Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-2020 NRB MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Chairman Stadelman called the Natural Resources Board to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Pledoe of Alleaiance was recited by all. III. Roll Call Present: Ms. Donna Ware Mr. Charles Stadelman Mr. Patrick Powers Mr. Thomas Carrano Ms. Ruth Callaghan (Zoom) Ms. Nikki Mosblech (Zoom) Mr. Jeff Carrier Ms. Jessica Lovell (Zoom) Also Present: Ms. Kim Haigler, Environmental Technician Ms. Lisa Frazier, Community Development Director Mr. Robert Loring, Senior Planner Ms. Barbara Brooke -Reese, MIS Manager Ms. Janet Graham, Technical Writer (Zoom) IV. ADoroval of Minutes — August 4, 2020 and September 1, 2020 Mr. Stadelman called for a motion to approve the Minutes of August 4, 2020. Motion to approve the August 4, 2020 Minutes as presented was made by Mr. Carrano, seconded by Ms. Ware, and approved unanimously via voice vote. Mr. Stadelman then called for a motion to approve the Minutes of September 1, 2020 as presented. Motion to accept the Minutes of September 1, 2020 as presented was made by Mr. Carrano, seconded by Ms. Ware, and approved unanimously via voice vote. V. Announcements A. Open position on the Board Ms. Haigler said there is a full Board now with the addition of the newest member, Jeffrey Carrier. NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING B. "A Day in the Life" Water Quality Event on October 24th Ms. Haigler staled this is an event that is done every year. Different members of the Board have volunteered to help each year. There is also a group of school students who participate as well as a Boy Scout group. This year it is going to be on Saturday. It starts at 8:00 a.m. and is done before noon. It is a well -organized water quality sampling. It is called "Snapshot Day." They will be doing the same water quality data collection at several locations up and down the coastline of the Lagoon. She is asking for volunteers from the Board to help. The volunteers will meet at 8:00 a.m. at Fisherman's Landing. Ms. Ware, Mr. Carrano, Ms. Lovell, and Ms. Callaghan volunteered. C. Keep Indian River Beautiful Coastal Clean-up Day on October 17th Ms. Haigler stated she did not get the details in time to give them to the Board tonight, but she will email them out to the Board in case anyone would like to participate. D. November 3rd Meeting Ms. Haigler addressed the fact that November 3rd is the presidential election day. She suggested cancelling that meeting and reconvening in December. At that time, the Sustainable Sebastian Action Plan and the spreadsheet will be available to discuss. After general discussion, Mr. Stadelman called for a motion to have a meeting on November 3, 2020 as scheduled. A motion to hold the November 3rd meeting as scheduled was made by Mr. Carrano, seconded by Ms. Ware, and approved unanimously via voice vote. VI. Public Input Seeing no one in Chambers and hearing no one on Zoom, Mr. Stadelman moved on to the next agenda item. VII. New Business A. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Parks and Properties IPM Plan: Presenting to City Council on October 14th. Ms. Haigler slated that the Parks and Properties IPM Plan will be presented to City Council on October 141h. Ms. Callaghan stated she will be there to show support for the NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 3 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING Plan. Ms. Haigler stated she will send the Agenda out to everyone on the Board, and anyone who is interested Is Invited to attend. Stormwater IPM Plan: Looking for at least three volunteers from the Board to serve on the Stormwater IPM Committee Ms. Haigler explained that staff is looking to get the Stormwater IPM Plan underway. She stated she needs at least three volunteers from the Natural Resources Board to serve on this Committee. The regular meeting dates have not yet been decided upon. Those will be decided at the first meeting. The IPM Committee usually meets at 3:00 p.m. on a Monday or a Tuesday. Depending on who signs up, staff will work out which day will be best. It will be every other week. Mr. Stadelman, Mr. Carrano, Ms. Callaghan, and Ms. Lovell volunteered. Ms. Haigler stated any other Board members who are interested in this project are welcome to attend any of the meetings. She will let everyone know when the meetings will be held. B. Final Draft "Conservation and Coastal Management" Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan --per request Ms. Haigler stated that the final draft is available on the City's website home page for anyone to read. She called for comments/questions from the Board members regarding this item. Mr. Powers: Stated he has looked it over, and it is impressive. It is even more encouraging as a resident to know that things like this are going to be done. He wholeheartedly supports the Plan. Ms. Ware: Regarding the conversion from septic to sewer, she would like to be able to say that in 10 years the City will start to expand that from just the coastal area into more populated areas. She asked if there is any plan whatsoever in this new Plan that addresses that. Ms. Frazier stated the Planning and Zoning commissioners were also very adamant about that. She stated that in the Infrastructure Element there is language stating that the City will look at ways of expanding Its ability to do that. She explained that utilities are owned by the County, and it would be very expensive and would take a lot of effort to get NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 4 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING everyone connected, for instance in the Highlands. She emphasized that it could be done, but it would be very expensive. She also explained that all new subdivisions must connect to sewer and water. • As to all the rain over the last couple of weeks, Ms. Ware asked if there are certain areas within the City that the septic is getting flooded out so that those kinds of issues can be addressed. Ms. Frazier reviewed that there is a study that was performed by Indian River County several years ago, and it identified the high -risk areas in the County, and the Highlands area south of CR-512 was listed as a high -risk area. Again, in order to provide sewer for everyone in that area would be very expensive. Ms. Callaghan: Agrees that the Comprehensive Plan was quite well written. She called attention to one phrase on Page 12 of the document, Objective 5-1.5, Protect Air Quality. The first sentence talks about meeting or exceeding federal standards. She opined that many times the word "exceeding" can mean it is above what is desirable. Also on Page 12, Objective 5-1.5.3, Land Use and Transportation, she commented that when looking at transportation and mobility elements, some communities she has lived in have a truck idling rule that addresses diesel emissions. She suggested considering working toward limiting idling time of vehicles. Ms. Frazier suggested using the word "maintaining" federal standards instead of "exceeding" those standards. Mr. Carrano: Regarding septic -to -sewer conversion, he suggested that the whole document seems to ignore nitrogen loading of ground water which eventually works its way into the local waterways. He stated there are individual denitrificalion sanitary systems out there that come as close to a sewage treatment plan as can be done on an individual basis. He suggested that wording to that effect could be added in Objective 5-1.4.13, Septic -to -Sewer Conversion. There is evidence of nitrogen discharge at Hardee Park and local waterways, but it does not seem to be acknowledged anywhere in this document. He thinks it should be mentioned under Water Quality Protection. NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 5 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING Ms. Haigler stated that on Page 31, under Description of Water Quality, it does cover the TMDL for nutrients. It does not particularly mention nitrogen loading, but that is covered in that section as far as urban runoff. • He is not talking about urban runoff; he is talking about leaching of nitrogen from septic systems. Ms. Frazier stated that where it talks about the centralized potable water and sanitary sewer systems, etc., perhaps in that area a statement can be made such as recognizing that nitrogen leaching from groundwater is a significant contributing factor to water quality issues in the lagoon and surface water. • He thinks that one of the problems Is that sewage treatment plants are looked at as the only alternative, and they are not. Ms. Frazier stated there is a policy in the Plan about looking at alternative septic systems in areas that cannot be connected to the septic systems that are used now. Ms. Haigler said that subject did come up in the workshop, and it was moved to Infrastructure. Ms. Frazier will make sure that that language is in the Plan. Extended discussion was had among several Board members and the staff about how and where to insert the language that Mr. Carrano had suggested. Ms. Frazier stated that under Policy 5-1.4.13, it does go right back to the policy in the Infrastructure Element where she believes it is noted. She will make sure that the language is included. Inquired if the City keeps track of information of FEMA's repetitive loss properties. He also inquired whether there are any enhanced regulations for those properties. Ms. Haigler stated they do. It is required by law. She stated the City just lowered its CRS rating by one point. • Commented that the key thing to remember is that this document is a guideline. The real work is when the Code is adopted to match the guidelines of the Plan. The Plan is meant to be general. It is meant to set guidelines, but it is when changes are made to the City's Code that these matters are addressed. Mr. Carrier: • Commented when addressing septic -to -sewer conversion, most of his experience has been in the Florida Keys. He stated that in 1999 there was mandated a shift NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 6 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING from septic to sewer, and it has only been within the last couple of years that it has been completed. It was a massive undertaking, probably much more problematic than would be seen locally simply because the Keys are Pleistocene coral reefs. The expense to homeowners was significant. Also, the deep water discharge was a problem. The issue is the timeframe. The Keys worked over 20 years to complete the project. While the sewer system was being put in several new technologies emerged for septic systems that handled nitrogen load better than existing systems. People who have lived in the Keys are now reporting seeing the bottoms of their canals for the first time In three decades. Water quality has also improved. He stated it would be nice to encourage that, and he does not think it is possible to get too early a jumpstart on it, since the timeframe that is being talked about is significant. The fact that new developments are required to have sewer is certainly a step in the right direction. Ms. Mosblech: On page 17 of the document, Objective 5-2.2, where it talks about Maintenance of the Flood Plains, one of her concerns is when looking at the 100-year flood plain and thinking about this as a long-term document, is there a place where an update to the 100-year flood plain can be Inserted regarding where that will be as conditions may change over the next decade. Also, under Objective 5-2.2.1, Part A talks about, "...new development encroaching into the flood plain shall incorporate flood -protection measures." She stated that just reading that, the suggestion that the City would allow new development into part of this flood plain and how much development is a concern for her. She does not know whether that should be in this section or in Infrastructure. Ms. Frazier stated that one of the things that will need to be addressed going forward is addressing flood plain standards and coastal resiliency methods. • On page 6 of the document, under Policy 5.1.1.15 and 16, in that section, for the Certificate of Occupancy it is required that there be no nuisance or invasive exotic vegetations. She would like to see something in the document that allows notification of nuisance or invasive exotics to be given to residents as they continue to live in a home and encourage removal of those items. Ms. Frazier stated that care must be taken not to infringe on private property rights and creating a program of enforcement that the City cannot maintain. Education is the best tool in encouraging natives. It is already in the City's Landscape Code to have 50% natives in new subdivisions and in commercial areas. NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 7 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING Ms. Haigler mentioned that her department has brochures that are handed out. Also, whenever she does a tree removal permit for someone, she will write on it what is approval for removal. She will also list the non-native species that are approved and will put them on their map. So the permit she issues shows them where their problematic plants are, and she will have already approved them for removal. Ms. Lovell: Is pleased to see Integrated Pest Management and Sustainable Sebastian included in the Comprehensive Plan. She compared parts of the previous version to the proposed new document. She would like to make some recommendations. Starting on page 2, "Restrictive development activity that would damage or destroy coastal and conservation resources" was removed as a highlight. She suggested it would be important to insert that the City is restricting development activity that would damage or destroy coastal or conservation resources. That was removed from that section. She recommended that something be inserted that is similar and somewhat aggressive in that the City is trying to limit the damage to coastal and conservation resources. Ms. Frazier asked that Board members try to remember that if they go back to the existing Comprehensive Plan and try to compare it apples to apples with this one, it is going to be very difficult. A lot of what was in the existing Plan was moved into different areas. It may be referenced in a different element. On Page 3, Policy 5-1.1.3, Endangered or Threatened Species, she suggested a time frequency to updating that list be added. She opined that it would be important to try to define that since this is a 20-year plan, as well as try to define some type of time frequency under Section 5-1.1.8, the Native Habitats, the Inventory and Assessment. She would like to see a time frequency for those. Ms. Frazier explained that the data and analyses are captured at this point in time in order to support the goals, objectives, and policies. When this document is presented to be reviewed and adopted by the state and the stakeholders, they certainly look at the data that is captured today. That is not what is really being adopted. What is being adopted are the goals, objectives, and policies. So to update for the listed species, she does not think it requires a timeline, because that is out of the City's purview. What it states is that the City is going to coordinate with the state for the protection of these species. So if that list changes or not, the City will still coordinate for the protection of these species. She NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 8 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING explained that if you go to the Native Habitat Inventory, that may be something that a timeline could be put on. Ms. Haigler stated the City does not have its own policies on them, but the City is just coordinating and implementing what the state or federal government have decided. The City follows their habitat management plans for the species. So it is not really the City's limeframe. Ms. Frazier stated Ms. Lovell's suggestion is duly noted. • Regarding the open spaces that have not been mentioned, under Policy 5-1.1.10, Open Space (b), it is now being defined that it should be limited to a certain percentage of the stormwater retention area for that open space. She would recommend that the City actually define a percentage or define some way to state that, instead of having more stormwater, it is going to have more land. Ms. Frazier stated the Land Development Code (LDC) is the appropriate document for that definition, and the LDC already defines that open water bodies are a certain percentage of open space. Asked if that percentage is looking into the future or is that percentage what has been previously in effect. In other words, has the City increased the percentage? Ms. Frazier said no. It has been the same for a long time, and she does not think the City is looking to increase it. What is now being required is that the City's stormwater ponds should contain littoral shelves. Because of the City's new/revised fee credits, someone can get a credit for it to do an additional littoral shelf, and a credit can be obtained towards someone's stormwater fee credit. This is only relating to commercial, not residential. In residential subdivisions it is required that there be a littoral shelf, so a portion of that stormwater pond or lake area can be recognized as open space. That is already addressed in the LDC. When the time comes for updating a lot of these ordinances, Ms. Haigler will keep this Board apprised as to what is going before the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Commented on some opportunities to increase the wildlife habitat. Since this is a 20-year plan, a lot will change in 20 years, and if this can be put forth as a sounding board to be able to free some of those areas, that would be a positive thing. • On page 5, Policy 5-1.1.13, Preservation of Native Vegetative Communities, this is a minimum of 25%. This is an opportunity that Sebastian has to try to increase that percentage. She would recommend that the City somehow redefine that NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 9 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING percentage, especially since, by the time there is a house, pool, and three -car garage, etc., there is not much room for native trees, etc. If there is a way to really define that, to try to increase that, she would like to see it. Ms. Frazier explained that this is not 25% of open space; this is a minimum of 25% of each native vegetative community, including trees. She further explained that the plan is to set up a tree bank, but that is something that will be done in the future. The City is trying to maintain the habitat corridors as they exist today. So that 25% is about the native vegetation on that particular site; it is not necessarily about 25% of open space. • Regarding the 25%, she is asking for that to be increased. • Under Section 5-1.2, Protection of Surface Waters, the previous document had wetlands mentioned there. She thinks it is important that that wording be in the title as well as wetlands.. • On page 6 under Section 5-1.2.4, Establishing the Wetlands Line, she inquired as to what the first sentence means. When it says, "No development in a wetland," what does that mean. Mr. Carrano stated it means with the exception of a dock or a bulkhead, etc. • Ms. Lovell is concerned about development in wetlands. She would like to see firmer language in that section. Ms. Frazier again opined that it cannot be stated that someone cannot develop in a wetland without obtaining permitting options and mitigation options. She does not believe that is stated in the prior Plan. The state is who determines what the wetland line is, and they are the ones who determine what the value of that wetand is and what the mitigation is going to be for that if a permit is obtained to develop in that wetland. What also has been added is the wetland transition area so that wetland buffer areas are recognized and held in check in new developments around wetlands. • Regarding the transition area for the standard that is set, she inquired if that is where it is defined what can and cannot be built or put in that transition area. Ms. Frazier stated when someone develops a piece of property the wetland boundary is set, and the transition or buffer area is established. No development is allowed in the buffer area. The buffer area becomes part of the protected area. Credit is given for that. Boardwalks or docks, etc. could be done over the buffer area, but no large structures. Ms. Haigler stated that on the San Sebastian River it is one-fourth the width of your lot where there can be a passage cleared to go to a dock, but that is all that is permitted in a buffer zone. NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE10 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING Stated that one of the sections that was removed was the Stormwater Management Plan. Ms. Frazier stated wording regarding stormwaler management has all been moved to the Infrastructure element. • Regarding the fishery, she inquired if that is something that was added to a different section. Ms. Frazier stated it could be under Protection of Marine Resources. She will look that up because she is not certain about that. • Regarding the Hazardous Waste section, she inquired whether that has been moved to a different element. Ms. Haigler stated it is called illicit discharge in the new Plan. The terminology was changed to be in line with the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System language. Ms. Frazier stated the maximum for a wetland is all dependent upon the wetland and what kind of species is attempting to be preserved. So a maximum buffer could be 500 feet. The minimum standard for St. John's permitting is 15 feet. Ms. Haigler said the state determines that, not the City. They decide the buffer zone based on the water body. In-depth discussion was had between the Board and staff regarding the wording in the proposed new Comprehensive Plan regarding open space and native vegetative communities. Ms. Frazier stated that this is not the time or place for discussion of the Land Development Code. This document is just setting forth the overriding goals and policies to get the City to the regulations, which is the Land Development Code. She also pointed out that this is not the time to make major changes to this element tonight. There has been opportune time for reviewing this document and putting forth comments all along. She stated she will be happy to bring the suggestions to Planning and Zoning, but this is not the time. Ms. Frazier further emphasized that this Board is going to be part of the Committee, just like what took place with the Integrated Pest Management program, to be part of addressing the Landscape Code rewrite. There are also individuals in the community who want to provide input just like what was done in the IPM Plan. NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE11 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING Mr. Stadelman: Suggested that, instead of using minimum standards when it comes to wetlands, etc., use maximum standards instead. Under Objective 5-2.4.1, Post -Hurricane Assessment, he inquired if the language can be changed to read Post -Disaster Assessment, so that it is reflective of all disasters, such as the COVID disaster that is being dealt with now. Where it says, "The City Council shall appoint a recovery task force," he asked if anyone knows if the recovery task force has been appointed, who it is comprised of, and who makes the determinations. Ms. Frazier said it states in the document that the recovery task force is comprised of the City Manager, the Building Official, and others as determined by the City Council. This is in compliance with the City's Emergency Management Plan. She understands his question, and she is not sure if the appropriate language is to change it here or to add something else. She stated it is under Objective 5-2.3, Emergency Management. She suggested the terminology should be stated as Post -Emergency Assessment and Redevelopment. • Regarding the Public Facilities Review Committee as well as the Recovery Task Force, he inquired if there is a 6meframe for those people to be activated after the City reopens. Ms. Frazier stated that all these subjects will be included in the City's Management Plan. There is an Emergency Management Plan that is maintained. If that wording is not in there, it would be updated to include that wording. Every year there are edits to the Management Plan. She will verify that. • As to the Local Peacetime Emergency Plan, under Letter F: Recommending amendments to the local Peacetime Emergency Plan is actually the plan the City is under presently. He opined that is really old, and it refers to wartime actions. He would like to see that wording updated. • He called attention to page 4, Objective 5-1.1(c), it reads that, "For the protection of natural resources, wildlife habitats, and City Land Development of Code that provisions recognize the rights of property owners to use their land in a manner consistent with rules, policies, and guidelines." He asked if wording to the effect that provisions recognize everyone else other than the property owners who live there. It seems like if it is just recognizing the property owners to use their lands NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 12 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING consistent with the rules, that if they find something, their mitigation is to mitigate it so far away it is not within the local zone. He would like the wording to recognize the rights of all people that the land is used in a consistent manner, and everything is not going to be wiped out. Just below that, under Policy 5-1.1.2, Wildlife Protection, it says, "The City shall utilize the LDC in the review process" etc. He asked for clarification regarding that wording. Ms. Frazier stated that, if he is talking about adverse effects of threatened or endangered species, a lot of that is state mandated. Lengthy discussion regarding this subject was had between staff and the Board members. Ms. Frazier said she will review all of these comments, summarize them, and bring them in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Land Planning Agency, which is the recommending body for the Comprehensive Plan. They are meeting October 15th in order to look at the entire final draft. Staff will bring all of these proposed changes, updates, and clarifications to them for their consideration. At that point on the 15th, should the LPA feel confident that they want to recommend the updated Comprehensive Plan 2040 to the City, it will then be brought to City Council. She does not yet know when that will be. There is consideration being given to doing a workshop or two with City Council in November/December. The timeline that was established with the state could not be adhered to because of COVID-19. When City Council determines how they would like to proceed, staff will let everyone know that. Once City Council does a public hearing, they will adopt the proposed Comp Plan. When that happens, it is sent out to all of the stakeholders as well as the state. They then have 30 days to provide staff with any input or changes, etc. They will then return it to the City. The City then has 180 days to make those changes and bring it back to City Council for their final adoption hearing. There is a time period for anyone to challenge it. It is then formally adopted. The schedule which she just reviewed is on the City's website. Ms. Frazier thanked everyone for the time and interest they took in reviewing this document. Public Comment Seeing no one in Chambers from the public, and there being no one on Zoom for public comment, Mr. Stadelman moved on to the next item on the agenda. Vill. Old Business — None IX. Staff Matters NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD PAGE 13 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING Mr. Stadelman voiced his appreciation to staff for all the hard work they put into the document. Ms. Ware mentioned that this weekend the Sebastian River Art Club is having the Pelican Island Conservation Art Show in the Art Center. If the Board wanted to have a table that would have information about Sustainable Sebastian, that might be a good opportunity. Ms. Haigler said she will set up a table in that room and provide materials. Ms. Ware added that the Art Club plans to be in Riverview Park for their shows, and they will have one every month. If this Board wants to set up a table at any of these shows, feel free to do that. She will provide the dates for these shows. She suggested that seed packets could be handed out at the April show. Ms. Callaghan thanked the City for their recycle event, and she and her family participated. Ms. Haigler stated at the next meeting she will bring the numbers of how much was collected at that event. Mr. Stadelman brought up the Earth Day celebration. Ms. Haigler stated staff will get the notices out as soon as they know when events can be held again. XI. Items for Next Acenda A. Review draft of the Sustainable Sebastian Action Plan Spreadsheet B. Raising Awareness of Sustainable Sebastian C. NRB Website Edits XII. Adjournment There being no further business, Mr. Stadelman called for a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Carrano, seconded by Ms. Ware, and passed unanimously via voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. By: 1 YvnT / a- Date: (\r-'v • �l Qoa--�> Chairman Charles Stadelman is