Titusville commission asks staff to close wetlands ‘‘conservation easement’’ loophole in comp plan

The Titusville Technical/Environmental Commission voted Tuesday to ask city staff to review and propose revised language for Future Land Use Policy 1.16.0.2 and related strategies after members and outside experts said the existing wording creates a loophole that could let developers remove conservation land‑use protections for wetlands 5 acres or greater.

The commission—s action, approved by voice vote with no recorded dissents, follows an extended discussion during new business led by Mary (resident/consultant) and planning staff member Lily (city planning staff). Mary outlined a decades‑old mismatch between the comprehensive plan—s future land‑use element and the conservation element and said the mismatch stems from a 2010 set of proposed amendments that the state found partly noncompliant. "The heart of the wetlands policies is conservation element strategy 1.16.0.3.0.2," Mary said, noting that strategy establishes a 5‑acre threshold and a density limit of "one residential unit per five acres." She warned that the provision in 1.16.0.2 that currently allows landowners to substitute a conservation easement or planned development in place of the conservation land‑use designation created a way for wetlands to lose the comp‑plan backstop.

Commission members described the problem in practical terms: a property owner could rely on a conservation easement or a planned unit development to remove a conservation land‑use designation from a parcel even when the wetland on that parcel is part of a larger wetland area measuring 5 acres or more. Member Browning and others urged protecting the extensive north–south swath of wetlands visible on the city—s future land‑use map. "If you take away the conservation land use ... you sure don—Ft want to give up the conservation land use," Browning said.

The commission made two related requests to staff. First, a motion by member Jason, seconded by member Burdette, asked staff to examine Policy 1.16.0.2 and the final clause that allows conservation easements or planned developments to replace the conservation land‑use designation, and to recommend revised wording to close the identified loophole. The motion passed on a voice vote with no recorded opposition. Second, member Miller moved, with member Delgado seconding, that staff identify an appropriate place in the comprehensive‑plan language to add a requirement that "best available and appropriate data," such as GIS analysis and field delineations, be used to determine whether parcels smaller than five acres are part of a larger wetland and therefore should be assigned conservation land use. That motion also passed by voice vote.

Commissioners and the guest panel emphasized that the change would not necessarily ban planned developments or conservation easements, but would remove language that currently lets some owners substitute those instruments for a conservation land‑use designation without additional safeguards. Mary recommended removing the clause beginning "unless such wetlands are preserved by conservation easement as part of a planned development or other master plan development," arguing the clause is a simple fix that would preserve the comp plan—s backstop. Lily told the commission staff will need time to draft precise language and work through the legal and procedural details with the commission.

The discussion also flagged related technical issues staff should consider: (1) requiring wetland delineations "when wetlands are present or suspected" and (2) ensuring the comp plan and the city—s maps use the best available data so that wetlands spanning multiple parcels are counted and protected as a single resource. Mary and commissioners pointed to specific local examples during the discussion, including a 14‑acre Park Preserve tract at Knox McRae and Park Avenue that contains roughly five acres of wetland and a larger property (identified in the discussion as the Lieberman property) that was described as roughly 120 acres.

The commission agreed to continue work on Mary—s chart and directed staff to coordinate with the commission for follow‑up. Chair Lori (chair) said the item will return for further review and that staff will report back when they have draft language. "If staff can look at this and then try to work as a team with the TEC," Mary said, "your help is very valuable."