Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

here. Member Gabbor Kashigi is absent. Alternate Todd Albert here. Alternate Jason Judge here. Interim town manager Lisa Frasier here. Town planner Cory O' Gorman here. Building assistant Steve Freeman here. Deputy town clerk Sid Cardwell is also present. Next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the December 2nd, 2025 meeting. Anybody have any change to the minutes? Second. All

in favor signify by saying I. I. Next item is site plan approval for 1806 Pine New Home. I uh I reviewed all the metrics and found them in line. Uh chairman do what? I reviewed all the metrics, various metrics as far as setbacks and this setbacks and all that crap. Pervious and uh looks good,

etc. And uh found it in compliance. Height, I found the uh height requirement in compliance with the that revised um ordinance that we passed here back in March. So, um, I'd move that we accept the, uh, the plans for 1806 Pine Street and approve them. All in favor signify by say public comment. Pardon? You need to ask for public comment. Oh, anybody got any comments on the house on 1806 Pine? Thanks.

Lane, 6 Pine Street. Let me say that again. Uh, hi everyone. It's been a couple years since I've been here. Nice to see you all. Um, I'm the new owner of the property. We will soon be building and moving there once complete. Um, just want to thank you for your time and u planning to remember. Harper, I went actually found an old email you sent a couple years ago where you suggested clarifying that the height because it is a little ambiguous in the history. So, that was very helpful to find. Thank you all. Thank you. Anybody else got any comments?

I have uh one this Corey, sorry. Um on section five, the zoning district setback requirements looks like the fourth line. Should that be minimum 15 instead of 22 instead of 25? It's the fourth setback line. Yes, sir. That's correct. You okay? Because it's wrong on all your Yes, sir. You're You're correct. Thank you.

Otherwise, I thought the house looked good. All the information was there. Do you have a motion on the floor? Yeah, it's been moved and seconded to approve the site plan for 1806. Huh? Who was there a second? Second. It was Kurt. Yes. All in favor signify by saying I.

I. Next is site friend of fool for 2003 oak. So, one of the issues that I have with the plan is that if we look at the land survey on page 95, um it shows that there's an oak and a cluster palm right where the building is going, but I don't see any attempt to replace the freeze.

I think there's something in there that I know this property I've driven by it many times. I know they have a lot of trees and a lot of u vegetation, but I think if you take out an oak, you're supposed to replace it with an oak.

Uh Corey, was there any tree removal permit submitted in connection with this? No sir. If I may, Mr. Chairman, it's in accordance with our code. Um, yes, it states if there especially is an oak, you must replace it. But we also are preempted by Florida statute, which states that if it's in the way of a building, then we cannot ask for any type of mitigation.

So the building, it's the addition, it doesn't matter. Building whatever. Um, so that that addition is right there on that sideyard as you know and I did look at that and I considered it, but it's also a very small oak tree. Um, I believe it's I wanted to say it's it's on one of these. It's only like five inches. I don't even know. It was very very small. Uh technically to um comply with the Florida state statute they would have to have a a written report etc for that exception as well technically.

Anybody got any comments from the audience? Nope. Oh, yes.

Good morning. My name is Jeff Anderson. I'm the architect for the project. Um, you know, I'm sure the obviously the property is heavily um heavily vegetated. Um, I'm sure my client, if this is would hold it up, we'd be more than happy to plant another oak or similar tree in the spot. Um, but I have no no doubt he has no intention of, you know, destroying the the vegetation that's already on the property. There's massive oak trees in the front yard and um and you know they they are you know they they have no issue with uh probably planting another tree if if that would be required. So thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, could we uh approve it subject to then the um condition that the oak tree be replaced on the site? Yeah, we can I would second that. Yes. Anybody else got any comments on this? So, it's been moved and seconded. We approve it pending replacement of the oak tree. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

Those opposed? No. So, it's approved. Next is uh approval. I can't read the next one. Oh, is appointment. Oh, I know we had another site plan. I know we do. No, there's two, but then we have the landscape. Okay. Do I hear somebody wants that?

I make a move that Chairman Campbell remain as chairman. Second move his all in favor signify by saying I. I like to move that April 11 be appointed vice chairman. Second. You're struggling. All in favor signify by saying I. I. See how easy that was? All right. So, now we got uh

what's next? Now we talk about the um schedule schedule. Got to find here first. Oh, I know. I'm looking for it. So, I noted on the schedule that at least on mine that November 3rd was highlighted. Is there any reason election? There's election. Election day. It's what? Election day. Election day. Yeah, we obviously we got to move it. Can we switch election day?

I know. I I have We're going to move the election. Why not? Um, I know that historically we've had to rearrange our meeting because this building was used for the elections and uh, is that going to change or are we going to continue to go down? Um, it's permanently been moved to St. Sebastian's by the sea. There's no reason. Not to my knowledge. I I can't think of a reason. The impact of town staff. I I wouldn't think so. Unless Lisa, you have any thing you want to add? No, I it's it's not a a holiday for us. So, okay. Well, it will will be in the office. It

is election day. I guess it it's obviously on the third. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, so you can you can move it. What are some alternate dates? I wouldn't do it the fourth. That has to be set aside for workshop. I have no objections to doing it on that day. Does anyone else? Anybody else? No. Make a motion to accept the schedule. Elections end on the at 7. You got any comment from the public?

It's been moved and seconded. We accept the calendar as is. Okay. Next item is chapter 9 a landscaping tree ordinance tree. All right. Where do we go from here? Mr. Chair. Yes. If I may open it up for you all.

Sure. Um, if you all recall, the EAB, the Environmental Advisory Board, I'm sorry, submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board, um, proposed revisions to chapter 9A, landscape injuries. The in at the November meeting of the planning and zoning board, you all uh, voted to recommend denial to the uh, town commission for the changes that were presented to you. I requested that at that time that our town planner had not had an opportunity to look at the revision, the proposed revisions, nor had the town attorney. You all agreed to give time for us to look at the proposed revisions to the ordinance in order to try to come to a better understanding or um a compatible uh language change to that ordinance. Um that has happened. What's in front of you tonight is the track changes um as proposed by well three different entities at this point. So, it might get a little a little squirly, but um the town planner um myself and the town attorney did go through the the um proposed changes and made some I think very applicable uh workable solutions to the ordinance that hopefully meet not only the um intent of the environmental advisory board, but also uh meets the intent of our zoning codes um and that this board will consider adopting it and passing it on to the um town commission and I'm here

to answer any questions. Chairman, if possible, I I don't know, Corey, if uh what everybody else has done, I think it might be be best. I've got several uh changes I would like to make, but would it be best just to go page by page to see if anybody has a point page by page of his reddraft? Would that be a productive way to to go through this? I think uh I don't know how many modifications everybody else has. I've only got a few.

Oh, okay. They just got none. So, uh, maybe we could go through this and I could, uh, maybe I'll take a first pass at it then and then or page by page, April, or whoever wants to chime in. Page by page, please do so. On the So, I'll start out with the first page and u, I'm just going to put a question mark by the definition because I might want to I think I want to come back and revisit that further in. Uh, so that's just kind of a question. Other than that, uh, I didn't have any problem with the first page. Anybody else? No.

Okay. Page uh two. I had no problem with page two. Anybody else? Page two is like, should I be calling it 106 or page two? What's easiest for you guys? Two and three. Two and three. Okay, we're on page two then. Yeah. any. Okay. So, you're actually on the way these are numbered. Yeah, I'm on 106 page two. Thank you.

All right. Okay. Anything on Nothing on page two? Nope. Okay. Um we'll go to page three. 107 on the top there. April I didn't have any problems with how Corey had modified this page myself. Anybody else?

If I may, Mr. Mr. Chair, I have a question because the comments on the side are from me and my comments were in relation to um forcing or requiring that a landscape architect draw a landscape plan or that a licensed surveyor provide a tree survey. This can be rather costly if you're an individual lot owner. And so I would just ask um your thoughts on that and removing that condition from these applications.

I I thought that was lined through by Corey. No, it was me. I I it was myself and the attorney and my and um Corey made these. I was agreeing with the line out. Perfect. Yeah, I was too. I'm my thing is where you make comments and make changes it's acceptable. Perfect. I will not interrupt you again. I do. Okay. All right. Okay. Now, uh nothing else on page three. We'll go to page four and the top of that 108. April, I know. I've got it now.

Okay. Anybody have any um I didn't have anything on page four myself, but anybody else did. I I agreed with the lined out items.

Okay. Oh, here. Um I would on page four there was a comment right down there at the bottom that uh that 986A and I guess I was thinking those were Corey's comments. Those were Lisa's comments. There were excellent comments. I would agree that that 9A 6A paragraph should be moved up like you're recommending. Either you or Corey, one of you guys is recommending moving that up. It fits really better under the uh under that uh that previous 95 section. If uh is that your comment to move that up? Was that Corey? Was that yours?

Well, or was that Lisa's? Uh where the the highlighted yellow are all Corey's comments. Okay. But the comments on the side, okay, are my comments. Cory's recommending that that uh that particular paragraph be moved up. I would agree with that. Okay. Do you guys agree with that? It's no big deal. Just moving it, not changing anything. Okay.

Okay. Page five. Oh. Um I would throw this out um on generally speaking here. Uh where it's uh uh I know the U environmental put the 4 inch in uh DBH because they were thinking that would be a bigger tree etc. I'll just read technically this is just technically you can get this from any any arborist but uh a 2-in DBH uh in this case an oak has significantly better survival rate faster establishment rate than a 4 in. Uh the 1 to2 calipers are generally preferred because they suffer less transplant shock establish roots more quickly and often outgrow larger trees within a few years of planting. Um, so I would recommend I know uh it was switched to 4 inch. I think it the 2 inch will actually uh establish quicker and grow faster. I think that's what the EAB's uh objective was with changing that. So I would recommend uh switching that back to the 2 in. Uh any arborist I think you could uh consult with would would confirm that. Um, this information was t taken from a from a a book called Newly Planted Tree Survival Rates. So, I would recommend switching back to the 2 in where you put 4 inch for the U native plants/ oaks.

That sounds good. Okay. So, that's all I had on page five. on page six. Uh Corey, why don't you uh I don't disagree with your yellow recommendations as far as I think what you're saying is when somebody is looking through the submittal or requirements, plan requirements that the landscaping portion isn't included in there, right? They only stumble onto that later on. So, uh, what he's saying is he just what he he's recommending putting some references in in the base of the, uh, you know, plan approval process.

I think it makes sense. I would, uh, defer to Corey to come up some wording for that if that's okay. Okay. Sure.

All right. Um, page seven. On page seven, this is under the category. Kind of changed the title here a little bit. These are landscaping obligations. What's it say? Landscaping all zones. And um so this is recommend this is saying that uh rather than um recommending it's requiring a 50% native plant. And uh before I've uh investigated this and I as an example, we we want to consider what the community at large desires. So as the board knows, I went through the last 26 homes new homes that were built, there was only uh there was out of the 26 new homes that were built, 25 chose not to have native plants. Then I also did a survey of uh I forget it's four or five u four or five streets um surf road street second street ash birch and cherry of established lots sample size of about 214 of those 80% did not have native plants so I think to be consistent with the desires of the community instead of required 50% that should be encouraged 50%. Otherwise, uh you're not being consistent with the comprehensive plan in that regard. That'd be my recommendation.

Sounds good.

Sounds good. Then, um paragraph 4, the yellow, uh Corey. Corey, uh you weren't here when, uh when this saga all started. The Sega started about a year ago this time when we have a case where up here on Avenue B. We have a guy that's building a new house. There's 42 palm trees on it. Okay. So, that plus some other instances where we couldn't practically replace every palm tree that had to be removed. They're expanding their footprint and size of the structure. They don't have as much planting area. he couldn't plant 42 trees. We've had other instances like that. So, we had recommended that on new construction, you had to replace any oak slash canopy tree like you have one for one, but that the rest of the tree minimum be set at eight trees for the lot. And those could be, you know, people use predominantly coconut palms now in the new construction. So the minimum requirements that I would recommend would be back to what this board actually passed uh about a year ago when this started was to make would require transplanting of any we said oak trees then but that could be expanded to be native whatever the proper terminology is now or canopy and also uh other trees to result in a total of eight trees minimum including the oak tree that might have had to be repled. placed would be my recommendation with that to avoid that impractical situation.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. May I ask you a question? So, sure. This those eight trees are you saying Oh, they are here. So, they already they're already in the code canopy trees at the time of planting shall have the trees shall be No, that's 8 feet. I apologize. Where is this number eight of trees in the Oh, that was No, the eight was proposed. Okay, so the current the current the current code says every tree removed has to be replaced and we ran into the inability enforcability if you will, Corey. Right. Because there's no place for 42 trees.

So I think then what needs to be put in there? I'm going to recommend this as opposed to giving a number is that in accordance with Florida statute if it's you cannot um uh what's what am I trying to say enforce the idea that you have to replace a tree if it's in the way of the development itself of the building itself. We're not talking about removing a tree on an existing property that might be hazardous. We're talking about the building code. So if we add that then that means trees that are being removed that are not in the way of development they need to be replaced and I think that is the intent of this code.

No this code this code was simply uh said there had to be a minimum. There could be more. Oh this code right here the one that Cy Cory the existing one this is existing existing one is tree for tree replacing. So if you go in up here on Avenue B with 42 trees, you put in a great big house, you got to have 42 trees. But that's but this is what I'm stating is that Florida statute pres preempts that by stating if there's you don't have to do that type of mitigation if there's a building. If you're building, you don't have to do a one for one. So if we add that kind of statement to number four, I think then that would Yeah.

Well, and here's what I'd like to do. Uh, I do appreciate that. Lisa is technically the Okay, I would like to just go with the eight tree minimum like we had before. Add the U requirement for the oaks/native tree to be replaced. Minimum of eight on a new construction. Minimum or maximum? I'm sorry. Minimum. Minimum. Minimum of eight. They can have as many as they want. Just a minimum. We went through and looked at all those new homes that were constructed. The average was about eight trees. That sounds good. Okay. Very good. Dan, how many times has that occurred? Just the one you've mentioned, but how many Well, it

And is it not something that we should just negotiate when it happens? Well, no. I I what what you know the case is you can look look at the guy over here. We just did on u on beach on the ocean front the other day. Yeah.

Tons and they got tons of uh cabbage palms. And uh this wouldn't surprise anybody. On all the new development, I don't think anybody yet has planted a cabbage palm. This implies that you have to replant the cab all the cabbage palms that you tore up too because they're classified as native. So people are not have not having a problem there. Most houses put tons of trees in. I don't think that's an issue. And I think the EAB's issue was principally with canopy trees anyway. And we're saying any canopy tree needs to be replaced. So, I think it's I think it it all right. It's a it's a good way to go. Okay. Page U. Oh, then Corey, because of this revision here to your uh this paragraph 4, you got to go back and revisit that definition.

You see what I mean, though? Yes, you're following that. Okay. Okay. Page U page eight. I didn't have anything. Page nine. I didn't have anything. Page 10. I didn't have anything. Uh Corey added this 98A to consider. Um, and I don't know if you want to reference the book on that, Corey, or what you were thinking on protection during the construction process. That's on page 11. Cory,

this is existing. Corey didn't add that. This is an existing standard that's already in the landscape code. So, well, he said, consider requiring a tree preservation plan showing how the trees are to be protected during construction. Yes, sir. The other just talks preconstruction. Okay. But Corey, right? Well, you put it in there. I was suggesting were from other communities that I that I work in and most of them do provide a a tree preservation plan. So,

um and and and that plan can can include a lot of different things. that can identify the trees that are there, identify the trees to be removed and those to be um saved as well as any mitigation. The the way I read it currently, Lisa, and you could you can rebut me on this if you want. I thought the current one just covered preconstruction protections, not during construction, but I I if nobody else cares, I mean, we can leave it out. So, the the thing is this is protection of trees during land clearing. So you want the trees protected before you start land clearing. So that is preconstruction and so this was already in the existing code. Um

I believe that EAB had offered a lot of these um uh changes in there and of course Corey had had agreed with that as in saying that we should have protection um for these trees. So I I agree with you. I'm not arguing with you Mr. I agree with you. I think this is a great thing. Okay. And Corey, you could have some wording perhaps or reference a book on that. Something like that. And you know what I would Okay, page 12. Anybody have anything on page 12? I didn't. Okay. Page uh 13. I think uh Corey, why don't you chime in? You think the penalty should be addressed elsewhere or something? It was your opinion.

Well, the the the penalties when I read those seemed rather large. Um and um and frankly this is not an expertise of mine but when when something is done without a permit typically um trees aside uh you're you're charged a double permit fee. Uh now maybe there is a required mitigation for something. Um but uh for for an ordinance that doesn't currently have penalties for removal um it it seemed a rather large fee and and just my my comment was really intended for consideration of the board that um it it may be a uh may just be too ownorous for property owners. And if if if there if the community is not accustomed to um this requirement in general, it may be something that you want to phase in a little bit.

Okay. So that was the intent of my I I concur. I think I think that okay, you know, some of the some of the fees are are penalties are are excessive. Uh, and we do need time for people to be educated and for them to know and that okay, we're not real good about communicating with the residents in this town.

I'd go let's go with Cory's recommendation on that then to hold off on the penalties. Page 14. I didn't have anything on 14. Now, uh, 14. Now, uh, Lisa, you've got a comment here in the blue box about not including this list or something or what are you thinking there?

Well, typically, um, it's unless you put it as, uh, wording such as these are recommended or these are um, species that that occur in this area that are recommended to be planted, but it's not all-encompassing, then that's okay to have the list in. but you don't want to say here's the list. And I felt like the wording in here was saying that. So, it'd be better to just reference um which is referenced in the existing code um the Florida Native Standards. And I think that that would be probably agreement with that. I don't I I don't think we should list all these in our code

because they change. Yeah. Okay. Um and and since that you know other entities do maintain these kind of lists uh if if there's changes made it's easier for us to change one line in our code directing to the proper reference. Okay than to have to go back and revamp okay pages of our code. I agree with that. Thank you. All right. Okay. Then I' I'd like to make I'd like to make a motion that uh Well, Lisa, what you're saying is the list would be made available.

Correct. Because it's the reference in this code is um for Florida natives, Florida native landscaping, Florida friendly landscape and it's always been in the code. So those, you know, anyone can go online and find those list of names. What about for Florida friendly? Yes, that's online also in there, too. Yes, sir. And if I may, um, you know, a lot of individuals when they're building a home or, uh, redeveloping a site, they may not be aware, right,

of the vegetation that is available to them that are considered Florida friendly and Florida native. And it is not uncommon, in fact, most municipalities require at least 50% of what's being replaced in a landscape plan to be native species. That is not uncommon. And so I hear exactly what Mr. Harper is saying that individuals are putting in mostly non-natives, but a lot of these individuals may not be aware of what's available to them. And it's not a hardship. It is not a hardship. There's many natives that are easily planted and incorporated into your landscape plan without um added cost or added maintenance. And it's really more of a benefit for our community. And I personally went through our comprehensive plan and there's many areas in here that state we need to revise our lands our our ordinances in order to require that plant material used in landscaping of any development or redevelopment project shall be predominantly native Florida friendly and include a list of recommended native plant species adapted to the coastal environment of the area. That's policy 1.3 in the coastal management element. There's many more. Protect existing native vegetation as development and redevelopment occurs. So I don't believe that we're going against our existing comprehensive plan. Um I believe that we are being uh in compliance with it. Um, so I would ask for your reconsideration of um allowing the 50%

natives landscaping plan shall be comprised of 50% native plants selected from the current edition of the Florida Native Plant Society's list as applicable to the East Coast um I'm sorry, East Central Florida region.

Uh let me let me come back with that uh and I and uh see what the rest of the group wants to do. I I would want to I would want to refer I'd want to look at your uh your comp plan, Lisa, but I'm looking at chapter 2, future land use, and it says uh to uh periodically review and revise tree preservation landscaping ordinances to encourage, not to require to encourage the use of indigenous vegetation. Policy 14.1, Chapter 2, Land Development Code. Periodically review, analyze, amend, determined as necessary, treat preservation, landscaping ordinance to ensure minimum standards are consistent with what desires of the community are easily understood and enforceable. Now, we've demonstrated the desires of the community and we've also are encouraging the use of natives. But in my opinion uh and that of our uh uh our attorney who also uh reviewed this initially when I submitted it um he felt that the uh comprehensive plan would have to be changed to revise this word from encouraged to required. And sir, in all due respect, you have to look at the entire comprehensive plan. And if you look at chapter six coastal management element and then you look at the conservation elements, they both say that the goal they they have different objectives and policies that are more in line with and encouraging our environmental. You're looking at the the future land use, which doesn't say don't do it. It just says encourage. And yet when you look at the coastal management element or the conservation element um those policies basically say that we need to amend it to require that plant material used in landscaping of any development shall be predominantly native. So I do not believe we are going against our comprehensive plan. Making the ordinance change to 50% natives is

not considered ownorous. It is done in many many municipalities. I'm just requesting that you consider it. So, thank you very much. If um and and it'd be interesting what the rest of the committee wants. I I think it should be encouraged, not required, but I'd like to hear uh the inputs from the others. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to ask them to be required a percentage of it. Maybe not as much as they're asking, but something to keep it kind of the coastal community that we want as opposed to South Florida where it's all pristine and perfect all the time. We look different because we are different. So, it wouldn't be against I don't think the community's intent to keep it looking that way. Well, u anybody else here?

Does anybody from the audience have any comment on this land development code we're fixing to vote on? Um well, the first thing I wanted to also mention on the survey that was done that said 80% Would you please introduce

Oh, I'm sorry. Curtis Bird, 306 Surf Road, Melbourne Beach, chairman of the environmental advisory board. Um the 80% that you were discussing on that I have we have done the board has has gone through and it might not be that the whole yard is native plants but there is always some native plants in there. So people are looking at a lot of times 50%. You know, of having if you have an oak tree in your yard, okay, that's a native plant and that can't should not be considered if it's one big oak tree that's still very native for our area. So we want to make sure that we encourage that we have that. When I was speaking of native plants, I wasn't referring to trees. I'm sorry, maybe that wasn't clear. Not referring to the native trees. I was talking about the plants

is all shrubs or plants, whatever terms. And and you also were just driving by the front yard. I'm sure you weren't going in the backyard or anything and looking at plants. So I really don't say that you have enough information to be able to say native plants are not we put on the nature's day and it's unbelievable how many people come to that and how many people are asking for native plants. So, just a comment that we wanted to include in that and it's a valid comment, but all I'm saying is bring me your bring me your evidence then. I you know, you you talk to people. Yes, I did the front yards. Yes, I can't go into everybody's backyard,

but I would challenge anybody to do the same thing. I don't think they're going to come back with any material difference in terms of what people are actually doing. But if depending on what this board decides here now, um we'll go from there. But I I appreciate your input. I'm talking about the plants or shrubs, the 50% of those, not the not the trees. Include everything. The landscape plan period is 50% whether it's trees or shrubs or ground cover. That's what Yeah. Right. Thank you very much. Uh comments. Anybody else got any comments?

Hi Leslie Maloney, 1403 Pine and um town manager. I appreciate your comments on and your clarifications on the 50% and also how it appears many many times in the comp plan and other ways and and uh that's an important point I think that needs to be made. Um, I gathered some information cuz I had a feeling this was going to come up and so just want to kind of go through a few things and and I would also dispute the scientific approach used in your survey and I'm not sure if you're a native plant expert to be driving by and making those decisions and and so I I have trouble with you keep bringing that survey up and and also So, I think our PE people don't always know about native plants. People move down here, they go to Lowe's, they Lowe's doesn't carry much. They buy what's out there. Um, and so making an assumption that they don't want to have native plants when you drive by their yard, if if you're even identifying them properly, um, is is is a reach, a bit of a reach. Santael Island requires 75% native plants. Miami Dade 30% on all new builds. They have also restrictions on pal on palm trees. Palm Beach 30% 35% excuse me. Bvard County 50%. Indian River County 50%. Isa Marada 75%. And notice that Santael and Isa Marada are are islands like us. Key West 70%. Lee County 75%. Um, Manatee County 30%.

Palm Beach County. um they go on further to they're looking at uh they're holding the CO the certification of occupancy of if some of these uh people are not abiding by this. So um this is not an unusual thing to require anymore. And the reason we've gotten smarter as a state and as just in our knowledge and our understanding of how important native plants are to our environment and to protecting the the lagoon and everything else around us. And so we really have to think about how we've done things and how we want to do things here. So that would be my comment on this particular subject. I hope we're going to have some other opportunities for other things or you want me to keep going?

That's good. That's good. Okay. Thank you. I have a question. So, when we talk about 50% or 40% and all to are we actually going around counting all the plants, all the bushes, all the trees and then figuring out the percentage from that? I I think you're probably uh town managers probably can answer that more specifically than I can if I may, Mr. Chair. Yeah.

So, uh typically in a landscape plan, it's pretty pretty easy, especially in a single family lot to determine if you've got at least 50%. you know, in larger cities and larger entitlement site plans, you may actually be they'll have a list, you know, where it's, you know, five Simpson stops stoppers and, you know, six Holl's and then you can tell how much is 50% and what is not. It's not difficult. You don't necessarily have to count all the plants. um a landscape plan, any kind of landscape designer would make it very clear, especially if this was in the code.

I do remember when I was building a place in Winter Park, right outside of Orlando, they had an arborist, and she actually came through, counted all the plants, and told me one what we needed to replace. And then she provided the list of what we needed to replace it with. Um and and then gave me the percentage. Um so but I was just wondering if that's standard or if that's to have the money to hire somebody to Yeah. Well, I would imagine that have to change if we did hire an arborist.

We wouldn't need to hire hire an arborist, sir. That's usually a planner's job. I've been a planner and done entitlements for many many years and so it's very easy to read landscape plans and that would not be very difficult. The um we're not talking about existing stuff. We're talking about new stuff. So that there would be a landscape plan to

example would be a lot of people put up kousas as perimeter plants that might involve a whole bunch, right? So you got to have an equal amount of somebody's going to count your kousas. Is that what you're saying? And then they're going to say you need that many individual plants. Is that what you're saying? Well, typically in a landscape plan, the again the landscape designer or the landscape architect's going to list what they have anyway and give the numbers. Yes, they will. So, so you what you're saying with 50%. What you're saying is if you have 100 if you have 150 kousas around the perimeter, you need 150 native plants is what you're saying. 50%. Well, it depends. That's what you're saying.

Sure. But what's also being said is that we'll include your existing native tree. We got one of those too. Native shrubs that you are retaining on the property that you're keeping anyway, you know. So, it'll it's very easily done. It is not an ownerous um request. Can I can I suggest that that we take Jason's recommendation maybe uh as a compromise and and and change it from the 50% to say 35 or 40%. Would that um

that more palatable palatable to you? Well, I have my house, so I don't uh it I guess if if the board is desirous of that, uh I have not um I guess the alternative to that uh depending on what the rest of the board wants to do. I probably am am looking at what I would consider the desires of the community. And I know there's been uh uh I haven't seen anybody else's sample as far as desire. You can go look at the new homes being built. That's an easy one. And you can see they have not chosen natives. So, it's not their desire. Here's one more point, too, to consider, April, is what you're going to end up with now is two sets of rules. One set of rule for the guy that builds a new house. But his neighbor doesn't have to do that. The guy across the street doesn't have to do that. The guy on the other side doesn't have to do that. And you talk to me, that's not equitable. That's not fair.

But Dan, you have to start build a new house. You got to build it to code. You know, the guy's house next door is falling down.

I think the speaker said something good when she said you got to look at what you've done and what you want to do and this is maybe something we want to do for the future because it is important for the environment and for our lagoon and everything to have more native species. So to say that going forward this is what we want because that's probably better for our community, not necessarily people coming in from out of town and building these new homes and that's what they want. I mean it's we need to think about the future for the whole community. Once again, I uh I respect everybody's opinion here. I would be voting against it. I don't feel that the community has u the desire for that. I don't think the people building these new homes have the desire to put in natives. There's no evidence of that at all. The evidence is completely to the opposite. So that would be the basis for my my thinking. April is that

I like one third. I still I still like 50%.

I like 50% too. And I like the excess quote excessive fees for taking down a tree. I think people take down trees without thinking about it and that hurts us long term. But the other thing I think you bring up a great point, Dan, because we have two homes, one on Pine Street where the owner wants to comply with it with what EAB wants to do, and then another person on Surf where they took down not all the walls of the structure, but it's not deemed new construction. We don't approve it. And like you say, there are two sets of rules out there then. And that's not correct in any way. And I'm not sure why we aren't I know why we're not looking at those homes, but I don't necessarily agree,

okay, with what with the ruling there.

I I'll I'll make a motion uh chairman and see if this will fit. Um, I would recommend that Corey make uh the adjustments we've spoken about uh and bring back a clean version for consideration next month that the um the uh native plant uh requirement be set at 30%. As a compromise that good enough and then we will argue about it next week. Next month. We should probably have something with that fee schedule, too. Just I think the fees are a little high, but there should be some kind of teeth in it.

Yeah. Car, can you come back with some a fee schedule that in your opinion is a little more realistic? Now, question is for taking down the price of the fine, I'm sure, is less than it would be to buy that tree if you were to replace, right? So, it seems to me, you know what, if you want to take something that's valuable and get rid of it, there should probably be a similar penalty. I mean, you're not going to crash my Ferrari and go give me a Hyundai. It's just not going to happen. All right, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry I have to interrupt once again. If you re read the comment on page 13 that all fines and fees are established by resolution by the commission

and they're not going to be included in this ordinance. So, I would recommend that you do not even consider that as part of this ordinance. However, should you pass this on and recommend whatever changes for this ordinance, you may also recommend to the commission that they consider some other fees and fines to be established in the fee schedule. Does that make sense to everyone? It's a cleaner way to move this forward. Well, the commission has final word on all of this. I'm sorry. But the commission, they absolutely do. They can come in and say, "We don't like anything y'all done here." That's absolutely correct. But when you put fees and fines in an ordinance,

it's a lot harder to update it. That's why all our fees and fines are in a resolution that the commission combines once a year. Okay. To take all the changes to the lens state and bring it back next month and resolve all outstanding issues. Attempt to Yes. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying I. That's done. And got any public comment something other than this and something other than what we've discussed? Okay.

Have we ever done an evaluation of the public lands in reference to that plan? The what? Sorry. Have we ever done a review of our n of our public lands that Melbourne Beach owns in reference to the plants and everything? I've only been here three months, but I'm going to say probably not. If you do, I don't know.

It lasted. But I would uh recommend that when we talk about what the community wants and what the community desires, I mean the EAB is filled with community people. Correct. and um they have proposed uh that they'd like to and I don't mean to to steal your thunder, but they have proposed to look at our parks and see um what we have in them and do an assessment and and hopefully remove some exotics and and um plant some natives. So, that's a nice question. Thank you very much for bringing that forward.

Just one more thing on the record. Could I get Lisa, could you make uh perhaps a copy for uh for all of us as to your uh comprehensive plan references that you said uh were congruent with the native plants for us? I'd be happy to. I'll bring that as part of the package next month if that's okay, sir. I'd like to have it ahead of time so I could read up on it myself. Absolutely. Everybody else perhaps would. Absolutely. You got you got a report.

Is it possible to ask a couple more questions just for a couple more questions? Yeah. Come on.

Okay. Thank you. I was that's why I said you want me to keep going because I had other things there besides the native plants. Um okay let's see. So I was confused about the terminology of the landscape architect. We we use the the uh terminology of landscape officer. Are we are we calling those are those the same thing or is that something different that and I th that was new terminology I was noticing in the that's different

so okay so we got the landscape architect now one of the things that we were very so I didn't see anything in there about the landscape officer that was taken out al together yes okay so that that's what I just wanted to clarify so one of the one of the things for us that and and some of our um Karen who was really the person who spearheaded this, she's out of town. She'd be here and and could speak on this way better than me. But um one of the things about the landscape officer was in the past we felt like the the person so it's so it it falls to the building official to go out there and look at the to see if if the requirements have been met for native plants. Right. That's who it's falling to.

If we decide on native plants. Yes. But they they have to go out and review the landscaping plan, okay, before and after,

right? And what we were finding in the past was that person didn't always know what they were looking at. They were not a native plant person and that was said directly to some of our our uh our group. And so we felt like adding the landscape officer who would be somebody who would have that knowledge would help that building official with those decisions so that our enforcement was going to happen because it all comes down to enforcement, right? We can talk about all this stuff, but if we can't enforce it and we don't know what we're looking at, we're not going anywhere. And so that's a big piece of this.

Let me tell you how how this works. That's outside of our responsibility. Exactly. We have absolutely nothing to do with staffing. Oh, no. Okay. This if you remember we talked about this earlier the landscape officer would be you know it would be an hour or two or three and and when I say they might come out and then that another on site another hour for a report that was going to be passed on to the homeowner and it shouldn't be more than a few hundred uh to ensure that we have an expert looking at what we want to happen. And so it's not staff. We don't control that. That occurs at the staff level. You need to talk.

It's not staff. You got to the mayor. The mayor has people working for her. That's your staff. That's people that are going to not No. What we're talking about is that we can't we can't require someone to hire a particular individual what they have to pay for them. There's there's that gets into a whole another it would have to be addressed and approached in a different way. Okay. Well, that was our point. It's not under our board. Well, I and I guess because I guess this I thought we were discussing this and so I was confused about that because I saw that gone and it was sort of like okay that was a big piece of what we the Thank you for your inputs. I appreciate it. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Now, is anybody else hopefully no? All right. So, got no reports. We got any items that we need to add to the future meetings besides the stuff we already talked about? Not to my knowledge. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Meeting adjourns. Oh, I'm sorry. S could you change that me seconding with him?