Loading...
EAC Minutes 12/05/2001 RDecember 5,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL NAPLES, FLORIDA DECEMBER 5,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ed Carlson William W. Hill Alexandra Santoro Larry Stone Alfred F. Gal Chester Soling NOT PRESENT: Erica Lynne ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Page 1 II. III. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA December 5, 2001 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of November 7, 2001 Meeting Minutes Land Use Petitions A. Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2001-AR-1225 Special Treatment Permit No. ST-2001-AR-1226 "Collier Rod and Gun Club" Section 19 & 30, Township 48 South, Range 30 East Old Business LDC Amendments A. Wetlands Policy discussion New Business VII. VIII. Growth Management Update Subcommittee Report A. Growth Management Subcommittee B. Rural Fringe Advisory Committee Liaison IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 23, 2001 if you cannot at~end this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (659-5741). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. December 5,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. The December 5th meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council called to order. Let's call the roll if we could. MS. BURGESON: Lynne. Erica has an excused absence. Hill. MR. HILL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe. COE: Here. BURGESON: Santoro. SANTORO: Here. MR. MS. MS. MS. MR. MS. MR. MS. BURGESON' Gal. GAL: Here. BURGESON' Soling. SOLING: Here. BURGESON' And Stone. MR. STONE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We do have a quorum. Approval of the agenda. Are there any additions, deletions, revisions, comments on the agenda? MS. BURGESON: Not by staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me? MS. BURGESON: Not by staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Not by staff. MR. HILL: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I hear a second? MS. SANTORO: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill to approve. Do Second by Santoro. Favor? Page 2 December 5, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, passed unanimously. One thing I did ask Barbara during the week and I want to mn it past you-all just as a thought is, I kind of lose track of what happens to the items that we have reviewed here, the various land-use petitions, and I've asked, if-- if it's okay with the rest of the board, to have an agenda item to kind of update us, if we could, on where it is before the Planning Commission and where it is for BOCC and -- if you-all think that's a good idea. Okay? MR. CARLSON: Great idea. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Great idea. Thank you. MS. BURGESON: I talked to Susan Murray about that, and she said that there are summaries on the -- on the county web site. So what we can do is just make copies of those and send those to you with each furore EAC packet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I appreciate it. All right. Minutes for the November 7th meeting. Do I hear a motion to approve? MR. SOLING: So moved. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So by Chester. Second by Mr. -- I'll get it in a minute. I'm just a little slow this morning, okay - -- Mr. Coe. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, passed unanimously. Land-use petitions. Mr. White, I am directly involved with this particular petition, thus I am going to recuse myself from the discussion and the vote and turn the gavel over to Mr. Coe. MR. WHITE: Certainly, upon filling a Form 8-B, the roles Page 3 December 5,2001 allow you to participate in the discussion. If you choose to step down from the chair, I believe that may be appropriate, but like I said, you are entitled to participate in the discussion under the rules, and you're just only prohibited from voting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. All right. MR. COE: All right. Go ahead. Pat, you want to swear them in? (The oath was administered.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Council Members. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a special treatment development permit and for a conditional use for a sporting and recreational camp. The location, as you can see on the monitors, is in the eastern part of the county. This is Oil Well Road, and this is State Road 29, and it's located in the southwest comer. The closest landmark is the general store that's in the northeast comer of the intersection of those two roads. The subject property is 38 acres, the subject of the ST and the conditional use. The property that's controlled by the applicant is over 4,500 of the surrounding acres. The property is outside the urban designated area; however, it's not one of the uses that is prohibited by the final order of the governor and cabinet, so this conditional use and ST can go forward to the EAC, Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners. The underlying zoning for the property is rural agricultural. There is a mobile home overlay which generally means for every -- excuse me -- for every -- excuse me, for every 5-acre parcel, instead of a conventional home, you can put a mobile home on it. And over a portion of the property, the majority of the property, there is also ACSC-ST Overlay which is Area of Critical State Concern, Special Treatment Overlay; therefore, this ST permit is before you. Well, the colors aren't showing up as well as I thought on here, Page 4 December 5,2001 but this is the 38 acres and the access road -- the access road shown is coming in this way (indicating) to the parcel which is over in here (indicating). On a line drawing, it looks a little better. You can see the yellow as the ACSC line. South of the yellow line is the area of critical state concern. The blue line is the boundary of the subject petitions, and the red are the structures, the 14 cabins, the hunting lodge, and the accessory structures, hunting building, parking areas, things like that. We -- after consulting with the applicant, we do have a change to Condition No. 3, which is on page 6. I'll give you a second to find that. Condition 3 on page 6 of the staff report, and where it says (as read): "This conditional use and ST permit shall," we would like to replace that with, "All future development order submittals shall." Because conditional use in the ST permit are consistent with the laws today, what we're looking for is the future development orders, site development plan, building permits, et cetera, shall be consistent with the code at the time that those are issued. And with that, here's Barbara Burgeson for the environmental portion. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. The environmental issues on this 38 acres are actually very minimal. The majority of the property has been cleared and used for pasture. There's a small edge along the eastern portion of the property that's wooded, and they will be required to retain 25 percent of the existing native vegetation of that. The cabins are located up against that edge -- that edge of wooded vegetation, so we anticipate that the majority of that vegetation will be retained on site. The consultant was required to do an EIS and wildlife survey as well as a wildlife management plan for the 38 acres, and that is included in your EIS and your packet with you. Staff recommends approval of the petition with the stipulations as changed, the one that Page 5 December 5,2001 was changed by Fred and also wants to bring to your attention that the petition or the package, the Stipulation No. 5, when the SDP petition is submitted to staff, that it will be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for their comments, and they will be allowed the standard, which right now is 30 days for review and comment back to staff before we incorporate those into the final SDP approval. MR. CARLSON: I have a question for Barbara. MR. COE: I'm sorry. I'm over here asleep. MR. CARLSON: Okay. The area of critical state concern, what are the rules and regulations for development? My recollection is that no more than 10 percent of the area -- of the overall area can be impacted in an area of critical state concern; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: That's right. MR. CARLSON: But how does that relate to agriculture? MS. BURGESON: Agriculture -- principle agricultural uses are exempt from the area of critical state concern, 10 percent restriction. That was lifted out of the Land Development Code, my guess is about four or five years ago. MR. COE: Any other questions, comments? MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Mr. Coe. For the record, George Varnadoe from the law firm of Young, Van Asfenderp, Vamadoe & Anderson for the applicant, Barton Collier Investments, Ltd., the property owners. Also here today to answer questions that you might have are Blake Able and Tom Jones, the Barron Collier organization; Dominic Amico and Steven Sposato of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage who were the engineers and planners on the project; and Todd Turrell and Tim Hall of Turrell & Associates who are the environmental consultants. As Fred told you, the land owners are proposing to construct facilities for a private hunting and fishing club on land it owns in the Page 6 December 5,2001 rural area of Collier County. In order to construct the lodge and the cabins, it's necessary we get a conditional-use permit and ST permit. The conditional-use permit is for sporting and recreational camp which is conditional use 20 in our ag-zoning district. The property's located in the agricultural-designated area of Collier County. It's approximately 1 mile south of County Road 858 and approximately 3/4 of a mile west of State Road 29. The conditional-use site is outlined in yellow here (indicated) on this aerial, is 38 acres as Fred mentioned. The property is bordered on the south by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. I can't hardly get used to that name. I'm so used to calling it the panther refuge. And that boundary is about along this old fence line you see right there (indicating). Most of the land is in the Big Cypress area of critical state concern, as Fred mentioned, and that line is that black dotted line you see going east- west across the property. A little portion of it is outside, but most of it is inside. And as Mr. Carlson noted, the area of critical state concern rules and regulations -- mostly state rules and regs and the ones that Collier County has adopted which are identical allow only a 10 percent site alteration and then only half of that 10 percent to be impervious surface. On the site we're going to have a main lodge building of up to 14,000 square feet. I don't think we'll get there. It's going to be-- and this is a blowup, if you would, of that 38-acre site over here, aerial. The main lodge building is going to be in this area (indicating). It will not have overnight accommodations. It'll have a great room, a dining area, probably a small library and a recreational area. The cabins, of which there'll be up to 14, will be scattered along the periphery of this mixed hardwoods hammock of which we're backing up to, and the idea is to kind of place the cabins close to that without intruding into it, insuring some privacy, given that silvan Page 7 December 5, 2001 setting that you have in a traditional hunt club. The other structure on site will be what we call the hunting building which will also serve as a welcome lodge at approximately this location (indicating). We'll have parking area here coming in off the access road. And then for the future access into the site will be on foot or by golf carts trying to, again, keep that traditional low- intensity use. The site was -- as you can see, there's a -- Barron Collier, with the exception of this comer here, controls or owns all the land over in this area. We had a great variety of locations to choose from in or out of the area of critical state concern. We didn't use that as criteria simply because we knew that we could meet the rules and regulations regarding that. We chose this carefully for several reasons. Number one, it really gives you some great aesthetics looking across this pasture at the various hammocks, if we could back up to this wooded hammock. It also allowed us to use existing improved and some not-so- improved farm roads, as anybody that's been out in that area for access without disturbing any wetlands which is good. The site is completely uplands. We're not impacting any wetlands, and we're trying to minimize our impacts to naturally vegetated areas. We design it to minimize the impervious surfaces. The entry road is going to be either shell or rocks on impervious surface in keeping with traditional low-key hunting lodge approach. And the fact that we are using the golf carts, again, trying to lessen the impacts on the natural system. The single-access road is off State Road 29 in this location here, (indicating) and it's surrounded by old barrow pits which we will be utilizing for our fishing activities. While we're talking about access, the access you're shown here comes up on an improved road and then up on a lime rock road that was thrown out when they dug the pits Page 8 December 5,2001 and then on farm roads into the site. We also want to explore with staff an alternative routing which may be this area in here, (indicating) although it's not wetlands and is disturbed in the fact that when they dug the pit, they threw the lime rock up to have access for the machinery, is low, and even this time of year when I was out there two weeks ago, it's still kind of muddy. This route is much higher and drier on either side of this pit, and even though you can't see it on here, there's an unimproved farm road here we want to explore, and staff, maybe an alternate access that would be less impactive than utilizing this route here. The major activity on the site is going to be quail hunting, as you can imagine in this -- in this area. As Fred has mentioned, the project is consistent with our Growth Management Plan and future land-use elements, the rules and regulations to the area critical -- area of critical state concern and the interim amendments to the future land-use element under which the rural assessment study is currently being conducted. We contacted our neighbors to the south, both the panther refuge -- if you'll let me use that name -- and Big Cypress National Refuge which is down the other side of 29, down that way. And discussion with the panther refuge folks really ended up surrounding areas of mutual interest, and those include controlled burning, controlling exotics and thinning of midstory vegetation. We have agreed with them not to allow any big game hunting within a quarter mile of their border, to not put any additional fencing on the south border which would allow the free movement of panthers and other creatures, and the fencing on the east and north if we're going to put in -- and I don't mean around the creative site but around the entire area, in this area here, (indicating) to coordinate with them on the type of fencing so as not to impact any panther movement. The EIS and the Wildlife Management Plan require the Page 9 December 5,2001 application, and if you have questions on that, I will be glad to answer. If there are any questions I can answer, I will be glad to address them. MR. COE: Any questions or comments? Thank you very much. MR. HILL: Mr. Vamadoe, would you quickly, with your laser, outline the 4,500 acres. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. And I want to clear up a little misnomer. The Barron Collier owns all the land over here but -- Tom, make sure I'm using the right place. If I look at this vertical line here or that one there. Sorry. My map on the scale -- it's basically this property and then we come over about like that (indicating). MR. SOLING: May I ask a question just out of curiosity? 38 acres, why the jogs, particularly that southerly jog into the property? MR. VARNADOE: We wanted to -- that is a little wetland area there, and we just wanted to show that we were staying out of the wetland areas, Mr. Soling. That's the only reason for that -- that area there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. MR. COE: Any public comments? Okay. Up for discussion. MR. CARLSON: Well, then I guess I would like a little more information on the -- the fence, and I must say that I did have a conversation with the manager of the panther refuge who is concerned about the fence and what kind of fence that's proposed to be. Is it something a panther can get through or around? MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Carlson, I mentioned that because I wanted to be very up front with the fact we are trying to coordinate Your Page 10 December 5,2001 with our neighbors. It, obviously, is outside the area we're discussing today, the 38 acres, but what we are doing is continuing negotiations -- discussions with them on that subject. The idea is to have a fence that the panther can go over, yet would discourage poachers and other people from coming onto the private property. It's going to be around the road, mainly 29 and 858. But -- but, yes, we are -- that has been the one issue that we haven't been able -- we haven't finalized addressing with the panther folks, and we're continuing to close those conversations. MR. CARLSON: So you don't think just a barbed-wire fence with post-it signs would deter a poacher? MR. VARNADOE: It may well be, sir. You know, we've been talking with Dave Mayor on -- on some land-management practices out here, and -- you know, he said even up to an 8-foot chain-link fence, the panther is not going to deter him, but we haven't -- don't get me wrong. That's not been decided. That's why we want to make sure that we are -- we are working with our neighbors on -- on that issue. MR. COE: Any other questions or comments? Deliberation? Do I have a motion? Discussion? MR. CARLSON: Do you want discussion? MR. COE: That would be nice too. MR. CARLSON: Well, from the viewpoint of someone who's been watching this county systematically bulldoze and destroyed for decades for residential development and golf courses and agricultural development, this is kind of refreshing, and -- and I would not only hope this project is approved, I hope it succeeds and it's financially successful and this kind of activity increases in the rural parts of the county. MR. COE: Any other discussion? MR. CARLSON: I'll move to approve if you're ready. Page 11 December 5,2001 MR. COE: We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? MR. HILL: Second. MR. COE: We have a second from Mr. Hill. All for. (Unanimous response except Chairman Sansbury who abstained.) MR. COE: All opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: vote. Let the record reflect, I did not Okay. Got it back? MR. COE: You got it back. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Here we go. Next item, LDC amendments. MS. BURGESON: Actually, the next item, I believe, is the last item on the agenda, the Land Development Code amendments. This is continued from last month's meeting. Matt Grabinski is here to make his presentation. This is a Land Development Code amendment proposal from the Ritz-Carlton, not a staff-generated proposal. MR. GRABINSKI: Good morning. Matt Grabinski here on behalf of the Ritz-Carlton. As I'm sure most of you recall, the issue of beach events and the use of vehicles on the beach made its way up and down the county ranks for the past two years, a series of amendments. Those amendments culminated at the meetings last June with the Board of County Commissioners approving numerous revisions to the Land Development Code pertaining to the use of vehicles on the beach and the conducting of beach events by hotels during sea turtle nesting season. One of the very heated issues for the past year has been the fine and penalty structure of that portion of the code. Staff had originally proposed a fine and penalty structure that would have given Collier Page 12 December 5,2001 County the ability to temporarily or permanently suspend or revoke a beach-front owner's right to host beach events on its beach if numerous and significant code violations occurred. Needless to say, the hotels strongly opposed that point of the amendment, and in the end on June 20th the county commissioners agreed with us on that issue and agreed to adopt a fine structure that had a significantly increased monetary fines for code violations but expressly provided that the beach-events permit could not be suspended or revoked. At that meeting on June 20th-- and I have a complete copy of the minutes that contain the discussion -- the issue arose as to the whole revocability of the permit, and there was discussion by several of the commissioners over the fact that while they were supporting us on that issue, it seemed illogical to them that Collier County issue a permit that couldn't be revoked, and I suggested that perhaps they would -- would like to rewrite the code or clean it up and turn it into more of a notice procedure. And they agreed with me and went along with all of our amendments, including adding language to the code that would provide that the beach-events permit could not be suspended or revoked but also requested staff to redraft the code and turn it into a notice process. And, again, if you-- if you would like, I could read those portions of the minutes to you or I could just try to get through this as quickly as possible. County staff requested that the commissioners place the burden of drafting that amendment back on the hotels. They felt that they had spent enough time on the issue, and I think we all have spent enough time on this issue, and so we agreed to do that. And so rather than this coming through the process as a staff-sponsored amendment, it is coming through this process as an amendment privately sponsored by the Ritz-Carlton; however, the amendment was drafted at the express direction of the county commissioners, and Page 13 December 5,2001 that is the language that is before you today. And unless you have any further questions, since this is a privately sponsored amendment, I would just like to sit back down and let you listen to other public comment, and then I would appreciate an opportunity to respond to any issues that may be raised by other members of the public. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. I'm a little confused, Barbara. Explain where we're going here. I'm not exactly sure what we're looking at right now. MS. BURGESON: Okay. This -- this amendment, as Matt mentioned, the -- last year we went through the round of amendments all the way up to the point where the final Board of County Commissioners met on this. There was a penalty section and the ability to revoke under circumstances of extreme violations. At the last Board of County Commissioners meeting, in discussion they added language to the Land Development Code that says the permit cannot be revoked. So for no reason could staff or the Board of County Commissioners revoke the permit. Discussion was also brought up that if it could not be revoked, then maybe it shouldn't even be a permit; maybe it should just be a notice. And so -- so there was some interest on the board's position to consider that, and Matt brought that back as a proposed amendment. However, staff has had a good deal of time to review that, not only with our concerns and the difference between the notice and a permit, but the other language that was proposed. We brought it to the attention of the county attorney's office for an interpretation, which was sent to each of you, e-mailed and hard-copied, and it is staff's opinion through meetings -- several meetings over the past couple of months, that even though the board had directed this be considered, we don't feel it's in the best interest of the public to support this -- this amendment. The -- there are several reasons, but the most obvious reason is -- for staff, is that Page 14 December 5,2001 when you're noticing something as opposed to doing a permit, you cannot put specific conditions on it. You can't tailor that permit. It's just a notice. It takes away some ability for us to protect the sea turtle endangered species on the beaches. And also I wanted to let you know what the summary of this petition up to this point has been. It went to the development services advisory subcommittee, and they unanimously supported staff's position. It went to development services advisory full corranittee. They had eight members attending, which is what they need for a quorum. Two had to abstain because of conflicts of interest, so they lost the quorum for the vote; however, they voted 4 to 2 in favor of supporting staff's position. It went to the Planning Commission twice, and in the final motion it was a unanimous vote to support staff's position and not to recommend approval of the amendment. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the DSAC vote -- the majority vote was to support the applicant's position, not staff's; is that correct, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: No, that's not correct. MR. WHITE: Okay. My recollection is incorrect then. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: Can I offer an observation? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: July 31st I moved and made my permanent home here in Florida. Because the days are long on occasion, at least probably once a week, I would drive down to the end of Vanderbilt Beach Road and at night, before the sunset, walk the beach either 2 miles north of Vanderbilt Beach Road or 2 miles south of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and I can tell you this: Throughout the summer, starting August 1st, I never was out on that beach where I didn't see repetitive tire tracks up and down the beach, and that goes in front of the Ritz too. Two miles north and 2 miles south it looked like they were Page 15 December 5,2001 having drag races or just continual running up and down the beach with vehicles. And I reported it to the appropriate authorities, but I don't know what happened. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Soling, I remember because I did ask this question at the time you mentioned this before, and that is, there are other authorized -- a lot of other authorized traffic on the beach, i.e., our own department, law enforcement, things of that sort. So just necessarily -- because there were tire tracks, I don't believe that's -- necessarily means that these guys are running up and down the beach. I don't know, but I know that being out there -- MR. SOLING: I'm not accusing anybody. I'm just saying I saw tire tracks. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Okay. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I could help frame where we are, your question to staff was where we were going with this. I think it's appropriate to put on the record that what's proposed by the applicant is a series of amendments to LDC Section 2.6.34, and although there is a provision in there that talks about the use of vehicles on the beach, I do not believe that is proposed for any amendment. So as to the appropriateness or not of vehicles on the beach in terms of the scope of the discussion, I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant. And I respect Council Member Soling's perspective, but I just want to help frame the discussion for the purposes of your recommendation with regards to the proposed amendments. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we -- you want to respond to Ms. Burgeson's comments and then we'll ask for some comments from the public? How does that sound? Is that okay with the board? Counsel, excuse me. MR. GRABINSKI: I have no -- as far as Barbara's comments are concerned, I guess the only point I'd like to make as far as her-- Page 16 December 5,2001 her opinion that keeping this as a permit instead of a notice would allow county staff to place additional conditions as events occur, I -- when you look at the way the current permit structure works, I don't see how the situation would be any different. Right now the permit is an annual permit. It's issued the first week of January, and whatever conditions are on it, which are basically conditions that are mirrored from the Land Development Code, that's what's -- that's what's on the permit. And the hotels may not know what type of cocktail party or beach event they're going to have six or seven or eight months later, and they don't notify county of that until the first of that -- of the month that the beach event occurs. And once they give that notice to county, I guess county, as it stands, could contact the hotel and say, "Well, it looks like you're having amplified music. We want you to also take this precaution," or, "It looks like you may be doing this. We want you to take this precaution." But I don't see how keeping the permit as it stands would increase Collier County staffs ability to place additional conditions or restrictions on beach events. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Comments from the public. Excuse me, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Comments from the public. MS. BURGESON: The first speaker we have scheduled -- or second speaker is Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy does not support the proposed LDC amendment language changes. We support the DSAC subcommittee, full committee, Collier County Planning Commission, and Collier County staff in their opposition, and we hope that you will also recommend denial of this language to the county commission. Our concern lies in the fact that, in general, a permit allows Page 17 December 5,2001 revocation. A notice does not. Now, it's my understanding that the county commission decided to take the -- the revocation ability out of the LDC amendment cycle to see how it worked. That's why it was on an annual basis. They wanted to see if the hotels and condos that swore that they would do it right would do it right, and the results are in. This is a list from Collier County Code Enforcement -- and I have copies for everybody and for the court reporter -- of all of the beach violations. You have pages and pages of beach violations from the turtle season. Some of the violations were before the new LDC amendments went into effect, some were after, but these were all beach violations. And the Conservancy would argue, you need to be stepping towards increased authority to take action on the county level instead of stepping back, and we see this change to a notice as one step back. If you think about it, in the language it talks about a permit, and there's only one sentence, maybe two, that says permits can't be revoked. If you switch all of the permit language to a notice, what if next season's violations are even more than this season? It's going to take a lot more to switch the notice back to a permit. We think that's going in the wrong direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell speaking for Collier County Audubon Society, and I want to, on behalf of the chapter, wholeheartedly support staffs position of not adopting these changes in the LDC. And also I echo what Nicole Ryan has said from the Conservancy. And just to add a point of observation, if-- you know, we had this whole discussion last summer about vehicles on the beach and those -- that whole train of amendment -- amendments to the LDC, and I feel that things did not go the way they should. We should be erring on the side of protecting endangered species, not on the side of assisting with parties which are going to happen anyway. I think that there's still room to have -- have entertainment and parties Page 18 December 5,2001 and services for hotels and our tourists and protect endangered species appropriately. I feel like this kind of retreat from language is not helpful and is very ill-advised. And another -- one more point is that if the hotels feel so confident that they're not going to have violations, what's the big deal about revocation? I think that this seems to be a strange position on their part. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Discussion, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Barb, this document, I think you gave it to us, that's the final wording of the proposed-- MS. BURGESON: Yes. That has not changed. MR. HILL: The first thing that strikes me is the impetus is on the -- the notice is provided by the hotel or the private ownership. Okay. There's nothing in here that I see that allows the county to approve those events. MS. BURGESON: Right. Well, it would be-- MR. HILL: Simply a notice by the Ritz-Carlton, for example, that they're going to have these events. MS. BURGESON: Right. It's -- it's still very similar to the way that we have the process right now with the permits; however, there's -- there is no, as -- as Patrick White had opined in his letter of about a week or two ago, there's no way to confirm that we received that and that we reviewed that and concur that those are consistent with the Land Development Code requirements. MR. HILL: Yeah. There's nothing in here that allows the county to respond to that notice. MS. BURGESON: Right. MR. HILL: That alone would recommend, in my mind, to disapprove that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Other discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. Page 19 December 5,2001 Soling. MR. SOLING: I'd like our counsel to advise me. On the way the law -- or the way the rule is written, that I understood, even the county and emergency vehicles weren't allowed to operate on the beach except in extreme emergencies; is that correct? MR. WHITE: No. I believe that-- I had this section pointed out before. I thought we'd moved on from the discussion, but there is a provision in 2.6.34 that talks about the prohibition of vehicles on the beach, with limited exceptions. And if you'll give me just a moment, I will find that for you. It is .5.4 which reads (as read): "Use of vehicles on the beach is prohibited except as might be permitted under sections 3.14.3, 3.14.5 or 3.14.6," which set forth the various exceptions that, in part, pertain to emergency vehicles. There are natural resources folks, there are our own individuals who are on there, as well as the police on a daily basis, and they're all authorized by permit. I believe Mr. Grabinski may have a response to some of the comments that were made. MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you. As -- I just wanted to respond to the comments by Ms. Ryan, because as she stated, the results are in, and I agree. The results are in. And I actually want to thank her for bringing these lists of-- as she refers to them -- beach violations to our attention, because I'll admit and agree that during the month of May and early June there were a lot of instances where chairs and items were found or discovered on the Ritz-Carlton's beach. Does that mean that they were given by -- giving code citations and violations in every instance? No. And the other list that she passed out as -- if you'll note -- it does not just pertain to the Ritz, but it basically pertains to all of the beaches in northern Collier County. Now, again, a heated issue and an issue that I debated this panel heavily on last June was whether or not stiff monetary fines would be Page 20 December 5,2001 enough of a deterrent for the hotels or whether or not there -- the county needed the ability to revoke the permit. The stiff increase in monetary fines were adopted on June 20th. And if you will look at your sheet, you will note that for the remainder of the four-month turtle season after June 20th there were two days where Collier County Natural Resources noted any materials on the beach in the morning at the hotel. No code violations were ever cited against the Ritz-Carlton subsequent to June 20th. No vehicle-on-the-beach violations ever occurred last sea turtle nesting season. Ed Staros, the general manager of the Ritz-Carlton, stood up on the public record last June and made a commitment to Collier County to instruct his staff and to educate them so that they would not have violations, and I think the record that the Conservancy has brought before you demonstrates that. Again, I would just urge you to remain focused in your discussion. There's a lot of discussion here right now regarding the use of vehicles. This amendment has nothing to do with vehicles. It was a clean-up amendment that the commissioners requested be drafted. Right now the code says that we have a beach-events permit that can't be revoked. They asked me to redraft the language to name that permit that can't be revoked, to turn it into a notice procedure. It's right in the public record in the June 20th minutes, and I invite all of you to go back and read those minutes. It's crystal clear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Further comment. Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I -- I just want to say to the board, we spent hours on the whole area, and I think that going back in perspective, nothing was allowed way back when to protect the turkey -- the turtles -- the sea turtles. Then the amendments came forward, and there was a -- a relaxing, if you say, to the rules. And I think this board spent hours and hours trying to come up with penalties and Page 21 December 5,2001 revocations to protect the turtles but allowing some use, and it went to the board of commissioners and changed substantially. I would like to move to not accept this notice situation and to support the staff. Again, it's just taking away some of the protection of the county to revoke permits or to have control over the permit situation. I'm very concerned. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We have a motion. MR. COE: I'd like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second that motion. Okay. Seconded. Do we have any further discussion? MR. HILL: I'd like to make a comment. Our deliberations and this policy is not directed at the Ritz-Carlton. You seem to say, yes, after -- why Ritz-Carlton was not in violation at all. This is directed towards any agency, hotel, private condominium or-- having beach events. This is not a Ritz-Carlton. My other question for Barb, were permits granted for all of these agencies and locations that are cited on here? MS. BURGESON: There were annual beach-events permits issued and monthly notices given, but I do want to make a couple of statements and corrections to what Matt has just said. One, code enforcement department took a position to be laxed during the beginning of sea turtle nesting season in terms of citing violations. So there were a number of-- of events that weren't formally cited, and that was a policy from that department's administrator or department director to take that -- that more laid-back stance on that to see how the sea turtle nesting season was going to -- to -- to go forward. And the most serious event or violation during sea turtle nesting season happened at the Ritz-Carlton within one week of the Board of County Commissioners giving final approval. And the reason it's not on that list is because it was cited as a violation of the CCSL variance, and that's what was publicized last year by the Page 22 December 5, 2001 Naples Daily News with pictures in the newspaper of two nests at the Ritz with chairs stacked immediately adjacent and touching the riveting on one of those nests. There was no roping around. They had an event scheduled for that night. Alex Solecki and I went out that afternoon. They had -- they had not put up any roping for that event. So if we had not gone out there, brought it to their attention that they had serious violations, that they fixed by the time of the event that evening, it would also have been written up as a code enforcement violation. So that's just to put that on the record. MR. COE: I've got a question, Barb. What authority does the administrator of code enforcement have to disregard or not ticket things like that and to be more lax when all those codes have gone before boards to include the county commissioners that has been approved? Isn't his job to enforce it? MS. BURGESON: At the time, the LDC amendments were in the process of being approved, sent to the state, and come back and been finally adopted, so there's this window in there of about a month and maybe a little bit longer where it's not got that final state approval. So it's kind of a gray area. So that's -- that was the time that -- that the director in that department took that position. MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We have a motion and a second. Let's -- let's restate the motion so everybody is very clear what the motion says. MS. SANTORO: To not accept this proposed notice and to support staff or turning down this proposal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Essentially, that is to leave the language as previously passed by this council as is. MS. BURGESON: As previously passed by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Board of County Commissioners. Page 23 December 5,2001 Okay. Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: unanimously. MR. SOLING: Mr. Chairman-- Opposed? Hearing none, passed CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: Just pursue my matter one more time. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, sir. MR. SOLING: If it's the county, if it's the police, if it's the hotel owners, either way or any way, there's no point in protecting the sea turtles if so much traffic is on the beach. I don't care who is driving vehicles. It was almost like the whole beach was covered with tire tracks. MR. BURGESON: Mr. Soling, one thing you might want to take a look at, the City of Bonita Springs recently approved an ordinance just this year, and it has very strict regulations prohibiting even beach raking during sea turtle nesting season, except for storm events and emergency purposes and limiting the use of vehicles on the beach much -- much more severely than our code does. And if this had been in place when these amendments were proposed, we would have supported this. It probably would have helped not making changes to the code. So it may be something. And also the Community Development Environmental Services Administrator John Dunnuck wanted me to remind this board that if there are issues that staff supports that the board is concerned about or does not support, that this board has the ability to direct staff to make Land Development Code amendments. So if there's anything in the future that you wish for us to make amendments to the Land Development Code, that is not only your Page 24 December 5, 2001 ability, but it's written in your-- your ordinance in the Land Development Code as one of your obligations. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. HILL: Very quick question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: On this list that was presented, I see something like 15 to 20 different locations, Pelican Bay North, those instances noted were not necessarily in violation of a permit grant. They may have been in violation of the code, but they didn't have a permit per se for a beach event. MS. BURGESON: For the most part, I mean, without having Alex here for that, I can't answer that, except from I -- except that I -- from discussions that I've had with Alex, the majority of those did receive permits; however, they were just in violation of their permits. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: I have one more question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. COE: Were any of these people fined? MS. BURGESON: and report back. MR. COE: Yeah. I couldn't tell you that. We could find out I'd like to find out, yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's interesting. There's a car on the beach. How did a car get on the beach? Think about that for a minute, how it got there. Okay. MS. SANTORO: Could I-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I mean, we mentioned -- should we put on the agenda to review all the amendments that were passed on the vehicles and permits having to do with sea turtles at some point? I don't even know if we have a current copy of what was approved by the commissioners. Page 25 December 5,2001 MS. BURGESON: I can -- I can provide that to you between now and the next meeting. And I did hand out a copy of the Bonita Springs -- City of Bonita Springs ordinance at the beginning of this meeting. So I'll make sure I mail out the copy of the final language that was approved by the board last June 22nd. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. MR. COE: I've got one comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. COE: Why don't we -- I don't know if the other members of the board are interested in this. Why don't we ask the staff to pencil whip something that's more strict, something along the lines of what Bonita Springs has done and solve this vehicles-on-the-beach thing right up front. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Has this amendment not already gone through the BOCC? MS. BURGESON: We -- the first one went through last -- last June, and this one is probably scheduled to go before them in February. So it would have to be something that would be done in -- in the next amendment cycle which, I believe, staff has to have initial language in by -- I think it's the end of next month. MR. COE: Could it be done? MS. BURGESON: It could be done, especially using the ordinance that's already been approved by the City of Bonita Springs. MR. COE: What do you think, Chief?. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Only thing I'm saying is, I don't want to get too restrictive because we know, for one, that every morning a staff person goes out there and checks for turtles. We know we have emergency services. We know we have things of that sort. I don't want to -- I mean, Patrick read the code or whatever he was reading over there -- that we've got to have that ability. Now, I don't believe that there's anybody out there on the beach right now Page 26 December 5,2001 with a ATV that's running up and down the beach other than those folks, except in front of the Ritz or a hotel like that. I don't know if we're not trying to be over restrictive here, but we got to let our folks get out there to do enforcement. Have we had any instances, aware of any instance of somebody out on the beach with an ATV that wasn't related to just working at the Ritz, somebody illegally out on the beach? MS. BURGESON: During sea turtle nesting season, which I think is the big issue here, we do have the natural resources department. They typically do one -- one trip up the beach each morning, emergency patrol may be on the beach each day, but typically not each day at each section of the beach in Collier County, and then the only other vehicles that are on the beach are the hotels for their events throughout the summer. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: State people like DEP and people like that don't ever go -- have vehicles on the beach? MS. BURGESON: Not routinely, not -- not on a daily basis, just on an as-needed basis, if there's an emergency or after a storm event. Then they typically go out to monitor what the results of that storm is. The ordinance that was adopted by the City of Bonita Springs does allow emergency. It does allow natural resources, does allow environmental work during sea turtle nesting season. So it's not a -- it's not more prohibitive than we were prior to this last amendment cycle. It is probably very similar to where we were, but it ties it down. MR. COE: Also, they don't have the amount of hotels and condos that we have. Their beach area is much less than what we have. MS. BURGESON: That's right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's your pleasure? MR. CARLSON: I'm not ready to make a recommendation till I Page 27 December 5,2001 read this. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's take a look at it next time. Okay. What are we doing next? MS. BURGESON: That's the last item on the agenda. The wetland policy review discussion is not being -- we did not have anything else new to tell you at this point on how that's proceeding. And then if there's any subcommittee discussions -- I'm not sure about that, if somebody has a brief presentation or Bill. MS. SANTORO: I've been trying to have somebody come and speak to us about panthers, and Jim Beaver is in the environmental service section, and he would be glad to come. Now, I wanted to be sure I knew when the next meeting was to try to schedule. He had some dates in December, but Barbara and I thought we would try and do it at a regular meeting. Is our next meeting, the day, January 2nd? I wanted to be sure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm just wondering if there's not someone out with the -- who runs the panther preserve, the Feds or the state? MR. CARLSON: Feds. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is there not someone we could contact out there that actually is a hands-on guy to come talk to us about it? MS. SANTORO: I've asked Darryl Land, Mark Lott, David Shindle and finally sent me to Jim Beaver. MS. BURGESON: Jim Beaver is really the expert in the area. I mean, you can certainly get someone that works with the panther preserve, but he has the experience and the knowledge for this area in Southwest Florida for probably 20 years at least and maybe more so than the people that work at the panther preserve, which is much younger than that. Page 28 December 5, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think our workshop we had on wetlands was very informative, and I would look forward to doing that on panthers also. MS. SANTORO: I just want to confirm our meeting since it's the day after New Year's Day. MS. BURGESON: That is the date, January 2nd. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. We'd just like to -- we haven't finalized our schedule. We're coming to the point where we will be having a transmittal hearing to the Board of County Commissioners on all the Growth Management Plan amendments. That is targeted for the end of February. We will be coming to the Environmental Advisory Council here in January to schedule a -- what I would recommend is a special meeting to handle all of the Growth Management Plan amendments that you will be responsible to review prior to the planning commission's meeting. We have been -- of course, we have been working with the subcommittee, your growth management subcommittee, and they have been receiving all of the drafts that we've been developing for them for the rural fringe advisory committee. At some particular point we will need to calendar some more time with the subcommittee to bring the subcommittee up to speed on all the details, but I would remind the council, that if you want to do it at the -- at the -- during the -- your meeting on the 2nd, that we probably have our schedules finalized enough to be able to try to get you to schedule a separate meeting. Of course, your other option is, you could simply have the -- have your meeting, I guess, on the first meeting in February, but I guess I'm telling you that it's going to be a very long meeting with a lot of material, a lot of issues. So I would suggest that you think about having some additional meetings Page 29 December 5,2001 somewhere in between or at the recommendations of your subcommittee. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Comell. MR. CORNELL: Is it appropriate to make a public comment right now? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It certainly is, sir. MR. CORNELL: Okay. Thank you. Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. I just want to bring to your attention that the rural lands committee, you know, in this rural assessment process, has gone through their first scenario in looking at ways to protect resources and agriculture, et cetera, in the rural, our eastern parts of the county. I wanted to bring to your attention that they're looking for input, and I would say that this would be through Bob Mulhere and staff on what the -- how to frame the second scenario. They're going to come up with at least three scenarios, if not more, through this committee. The first one is an incentive-based transfer of development rights type of program. It's entirely incentive-based with no outside money being brought in from any other sources. Scenario No. 2 is up in the air, and I would say that you-all may have some opinions about that, and that if you do, either individually or collectively, you might want to forward those to Bob Mulhere who is the liaison with that board. And some of the things that you might consider would be to introduce sending and receiving areas, if you know those concepts in this transfer of development rights type of discussion, to base those kinds of areas on the data that they've actually collected in that study, rather than to have it be sort of determined on a per-project basis. So just something to think about, but I would encourage you to maybe offer some ideas. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Page 30 December 5,2001 Any other comments from counsel? MR. COE: We might want to consider scheduling, and we could do it probably in January when we meet again, but we might want to schedule a workshop where we can have Ali or, you know, somebody from this group. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Rural end. MR. COE: And just get them to bring us up to speed here, because I feel like I'm going to get hit with a freight train very rapidly, and I'd like to kind of absorb it slowly. I'm no Ph.D. In environment, so it takes me awhile to study this stuff. And maybe if we can get a presentation from them and get our hands on it so we know what it is -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, who would you suggest? Would you suggest asking Bob to come to us and give a presentation? MR. COE: We could have Ed do it. Ed, are you up to speed on all this? No. MR. LORENZ: Well, certainly -- Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. Of course, the rural fringe work is coming to you very fast, and that's what the subcommittee has worked-- has been working with. But what Brad was speaking about was the rural lands committee and that is -- that time frame is November of 2002, ifI think -- if I remember the schedule right, that we're going to have amendments effective. So if you want to have -- if you want to have a-- a-- somewhat of a workshop with staff, certainly Bob Mulhere is our-- you remember, Bob worked for staff. He is now a consultant. He has been hired by the county as kind of our growth management consultant. So he's an extension of staff-- that Bob Mulhere or myself could give you a presentation on where we are in both efforts. If, on the other hand, you would like to have your advisory committee to -- to -- I mean, your-- excuse me, your subcommittee Page 31 December 5,2001 to work you through, because that was another -- another request, we can arrange that as well. But on staff I would certainly have -- Bob Mulhere would be able to work you through some overview. MS. SANTORO: The rural lands, I think we -- none of us know exactly what's going on. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A lot further off than the rural fringe. MS. SANTORO: Yes. Yes. Eastern lands. And the rural fringe the subcommittee has been working with, so we can do it either way. MR. CARLSON: I believe the rural fringe got an extension, didn't they? MR. LORENZ: It's an extension in the sense that-- well, put it this way: We will -- our schedule for the rural -- did you say rural fringe, Ed? I'm sorry. Where the rural fringe is we will have adopted amendments by June of 2002, June 22nd, 2002. Remember, we have to go through a transmittal hearing process, a state review and then an adoption process. So we will adopt amendments by June 2002. There is a slight extension in the sense that the amendments won't necessarily be effective at that particular point because then the state has to go through some public-notice requirements. So to that degree, we have an extension, but we're still in a very tight time frame for the rural fringe. The rural lands has been extended, but they are now getting into some -- what I would consider some very meaty and weighty issues, which I think Brad's comment is probably appropriate, that you may want to start to begin taking a little bit of a look at what they're doing there as well. My concern always is just prioritizing workload and where we are on the schedule, and I can tell you that the rural fringe material is a -- is a lot. It's very complex. It's very interrelated. There are a lot of key concepts, and we will be bringing you Page 32 December 5, 2001 amendment language that could very easily be 40 or 50 pages of-- of actual policy language, not to -- and then the supporting material could very well be 100, 150 pages of maps, tables, charts, graphs, et cetera, et cetera. Your subcommittee has been working pretty good in coming up with some speed. We kind of have a little bit of a time lag here with the November holidays but certainly -- you know, as staff, we can provide you a workshop, and I can get Bob Mulhere together with you, and -- and that's your pleasure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sounds good. MR. COE: How long would it take to do that? Hour maybe? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I would think to cover all the material, I was going to say, without any questions, to kind of walk you through all the key points and where we're headed, probably be a good -- good 40 to 60 minutes on a presentation to walk you through everything. MR. COE: I'm for it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Any other discussion? We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:03 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN Page 33 December 5,2001 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD Page 34 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE. N_.~_,~,ME~ CITY ,, ~ COUNTY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED NAME QE-B~ARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSIQ, NI AUTHORITY, OR COMMI"FI'EE THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, ,~UTH6RI:FY OR CCMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: [3 CITY ~;~OUNTY [3 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLIT, J~AI,,SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION IS: [3 ELECTIVE ~,,~..OINTIVE [ WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending ~n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: in addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A'I-FEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Conlinued on other side) CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE I APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO A'I-rEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. .~~-~DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST. (a) A measure came or will come before my agency W,l~ch (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; ~.~,,,,inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,_ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ... inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , which Date Filed SignatUre NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2