Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/04/2002 S (GMP Amendments)March 4, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES, FLORIDA, MARCH 4, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: JIM COLETTA TOM HENNING JAMES CARTER, Ph.D. FRED COYLE DONNA FIALA ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RURAL FRINGE FINAL HEARING AGENDA March 4,2002 (Continued from February 27, 2002) 9:00 a.m. Collier County Government Center Naples, Florida 34120 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". 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 THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1 February 27, 2002 IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Transmittal Draft of Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments addressing the requirements of the Final Order (AC-99-02) issued by the State of Florida Administration Commission on June 22, 1999, excluding the Eastern Lands Portion of the Rural and Agricultural Assessment. 3. Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 February 27, 2002 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Will you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, good morning, good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Item #2 RESOLUTION 2002-127 TRANSMITTING COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENTS ADDRESSING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL ORDER (AC-99-02) ISSUED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION ON JUNE 22, 1999, EXCLUDING THE EASTERN LANDS PORTION OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT- ADOPTED W/CHANGES CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're here for the second half our rural fringe public hearing meeting. And at this point in time, I'd like to mention a couple things. One, we will be breaking for a time certain at 1 to 2 for the lunch so Dwight Brock can use this building for a tax sale -- or this room. We previously promised it to him, and we will stay with our promises that we made. Also, two, we'll be continuing this meeting right on through until we finish the presentations. We will listen to those people that would like to speak at this point in time at the end of those presentations. Then we'll break and come back at six o'clock to hear the public comments from whoever else wants to add their public comments into it. Page 2 March 4, 2002 And during the day we'll be taking straw polls on different items in finalizing it after we hear all the public input later. Ladies and gentlemen, be prepared for a long day, and with that -- yes~ too, anyone wishing to speak -- wishing to speak today, Stan Litsinger right over here, turn in your slips to him now or during the meeting. And where are we going with Stan and Mr. Mudd Mr. Mulhere. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're doing this again, huh? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I am. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's going to be a long day, Mr. Chairman. You're in great shape. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's a long day already. So let's get right into it. MR. MULHERE: Okay, thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you sure? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's for the record again, consultant for the county planning director for RWA, Inc. This morning we wanted to start out with a summary of and Bill's going to bring that up on the screen for the public and commissioners to view -- a summary of the questions, issues, and concerns that we heard that were raised on Friday. And we didn't intend for this to be necessarily a lengthy discussion here, but just to raise some points so that we could sort of summarize the issues, questions, and concerns that were raised on Friday. And, apparently, you also have paper copies of those as well, and there's copies available out in the hall for members of the public. First, one of major points that were raised by public speakers is that Collier County has enough conservation lands. We've heard a whole lot of different figures but, anyway, suffice it to say somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent of the county currently Page 3 March 4, 2002 exists in conservation designation. Really, that's not a germane issue as that decision has already been made. You'll recall that we went through an administrative hearing and ultimately ended up before the governor and cabinet sitting as the administration commission, and the administration commission put forward the final order which requires us to develop strategies and, actually, comprehensive management, plans, goals, policies, and objectives to protect the natural resources that exist in Collier County. Maybe we do have an inordinate burden in our mind because we are blessed with so many natural resources, but clearly we are required to develop strategies to protect those. The plan is taking away some property rights. Previously permitted uses affected by these proposals in the rural fringe include residential development. Now, that is only affected in the sending areas, which are the most highly valuable, sensitive environmental areas. And they are affected in the manner that the recommendation is to only allow one dwelling unit per lot per lot (sic) or parcel in those sending lands that existed as of the effective date of the final order. I do want to stress that the final order currently provides for this restriction, so that has been in place for some three years now. You're obviously aware that in order to address that the impacts of losing that right or developing one dwelling per five acres, we are proposing a transfer to development rights at the same ratio. Next, please. Golf courses are also prohibited in sending lands. They are permitted in receiving lands and neutral lands. Earth mining is also prohibited in sending lands. In neutral lands the rights remain the same, except that earth mining is not permitted. Those uses are prohibited because of the impacts to the higher ecological value of those lands that would be attributed to those types of uses. Page 4 March 4, 2002 In receiving lands rights have actually been increased. In fact, the proposal is to allow the development of up to one unit per acre via TDRs. Agricultural -- and I can't really underscore this point enough-- agricultural is proposed to be permitted in all of those designations; sending, neutral, and receiving. Agricultural is proposed to be permitted under the staff recommendations in all of those recommendations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's the operative word "proposed" right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. Well, because the decision will be made presumably today as to how we will -- we do have a full-blown presentation on the agricultural issue later on, but I just wanted to clarify that these were issues that were raised. Next, please. The plan is forcing property owners to sell their property. There is no recommendation on the table to force anyone to sell their property. Next. The plan is forcing property owners to stop farming activities. Again, no one is being forced to stop farming or agricultural activities. Agricultural is proposed to be a permitted use in all designations. There is no proOf that TDRs will work. We cannot stand here before you and put on the record empirical evidence that TDRs will work as the proposed plan has been laid out, but it has been developed to maximize the likelihood of success. We have one of the preeminent experts in TDRs and a national expert in Dr. Jim Nicholas assist us in developing that plan. We believe very strongly that the plan will work and work well. We will propose some modifications to you as we move along through here based on the comments, questions, and concerns that were raised. But there's no question that the process will need to be monitored on an ongoing basis to measure the degree of success and to adjust that process if necessary. Next. Page 5 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait. Excuse me one second. But I believe that you told me -- and I really like this so -- I really like this, so I'd like it to be repeated -- that once a year we'll reevaluate its successes, failures. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: and maybe adjust to make sure that we're headed in the path of success; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: That is correct. The plan calls for an annual report to the board culminating in adjustments if necessary. Also a little bit later in the program we'll propose some alternatives for the board to consider, and some of alternatives will definitely require an economic or market analysis as part of that annual review. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And, Mr. Mulhere, if I -- again, reminding myself this is the first phase. We're conceptually putting this together. We're going to look at a number of variables in this, and if this board approves, we transmit. But it goes through an organizational review by DCA. They will look at all of this. They will come back, and they'll tell us what they like, what they don't like, and we're going to go through the entire process again in June. So this is not the end-all. This is phase 1 of putting it all together for the first transmittal for a review by DCA. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And, in addition, almost all of these Comprehensive Plan amendments will result in the need to develop new LDRs or Land Code amendments. And so you will again have that process. And, again, the specificity of how these policies will work really falls to the LDR process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere, one more question. I understand how we process work till we got to the point where we're at now. But one more time, explain to us exactly what would happen if we did nothing. MR. MULHERE: Okay. We were going to go over that. Page 6 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I'll wait till we come to that part in the program. MR. MULHERE: We do have that, and we have other alternatives for you as well if that's acceptable, or we can defer to it right now. It's up to you, Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you stick with the program you already have planned, and I'll work with you on that. MR. MULHERE: Next, please. The TDR program is a property taking. Now, although I'm fond of playing attorney, I'm not going to respond to this question. I'm going to defer to Marty Chumbler, outside counsel for Collier County, to address whether or not the TDR program is a property taking or with the TDR program all of these policies together constitute a property taking. MS. CHUMBLER: Good morning, members of the commission. And let me start off by apologizing by keeping a lozenge in my mouth. I'm fighting a frog in my throat this morning. That's the only way I'll get through this presentation. I'm Martha Chumbler with the Carlton Fields law firm, outside land-use counsel for the county. I think there was some concern last week about the TDR program and whether the TDR itself constituted a taking of private property rights. I went back and relooked at the case law and the legal analysis out there on TDR programs, and there is quite a bit over a number of years starting some 20 years ago in the U.S. Supreme Court on TDRs. And, in fact, what the courts as far up as the United States Supreme Court has said is that contrary to a TDR program being a taking of property rights, it is, in fact, a factor that can be looked at to determine that a governmental regulation is not a taking. What you have with a TDR program is the government putting Page 7 March 4, 2002 back an economic benefit-- giving back an economic benefit or economic value to property that otherwise would not be there so that in trying to determine whether or not a regulation or policy or action by the government has removed all the substantial economic value of property, one of the things you look at is whether there's a TDR program because a TDR program puts back substantial -- depending on the program Can put back substantial economic value in the property and, therefore, counterbalance the value that would have otherwise been taken away by the registration. Any questions? MR. MULHERE: You might want to stay up here. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: The plan violates the Florida Right to Farm Act. Well, the brief answer to that is that the plan that's currently proposed allows agricultural activity that are consistent with the Right to Farm Act in all land-use designations. So the plan does not violate the Right to Farm Act. In fact, it calls for allowing agriculture that's consistent with the provisions of that act. Next. The value for TDRs only benefits anyone who paid less than $3,700 per acre. In actuality, according to Dr. Nicholas's report, the average value of a TDR is projected to be about $18,500 per unit. It's anticipated this value will increase as the market rates for TDRs are determined. Now, in addition to that and a little bit later on in the program -- in the agenda today we will talk about some alternatives that may have the ability or the impact of enhancing the market. And, as I'm sure -- looking at a very basic formula, if the demand is high, then the value will also increase, and it's a simple equation of supply and demand. Yes, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Define "unit" for me, please. MR. MULHERE: Unit is one developable right. So in the case of the rural agricultural area, you would be permitted to transfer out Page 8 March 4, 2002 of the sending land at a ratio -- currently on the table -- of a ratio of one dwelling per five acres. You would be -- by transferring out one unit, you would be taking away the residential development right of those five acres and send it to a more appropriate location, either in the urban area or the receiving land. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And, Mr. Mulhere, that's no different than it is right now. You're allowed one unit per five acres in this area. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. That's why we choose that ratio. Again, there were some comments made -- excuse me, Wednesday -- values differ within the rural fringe, and the closer you are to the urban area, the higher the value. And we're going to deal with those comments when we talk about some alternatives. So we haven't forgotten those. We do have those on the agenda to talk about. Why are there public facility exceptions? There is an exception from the maximum amount of preservation within a certain portion of land that the county owns that's approximate to the landfill. And, really, when we say the "county," we are talking about the public. The public purchased that land, some 360 acres of land-- surplus land adjacent to the landfill. There has been a plan for sometime under development to put a County Barn facility and a Resource Recovery facility -- I may have that term wrong -- Waste Energy Facility. I know I got that wrong on Wednesday as well. And so the land -- the preservation requirement normally applied in the sending area of 80 percent has been reduced for this land to 50 percent. There is no exemption, though, for the county or for any other property owner from going through the normal permitting process relative to listed species concerns. And that really is what the concern is, that within this area there's red cockaded woodpecker habitat. Page 9 March 4, 2002 So that really becomes a decision for the board because without that exception, those uses could not be located on that property. And if that's the case, then the county, obviously, has to go out somewhere else and purchase additional property, and so there's a significant additional expense to the taxpayers. Next, please. Why not require the purchase of property rather than acquire a TDR? Probably the biggest reason for not simply requiring that an individual in a receiving area just go out and acquire the five acres fee simple rather than just the development right, there is residual remaining uses and values with that property; that the property owner in the sending land may continue to put a single-family home, may use it for unimproved pasture, may use it as a homestead, may do a number of different things in the after condition. And also there's a significant incremental additional value if you place the burden on someone in a receiving area who would like to purchase that right. If they have to buy the fee-simple land, it becomes significantly more expensive and, therefore, probably is not conducive to that process moving forward and ending up achieving the results that we expect it -- or would like it to achieve and that is to direct the incompatible uses away from those natural lands. If that doesn't happen, we haven't succeeded in the program. Next, please. COMMISSIONER HENNING: MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me, Bob. While you're on that subject, the reason I brought that up was if the sending lands are truly sensitive lands, then by buying them up they are going to stay that way. MR. MULHERE: And that's a very good point. And we agree with that. One thing that we believe that will happen long term is that you will be able to leverage either local, state, or federal, or even private dollars significantly more to purchase these properties after Page 10 March 4, 2002 the residential rights have been transferred off of them so that you will be able to purchase more land in these environmental sensitive lands -- you, state, federal government, whomever-- for less money because once you've removed that -- and in that way the property owner -- still would be a willing-seller program -- but if the property owner is willing to sell, they've gotten the value from the transfer of the development rights and, ultimately, they would then have the ability -- there is no specific program in place. We're assuming that down the road there may be some programs for acquisition. North Belle Meade would be an example. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my argument would be if the receiving lands are so valuable for development and proper for development, then the other lands are less valuable. Why would it be a burden on the people in the receiving areas? MR. MULHERE: It would just increase that incremental value. Instead of just the value of the transfer of development right, they -- you would also have the additional value of buying the entire fee- simple piece of property and then, of course, the issue of management of that fee-simple piece of property in smaller parcels rather than purchasing it in a large parcel and having some management entity identified. The other thing about it is that, though, we still felt that it was probably more palatable -- and maybe we're wrong -- I suppose we'll here -- but we felt it was more palatable to the landowner to continue to have some residual use of that land rather to -- to just create a program that requires that all rights be taken off than has to be actually purchased and nothing remains. Again, we feel that those TDRs will ultimately -- and, again, we're going to talk a little bit about some alternatives that we believe will increase the value of the TDRs addressing the disparity in value in the fringe; we're going to talk about that. But if you assume for a Page 11 March 4, 2002 moment that we're able to develop a program that addresses the value of the lands based on, for example, proximity to the urban area. And that also results in an increased value of those units beyond that 18,500. We believe this is the best program to compensate those properties. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if that program doesn't work, can we go back. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: and take a look at the viability of the other? MR. MULHERE: That's the intent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, we do have the ability to be able to not only sell the developmental rights but later to be able to sell the land for another use, Like for public purpose? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or for conservation. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: use or whatever. MR. MULHERE: Next, please. These were more specific -- we're moving on now to more specific issues that were raised by various property owners or the representatives. They are not really general comments. They are more specific to the specific area or issue. This issue here deals with a couple of fairly small pieces of property south of the Big Corkscrew Island community and west of Immokalee Road that as of the Planning Commission hearing were designated as receiving lands. And when we went in and changed the designation on the Big Corkscrew Island community portion to neutral, as was the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the EAC, the staff also changed the designation on these lands. The Page 12 March 4, 2002 property owner raised this as an issue, and we have -- it is our recommendation that we take them from neutral back to receiving consistent with the CCPC recommendation. I'd like to point those out to you on the map, if I could. This might be a little hard to see because -- are you going to point them out, Bill? That might be easier. In here and in here (indicating), these areas, were listed as neutral after the Planning Commission hearing, but the Planning Commission hearing, what they saw was that those lands would be receiving. Could you approximate the acreage? About a half a section, three hundred acres? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the Corkscrew area? MR. MULHERE: It's south of the Corkscrew area. We still are recommending that the Corkscrew area -- I'll go over to the map. It might be a little easier. This area here (indicating) just north of the green box here, that area is the Big Corkscrew Island community. This little piece here (indicating) that's sort of below the sending lands here (indicating) and the receiving lands here (indicating) is not part of the Big Corkscrew Island community, and the Planning Commission recommendation was that that remain as receiving lands, but we changed it. It's, again, west of Immokalee Road. And the same thing -- we would square off this box here (indicating), so what we would be doing is squaring off this box so those two chunks of land there, totalling somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 acres, would go back to receiving. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time, just to make it clear, Bob. In what point in time did they change to a neutral? MR. MULHERE: After the Planning Commission -- and I can defer to Bill, but I assume it was based on the Planning Commission's Page 13 March 4, 2002 recommendation that we take the Big Corkscrew -- and EAC and actually the staff concurred that we take the Big Corkscrew Island community and put that into neutral. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But now you are recommending going back the other way to make it MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Just on those two portions because those really are not part of the Big Corkscrew Island community. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask, if the EAC and Planning Commission both recommended unanimously to make it neutral land, why did you decide to go back to receiving? MR. MULHERE: It was just the opposite. They recommended that the Big Corkscrew Island be neutral, and we did that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. MULHERE: But in those two smaller pieces of property that are south of the Big Corkscrew Island community and not part of it, we also converted them to neutral, and we should not have done that. They should have remained receiving based on the Planning Commission COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the EAC and Planning Commission agreed with that. MR. MULHERE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just the reverse, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: It's just the opposite, yeah. Next, please. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And it increased the value of those lands by being receiving. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Next. Section 24 -- and in just a minute as soon as I lay out the issue here, I'm going to ask Bill to go to the map and show you that. But you'll remember that Mr. Pickworth and Mr. Cowen (phonetic) -- the Page 14 March 4, 2002 property owner, Mr. Cowen, raised some issues relative to Section 24, which is within the proposed North Belle Meade area agreement. And you'll recall that the staff had met with the school board and the intervenors Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon as well as the representatives of the major property owner in that area, Mr. Brown, and had talked about trying to make some accommodations for the school board in some other portions of the North Belle Meade area agreement or agreement area. And at that point we agreed to change the designation on Section 24, other than the school board portion, to a sending designation. And the rationale behind that was that there were some issues raised relative to this having significant red cockaded woodpecker habitat. Mr. Cowen and Mr. Pickworth raised the issue that they were not part of those discussions, that it was their opinion after the Planning Commission that that land was to be designated receiving, and they asked that the staff look at this issue. And, of course, we did meet with them on Friday as well as -- all of these issues are as a result of meetings we had on Friday with various landowners. The recommendation here would be certainly to change it back to receiving from sending because that's what the designation was effective through the Planning Commission recommendation. However, we would also recommend that the Belle Meade overlay that this Section 24 be taken out of the North Belle Meade overlay agreement area. And in that way it would still have a 40 percent preservation requirement applied to it as a receiving area outside of that North Belle Meade agreement area. Now, an alternative -- and I think you're going -- there's several individuals who would like to speak to this issue. I'm sure the property owner or his representative, and I think there are some individuals from various environmental groups who probably have some concerns with this. An alternative would be to designate Page 15 March 4, 2002 Section 24 as neutral. If you recall, neutral lands require a 60 percent preservation. They do allow for clustering and extension of central water and sewers. So the difference between the neutral and receiving would be that the property owner in neutral would basically have all the rights that they enjoyed before the final order, so there would be really no impact to the property owner, plus they would have the right to cluster residential uses and extend central water and sewer. But they would have a 60 percent preservation requirement, which would more effectively allow for protection of that red cockaded woodpecker habitat. So that's an alternative. I don't know if that alternative is palatable to the property owner or palatable to the environmental groups and addresses their concerns. I know the property owners strongly requested that the property go back to a receiving designation. Of course, the receiving designation would allow them to bring units into that area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What would that do to the red cockaded woodpecker? MR. MULHERE: Well, they would still have to go through the normal jurisdictional permitting process through the state and federal agencies and through the county review process that would bring those agencies in. And they'd have to develop a plan to address the listed species concerns. If we take them out of the North Belle Meade agreement, then they would not be -- those requirements to go through the normal permitting process would still apply, and they would have a 40 percent preservation requirement. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you wish to hear from the property owner relative to this issue or defer until we get through all of the issues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Page 16 March 4, 2002 Mulhere. This is one of those hot buttons that we have? MR. MULHERE: This is very site specific. It deals with a single property owner CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have changed directions from the previous meeting then? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: By all means, I think we need to hear this one separately. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So I know that the proPerty owner and his representative are here, and I would assume that they would be probably first to speak, and then I know you might have Ms. Payton or others CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Anyone that wishes to speak on this subject, if you'd be so kind to fill out the speaker form and take it up to the desk over here to Stan Litsinger. First speaker? MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Don Pickworth. I'm representing Mr. John Collin, the most affected property owner in Section 24. We met with the staff on Friday morning, and we are certainly agreeable with the solution that was put'forth then, which is that this property would go back to being receiving, which was the recommendation of the Planning Commission. It was the recommendation of the Florida Wildlife Federation in the memo that's in the transmittal book here. We have no -- I think one of the concerns that was expressed at the meeting was that if the property was receiving and stayed in North Belle Meade, it would have effectively, I guess, a zero percent native vegetation retention requirement. That certainly is not our intention. The normal receiving designation requires 40 percent, and that's certainly acceptable and agreeable. It's what we believed would Page 17 March 4, 2002 happen to our land throughout the entire process. Mr. Collin has followed this process very carefully, has attended many, many meetings throughout this entire process. At all times his property has been designated as receiving, and he has always believed it would stay receiving and, in fact, the Planning Commission recommended that it be considered receiving. So we think that's what it ought to be. We -- like I say, I think the idea of taking it out of the North Belle Meade and being subject to the 40 percent vegetation requirement is reasonable. With regard to Section 24, generally, I think it's important to note that my client is effectively the one that's really affected by this more so than anyone else. Most of Section 24 is already developed. Either there's 120 families living in Section 24 on parcels of various size all the way down to quarter-acre parcels. There is -- a substantial part of Section 24 has already been developed as a golf course. Another portion of it is committed to nursery uses. Another part of it is the school board's property. Mr. Collin owns 120 currently undeveloped acres in Section 24, so really the impact of this falls almost entirely on him. With regard to the RCW habitat, obviously we know there are cavity trees in the area, although from everything we know there are none on his land. Irregardless (sic) of where they are, there are requirements and standards in the development of the property he's going to have to comply with just like any receiving lands out there that have any listed species habitats are going to have to. Regardless of these density bonuses that are being given, you're still going to have to comply with that. So that isn't going to be any different. So we think that the property ought to stay receiving, just what it's been designated through this entire process until somehow four days after the Planning Commission meeting it got changed. And we think that that situation ought to be rectified and that it ought to be Page 18 March 4, 2002 placed back in the category that was recommended by the Planning Commission and, as I say, recommended by the Florida Wildlife Federation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. Just one second, please. Commissioner Coyle, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Mr. Mudd-- Mulhere, could you tell me how this got changed and why? MR. MULHERE: Yes. The school board asked that we meet with the intervenors who were putting together the North Belle Meade agreement, and that's the Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon, and Bruce Anderson and Bob Dwayne on behalf of their client, Mr. Brown. And the school board had some concerns that they had some sites they were looking at, some properties in the sending designation that made those unusable. And there was some question about the value of those lands. Should they be maybe neutral rather than sending, so we looked at the natural resource data. We got together; we met; we looked at the natural resource data on those lands. One of those sites was in Section 24. A couple were in other areas of the North Belle Meade agreement area. And so based - - and then there was some information that was looked at by the environmental consultant for the property owner that showed that there were significant red cockaded woodpecker habitat in Section 24. And so as a result of taking a couple of half sections out of the sending designation elsewhere because there were lesser habitat and environmental quality and allowing then the school board -- by designating it in neutral, schools are permitted in neutral. The question about Section 24 and the red cockaded woodpecker habitat came up, and a determination was made based on that to designate that area as sending. And that was after the Planning Commission, but it was a discussion that was held between county staff and the Page 19 March 4, 2002 intervenors. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. PICKWORTH: I'd like to point out that we were not invited to, present at, or aware of that meeting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. But you're here today, sir, and we appreciate you for being here. MR. MULHERE: And, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to indicate that it wasn't my intent by having the issues discussed by the property owner and environmental groups to cause you to have to take any action on this at this point in time. Just so as we discuss this issue, their perspectives are fresh in your mind. This really will be discussed as a broader issue and the whole North Belle Meade agreement as well. But just relative to Section.24, it seemed appropriate to have Mr. Pickworth and perhaps others that have issues with this so that it will be fresh in your mind. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker, please. MR. LITSINGER: Nancy Payton followed by Brad Cornell. MS. PAYTON: Good morning, Commissioners. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. And I'll tell you the other side of the story, which Bob has covered somewhat and covered well from our perspective. In the original North Belle Meade overlay proposal, Section 24 was receiving, and Sections 13 and 14 were sending. This is Section 24. MR. LORENZ: If we could have the visualizer, Katie. MS. PAYTON: This is Section 24, and these are Sections 13 and 14, which were originally proposed as sending, entirely sending. At the Planning Commission hearing, the school board raised issues about Section 24 and Sections 13 and 14. Section 24 contains 160 acres owned by the school board, and the school board was interested in lands in Sections 13 and 14 to serve the eastern and southern Page 20 March 4, 2002 portions of northern Golden Gate Estates to serve this area (indicating). At the Planning Commission, we all agreed that we would sit down after the Planning Commission meeting and try to resolve these concerns and work the school board's needs into our North Belle Meade overlay plan. We met with staff. We met with Brad Cornell, Collier Audubon, Michael Kirk representing the school board, Robert Duane and Geze Wass de Czege -- and I hope I've said it correctly-- representing the school board. Bruce Anderson was there for part of the time. I can't remember if he was there for this particular part of the discussion. It was announced at the Planning Commission that we would be meeting to resolve these issues. Based on the first-hand observations of Geza and looking at aerial maps, we agreed that the northern halves of Sections 13 and 14 are no longer quality habitat. We got new information. There is a memo that was presented to staff from Geza that said that this doesn't have those habitat values to have it be protected as sending land. And based on that new information, we said that that's appropriate. It shouldn't be sending land, and we agreed that it would be neutral land. And there were some discussions about what parts of those sections would be neutral lands, but there was a mutual decision that this was the appropriate configuration so that it would connect with the receiving areas. And we agreed to that. Then we went and looked at Section 24. And we looked at aerials and, by golly, Section 24 looks awfully darn good. This is Section 24 (indicating). These are the estates. This is the landfill site. This is Larry Byrd's private golf course. That's another issue with us. We looked at Section 24 and thought that that vegetative cover looks very good. And Geza had been out there, and that is good RCW habitat and confirmed that it was occupied habitat. And based on that new information, which isn't what this Page 21 March 4, 2002 process is about is making our decisions on best available data? That ought to be sending because that comes to the same level as the other sending areas and, therefore, it's appropriate to do all but the school board site, which we put in sending -- neutral, excuse me, should be classified as sending based on this new data. There also was an informal agreement with the school board that their site -- this little section right here (indicating) would be the area that they would target for their mitigation so it would not break up the vegetative cover and provide a broader area -- wouldn't fragment the habitat is what I'm trying to say. The final order states that direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect listed animal species and their habitats. RCWs are state listed, and they are federally endangered. If Section 24 with its known biological information, this new information, is categorized as a receiving area that is appropriate to accommodate growth, then most other sections in the sending and NRPA areas are in jeopardy of being reclassified as receiving. This will unravel our North Belle Meade overlay plan and settlement agreement. The data and analysis supports Section 24 remaining a sending area, and we urge you to adopt our North Belle Meade overlay as part of the county's transmittal package. Don't start spinning off different sections and whittling away at this overall plan for North Belle Meade. I have some additional information I'm just going to quickly put on the visualizer for you. There hasn't been that much change in Section 24 based on aerial maps that I could find. And this is an aerial map from January 1993 (indicating), and this is Section 24. And, again, I'll put this on right next to it. This is off the property appraiser's site, which is January 2000, and you can see that there isn't that much difference that's happened, that much change that has Page 22 March 4, 2002 happened in Section 24. I did a little research, also, on the property appraiser's site and did confirm that Mr. Cowen owns a number of parcels. And I notice he's just purchasing some parcels. For instance, according to this he just purchased the parcel in February of this year 2002, and so I have concerns that we're accommodating a speculative effort here who yes, that was originally a receiving area. It has been changed by us in our plan as a sending area. And we think that it should remain as a sending area because the data supports it. County staffs already identified that particular area as COMMISSIONER HENNING: MS. PAYTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Ms. Payton? Before you move on, can you tell us how many acres that is? We can't identify it. MS. PAYTON: It's 16 acres (indicating). COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sixteen, thank you. MS. PAYTON: And I found five other 16-acre parcels that I could identify with Mr. Cowen. Maybe he owns some additional land, and I can provide these to you if you'd like to look at them more closely. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Those are all in 24, Ms. Payton? MS. PAYTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MS. PAYTON: They are all in 24. And there may be additional -- I just quickly last night went on the property appraiser's site and found this information and found these photos. This is potential RCW habitat, a map that was produced by Mac Hatcher with the county. I'm going to move it up a little bit, and here's Section 24, which the county has identified through their efforts as being potential RCW habitat (indicating) just as all these other areas that have been identified as sending. Page 23 March 4, 2002 What I might also point out on this map that may not be able to be seen, but there's a red dot in Section 24 which identifies an RCW habitat -- cavity or nest, if you want to call it that. MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz. That was a database that we received from one of the state agencies. We don't have a complete verification it's still there, but that was part of the database. MS. PAYTON: And this is also out of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's database, and this is strategic habitat conversation areas, and Section 24 is within this red blob. Therefore, our recommendation, again, is to keep Section 24 as a sending area based on this new environmental data. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many more speakers do we have on this particular item? MR. LITSINGER: One more. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, do we have allotted time for each speaker today? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To be honest with you, no, we don't. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we need to go to that rule and particularly -- now, I'm going to say a person who has standing in the area is far more important to me than anything else. And that means they own land right there or they are from another group that has a different opinion on that section and has been actively involved in the process. If there's somebody -- and you picked the community to come up and want to talk for ten minutes, I am not in favor of that, Mr. Chairman CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I'm not in favor of it either. And we do have the ability to be able to get the timer activated? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll need to do that for the rest of the meeting and limiting the input to five minutes maximum. Page 24 March 4, 2002 MR. LITSINGER: We have one more speaker on this particular subject matter before we move on with the presentation, Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: I pass. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this point in time, how did you want to MR. MULHERE: I just really wanted you to have some collateral information from the property owner and from others. This is in terms of decisions that will come later on in the agenda and we'll just move on to other issues. Mr. Chairman, I guess I recommend-- I made the wrong recommendation to you earlier, and that is that perhaps it would not be best to take public speakers on each of these items. Perhaps it would be best to move through them and then take public speakers because everybody wants to speak on every item. They can, but maybe we should just get through the issues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not every item, Mr. Mulhere. That's why I asked if this was an item that was a hot button, and also, too, we agreed that is was something that was changed since the last time, and I thought it was very important to get that up and separate. If we have other items that have been changed along the way, we will entertain speakers, too, on those items. MR. MULHERE: Okay, that's good. Next item, Bill. Mirasol. If you are, I think, familiar with Mirasol, and there was a -- the speaker addressed the desires of the property owner to move units from Section 10 which has a conservation easement on it -- we may want to go to the map. Section 10 and 15 are both part of the Mirasol PUD right there (indicating). Section 10 has a conservation easement over it within the PUD. The property owner, I believe, indicated a desire to transfer units from Section 10 into 15, which is also part of the PUD. I think Page 25 March 4, 2002 there was -- and I wasn't clear on the record, and we were unable to meet with the property owner because they did not -- we tried to contact them but were unable to meet with them. I think they also indicated a desire to transfer from some lands outside of the PUD that they own into the PUD. Obviously, we wouldn't support that. Our recommendation here is that we keep the neutral designation on those lands, 10, 15, which is what they are and allow density blending between the urban and residential fringe mixed neutral lands. There are very limited situations that are designated neutral and adjacent to the urban lands. They are extremely limited. This is really the only location where you're going to see that occur and, in fact, they would be permitted to do that under their PUD approval unless that conservation designation-- you know, the conservation designation would prohibit development on that Section 10. But under their PUD approval they would be able to transfer those units to other areas of the PUD that were appropriate for development anyway. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's talk about density blending. You're saying that you take units within the urban area and put them in neutral lands or receiving area in the rural. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm a little concerned about that. Wouldn't that be considered urban sprawl? MR. MULHERE: No, not necessarily. I've got a full presentation on that coming up very shortly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: We can skip to that if you want, or probably within a few minutes we will get to that. It's one of the major items for discussion of density blending today. It's on the agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to raise this, and you can have Page 26 March 4, 2002 that in your mind as we move forward. Next issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How did EAC accept this or deal with this? MR. MULHERE: They were -- the neutral designation, I believe, was in place for the EAC and CCPC. The EAC and the -- it was receiving. It was receiving, but they recommended that we change that designation. They recommended that we change that designation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The EAC? MR. MULHERE: Yes, and the CCPC. What the EAC recommended generally was that no PUD, approved PUD, should be able to receive units, and that's why they made the recommendation that the receiving designation be changed. In other words, an approved PUD, you have what you have, and you shouldn't be able to receive units. You shouldn't be designated receiving. They also recommended that anywhere, whether you're in a PUD or outside of a PUD, where you have a conservation easement over the land, you obviously shouldn't be able to receive units or send units. You have your land use. You have a conservation easement. And if that conservation easement restricted your ability to develop residential rights, restricted those, then you shouldn't be able to send units either. And, again, I think that depending on what the conservation easement calls for within the Mirasol, this would be consistent with those recommendations. Next. The area west of the landfill -- and, again, we might want to go to the map on this, Bill, and I'll see if I can explain this to you. We met with Rich Yovanovich representing a property owner whose property is in Section 36. The landfill is also in Section 36. The landfill occupies the eastern half of 36. This property owner owns the western half of 36, so the issue is -- go ahead and put that on there. That shows it a little bit better. If we could go to the Page 27 March 4, 2002 visualizer. This would be the subject property right here (indicating). Here's the landfill. Here's Whitelake Industrial Park, here's Citigate Industrial Park, and this is the surplus lands the county owns, the 360 acres plus or minus the surplus lands. And so in this case the landowner is suggesting that for all intents and purposes his property is surrounded-- at least certainly on two sides and potentially if the county moves forward with development on the northern tract, on three sides with industrial uses. The property owner had requested that you consider and that we consider recommending that that property go to industrial land-use designation. Our response was that we could support a designation of neutral on that land, but that it would be premature to move directly from the ag-rural designation to industrial without a full evaluation of the data analysis that the property would be free to come forward at a future date with such a Comp Plan amendment. So we would recommend, again, that piece of property, which is effectively surrounded on two sides and, presumably in the future, three sides by industrial uses, we would recommend that that go to a neutral designation at this point. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I see the need for industrial land in Collier County, and being that all around it is industrial I don't see any reason why we should even go through the process of a neutral. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know, Commissioner Henning. In all due respect, I think I would be more comfortable keeping it neutral. It would go through a separate process as is here saying that data, the analysis, will drive that. I'm more concerned about getting too fine-tuned in this and put at risk our total transmittal on this process. I don't want to get in a position where I open a door to the DCA Page 28 March 4, 2002 to come in and start putting a knife to this thing. It's better to control it locally than Mount Tallahassee, so we need to keep that in mind in our decision process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Two things ifI may. I'd appreciate if all commissioners would refer to the chair before speaking. And, No. 2, on this particular issue, too, I am in agreement with Henning. If there's any way we could make this work now so that that would be designated commercial, it fits right in. I remind you also, too, that we're looking at a waste-to-energy facility for landfill, and we're hoping to do something with that. And as far as the commercial entities around there, too, I don't see where this could be used for much of anything else. Is this possible, Mr. Mulhere, that we'd be able to at this point in time designate this as an industrial/commercial area and not hold up the transmittal? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I mean, you could do that, and we can revise prior to submitting the designation on that land, prior to submitting to DCA, recognize just a couple of issues. I don't want to lead you to believe that the staff didn't necessarily support an ultimate conversion to industrial. Just felt that there wasn't any data and analysis submitted, no real review of this process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. MR. MULHERE: We could attempt, then, if we submitted that or transmitted that way to develop the data analysis between transmittal and adoption because I'm quite sure that that issue will come up as part of the recommendation-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question. Is there a verified RCW habitat there? I mean, we've got a vulture habitat right beside it. MR. MULHERE: Seagulls. Page 29 March 4, 2002 MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz. Our understanding is that the pine areas there would be suitable for foraging habitat. Now, there's a difference between a nesting cavity tree, nesting tree, and a foraging habitat. One of the things about this whole area within the Belle Meade that Nancy kind of alluded to on her map is that you have a potential -- you have a potential pine upland habitat that the RCWs will use for foraging. To the degree that you try to maintain that as intact as possible is the whole idea of trying to pull this information into -- or pull this area into one area for preservation. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add that in terms of the data analysis with everything -- conferring with staff with everything that staff will have to do between transmittal and adoption, it certainly seems more than fair if the board -- and I know you're not at the point where you're making a decision, but if you do determine to transmit with the industrial designation, I would think that to the degree to which the burden could certainly be placed on the applicant to develop a transportation analysis, the environmental analysis, and other things like that, that would certainly be beneficial in terms of being able to pull all that together between now and adoption. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning and then public comments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I agree that the burden has to be on the applicant on that for that transmittal. I'm really struggling on what our obligation is as far as listed species. Is it their-- possibility of creating a new habitat because the environment is ripe for it such as pineland forest as you indicated, or are we supposed to protect their habitat? MR. LORENZ: Well, the final order requires us to develop a Comprehensive Plan that's going to direct incompatible land uses Page 30 March 4, 2002 away from wetlands, listed species, and their habitats. Obviously, it's impossible to do that to 100 percent, and that's where when we develop the plan and looking at these broader areas try to identify the broad areas that have the highest degree of listed species habitat and to direct the land uses away from those areas. That's what the sending/receiving lands tries to do. Secondly, when we do identify some areas where there are allowable uses, we do have the site preservation standards of that also will kick in. For instance, the neutral designation still requires a 60 percent preservation of the vegetation onsite. Sending lands is 80 percent, so your difference there is 20 percent. That's why staff considered a neutral designation would be appropriate since this was between -- or west of the landfill and east of the industrial area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we don't know if there's any listed species on some of these properties that were -- saying that they are prime habitat area. MR. LORENZ: Well, it is pine forested. That is known habitat for RCWs. And, therefore, a preservation or retention of a significant fraction of that habitat helps to preserve or helps to maintain that foraging habitat for the bird. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we know that some of these lands have listed habitat on them? MR. LORENZ: Well, it's not the -- the habitat that's on these particular lands is pine forest COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. Listed species. Do we know there's listed species on some of these lands that we're identifying? MR. LORENZ: I'm not aware that we have -- on these particular 300 acres That we have a study that says that there are specific species. I'm making a distinction between the listed species itself and the habitat that supports the listed species. Page 31 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. And our obligation is for preservation of habitat for listed species; right? So it's the animals and their land? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And not the land that has quality habitat; correct? MR. MULHERE: I'm going to have to weigh in. I think if the land-- and perhaps I will defer to Marty, but if the land-- if the characteristics of the land exhibit or have the characteristics that are supportive of a specific species, then that is their habitat, and we have an obligation to protect those. That's why we have the preservation standards that we have in place. Nothing -- don't get me wrong -- nothing here simply by designating this industrial -- I want to be Clear for the record. If that's what you choose to do, nothing would obviate or remove the need to deal with those listed species issues as they would move through the process. So that in and of itself has no impact on the listed species except that if it was to remain either neutral, you would have a higher likely a higher preservation standard of 60 percent. Or if it was sending you'd have an even higher preservation standard of 80 percent. So under those designations you've built in habitat protection measures. By designating it neutral, you have not built in those measures, but they still have to go through the process. But you do have to protect -- you have an obligation to protect the habitat whether or not there are listed species on it if it has those characteristics. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That answers my question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, then Commissioner Coyle can follow right behind. A couple things I want to point out. One, we have to make a Page 32 March 4, 2002 plan that's going to meet the needs for a long time to come, and industrial area -- this is the last. I don't see where there's another place where it's going to fit in until you get way down Immokalee Road or in Immokalee itself. That's one of the points I want you to keep in mind. Also the fact that we're boxed in here in such a way that the habitat has limited values unless you're a raptor that could be utilizing it. You either have to come through the county landfill, go over 75, 951, or future county lands might be the only tie-in, but we still don't know what the use is going to be of those particular lands over there. One of the things I want to point out to you is we might want to consider special receiving industrial area that would eat up some of these tax develop credits -- transfer development credits as fast as possible. Possibly industrial lands that you want to locate there, you would have to use one credit for every, oh, quarter of an acre or something. Something of a higher density so that at a point in time when this happens we can start to draw more -- I want to try to create a value on these credits out there it's going to be unbelievable so that the people out there can be made whole as soon as possible MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- when we get to that. And what would be more of an attractive thing than to be able to speculate on industrial lands, future use of industrial land and the credits that would go with it. Is that a possibility? MR. MULHERE: That's certainly a possibility. I would recommend, then, relative to that that we develop a policy that would say that within one year the county will create a process for TDRs because there's no way to have it done -- I mean, you have to bring in some economic expertise on that issue to develop what that -- there are other places that do it for commercial or industrial so they exist. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we do this between now and Page 33 March 4, 2002 final transmittal to Tallahassee? MR. MULHERE: The adoption? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, the adoption rather. me. Forgive MR. MULHERE: We can certainly try. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Coyle. MR. MULHERE: There are other -- by the way there are some other alternatives that we're going to propose that will address your concern that the values be raised, so we do have some other alternatives as well. Also, Barbara Burgeson wants to put on the record some comments relative to the red cockaded habitat out there and its value. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: First, we're going to go to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, perhaps she might answer my question but, basically, I have the same concerns of Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning. I understand our obligation to protect the habitat, but an obvious question comes to mind, is this a likely habitat, even though it has the right kind of trees on it. There are lots of places in the urban area that have the right kind of trees on them, and they don't have red cockaded woodpeckers. We will have a parcel here that is surrounded by Interstate 75, an industrial park, and the county landfill. I know just a little about red cockaded woodpeckers, and I don't believe they're particularly gregarious birds. And with flocks of vultures and seagulls flying around in that area, I doubt seriously that we're going to see much activity by the RCW in that area. So I think that there's a reasonableness determination I think that we have to make just as we have on some of the other lands that we talked about. And I would very much like to understand if this is a piece of property that is Page 34 March 4, 2002 likely to be populated or used by red cockaded woodpeckers in the future. MR. MULHERE: And I appreciate that, and I'm going to ask Barbara to come up to speak to that issue more specifically. I did want to say that I think you're absolutely right. We need to look at these from the big picture perspective, and if there are some lands that are sort of around the periphery that are somewhat impacted, then there is a rationale for being reasonable. I would agree with you. The biggest concern the staff had and why our recommendation to take it out of sending and put it into neutral was the concern over the time and issues that need to be studied prior to going from rural ag to industrial, which is basically what it is today; it's ag-rural lands. That was really that issue. I'll defer to Barb on the wildlife. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Planning Services. There's two items I wanted to address regarding this area. One is non-environmental, and that is just the planning issues and, obviously, if you take a look at that area, it seems reasonable that that might go into industrial zoning in the future. The other issue is that we know of RCW active colonies immediately adjacent to that land. We know they are foraging immediately adjacent, and we have documentation on that and even legal agreements on the parcel immediately to the west of that for foraging and RCW cavity trees. The concern about not having enough data and analysis right now is twofold. One, if you put it to industrial zoning, the preservation requirements is only 15 percent of the property. It's a very small preservation requirement for industrial. The second is that if we ask for data between now and the June 22nd meeting, the data Page 35 March 4, 2002 to determine if there's RCW colony trees and foraging habitat requires 40 hours worth of data twice a year and just simply would not have the ability to take that data in between now and June and analyze it, unless in the past year they've done those two 40-hour surveys for us to take a look at and review. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may address a question to you on the habitat there versus industrial, is there a possibility that we could change the requirements for the amount of green space that has to be left and trees standing to something like 50 percent and then maybe carve it out in such a way that we leave the oldest timber that the red cockatoo (sic) woodpeckers use and still be able to utilize this land for industrial use? Is that at all possible? MS. BURGESON: It certainly is. I think that's what the proposal for the Collier County publicly owned lands adjacent to it is -- we've asked that we have the exception given that we will preserve 50 percent of that property, and the majority will be directed away from the RCW habitat for foraging. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am so much looking forward to getting into that subject, but I'll wait till we approach it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. I'm the last person who would ever try to deny properties for diversifying our economy, but I think you've made the point -- Mr. Mulhere, you made the point -- remember, neutral is 60 percent, Commissioner Coletta. If you say you go to 50 percent -- I don't have any problem with any of that, but I want to make sure one more time that as I go into this transmittal process that I've covered the bases. And I don't want to jeopardize something where later on they have an opportunity to come back and put the squeeze on us so that we can't exercise our options. Page 36 March 4, 2002 And that's my point here in saying that I am concerned about doing something, even those logically I would agree with the other commissioners that it looks like a good place to continue the kind of development that may already be there. But that will have to be a decision by this board. MR. MULHERE: I think Barbara's correct, though, that we could through policy single out -- and if the board's -- ultimately if its the board's decision is to go to industrial designation, if we could single out that piece of property through policy just as we did the county surplus piece of property to set a higher preservation standard than we might otherwise normally apply for industrial, say, in the urban areas. So, yes, we could accomplish that, and probably we could depending on the board's later actions, we could create that for transmittal so that it's not as big of an issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, not to I hope that we get off this subject pretty soon on this particular piece of property, but preservation of 50 percent and you've got industrial, industrial, industrial all around it and then the landfill, I don't know if that's really reasonable, but anyways. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know either. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got to remind you that old growth is something that's fairly rare. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you take a look -- and I've driven into the landfill quite a bit -- I see a lot of melaleuca in there, so I don't know what you're going to preserve, and red cockaded woodpeckers are on the Citigate property. So we don't know what's on there. I think that just the requirement to have -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're headed in the right direction, but what we're looking at is an evaluation that we can't get at this particular meeting. Page 37 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're all headed in the right direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: and we've given the message to staff exactly what we'd like to see, not now, but in the future so we don't jeopardize our position and come back and be able to address this at a future time. Can we move on? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's move on. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Next item is this -- we met with a property owner and his representative regarding properties that they own within the zero-to-one-mile corridor immediately adjacent to the urban residential fringe. And this is related to the comment that lands in the rural fringe mixed-use district that are closer to the urban area have a higher value than lands that are further east. And we do have some alternatives to address that issue as it relates to TDRs, and we're going to talk about those in a little while. But as far as this issue goes, meeting with this individual and Mr. Yovanovich representing Mr. Taylor, they felt that the zero-to- one-mile corridor should be removed from the NRPA designation. Do we have a map we can go to, Bill? And, however, after having some discussion with them, we came to some agreement that the NRPA designation should remain in place on this zero-to-one-mile corridor that is within the CARL acquisition boundaries. However, we would propose a modification of density blending. As currently written, density blending only -- is only permitted in receiving and neutral lands adjacent to the urban area. We would propose a modified density-blending formula that could be applied to sending lands -- only those sending lands adjacent to the urban fringe mixed-use district, and the basis for that is a couple of things. Page 38 March 4, 2002 There is a somewhat lower vegetative cover within that area. It is also related to the values associated with those lands. It's not extremely lower vegetative cover, but there are 5 or 6 percentage points lower. So what we would suggest is that limited to properties that were under unified control as of the date of adoption of these Comp Plan amendments, that we require 90 percent vegetation just as we did for all NRPA properties but not to exceed 60 percent of the site area for the sending portion that is within one mile of the urban residential fringe. Now, what that means is that they are able to utilize their urban designated lands and their sending designated lands to locate the uses on the impacted areas and preserve the best areas but be able to shift that density between the two. So it's similar to the other density blending that applies to receiving and neutral but has a much higher preservation requirement. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This will be more use of their credits up too. MR. MULHERE: Yes, because they would shift them back and forth. If they owned property in both, they wouldn't have to buy them. Because if they owned property in both, they'd just be shifting them themselves, but it still takes those units off of CHAIRMAN COLETTA: (Overlapping dialogue) going to take it'out of the market. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: and create more a demand for (inaudible). MR. MULHERE: Next, please. Adjustments to the boundaries, we met with, again, Mr. Yovanovich representing a client and raised some issues that -- and this was really raised by other public speakers as well on Wednesday that some of the lands along the periphery of a sending designation a site-specific basis might not have the kind of Page 39 March 4, 2002 habitat or vegetative cover qualities that other lands do making the entire area that we've designated subject to a sending designation. Really, what this would propose is that we have a little bit of flexibility on the periphery -- on the edge of those to ultimately decide those final boundaries based on the site-specific qualities. We're not proposing that this be internalized to a sending area because within the middle of a sending area you may have some cleared areas that are appropriate for restoration, and you don't want to fragment that habitat by changing the designation in the middle of a sending area. But on the edge we would propose to write a policy that would allow a property owner to petition the county for boundary revision for parcels less than 40 acres in size if he can demonstrate that they have limited habitat value and should come out of the sending land designation based on that. So ultimately we would have slight revisions to the map over time. The burden, of course, to prove that because you need to go out and get that environmental data is on the property owner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may. If we were to adjust the map, in other words, less than 40 acres, 35 acres, and we go into it, as time goes along, would it be readjusted again past the point of the first adjustment MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- toward moving to the east? MR. MULHERE: No, just initially. The intent was not to keep being able to encroach on that sending area, just on the periphery one-time adjustment. Otherwise, yeah, you could just keep encroaching into the sending area. Next. Agricultural uses after TDRs. We're going to have a whole discussion shortly on the county's ability to regulate agriculture under the Right to Farm Act and generally about agriculture. But this issue was raised by an awful lot of folks who spoke on Wednesday Page 40 March 4, 2002 representing agricultural -- especially smaller agricultural interests, I don't mean in stature but in the scope of their operations. The issue is related to whether or not agricultural uses should be permitted to continue after a property owner has voluntarily utilized the TDR program. And currently our recommendation is that, no, all agriculture ceases after you transfer units off the property because we want to protect that sending area intact because of its ecological value. But there was a lot of questions and issues raised about the impact to especially smaller agricultural operations such as nurseries and those type of-- maybe 15, 20, even 1 O-acre agricultural operations. So to address that, especially again the smaller-scale operations, we would recommend that the staff recommendation be revised to allow continued agricultural operations after TDRs have occurred but that no additional clearing be permitted and no intensification of that agricultural use be permitted. So if you had, you know, a nursery operation, you couldn't convert it to citrus or row crops, but you can continue to operate in the same fashion that you've previously have been able to. So it's a lessening of the restriction on agricultural after the TDRs allowing existing ag to continue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow, what a windfall. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a policy decision for the board, but remember there are a lot of small parcels in the rural fringe, lots of smaller parcels. And there's quite a few smaller agricultural operations going on out there. Now, our original recommendation was let's protect the resource and say no more ag, but a lot of folks have argued that TDR in their opinion or their concern, their fears, that the TDR won't properly provide value for them to what they're losing in that situation. We want the TDRs to work. We want to take those residential Page 41 March 4, 2002 rights off. And so to address that issue it's fairly limited. We would allow continued ag but only to the degree that it exists today and no additional clearing. Ultimately you would hope that some of those parcels in the most environmentally sensitive lands would then be acquired over time, and the agriculture -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And your recommendation is to set that up today when we transmit? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Next. Wetland vegetation retention. We heard that there was some confusion or lack of clarity with respect to the proposed policies which require -- which -- the way they were written would require that for wetlands that had an indicator of .65 or greater on their WRAP score which is. MR. LORENZ: Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure. MR. MULHERE: The WRAP score, if it was .65 or greater, the way the language was written, it indicated that you had to preserve those wetlands onsite, and under no circumstances could you mitigate for those wetlands, even if the amount of wetlands exceeded the preservation requirement for that designation. So if you had a 40 percent preservation requirement or a 25 percent preservation requirement but your wetlands exceeded that, the way we wrote the language, it would appear that you would have to preserve whatever that amount was. That was not the intent of the language. The intent of the language was to say that you may not you may be required to retain wetlands that exceed the preservation requirement, but in order to properly administer the program, the staff would be required to develop some standards which would tell us in which cases we would want to see those wetlands retained onsite. (Commissioner Henning leaves meeting.) MR. MULHERE: So we've proposed that within one year we would develop criteria for when wetlands should be retained Page 42 March 4, 2002 onsite in excess of the retention requirements that we've already proposed to you. Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One thing that leaps to my mind is, say, for instance, these wetlands, especially if there as you've just described, might be part of the flow-way MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm concerned with recharging our aquifers, and won't that upset that -- everything that we're trying to do to recharge those aquifers and restore that flow -way. (Chairman Coletta leaves meeting.) MR. MULHERE: That would be an example where we may ultimately, that would be one of the criteria that would be developed where we say that you may have to retain more than that percentage whatever it is because you're part of a larger system or because there are recharge issues or environmental issues. But we need to develop the specific criteria. The other example is that you have a half-acre wetland in the urban area or an acre wetland that really is very pristine and has a .65 score or better, but it happens to be situated on a site in the urban area where if you require the retention of that, there's no way that that site can be developed, and that's fine. But then you already would have made it -- that regulation then rises to a taking on that piece of property. Whereas, if you allow for some flexibility, as the jurisdictional agency process does, then you could mitigate for the impact of that one-acre wetland off site. And what we're saying is we've got to develop the criteria, the county's criteria for when that's appropriate and when that's not. And we do not have that criteria at this point in time. We defer to the agencies. (Commissioner Henning returns to meeting.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: What agencies? Page 43 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: South Florida Water Management District and in some cases the corps depending on who has jurisdiction. Most cases it's South Florida Water Management. (Chairman Coletta returns to meeting.) MR. MULHERE: Anyway, the point will be that there will be circumstances when we would want to retain more than minimum amount onsite. And we need to develop some specific criteria for that, and that has to be contained in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bob, is it -- I don't know if it's feasible -- economically feasible For a person that has high-quality wetlands to go through the permitting processes through the agencies and have to mitigate to put orange trees on it? MR. MULHERE: And we wouldn't necessarily propose that we get into that issue because that falls under agriculture. You're going to get to that issue as you talk about the Right to Farm Act. There are -- they do -- I mean, a property owner who wishes to farm does have to go through the same jurisdictional agencies to get permits to impact wetlands as anyone else does. I don't know that I'm qualified to tell you whether there are lesser requirements or greater requirements, but the county would not -- as we propose it right now -- be getting in the middle of that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Sorry, I missed part of the discussion. This proposal is for what kind of MR. MULHERE: This would be for really any other kind of development besides ag where we have a minimum preservation requirement that applies. And that minimum preservation requirement -- there might be more wetlands than the minimum preservation requirement, and do they have to retain a high amount because their wetlands exceed the minimum preservation requirement. And we're tending in some circumstances mitigate off site. Page 44 March 4, 2002 And what we're saying is it is appropriate in some circumstances to be able to mitigate off site, but we really need to develop the criteria so that the staff has the ability to say that this is the circumstances when you must retain those wetlands. An example of a flow-way is a very good one. If it's connected to a larger system and it's necessary -- even though it might be a higher amount, we need to retain those. An example of an isolated wetland in the middle of a small piece of property that renders it undevelopable if it's retained, then you have a different issue. You've got a taking issue, I think, there. So we need to develop those standards and put them in our LDC, and that's what we're proposing to do through this policy. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And, Mr. Chairman, in the past, particularly within the urban boundary, we have negotiated many of those situations with the development community, and we have protected hundreds of acres of wetland and estuary up in North Naples through negotiations. There was no LDC; there was nothing that wouldn't have precluded a far larger use of those through off-site' mitigation. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So anything that we can do that provides more quality guidelines in this process would be very helpful as we look at all of these issues, even if it's outside of the inside of the urban boundary. MR. MULHERE: That's exactly the intent, to provide the type of guidance that both the property owner and the staff can have relative to when it's appropriate and when it's not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'll just go back to the mitigation makes me nervous, again, because I don't want to mitigate away our water supply. Page 45 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Right. You'll have the opportunity to look at whatever's developed. It'll be brought back to you -- both the EAC and Planning Commission and to you through the LDR process. And then you can determine whether you think the policy is strong enough or not strong enough. Next. MR. LORENZ: That's it. MR. MULHERE: That's it. Okay. That finishes the summary, I think, of the issues that were raised Wednesday and the specific -- site-specific issues and where we met with property owners between Wednesday and today. And now we would go back to the regular agenda that we didn't finish on Wednesday. REPORTER: Mr. Chairman, might this be an appropriate time for a short break? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It certainly is. We'll take a five- minute break. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere, where we left off. MR. MULHERE: We're now in your discussion of rural villages, and I need Bill -- okay. The concept of rural villages has been part of this plan really all along. When the final order talks about using innovative land-use techniques, that's one of the innovative land-use techniques that are actually referred to in the state statute and also in the final order. However, the nature of the rural villages has changed throughout the process and finally culminating on incorporating the recommendations of the EAC and the Planning Commission. Currently what's before you as a recommendation is that rural villages be permitted in receiving lands, that no rural village be located any closer than three miles from another rural village, which, in effect, limits the overall number because of that separation faction. Page 46 March 4, 2002 That the minimum size for a rural village be 300 acres and the maximum size be 1500 acres except a rural village in Area D, which is the southernmost receiving land that is down around US 41. (Commissioner Coyle now rejoins the meeting.) MR. MULHERE: And the reason for that larger size in D is that Area D is the only one of the receiving lands that isn't surrounded by estates and would not be able to serve a significant population of estates' residents and, therefore, they would need a little larger size to be able to gain the kind of mass that would be necessary to support the non-residential uses, the churches, the schools, the parks, the commercial uses, the industrial uses. At the outset let me just tell you that nothing is predetermined in this process. This policy only sets up the opportunity for someone to come in and apply for a rural village. They would have to go through the normal zoning process. In some cases these may even rise to level of a DRI in which case they would have to go through that process. They would, although additionally, have to submit a public facilities and infrastructure impact analysis in which they would have to indicate how all of the public services and infrastructure will be impacted by the proposed rural village and also what improvements would need to be made and identify funding sources and opportunities so that those improvements could occur. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Mulhere, can you direct us do we have this in our big book, or do we have it as a separate handout? MR. MULHERE: Yes, you do. On page 50 under the GMP Amendment tab, the first section is the FLUE on page 50. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So as I said, nothing is by right here. Of course, they would have to come in and apply for this and address all of the normal issues. Plus to a greater degree the public services and Page 47 March 4, 2002 infrastructure impacts. The minimum densities proposed are two dwelling units per acre for a rural village, and a maximum is three dwelling units per acre. And, again, those would be intended to be mixed types of residential units including multi-family, single-family but also mixed in terms of their values and their market attraction. The density is achieved in two ways. You get your base -- by the way, there is a requirement for a greenbelt surrounding the rural village as well. And you start out achieving your density by utilizing your permitted base density of one dwelling per five acres for the rural village and the greenbelt. So you get that. And then you would acquire the rest through an equal share of TDRs and a bonus unit, so for every TDR that you buy you get one bonus unit. So that's how you achieve your minimum density, and I have a graphic, which I'll show you that demonstrates that. There also is a provision allowing for an affordable housing density bonus of a half a unit per each qualified affordable or workforce-housing unit. And that would be the manner in which you could gain additional density between the minimum and the maximum or through TDRs. Now, I'd like to go into some example applications would be the next slide. This is a fairly busy slide. I'll just show you that up in the top left there you've got a pretty basic graphic that shows you the limits of my artistic abilities. You have a rural village that's square in nature of 1,000 acres surrounded by a greenbelt that in this example is 800 acres. If you would then just go to the box on the right-hand side. In this example the maximum density is achieved as follows: The plan requires you to have a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre for your rural village. In this example the rural village is 1,000 acres; therefore, your minimum density is 2,000 dwelling units. Your base density is -- you take the village and the greenbelt and add those Page 48 March 4, 2002 together and divide by 5. So in this example you've got 360 dwelling units of base density, and you can use that -- it's got to be transferred into your rural village area. So we've got 2,000 is the minimum density. If we subtract the base density, we still have to achieve 1,040 dwelling units to reach the minimum for the rural village in this example. You would achieve that additional density through equal amounts of TDRs and bonus units. So in this case 820 TDRs, 820 bonus units. Based on the separation requirements of no rural village being closer than three miles to another, the maximum amount that we project you will see of rural villages will be three. If you're looking at the gross density in this example, if you take the village and the greenbelt together and you divide that 1800 acres by the minimum density, you come up with a gross density of 1.11 and, of course, the net density for the rural village is two. Now, if you want to achieve your additional maximum, if you want to go up to the maximum density between two and three and the maximum is three, you can do that either through-- by providing affordable or workforce housing, and for every unit you'll get .5 additional units between that two and three, or you can by more TDRs, either way. That's how you'd achieve your maximum density. Next slide, please. There are some other density -- and this is not directly related to rural villages, but there are some other density bonus implications in the plan that we feel is important to bring to your attention. Again, we talked about the rural village density bonus, which is one dwelling unit per TDR purchased. We talked about the affordable housing density bonus that only applies in rural villages, which is where you would want to see that type of housing in close proximity to services. And then there's a native vegetation preservation bonus maximum of 10 percent of the density in bonus for each additional acre of native Page 49 March 4, 2002 vegetation preserved in receiving areas. Now that is only applied after you utilized your TDRs, so it doesn't compete with the TDR process. Next slide. If we look at rural village density bonus -- and we project that the maximum number of villages will be three, and in this example we're assuming one 2,000 acre rural village that would be down in D in the southern area, a larger rural village, and two 875-acre rural villages elsewhere in the rural fringe. This example assumes 3,750 acres of total rural village. The projected density based on the minimum of two units per acre would be 7,500 units. The total projected maximum based density for all three would be 1,050 total TDRs. To meet the minimum density for all three would be 3,750 units. And that is 75 percent of all available TDRs. So these numbers may be a little bit high. When we think about the fact that we have a maximum of plus or minus 5,000 units, and in order to achieve your rural village you've got to acquire TDRs, that's going to be the governing factor on what size and how many rural villages we see, how many TDRs are available for acquisition. It will help to drive the TDR process. So the maximum bonus that can be granted in this scenario for the three rural villages would be 3,750 units. The total projected population from rural village density bonuses based on an average 2.5 residents per unit is 9,375 residents. Next slide, please. If you look at the affordable housing density bonus -- and, again, that's limited to rural villages -- it allows for half-a-unit bonus for each affordable housing unit provided in a rural village. The maximum additional density at a 30 percent utilization rate is 1200 units. So the total projected in this scenario, the total projected additional density from affordable housing bonus units would be 3,000, and that's actually population figures, 3,000. It's not density; Page 50 March 4, 2002 it's residents. Next slide, please. The incentive for increased native vegetation preservation, again that's only allowed in receiving areas. It's only allowable after the project density reaches the maximums allowable through TDRs. And the total projected density bonus from preservation exceeding minimum requirement at a 50 percent utilization rate is 480 units or 1,200 residents. Next slide, please. So if we look at the total impacts from all of the potential density bonuses proposed in this plan in the scenario that we've laid out, in the example that we've laid out -- and I hope you understand that that certainly can change based on the ability for a property owner to acquire TDRs to support a rural village -- is 5,340 units or 13,575 residents. That represents about 3 percent of the 2010 population projection, which is 400,287. That we believe we have presented you with an honest estimation of our opinion of what-- I'll use the term "worst case" in terms of a negative connotation, but the highest potential impacts from the density bonuses. Next slide. Now, we move on to agricultural regulation, and this is a very important issue. I'm going to defer to Marty Chumbler to frame the issue for you. And, Commissioner Coletta, this is probably one of those hot-button issues that there probably will be a number of folks who would like to speak on this issue. We do have and you do have in your packet information from Nancy, two memorandums that she - - excuse me -- from Marty, two memorandums that she prepared. And also you have an evaluation prepared by Tom Reese who is also in attendance today representing Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Has anything changed on the agricultural (inaudible) since our last meeting? MR. MULHERE: In terms of our recommendations? Page 51 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: No. But the point here would be to try to lay out for you -- unless you feel that's not necessary -- to lay out for you the legal analysis of the staff position that the county's precluded from regulating ag under the Right to Farm Act and the alternative position that, no, the county can regulate ag under the Right to Farm Act, two opposing views. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What you're suggesting is that we open up this item for public participation? MR. MULHERE: The choice would be yours. You could just have the intervenors speak and Marty Chumbler, your consultant, and then defer the public comment to the end. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I think if we're going to go to that much detail for it -- it is a hot-button item -- we will open this one item also for public discussion. MR. MULHERE: If you look up on your screen or the large screen to the left -- my left -- that quote is taken right out of Marty Chumbler's memo of January 31, which basically says that under the Right to Farm Act there's a broad prohibition on the local government's authority to restrict certain farm operations through land development ordinances. The current proposal -- let me just set that out -- it eliminates agricultural uses in sending lands after TDRs are utilized unless you- all concur with the alternative that I laid out for you, which would allow existing ag only to continue with no further intensification. It prohibits the use of TDRs for 25 years after clearing occurs for agricultural purposes. And it also establishes a 25-year time frame between allowed agricultural clearing and conversion to other development. That's the recommendation that you have before you right now from the staff. Okay. Page 52 March 4, 2002 MS. CHUMBLER: Martha Chumbler, outside legal counsel for the county. Let me -- before I launch into the Right to Farm Act, which is going to be the focus of what I tell you about regulation farm operations, let me mention a couple of other statutes specifically because they were mentioned by Mr. Siegel from the Broward County Farm Bureau who spoke last week. And I do that in part because I think it gives you some background on this issue. The first one he mentioned is Chapter 163, which enforces the statute under which the local comprehensive planning process is covered. Chapter 163 and the position that the county has taken in earlier litigation and the position that the Department of Community Affairs has taken is agriculture is not development that is subject to or for which local governments have to impose density and intensity standards. The last sort of round of litigation we had on the county's Comprehensive Plan, one of the issues raised by the intervenors was that the county is required to impose such standards on agricultural. They lost that in the final order, and that's an issue that's presently pending before the First District Court of Appeal. In fact, they had also raised issue in an earlier challenge in Collier County. They took it to appeal, and the discussion that the county did not have to impose standards on agriculture was upheld by the First District in that instance. Now, it's possible that the appellate court could change its mind, but at least the case law that's before you that exists today is that there is no requirement. And I want to emphasize that word, no "requirement" that the county impose standards on agriculture. The question we come to now is whether the county is allowed to impose standards on agriculture. That's sort of the issue that is framed today. Mr. Siegel also mentioned Chapter 604, and if you look at Chapter 604, there's some very broad policy language about Page 53 March 4, 2002 not imposing additional regulations on farms, but it is very precise in what it actually does, and what it actually does is says that local building codes cannot be imposed on non-residential farm buildings, and really nothing more than that. So 604 1 think we can put aside today. What we really need to turn our attention to for today's purposes is the Right to Farm Act, which is Section 823.14, in a particular section, Subsection 6 of that act, which was adopted by the Florida legislature in 2000. Part of the problem that we all have today is because this subsection is so new; there is no case law on it at all. There are some cases that are just beginning to work themselves through the judicial process, so both Mr. Reese and I in our analysis are having to look at the words that were adopted by the legislature, apply the legal tools that we have to interpret for you what the language says. Now, my interpretation is based upon what appears to me to be a fairly clear statute. The statute says -- the statute specifically is adopted to eliminate duplication of regulatory authority over farm operations. And it says -- it's set forth in my memo that a local government may not adopt any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity on a bona fide farm operation or land classified as agricultural land pursuant to 193.461, which is ad valorem tax provisions. It goes on to limit that further by saying that that prescription applies to those types of farm operations for which a state or specifically the Department of Environmental Protection or Department of Agriculture or the Water Management District have adopted by rule best management practices. So that's sort of the context of what the Right to Farm Act says Collier County may not do. And there are some other little nuances. Let me just sort of list Page 54 March 4, 2002 for you the exceptions, the things that the Right to Farm Act does allow you to do. First, it does allow you to regulate the use of pesticides. I don't think that's an issue before you, but you are allowed to do that. It does allow you to regulate changes or expansions in existing farm operations that create, basically, a nuisance; more odor, more dust, more fumes if the farm operation is next to a homestead or business that was in existence on March the 15th, 1982. It does allow you to regulate farm operations that are not bona fide farm operations. In other words, someone comes in and says, "I'm operating a farm," to go out and look at it and, in fact, they aren't. It has to be a real agricultural operation. It also has to be land that is classified by the tax assessor as agricultural. Now, in some ways that's sort of a redundant statement because the case law in Florida -- and this comes from a Florida Supreme Court case -- that if you are engaged in bona fide farm operations, then the land should be classified for tax assessment purposes as agricultural. Now, there are also some situations where that may not be true. For instance, if a property owner comes to you as the county commission and says, "I want to rezone my agricultural land from agriculture to something else," and the property owner is the one asking for that, then it's the obligation -- and you accept it and rezone it. It doesn't make any difference whether he continues his farm there. The statute says that the tax appraiser is required to reclassify that as non-agricultural. And once it's reclassified as non-agricultural it no longer enjoys the protection of the Right to Farm Act. If the property owner ceases agricultural operations, the tax appraiser is required to re-categorize it as non-agricultural. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What statute is that? I'm sorry. MS. CHUMBLER: That's in the tax -- that's actually in 193. Page 55 March 4, 2002 It's in the ad valorem tax statute. And if you have my second memo, 193.461 paren 4-A is the section that deals specifically with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. MS. CHUMBLER: There is one instance in which the ad valorem tax statute actually allows the county government to recategorize land for purposes of ad valorem tax from agricultural to non-agricultural. (Chairman Coletta leaves meeting.) MS. CHUMBLER: My understanding is that no county in Florida has yet done this, but that situation -- and it's very specific is where the growth of the urban and metropolitan -- or metropolitan urban growth is such that it is now surrounding a farm and the continued farm operations there are impeding urban metropolitan growth, then the county can reclassify the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. Again, I don't understand that to be so much the issue here, but that is something that is permissible under Florida statutes. And, once again, it's reclassified as agricultural to non- agricultural. Then they no longer enjoy the protection of the Right to Farm Act. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me, Ms. Chumbler. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't understand that. (Chairman Coletta returns to meeting.) COMMISSIONER CARTER: If it's surrounded by urban development. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: then the county can automatically reclassify it? MS. CHUMBLER: The county may -- and as I say, this is not something that any county has yet done, so it's not entirely clear what the mechanism for it would be. The statute merely says a county Page 56 March 4, 2002 commission may reclassify land from agricultural to non-agricultural for tax purposes, and I'll tell you that fact scenario that this came from. It was in Alachua County where the City of Gainesville had completely surrounded a very small farm operation, and there was a lot of litigation that arose from this particular farmer -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: They can reclassify it, but he could still continue farm operations. MS. CHUMBLER: He could continue his farm operations, but he'd have to pay taxes on it as non-agricultural land rather than agricultural. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Interesting. Okay, thank you. MS. CHUMBLER: Next, you can regulate farm operations for which there are no adopted best management practices. Now, when I have -- I've looked through the existing -- and, of course, this management practices is sort of a moving target because the Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Protection, and the Water Management Districts are continuing to adopt new best management practice rules as the time changes. But, currently, it appears that -- at least the major farm operations in Collier County are covered under best management practices -- adopted best management practices. And I've listed those in my first memo. Next, the county can -- if a best management practice does not specifically address well-field protection, then you can adopt regulations or policies to protect well fields. Now, in particular I want to focus you on this one a little bit because there's a standard of law which says that if a statute specifically mentions one thing and not others, then that implies that the other things are not covered. And I think one of the arguments you're going to hear from Mr. Reese is that these best management practices that are adopted do not specifically protect wildlife, native vegetation, upland habitat. They may or may not. But the only thing that the legislature says you can Page 57 March 4, 2002 do in terms of looking specifically at what the best management practices do and protect relates to well-field protection. So if there's a best management practice in place, it doesn't matter what the purpose of that best management practice is. It doesn't matter whether the best management practice specifically protects vegetation, wildlife, wetlands. The county cannot adopt regulations impacting that type of agriculture. Only if there's nothing in the best management practice protecting well-field protection can you then go forward and impact the agricultural, even though it's subject to a best management practice. You can also certainly adopt regulations or policies or take actions that are necessary in an emergency situation, specifically, if there's a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Clearly that's true. The legislature recognizes that in the statute, and I think that even if it weren't in the statute that would be true anyway. There's also been some suggestion that because of the proximity of Collier County to the Everglades that Collier County is free to regulate agriculture in Collier County. And there is a reference in the Right To Farm Act to the environmental -- the Everglades Restoration Act. However, if you look at the specific statute that's cited there, the powers that are preserved by that statute are Water Management District and state powers, not county powers. So, again, I don't think that gives the county any greater leeway to regulate agriculture. With that, are there any other questions for me? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who establishes the best management practices? MS. CHUMBLER: Best management practices can be adopted by any of three agencies; Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Protection, Water Management District. And each of Page 58 March 4, 2002 those three agencies do, in fact, have best management practices. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they change periodically, I presume? MS. CHUMBLER: They can change, and there are new ones that are adopted. It's a rule-making process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a prohibition against the county from codifying those best management practices? MS. CHUMBLER: No, and, in fact, I know of at least one instance of which a county has in their plans said that agricultural operations in our county shall comply with best management practices. COMMISSIONER COYLE: As part of the Land Development Code? MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. MS. CHUMBLER: One other thing, and this is, again, in response to Mr. Siegel. He indicated that Broward County had specifically issued an opinion on regulation of agriculture. I talked to the Broward County attorney's office this week. They have not issued any kind of written opinion. The only verbal opinions they've given is that under 163 they are not required to regulate agriculture. It is -- their word S -- virtually no agricultural left in Broward County. And so in the main they have chosen not to regulate agriculture. MR. LITSINGER: Wildlife Federation. Now Tom Reese will speak for the Florida MR. REESE: Good morning, Thomas W. Reese. I'm here on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society. (Commissioner Carter leaves meeting.) MR. REESE: They had asked me to review the issue of the Page 59 March 4, 2002 county's authority to regulate agriculture, and in doing that I not only looked at the two memos that Marty has written to the county, but I also made telephone calls to various county attorney's offices and talked to them, Alachua County and Hillsborough County, to see how they are handling this particular issue. I've also talked to one of the attorneys that handed the case that went up -- the Schultz case that went to the Florida Supreme Court with regards to what Chapter 193.4161 means. And she had actually argued that case in front of the Florida Supreme Court. And I brought several overheads that I'd like to show you. Specifically I'll start with my conclusions. I have -- let's see if we can get this -- my conclusions are that the county historically has and currently continues to regulate agriculture with land-use planning criteria. And, secondly, that the Right to Farm Act as it's currently enacted does not prohibit the county from adopting regulations with regards to land clearing of agricultural activities. That would be the expansion of agricultural activities. Now, specifically, this source of authority to regulate agriculture -- it started out with the zoning authority and land-use authority under what was known as nuisance law. (Commissioner Carter returns to meeting.) MR. REESE: That has been identified as the historic base back in the 1920s on how local governments could regulate zoning and land use. You also have the authority to abate and protect, abate nuisances, but also protect the public health, safety, and welfare. And that's separate from the nuisance authority according to the Second District Court of Appeal. They are the only court of appeal in Florida that I could find an opinion with regards to the Right to Farm Act, and they specifically made that distinction in between the authority to regulate abate and nuisances and the authority to use Page 60 March 4, 2002 your public health, safety, and welfare authority. Now, the authority that actually -- that Collier County has used in the past and currently does is your Comprehensive Plan right now has two policies. Your coastal conservation management element policy, 11.3.15, states that (as read): "Agriculture and timbering are not exempt from the goals and the policies related to coastal barrier systems." And those goals, objectives, and policies actually deal with protecting native habitat in those areas. Also your policy coastal conservation management policy 6.4.8 currently states that (as read): "Agriculture is exempt from the preservation requirements provided that any new clearing of agriculture should not be converted to non- agricultural development for at least ten years." So that provision is actually saying that you are putting limitations on agricultural land clearing. You are putting a time limit. Now, whether you say you can't do it period or whether you're putting a time period that is putting a limit. And also the other thing the county has done, in the mid early '90s, you actually amended your Comprehensive Plan and made agriculture subject to the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern land clearing limits of 10 percent. That subsequently in about a year, year and a half was amended by the county and taken off. But, specifically, the Department of Community Affairs, when that was initially done in 1992, found it to be in compliance. They recognize you have the authority to do that if you are so inclined. My clients actually challenged it when it was removed saying it was not supported by data and analysis, and the Department of Community Affairs -- I'll take a step back on that. Actually, the administrative law judge agreed with us, but his recommended order was reversed by the Department of Community Affairs by saying that while you could regulate and limit land clearing by agriculture in the Big Page 61 March 4, 2002 Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, that they could not make you do that. And that was the distinction they drew in their final order, and that's what went up on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal in 1997. They issued what's called a per curium affirm, which basically said they affirm the decision but did not write why they did. They only use those specific words, "per curium affirm" -- it has precedential (sic) value. Just says the outcome in that case in that particular situation that we affirm, but we don't say why, and they gave no reasoning. Now, we have subsequently taken that issue back to them and been fully briefed, and that's going to be orally argued on March 12th at two o'clock in Tallahassee in front of the First District of Appeal. The issue there will be is, does the Growth Management Act, while it has a definition in it that says that agriculture is not development, it does list that agriculture is a land use and distinguishes between land uses and development in the definitions they use in the statute, and it also says that when you -- for each land use that you authorize in your Comprehensive Plans, that you have to have specific density and intensity standards for that use. Our issue that we're putting in front of the District Court of Appeal is that you are required to have land-clearing limitations on agricultural uses. I'd also like to show that Hillsborough County has adopted limitations on agricultural land clearing. They adopted that when it was part of their 1989 Comprehensive Land use plan. They actually adopted criteria for significant wildlife habitat, and they went and then mapped significant wildlife habitat throughout Hillsborough County, and they adopted that as an overlay map to their future land- use map series, and then they also adopted it as part of their land development code. They adopted that same map. What they do is they require a national resources permit for land Page 62 March 4, 2002 clearing. With regards to agriculture, it states that land-alteration activities for normal and necessary activities, they are bona fide agricultural are exempt, except they state in B that the activities do not adversely impact on environmentally sensitive areas. They define that as their map, significant wildlife habitat areas. That Land Development Code is still in effect. Back in 1994 -- actually the -~ Peter Gerossi (phonetic) and Nick Gerossi owned some agricultural land on the northeast comer of North Dale Mabry and Van Dyke. And at 5 p.m. On a Friday afternoon they started land clearing that area even though the whole area was mapped as significant wildlife habitat. Hillsborough County went and got a circuit court judge, Chief Judge Dennis Alvarez, to issue an injunction the next Saturday morning, and they were ordered to stop, and they have subsequently had to do restoration of the land that they had cleared and set aside significant wildlife habitat and a conservation easement. So that's an example of a local government that is regulating land clearing by agricultural activities. Additionally, the June 22, 1999, final order by the Administration Commission actually directed this county to direct incompatible use away from wetland and upland habitats -- upland habitats are an important part of this distinction -- to protect listed animal species and plant species and their habitat. Now, the reason that's an important point is in order to protect upland habitat, upland vegetation -- actually this county is the primary entity that can do that. That is not being done by federal, state, or regional agencies at this time. So that's a very important point that the Administration Commission actually ordered that to be done. So it's my opinion that you've currently -- you had and you currently did have independent of the Right to Farm Act the right to do that. Now, the Right to Farm Act was actually adopted in 1979. And when it was first adopted, Subsection 2 of that act states, that the Page 63 March 4, 2002 legislature was finding that agriculture land activities conducted in urbanizing areas are potentially subject to lawsuits based upon the theory of nuisance. It is the purpose of the act to protect reasonable agricultural activities conducted on farmland from nuisance suits. So the whole purpose of the Right to Farm Act is to protect existing agriculture from nuisance suits because development -- residential development was actually moving out onto existing farms. Now, what else did they do? This act that have adopted in 1979 also stated that what you needed to be -- they gave you a date of operation, and you had to be in operation continuously for at least one year. So what they were saying is they were protecting from nuisance suits existing operations that had their date of operation, and you had to also continue to be in existence for one year. Now, one of important points is what about expansion of existing agriculture? In there they specifically state in Subsection 3- D that if the land boundary of a farm are substantially expanded, the established date of operation for each expansion shall be deemed to be separate and independent of the original date. So if you have a farm and you go out and you start expanding it, you get a new date of operation. The act very distinctly states in their definitions date of operation and what is being protected. They are distinguishing between existing farm operations and expansions of that farm operation. They went to the trouble to put that definition in there. And the Second District Court of Appeal in the only case that I could find with regard to the Right to Farm Act, that actually came out of Pasco County, and the Second District Court of Appeal wrote on this particular point making the distinction that what was being protected was existing agriculture, and if you were making expansions of it or if you were modifying it, that modification then had to be reasonable. Page 64 March 4, 2002 And Pasco County would still have the authority to regulate it. Now the other thing that I also was able to find -- and Marty mentioned it in her memorandum -- was that before Subsection 6 was added to the Right to Farm Act in 19 -- in the year 2000, that this case actually went before an administrative law judge, Lawrence Johnston, in Hartland (phonetic) Environmental Council case. It specifically addressed this issue, and he found that the Right to Farm Act does not expressedly or impliedly authorize the unfettered destruction of native vegetative communities on land designated as agricultural. So there you have an administrative law judge's interpretation of the Right to Farm Act before it was amended in the year 2000. Now, in the year 2000, the legislature added Subsection 6. Subsection 6 says that it's the intent of legislature to eliminate duplication of regulatory authority over farm operations. But then the next sentence is very important. It says (as read): "Except as otherwise provided for in this section." What that's saying is except for the original five sections that we adopted in 1979 -- which I just talked to you about -- the date of operation, the purpose being nuisance suits, and protection from nuisance suits; they're saying that everything in Subsection 6 is still subject to all of that. And they are also saying that the purpose of Subsection 6 is not to have duplication of government regulations. It's my reading of this that the county has authority to limit land- clearing activities of agricultural for expansion. It's also -- my research shows that there are no -- that would not be duplication of any regulatory provision at this time. Actually, at the Thursday meeting you heard testimony from Greg Davenport who said he was an owner of a nursery in the Corkscrew Island area. Said that he can currently go out as far as the upland, clear 100 percent of his upland property for expansion of his nursery. And he doesn't have any Page 65 March 4, 2002 regulation on it. I think he's correct. There is no federal, state, or regional regulation right now that says he can't go out and clear 100 percent of his upland habitat no mater what the classification of that upland vegetation is. So I don't think if you adopted any limitation on land clearing for the expansion of agricultural operations that you'd be duplicating anything. Also, in interpreting the Right to Farm Act, one of the things that you need to do if you think there's any ambiguity in between provisions of the act, you have to interpret to where you come to a constitutional permissive reading of that statute. You do not read the statute where you wind up that it is unconstitutional. I bring this up because Article 2, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution states that it's the policy of the state to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty. It also says that (as read): "Adequate provision shall be made by law for the abatement of air and water pollution and excessive and unnecessary noise and for the conservation and protection of national resources." It's my contention that there are no adequate -- it's not even a question of adequate. There are no laws to protect wildlife habitat, the upland wildlife habitat from being cleared. As far as panther habitat in this county, I think agriculture can clear it so long as it's upland habitat. I don't think there's even a question about whether there's adequate limitations on it. I don't think the limitations -- the only one I could find was that Water Management District Environmental Regulation permit would actually -- if you can prove where a panther's had a den -- an active den, you could protect that active den and a path from that den to a wetland and nothing else. And then if that panther didn't come back and use that identical spot the next year, it's no longer protected. That's the only thing I can Page 66 March 4, 2002 really come up with as far as what type of upland habitat is being protected by any state, federal, or regional regulation at this time. I contend that that's not adequate, and what we need to do is have this county be able to adopt regulations and limitations on agricultural land clearing for the expansion of agriculture. Now, the other thing that I did skip -- and I apologize for stepping back a second, but actually the act also -- Subsection 6 of the Right to Farm Act also makes references that it has to be a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to Section 193.461. That's actually the greenbelt provision for tax assessments and actually that provision has seven criteria in it on what to consider in order for a farm operation to be bona fide. And the seventh provision is any provision that is deemed adequate and appropriate to be considered. And that's what the Florida Supreme Court addressed in the Schutz case. Mr. Schutz is a tax assessor for Citrus County, used to be a tax assessor for Pinellas County. He denied greenbelt to the appellant in that particular case on the ground that Citrus County had actually -- did not allow agriculture on that particular piece of property. Their zoning category just didn't allow agriculture there. Second District or the District Court of Appeal in that case said that's appropriate to deny the greenbelt outright. Florida Supreme Court said, no, that's just a factor to consider. It's one of the seven criteria, and it falls under that seventh criteria of what's appropriate to consider in that particular situation, but it's not a, per se, denial of greenbelt. Something to consider. Citrus County had the authority to adopt that, so the zoning authority is there. When this legislature in Section 823.14 Sub-6 says that we are to look at Chapter 193.461, they were directing us right to that case where the Florida Supreme Court said that the seventh criteria to consider in a greenbelt includes the right for agricultural for county to do that. I think actually the legislature Page 67 March 4, 2002 by doing this specifically authorized the authority of local governments in their land use and zoning authority over zoning over agricultural activities. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Nancy Payton gave me some of the language on Land Development Code out of the Hillsborough County, and then I'm sure that you did provide that, which I do appreciate. Because really what we want to do is protect sensitive lands here in Collier County. But I had my assistant do some homework on it, and she found that this amendment -- section in the Land Development Code in Hillsborough County has not been amended since 1992, before the 2000 act. And also I received from their Growth Management Plan Policy No. B-2-6, agricultural support uses are preferred uses in rural land -- rural areas. And then it also has Policy No. B-10.7. This plan supports and endorses the Florida Right to Farm Act. And it gives the Statute No. 823.14, which, you know, I guess is very complicated, that part of it. But it does state in their Growth Management Plan that it supports agricultural uses in the rural areas. So that's kind of conflicting. Their Land Development Code, from my understanding they just adopted this in 2000. MR. REESE: You're correct. That was -- the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in '89, and the Land Development Regulation was in '92. The enforcement I made reference to was '94. They've not repealed it. They understand the Right to Farm Act was adopted and amended in the year 2000. I discussed that with their county attorney's office. They do not feel that they are required to amend or repeal their Land Development Code and its limitations on agricultural land clearing. Also, it does not prohibit land clearing. It limits land clearing, and that is our contention. Page 68 March 4, 2002 We're not saying agriculture cannot clear land. Agriculture quite often is very good for wildlife habitat. But we were contending is we need mosaics of their agriculture activity and native vegetation. What is the concern is when you go out and clear 100 percent of all your upland vegetation, you don't make a mosaic. And that's actually been recommended by the Panther Habitat Preservation report. It's also been part of the multi-species report that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued, try to get a mosaic of native habitat and agricultural operations. But a lot of the panthers are actually out on property that is -- has agricultural uses on it. So we're not saying you can't clear for agricultural. We're saying there should be limitations on how you clear. That's what Hillsborough County's doing. In fact, when they map significant wildlife habitat -- let's say you had 100 acres and the whole 100 acres is significant wildlife habitat, you only have to preserve 25 percent. Now if you had the 100 acres and only 25 acres was significant wildlife habitat, you had to protect the entire 25 acres. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In your discussion with the Hillsborough County attorney's office, did he mention Policy B-10.6, agricultural and agricultural support uses are preferred uses in the rural area? MR. REESE: Yes. I actually spoke to Ray Allen. In fact, I've handled cases with Ray before with regard to this particular provision. Agriculture is a very large industry in Hillsborough County. It's a very large operation. I mean, that's where the Strawberry Festival is in Plant City. There are fish farms in southern county; Ruskin is the tomato area. They recognize agricultural as a very important industry, but they still regulate the land-clearing operation. They don't prohibit them; they put limitations on them. And when the Gerossis went out and cleared theirs, they took enforcement action against them. And as I understood from Mr. Page 69 March 4, 2002 Allen, they are aware of all these interconnections. Also the only challenge they have right now is actually a constitutional challenge. It's not a Right to Farm Act challenge. It's actually a compensation argument. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: A couple things, sir. Thank you for your presentation. It seems to me it gets down -- it's been said over and over -- it's land clearing and how much and where. What you're asking and everyone is asking is how do we protect people's rights and still have some allowable land-clearing uses, which meet the compatibility factors. And, of course, at the end of day it's the decision of this Board'of County Commissioners to establish that framework for the transmittal. I don't know where we are on that at this point. I appreciate Commissioner Henning's research. But also you made a statement about there's an oral argument that's going to be made soon that may affect outcome. But we can't predict that, sir, and we don't know what the outcome of that whole argument will be; we don't know where it will go. So maybe when it comes to us again in June we will have new input and may even change some. of the direction we go at this. So at this point I'm not sure I know any more than when I've heard both attorneys speak, but (overlapping) in our court. MR. REESE: The argument will be March 12th, and the issue is whether DCA, Department of Community Affairs, can require you to do this. They've already said you can do it if you want to, but can they actually say you have to even though you don't want to. That's really the issue in front of District Court of Appeal. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Reese, can you give me your Page 70 March 4, 2002 assessment of the adequacy of the best management plans that are currently approved for use? MR. REESE: That's not an easy one to answer. Things such as water quality, pesticide application, I think those are adequate. As far as land clearing, I don't know if they have anything to do with land clearing for expansion. They don't say how to do a mosaic, but in the realm that they are attempting to provide criteria for, I think they are adequate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the end we're going to have to come up with a balance that's going to protect our present agriculture and guarantee them a reasonable use, and I think we're a little ways off from that. We're heading somewheres toward it. MR. REESE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions on behalf of the commission? MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chumbler has some response to Mr. Reese's comments. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you begin, I want to ask one question. Earlier I made a statement that I'd like to try to cover some items early on, but I have to weigh the whole schedule what we're up against and still finish within the time restraints that have been given to us by everyone and his brother out there, including Dwight Brock. How many people, if we did open this up for discussion, would like to address agricultural -- this agricultural discussion being limited just to that? How many people? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. I think we better hold off until we reach the end. It's going to be a little bit cumbersome to try to start addressing these issues individually, and nothing's changed since the last meeting. But we will get to it, and we'll go into it in great detail before a final decision is made. Please continue. Page 71 March 4, 2002 MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Commissioner, just to very briefly respond to a couple points Mr. Reese made. First, I also spoke to Ray Allen with the Hillsborough County attorney's office. He informed me as Commissioner Henning has found out, that the specific provisions regulating agriculture were, in fact, adopted prior to the 2000 amendment to the Right to Farm Act. They have not taken action to repeal them. They have actually tried to apply them a couple times since 2000. In each instance they've been taken to circuit court and challenged over it, and in each instance they've settled the case before they've ever gotten to hearing, so that's the stares in Hillsborough County, as I understand it, from their county attorney's office. Supreme Court decision that Mr. Reese mentioned, in fact, I disagree very strongly on his position. The dissent in that case, in other words, the losing side in the Supreme Court, the minority of the justices said that you should still look at zoning as an indicator for whether land is truly in bona fide agriculture. What the majority said and, in fact, what the District Court of Appeals said -- is, no, the only question is whether -- the key question, the deciding point is whether the land is actually being used for agricultural. In fact, the dissent there said -- the losing side said what the majority decision has done is cut the legs out of local government zoning. So the losing side saw that as what the winning side was doing. Also, just to point out to you that the final order, the order that we're complying with here of the Administration Commission, exempts agriculture. And, finally, to mention to you that the cases -- the only case on the Right to Farm Act that was also the only case that I have found is a 1990 decision decided well before the 2000 legislation. And also decided before the amendment and earlier amendment -- it was an intervening amendment to the Right to Farm Page 72 March 4, 2002 Act, which is the one that specifically said that, yes, you can regulate expansions or intensifications of agriculture, but only if there was an existing homestead or business there in 1982. So the legislature responded to that decision by passing another amendment. If there's no questions, that's my comment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go on-- have you finished? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to allow Mr. Reese an equal amount of time to respond one more time, and then we'll entertain your question first, Mr. Henning, and then go on to the rest of the commission. Mr. Reese, before you begin I would like you to limit this to an equal amount of time, about three, four minutes. MR. REESE: I'll be very brief. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. REESE: I just wanted to read you a sentence out of the Schutz case. It's actually a majority opinion. It says that (as read): "The Fifth District Court of Appeal held below that when determining the actual good-.faith use of land for tax purposes, the zoning is but one of the factors that the assessment or reviewing court may consider along with the other specific factors provided -- the one through seven factors. And zoning alone is not the determinative matter of law." That's what the majority -- they agreed with the Fifth District Court of Appeal. That's my point. They're saying you can consider zoning. It's not the sole factor. It's not the determinative factor, but it is one of the seven factors that you are to consider. By saying that, they're recognizing that the local government has the authority to adopt zoning that affects agricultural. That was the point I was trying to make there. Page 73 March 4, 2002 The dissenting opinion was actually arguing it should be the one and only. If the local government says you can't do agriculture on this particular property, you should never ever get a greenbelt. The majority opinion -- it was a 4-to-3 opinion -- the majority said that it's one of the seven factors to consider. None of them said, "Citrus County, you can't do that to agricultural." They all agreed that there could be a regulation on agricultural. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Reese. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess the question for staff is: It's my understanding that we require a bona fide agricultural operation to fill out a form, and that form pretty much asked is, you know, do you have wetlands on it? Do you, you know, have habitat, blah, blah, blah. And then once the form is happened in, then it whoever the staff says, you know, you need to prove it with the -- to go to the agencies to prove it doesn't have wetlands or listed species or whatever. Is that true? MR. MULHERE: I think that's generally correct. I am going to defer to Barb Burgeson to give you the specifics on that process. There is an application that has to be filled out. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question, please? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a form for agricultural uses, and it has kind of like a checklist of. MS. BURGESON: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Do you want to explain that? MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Planning Services. There is an agricultural clearing permit application that requires us at this point to get all other state and federal permits prior to us allowing ag clearing, but it does not limit Page 74 March 4, 2002 does not give us the ability to prohibit agricultural clearing. It does say that if the state determines through their permitting process there's wetlands on the property and then they are not to be cleared, then we would defer to the state on that. And it does allow us currently in the Land Development Code to require protected species surveys as well as the wetland jurisdictional line, and we do work through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in trying to protect the upland habitat that might be on that parcel, for instance, red cockaded woodpeckers. We have been successful in some cases in protecting the upland habitat, but there is nothing specific in our code that says Collier County can require uplands to be preserved onsite. The only time that we've been successful in utilizing that language in all cases is if we discuss with the property owner that by clearing land they are limiting their rezoning or their change in use to the ten-year restriction that we have. Their option is at that time if they want to determine what that percentage would be and preserve it, then the zoning regulation doesn't go into effect, and we can add that to their property. But it's very difficult for us to require that upland habitat be protected strictly on a county level. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the agencies require to mitigate for wetlands? MS. BURGESON: The agencies can mitigate wetlands with uplands; they can mitigate wetlands with non-like wetlands, and in the case of agriculture, they don't always require mitigation for wetlands. That's something you'd have to talk with either the Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, or the Army Corps to get the definitive answer on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was interesting -- coming back from Orlando at a seminar that we had, I purposely Page 75 March 4, 2002 drove into the middle of the state going up and coming back on different routes. And it was quite interesting to see whether you had passive ag uses such as cattle, grazing, or even citrus that there was wetlands or cypress -- what do you call them -- that was still there. MS. BURGESON: Right. The cypress areas within the old agricultural farm fields would be considered not viable. The South Florida Water Management District, if they came in to permit that right now, and the landowner or the farmer were retaining just that cypress area, they would probably be told that that area they would have to mitigate for completely because that's no longer a viable wetland. In fact, they typically -- those areas can be used for resource for water. That would probably -- even if it weren't cleared at all -- be considered at a minimum a secondary impact to that wetland. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the point that I'm trying to make is whether we can or not -- and our attorney is advising us that we cannot under the Right to Farm Act -- is it cost prohibitive to clear in certain cases sensitive lands in the rural area where it's prohibitive for the farmer to do that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, just about all the usable farmland is really usable and has a value to it as already being farmed. And the clearing that would take place would probably be minimal, and what kind of balances are we going to put in place as far as the sending areas go to try to discourage somebody from doing this in the future. I guess that's about the biggest question, because when you get to the receiving lands, you more or less have an open shot to do as you pretty well please. Am I correct, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, that's simplifying it to the point that I think I can understand it. Page 76 March 4, 2002 Commissioner Coyle, you shouldn't smile so hard. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I concur with your analysis, and I really think in the rural fringe this is not a real huge question. This is just the beginning as we go to the rural. That's where the big discussion will take place, but do you set precedent here that carries Over? And that is something that is on my mind, and we'll have to deal with that. MR. MULHERE: May I just add one other consideration to this whole issue that, I think, has been said a few times but bears repeating, and that is that this is an issue that you're going to have to deal with, most likely again in a few months, as the eastern lands portion of the assessment process comes forward. And their transmittal hearing is scheduled for sometime in June, I believe. And remember that the vast majority of agricultural operations occur in the eastern lands portion and not so much in the fringe, which I think is largely consistent with Commissioner Coletta's comment that within the fringe a lot of the agricultural operations that are already ongoing, the lands that haven't been cleared haven't been cleared for a reason, and that's because they have not been really suitable for agricultural. So I just think that you need to be aware of the fact that this is a very significant issue that's going to continue to be at the forefront as we move from this point to the eastern lands portion of the assessment where there really is -- where the fine law (inaudible) requirement to protect prime agriculture really becomes applicable. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to echo Commissioner Carter's concerns. I have made it clear to everyone I talked with about this issue that I consider these -- the rural fringe and the eastern lands to be two entirely separate issues. And I'm very reluctant to do anything at this point, which will serve as a precedent Page 77 March 4, 2002 for how we handle the eastern lands because they have very different requirements and very difficult solutions. And working in the eastern lands to try to get as much preserved as we can will require substantial cooperation with property owners. If we take action now, which appears to undermine those property owners, we're merely accelerating the process and guaranteeing that we won't get much cooperation, and we'll wind up in court settling this problem. So I have no problem considering this issue for this particular area, but as far as my personal feeling is concerned, I want to make it clear that whatever decision I make on this will not, will not in my mind create a precedent for how we deal with lands in the eastern portion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I concur with Commissioner Coyle. I would make the same statement. They will be independent decisions on my part, and one will not have anything to do with the other. However, Counselor, I would like to know, does our action here set a precedent or will this all be looked at by the DCA, the governor, and the cabinet as two separate entities, and can they separate the decision-making process of the board in each one of these. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, the position of the Department of Community Affairs at present, at least, is that the regulation -- your choice to regulate or not regulate agriculture setting aside the restrictions of the Right to Farm Act is not an incompliance issue. So they are not going to be looking at your policy choice to either regulate or not regulate agriculture. Their position is you're not required to under Chapter 163. And Chapter 163 is -- defines the scope of their review. So it's not going to be part of their review. It's not going to be part of their consideration. COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then I'll go to my old Page 78 March 4, 2002 long life feeling is less government is better government. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I wouldn't disagree with that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Having said that, I'm going to leave for about five minutes. (Chairman Coyle leaves the meeting.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's get back to being recognized by the chairperson. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, the next item on your agenda is the discussion of the North Belle Meade area plan, and I'm going to defer to Bill Lorenz to interview this issue and to stand to talk about the line-up so I don't get myself in trouble in terms of making any recommendations for input. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director. What I basically have is two slides here just to frame the issue because then we're going to have the intervenors speak to you and talk about the more details of land. It was fortunate on this slide on the bottom I said that acreages are approximate subject to final analysis. Since we've developed this particular slide, there has been some changes in the acreages, and those will be outlined by the individuals involved. But the North Belle Meade area is, of course, that area that's above 1-75 below the Estates, and this is the area that is a mixture of sending lands, both natural resource protection area and non-natural resource protection area. There's a small fraction of neutral lands in it that is with the original proposal, and a fairly large section of receiving lands in it as well. One thing that I think is important to note that this particular area plan is an overall big picture view of this whole area with an attempt to try to trade off the large areas that needed to be protected with the receiving lands, and as such was developed as a special plan, Page 79 March 4, 2002 special-area plan that will be -- if the board so desires will go into your future land use element as a specific overlay. But I need to bring your attention to some things that basically will give up -- that will make this area very specific and very unique, and that is that the policies -- certain policies within the future land use element, conservation of coastal management element, public facilities element will not apply to the receiving lands within this area plan. And very specifically what I mean by that is, for instance, we've talked about the receiving lands having the 40 percent vegetation retention standard. This standard would not apply in the receiving lands in the North Belle Meade. The application of the wetland policies and wildlife policies and also our groundwater protection policies would not apply within this area. There are also -- and I believe some exceptions to the rural village standards. Again, the individuals involved may elaborate on them as well. But this is a plan that has been put together between the property owner that's being represented by Bruce Anderson and the other intervenors and that's the case for the assessment, and that's the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier Audubon. So with that, I would just defer to them in terms of the overall presentation of the total plan, what its benefits as they see for it and get into some of the details. MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, you have four presenters on this matter beginning with Robert Duane of Hole Montes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we start I do want to remind everyone that by one o'clock we have to be out of this room so that probably about ten minutes to one, wherever we are, I'll call the meeting adjourned and reconvene at two o'clock. MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Robert Duane, Hole Montes & Associates. My overview will be relatively brief, and I will be followed by Nancy Payton, Brad Page 80 March 4, 2002 Cornell, and Bruce Anderson will provide the wrap-up. I've provided you the latest copy of the document. It's kind of a work in progress. Bruce is going to go over some of the changes that we've incorporated into the document from your last draft. Be that as it may, in terms of an overview -- Bill, can you put the latest map up on the -- MR. LORENZ: Yes, I think I have that. If we could go to the visualizer. Thank you. Is that it, Bob? MR. DUANE: The Belle Meade land-use map contains approximately 2800 acres that my client owns; 1400 acres of those are located in what is now proposed to be a NRPA area, and 1400 acres are located in a receiving area. The long and short of the agreement is that we will be giving up most of my client's development rights on 1400 acres in the NRPA in exchange for some concessions on the receiving area lands that are designated on that map with the cross-hatch areas. It's located very centrally to the overall study area. The Belle Meade area provides for almost 16,000 acres of land. The NRPA is about 6,000 acres. The sending areas are approximately 5500 acres, receiving areas approximately 3300 acres, and neutral lands are provided on about 700 acres. Now, if the point that -- salient point that I would like to make is that the boundary of this NRPA area is similar to the special study area boundary that the Board of County Commissioners previously adopted in 1997 and then readopted in 2000. There were some minor adjustments to what was previously called "the special study area, but in the final analysis what we are now calling the NRPA areas provides as much and a little more than was designated in the special study area by the previous board. Second point that is important in my presentation is that the data and analysis that Bill Lorenz has shared with you, it clearly supports Page 81 March 4, 2002 the identification of a receiving area and the location so designated on the land-use map. These areas have been previously impacted. The ground cover and the endangered species indicators are clearly different in the receiving areas then on the NRPA areas or on the sending lands. Just to wrap up with regard to permitted uses, the permitted uses that are proposed for the Belle Meade area are not dissimilar to other areas in your rural fringe with one exception, and that is we have made a very specific provision for earth mining in Sections 21 and 28, and the quarter -- westerly quarter of Sections 22 and 27, we've also provided some opportunities for a rural village in this area. We've provided opportunities to extend Wilson Boulevard from Golden Gate Estates to the south. We don't control all of that right- of-way, but certainly along our two section lines, we're making that land available to the county at the time that it's necessary to service Golden Gate Estates and other areas. I think that access to the south actually could be quite advantageous as a relief valve to the Estates at some future date. And that really provides my overview. There are a number of environmental safeguards that are incorporated into the agreement, and I'll let the other intervenors give you an overview of those, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have; otherwise, I'll turn it over to Nancy Payton, and you may just might want to hold questions, Mr. Chairman, until we've finished our presentation, but that's your choice. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll leave it up to each individual commissioner if they have something they'd like to ask now. (Commissioner Carter leaves meeting.) MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon, Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. (Commissioner Coyle returns to meeting.) Page 82 March 4, 2002 MS. PAYTON: Shortly after the federation and Collier Audubon Society announced their settlement agreement with Twin Eagles, we were approached by Bruce Anderson to see if we would be willing to come to the table and work on resolving the North Belle Meade NRPA challenge. We said that we'd be delighted. And we sat down and as result of eight months of negotiations and discussions and research, the North Belle Meade overlay is the result. It was hard work by the Federation; Collier Audubon Society; our attorney, Tom Reese; Mr. Brown and his representatives, Bruce Anderson and Robert Duane. We also worked with the school board representative, Michael Kirk, to address future school sites in the area. All participants in these settlement talks are intervenors in the ongoing Comprehensive Plan legal challenge regarding wildlife and habitat protections in North Belle Meade. Mr. Brown was the only landowner in North Belle Meade to intervene in this challenge. That's why he was at the table. We began our discussions and based our overlay on the county staff's initial work of identifying sending and receiving areas and NRPA areas. We also drew on Dover-Kohl's toward better places community character report. Protections for the sending, NRPA, and neutral areas are the same as all other sending and NRPA and neutral lands in the rural fringe. They have no special protections above and beyond what we're proposing for all those areas. It is true that the receiving area, roughly 3400 acres of 15,800 acres, is exempt from county environmental controls. The other receiving areas are not. But you got to remember that less than 1 percent of these -- Bill Lorenz's numbers that I'm drawing on. So if I haven't interpreted them correctly, please correct me -- less than 1 percent or roughly 550 acres of North Belle Meade's vegetative cover is in the receiving area. This results in approximately 220 acres that may be lost to development, and I say "may." Doesn't guarantee that Page 83 March 4, 2002 they are going to be lost. They may be lost. By looking at the aerial -- and did we put up the aerials? Robert's going to get the aerials. You can clearly see that the receiving lands that we're proposing have far less environmental value and are far more disturbed in comparison to the over 11,000 acres in sending and NRPA designation. (Commissioner Carter returns to meeting.) MS. PAYTON: The sending area is protecting 80 percent of it's vegetation and the NRPA is protecting 90 percent of its vegetation. In other words, the trade-off is that over 11,000 acres are receiving 80 or 90 percent vegetative protection, and the neutral lands retain 60 percent of their vegetative cover. Mr. Brown is agreeing to NRPA status for his 1400 acres in the NRPA, and he becomes a willing participant in the North Belle Meade acquisition proposal submitted by Conservancy of Southwest Florida way back in January of 2000, and it was submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Until now, Mr. Brown, who is the major landowner in that proposed acquisition area, was not a willing participant, was not a willing seller. He now is. It is a willing seller program. That's the program it is, that to participate you have to be willing. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Duane can field additional questions on the receiving areas. Our attorney, Tom Reese, is here to answer any questions that you may have about the settlement agreement and, of course, you're going to hear additional comments from Brad Cornell. We do in our overlay plan call for wildlife crossings underneath roads so that Particularly animals can move between the NRPA area and the sending areas underneath the Wilson Boulevard Extension, and also other roads that will be put in will also be evaluated for wildlife crossings. We also call for an RCW survey and protection plan, which Page 84 March 4, 2002 ought to be something that probably ought to be of first order so we can address the RCW issue and develop a protection plan for them across North Belle Meade. Florida Wildlife Federation thanks each of you for encouraging the settlement talks and urging us to -- and we urge you to approve the North Belle Meade overlay as proposed by the Federation, Collier Audubon, Mr. Brown, and the school board. I need my lunch. I'm stumbling on my words. Thank you very much. And there is an aerial that hopefully you'll be able to see, and it shows very clearly that the receiving areas have significant impacts to them while the other areas that we've identified as sending areas and NRPA still have strong environmental values. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nancy, I want to thank you. You and Brad and Bruce and everyone coming together on this and not leaving it up to the Commission to try to figure out what to do to be able to get the landowners and the environmental interests together in the same boat and the same thought process to come up with a working solution. It's truly remarkable. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think we're at the dawn of a new age, I really do. MS. PAYTON: Well, I agree, and I thank you, and it actually was a pleasure working on this, and I have great pride in this overlay and hope you will too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe the direction for the day; right? MR. CORNELL: Hi, Brad Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and on behalf of this North Belle Meade overlay plan. It was a lot of work by all of us, and I concur with the presenters Page 85 March 4, 2002 before me. It is something that I am also proud of, the Collier County Audubon Society is proud of. It is an agreement with one major landowner, and we recognize that you-all have the ultimate authority to approve any plans. It is our recommendation that this is a plan that will work for Collier County, that it has the most benefits for the people of Collier County for the environmentally sensitive lands and natural resources that are in this area, which are very significant. And it does recognize private property rights of the people who own land in North Belle Meade. So Collier County Audubon Society and I do highly recommend this to you. We hope that you will support it and that it is something that's in the best interest of all of us. I do want to mention just in response to some of the discussion that's already occurred this morning that changes to this plan does change the balance of the agreement, and I am not prepared to speak in final judgment of the changes that are proposed, except to say that Section 24 has been vouched for being red cockaded woodpecker habitat from surveys and from aerial photography. We believe that this should be sending land. as it is proposed in the plan, and we want to recognize that there is a need to look at the rest of red cockaded woodpecker habitat throughout the entire North Belle Meade overlay, and that we have to protect that habitat as best we can through the best mechanisms that we've got available to us. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Brad. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent East Naples Land Company, James A. Brown, trustee, who owns approximately 2800 acres in the North Belle Meade area. As previous speakers have mentioned, half are in the NRPA and half are in the receiving area. For the last three years, Mr. Brown has Page 86 March 4, 2002 successfully fought all attempts by environmental interests and/or county staff to place an actual resource protection area designation on any of his lands. He is the only landowner in North Belle Meade who intervened in the ongoing litigation that is now pending before the Court of Appeals, and he intervened on the same side of the county and the Department of Community Affairs against the position of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society who have been seeking to have an NRPA designation already placed on the North Belle Meade lands. In that respect Mr. Brown is unique among all other landowners in North Belle Meade. As the previous speakers have said, we have worked closely and collaboratively over the last eight months to try to come up with something that all of us could endorse and live with. I would like to point out just three major items on the North Belle Meade overlay that it provides 'for. No. 1, it designates as a natural resource protection area more than 90 percent of the lands that the county staff and the environmental intervenors have consistently sought to have designated as a NRPA. Again, approximately half of Mr. Brown's lands would become part of the NRPA area. Much of Mr. Brown's lands in the NRPA are pre- existing parcels of five acres or less and otherwise would be grandfathered by the final order for development. Second point, on the other half of Mr. Brown's lands which lie in the receiving area, expansion of earth-mining operations are specifically encouraged and will provide a source of raw materials necessary for the county's future road building plans. By virtue of the overlay language in the Comprehensive Plan, earth mining would be a permitted principal use rather than a conditional use in the receiving areas on Sections 21, 28, and the western quarters of Section 21 and 27. Because the North Belle Meade overlay is more specific than the general rural fringe plan, the overlay also provides that no other Page 87 March 4, 2002 goals, objectives, and policies of the future land use element, conservation element, or the public facilities element or their implementing land development regulations apply to North Belle Meade receiving lands unless the overlay specifically states so. My client's position is very simple on this. If he was giving up his rights on half of his land to be placed in a natural resource protection area, he wants to be able to utilize the other half of his lands unmolested. He is satisfying his county requirements on the NRPA lands. The receiving lands would, of course, continue to be subject to state and federal environmental regulations. The other significant portion of the overlay authorizes an extension of Wilson Boulevard south and to the west to connect with 1-75 and Landfill Road. The timing and the permitting of the extension would be up to the county, but the general routing of the road through receiving and sending lands have been agreed to by Mr. Brown, the Florida Wildlife Federation, and Collier County Audubon Society. This overlay provides the regulatory roadbed for the Wilson Boulevard Extension, which will provide another evacuation route to 1-75 or Golden Gate Estates and alternate access to the urban area from the Estates. Mr. Duane handed out to you an updated version of the North Belle Meade overlay, and I'd like to walk you through those few changes. They are shown by underlining and strike-throughs. This is clarifying language that has been added in response to questions from county staff and/or the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon. The first one would be on page 2 of the overlay, page no. 2 at the bottom of the paragraph where it says (as read): "On receiving lands any development shall comply with the non-environmental administrative review procedures of Collier County for site Page 88 March 4, 2002 development plans and platting." And then just below that photograph language was added as a result of the negotiations with the school board and the environmental groups and county staff, which refer to a neutral area. The next change is on page no. 5. At the top of page 5 where it makes clear that that portion of the Wilson Boulevard Extension that goes through any of the sending areas must be designed with aquatic species crossings and small terrestrial animal crossings. The next change is on page 7 at the bottom of the page where it clarifies and makes clear that earth mining would be a permitted use only on those specified sections; 21, 28, and the western quarters of 22 and 27. It also makes clear that the county's excavation and explosive regulations would continue to apply to those earth-mining activities. And the last change is on page 10 under the caption "TDRs." And this is added in case you-all endorse a TDR rights program that would allow transfers to the urban area. This would also allow us to transfer development rights to the urban area. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, one moment. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I was just waiting until after he finishes. MR. ANDERSON: I'm finished. We would just ask you to endorse this overlay and encourage future collaborations and discussions between property interests and environmental interests. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Anderson, are all of these changes you just went through agreeable to all of the participants in this agreement? Have they reviewed it so everything's okay with all the parties? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Let the record reflect that Florida Wildlife and Collier County Audubon in the audience nodded their Page 89 March 4, 2002 head in agreement, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, a couple of questions there, Mr. Anderson. On Wilson Boulevard Extension, which would be a Godsend if we could get it in, when would this take place? MR. ANDERSON: That would be up to the county as to the timing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I guess the next question would be, who pays for it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Anderson's going to pay for it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Is this something that would be -- certain considerations would be given or the road would be paid for in full or in part by the developers that are going to be going in the area? MR. ANDERSON: Well, we'll certainly.be glad to sit down and discuss a developer contribution agreement for the right-of-way, at least that traverses Mr. Brown's lands. Of course, that developer contribution agreement could only be entered into if you-all have put this road on your five-year work plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No way. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute. You're talking about an absolute necessity here. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I mean we can't get into it now, and I'm not going to drag us that way. And the only other question I got -- and I'm glad I woke everybody up here. So if you'd like to see that road on Wilson there, contact the other commissioners because I'm all for it. No, the road is definitely an open road. There's no question about it being a gated road at any point in time? MR. ANDERSON: No. This is intended to be a public route. Page 90 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Has this gone before the EAC yet, and have they given their approval? MR. ANDERSON: This agreement was not arrived at until after the EAC met and, in fact, the afternoon before the Planning Commission met it was finalized. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, if Commissioner Coletta is all agreeing to put that road in, that dead- ends into your property, I can assure you that I'm not going to be in favor of spending public money for that purpose. The question is Section 16, what is the use on it presently? That's on north. MR. ANDERSON: I believe that is -- that's the APAC mining operation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On Section 21 -- especially 21 and 28, wasn't that proposed a few years ago -- I think it was in '93 for an earth-mining operation? MR. ANDERSON: No. It was Section 20. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was Section 20? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I know that that was a heated issue at that time. In fact, it was challenged in the courts, and the county won over it, and it was overwhelming opposition from the residents in Golden Gate Estates to expand that operation. MR. ANDERSON: Again, it was on Section 20, and one of the chief concerns back then was the fact that there was no other alternate road proposed that might eventually relieve the truck traffic on Golden Gate Boulevard. And at the time Golden Gate Boulevard was only two lanes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I don't know if we're -- my concern is precluding the public participation process in Page 91 March 4, 2002 this -- making it a permitted use instead of a conditional use. And also the increased traffic on Golden Gate Boulevard with a bunch of trucks going down Golden Gate Boulevard loaded with lime rock or whatever. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point you make, Commissioner Henning. All the more for a road, but what I was going to say was that if we were willing to give this serious consideration, would the landowner be willing to give up the right-of- way without using any of his impact fee credits for this particular road? In other words, give it up as a condition to the whole thing through the whole length of his property. Would he be willing to do that? Without any other credit toward impact fees MR. ANDERSON: that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: -- he would have to pay himself?. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Absolutely correct. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not certain of that, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's something you might want to check into because if we're going to get a road in there, which to me is very important -- and Commissioner Henning brings up a very good point. He doesn't want to spend public funds. I grant you that there's going to be some expenses, but when it comes time, Commissioner Henning, I'll show you how in this whole program there is the money already there, but we'll come to that shortly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Commissioner Coletta, I just remind you that the road is going to dead-end to Mr. Anderson's client's property. So it's really -- where is the public benefit? MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's supposed to go to 1-75, isn't it? MR. ANDERSON: It's intended to come down here and then Page 92 March 4, 2002 turn (indicating) to connect with Landfill Road. That's the ultimate plan, and the route most importantly that the environmental groups agreed to because it does go through sending lands. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, the entrance to 75 would preclude the state and federal government, and that would be way off in the future, I would imagine, although I think there would be more of an option that the government -- the federal and state government pick up a little quicker than the interchange at Everglades Boulevard. So it's interesting; it's really interesting. But I would like to hear an answer from the landowner on that and make it part of the understanding before we proceeded on this. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I want to hear from legal counsel. We may be in legal, disputable territory at this point. And I'm not going anywhere on any of this until I have counsel's advise. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who do we have here from the county? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marjorie's available. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. Would you please repeat the scenario -- I'm sorry. Would you please repeat the scenario? COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's my understanding that Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta speak for themselves. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What I'm looking for is a guarantee that the landowner will give up the right-of-way property without impact -- credit taken against impact fees, that it would be stand- alone on itself, in other words, be able to move this forward. MS. STUDENT: This is an area that is getting a little bit afield from what I generally do. I have a concern at this level of getting into that type of detail because we're in the comp plan amendment Page 93 March 4, 2002 situation, and that level of detail is usually arrived at either in the rezoning process or even after the rezoning process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about the what if?. What I'm looking for is basically an idea that has quite a bit of merits to it. However, the mechanism to get to there from A to B is going to be difficult without the land there to be able to build on. It's going to take forever before we get to that point. But if we already had the right-of-way donated, this could be possible -- is there any way we could put this together in such a way that we could have that right to be able to do it? MS. STUDENT: Well, this is usually accomplished by developer contribution agreements and -- that where it's worked out at the level about the impact fees and so forth. And, again, this is a little bit premature. What might be able to be done and perhaps -- I wish we had the people here that work on that area. But there might be some language that could be inserted as part of this language that -- I just have a concern about -- we don't have our transportation people really here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we dropped this on you without any notice. MS. STUDENT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and I fully understand your reservations and your thoughts on this, but before the end of today I would like to be able to come up with something -- I really would -- in such a way that we have at least a memorandum of understanding of where we're going if we get to this point (Overlapping dialogue). MS. STUDENT: This is a general matter to address a final order of the governor and cabinet, and while a plan has been worked out that addresses a lot of these issues, the environmental issues and so forth are paramount. I also have a concern about they maybe Page 94 March 4, 2002 going beyond the scope of the -- what we're all about here. So I would really want to talk to Mr. Weigel about it and perhaps some of other attorneys in the office that handle things. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Please. MS. STUDENT: -- and I think transportation ought to be involved because this involves their transportation planning and so forth. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think you might be able to give us something in the way of a direction or a thought? MS. STUDENT: I'll try my best to report back later today, but coming out of the blue on such a complex matter it's rather difficult for me to just stand up here at this juncture because there's a lot of issues involved, and this is really beyond what we're about here. And if there's some way where That I think maybe something could happen, if we can somehow just make a sentence in there and tie it back some way, we could look at that. But, again, transportation people aren't here, and the attorneys from my office that work on these types of things are not here. And I need to be here, and I'll try to figure out how I can be in both places to talk to them to see what we can come up with. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Anderson, any other thoughts on that? MR. ANDERSON: My only reluctance is that I've not previously discussed this with my client, and I'm certainly not ruling it out. I just -- it's never been discussed. But as I understand it, the precise question is: If he will give the roadway right-of-way that you-all will build the road. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I guess the time period's going to figure into that. The whole thing is very simple, Mr. Anderson. Without funding in place, without the right-of-way, it's going to be a lot longer than sooner. If we have the right-of-way, we're a good part Page 95 March 4, 2002 of the way there to be able to decide what to do with that. And we do have a problem with that whole area, and I can see this as a tremendous solution, one that I never thought would be possible because of environmental concerns in the past. So I guess we're going to be taking this up again late r. MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, one thought on this is that keeping in mind that this is a transmittal hearing and that this will be going to DCA, and in the interim, before we get back comments from DCA, a number of these issues can be worked out because I suspect a lot of the transportation issues would not be matters which the DCA would address in their comment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: IfI may again, I would feel more comfortable with that approach because I think it's something that Mr. Feder and his staff need to be involved with. So if we could agree to look at that issue and see how we might handle it before adoption, I think that might be a better way to approach it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we got enough public exposure on this now so we can't ignore it, and that's one of the main reasons for this little exercise and. MR. ANDERSON: And just for the record, we have met with Ms. Wolfe from the Transportation Planning Department to apprise her of this effort. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I thank my fellow commissioners for bearing with me through this COMMISSIONER CARTER: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I understand your concerns; I know what you want. There's a time and a place. You've made your point. I don't think this is part of a transmittal. And therefore, again, I will take a very conservative, cautious approach on this transmittal to make sure that it is clean and goes forward with the highest probability of Page 96 March 4, 2002 acceptance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter, but if I had to do it over, I would. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That wouldn't surprise me a bit, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that -- are there any other questions on behalf of staff?. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have one question. One of the slides was showing four hundred -- five hundred -- 5,400 acres in non-NRPA sending lands. What is that all about? That slide. MR. LORENZ: I've got it up. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second one in. MR. LORENZ: It certainly looks like -- there's something off with that. Let me get back to you in the afternoon and see if I've -- we'll come back and revise the numbers with the new presentation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's roughly 5 1/2 sections if I calculate that correct. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: More like 3,000. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does it mean? I mean, it's not a NRPA. MR. LORENZ: Okay, yes. To answer your question, sending and non -- sending lands are made up of NRPA and then non-NRPA lands. The NRPA lands have a higher preservation requirement on them; that's 90 percent. Sending lands that are not in the NRPA status have an 80 percent preservation status. MR. MULHERE: And they've agreed to a certain portion of the lands being sending and a certain portion being NRPA sending. Mr. Chairman, the next item on your agenda is possible modifications or alternatives that staff has developed based on -- as Page 97 March 4, 2002 indicated earlier -- public comment at Wednesday's hearing.. And the first option that is often referred to as the do nothing option or don't do anything. And several times I've heard various board members ask that question: "What does happen if we don't transmit or we don't address these issues?" And there's some question relative to the timing associated to that, so I'm going to defer to Marry Chumbler to address that option. MS. CHUMBLER: Marty Chumbler for the record. I think my purpose here is to basically alert you as to what will happen if we first don't make the June 22nd deadline or if the commission decides not to adopt anything or the last possibility is that whatever is adopted is ultimately determined not to be in compliance. We are, as I said last week, presently under the final order. The final order put a deadline of June 22nd, and I think every expectation is that that deadline will be met. Now, if we do not or if no amendments are adopted or if amendments are adopted that are found not being in compliance, then a number of things can happen. The one that certainly will happen is that Collier County Comprehensive Plan will be amended in Tallahassee by the staff of the Department of Community Affairs. It will no be this body making the decision about what the Collier plan should be like. It will be the Department of Community Affairs acting at the direction of the governor and cabinet. So in terms of local decision making at that point, your local decision-making is going to be taken from you, and under statute it will be done in Tallahassee. There's also a number of other things that could happen, and I refer there to the sanctions that can be imposed. If you look at the very end of the final order, it lists the sanctions that can be imposed against you, and they specifically are withholding of monies that would ordinarily be made available, small cities grants. Other state Page 98 March 4, 2002 monies that could be sent and used in Collier County could be withheld. Now, I can't tell you definitely that they would be, but certainly that is a stick essentially that the governor and cabinet holds over our heads as well. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That's all right, go ahead. I'm sure she's going to answer this as we go along. Go ahead. MS. CHUMBLER: I opened it for questions. I'm finished unless you have questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm not sure that it has been -- the point has been very clearly made that we are not trying to impose restrictions on people's use of their property. The governor did that on June the 22nd, 1999, and essentially dramatically restricted your property rights on that day. What we're trying to do is develop a plan that achieves the conservation objectives and restore some of your property rights. If we fail to reach agreement on a plan, which accomplishes that, it's entirely likely that the governor will impose something that resembles his original order, which permits you to do largely nothing at all. So we're not here trying to take something away from you. We're trying to find a way of restoring as many of your rights to your property as we possibly can and at the same time achieve the objectives of the environmental protection process. So I just want to make sure that was absolutely clear because I've talked with some people who don't really know how all this got started. And we didn't -- we don't intend to try to take property rights away from you. We're trying to restore them. MS. CHUMBLER: And the only amendment I would make to Page 99 March 4, 2002 that is it wasn't just the governor; it was the governor and the attorney general and the commissioner of agriculture and all of the elected cabinet members. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Commissioner Coyle, and it was well stated. And if you didn't have Secretary Seibert up there today in the DCA, you probably wouldn't have this opportunity at the breadth and depth that we're allowed to approach it. He was a former county commissioner. He believes in home rule. They are to looking to us to come up with a feasible plan to reiterate what Commissioner Coyle just said to the audience not only here but out in TV land that this has been going on for a long time. This is an opportunity to preserve land rights versus taking them away. So that's why you'll hear me say my very conservative position is I want it broad based. I wanted it to go up with the least amount of opportunity for them to dig it apart so we can come back and work out within a framework some options. And we're given we have that opportunity. This board has this opportunity, and that's why it's so important that we do it right. MS. CHUMBLER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: And I think I'm going to ask Marty also to talk a little about the elimination of the TDR portion, but I think it's embodied in the comments the TDR-- certainly we need to create a program that we believe will work, that has all the elements and components and characteristics that will make it work, and that it will maximize the market and the value for those, and there's no disagreement on that. To take one -- to remove, though, that mechanism, you would be removing the primary mechanism that would allow for some compensation back to property owners as a result of the regulations that we're proposing to protect those natural resources. Page 100 March 4, 2002 I just thought that as an aside, if we could go back in time, I would have had Commissioner Coyle make the opening remarks for this whole thing because I think he summarized it very well. So that -- I mean, it's really brief and simple. Eliminating the TDR program does really take away the primary mechanism to provide some compensation back to those property owners. And then that brings us to the third option, which is adopt the plan that's been proposed to you and set before you but with various modifications, and this is the normal process, that as a result of public input and stakeholder comments and the public hearing process, modifications may occur. And we've talked about two of them earlier today. The first one up there, we talked about allowing agricultural uses to the extent that they currently extent after -- that says "TRDs" but that should say "TDRs" -- are used as previously discussed. We talked about that. The second one we already talked about, too, which is to allow for a modified density blending provision where sending lands are adjacent to the urban residential fringe. The third one would be as an option for you to consider, and this is related directly to the concerns expressed relative to the TDR program, would be to allow more TDRs per acre for sending land property that are closer to the urban area. And if I could lay that out a little bit further for, I think the next slide -- several speakers talked about their concerns that properties in closer proximity to urban area have a higher market value. And if they are treated the same as properties that are further east and to have a lower market value, they are not achieving the same degree of compensation that their property values would warrant. So an alternative would be to create a ratio of TDRs based on the zero-to-one-mile corridor, a one-to-two-mile corridor, and then a Page 101 March 4, 2002 two and greater, wherein you would allow for the higher number of units. Instead of one dwelling unit per five acres, you would allow, for example, in the zero-to-one-mile corridor, you would perhaps a 2 or 2.5 TDRs per five acres, which would allow the property owner to recoup the value based on the value of their land. And then in these one-to-two-mile corridor, you would step that down to 1.5 dwelling units per five acres, and then in the two mile and further east, you would leave it at the single. Now, this type of a plan would require as part of that annual review that there be an evaluation of the market value so you could tweak that number. That number could come down or might go up based on where those market values are on an annual basis. (Commissioner Henning leaves the meeting.) MR. MULHERE: And I would recommend -- if that's something that's -- that the board feels is an appropriate revision, that we work also with Dr. Nicolas between now and the adoption to make sure that we have that right when we bring it back. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may on that, that's one of the issues that I've had for some time on it, how we come up witha value. And, of course, the environmental communities say and do it with a wetlands, have more value than the uplands have and less value. But I think the fairest way -- maybe I'm wrong -- would be to base it on the actual value on the tax roll and come up with some sort of factor where maybe one sending unit be worth $1,000, the tax roll for that one unit would be $1,000, and that would be one unit. (Commissioner Henning returns to meeting.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it was only $100 because of where it's located with no access, then it would be one-tenth of a unit. And if it was $10,000, then it would ten units. That -- there again, too, we can give consideration to at the next stage. Page 102 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think that's something I'd to -- I understand what you're saying, and it's a very good suggestion. I think I'd like to talk to Dr. Nicholas because the only thing that concerns me there is the degree of complication. We're trying to address every issue but still keep it simple. So I would like to talk to him about that if that's something we could creat that was a fairly simple problem. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have time on that. MR. MULHERE: Next, please. Another modification and this is something that was previously discussed several years ago prior to the final order being issued. This No. 4 has two potential components. One would be to lower the base -- really what we'd be trying to do here is increase the TDR market area by expanding the ability to use TDRs in the urban area. And that would address Commissioner Coletta and several other commissioners' concerns that were raised relative to the timing of the utilization of the TDRs. If we broaden the ability to use TDRs in the urban area, they would be utilized more quickly, and they would increase in value, and property owners would recognize compensation not only more quickly, but also to a higher degree. The proposal would be to lower the base urban density from four or three, respectively, to three or two, and then require a TDR to get that unit back to the base density, to get that property owner to re-achieve his base density. Alternatively -- and a very similar alternative would be that you don't have to necessarily lower the base density to four or three. You simply could say that any increase in density shall first be accomplished through a transfer of development rights for the first unit (overlapping). And I want to repeat that so that you understand. One option is to lower the base density from four to three or three to two, and then require that that unit be regained by right through a TDR. The Page 103 March 4, 2002 second option would be don't lower the base density but simply require that the first incremental unit of increase per acre come from TDRs. It basically would result in the same. Now, again, a real caveat there is that we only have a limited number here of sending units. We only have about 5,000. My guess is that this would exhaust them fairly quickly, and we would need to be prepared to go in and re-evaluate this program before they're exhausted. When we're approaching -- when we see that the utilization rate is pretty high, we would want to be able to go in and take a look at this because, you know, we may have served our purpose much more quickly then -- or achieved our goals much more quickly than we anticipate without this component. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, it gets brought back to Commissioner Coyle's same philosophy on roads, checkbook philosophy. You've got so many, and every time you write a check against it, you increase the account. And we could establish whichever way we go a system to set it up like a checkbook. MR. MULHERE: I would also strongly recommend that you exclude workforce or affordable housing from any requirement to purchase additional units. You'd simply exclude them from this provision. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere, I have to ask you to wrap it up. We have to get out of here so they can take the room over. MR. MULHERE: That's it. I think-- was there one more? The last possible modification is increase allowable density in sending lands from the -- I didn't get that right -- from the one unit per-- oh, this option would be one -- you heard a number of individuals say do you have to take us down to only being able to utilize one dwelling unit per lot or parcel in the sending lands, which is what the final order laid out. Page 104 March 4, 2002 Now, we think it's defensible to allow some -- more use of those lands from a residential perspective, and if the board is inclined, you can allow a density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres, which is a little bit higher than one per parcel or lot. For example, in a 1,000-acre subdivision, you would be able to use significant-- you would be able to develop a higher number than you would under our current proposal, 1,000 divided by 40, you gain. We would recommend in this case that clustering be encouraged, which would still allow someone to utilize those units and protect the resources by clustering that development. I think that there's no question that this can meet the test of not being a sprawl factor, of a density that does not constitute urban sprawl, but on the other hand, you know, our primary purpose was to try to direct those incompatible uses away from those large connected systems. So the question becomes a policy. Do we want to allow a little more value in use of that land out there, and if we can, can we defend that at the DCA level? And I think we can. This is just another option. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd (sic), excellent presentation. Can we continue this until two o'clock-- ah, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: That's all right. Jim Mudd doesn't mind. (A lunch break was taken from 1 p.m. To 2 p.m.) Continue, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: At this point, Mr. Chairman, we are at a point in time to take public comment. I would reiterate again that pursuant to the board's direction, we will also take public comment commencing again at 6 p.m. For those who are here, we're at a point now where we can move to that, and I think Mr. Litsinger has the public speaker notices. And anyone that's not here we'll hold it to the Page 105 March 4, 2002 6 p.m. to see if they come back. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is it public comments? We have the -- slips have been turned in today. If you want to waive until six o'clock, that will be fine. If you're called and you think that the opinion has already been adequately expressed, you may wish to waive at that time. Also, too, if you signed up at our Friday meeting, you're probably in the list, but unless you come up and tell them that you wanted to be called now rather than at six o'clock, you might be skipped over. So make sure you do that. And we'll proceed with our discussion. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. First speaker is Rich Yovanovich who has asked to pass until six o'clock. Second speaker is Mike Taylor to be followed by Curtis Mitchell. Mike Taylor will go at six. Curtis Mitchell. Curtis Mitchell's not here. Robert Duane? MR. DUANE: Six o'clock. MR. LITSINGER: Six o'clock. Tom Siemianowski. Tom Siemianowski? (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Kathy Prosser. VOICE IN AUDIENCE: She's not here yet, if you can put her at the bottom of the pile. MR. LITSINGER: Vince Cautero? (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Vince Cautero not here? Followed by Mike Bauer? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, it's a three-minute limit. And do we have somebody to man the time clock? MR. LITSINGER: Right here. It's started. Page 106 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bauer. MR. BAUER: Thank you. Mike Bauer, Southwest Florida policy director for Audubon of Florida. Audubon of Florida is not only a statewide organization with thousands of members, some of them local areas throughout Florida; we're also the owner/operator of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, which has more than 11,000 acres within the rural fringe area. We also pride ourselves on being a science-based policy organization, and we have several scientists on our staff. I'd really like to commend county staff for this work -- I mean, this was quite an effort, really pleased at the amount of time and effort that went into this -- and also for their ability to listen to change. I've seen this thing go through several iterations; boundaries change. And they've been open to change. It's been a collaborative process, and I've been really pleased in seeing that. We support a lot of these good methodologies in here, ideas of clustering, transfer of development rights, and rural villages. I think they're going to not only protect our natural resources but also at the same time deal with some of the problems associated with sprawl from growth. I do have some comments, though, about it. I would like to encourage that the -- the concept of tradi -- of transfer of development rights does get extended to the urban area, that there are some sending areas in the urban area, and perhaps even some receive -- or that there are receiving areas and perhaps maybe even sending areas within the urban area. As we see that we use up all the sending area credits, it might be possible to look inward a little bit. There's also always a need to protect land closer in. We'd also like to see about a one-half mile buffer, and that's upon some of the work of Mike Duever who you heard earlier, at the interface between a sending area and a receiving area or between a receiving area and any conservation lands actually. And this is to Page 107 March 4, 2002 allow for a reduction of impacts on wildlife and on hydrology and also enable management activities such as bums to occur so that they won't be affecting some development in the -- in the receiving areas. With respect to rural villages, I think the size of the rural villages proposed by these amendments is too large. I did some different calculations than -- than Bob did. I just took it a little bit simpler. I took 1500 acres, the maximum size, times the number 3 units per acre times 2.5 people and got over 11,000 people is possible in one of these areas. I know Bob calculated differently, but I just went for the maximum. I came out with this number of 11,000, and that seems not to be rural and not to be a village. I did some research, quick research, looked at the Chesapeake Bay Program, and they cited Maryland County which starts its rural villages at 20 acres. They sited another one in Virginia that has a 300-acre maximum size and an 80 percent open-space requirement with it. I then went into some newspaper accounts and looked at similar developments in Ohio, New York, Wisconsin, and Georgia. What I did is typed in Randall or rent. And it fed me back a number of these kinds of developments. And they also seemed to vary to between 60 and 600 acres. So I -- I think this is way too large. I got some problems with open-space requirements. I still don't think golf courses are adequate for open space. I'm not saying don't build golf courses. I'm saying do not give them extra credit within open spaces. One wild card I think that the county needs to think about, and that is that the Right to Farm Act doesn't supersede the Federal Endangered Species Act. Under the Endangered Species Act, it's illegal to take an endangered species. Take is defined as harm. And the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996 in the Sweet Home case said that harm includes damage to habitat. So it may be illegal to do agricultural activities. It may be Page 108 March 4, 2002 illegal to do anything that harms endangered species habitats in these areas. That's something to think about. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up, Mike. MR. BAUER: I'll stop right there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you-- you leave, though, Mike, could you get with staff and compare your numbers with theirs to see where the discrepancy is on the size of the rural village? MR. BAUER: I know where Bob went with that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. BAUER: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Kathy Prosser followed by Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: I'll go at six o'clock, please. MS. PROSSER: Members of the commission, good afternoon. And I apologize for-- apparently my name was called, and I was in a traffic jam right outside, so we need to do something about this traffic. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's amazing. I didn't know we had traffic problems, did you? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We wouldn't have this problem if we just built that darned road down from Wilson down to 951. Go ahead, Kathy. MS. PROSSER: For the record, I'm Kathy Prosser, president, CEO of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, also a member of the Rural Fringe Committee. The Conservancy is in support of the TDR concept, and we believe that if it's implemented and run properly, it's a workable solution to what sometimes is seemingly a conflict between directing incompatible land uses away from our natural areas and honoring private property rights. We urge you to implement agricultural land- use policies for the sending areas so that we don't allow future high- Page 109 March 4, 2002 impact agricultural areas in our most sensitive natural resource lands. We do believe that current agricultural uses in sending areas should be allowed but that no new agriculture or farm expansion be allowed in the sending areas except unimproved pasture or native range. We agree with the Environmental Affairs Committee that agriculture should be held to the same standards as other uses in the fringe with regard to preservation. Worst case: If you agree to clearing in the sending lands, we agree with the CCPC staff that there should be a time period for agriculture to be able to then transfer their development rights. The staff, I believe, is recommending 25 years with The Conservancy who like to see something even more ambitious than that, something close to 40 years. In the North Bell Meade overlay presentation you heard this morning, The Conservancy was not a party to those negotiations, but we are in general support of the agreement, and there are two primary reasons why we think this is workable. First of all, it preserves two- thirds of North Bell Meade that will be protected. And, secondly, the Florida Forever Bell Meade expansion, which The Conservancy applied for some time ago, can now move forward because the East Naples Land Company will become a willing seller. To curtail urban sprawl, The Conservancy supports development rights being transferred from the fringe area back into the urban area. And, finally, on February 27th at the public hearing there was a representation made by someone representing landowners along the western fringe in the North Bell Meade NRPA, and they stated that the 1-mile corridor or O-to-1 corridor as it is sometimes referred to is not part of the North Bell Meade Florida Forever Project, which was formerly the CARL project. And that statement is not true. The Florida Forever Project boundary begins at the urban fringe and does include this one-mile corridor. The NRPA boundy-- boundary Page 110 March 4, 2002 logically follows the project boundary. Along with The Conservancy, the EAC and the CCPC agree that this NRPA line should remain as is and not be moved 1 mile to the east. Until last week the county staff agreed that we should keep all of this land within the NRPA boundary due to its high environmental value. To change that position now, based on landowner arguments about property values, is a slippery slope. Move boundaries for some landowners, why not for other landowners? Density blending in this corridor is not an acceptable alternative. This land is environmentally sensitive. If the NRPA line remains, the value of properties to the west will increase surely, and the market will take care of the property values. But only we can take care to protect this land's environmental value. I thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Kathy, before you leave, just a clarification, when you said that O-to-1 mile, did you mean the South Bell Meade? MS. PROSSER: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. PROSSER: Sorry. What did I say? VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think it was North Bell Meade. MS. PROSSER: South Bell Meade. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Maureen Bonness followed by Matthew Loiacano. MS. BONNESS: My name is Maureen Bonness. I am a homeowner in Big Corkscrew Island community, and I've got on the visualizer here the boundaries of Big Corkscrew Island community, as far as I know. Big Corkscrew Island community is an area of 3,300 acres, mostly 5-acre parcels. It is for the people that live out there. They live in trailers or homes, septic tanks, dirt roads. We have our own wells, also a number of nurseries, pasture, row crops Page 111 March 4, 2002 and citrus groves. So it truly is a mixture of-- it is a rural area with some housing. It's about halfway from here to Immokalee. If you keep on going out Immokalee Road, keep on going way past where they deliver pizzas, keep on going way past where they spray for mosquitoes, keep on going past the area where your TV cable services is allowed, keep on going, then you'll get to Big Corkscrew Island. For us it takes -- it's an area if you talk about home delivery of newspapers or mail, it might be a half a mile down a dirt road to get to your mail or your newspaper. For most people out there, if you want to take -- if you want to do some grocery shopping or go for hardware, go to the movies, get some auto parts, go to the doctor, it's at least a one- or two-hour round trip driving time alone. We live in a rural area out of choice, though. All of the hardships associated with that, we've got the benefits we want out of it. We want to live in a rural area. And I have 200 neighbors that agree with me that want to keep Big Corkscrew Island community as a rural character community, and I'm not sure who I should submit these petitions to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got copies of them. MS. BONNESS: The petitions themselves, I gave you copies of the list of the names. Okay. So I have 200 neighbors that agree with me. We had a petition circulated in the area that expresses that concern. It also said -- it reminds you that 25 years ago there was a similar petition by the same community for the same reason, to keep the area as a rural character area with a maximum of 1 dwelling per 5 acres, and this petition here reflects that same feeling for the neighbors. We would like to keep our quality of life the same as it is now. Page 112 March 4, 2002 I also believe that Big Corkscrew Island is a bad choice for increased development, especially with the TDR process, 'partly because it's all broken up into lots of little 5-acres parcels. And to effectively play -- overlay a TDR process over that would be very difficult if it were a receiving area. I think that, also, because of its distance, it's a poor choice for a receiving area for development because then you would have to also have the infrastructure to fulfill that requirement. And, also, many residents oppose it. And I remind you that I speak now for 200 residents, not just for myself. On my own side, I would like to also -- I am an FGCU faculty member teaching environmental biology, and I would like to also encourage you to take the two little half sections there on the west side of Immokalee Road and put them back into a neutral area. Those are currently sod farms. Because of the environmental quality and the impact that if you develop that area, you'll have environmental impact on the adjacent CREW lands. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. Before you go, do you have a copy of that map you could put on the visualizer showing where the residents live who signed your petition for reference? If you could just put that on for just a moment. And that lines up right up about what we had there now. I think part of that falls into a area that we removed from consideration. Is that correct, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Actually, that entire area is now designated neutral, and that's our recommendation, consistent with what Miss Bonness was requesting on behalf of the residents. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. LITSINGER: Matthew Loiacano followed by Frank Ormesh. Page 113 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me help you. All you have to do is just wave, and then your name will automatically go to six o'clock. MR. LITSINGER: Ed Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ed Carlson, wildlife biologist, land manager, and director of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary here to talk about just the things I know. I've been at many meetings about this. It's very complicated, and the numbers change constantly. My notes are a mess because the numbers that have been through the EAC and the meetings last week and today, they're all changing. But the things I know are that transferring development rights from-- from environmentally sensitive areas to less sensitive areas is a good thing. Concentrating development into small areas that are compact and concentrated and efficient is a good thing. You can understand my heartburn and my anxiety when the first plan came out. There was 29,000 acres of receiving lands, which included lands slap up against Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. That, in my opinion, was a plan for sprawl. I -- I would like you to get another opinion about what we've heard constantly that optimally this -- there has to be twice as much receiving land as sending lands. I don't understand why if you're concentrating the development. I don't understand it, haven't understood it through the whole thing. Maybe you need another opinion on that. I can tell you that we're setting ourselves up for a problem where conservation land adjoins receiving land because you cannot develop that land without achieving drainage and that drainage is going to impact the sensitive wetlands and the conservation land. And at Corkscrew, I tell you, we monitor that very carefully. And in the CREW area they monitor that very carefully. And we're setting ourselves up for conflicts by not having a wider buffer, that landscape scale buffer you've been hearing about, a half mile to a mile that was Page 114 March 4, 2002 recommended by Dr. Duever. Also, with wildlife movement, the wildlife in the Sanctuary doesn't know my boundary line, wanders in and out of that Big Corkscrew Island area. Very supportive of keeping that area as neutral and, also, prescribed burning, which was mentioned earlier. 300 buff-- 300-foot buffer is not going to make a significant difference for those of us who are going to manage those conservation lands that are adjacent to receiving lands. When you do a -- we do a smoke test, the smoke study for every burn we do, and we talk about miles downwind, miles, not 300 feet, miles. So we're setting ourselves up for conflicts. The land west of Immokalee Road that was just mentioned and south of the community -- it's gone -- the landowner came to the Water Management District and invited them to include their land in the CREW project area. We went to West Palm Beach; petitioned the Water Management District, made a boundary expansion of the CREW trust and then appraised that land and tried to make a deal with the landowner to acquire that as CREW land because it's important water resource land. It's an important buffer for CREW. It protects our water supply and our watershed, and it should remain neutral. That's a good neutral buffer for the CREW area. Let me see. I said my notes were a mess. I've only got five seconds. I would urge you to be very realistic about the bonus densities and whether that's really going to get you the affordable housing you want, whether it's really going to reduce traffic for those people who live in rural villages who are still going to drive to the beach and the mall, go to the movies, and put more traffic on our highways. That -- that's a very delicate balancing act that you're going to have to deal with. You know, it's entirely possible that those bonus -- those bonus units are not going to be what you expect them to be and give the Page 115 March 4, 2002 results you hope for. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ed. MR. LITSINGER: (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Eddie Filer followed by Scott Stonier. Emilio Baer-- Baez. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MR. LITSINGER: Whoops. Robbit -- Robin Davenport. (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Ernie Cox. MR. COX: Good afternoon. My name is Ernie Cox. I'm an attorney here representing the eastern Collier property owners, which include the Baron Coll -- Collier 'Partnership, Collier Enterprises, Consolidated Citrus, Jack Price, and the other folks owning the land in the eastern portion of the county. I have just a couple of things, observations, watching and reading through the materials here I wanted to bring to your attention now on behalf of those owners. First -- and I think, Commissioner Carter, you referenced it today -- the eastern lands is a totally different study area, totally different area, many different issues, and would urge you, as you're doing your review today and particularly when you vote tonight, to make sure those are kept separate. A lot of people, particularly the Rural Lands Committee and the owners and the people that have been going to those meetings, have spent a great deal of time trying to come up with a plan that works for those 200,000 acres which are dramatically different than the lands in the rural fringe. On that note, although there's a reference in the document to keeping them separate, there's a number of places -- I'll just point out a couple of them -- where these particular amendments reference the rural agricultural area. For instance, on the -- page 5 of the overview, it says that this element includes the strategy for the protection of Page 116 March 4, 2002 natural resources and agri business predominant in rural agricultural designated areas, and that explains it. A couple of pages later, talking about natural resource protection areas, it says that NRPA overlay areas are primarily located within agricultural rural-designated areas. That's on page 6 of the future land-use element. On page 15 there's a reference to regulations and incentive programs that have been designed for the rural fringe. But yet it says here to encourage the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to develop in the county's agricultural rural designated areas. And so a specific suggestion would be that everywhere in this document where there's a reference to the agricultural rural designation, that that be changed to the rural fringe mixed-use district so that there's no question whatsoever that the amendments that are being transmitted to DCA relate only to the rural fringe. As to the Right to Farm Act, we've read all of the analysis that's been prepared by the county's lawyer, Marty Chumbler. We've read the analysis that's been prepared by Tom Reese. I represent the eastern Collier property owners. We agree with Miss Chumbler's analysis. She has accurately stated the law on the Right to Farm Act. And I'll point out the final order does not restrict agriculture. And the final order does not require the county to regulate agriculture. And the Department of Community Affairs has said that is not an in- compliance issue. We would respectfully suggest that's not something that the county should be wading into now in rural fringe amendments. And, finally, for these purposes, agriculture is very, very fragile in this community. The agricultural business in Collier County is in the eastern lands. The Rural Lands Committee has been working very hard on that, and, as you know, from the workshop that took place Page 117 March 4, 2002 last fall, those are issues that are going to be addressed in terms of the protection and promotion of agriculture in Collier County. And we very much look forward to working with you on the eastern lands study as opposed to the fringe study. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Sonya Durwachter. (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Here we go. Arthur Pritzler. (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Carol Motalto (phonetic), Metalto (phonetic)? (No response.) MR. LITSINGER:' Justin Stones (phonetic)? Stokes? (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Tim Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tim Hancock with Vanasse Daylor. I'm here today, at least at this point, to speak on behalf of Florida Farms property owner of a large amount of acreage in Area D that has been brought up on the map here. As you-all know by now, Area D is a receiving area. It's rather unique in that it is -- the majority of Area D is under the common ownership of Florida Farms. It exceeds 6,000 acres in total. Florida Farms owns approximately 5,000 acres of that area. When the rural village concept was originated, it was originated on the basis that we have designed receiving areas, but we have really not done anything through the committee to determine how those receiving areas would grow. Are we going to continue with low- density golf course amenitized development in these areas, or are we truly going to change the way in which we develop through the application of new urbanism and new-town concepts which are to be -- create as many self-sustaining areas as possible? Page 118 March 4, 2002 Area D is unique in that it is large. It is under common ownership. It is for the most part under active agriculture production, therefore, represents the lowest environmental value of all of the rural fringe. As a result, the idea was brought forward by me that we should attach a rural village concept to this and other areas that were appropriate, and maybe I chose the wrong term. Maybe I should have used new town instead of rural village. The concept now apparently seems to be attached to small hamlet development. What we're talking about here is -- and I want to focus on Area D -- Area D cannot be accessed through estates roadways. The development of Area D will not impact the roadways of the south estates or the South Bell Meade. In other words, you can't get there. The only way to get to Area D is on U.S. 41. If that area is going to develop, it would make sense to me to try and create it at a large- enough mass that it is as self contained and self supporting as possible to reduce the external trips that the property otherwise would generate. In doing so, you've heard a lot of discussion about sizes and 3- mile distances and what not. And one rural village in this area is probably all it would take because, again, you do have a majority property owner that controls the large amount of acreage there. My concern is that by capping the size of the rural village and, again, assigns a new name if you wish, but in Area D, by capping the size, you will keep the population of the area too low to support an anchor retailer. If you look at new town concepts throughout the U.S., if you don't have an anchor retailer, a grocery store, for example, you don't have enough to generate a spin-off retailers, the drycleaners, the banks, everything else. In the research I've done, you need approximately 10,000 rooftops, stand alone, to support a single anchor retailer, plus drive- Page 119 March 4, 2002 by traffic. That's a typical formula used by land locators for Publix supermarkets, Kash and Karry, Albertson's. Those are the ones that I've researched so far. I -- I encourage you to look at Area D specifically and differently because, number one; it has very little environmental value. And for the reasons I've stated, capping the rural village concept down there will simply ensure a larger number of low- density amenitized communities as opposed to a more new urbanism approach which is contained in the smart growth materials you've received from the Dover, Kohl study. In only 3 minutes that's the best I could do with that concept, but I wanted to put it in front of you to ask for your consideration to look at Area D and maybe remove the acreage cap. It will have to come back in front of you in the form of a rezone and, potentially at this size, a DRI. So it's not something that would be acted on today. But by capping it without the proper market data, you may have killed the concept altogether for creating a self sustain -- self-sustaining community in that area. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Joe Bonness followed by John Cowan. MR. BONNESS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Joe Bonness. I'm representing Southern Sand and Stone. My family's companies have been building roads and operating quarries in Collier County for the past 3 5 years. The products that we use -- that we produce are used by everyone here. The roads that you got here on, it's this building, it's your house, it's your offices. It's even the fertilizer that you grow your crops with. Everything we do gets used by you. The national average for consumption of quarried mine materials is 7 tons per person per year. In short, quarries are a necessity of modem life. But you don't want one of these in your backyard. The blasting, crushing, trucking, they're offensive to Page 120 March 4, 2002 residential areas. The current plan is to place quarries and asphalt plants, ready mix plants, in residential areas. Over the years we've always placed our quarries away from residential areas, get them away from the people, and Collier County even has a history of fighting the expansion of quarries that are too close to the -- to the population. I think that the way that we're leading this is going to lead you down to the road of incompatible uses. I hear that a mine is proposed in the North Bell Meade area. This is definitely a necessity. But it will only provide a portion of what the county needs over a few years. Eventually, in the future there the land use will be too high to be Able to continue having a quarry there. You have a residential village; the land value will be too high. It will be similar to the Mule Pen Quarry where now the property value is more than the rock reserves. This language prohibiting earth mining in the sending areas is not necessary. The final order allows earth mining in all of the residential -- in all of the urban fringe area. It would pass muster with them to be able to leave earth mining in the sending areas. It's obviously not considered to be the growth problem by the cabinet and by Jeb Bush. Now after a quarry is completed, what do you have? It's a lake. With proper restrictions, no development around it, it can be a very nice natural setting. It's not the same setting that was there before. It's not trees. It's not cattle. It's not egrets. But now it's probably gators, wading birds, Anhingas, and probably some of the best fishing that you'll have in that area. I guess you could say the lake is not a bad thing. Lake Trafford's not a bad thing. I have two beautiful examples in our history. We built the Shady Hollow fill pit that is off of Shady Hollow Drive. 300-acre parcel, 200 acres of it dug up. It now has probably more fish and Page 121 March 4, 2002 more gators than the rest of Corkscrew Sanctuary. It is a natural draw to the animals in the area. It's not the same that was there, but it is a natural area. We've got a 200-acre preserve that we've got along the back of the Willow Run Quarry. It is drawing in animals that have not been there before for years. Now that we put a prohibition on hunting in the area, we're starting to see panthers there again. We've got bald eagles that are looking to roost in the area. Even though we have the activity that's going on there with the asphalt plants and the aggregate plants, the natural animals are coming back. Our asphalt plants have drawn in wildlife over the past. Annually we would lay -- raise a collection of great homed owls on the Shirley Street plant. When we shut the plant down, the great homed owl moved away. In Highlands County adjacent to Archibald Laboratories, they fought us very hard so that we wouldn't put the asphalt plant in. We got the asphalt plant in. Southern kestrels moved into the asphalt plant and would raise their chicks every year. Then we got the letter from Archibald Laboratory saying it was great, they liked having us there, and they wanted to sit in our stockpiles and watch the southern kestrels. Collier County has a limited preserve of good limestone that's available. We will need it in the future. We'll need more than what you have here planned. Do not just tie it up in -- by restricting it from being used in the sending areas. We will need that in the future, and it can come in front of the commission as to how it is going to be used and what impacts will be happening at that time. Thank you. MR. COWAN: Good afternoon. I'm still John Cowan. I'm still licensed real estate broker, and I've been in this area 37 years buying and selling land. By now you know that all TDRs are not the same. The incoming ones are identical in value because they are market value. Page 122 March 4, 2002 The outgoing ones obviously depend on whether it's extremely valuable land that's being punished or whether it's swamp. Nine and a half years ago -- I'm not a speculator. I'm a long- term investor. Nine and a half years ago I became interested in Section 24 and particularly the middle part, vertical strip, the middle third. And over those 9 1/2 years I've accumulated 120 acres that are the middle third liking it because it's at the east end of Golden Gate Parkway and because it is very heavily densely wooded. I went to Horseshoe Drive, the planning people, on 12 occasions. And in the past two years on those 12 occasions I was continuously assured that I was in the receiving area and everything would be happy with my 5-acre zoning. One home site per 5 acres. And that was fine with me and fine with the gracious people on Horseshoe Drive who put up with my pestering them all the time, and they kept giving me these assurances. But 14 days ago on the 15th of February, there was a meeting in Conference Room E on Horseshoe Drive. There was no public notice. And Mr. Brown, Miss Payton, and others decide to reverse my receiving land and make it sending land. This was an enormous economic hit to me. All of a sudden home sites that I paid $34,250 for on average were worth, under Dr. Nicholas's analysis, $18,500. I think they're worth closer to $10,000. I lost 14 home sites. And I think they're probably worth about $75,000 a home site now. I easily lost that morning $700,000, and that's too big a hit for me to take without complaining significantly. There are 139 other landowners in Section 24. They have no idea that they've suddenly gone from receiving to sending. They will find out. Their long-range values obviously have been punished very significantly. To wrap it up, I would like to point out that two-thirds of Section 24 is already gone, including the school land, the aerial Page 123 March 4, 2002 photographs, rather ancient, don't show what Tom Buckley has done with regards to his 150 acres of flower land out there. Mine has been totally preserved. I haven't touched a single tree out there. I haven't done anything, and -- and I intend to leave it the way it is. It's now basically a dump area for-- for people to spread their rusting refrigerators, washers, dryers, televisions, automobile engines, and truck batteries. Sometimes I think they're -- they're getting them there, dumping them out of airplanes. Anyway, there are no -- have never been cited any RCWs on this land, on my 120 acres. There are no cavities that have been discovered there, and it's been thoroughly vetted in three separate EIP studies. I take offense at being called a speculator. Somebody that accumulates land over 9 1/2 periods (sic) is probably not a speculator. I'd like to correct those misinformations that have been disseminated here. As you know, Mr. Mulhere recommends reversing the February 15th decision and, once again, making it receiving lands, and I strongly recommend that you do that. I would like to see that happen. Thank you very much. MR. LITSINGER: Don Pickworth followed by Joe Davis. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? I'm a little confused on 24 at this point. At some point I'd like to go back and get that clarified because I -- my notes and everything indicate that part of it is A. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This would be as good a time as any to do that. Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: All right. Section 24, can you go back to that slide? I don't know if you can get back to that easily. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I got too much stuff in my head but CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. You're doing a great job of Page 124 March 4, 2002 controlling yourself, Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, thank you. MR. MULHERE: You'll recall from the. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Great challenge. MR. MULHERE: -- earlier discussion this morning that we did concur that that property had been changed at a meeting after the planning commission from receiving to sending. And for that reason, we bring back forward to you with the policy issue on the table of whether or not that should be reverted back to receiving or it should be some other designation. And the other designation would be neutral. And I think you just have to have all of the information at your disposal. Neutral, frankly, provides Mr. Cowan and all of the other property owners that might be affected with no -- no -- no impact from where they were before the final order. There's really no impact there except that they would then be able to cluster and possibly utilize central water and sewer. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Receiving would bring additional density into that area, and there is evidence that was placed on the table -- and I'll defer to Bill on that matter -- that red cockaded woodpecker that there is red cockaded woodpecker habitat out in this area. But it was -- the planning commission's recommendation was that it be receiving, and-- and based on the discussion Wednesday, we brought it back to you to raise this policy-level decision to you and put it out on the table. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Receiving to neutral. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, the choice really is there. I mean, you're going to hear -- I think if you were to take public comment, you would hear concerns on the environmental side with bringing it back to receiving. Page 125 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: On the other hand, neutral has no impact on the property owner from where they were before the final order. They still get 1 per 5. In fact, it might be slightly better because they could cluster those units and also provide central sewer and water to that site and service. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. MR. COWAN: Back to the RCW. I agree; it's a habitat, and those birds have been observed on Section 24. None ever on my land. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. COWAN: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: (No response.) Jo Davis. Lawrence Kirkland. MS. DAVIS: Hello. I'm Jo Davis. My husband and I only have 10 acres, so I can't speak in broad sweeps like most of the people here but one little voice from the woods. None of us really own this land. We purchased a bundle of rights for its use. We own a parcel of land that is where 951 would continue north. It's Section 11, Range 26, Township 48. We paid for dreams to share in this promising economy and hopes for increased value. We bought farm rights, stewardship responsibilities, and home-building rights. We purchased our 10 acres in 1988, and we enjoy it immensely. I love the deer. I don't want cows. It is our retreat, and our dream was faced for horticultural projects that we've already begun. We expected to build 1 home on 5 acres, then sell or lease that and build our permanent home on the second 5 acres. A midnight signing in Tallahassee took that right away. We watched as Page 126 March 4, 2002 developers purchased large tracts surrounding us and changed the lines in the sand. Quietly deals were made on three square miles on our west section line and three square miles on our north section line and then the large quarry surrounding our south and east borders. Now we're just a few small landowners completely surrounded by very expensive properties to be. We tried to be flexible. We considered purchasing a home site in the adjacent developer's section, just 660 feet west of our land, so that we might at least live nearby to enjoy our remaining lot -- rights. When these home lots become available soon, they plan to begin selling home sites for $400,000 with restrictions that drive the cost of owning a home there over a million dollars. That isn't an option for US. Our original plans for 2 nice homes would have valued minimally at 500 dollar-- $500,000 each with 5-parcels. Very nearby home sites are selling for $500,000 today. We must now consider selling our TDR rights, and your proposals say that our value loss may be worth $15,412 to the developers who immediately surround us. We tried to lower our dream to use our remaining rights. We planned to build one home, continue our tree nursery -- is that it? MR. LITSINGER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can go ahead and wrap up, please. MS. DAVIS: Now it is proposed that we can only use 80 percent. We would like to be on record requesting that this board consider the following. If the TDR process is adopted, isolated lands in high value growth areas should be revalued as more units per acre. To increase and produce a truly competitive fair market for these TDRs, owners should be free to sell TDRs to any developer in the county at their TDR value rates. And, please, leave our farm rights Page 127 March 4, 2002 alone as we purchased them. We understand the committee has diligently walked a rocky path, and we thank you for this opportunity to voice our perspectives. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Bob Krasowski. MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bob Krasowski for the record. I'm here to speak at the issue of the -- the use for the land just north of the existing landfill. On Wednesday I asked the question if I could have the resource recovery term defined. And so today Mr. Mulhere commented that it might be better identified as a waste energy facility. Resource recovery is very broad or can be broad in its identification. So, too, can waste energy facilities. Apparently now he's -- he's agreeable to change it back to resource recovery. But my -- my main point is, is there are resource recovery facilities, waste energy facilities, that run the gamut of creation -- creators of pollution, okay. So in this area north of the landfill that is a sending area, why would we want to place what could potentially be the most offensive of environmental machines? Okay. But there - - there are or there might be, I should say, because our RFPs aren't back yet, on waste to energy facilities, there might be biological processes that could be used to treat the waste to extract energy from the waste -- waste that we can't divert through recycling. And the -- some of these are said to not have much in the way of pollutants. The pollutants I'm mainly concerned about in regard to this location are the heavy metals and then dioxin. The definition of the sending area identifies that -- that land mass as being of the highest -- having the highest level of environmental sensitivity. If we're -- if we are to place -- I'm sorry. I lost my place here. But so -- so what I'm suggesting is that, first, we don't -- don't put anything on -- on that -- in that -- that area. But if you want to Page 128 March 4, 2002 put -- put a processing -- waste processing facility, let's make sure we don't put anything that creates dioxins, which are bioaccumulating. Okay. So the more dioxins or heavy metals that come out of a facility could cause us a problem, and that's where I lost it, and I just picked it up. If we wanted to put in there processes that are being proposed for composting through worm digestion in -- in that area or other types of processes that are less offensive, environmentally, that would probably be okay. But I would think we'd want to maintain that area as -- as a sending area. I don't see why the county should be exempted from what it's trying to impose on others. If we have sending-area property, we should treat it as such. And then just quickly, in ending, in these receiving areas and these new villages, I see that they -- it's also suggested that these areas contain their own recycling facilities, waste collection, processing transfer facilities. And I think that's a real good idea. I think we should get Dover, Kohl back here because when they present -- made their presentation, the question was asked, and they made it clear that they didn't deal with it. But Dover, Kohl -- Kohl should apply their design criteria to designing the system that would handle the waste portion of the community that they're suggesting we build out there. Thanks for the time. MR. MULHERE: Members of the board, I just want to indicate that as I understand it, Mr. Krasowski has spoken with the real Mr. Mudd with respect to the proper terminology that should be used. And we will make sure that we reflect the proper language in terms of I'm not even going to touch it, research recovery. We will define that consistent with the RFP that's out there. So we'll go ahead and get with the real Mr. Mudd to make sure that we have -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just realized why I've been making this mistake all day. I haven't been wearing my glasses. It's the glare Page 129 March 4, 2002 coming from your forehead, and it's the same from Mr. Mudd's. MR. LITSINGER: On that note, William Clark followed by Karen Bishop. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I hope you don't have to go and ask those guys for anything, Commissioner. MR. CLARK: I'm William Clark. I guess I'm getting a double whammy here. I'm a landowner and the agriculture man. My land in Section 13 was changed from receiving to sending. Yes, there you go right there. It's cut my property line in half. Surrounded by the estates. Would be a good area for receiving or neutral, but sending, totally devaluates it for no reason. There is no panther activity ever been reported in there. The land is pretty much open. There was a few pine trees in there at one time, which a fire has taken out, so I doubt that there's any woodpeckers there. I've never seen any. I would like you to change that to neutral or receiving, please, for those reasons, being that the sending should be environmentally sensitive land. To the agricultural part and the zoning of the land, it was -- when I bought it, it was 1 house per 5 acres. Some of the lots were bigger, 15 acres. And now I'm stuck to 1 house per 15 acres. So I think that should be kept as the way I bought it, 1 house per 5 acres. TDR program, I'm -- I'm probably for it if you can show me how it's going to pay me back. That hasn't been done yet at all. I'd love to sell you -- them or whoever the land. That would be fine with me. Just -- I need to get compensated for it. There's a 25-year proposal for land that's been used as a container nursery or farming. I think that's too long. It should be ten years as you have it now. We're not necessarily the bad guys here. This 10-acre piece of land that I have out here in Section 13, you know, this year alone we produced, like, 500 1 O-foot pine trees in Page 130 March 4, 2002 Collier County and 2 to 3,000-gallon live oak. I mean, you'll never get a piece of land to produce -- I mean, if you take that thousands of times more than would have been originally been there. So I'm counting on you because it ain't going to get done if you guys don't do it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We appreciate that. You brought up one thing that I think is a question about your land originally was every 5 acres you can have 1 house. Then it was increased at some point in time to 1 house for every 10 acres? Is that what you said? MR. CLARK: It's 1 house per lot, which 1 lot's 40 acres. I have 2 more 15-acre lots, and-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you made a reference. MR. CLARK: Two ten-acre lots. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I mean you made a reference to how it used to be and how it is now. MR. CLARK: Right. It used to be 1 house per 5 acres whether you bought a hundred acres at a time or 5 acres. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This was with back when? In the '70s? MR. CLARK: Prior to '99 when they started all this plan; right? MR. MULHERE: For the final order, the underlying density in the agricultural rural designation is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. MR. CLARK: Prior to '99. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Prior to '99. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And now it's one for every. MR. MULHERE: It's -- it's been proposed one for each lot or parcel. That's the strategy that the final order -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that would be, yes. MR. MULHERE: -- sending lands. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But what would consist of a sending Page 131 March 4, 2002 unit from this gentleman's property? MR. MULHERE: One-- MR. CLARK: One per five. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One per five, okay. MR. CLARK: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The way I understood you saying is that you lost something as far as a -- as far as your credits go, that you would be losing signing on; it's still that same from what I understand. MR. CLARK: Not as my TDRs go. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. MR. CLARK: If I do build a home, I have lost considerably. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So if this is -- if this was -- you know, it's put together in that particular direction, it would be in some way restoring your land rights. MR. CLARK: Right. If it was-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. If we were able to put it together in the way your. MR. CLARK: Yeah. The 1 O-acre lot or the 15-acre lot that I bought, if I could build 1 house per 5 acres on those -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three credits. MR. CLARK: Well, they already have three credits. He's already got the cred -- the TDRs are in place but not the original zoning as when I bought it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. That will probably never happen. I don't think the state would ever let us go back to that. MR. CLARK: To 1 house per 5 acres? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I doubt it. I doubt it seriously. Am I correct on that, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: No. I think the idea was to protect the Page 132 March 4, 2002 natural resources, and those are the sending areas. And that density does not protect the natural resources. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But, please, stick through the rest of this process as we go through it, and I'm sure that all your questions will be answered. If they're not, by all means, keep coming back to us until you get the answers that you need. MR. CLARK: I'm getting smarter every day. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'd like to think we are too. MR. CLARK: We just -- this is something, the last meeting at Max Hasse that this became available to us to comment on and CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We appreciate you stopping here today. Something else, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, not for him, not for this gentleman. Just a fast question. When we're talking about farming, he just mentioned something about growing live oaks in 1 O-gallon pots or something. Is that considered farming? MR. MULHERE: Yes.' That would be considered agriculture. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even though it's not in the ground? MR. MULHERE: Yes. That would be nursery production. My point is silvicultural, I would imagine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me make just make sure I understand, too, now. If he has something that's equivalent to pasture land and he doesn't use it, develop it, and place the pots on, if sometime in the future when the program goes forward, he wouldn't be able to place the pots on this agricultural land. In other words, he wouldn't be clearing it or anything; he would just be using the land that's already available. MR. MULHERE: The way we -- we are proposing it, he would be able -- I think how this thing comes down in the end, under the staff proposal, he would be able to farm his land as long as it was Page 133 March 4, 2002 consistent with the Right to Farm Act. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, there's -- there's a difference here, a big difference, between removing the wood -- the woods, the timber, and disturbing the ground surface. Or if you plant -- put pots of plants -- MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- hundreds and hundreds of them out on barren soil. that. MR. MULHERE: Right. I agree, and he would be able to do CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then he would be able to continue that and expand his business if he so choose. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Expand his business and descend after he sold his TDRs? MR. MULHERE: Okay. Maybe the question is -- maybe that's because that's just what was whisPered in my ear. The question: after or before the utilization of TDRs. Before the utilization of TDRs, agriculture was proposed as a permitted use, subject to the provisions of the Right to Farm Act. After TDRs, the proposal is to prohibit agriculture. We've also brought forward an alternative. The alternative would be to continue to allow agriculture, as it currently exists, no additional clearing, no intensification. And so I guess if there is land that's already cleared and you're going to put pots of plants on the land that's already cleared, I don't -- I don't personally see that as an intensification or additional clearing, but maybe there's somebody out there that can help me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We all understand what we're saying when we get through. MR. CLARK: That would be very important. Page 134 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's why we're all here today. MR. CLARK: This land's about 80 percent cleared already. What -- it doesn't even meet the requirements for the receiving land. I mean, it's that clear. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh. Well, I'm trying to ask the right questions. I'm sure we will come up with something that works in the end. We all need to work on it. MR. MULHERE: I would also add that as we earlier proposed, the language that would allow for a property owner to come in on a site-specific basis for smaller parcels 40 acres, to show that the data doesn't support an inclusion, we would adjust those boundaries. That might be something that might apply in this case as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Miss Bishop. MS. BISHOP: Good afternoon. Karen Bishop. I represent the Mirasol project. And we weren't able to meet with staff on Friday due to a conflict of timing with the commissioners, so I want to go on record, again, to repeat what I said on Wednesday concerning what our needs are for -- for our project. Currently Mirasol is approved zoning. We have a section in 10, a section in 15, and a parcel, part of it in 22, which doesn't show on your map. During our zoning process we had density; we were allowed to cluster the density from Sections 10 and 15 into 15 because Section 10 was going to be in preserve. We have not formally put the conservation easement over that yet because we haven't received our Corps permits, but that is the intent to do that. During our permitting process we also purchased 160 acres in Section 11. Now, as I understand it now, I'm a neutral area, and the 32 units I have in Section 11 I can't bring into my own project which I kind of think that's a little odd. Of course, we would have to do that through a PUD amendment because not clearly -- the land is not Page 135 March 4, 2002 inside my PUD, and I would have to incorporate that property in my PUD, which also would be covered by a conservation easement, be able to utilize those 32 units. If density blending is -- which is what we wanted all along, density blending. If we're allowed to density blend, which is bringing the density from Section 22, which is the urban area, into the rural area, then those 32 units I'm not necessarily worried about. But if density blending for my project is not allowed, then I need those 32 units. So we want to go on record to say that whatever these changes are, we anticipate that the PUD might have to be changed to utilize things like density blending and bringing in the utilities into our project. And at the very most, if we were not able to do those, then those 32 units that I currently have in the -- what would be a sending area in Section 11, I would like to receive them into my already existing project. But if the blending is available for my project, then I can live without those 32 units. And hopefully we can find a buyer for them somewhere else. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I would just make two quick comments. One, density-blending provision is proposed to be applicable to neutral lands abutting the urban areas, so that would be applicable. The second thing is that depending on where we go with expanding the ability to transfer units into the urban area, that would open up a market for those 32 units, and they could even potentially amend their PUD to transfer those units into their own project in the urban area. So I think both of those issues have been addressed. MS. BISHOP: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Ben Walk, W-a-l-k, Walk. VOICE IN AUDIENCE: Walker. He'll be back tonight. MR. LITSINGER: Okay. Joe Morera. Zach Davis. Oh, Joe Page 136 March 4, 2002 Morera. Okay. MR. MORERA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm going to be real brief. I'd like to let all the people speak up. They could probably bring some points that I can write down on my list as I have been doing. And I don't have my glasses, so I can't even read my notes. But, anyway, I own 10 acres. I don't intend to sell them. I bought them to build a home and to farm, as I currently am doing so. You know, most of you already know that. I have the same problem and complaint as the gentleman that lost the $700,000 in one morning. I believe the gentleman is still right there (indicating). Right behind my 10 acres is 6 L Farms and all the farms, the big guys that got all the bucks. They have -- I have the sending, and they have the receiving. Now, my question-- my question today is who determine what receiving -- what's receiving and what's sending? Who determines that in this whole project? Is this going to be determined by -- by the commissioners or-- MR. MULHERE: Ultimately. Ultimately it will be the board. The basis, though, I think your question is how -- how were these preliminary boundaries or draft boundaries defined. The basis was on the data analysis and the natural resource characteristics of the land. That's why we heard similar issues raised. That's why we put this proposal forward to allow for adjustments to those boundaries if smaller parcels adjacent to the boundary are -- don't exhibit those characteristics on a site-specific basis. And that would also I think help you if you're -- you're indicating that you're already farming that land? MR. MORERA: Yes. MR. MULHERE: So that might be another piece that would be examined through this process for a change. Page 137 March 4, 2002 MR. MORERA: Okay. Yeah, because that -- that was one of my main questions. That land that 6 Ls owns and is farming, it's identical to my land. There's no difference on it. Mine is upper land; theirs is upper land. We do have some cypress heads; they have some cypress heads. That's all I got over there. But I have good land. And that's farmland, and I want to keep it that way. But my question is, like I'said, who determines this because I think -- and I strongly asked this commission, and I think he just answered my -- my questions, is that to reconsider the fines of these takings because I believe this will be a taking of land. You know, if you don't check it out again, in other words, consider it again, before you make a decision, consider all the little homeowners out there because they -- there are a lot of 10 acres, 5 acres. And, you know, that's all we can afford. You know, I wish I could afford 2,000 acres. I'd probably be on the good side. But unfortunately, I -- I can't afford it. But I still want to be on the good side. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, Joe, you're on the good side. I've been out to your property, and you run a wonderful operation. If we do move forward on this some day, not only would you be able to sell at your own discretion when, if ever, the developmental rights, but you'd still be able to continue your tree farm. And at some point in the future, if you wanted to, you could sell the land that was actually there for a conservational easement or to somebody else, or you could give it to your kids. This won't in any way take that away from you. MR. MORERA: But, Commissioner Coletta, I'm sorry to interrupt you. But you know what my concern is. I'm going to be the only one left out there. And I've been having problems to get access to my land with people there now. Can you imagine when everybody sells, there's nobody there but me, how am I going to get access Page 138 March 4, 2002 there? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's something that I hope that we won't have any problems working out. MR. MORERA: That's the way I'm looking at the picture right now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your land is about as remote and far removed from any main access that I've ever seen in my life. And I know you have a lot of trouble getting out there across the dirt road. There's nothing in this particular plan to take away access as far as dirt roads go or whatever else is there. There's nothing in that. That's one of the things, you know, that. MR. MORERA: It will be if-- is if the state owns -- if-- if the property is sold to the state. The state can lock me out. They're doing it right now. They're locking -- they're putting gates -- I was there this weekend, and I can take you there myself, and I can show you all the gates that they have for years and years. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not giving this land in any way to the state, are we? MR. MULHERE: No. There's no proposal to sell the land or no proposal to require landowners to sell it. I think you're correct -- and it bears repeating it again -- you can continue to farm it; you can live on it, or you can sell one of the two development rights that you have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it also won't remove the gates that are there leading to the state forest land. MR. MORERA: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To the state forest or those other lands that are controlled by the state, this won't do anything to change their status as far as those gates being removed. MR. MORERA: Okay. I just want you to strongly reconsider everything. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we are. Page 139 March 4, 2002 MR. MORERA: Before you make a decision, you know. Because I see a lot of questions being raised by different -- different people. I think -- I think you're going to need a little bit more time to reconsider a lot of points. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we-- we've been over two years with it now, and it will be quite a long time before we reach the final draft. Everybody will be consulted many times before we reach that point. MR. MORERA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Zach Davis followed by Mary Richardson. MR. DAVIS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. How are you? I've been reworking my thing as I listen to people, so it may be a little disorganized, but I'll go ahead. I have the 10 acres. Jo Davis is my wife; she talked about in Section 11. And I want to do either one or two things with that land. I either would like to use the TDR, but I would like to be able to do it with whatever developer I want anywhere in the county. The reason for that, I'm trying to keep the value of my land up because it's in a prime location, and it should be worth something. I mean, there's no doubt about it. Anybody's that's been out there knows it. If we can't work something out that fits that, I would like to have it designated as neutral land. The lady from Mirasol that was here a minute ago, they've got an option for 160 acres that adjoins my land to the north. I am right below that in the middle. I have no problem with neutral. I figure I'll get extra value for my land if I can use it a little more for agriculture. You know, I've got to keep the value up one way or the other, either by TDR with a -- somebody who can pay me something, worth something, more than $18,500. And your benefit with it is if we do the TDR, you've got your guaranteed water Page 140 March 4, 2002 thing out there, whatever you want to use it for. You -- you've got that. And I don't have a house there or anything. I haven't disturbed anything. On the other hand, if it's neutral and I put more farm stuff in there or grow more -- whatever kind of trees I decide to grow, you can bet they're going to be more environmentally protective of the land than those melaleuca trees I'm paying thousands of dollars to tear out of there right now. You know, either way you guys will benefit. The county will benefit. Personally, to wrap this thing up, I believe if my land is so valuable for its water, then it's more valuable. I mean, you know, why is it worth less money instead of more money? Because the people that supply them with the water is everybody in this county. And -- but it's beautiful land, and -- and we're not really going to tear it up. I mean we're not going to change that much about it. You take the melaleuca trees out of it, and it's beautiful land. It's all good, high land. If we could work something out, I'd at least like to be changed to the neutral, just like the people next door to me, because on this map (indicating), this new map, it doesn't show that they've been changed to the -- to the neutral zoning there. And I would just like to go along with whatever they're doing, unless I can get a -- a better deal on the TDR. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. RICHARDSON: Hello. My name is Mary Richardson. I'm a resident of Collier County for 42 years now, and I own property in both areas, the receiving and a small section in the sending area. I think as landowners, our largest fear is loose of-- loss of value of our property. And there should be some way that the county commissioners could come up with a program that would help us retain the value of that property. I'm one of the fortunate ones. I Page 141 March 4, 2002 have my 1 O-acre tract in the receiving, and I have purchasing -- I have a contract right now on a 1-acre tract in the sending area. What I would like to see the county commissioners work on is a program that would cause all taxpayers to bear this burden and not just the blue-collar workers of Golden Gate because I feel like all the tax burdens have been put on -- all the burden is being put on us. And Marco has affected the environment and the wetlands. So has Naples, Immokalee, Golden Gate. We all affect it. Why has a few residents in Golden Gate been penalized for this? It's not a fair program. And our biggest fear with the TDRs is that some areas are going to make out great. Other areas aren't going to be so great, and they're going to lose value. Why can't you come up with a tax to offset that loss, keep the TDRs, tax all of Collier County to pay back the loss for those that are losing value on their property? It doesn't seem like it would be a hard program, and it seems like it would be fair to everyone. I'm not a public speaker. You'll have to forgive me. I'm a little nervous. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing a wonderful job. MS. RICHARDSON: Also, the section that I'm purchasing is in section -- not the section. I'm sorry. But the 1 acre of property that Pm purchasing is in Section 24. And it is a residential piece of property per tax rolls. There's a lot of residential pieces of property in that Section 24, and I don't understand why it's fallen under the agricultural part. And our next fear is what's going to happen to our estate area? We also -- I live in the estates; I own property in the estates. Is this something that's going to keep rolling down the line and we're going to have to give up properties in that area also for wetlands, and for -- for which we already are doing through mitigation? Where's -- Page 142 March 4, 2002 where's it going to stop? Are they going to take all of our land? I have lots of questions and lots of fears. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course you do. And let me see if I can address some, and possibly Mr. Mulhere can address other ones. The -- the land out in the estates is under no -- no danger of falling in any programs. The -- the platted estates, 2 1/2-acre, 5-acre lots on 75-foot lots is directly -- of course, everything is impacted. Whatever you do in one place, you impact another thing, roads or whatever. Am I correct, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the estates where you are is not being directly impacted by this. Secondly, what we're trying to do -- and you brought up a good thing about the taxpayers sharing the burden. Well, the idea is not to put the burden on anyone in the sending or receiving areas, to try to make it the -- better than they were before. At least that's my understanding, the intent of what's taking place. We're trying to handle this in an equitable manner that will benefit some -- everyone in one direction or another. The -- the value of the land out there, one of the things you mentioned is how do they know they're going to get the value for it in the end? And that's a good question. One of the things that I'm going to be proposing -- today I think I mentioned it once; I mentioned it before. I think we'll have to do it when it comes back from Tallahassee -- adding an element in there where we offer to buy, whoever wants to sell in the beginning, their -- their developmental rights, the county, that is, outright for a certain fixed price and establish the price at the very beginning what the value of those are so that they'll go no place than up at that point rather than start at dollar one and go all the way up and take a long time to do it. We'll be able to establish them at whatever, 10, 18, 20, whatever, a Page 143 March 4, 2002 thousand dollars per credit, buy up so many of them, maybe up to 5 or 10,000 -- 10 million dollars worth of them, and then we'd hold them in reserve. I tell you what: The profit we make from that, I want it to go back to that area to benefit the people that live in that area with medical centers, with parks, with possibly a road from Wilson over to Landfill Road. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You must have a money tree in District 5 the rest of us are not aware of. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're very fortunate in District 5. We've got all the endangered species and no four-lane roads. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. We've got some in our area too that are called people. MS. RICHARDSON: I have a couple more questions. Those units that have 1-acre parcels, is that still going to be considered- - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You really lost me on the 1-acre parcel. I know no place out there where there's 1-acre parcel -- MR. MULHERE: I can-- I can. MS. RICHARDSON: Lots of them in Section 24. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, in the agricultural. MR. MULHERE: I can respond to that. Yes. You have a 1- acre parcel, as long as it's -- a -- a -- a -- a lot or parcel that existed as of the date of the final order. In this case it is. You get one TDR. So instead of having to purchase 5 acres, you get a TDR for 1 acre. And that's the way it-- MS. RICHARDSON: TDR? The TDR is going to be worth the 5-acre MR. MULHERE: That's correct. It's a little misconception. MS. RICHARDSON: Okay. If I have -- if I have 10 acres in the receiving area, can I use that 1 acre to offset and build 5 houses on my 5 acres? MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure I followed you there. Page 144 March 4, 2002 VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, can I make a suggestion that these small questions get together with the staff later on? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think it's appropriate. I think I want them answered here and now. MR. MULHERE: The -- let me -- let me see if I can explain it. And then if you still have a question -- if I understood correctly, you have a TDR in a sending area. You may transfer that TDR to your receiving lands. Since you own both, there's no cost there for you. MS. RICHARDSON: Okay. But you were talking about rural villages, okay. My 10 acres is not enough for a rural village. MR. MULHERE: No. You wouldn't be able to build a rural village on 10 acres. MS. RICHARDSON: Five houses -- I would still be limited to 1 house on that 5 acres? MR. MULHERE: No. In a receiving area, the dense -- the base density, you can -- you have a base density of 1 per 5, but you may increase that up to 1 dwelling unit per acre through transfer of development rights. MS. RICHARDSON: MR. MULHERE: No. MS. RICHARDSON: But only a large developer can do that. Anybody can do that. You can do that. Okay. Because I understood that there were only going to be three villages. MR. MULHERE: No. It has nothing to do with rural villages, what we're speaking of right now, ma'am. We're talking about receiving lands and a density increase up to one dwelling unit per acre. Forget about the rural villages; that has nothing to do with this. MS. RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: You wouldn't be able to do that. MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Finished? Larry Basik followed by Jim Page 145 March 4, 2002 Pugh. MR. BASIK: I'm waiting for the rest of them to come back. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He's got a point. Why don't we take a five-minute break at this point. Let's go get them. (A short break was held.) MR. MULHERE: I did need to set the record straight. I -- perhaps in trying to clarify issues I may have confused a few issues. Currently, the proposal for receiving lands, in order to be able to accept units from sending lands into receiving lands, the proposal calls for a minimum 40-acre size. Now, that would mean that if you had smaller parcels, you would have to aggregate those to a 40 -acre parcel to be able to accept units. Certainly that's a policy issue that the board can consider if they want to remove that minimum in receiving lands and just allow anybody with any minimum 5-acre lot size to be able to then develop at a density of 1 to 1. But the rationale behind that minimum 40-acre size was to have -- at least have some - - some size so that units could be aggregated, clustered, and there be an economy of scale in terms of providing services to those units. That was the rationale behind it. I just wanted to set the record straight. I did speak to the speaker a few minutes ago about that. And, again, I have made a note so as when we go over this at the end of the day in terms of making some motions, we can raise that issue again. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can assure you by the end of the day we will have repeated this so much we'll be able to say it in our sleep. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there going to be an end to the day? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: speakers that we have? Can I ask how many more Page 146 March 4, 2002 MR. LITSINGER: We have 16. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sixteen. Well, I have some questions after that, so I hope that we can -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm sure We will, Commissioner Henning. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you wouldn't mind me finish, I would appreciate it. I think a lot of the questions are going to be answered. The speakers -- the speakers that do come up will be answered at the end of it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're probably right, but I'd like to leave it to the option of the commissioners to be able to make questions of staff to help that one person through the process. That person may have to leave before we get to the end. I know it's difficult, but we have to give every -- give the public every opportunity to get answers to these questions. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the process during the -- the committee's meetings that were published dealt with a lot of those and also the Planning Commission and the EAC. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're absolutely correct. They certainly did, and I'm sure that everyone out here was unable to attend most of them. But that's what we're here for now, and we're dealing with this time and space. But let's proceed, and I'm sure we'll get through it in good time. All right. No. I'm sorry, ma'am, I can't recognize you from the floor like that. We have to go through the order for the speakers. And the next speaker is -- MR. LITSINGER: Larry Basik. MR. BASIK: Larry Basik. Because mine deals with a comp. plan correction, should I wait till the other two commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That or you can wait until six o'clock might be the one way. I can't tell you when the other two Page 147 March 4, 2002 commissioners are going to be back. I wish I could. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Basik, I know that they're in their office, and they have speakers on. MR. BASIK: Oh, they do? VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So, do you want to address them now? MR. BASIK: Yeah. My name is Larry Basik, for the record, 32-year resident of Collier County. I have two issues. One is a comp. plan -- comp. plan correction, and the other is some -- really, some questions on affordable housing. But to deal, first of all, with the comp-plan situation, my problem all right. The family's property is owned in Area D, which is a receiving area right in the center of it on U. S. 41. Going to this map, it gives a blowup of where we're at here. Just identify the area, we're right next to the Krehling ready-mix plant on the East Trail. We're to the east side of the Krehling ready-mix plant. Behind the Krehling ready-mix plant is an auto junkyard and then a concrete piling company, manufactures pilings. That's the air -- Area 1 that we're adjacent to. Area 2 is the property that we own. It's 45 acres. It has four classifications of zoning, C-4, C-5, and TTRV and industrial. We also own No. 3 on that item. We also own the 10 acres adjacent to it along 41, which is adjacent to our commercial property. For some reason -- and -- and I brought this up back in -- a while ago when they adopted the comprehensive plan, is that they're not showing this area. This area is not being shown on the comprehensive -- on a comp. plan, and it's not being designated on -- on the new plan, and we're right in the middle of the situation. (Commissioner Carter entered the room.) MR. BASIK: I have a feeling that because of where we're located -- and we have -- all the sewer and water facilities are in. The Page 148 March 4, 2002 county has just run a new 12-inch water main down. We jacked a board underneath. So we're in right now with two SDPs to develop the 45 acres. So we'd like to have that entered on the con -- comp. plan, which takes a comp. plan change. For some reason, you know, we brought it up before and it was never -- it was never put on the comp. plan. And that makes it -- that -- that creates some problems when you're trying to get some variance or something and, you know, you're not on the comp. plan. And then we'd like to have the green area, the 10 acres, also on the comp. plan as C-4, which is adjacent to our C-4 property. We think that this area is probably going to represent an area of a village type. Because of the sewer and water being there, it's easily accessible. So we think that this -- you know, this would be -- you know, that this should be done. There's -- there's a couple situation -- now getting to the affordable housing side, many, many years ago, before my 32 years in Florida, I developed affordable housing up in the Chicago area. One of the problems I see here is that you've got Florida Farms just above us, almost adjacent to us, which is the largest in this receiving area. Then you got 6 Ls to the east. And then you cross the street; Garjiulo's got a farming operation, and there's another farming operation to the west of us. It's my understanding that if they're actively farming, they're not going to be able to develop for ten years; correct? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Not quite right. I'll let Mr. Mulhere explain that. MR. MULHERE: No, not within the receiving designation. That's not true. MR. BASIK: Oh. But isn't there another ordinance regarding a -- farming that you can't bring farming in for development if-- unless there's a ten-year period? Page 149 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. In the sending area, which you're thinking about, you can't start new farming where you clear the land. You have to maintain the existing farms. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. The intent is -- within the receiving lands is that you can convert those lands to other uses that are identified as appropriate, residential development, perhaps commercial in a rural village, that in a 1 O-year or 25-year-- depending on which way we go -- that prohibition doesn't apply in the receiving lands. MR. BASIK: I didn't understand it. Thanks, Bob. The concern that I -- one of the concerns I had, we're -- we've been asked and we -- we have other lands within the county. And on a couple of occasions we were asked if we would consider affordable housing. Now, what I built back many years ago, affordable housing, was not where you're build an apartment complex and that housing is considered affordable. We did -- back then, we built individual homes and -- and those homes, as the people bought them, they were FHA -, V.A.-approved subdivisions. That was the type of affordable housing I think is missing in Collier County. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right, sir, but I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up. MR. BASIK: Well, my point was, with some -- with -- with these credits not going towards affordable housing -- that's what I understand that you can't use those towards affordable housing, that would just -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. They -- they have a special density credit. MR. BASIK: On their own? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That comes in after you use your regular -- your regular credit. That goes towards it. And I agree with you; we're not doing enough for affordable housing, and we need to Page 150 March 4, 2002 do more. MR. BASIK: Right. But you're not going to be either because of the financial situation. Even though you get the benefit of the affordable housing -- I'm talking about housing, not apartments. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But I need for you to wrap it up so we can get on to other speakers. We will get together and talk about this outside of the meeting. MR. LITSINGER: Jim Pugh, followed by Christine Somoza. MR. PUGH: Hello. My name is Jim Pugh, for the record. I've been a resident of Collier County for 27 years. I live in the -- Section 24, if you could slide that map down, in Area C. I'm actually in the northeast comer of section -- rather, Tracts 1 and 2. I've been there for 20 years. I have a house there. My family lives there. I'm also an owner of American Farms which is an existing establishment there and as well as one off of Keene Brantley which my partner, Christine, will discuss in a minute. Short and sweet, I'd like to see that section revert back from sending to receiving. It's been highly impacted, as you can tell by the -- well, not by this depiction. There's a canal on three sides of that section. Water flow has been impacted. I understand the greatest concern is the red cockaded woodpecker. We went through all the necessary permitting process ten years ago when I cleared that property. No woodpeckers were found then. I don't think there's any at this time either, though there may be further inland. There are mature pine forests inland. The -- again, just in simplicity, to go from sending back to receiving, that's what we're looking for. That's it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Christine Somoza. MS. SOMOZA: Good afternoon. My name is Christine Page 151 March 4, 2002 Somoza, and I represent American Farms and Salvador Bloomingberg (phonetic), one of my partners, who both -- both of whom are landowners in the area. Together we own a total of 80 acres in small parcels. If I might just point out what areas I'm talking about here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me just one second. There's a mike right there. Could you pick that up and carry that over with you, please? MS. SOMOZA: Sure. We're talking about the area at the top of Section 29 along this border here, and we're also talking about this comer here (indicating). COMMISSIONER CARTER: Stan, do you want to help her flip on the switch? MS. SOMOZA: I don't think it's working. We purchased the land over ten years ago with the purpose of developing a horticulture nursery. We grow annuals and perennials, the flowers that beautify many of the communities in Naples, as well as throughout the state of Florida. We employ over 200 people, which makes us one of the largest private owners -- employers in the area. In order to be successful in our business, we face many battles on a daily basis: Floods, droughts, hurricanes, forest fires, insects. And now we find a battle we could never have anticipated ten years ago. We've been painted blue instead of pink. As with many of us whose livelihoods depends on agriculture, we purchased land in the area with ag expansion potential with the hope that by the time we retire the land would have increased value for residential purposes, in other words, a nest egg for retirement and for our children. We only received the information of how our land was -- had been classified at the meeting on Wednesday, and we still do not have copies of the colored map. We are in Area C on the northeast comer of 24 and the Page 152 March 4, 2002 northwest comer of 29. Our main property is along Keene Avenue, which is the road that could potentially connect Golden Gate Parkway with the estates. The north side of our street has been designated receiving. Our side of the street has been designated sending. We are clearly on the fringe of the fringe. You mentioned this morning that you would consider making adjustments to certain properties on the fringe of the fringe. I would contend that our property should be adjusted to receiving. We are already cleared. We've gone through all the permitting. Our land has -- was deemed dry, substantially free of protected species when we went through this process ten years ago. The overlays, which were used to designate sending and receiving areas, which we reviewed outside, are very general and not entirely accurate. I propose that you adopt a provision to look at the fringe of the fringe on an individual-case basis. Another concern I have is for the expansion of agricultural use. For us to continue to be a viable agriculture business, which is a preferred use, we have to be able to expand with our demand. And it's important that the land be adjacent in order-- in order to be economical for us. This is why we purchased where we did. If we cannot continue to purchase and clear small parcels for farming around us, this would be a death sentence for our business. We are not talking about huge amounts of land for us to operate, but several 5-acre parcels would be sufficient. Of course, further clearing would be subject to permitting, based on wetlands, species, habitats, etc., but we need this option. We also take issue with the proposed change from 10 to 25 years on conversion from ag to non-ag use. This is far too long and unreasonable. We believe ten years should be -- would be the more adequate. We also need clarification on the location of the sending and-- Page 153 March 4, 2002 and receiving area. According to the Hole, Montes aerial map, the frontage portion of our land along Keene Avenue is receiving, and the back portion is sending. So the -- the line that -- that -- that goes along the section line of 29 really, I think, belongs along Brantley Keene. So that's something that needs to be clarified because it's not entirely clear. As you mentioned earlier, we successfully thought -- fought the change in zoning of Section 20, which is across the street from us, to allow mining a number of years ago, heat -- a very heated issue. Now that it is designated a receiving area, my question is, would mining be an allowable use, and could we potentially be faced with this issue all over again? Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: In response to that last question, the answer is yes. However, it would still be a conditional use, just as it was several years ago when the issue arose, so it would have to come through a public hearing and require a supermajority vote. Yes -- I mean -- oh, except that it's in the North Bell Meade agreement area which would make it a permitted principal use, so it would not have a public hearing, if it was receiving in the North Bell Meade agreement area. MR. LITSINGER: (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Brad Cornell. Mildred Hake -- Heylock. Oh, I'm sorry. Here is Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: I was going to go tonight. MR. LITSINGER: Oh, okay. Mildred Haylock. MS. HAYLOCK: Hi. My name is Mildred Haylock. I have lived in many areas in the states of the United States, from New York, born in Massachusetts, New York, down to Miami, and then to Naples. We moved to the area of Naples because we liked the area Page 154 March 4, 2002 with all the pine trees. And in Miami there was no areas where you. could have a place where you could have all the farming area and be - - and have your own chickens, goats, cow, whatever you wanted. And we actually picked this area because of all the pine trees. Now, one reason we moved here was because my husband's job in Miami, a big company came, bought it out, from California, took the job, fired everybody, and released everybody. So we took all our -- our monies that we had reserved for our retirement, and we cashed it out and bought our property on Garland. That is Section C, which is the 25th section right below 24 where Mr. Cowan has all his property. We love that area there. There's a lot of residents there. There's a lot of big homes there. There is a doctor on my street that is retired there with 30-acres plus. All his children live on my block. There's many farm areas, nurseries, big landowners, the golf course. It's very pretty area to be in. Also, behind me there is 300-plus acres that belong to the county, which there is wells being built right now to provide the city area and the estates area, which we're not going to get supplied out of. Basically it goes from our land; all the water gets sold out to everybody else. Now we find out that our land is going to be sold out to everybody else. I have my home built on there. I just had refinanced because the interest rates went down. They appraised my home and my 5 acres at $250,000. Now you're telling me that my land, because it's only 5 acres, it's going to be worth $18,500? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not at all. MS. HAYLOCK: If everybody on my block that does not has have a house decides to sell their lot or their building rights, my land is going to demol -- decrease in value. I mean, there's no other way. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you sold the rights, which you don't have to sell -- Page 155 March 4, 2002 MS. HAYLOCK: home. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: MR. MULHERE: MS. HAYLOCK: MR. MULHERE: plan that would cause -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: explain it better than I could. I don't have the rights. I already built my All right. Mr. Mulhere? Yes. I still have more. There's no -- there's no component in this I know. I -- I thought you could MR. MULHERE: I mean, you can live there. You can continue to live there. You can continue to farm. You can continue to do whatever it is that you are doing today under this plan. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: And her house values are not going to go down because of the --. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. HAYLOCK: How do you know that? If everybody sells their lots, which right now it's worth 150,000 with no house for $18,000 for building rights, what is that going to do? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, there's just as much -- I'm not a property appraiser, so, you know, I certainly can't put expert testimony on the record relative to what the property values might do out there. But if you -- if you have the ability to continue to have that right to sell the land to continue to use that right, then I don't know of any reason why those values would be decreased. If anything, they might be increased as a result of limited supply of that. MS. HAYLOCK: Well, I believe that is the limited supply why people are trying to take our land in that area because it's so close to town. I'm only a half an acre from the fringe area or the rural area, whatever you-- you call on 951. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Page 156 March 4, 2002 MS. HAYLOCK: And there is a lot of people out there that also agree, and, you know, we all had a meeting on Saturday. A lot of people cannot be here, and a lot of them hopefully will be here tonight. But a lot of them can't be here because they have children they have to pick up from school and go do all their, you know, cooking and everything like that at home. They have their families. They have their animals. I have to make sure that my father's at my house so that he can feed my animals because I'm still here. There are a lot of things that you take care of when you're in that kind of a zone. We moved to the area, and we did all this because we wanted to be in a place where we could be free with lots of trees, lots of good air and everything like that. Now you're telling us that because our land was not -- we didn't buy a lot that was totally cleared with no trees on it, which that was selling less price or whatever people thought more price, and right now you tell you (sic) you can't clear out your lot because you'll get penalized. At the same time everybody that cleared the lots before, right now their lots are the ones that are being sold and are in the receiving area rather than in the sending area, and they're not penalized for all that time that they cleared everything out. So I believe that you should reconsider the whole thing and check everything out because there is a lot of people in this area, and I know the maps that are -- a lot of people showed this maps. Some lady said that she printed them out last night. I can call on the Collier County appraiser and print out the same map. My house is not there. My house has been there two years, and it's not on that map, so we know that those maps are old. There's a lot more people than what these researchers have figured out that aren't in that area. There's a lot more people that -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have to ask you to wrap up, ma'am. Page 157 March 4, 2002 MS. HAYLOCK: -- was available at this time, and that's what I wanted to say. And I urge anybody, if anybody is watching on the TV, that they do come tonight and they come and speak their mind. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. That's what we're here for. And, once again, no one intends to take your property, your house, or your values. You can go ahead and continue like you're doing now. In the future you can sell it to your kids. You can do with it whatever you're permitted to do right now. It's just that this is an opportunity you may want to avail yourself in the future of or you may not. But no one is going to force you to take it. MS. HAYLOCK: It doesn't seem that way. It seems to keep rolling over everybody. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker, please. MR. LITSINGER: Kay Kluever followed by Ernie Cox. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Cox already spoke. MR. LITSINGER: I know. I've got two slips. MS. KLUEVER: Hi. I'm Kay Kluever. I, too, am a Garland Road resident. We were told that this property was going to be of great value because it was close in to town. However, since we bought, we have had nothing but one hassle after another. We learned that the landfill was moving our way, so we fought that one. Then we had to fight the odors to get that corrected so it was even livable. Then we learned that all of the wells were going in. They came and cut 55-foot swaths. Just over the weekend we had these ATVs. They were going through, and we heard 20 to 30 rounds shot, and it had to be the deer. We take care of our animals as well as we do our homes. And we just bought another 7 1/2 acres. We closed on last Friday to'square our property off so that we could add to our live oaks that we grow -- we've been growing to supplement our social security. My husband and I, we're 61. You know, it's not going to be Page 158 March 4, 2002 that long. But everything seems to keep going down the drain. We started with citrus. We lost two different growings due to frost, so we were told, you know, this is not the thing to do, the good Lord says, you know. So we go to live oaks. Now we hear if something happens to our live oaks we can't replant and grow something else? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: said. Nobody said that. That's never been MS. KLUEVER: Yes, he did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Try again. MR. MULHERE: I'll try it again. Agriculture is a permitted use in all land-use designations as proposed. I -- I don't know how to say it any clearer than that. MS. KLUEVER: But you said that we can't change from one agriculture to another. MR. MULHERE: No, no. What we said if you avail yourselves of the TDR process, which is purely voluntary, in a sending land after you transfer units, you are limited to the agriculture that existed prior to your sending limits. You can continue to farm to the extent that you -- this is what we are recommending -- to the extent that you previously existed. If you don't avail yourselves of the TDR program, you can continue to farm, and you can go in and apply for permits to clear any part of your land. MS. KLUEVER: Okay. Just -- it -- everything just seems to be one losing proposition after another. And she could plant anything VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: that she wants. MR. MULHERE: Correct. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. MULHERE: Well-- Page 159 March 4, 2002 MS. KLUEVER: Well, it didn't sound like it. MR. MULHERE: Almost -- almost anything. MS. KLUEVER: We had laughingly said at our meeting Saturday, you know, it seemed like you can grow anything as long as it doesn't look like you're growing anything, you know, because at the same time our area has so much in it. Now, Renfroe Jackson has just cleared across the road from us ready to move their landscaping business out there. And so at the same time they would look all nice and clear from the aerials right now too. But at the same time it seems like we paid a premium to keep our green space and also to save the animals because at the same time I called the sheriffs department, and they told me to call Lieutenant Cox from 9 to 5 Monday through Friday because he has an ATV to go out and find them. The only thing is they're out on Saturday and Sunday nights with their guns. Now, that doesn't do anything, you know. The poor does are still in fole, and it's against the law. We need to get protection for the animals. I mean, that's what we're trying to do is take care of our homes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I might add, this is one of the reasons, Mrs. Haylock (sic), that we're trying to put this together in such a way that at some point in time there will be protection by the way it's put together. MS. KLUEVER: But county water hasn't done anything to -- to -- to save it like we've asked them to do. They promised us at a meeting that they would do it, and they haven't done it. It's all wide open. That's a wonderful haven for them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well--. MS. KLUEVER: So, anyway, we're all upset. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Olliff, somebody had addressed me of that issue. We have some well fields that we just dug out there and expanded the road. Do you want to take a look at Page 160 March 4, 2002 the issue of maybe fencing it off at the end of our property where the well fields are? Thank you. MR. MULHERE: We do have a map indicating where those well fields are located, those well -- wells are located. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: We don't need to discuss that now. MR. LITSINGER: Tim Hancock. (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Michael Duever followed by Bruce Anderson. MR. DUEVER: My name is Michael Duever, and I just wanted to address something that came up this morning having to do with allowing agriculture that exists at the time when TDR rights are sold that this agriculture -- level of agriculture would be allowed to continue. And I guess it seems like the point of protecting these lands is trying to protect the resources that are there. And it would seem like it would be more appropriate that the agriculture that exists at the time that the TDR program is adopted are -- is the agriculture or the intensity of the agriculture that would be appropriate to allow whenever the TDR rights are sold. I think on Wednesday there was discussion that sometimes the TDR programs went on for 10 or 15, 20 years or so, and there could be a lot of, sort of, change in those lands that you're trying to protect in that -- that time period. And so it seemed like when the ability to sell the TDR rights is available, that would be the appropriate time to say -- to put a fix on whatever the level of agricultural development is in that area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to address myself to the Big Corkscrew discussion that had occurred a little earlier today. With regard to this parcel here (indicating) and Page 161 March 4, 2002 this parcel here (indicating), this area (indicating) in between is NRPA. I represent the property owner who owns all three of these parcels. And they were consenting to the NRPA designation in between based on the fact that the land on the north that they owned and the land on the south that they owned were going to be receiving sites from which they could transfer density from the NRPA that's on their lands. And that was what was always originally proposed. It was never the subject of a Big Corkscrew petition, and we would just ask that these two areas be kept as receiving areas as originally proposed by your staff. They've already been cleared, and we need more, not less receiving sites for TDRs in the rural fringe. And since I'm up here, I'll take this opportunity to also address TDRs generally. First of all, I'm not speaking on behalf of any particular client about TDRs, although some of my clients are interested in purchasing TDRs from sending areas. Like you may feel, I'm not convinced that TDRs will work, but I am convinced that TDRs must be tried in the rural fringe, because the Burt J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act specifically provides that TDRs are a weapon that local governments have in their arsenal to defend against a Harris Act compensation claim. So sooner or later property owners in NRPAs and other sending lands are going to have to deal with the possibility that the availability and marketability of TDRs can adequately compensate them for the loss in fair market value in a Harris Act compensation claim. Let's make it sooner rather than later and save a lot of time, trouble, and expense in determining what the value of TDRs' will be and whether TDRs will, in fact, work. The only potential modification that I'd throw out to the TDR program is if someone is willing to outright deed their property to a conservation group or to a state or local government agency for Page 162 March 4, 2002 conservation purposes, as an incentive to do that, allow them two TDRs per 5-acre parcel, if they're going to deed it outright. yOU. Thank MR. LITSINGER: Ben Walker. VOICE IN AUDIENCE: Ben will be back tonight. MR. LITSINGER: Okay. Marianne Longworth followed by Doug Aldridge. MS. LONGWORTH: I didn't really plan what I was going to say, but my concerns are I live on Garland Road, and we bought our land in 1998. We moved into the -- our home in '99. We bought 5 acres. Last year we bought an additional 5 acres adjoining our land, and in June of last year I strapped those two pieces together so that it would be easier for us to develop our nursery. Now I'm finding out that because I strapped them together and no one in the county government, no one, even warned me that anything like this was coming, that I can now not be allowed to build a mother-in-law house. We all have aging parents. We may need to build a home for an aging parent on that additional 5 acres that we purchased, and now I -- I'm stuck because I had no foreknowledge that this was going to be a problem at this point. Is there anything I can do at this point? Can I unstrap them? And if I unstrap them and I haven't started clearing the additional 5 acres for my nursery, does that stop me from moving in and continuing my nursery process? MR. MULHERE: First of all, the way the language is written, any lot or parcel that existed as of 1999, those parcels, although they may be strapped together for tax purposes, they're still two separate parcels. You would be able to have the development right for each one of those parcels. MS. LONGWORTH: And I can actually build a house on the second piece? Page 163 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: That's correct. The other component on your question was the mother -in-law apartment -- I'm not sure if you were referring to a separate dwelling unit or a guesthouse. MS. LONGWORTH: Yes, a house, not a guesthouse. MR. MULHERE: None of this language changes the provisions for a guesthouse. They would still be permitted. MS. LONGWORTH: No. A home on the second 5 acres. MR. MULHERE: If you have -- if you had two -- we would probably need to look at the specifics in the deed and you have two parcels. MS. LONGWORTH: Two 5-acre parcels. MR. MULHERE: Then you would have the right to do that. MS. LONGWORTH: Can I continue to clear and continue with our nursery on this? MR. MULHERE: Yes, you can. MS. LONGWORTH: And you're not going to stop me? MR. MULHERE: I'm not. MS. LONGWORTH: Well, it's a serious concern that we have. We bought this. We've worked very hard to reach the point where we are now. This is our retirement, like everybody else. MR. MULHERE: Let me clarify. I mean, obviously, you have to stick around because it really depends on what the final policies that are adopted and transmitted to the board are. And -- and so under the proposals that we've set forth you would be able to do what we just talked about. Now, you have to wait and find out whether those proposals are adopted or changed, or tweaked and then, you know --. MS. LONGWORTH: Yeah. But when you buy agricultural land in order to do a farm -- and a nursery is a farm -- we should be allowed to continue to expand our nursery onto the land that's adjoining ours if we purchased it and not be --. Page 164 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: And under this proposal -- under this proposal, you would be allowed to do that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ma'am, I'm going to tell you, I am not going to do anything to hurt you. I am for TDRs, and I'm for the staff recommendations in general. I know there's some tweaking, and all I can tell you as one commissioner, you can walk out of here today and know that you can have two homes. You can kid -- continue to do your -- your nurseries, and that's where I am. MS. LONGWORTH: And you're trying to tell me that nothing in this plan will make any change whatsoever to the way we're living. It's only going to hurt the people. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now that the Board of County Commission is going to inflict on you. What God does to the land over droughts -- MS. LONGWORTH: Oh, God got us last January, trust me. COMMISSIONER CARTER: All I'm going to tell you is that I -- you know, I'm not going to do anything to your land. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. LITSINGER: Doug Aldridge. (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's waiving. MR. LITSINGER: Yeah. Jean McCollom. MS. MC COLLOM: Thank you for the right to speak to you. One big concern that I have is the whole concept of sending areas is to preserve environmental values of that land. And future conversion of these lands to agriculture would really defeat the whole purpose of preservation of environmental values. Agriculture does not conserve water in terms of well fields or the aquifer; it uses water in great amounts. Agriculture does not preserve wildlife habitat. It does not preserve wetlands. There are many species that are listed that use uplands, not just Page 165 March 4, 2002 red cockaded woodpeckers. There are panthers, indigo snakes, fox squirrels, bears. I can go on. It's not just one species. And even wetland species require uplands to move around and to get from one place to another. It seems like for this plan to work, the whole spirit of the plan is to have a preservation of environmental values in some areas. And we must find some method of legally purchasing and compensating for farm rights for this process to work. So I think the do-nothing approach of saying that we're going to not take into account agriculture and just let that slide is going to, in the long run, defeat this whole process. I think it's something, though, difficult that it needs to be addressed, and I hope that you will do so. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We will address it, but we're also concerned about the other species, the human species. MS. MC COLLOM: Oh, I am too. And I'm concerned about agriculture, but what I am worried about is the fact that we are setting out to have sending areas preserve environmental values, and we shouldn't kid ourselves and say that the two are exactly the same. They are not. And we need to have both, but we can't -- they are not the same thing; they are very different. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for your comments. MR. LITSINGER: Mike Taylor followed by Jane Huepel. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nobody jumped up. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Nobody jumped up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here we go. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can we get somebody on deck, Mr.-- MR. LITSINGER: That's the last speaker. MS. HUEPEL: Good afternoon. My name is Jane Huepel. I own property in Section 30. I have a nursery business there. I, too, Page 166 March 4, 2002 am on the fringe of the fringe, probably 700 feet from the estates residential area. I've been doing business for 12 years. I've done everything by the book, gotten clearing permits, fence permits, water-use permits. Every permit that I needed I went through the process and got it. My clearing permit, I only cleared half of what I could have cleared because I, too, wanted to save some natural areas. And like others have expressed, one day I would like to sell my business and property to retire. And my concern is if-- I'm happy with half of the property and the business on half of the property, but a potential buyer might want to develop the whole property and have the entire property as a nursery. And this -- not being able to clear the other half might affect my being able to sell it, and I just -- I want to express that concern and request that it be designated as a sending area rather than a -- I mean, as a receiving area rather than a sending area. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jane, this is -- this plan doesn't preclude from you or when you sell your property for that other person to clear that land and -- and put more plantings on it. MS. HUEPEL: So they could-- they could come and-- and clear the entire thing and use the entire --. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. The -- the way the plan is structured, it's purely voluntary. You can continue to farm the way it's proposed. However, once you do that, once you clear the land to farm, then there's a proposal on the other end that you cannot convert that use to another use for 25 years, nor can you utilize the TDRs for 25 years. You know, there -- there comes a choice. The plan is purely voluntary, but there is a disincentive, which relates to the previous speaker's comments. There is a disincentive built in so that people at least consider whether they want to clear for agricultural in these highly environmentally sensitive lands or perhaps transfer the units off and protect the land. It's purely voluntary. You could clear Page 167 March 4, 2002 the whole -- you could clear subject to whatever the state jurisdictional agencies would permit before you can go in and clear that. That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. HUEPEL: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: That's all the speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Proceed with the rest of the program? MR. MULHERE: Okay. I think we had next a summary of basically how does the plan work and why will it work, and then we were going to get into potentially looking at the EAC and CCPC motions in order and try and develop some straw votes on those issues. How does the plan work? The plan protects the significant natural resources in the rural fringe by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and listed species habitats. That's one of the principal directives of the final order. Where such regulations and reduction of allowable uses impact property values, the TDR mechanism will be in place to compensate owners. And then, third, appropriate locations have been identified for conversion to other uses, and regulations and incentives are in place to encourage development in those areas actually to direct the development to those areas. That's how the plan works in summary. Next slide, please. Why will it work? These are very difficult issues, as I'm sure you can appreciate, listening to everyone speak. They're fairly complicated, and although they're difficult and complicated, there has been more than three years of analysis brought into this plan to bring us to this point, probably closer to five years because we spent a couple of years dealing with these issues before we even got the final Page 168 March 4, 2002 order. The program has been developed with broad public participation; it's been developed with the best available data. It's been developed with participation of intervenors and other stakeholders and full consideration of innovative land use planning techniques. There's been an evaluation of the economic and other keys to a successful TDR program by a preeminent expert, a national expert, Dr. James Nicholas. There's been a thorough analysis of the legal issues. There has been full consideration of private property rights and how we can best protect those private property rights and balance those private property rights impacts with natural resource protection. And there is a plan, and the plan specifically calls for continued reevaluation. That's why we believe it will work. And that really brings us to the next item on the agenda, which is within your packet under -- it's under executive summary, I believe -- and we can put it up on the visualizer. We would intend, if the commission thinks it would be appropriate, to go over the EAC and CCPC motions, and that will, I think, bring up the other issues that have been discussed over the previous two days of meetings and try to get a straw vote on -- some of them probably will be very clear. Others have been tweaked and adjusted as we've gone through this process. And I think that will bring us to a point where the public can hear, at least at this point, what the position -- the commission's position is on these issues. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have some questions. MR. MULHERE: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or clarifications at some point. MR. MULHERE: That might be time right now, I would think. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go.ahead. Page 169 March 4, 2002 VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. In the allowable uses, in conservations land, one is group housing. What is group housing? MR. MULHERE: Group housing is a land use that I believe has some constitutional protection over it. There are various types of group housing. One is -- can be no more than six individuals unrelated by blood or marriage living in a single-family home, and there are certain groups -- I would defer to Marjorie to speak on the legal issues of that. And then there's another component of group housing that kicks up another conditional use. MS. STUDENT: It's been about 11 years since I did the research on this because we had it as part of our Land Development Code. But there are state and federal requirements for group housing. And what it is is a -- we commonly refer to them, I think, as ALFs or adult-living facilities. And it has to do with places where people cannot live on their own, either because of age or health issues and the fact that the local governments cannot discriminate and zone them out. So they must be permitted in zoning districts where you have comparable-type residences for people that were not elderly or disabled. So, for example, if you allowed a single-family home in a district, then a smaller group care facility, like the 1 to 6 would be permitted. And that's also under requirement of Florida law as well. In areas where you have larger multifamily units permitted, then correspondingly, you would have to permit the same size ALF. And that's because the think -- the jurisprudence behind that is it's the size and the type of unit that's allowed, and there's impacts as a justification as opposed to the idea that somebody may be handicapped or elderly. So I hope that -- again, it's been quite a number of years since I did the research, but that's a little thumbnail sketch. Page 170 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: The reason that you find that in conservation, which I think probably was your question, doesn't seem appropriate in conservation designations, but some of the lands that are designated conservation, particularly when the comp. plan was adopted back in '89 and as you move forward, were not in public ownership. They were still privately owned lands, and single-family homes are a permitted use. And so that language carried forward into conservation as well. MS. STUDENT: And that's why the smaller facility would be allowed there, because you don't discriminate on who is housed there. But if you would have a single-family home there, then I think it's a class 1 -- I don't remember the three cat -- three or four categories, but the very small ALF would be -- like a house that might have four or five unrelated individuals in it and a nurse come to take care of them. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's something that has 24 units or something like that. MR. MULHERE: No. MS. STUDENT: My recollection would be six and below. MR. MULHERE: It's not even units. It's -- MS. STUDENT: Yeah. That had -- that number of individuals could live there, not that number of units. But they could live in a house situation and, you know, be housed maybe two per bedroom or something like that. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And the way it's -- it's proposed it is a permitted use. MR. MULHERE: Right. That's the way the plan -- this is not new language. The plan currently has this as a permitted use. We didn't change that. MS. STUDENT: And also legally you would need to treat that the same way as you would a single-family home. And if in a district Page 171 March 4, 2002 that had the -- a single-family home as a permitted use but a multifamily larger as a conditional use, then you could treat the larger adult-living facility also as a conditional use. There's case law, federal case law, that tells us that you can't just -- you don't -- VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got it. MS. STUDENT: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next one, the best available data. And I -- I know that's very hard. It's -- it's a lot different than ground truthing. There's a lot of acres that we're talking about there. But I'm not sure -- and I'm not sure how the other commissioners feel, whether it'd be appropriate to -- if a landowner has a evaluation of his property for habitat in wetlands or not, that it could be considered as receiving area. MR. MULHERE: And we -- that's what we propose, too, for the periphery. We would -- I mean, from the staff perspective, I can't really support going into the middle of a natural resource protection area or a sending area and fragmenting that. But along the periphery of the edge, we would support and -- a policy that would allow us to look at site-specific information and redefine that boundary. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ray Pelletier, who was on the committee, made a good point, and it's something that we might use if the TDR program is not what we expect it to be. And his recommendation was the environmental impact fee. And I think I only have a couple more. And just a clarification, because I know when we went through the Wastewater Master Plan, we were talking about 20,000 units in the rural fringe. And I think that you said that it's somewhere around 18,000? MR. MULHERE: 13,000, just about 14,000 was my projection. Now, that was based on a percentage of utilization. If you were to -- if you were -- there's a couple of ways you could calculate that. If you assumed that every single TDR that's available got used Page 172 March 4, 2002 for rural villages and you looked at the maximum size out there that could be utilized for rural villages under this proposal, then you'd be talking about twenty -five hundred, fifteen, three, fifty-five hundred acres, and that would be fifty-five hundred units. And then you would multiply that times 2.5. So it's in the neighborhood of fourteen or fifteen thousand. But I don't believe it's legitimate to assume that every single TDR that's out there of the 5,000 that every single one is going to be used to acquire a density bonus for a rural village. I think it's reasonable to assume some percentage we're going to go into the urban area, some percentage you're going to go into general receiving, and some percentage will go into rural villages. So I think that after you look at the worst-case scenario you're probably talking about 15,000 population increase spread out over two, three, or four rural villages. But I don't believe that number is accurate. I think it's a lower number when you think about those TDRs being utilized in different ways. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: So 15,000 total --. MR. MULHERE: That's above and beyond the base density, right. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And so the -- I guess we have an opportunity to adjust our Wastewater Master Plan to compensate for the adjustments being done in the rural fringe? MR. MULHERE: We do. I think that was just an estimate at the time when they brought their master plan forward to you. It will be a -- I think we should, again, learning from the mistakes in the past, probably prepare for whatever the worse case scenario is. And then as we move forward, we can adjust it accordingly. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Mr. Cox made a -- Joe Cox made a point that we should -- any langUage in there should say the rural fringe mixed-use district. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd for the record. To Page 173 March 4, 2002 answer your last question, as soon as we get a official signed rural fringe document that determines what the population's going to be, vis-a-vis the governor, the staff and everything else from DCA, when we went with the master plan, we said we would adjust as soon as we had those figures and come back with an annual adjustment to impact fees or -- that -- that correspond to that adjustment as far as density is concerned. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't get to your last question, though. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: You agree -- MR. MULHERE: We would agree -- we concur and we would revise the language in the plan to reflect rural fringe only. That wasn't our intent. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not really knowing Mr. Bonness's property out there where he's doing excavating out there, but I hope that we take a look at that. MR. MULHERE: I think Mr. Bonness raised the point of whether -- and this becomes a critical question. I mean, his question was, should-- shouldn't excavations be allowed in -- everywhere, including sending lands, and we would not concur with that. But in receiving lands, it's -- it's appropriate. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: And -- and as far as American Farms, you did state that's in the -- in the area around the receiving area, so they can be reevaluated? MR. MULHERE: Yes. They could if they came in with site- specific data. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MULHERE: I Do -- I do want you to understand that the way that's proposed, the landowner would have to come in with the site-specific data, and staff would evaluate it, and then we would carry forward a comprehensive plan amendment on their-- you Page 174 March 4, 2002 know, for-- based on their initiative to you. And, you know, I guess we would try to bundle as many of those together if folks were -- could come in a reasonably short period of time, and I think we would evaluate that, perhaps, open up a second cycle of comprehensive plan amendments to accommodate those. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then Bruce Anderson, I thought it was a great idea to increase the TDR for people who designate their land for conservation lands instead of getting 1 credit per 5 is -- is get 2. If that -- if that works economically with -- I think that would be a true incentive for people to conserve their lands. MR. MULHERE: Or to dedicate the land to a conservation entity -- VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- or fee simple, sell it. I would -- I think it's a good idea -- I'm just not sure about the number, you know, whether the it should be doubled or 1.5. I don't really know. And I think what I would like to do is again talk to Dr. Nicholas between transmittal and adoption to find if there is a number more appropriate. We want to provide a incentive, I agree, but we don't want to over provide necessarily, because it does increase the supply and might reduce the likelihood of the overall utilization. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I Did -- I thought that was a good solution. And if-- if we talked to somebody like Mr. Anderson who said in the Big Corkscrew area that had an agreement -- thought he had an agreement, then all of a sudden at the -- the 11 th hour has changed, you know, I'm a little bit concerned about that. MR. MULHERE: Are you talking about Section 24? VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, again, the basis for the change, and we -- as we proposed to you to bring it back for your Page 175 March 4, 2002 consideration today, based on his comments on Wednesday -- that was Mr. Pickworth and Mr. Cowan -- and then others have raised issues about that as well. Again, the basis for changing that to a sending designation was largely the -- the data showing that that was red cockaded woodpecker habitat. Now -- VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we're talking about the North Bell Meade instead of Corkscrew. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm sorry. Then I misunderstood the question. I apologize. I thought we were talking about Section 24. What was your question? VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess this was on the bend, on the Big Corkscrew. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm sorry. Those two -- yeah. We -- we would propose to put those back to receiving. Those two smaller parcels that were originally receiving before the Planning Commission, and then when we changed Big Corkscrew we changed those, really those need to go back to receiving, from our perspective as well. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm done. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought you earlier had said that you could designate that as neutral. MR. MULHERE: That's Section 24. Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Another point of clarification: I believe it was stated early in the presentation today that the number of TDRs are calculated based upon the total acreage owned and not just upon the total amount of land that could be developed under existing regulations; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. Just to restate it, you take your total acreage, divide it by five, which -- and that gives you the amount of TDRs that you have on your land. Page 176 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And under our existing Land Development Code, there are numerous instances where a person with 5 acres could not develop 5 units on 5 acres. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So, in many cases, people will be getting TDR bonuses that will increase the amount of money they can get for their property when, in fact, their property is not developable to the level of five TDRs; am I correct? MR. MULHERE: Well, this -- this would only apply to sending lands, and they're only in the ag rural -- they're only in the rural fringe area right now. There's one sending land that we haven't talked about that's outside of the rural fringe that's shown up on that map. But most of them are in the rural fringe area. For most of those the calculation is 1 TDR per 5 gross acres. Under the Land Development Code, prior to the final order, you could develop 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. So we're giving them a TDR ratio that's the same as what they could have developed before the final order. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Even though part of that is wetlands. MR. MULHERE: Correct. You could -- you could still -- even though under those circumstances, it's possible. What you said is very true; it is possible. And let's just use a 5-acre tract. If a lot of that was wetlands, it's possible that you could not fit -- well, we have to use a different number because you only get 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Let's use a hundred acres. You should have had 20 development rights. It's possible you might not be able to fit all 20 of those development rights on that land if there were wetland or habitat issues that you had to preserve some of that to meet those issues. You might not be able to -- but if you could cluster them or you could develop it such that you could move it off of those areas and you Page 177 March 4, 2002 could still get all 20 units, then you could accomplish that. So in some cases maybe they are getting, but I think more than likely we're trying to treat them exactly as they would have been before the final order in terms of transfer of development rights. We're even extending that to legal nonconforming lots. If you had an acre, the legal nonconforming lot, you get a TDR. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do have some questions, and if you are through-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Golf courses. We haven't really dealt with them to any large extent. The sending areas, they're permitted this time? MR. MULHERE: No. Prohibited. · CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. In the receiving areas, do we have some way that we'll be able to use up some of the credits from the sending area with golf courses so that. MR. MULHERE: That's a very good question. I'm surprised it didn't come up. Yes, the plan does require for a golf course development in the receiving lands and in the neutral lands -- no. Sorry, in receiving lands. You're required to purchase -- and I'm glad you raised that issue because I have to clarify a point on the record. You are required to purchase a TDR equivalent to your base density, so you have 1 per 5. Again, let's use just an example of just a hundred acres. You would be required to purchase 20 TDRs, 1 per 5 for a golf course development. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Now, I did want to put on the record the plan needs to be corrected, because in the neutral designation golf courses are permitted, and that's no problem, but we also indicated that you had to acquire TDRs for golf courses in neutral lands, and that's in Page 178 March 4, 2002 conflict with our recommendation that in neutral lands there is no sending or receiving. So we just need to strike through that requirement for neutral lands. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I heard -- I heard a number of times a -- talking about taking the TDRs and extending them to the urban area. MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And -- how would we -- how would this be an advantage or wouldn't it be? MR. MULHERE: A couple of reasons: One, it increases the market significantly for the TDRs. It probably significantly enhances the timing of utilization of those TDRs. If you only needed -- or if you were required to accomplish a density increase through-- and in order to accomplish that density increase, the first increment had to come through a TDR, that's certainly going to create a strong market. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then the other thing is, is Dr. Nicholas's presentation was absolutely excellent. But for us to be able to get something like this kick-started and establish a value of the TDRs early on, is there any estimation what we would need from the -- from the -- our -- our funds to be able to make this happen? MR. MULHERE: We don't have an exact estimate. We did propose that that would be the next step in the process, would be to create -- consider creating the bank, a bank, and -- and that, really, comes after adoption. That's the next step. And then we talk about, you know, funding. I mean, one example that Nicholas -- Dr. Nicholas cited on, I believe it was the Maryland example, they funded 1.5 million, and they bought out development rights. The value of those development rights, if I'm not mistaken, was $12,000 - - ten or $12,000. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they went up considerably. Page 179 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: And they went up. We need to do that work. We're committed to doing that work, but you know, we have to take it one step at a time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, one thing that I strongly recommend is that when we get ready and we buy these particular TDRs for the county, in other words, get the whole thing kick-started, at some point in the future when we sell it we take the profits and we reinvest it in the rural area for the services that are needed maybe for a medical center, that we put the money back where it originated, the extra funds. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that's a very good point. I think Dr. Nicholas also indicated that the purpose of the bank was two - fold: One, to kick-start the process and, two, to set a market rate and then when that market rate went up, those people that were hurt by that process by selling initially were compensated for the lost value by the early sale. So that's another consideration that we have to think about when we get -- move down the road. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then the sending lands, as far as farming goes, new agriculture as far as the clearing and the amount of time that they would have to wait before they would be able to take their developmental rights and sell them off. Now it's 10 years, and we're looking at something that's 25 to 40 years? MR. MULHERE: Well, right now there is no -- there is no TDR program. So there's no language, no prohibition at all. There is a ten-year prohibition on conversion to another use. We are proposing as a disincentive to clearing lands for agricultural purposes in the sending lands, especially the environmentally sensitive sending lands, yes, that there be a prohibition. If you choose to do that and you can't convert that land for 25 years, then you can't sell the TDRs for 25 years. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My other question is on the -- in the Page 180 March 4, 2002 receiving areas, how does that work if you make a person whole if their land is not going to end up as one of the rural villages, in other words, if they're the buffer area? Where do they come out where they're going to be Whole? MR. MULHERE: Well, they get to take that density and move that into the -- the rural village. So you'd be talking about a -- a development entity acquiring enough land to create a rural village and the green space, and they would be buying that land so they would be making the seller whole through the sale. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And that's -- takes care of the questions I've got at this point in time. Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Very interesting discussion, Commissioners. This kind of reminds me of sales. It isn't that we don't want to buy it. I think we bought it. Now we're trying to figure out how we're going to pay for it. So I would like to poll the board and see, if we're all buying into the TDR concept, with a series of modifications, that all of you have indicated you have concerns about, in fact, we have a list of five possible modifications in the process that may be a starting point to integrate all of the further discussion, because it seems like everything emanates from the TDR, first I thought starting with ag, but that gets into TDR. So I really want to know where we are on the TDRs. Have we bought the concept and want to work with it through the modifications as a part of this transmittal as a straw vote? VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's about the only tool that we have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I really wouldn't support any program unless there was a way to compensate the people for the loss of use of their property. And -- and so I -- I think the TDR program Page 181 March 4, 2002 is the best I can think of right now. I am still concerned whether it will work and whether people will get the full value that they should get, but that's something we can work out, and we can review it on an annual basis. I think it provides us the best and most reasonable opportunity to compensate people for their loss of their use of their property. So I -- I am -- I am willing to go forward on the TDR concept, but I -- I would also like to make sure that -- that the board reviews that on a -- on a frequent basis, and I think it's annually we're proposing right now. And if it's not working, terminate the program because I -- I just cannot justify confiscation of people's property. But I'll work very hard to get the money to pay for it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I, for one, have reservations. But, I mean, for what we have at this point in time and that we're in the process that's going to be ongoing for a little while to come where we reach a final draw -- no time would be willing to actually compensate any -- to take and confiscate anyone's property out there. I don't think that's the intent of this plan. If it is, then I have certainly missed something along the way. I do want to see certain things included in it. The value of the TDR is most important. That's why the county's going to have to make a dollar commitment to get in there early to upset the value with a reasonable number that's going to interest the public. And they'll be able to see the true value of what's going to happen. I do think that the money that's made in any type of profits, we have to get them back out into the area where the money is generated, to meet the needs that are going to be out there, that we consider this thing in light of the fact that a whole infrastructure has to be provided for, and we can't make any shortcuts on that. Nothing goes in place until Immokalee Road is four-laned, that all the other entities are in place, and that includes a new Wilson Boulevard extension, if that's Page 182 March 4, 2002 ever going to be developed out in that particular direction. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Santa Claus is there anything else you'd like? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I'd like a strawberry with my ice cream soda, too, Mr. Carter. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are we going to take a half- an-hour break so you can get that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to get to it. Don't worry, Commissioner Henning. At this point in time I'm comfortable enough that I'm willing to move forward. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you. Then that indicates to me that we've got enough votes for transmittal Ing transmitting the concept with modifications. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And part of this setting up this bank -- I was very intrigued by the Central Pine barons of Long Island, the process they were using. If I remember from our Thursday meeting, we're going to get the chairman of that organization of their -- let's call it their bank for TDRs here to tell us what worked and what didn't work so with Commissioner Coyle. I don't want to take anybody's land, as I told the lady earlier. I don't want you to get hurt. I'd like to see added value to this process. And I believe we have to try it and review it. So I support the TDR concept in this transmittal so that we have that as a starting point and then the modifications that we are discussing. And, Mr. Chairman, you can integrate those as you choose. I will lead with the -- myself, the ag uses, we keep saying their uses previously .discussed. That says pretty much unless you come through a different permitting process, you can pretty much do today with that ag area what you've always done until you sell your TDRs, and that may put some limitation on it. But we're not going to Page 183 March 4, 2002 interfere with what you're doing there today. And I'm talking rural fringe now. As I said earlier, this is my decision on a rural fringe. I'll take the eastern lands when we get to it. So I'm going to recommend that we -- I guess I'm going to call it a very conservative approach to TDRs in the use of agricultural land, as we've been discussing, that says you have very few restrictions in that process, and there's been some -- a number of points that are -- that are in there, and other commissioners can build on that. But that's what I'm going to support, first, along with that, and turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman, and go where you want. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter. Mr. Mulhere, do we have anything else to cover at this particular time? MR. MULHERE: I think at this point, of course, with the board's pleasure, you may want to break. You're coming back at six to have some more public input. I do think it would be helpful to go through this list after the additional public input. It would probably only take 45 minutes, and you could structure your motions accordingly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that would be an excellent idea. So we'll adjourn for one hour and reconvene at six o'clock. (The meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m.) (The proceedings commenced with Commissioner Carter and Commissioner Fiala not present.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We are back now, and we're going to start right off by -- Fred Coyle, I think, has a statement he would like to make to the audience, and then we'll proceed with the speakers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, those of you who were here earlier today have heard this. But since so many Page 184 March 4, 2002 of you have joined us for the six o'clock session, I think it's important that -- that I repeat my statement from -- from earlier. We're going to be taking public comments starting in just a few moments, and we'll go through all the people who want to make comments concerning this process. And I think it's important that you understand the context within which we are operating here. We, as a board of county commissioners, are not -- and I emphasize are not -- trying to take away any of your property rights. We're actually trying to restore some of them. Your property rights were largely taken away on June the 22nd, 1999, when a final order, signed by the governor and the attorney general, State of Florida, established this area and required that a conservation plan be estab -- be -- be developed for this area. Essentially, that means you have had no property rights for the last three years if you own property in this area. What we're trying to do right now is find a way to restore your property rights to the extent we can be consistent with the governor's order, and that's a very difficult thing to do. So -- so if we do nothing, the state government is likely to write their own plan which will be very much like the governor's order which will leave you far worse off. (Commissioner Carter entered the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're trying to do our best to restore your property rights and make sure that you're compensated for them to the extent that we have to restrict them. So -- so when you come up to speak with us, I -- we know you're not happy about this. We're not happy about this. But when you come up to speak to us, try to give us some idea how we might be able to reach a compromise that provides you reasonable protection while at the same time trying to achieve the overall goals of the governor's order. Thank you very much. Page 185 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. And with that, the first speaker we're going to have before us is the gentleman Ron Hamel, who's in charge of the eastern lands, which will be following right on the footsteps of this particular study. And, Ron, would you go ahead and tell us where you are with that now. MR. HAMEL: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, good evening. On behalf of the -- what we consider the Immokalee study area committee, I'm pleased to be here tonight just to reiterate a few key points that we feel from the committee are relevant to this particular meeting. I'd like to take this opportunity to respectfully remind the commission that we really have two processes going here with this assessment. We have the Rural Fringe Committee, which you-all are -- the committee is ahead of our -- what we call the -- the Immokalee study committee in preparation and bringing things before the commission. And I want to make sure that you realize that our committee is still meeting. And, you know, you have the rural fringe, and we also have the Rural Lands Committee. And we're really moving on similar paths but two distinct -- we have two distinct missions, I guess, so to speak. The final order -- and I'd like to quote the final order real quickly in this particular regard. It encouraged this county to consider the appropriateness of undertaking the assessment in phases. Essentially, the rural fringe, which you're going through now, is Phase 1, and our effort is Phase 2. So wisely this commission has set up these two kind of parallel committees, but we're moving on different issues and moving at different -- in different time lines. So I did want to reiterate that to -- to you. Also, I don't know if any of you have seen the brochure that was put out. And it might be good for the audience to maybe get one of these too. I think you can get them at the public affairs through the county. But here again it says in the brochure, the Rural Fringe Page 186 March 4, 2002 Committee is focusing on lands east of the coastal urban area and west of Golden Gate, while the Rural Lands Committee, which -- which I chair, is focusing on the agricultural lands east of the Golden Gate and -- but both of these committees are meeting regular. At the last committee meeting on February 25th, the Rural Lands Committee was briefed about the situation and some of the issues with the Rural Fringe Committee by Mr. Mulhere, and the committee was kind of updated on procedurally of what's going on with the particular committee. Again, our committee reiterated the fact that we are a separate entity moving ahead.. We're on our time line. We will meet that schedule, and we will be back before this county commission. But I -- I did want to make the point that we are two distinct committees operating on kind of two different missions, but we're all trying to achieve the same goal as far as meeting the requirements of the order. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions, but I did want to just make that point on behalf of the committee without getting into any kind of details, because that's not why you're here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One question from Commissioner Coyle, and then we'll move on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Actually, it's just a comment, Mr. Hamel. I don't know if you were here earlier when Mr. Cox -- MR. HAMEL: No -- no, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- discussed -- MR. HAMEL: Ijust-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- this issue. MR. HAMEL: I just came -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: There was a very clear statement earlier today by this commission that we view those two studies as different, distinct studies and that the decisions we make on one are not to set a precedent for decisions to be made on the other. So I, for Page 187 March 4, 2002 one, very much agree with you. And based upon the -- the comments of the other commissioners earlier today, I think that's a very strongly held position. MR. HAMEL: Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And-- and we have -- we have a good group of people. We're working diligently. We've got good leadership. And we're getting good support from the county on this, and we appreciate it. And we're pleased to serve, and we're going to do our best to deliver a product that you'll be proud of. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Hamel, we appreciate very much the efforts of you and the Eastern Lands Study Committee, just as we do the Rural Fringe Committee and all the work you're putting into it to try to make sense of the governor's final order and to bring something by way of resolution to -- MR. HAMEL: I think we're all trying to improve our situation here in Collier County and -- and meet these challenges. I mean, it is unique. It's -- it's unprecedented. I mean, we -- we can really set -- set the curve on some very positive things for this community, and that's our intent with -- with at least the Rural Lands Committee. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: MR. HAMEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Hamel. Okay. Now, before we start with the first speaker, we're going to have three minutes per speaker. You -- if you have heard the subject already mentioned by the person before you and you think that it's been adequately covered, you may opt to waive, a simple move of the hand, and we'll move on to the next speaker. Any time -- you know, of course we'll honor everyone who has a slip up here to be able to speak. If you don't have a slip up front and you do wish to speak, right over here, the gentleman, Stan Litsinger, has his hand up, bring the speaker request form over to him, and we'll make sure to put you in there in the order that we Page 188 March 4, 2002 received them. And with that, Stan, would you go ahead and call the first speaker. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Commissioner. The first speaker will be Curtis Mitchell, followed by Tom Siemianowski. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And when you come up to the microphone, if you would start off by stating your name for the record. MR. MITCHELL: Hi. My name is Curtis Mitchell, I live in Northeast Belle Meade, and I own property in Northeast Belle Meade. Good evening, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. I'm in opposition to this TDR proposal for several reasons. One is that this TDR proposal attempts to undermine and punish agriculture. Severe land clearing restrictions and a 25-year wait for agriculture to sell their own development rights shows contempt for agriculture. In the Naples Daily News, we've been reading the antiagriculture rhetoric coming from the Collier Audubon Society and the Florida Wildlife Federation. Why, when the start order calls for protection of agriculture? I oppose this TDR sham because there has been no predermed -- predetermined value for a TDR. Also, I understand the other details of this proposal have yet to be worked out and finalized before the commission makes its decision. I'm against this TDR proposal because it encompasses real estate that is not environmentally sensitive, thereby placing restrictions on real estate that is ideally suited and located to provide schools, roads, emergency medical services, and a fire department for easternmost Golden Gate Estates. I oppose this TDR because it heavily favors one large property owner in North Belle Meade over the majority of other property owners in North Belle Meade. Many of us landowners would like the Page 189 March 4, 2002 same deal East Naples Land Company received, that is half of our real estate investments goes toward unfettered development while the other half goes towards habitat for wildlife. Now that we have seen this TDR concept, can we now view the alternative proposal for growth management, one that is moderate, rational, and considerate of the residents in the easternmost Golden Gate Estates? Please, Commissioners, remember what Dr. Nicholas said at last Wednesday's meeting. He said TDR programs work when there is public acceptance. What we have here is public unacceptance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. MR. LITSINGER: Tom Siemianowski. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: Vince Cautero. Rich Yovanovich. Oh, excuse me. I see Vince coming. MR. CAUTERO: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Vince Cautero with the firm of Wilkison & Associates, here representing H.M. Buckley Enterprises and also State Road 846 Land Trust. The property that was mentioned by Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Lorenz at last week's meeting and also this morning on both sides of the NRPA area, west side, Section 3 and Section 34, staff had mentioned a possible oversight and that the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Council had looked at that property and had not intended for it to be in a neutral area, and the staff had included that. We would just ask for your consideration again when you make a motion. And as many of the property owners have talked to you tonight about some of the sending lands in Section 24, we represent Buckley Enterprises, who is interested in learning more about the -- what the board's stance would be if permits are in hand right now in terms of a Page 190 March 4, 2002 group Comprehensive Plan amendment at some -- a future date, if those lands could be shifted back to either neutral lands or if some consideration could be taken for permits if they have already been obtained. And we would respectfully ask that that be taken into consideration. But to reiterate, if the board has not made that part of a motion previously, we would ask that the -- the land in Section 3 and 34 on both sides of the NRPA be reinstated to receiving land that was in the earlier draft, and that's all. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Rich Yovanovich. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Yovanovich, Rich, is representing four clients. Would you allow him 12 minutes or 3 minutes? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, three minutes per client since you do represent them, but I -- I hope you're kind enough to let it come together, all for one summation, maybe well before the 12 minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe I can accommodate that, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing Team Synervision, Wally Lewis, John Clark, and Curt Mitchell, who you just heard speak. First of all, I want to mention that, as you notice, there's a lot more landowner participation. I think that's because notices went to the affected property owners this time. In the past when Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted, notice to those who were affected did not go out, and I think that the commission should be commended by (sic) involving the public more into this process. And, as you can see, there are many property owners who are uncertain as to what is going to occur to them, and they have their natural concerns. I am -- I would like to briefly talk about the different issues that face my clients. First of all, Bob Mulhere has explained to you Page 191 March 4, 2002 some of the provisions that have been outlined, and one of them was a-- a modified density blending concept for properties in the urban fringe adjacent to sending areas. That would allow some density blending with some -- with a 60 percent preservation requirement. We're going to have to work out the details for that, but I'm happy to say that at least the dialogue has been opened up with the Florida Wildlife and Collier Audubon that at this stage we -- we -- they're willing to allow a transmittal of a density blending, but we've got to hash out the details between now and the adoption. They have not committed one way or the other, but they -- they've said that the dialogue can continue, and -- and we would hope that the commission can transmit that density blending concept for properties that abut the urban fringe and sending areas. The next issue has to do with as -- what Mr. Mitchell raised, and you heard from Mr. Clark. They are located in the North Belle Meade area where you have that area that is partly neutral and partly sending. Bill, is there a better-- the graphic that's neutral and sending so the commission can see that a little bit better? You can see it on the Future Land Use Map. Anyway, I think there needs to be a process where individual property owners, the smaller-- the smaller property owners, can come to the -- to the commission and to staff and do the ground truthing to show whether or not, as I refer to it, the fringe of the fringe is an appropriate designation as a sending area, or should it be a neutral area. Your staff recommended maybe 40-acre parcels. I would submit that we may need to go a little bit bigger, because the way some of these farmers have taken title is they bought parcels in 10- or 15-acre increments, and they're stacked on top of each other, but they're still considered separate parcels. So under the 40-acre analysis, if the first chunk is 10 acres, that's the only parcel that could be considered for this -- this ground truthing instead of everything -- Page 192 March 4, 2002 all of the land holdings for that individual farmer. So I think the concept is a good concept. Bill Lorenz refers to it as he prefers the bites around the American cheese and not the Swiss cheese approach, and we would hope that the Board of County Commissioners can encourage that type of approach for the smaller property owners in the Belle Meade area -- North Belle Meade area that have not been a party to the -- the agreement of one major landowner and the intervenors. The next issue you -- you touched on earlier on was the parcel of property immediately adjacent to the county's existing landfill. And, Bill, can you put that back up for me, please. That is -- that's Mr. Lewis's property. This is the property that is surrounded basically on all sides by the existing urban industrial, the county landfill, and the future county landfill. We would respectfully request that that be transmitted as industrial at this time instead of neutral area. Transmit it as industrial. Let the Department of Community Affairs comment on the industrial concept, and in the interim we can work with the affected parties to maybe come up with some additional preservation standards. I do want you to know that we -- we have had conversations with the Big Cypress Basin Board, Clarence Tears, and we have -- we are working with him to take some of the -- the water that's currently in those canals through a flow-way on the eastern side of the property that would be advantageous to the Big Cypress -- Big Cypress Basin Board and something that they would encourage. And -- and we are working with them already, and we would like to continue tO-work on that, and we can continue to work on that during the Department of Community Affairs comments. And so we would-- we would hope that we can go straight to the industrial at this point instead of going through a two-step process of neutral and then industrial. Also, I wanted to point out that it came as -- I was reviewing Page 193 March 4, 2002 these documents for my clients in the rural fringe area, and I noticed that some of these policies actually apply into the -- apply in the urban area. And I believe we have -- we have an issue regarding whether or not that's appropriate at this time. I mean, particularly there's a permitting process that is being designed to address specific types of wetlands. If you score a.65 under the WRAP, you would not be permitted to encroach into those wetland areas, and that applies in the urban area as well as in the rural fringe. And the notice that was in the paper and the notice that we've all seen was very specific that we were talking about regulations that apply to the rural fringe area and not the urban area. So I think we've got an issue, because had property owners in the urban area known that they were being affected by this process, I would bet you there would have been a lot more interest on their-- in what may be occurring. And I -- I need to give you -- so I think you've got a -- I think you've got a notice problem on these provisions that apply to the urban area. If you intend for them to apply in the urban area, I think you've got -- you basically have taken the place of the water management district, DEP, and the Army Corps of Engineers because you've added another layer of wetland regulation that's more restrictive than what the water management district, Army Corps of Engineers, and DEP already has in place. So you have -- you have, in a sense, become the super permitting board, for the lack of a better word. What you're -- what you're doing is basically saying that areas isolated areas can no longer be impacted. And maybe -- maybe that.65 wetland shows up in the wrong place, and an entire parcel of property in the urban area will have been taken by this regulation. I don't know that the Board of County Commissioners wants to -- to become the water management body because when there are issues Page 194 March 4, 2002 that come about if a property owner cannot deal with or agree with staff's interpretation of the quality of those wetlands, we will be coming to you, and you will be hearing the appeal. And also, you're basically allowing the state agencies to put the commission on the hook for decisions regarding wetlands, and -- and, you know, I.-- I don't -- I'm not a big fan of, you know, pointing out the Burt Harris Act, but this is one of those cases where I think the Burt Harris Act is a good example. There could be isolated wetlands on a partial -- isolated wetlands on a parcel of property that the various permitting agencies recognize can be mitigated somewhere else. Under that policy it cannot be mitigated. It's got to stay. So it will be the county's regulation that will stop the develop, development from occurring, and it will be the county's regulation that will result in a reduction in land. And let me give you an example hypothetically. If you own a 40-acre parcel on the comer of a major intersection that's zoned commercial and you have an isolated wetland on that prime out parcel, the comer parcel, the districts, the various agencies, would allow that isolated wetland to be mitigated somewhere else. That comer parcel is worth a lot of money per square foot. That county policy would not allow that to occur. That the county will have essentially taken that out parcel out of the value mix of the property. It will note -- it will not be the state agency; it will be the county. There are some significant fiscal impacts that need to be analyzed from a practical standpoint on some of these policies. Hopefully the commission will recognize that none of this was brought up properly in front of the public so there can be that dialogue. And those portions of the submittal -- this big book -- that may be applied in the urban area won't be applied in the urban area. And I think what you do is, as Mr. Cox had said earlier, make sure you put in front of all those regulations, mixed, fringe -- whatever we're calling it, the Page 195 March 4, 2002 mixed fringe district so we know it's not applying to the urban area. You -- the TDR program, you know, I -- it sounds to me that that's that train's already left the station. It's a question of how you're going to tinker with it to make sure it works. I think it's critical that the commission do what Dr. Nicholas said, and that is make sure there's a market for these units. You'll probably have to prop up that market with putting your money where your mouth is until the -- until an appraiser can actually put a value on this, because I think as currently designed, the market's too speculative. And, as Dr. Nicholas had said, if you can't appraise the TDR, it has no value. So I would encourage the commission to put their money where their mouth is in implementing the TDR program and make sure that the property owners can buy into this, and make sure that you take care of their concerns. I've heard the commission say they don't want to take somebody's property value. I know these people are counting on the commission to make sure that the TDR they're getting in exchange for their development rights will, at a minimum, make them even. I think Dr. Nicholas said it needs to be even a little bit more. There needs to be an incentive for these property owners to buy into the TDR program. I hope that on the three issues -- one was the density blending. I think the commission can go ahead and agree with that concept, go back to the industrial. And then also we need a process to take care of the fringe of the fringe. Those are the three major areas that my clients have concerns with and also with the -- with the environmental permitting process. If you have any questions of me, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker? MR. LITSINGER: Mike Taylor, followed by Bob Duane. Mr. Taylor passes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He waives. Page 196 March 4, 2002 MR. LITSINGER: Okay. Bob Duane. MR. DUANE: Good evening. For the record, I wanted to weigh in on Section 24. The intervenors, the Wildlife Federation and Audubon, had always had some lingering concerns about Section 24 as the agreement of all became clear -- more clear to all of us that receiving lands in the Belle Meade area were given somewhat less protection than was originally contemplated in the agreement; and for that reason, their concerns became heightened. When the Planning Commission asked the county staff and the intervenors and the school board to meet and discuss some of their concerns about the rural fringe area, it became clear that the sending designation provided a higher level of protection to Section 24. When we met with county staff, my general understanding was that they had also concurred at that time that the data and analysis, that is the ground cover and the endangered species data, also seemed to support a higher level of protection for portions of this section, which is why they agreed to change the map. I changed the map because I was the person developing the map for the Belle Meade area, but it was with -- my understanding, with the full blessing of county staff. I, of course, didn't attend the meeting with the property owner, but I wanted to give you some of my background on this because I felt I had a moral obligation to the other intervenors to at least share that with you, and I've now fulfilled my obligation to them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Brad Cornell. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could we get the next person on deck? MR. LITSINGER: Matthew Loiacano. MR. CORNELL: Hi, Commissioners. Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. And I just want to reiterate that we Page 197 March 4, 2002 do support the plan that you have in front of you in general. It is a very good, well-worked-out plan. I want to bullet a couple of issues that obviously have arisen since -- even since the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Council have discussed this matter. The recommendation concerning continued agricultural use after TDR sale, I think, is not a good recommendation on any level. The TDR sale is to compensate for lost use of property. And to allow a TDR sale and continued impact to the resource seems to be -- in a sending area seems to be counter to what that whole program was set up to do. So I think that the TDR program itself is what we're relying on for compensation, no matter whether you own 2 acres or 2,000 acres. So I think that that's appropriate. I think that it is good to increase the TDR use in urban areas as much as we can. This is an appropriate receiving area. I -- I want to mention that as regarding wetland values and- and on-site preservation, that the -- if something scores high in the WRAP assessment, the wetland WRAP assessment procedure, that means that there's reason to preserve it on site. And that was the whole point of that policy that staff has proposed and that we do support. So a.65 score would mean that on-site preservation is -- is very appropriate. The policies on flexibility on the boundary, if some -- a property is on the edge of a -- of a -- of the boundary, if you're going to consider doing it for shrinking the boundary, taking it out, you should also consider data that would support expanding it as well, so it should go both ways. And, finally, I think that lengthening of the time period for sale of TDRs if clearing has taken place, new clearing for agricultural purposes, should be beyond even 25 years. We should consider 40- to 50-years prohibition of TDRs. And-- Page 198 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll ask you out in the audience to please refrain from these outbursts, and we'll give you the same courtesy when you're up here. MR. CORNELL: I also think that -- that when land is cleared, that there should be a longer period of time for conversion to -- to urban uses, just as -- as a protection for agriculture. If we're going to do something for agriculture, then that-- that should be very compatible. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Cornell. MR. LITSINGER: Frank Ormesh, followed by Eddie Filer. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is Mr. Filer here? What we'd like is the next person to take a seat up front. MR. LITSINGER: Scott-- Scott Stonier. Robert Davenport. Sonja Durrwachter. Arthur Pritzeller (phonetic). Karol Montalto. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go. Make sure his time starts at zero. MR. ORMESH: My name is Frank Ormesh, and I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. This is definitely not a KISS operation. I've paid property taxes in Lee and Collier County for the past 30 years. My mom and dad were both immigrants from Europe, now called Bosnia. My mother's land was taken by the Russians. What's going on in Bosnia today is going to happen here. If you want my land, why don't you buy it just like I did? And if you can't, say no to the governor. Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. For the record, your name, and then you can go ahead. MS. MONTALTO: My name is Karol Montalto. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates, and currently the area that I've chosen as my piece of the American dream is not directly in the cross hairs of this proposed TDR program, but I take little enjoyment or reassurance Page 199 March 4, 2002 from that. At some point every one of the landowners in the targeted areas purchased their own piece of the American dream too. For me that dream consisted of having a secure place to raise my family and enjoy the wonderful, peaceful environment that life in the estates offers. With the current spacing of one home per 5-acre parcel of land, the peaceful, quiet existence can somewhat be preserved. We chose this secluded area and natural setting with that in mind. I feel confident that others chose the area for similar reasons. We're relatively newcomers to the area. Our home was built in 1999, so we've only paid three years of property taxes and financed the purchase for three years. But what about the people who've owned their lands for many years? How much have they paid in property taxes, and how much money have they paid to finance their purchase? I used to wonder how the environmentalists could get the government to take away people's land in the name of preservation. They just want to remove the people and let nature have the land, but how could this be in the best interest of the coffers of the area? After all, critters and plants don't pay taxes. Now I see what they're really wanting to do all along. They don't want the land with all the responsibilities of financing the acquisition or maintaining the taxes on that land. They simply want to have the property rights for that land. They want property owners to foot the bill for their vision of a piece of the American dream. Whether a person is in a sending or receiving area, their rights to the use of the property are thefted. The person in the sending area will be unable to develop the land as it was stated when he purchased it. What of a person who bought 20 acres with thoughts of providing for their heirs to settle on the land? At the current level of use, they'd be able to provide for four family members. The TDR program robs them of this property right. If they decide to develop the property Page 200 March 4, 2002 they must leave 90 percent of the land alone. The property rights for 90 percent of the land are gone. Do they continue to pay 100 percent of the taxes and payments, or do the protectors of the environment foot that bill? I believe I know the answer to that because the program wants rights, not the responsibilities. A man named Burr J. Harris, Jr., a Highlands County legislator, foresaw these situations. He enacted the Burt J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act. This is to protect property owners from actions of the government entity, which takes away the rights of a person to use their property as it was intended when they purchased it. The Second District Court of Appeals put it in simple terms. One of the basic foundations of the Burr Harris Act is stated, it amounts to nothing more than the application of the rules of fair play. One party will not be permitted to invite another onto a Welcome mat and then be permitted to snatch that mat away to the detriment of the party who bought the property. In other words, a property owner should not have been permitted to purchase the land with the understanding that they could develop it and then, after investing heart, soul, and hard-earned cash, be told that, "Sorry. The rules have changed. You don't have those rights anymore, but you still have that same financial obligation." In the most. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wrap it up, please. MS. MONTALTO: Okay. Just to wrap it up, in closing, I stated at the beginning that my property rights are not being compromised at this time. That's true, but I'm reminded of a poem from the time in Germany during the Nazi regime. It reflects the state of mind of a person who stood by and watched as one by one all the people around him were rounded up and taken away. He stood by and watched because it didn't have anything to do with him. Eventually, after all the others were taken away, they came for him. And because he Page 201 March 4, 2002 hadn't stood up for anyone else, there was no one to stand up for him. They just took him too. I refuse to stand by and watch my neighbors lose their property rights just because it doesn't directly affect me, because I know eventually it will. (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere, are you there? Would would you care to respond? I would appreciate it very much. MR. MULHERE: Well -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time a recap of what is being attempted to be accomplished here today. MR. MULHERE: Okay. There-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also the time frame that we're looking at and where we're going to be following through on it. MR. MULHERE: Right. There's no provision, again, to take any rights -- existing rights away. There is a provision to add some opportunities. Those opportunities would be to -- to allow for the TDR process on a voluntary basis to recoup the values lost from the lower development rights. So, again, it's strictly a voluntary program. I'm not sure I -- the Burt J. Harris Act was referenced. One of the major components of the Burt J. Harris to address the loss of value from new regulations is the TDR program. That's why we went to the TDR program, as a component to provide for the lost values. So CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me ask you the question a little different way. At what point are you going to take away their -- their transfer of development rights? MR. MULHERE: We're not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're not? MR. MULHERE: We're not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then at what point in time are you going to confiscate their property, Mr. Mulhere? Page 202 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: We're not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then what are we doing here? MR. MULHERE: We're trying to address the final order of the governor in the time frames that were set forth for us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And if we don't do it, I'm sure that they'll do it for us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if they do it for us, what will happen then? MR. MULHERE: We don't have any say so in the process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next speaker. MR. LITSINGER: Julian Stokes, followed by Lawrence Kirkland. MR. STOKES: Good evening. My name is Julian Stokes. I'm here again. I'm representing myself as a taxpayer of Collier County. I'm not sure that everyone understood the severity of what I was referring to before with regard to the current proposed guidelines for the TDR program. We could sit and bicker and discuss the bundle of rights. Bundle of rights are just not residential units; it's a whole bundle. So I'll stop there. I really think that the county needs to understand what it's getting into with regard to potential Burt Harris claims, particularly with the 0-to-l-mile corridor within the South Belle Meade area, which is what I've really kind of focused on, because at this point you're talking the potential of $50 million or more in potential damages. The value of the property in this area is very different from the other properties. I think that that's -- you know, I think if you go out and take a look, it's not actually in the CARL area. The state has purchased a large amount of those properties beyond this. They own that property. I think beginning at the end of the O-to-1-mile area, the CARL land acquisition area begins, and the Page 203 March 4, 2002 state, again, has acquired over 90 percent of those properties. I'm probably beating a dead horse. You probably know all this. But the O-to-1 mile area is immediately adjacent to the urban area, and its access either already exists or is available. If not for the new restrictions being proposed for this area, the property would now be highly attractive to large developers. I think the gentleman earlier indicated that the Governor had stated -- had invoked this entire thing about three years ago. Well, I think you have to take into account that the fact is that the value of this property, you have to go out before the stigma has been associated with it and bring it current as if that stigma is no longer associated with it. Therefore, in a nutshell, I think you're really looking at this one area alone, not to say any others, 15 to $25,000 per acre, if not more. The per-acre value that Dr. Nicholas puts on it is $3,950 per acre, and that's assuming that the residual acreage value is still there. I'm here to tell you that that particular value could jump up very likely per 5-acre tract to 75 to $125,000 per 5-acre tract conservatively, which puts your exposure at essentially 40 to possibly $70 million or more. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. STOKES: I'd like to wrap up just real quickly by stating that as an active appraiser, I think-- I'd like to support what Mr. Yovanovich said with regard to his assertion. I think Dr. Nicholas did a fine job with his supply side. I think the demand side is very questionable at best. And if we're going to establish a value as of the enaction of this ordinance, we have to establish that right now the demand is speculative at best and in all likelihood could be zilch. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Stokes. (Applause) Page 204 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker. MR. LITSINGER: Timothy Nance, followed by Tim Hancock. MR. NANCE: Good evening, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to address the body. I'm here to speak -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Pull that mike up if you'd like, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: State your name, too, please, for the record. MR. NANCE: My name is Tim Nance, N-a-n-c-e. I'm here to talk about agriculture again, something that's been talked -- spoken about by several people. I think under the present proposal, the rural fringe is going to lose its rural character, and we will no longer have a rural fringe. Although there's been ample time spent protecting the conservation interests and a lot focused on where development will occur, I see no program for protecting specialty agriculture in this county, meaning grove stands, U-picks, flower growers, stables, kennels, and beekeepers. Dr. Nicholas's examples were all areas where the people in the urban area wanted to protect their agribusiness. And, in fact, here agribusiness has very little impact on conservation in the rural fringe. There's simply not enough of it. The agriculture in -- in the rural fringe is done in the Six L's area that's scheduled and proposed to be a receiving area. That leaves absolutely no space for small ag business. I feel that without deliberate modification of this TDR program by this body, an unintended consequence of the TDR program will be losing all small specialty agriculture in the county ultimately. Why is -- why do I feel this way? There are penalties such as the 25-year criteria rather than safeguards for specialty agriculture. Specialty agriculture cannot survive in a receiving area. There's a listing that agriculture will be a potential use in a receiving area. But it can't Page 205 March 4, 2002 survive there. It's economically impossible. We've seen that in the urban areas we currently have. There's not enough neutral land to support the specialty agriculture that our community needs to -- and this rural fringe area needs to maintain its -- its rural character, and there's not enough residual value left in cattle grazing for somebody to be able to successfully sell their developmental rights. A 1 O-acre piece of land that's zoned for a cattle ranch is like a 1 O-acre piece of land that's zoned for an airport. It's ridiculous. Specialty agriculture should be protected, or the loss is forever going to diminish our community. We're going to end up with, on the western part of our county, an urban area dotted with conservation, to a conservation area dotted with urban areas in-- in the eastern sections. What are my suggestions to do it? I suggest we do the following: please separate small agriculture in your thinking and define it as an independent use right next to conservation and development. We're not talking about commercial food production. We're talking about agriculture in the rural fringe. There's nothing quaint about commercial food production. We're talking about letting our children in the future go to a grove stand or a farm stand or to a nursery or have a tree farm. Perhaps you should be thinking of agriculture that exists on less than a hundred acres or some of these specialty uses. Please allow specialty agriculture to sell their transfer of development rights and continue operations wherever they are without giving them a poison pill. There's no reason people shouldn't be able to sell their transfer of development rights even if a specialty agriculture is in a receiving area. Why wouldn't you want to safeguard agriculture in a receiving area as well? Please adopt a flexible review process and continue -- consider any proposal by a small ag business before it's shot down. And Page 206 March 4, 2002 please don't add any further additional regulations to agriculture. They are already tremendously regulated. Mr. Mulhere's proposed amendment, two-year proposal, to allow agriculture to continue operation after sale of develop -- of transfer of development sale is a good start. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need for you to wrap it up, Mr. Nance. MR. NANCE: Yes, sir. The economic decisions that you're going to make now are going to drive what happens with the rest of our land in Collier County. You've got conservation coming in from the east and south, and development from the west. Please, I hope this body will develop an approach to agriculture that 50 years from now will let us still have a rural fringe. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Nance. (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere, would you address the question of agriculture in the receiving area, please. MR. MULHERE: Well, there's nothing that would preclude it. I think if I -- I can -- I believe what was implied was that the values in receiving areas will go -- will rise such that -- that the land will be acquired for development purposes and it will force agriculture out of receiving areas, and I think that's probably somewhat true. But the way that this -- the plan is structured, you could cluster that development, and you could continue to farm on the surrounding lands. So there are some provisions in there to allow agriculture to continue. Now, I don't -- you know, there's a question about that relationship. If it's small-scale agriculture, I think it's very compatible with residential uses. If you're talking about something large or something noxious, then it's not going to be very compatible, and it's certainly going to be driven out. But there's nothing to Page 207 March 4, 2002 prohibit a property owner, a large property owner, from -- or somebody from aggregating parcels, clustering the residential development, and continuing to farm in areas and receiving areas where farming has already occurred. Then you're getting both uses. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. HANCOCK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Tim Hancock, vice president with Vanasse Daylor. I'm here representing more than 50 individual property owners. I will not be requesting three minutes apiece. I believe what I have to say on this issue can be addressed in five to six minutes at the most, so with your discretion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Proceed. MR. HANCOCK: I would appreciate that. The first matter is one of noticing. I also would like to thank your staff for at least sending out individual notices to the property owners advising them of this proceeding. I would request in the future, however, that they contain a little more information. And what I'm referring to specifically is that most of these folks when they got their notices, it didn't tell them if they're in a sending area or a receiving area or even what that meant. I assure you if their notices said you're in a sending area and told them what it meant, this would be happening probably at Teco Arena in order to fit everybody in. And so those notices (Applause) MR. HANCOCK: So those notices -- I congratulate your staff for sending them out to individual property owners -- I think they were sorely lacking in some of the detailed information that most people aren't even aware is occurring to them. The second item I wish to address -- and I'm really dealing specifically with properties close to the urban area south ofi-75 in what's called the South Belle Meade. The data that your staff has reviewed and assembled, it is the most current data they have Page 208 March 4, 2002 available. It's important to note, however, most of that data is in excess of seven years old. Most of the data was derived from satellite imagery that is -- is derived at a scale that is very difficult, even with magnifying glasses, to look at and determine accurately what's a wetland, what's not, except for the infrared coloring. The truth is there are several indicators of wetlands, vegetation being only one, soils being only one. And we have found in five sections of land that -- we had a certified biologist go through, within our staff, who has experience with DEP and extensive aerial photograph interpretation -- that in those five sections the amount of 621 code, which is cypress dominated forest, went from 1600 acres to 200. I would not deem that to be reliable information on which to tell someone who has 5 or 10 acres what they do or don't have on their property by way of conservation. So I don't know that -- and I'm not accusing your staff of anything other than that's the only data they had. The truth is it's satellite imagery. It's not even current aerial photographs, nor is it ground truthing. So please remember that in looking at whether something is defined as a wetland and what habitat is defined as as far as accuracy is concerned. Earlier this afternoon you took a straw poll in which all four of you felt that TDRs were going to be necessary and that you would move forward with the concept of TDRs as a way of, in essence, restoring the rights that the regulations are going to remove from the property owners. And I agree that while what's currently in place today, you're not removing rights from that, I think all these folks are looking back to June of 1999 as to what their rights are, not to the temporary moratorium that's put in place. So -- (Applause) MR. HANCOCK: So any reference to the moratorium, I think, Page 209 March 4, 2002 is inappropriate. I think we have to look at what the rights were in June of '99 when the governor's order went into action. If you're going to move forward with the TDR program, I'm going to try and outline four important steps that would be very important to making a property owner whole if that is the solution that this board adopts. Number one, TDRs should be assigned based on fair market value, not the property appraiser's value, fair market value. (Applause) MR. HANCOCK: The number of TDRs per parcel should be its fair market value divided by the value of the TDR. For example, if your property, regardless of size, has a fair market value of $150,000, at $18,500 a unit, that's eight units, and it shouldn't matter how big or small the parcel is. If we're going to make folks whole, let's make them whole. I have to go back to something Dr. Nicholas said. For a TDR program to work, it has to be profitable for both the buyer and seller, so I'd ask that that be a second element. (Commissioner Fiala entered the boardroom.) Third element, in order to avoid any further taking of rights, a dedicated funding source must be identified at the time of adoption of these regulations. There already has been a moratorium for three years. To say we'll review it another year from now is just further · extension and may, in fact, trigger a taking once it becomes a -- a regulation, not a temporary moratorium. So, please, Commissioner Coyle and others, I've heard you talk about that funding source. I encourage you to explore that and offer any assistance I can provide. The last item under TDRs I have is -- and, Commissioner Coyle, you said this earlier -- if it doesn't work, kill it and return the rights by a specific date. It's very important. Tell these folks either you're going to be made whole by a given date if you wish to sell those rights, or we're going to kill the program and restore your rights. In the south block the only way the state got off their backside and starting Page 210 March 4, 2002 writing checks is when this commission decided that it was going to remove the development restrictions. All of a sudden the state found money. Voila. There has to be a date certain that if it doesn't work by, these folks know that they're going to be made whole, or they're going to get their rights back. I would ask you to encourage that. And I will wrap up with one last item. I thank you for your indulgence. Combined with what staff has indicated as far as being able to reevaluate parcels of 40 acres in size or less -- that 40 acres, I don't know if that's the magic number or not -- but the ability for someone to come in and say, "Wait a second. I'm an active grove. How can I be sensitive environmental lands?" And for their classification to be altered, I encourage -- that along with some of these TDR efforts together may very well be a workable program. I have additional petitions from landowners to submit for the record, and I thank you very much for your time. (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Hancock. Next speaker. MR. LITSINGER: Ernie Cox followed by Ben Walker. MR. COX: Hi. Good evening. I know it's been a long day. Ernie Cox here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me, sir, did you already speak once today? MR. COX: Yes, on behalf of a different group. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you please identify the group you're speaking for this time? MR. COX: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. COX: I'm here specifically on behalf of the Barron Collier Partnership and Collier Enterprises, not in their capacity as eastern Collier property owners and not related to the rural lands. Page 211 March 4, 2002 The specific issue is just a concern listening to the comments that were made today and reading through the entire booklet of amendments that are going to be here today. Related to the comment that I made earlier about amendments that may apply outside of the rural fringe area, the concern raised on behalf of those owners who own property in the urban area is that the amendments that are being asked to be adopted relative to wildlife and wetlands go beyond the requirements of the final order. The final order, in its review, says that the areas that were found not in compliance were Golden Gate Estates, wildlife wetlands to then be solved by the rural and agricultural area assessments. The notice for tonight's meeting, today's meeting, and the meeting that was on the 27th, talk about amendments related to the rural fringe area. And, in fact, the map that was attached to the notice that was in the paper and provided to everybody includes just the rural fringe areas. So the suggestion that I would make to you-all tonight -- because I know you spent a great deal of time trying to make sure everybody knows what's going on -- is to make these amendments apply just to the rural fringe, as the notice provides. And to the extent that there is a need -- and I don't believe that there is. But if there is a need to deal with urban property issues on a wetlands and wildlife capacity beyond the existing permitting restrictions, to deal with them separately, not to put them together with the rural fringe. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: Doug Aldridge, followed by Mary Stamatinos. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: First one waived. MR. LITSINGER: Julian -- oh, excuse me. MS. STAMATINOS: My name is Mary Stamatinos. And I Page 212 March 4, 2002 would like to say that I represent myself and my husband, so if I run a little bit over my time, please take that into account. We own -- my husband and I own 5 acres of land in Section 30 of North Belle Meade, which we bought in 1956, 46 years ago. And that particular area is in -- if I might point to it, it's in the rural assessment -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ma'am, excuse me for just one second. The microphone -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Stan, will you help her with the microphone and turn it on, please? MS. STAMATINOS: Our land is right up here on the boundary of Section 30 and 31. And, as you can see, it's very close to the hub of Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates. So first of all, I would like to say that I don't think it should be included in this TDR at all. I think it should be excluded. And about two or three years ago, some lady attorney for The Conservancy had called-- I mean, I had called her when the matter was up, and she said that our area was excluded. So now I don't know why it is included in the TDR, because there is quite a bit of development. The landfill is there. The water treatment plant is not far away. Homes are there. And speaking of homes, those people in Section 30 and 31, the property owners just dedicated rights-of-way for the building of roads at their expense, and they continue to maintain them at their expense. And now they're being told about different things that they have to comply with or they can't do, which I think is, in effect really, a taking. And we -- I know that it has been pointed out that the county is trying to comply with the order of Governor Bush because it requires that the county do a better job of protecting the environment, and it's also supposed to control growth. Well, the Fifth Amendment is -- was put out for just that purpose, to -- just such a situation, that is where the state is overstepping its -- its rights, so to speak, and is Page 213 March 4, 2002 infringing on the property owners' rights. And if the state wants to do something like that and they have to use land that belongs to people, there's a procedure called eminent domain where the state can go ahead and get the land that is required for public use. But I don't see that there is any land required for public use here. Can I continue? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wrap it up, please. But go ahead and MS. STAMATINOS: Now, by designating certain areas in the sending area and certain in the receiving area, that in itself is depriving the person of the right of life, liberty, or property -- mainly property -- without due process of law. And by eminent domain that will be taken care of because they will be served, and they will be given the opportunity to state their reasons for -- the state will have to say -- or the county will have to say the reasons for the taking, and the appraisers will be given an opportunity to give their appraisal based on fair market value. So that would be the more equitable way, to just go through county eminent domain proceedings. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need for you to wrap it up, ma'am. MS. STAMATINOS: Yes. So I would consider-- I would like to see the county dump this -- this whole program myself-- and let's see -- and so that the county will not be embroiled in lengthy litigation to no one's benefit and that the property owners will be left to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, as we go through this list of speakers, I have a number of speakers who have spoken previously who may be speaking on a new subject matter. Is that okay with the chair? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe what we're doing is we're restricting the speakers to one appearance up here unless they Page 214 March 4, 2002 represented some other entity. MR. LITS1NGER: Okay. I will call their name at any rate, and you can-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we can ask them if they've already spoken today. And if they have and they just represent themselves -- MR. LITSINGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- then at this point in time -- but if they're a bona fide lawyer, they have -- they represent the holdings of another person, then by all means we'll let them speak. MR. LITSINGER: Milgiza Migliazzo. MR. MIGLIAZZO: this time. MR. LITSINGER: Okay. The next speaker is Tony Migli- You didn't get it last time; you won't get it Followed by James Ivey. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You spoke on the same subject on Thursday, was it, or-- MR. MIGLIAZZO: Wednesday. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Friday. MR. MIGLIAZZO: Wednesday. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me. I'm going to ask you to do one thing, though. Have we gone through everyone that has not spoke before? MR. LITSINGER: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do that and then come back at the end and take those that have already spoken at the first meeting, and then we can make sure that we -- we don't hold them up. They may want to go home. So we'll give them first shot at it, but don't go away. We'll get back to you. MR. LITSINGER: James Ivey. MR. IVEY: Commissioners, my name's James Ivey. I own 30 Page 215 March 4, 2002 acres, Section 25 off Garland. The property I bought for investment. I work real hard. And I haven't done anything with the land, and it doesn't seem quite fair not to be able to -- my initial interest was to sell half of the land and then use that money to build a house which, from what I'm understanding, I won't be able to do that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Mulhere, I don't think you probably heard the question, but he owns land. He's never done anything with it, wants to sell half of it and build a house on the rest. From what I understand, that doesn't stop him from doing it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it depends on where he is now. MR. IVEY: It's populated pretty good in there. I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where abouts are you on the map, sir? is? MR. IVEY: Off Garland, Unit 25 -- Section 25, Jenkins. MR. MULHERE: Can you tell me what the size of the property MR. IVEY: Thirty acres. MR. MULHERE: And it's vacant right now? MR. IVEY: It is vacant. MR. MULHERE: You would be permitted to build one dwelling unit and to sell -- if you kept that one, and to sell through the TDRs 5 dwelling units. MR. IVEY: Right. That doesn't seem fair. I mean, I've worked really hard. I worked 10-, 12-hour days, and that just doesn't seem like the right thing to do. MR. MULHERE: And that's in Section 24, is it? MR. IVEY: Twenty-five. Now, if I build this one dwelling and I can't use the -- sell the rights and I've got the 25 acres that I really can't do anything with, do I still have to pay taxes on that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, at this -- at that point in time if Page 216 March 4, 2002 you can't sell the rights, I'm sure we're going to have to call the whole program off. We're -- we're hoping that if we get to the point that we agree to do this, that we're not going to be buying a pig in a poke. We're going to be pretty sure this thing's going to work, and the county's going to be putting up some money of their own to make sure it will, especially-- MR. IVEY: With the price of the land in the neighborhood, I know that they paid 20, 25 -- $20,000 anyway -- an acre for the land in the neighborhood recently, and I don't think I'll be able to get the money back. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, don't be too sure. We haven't got to that point yet. But when we do -- the idea is if we do do this, that it'll make you whole, and you'd still have use of that whole land for use with your one dwelling on it and probably get paid more than the value that you actually paid for the land to begin with. And, to be honest with you, if this thing does take off, the worst thing that anyone could do would be to sell these rights too soon to the county or to anyone else. The last one will always get the biggest price. MR. IVEY: If you will, I ask you guys to check the density in Section 25, because there are a lot of houses in there. And it's all set up kind of 5-acre estates, 1 O-acre estates and that size stuff. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What do you want us to check now again, about the -- MR. IVEY: The density of the human population in that area, because it's -- there's a lot more human than there is wildlife. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't want to check the wood -- the red-- the cockatoo woodpecker? MR. IVEY: We'll keep him a couple of-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got a good recipe for them. No. Just kidding, environmentalists. I didn't mean that. MR. IVEY: As far as -- as Corkscrew, I own some property in Page 217 March 4, 2002 Corkscrew also. I'd like to see that left neutral, best I can tell from that. Please keep in the consideration Section 25. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Ivey, question please, before you leave. The lots that you own -- is it one lot? MR. IVEY: It is one 30-acre piece that I bought for investment to for, you know, to cut off as -- for my family and to sell part of it. So, I mean, I don't have -- I can't leave it ag because I haven't done anything. I work all the time trying to pay for it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. MR. IVEY: So keep that in mind whenever you CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We certainly will. Thank you. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: Darrell Kluever, followed by Tony Wojciechowski. MR. KLUEVER: Hi. I'm Darrell Kluever. I own Sun Country Tree Service. My wife and I own 35 acres on Garland Road. We try to maintain all our roads. They're all blacktopped. I would -- we fought the landfill before when they said they was going to take our land. I really don't have time to come up here and read everything. My wife calls me on the cellular telephone to say you're going to lose your rights. Well, I would -- I'd tell the state to step back a little bit. Take a drive over there. Don't fly over there. If you want to come out and visit us, you're more than welcome. I also have about 1100 oak trees out there. I took out the orange trees when they said the landfill's going to be there. They're gone. Now I'm into oak trees because they said it'll contaminate the oranges. I would just, you know, think about your decision. I don't have time to read it every day. We work for a living. I have 14 employees. Thank you. (Applause) Page 218 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI: Hi. My name's Tony Wojciechowski. I've been a Collier County resident since 1987. I wanted to read some things of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 3, paragraph 8, The term "fish and wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including, without limitation, any mammal, fish, bird, including migratory, etc. Section 4, paragraph 19, The term "takes" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture. Section 4, paragraph 20, The term "threatened species" means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. Section 4, paragraph 8, The present or threatened destruction, modifications or curtailment'of its habitat or range. I'd like to request that the commission consider the species of rural Collier County landowner as an endangered species and possibly put us on (Applause) MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI: All of us do not want to live in a clustered society. Some of us like to live out in an area that's not a condominium or a gated community, and that Governor Bush, I believe, was an elected official and not a dictator. Thank you. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: Lisa Knodel, followed by Guadalupe Morera. Lisa Knodel. MS. KNODEL: Hi. Thank you for hearing me. My name is Lisa Knodel, and my husband is Richard Knodel. We live on Sabal Palm Road just past the citrus grove, which is the northwest northeast comer of Section 30. My husband, Richie, purchased 183 acres here in 1976. In December 1977, we sold 143 acres to the state as part of the CARL program. We did not receive a particularly great price per acre, but then again, that acreage was wetlands. We purposely kept 40 good acres, high and dry, by the road. Page 219 March 4, 2002 We are not wealthy people. My husband is ill, receives disability. I'm a waitress working two jobs. My husband's medical insurance no longer covers his major disease or his medication. This month cost us over a thousand dollars in prescriptions. Here's the bill. The money we received from the CARL settlement has been almost completely depleted from my husband's medical expenses. The 40 acres that we retained is our major investment. The property across the road was recently sold for a substantial sum of money per acre and is intended to be part of a golf course. That's directly across the road. Our investment was looking good, and we were counting upon the ability to be able to sell the property, if necessary, to ensure my husband's medical needs and that we would not have to live in a financially miserable situation. Then this came along. We feel that we have already relinquished 80 percent of our property for environmental and conservation purposes, and it would be very unjust to have to be forced to give up any more. I realize that ours is just one situation. There are many people with many other situations. I just wish the council would realize that there are people -- individual people and lives that are involved here. I always believed that the right to own property was fundamental to being an American, fundamental to freedom. If private property rights are forfeited, then no one is free. What's that expression? Don't tread on me. I beg the council to be just. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, the remainder of the speakers either spoke on Wednesday or earlier today. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No? Go ahead. You're next. We'll' make sure you speak. You've been here all day long. I got to hand it to you. You stayed through the thin and the thick of it from early morning till now. MR. BAEZ: Hello, Commissioners. How are you? My name is Page 220 March 4, 2002 Emilio Baez for the record. I own 97 acres in South Belle Meade that I've had since 1986 and paid taxes all these years. There's a lot of things that I understand about clustering, and I don't hear very much of that considering that 60 of my 97 acres were cleared at one time. There's so many things out there that people are being misled on. If you have -- like, let's say on my 50-acre parcel where I have two parcels, that means if I build one house, I have to clear all the melaleuca's on that 40 acres. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's find out on that. We'll ask one question at a time. Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: That's one I don't have the answer to. MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: You don't have to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I can't allow you to address us from the audience. They can't get you down in the record. That's the problem. But I -- I'd like to have you come up to the microphone ~and tell us what you do know. MR. MULHERE: I think the question is do you have to clear the exotics on the entire parcel to build a single-family home, if I understood the question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. MR. MULHERE: I got to defer to the staff on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do appreciate you offering the advice. I will take advantage of it the next time by getting you up to the mike. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. That's a question that hasn't come up yet. And, to be honest, the way the Land Development Code is written right now, if you come in for a building permit prior to getting your certificate of occupancy, all of the exotics have to be removed on that parcel. MR. BAEZ: Boy, I guess I have to get a job. You know, I mean, there's one thing after another. There's so many secret little Page 221 March 4, 2002 things that if you're not an attorney or someone that has a college education, you're -- if you're not careful, you're going to lose all -- I used half of my inheritance money to buy this land. There's so many things out there that people haven't heard, like about being able to build cabins. Recrea-- one of the things is sporting and recreational camps. There's so many different things that they probably don't know besides not only being able to build one house per parcel, that they would be allowed to build other things besides a house. They could build a house. They could build cabins. They could build boys and girls camps. There's so many things out there that -- I don't have the three minutes isn't enough time to let everybody know. I mean, and of course if you're the first one to sell, you're not going to get a great price if this TDRs goes. I've been out there for all these years. A lot of my friends sold out for very little money out in the Belle Meade. They just now approved 50 of my 97 acres to be paid at 125 percent of the appraised value. They're buying land in the Belle Meade for as much as $7,000 an acre, and in southern Golden Gate Estates they're paying more than $7,380 an acre. If you do your math, you hold on there, and you don't sell out at first, you're going to do pretty well. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Emilio. MR. LITSINGER: Now we're at two repeat speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just to double-check, is there anyone here who hasn't spoken previously? Okay. Go ahead with the list. If there's anyone else, too, that would like to still submit a speaker's form, we'd be more than welcome (sic) to take it. MR. LITSINGER: Don Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth representing Mr. Cowan and some other owners of property in Page 222 March 4, 2002 Section 24. We've -- the section has been discussed a number of times, and I just was listening this morning to the -- to discussion on the agreement with regard to North Belle Meade. We would certainly like to be supporters of that agreement that was reached. But what's unfortunately (sic) is it's been done in a way to create what amounts to a zero sum gain. Our concern is that after two years of-- of work, study, meetings, etc., during all of this time, Section 24 was recommended to be in the receiving area. And it was only after the Planning Commission -- and keep in mind, the proposal that's been made to make Section 24 a sending area is in effect a change from what was recommended by your Planning Commission, by your staff, and what what was -- what was brought to you. And we're -- we're a little concerned about some of the reasoning that's being given for -- for making that change. We are told-- and what's interesting is the school board, which as best we're able to figure out at this point, was sort of the catalyst in getting this change made because they got some lands designated neutral a couple sections over in North Belle Meade -- interestingly enough, their land in Section 24, instead of going to sending, went to neutral. We find that to be, you know, a bit odd. With regard to what you heard today and will probably hear more of about Section 24 being critical RCW habitat, well, Section 24 has RCW habitat in it.' It has had that for a long time. Everybody's always known that. Everybody's known that this whole two years that all of these studies have been done. That's nothing new. With regard to the land of Mr. Cowan and the others in his group, there are no cavity trees on their land. And to the best knowledge we have, the RCWs do not forage on this land. We are in a very similar position that -- that Mr. Yovanovich was talking about with regard to the -- his client's land near the landfill. Page 223 March 4, 2002 We are, again, surrounded on three sides by Golden Gate Estates. Most of Section 24 has been cleared already. And, in fact, the -- the North Belle Meade plan submitted by the Wildlife Federation to the Planning Commission recites that fact and recommends that this be receiving. For some reason, a few days after the Planning Commission, the recommendation is now to turn around and walk in a different direction than we've been going for the past two years. And the justification, we hear talk about lingering doubts and habitat and things like that. Well, we have a difficult time giving credence to that. Why? Because these are the people who have had this issue before them for the past two years. We've followed it very carefully, and this is being -- this is coming on us at the last minute. We frankly don't believe these claims. Why? They don't pass a common sense test. Why would the staff, the Rural Fringe Committee, the Wildlife Federation over two years allow this to remain as a recommended receiving area and then a few days after the Planning Commission meeting decide to change their mind? That doesn't make sense to us. And I'll conclude by just going to something Commissioner Coyle said at the beginning, which is when you address us, tell us how we can resolve these issues. And I think the resolution was put before you by Mr. Mulhere this morning, which is to either restore this property to the sending -- to the receiving status it had as of the conclusion of the Planning Commission. And keep in mind, this is not what I call North Belle Meade receiving, which allows you to nuke all the vegetation. It is the receiving like in the other parts of the rural fringe which has the 40 percent preservation requirement. The other alternative presented by Mr. Mulhere would be to give this property a neutral designation. And while we prefer the restoration of the receiving, which it had through all this time, we will leave it to you to adjudicate which of those two alternatives Page 224 March 4, 2002 appears best. We think the idea of keeping it as -- as sending land is certainly unacceptable and not justified. (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. We're going to take a five-minute break to give the recorder a chance to rest her fingers. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker, Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The next two speakers are Lynda Hittinger, followed by Chuck Mohlke. Lynda Hittinger. MS. HITTINGER: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Lynda Hittinger, and I live in the estates, and I'm here representing myself and also as vice president of Property Action -- Rights Action Committee. In the most basic of truths, I believe that a private property owner is the best steward for their property. They have a vested interest to preserve their land for future generations. In the estates that includes the future of the wild animals that exist with us. Many of us moved here due to the wildlife, not to remove the wildlife. For sure we do impact them. None of us live in a vacuum. As sure as a stone cast upon still waters causes ripples again and again, so does human existence. Please don't take away that right for us to exist. Certainly we deserve consideration as human beings. The pressure that has been thrust upon you by the state as a result of the pressures placed on them by the environmentalists is unfounded. How can a logical, thinking person look at a map of Collier County and see that upwards of 80 percent of the land is already in the hands of government and being protected directly and still scream that we are not doing our part? When is enough enough? To them I say, if you want more land preserved, do it the original American way. Buy the land yourselves. Put your money where your mouth is. Then if you choose to give up your right to develop Page 225 March 4, 2002 that land, that is your right', and you -- we will be behind you 100 percent. Commissioners, as our elected representatives, we look to you to protect our rights as citizens of this great land. Please don't allow them to force us -- force you to sell us out in the name of preservation. Please preserve our basic human rights as American citizens. Allow us to live free to pursue and enjoy the rights to our property as was established when we purchased it. Let us be pioneers, and tell the state to keep their hands off Collier County. Thank you. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: Chuck Mohlke. MR. MOHLKE: Good evening. My name is Chuck Mohlke. I appear here as a member of the Rural Fringe Area Oversight Committee and wish to thank commissioners for the opportunity to be of service and to say something too little said in these meetings, that the level of cooperation that you have received from your professional staff is really extraordinary. They have, over the space of-- by my count 58 meetings in almost 2 1/2 years, have tried to the very best of their ability -- and I think they have fulfilled everybody's expectations of being fair and responsible in the way in which they have assisted the committee in the conduct of its business. And I thought I would conclude my remarks this way, that I'm hopeful that everybody in this room who has spoken so eloquently regarding their concerns will be back here again some time in the next 90 to 120 days when the state will, as is customary, have delivered for concern by elected officials and their professional staff, the objections, recommendations, and comments, or so-called ORC report, that will be the state's judgment on whether or not what you will transmit to them is deemed to be appropriate and to meet the requirements of the final order. Not to be here to provide comments Page 226 March 4, 2002 on those objections, recommendations, and comments of the Department of Community Affairs would, I think, ill serve the interests of the citizens of Collier County and its elected officials and, most importantly, the property owners who have so much at stake. We hope that those -- the property owners and citizens of the of the rural fringe area have felt that they have had every opportunity to present their views. And certainly what I've heard this evening indicates that these views, strongly held, even passionately held, have been listened to by you and will affect the decisions that you make. I thank you for the opportunity again to be of service and hope that your transmittal process will, if nothing else, intrigue and stimulate members of the Department of Community Affairs to the point that they recognize that the exercise of local control here is very important. Thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for everything you have done on the committee. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: The next speaker is Nancy Payton followed by Maureen Bonness. MS. PAYTON: Good evening. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I want to touch again on our North Belle Meade overlay that is the proposal that's come forward by the Collier Audubon and Mr. Brown and the school board. In our overlay plan, Section 24 is sending. And, in fact, the map that's in your binder and on the wall over there has Section 24 as sending. It's part of the plan. Why it is sending and not receiving is because new data was received. Now, we have taken the flak in the past for using old data or allegedly using old data. New data comes forward that supports the position that Section 24 should be sending. We act responsibly, and we change it to sending. There's new data that came forward the same day for Sections 13 Page 227 March 4, 2002 and 14 that showed that it had lost its environmental value significantly, and therefore, it was appropriate and responsible to reclassify it. And we reclassified it to neutral because it's site for school. All school sites are neutral. That's why the school site in 24 is neutral. That's why Sections 13 and 14 are neutral, and that's why the Kaufmann property up in Area B is also neutral. All the school sites are neutral. That's nothing new and different for the Belle Meade area. Earlier today, this morning, I had a statement that I read about Section 24 and our position supporting it, and I'm just going to read out of that again to reiterate. Section 24 as sending is part of the proposal we're bringing forward as a settlement agreement. If Section 24 with its known biological information is categorized as a receiving area appropriate to accommodate growth, to dump growth in there, then most other sections in the sending and NRPA areas are in jeopardy of being reclassified as receiving. This will unravel our North Belle Meade overlay plan and the settlement agreement. Our overlay plan, our settlement agreement, the one that you have before you, calls for RCW nesting and foraging habitat to be mapped and protected from land use activities within the sending areas. If this survey reveals that Section 24, which is in our proposal as sending, is not RCW habitat, then it should be reevaluated for either neutral or receiving, but that's after the county does its evaluation. Commissioner Coyle, that's what I offer as how to get out of this situation, is the county pay for a consultant or they have staff to go out there and do the evaluation. That's the only way I think this is going to be resolved, is to have that ground truthing done, and we will honor that ground truthing. But the current data and analysis -- there is a biologist who went out there, not our biologist, the school board biologist, that supported and you heard from Mr. Duane as well -- supported that that is RCW Page 228 March 4, 2002 habitat. County staff on their map has it as RCW habitat. So that's all I have to say on 24. Section 24 is part of the plan, the overlay plan that we're proposing, and it must be sending. Now I'll move on to something different which is a -- a concern to us, but I think the issues are being addressed, but I want to get it on the record to confirm that. And that has to do with allowable uses on sending lands, NRPA lands, and conservation lands. And there are some conditional uses that are outlined in the proposal, and those are very broad. Essential services, and there's a whole page, almost, of listing in the LDC as to what essential services are. And because this is sending, it's not receiving, then the essential services are far less than what we -- they would be in the receiving area. And the -- the DCA also in their comment letter asked for clarification of essential services. And this is my understanding with staff and with Mr. Mulhere, that the conditional uses that are identified for-- for NRPA, sending, and conservation lands will be evaluated within the next year. They'll be refined, defined, clarified. And until that time that they are reevaluated or evaluated or whatever term we want to use -- but I think you understand what I'm trying to say -- that there will be no conditional uses granted within those three areas. That addresses our concerns about those broad conditional uses. We're going to -- we're going to take a year to -- to discuss them and to refine them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you. Nancy, have you ever been in Section 24? MS. PAYTON: I haven't been in Section 24. I've tried to get in there. (Applause) MS. PAYTON: But I am not a biologist. I don't have that type Page 229 March 4, 2002 of expertise. We relied upon a person that has that expertise who has been in there and walked that land. And that's the responsible way to approach this, not what I, a history major, says, but what a professional biologist says, and that's what we based it on. It was said in the presence of county staff. We had aerials that were brought in to support that, plus the fact that he had been out there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not an environmentalist and don't pretend to be. MS. PAYTON: Or play one on TV. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? MS. PAYTON: Or play one on TV. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Well, I -- you know, I'm not going to say too much about that. I've been in that .area in the -- in the late '90s and down Brantley Road, and what I see in that area is a lot of farm -- farmland. And I'm not sure if that is proper to -- for that area to be a sending area. I think it needs to be reevaluated into a neutral area, just from my observation. (Applause) MS. PAYTON: Well, we have conflicting -- we have conflicting information and the recommendation that Florida Wildlife is making is, county, get out there and do your study. Otherwise, it's going to be dueling folks, theirs, ours, them, whatever. The county needs to resolve this by doing it itself or hiring a consultant to go out there in the next couple of months and evaluate that habitat. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion, that possibly due to the fact that experts are the ones that are going to be deciding some of these fine details up in Tallahassee, we have to have the data to be able to support it. I kind of hope in your direction, that it'll come out to be a -- a receiving area rather than a sending area, but let's go ahead and see about getting the professional in there to do the survey that will substantiate what we're saying here Page 230 March 4, 2002 today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I -- I would hope that we would put the burden on the property owner and not on the taxpayers to evaluate their land and to find out -- you know, hire the experts to evaluate the lands. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the taxpayer's survey of its own land isn't going to carry a lot of weight in Tallahassee when it comes time for the final evaluation. That's why it might be a good idea to be able to -- possibly within our own department. We might have the staff to do it. Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure if we do have the expertise in house to do that, if the county does have the expertise. I think if the county was inclined to do it, they would have to hire a qualified biologist to go out there and do an assessment. I'm also not sure -- I heard Ms. Burgeson put on the record that it takes several months to do a bona fide -- I guess that term is thrown around a lot -- but a quality red cockaded woodpecker inspection because sometimes you have to do it in season and out of season. I don't -- I'm not a biologist. I don't know those details. I think we have -- you know, it's a chicken-and-an-egg-type thing. If-- if we go out and do the assessment and the evidence shows that -- that it is red cockaded woodpecker habitat and needs to be protected, then we need to do that. And -- and whether it's -- it seems to me that perhaps a -- a neutral point -- again, not using the word too repetitively here, but perhaps somewhere in the middle is to designate that temporarily as neutral, go out and do the study, and then come back based on the study and reclassify the lands as is appropriate. That'snot exactly what the Wildlife Federation is recommending. It's certainly not what the property owner is recommending, but it's somewhere in the middle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about the transmittal? Will we Page 231 March 4, 2002 have any problem with that? MR. MULHERE: That would be for transmittal. Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Nancy, I'd be -- I'd be willing to -- if there are some issues, some environmental issues out there, I'll be willing to recognize that when it does come back. But you're talking about a lot of property owners out there that have been in my opinion, what I've seen has been farming out there. And, of course, I can't claim that I went through all of Section 24 but I know Brantley area quite well, you know, Section 20, and so much Section 24. And, again, if there is some environmental issues, I'll be willing to change my mind. MS. PAYTON: While it's classified neutral and this study's going on, will there be any -- is it in a static mode? MR. MULHERE: I would think not. I mean, it's certainly in a static mode between now and the adoption hearing. One of the other things that we could do is -- as Nancy indicated, there was a biologist hired by the school board that did an assessment. I think the staff has some level of comfort in my earlier discussion with the staff that that person is a qualified biologist. And we could certainly start with the data that that person has put together in terms of the habitat issues and then supplement that if necessary. Of course, that person was hired by the school board, but they did conduct some environmental assessment, and there was some information put in the record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My -- the only thing I'm concerned with is that we got proper documentation. So whatever we -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. I'm concerned that you won't be able to conduct an assessment within the time frame between transmittal and adoption. I just don't think that's possible. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the question Ms. Payton raised about what would be the status of this property, right Page 232 March 4, 2002 now all this -- all this property is governed by the governor's final order. When will that final order be lifted, whenever we get an approved plan, or when we submit a plan for consideration? MR. MULHERE: No. It would be lifted -- it would be lifted after challenge period, which is after the adoption. And the challenge period is -- I'm going to defer to -- 21 days? MS. CHUMBLER: Twenty-one days after the plan -- if assuming that the plan amendments are found in compliance, there's a 21-day period after that when affected people can challenge it. So essentially when the plan amendments become effective, then the moratorium would be-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So-- so we're talking about sometime next year probably. MS. CHUMBLER: Next fall at the earliest. And, of course, if there's a challenge, then they remain not in effect until the challenge is COMMISSIONER COYLE: So between now and then, if this property were placed in a neutral category, it would still be governed by the governor's final order until next year; is that -- is that correct? MS. CHUMBLER: Not just this area, the entire rural fringe. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The entire area, but I'm just using that one example because Ms. Payton raised the issue, and I understand -- I understand what her concern is. And during that period of time we would -- would have sufficient opportunity to conduct a proper study of that area to determine whether it should go to -- to sending or receiving or stay as neutral; is that -- is that a correct statement? MR. MULHERE: I think that's sufficient time to conduct the assessment, four to five months. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, except let me just say one thing. I mean if you're -- that might be appropriate if you were then going to Page 233 March 4, 2002 take subsequent action. But in terms of data collection, the only data that can be utilized for consideration by the Department of Community Affairs or a judge, if this is challenged, is the data that was available on the date that the county adopted the plan. So in terms of your action now in classifying this particular section of land, the data has to be the data in existence as of the adoption date -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can't-- MS. CHUMBLER: COMMISSIONER MS. CHUMBLER: COMMISSIONER MS. CHUMBLER: -- in order for it to be considered. COYLE: We can't change -- You can't later develop data and then use it. COYLE: Not even with an update? No, not for this particular action. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then what happens if-- say, for instance, we kept it as it was and we left it as a sending area and then the biologists did go in and after their two-month study they found lo and behold, no, it isn't what they thought it was after all, could it then be changed back? MS. CHUMBLER: Then you would have to do another comp plan amendment based on-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: A whole comp plan amendment? MS. CHUMBLER: -- what was in existence at that time. MR. MULHERE: It -- it's the same thing for those property owners on the periphery that we talked about. That anticipates the submission of data, evaluation, and then a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change those boundaries, and that's why we talked about opening the second cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments. And maybe, David, if you could talk to the timing of that a little bit, or Stan, somebody that knows the answer to that question. That might fall in the time frame of what we're talking about. MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, the Board of County Page 234 March 4, 2002 Commissioners is permitted two regular adoptions per calendar year of comp plan amendments, and there are several issues of which we've now just heard another one: Whether we may need to adopt an amendment relative to new data relative to the environmental habitat in Section 24. We also have the issue of the reevaluation of some of the fringe lands on the fringe that we may also want to look at a separate amendment cycle. We may also have developing in the next couple of weeks the need to add to that second amendment cycle the rewrite of your transportation element and all of the policies, as we all know, are being changed, and that along with the accompanying capital improvement element. So it may be an opportunity there to kill about four or five birds with one stone. (Several speakers talking at once.) MR. LITSINGER: Several-- several birds. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't want to hear those guns going off tonight in Section 24. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So it seems to me -- MR. MULHERE: Timing was the question, though. I think it's important to -- MR. LITSINGER: Well, the timing -- the timing on the second amendment cycle is at your discretion. When we think the timing is right, we'll -- probably within the next 30 days we will make the decision and come to you with an executive summary at your regular board meeting asking you to initiate the second cycle, at which time we will begin to collect the necessary data and staff reports. And the time frame is fairly fluid. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I understand this. If this is approved and it's submitted, we're going to go through a rather lengthy process of refining the plan, and it might get approved a year from now; is that a fair statement? Just yes or no? Page 235 March 4, 2002 MS. CHUMBLER: No. Less than that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: You would-- you would be looking at approval by the governor and cabinet -- I mean not the governor and cabinet, Department of Community Affairs probably late summer, late COMMISSIONER COYLE: Late summer. MS. CHUMBLER: to midsummer. Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if in the meantime we found additional information we wanted to consider, we could -- could make a Comprehensive Plan change, our second Comprehensive plan change, I presume, for the year. MR. LITSINGER: That would be a normal cycle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And that then would become part of this submittal? MS. CHUMBLER: No. That would COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would not? MS. CHUMBLER: -- be a separate submittal. MR. MULHERE: Subsequent submittal, but we can COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it would take precedence. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The subsequent submittal would take precedence -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- over the -- the plan which we -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: --originally submitted. MR. MULHERE: And, in fact, you could put in the policy that you intend to conduct this evaluation within a certain period of time, and if the data supports it, you will be coming forward with an amendment to revise those boundaries. Page 236 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: And if I -- tagging on to Commissioner Coyle and if I understand this, going neutral, if it's approved in the process, all the way up, DCA, etc., etc., and we're moving this simultaneously and we come back and we say, look, we want to redraw the lines in here because of new data, that is not going to jeopardize the settlement issue, but we have another opportunity to even refine it. MR. MULHERE: I -- I -- I'm going to defer to Nancy. I think what I heard her say was if there is an appropriate evaluation done of the red cockaded woodpecker habitat and that is addressed appropriately, she would-- MS. PAYTON: What I put on the table was that it remain sending because the data and analysis supports it being sending now. And in full disclosure I have to say that when it is adopted or if it goes into effect and Section 24 is neutral or is receiving, then we would have to file to protect our rights because we feel as of today the data and analysis supports that being sending. And I'm just telling you that right up front because it's our job to protect habitat. We know that that habitat is RCW habitat based on the biologist's review and ground truthing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nancy, in all due respect, I -- I appreciate all the work you're doing on this. I'm going to make a motion -- or ask if you would want to consider for a straw poll at this time so we can get towards bringing closure to this -- that we make it neutral to that point in time that we can find data that will support it to go to receiving or sending. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. If it's challenged, the whole thing's going to be held up. So what about if we do designate it sending conditioned upon ground truthing? MR. MULHERE: What we would have to do is create a policy that says within Section 24 within a certain period of time, a Page 237 March 4, 2002 relatively short period of time, the county will conduct an environmental assessment relative to the red cockaded woodpecker habitat, and if that assessment indicates that revisions to that designation are warranted, it will bring it in a subsequent cycle, second cycle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can live with that. MS. PAYTON: I can live with that too, because that holds the agreement together. You take out Section 24, the agreement is crumbling. There goes Wilson Boulevard Extension. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not fair. MS. PAYTON: I'm negotiating here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So-- (Comments from the audience.) COMMISSIONER CARTER: We'll keep track of the time up here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm in charge up here. I'll be the one to determine how long these people will be up here. They're helping us guide our decision, and I'll ask you to please remain quiet. If you're an expert on this particular thing, I'll call you up and get your two cents too. Other than that, please remain silent. Now, where were we? I forgot where we were now. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You did a nice job, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't mean to get too excited, but it was an interruption, and we have the experts up here now that are help guiding us through this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We were taking a straw -- straw poll; right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Right now at this point in time we were looking at COMMISSIONER CARTER: For making it a sending -- make Page 238 March 4, 2002 it a sending area under study to determine whether it'll stay that way in the future MR. MULHERE: By the way COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- based on the wood cockaded-- red-headed CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't say it. You're going to -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: That redheaded bird that we're COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Red cockaded woodpecker. CARTER: The redheaded bird. FIALA: RCW. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Woody Woodpecker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's a reason why they got the acronym for it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just the red -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've got her -- look at her. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Enough of the silliness. Let's get back to the thing. Okay. Straw poll. Let's go right down the line. Mr. Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Myself, yes. Commissioner Coyle. Want to come back to you? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, come back to me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that includes Brantley; right? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just 24. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twenty-four. MR. LORENZ: Twenty is receiving. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty is receiving? Page 239 March 4, 2002 MR. LORENZ: Section 20 is receiving. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's where the American Farms is. I know I've been down there. Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we got it. Let's move on to the next step. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. MR. LITSINGER: The next speaker is Mr. Morera. Oh, I'm sorry. Maureen. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That doesn't look like Mr. Morera. MS. BONNESS: For the record, Maureen Bonness. I am now representing Southern Sand and Stone, my family's business. And I'd like to offer an alternative receiving area, an area that I believe is more applicable to be a receiving area for the fringe than to be included in the rural land study where it is now. And if you look at the -- I think you're going to have to use the visualizer map instead and maybe zoom in on the upper half. There is a little notch of land in the --just to the east of OrangeTree that is now in the rural lands, and I believe it should be in the rural fringe instead. It is surrounded on three sides by Golden Gate Estates. It is now a fill pit. It was a tomato farm. Its environmental value is very low. The EAC recommended that this area be included as a receiving area for the fringe. It's also adjacent to Faka Union Canal, so it's drained. And it has access to several roads so that the infrastructure of the roads is already there. It's within 2 miles of OrangeTree, so it's near schools as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do you know why -- if the EAC recommended that we include it in the rural fringe as a Page 240 March 4, 2002 receiving land, can you tell me why we didn't do that? MR. MULHERE: Sure. It's not part of the rural fringe assessment area. It has already been determined by the board previously that that's part of the eastern lands portion. It may be appropriate as a receiving area, but I think your direction was it's in the eastern lands rural assessment area. We're going to leave it into that process and let them finish their assessment. And I'm not standing here telling you whether it's pro or con, receiving, sending. It simply was not part of the rural fringe assessment area set up by the board for that committee to study. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This would be an isolated end to the whole thing if we did incorporate MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the suggestion. It would stand out by itself. And this is also a borrow pit; correct? MS. BONNESS: It's a fill pit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how much of the area has been utilized for that purpose? MS. BONNESS: I'd say less than a quarter. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that leaves how many acres, just out of curiosity? MS. BONNESS: It's 660 acres total. It's one section. So if you if you're looking for more receiving areas, you've got a willing receiver. MR. MULHERE: You know, we didn't even look at the area because it wasn't part of CHAIRMAN COLETTA: else right now, but who knows? It's away. It doesn't tie into anything When we come up to consider the -- when we come back to consider the rural lands, there might be something there we would want to give some serious consideration to. Page 241 March 4, 2002 MS. BONNESS: The only difference then is then it doesn't tie into the TDR. So if you're looking for another receiving area for -- to help the TDR and the market value, it's there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand what you're saying. I just don't see how it fits in myself at this time. Any questions or comments? MS. BONNESS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I do have a question. If not for you, though. So if we are looking for other receiving areas and if we find this little notch thing right here does fit the bill, could it ever be moved from eastern lands to rural fringe? MR. MULHERE: Actually, you wouldn't even have to move it. You'd simply have to designate it as a receiving area the next set of amendments that come through if that was appropriate. But you're going to hear about a whole different proposal from -- from that group, and so I think you want to evaluate that when the time comes. It may be appropriate to designate it as a receiving land, and that's something that we can -- I can certainly bring back that question to the Eastern Lands Committee, having heard the board raise the issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next speaker. MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Morera. MR. MORERA: Mr. Morera, for the record. I just want to bring up some issues that I think are very important, property values. For example, say if you buy a piece of land, a hundred acres, and you you let it sit there and you don't do anything to it, okay, and then you buy another piece of land, 15 acres, and you improve it and you know, you spend money and hard work over the years and over the years, that 15 acres becomes maybe more valuable than the hundred acres that I have that's just been sitting there because of property values. Page 242 March 4, 2002 I mean, if you have -- if you have 10 acres with a house and a lake and a nursery and a driveway and fenced in and you did this over the years with work and work and money and money and you have another 10 acres right next to it both in the sending area, how could you balance the TDRs? It should be balanced on property value, not on -- on the amount of land that you own. I think that should be really looked into, and it would be fair for everybody. I'm not just talking about me. I'm talking about everyone who owns land and -- and has property values in it. I would strongly recommend that you consider that when you evaluate the TDRs because it won't be fair to -- to me, it won't be fair. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Joe, you brought up a good point. I brought this up earlier, and they told me when it comes'back and before it's sent back again, we'll be considering all that. I mentioned the fact possibly we want to consider the -- the tax assessor's roll for a model to be able to work with for a sliding scale. It's one of those things that's still open, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Yes. The idea of basing the value based on proximity to the urban area or the number of TDRs? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or possibly the value of its assessment on the tax roll? MR. MULHERE: Okay. But I'm not sure you want to go there because the assessed roll -- the property appraiser's assessment is going to be much lower than the market value, first of all, and the market should drive the value of these TDRs. Really, the market should drive the CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But wouldn't it be uniform? MR. MULHERE: No. Because the degree to which -- I mean, you could have an appraised value of a hundred dollars. That's not what we want to promote. We want to promote whatever the market Page 243 March 4, 2002 value of the TDR is. What is it worth to someone to go and acquire that TDR? That's what we want to drive the value, And it may be worth significantly more than the -- and it will be worth significantly more than the appraised value. And if we're talking about, you know, how do they get value out of it, let's let the market determine that. What we can do is maximize the market. That will increase the -- the demand, and that will increase the value. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of my hopes, Joe, if I may add to that, is that we'll be able to come up with a sufficient sum of money, possibly $5 million, and be able to offer to buy -- the people that would like to sell out early, their transfer of developmental rights for-- for a fee of, like, 20, $25,000 a unit, and that'll drive the market up to a high to begin with rather than taking over a number of years. But this hasn't been decided yet. This is going to be up for discussion, but it's one of the primary driving engines that's going to, in my estimation, make this work. And I -- I heard Dr. Nicholas also say the same thing. MR. MORERA: Mr. Coletta, first of all, I'm not -- I'm not trying to sell. You know that. Okay. I'm just trying to keep the value of my property the same as the value for your property where you live at right now, because if-- you know, if you bought your house ten years ago and you paid $70,000, it's probably worth two hundred and eighty now. And I'm thinking about my children, my grandchildren, and whatever. They should be able to enjoy my hard work. I'm not going to sell right now. I want to keep it the way it is, but I want it to keep its value, and that's where my concern comes in. And I'm going to keep on putting money in there. Like you say, TDRs, if you gave me $50,000 for TDR, I've got two TDRs. That's a hundred thousand dollars. I got over $180,000 invested in my property. My lake cost Page 244 March 4, 2002 me $40,000 to make. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But you -- MR. MORERA: And my work and everything that I've been doing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. But even if you sold it and we don't know what the value is going to be -- you would still have your house, your lake, and your tree farm also. MR. MORERA: But it won't be worth anything, because who would want to buy property in a landing (sic) area? COMMISSIONER FIALA: In a sending area? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you, Joe, and this is something we're still working through. When the end comes, hopefully we're going to be able to come up with something, but you'll be part of the process. MR. MORERA: Please. I want -- I mean, I don't want this whole thing to go through and, you know, do the things that go under the table that I don't know about; and then a year from now, hey, Joe, guess what? You're still in a sending area, and you're going to stay there. I want to be informed of everything. I don't get no letters. I don't get informed of-- I don't get no information at all. The information I get for the meetings is from my brother-in-law, Emilio Baez, and A1 Perkins that calls me all the time. But I -- I don't -- I don't get anything in the mail. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Be careful who you take phone calls from. MR. MORERA: So I would like to be put on your mailing list there, because I want -- I do want you to consider that really. And not just for me, but for everyone else that is in the same situation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think we could -- (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- we could come up with some Page 245 March 4, 2002 master list that could meet those needs through faxes, e-mail, or mail? MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, we sent over 3,000 letters to all the identified property owners in the rural fringe area for this meeting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think we could send one more to Joe? MR. LITSINGER: I will try to get him on the list. I'm surprised that he did not receive a letter. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think it might be possible that we might be able to, for a little while, maybe generate a letter every other week just to keep everybody in tune to what's happening, if something is happening, so that they know what the process is? Let's not rely on the newspaper or television. Let's see if we can get this word out in the most effective way possible. I know it's going to cost a little bit of money, but I think it's very important that everybody, without exception, is totally in tune to what's happening. And if anyone else out there has not received a letter that should be, make sure you notify us, and we'll make sure you get on that list. And that's -- the same thing goes for TV land. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, after you transmit there really will be nothing to discuss until the ORC report comes back from DCA. It would be quite expensive to notify property owners with nothing to say to them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't agree with you more. But in the meantime, anything that happens, even if it's just the fact that we are sending it on and what the final breakdown was, is something that I think we should share with the people and keep them in the loop. (Applause) MR. MULHERE: That would be one notice to let them know that. Page 246 March 4, 2002 MR. MORERA: Okay. So I guess I have nothing else to say other than what I -- what I said, that you got to keep the property values -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got it, Joe. MR. MORERA: -- level. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have to keep the property values up. (Applause) MR. LITSINGER: The final two speakers are Tim Hancock, followed by Ty Agoston. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This man looks familiar. MR. HANCOCK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tim Hancock, vice president with Vanasse Daylor. Third item, third client. I'm here representing West Agro, property owners in Area D. The issue I wish to address, fortunately for you the last time this evening, is the issue of golf courses allowed in the receiving areas. Through this entire process, the staff has evaluated environmental data that they have and have determined that golf courses, while they do not feel are appropriate in sending areas, are wholly appropriate in receiving areas. And I think we all understand that logic, particularly on properties that have been denuded of landscape or in current road production or citrus production. In the last month, something a little different on that has -- has surfaced, and that is that while all of the data would seem to indicate that golf courses should be permitted in the receiving areas, there is a letter from Mike McDaniel of DCA suggesting that golf courses kind of spur low density development. So, as a result, the county may wish to require someone who wants to build a golf course to buy transfer of development rights and bring them into their golf course development. It's obviously simply an attempt to, one, buttress the purchase of TDRs. Page 247 March 4, 2002 But my question of you and of your counsel is this: There's nothing that indicates that the purchase of a TDR is beneficial or necessary for the development of a golf course. If there's no rational nexus between the requirement that you buy TDRs in order to build a golf course, you may be dealing with an exaction on the property owner. So as you go forward, I simply ask that you consult with your legal counsel to determine if, in fact, you have an exaction on the property owner since there is absolutely no relationship between the construction of a golf course and the requirement to purchase a transfer of development right. The same may be true if you look at lowering the density in the urban area to force the purchase of TDRs. You may be taking a right away and turning around and requiring an exaction, and the two have nothing to do with each other. So my simple request is that you consult with your legal counsel before you transmit on this matter to make sure that you're not making an exaction on the property owner in specific regard to the development of golf courses in the receiving areas. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Hancock. MR. LITSINGER: Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Walking over from the Republican Executive Committee meeting came to mind that you, Mr. Chairman, have mentioned that I should be the last simply because I spoke Friday -- Wednesday. And I thought about it. There was a pretty lady for The Conservancy. You didn't give them the same warning. And I understand that I am nowhere near as pretty as she -- she is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Agostus (sic), I'm going to have to address this right now, sir. You're wrong. If you were here for the whole meeting, you would have heard me ask someone just a little while ago, did you already speak on this? And they said, yes, they Page 248 March 4, 2002 did, and I put them to the back of the pile. And so here you are. You're coming in a little late, and you're making an assumption that is wrong. MR. AGOSTON: I wasn't making any assumption. I think you're misunderstanding me. I mean, the -- the thrust of my statement earlier was something entirely different, but we're not going to spend any time on it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, Ty. MR. AGOSTON: My name is Ty Agoston, instead of Agostus, Mr. Coletta, and I live in Golden Gate Estates. I'm also a voter. And ! am a member of the committee that was appointed to evaluate this study. With the Naples Daily News running a very good interference for you, you can pretty much do anything you want with the property owners because that's not going to be bought (sic) out. After all, we are going to protect whatever redheaded thing that Mr. Carter, with a Ph.D., couldn't pronounce. Now, for a poor foreigner like me, obviously I couldn't pronounce it either. The preamble of the final order sounded something like the hallmark of this study is going to be public participation. Well, let me assure you that the people who have listened to the information for some -- 60-some-odd meetings at three hours long were put on the same plane and same level and was afforded the same kind of respect as the people on committees that you apparently have steered the information through to. They listened to it for a day and a half. But the Naples Daily News have presented it as an equivalency and consequently accorded the same .weight. As a matter of fact, less, because they have approved many, many items that the fringe assessment committee did not. Now, you are not going to go against this issue the way it's rolling through here. I spent a hundred years in New York City. I see a railroad (sic) when it's coming. Nothing is going to happen Page 249 March 4, 2002 here. You have an entire floor of lawyers. Nancy Payton and her organization have bankrupted Twin Eagle (sic) where a -- (Applause) MR. AGOSTON: -- where a bankruptcy judge have found that they had no standing. There is no reason for you not to take this to upper level. And instead of spending a ton of money on the lady here representing us in Tallahassee, buy some lawyers who can fight for you because you supposed to be representing these people. (Applause) MR. AGOSTON: So it is -- it is absolutely outrageous, in my opinion, that we are going through this farce, that these people think that they have a shot. They do not. And it would be more honest if you simply told them, hey, guys, we are going to do this come hell or high water. The newspaper will give you cover. It's not going to tell you that you're wrong because they don't want any building going on anywhere. So for you to stand there and give hope to these people, it's somewhat hypocratic (sic). There are many, many ethical problems I see here. I'm not even going to mention it because I probably said it six, seven times already. What I am -- I do not understand -- now, you say that this is the governor's final order. If you are going to be seriously representing and defending these people's property rights, you can take it to appeal courts, take it to the federal level and save these people. So it's (Applause) MR. AGOSTON: So it's not the question of what you can or cannot do. And let me just assure you that I am not all that smart, but I have three lawyers in my family, so I get to know every now and then some information in the legal area. You could fight this. There was never any attempt made to fight it, which tells me -- now, I know that some of you commissioners represent the coastal -- coastal Page 250 March 4, 2002 brethren, I generally call them, who don't want any more rednecks, who do not want anybody who talks funny. And consequently, they have the bucks. They do the supporting of politicians. Consequently they're paid attention to. Thanks for the opportunity. (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ty, I want to thank you for your involvement with the committee and going to all the meetings and helping them reach their final conclusion. MR. AGOSTON: Well, no. I apparently did not, but be as it may. Have a nice evening. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, good evening. For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. And I would like to respond to some of the comments that Mr. Agoston made. Our office defended this plan to the hilt. And we were in front of an administrative law judge, and the particular administrative law judge that we were before I don't think has ever found a local government in compliance on a comp plan ever. And we fought the good fight. I stood up and made some procedural arguments and everything on the record, and notwithstanding, we still did not prevail. And we tried to work out a settlement with the Department of Community Affairs and all the parties involved, and we were almost there on March 19th of 1999. And on that very day, we had the administrative law judge's recommended order come down, and at that point all bets were off. And so then we were drawn into the final order process. 'But I want to vigorously say that our office fought the good fight, and we've been doing -- I've been doing so for 14 years, and I'm proud of my record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ms. Student -- and I know we don't have a number of dollars that we spent in vigorously defending this, but if everybody knew all the information before reaching some Page 251 March 4, 2002 conclusions, it would be helpful. Remember, we're not here to -- you know, we didn't get up this morning and say let's screw the people. We're here as ordinary men and women elected to office to make tough decisions. And yet some of the most vocal people I've ever heard I've never seen on a ballot. If you don't like what these commissioners do, it is your perfect right and I would encourage you to run against any or all of us the next time our terms are up. That is the American way. I value what you tell me. I value your concerns, and those go into this decision that this board will make tonight. And I'll tell you, at the end of the day, there's not anybody that's going to be totally happy. The environmentalists won't be real happy. Big landowners won't be happy. The smallest land owner won't be happy. But we're going to try to find workable solutions to very, very difficult problems. And at the end of it, we are trusting that we can get through this system a way that we all will end up with something and, in a lot of ways, enhance the value of your property. It is a free market with property. I can't guarantee you how good or how bad your land values will be. I don't know whether the value of this or that will go up or down, but that's the freest market in the world. And if you believe in a free market, then you don't try to stack the market so that somehow you're going to come out with an advantage, because at the end of the day, somewhere that will collapse because free markets work on the basis of value. And when the value is there, they support it. And when they don't see it there, they don't support it. And it is our job to try to come up with the best system so that we can (inaudible) your values without breaking the law, by the way. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. Just a fast -- so I think what our job is here is first of all, we need to protect our water Page 252 March 4, 2002 supply, not only for us today, but for our furore because everybody -- and I don't care who it is -- who plans on protecting their property also wants to be able to have water to drink and have a furore for their children. Our second obligation is to the property owners and make sure that they have fair market value for their property. We don't want anybody suffering because of the decisions to protect the habitat. (Applause) COMMISSIONER FIALA: So now what we have to do is come up with this plan. I think we've got a basic plan here, but what everybody is concerned with is what's going to happen to me and my pocketbook and my investment. Now, we have a plan to protect our - - our habitat. We have a plan to protect our water supply and replenish the aquifers. That's where we're going. Now we have to find out how we make sure that we protect the landowners; right? (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I appreciate that. It's kind of disheartening to have somebody walk into the room, make a presentation, and walk back out again without sitting through the whole presentation that is being given by everyone else. I want to remind you that -- I'll tell you, this commission has been working hard, like you wouldn't believe, to try to make things work out for the average person. We're not in the pockets of the developers. We're just average people like everyone else. My -- I can tell you some stories about Miller Boulevard and how we're being sued because I won't give up the land to it, negotiating with the forest service for how the roads are going to be able to remain behind. I can tell you stories that would -- that would probably get your interest up of what's going on out there and what we're doing to try to hold your rights in -- in place. And, you know, to have someone walk in in a moment's notice and say you're not Page 253 March 4, 2002 doing anything is an insult. I'm at it four days a week where I'm going till about nine, ten o'clock at night. I truly love the job. Friday nights I spend with my wife unless there's another commitment. Other than that, this is my whole life. And I'm just dedicated to one thing, and that's the people out there. And I'll continue to work at this, and I'm going to try to make this the best possible scenario of events that can ever happen, and I'm going to keep getting your input. (Applause) COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do we get there? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Mulhere. Tell us where we go. MR. MULHERE: We would be looking for a motion from the board to transmit these Comprehensive Plan amendments with a number of revisions that you've discussed already. And I'll try to highlight those for you, and some I think we need a little further clarification on. First, starting with allowing the agricultural use that existed prior to the TDR to be able to continue after a TDR to the extent that it previously existed, and we discussed that one. That was one recommendation that we made. And do we want to take these, perhaps, as to see if there's some support one at a time, or do you want to just have me list all the items, and then somebody will structure a motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I -- I understand what you said on the agriculture, Mr. Mulhere. that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This commissioner supports I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That means you're not going to exempt agriculture; right? It's just -- but the people that have ag Page 254 March 4, 2002 already going right now may continue forever; right? And their property rights for that ag are not going to be interrupted. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. Let me clarify this. There's two issues. The propo -- the staff recommendation is that agriculture is a permitted use in all designations. You heard the attorneys' positions on that. We're talking about a modification to the -- the agriculture as a permitted use after TDRs have been transferred. The original recommendation was no agriculture after TDRs. We came to you today and said, look, in light of the smaller agriculture operations out there, we'd like to recommend that you allow agriculture as it existed, no greater intensification, no greater clearing, but as it existed to be able to be continued even after the TDR process. So that's the alteration that I'm talking about. I think that was covered in your motion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It is from my side. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What about the time factor on converting it back over for -- MR. MULHERE: We would still support the 25-year time frame as a disincentive to indiscriminately clearing lands in the sensitive sending lands. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's -- on that particular one there, we have a motion from Dr. Carter and a second from Commissioner Henning; is that correct, Mr. Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it. Next. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The next one was -- and I think we resolved this, at least for transmittal -- that Section-- well, you're talking about the North Belle Meade agreement, the North Belle Page 255 March 4, 2002 Meade area agreement, including the fact that Section 24 remains in a sending status and that the county will conduct an assessment of the red cockaded woodpecker habitat in that area and bring back recommended revisions, if they're warranted after that assessment has been done, either before adoption or, if we can't do it before adoption, in a subsequent second cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll move to support that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Dr. Carter, second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The third is a policy that we would allow parcels on the periphery of the sending designation 40 acres in size or less to be reevaluated based on the -- on the ground truthing or site-specific data submitted by the applicant, and then based on that data, we could bring a Comprehensive Plan amendment back to change those boundaries if it's warranted. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does that become a mixed use, or is that separate? MR. MULHERE: That-- that would either change the designation to to receiving or neutral based on that data. It would depend on where it would fall. But if they're sending now and they're on the periphery and if they submit some environmental data that says, look, this 40-acre tract on the periphery here has been cleared, has no ecological value, and should be designated more consistent with what the surrounding lands on the other side are, that's what we would bring forward to you. Page 256 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I make a motion to support that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. Next. MR. MULHERE: The next one would be density blending. We have the density blending proposed for urban -- excuse me -- for sending -- for receiving and neutral. We are proposing a modified density blending for that portion of the sending lands that immediately abuts the urban residential fringe. We would still leave that in a NRPA designation; however, under the density blending, the maximum preservation standard would be 60 -- would be 90 percent, but not to exceed 60 percent for the site if they straddle the urban and sending designation. And they could shift the development around so as to protect the most valuable natural resources in that area. Very similar to the other density blending provisions. I think there was indication that at least for transmittal there wouldn't be an objection to that. We may have to work out the details between transmittal and adoption. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could that get into units-per-acre kind of concept as you -- MR. MULHERE: There's no -- it doesn't -- it doesn't consider any -- bringing in any additional units, just changing where the development could occur based on where the natural resources existed in that area. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And that would go through an application process where we would look at -- I'm going to use the term "clustering." Tell me -- Page 257 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- if I'm incorrect, and that could be X number of units, depending on whatever the land could tolerate. MR. MULHERE: That's right. It has to come in the form of a PUD. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So it goes through the PUD approval process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're talking about land overlapping into the urban area? MR. MULHERE: Where a property owner owns land in the urban residential fringe and the sending designation adjacent to it in that 0-to-l-mile corridor, limited to that 0-to-l-mile corridor. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And bringing that into the urban area or just blending? MR. MULHERE: Just blending it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only concern I have then is Immokalee and 951, that activity center there. I understand that activity center's going to have up to 16 units per acre, dwelling units. MR. MULHERE: Now, that -- that would not -- as far as this policy goes, that would only apply just along the urban residential fringe. And that-- that does not-- that stops at 1-75. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: It does not go up to this area. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Then I would move for approval for sending. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 258 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. MR. MULHERE: The next one that I have is the issue of this parcel here in white and whether that should be transmitted as -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Industrial. MR. MULHERE: -- industrial or neutral. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a move (sic) that it's transmitted as industrial. COMMISSIONER HENNING; I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion and a second. All those -- any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 (sic) to 0. Next. MR. MULHERE: The last two items that I have -- and there may be more that I didn't get, and I would defer to the staff and and/or to the board if I missed something. But there were two proposals. They do they are not tied together, but two proposals that would, one, enhance the market for TDRs -- actually, there were three. One would be to re -- either reduce the base urban density from 4 to 3 or 3 to 2 and then require a TDR as a means to get back up to that base density; or alternatively, leave the base density in place, but simply require that the first unit increment per acre of any density increase in the urban area come from TDRs. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can go with the latter. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You know, there was nothing about the advertisement of this rural fringe study that mentioned the urban area. The -- the people who are represented or Page 259 March 4, 2002 people who would have been represented by that are not here because they didn't know that we were going to be talking about development rights being required for urban infill. I -- I think that is an issue which would best be postponed until we have accomplished proper notification and deal only with the rural fringe and perhaps doing something with the urban infill areas at a later time once we've properly noticed the property owners. MR. MULHERE: Well, there's two -- two components to that. The urban infill provision is purely voluntary, so there's no harm in including that if they want to send one in. This would be across the board -- what I propose would be across the board in order to get back up, you have to use a TDR. And I would agree with you that that was not an issue until pretty recently, actually after your Wednesday meeting. As with the issue of whether some of these proposals should be impacting the urban area -- and -- and I -- I agree with what you've said there, that -- you know, that that may be something more appropriate to defer and have the time for all the property owners to be notified. But as far as, for example, the fact that some of these provisions, the natural resource protection provisions, also apply in the urban area that has always been the -- the case. What the final order said was you don't have adequate natural resource protection strategy, and we used the assessment as a means of developing those strategies. And we have always said they won't apply to the eastern lands portion, but they will apply countywide in order to meet that not-in-compliance issue. I would agree with you, though, on this limited issue, the density issue. Perhaps we would defer that, if we want to go that way, to the second cycle, and maybe we could get some direction from you to explore that further at this point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But as I understand it, Page 260 March 4, 2002 Commissioner Coyle, it's a volunteer program. We're not forcing the issue. MR. MULHERE: Well, on this one we would be. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We would be? COMMISSIONER COYLE: MR. MULHERE: On this-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's the problem. You would be requiring them to purchase TDR rights, which is conceptually not necessarily a bad idea because it provides a better -- better market. But the -- the point is that what you're really doing is -- is forcing a property increase -- property price increase on people in the urban area that they haven't anticipated, and they're not here to -- to represent themselves. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So what is our option here? MR. MULHERE: Well, you don't have to do that at this point in time. If you wish, you can direct us to explore that for a future Comprehensive Plan amendment, and that could be part of the whole evaluation process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're getting nods of the head to do that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. I think that's a better way to go. MR. MULHERE: And it might be done at adoption as well, if-- if you -- you know, if we advertise CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it's duly noticed, couldn't we we're going to have the evening meetings, too, by the way. In case we haven't mentioned to the audience, the whole program will be evening meetings. Mr. Mulhere, one correction for the record. The previous vote that we took, I might have been a little too fast. I understand that we for the industrial, we -- we have four yeses for it, and the dissenting vote is Commissioner Fiala so if we can correct the record to so Page 261 March 4, 2002 indicate. MR. MULHERE: Got it. The-- so we will-- I think-- if I understand, the direction is to explore that -- that issue and, most likely not even at adoption but at a subsequent cycle, determine whether that's an appropriate way to expand that TDR market. The other thing -- the other component was whether or not there was any support on the board to incorporate a -- a slightly higher base density in the sending lands, and that was the proposal for going to a one-per- 40 density as opposed to a one-per-parcel. What we've recommended to you is one per parcel in sending lands or lot that COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which way is more beneficial to the land owner? MR. MULHERE: One per 40. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One per 40? MR. MULHERE: One dwelling unit per 40 acres is more beneficial than one dwelling unit per thousand acres. CHA~AN COLETTA: I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from talking from the audience. MR. MULHERE: Let me explain. The proposal right now calls for, in sending lands, the property owner would only be able to develop one dwelling unit per lot or parcel. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. MR. MULHERE: What I have recommended as an alternative is allowing one dwelling unit per 40 acres. So, again, if you had, you know, a thousand acres, under the current recommendation, you would only get one dwelling unit. Under the alternative you would divide that thousand acres by 40, and you would be able to develop, what is it, 25 -- 25 units. So that's a 25-fold increase as compared to what we're recommending now. (Audience member speaking.) MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah. There's no intent to -- there's no Page 262 March 4, 2002 intent, though -- if you have a parcel that's -- there's no intent-- if you have a 5-acre parcel or a 1-acre parcel, you don't lose that one development right. You still gain that -- you still have that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if you -- MR. MULHERE: Twenty-five acres, you still have one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if you have five different parcels at 5 acres each-- MR. MULHERE: You still have five units. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you would have one, two, three, four, five; right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. This was -- this was to address -- there was a lot of folks that talked about the larger property owners being unduly punished by that provision. And -- and if you went to a one-per-40, the larger property owners would still have some greater ability to use some residential component with that land. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What would happen if you had 50 acres? MR. MULHERE: It would just be slightly less dense. If you have 50 acres, you'd be able to -- you'd only get one dwelling unit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: MR. MULHERE: Right. So you'd have to have 80 to be -- -- able to qualify for the second one. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Fiala just said she thought it was one per five, per five, per five, per five. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I said if you own five different MR. MULHERE: Separate parcels. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- parcels, then it's -- MR. MULHERE: And that's always been the proposal. COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to -- Page 263 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Separate ownership -' MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- you still get -- MR. MULHERE: Any lot or parcel that existed at the effective date of the final order, you would get one dwelling unit, or once you get over 40 -- or once you get over 80, you would get two, and then subsequently after that you would get additional dwelling units. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The language that you are proposing is fitting to the rural character. MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Very much so. So I make a motion to send that through for adoption. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying say. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The next item is -- is the -- addresses the issue of the value of property being greater in closer proximity to the urban area. And what we proposed to you was to allow for a higher number of TDRs in lands in closer proximity to the urban area and then lower that as you move further eastward. And I do not feel that we are prepared here today to give you those numbers right here and now. I would prefer that we develop a -- a plan between now and adoption that would recognize the higher property values on a sliding scale so that you might have -- within the O-to-1-mile corridor, you might get 2 or 2.5 dwelling units -- TDRs per 5 acres. The 1-to-2- Page 264 March 4, 2002 mile scale, you might get 1.5. But the object is to allow enough TDRs, as Commissioner Coletta referred to, so that there was the ability to regain the value of the property. And one TDR might not do it if the value's higher closer to the urban area. Now, that would require that you do evaluate this at least annually because if those property values and those -- or if the value of TDRs increases, then you could lower that ratio. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know if we have to have the evaluation annually in the transmittal, but I want it there for our own internal policy. And I like the idea of the closer you are to the boundary, the more valuable the land. That's always seemed to make some sense to me. So I would be in favor of that, and I would make a motion to that effect. MR. MULHERE: We would talk to Dr. Nicholas, and we'd try to get an evaluation -- an average evaluation of the value of those properties in those segments and then base our recommendation to you at adoption on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion on that. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A second from Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? Any questions? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. MR. MULHERE: I think one other item is the little -- two relatively smaller portions of-- below the Big Corkscrew Island area that were receiving that got changed to neutral that we would Page 265 March 4, 2002 recommend go back to receiving. I'm sorry. My hand is -- right here and right there. And, again, those were -- those were receiving. And when we changed the Big Corkscrew to a neutral at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, for some reason those were also changed. But that really wasn't our intent, and we would suggest that they would be -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. MR. MULHERE: That we amend the plan to -- to -- within one year to define the condition -- the essential services that will be conditional uses in sending lands, as Nancy Payton raised that issue, and we would -- we would go ahead -- that we better define all conditional uses that are permitted in sending lands. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So each conditional use that's applied for is defined? Is that what MR. MULHERE: No. It would be -- it's strictly the essential services that are of concern. And what we would do is look at the essential services. See, the plan just broadly says essential services are permitted or some are conditional. When you go through the LDC, there's a whole list of those uses. And what we would do is evaluate those uses to make sure that all -- if-- that all of them are appropriate or not in a sending land. Then we'd bring that back to you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And who -- this would come back Page 266 March 4, 2002 before our final approval; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. It would be within one year, but you would have it as a land code amendment. You would just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: MotiOn to transmit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Any discussions? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. MR. MULHERE: There was -- the other issue was whether or not there should be a -- an allowance to transfer units into the urban fringe. You know, your density in the urban fringe is 1.5 dwelling units per acre, and adjacent to the urban fringe you have those sending lands. We talked about density blending. Another question is, would you allow a transfer from the O-to-1-mile corridor into the urban fringe? It would just be expanding -- it would be voluntary in expanding CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. You'd be using some more of the transfer of development rights. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll make a motion to approve that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that. MR. MULHERE: Not required, voluntary. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But in other words, what that does is -- is kind of control sprawl; right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Henning. Page 267 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we saying we're taking from the fringe and putting in the urban? MR. MULHERE: Yes. From the -- from the sending lands into the urban fringe. Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I think there's just -- I think there's just one more item, and that was the wetland vegetation language that we proposed to revise to make more clear, that within one year we would create the -- the conditions wherein we might require retention of wetlands exceeding the preservation standards. And, again, that would come back to you in the form of a Land Development Code amendment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Throughout the county. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Throughout the whole county. MR. MULHERE: Except the eastern lands. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we dealing with the urban area? MR. MULHERE: Because these -- these natural resource protection standards were always intended to be developed to apply throughout the county. When we were found in noncompliance, we weren't just found in noncompliance relative to the assessment area. That was just a mechanism for us to evaluate our natural resource protection standards, and there were some issues in there as well. We were found in noncompliance really countywide in terms of our natural resource protection strategies. So what we're proposing to Page 268 March 4, 2002 you is that, look, they don't apply to the eastern lands, because that study's still going on, but they do apply countywide. And we've always been telling you that for three years. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How does that change the current land codes? MR. MULHERE: There are a couple of changes. The -- again, we'd have to develop within one year the actual standards for when we would require a higher on-site preservation than -- than the standards would call for. We also have changed the wetland standards such that we would not accept upland mitigation for wetland impacts. We want like mitigation. Wetland -- wetland mitigation for wetland impacts. I'm going to defer to Bill to see if there -- what other revisions there are. We -- we asked for a WRAP score to be able to evaluate what the quality of those wetlands are, and that's the same process that the district uses. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I-- I would like to get clarification, once again, concerning the -- the scope of this particular document. To the best of my knowledge, we have not encouraged anyone from the urban area to come here and participate in this process, nor have -- have we discussed that in any of the reviews or task forces that have been involved in developing this, to the best of my knowledge. MR. MULHERE: We have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have? MR. MULHERE: We have. We've discussed -- for the last three years, we've placed -- or at least two years, we've placed draft wetland policies out there that always applied countywide and took input from property owners all along in that process. Now, I mean, I understand the advertisement said the rural fringe area, but there was always an intent in the advertisement there was always an intent for Page 269 March 4, 2002 these standards there was always an intent for these standards to apply from the natural resource protection perspective countywide. In fact, I will tell you we had discussions at the DCA. And at one point and I don't think I'm mischaracterizing this their indication was that the natural resource protection standards had to apply countywide for them to accept any phase of the assessment. In other words COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I understand what you're telling me. I'm just a little bit concerned, as you can imagine. I'm sure the people in this audience would -- would have been very concerned if we didn't tell them about what we were doing. And I'm concerned that there are people in the urban area who have essentially the same kinds of concerns, and I don't believe they have received proper notice. (Applause) COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I -- I would like to urge caution in extending any of this to the -- the urban area until such time as it has been properly advertised and we've gotten an opportunity to let those people be represented here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we possibly address this when we send it back to Tallahassee? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would suggest we do that. MR. MULHERE: Sure. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you have something else to add to that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. What was the Planning Commission's recommendation. MR. MULHERE: The Planning Commission had a -- and the EAC had a whole plethora of recommendations, but largely -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just on the wetlands-- Page 270 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: On the wetlands? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- preservation. MR. MULHERE: Both were recommendations for approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Both were recommendations for approval. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think, Commissioner Coyle, the reason all of this took place is the only NRPA we had in the county was in Pelican Bay. That was a throwaway, and that's where we got in trouble to begin with. I don't know if anyone out there knows anything about that. No one knows about the estuary in the Vanderbilt area. There's a hundred-plus acres that was called Water Turkey Bay. It's now preserved through negotiations, plus several hundred other acres up there are wetlands that was preserved through negotiations. If these standards would have applied in the urban area, then it would not have been strictly a negotiation process. We would have had a policy basis in which to do that. So I -- you know, we -- we can do what is necessary here, but remember the urban area has always been one that is going to be affected by this because it was my understanding from the beginning of this, I never heard them eliminated from this discussion. MR. MULHERE: Well, you know what? I think that if we want to proceed with due caution -- we probably will get an objection or a comment from the DCA, and we'll know prior to adoption, and we'll -- we'll make sure that we notify everybody prior to the adoption hearing of the intent that some of these may be applicable countywide. I think that would be the cautious way to go forward. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's see what they say. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we need a vote on that? MR. MULHERE: No. I think your direction is clear on that. The direction was to transmit it only applying to the rural fringe and Page 271 March 4, 2002 then see what the ORC report comes back. I assume you're not -- you're not talking about an individual letter to every resident in Collier County; you're talking about adequate notice in the newspaper and some other things. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think we should send one every time any information changes. MR. MULHERE: Oh, boy. We'd have a big postage bill. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, maybe the Naples Daily News would put it-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the RCWs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just send the notification to Commissioner Coletta with the phone book and let him handle it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Personal phone calls. MR. MULHERE: I -- I think that -- I think that that addresses all of the outstanding issues where you have taken some different action from the original recommendations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So now we have to have one motion to wrap it all up and -- MR. MULHERE: To transmit. That would be-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who would like the honor? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll move -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the TDRs dealing with industrial lands? Do we need to talk about that now -- MR. MULHERE: I think-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the value? MR. MULHERE: No. I think that -- I mean, it would be my recommendation that that's something that we look at in a subsequent evaluation of the TDR program. We have not considered either converting residential TDRs to commercial or industrial as part of this process. We tried to keep it very simple. It's not a bad idea. Page 272 March 4, 2002 Some places they do that, but I'd like to suggest that that be a subsequent evaluation, just as we're talking about the urban transfer being a subsequent evaluation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not going to have any problem with these people trying to develop them without getting the transfer of development rights. MR. MULHERE: No, no. You've got-- if you change the Comprehensive Plan designation, then they have to come in for a zoning action. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have to make motions on the EAC and the CCPC's -- MR. MULHERE: No, not -- not since you've gone through this process. You don't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have to state that it's consistent with the Growth Management Plan -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and the Comprehensive Plan? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe our legal counsel will guide us on how the motion should be stated. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess before you-- MS. STUDENT: I can address the consistency-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- call the motion, I'd like to -- MS. STUDENT: -- issue. The consistency issue is when we do LDC amendments. That's-- MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, one other change. I was just reminded that -- I thought I mentioned this, but if I didn't, that we would -- in each location where the plan talks about ag rural designation, we would change the language to note that it was specifically referring to the rural fringe area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. Page 273 March 4, 2002 MR. MULHERE: I think I mentioned that earlier, but ifI forgot, we would-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to just go ahead and make a motion on that? MR. MULHERE: That we do that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'll -- I'll defer to you to make the motion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll make a motion that we change the wording. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's always rural fringe -- it's always noted as rural fringe specifically? MR. MULHERE: Correct, instead of ag rural because that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ag rural. MR. MULHERE: -- could be confusing in terms of application to the eastern lands. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion. We have a second. Discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, do you want a general motion now that says we adapt -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- the plan with the various modifications as stated by the straw votes? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make that motion, that we Page 274 March 4, 2002 submit the rural fringe amendments as amended to -- for transmittal. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And a second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Now for discussion, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have lots and lots of problems with this whole thing, but I don't have any solutions. One of the things that bothers me is that we -- we don't have up-to-date information as we have acknowledged. It is somewhat outdated. It appears to me that if we're going to address the concerns of our community, that we have to have some flexibility over the next year, as we're finalizing this thing, to gather their input, to go out and inspect those lands, as we're planning to do with Section 24, and -- and take into consideration unique circumstances. And I hope that if we pass this -- this plan and forward it to Tallahassee, that we will be able to retain the flexibility for confirmation of our initial findings with respect to sending, receiving, and neutral lands. The other thing that bothers me a little bit is that we are making changes to this plan after the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Council have approved it. They're not getting a chance to take a look at what we've done and advise us. I understand we don't have time for that, but I would hope that we would recycle this back through them and -- and get their comments so that as we begin to update it, we would have the benefit of-- of their judgment. And -- and one other thing. I really would like to see in our in the document itself a very clear statement that -- that this plan applies only to rural lands -- or areas identified as the rural fringe so that we -- we don't give an indication that we're establishing precedence for any other land in Collier County. MR. MULHERE: Understood. Page 275 March 4, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I mean, that's just an observation. It doesn't need to be part of a motion. But if-- if those are things that can be done and if the board doesn't have an objection to doing that COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't object, Commissioner Coyle, but it's my understanding that when we have the ORC review by DCA, it's got to go back through the whole process again. And that also gives us an interim period to begin to look at some of the specifics. And I agree there's going to be pockets that we have to address that you can't cover in the general document transmittal. But I think we've got the flexibility to do it, and that's why I'm going to support this. MR. MULHERE: I would actually propose that we will go to the EAC and the Planning Commission and let them know exactly what action you took, and then we will also go to them after we receive the ORC and share that with them prior to adoption. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one last note that I'd like to make, and I'll give it to whoever else would like to make a comment. One, the meetings that we're going to be holding when it comes back from Tallahassee in-- June, is it? MR. MULHERE: Well, it'll come back before then. They have 60 days -- they have 90 days -- 60 days from the time that we transmit, and we'd like to ask them to expedite that a little bit and maybe do it in 45 or 40 days. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Those meetings we've already agreed that we're going to hold in the evenings so that everybody can sit through the whole meeting to see the whole process take place. Also, too, if it's coming back for review by the -- will it be reviewed by the environmental council also? MR. MULHERE: Are -- are you asking if we'would normally bring it back to the EAC as an adoption? Page 276 March 4, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Would we or no? MR. MULHERE: Normally no. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Certainly based upon Commissioner Coyle's suggestions, we have no objection to bringing the information, the ORC CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's explore the possibility and see if it's workable. Them and also the Planning Commission, I'd like to see if we could persuade these people to hold their meetings in the evening also so that we can have a maximum input from the residents that live out there. And with that, is there any other comments? Questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about Wilson Boulevard? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not in the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Call the question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who threw that? Okay. I call the question. What's this now? All in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. Thank you very much for your patience. Thank you all. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are we adjourned? I make a motion CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're adjourned. Page 277 March 4, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:11 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPEctER ITS CONTROL JAM~S ~. COLETTA, ~--~~~ ATTEST: D,.W' ~T E. BROCK, CLERK ~h~se;mlnutes approved by the Board on as'~?~S'~hted ~ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN, BARBARA A. DONOVAN,RMR,CRR AND BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARIES PUBLIC Page 278