Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Beach Planning Board. Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Roll call, please.

Member Izzy.

Here.

Member Perry. Here. Vice Chair Angelides.

Here.

Member Kanak. Here. Chair Hubbard.

Here. Member Quorum. Thank you. Okay, item one is approval of the agenda. Does anyone have changes to today's agenda? No. No, okay. Can I please have a motion to approve the agenda as written?

I make a motion to approve the agenda as written.

Second.

Roll call, please.

Vice Chair Angelides? Yes. Member Kanak? Yes. Member Izzy? Yes. Member Perry? Yes. Chair Hubbard? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Do we have any audience comments? No audience comments. Okay. All right. The July 20th meeting minutes, does anyone have any changes proposed?

Nope.

Can I please have a motion to approve those minutes as written?

Motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting as written.

Second.

Second. Roll call, please.

Member Kanak?

Yes.

Member Izzy? Yes. Member Perry? Yes. Vice Chair Angelides? Yes. Chair Hubbard? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. All right, we are on to action item 4A. This is ordinance 2026-18. Brandon, this is not an LPA item. I'm sorry, I didn't add that to the agenda. This is an LPA. Okay. All right, I will temporarily adjourn as the planning board and reconvene as the local planning agency.

and you're ready to go okay just a quick presentation on this one if we could get the powerpoint pulled up so this went by majority input of the planning board from last month's meeting this would authorized elevated equipment encroachment for residences built or permitted prior to the effective ordinance date only so whenever the date the ordinance is adopted any home build or under Permitting a complete application prior to that date would be eligible for this change Those that are built after that ordinance adoption would not be eligible. They would be required to Accommodate any elevated equipment within the building envelope, which is the current standard applicable to to all developments citywide encroachment into the front yard for new equipment would not be permitted those that already have existing equipment at the front of their home that are choosing to elevate or reconstruct and living level above an abandoned ground floor they would be eligible to bring their equipment up with that elevation but for any new construction or any new equipment installed in any yard it would not be allowed to encroach in the front yard if it is elevated This would allow for up to a four foot encroachment into any yard. Most residential properties in St. Pete Beach have a side yard setback of seven feet for the primary building envelope. So a four foot encroachment would result, would bring it in line with the not less than three foot setback for all equipment. The exception would be for any existing equipment that was elevated with the home or, again, if the living level is reconstructed above a home and the ground level is abandoned, as we've seen with many homes post-storm. The equipment could be elevated more than six feet, eight inches, and it would be allowed to encroach at the property line. We did speak with the fire marshal about the site, and there was a concern expressed by the board last month. about making sure that the equipment is elevated high enough that it doesn't cause any issues with emergency access. That was the standard we came back with. Any equipment that is located closer than five feet to any property line requires demonstration that the equipment meets all opening setback requirements. They are required to demonstrate that for the primary home. on any residents when it comes in for building permitting. If they are taking advantage of the standard and the equipment's going to be closer than five feet to the property line, they would be responsible for demonstrating it also meets the opening setbacks on the adjacent property as well. We do find this to be consistent with comprehensive plan, future land use, which is element two as a policy that promotes the conservation, maintenance, rehabilitation of existing residential areas through provisions contained in the land development code. Element four, which is housing as a policy related to encouraging housing improvement and replacement projects. Goal 2 relates to encouraging the establishment and maintenance of a sustainable housing stock that's resounding to a changing climate. We've had that as the basis for many of these equipment elevations, not just the ones that need to be brought up to the code. Many homeowners have brought their equipment up voluntarily under concerns about future events. Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 also support that goal.

so with that i'm happy to answer any questions um bar any questions we would ask for a motion to find ordinance 2026-18 consistent with the saint pete beach comprehensive plan and recommended to the city commission do we have any questions okay yeah i read through it seemed like it mirrored our discussion um if no concerns uh can i please have a motion to find ordinance 2026-18 consistent with the comp plan so moved second please

Second.

Roll call, please.

Member Izzy? Yes. Member Perry? Yes. Vice Chair Angelides?

Yes.

Member Kanak?

Yes.

Chair Hubbard? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay, we'll adjourn as the LPA and reconvene as the planning board. This next item, 5A, is a discussion item for stormwater concurrency.

So this is one of those items that relates to development, relates to the duties of the planning board and may in the future be contained within the comprehensive plan or the land development code, but it is something we wanted to engage with the planning board on as we're starting these discussions as staff. If we could pull that PowerPoint up. So St. Pete Beach's Comprehensive Plan, as many of you know, or if you've been following along with the planning board's activities, it was amended back in early 2024. That reflected our seven year evaluation and appraisal cycle. So we'll be bringing back a new amendment by 2031, if not sooner. The 2024 updates to the city's comprehensive plan largely strayed away from more visionary changes, development-related changes. There was very little on the development side that was modified. It was largely undertaken to address the seven-year technical requirements. There were some county recommendations that the city included into its code. such as adoption of Vision Zero principles related to eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries. There were also state requirements that have been adopted between our last cycle and the 2024 cycle that required technical amendments such as to address the Parallel Flood Act and requirements for a private property rights element that was included in the most recent code cycle, comprehensive plan cycle rather. While concurrency was not directly addressed through the most recent cycle, the code was changed to allow more flexibility and adoption of a higher or different stormwater standard through the city's watershed management master plan. From what I understand, the entity that undertook the comprehensive plan amendments had intended to also work on the watershed management master plan. We do currently have that project in the pipeline. We expect that the plan will be put together late next year, but there is currently no watershed management master plan in place. The issue with that from development and from a concurrency standpoint is that we have a comprehensive plan that references a plan that doesn't exist. The watershed management master plan has not yet been accepted by the city commission. It hasn't been prepared. Because of this, the code is inadvertently default to do a different lower standard. So what was removed during the 2024 comprehensive plan amendments was the policy that you see on the screen, the St. Pete beaches master drainage plan shall require new development to meet the design requirements, which is level of service of the 25 year frequency, 24 hour storm event. What is currently effective is again, as I mentioned in the prior slide, a reference in element five, the infrastructure plan element to the watershed management master plan, but no actual level of service standard. The city does have a lesser standard that has been in the code of ordinances since the 1980s. That's in the drainage plan requirements. And it uses a 10 year, one hour design storm instead of a 25 year, 24 hour storm. And I'll get into the differences between those two in a moment. So there are three basic metrics for stormwater concurrency. The first is how frequently does the event occur? Higher years or higher protection, often at higher costs, it's more expensive or more difficult to accommodate that event on the site. As you're all well aware, FEMA adopts the 100-year storm as the basis for substantial improvement in elevating homes and commercial buildings out of the floodplain, but there is a higher standard. There's also a lower standard. We have the 500-year storm, and there is a zone called the X.2 zone. There aren't many properties here in St. Pete Beach that have that flood zone, many over on the mainland do and that's the 500-year storm event that's an optional standard that property owners can build to typically when you get two or three feet above the required 100-year base flood elevation that gets you into the range of the 500-year storm event So the longer the period of time, the more that needs to be planned for the higher standard in accommodating stormwater on a site. The second is the volume that the city is accounting for. And those two combine together to address the peak discharge that is possible based on the years and the event window. So when you have a 24-hour storm event, we're not looking at the one hour, sorry, the 24-hour storm event. We're not looking at one hour times 24. As you know, in a 24-hour rainstorm, there are going to be different peaks. The one-hour storm event is the peak in the 24-hour storm. A 24-hour storm or a two-day storm always includes the shorter event within it, but it's not just a simple multiplication. There are tables that are maintained by FDOT and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. that give these stormwater rates and typically in a 24 hour event you're looking at about the one hour peak event times three or four to get the total rainfall that's going to fall within that 24 hour event so it is going to include a much higher standard and a much longer event but it's not necessarily the lower standard multiplied by the number of hours or the number of minutes within the higher event Results of rainstorms, they don't maintain their peak intensity through a longer window of time, despite rare events producing more rain overall. However, as you look out to a longer time horizon, so going from these tables tend to start about a one-year or a two-year event to go all the way up to the 100-year event, they tend to include those shorter event periods within the longer event. So you would expect a much, much, much more severe storm in a 100-year storm event than in a two-year storm event. So looking at the applicable St. Pete Beach standards, and what I have there on the right is a chart showing the FDOT rainfall standards for Zone 6, which is the area that we are in. St. Pete Beach requires that all new development and redevelopment exceeding specified thresholds discharge no more water than a pre-development natural site, which is devoid of all development. But even if you look at that, you're looking at a site where there's no development, not looking at any former existing development. What was the site like before there was any development on it? That is the standard that we require sites to maintain on their property. Even looking at that standard, we have to look at what is the event that is going to be planned for. Is it a 10-year one-hour? Is it a 25-year 24-hour? Is it something even more intense than that? We have to select a rainfall event that the standard is evaluated against. So the current is a 10-year, one-hour storm, which is retaining about 3.1 inches of rain on the site. Under the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, that's retaining about 10.5. So it's about three and a half times. And looking at that chart on the right, you can see on the right the lower standard. That is the 24-hour storm. 25-year storm event which you would multiply by 24 times to get to the higher standard which is shown on the left and that's that's how you find that parity between the two events So why does it matter? Selecting a higher standard reduces the amount of stormwater discharge from a site under a more intensive end, as you can probably tell. A 25 year, 24 hour storm standard is a typical standard for sizing detention and retention facilities for new development sites in urbanized areas. It provides a higher protection for budding properties and greater infrastructure protection in general. You do see some areas that have a 10 year, one hour storm event that tends to be more appropriate in less developed rural areas and areas where there is less critical infrastructure. So St. Pete Beach faces some significant challenges. And before I get into these, I do want to point out that the retention requirements only apply to multifamily of three units or greater office and commercial development. This does not apply to single family or two family. They are not required to retain the 10 year one hour or the 25 year, 24 hour storm event on site. They are required to provide for swales, but other than that, there are no retention or detention requirements in St. Pete Beach applicable to single family or two family homes on single development sites. St. Pete Beach, of course, faces some challenges that are not found in other communities, being on a barrier island, being in a largely developed area. The vast majority of large developments in St. Pete Beach occurred prior to enforcement of local stormwater regulations. A lot of our commercial developments have developed over time, but their initial development took place in the 50s, 60s, prior to any citywide stormwater regulations. Many older commercial sites are close to 100% in permeability. They have no onsite retention or detention. There is the ability to install vaults. We saw with the Serrata and the Tradewinds projects that they are planning to install vaults underneath the buildings that not only treat but also retain and detain the stormwater before releasing offsite. However, with existing developments, that can be very challenging. It might just outright defy any kind of solution that retains the building on the site, given the impermeability ratios on some of these properties. Land values and infrastructure realities make retrofitting in subdivision-wide municipal stormwater conveyances nearly impossible. That defies collection of a reasonable fee in lieu for drainage improvements. You look at any community that's been developed in the last 10, 20 years in the state of Florida, they tend to have large city-wide stormwater conveyance systems that are able to not only handle the current development needs, but any future development that's coming online. The intent is that these new developments feed into these stormwater conveyances. Given the largely built out nature of the city and the land values citywide, it's very difficult to come up with a reasonable fee in lieu that could accommodate any new development coming online off site, off the development site.

Hey Brandon.

Yes.

Real quick, when you talk about the conveyances that the city's put in place now, are they in the form of usually like large ponds, or what are they in the form of open areas?

We do have a few ponds, I believe, city-wide, but largely, for example, over at the community center, we do have some above-grade facilities, but largely it's inlets, it's underwater storage conveyances. You see that down in Passing Grill and other areas of the city. All right, but other cities, you mentioned other cities. Is that usually not underground? It's usually... Correct, you usually see large swales. There might be some underground treatment, but they tend to be roadside facilities and otherwise that can handle large development coming online. St. Pete Beach has adopted much higher standards for what subjects to cite to the new development stormwater standard than the typical substantial improvement regulations. As you're aware, substantial improvement for compliance with the FEMA regulations, the floodplain regulations, is 50% of the depreciated structure's value. On the stormwater side, we are looking at any increase in a parking area that exceeds 10%. an increase in building area of greater than 5% of the existing building and greater than 25% of the structure's value for the lifetime of the structure. St. Pete Beach used to have a standard in place for that for substantial improvement based on the flood regulations. It was a five-year look back. We eliminated that a few years ago. However, for stormwater, it is a look back to the date of the adoption of these regulations, which was in the 1980s. SO ANY IMPROVEMENT THAT EXCEEDS 25% COLLECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THAT STANDARD WOULD TRIGGER THESE SITE-WIDE STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS. AND THE PHASE THREE, YOU CAN SEE THE DANCES ARE ON THE RIGHT THERE. THIS IS AN UNDERTAKING THEY ARE CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH. THIS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE BALLROOM IMPROVEMENT THAT WAS AUTHORIZED BACK IN 2021. They are currently in the end stages of developing that ballroom, and they are in the process of bringing the full site up to compliance with the 25-year, 24-hour standards, which was in place at the time that that authorization was granted.

Brandon, tell them what techniques they used to achieve it.

So a lot of it's going to be handled underneath the parking lot. That'll be the property on the east side. They are making some improvements, some underground improvements there. There is a large retention area at the northwest side of the site, back behind the row bar. They are making some improvements there and some minor facilities on the south side of the building as well. They are retrofitting the site to bring it into compliance with the city's 25-year, 24-hour standards.

Miramar's doing right now with their parking area. They're building that they're digging out a big retaining area. They are.

Yeah, that'll be underneath parking lot Could these entities potentially Change their development plan in some way to take advantage of our currently reduced requirement.

I

They potentially could. They did decide to build to the higher standards so they could potentially undersize the vaults, undersize the retention areas, but I do believe that they intentionally undertook this for the 25-year, 24-hour.

So when I was looking at the Pinellas County requirements, Pinellas County had the 25, so how can they, I mean, if ours are more strict, then they would have to do ours, but if ours are less strict, wouldn't they have to do what the county requires?

So they're currently two competing standards. And my understanding is that Southwest Florida Water Management District, for example, they have a 25 year, 24 hour storm. So anyone discharging would have to comply with that standard. The difference with their standard is that in certain cases, they will credit existing development. So if there was a, Retail building with a parking lot that had been developed prior to the implementation of their standard They will use that as the existing site standard with st. Pete Beach We are looking all the way back to an undeveloped site So the combination of that standard plus the 25-year 24-hour standard is almost always going to be higher for any development on an existing developed site We had that standard in place for several decades. It was inadvertently removed under the comprehensive plan amendments a few years back and So looking at some of the staff considerations, things that we wanted to talk through with the planning board today, and again, we're just starting out on this. We want to engage our consultants. We want to engage our public services staff, especially because they're the ones that are reviewing this. I have had conversations with the public services director on this, and there is an awareness that with development coming online, we're expecting site plans for quarry landings, potentially the Dolphin Village development in the near future. We want to make sure that this is worked out and in place. um allowing exceptions to retain the 10-year one-hour storm standard for development that involves solely less than substantial renovation of an existing development this would be a one-time exception it does not exempt property when redeveloping the example i just gave was of the don cesar that was an elective improvement that's something that they're undertaking that's an addition to their development It's new construction. It's bringing the site up to more modern standards based on what they want to offer in terms of amenities. But that is a voluntary improvement that they're making. A lot of the recent triggers that we've seen for storm water management plans are storm related. These are property owners that want to restore their restaurants. They want to restore their commercial buildings. And because of the value of the undertaking, they're exceeding that 25% threshold that I mentioned on the prior slide. So they are required to bring their entire site up to compliance with the stormwater standards. As I mentioned, that's been a significant challenge for several properties citywide that are close to 100% impermeability. They might have built their building 40, 50 years ago when those considerations were not taken into account. They're facing challenges with the ability to retrofit the site to meet that requirement. Even the ten year one hour storm event is a challenge. would also re-establish the 25-year 24-hour standard as a standard for any development that involves providing a property a greater redevelopment right so that would be significant parking lot or building expansions redevelopment that involves new construction or a higher development right and includes redevelopment that may have previously met the 10-year one-hour standard this would also relocate level of service standard to the land development code pending the watershed management master plan It's been a challenge with the 25-year, 24-hour standard because we do not have that currently codified in any of our documents. The intent was to locate it into the Land Development Code. We do have a concurrency division, so that requirement would be relocated to that code pending the Watershed Management Master Plan. So the input we're looking today from the board is should the city introduce a 25-year, 24-hour design storm requirement pending completion of the Watershed Management Master Plan? We would expect that likely late next year. And should leniency be given to development solely undertaking non-substantial renovation, whether that be restoration only or any kind of renovation that's undertaken for the development? Happy to get board input.

So before the meeting, Member Rizzi and I were just discussing SB 250 and 180, and I did a quick search. Is it accurate that 250 should expire October 1st, but 180 continues through October 1st of 2027?

Yes, we expect 180 to continue through 2027. We have talked this through with the city attorney and we do believe that we would be able to reintroduce a 25-year 24-hour Standard as long as it's not subjecting them to a higher standard than what was in place prior to this.

Okay So was was the actual language deleted or was a reference to some other policy removed in favor of the WM MP I

The language was removed. I think the intent was to mirror up the comprehensive plan changes with the master plan, which never occurred. It is forthcoming, but we do have a one-year gap, if not longer.

Can you go to slide three? It shows it.

Yes, and that what's about the top line, that was what was in place up until 2024. Okay. 25-year, 24-hour. so our intent hasn't changed we we just made a mistake on the language correct okay and this could be as simple as just reintroducing that standard but we did want to engage with the board given the challenges that we're now facing with some of the commercial restoration would the board be amenable or should we look into potentially looking at some kind of relief for those property owners who are just simply looking to put back their commercial development post storm

Okay, but because the value change it triggers the requirement, okay Is there any sense of a percentage of value number that it would take to come into compliance? I mean, is it as simple as ripping your parking lot up and altering it in some way?

So it's modifications specifically to the building for the value. It is 25% of the depreciated value of the building. FEMA regulations, of course, are 50%. The challenge they're running into is that it's, It's retrospective to the adoption of this code, so businesses who maybe had undertaken a multi-million dollar renovation 20 years ago, that is now being added with the current improvement or renovation value. And that, in a lot of cases, is exceeding 25%. Okay.

personally not want to relax the standard that are I don't believe our intent has changed if our if our goals have changed and and we want to alter our intent then sure but I don't get the feeling that we want to do that and seeing how Gulf Boulevard is and even some of our side streets during major storm events they're underwater and I don't think it would be responsible to allow exceptions that continue to damage our infrastructure and and make roads impassable

I have some comments even prior to that. Sure. And Brandon, thank you for sending out my email. I don't have any issue with commercial industrial putting this back. The issue that I'm having is the ambiguity in the code around residential. And the email that I had you forward, it came up from our seawall discussion where you were looking for a criteria for a variance on seawalls. And it said, the hardship does not result from the upland property owner's unwillingness to modify the site to accommodate retention or detention of a 25 year, 24 hour storm. That just doesn't belong in there from what I can see. In addition to this, I also did some research and I said, what does Treasure Island have and Ginny you can put that up if you don't mind and you know, what does Madeira Beach do and Even in our code it you know that calculation you reference in your presentation this one right here the Q equals CIA That one has a number for residential But it's very like when I look at the seawall code, which says adjacent property then is that me and my neighbor and and most of the other things are pretty clear about um as you saw in my email if it's less than an acre or if it's you know residential one or two and i don't see the clarity in our code so my concern about this is the unintended consequences and the ambiguity that already exists in our code around the residential property So I put some of the examples of Treasure Island and Reddington where they will say clearly, either like the county says, if it's less than an acre, it doesn't apply. Treasure Island says they have a 10-year return frequency. Some of them, like Reddington, just says use swales. And if it was misinterpreted that a residential lot like mine had to hold over 10 inches of water, what are we expecting the residents to do? Build a retaining wall around their property? I mean, I just think it's not clear. So I don't have a problem with what we're trying to do I do agree the infrastructure needs to be protected. We need to have rules for new development that comply with the county and the state and everything. But the way our particular code is written, it's very ambiguous. And so I would feel better if we clearly stated that these requirements don't apply to residential property less than an acre or however you want to do it. But that really needs to be spelled out more clearly because the formula that you're talking about has a calculation for residential. Like I said, this variance thing in the seawall talks about you can't get a variance because you're not willing to hold the proper 25. The code is a mess. And if we could just protect the residents, that would be my big concern.

Thank you. think we need to put big bold letters does not apply to you know so I agree can you can you help me understand something just a little bit on on this so use for example the Miramar right now because I saw the big hole that they're digging for a property like that it has to now meet let's say they got to meet the 25 24 How big of a storage area or container or whatever you want to call it do they need? And then is that offset by any permeability of their property too for drainage? I mean how does that or does it all come into play and then you come up with a magic gallon container that they need to put in underground? Is that how that works?

It is. Zoning doesn't review that, but they did go through that process with our public services department. So there is a certain volume that they need to retain. I believe it's not only for retention, it's also for treatment before discharging. I don't know in their case if they're discharging to the beach or if they're going into FDOT facilities on the east side, of course. But they do need to... retain and treat a certain amount of water um some of that is discharged over a certain volume but I don't know the exact amount but yes they do go through that as part of their site plan okay yeah it looks it looks pretty big and then I I just wonder I mean I agree with what we're doing

But then I wonder if we already got a couple of lawsuits going on right now. I wonder how big of a storage and treatment facility underground, like the Serrata and the Tradewinds are going to need to manage their big properties in the amount. And is that something that they're going to also squawk at? Yeah. You know, if they do, they do. And they should do the right thing. But I'm just kind of wondering, like, how big of an underwater storage area are they going to need to comply with what they're trying to do? But obviously, you don't have to answer that. I think I get it. The bottom line is there's a calculation that's done based on the amount of permeable land that they have. They get credit for that to some extent, and then they have to store and treat a certain amount. I just have no idea what that number is, like how big is it, you know?

And depending on where they're discharging, the amount of volume they need to attenuate on site is going to vary because different entities have different standards. I can say that, I can't remember if it was the Serrata or the Tradewinds project when that came up, the discussion was that their discharge wherever their discharging was higher than what the city required even at the time which was a 25-year 24-hour so even meeting the city standard it would not be up to the standard of the other facility but generally speaking a 10-year one hour to a 25-year 24-hour is about it's about a three and a half times increase it's it's substantial yeah so okay

Yeah, I recall it being a fairly substantial portion of the the project that it was it was going to be placed under the new construction, but also also partially under the parking lots and it was a pretty significant sized vault system that span the property and I suspect the your linear feed on Gulf will vote probably plays into it based on how much you're allowed to discharge my sons. Can we adopt any change that modifies the prior language or is that not something we could even consider?

I don't think we would be looking at anything that makes the code stricter. I think we'd likely just be looking at fixing this error effectively.

When the stormwater master, or the watershed management master plan comes out in the fall of 27, after October 27, then we can look at additional most stringent criteria that are more restrictive and burdensome at that point, but not yet.

Okay. Is that master plan something specific to the city, or are we working with the county to adopt a combination of their plan?

We're working with a consultant. I believe we're taking direction from the county's plan, but it'll be our own. And I did want to ask Member Perry about the one-acre exception. Would that be specifically for residential areas?

Yes, I mean, I think, like I said, I looked at the county, I looked at the state, I looked at several other beaches, because someone said to me, well, we're a barrier island, so we should have higher requirements. And then I started thinking, well, if I have to put a retention wall around my property, what's that gonna cost, and how am I really gonna do that? And I couldn't even see a way to implement it that seemed reasonable. But again, having the seawall thing require it from your neighbor made me think it's really not clear And then when you get into the residential calculations, it's really not clear there either. So the reason I gave the Madeira Beach and the others is because that's how some of the other beach cities have dealt with it. So I think less than an acre would be fine. I think some of the words they've done, some of them specified a swale had to be six inches deep. Some of them just said put a swale in. But nobody said 24 hour. on a residential. They specifically had exemptions where they addressed the residential question. We have it in one place in our code that says we don't have to have a floodplain management plan. That does specifically exclude residential, but there are other parts of our code that are not clear like that. And so not having to have a plan is fine, but it doesn't say you don't have to meet this, especially if you look at the seawall variance.

Thank you.

Yeah, I remember Perry's points are why I was asking about can we alter the language? Can we carve out a more specific exception for residences or are we only able to readopt what had been there?

So I think we can always be more lenient. It sounds like this would either be neutral or more lenient for certain property owners. I don't think that that would be an issue. We would just be readopting the 25-year, 24-hour standard and accepting potentially commercial or residential developments that exceed a certain unit count.

Right, and they did say, several of the ones I looked at did say that if it was a residential as part of a development, It was not exempt. It had to be like one or two family in certain size. But no, if it's part of a huge development that's being put in, then it is not exempt. So if you look at the other areas of code, that is spelled out pretty plainly.

We do have that 106-54 as a place to look in the drainage plan section. That's 106-54.

Yep, I have that too.

And we would typically accept that out through language such as development of a single or two family home on a single platted lot. That's what you would look to have accepted, is that correct?

Right, yes. Right and then again the thing on the on this on the seawall where it says if your name of the variance issue I brought that up when we discuss seawalls having the variance say You can't get a variance because your reason is that you don't want to meet the 25 24 hour requirement 25 year over 24 hour That just doesn't fit in there

I think that one came up because they wanted to make sure you didn't flood your neighbor's house. So you would store the water on your property. Instead of going near neighbors or instead of going into the bay, otherwise you would let it go into the bay.

Right. But other codes, a couple comments on that. Other codes, they all say you shouldn't dump into your neighbor, which is why you have swales. There is generally not a problem flowing over into the bay because the grass or the land actually filters better. than dumping it into the street to the stormwater, which dumps it into the bay. Plus, if you were going to put pumps in neighborhoods to control flooding, which we have talked about, they're pumping into the bay.

So the variance would allow them to pump in the bay?

Yeah, just let it run. It would allow it to spill over. Right, exactly. Yeah, right.

Yeah, just for me to understand too, for residences, we have a permeability requirement, right? Correct. And we have the streets and they have the gutters or what have you. I imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, those two requirements or those two things just in themselves is the reason why we don't include residents in this discussion right because we're already built out in a way and we already have guidance as such that takes care of the runoff from right we require swales yeah whatever But that's it, right?

It's in 106.54. They exempt them from submitting a formal drainage plan because they have to meet the following requirements, the ones you just listed. Right, exactly. Those are all in that section.

Cutters, downspouts, swales in certain areas.

But 70%? From 70%? Yeah. Yeah.

As long as we're not trying to do anything with that. I mean, that all makes sense and let's just keep all that the same, right?

Right. The problem is when you get into other areas, there's variability. Like the seawall one is the one that's the most egregious because it really doesn't make any sense. but I just don't like to find, I don't like conflicts in the code.

Yeah, no, I agree.

Yeah, they're still working on that one.

Yeah.

Separately. We could exempt from stormwater concurrency the single family home in Dupuy.

We can, and to your point, typically residential properties have much lower impervious service limitations. With commercial development, you're often looking at 85 or 90%. Residences tend to have 70%, so they're naturally retaining more water just in the permeable areas.

Right, and they're graded. And they're all they're all so that all these things are already in place and that's I guess I bring that up because sometimes the people forget about all that right and to even just to make her point even more we got to be clear about the residences because people will start to think about doing crazy things I think so.

Does that give you what you need? It does. It seems like, yeah, I believe the board's in favor of putting the prior 25-year requirement back, but a carve-out specific to residents, so it's very clear.

And there would be no carve-out for commercial. They could go through the variance process if needed. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, that concludes 5A. Is there anything else?

Any other business?

Okay, this meeting is adjourned.