►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Board November 19, 2018
Description
Description
C
D
D
E
A
Thank
you
number
three
is
a
quasi-judicial
announcement,
but
we
don't
need
that
tonight.
So
we're
gonna
skip
that.
So
we
are
on
to
number
four
application:
number
18,
one,
one:
nine
comprehensive
plan,
amendment
to
the
future
land-use
element,
ordinance,
2018,
27,
to
reclaim
relocate
and
update
density
and
intensity
standards
for
conservation
of
signified
upland,
habitat
and
wetland
habitat.
A
F
Mcneese
principal
planner,
we
have
two
items
this
evening.
They
are
related
they're,
both
comprehensive
plan
text,
amendments
they're
related
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
changes
to
both
elements
are
needed
to
be
for
consistency
between
the
elements.
The
bulk
of
the
substance
of
the
changes
is
explained
in
this
first
item
staff
report.
F
Basically,
briefly,
the
city's
compras,
the
plan
was
adopted
in
1989
and,
with
that
plan
was
adopted,
a
map
which
is
in
the
plan,
as
figure
19,
which
is
an
adoption
of
the
city's
portion
of
something
called
the
Florida
land-use
cover
and
forms
classification
system
or
flux
meant
the
city's
environmental
standards
or
some
of
those
standards
were
attached
to
that
map
and
also
adopted
in
the
plan.
Along
with
that,
the
map
itself
has
not
changed
since,
since
it
was
adopted.
The
purpose
of
these
amendments
are
to
do
a
couple
of
things.
F
The
second
thing
is
to
just
clarify
the
language
and
confirm
the
city's
wetlands
protection
policies
that
are,
in
elsewhere,
in
the
plan
and
in
this
element
as
well,
and
also
to
provide
for
ground
truthing
of
the
flux,
map
and
definition
of
the
upland
habitat,
significant
upland
habitat.
That's
shown
on
that
map
and
to
provide
for
a
mechanism
to
evaluate
that
habitat
and
to
have
qualified
professionals,
make
recommendations
to
the
city
regarding
conservation
and
that
habitat.
A
F
It
is
housekeeping
to
a
certain
extent.
There
are
some
new
policies
proposed
in
this
change.
The
environmental
standards
have
been
kept
as
they
were
shifted
from
the
the
data
and
analysis
technical
part
of
the
duck
of
the
comp
plan
to
the
policy
part
we've
added
definition
of
significant
upland
habitat,
which
is
basically
taking
the
habitats
that
are
on
the
map
and
listing
those
and
saying
you
know,
an
environmental
professional
going
to
a
site
should
identify
whether
these
habitats
exist
or
whether
the
map
needs
to
be
updated
or
corrected
based
on
ground
truthing.
F
We
also
added
the
ability
for
that
person
or
a
qualified
person
to
make
recommendations
on
the
conservation
of
that
habitat.
What
are
the
valuable
parts?
What
should
be
conserved
on
site
with
a
site
plan
via
the
open
space
and
impervious
surface
restrictions
that
are
in
those
existing
environmental
standards?
So
the
professional
would
tell
you
you
know
what
they
recommend
done,
where
the
best
habitat
is,
if
there
is
any
existing,
where
open
space
should
be
those
types
of
recommendations
to
the
city.
What.
F
So
those
standards
at
the
top
of
page
three
exist,
they're
just
being
shifted
over
the
next
part
describes
the
habitants,
so
that
would
be
contiguous
areas
of
five
acres
or
larger,
of
high
quality,
scrubbing
brush
lines,
pine
flatwoods,
longleaf,
pine,
zarok
oak
or
hardwood
conifer
mixed
as
defined
by
the
flux
map.
Flux
is
a
classification
system.
That's
been
in
existence
for
a
long
time,
at
least
since
the
70s
in
Florida
it's
still
used.
The
system
is
still
used.
F
The
map
and
our
code
is
very
outdated
as
far
as
what
it
shows,
but
the
habitats
are
all
described
in
detail
in
flux.
An
environmental
professional
can
take
that
description
and
determine
whether
the
habitat
exists
on
site
or
whether
it's
something
else.
It's
been
clear:
it's
planted
Pines
its
dredge
and
fill
and
host
some
other
habitat.
G
F
A
D
A
F
F
D
Page
one
Exhibit
A
under
B,
Natural
Resources.
Second,
paragraph
second
line,
there's
a
couple
of
sprites
in
that
sentence:
mm-hmm.
The
second
strike
is
in
their
entirety
after
wetlands
mm-hmm.
My
thought
is
woods.
What's
the
purpose
and
the
goal
of
removing
and
I'll
read
the
sentence?
It's
in
the
intent
comma
through
the
implement
implementation
policies,
are
the
comprehensive
plans
commonly
to
preserve
those
areas
identified
as
wetlands
in
their
entirety,
but
that's
been
struck
out.
What
would
be
the
purpose
of
removing
to
that
particular
three
words.
F
That
is
to
clarify
that
the
city's
policy
with
respect
to
wetlands
is
as
codified
in
the
coastal
element
of
coastal
management
goals,
a
no
net
loss
policy.
So
this
is
sort
of
to
clarify
and
remove
any
perceived
ambiguity
in
the
language.
We
don't
require
preservation
of
all
wetlands
as
they
exist.
We
require
no
net
loss
of
wetlands
through
appropriate
mitigation,
where
you
know
where
it's
it's,
where
the
agencies
provide
for
mitigation
and
the
city
under
our
existing
policies
provide
for
those
standards.
So
this
was
not.
F
D
Maybe
that
should
stay
in,
in
fact,
because
the
no
net
loss
and
therefore
mitigation
frankly,
doesn't
work
just
my
opinion
and
thought
as
to
what
it
seems
like
the
really
critical
three
words
in
this
whole
thing.
That
I
just
read
is
that
it
did
say
all
wetlands,
and
now
it
just
says
wetlands
that
we
decide
more
or
less
wetlands.
F
F
F
The
city
does
not
prohibit
the
filling
of
all
wetlands
right
because,
all
through
the
plan
and
through
the
land
development
code,
frankly,
mitigation
pursuant
to
agency
requirements
is
completed
and
and
written
down.
So
if
you
can't
mitigate
something,
unless
you
impact
it,
so
that's
that's
a
given.
F
A
C
F
A
A
D
D
F
H
Get
the
mic
so
I
can
be
recorded.
So
here's
my
opinion.
My
opinion
of
this
entire
issue.
Wetland
policy
in
the
state
of
Florida
is
guided
by
the
state
of
Florida.
Local
municipalities
can
be
no
more
stringent
than
what
the
local
than
what
the
state
agency
actually
approves,
and
that's
that's
in
the
state
statute.
H
That
being
the
case,
what
was
what
is
in
here
is
conflicting,
that
language
is
conflicting
with
the
policy
and
procedures
that
are
handled
through
the
state
and
our
head
and
handled
on
almost
every
case,
the
oh
that
has
been
well
of
with
the
wetland
mitigation.
That's
happened
here
in
the
city,
so
you
can
do
two
fold.
You
know
your
comprehensive
plan
is
meant
to
be
a
policy
document
that
you
aspire
to,
but
it
also
is
an
implementation
document
that
you
are
implementing
those
policies
and
procedures
that
you
choose
as
a
community
to
live
by.
H
So
you
have
language
in
there
that
conflicts
with
the
remainder
of
the
comp
plan
as
far
as
the
policy
language
and
it
Conn
flicks
with
your
land
development
code
and
how
that's
implemented
so
somewhere
at
some
point
in
time.
We
need
to
reconcile
these
documents.
This
is
the
staffs
attempt
to
reconcile
these
documents
in
a
way
that's
consistent
with
the
state
legislation
and
the
state
law
and
with
the
policies
and
practices
that
are
in
place
today.
H
So
that's
really
where
we're
why
these
recommended
changes
are
being
put
before
you
is
to
deal
with
that
that
ambiguity
and
to
finally
come
to
some
kind
of
resolution
so
that
we
can
all
have
a
policy
whether
we
agree
or
not.
You
know
we're
not
we're
gonna,
it's
gonna
be
a
compromise.
We're
never
gonna
satisfy
everybody
in
in
in
wetland
policy.
You
know,
I,
look
at
the
wetlands
that
you're
talking
about
and
I
know
that
those
wetlands
were
degraded.
H
I
know
that
those
wetlands
had
a
lot
of
storm
water
from
a
retention
pond
being
dumped
into
them
on
a
regular
basis.
I
also
know
that
those
wetlands
were
impacted
by
the
railroad
debris
that
was
taken
off
of
the
trail
originally
before
the
trail
was
the
trail
and
when
it
was
a
railroad
and
I
also
know
that
that
area
was
impacted
historically
throughout
time,
because
there
was
a
trailer
park
on
it
prior
to
the
winn-dixie
site
being
on
there.
H
So
I
have
a
different
opinion
of
the
quality
of
the
wetlands
that
you're
talking
about,
and
in
that
particular
thing,
my
belief
and
state
somewhat
agrees
with.
That
is
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
address
wetlands
on
a
larger
scale
than
just
on
an
individual
site,
and
so
that
is
the
reason
why
you
see
the
state
allowing
for
mitigation
with
a
policy
of
no
net
loss.
H
E
H
H
E
E
H
E
H
Generally,
the
those
are
private
professionals,
environmental
professionals
that
hold
environmental
credentials.
That
would
come
in
do
studies
for
those
for
those
properties,
and
they
would
then
those
studies
would
then
be
evaluated
through
by
the
staff,
as
well
as
by
the
state
agencies
that
actually
give
the
permits
for
the
mitigation
and
for
any
disruption
of
wetlands
or
any
impacts
of
wetlands.
So
they
would
be
reviewed
by
the
state
by
the
staff
internally
here
they're
available
for
public
review.
H
The
board
would
be
reviewing
them
when
they
review
the
packets,
because
that
information
is
supplied
to
them
as
part
of
the
site
plan.
If
we're
talking
about
site
plan,
development
or
or
whatever
project
we're
talking
about,
you
know
if
it's
a
master
plan,
if
it's
a
comp,
if
it's
a
condition,
you
see
it
doesn't
really
matter
what
what
the
title
of
it
is
a
plat.
They
all
get
the
same
type
of
treatment
where
the
scene
is
the
same
type
of
requirements
that
they
have
to
meet.
H
They
all
have
to
bring
the
environmental
studies
and
when
there's
any
wetlands
impacted.
So
those
documents
are
reviewed
by
the
staff
they're
available
for
the
board
to
review,
and
then
they
were
again
reviewed
by
the
state
agency
prior
to
the
permits
actually
being
secured
for
any
type
of
MIDI
GU
any
type
of
impact
and
then
any
type
of
mitigation.
That's
required.
I
H
Doesn't
change
the
process?
It's
still
the
same
processes
that
we
use.
It
just
changes
the
requirements
of
where,
where
the
study
information
is
actually
required,
your
land
development
code
currently
requires
the
environmental
analysis
is
to
be
done.
This
codifies
and
Mews
the
requirements
for
the
significant
upland
habitat
to
the
implementation
portion
of
the
document,
which
is
your
goals,
objectives
and
policies,
and
as
a
result,
because
with
that,
we
will
now
require
a
study
to
be
added
into
that
language.
That
studying
mandatorily
now
needs
to
come
in.
H
There
is
no
discretion
of
when
that
study
is
in.
It
comes
in
at
the
time
that
the
development
Israel
is
coming
in
for
review,
so
there
is
really
no
we've
been
requiring
that
up
to
this
point,
your
previous
staff
required
that,
prior
to
this,
it
just
is
now
cleaner
language
that
actually
makes
it
clear
on
what
the
requirements
are
to
actually
implement
the
significant
the
wetland
upland
preservation
policy.
So
it's
actually
something
that
we
can
implement
and
it's
more
tangible,
I
think.
A
What
we're
all
nervous
about
is
that
something
slips
in
that
we're
changing
and
we're
green
to
easier
development
in
wetlands
area,
but
from
what
I
hear
from
you
is
that
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
anything
about
that.
All
we're
doing
is
making
sure
that
our
language
is
the
same
as
the
States
language.
A
H
Not
well
okay,
so
it's
not
verbatim
the
language
from
the
state.
It
is
the
language
that
you
have
in
your
comprehensive
plan.
That
was
your
particular
language
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
just
make
it
clearer
on
how
that
language
is
going
to
be
applied
but
understand
the
process
doesn't
change
this
board
reviews
those
applications,
the
boc
reviews,
those
applications,
so
the
process
remains
the
same.
The
information
that
you
receive
remains
the
same.
So
the
process
by
which
that
someone
gets
approval
of
development
has
not
changed.
H
F
C
H
C
A
We
are
here
solely
to
approve
or
not
approve
the
changes
that
the
staff
has
recommend
to
it
and
I
think
I'd
have
personally
I'll
have
to
say
that
I
respect
the
staff
and
I'll
have
to
go
with
their
recommendation
on
that.
I
think
that
we
don't
have
the
power
to
make
those
changes,
but
we
as
individuals
have
those
powers
to
go
up
against
the
commissioners
and
ask
these
questions
then,
and
what
is
going
on
with
this
I
think
that's
where
our
role
ends
and
and
begins.
Well,.
H
In
this
particular
case,
you
can
put
opinions
on
to
the
record.
They
will
be
included
with
the
information
that
goes
up
to
the
board
as
soon
as
Kim
and
her
little
fingers
type
everything
out,
they'll
be
in
draft
form,
because,
obviously
you
guys
won't
have
a
meeting
before
this
goes
to
the
BOC,
but
any
opinions
that
you
have
that
you
want
to
include
on
on
the
record.
There
certainly
will
be
put
me
part
of
the
record
through
the
minutes
to
provide
to
the
commissioners.
G
A
D
Like
to
say
thank
you
to
both
staff,
you
did
a
wonderful
job
of
trying
to
explain
a
very
arcane
topic,
so
thank
you
very
much
and
I
and
I
did
get
it.
I
also
got
something
else
within
that
conversation,
because,
if
I
may
be
so
polite
is
I
would
disagree
as
someone
that
walked
by
that
property
daily,
if
not
twice
daily.
It
was
a
wonderful
piece
of
watershed
that
held
a
wonderful
amount
of
bird
Roseate,
Spoonbill
fish
turtle.
Crane
now.
C
D
Has
nothing
to
do
with
you
and
nothing
to
do
with
us,
but
it's
a
marker.
This
is
my
opinion.
Is
that
a
travesty
occurred
there
there's
no
other
way
to
describe
it.
That's
a
fish
irregardless!
What
water
was
going
in
there,
a
travesty
occurred
and
by
irony
were
being
faced
with
sure
it
might
be.
An
administrative
changed,
make
everything
line
up,
but
maybe
this
is
a
moment
where
we
go.
You
know
what
we're
not
really
excited
about
how
this
type
of
work
is
being
done
and
being
administered
within
our
city.
D
Perhaps
perhaps
not,
and
thus
a
vote
against
is
not
don't
take
it
personal,
ensure
its
administrative,
but
perhaps
it's
a
way
that
we
can
say
that
we
perhaps
need
to
review
how
we're
approving
these
projects
so
that
what
little
bit
of
wetland
in
their
entirety
is
preserved
because
I
don't
know
about
you
folks,
but
there's
not
much
left
and
it's
going
to
get
paved
over
real,
quick,
that's
my
opinion.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
G
G
A
J
C
J
B
D
I
I
B
A
A
A
Carries
thank
you
and
next
on
the
list.
This
application
number
18
120,
comprehensive
plan,
amendment
to
the
coastal
planning
and
in
servation
element,
ordinance
number
or
ordinance
2018
28,
to
provide
for
consistency
with
the
future
land-use
element
regarding
the
conserve
conservation
of
significant
upland
habitats
and
wetland,
and
with
that
and
to
remove
outdated
references.
A
F
F
The
substantive
changes,
the
substance
changes
that
relate
to
the
future
land-use
element
are
removal
of
the
reference
to
figure
19
in
some
policies
in
favor
of
referring
to
the
actual
habitats.
Bigger
19
is
being
retained
in
the
plan,
and
it
is
referred
to
elsewhere,
but
in
these
policies
we
are
recommending
striking
the
the
reference
to
that
figure
in
favor
of
reference
to
the
future
land
use
policy
policies
that
we
just
discussed
in
the
land.
F
So
good
example,
the
wetlands
that
you
talked
about
there
are
I
would
venture
to
say
at
least
a
few
weapons
in
the
city
that
are
not
on
that
map.
Probably
a
lot
when
we're
talking
about
wetlands.
Remember
that
the
state
and
the
federal
government
have
a
very,
very
specific
and
detailed
procedure
for
delineating
wetlands.
You
were
asking
about
the
professionals
before
they
must
follow.
That
procedure
fill
out
the
firm's
and
show
what's
jurisdictional
and
in
a
surveyor
survey.
It's
that
line.
So
the
sea
city
has
no
say
in
what
is
jurist
own
jurisdictional.
F
Wetlands
that's
defined,
so
we
find
jurisdictional
wetlands
all
over
the
city,
even
stuff,
that's
not
on
figure
19.
So
that's
a
good
example
and
then
the
uplands
are
also
depicted
on
there
and
in
the
item
we
just
discussed.
Those
habitats
that
are
on
figure,
19
are
spelled
out
and
the
environmental
professional
that
would
be
on-site
would
identify
whether
those
habitats
are
there
and.
F
Evaluate
them,
according
to
the
amendments
we
just
discuss,
so
these
changes
are
to
reference
those
policies.
The
main
references
are
in
exhibit
a
attached
to
this
ordinance,
20
1828,
mainly
on
pages
a
3,
a
4,
a
20
and
a
21
and
I
gave
you
that,
because
most
of
this,
as
I
said,
is
a
lot
of
outdated
references
and
staff
recommends
approval
of
ordinance.
20
1828.
Are
there
any
questions.
A
F
B
A
A
A
C
D
I
H
One
comment:
I'm,
just
gonna,
I'm
gonna
send
out
the
public
hearing
scheduled
for
the
for
next
year.
I
just
want
you
guys
to
look
at
it
again.
I
know
we
had
talked
about
it
earlier
in
the
year,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody
gets
another
copy
of
it
to
make
sure
folks
have
gotten
it,
because
it's
been
a
while,
since
I
sent
that
out
so
I'll
be
sending
that
out,
probably
sometime
this
week,
so
just
be
checking
your
email
for
that.
Please
don't
respond
to
each
other.
A
A
H
H
So
clearly
we
want
to
sit
and
talk
about.
What's
the
where's
the
most
benefit
of
using
the
consultants
we
have
with
the
with
the
funds
that
we
have,
so
we
can
do
that
and
we'll
do
that
just
as
soon
as
we
get
the
consultant
on
board,
so
that
will
be
coming
I
promise
that
we
will
address
that
issue.
It's
certainly
we
can
have
a
discussion
if
you'd
like
it,
the
next,
the
next
meeting,
I'm,
not
sure.
What's
on
the
agenda
for
December
at
this
point,
I,
don't
remember
off
the
top
of
my
head.
H
H
So
we
have
that
information
ahead
of
one
of
the
consultants
actually
start
working
on
that
thing
and
since
the
notice
has
been
one
of
those
issues
it's
been
ongoing
off
and
on
for
a
while
I
would
recommend
that
we
probably
bring
that
section
back
to
you,
but
if
you
guys
want
to
do
that,
there's
a
consensus
of
the
board
that
you
want
to
do
that.
I
can
start
pulling
some
sections
if
you've
got
specific
sections
that
you
want
to
look
at
so
that
you
can
kind
of
start
looking
at
them.
H
H
H
We
have
areas
affected,
Pat
and
I
have
areas
of
expertise,
but
we
are
the
two
planners
for
the
entire
city
so
trying
to
write
a
land
development
code
at
the
same
time
that
we're
processing
applications
is
not
a
successful,
does
not
make
a
successful
land
development
code
update
happen
quickly,
and
so
what
we
would
rather
have
this
happen
in
maybe
18
months
versus
several
years.
That's
that's
what
we're
looking
at
so
we
would
be
looking
to
that's
why
we're
looking
to
have
the
consultant
come
help
us
with
that.
A
H
H
A
H
We
can
put
that
on
and
start
just
talking
about
the
language
I
mean
you
guys
can
give
us
your
feedback,
and
we
can
certainly
put
a
draft
up
or
a
draft
together
and
I'll
talk
to
the
city
manager.
If
he
wants
it
to
go
out.
If
he
wants
to
go
ahead
of
the
order
of
the
update
of
the
entire
line
of
code,
then
we'll
put
it
before
the
board
on
the
land
development
code
before
the
land
development
code
update
I'm,
certainly
willing
to
go
talk
to
him
about
that.
Thanks.
D
He
meant
yes,
those
were
a
lot
of
words
for
ya.
Why
don't
we
make
that
a
priority?
We
just
did
all
that
for
admin
and
I
think
this
is
something
of
important,
so
if
there
was
a
way
to
prioritize
that
so
that
didn't
involve
necessarily
consulting
or
heavy
lifting
can't
we
just
write
something
up
and
get
it
going
at
the
next
meeting.
We.