Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Canopy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses for clearer multifamily canopy rules, asks staff to consider redevelopment exemptions
Summary
At the July 9 meeting the commission reviewed proposed multifamily canopy language and asked staff to prepare clarifying definitions (including condominiums) and to consider an exception or reduction for redevelopment parcels with little or no existing canopy.
The Titusville Environmental Commission on July 9 reviewed proposed multifamily tree‑canopy language and asked staff to consider clearer definitions and an accommodation for redevelopment parcels that lack existing canopy.
Why it matters: commissioners and public speakers said multifamily projects (apartments, condominiums and townhomes) should meet canopy goals to ensure renters receive the same benefits as homeowners, but they also flagged sites that are effectively cleared or were legally developed years ago and argued those redevelopment parcels may need a waiver or reduced requirement to make redevelopment financially viable.
Key points from public and commission discussion Mary Spar, a local resident and advocate, reviewed analysis showing that a proposed 25% canopy requirement for multifamily and residential subdivisions could be satisfied in many recent subdivisions largely by buffers; she argued the ordinance should include clear definitions so condominiums, townhomes and apartments are not inadvertently excluded and recommended staff include a provision allowing a reduced canopy requirement for redevelopment parcels that lack trees. Spar summarized a prior suggested ordinance line (citing language proposed August 24, 2021) that would allow a 50% reduction for redevelopment of commercial or industrial sites that have little or no canopy.
Resident Casey Nagy urged commissioners to attend the July 22 council presentation on the multifamily ordinance and related land‑use items and to provide public comment to help persuade council to adopt stronger canopy protections.
Commissioners said the goal is to avoid unintended loopholes while not making infill redevelopment impossible. Member Burdett and other commissioners recommended staff craft specific, carefully worded criteria for any redevelopment exception—examples discussed included a requirement that the site be previously developed and the timing of prior clearance be considered (to prevent gaming the system by clearing before an application).
Next steps and staff role Commissioners asked staff to review the proposed language ahead of the council presentation and to consider two items: (1) explicitly adding "condominiums" (and similar multiunit forms) to the residential definition used for canopy requirements, and (2) drafting language allowing a reduced preserved‑canopy requirement for bona fide redevelopment parcels that demonstrably lack existing canopy, with safeguards to prevent gaming.
Ending Commissioners said they will monitor the July 22 council presentation and indicated they may comment during the public comment period if warranted. No formal vote was taken at the commission on the multifamily ordinance changes at this meeting.
