Commission weighs adopting county-style 1.8% cap and other options after applicant seeks to fill 5.42 acres of wetland
Loading...
Summary
The commission reviewed staff findings that the Lieberman applicant proposed filling 5.42 acres of a roughly 109-acre wetland and discussed policy options — including a county-style 1.8% cap and multifamily multipliers — to reduce future disputes over "reasonable use." No policy change was adopted; members asked for further analysis.
City planning staff materials presented to the Titusville Environmental Commission showed the Lieberman property contains roughly 109-plus acres of wetlands and that the applicant proposed filling 5.42 acres to support a multifamily project. Staff recommended the city consider alternatives, including removing the southern impact to reduce fill to about 3.5 acres, and suggested protecting the remaining wetland through a conservation easement or deed restriction.
Mary, who led the commission presentation, cited the staff packet and a verbatim transcript of prior council discussion. She said staff concluded the applicant ‘‘is proposing to impact 5.42 acres of wetlands’’ and that the wetland’s functional value was scored ‘‘an 8’’ on a 0–10 scale. Commissioners questioned how that score was derived and whether Titusville should rely on the state’s UMAAM/FDEP uniform assessment method or its own conservation-element criteria.
The commission spent substantial time discussing a Brevard County precedent that converts the city’s existing single-family density rule ("1 dwelling unit per 5 acres") into a fixed percentage (1.8%) of conservation land area as a predictable cap on wetland impacts. Proponents said the percentage approach gives staff and applicants a clear, objective limit and avoids repeated "reasonable use" hearings; critics warned that multifamily developments produce variable impacts and may require a multiplier or different approach to be fair.
Three principal options emerged in the discussion: (1) adopt a single percentage cap (the county model, 1.8%) that applies to residential development, (2) adopt a percentage with a separate multiplier for multifamily projects to reflect higher site impacts, or (3) retain qualitative "reasonable use" language (policy 1.16.0.4) and develop more robust site-specific criteria. Several commissioners asked for more time to analyze technical details — e.g., the origin of the 4,000-square-foot unit baseline that underlies the 1.8% figure — and agreed to table a formal recommendation until staff and commission members prepare supporting calculations and comparisons.
Commissioners also noted other planning tools to limit impacts, such as tighter definitions for allowable uses within conservation land and clearer permitting/mitigation expectations. Mary said she will return with additional staff input and referenced county staff reports that treat the percentage as a cut-and-dried threshold.
No ordinance or comprehensive-plan amendment was adopted at the meeting; commissioners directed staff to prepare further analysis, including possible multipliers for multifamily proposals, and to return the item to a future TEC meeting.
