Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

to the August 4th, 2026 meeting of the Melbourne Beach Planning and Zoning Board. Roll call from Sid, please.

Chairperson Dan Harper. Here. Member Gabor Koschegi. Here. Member Todd Albert. Here. Member Jason Judge. I just got your name on roll. All right. Town Manager Amory Smith.

Present.

Building Assistant Steve Freeman. Here. And Town Clerk Sid Jones is also present. Sorry, can you get your mic on? Can you put your mic on?

I would like to nominate Gabor Koshegi. He is the second most experienced person on our board. I think he would do a good job. And that's my nomination. Can I second?

Go ahead. I second it.

Okay, it's been motioned and seconded. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Opposed? Welcome aboard, Gabor. I'm guessing I don't vote on that. I don't know.

You can vote for yourself. Good job. All right. It's a carry four out.

Thank you.

All right, next item on the agenda is the consideration for the site plan approval 322, Hibiscus Trail. I see Steve's here to answer any grounders that might come our way. Anybody have any thoughts or comments about this application?

The only comment, because it meets all of the issues that I look at, pervious, impervious, size and all that, setbacks. The one issue that I had might be It might be that I'm misreading it, but on the first page of the site review plan under number one, it says that it is along with two two-car garages and one one-car garage. And when I looked at the plans, I saw a two-car garage and I saw one one-car garage. There's a two-car and there's a one. Oh, so we're saying there are two garages. One's two car. Okay. Because I read that as two two car garages and one. So my air. So other than that, I have it's a big house. Quite frankly, it brought up some issues for me, which we can discuss later, but it meets, I don't see anything, any problem with it.

Anybody else? Have any exceptions or comments? I just had one on the, and Steve, you have to help me out here. There, it looked like there was some tree removal that was gonna need to be required for the, driveways for the garages, for the trees that are out front. And normally we have that tree removal permit and plan, kind of that tree landscaping plan with this. What was the thought on not having that as part of the package?

That might be my mission. I know there was one issued. I don't know said had that given it to him, but there is one that had had a landscape plan on it.

Sure are you the are you the owner.

It's a point Santa tree we're going to take down for the boat parking. Yeah, the rest of the big trees are all staying across the front. There's a big mango in the back corner we're going to leave. There's a Japanese blueberry. Owner tells me that's what it is. That's staying. Basically, we're taking out the shrubs in that one tree.

Okay. That's kind of what I thought was the deal. It's acceptable to me. I understand.

Yeah, yeah. No, we'd like to leave as much as we can for sure.

All right.

Any other further comments? Anybody want to make a motion to approve?

Motion to approve 322 Hibiscus Trail.

I second.

All those in favor? Second. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Passes. Thank you. Thank you. Talk to you later, Steve. Yes.

Who says we're not easy to work with?

Okay, then the next item on the agenda was the completion of, actually, let me, Steve, let me fall back and ask you one question, too, on the site plan we just approved. I noticed that the the swaling plan that was shown on the surveys, it showed the contours coming down. This would be on the survey where it showed the the contours of the stormwater swales. It showed those contours coming across the driveway. And obviously, absent that one house that actually put them through their driveway. Do you know what the theory is on that at all, or why those contours would be shown where the driveway's gonna? to be obviously they can't do that but uh anyway i uh i didn't know if there was any i didn't know if there had been any discussion on that i guess is what i was asking it doesn't sound like there was

As far as the, um, the drainage and that portion of it, that is still in discussion. Everything with our engineers has been verbally approved. Um, Frank's been away. He just got back into the area, so he's going to send me some documentation. There's been no mention of it concerned about that to me from the engineers.

Okay, as far as, I guess the, it's curious why it's drawn there, if it's gonna be where the driveway is, is all of it.

Right, to be honest, I could not answer that question.

All right. Was this the one that I saw, there was something about specifics on piping that's used in corrugated pipe? Maybe that has something to do with it under the driveway.

This did have a so-called trench drain. I didn't know what that was. I saw that.

I lived next to the house that had the swale through the driveway, and I think he wound up realizing how awful it was because he kept hanging his car. Unclogging it. And they cut it and put a drain through it, I think is what they wound up doing to still meet the requirements and not have the obnoxious bump in the middle of the driveway.

Yeah. Okay, I just wanted to bring that up in case there was some discussion on it, but obviously I wanted to hold anything up. Okay, the next item on the agenda was these final couple sections of the landscape rewrite, and that was to look at sections... 9A... I guess it'd be the first one up. We have 9-8-8, 9-10, I believe. So anybody looking at 9-8-8, we can kind of do what we did last meeting. And Sid, you can make note of any proposed changes here. Does anybody have any thoughts on the 9-8-8 tree protection? Does anybody, you can see the changes that were proposed. Does anybody have any thoughts on that?

So I went through the whole thing, that beginning part that we reviewed and reread everything again. And there were a couple of questions that I had made notes of in the last meeting to myself that looked like they should have that we had agreed on one thing and it wasn't necessarily showing, but when I read these, all that worked out and was fine with what I believe we had discussed and agreed upon. And I think that's going through 9A-6. Mr. 97 less than seven as well then seven was One of the things Let me just interject what Todd's doing.

He's going back through, he's reviewing A9A1 through seven that we previously had passed and seeing if he wanted to tweak that a little bit is what he's doing right now. Go ahead.

So seven, the one thing I was wondering if maybe we should tweak, and it really comes down to today's house that we looked at, and that is, I think, we need to put in here that 9A1 should be something to the effect of landscaping plans for lots to be developed or redeveloped should be submitted to the town with building plans prior to P&Z submission. I just think that what we saw here was nothing as to what they're gonna do in the future. It had what the existing trees were, and he said that that's what was gonna be. However, there was some talk about there being swales. There are no swales there. It all just slopes down from the house, but we can't stop that. But I just think that we need, and we have commented at a few meetings, a few meetings where we've abused plans, that what happened to having landscaping plans with the plans that we're approving.

Are you referring to the situation where you're just talking about sort of remodeling situations? Is that what you're talking about?

No, both.

Okay, one in the complete landscaping plan included as part of the package.

Now in many of the packages, we do have landscaping plans. Some of the plans.

It shouldn't be. The ordinances basically just dictate, as you know, the tree removal and replacement is basically the gist of what our ordinances require compliance with. It doesn't go beyond that. It doesn't go into shrubs and trees and plants, et cetera. There is... Yes, the way I thought about it, and I'm happy to add something here if you want. The way I thought about it was if there is a tree being removed, they would always have this tree removal submission that includes the site plan, the survey, shows where the trees are, which ones are being removed, and the reason for the removal. That's set forth in the tree removal ordinance requirements now. You're just kind of wanting to dovetail that with this requirement kind of thing is what.

That's my thought.

Okay, well, where would you like to stick that wording at again? You're at 7A.

Yeah, 7A, 9A7 under landscaping plans. a landscaping in all first family residential zones and then the number one would be landscaping plans for the lots to be developed or redeveloped shall be submitted to the town with building plans prior to P&Z submission.

Okay, I like that. Now tell me again where you're putting that, though. I can't quite find it.

This is the existing. That's minimum tree plantings.

Are we at the top of page 62 on the new printout?

This is the proposed. Yes. So it's now labeled landscaping plans. Then that's the title. And I would put it as number one.

Okay. Uh, that's fine. I'm okay with that. Any other comments? So he wants to what, uh, it's on the proposed, um, plan. And, um, Todd wants to add that there's a requirement that the landscaping plan be accompanied. Right.

Alongside number one. So adding out a lot.

Yes So can you specifically what you want?

So I guess question before you answer am I adding this before number one or adding to number one? We're adding word number one.

So everything below it would shift Sorry That was coming into my ears That would be the new number one meaning that everything else would go to one to 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, okay, so the the existing number one gets renumbered we're not removing it.

Yeah, okay got it all right ready when you are.

It's good.

I guess, how do you wanna say it?

No, I think it's fine. So does he have to make a motion to add that to the?

No, just if you have some suggested wording that everyone's okay with, just so I know what to write down, basically.

This is what I would say.

Landscaping plans. Number one, landscaping plans for lots to be developed or redeveloped shall be submitted to the town with building plans prior to planning and zoning submission.

Okay.

I don't at all. The only, I guess another question would be I'm seeing more teardowns and rebuilds where they want to do the demo immediately prior to them even designing a new home.

that aspect they want to also take trees out so are we dealing with that or i want to have a landscape plan prior you have to have a right now according to the ordinances and i think what the community wants is you got to have that plan in place first right you got to show those trees where they're going to fit on your new on your new site plan survey you know they put the new house on top there show what trees have to be removed And then that's part of the tree removal process. They can't really jump the gun on the tree removals without having that site plan down there showing which ones have to. The only rationale for removing, remember, is the thing is damaged or it's in the footprint of the new house. There's really no other. So they have to show that. the survey You know where they got to show the trees, but they're a new footprint on top of it say which ones are gonna So I think you know I don't know how they how you can let them go ahead with the tree removal ahead of the Us getting The site plan for approval for instance 1500 pine we did last month

That started out as just that. They wanted to demo the property. So I had to force them to give me some sort of, give me your building plans, give me a landscape plan. And that was about two months in the works, but it was a little time consuming. I just see this more. I got another one about ready to be submitted for one of the PNZs coming up where they just want to demo it now. It happens that they're not taking trees down in this instance, so it's not an issue. But I foresee this becoming more and more of an option.

But they can't take trees down without a permit anyway.

Without a permit or some sort of approval.

So they couldn't even get a permit without, you know, they couldn't get their permit approved without you saying, all right, what are you going to do to replace this? So they kind of, or...

they can't do one without the other so it kind of forces their hand anyway right i think it's an argument statement or whatever why am i doing this so well i can't approve it until you give me an idea what you're going to do to make this better so it makes sense i think i understand what you're saying is the demo permit is a demo permit on its own separate starting and that's when in theory there shouldn't be landscaping and trees coming down just the structure itself correct unless they get another permit for what they want to take down. Yeah. In order to access it. Okay.

Yeah. So it's like, you know, I got to get, you're taking down for 1500 was every tree, but six would initially start out. So I needed something from you guys, the contractors telling me what is the plan to put them in place? Cause it is a one for one currently as it stands now. So that's what they had to produce well before they were ready.

You know, I would say I haven't served on this committee for a few years now. This tree removal is a big deal. And so I think you need to make them, in fact, your ordinances require them to show the footprint of that new house on top of the trees, which ones they're gonna pull off, why, what they're gonna replant. I can't see you complying with the ordinances and letting them go ahead without putting that through the approval process myself.

it's not being approved and i'm just seeing i'm fighting that more and more yeah i mean i can see the point because the contractor he's interested in building it's always interested and realistically the easiest way to build is to use a vacant lot just wipe it down they've been working on plans for building for months and they're probably still working on them when they want a demo permit. But realistically, that's when we need to say, guys, we're more into the future and what you're gonna do, not just with the building, because you can build many different buildings and it's gonna fit the lot, but what are you gonna do about the fact that you're taking down Four Oaks and So Many Palms and all this kind of stuff? And that's where, you know, the rubber meets the road for what, you know, the EAB committee is doing and where we have problems that trees are coming down and there's no replacement. So I think we need to switch gears on that, which is not what a contractor wants to hear, but I think we need to switch gears on it. And require them to have the... Yeah.

the normal process. Steve, up until I guess your concerns here the last six months, eight months, I don't know. For the last few years, it hasn't been a problem at all. At least it hadn't been vocalized at this level They always came with the survey just like they're supposed to the survey the old house on it Ideally the old footprint the new footprint trees that are going out listing them.

I think right now that's in the ordinances I don't say you can get around that but would Would it simplify it when we're talking about just the demo permit? putting a line on the demo permit or it's a question within that permit of are you removing any trees do you need to remove any trees for the demolition of the structure would that make it simpler if they either say yes or no yeah they got they got to explain what they're doing so the demo of the lot not the structure of the lot tell us everything you're doing on that lot right so specifically what is it that you're Demoing the structure or does it go wider than what that structure is and what in your way? I don't know. We're just trying to simplify it and make it easy as possible. but also that we know what's happening before it happens.

Right, they're going to have to come up with other, as well as drainage, because drainage wells and things are going to play a part.

Right, when you get into the construction phase, then yes, then we have all of that. But for the demo, just the demo, that's when you're running into the problem or the...

I think they need to have some sort of plan together where they're moving forward before any trees are coming out of that lot. Okay, that makes sense. I 100% agree with that.

Yeah, okay, and that's what our ordinances say right now, so I'm just going to point them to that if you want. Well, you were talking about the Burton one down here is the one you were talking about, I think. Now, sometimes they'll say they're going to leave trees, and then they end up not leaving them. And that's more a different department, I guess. What do we do about that? Like, I believe that site down there, he originally had those palm trees that were by the river. Right. I think it was five. Those were going to remain. And they ended up getting taken down. So, you know, I always hear this community thing, clear cut, clear cut. They don't often understand that there's a process. But in this case, there were supposed to be those left. Do you know what happened there?

I don't. I don't.

Do we have enforcement if they say they're going to leave them and they take them down? Or what's our position?

We have enforcement, but he's not going to be, code enforcement isn't going to be aware of what is required. It falls on me, 100% on me and what part-time building official we got to make sure. I mean, first time we step on that property, Due to our first inspection, we should probably do that inspection. Where do these trees go and have that answered at that point in time? Other than that, I need some sort of feedback. I heard it because right across the street on one was that big Australian pine was taken down, and we were talking about it while we were out there. So I noticed it. I haven't approached them or asked any questions about it. I just have left it be because I've got so much on my plate.

That's really beyond what we do here. That's really an enforcement issue or something. Right. goes on, we've approved it based on retaining those, then our job is done here at this level.

I think we went through this before, and the short answer is there's not a ton of repercussions for when they do these things. Like, you know, there's been, like you talked about years past where they would go and just wipe them out, and the penalty never matched the crime, so that's kind of a hard one to deal with.

I think that becomes, we're going to address that in one of the next sections, I believe.

Yeah, we do have the penalty coming up. Right. Okay. Very good. Let's see if everyone's willing, let's move on to this 9A8. Go ahead.

One tiny thing on the very end of that section, 9A7 landscaping plans, and that is in the very last paragraph, the last page. It's just a typo that replanted should not have a space after the dash.

Oh, I see that. Thank you. Easy fix.

I'm so sorry.

We're happy to have something left.

I didn't sleep last night. This is what keeps you up at night. It's good to know.

Okay. Now, should we move on to the 9A8? The tree protection ordinance where there's been some proposed changes. Those are showing in red. Does anybody have any comments on that?

In 9A-8, the only thing that bothered me a little bit was C, tree survival. And I think Jeff, I think, brought up last time the viable condition with a minimum of three years. So we're supposed to inspect. So if this house gets built and there's a tree that's been damaged. We're supposed to look at it in three years. So I think you need to have it on your calendar. So I just think that I think that a little much. Um, and so what I was thinking here was is putting in tree survival period. A tree inspection will take place 90 days and 180 days after final building inspection or certificate of incumbency is issued or after a permit is to be issued. granted for a tree replacement to ascertain the viable condition. Owners will be warned of the findings of that time, at that time, if the trees are failing and then going on to be in the second sentence which says trees failing and instead of say are failing to meet the survival requirement and go on from there. So I just think that brings it a lot more current. 90 days gives you a warning sign. 180 days tells you whether it's really not good or not. But it's more in the present tense as opposed to three years hence. I just don't think three years is gonna cut it. If I were in your position, How that would give me night, you know I had a trying to figure out how to monitor that. Or if I was in Marie's position.

So I just think bring it more current could be honest be put on the that's just the owner of the House that they're required to provide bring it to you send it to not force you to drive out there and look at it.

Absolutely. Some other factor needs to play in this to put the onus on me to go out there and look at, because I don't even know what I'm looking at. I'm not a tree expert.

You just mentioned you're kind of pressed for time as it is, so to get you to go out and be tree police is difficult, but it probably wouldn't be difficult to set some sort of alarm where these people have to have submitted proof of that the trees are still good in shape and that they're there, and if they did lose it, that here's what they've done to replace it.

So in C, the last two lines, or the last sentence really, replacement trees must be tagged or indicated on the as-built plans on file with the town, period, and then eliminate everything after that.

What about this first sentence up there for a minimum of three years? Want to leave that in? You know, as a practical matter, I've kind of with Todd on the three years thing is it just doesn't seem practical. I don't technically, I don't think you're, you can, can you, can you go into somebody's backyard anytime you want?

I don't think so. I mean, you have freezes, you have hurricanes. What, how are they supposed to report to me that, Hey, I ain't gonna meet this ordinance. It's

do you police this that's my question yeah you know from the building apartments perspective you can make all the rules you want but how are you going to police them right so leaving that that first part in there that you that you said that for a minimum of three years yeah this is the expectation but then eliminate the re-inspection part so we take that onus off you know what i mean

Okay, I see what you're saying. You're just saying trees must survive for three years. Failure to survive, they've got to be replaced. And then what's your last sentence going to say?

Right after the word town is a period, and then everything after that, and re-inspected, continued viability, all gone.

What about this and what about this replacement trees must be tagged or indicated on the as bill plans on file.

I'm not a 100% what they mean by that.

I don't know they mean they mean on the as bill plans you're going to have a red indicator or something of the trees that you replaced right. I guess it's something that didn't survive and it's I guess you know if they're Probably what they're submitting for their landscape plan, if they're removing trees, they should be showing that anyway. That could serve as this record you're talking about, Gabor. That would be fine. I mean, I'm okay with what Gabor and Todd are proposing. How about you, Jason? What do you think?

I think it's okay.

It's as a practical matter. You got to scratch your head and say Come on, you know, I you know, technically not technically or you know that comp plan says, you know, it has to be to be enforceable it has to be feasible and Some of these things if you're getting into an area where it's really not really can't No doing annual inspections for three years is not feasible or these written why we had a building official full-time I

yeah and even then okay um it might be feasible but still you're you're short okay so my understanding was the first underlined portion that says for a minimum of three years after the final building inspection or certificate of occupancy is issued or after a permit is granted for any tree replacement otherwise we keep that yes and then Do we keep the part about trees failing to meet this requirement being replaced within 45 days after written notification of code violation? Yes. Okay. And then are we just removing the last sentence or we also.

Not the whole sentence. Go ahead. I'm sorry. So we're keeping replacement trees must be tagged or indicated on the as-built plans on file with the town. Period. Okay. That's it.

And then remove everything from the and forward. Now, Todd, are you also adding in a sentence or does that satisfy what you were thinking about?

No. DID YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT THREE-YEAR THING TO YOUR?

YEAH, FOR THE INSPECTION. SIX MONTHS OR WHATEVER YOU HAVE.

YEAH.

I THOUGHT THE CONVERSATION I UNDERSTOOD WAS NOT THAT AN INSPECTION WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN. THEY JUST HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF MAINTAINING IT FOR THREE YEARS. BUT IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS. I'M JUST TRYING TO INTERPRET WHAT I HEARD.

All right, with 180 days? Yeah, if you like that. Maybe take out the 90, but put in the 180? That's fine, that's fine. Okay, so then the first sentence of that paragraph C, tree survival, would be A, tree inspection will take place 180 days after final building inspection or certificate of incumbency is issued or after a permit is granted for any tree replacement to ascertain the viable condition of the tree. Yeah, and then it would continue, if the tree, parentheses, trees, are failing to meet the survival requirement, or trees, trees failing to meet this survival requirement must be replaced within 45 days after written written notification of code violation is issued by the town right and then comes the last sentence right with the with the chop that gabor mentioned yeah okay

May I make a comment about one of the sentences?

Sure.

The sentence that you kept trees failing to meet the survival requirement must be replaced within 45 days after written notification and you say of code violation. So that means that our code enforcement officer would have to go.

Takes it over.

Right, but to Steve's point earlier, he or she may not know that there is a violation because they may not be aware of when the trees were planted. And so there's a little bit of.

There needs to be communication.

There's gonna be a little bit of disjointedness. That would be the building department, not necessarily code, And I'm just saying this just as a practical matter in seeing how code operates and building operates, that that's gonna be very difficult if you're waiting for a code violation, as opposed to just saying a notice. I don't know how to, I don't know, Steve, if you have ideas on how to restructure that?

Can we leave the code violation out and just written notice? Does that not have teeth enough or something? Is that the idea? I mean, this is never really.

I mean, leaving that of code violation out would be feasible.

It'd probably be more feasible, but I'm just saying code violation puts it then on code enforcement, and they wouldn't know when trees were planted and what house, and it would be very difficult to enforce.

So just written notification?

Yeah, I think that might be, yeah. Yeah, it goes back to building department, not the codes.

Okay, so it becomes after a written notification is issued by the town. We just leave it open as to who's achieving that? Yeah. Okay. um if we're done with this one can we go back to the beginning of 988 and just go section by section and just give a a check off on each one if everybody's okay with what's changed because we kind of jumped down all right i i had one i had just one more thought on 988 it says uh in 9a a one towards the bottom there it says

uh blah blah blah before a land clearing permit is issued do we that's not the true and i'm familiar with a tree removal permit is i'm not aware of a land clearing permit is there i mean that would be a demo permit well let's call it what it what it is supposed to be then a demolition permit or land clearing permit is this they that is the demolition permit

Well, demolition permit is going to be the demo permit, and you'll also issue a tree permit that would go in depth about what trees are being removed if they were doing that during the demo process.

Okay, well, what is your, what would you, if somebody said, give me a land clearing permit, what would you give them?

I would give them a demo permit, demolition.

Okay, should we change that name then to the demolition permit is issued?

I think so.

if we don't know if any if you look up land clearing permits you can't find anything no no there's nothing that's a land clearing permit unless you're looking at site okay demolition preparation or something so we'd make that demolition permit then where so it says uh before a demolition permit is issued and then on the next sentence then you know you see land clearing permit again so you know you change that too sid yep got it yeah

But then the last sentence where we're not referring to a permit anymore, we're just referring to the act of land clearing, would we leave that as is? Only land clearing is permitted outside the drip line of the tree to be protected?

Yeah, I guess. I don't know, what do you guys think? Should that be called the demolition when only demolition is permitted? I think land clearing is okay there in that context, but I don't know what anybody else thinks.

I think, I believe, the thought process behind this was specifically so that you're not having heavy equipment and such inside the drip line damaging the tree or burying it or whatever. So, outside the drip line. I'm not sure if that's worded correctly, but I think I know what they mean.

We're just wondering if we should change it to the demolition. Only demolition is permitted outside the drip line to be consistent with the wording. So I'll be bold and say let's be consistent with the wording and say only demolition is permitted outside the drip line of the tree to be protected. That's what works for me.

Do you want to also use that wording earlier in the paragraph in the first and second sentences? And Actually for the land clearing appears like 3 more times.

I think it should it should be consistent.

I think that last sentence grammatically is a little funky. Maybe it should say demolition is only permitted, not only demolition is permitted.

Yes, that'd be fine with me. Okay. Okay, Sid, you wanted to go back to the, what, approve these one by one? Is that what you wanted to do?

Just from the start of 9A8, so I've already written down the, the discussions that we just had, but I guess overall, is everybody okay with the other, the existing red strikethroughs and underlines of A1? Yeah. Okay. And then we can just go from there, A2 and down.

Yes, I see what you're saying, right. You know, For what it's worth, you know, where they say protective barriers around trees to be retained on site. According to the University of Florida's tree preservation during land development, there is no such publication. But, you know, there's just a website that doesn't go anywhere. It says tree preservation during land development. It has links, but nothing comes up. And I checked with the local, whatever they call them, branch. There is no publication. So perhaps, let me see, perhaps . I guess technically we probably, I don't know, leave it in there for now. I mean, there is a website. It doesn't go anywhere. Maybe it will someday. So just leave that in for now. I take my comment back. I think the rest of it's good.

Okay.

So do we need a motion on that? Are we going to try to do all these updates and then do one big motion? Or would you like to do it, Sid?

I'm fine if you just want to go line by line and make the updates and then a motion at the end. All right. Kind of encapsulating it all.

Okay. Any other thoughts on 9A8?

No.

So are sections under A2 and 3, I think 2 just has one strike through, 3 has no changes. We're good with those?

Yes, there was no modifications to 2 or 3. Okay.

Are we okay with B, attachments to tree?

I think so, yes.

We already covered C, so then it would be just that final line D, as in dog.

Right. No change. Okay.

All right.

if we're B, would that preclude like holiday lights or ornaments?

This is on the tree that's on the site that's being developed. They're just putting a fence around it to make sure that heavy equipment doesn't impact the roots or soil.

So this is for a short-term purpose?

Yes, this is just during construction. Okay.

Just, yeah.

And I would hope they wouldn't hammer them if they want to spread holiday cheer in the middle of their build. We should just turn a blind eye to that. Santa Claus is watching, and he would not be happy with you.

Okay, 9A9 is... Trees on.

There's no changes on that.

Oh yeah, there was no changes. I'm sorry. That's okay. That was no changes.

Correct. That's an easy one.

Oh yeah, it was. Okay. 9A10 was exceptions. And the only proposed, I guess they changed the title of it. The variations to landscaping requirements. They changed the last sentence. They had a sentence at the bottom to pull out the invasive ones. Anybody have any thoughts on that? I was okay with that. You guys okay?

Yep. Yes, sir.

Okay. Sounds like we're okay with the red changes to 9A10.

Can I ask from the town's perspective, do we have a copy of that list available that's in Section D? It says we'll make it available. I just want to make sure we have it.

That's a good question.

I was thinking along the lines of... Look at 9A10, the last section D. Do we have that?

You could... You could instead... You could make that... You could obtain the Florida invasive species from the Florida Friendly Landscape app or... website you can go to the florida friendly landscape website for the invasive species if we want to reference that rather than or a copy of the invasive species council this invasion would be at the town where they if they come to the town you can just say go to the florida friendly landscape website and find them listed there marie what's your choice would you rather have them go on their own or come and ask you for it we can say

access to the Florida invasives instead of a copy because they're gonna think that we're gonna have a physical copy yeah that's what I was thinking so you know if we say access that could also mean internet access we can point them where to go website right we could put it on on the website I hate to say this, but there's coming into play a lot of ADA requirements with that too, so that if we host it, we can put it off to that other website, or we can put it on our website, which will be ADA compliant in time. But those are the things that I'm sure you don't, you know, we have to think about as far as access goes. And so that's why the wording does make a big difference as opposed to a physical copy of people who might be sight impaired or have some other disabilities. And so we have to be able to provide that.

Yeah. I would say if anything, if our website is involved i would only have it linking to where it's hosted externally by the organization that put it together so that way as they make updates we don't have to make updates on our website as long as that link stays active visitors are always getting the most recent version yeah so

That's probably more information than you wanted to know.

That's what we got to worry about. No, it just makes us feel your pain with all this stuff.

I just put in Florida Invasive Species Council, and I think the way to do this is say the Florida Invasive Species Council list of invasive plant species can be found under this capitalized title on the web.

Yeah. So like maybe put quotations around it.

Right. Cause I just put it in and it pops up and it says you can view and download the official updated document directly from the quote Florida invasive species council plant list. So I just direct people there. Do I just reference the website then? And reference the website. Reference what's there as a website.

Okay. Even better.

Even better. I like it. And it's Florida Invasive Species Council List End. That's the website.

Okay. So we could just say the quote for invasive species Council list. For invasive species Council list and quotation is available online. Yes, leave it at that.

And then put the actual website there.

would say no because links change and then we'd have to deal with this all over again so keep it underlined in caps yeah we put it in quotes yeah so i was thinking quotations so they can search that exact phrase

Has anyone ever discussed with the EAB about assisting with some of this landscaping stuff as far as like the physical being there looking stuff. Those guys are pretty, so none of us would ever know what the invasive species list are. We would know a lot of these things. They wouldn't and they, I know they want to be involved. Is there a way to include them in some of the stuff? Like we were going to do the final basic approval to the board, but wouldn't it be nice to have them look at the landscape stuff ahead of time? They would they would pick out the things that we're not going to see. They would know that some of these plants don't belong and they would know they would probably be willing to go and do a catalog of all these trees of what was there, what should be there in six months or a year or whatever. And I'm sure you could find a way to include them because I don't think there's anyone that's as passionate about that as those guys are. They want to be involved So as far as time constraints go for you, you don't have time to do this and you you know And even if you did have time you like you said I don't know What all these trees are and like you could have bamboozled me and put a different tree in or you know Like you don't you you don't know and most people don't For the hundred and eighty day check Okay OR THEY COULD AT THE DATE OF CO OR WHAT NOT THEY CAN GO TAKE A CATALOG OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS MOVED AND REPLANTED AND IS THERE NOW THAT SHOULD BE THERE IN THAT TIME FRAME AND WHEN THAT TIME FRAME COMES UP I'M SURE THOSE GUYS WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SAY HEY WE NEED TO GO DO ANOTHER INSPECTION OR FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF AND THEY WOULD KNOW IF IT WAS ACTUALLY DONE PROPERLY BECAUSE THEY CARE.

SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY FROM THE TOWN BUT AN INVITE

To one of the people from EAB Steve's required to go available Steve's required to go out and look at the right verify the tree Planting plan if you will which ones are being pulled and which ones are being replaced He could take the EAB person with him at that time correct where they're approving the The tree removal prop and I'm sure at that time you're probably doing other stuff as well.

That is more

be a building official we'll go and do a pre or a post demo inspection pre-demo post demo to make sure the trees were taken out was the ones that were notated and everything is set properly tree protection everything is ready for it i mean that'd be perfect time for the ab to go out there along with us

OK and not as a requirement, but the invitation from.

I'm sure they jump at it would it would lessen the load for you guys and you feel more confident in what was happening that and we would feel more confident that it was done properly.

Right yeah buy in with the with the contract with the homeowner as this process goes on that everybody's involved other than somebody's going out there and saying check walk away.

I'm not in that into this stuff or should something else we could add in some capacity for when it comes especially to the all those landscape. Plans that they come up with because again we we we just don't know as well as they do question access to property.

Go back to the onus being put on the homeowner that if the building official can always go out there as part of his inspection and the process I Don't know if there was a requirement for the EAB to be Certified to go out there as well. I don't know if the guests can come out there. I can check with Jeff and find out I

You can check the legalities of that and determine I was just trying to find a way to make less work for you guys and to Cover us as a town better for these types of things No, and I said earlier the owners can be put on the homeowner where you say hey listen at 180 days Either you're gonna get a bill for us to do this or you're gonna come to us with this plan of you know This is what we need to see

Okay, very good. So are we done with 9A10? Yes, sir. Going once, twice, sold. 9A11, there was no changes. And 9A12 is the penalties, penalty box. Any thoughts on 9A12? There's four penalties. Any... Any thoughts on that?

No, that addition actually makes sense that if for some reason we didn't see it or catch it using previous photos makes sense.

I had one thought here. It's a second paragraph then where it says removal of any mature oak or similar trees. I just had kind of a question mark by that. Removal of any oak or canopy tree or... Are we okay with similar, whatever that means?

Well, requirement is for any tree, right? So you need a permit for any tree. So removal of any tree?

Removal of mature oak or any tree. Yeah, that'd probably be better. It's technically correct. I think we've differentiated.

I think we've differentiated between an oak and a palm, for instance, and canopy trees. So I think what they're talking about in my mind would be an oak or any other hardwood tree. But you're right, I think it's nebulous when you don't.

Technically, there's a penalty for removing any tree. Technically.

But cutting out a cabbage palm versus cutting out a 100-year-old oak shouldn't be really the same penalty.

Well, I think in the penalty, they address that. When we get to section 11, we'll address that oak tree differentiation, I think, Jason, you were talking about.

Yeah, this is just a broad of removing any tree without first obtaining a permit.

Right. So I'm okay with removal of any mature oak or any tree without. That's technically what we've got right now, like it or not.

Just to be honest with you. I had I just got back in town yesterday So I haven't had a chance to really look through much of this at all So I didn't see where there was penalty phase and herb stuff on any of that stuff, okay Do we also kind of say removal of any tree?

Except invasives invasive species.

No because nuisance trees are gonna be Yeah a whole different thing down below All right Okay, how about the 9a?

13 in the nuisance trees.

So sorry just to clarify for 9, 8, 12, the wording is just now going to be removal of any trees.

Any mature oak or any tree.

Yeah, leave mature oak in there. Okay. Any mature oak or any tree.

Okay, got it.

Okay. Okay, 9, 8, 13 nuisance trees. Any thoughts there?

So the one thing, I think at one point we questioned taking photographs, which is the end of that particular paragraph of removal of any. I mean, do we need to take pictures? You got one? Or how would people know that a tree has been illegally removed?

Snitch? I get calls all the time.

Your neighbor turns you in.

A RECENT OAK WAS TAKEN DOWN ON, I FORGET IT. THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER ONE. JUST NORTH OF A SUNSET WAS TAKEN DOWN AND I ONLY GOT NOTIFIED BECAUSE IN TAKING IT DOWN IT HIT A NEIGHBOR'S FENCE AND SOMEBODY ON THE TWO STORY RIGHT THERE ON RIVERSIDE SAW IT HAPPEN. called me we went out there and uh everybody just played dumb i mean the tree was evidently rotten but the proper channels was not really applied for to take that down i think for a while you could actually go on to a what is it there's a zillow and then there's another one that they'll have old pictures

of some of the laws.

I think that may have been hibiscus. That may have been my neighbor's house. What's your concern?

For the record, she cried when she took it down because she didn't have a choice. My concern is, is it necessary? I still got the video.

I'm sure it was horrible. Elaborate on your concern. You're wondering what the necessity of what now?

Frankly, I think it's unnecessary. And that sentence that has been added should be just deleted. I think the building group knows how to deal with trees that are illegally taken down. They don't need pictures.

I know that talking about additional photos the way I'm reading this is going backwards and looking at whatever Google Earth from a year and a half ago to see what was there. I think that's what they mean.

You know they're talking about you know. Looking at to see what was on your site before you this is an approved rumor removal.

We're talking about this I think you need to take pictures of everything.

I can go through Google Earth and find so many sheds, unpermitted sheds, so where do you want me to put my time?

Sheds are a difficult topic in this town. What does that do?

It doesn't really do anything, just that if for some reason there is a question that comes up, we can go back and utilize that.

Couldn't you go back and see the stump? Yeah.

Well, we can't get on the job site to see it.

You can't get in their backyard.

We can't do it. Unless we can see it visually from a neighbor's house and look down, we can't see it. I mean, I understand the photos, the pictures, the the everything to make that determination um i've done it in the past not for trees but for other aspects of it yeah in building but you're on thin ice with that i mean if someone wants to fight that you've got no leg to stand on right so utilizing aerial surveillance type of thing like a drone or something that's definitely a no that's uh

That would be a Fourth Amendment violation. But utilizing what exists on a website from a satellite photo is something different. I think those have been tested and okay, I think. But not utilizing our own air equipment or anything like that.

mean there's ways we can find out i mean the most common is we get notified by neighbors yeah i mean just a big tree being taken out is many truckloads and we get notified usually the same day do you get any help from waste management will they ever tell you oh you know no no no

Technically if someone cuts it out, they're supposed to halt themselves.

Oh, yeah Yeah, they're usually using their own vehicles their own trailers and taking it off-site.

It's I don't think waste management may be involved So what do you guys want to do you want to leave that reference to the photography or you want to scratch it I'm neutral

I mean, my feeling is delete it.

Okay.

Because I think you have to do your, I think you have to do your job as you have to do it. I don't think that we need this to.

I think this could be used as a debate on whether or not if they're fighting the fact that I didn't take the tree down recently, then you can probably prove to them that you did. But to use that as a sheer fact to say that you did, I think you're stretching a little bit there.

Chair Greg Musil. : Okay. Want to leave it in there for usability? Jason, you okay with that? Chair Greg Musil.

: And Todd wants out. You want that gone?

No, if you don't want that one doesn't matter to me.

OK. OK, we'll leave it in there for now. We'll leave that in for now, said OK. Next was a 9813. Nuisance trees. Any thoughts there? You OK with that?

Yes Sir, I'm good.

OK Jason, you OK with that?

Sir, let me go back to this. 9813.

If you are okay with it, I am gonna add it looks like there's a missing period After the word chapter before it says contact the town's EAB for free site visits. I think it's just Missing a period to end that sentence.

Yep. I

And also from another just kind of housekeeping perspective, it looks like they italicized one species name, but not the rest. So if we keep this, I'll clean that up as well.

All right. Very good. Okay. The next one, I think we jumped to that section 11 for the fines. Is that correct? Oh, no. 11-2 was... Well, I was looking at it was the 11 2 was the wetlands. My only thought on that one is that I have not been here as long as some of you guys. I didn't know there were any wetlands. City of Melbourne Beach.

Some of the I guess the River houses might be into the wetland but

Do we know what anybody's talking about?

I don't think it's wetlands is the way you envision it. We had a piece of property once before, and the swale had not been maintained properly by the city, and they had designated it wetlands. So we wound up having to buy credits to get it out. Yes. So I think the definition of it and what they categorize wetlands are, probably not exactly what you think it is. I don't know what it is off the top of my head.

Marie, they're soliciting you. I looked up, it says during the review of site plan, use the natural wetlands inventory maps for Bard counties. I looked those up. I can't find any wetlands in Melbourne Beach on these maps. 11A2.

Okay, we were talking about something else. We got distracted.

And then it says if wetlands may exist, they're adjacent to the site, the town manager shall contact their owner. and have him perform a wetland determination. And I guess I'm okay leaving that in there, but I just honestly, I could not find any wetlands noted on any maps, but obviously they wouldn't have put this in here unless they had found wetlands on a map. I could not find any, but.

Would that be a historical thing that doesn't exist today?

Well, these are up to date, Brevard County and the wetlands. You can go right online and look at it. I guess it doesn't hurt to leave it in there. I just don't know that you'll ever be called upon to do it, Maria, I guess. We can leave it in there just in case, I guess. There's no downside to it. so no problem i guess yeah i'm okay with leaving it in there i just wondered if anybody actually knew of any wetlands in melbourne beach doesn't sound like anybody's aware of that either and from that standpoint i thought the same for 11 a3 and 11 a4 on page 11a they didn't have any changes to them so oh okay Right, 1183, all permitted uses in wetlands and in private use in wetlands. We can leave it in there if everybody's okay with that. So I guess we're saying add, Sid, we're saying add the red sentences there to contact the manager. Okay. If their property is in a wetland or adjacent to it.

So we're accepting all changes under 11A2.

That's what I'm hearing.

All right. Yes. Okay, now help me out here, you guys. Where is this? Where were the penalties talked about? That's a good question.

We both saw those somewhere. I'm on the last page, and it's not there. But it definitely was there somewhere.

9812?

Okay, there you go.

Okay, 9812. Okay, yeah. It references, okay, yes. So 9812, if you guys want to go back to that for a second. It says in that second paragraph, basically the removal of an oak tree constitute what they call prima facie evidence of a violation of irreparable or irreversible and is subject to the enhanced fine assessment. This 1121B1, I did get a copy of that. That's the $5,000 limit per violation. It's determined upon the magistrate decides that. I honestly don't know. I'm not gonna propose a change, but I don't know how the ordinance can say that it's a, that it should have the enhanced assessment when really the trier of facts decides that. But it's put in there. Anyway, I think, Jason, that's what they talk about. If you pull out the mature oak tree, then you're gonna get popped with a maximum fine per tree. And for a city our size, the maximum fine is five grand.

Have we ever done that to anyone?

I don't think so.

I'd have to check with code enforcement.

Probably have to do it a few times and never get anyone to do it.

Does the fine go away if they replant?

Yeah. Yeah, there's no fine if they replant, if they mitigate it.

Right.

Absolutely.

But we can't impose our own fines? not negotiable. You have to replant anyway, but you're still going to get cracked with a $5,000 fine for cutting out a 100-year-old oak tree. I mean, to me, that seems like the best deterrent for anything like this is just to say, you know, I didn't like this one. It wasn't as pretty as I wanted, so I cut it out, and I replaced it with something that is technically comparable, which is not true.

Well, first of all, they can't remove it. unless it's fallen down you know they get a an arbiter to come in and say it's a disease and it's fallen down and then uh or if it's in the footprint of the new house basically you can't just go whack one they're going to get the five thousand dollar fine but what i'm asking is that we ever actually find anyone that what's that is asking have we ever done that oh i don't know that would be on code enforcement i don't know if we did or not

Probably not in the last few years, at least. I have not heard of it.

Yeah. You know, anyway, that was the reference to the fine right there. I think we were talking about it. Thank you. I think that ends this section.

Can I ask one question about 9A13 nuisance?

9A13 nuisance? Sure.

Is a permit required for any of those?

I think it's a way of saying no, but go ahead.

Yes, only because. Identifying the tree as one of those trees right this could lead them to believe that they could just take it out because it's any tree. So permit for any tree.

I mean, I agree. I just think it needs to be been here that a permit still needs to be applied for.

That's what we're saying. Right. A permit still needs to be applied for. Even for the nuisance trees, they've got to apply for a permit. Right. The reason for removal is nuisance tree.

Because there's going to be other with it, generally, probably.

Yeah. Yeah. Typically.

Oh, so you want a line added saying that a permit needs to.

Although these are nuisance trees, a permit is still required.

Yeah.

Yeah, because I could see someone taking that wording where it says, contact the EAB for a free site visit. then it's a liability on the EAB. Well, they said I could take this tree out. It's invasive or a nuisance.

Okay, good point.

So it kind of protects the EAB too if we say you still have to get a permit.

Okay, yeah, let's add that sentence then.

But in 12, we can add that in, but removal of any mature oak or any tree without first obtaining a permit. But yeah.

Let's still put it down there. Box them in.

Does someone want to suggest a wording and do we want it to just be the last sentence underneath the species list or what's the placement?

Steve, you okay with just adding a sentence at the end there?

Absolutely. A tree permit is still required.

A tree permit is required by the city before removing any nuisance tree.

Okay.

So I had a question on nine eight twelve. I was just talking to Steve about. Evidence in a case, and he said that you have to the building department has to physically see the violation and the new language you have there talking about the photographs says that it may be used as prima facie evidence, meaning it's used as firsthand evidence as if he physically saw that. And that is not, I have to just check with our attorneys to see if we can replace. So that actually does change the legal liability. So we do need to check with the attorneys to see if, A picture can be used as prima facie evidence because it's very specific in there. It says prima facie evidence, not just used as evidence.

Myself, I would not be against scratching the prima facie evidence or just call it evidence of an existence of trees. You know, this is somebody's weekend lawyer wording or something.

Yeah.

I don't think I would. I'd be up for just scratching prima facie.

Should we table that and see what Ryan has to say, the best way to properly word this to keep you guys safe?

He charges $350 an hour if you want him to scratch prima facie. I don't know. What do we care? We're not adjudicating that anyway. The magistrate is adjudicating that. The magistrate is going to decide what penalty and how severe the infringement. We're not... We can't say that anyway, how to weight that evidence. I don't think. So I don't care, Jason. If you want the lawyer to look at it and see, that's fine too.

I would defer to Marie on that one. Hey, guys, I'm sorry. I've got to run. I've got to vote. I've got to run out too for my kids' crew team if I can vote against this. I get to be the tiebreaker. Sorry. That's OK. Have fun. Bye, Jason.

you want to do on that marie you want to leave that prima facie in there you want to scratch it or you want to call your lawyer well do you know who put that in there or why do you know who put that in there or why it was put in there the eav these are all eavs well there there is

The phrasing also appears in the existing. If you look at the first sentence, they use that same prima facie evidence.

It does. And I commented on it. I don't think we have the authority to tell the magistrate how to adjudicate it. So there probably could be stricken in both places. I just rolled with it.

So if you take out the word prima facie evidence,

Yeah, it just constitutes evidence of a violation.

It just becomes evidence. If some neighbor comes to you with a photograph, you can research it from there.

The magistrate's going to take whatever evidence you give them and adjudicate the thing. Yeah.

Well, what's interesting is that in the existing, it says it shall be used. It's absolute. And in the proposed, it's saying it may be used. So that is not an absolute, and in legal terms, that is very different. You must do something versus you may be able to do something, right? So.

Should we change it then? Does both say maybe used?

Well, it just, it softened it. So it's not, it's saying it may be used. So like you said, you could have the magistrate decide whether or not they want to use it as prima facie, but they changed it. They changed it from shall to may as well.

Okay, so let's change the shall up there in the first sentence, Sid, to maybe.

To may, okay.

Maybe used. The way it's written though.

But it's the way, it's the new way.

That's the new way it's written.

Yeah, it's written as may.

Oh, okay, okay, gotcha.

we're leaving what's in red but up at the top in the first sentence we're going to change that shall to may correct so they're consistent yeah i would okay see you in court okay are we are we keeping or removing uh prima facie we're keeping it we're just going to say it may be used as a patient

Well, the first, okay, the second, are you looking at the second paragraph? Yes. It said, removal of any mature oak tree, similar tree without first obtaining permit from the town as required shall constitute prima facie evidence. Is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, we were gonna propose changing that to the same may be used.

Yeah, I got the changing shall to may.

Well, no, that one doesn't need to be because it's saying that, I mean, Steve or somebody could go out and... look at it and say that shall be used as evidence. The building official went out there and saw that there was no, so that's fine to keep that as shall. But what I'm saying is photography, currently the way we administer the code is not necessarily used as prima facie evidence. And so what they're saying is that it may be used as prima facie evidence. So keeping it as it's written there is fine. And I know I'm getting into the legal fine points, but this is where we get into trouble if we don't understand that.

Yeah. No, that's fine. I was just trying to reiterate what was said to me.

Sounds good. So we're leaving that first sentence as is. Okay. We're leaving the red additions as is.

Yeah.

From a grammatical perspective, the way it's written, the actual phrase, prima facie, is written differently, like spelling-wise in the two of those, which one is correct? One ends with an E, one ends with an A, there's a dash in one.

I think the one with the E is wrong.

That's what I was assuming, but.

Let's look it up.

Are we in agreement?

I think we're in agreement, just deciding on the spelling and then fixing it.

yeah it says prima facie is there a dash between the two or no okay so the spelling in the first instance is correct and i can change the second instance to reflect that yes okay okay very good now do we want to uh do we want to make a motion to send this on to the uh

for the city, or do you guys want to take one more look at it? I'm okay with sending it on to the city with the changes we've covered tonight. I guess we've got to make a motion on that first.

Right, and just as a reminder, now that this is done, and I believe I just got some feedback over the weekend from the EAB, I think we're ready for the commission workshop that they had requested. So this would, these changes, whatever you make a motion on tonight, would be going into the packet for that workshop. So it would be going to the city, but it would be an open workshop. The EAB, the PNZ would all be involved as well. It's just a commission-led workshop.

Okay, do we need, let's.

I need to schedule it now. I was just out of town Friday and Monday and I have responses from them now of availability.

So then I'll make a motion to forward the changes that we made to the town commission for the workshop with EAB with the changes that we made. That doesn't sound right.

Do we need to make it. Also provided to you. Provided to the town commission was going to go to everybody says go to the pension.

Okay, yeah that packet will be public.

All those in favor say aye aye aye opposed. Do we need to have public comment.

Okay. Just wanted to say you're here.

Okay, now. Very happy we're done with that. Yeah, hey, amen.

for uh for the next meeting does anybody have anything they wanted to note for the agenda i had a couple of items myself but does anybody else have anything they want to yes no i do yes sir so given this latest house and the one before and i think there have been a couple other houses that have been proved that without us seeing it, I would like us to look and debate a discussion on increasing the impervious to pervious, might be increasing, might be decreasing, but increasing the, has to be decreasing impervious to pervious from 70 to 30 to 65 to 35. And there are various reasons for that. I think in the, what we're starting to see in new construction is using all, all pervious space or all impervious space and pushing the limits. I think the environmentally that, um, you know, when you get into things like the proposed grass that was being used for down here, which is really plastic and that has certainly ways to soak through. It's not, I don't see it as a proper long-term solution. I see it as a short-term solution that needs to be cleaned out on a regular basis. And that one actually, I think went to 33% impervious or just under 35. I think the size of these buildings is making it easier for these to be converted into STRs?

So I'm good with putting on the agenda to discuss the percentages of pervious and impervious for the next meeting.

Right, I'm okay with that also. I've got some, and I was thinking, Todd, I think you were an alternate at the time. But I do have some data on what the other cities are doing also. So I'll include that in the packet. Anything you want to include. as far as any research or thoughts you have on your topic it's a go field you could okay i've got some i got a i got a tabulation of what all the other cities are doing for uh we did it for setbacks and previous i don't know if you remember that and footprint and all that for a while back but yeah i'll submit that just be for informational what everybody else is doing yeah and i um i was gonna say i put the packets out a week prior to the meeting so if maybe the friday before that you could send everything in that should give me plenty of time to have it included sounds good um the other uh another easy item is i would like you to uh for the next meeting include a copy of the new uh height requirement that hasn't been posted on the website yet yeah oh good news on that they finally sent us

draft of our ordinance changes for me to approve, which I'm doing this week, so that they will put them on their website like they're supposed to. Okay. So this is what was supposed to have been done months ago that they didn't properly process for us.

I want to still have that on the agenda. Oh, definitely. It's 9A-55. And we changed the THE HEIGHT PROVISIONS A WHILE BACK AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS TRACKING WHAT THIS NEW PROVISION IS WHERE THEY ADDED ANOTHER FOOT AND A HALF. I THINK STEVE'S AWARE OF THAT FOR THE STEM WALLS. BUT JUST THE WAY CORY WROTE UP THE SITE PLAN THIS TIME, SEEMED LIKE HE HAD KIND OF FORGOTTEN ABOUT THAT ADDED FOOT AND A HALF WE HAD THERE ALSO. SO ANYWAY, IT WILL JUST BE REAL QUICK. Get everybody a copy of the 7A55 as it was approved. It's revised. I wanted to... just make sure everybody is tracking with how that works now. Height is typically an important aspect. The other thing, I'll wait until the following, or when, I'll wait for the following meeting after that perhaps. I did want to get that tree removal permit on the agenda at some point in time, but we got these couple of things, that's probably enough for the next one. And maybe the one after that or so we could,

well i'll remind you that we want to get that tree removal permit revisited to tune that up a little bit okay so maybe save that for that would be october because this will be september's yeah okay sounds good so i have a second item and this is going to be a little bit more controversial i mean i believe in drainage plans i believe in landscaping plans and everything but quite frankly we are requiring everybody to come up with a custom soil resource report. And every custom soil resource report that we see says, let me see if I can find that real quick. Basically it says that the, It has that we in our town have a very high permeability rate, reportedly typical KSAT of 20 to 50 inches per hour. And what is required for the erosion control is 10 KSAT. And so it seems to me that We are causing these people and it's not cheap to get these reports. It probably what is it the board to grant 2003 the 6 years ago was 2000 of $2000 to get work to get work or to get to do a soil or sample.

So essential oils put that on the agenda for okay, yeah, just one clarification point going to hold that up that this is that it was for a while. I think it was KSA would actually go out and do borings. You get a soil report. You could be talking about that. Bennett quit doing that. And he's just printing this off the Brevard County website. So he's already using the previous data?

Yeah, he's just using their published data. That makes sense. That's even referenced in there. You're just pulling down information.

That's all that is. They're not doing the, for whatever reason, The actual soil. They used to go out and do a half, three or four borings or something like that? And they would give a report. So this is, having said that, why don't you finish up what you're thinking. I didn't want people to think there was actual borings being done. This is just printed off and referenced.

So I guess my issue to discuss would be do we really need these things that are just being printed off i think when the town is an island substantially sand and it water soaks through i still say we need landscaping plants we need drainage plans but i don't know just something to discuss i you know if you want to uh

I think you'd have to have, who is it that does these? Bennett? Is that the guy that does it for the city?

Or who does these? That's one of them. That's BS&E does the town's engineering.

BS&E, yeah. I mean, you have to have BS&E come in. He's the one that approves these, isn't he? For the city?

Correct. But the homeowner can reach out to whatever engineer.

Yeah, if you wanted somebody like that to come in and address what you're talking about.

Yeah.

But I don't think we want to just... say you know that's a little technical they might i think they they reference you know they got to have some basis for the soils they can't just say you know melbourne beach that there's some basis but if you want to have a guy from uh yeah see is that what it's called yeah anna saunders is the engineer yeah for the city yeah yeah for us i don't know marie do they charge to come to the meeting yes What are you trying to get at? You're trying to get it so they don't have the copy of that soils report attached?

I'm saying they don't, that the developer doesn't need, or the property owner shouldn't need to spend $3,000 for something that is just pulled down off the shelf.

Well, I don't know where, is the 3,000 for the actual? for the actual surface water management report.

Is that the three grand we're talking about? Depending on what engineer you go with.

Okay, well, the adding of that soils thing, I don't think adds any cost to it, Todd. If you're wanting to somehow change the professional standards that they follow to opine on the adequacy of the drainage plan, you'd have to get our guy in here. I don't know if you want to try and tweak that or not. I don't see where we're going on that one. You want to change the scope, is what you're saying, of what they do to develop this drainage plan. I mean, you can have them in here and ask them, I guess.

Before we get too deep into it, should we just either put it on the agenda or not on the agenda? Only because it's not on our agenda now.

Yeah.

Just whether we should even discuss it further.

I myself, I think perhaps Todd, you were thinking that they were paying extra for that soils report. They're not. They're doing this. If you think that this scope should be narrowed, I don't know. I think you'd have a hard time. I mean, they're complying with the 24 hour, what is it? 10 inch storm or whatever it is. Yeah. I don't think there's anything to be gained by,

doing away with it?

Yeah, to narrow their scope would be what I thought. I don't know, I mean. I don't know either. You'd have to have the guy come in if you wanna do that. And we could have him come in. I know I myself have been concerned about the, I don't know where this 24 hour, 10 inch metric, if it came from. If you visit these homeowners at all, you can see that they basically have remedies their side yards and much of their backyards unusable. And as an example, they don't count the easement square footage in front of the lot in their computations, which would add a lot more porous space and reduce the size of some of those swales. So if you want to have them come in, and we could go over those aspects of it too, That would probably be the most important.

I'd be willing to do that. Or would that be better just to make the recommendation for the town council to do that? Because we're not going to change anything either way. So before we have professionals coming in that we're paying for, just if we wanted to make the recommendation to them, whether they wanted to do it or not.

Let's put it on the agenda for next meeting, and we'll talk about it more as to what further action we want to do with it, if any.

Maybe get the group to come in and talk about it.

Do you want us to have Ms. Saunders come in to talk about this or you wanted to talk more amongst yourselves?

I was thinking we were going to talk more, but if you guys want to, what do you think?

I would say we put it on the agenda and talk amongst ourselves first. Okay.

Decide whether we want to develop it a little bit more before we come in. Okay. Do we have a town manager report or a report for Steve?

Yes, I do want to let you know that we are going to be doing the comprehensive plan update this year. And so I put funding into the proposed budget for that. Corey O'Gorman was recently selected to continue as the town planner. So we'll be working with Mr. O'Gorman on that. But I just wanted to give you all a heads up that we'll be actively working on that this year.

Who does that work? What form of the city? Is there a committee? Is there a update committee that's assigned or how does that get done?

I know that there'll be hearings. I have to see how they have done that in the past, whether the planner has put something together, proposed, because it's an update. They're not starting brand new. Also, I mean, we're fairly residential. We're not going to plan to do a lot of economic development here or put high-rise condos or anything like that. I think a lot of it is going to be updating our CIP, making sure that we have a plan forward on what we are going to be financing and what we want to have conducted. But it's not gonna be anything significant. So I'm gonna find out what the process has been in the past and come up with a process for the future. But I just wanted to give you a heads up that we will be conducting that this year.

Sounds good. Anything else? Not motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second favor. Thank you