Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

And just get your microphone on.

Thank you.

Well, the Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 meeting of the Town of Melbourne Beach Planning and Zoning Board come to order, please. First thing on the agenda is the roll call.

Chairperson April Evans.

Here.

Vice Chairperson Dan Harper.

Here.

Member Gabor Kishage.

Here.

Member Todd Albert.

Here.

Member Jason Judge is absent.

town manager amory smith here building assistant steve freeman here and interim town clerk sid jones is also present next is the approval of the minutes uh does anyone have any additions or corrections um we do not have minutes this month oh we are behind i was looking for my parents right now all right then uh we will skip that part sorry The next item is the site plan approval for 2103 Redwood Avenue. It's an addition. It meets all the requirements as far as minimum lot area width and depth. The coverage is under the maximum 30% of the structure at 25.4%. And meets the height restrictions. I did have a question on here. It says it, uh, they didn't include a landscape plan. Is it actually required for this particular one?

It's mentioned in the checklist, but in this instance, there is no landscaping changing anything taken out.

Okay. I guess that was kind of my thing is I didn't think it was actually required on this one since they weren't.

Most of it's internal.

It's internal, yeah.

It's an existing Florida room that they're removing, upgrading, turning it into livable space. Correct. I think some more additional space here.

Yeah, I think there's a small kind of addition where they're adding some footings, but it's not sufficient.

It doesn't change the footprint enormously. Correct.

Yeah, it doesn't change it enough to affect the stormwater stuff. Correct. Okay.

It doesn't meet that 50% threshold. I put a document in there.

Yeah, and I want to say that I greatly, and I'm sure I speak for everyone, appreciate the inclusion of that breakdown.

It was right on the threshold of it because a lot of the stuff is internal. Yeah. So it's like 200 Shannon we reviewed, I think, two months ago. There's a lot of internal work going on in there that wasn't part of the calculation.

Okay. Well, again, I appreciate that you actually showing it for us to look at.

Could you show me that, April? Because I looked for that and I didn't see... You're not talking about the appraised value calculation? Yes.

Yes. Is it... Can I ask a question on that, April?

Yes. Now, Steve, we went through that... Clarification, opinion? Yes. You and Corey? Corey. I missed the last meeting, but I read his responses. And it didn't really have anything to do with the appraised value of the property. It had to do with what Corey said had to do with the expansion of the square footage down there of the walls. He said it didn't have anything to do with, you know, like this calculation. Unless we've...

I want to correct you, Dan. I think maybe you misread it because what Corey was talking about is when they're looking at the value, the construction value, you're not taking into consideration the internal remodeling as to the value of the overall construction.

Yes, okay, so this is just... When I'm looking at this 2103 Redwood, what he has here is land value, building value, and the yard items, and then he was, his new construction cost to add that additional room and extend that. So you read that as the, is not being an issue because it was an internal remodel. Was that the thinking on that? Correct.

Yeah, I think his overall value was at 125. Taking out the tile, the interior work, you put it at 115, and that was below the 50% threshold that at that point in time would require drainage and stormwater.

By like $2,300.

Yeah. Right, if he wants to calculate differently, he probably could have.

Could you articulate the formula for that just for me?

far as that document right now just in general for that in the future so the 50 threshold is based on the structure only so if the value of the construction project going on in the exterior envelope that changes the footprint minus all the interior aspects of it you have a construction value if that is over the 50 threshold of the structure appraised value then you would have to meet storm water or I understand.

So I think what he's asking is, can you include this with maybe a little more detail in future plans? What are the details you're looking for?

Oh, I just like this. Is this your calculation or that is mine? Yes. Okay. You might just add like how many more square footage you're adding, I guess. Right. Is that the variable of what your walls are extending? Hmm. So maybe it's in there.

Maybe I just need Corey's Corey's town planner report.

Okay, maybe April, I just needed to be a little bit more informed on it. Something I could calculate easily from the plans, just like you do.

Like in the future, I can have that documentation sent to Corey as part of his report. So he can put that as part of his report so he can see that with the square footage that's going on.

But you're valuing the additional square footage versus the existing square footage. Is that basically what you're doing?

I'm taking the raw construction value. What's that? That's the 125 initially minus the interior to make it 115.

What's the, well, tell me I'm, I'm a little slow on this in April. If I'm taking too much time.

Well, I think that some of these things that should be discussed after we've dealt with this one item. Okay. Very good. And it's possible. Yes. That it's something we would add to a next meeting to discuss kind of thing. Very good. Uh, cuz I really like for us to deal with our site plans and, and, and give folks a yay or nay so they can go home. Okay. Um, very good. If that's all right. Do we have any other questions about?

Hey, just one more quick one. Okay. On the setback for the swimming pool from the building line, that wasn't relevant because of the existing structure? Correct. Okay, I understand. I'd make a motion to accept the

approve the plans for 2103 redwood avenue second all in favor say aye aye aye it's been passed on to the commission with a suggestion to approve next item on my list again is going to be the site plan for 226th avenue last month and has come back to us with redesigned plans that now meet all the code um does anyone have any questions about this did we um go ahead

You know, with the revisions, I don't have any issues or questions about it. They are in compliance with the setbacks of 15 feet on either side. That was the big issue that the second floor was not in compliance with that. and we have that letter from Corey that went out to the builder and all saying this needs to be addressed and it was addressed. So I think the only issue that I have is to kind of warn the residents that we do have a statute that two kitchens are not allowed. And this could be converted to two kitchens very easily. So just be cognizant of that and cook the food together. Yeah. yeah that's i think it sounds great you know i don't know what she's gone through but i understand this kind of situation and i think it's great and i think you're brave souls for doing that the good good good and right thing to do so do i have a motion motion to approve 232 6th avenue all in favor say dan was that you said hi

Oh, and just to have it on the record, the two letters that were walked on from BS&E that you had on the table, I just want it on the record that those were provided.

Yes, they were provided, that we now have all the data, all the requirements that we needed. I would have really hated to have pushed this off again.

April, are there any other questions or issues from the public, from the folks out here?

I'm going to ask if anybody has, I kind of skipped over it. Did we, I'm sorry, did we have any kind of public comment? Did somebody want to discuss this? No, that's just the engineer. Okay. Well, that's his stuff that we're saying we got it and we're happy. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Yep, thank you. A-okay.

You're more than welcome.

Good luck.

Next item on the agenda is the landscaping and tree ordinance.

Can I ask one question on this BSE here, how they, April, how they note again that if they didn't encourage the engineer, I don't quite understand this process, maybe Steve can explain it, but they're always saying this will save time and expense for the applicant as well as the town. When they talk about, we request the engineer of record review the as-built plans for compliance to the, Applicant requesting townies in your signup. They've included this number of times Is there just just is the way it is or I got to ask what that particular statement?

Is for and I'll get clarification get back to you on that.

Okay, I

you need anything from a packet because we do have spare packets for the audience okay something with notes okay so i just the things that i don't remember i won't bring up obviously okay have a question are we really just going to try to I apologize that we were not able apparently to get to have a workshop with the environmental board which I think would have been extremely helpful with this instance but I think we're just kind of on our own

Well, for one, I am ready through a six is as far as I got to really digest.

I got through five to digest.

Okay.

And... It's proposing, I would propose going through five tonight. I thought six and seven sort of overlapped each other. And I think I'd put those off to do those together. And then perhaps eight through whatever it is, 13 would be, you know, done. The third meeting after that.

I think part of it is the fact of how far each of us got that we're comfortable with trying to discuss it. Todd, are you comfortable going through A5 tonight?

Yes. Okay.

All right, let's start with the first red line. I think I'd like to discuss the red lines first and try not to get bogged down with any additional stuff that we want to put in there until we kind of go back. Because we've worked with this, we've kicked it around, we've made, I think that they tried to distill what we had. Because we'll get bogged down. This has already been going on for two years. Does anybody take issue with the definition of a tree?

Well, I do. Only that the tree is also defined up here in the chapter... what is it, chapter one under definitions is the definition of a tree. And I thought we should keep, to be consistent, we should have the same definition. And that's what I would say. Why have two different definitions of a tree in your ordinance?

Okay, I see. My code book and all that is out there. What is the current definition?

The current definition is

A perennial wooded plant.

A perennial wooded plant, which often has many secondary.

A minimum height at 10 feet. All right, I think the difference in here, and of course now this specifies, I don't disagree with consistency, but this specifies for the purposes of this and not necessarily for the general thing. I think what they're trying to get to is the fact that they actually said that it's gonna have a four inch diameter and a 10 foot, no, excuse me, trunk height with a native palm.

They have, They've defined a tree as a native tree species with a trunk diameter of a certain metrics and native palm. So this is, their definition of tree here is limited to native trees only. Correct. And I think that would be short-sighted to define trees in this whole ordinance, which has to do with trees. Because... you know, when it goes to replacing trees, et cetera. If a tree is only defined as a native tree, then it leaves a lot of trees out that are on these properties that are being developed. So I think, I don't see the rationale for calling the tree only a native tree. Maybe somebody else can tell me why all the other trees that would be included in something like the Florida Friendly Landscape Guide that everybody references. There's obviously numerous non-native trees in here. I think it will exclude a lot of trees, the majority of the trees on the properties.

I would tend to agree with what you're saying just based on keeping it simple where there's one definition of a tree. I don't know if we should start trying to redefine that because I think we talked about that for quite some time a couple of years ago of what is a tree. So maybe we shouldn't just leave the definition one definition for a tree.

I think we should just leave one definition also.

i agree and i i think that if i i had a feeling that if we define it as florida native tree essentially we are limiting scope to florida native and i have a problem with that but i don't have a problem with changing the definition we need to make sure that it's consistent with the other definition i don't have a problem with saying a tree is a Florida native or Florida-friendly tree species with a trunk. But at the end of that sentence, it says, at that vine, it says, at breast height. In most cases, it's defined as four-foot height. so you know where the four foot four inch diameter needs to be so um if we make those kind those two changes i'm fine with it i but then does that mean that whenever there's trees specific to what we mean as florida native and florida fenry friendly friendly in this packet that it should be capitalized perhaps

Yeah, again, for me, I don't want to be boxed in by just, you know, the predominant tree that's put into all these new developments are these coconut palm trees. You know, they're not, technically they're not native palms.

Well, then, alternatively, we don't need a tree definition here no we could just use the definition in the other spot yes you could and when we're talking about specific preferences to trees in this packet we define it as florida native or florida friendly or um what is it the ones that we're kicking out

I would agree with the invasive ones, such as it is. I would agree with that. And I think, April, what we're saying is when we get further back, I think primarily in this six and seven range where we're talking about specific replacements, then we can see if some of this is appropriate to reference.

Right. Instead of redefining a tree, then the specific species of tree

yeah i don't disagree with that so is there a motion to strike the definition the different definitions or do we need to actually strike the whole section that says definition no the order the red for the yeah

I'd make a motion to strike the tree definition noted in red, and in lieu of that, rely on the tree definition that's in section chapter one.

I'll second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye. I think what we're saying is we're just going to keep the existing definition. Yes. By the way, I thought a great job was done of trying to line these things up so that we could look at them and compare them.

Yeah. Much cleaner than what we have looked at before.

There was a typo in yard area, and I don't know if, April, if you want to deal with that kind of thing now or later, but 7A should be 1A. there as uh the definition of yards and so as required by by chapter 7a doesn't have anything in in yards 1a is where the yard definition is contained okay we need to so i would make a motion to change change yard area from the reference to chapter 7a to chapter 1a If anybody wants to look at the one, a, you can see that's where they talk about front yard side yard, et cetera.

Well, we can, we can ask them to obviously verify that before they change it. So what they don't, what they wanna do is correct the chapter reference. Okay.

April, did we want to finish that as a motion or just consider it fixing a typo?

To me, it's just fixing a typo. I'm sorry. No, that's okay. I don't think it was intentional to have it.

Yeah.

Incorrect. Now we're at 9A-2 as to intent.

The only thing I have in this section is... I apologize. That's all right. That's a lot of scratches.

I said I left mine out in the car because it was raining so hard.

I... i didn't have really any problem with the additions uh except in the second paragraph the intent of this auto school is also to preserve florida native i would say they're florida native and florida friendly if we need to put something in there but um i guess my question was um does it need to be outlined to this degree um or did we and maybe it should because there's not any harm in providing this the you're talking about that that bigger section down there the landscaping trees benefit of the town is that what you're talking about Oh, just up above still?

Oh, on that one, I don't know why. Again, the intent of this article is also to preserve Florida. Well, also, but I think the intent of the article is to preserve all trees.

Yes. Well, but particularly Florida native, Florida friendly.

well preserve all trees up above the intent is to preserve all trees and what i don't i myself i don't it says preserve all trees but if you want to say tell me what you're wanting to communicate there besides preserve all trees i think

I think that someone might have issue with, if you put in there to preserve all trees, and someone has a malaluca in their yard, which is an invasive, or a carrot wood, which is not friendly because of the amount of water that a carrot wood requires and pulls out of the ground. There's a number of reasons. So I can see why you might want to include the phrase Florida native, but I would also want it to be Florida friendly. They don't have to necessarily be native.

Okay, make a motion on that sentence and all.

Yep, I agree with that. Florida native and Florida friendly is fine. And then after the word exist, They are sparse or do not exist. So it's a second line down in that paragraph.

Yeah.

Would it make sense to add something like when possible and reasonable.

I like that. When they're sparsely not exist and when possible and reasonable.

Can I backtrack us real quick on on the first item Dan would you mind just restating that clearly so I know exactly what what we just agreed to change.

On the on the first since we're talking about yes. Yet the intent of this article is also to preserve Florida native and Florida friendly trees. whenever and wherever they exist. And to provide trees wherever they are sparse or do not exist, or what's the added wording there at the end of that?

When possible and reasonable.

After exist.

Yeah, after exist. When possible and reasonable, comma, thus enhancing, you know, the health, welfare, beautification, et cetera.

Got it. Thank you.

Now, go ahead. Before you leave this, I got some more comments.

Okay, but let's take this in smaller chunks.

Yeah, I just thought you were moving on beyond two.

Yes, but at this point, are we in agreement? Do I have a motion to make those changes that Dan was putting in the form of a motion?

Yes, what I read.

And that is your motion? Yes. Correct, and is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye.

Okay. Any public comment?

I keep forgetting about the motions, April.

I know. Well, it's just that if we have all these discussions and we throw all these things out, first of all, Sid has trouble keeping up with it, and then so do we. So I think it's better if we take these in really small chunks.

I agree.

Yeah.

line by line or sentence by sentence.

As best we can to make it in small bites.

And thank you all for doing that. I appreciate that. It really does, especially going back, makes it so much easier.

Okay. Now, down in the rest of the red lines, does anyone have any objections or additions to The stuff we're seeing is for the reasons for. For this for the for the top line.

Yes, I would have. I know this is shock everybody. I have some thoughts. I didn't know April. They're all they're doing is talking about the benefits of the above. And is the ordinance a place to elaborate on benefits? We don't elaborate on the benefits of swales. We don't elaborate on the benefits of setbacks or anything else.

I have two minds on that. So many times it would be nice if within our code book we knew why something is the way it is. Do I think that it clutters doing it this way? Yes. If anybody else has any input into that.

I didn't even think of that, but you're right. We don't qualify or quantify anything else, but there's nothing wrong with it. It is cluttered. I don't have an objection to it.

i would say i don't it's well and that's what i was saying that's what i meant by saying that it doesn't do any harm to have these things right that's i'd agree it doesn't do any harm i just didn't know it's a reach out to eab okay okay but is there anything in there that could in the future because we know this happens that could be used to yeah argue against some of the stuff

Well, if you're concerned about that, I'd just, you know, I would leave it out. If you're concerned about it coming back in some unintended fashion, because it's, it doesn't really add anything to the ordinance. I understand what you're saying about the rationale, but if there's concern about it being somehow interpreted or extended beyond it's,

That's what I'm asking, does anyone see anything there that throws any kind of red flags to them? No. And Marie, you have dealt with this kind of thing before, I believe, haven't you? Do you have any thoughts on including the, what it's called, how it benefits the town with these particular functions?

Anything in there that you just is there anything in there that you disagree with well, let's take it Let me take a minute.

Let me read through them for myself. Hold on. I

i mean the only one that i kind of questioned was the provide barrier to ground level wind speeds during tropical storms and hurricanes and a barrier does so you know the grape leaves provide a great barrier but individually trees don't necessarily provide a barrier and actually may provide a danger but it's I'm splitting hairs there, and I've split so many hairs in my mind.

I'm okay with accepting.

I didn't find anything wrong with any of the statements there. I think they got that out of some publication or something. Just random. I think it's okay.

All right, so we're all in agreement that this stays as is? As is. Okay. It's why we like trees. That's right. We are now, as we're looking through this, now we don't absolutely have to, well, actually let's do it. Let's go through to number five and then we'll go back through something. Let's go to 9A-4, having to do with tree removal. And this is, it specifically talks about native tree or clusters of trees, including palm scrub oak, sand live oak. And here we, this is something that we go again,

is that we we do have some florida friendly trees that we might perhaps not want to have them taken out arbitrarily yeah i mean my feeling was i'm not sure if i want to refine the definition there as opposed to including all trees i would agree i'd go with all trees i'd leave that out it says up above there you know

no person can cut down and remove effectively any tree any tree situated on the property so we want it i would i would make a motion i think again we you know i wouldn't want them to have to get a permit to take down a malaluca or a carrot wood because they are not even friendly trees they're

think there's something later on in the ordinance as well about invasive trees i don't think i think that's different specific named it will come up later on invasives okay i think i would i would prefer if we went ahead and and added in the um not just native but friendly okay so what are you proposing april that we

amend it to say a native or, or a Florida-friendly tree. Or clusters.

okay i mean they're fine i'm fine i don't as long as we're not limiting it just i understand you want to limit the invasives i understand as long as we're not limiting any other trees by that statement because you know we say it's to protect well then we'd have to i'd have to get my is there some tree that i look at but you you look at say we have pin oaks around here well pin oaks are not native they are oaks but they're not native to our area and and i think that we run into the danger when we start getting too specific yeah i agree i agree with not getting specific that's why i didn't know why we wouldn't just say all all trees the idea is what trees require a permit to cut down which includes if i mean i'm certainly no tree expert so if i have an issue with a tree as for the permit

We're never going to say no to an invasive. True.

Yeah. I guess I take issue as somebody having to pay for a permit.

We don't, though. We don't. We don't pay. It's still free. As long as it stays that way. Am I correct on that still?

It's zero cost, but that's definitely a discussion I want to get involved with because the town will lose money in the future.

Yeah.

It's inspections.

Yeah.

I mean, it's required the building department to oversee this. It's required to inspections. So there's a $200 permit right there.

I'd make a motion to leave that red wordy note on the 984 proposed change.

How was that again?

I was just making a motion to eliminate the red.

For anything. To keep the original.

Keep the original, yes.

Keep the original.

um any con any thoughts on the permit required for tree removal title um i'm i'm easy i don't care the permit says cut or removed right in the face of it but i don't think it matters i don't care i mean okay i don't care unless i don't have a big feeling on that second promotion

you've made the motion it's been second all in favor say aye aye aye okay we strike that april can i ask one thing on this retrieval removal next month in the pnz we're going to have a 1500 pine chris burton he submitted to me yesterday his demo package along with the tree removal Their plan is 28 trees and remove every one but five. With no inkling to three oaks, one pine, with no replanting.

With no what?

Nothing being replanted. There's gonna be a landscape plan coming, but.

Well, he can't, you know what the ordinance says right now, I think we're all aware of. The ordinance says right now is every tree that's removed has to be replaced. And I can give you the reference to that ordinance, Steve, if you want it.

Unless it's in a buildable area. That's the way the way it reads, right?

I have a plan. If you guys want to take a look, I just want to be proactive.

Yeah.

The way it reads right now. And that's, and you all might remember that's how we started. This was the rage right now is that any at all trees have to be replaced. And the issue that was coming about is these bigger houses were going into this mature lots. and you couldn't replace all the trees after you put in the swales, et cetera, you know, the footprint expands, et cetera.

206 Riverside.

Yeah, and you couldn't, you can't do it. So that was the whole reason we started this was to come up with a new minimum trees to put back in place because of this. But right now the technical ordinance reads every tree removed has to be replaced. That's right in the ordinance. That's right in your ordinance.

I don't have my code book with me.

I'll tell everybody where it's at. I'll tell them where it's at. So you can all look at it real quick. Minimum tree plantings is the 987. And at 987, if you go back to number, the infamous 12C. It's way at the back there, 12C. This is what your August Council put in back in the day.

Right.

This is for new construction. Any trees removed shall be replaced by the same or similar species. That's what I've been trying to get changed. So it started this whole train. It was just that one paragraph because we weren't able to implement it. You couldn't practically. Okay, but now...

This is talking about currently developed sites.

It's talking about minimum replacement, oh. It's currently developed.

No. It's 12C.

It's currently developed sites that not meet the landscape you considered non-conforming. Yeah, that's true. Landscaping . Yeah, and then it goes on to say replacement standards for new construction. New construction. That's not currently developed sites. That's new construction. This is intended, the way it's always been interpreted is tree for tree.

If they're doubling the footprint, how do you?

Well, that's the argument. That's what I've said.

So a ratio of trees versus.

There's a thing in there called tree density ratio before and after. Nobody seemed to be able to do the math.

And so that's for the health of the tree.

Yeah. Yeah.

But then I think I think where the issue is and it could it could have to do with it's hard to look at the headings the way they are. I think that the intent of that, it was not intended that way. I'm agreeing with you that there's a problem there and it needs to be corrected.

I could say, April, I was at the, you may or may not recall, I went and tried to explain to the council what we had decided was a minimum, I think, of eight trees back then or something. And I remember, I can't recall which one of the council members said, no, there's no reason they can't replace every tree. So I think if you look back at the minutes, Not to disagree with you, but if you look back at the minutes, the intention was to replace every darn tree that was removed.

And we know that that's.

That doesn't work.

Yeah. And nobody's disagreeing with you. Yeah. Can we move on?

Well, I don't know if it helps.

We're going to have this issue for that particular thing.

Right. They're looking for that tree permit and demo permit.

Right now, as it reads, Dan is correct that that is what it says.

I need to get a landscape plan from them for the future.

Yeah, you need a landscape plan and tell them that maybe if they would come to us, maybe we could work something out, April, or you guys could do something that was reasonable and practical.

Agreed.

Well, except the code won't be changed, but I don't know that... unfortunately y'all we have all kind of errors in our code that things that were not intended to be in there that somehow did that didn't get proofread quite right and and we don't know it until situations come up like the one that you're talking about um and so i think it was intended but okay i'll defer to you on that Well, but like anything, we can only make recommendations. The commission has the final say.

I hear you. That's what they decided on.

All right, so we'll go with 9A4, correct? Yes.

Yeah, 9A4 as is.

Last but not least.

And there are no, oh, 995.

Okay.

The portion in red I thought was just a duplication again of what was already said. so it says you know that the location of trees on the site need to all be shown and shown that this just says as including a tree survey accurately accurately locating trees in relationship to other improvements including a legend identifying the types and sizes of trees well that's already stipulated in this yes in this uh ordinance to do that so that's just a duplicate statement it doesn't add any value

But if you guys want a duplicate statement.

And I see no reason for duplication.

Okay, I'd make a motion to delete that and including a tree survey accurately locating the trees in relationship to other improvements and including a legend identifying the type and size of trees. The partial sentence that is in red.

So eliminate it completely because it's already required when you meet the 50% right?

Yes.

Starting at the end.

Understood. Yep. Okay.

Sid, did you, you know where we are?

Yes. I'm just waiting for the second.

Please.

A second.

I've got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, we're going to eliminate that. And Sid, please don't hesitate to tell us to slow down or whatever. Thank you.

It's duplicated like in three and four.

just one two three four you know they're basically just it's just restating the same thing oh and this is probably pedantic but prior to that red line sentence where it they've added the one inch and 20 feet numerically we're fine with that right i think that's just a

I believe so.

Yeah. Just kind of a grammatical thing.

Just don't come in with this hand drawing with chicken scraps that nobody can tell what the proportions are. We'd like it to scale, please.

Yeah, I think that first 20 should have been stricken and wasn't.

yeah yes please okay now we are down to drainage plan uh section one no what about that number two there april where it says that yeah and drainage plans yes um i potentially If you're relocating, replacing trees, why, Steve, would we need a drainage plan? Is that gonna change the topography?

Normally, I think what mostly is done, Steve, you've seen these, is the as-builts, the survey with the as-builts on it. has all of the trees that they're gonna delete, what kind of tree it is, et cetera, what they're gonna replant. And typically, April, the drainage plan is on a separate survey of the as-builts that shows all the contours. And so this says, I think the drainage plan is addressed in the 3A80, is the ordinance. I think by putting the trees and everything and the contours on the same site plan, I think that's too much information. I think it's better to be on a separate survey site plan as built. I think that's where 90% of them are being done now.

And they're easy to understand that way.

so i would recommend and drainage plan on number two be i make a motion to delete and drainage plan on number uh that actually makes more sense than the way i didn't think of it just eliminate it because it's required already yeah i was thinking along the lines of just add when construction meets the 50 cost threshold yeah but we already have that right so yes second all in favor say aye aye aye okay

It seems like the last part in B is more semantics than anything else. I think I would have to look to the town to say, does this help clarify for you all anything? you know that you have instead of a proper application you have a complete application and referral to the application to other departments including planning and engineering as necessary as opposed to others concerned does it make a difference repeat it so my My thought is that this is kind of splitting hairs again, but if it means something to the town to say instead of a proper application to say a complete application and then later to say instead of others concerned to say that you're going to refer the application to other departments including planning and engineering as necessary.

I agree.

You like that change?

Yes. I think it's more specific.

Yeah, if you say proper, proper to who?

Yeah.

I get contractors bringing in what they think we need.

Does it need to be expanded?

I think if the application is truly complete.

It leaves it up for... at least them to ask the right questions. And that's where we need to go.

After we get through all this April sometime this year, the application for the tree removal i want to tee that up for us to look at because it's missing this whole 985 section as you know isn't even on the application it needs to be redone it needs to be redone and we'll we'll work with the uh steve and steve you'll get my name on that uh after we get all this done and bring that back to you suggestions on that I think we made good progress tonight.

So we're going to leave. Then I'd say that we accept the proposed changes to 9A5B.

We're accepting the change of the red other departments, including planning and engineering?

That's the motion.

Okay.

Do you want to second it? Or do you want to... expand more.

I would like to expand more. I apologize if I wasn't really paying attention while I was paying attention here. So what we're saying is we are referring the same application to planning and engineering with this information on there. Is that correct?

For the application to be reviewed, yes.

Okay, I'm good, thank you.

And we need a second for Todd's motion.

Second.

All in favor, aye. Aye.

All right.

Yes, okay, now, we've cleared up that part. Is there anything that we, the sections we have covered tonight, that anyone finds just really disturbing in those sections that were not included in the red lines?

Nothing disturbing. I would add a couple more definitions to that first section that come up later on, April, that I think are relevant, such as the definition of invasive plants, canopy tree, and native plants. But we could wait and revisit those definitions when we go through those sections and see if you agree or not.

okay if we can please at some point have that as part of our agenda to review definitions okay do do we want to save that for the end after all of the redlining has been gone through yes okay at the end it's just one of those things that okay you know not to let it just kind of fall through the cracks right and then my plan was on our draft

go ahead and make these updates we and we've agreed to tonight but not bring it back in the packet because we're gonna keep moving forward so so you may still see those red lines on next month's packet I have no problem with working from okay if you don't have to print all this out each time then we don't have to I don't know if it has to be included the only thing is

You may want to consider including all of it because you may have to refer back to things like definitions or so. So you may just, or things that you have changed or decided not to change. And it's a few pages, but I just don't know how it's going to reflect back. So you may want to have the whole.

Well, I think my thought is that we've all made our notes and we've scratched out those things. Mm-hmm.

think the only problem would be as the packets are created where these end up number wise is always going to shift based on what else is in the agenda that is true what i can do then is i will make the changes and they will reflect in the next packet so you'll just pick up at 9a6 with red lines still there but everything prior to 9a6 will be more finalized i guess it'll so it'll reflect what we've agreed to tonight okay so you i would say maybe just try to keep a rolling like hold on to your notes because it's going to shift every month oh yeah where it's going to end up in the packet got in trouble with some other things in this town many years ago reflected in the minutes that we approve next week the next month. Yes, if I'm able to finish the minutes for this meeting by next meeting, yes, they would be reflected in the minutes. Yeah, all of the motions will be there. Okay.

Dan, can you do me a favor and tell me what those definitions were you wanted to add? Native plant, canopy.

Here, I'll give you a copy of what I had here. And I include some references, you know, that encompass these definitions. Okay. Not something I made up or anything.

Thank you.

I don't know if anybody else, maybe just hold on these till we get to the end of this thing.

Can I throw something in there? Pardon? In the definition of a tree, do we differentiate between a palm and a tree? Because they are two different species.

I looked into that and what do they call them, arborists? They include, you know, they include palms under the general definition of trees.

A palm is considered a monocot, a tree is considered a dicot.

Just for... We had this discussion years ago trying to differentiate and not necessarily have particularly cabbage palms fall into this category. the the ordinances and and because they are so prevalent uh and as i said during a lot of meetings i have over a hundred cabbage palms in my yard if i need to take some down i'll give you a permit i shouldn't have but i shouldn't have to kind of thing but um but yeah and i think that's part of the thing that dan says he wants to work on and that's going to be in In defining the trees again, we now have different members of the commission and the things that were agreed on a few years ago that apparently didn't make it into the code changes. Possibly that could happen this time around.

okay i do have one more general question that's related to prior to the rest of them and the six and seven it's something that i don't know what it is yeah yeah so for 2103 redwood the other ones are pretty easy the words the other ones are pretty easy guys we're still in a meeting yes ma'am they use the word cmu wall opening i don't know what cmu is cmu's concrete masonry unit thank you that's it

May I ask a question about the landscaping and tree ordinances? Since I was not town manager at the time, what is the process for getting this changed? Is the Environmental Advisory Board, your changes, do they opine on any of it again? Or do your changes just go directly to the Commission?

Our recommendations go directly to the Commission. Okay. And they are recommendations. And they quite frequently in this type of thing will then make their own changes.

So I will save my comment for the town manager report and I will explain something.

And probably one second. And so does anybody else have any further discussion to the sections that we covered tonight?

Not the ones we covered. I wondered if we could agree to be prepared for six and seven at our next meeting. Those are lengthy ones and I think.

Agreed.

Okay.

Yeah, so everybody, let's do our homework. Don't leave your notes in the car.

Do you want me to put on the agenda that we'll specifically discuss those two, or do we want to leave it open-ended in case you all come prepared and you're like, let's do more?

I think leaving it open-ended, as you and I discussed before, is probably the better idea because once we post it, we can't do any more. Technically, we can't go further if we chose to.

Okay. Now, uh, and that sounds good. I just want to do my homework. If you're planning on going further than six or seven, we're not, but we're just leaving it open, but we're leaving it open because once we post it as something, we can't do it from that.

Right. Gotcha. Or anything we do is not.

Gotcha.

Yeah. Okay. So, and we have no public, we ran them all off. Uh, First, I'm going to ask Steve. Steve, you're not on the agenda, but do you have anything to report or stuff that you would like to inform us of?

I do not.

Thank you much. Marie, the floor is yours.

Yes, I do. So last week I was out at a town managers conference but the environmental advisory board had asked for a meeting which they scheduled for tomorrow and my understanding is that I think as many members of the board as possible are coming. they want to discuss this tree ordinance because I think that my understanding is part of the reason that they did not want to do a joint session is because they had said that they had already done one with you before did they okay so they said that they'd already done a joint session and I think they're going to ask me to they want to do a workshop with the Commission Okay. All right. So I just want to let you know that they have requested this meeting. And it was put on my schedule. So I will be meeting with them tomorrow to see what exactly they want. That was the premise, my understanding of the premise of the meeting from our front desk person. um so i just wanted to make you aware that um you know this is a public meeting so i will share with them that you've made some progress on this item and that you're looking to continue making progress through the next few meetings was it a workshop with us or with the commission they they want to workshop with the commission and they have not had a workshop with us they attended their their something that the stuff that they the original thing they put together was

on our agenda they were in attendance but we've never had a joint meeting okay didn't we have a joint workshop last year yeah it's it's been a while i wasn't here for it it wasn't recent there was no i want to say it was in 2025. i'll have to go back wrong on this april um

There's no reason that the Environmental Advisory Board can't present their own ordinance package to the town commission. We might have competing recommendations, but I think that's what their track is to just kind of on their own present their own recommendations and I guess the council have probably two sets of recommendations. Maybe they can pick and choose a little bit from each one or something. I think is the direction they're going. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, I think what had happened is you weren't here, but they approached the commission about particularly the trees. And the commission told them to work with our board. They then put together a very extensive committee. ordinance that was then made changes were made by the town the the then town manager and the then building official do you remember we had There were lots of different colors. And this board said, we can't do anything with this. It's too convoluted. It's unwieldy. Distill this down. And what we have, what we were looking at tonight, I think it's a wonderful job of distilling those kind of things.

And the EAB put that together?

No.

This was Amber, actually. Okay. She did the cleanup where we only see the red lines.

Okay. So, no, but...

But I mean, obviously they're, they're entitled to, to, to meet with the commission and, uh, and well, I think they want to meet with the commission and, and my, I, again, I haven't met with them as yet, but I think it's like they want to meet with the commission and the planning board at the same time so that the commission can understand the full complexities of the, um, you know, of the recommendations. I don't know exactly yet until I meet with them tomorrow, but I did want to let you know that they have expressed some urgency, especially with the tree, you know, cutting down, that that is a big issue for them. So I think, especially like what Steve said on Riverside Drive, that we heard a lot of complaints, not just from them, from others as well.

but but you have you know where that what the ordinance says now they have to replace every tree that's the answer if somebody wonders what the condition is you can just refer them to that ordinance they're not gonna they can't you know they gotta comply with that right now or some workout it's they can't right for this one in the future i'm not sure 206 was done back last year before i was here um i don't know what the plan was to replace them or not it was

they're being removed due to the structure as being in the way. And they kept two out of the six. So I don't know what the plan is. I'll look into it and see if there's any plan to replant. And that's something the building department needs to be aware of so we can make sure it's done.

Yeah. You know, Marie, the, uh, And the environmental board is, they're very helpful and they do excellent work. They don't have the practical experience of applying some of these things, though, to these plans that now require this extensive swaling, et cetera, around these homes that basically constrain how much room there is to plant trees. And I hope whoever makes the final decision

understands that, that you can't just do this in the abstract.

We have this here, then otherwise we're faced with these goofy things that doesn't work. We can't replace all these. You can't put oak trees in swales. They can't be next to the house. There's all these different constraints. Everybody's on the same page. Everybody wants trees and such, but it has to be something that is actually, we can, you know, these ordinances aren't valid unless they can be complied with and enforced.

Enforced. Enforcement's going to be a big issue with all of it.

that I think they don't have the practical experience. And I'll say.

Dan, you're preaching to the choir, you know.

Yeah, let me ask you this. If they ask me, you know, if they can do a commission workshop with the planning board, would you all be willing to do that, or is that? Sure. Is that? I would, sorry. Well, I mean, I just.

I think everyone would be willing.

Okay, okay. All right, I just don't think it should be, you know, just the EAB or just the planning board. I think that, you know, you're absolutely right. There should be some collaboration with this. I just don't know the background as, you know, on this issue and if that is, actually something that both boards would be willing to do? Because it does sound like you all have met before or have been in the same discussion before. I don't know what, if you've had a.

Well, there have been a number of meetings.

Yeah, okay, so I don't know the dynamics of what has happened there and if that would be something that you would, Recommend or not recommend.

So I just wanted to you know, get your perspective on that I'm sure that if the Commission requests The presence of this board that the people that the members will comply I think it's elaborating on what Dan was saying that Essentially, I mean it's all going to be the Commission looking at it as well as

when you have people that are passionate about something and they forget about the reasonableness of it, that's what I think becomes the thing. That's all I have.

Yeah. I think we all agree with your sentiments on that. Okay. Now, does anybody have any items that they would like to see added to the agenda for future meetings? to go along with us working on the landscape board.

At the end of us getting the landscaping done, I'd like to work with Steve or come up with a new proposed tree cutting application that includes the, yeah.

I think that those things are best left to the administration, that this board doesn't need to be involved in that kind of thing. Okay. Because that's an internal. Does he want our input at all? I would love your input. Okay, but that's what I'm saying, but I'm saying that's an official thing. I don't think that... that that's terribly appropriate. I think if Steve wanted to come up with the kind of information you need, based on having conversations with you, if you want to have them with him.

We could have them at the public meeting. I've got no secrets. I think Steve knows what the deficiencies are probably just as well as I do. We can do that after we resolve this stuff. We could do that.

Okay. I'll draw up some stuff that I think I need to do. We can implement it a later day.

Okay, I have one question that's just out of curiosity. The building that's coming up out of the ground on Ocean Avenue where, you wouldn't know this, but where the old hardware store was, I don't know the address now, across from the grocery store, is that from the plan that this board approved years ago?

I would presume there's no other plan, I'm sorry.

It's on Ocean Avenue across from the shopping center.

I believe I've been meeting with a gentleman. It was perhaps run through at an earlier time, and he's revisiting that. He's in New Jersey right now.

No, they're laying block.

Okay. Yeah, they got block now. I'll look into it. Do you know what the address is on Ocean?

I don't know.

It's right next door to the realtor. Not Sorenson, but... What's the realtor?

West of the realtor, east of the liquor store. How's that sound? Yeah. It's in between.

It's where the home hardware store was. And across from the grocery store.

They put block down on the property. It's in the 300 block. And they're getting the base ready to be built. Okay.

yeah i mean they have they have they are actively constructing and i know that we approved a plan back in uh about 2019 just before covid hit and which if they don't have to come back in front of this board if it's the same plan but they have to start the permit application all over again absolutely and code has changed in 2023. well then there you go it's about ready to change again that's you know that's just it's just showing that for right now that town is in such disarray in that particular area of our administration which of course is not the fault of either one of y'all i have no desire to leave it it's the second building this side of orange street well it's the second lot it's 309 uh ocean that's If you just drive down there, it's the only one that's got new block coming up out of the ground.

There is a vacant lot down there, but this one's having stuff worked on.

That brings something into my mind as well as another question because I don't know the answer to it. Is there a

expiration date for a permit if somebody does not yes yeah okay there's a set time one year okay so i did not know that myself thank you yeah and you know i had always read that as believe me i wouldn't want to need to look at their plans again but i thought they had to resubmit plans and everything if they went beyond a year from the date of approval they should technically

We're trying to implement that because the code is going to change that a permit is now good for three years. That's being talked about in the code change. It hasn't been codified yet. So Jeff, the building official, has a plan ahead that if the construction is not moving along, there's not regular inspections every 90 days, 180 days, whatever is determined, that they will have to work will stop. They'll have to resubmit the permit again.

Okay, well, currently right now, it's if they don't act on the permit at all after a year, it's no longer valid. Or there's no inspections.

That's what it has been. Or there's no inspections. Well, there's been no inspections because no work has taken place.

Right, currently, right now, it's 180 days. And if they do an inspection, it extends another 180 days. But we want to see something continuing on instead of just lingering.

Yeah, but this has not been touched since right after it was approved, and that was because... uh, COVID hit and, and I suspect that it was like what happened to a lot of people, their financing grind up. Um, so don't know, but I was just curious about that and, and, and would, would appreciate if you could double check on that. Okay. Is there anything else?

No.

Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn? Second.

It's past Rockies to the east.

Yeah, it's past Rockies and then there's a vacant lot.