Loading...
EAC Minutes 09/04/2002 RSeptember 4, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIROMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, September 4, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Michael G. Coe Michael V. Sorrell Ken Humiston Alfred F. Gal Alexandra Santoro Erica Lynne Also Present: Barbara Burgeson, Kim Hadley, Joe Schmitt, Bleu Wallace, Bill Lorenz, Stan Chrzanowski, Laura Roys, Ray Smith, Patrick White, Mary Cornelius, Margaret Weurstle Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 9:00 AM September 4, 2002 MINUTES September 4, 2002 Vice Chairman Michael G. Coe called the meeting to order at 9:08AM. ATTENDANCE: Members: Michael V. Sorrell, Ken Humiston, Alfred F. Gal, Alexandra Santoro, Erica Lynne, Michael G. Coe Collier County: Margaret Weurstle, Barbara Burgeson, Kim Hadley, Joe Schmitt, Bleu Wallace, Bill Lorenz, Stan Chrzanowski, Laura Roys, Ray Smith, Patrick White, Mary Cornelius -Mr. Sansbury and Mr. Carlson were excused from the meeting and Mr. Hill has resigned. II. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: -Mr. Coe added a discussion on NGALA to the agenda APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 3rd, 2002 -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve the minutes of July 3~d, 2002, the motion was seconded by Mr. Humiston, all were in favor, the motion carried. Ire OLD BUSINESS -There was no old business to discuss Page 2 September 4, 2002 NEW BUSINESS LDC AMENDMENTS A) Changes to the LDC concerning Ground Water Protection -Ray Smith, of the Pollution Control and Prevention Department, presented the three LDC Amendments. A handout was provided outlining the amendments, an explanation of the well field protection zones and the Aquifer system in Collier County. Mr. Smith stated that he is going to provide the committee with an explanation of the existing ground water protection (LDC 3.16), the remodeling process of the well field protection zones, and the changes they are proposing. -Mr. Smith stated that the purpose of the ground water LDC is to protect our drinking water that is attained from a municipal potable water supply well. Through the codes, they use the protection zones to control Land use, (for example: industrial facilities, solid waste transfer stations, solid waste disposal facilities, non-residential facilities that handle or generate hazardous products, industrial or domestic waste water treatment plants, domestic sledge disposal sites, concentrated animal feed operations to name a few). -The specific criteria (already listed in the LDC) for the well fields that were remodeled, are: needs to be a public potable water supply well field (example: well fields that are pumping for irrigation purposes only are excluded), permitted by SWFL management district, have a withdraw of a minimum of 100,000 gallons/day from the surficial aquifer system. -Mr. Smith used a diagram to explain that the surficial aquifer system is made up of the water table aquifer that has no confining unit and the Tamiami and the Lower Tamiami aquifer's that have semi-confining units. In the latter area there are fractures in the system were pollutants can leak down from the surface into the ground water. The intermediate aquifer system is made up of the upper hawthorn, the sandstone, the mid- hawthorn and the mid-hawthorn aquifer. He explained that they eliminated these wells, potable water supply wells, because they have confining beds above that helps to protect them and a vertical hydraulic radiant pushing upwards into the surficial aquifer, which prevents pollutants from coming down into it. He repeated any municipal well they identified in the mid-hawthorn, the hawthorn or the intermediate aquifer system was deleted and not modeled from. They only modeled the wells that were in the surficial aquifer system. -Mr. Smith referenced the first page of the packet. The first page represented the Golden Gate Water Treatment Plant Well field. The lines (from the center outward) represent Page 3 September 4, 2002 lyr, 2yr, 5yr, and 20yr-travel time zone for a particle of water to the well head. The land use criteria varies from zone to zone, the closer you get to the well head, the more protection is needed from pollutants entering the water system. They have been working with Dr. Borges to generate the model. Mr. Smith and his staff gathered the data; exact locations, confirmed accurate information with facility representatives, well capacity, permitted annual allocation in gallons/day, well depth, the aquifer it is pumping in, and the status of the well. Improvements made since the first time were: they used a trimble GPS unit that is accurate within three feet. -The amendments represent changes based on the information they gathered and the modeling system. Mr. Smith showed a diagram representing the proposed new well field model. Changes made: 1) Quail Creek utility and Pelican Bay improvement districts have been dropped from the list because they are pumping irrigation water and will not be pumping potable water in the future either. 2) The Port of the Islands well field was dropped because it is pumping water from the mid-hawthorn aquifer system. 3) The FL Cities Avatar well field was bought by a new company and the name was changed to Golden Gate City Well Field to better represent the new company. 4) The Orange Tree well field is new and has been added to the list. 5) The last amendment represents changes that best reflect were you can locate these well field protection zones. -Mr. Humiston questioned what other data was used to create the model? Mr. Smith replied that they used the initial information dealing with geology, hydrology, water measure and flow, pumping in the area, and that this model is not 100% accurate but a conservative "best guess" of what is around the well field. He also stated that he had not taken part in the gathering of initial data used. -Mr. Sorrell asked if the flow time on the first page was for a surface contamination? -Mr. Smith replied that it is for protecting those wells that are in the surficial aquifer, the depth ranges from 22-210 feet that fall within the Lower Tamiami. He summarized that the land use represents specific land uses that have the potential of releasing pollutants. Mr. Smith made sure the committee had a copy of the changes. He explained that the changes and the memorandum represent what they are proposing and that the committee Page 4 September 4, 2002 would be best to ignore the initial packet sent to them. This is what the committee will be voting on today. -Alexandra Santoro questioned the validity that irrigation well fields will never be used as potable water? Mr. Smith stated that he contacted utility representatives and they ensured him that these wells would never be used for potable water. -Mr. Coe asked what type of permits do they have that would guarantee this? Mr. Smith replied that he was not aware of the type of permitting. He also told the committee that he would gather this info for the committee to review. The permits should tell what type of water the wells may be pumping, but he is not sure. -Mr. Humiston questioned what type of insurance Mr. Smith received that these wells only pump for irrigation purposes and will not be pumping for potable water in the future7 Mr. Smith stated that he has a written document and an email from the facilities representatives, (the wells listed are: North Naples, Quail Creek, and Pelican Bay). -Alexandra Santoro expressed concerns about dropping certain well fields, which would then lose their protection. Mr. Smith explained that they were dropped because the existing language in the LDC was specific to potable well fields. -Erica Lynne questioned if this was reclaimed water and if they should be using surficial water for irrigation purposes? Mr. Smith stated that this is not reclaimed water and that the county uses as much water from the re-use plant as possible. He also stated he has no control over these well fields he is just showing the information. The Pelican Bay well field is owned by Collier County and the North Naples is owned privately. -Alexandra Santoro asked if it was conceivable that these wells could be used as potable water sources. Mr. Smith replied that "anything is conceivable", but he has been assured that they will only be used for irrigation. -Mr. Coe asked if he believed the permitted required them to be used as irrigation. Mr. Smith explained that he believed the answer was yes due to what he had been told. -Mr. Humiston made a motion to delay the vote on the first two changes until the permitting information can be acquired and reviewed, it was seconded by Erica Lynne, all were in favor, the motion carried. -Erica Lynne made a motion to delay the first three changes, versus the original two, till the permitting information can be acquired and reviewed it was seconded by Mr. Humiston, all were in favor, the motion carried. Page 5 September 4, 2002 A) Appendix A -Mr. Smith stated that appendix A improves the intent to improve the land development code, so for people who are trying to identify the locations of the well field protection zones in the county zoning atlas, there would be specific pages of listings; they can then refer to these pages and locate the well fields and how it is affecting the zoning atlas. -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve appendix A, it was seconded by Mr. Humiston, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. -Erica Lynne asked for verification that on sections 1-3 they were re-doing the codes to comply with a statute that states it is only potable water supplies that are covered, but she questioned what the lawyer was trying to be consistent with. Mr. Smith replied that he is trying to make it consistent with the language within the ground water protection, land development code, section 3.16. -Erica Lyrme questioned if you could cover irrigation wells as well? Mr. Smith stated he believed that the code was only to protect our drinking water and that is why he believes it only references potable water supplies. B) Land development code, section 5.13.2.3 -Barbara Burgeson stated that it is to delete the language requiring an annual report to the BCC from the EAC. -Bill Lorenz added that this is to have all the advisory boards on similar reporting requirements. He had briefed the committee on this previously. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion to approve as written, it was seconded by Mr. Humiston, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. C) 3.13.6 Amendment to the Coastal Construction Setback line variance section of LDC -Barbara Burgeson stated that this was requested by the BCC to provide additional information in the noticing and information process for CCSL variances. The language was taken directly out of the LDC, standard variance procedure and it provides for a sign with more project description than what is on the present day notices. The sign will be required on roadside and beachside of the property. Sign sizes depend on the size of the parcel. Advertising in the newspaper will now have more information and a location map. -Mr. Humiston stated he had a disclosure, his firm gets involved with CCSL approvals. -Barb Burgeson stated that she had received an email, from a representative of the public, that stated concern the direction of the board may have been to have an additional hearing Page 6 September 4, 2002 as well. If there was a hearing that would be added to the EAC, then it would be delegated to the hearing examiner when that person comes online. -Alexandra Santoro questioned why in the past ordinance the public hearing would be held 60 days after public notice and now states 15 days? Barbara Burgeson replied the number of days for public notice has not changed, the language was changed from "60 days past", to follow the rest of the code and state that it will "go through due process". It is at least 15 days notice to the newspaper and the sign goes up at this time as well. -Alexandra Santoro said she felt this was not enough time to notify the public. Barbara Burgeson informed her that it is 15 days "prior to the meeting of the planning commission" and is therefore -6-8 weeks prior to the meeting of the BCC. -Erica Lynne stated that if the point is to have consistency with other codes, then why is it not going before the planning commission, the EAC, and as Mr. Coron stated that it is not clear why CCSL variances are not presently required to conform to 2.7.5? Barbara Burgeson stated that in the original creation of the LDC they consolidated what they had at the time, which was that the BCC directed staff that the CCSL variances only go to the BCC. In the 90's, staff presented a proposed amendment asking the EAC to hear the CCSL variances as well and the BCC voted against it. She also stated that this was a past BCC and they could go through the process again to have this changed. -Alexandra Santoro stated that 15 days notice was not enough and that they believed it should be changed to 30 days. -Erica Lynne believes that the CCSL should go through the EAC, planning commission, and the board. -Mr. Gal questioned how many CCSL variances are requested within a year. Barbara Burgeson answered 1-6, but not an overwhelming amount. She added that it was typically a single family resident. -Mr. White stated, in reply to a question by Mr. Coe, that lyr. Ago amendments were made to the LDC designed to accommodate a hearing examiner, with this the variances would all end with the hearing examiner. The BCC chose not to take jurisdiction at a later point, if one or more of the members chose to. The regulations were adopted, with the understanding that they would be amended over time, as the board felt appropriate. All that were approved are not yet effective. He stated that additional changes will be made to dovetail these amendments, and that the time it would take to do so, the previous rules would remain in effect. He stated that it was intended that all variances ended with the hearing examiner with the fight to appeal to the circuit court. He further explained Page 7 September 4, 2002 that if the EAC chose to change the process, it would become effective January 2003 and last till June 2003 when the last adjustments to the LDC will become effective. -Mr. Coe and Mr. Gal believed that the 15 days notice was enough time. Alexandra Santoro and Erica Lynne did not agree, they felt the public needed more time, to adjust schedules and become aware so they may attend if they wish to. Mr. Sorrell stated that he has had problems in the past, scheduling to attend meetings on only two weeks notice. -Barbara Burgeson stated that if the hearing examiner or the EAC would be added to the process, then the 6-8weeks would apply to CCSL variances as with other variances. -Mr. White added that if they were to change it to 45days prior to the Board hearing, he sees no impact to the staff review process or to the applicant. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion to approve with the change of notice for 45 days prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing, it was seconded by Erica Lynne, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. -Erica Lynne made a motion to add that the CCSL variance come before the EAC before they go to the Board of County Commissioners, it was seconded by Mr. Sorrell, Alexandra Santoro and Mr. Humiston abstained from voting, Mr. Gal and Mr. Coe opposed. -Mr. White stated that because this is a regulation that pertains in "general" and does not pertain to a specific piece of property, that there is no necessity for Mr. Humiston to abstain. If Mr. Humiston and Alexandra Santoro abstain they would need a precise statement of conflict and the proper forms must be filled out. -Alexandra Santoro stated that she abstained because she has "great confusion as to the hearing officer examiner and to what EAC wishes to do and what they wish to go beforehand and this is one of those issues. I am in great doubt as to what is coming up with the hearing examiner versus the EAC." -Mr. White replied that this does not fall within the scope of the statutes that explain conflict and that there is a statute that states absent of a conflict, she is required to vote. He suggested the committee discuss the matter further to offer illumination on the subject. -Mr. Humiston added his reason for abstaining was "this is a decision affecting the CCSL approval process through the county, and we often represent clients coming to the county for that approval". -Mr. White informed Mr. Humiston that this should not be a conflict since it is changing the process which applies to "everyone" who applies for a CCSL and therefore would not Page 8 September 4, 2002 be working to the benefit or the disadvantage of his firm. Mr. White added that Mr. Humiston would be able to vote if he chose or at least participate in the discussion. -Erica Lynne stated that she disagreed, adding that the property owners along the beach are benefited by an easier procedure in changing the CCSL, whereas the public, which uses the beach and has legitimate concerns for the environment would stand to lose. -Mr. White does not feel this is something the statutes contemplate, stating that they look for something that is specific in terms of a pecuniary benefit. He does not believe that there is anything here that fits within the confines of the statute. -Mr. Gal asked Mr. White if they could make an amendment saying to send it before the hearing examiner? -Mr. white replied that this can happen when the hearing examiner begins and the modifications are made in the spring. -Erica Lynne had concerns that if it goes before the hearing examiner, then the public will not be involved. Mr. white assured her that the public does have participation in that process. She then asked about the Board's jurisdiction over the matter. Mr. white explained that the board could choose to use jurisdiction over the hearing examiner. -The original motion posed by Erica Lynne, to add that the CCSL variance come before the EAC before they go to the Board of County Commissioners was re-called. Mr. Humiston stated he opposed and Alexandra Santoro was for passing it. The final motion stood at 3 for and 3 against, the motion failed. D) Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association request for LDC amendment -Barbara Burgeson stated that the last LDC amendment was being submitted by Don Pickworth, representing the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association, and that during the last LDC cycle the same language was presented to the EAC and that it was withdrawn. -Mr. Humiston stated that he had a disclosure, that it is an issue raised by the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association, which is related to the dune restoration done in that area after damage by the storm Gabriel. He stated his firm represented the Association on that particular project. Mr. White asked if the work they were contracted for was complete. Mr. Humiston stated that it is related to this, but that yes the work had been completed. Barbara Burgeson asked if there was an on-going monitoring in the project. Mr. Humiston replied that he was not sure of the details, it was his partner in the firm who handled the project, but he believes there may be ongoing monitoring. Mr. Pickworth stated that he has consulted with Mr. Humiston's partner on the issue. Mr. Page 9 September 4, 2002 White replied there is "certainly an appearance" of a conflict and that if Mr. Humiston chose to participate in the discussion but abstain from the vote, that it would be appropriate. He added that any member who believes they may have a conflict, to feel free and contact his office prior to the meeting so that they may further investigate the matter. Mr. Humiston declared his intent to declare the appearance of a conflict and he filled out the form 8B. -Don Pickworth, representing the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association, stated the amendment was considered by the EAC on March 6, 2002 and that it was denied. He explained the history of this amendment and why it was coming before the board again. The matter went through the planning commission and the development services advisory committee meetings and was withdrawn before it went before the BCC. He stated the reasons for the withdraw are not real clear; concerns about comprehensive planning compatibility. Because it never went before the BCC the people of Lely Barefoot Property Owners Association requested it be considered again so that it may be decided on by their elected representatives. He added the amendment is word for word what was submitted March 6, 2002. The people of Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association are requesting the fight to have a 15fi-sodded strip in front of their homes. -Mr. Coe asked why it was coming before the EAC again, when they denied it previously. Mr. White stated that he believed Mr. Pickworth was imply a slight change in the text to state that they were not including pavers and other materials other than sod and therefore it is a new request. He also said that it was there right to bring another request, the same or changed, before the process and the board has the fight to say "no, yes, or make any recommended changes". Mr. Pickworth added that his position is as Mr. White explained and that for whatever reason the request did not make it through the entire process before, that they are going through it again in order to go before the BCC. He included that this time it was not a staff initiated amendment but the association initiated it and paid their fee for these reviews. The concern at Lely is that the homes are built up to the construction set-back lines and the need for maintenance and repairs makes it difficult, they want a strip that would allow this. He stated that the staff informed him this was inconsistent with the county's growth management plan. He does not agree with this and he stated that the decision on whether or not it is consistent is to be determined by the BCC. Page 10 September 4, 2002 -Mr. White added a clarification that it is also the responsibility of the CCPC sittings to make a determination of consistency with regard to any proposed Land Development regulations. -Mr. Coe posed the question: "are you saying that the BCC has already ruled on that specific item?" Mr. Pickworth informed him that they never ruled on it because it did not go before the BCC since it was withdrawn. Mr. Coe replied he just wanted to make sure it was clear since the BCC was not here to speak for themselves. -Mr. Pickworth informed the EAC that he believed the applicable goal in the comprehensive plan is goal 10, the conservation coastal management element. Which states that "the county will protect, serve, manage, and appropriately use its coastal barriers, including shore lines, beaches, and dunes, and will plan for, and where appropriate will restrict activities where such activities will damage or destroy coastal resources". He then told the committee that the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association has employed a professional consultant, who informed them that the 15ft barrier will not destroy coastal resources. He also added that the staffnever suggested that this strip would in any way destroy or damage coastal resources. He also believes this should be approved because the growth management plan requires an appropriate balance between private property rights and the public interest, and he believes that this is an appropriate balance. -Erica Lynne asked if when the homes were constructed and purchased if the coastal setback lines were in effect. Mr. Pickworth stated yes, that they went into effect in 1974. She then wanted verification if the homeowners were not aware of these restrictions. Mr. Pickworth stated that he has read this argument, but he believes realistically that there is no reason they should not have the 15ft strip since others build to their setback line and then have a yard. He also stated as private property owners, they are entitled to a yard. -Mr. Gal asked if each property owner could go through the variance process, because with out knowing where the lot is, you do not know where the dune is. Mr. Pickworth said that he has been told that every one of these properties, including the 15ft strip, is upland of the dune. He also stated that the problem is in reading the LDC, he is not sure that they could get a variance in addressing this type of thing, and Susan Murray (addressing the planning commission last spring) stated that you could not. He then stated that this is a "funny situation" since you can get a variance to put in a swimming pool out there and a lot of other hard structures". Page 11 September 4, 2002 -Barbara Burgeson stated that the hard structures would not be recommended for approval beyond the CCSL and they've not gone for variances for this, so that is not an issue. They have not approved that and as far as submitting it for a CCSL variance, for the same reason they withdrew it the last time, staff would recommend that it not be approved because of the LDC growth management inconsistencies. She added that this does not mean that it could not get to the board as a variance and that the board may find differently and approve it if they were brought individually. She then made a few statements regarding Mr. Pickworth's statements 1) When staff made their first presentation to the development services advisory committee the last time, they recommended approval because they felt the areas that they were impacting would not be detrimental to the environment that was existing there. As a result of discussions after the meeting, it was found the committee misunderstood the proposal. At the second meeting, staff made a presentation that clearly stated that some of the single family homes at that CCSL line have nearly pristine or pristine back dune or coastal strand vegetation, and that by permitting this language to go through they would be damaging or harming some coastal habitat on some of the lots adjacent to the line. This is why the development services committee reversed their vote. 2) If the language goes through as written, it does not restrict this amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach area. It would be a coastal amendment. -Mr. Coe asked if you put sod on sand, then does it not affect the dune since it does not hold the sand the way normal vegetation would? Barbara Burgeson stated that she is not sure of the root system, but in affect you would be watering it, changing the pH and the character of the sand, and prohibiting any native vegetation from growing. -Mr. Pickworth stated that he has been told from a number of different areas that during the storm Gabriel that the sodded area helped. -Mr. Gal asked what the reason was that a homeowner could not get a variance? Barbara Burgeson replied that, (handout that discusses land development code and growth management plan), her handout explains that staff would be prohibited from recommending this since there are sections in the code that say, anything in front of or seaward of that construction setback line, native Florida dune and or strand coastal vegetation and that anything being used to prevent erosion in that area has to be native vegetation. Page 12 September 4, 2002 -Mr. Gal asked even if staff does not recommend the variance, is there a process for them to try and attain a variance. Barbara Burgeson stated that staff would not recommend approval but there is a process for them to apply for a variance, go before the board and it is possible that the board could find for that specific lot that it is acceptable to approve. -Mr. Sorrell asked if they applied for an individual variance and were approved, if it would affect only the specific lot or the entire coast? Barbara Burgeson stated that it would only affect that specific lot. -Mr. White wanted the committee to know that he and Mr. Pickworth had a discussion "offiine" and that they are amending the request for the LDC changes to reflect the following deletions: 1) (Last page of Mr. Pickworth's August 12, 2002 letter), section 3.13.8.3: delete "pavers, decks (wooden or synthetic), shell." 2) Section 3.13.8.2: delete "and no more than 50% of that area may consist of pavers or decks". -Mr. Pickworth (for the record) gave his agreement with this, stating they are only asking for the ability to sod and nothing else. He also wanted to note the minutes for the planning commission meeting on May 8th, 2002: "Dwight Richards - is there a variance procedure that would allow someone to violate the CCSL?" "Susan - In this case where you are talking about non-native plants for native plants, etc... No." -Barbara Burgeson stated that if the elaboration of the response was sought, that what Susan meant or probably said was that staff would not recommend approval of that and that when someone goes to staff and asks if they can get a variance, staff often lets them know whether or not staff would recommend approval, and sometimes they recommend that they not submit the application and go through the process. -Mr. Pickworth replied that he understood this, but read Susan's next statement: "Susan-the variance process pertains to dimensional regulations." -Erica Lynne asked if historically hadn't they already approved a variance for a lawn on a beach with the administrative approval? Barbara Burgeson informed her that it was not a variance, that it was approved as a permit. Page 13 September 4, 2002 Public Speakers 1) Shannon Cromwell - representing the Conservancy, stated that they supported staff in their denial of the CCSL amendment due to inconsistencies in Collier County's LDC and GMP. -Mr. Gal asked if someone could tell Mr. Pickworth what the process is for an individual homeowner to get a variance or if definitively they can or cannot apply for it. Mr. White replied that his recommendation for anyone contemplating it is that there is a process for an official interpretation in the LDC, he feels that this is the most appropriate means by which a determination could be rendered. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion to deny the request (as amended), it was seconded by Erica Lynne, Mr. Humiston abstained from voting, all others were in favor, the motion for denial was 5 in favor of denial to 1 abstention. NGALA PROPERTY -Bleu Wallace, director of community development operations, stated that Mr. Schmitt had to go to another meeting and that he and Mr. White are present to answer any questions. -Mr. Coe asked for a briefing on what the property is. Mr. Wallace stated he had visited the site, that he lives about three miles from the site, and was unaware of its existence until July of 2002. In July 2002, the Caribbean Gardens and the NGALA owners briefed the tourism-advertising vendor and himself because they wanted to hold an event there. The event was planned for the Successful Meetings Magazine's annual conference. The advertising vendor contracted from the county had it in their advertising plan to host or partially host the event. Caribbean Gardens stated they had trouble getting permits. NGALA's owner said he didn't need a permit based on the agricultural zoning. Caribbean Garden's asked why they needed a permit ifNGALA didn't. One of the planners reported the issue to code enforcement, who initiated an investigation. Currently there are 5 NOV's. -Mr. Coe asked if"planners" was with development services? Mr. Wallace replied that was correct. -A visual of the site was shown. Mr. Wallace stated that the problem is that this appears to be a commercial entity that is operating on agricultural land, they did not have a conditional use permit, there is a question about animals on the premises, pet shop permit, occupational license, clearing permit, and RCW were all in question as well. The NGALA is a high end meeting facility were they have meals catered in. Page 14 September 4, 2002 -Erica Lyrme questioned if it was currently in operation. Mr. Wallace replied he knew it was in operation on August 8th, 2002 because he attended the meeting heading up the tourism effort for Collier County. -Alexandra Santoro asked if they had a permit? Mr. Wallace informed her that they did not, but they met with the planning staff, community development, and code enforcement and that they have until September 22, 2002 to come into compliance. -Mr. Coe asked how far along they were in the process of coming into compliance? Mr. Wallace stated that to the best of his knowledge they have not heard anything since the pre-app meeting in July 2002. Mr. Coe then asked what would happen after the 60 days? Mr. Wallace said he would assume that they would be referred to code enforcement. Mr. White added that this would be for any sited violations that were not abated and then it would be put on the agenda and heard by the CEB around October 24, 2002. -Alexandra Santoro asked if this was a permittable use in that area under the code. Mr. White explained that it was permissible to request the conditional use, but there is an issue of whether they would fall under the rural fringe or the rural lands area and whether that use would be prohibited under moratorium, until the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan would go through and any LDC changes that may flow from that, therefore there is no precise answer. -Mr. Coe asked if anyone could answer how long it has been there? Mr. Wallace stated he could only estimate, from some permit tracking, that it has been there at least since the year 2000. They got a permit for the building in August of 2000, but the owner cancelled the permit in March 2001. Mr. Coe asked if this was an application or approved permit. Mr. Wallace stated that the permit was applied for and approved, but cancelled before all the inspections were completed. Mr. Coe asked how it could be approved before all inspections were completed? Mr. Wallace explained that you get the permit in "hand" but the CO isn't given till the inspections are completed and therefore it is not really approved till the CO is given. -Mr. Coe asked if any other permits were given. Mr. Wallace told him that there were some septic tank permits that were pulled, they were approved, inspected and are okay. The septic tank permit was for a single family home but not for commercial use. They also have an irrigation well that a permit was issued for in October of 2000 and it was CO -ed. -Mr. Coe asked what they were doing for water during these events? Barbara Burgeson stated that her and Alex Seleki (code enforcement) had asked the same question when Page 15 September 4, 2002 they went out last week, and the owner informed them that the well is not for human consumption and that it is only used for the flushing of the facilities, irrigation, and the water consumption on site is all bottled water. -Mr. Coe asked if an environmental impact statement was required? Barbara Burgeson stated that during the conditional use process they will be required to submit the EIS, which will be reviewed and brought forward through the normal process, which will be presented to the EAC. -Mr. Coe asked if the land was located in a sending, receiving, or moratorium area? Barbara Burgeson informed him that the land is in the sending area of the North Belle Meade. She added that the allowances to the proposed changes to the GMP might allow the site, however the percentages of native vegetation preservation would be very high in the sending area. Mr. Lorenz stated that it is 80% for that particular area. The staff would need to attain more information and take into consideration any environmental information presented in the EIS process before stating whether or not this meets the requirements. -Mr. Coe asked if there were any wetlands? Barbara Burgeson stated she did not know, that when they went to the site they took a look at what was specifically constructed and at the time one of the concerns was not having a clearing permit, they did not look at anywhere outside the driveway of the site. -Mr. Sorrell asked where the site was located, in response Barbara Burgeson told him it was in the North Belle Meade, off Inis Road, close to the Golden Gate Estates, and only a few sections south of the canal that breaks the Estates. -Mr. Coe asked if what he was being told was that the building was put up with no permits. Mr. Wallace replied yes. Mr. Coe then asked about exotic animal permits and Mr. Wallace stated that they did have these permits from the state and he does not believe that the local government required any. -Mr. Coe did his own research and informed the committee that the tax books have the property at $40,000 as non-Agricultural area, but it was re-appraised around July or August for $187,559 as improved commercial. He had the records available for staff. Mr. Coe stated his question was why weren't the tax books back-dated to 2000 when this was done, (he added he was aware this was not for the EAC to determine only that he found it "interesting"), and what about the impact fees? Mr. White agreed that the tax issue was not within the realm of the county. Page 16 September 4, 2002 -Mr. Sorrell wanted to know if it was made a natural resource protection area in 19997 Mr. Lorenz stated no it was not, that the NRPA was located farther, but that it is a sending land. -Mr. Coe asked if there wasn't a moratorium? Mr. Lorenz informed him that there was a moratorium as a result of final order, however this area was not identified as a NRPA, it has just been identified as a sending area with the adoption of the rural fringe amendments. -Mr. Coe asked if they have come down hard enough on this individual with all the violations and especially because they have not seen him take any action to correct the situation? Bleu Wallace stated he discussed this with Mr. Smith and when they came in for the pre-app meeting and discussed all the NOV's they were given 60-day grace period, that they must come in to compliance by September 22, 2002 or be referred to the CEB. Mr. Coe wanted to know what the normal grace period was. Mr. White stated that the statute in chapter 162 tells you that the time must be reasonable, and that within the scope of violations the 60days was reasonable. He added that generally speaking with a single violation 30 days would be given, but things are done relative to the public safety, health, and welfare concerns, and that there are times when no time is given. He feels with this case 60 days is a "reasonable" amount of time to come into compliance. Mr. Coe stated that his concern is that there is no movement made towards coming into compliance. Mr. White replied it is the ultimate policy of the BCC not to penalize people but to give them the chance for abatement. Mr. White explained to the committee that the CEB can offer a time frame to come into compliance, and if that is not followed they only have the ability to fine and red-tag the facility not to shut it down. He added that shutting it down would have to be a decision made by a court. He clarified that the county would have the ability to take the case to court and get an injunction, they could revoke existing permits, deny future permits, stop work on issued permits, and another number of remedies, but that the scope of the CEB is primarily to use fines to come into compliance. He added that before the county made these types of decisions that it would be prudent to give the property owner the chance to come into compliance and that he believes staff is implementing this in a reasonable fashion. He understands that there may be further NOV's that may be issued and what their time frames for abatement are uncertain presently. -Mr. Coe stated that he understood that this was in a RCW habitat? Barbara Burgeson informed them that there will be a environmental consultant hired to provide this Page 17 September 4, 2002 information which is to be submitted by September 22, 2002 as a requirement of the conditional use deadline date. Mr. Coe questioned if the facility had hired anyone to do this yet and Barbara Burgeson stated that she is not aware if anyone in staff was contacted with this information but she was not informed personally. She explained when they were at the site last week, that they suggested the first thing he should do is a pre-application meeting which is what he was told in the scheduled meeting in July 2002. She added that he asked more detailed questions and she informed him that the people to answer these questions would be available at the pre-app meeting. -Alexandra Santoro and Mr. Coe stated that they would like this to be scheduled for an update at the next EAC meeting. -Erica Lyrme stated her concern, as a member of the EAC is that they have RCW habitat and native vegetation that has been cleared without any permitting. She wanted to know if there was a penalty for this. Barbara Burgeson stated that as a result of last weeks site visit, Alex is working on language for a fourth notice of violation that would cover the clearing and the protected species issues, that it has not been formalized yet. Erica Lynne stated she was still concerned since there is no way to put these things back. Mr. White stated that typically some type of mitigation is required. -Mr. White stated that he would like the EAC to be cautioned, that if there are matters that would be in the form of a quasi-judicial proceeding, the committee makes sure they do not get into a position were they are pre-considering something that may come before them in the future. Mr. Coe stated he does not see this as concern because the EAC makes decisions based on the requests "at the time" and asked if there was something wrong with previewing the information at the current time versus when it comes before the EAC formally. Mr. White informed him that there was because in his opinion it is impossible to consider information without in some way formulating an opinion. Mr. Coe stated he has no opinion whatsoever as long as whatever comes before them is in compliance with whatever LDC amendments apply to that land. Mr. White replied that the appropriate time to make that determination is in a noticed and advertised public hearing, not before. There were no public comments. VI) ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 11:18am. Page 18 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME ~ NAME OF BOARD, COUNClL,.~OM.MISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS C~TY COUNT? DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED._, THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR~COMMFI-I'EE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 1'3 CITY ~COUNTY r3 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION 18: n ELECTIVE '~ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending .~n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or. to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A'I-rEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE I APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, /~4~ ~ ~ /~.~.~ ~..5 ~ , hereby disclose that on (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, 24' inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: which Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2