Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay. Called to order the Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026, planning and zoning board meeting, town of Melbourne Beach. Uh, first item on the agenda is the roll call. All right. Uh, chairman David Campbell is absent. Vice Chair April Evans here. Member Kurt Bellston is absent. Member Dan Harper here. Member Gabbor Kasheki here. Alternate Todd Albert here. and alternate Jason Judge is absent. Interim town manager Lisa Frasier here. Building admin Steve Freeman here. And deputy clerk Sid Cardwell is also present.

U next item is approval of the minutes. Does anyone have any changes or additions to the January 6th minutes? No objections to the meeting to approve the minute. second.

The minutes of the January 6, 2026 minutes have been approved. Um there is no real new business apparently and we have no public hearings. We are discussing um the landscaping and tree ordinance. Uh we have we have uh Dan's update on minutes and can I ask since we have that this is public record we all have hard copies of it that we just go on to the discussion so we can hear from other board members.

Um I would like to add some uh context to this. Uh wouldn't take much time. Okay. Well, I I think part of my thing is we're all pretty much aware. Okay. And and I have no idea where anybody else is coming from at this point.

Okay. Let me just add one uh one quick line to that then. Um and Lisa was kind enough to put in some uh examples of benefits of native plants. We're not I don't think any of us have ever said we're against native plants. We're we're fine with native plants. The question to the to our board is whether we're going to uh require them or encourage them. That's really the decision that we're making. Not that there isn't benefits. I think we all agree with those. So, um I'll turn it over to you, April, to get the feedback from other other members regarding that.

Thank you. Anybody have any kind of input as to their reading on both Dan's survey, his report, and just in general how we feel about suggestions that have been made. Yes.

Uh first I'd like to say thank you to everybody that put all of this time and effort into it. Um and have lots of stats and numbers and good things in here. Uh, I agree with almost everything that uh Dan has in here and the way it's written. Um, I think as Dan said, my my really number one concern is there's a lot of very good ideas in here. It's just at what at what point are we encroaching on somebody's way they want to do their property and things. Um so the encouraged not requirement that was I think excellent wording. That's probably the most important part of the [snorts] whole thing that I think came out of it. um pretty much I mean there's little specific things that I had here and there but it's nothing unless it comes up in discussion it's not worth for me to keep going on. Thank you.

Okay.

Um I I totally agree um that it's a requirement or is it encouraged and um part of me then started of another avenue for this and because I'm more encouraging than I am not and but one of the things I was thinking was can we maybe switch this a little bit to further encouragement by saying if you do this type of thing we might take something off of your tax bill. You can't do that.

That's and you know, realistically you would say, well, we've never done that before, maybe or whatever. But the fact of the matter is that the way taxes are charged, if you pay in November, you get 4% off. If you pay in December, you get three, etc., etc. So, I'm just thinking if someone does go all out on, you know, If we decide that that's important um that why shouldn't we have some well we don't incentive

we don't have an attorney here tonight but I suspect we're going to find that that is not something that is doable and that would not necessarily be something that would come from this board this would I think that would strictly have to originate with the commission yeah I mean we could only make a recommendation I don't think it's within our jurisdiction to even make that kind of recommendation. Okay. Um so, um should I make a motion? And go ahead, April. Well, perhaps I'd like to talk. Yeah, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Thank you. So, which are we then talking about? Are we talking about Dan's writeup or

Well, Dan's write up, I mean, it's well written and it's and it's it stands on its own. It's self-sufficient. We now know how Dan feels and I think most of us agree with him. Yeah. To to a lot of respects. In a lot of respects. U part of my thing is is that we're given something that's showing changes to the code that I don't I'm I have trouble with it in this form that it's that it has. I too am in agreement that we should not require it should not be you know that they don't have a choice. uh encourage. Yes. Um if if requiring a certain number of of native uh plants species comes to be, I think 50% is excessive. Um from from my point of view, um I'm just I get real concerned because we have so much stuff in here in what we've been given to look at that shouldn't be in the code. and yet it's put in that format that it's sandwiched in to the code. Um, so I would like to see something cleaner that would let us see exactly how the code reads and and because the code does not generally justify have it within the content of the code that the justification for something. Um and and I question uh one of the first things up here where under definition they've got tree and it does say for the purpose of this article but still to word it tree is a Florida native tree species with and then the description on it that means okay we don't want to have any other trees that if it's not a Florida native we're going to prohibit that and I I think that that's a little

excessive. Um, and you know, I'm I'm just I think it's just a little bit of of overkill. Um, and I I think that we would do better as a board if we can come up with a way to get the the wording in there that would make us happy. That would also encourage the use of more native plants, discourage the taking them out. Of course, our weather last week, most things that that shouldn't really be here are not going to survive the weather we've had that And I hope it also gets rid of all the big fat lizards. But um but that's that's I just think we've got a lot of stuff in here that doesn't belong in coat.

Um I'd like to I've got three areas I guess specific areas. I was um sort of hoping to get maybe a vote on those as a direction. We might go on three items I've got including one of them is this uh the native plan. I've got two others. Uh but I think April's idea of getting I think what you're talking about is getting and then another clean cut of this proposal to to look at some other finer uh additional proposals or enhancements. Is that

Yeah. Well, I mean it it looks like it's it's this small thing, but it's grown really really big because if you look at what the original was

Yeah. Um, and there's a lot of things in there and and even just the the structure where it jumps around from talking about residential to uh multif family and commercial and it's just extremely disjointed and hard to follow. Um, so that's you know that's kind of what I I think that we we have a consensus of that we don't want to use the wording uh that thing is something is mandatory that we want to do the encouragement. Um I think that um how do you again it says that you know it's the intent of the article uh is to preserve Florida native trees and then it goes into a thing about even with our cabbage palms of having to get permits and all this kind of stuff to take them out. And so that's

that was one of the other areas I was going to uh make a few comments on if if I could would be uh or how how would you Well, I mean at at this point, yeah, I think if you want to tell us where what section that you're talking about and and hopefully [clears throat] the the the plers planner slash town attorney can see what we need cleaned out of this. May I interject for just a moment, please?

Okay. So, I have written many codes. I have I'm a certified planner 30 years now. Okay. What you are seeing in front of you has been whittleled down to start with the bare bones of this [snorts] and make it more process friendly. This is written badly. Okay. This has been you're seeing a lot of movement of the exact same verbiage. So in this code they don't have any structure for residential lots. None. And they everything is towards commercial. Your town is 99% residential. So therefore the structure was brought back to include all zonings in the town. Yes.

And then go specific to commercial. And as far as I understand you don't want to insist that native species be utilized in landscape plans, but you are not hampering, I'm telling you this, hampering a person's ability to landscape their home. Native plants survive better. They take less water. They don't cost that much more, if at all. They're not hard to find. Finding yourself with a landscape plan that says 50% native is not a hardship and is found in 90% of the uh municipalities and local governments in the state of Florida or around the country. So with that being said, if you all want to bring it down to 30% or something like that, that's what I would encourage you to do because your existing code, your existing code has the intent of this article is to preserve trees whenever and wherever they exist and that they should in encourage Florida friendly landscape, Florida land Florida native landscaping. This is your existing code.

I understand that. We we understand that, Lisa. We I think we've we've uh we understand that. Uh at least I do. Could I bring up another area, a couple more areas uh for consideration, the group? Sure. Okay. Um as far Well, I could comment on on leases uh 90% of the cities. I I all I did as you know I looked at our neighbors Vero Beach, Indian Harbor, Indie Atlantic, Satellite Beach, Cocoa Beach, West Melbourne, Melbourne, Rocklage. None of those I guess they're excluded from the 90%. And the other thing that the other thing Can I get you to address the board that's supposed to be talking?

Okay. Okay. Copy that. Um the other thing I I guess we're all in agreement on on that requirement. I'm going to move on. Um the other thing then was on page uh page five of the uh proposal and uh

looking at the lower numbers. Yeah, the lowest number the right hand corner page [clears throat] five. And this is that uh [snorts] minimum and this might have been a little bit of what you were thinking of. Uh I'm not sure, chairman, but this is that minimum replacement standards for new construction. And as we recall, as you as we recall, this is how the whole thing got started is we've got all these lots that the homes are built out to the setbacks. They put pools in the back. There's no room. We were running into problems on the plans replacing every cabbage palm tree that was on that lot before the new house was built. They're building the swailes on the side. It's difficult to plant in there and they're building swailes out back. You know, the big huge holes in the back that aren't susceptible. So, we kind of debated this already. We came up to the conclusion that uh we would require replanting or maintaining any we call them oak trees but I think they prefer canopy canopy/ oak trees any canopy/ oak trees would have to be retained and that they would have a minimum overall of eight trees is what we had discussed debated and decided upon uh just a you know a few months ago before we started this. This one now has gone back to the thing that we was not practical and was not feasible. We were running into too many people just weren't doing it. There was too many trees being removed. A lot of the the housing is between uh between Sunset and Sixth. They're smaller lots. A lot of the smaller lots in the community. They have extensive old growth uh cabbage palm trees around them. And so they expand their footprint. they don't have room to put everyone back in.

Um, so I think this is just going backwards to where we were to a to something that's not uh enforcable because it's they can't fit them all in there. I don't and I I don't think it's and I think we just we we debated this and we made a decision. I think we should stick with our 83 minimum, but I don't know if Todd has any input on that.

Yeah. Um, just on that little bit I I certainly see your point, but I do and and then to have eight for the size that we're talking about. Um, you can still plant big trees or small trees that grow big. Um, [snorts] you know, I

Well, I'm you know, I'm in agreement on that that we're we start getting expanding again. And Yeah. And part of part of what we run into is so many of the site plans on new construction that we get in here, they're already building all the way to the maximum. That's right. and um which I hate it. I wish it weren't that way, but but that's that's what we're getting. Um and I just I I I'm I'm just having a lot of problems with with all of this and I hate that this thing is dragging on for meeting after meeting after meeting. Um it's it's kind of a

well could we could we narrow down some of these items by uh by having a formal vote on uh the item like let's that way the planner could go back and just use as an example uh encourage not require we could get that resolved I think that I think we've we've done that well we have all expressed that we're in agreement that all right several times then let's get some feedback on uh do we have to plant every tree? It's I'm just tell we were all here I think when we looked at those plans. They're not practical. It nobody's arguing. Okay. All right. Okay. So, I I would I'd look at revising that one too then Lisa. Then the last one I had

I'm sorry. You'll have to you'll have to be more clear on that because this is the exa existing verbiage. This is the existing verbiage. I don't have anything about minimum age. This was prior to your time. Okay. But if it's not captured anywhere, I can't refer to It's in the minutes. [snorts] Minutes of what? Planning and zoning. Okay. But she when [laughter] And you need to help Sid. I won't We can give you the month. We can give you the month. Okay. Well, you'll have to tell Sid when these stuff. Oh, do you have it? I' actually I've got it. I do have a copy of it. If if you can get that information to Sid, that would be I will do that. I will do that. Um,

and you it's supposed to be minimum eight trees. I'll bring the exact wording over. Okay. As April's instructed. Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. It's

And I think you have a point because when you look at some house when when you look at some lots, people that love trees, love being Florida native, they can fill their lot with what you know to comply with all of this and they do more than eight trees in the lot and that's great. Uh but then there are others who say I don't want that. I don't want the leaves coming down in my pool for instance. I don't want to have to deal with cleanup that happens with that. or they just want an open stretch. And um so therefore in my mind the difficulty is how do you reconcile that because I think most people would love to have the lot that they want it the way they want it and we have to say in some part no you have to do certain things to your lot because we need to you know take care of all these things that are important to us on page one of um the landscaping definite article and you know at the bottom of that page. So um you know the and then let me just add the one thing that concerned me most in all this was 972. What page? The bridges four and five. So it's the bottom number two is the bottom of page four

and then it carries [snorts] over onto page five and it says landscaping plan plans are encouraged to incorporate Florida friendly and Florida native. And then it goes into landscaping. Then the second sentence read, "Landscaping plans shall be comprised of 50% native plants." And I'm going, that's doing more than encouraging. Yeah. Well, I consistent and that's why I'm saying that

and that's the major factor that um the major thing that I have an issue with. I just had one other April u make the third point. I wanted to if if [snorts] appropriate. It was on page uh and I mean you know we talk about new homes we don't see all the home you know if you keep the base and three sides of a home we don't see it most times in this committee and therefore it's up to the interpretation. Yeah. Um we used to see virtually everything. It was just um

someone made the decision that unless it was a a total new build, it wasn't coming to us. And I, you know, I I hope that that's that changes and and it goes back to the way it was at one time. Um Dan, you said you had a third. Yeah, my third one was on page be a page four, right hand corner, number four. And then up there towards the top, this number two item deals with um this would be uh existing residences, not new home builds or anything, just somebody that's going to cut down a tree on an existing residence. And the only thing I wanted to uh and they changed this from uh the applicant instead of may be required, they said will be required where practical.

Yeah. Um, I prefer may, but if they're going to say will be required or practical, I think we have to add uh, and I'm sure Lisa would agree with me on this one is uh, this Florida statute 163.04045. That one says that's the Florida state one that says uh, you know, if it's a disease tree or if it's leaning on your house or you know, they give you several reasons where you can u remove it without city authorization. And also that statute says that you the city can't require you to replace that one. So I think that needs to be clear in here that if it is being removed in accordance with the Florida statute that uh there isn't any requirement to replace it by the city.

Which one was that again? The Florida statute is 163. Okay. 045. Okay. Yeah, it's called tree removal on the residential property and it was it was passed primarily for damage type stuff I think Todd probably uh or disease stuff they were saying

but you have to get a written report from a from an arborist to you know [clears throat] verify that it's diseased and it's a danger etc but but those don't require technically the city can't according to the statute require [clears throat] replacement of those specific ones so I'd like that to have be factored in there. And I don't know if if the rest of you have any strong feeling about may or will. It says will and then it says we're practical, which seems to be kind of a contradictive wording. Anyway, it is again a lot of the language needs to be cleaned up. I mean, it's they're trying to cover an awful lot of territory, right? Um, [snorts]

so I I I would like that to be changed back to the the old wording, I guess, to say May, and then add the uh the uh this the the Florida statute uh exception in there to replacement, I guess, ideally. Maybe these ideas can be passed on to Corey, the town planner. He could listen to this tape. Those are the three items I had, April. Thank you. Okay. Um, I have one thing that just [snorts] didn't make sense. And Lisa, I think the blue is your input on these. Okay. It's everyone. Well, I know at one time you had things colorcoded,

right? And I'm sorry that they're kind of color coded coded. Now, [laughter] I apologize. This won't leave me, but a lot of the the verbiage is just being taken out of other areas. so that the next person can follow it. Yeah. Okay. Well,

more cleanly. And I understand um what Mr. Harper is saying, but basically everything under [snorts] one removal is stating that no permit shall be issued for tree removal unless one of the following conditions exist. And that's what that's covered under. So then the Florida statute you can go ahead and remove it because it of reasons of either hazardous or in the way of building or it's diseased or whatever.

So that's that's why you can go ahead and issue the tree removal. Um and it should not I think maybe where we want to put your your change Mr. Harper, if I can, is that no per unless one of the following um no permit or uh replacement shall be issued for treatment unless one of the following conditions exists. That may be the more appropriate, but you know, we'll leave it up to your town planner to figure that out. Okay. whether he thinks it's best to be included up here where my suggestion is or absolutely

um actually what my question was about was on page six um item 12. I was curious if it was a typo. Uh down next to the last line, uh it says to the extent practical as redevelopment occurs of over six months occurs. And is there a typo in there? Because that's I'm not following ma'am. I'm sorry. We're on page six. Page six at the bottom. Yeah. Parking 12. No 12. If you Okay. [snorts] Mid middle of the page.

Oh, okay. It says currently developed sites that do not meet the landscape requirements. Develop sites that meet the landsc will not be considered non-conforming landscaping consistent with the regular shall be installed at these sites to the extent of prayer of redevelopment occurs or over six months occurs. Okay. Yeah, let me [laughter] I think it's just a typo in there. Yes. Um but shinment occurs is period and then it says uh it's supposed to be something else. Um unless complete reconstruction rehabilitation. So we're missing Yeah. Okay. September 6 months occurs.

Yes. So that Thank you for catching that. I think you caught it and Lisa was just putting in there to make sure we read it closely.

Thank [snorts] you very much. That's a good catch. Um question um if we go to like eight trees, can we say that um three of those have to be Florida native or some which has to be carried through like landscaping plans. Um then would have to be well I think there 38

we're getting we're getting back into that that that thing again. Um, and it it becomes a very arbitrary Excuse me. Um, yeah. You know, uh, I mean, I I personally would love to see people use a lot of lot of native things. U, but I I don't like the idea of of requiring it. Yeah. You know, it's it's It's almost too

Well, I mean, you take my yard. I I have over a hundred trees in my yard and not because I planted them. They just came up. Well, most of them were there when I bought the house 30 years ago. Um, but some of these things I'm looking in there and it's like, okay, I if I choose to take down a couple of these trees, am I going to have to jump through all these hoops even given all the trees I have in my yard? [clears throat] and and I um it just makes me uncomfortable. So somebody project it out to to others. So if you ever sold that, somebody's got replace 100 trees. [laughter] Yeah. Be sure you tell the buyer. That has to be disclosed.

That Yeah. Well, I mean, the reason I know how many I have is because when you have to pay to have them trimmed per tree, Yeah. you you suddenly found out how many you actually have. Um, [snorts] okay. So, that's really the whole idea behind of my thought process is just simplifying without I don't want to use the word being obtrusive to the property owner, but that's kind of what I'm getting um

specific like things like on page nine um down towards the bottom two 3C um a reinspection in three years type of thing. I mean, is that too intrusive where now you're going to have code enforcement or a town official or somebody coming to inspect trees in your yard three years after you did what you're supposed to do. I I would say one of those minimal things that adds to it.

To me, I don't I'm not aware of a problem in that regard that is trying to be solved by that. But

I think the problem is is that if we're requiring and we're being so specific about the type of tree, the size of tree that that soon as they get their CO, they're going to go in there and rip them out because they didn't want them in the first place. And so I think that was the reason this was put in there to have to have the inspection. So, I think that the more the more we we require these specific things, the more likely we are to have to spend a lot of time with enforcement. And some things are just you're just, you know, it's going to be hard to enforce and and you know, people moving into the town saying, "Well, yeah, after three years after you move into your house, you got to let us come in and inspect uh so on and so forth." And I I'm just not in favor of having that type of community.

Yeah, I agree. So, would you like to strike the entire Well, [snorts] I would of which the tree survival trees must survive on a site in viable condition. Page nine. is that trees must be tagged seems but that's just one example of the overall idea. So to me the whole simplification is the encourage and educate but not overly require and

watch over I guess. Yeah. Yeah. I you know I I wish there were a way that that we could assure that we could actually educate people. Course we can't do that either. Um

so are we in agreement that we we would like to see that whole section strengthened? Oh yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Or would we want to see it move down to like one year? Pardon? Would we want to move move it to a shorter time frame?

I don't at all. I just don't like that idea of either making an appointment or having somebody come in your yard. I just don't like that idea. Well, I I think for me um it it it kind of feels like step for [laughter] and and that's one of the things I've always liked about Melbourne Beach is the the diversity um both in in in people and in the houses and the yards and things like that. And I just uh you know, we're we're we're not homogeneous. And I think that's part of the attractiveness of of the community.

Agreed. I've been in several unrelated. I've been in several of the newer mega complexes on the east coast of Florida. Actually, one on the west coast as well that have popped up in the last 5 years or so. I get lost in every single one of them because it all looks the same. I don't even know where I am. Yeah. There's like three or four different color houses and everything else is exactly the same. We are not. So then what we'd be saying is that we'll inspect it for what you said it was going to be. Well, once it's passed, you have an certificate of occupancy and we're done. Yes. Yes. Okay.

Um also I mean otherwise you get into HO. Yes. Well, we have to assume that people want to and will do the right thing for the most part. Yeah. [snorts]

Yeah. Okay. But now when we when we take out a whole section like that, what other sections are tying into it? And that's that's where my concern is. I haven't had time to sit down and rework it and say, "Okay, if we remove this, then it impacts this over here." That's the only one I saw with a after inspection [snorts] that I remember. Anyway,

April, do you think it'd be productive if we have the town planner make the changes we've discussed here today and then give us another cut of this so we can uh make some you know it seems like we have to do it in in kind of phases a little bit clean get some things resolved updated and then [snorts] uh it's an idea as all I have no objections to that um yeah the more that's in there the more piece by piece it makes sense for us to look at it and talk about it and Okay. Yeah, because it's it's I actually thought we were going to workshop this. I do recall

and and it's never we've never had a workshop on it. Um well, let's do that. So, well, um yeah. Should we do we did we agree sort of to have Corey do a a revision call it version 3.0 or something and uh and then see what additional modifications we want to make kind of cleaning it up as we go along. Yeah. potentially because and and you know checking for if if we strike the the one thing that we we all tend to be in agreement on you know what what follows behind that then that then

um has an has an issue you know I'm I'm looking at here we've got this section about nuisance trees um And if someone I I don't understand why it's in here unless we're prohibiting Excuse me. Uh this is page 11, center of the page. Yeah.

Uh you know, we're we're saying, yeah, we we we encourage them to take them out. We obviously don't want them planted. We would hope, but is it appropriate because we're We're just again we're saying we're encouraging. We're encouraging and and I I question whether or not this is there are I'm sorry there are some specific ones that are they do cause more problems than anything else. Oh yeah. And this is actually a pretty good list. No, it's it's a wonderful list, but I'm questioning

right. I know it being combined in here. Gotcha. I mean that I'm I'm opposed to to all of these and part of part of is because I'm allergic to half but but yeah um [clears throat] you know at one time we had people who would come out and and kill these things for you. Um that was sponsored by the county I think. And then back before that, it was a great idea to plant a mealuca because it sucked up a lot of water. Well, yeah. Yeah. Well, and you have people who plant but they cause a lot of problems because they grow fast.

They do, you know, but they are during storms heavy. Yes. And they are water hawks. Um, all right. So, at at this point, do we kind of have a consensus that what we're wanting to do is the things we've discussed, get those worked on in here and have it come back to us. And I would really really like to have the informality of a workshop, okay, on on this because we we we keep peacemealing it. We keep kicking it back and forth. Um and and I I I personally would like for us to get something done and be done with it.

It's almost like I mean we we have four or five places that we've talked about here that are issues. It almost be like why don't we have those redlinined as being you know you can talk about any area of this but these are areas where we might have conflicts and want to resolve them in a workshop specifically.

That's true. That's true. And so it's almost like we are to that point where we can point at it and say it'd be good to have the community kind of working on this together. Um but not we don't want to highlight the whole thing. No, because we've taken this to a point. So if we could Well, no. For me, it it's like each each iteration of it, I'm getting more and more confused, to be honest.

Okay. I think at this point, I'd like to see if there's public comment uh before we make any kind of motions or [snorts] come on up. You know the routine. Name and address, please.

Crystal Kane, 309 surfro. Thank you for all for being here and we've [clears throat] been working on this for quite a while and um I wanted to start out like we were tasked with working with your board. We didn't just come up with this on our own. We had multiple residents coming to us questions about trees, tree removal, and so it was suggested that we work with your board. So it feels a little antagonistic a lot of times with your board and that's very unfortunate because this was a task by town for us to work together and it just doesn't feel that way sometimes. Again that's unfortunate and um uh another thing is about requirement versus suggestion. I really feel we are very behind the times with not it being a requirement. Dan, I'm not really sure where you got your information that it's zero requirement because we have the stats for satellite beach, Indian Harbor, Vero, Indie Atlantic, and they differ quite a bit from the information that you put out.

Well, if you would provide me with those. Okay. I asked your your previous presentation last month. I asked for those. I know. And you guys told me. Well, okay. So, if you said no. So, well, I would like a correction on that, Dan. We actually did not say no. We said sometimes we find the learning process of finding that information on your own, which is readily available kind of convinces a little bit more and that is how it was put. So, I would like a correction on that. It wasn't we would not share the stats. Well,

the stats are incorrect. And I also disagree and and would like a correction that the eyeball survey is misinformation. So I would like to share what our town has done in the last 5 years as far as natives. Um the the native establishments in our town in the last 5 years have been Bsentennial Park which the parks board themselves just recently added a ton of natives to provide wildlife there on board. Um library native garden was established in end of 2024 and it's a big hit. Tons of comments. history board provided a demonstration garden 100% native. It was established October 2024 and we actually keep track of the people that visit with our QR code signs and there's numerous visitors and huge interest. 2023 there was a huge town initiative to add native plants to all of the beach accesses and that was done and it's wonderful. It's brought a lot of wildlife. It also prevents beach erosion. And we also have an adopt an area program which is a volunteer-based program of uh residents that adopt the beach access, keep them 100% native, maintain them. It's an educational opportunity for them and they are all on board. Every single one of our beach accesses is adopted but two. And so that's been a huge success. We've been doing that for about 5 years. Um I do have the percentages of the the local that are in direct conflict with what you sent out of 0%.

Can you just provide the ordinances to me or to our group specific ordinance number and then we'll look at them and we can agree or see where you're coming from? That's all I was asking. Absolutely. Yeah. Because excuse me one second. [snorts]

It also covers our um our findings on ordinances. The DBH, which was suggested to go down to two, like you could take out a 30ft oak tree and have a 2-in diameter tree replacement. They're they're across the board three and fours. We have the fines for Titusville, West Melbourne and Atlantic, Indian Harbor, Satellite Vero, Winter Park, Melbourne Village, and Bvard County. Um, they are all the ones I quoted are at 50 and 75% requirement. Okay. Give me the specific ordinances and I'll be happy. Show me the way on that.

I'll be happy to do that. We also have like for instance, Melbourne Village is 100% in all of their rideaways. This is the trend. I hate for our town to be behind the times and I feel that I wish that you would consider a little bit more that this is not restrictive. We are on a barrier island where it is critical that we provide native plants. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. Crystal, your time is up, but

I know that. Yes. Thank you very much. One of the things that that you said that I think wouldn't necessarily come to this but you know come in front of this board and it had to do with all the right of ways which that you you need to go directly to the commission on because what we have to deal with are the private properties um and not the right of ways and and I think that you're going to find that that everybody on this board is in agreement with a lot of what you're saying and and and in agreement with the necessity of of trying to to do these things. But where I think we we come at a parting of ways is whether to you know demand it uh or

it's mostly contractors a requirement if it's in our code they have to follow well there are there are people particularly people who come here from other areas that don't have the appreciation for native plants that others have. So, but but yeah, but thank you very much for your input. Anyone else, please?

Thank you all and again, thanks everybody for their time and and putting putting their brains into this and trying to get something workable. Um, I want to Karen Fannady, 323 Third Avenue. I'm also a member of the environmental advisory board. uh reiterate, we were tasked to look at changes at the require at at at the town's request um because of the outre out outcry from the public on what was going on. What exists is an encouragement and so we are trying to do something more than that. Um, I want to speak specifically to some um points in Dan's uh report um regarding none of the beachside neighbors cities requiring native plants. Um, first of all, I disagree that using the neighboring cities is the is the only the neighboring city cities is a good argument for selecting municipalities that can make a case about the lack of ordinance addressing native plant requirements. I think you can look statewide. Um, in fact, many municipalities have been actively making changes to their ordinance and requiring natives in landscaping. And I have a couple of pages. Um, if I have time, I'll read through. I do have all the se all the uh um code sections noted for you, Dan. Um, original ordinances didn't consider the science that we have now about being better stewards of our environment. Um, not to mention the other benefits that were mentioned by Lisa, uh, including storm water runoff reduction, reducing GL ground level wind speeds and improving our atrisisk at risk Indian river lagoon. We now have the science and these facts are spreading through communities and people want change and municipalities are making change to restrict invasive species which are can be really critically bad for for um the

environment and protecting and ensuring greater numbers of native native plants. I can point to many Florida municipalities that do have the native um landscaping requirements. And I also want to point out I looked at Dan's exhibit one. Uh what noted what was noteworthy to me was the satellite beach. Um in fact the environmental advisory board met with satellite beach and we modeled a lot of the sections that we in put in our recommendations um specifically satellites section 3104 which Dan references as as an exemption for uh single family. I spoke with satellite beach code enforcement today Kristen Christa Ellington who confirmed that there is no such exemption and that she enforces the 50% native on residential permits uh construction all the time quote unquote. Um [snorts] I also wanted to speak to the uh one out of tw of 16 choose native landscapes. This survey is unscientific and relies on non-expert observations. Uh people don't know natives versus non-natives. They don't know that they're not necessarily making the choice not to put natives in. Um and regarding educational in initiatives, uh Crystal hit a lot on that. We do have ongoing effort that the board is working on and that is something you guys may or may not be aware of. We do a lot of native plant giveaways. There's a lot of other stuff we're doing aside from this. This is just part of the piece. Thank you.

Thank you. Could I say one thing, April? It depends if it's argumentative. No, it's not argumentative. Okay.

Okay. Um, thanks Karen. I think uh we'll get, you know, get copies of that and we'll see where everybody's going. Um, the other thing that hasn't been mentioned that I think is very very important, it was in my report. I haven't heard u the environmental group say anything about it. The new homes currently are required to put in these huge storm water retention swailes. Nobody else, Satellite Beach, none of these other places have storm water swailes. are already carrying a disproportionate amount of environmental burden much beyond what anybody else in the community is doing equal to or greater than what anybody else is doing in the community by putting in these big swailes that retains all the storm water that filters the fertilizer and prevents that nitrogen from going into the lagoon. They're putting down a heavy stroke already for the community. They're making a effort for the community at large. I don't believe you guys ever give them credit for that before lapping on top of them this uh this new native plant requirement. I think they're doing more than their share for the good of the community. I just wanted to add that element because it hadn't been uh been spoken to. Thank you. Hi Lesie Maloney 1403 Pine and [clears throat] um yeah I I think that's a good point that the storm water new state storm water rules that went into effect January 1st we talked to natural resources about that that's why if you remember as a side note we were uh pursuing imperous versus pvious surfaces and we dropped that because of the natural resources told us it it would take care of itself with the new storm water rules. So, uh that's statewide. So, those those Yeah, this is statewide storm water rules going on that just went went into effect January 1st called

natural resources. Um we really are talking about property rights versus community benefits and community protection. That's really what this is about, right? And I think we need to look around and talk about some of the other things that we we require from people. Um, and I'm actually I'm a pro I can be a property rights person myself in certain instances. So, I understand that position. Are you allowed to burn leaves on your property? Uh, am I allowed to play loud music? It's my property. Why can't I do that? Look what all the stuff we put into effect because of the vacation rentals. You know, I could go on and on. So, there is a place property rights versus community benefits as a whole. So, I think we should we should pause and consider that and also consider the fact that the lagoon is in peril. We know that that's we all pay a half cent sales tax. We are losing our canopy uh and our habitat. That's happening throughout Florida. it's all the more important here in on the barrier island. Um and so and really we I we are seeing these mega mansions come in and we I think as a side issue we probably should consider do we want to turn into that or do we need to rethink our footprint but that's another issue. There's a lot of things I could say here and and and and since the info I presented last meeting is being disputed, I made several phone calls as well today to verify that information. And I just want to throw out a few and I'm still getting those phone calls back. I spoke to Vanessa Arnell of Bvoulevard County Natural Resources. Bvard County requires 50% native plants

for new builds. Section 624341. There it is right there. Hold on. I'm I'm still going. Can I add that? I I spoke with Jackie Larshooki of Santael. Both Santael and Captiva. Captiva is under Santael's jurisdiction. They require 75% all new builds.

Isa Marada's landscape manual 75 all new builds. Collier County, Naples, Florida. Listen to this one. If you are south and west of 41, Highway 41, if you're familiar with that city, those are all the neighborhoods closest to the Gulf. They're requiring 100% native plants on new builds. So, the list goes on there. And as it's been mentioned before, this is happening and we need to get on board because we where does nature have rights? Where does habitat have rights? And we do limit people's personal property rights in certain situations. One more thing I wanted to say which really hasn't been brought up. We have some amazing organizations in this area that are working to protect our land and water. You've probably heard of them. Bvard County Natural Resources, Marine Resources Council, KBB, Keep Revard Beautiful, Environmentally Endangered Lands, Environmental Learning Center, Indian River Lagoon uh National Estuary Program, which is federal. Each of these groups which and they are experts in all this. Each of these groups is encouraging and pushing cities and towns across Florida to adopt ordinances requiring native plants. I understand what you mean about encouraging and in a perfect world that might work but we are we are out of time. We are out of time. We know that this is a critical situation and so requiring is not well requiring is appropriate I believe. So that's all I have to say. When you know better you do better and this is the way that we protect our unique area.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do uh do we need a motion to ask staff to try to address some of the things that we discussed or is it just something that I'd like to make the motion to u for either Lisa or uh Corey maybe she's passing that on to Corey town planner to u to uh revise this version for the things we discussed and agreed upon and to provide us with a new uh we call it version 3.0 and um we can uh we can further deliberate based on that.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I I I opposed. Well, there are none.

Madam chair, may I have again a little clarification? I'm passing this on obviously my last day is Friday, so I'm just trying to help staff. Um, you had mentioned you'd like a workshop to possibly go through all of these items and really talk about it and possibly see all of these statistics and information from the community. So, are we saying that we want to come back to the next planning and zoning boarding board meeting, I'm sorry, with version 3.0 as as Mr. Harper [clears throat] stated, "Or would you prefer that there be a workshop?" I'm making this up. 6 to 7 and then you convene the meeting and then you make changes. I don't know how you want how you want this to work. I'm just asking for direction.

Addressing me. Okay. I'm asking for direction. So, please

and and I think that I don't think it's necessary to have a a workshop and then go into a meeting. Um it I I think that I just I had anticipated this this whole process to work a little differently than it has. What And I've lost my train of thought now. [laughter] I I think what what I would like to see uh and I'm pretty sure the rest of the board's in agreement with me is and and I hate to do this to staff, but as far as what these ordinances are and these things in other uh municipalities, uh particularly ones closer around us, uh I would like to see this generated from staff so that it has, you know, a more official uh note to it. Um and so that we can then rely on hopefully rely on the accuracy of the information that we're being given. Uh not that we don't appreciate the work you've done, Dan, but it's it is it's we we all have our own bias and so any kind of report we put together, I'm afraid, is going to reflect that. Um that's just our that's human nature. Um so that's That's kind of what I'm I'm asking for. And if it's something that's that can't be ready for the next meeting, that's fine. But it, you know, it can can be delayed. I'm sure that y'all are like that. You don't want to just keep having it come back. And um

agreed. So that's Do you disagree with any of that, Dan? Well, I um No, that's fair. are they whoever gets uh fashioned with this task, it takes a while. you it takes a while to get through. These are lengthy uh land development codes to get through to it and you have to be sure that you've landed on the context and the proper so it's uh I would like it um I'd like EAB to get a copy of the proposed city developed one and I get a copy of the proposed city developed one and we maybe all three of us get together and see if we uh agree on the on the [snorts]

Do we get copies too? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. And uh I was just trying to iron out the uh the differences if there were any in what the city would do, what EAB would do, and what I would do. Let's just if the three of us get in the same room, at least we can agree on the ordinance number that uh is the applicable one. Let's say as an example, rather they're they're if I if I may, I'm sorry. I believe that the Native Plant Society, the Florida Native Plant Society or IFAS, one of them is Oregon has a list because I've seen it, they have a list that shows, okay,

which municipalities and local governments has adopted native plant ordinances in their landscape plan. So, I'm almost positive that exists and so we can just submit that. And they're obviously reputable and go ahead. I said, "No, you're referring to uh are you referring to the Melbourne uh Florida uh native plant society. No, no, I'm talking about the the IUS and and the uh national

I would I would the only my only caution there is I looked at some that the the Melbourne chapter put out and so they might say 70% and when you drill down it's just for buffer streets or it's for parking lots or it's just for commercial. They'll just put the 70% in because it's some part of their ordinance. But a lot of times it's multifamily or commercial and single family is exempt. So you have to look at the actual ordinance. I know like uh Bvard County was mentioned they're 50%. But if you and we don't need to debate these this is this is the kind of thing we got to get. Bard County puts out a list. There's numerous non-natives on their list. That's their that's their recommended. It goes far beyond natives. It's not just natives. It's far beyond natives. and Ismoralda. Those are buffer I got their landscaping manual. Those are buffering uh streets and parking lots. So, it takes it takes it they're they're complicated and they're complex, April. And but if we get together, the three of us or even the two of us, and we can agree on the applicable statute, I'm happy with that. But I think that's fair to both parties to agree on the applicable statute. That shouldn't be that hard. They've got theirs already in their pile.

I've got mine. So Dan, are you saying that if we can get the three parties then have the workshop so that we can all talk openly about it? I would I was going to say let's decide let's the three parties would agree on the uh on the the statute that's applicable. So as far as having a list of who requires it and who doesn't, we would have ironed that out by the statute. So you guys aren't guessing

as to is Dan right or are they right or is the city right. I I think we got to get together and we can agree when we have the statutes and the ordinance is right in front of us. There shouldn't be any dispute then it's it's written but I know by working on this April they're complex sometimes you have to get a hold of the landscaping manual sometimes you have to get a hold of the selected plantings. I'm aware of all that. Okay. So, I would like for us to all be on the same page for who requires. If we consider that important, then I'd like to be on the same page rather than us debating the applicability of of ordinances. It shouldn't be very hard to do. Okay, Dan, that horse has been beaten enough.

Okay, we go back to what I had requested that staff provide us with this information, please. Um, [snorts] and is there anything else from you guys up here? Do we have a report from No. No. Okay. [laughter] Steve, you have anything any kind of input? I think you're going to find it that while we're doing this kind of thing that that that you're not going to be involved in it.

Two two items, please. Yes. In in in relation to the things that I've heard from you all, and I'm just pardoning my wisdom before I walk out the door. So, do with what you with this what you will, fines and fees, they should be discussed and can be discussed, but they should never be put in this ordinance. Correct.

They are to be put in the resolution of the fees and and and um fines that is every year agreed upon by the commission. Okay. Grand. Number two, going back to what you're asking, there is no nexus between um planting natives and your ad valorum taxation. There's no nexus. So, you wouldn't be able to make that argument. However, there is a nexus between your storm water utility fees that are the nonadalorum assessments below the line on your tax bill. And um it has been successfully argued that you can get a credit on your storm water fees should you plant natives or provide some type of excess not I mean beyond the state statutes excess storm water in your property whether it be usually it's not for single family residents but that doesn't mean it couldn't be here. So that's where I would say the nexus may be if you were looking for some kind of um incentive monetary incentive

and and I agree you can't have it above the line. It needs to be below the line. That's correct. Yeah. Which is more dependent on who's going to pass it. That's right. Yes. So I just wanted to park it could be recommended if we wanted to. Absolutely. We got that far. All right. Well, thank you. you. It was a pleasure to meet you all and work with you all and um you'll see me riding around. All right, so I'm not going far. So, thank you very much. Bye-bye. I got a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. We are adjourned. Approved.