Loading...
EAC Minutes 01/08/2003 RJanuary 8, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAPLES, FL January 8, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00AM in regular session in the County Commissioners Boardroom, Building "F", 3301 Tamiami Trail, Naples FL, with the following members present: Members: Thomas Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ken Humiston Alfred Gal Alexandra Santoro Ed Carlson John Dowd Erica Lynne (arrived at 9:03 AM) Michael V. Sorrel Collier County: Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Melissa Henning, Steve Lenberger, Patrick White (arrived at 9:04 AM) Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA January 8, 2003 9:00 .A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of December 4, 2002 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions Aw Site Development Plan No. SDP-2001-AR-1722 "Equestrian Professional Center SDP" Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business Ae Update of proposed interagency agreement for wildlife protection. B. Quadrennial ReView VI. New Business VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments I~. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 3~ 2003 if you cannol attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petitio, (732-2505). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. January 8,2003 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Building "F", 3ra Floor County Commission Boardroom 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 9:00AM Minutes January 8, 2003 Chairman Thomas Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:00am. Attendance: Thomas Sansbury, Michael G. Coe, Ken Humiston, Alfred Gal, Alexandra Santoro, Ed Carlson, John Dowd, Erica Lynne, Michael V. Sorrel -A Quorum was established. Collier County: Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Patrick White, Melissa Henning, Steve Lenberger II. III. IV. Approval of Agenda: There were no changes made to the agenda. Approval of Minutes for December 4, 2002: Mr. Carlson moved to approve the minutes of September 4, 2002. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. The motion passed unanimously, 9-0. Land Use Petitions A) Site Development Plan No. SDP-2001-AR-1722 "Equestrian Professional Center SDP" Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East -Mr. White swore in all those testifying. -There were no ex-parte disclosures. -Steve Lenberger, Environmental Services Department, reviewed the site development plan. It was straight zoning, greater than 2.5 acres seaward of the coastal management boundary, and south of the East Trail. An environmental impact statement was required. A map and photos were used to show the project site and the Page 2 January 8, 2003 surrounding properties. The site was neighbor to the Victoria Falls PUD and a cleared parcel of land. The site is vegetated primarily with Pine Flatwoods. There is a small wetland, consisting mostly of Cypress, but it does have some Pine. There is also 1/3 acre that consists of Oak and Saw Palmetto. The proposed project is a commercial project. Impact will be to the entire site. They will pay mitigation for the loss of native vegetation. They will re-plant larger plant material in all three strata. Wetland impacts are being mitigated at a mitigation bank for -0.36 credits. There are no protected species on site. -Alexandra Santoro asked where the water would go when the wetlands were cleared. Stan Chrzanowski, Development Services, informed her that there is a wetland on the adjacent site, and this is something the that the Water Management District will review. He added that they do have a detention area, which will re-route the water to the ditch on the side of Route 41. -Mr. Carlson asked if there was a long term maintenance requirement for the dry retention area or if they could vegetate it with woody species and trees. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that they do not object, and do recommend, to use the woody species and trees, but it is not required. Mr. Carlson stated that it was frustrating that there was no incentive to re-create a Cypress Area. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that they try not to second guess the SFL Water Management District. Mr. Carlson asked why the GMP doesn't encourage the applicant to leave the original habitat as the buffer, rather than clearing it and re-planting it with small trees. -JeffRodair, Constant Tech Engineering, stated that they realize the sight is rather tight. It was originally a smaller project, but they had to expand the project to include the retention area in order to meet the drainage requirements. He added that the Oak was a very small amount; 0.4 acres. He believed that the area could have been left if both projects, (this site and Victoria Falls PUD), had originally worked together. -Mr. Carlson asked if the wetland area was allowed to be incorporated into the dry retention system and the applicant could still receive credit for the dry retention system. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that the SFL Water Management District has no problem with the proposed layout and the County has never over-ruled them. Mr. Sansbury asked if they could recommend that the retention area be planted in a manner that uses transitional vegetation that can exist in a wet/dry situation. Mr. Lenberger stated they could choose to recommend this, but it may not affect the Page 3 January 8, 2003 storage capacity of the retention area. Mr. Rodair stated that they have no problem putting woody species in the retention area if it is allowable by the Water Management District. -Erica Lynne noted that the board was not saying that the applicant did not do all the he was required to do, only that they want to encourage people to consider attempting to save as much functioning environment as possible. Barbara Burgeson stated that in the next LDC cycle they will be working on literal plantings and standards, and they can also look at minimum standards for plantings in dry/wet retention areas. -Alexandra Santoro stated that if they chose to approve it, she would like to see them work with the wetlands or working with the special plantings around the dry retention area, and have a copy of the recommendation sent to the SFL Water Management District. -Mr. Coe made a motion for approval with the recommendation that the applicant look into the feasibility of planting woody wetland species in the wetland detention area to help compensate for the loss of wetlands on site. It was seconded by Mr. Humiston. The motion passed unanimously, 9-0. -The board discussed the concems about applicants using the original features of the site and retaining existing wetlands when possible and within regulations. -Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he will send an email to the SFL Water Management District that addresses the concerns of the EAC in regards to the committees concerns about retaining existing wetlands when possible rather than re-creating them and address the general idea of using the original features on the property. -Mr. Lorenz added that in the new LDC cycle, the county staff will be working on a set of incentives that will allow or encourage a developer to retain more upland and wetland vegetation on site than what is required as minimum standards. County staff will be coming before the EAC with this kind of idea and approach in the future. Ve Old Business A) Update of proposed Interagency agreement for wildlife protection -Barbara Burgeson stated that they are reviewing the state and federal guidelines; SLOPES. In thc next few weeks, she will be circulating a draft for review at thc February meeting of thc EAC. B) Quadrennial Review Page 4 January 8, 2003 -Mr. Lorenz, explained that the quadrennial review is a mandated four-year review from the BCC through the Advisory Board Ordinance. He summarized that the chairman shall deliver the report to the County Manager by January 15, that addresses several questions. The County Manager then sends the report to the County Commission. In March, the chairman also provides the County Commission with an oral presentation. This report asks if the function of the board is being accomplished and whether or not there is a need for the board to continue. -Mr. Sansbury asked if one of the question's in their annual review was how they relate to the position of the hearing examiner. Mr. Coe reviewed that the hearing examiner process was a lengthy series of meetings. He explained that they did the final interview process in December and made a final selection of two attorneys for the position. Mr. Mudd took them to the BCC in December, but the decision was made to cancel the position of the hearing examiner. He informed the board that Mr. Mudd and all those who worked on this, were "blind-sighted" by this decision. He then recapped what the position for the hearing examiner was. It was to be patterned similar to the Lee County hearing examiner. Initially the hearing examiner would take care of variances and other small projects that were "clogging" the agenda of the CCPC and BCC. At a later point, the position would expand to take care of much of the EAC's work. The goal was then to free up the EAC to work closely with staff to re-write the LDC and other regulations. This would then allow the hearing examiner a much easier task of making sure that projects were in compliance. As it stands today, the hearing examiner position has been eliminated. -Mr. Sansbury asked how this related to the quadrennial view and how they should structure their answers with this in mind. Mr. Lorenz stated that they had seven questions to answer and the hearing examiner would not be a factor in this discussion. Mr. Coe pointed out that it would be a factor if they recommended that the BCC re-instate the hearing examiner position. -The seven questions on the quadrennial review were placed on the visualizer. The committee discussed the questions and the document Division 5.13 Environmental Advisory Council, which outlined the goals, rules, and functions of the EAC. lA) Has the board served the purpose for which it was created? -Mr. Coe did not believe it had served the purpose for which it was created. He believes that they should work with staff to create policy that is sent forth to the BCC for Page 5 January8,2003 approval. He explained that the approval and disapproval of plans is taking away from the EAC's true value to the BCC and the County. -Mr. Carlson felt that the EAC has been doing both policy review and plan review. He noted the discussions on Sea Turtle protection and the policies they helped to establish. He also believes that the EAC was created to do both. Mr. Gal agreed. He elaborated that he believes they have been serving the purpose for which they created, but he feels that they could more adequately serve the needs of the community if the hearing examiner position was open, so they would have more time to focus on policy. -Mr. Coe noted that they did not have enough time to thoroughly review and discuss the wetlands plan and the directive from the governor. Alexandra Santoro replied that they had formed a sub-committee for the rural lands, which she believes allowed the EAC a good opportunity to respond. She did agree that Eastern Lands was short notice. Mr. Carlson added that they had the same time for review as everyone else in the county did. -They reviewed the ordinance that addressed the functions of the EAC. There were four functions outlined: 1) "Advise on the preservation, conservation, protection, management and beneficial use of the physical and biological natural resources (atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic and hydrologic) of the county in regard to the safety, health and general well-being of the public; 2) Advise and assist the county staff and board toward developing the purpose, intent and criteria of all county ordinances, policies, programs, and other initiatives dealing with natural resources. 3) Provide written and oral reports directly to the board regarding recommendations on matters dealing with the protection of natural resources. 4) Review and recommend stipulations addressing the preservation, conservation, protection, management and beneficial use of the county's physical and biological natural resources (atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic and hydrologic) for petitions and/or plans for selected developments orders, including but not limited to rezones, developments of regional impact, provisional uses, subdivision master plans and planned unit development amendments that are directed to the EAC by county staff, the board, or the provisions of this code." -The committee agreed that their answer was: they believe that they are generally serving the purpose for which they were created. However, they feel that there are some particular areas of that purpose that they could serve better. Page 6 January 8, 2003 2) Has the board adequately served the community needs? -Mr. Gal stated that they could better serve current community needs if they were able to focus more on policy issues. -The committee agreed that their answer was: They felt they could better serve thc community if they were able to focus more on policy issues. 3) What were the board's major accomplishments in the proceeding twelve month period? -The committee listed: involvement in the selection of the hearing examiner, reviewing and commenting on the rural fringe and eastern lands, the rural fringe sub-committee, discussions on the Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance -Mr. White stated that they might want to consider a further reach back in time, since this is a four year review. -The committee added: Tortoises Ordinance review, Beach Raking review, the wetlands policy workshops 4) This question addressed whether or not the board believed there was any other board who could serve their function better. -Mr. Coe stated that he believes that the hearing examiner should have been adopted. -Mr. Carlson stated that he was comfortable continuing reviews of plans. He feels that the hearing examiner may not have enough time or discussion to fully evaluate the situation. He suggested a subcommittee for more policy direction. Mr. Humiston agreed with this. He felt the EAC has certain experience and expertise on these subjects that the BCC and the hearing examiner may not have. -Mr. White noted that the hearing examiner would essentially have two types of public hearing, one of which would allow the recommendations of the EAC. The hearing examiner would also have the county regulations and policy that carried the input of the EAC. The interviewing process also took into account if the applicant had the scope of abilities to review matters of environmental issues through permitting. -Mr. Carlson asked if this meant that they could have continued to review individual projects and send a recommendation forth to the hearing examiner. Mr. White replied that this process could have been established in the implementation of the program. He believed that this was a recommendation to the BCC. Page 7 January8,2003 -Mr. Sansbury suggested that they answer: they do not believe there is another board that could serve the function any better. However, they do believe they need to investigate further how a potential hearing examiner could compliment the function of the board and investigate setting up a sub-committee that would work with staff to set up policy language. The committee agreed with this suggestion. -Mr. Coe noted that Mr. White had written this "evolution" of the hearing examiner. Mr. White stated that he had and that he based it on his experiences from Lee and Collier County. He found it regrettable that the hearing examiner position was eliminated. He added that if the EAC wanted to attempt to "reinvigorate the process", then he had no objections. Mr. Coe stated that this was a "progressive" idea and it was eliminated due to a few objections that "blind-sided" the BCC. He added that the applicants they had, had amazing resumes and qualifications. Mr. Sansbury stated that the EAC is stating that they want to further investigate this matter. -Alexandra Santoro stated that this re-emphasizes, that in the interim, the EAC needs to direct their activities toward policy. She explained that stronger policies would decrease the amount of time spent on reviews 5) Should the orders that created the board, be amended to allow the board to more adequately serve the purpose for which it was created? -Mr. Sansbury asked if it was county policy to have the requirement for not only an established quorum, but a minimum of a five person vote to pass an item. Mr. White replied that he has not seen another instance of this provision and he is unsure how to apply it. He believed the purpose was to limit the effect of any recommendation that does not carry a specific percentage of a majority vote. -Barbara Burgeson read the section 5.13.5.2 into the record: "A simple majority of the appointed members of the EAC shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting business. An affirmative vote of five or more members shall be necessary in order to take official action, regardless of whether five or more members of the EAC are present at a meeting." She added that there was a general ordinance governing the boards of Collier County that addressed this issue. She explained that this language could be used instead and it does not specify the number of 5, only the "majority of those in attendance". Mr. White noted that they could delete the last line. The committee agreed to make the change. Page 8 January 8, 2003 -Mr. Coe noted that they are also deleting section 5.13.2.3 (14), which would end the requirement for an annual report. Barbara Burgeson stated that this is proposed to be deleted and will go before the BCC for final approval. 6) Should the board member requirements be modified? -The committee determined that the requirements did not need modification. 7) Review the efficiency of direct and indirect costs of maintaining the board. -Mr. Coe asked if there were any recommendations of thc staff as to people who should or should not be present. Staff believed that their employees who are required to be present are necessary. -Alexandra Santoro noted that there is a large cost benefit from the volunteer hours of the board members. -Barbara Burgeson stated that she will prepare a draft of the EAC's comments and answers and send it to Bill Lorenz at the end of the week. -Mr. Coe asked that staff not park in the public parking lots. He stated that it may be appropriate to include it in this draft. Barbara Burgeson replied that this is brought to staff's attention periodically. She stated that she would mention it to Joe Schmitt and see if they could circulate an email. VII VII. VIII. IX. New Business -There was no new business to be discussed. Council Member Comments Public Comments -Mr. Chrzanowski informed the board of Collicrappriaer.com, the land development codes online, and municode.com. He stated that he would provide the new committee members with the packets that review maps, websites, zoning maps, etc... He added that he would email the board with a listing of websites that might be helpful to them. Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 10:26 AM. The next meeting is scheduled for February 5, 2003 at 9 AM. Page 9