forward but I really would like staff to put in as much information as we can so that we can be flexible just know that as I mentioned they have state limitations when it comes to but that's really up to the the applicant to challenge they can and the limitations on that are quite restrict um not denying that so all right um all in favor I I I okay motion passes um that concludes our meeting I would think uh any additional public comments sir I don't have anything else from you okay um members staff you got a meeting next week as well 19th yes sir yeah everyone going to be here uh it will be I think okay no is it a busy meeting don't ask that question now you're jinxed it don't do that do we have complain amendments as well yes sir and look for the QJ is showing up um gentlemen any other additional comments no staff anything else you need to add thank you okay thank you very much thank you for your time thank you public for coming get ready of or you have hat I'm meeting or motion