EAC Agenda 09/05/2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
September 5, 2001
9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building(Building"F")—Third Floor
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of August 7, 2001 Meeting Minutes
IV. Land Use Petitions
A. Special Treatment Permit No. ST-1045
"Henry John McVicker"
Section 23 & 24, Township 51 South,Range 25 East
V. Old Business
VI. New Business
VII. Growth Management Update
VIII. Subcommittee Report
A. Growth Management Subcommittee
IX. Council Member Comments
X. Public Comments
XI. Adjournment
*********************************************************************************
Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 31, 2001 if
you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition
(659-5741).
General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Minutes of 8/8/01 Growth Management SubCommittee
Growth Management Subcommittee Meeting of 8/8/01 was called to order at 6:12
P.M.
In attendance were Allie Santoro, Ed Carlson, and William Lorenz, Natural
Resource Director. Other guests included Bradley Cornell from Audubon, 2
members of the Rural Fringe committee, and a reporter.
Bill Lorenz reported that he had reviewed the role of the Growth Management
Subcommittee and the EAC with the Rural Fringe Committee after giving them
our recommendations on the receiving and sending areas in the Rural Fringe
Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies Report.
Our committee had decided to review the Preservation and Native Vegetation
Standards in this report and agreed with staff's recommendations.
Column 1 (on the attached graph) represents the minimum site preservation or
site restoration requirements. Thus developers could retain and/or plant new
vegetation in areas devoid of native plants. Column 2 (on the attached
graph) represents the minimum native vegetation preservation requirements of
the areas that already contain large numbers of native species. Both
criteria would be used with the greater acreage requirement prevailing.
IE: On 100 acres in the Rural Fringe area "B" with 20 acres of native
vegetation :
Column 1: Minimum Site Preservation 100 acres X 30% = 30 acres
Column 2: Minimum Native Vegetation Preservation 20 acres X
60% = 12 acres
The Preservation area minimum is 30 acres (the greater) .
The Rural Fringe area percentages reflect the environmental quality of the
vegetation found in each section with the North Belle Meade Study area and
the NRPA showing the highest percentages for both the minimum site
preservaton and minimum native vegetation retention standards.
There are also bonus incentives for developers who preserve greater
percentages than required both on and off site.
The committee endorsed the concept of the dual standards, the staff's
proposed percentages, and the incentive programs. We realize that this
section may be amended requiring additional review depending on the
Economist's report as to the workability and intermeshing of each of the
criteria used in the Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies
report.
The committee decided to research (1) Buffer Standards and (2) Current
Agricultural Practices and Regulations at our next meetings. As a couple of
committee members will be gone until the end of September, we have not
currently scheduled additional meetings. We hope that staff, EAC members
etc. let us know of any contacts or materials that we should be considering
on the above two topics.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30P.M.
Respectfully submitted.
Alexandra"Allie" Santoro
Acting as Chairman
t 1
.... . ti
II
; 1
•
it i
, I
:-...t..,:. i
t--
-_____4-----irP---.
....___
. . .
. 1
I. i •
1 ----- -L-17-3
. 4
1 1 .
! i .
(b , _,,,1 • S i
sf- 1%kl )
't)..,,- •:.‘ •
I i
; .A• .
•7:77.-: •. , 1....
i •
i i •/..14
i
•
: 1 1
t. 1-11 . i : rA,•
AI Kb .
. :
1
i
I !
1 _
a I t
C.-,._ •
•
•
: 1.
i f
1 i /------,1
:.:,•1 •
C-J ''' ' ! r,
. eN'''-• ' ."\•.... • c...,
• ,
I (--... !
r.N.. ! ' t !!-.)'.. ti: • .71• 3•C=
4.4„ ' ft.. tt
-7
" -17t' t... ,
• ' 7.th ,,,,e.
4 • i / ., ,r-..... & 1.-J ..• ' . .'6., .4'7
i • k- . • ..:.t, -
...5' i 1:7,,,
i ... -.... i trk I ..,% 1-Z.'.
ilrt• n
,..___ i .„_ . Z4,4 I zo 4 it., t •z ,. .. -.., .. ..- --,....
,,..___. ,.\._..._ / \•••—•• Ise.;:, rf. .*.: -1 1'
\ \ 1.... : '•..i.:
! I 1 •-s,„ s ,
1:7
. 11111 i•- V 4
4 ! i
i )b• -,
•
....t , ,
t . %-t I
• c
(‘ t) . ,,3?) —I, ; •1') i i / ,
1 ' 't
t
;
t
i
IP .
it i r
'NZ 1 J. I A
i ...1\
_ , .k.),, -
s„
,....\.). i -,. _..) • 17, c- I
L...., . . ,
HL 1 (j)
W.. '
•tcb tl: 1 •
-Nt I is:K1 , , •, •
1 ....„ \ % •
, . ii ,,,t,
1 , ,.., .,...,
I
.___ ____ _____ ___. ____' _— :-- ,,....._ -,„ rt.•
. i i .,,i,.• a
'r C. iiN
! \...) "_:., ; K\ a
. —
I 1......) 2...,ts.
. r
•
•
• •.;:st 1 %.,
• ,
i
.
1 1 ... .%, , N,. I N iNt• 1 -v.
•
f N Zc
1 ' 1 e.• i it\
i A 1 .• . -,•:, i ; z
• L\- 1 -
! t•N ! "*\. ;:."*. .: s.'. %• 1 '‘*\• ., • I
C 'cl 8L8L E6L Ii76 'ON XVd AII 1 OdOINVS Wd 90:8 GAM 10-IZ-DO
Item V.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2001
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: Special Treatment Permit No. ST-1045
Applicant/Developer: Henry John McVicker
Consultant: M. Barnett Design and Drafting, Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is located on Keewaydin Island in Section 23 & 24,
Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
The subject property in located on an undeveloped coastal barrier island with
single-family homes on the island.
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N - A-ST Undeveloped
S - A-ST Undeveloped
E - A-ST Little Marco Pass
W - Gulf of Mexico
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The petitioner proposes to construct a single-family home with pavilion, tennis
court and generator building. The petitioner has also applied for a Dock Facility
Extension Petition (BD-2001-AR-938) with the County to construct a dock into
Little Marco Pass.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
,i� Future Land Use Element:
• EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 5
c
The subject site has a Future Land Use designation of Conservation and a zoning
designation of Rural Agricultural with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay. A single-
family land use on agriculturally zoned land is consistent with the Future Land
Use Element.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
Policy 6.4.4 states, "Any development proposal in a"ST"zoned area or any other
area designated "environmentally sensitive" shall have a site inspection, where
appropriate, by County staff and be reviewed for approval as defined in the"ST"
zoning procedure."
Policy 6.8.1 states, "All requests for land development within 1000 feet of natural
reservations shall be reviewed as part of the County's development review process
to insure no unacceptable impact to the natural reservation."
Objective 10.3 states, "Undeveloped coastal barriers shall be maintained
predominantly in their natural state and their natural function shall be protected,
maintained and enhanced."
Policy 10.3.2 states, "Any development activities on an undeveloped coastal
barrier must be compatible with protection of the natural form and function of the
coastal barrier system."
Policy 10.3.3 states, "The highest and best use of undeveloped coastal barriers are
as functioning natural systems; therefore the first alternative to development
should be consideration of acquisition by or for the public benefit to preserve the
natural function."
Policy 10.3.5 states, "Native or other County approved vegetation shall be
required as the stabilizing medium in any coastal barrier vegetation or restoration
program."
Policy 10.3.9 states, "Native vegetation on undeveloped coastal barriers should be
preserved. To the extent that native vegetation is lost during land development
activities and the remaining native vegetation can be supplemented without
damaging or degrading its natural function, any native vegetation lost during
construction shall be replaced by supplementing with compatible native
vegetation on site. All exotic vegetation shall be removed and replaced with
native vegetation where appropriate."
The project is consistent with the policies and objectives listed above in that the
natural function of the coastal barrier and native vegetation on the site is
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 5
maintained, and native vegetation impacted by development will be re-planted on
site. A copy of the submittal has been forwarded to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for their review and comment.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Environmental:
Special Treatment Overlay:
The purpose and intent of the Special Treatment (ST) overly district is directed
toward the conservation, protection and preservation of environmental and
cultural resources for the greatest benefit of the people of Collier County, and at
the same time permit those types of development which will hold changes to
levels determined acceptable by the Board of County Commissioners after public
hearing. Such resources include, but are not necessarily limited to mangrove and
freshwater swamps, barrier islands, hardwood hammocks, xeric scrubs, coastal
beaches, estuaries, cypress domes, natural drainageways, aquifer recharge areas
and lands and structures of historical and archaeological significance (2.2.24.1
LDC).
Section 2.2.24.8 of the Land Development Code allows for administrative
approval of ST permits for single-family home sites, with up to ten percent (10%)
site alteration. Administrative approval is also permitted where site alteration or
development will not require any modification, with the exception of exotic
vegetation, of the topography, drainage, flora, or fauna on site. Given that the
proposed site plan will alter approximately 13.3 percent of the site and that
existing native vegetation will be impacted, the permit is required to follow the
review procedure set forth in section 2.2.24.6 LDC. Pursuant to section 2.2.24.6
LDC, the ST permit shall be forwarded to the Environmental Advisory Council
and Collier County Planning Commission for their review and recommendation.
Final action on the ST permit is with the Board of County Commissioners.
Site Description:
The subject property is located on Keewaydin Island, an undeveloped coastal
barrier island. Native vegetation on the property is typical of that found on coastal
barriers in the area and includes species such as sea grape, cabbage palm and sea
oats. Also on site are areas of bare ground, which were cleared when exotic
vegetation was removed from the property. Exotics removed from the subject
property included Australian pine and Brazilian pepper.
Wetlands:
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 5
There are no wetlands on the property other than for a few scattered mangroves
and buttonwoods along the eastern shoreline, adjacent to Little Marco Pass.
Listed Species:
The subject property has no listed species on it, although gopher tortoises are
known to inhabit the island.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Special Treatment Permit No. ST-1045 "Henry
John McVicker"with the following stipulations:
Environmental:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy(CO) all exotic vegetation,
as defined in Division 3.9 of the Collier County Land Development Code,
shall be removed from the subject property.
2. Permits or letters of exemption from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, shall be
presented prior to issuance of a County building permit.
3. Petitioner shall replant 6,000 square feet of native vegetation on site. Re-
vegetation shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy and shall be according to a plan, which has been reviewed and
approved by Planning Services Department staff.
4. Petitioner shall utilize only native southern Floridian species for all on-site
landscaping.
5. Outdoor lighting associated with construction, or development within three
hundred (300) feet of the high tide line, shall be in compliance with
Division 3.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 5
•
PREPARED BY:
7/W04
STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II
7/3400/
S AN MURRAY, AICP DATE
CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
REVIEWED BY:
• Sf4.4.,J, 2 3
THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE
INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR
APPROVED BY:
14. 7 3 0
JO 1' M. DUNNUCK, III DATE
IN' RIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
AD INISTRATOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CH 1' AN
• SL/gdh/c: StaffReport
z
;h )et. __,__,-- i-ecoiset A -8
-
Ill
i1— I)
REcwoo.oNE �i- �
_�ss -rte". --- Ti
r V/
I)
aill
L g •
$
At
i
▪0 V
`' -0 'a OWN
+b,b
O LI ��- !� La i1 .fes
—7 ...—....—_—_—_—_---
s
_ ----- ""-- s� "'�� �.;�.� i
u � �,
s N rii 1..
iy;
0 In
j2� V ... 4,„
t /
�s ..+.: h
4
t `-,�.�
_ r'
ti
t IR
O +°1 --- 4 Jam"
z z .+
z 4
I —I0
_ t IFS,i , :•j4 + +'Y
7
��- +'� +
LI LI 4)
Pc 4
•
•
.x � a
1 �
i...,1-., epi. - ,.:
0 , c,,
4 d i' — . IletiQt• .,_
i 1r r• ' o
t ,s _ h itl.4W Q. fj /. r
,1, k_
14
4, • 1t •4 �r�— L.L. /
,A 4 y� _' ti
L Y f
r
0 _ �.. +� i dip., 1c ' � - � ,fir
Nr i
6 k ET C1,"--..4t,1 `14r ..
fr t..f� .?
" - n -4
r
L.., 11 1 atI 1� Q
— fi. Z. *pr `* ift4 (
{ t
— ‘,„k.' P.,...
}a �° `W
r' 0~ r
•
r.n 1 - �.
y}
r 9: s
• %,
' - ..
-
I-,: .i'"-
• 4
- P' s scale . ` y , ?i.
��pA. „,,,.._,. • -R
.r
r _
.667'•'‘.-1".. •,,,, ,Ar •�'dJ • .ice -,----,...•
sa`'
c.
';0,71/11e” fi r :•' t-
ittAi:t
�, ,'
4 „j71'!",-.7..*,..,... a ;4' ”
;b' " 1';r -:'
te: - -,::%'. Id
.
..•
„t` Xof 9 ' . S�"-.,,,,t.,..„.
:
eT7`•� >. K y . i:• 4•—` `PCO b k'
Af
•
-_:,::-.',-:-.',;:::•tf2.:•-,,11-AL14 V.-e- ,-,.. kr4-,J:-, „-- ,#•,:.-74..?;.17t--Wrt,--",1-.p.--.: .
.,..,-._;_.:, , . 3 i i-F-_-.,- .---4-
_ 4,,.--A,200:tz,y,, ,,,,,, .. ..,---_._ 2-1,...t.:**. .. ti:‘...,.••P-.'" _-4...' . ' -.
:1';'. -Vi;-;'-'-c-;:-: --le.*.,---,,:--:7•••7 7. •.. •,;:-.7 r. ti''„,...-,,,',V 1 ,'.7, 'k.
-0.741.:':.';5i5:,:::,.:-::,;,'Vi,T...,7'...;v.,.,,,_._-'..-1; .. :4, ' g.:4'-.-•:''.f.1 al,-;";:', .--.,
t
OAVVTIOMM49-"ti.;-: .‘•-•-';. --. :-., '.' •
t., !.-.t-- -' , ,4'' ';',=t• I
. -,-.•.`3(.. .4-1,',,•••,..• •,:';'Zfg?',LiS?i,'''''?'''"4. ". ' i .! . 'If ,',.,, 1t ?
...., i -• '.,:• \i•
.,,',74-...,-:-.. 74: "!,..- -ri:-.k4..,.ie•-'',4,':•- IP', 1 ;t -, k i•E, _ ,..,.:,• -
,,,,z4,....z.,;,114-1:te.:1--7-,--- ‘1-•••-. ,.,-!' ,:r--2---ii-
.1.ri*,S;741-;.• .., -.L ., ,,,••••-e •; '4' . f - .,:re,-,,. 1, .,..... . , • '.1' - .,-• "•••4.
Ve.-54iktV4-7-.'lk s i A ''-- ' -• '
-,f1-10,-,e,:i,. ...%:.-2,-,,,,_, -.: ‘4',:i-P--* •-!,-
try
it,...g„g._:.,,4,1,4-7,,,,;4... f.:-.-iii-Igl: ' tftol, -1..'.'t• r‘ ' ":
-,,-,41,$.--...i.i.-,„',:.4.:',u;',.. .--e.,u-•„-_,,,_,,,,t..-:::?5,:„.-;. ,.. - ..,
el.% ‘,..
z..1
',','"-4-41-4f••-.W0-4,v2•!',---,.,i ,•;:,,,, -_,.--#41, t- •-, 4.1./ -• ._
'0,..,..:3'----'•.#,.v.*- , ., •• :-...:..---- • , -.,.,v,--4 ..;,•- ,••••Q Cl) 7----
1•74Ft-..,n''•,<*b.- .-L'L--'--:IfiE-•-•'1.4,....0 '• OA*.f.,,'•.•,••,:-..r,..` t ., •f•'
4: 4ft111:4"-,.<•r• - .- t '.'"' i -. ' '" ..s• .. '.
•:*,1'- , .---, ' te.",./..2A t .*,•• . • •ril
1.,........ . v• . -‘,...,
----,-, .---„..-:--:-...7-,..-9,e-- • • - -. .# ,4;.,-,,,-..-, _ - 7 •''-
'..''.1.•:P.:".(4.TAWV ... , -• Vi-4167... '‘,.; ..,, \
• • ' '' i'... I i-'''''''• ''''.----V-7`,;.-g.11,...,,...-1,...414. -,.
Ati . i 14, '"i . • ,-.,.-„,,,,k..4-F....eitm.2_, 2' .,?•..-L'...• ,,,.•.. . •. •-..,••f,••••xy.-.2,,ig".,•••.,:,:,,c,i,...c,,,::.-7., : .
...--74.-?,441..-4,4%44*; .,,st;',..• • . ," 1>;;.•,74,17',,x.... l,•;:, ' a ,, • .,:.:..:..,,.V&,4,•,,4-1°':'''", • "J,,.:. 4,t,
--,,rmr-.444---.-,-_,-- "to-,'',...• 1 li? _ • ....
- - --s- . - ; , . . -,74..1g""''.•!".,-„,. ., , '
.."....--7r- - - - -',...f"•;-:.-r" ----,' "' , g .,..I- •-•*•A''..•,:ge".:",,„.1,- - -;.,,,,4 '--
4.440-1•,.&„Mgr7‘.,, -W1-'r• '•' -- ....e,..4'Ff.4.-,.; ..e• :1111 A; f,.. -.-. •- -•-•-:-..', .1? -.4k`WJ "'.i.- . ,,,-6,,,J.•0 --,1.-:,:-4.,,,_:.,,,-.1. ---... --, '-'- .
X*;4`sk. .4:4540. , A -.. . - . ' . -f.1--''',- --.' . . ' .,-.----;' ''''4,5-7-;---A../'?•("17::-..i. . il r,f.,'_-.4:-.1'!---_,Av4 :,.k.,, •--,;-..--,,-..
..10-',,.-'.441.1.V.:*".. 7 .'04,-',:7..':- •.t , ci,,.....,-, 1..;-„,:-, . 47.,-.-4...i.,....;,..fi.. t'Ttili"•,,V.-,4::.,,,,i,._.4%,-.42-1..
-A4....if.--'01,A---,..:-'7,-4-4-6"'-'! r.'''...- ... --.=- -- -,:g',74.14,---..-7---,- --`' ,I•..e.'-. _-- ‘• • -,'- •- 4..4---;,...-. f., _. .
,-24.c, ,Q4,40*„,,, .e,,,,i...-p-,;. .... . _ 1...-.,...,,,-.,,,,.,,I.L .- 21"1") .i:• . • . • '-• -••- :•'----':.-A" --,---4--i.•;'";--•t''•+ ,-• -iE.• - q, V .'54 '•--';‘-'-•••••
4',.- -_%-zei,...-#.4-4f.:•rl':','11:6;.- , :#''''-.-.1 -, ,;.- 4 ,40 . :5.''• -. . --. ,'•-•-''f-.:= - g -'; "-:--..f,...4.----,••••.-et#,7.• •,,._ ...4 .1',--4#;',#•ir-! 7: -
Ar."--•- 1 . ..,, .,-----!..,4,-;.':'_Z*''''':--.::-'4,:.''',...,-.1'':.:r .. --i'''"--'›-;N. .,..-a.,...,...-4,- •:-,__
- - '.,..,x‘vi-,,,,-,'......-__-, -- • • , -.Alf 4,f,-,3_.-4: . ._,•4- iv-.
: .40.;N.,.,-,-,..; - • ,, :',,--,N
oki
• • •..,r,44.,1,,,,.:: .t...,.4w7.,.I .. ...c.,..4..,.. . ,„ .t,,,.4„•,:._•:. •
•
. , :ii ):,..:,.•,.,-i ...„1 . :-_, ...4-..,
, • , dit- .,. -. .. _ , ,„,,,.,_:,-..-_-..-...,,zz,,,,4-.47,-,.-- ,r... ..,-_ !„:,..f.r.7. - .--Tat `! ..
Z,•,•:,...,:<•.t..;:.•411--44.1""?"..,,,,7,-,--, . - '',...7'+' , • ,• Y. ":-... '. Iwo, ,' ..••-*, i•f.,• .-_,..:i'-' A---,•:' .TeT2'..z.-.7..--,!y-e.,,,X.,. . ,....:ter.. 1 • ,-- •.. _:,..• „....... • _•
,--,-,-,-4_,-.,-1„,•:-4,,-,1,.,. ...i,•i,,,,swi,_:,- ..: - .:,,_. . ..-.v.,,,,...,.,...s..! ,..f.a.*:7-•:- -c,,,,•. 17, . .1°4•••,...,4. rt. :..--..' • -,
•0, '...%,-1*-'4-40-,,if''''''''- '::'”. •1-.' . . ,...4-:--Haw .) . , .__,4:4T-likaw.,*-V----‘',he,-,----.;7`T.- .-.4, -• 4.-0"7- ,z, *:* -:::•-
v ....:.---,_..,.,,,-,-,:-.-w,.- .....
.-:#.;;43•#:;,a.-, Var,•44,,1.-7,4,-01-f.i.-•. .5. 1 t.., ..'--#•
..:-„,,,,,?:,,f- t-if#,.,-;#..;',74:-„*.7 ..••.....k.e... ..'1',,i).. . l'S'•07 WM - ' .- ,V.
P--1.-z.,'N.,iikl-L..,,,..,.- -V,..-.',-:n'' i ": '- 'Ill :' '. Mr.'' .-..,,,`,. .:,- -,4,..1*,,;,. . -'''4-1:4V,'!: ''''-4.-••••:'':"--- -. ;-1:1-- ,'-''' .''..-- :',..,::‘ •
';'4,..' ,F1'ot.ri..;,,A ef...,,,;. ,4 . , I.: '‘a .•.. . ..i, ,6-. . .
-"•---4- gliv--.:7;-,.-4, 4i•' •— . :.--'.....1 - • • ' !t:::'''• .t; ... '`,.‘1Y.;#1A-1,-,::. .2.4.4-t... -,....wv-41-Aa. r-f .,.. ,!--.,4C.A. 14--- `7 ..i.3 NO,, ,_..;
' -144411.7.-.44;,'''• ' ._ 7t. ' .„.. ..- *":'. ,_ . i. •. ,n. ;'•.; :,.,.,,,,,e-.: ,....,-:--,,,,,-,,,,,, .2.A.,
„:: f..-#4,4.-•-,-L'- -.. 'girl P-::r:-.--e-,-.--' 1. -.- t, '..::,:;,.. .=.'-._••. ' ,i% •
.:iii .74r'''''.,. MVP ,. ' i.'... • ...“ ' f 2qg.... 7 -
-...:'2.. .. .t.NTS,S•.;;›;4,::'14.44,l' ....'.- - tilt''2;tit'AW-. '•
. ... ,k.s! • .'
---#,-, . ...., • - -- 4. . 1 .
eff
'''-:•-•":'; '?•i‘.:•''''''6""••''''',,‘°'''".,:ti;i„.:,--. ...1, : i,;:7:
'-.'''''-'. -ii.:; :4‘1 .7- ' A.,-- ...-04 -,.- ,,,,,,v-i..-:.= ,t.47.•°4:-',:t •
:,r,----.:i.„..,-.1.',....-.N'Itil-rs--7•;.!--- ''' f ;.,. 1 • • • 4..,4.
W-(-44-1' ' -- ..... ' ' • vi'-74,4f.44.:,,
•------4,44 t. 1 • .." ...-•
';,. • ..•' 47' ., .
'':..".',•• -..7',74.L.Z74W--417.-,•..f.,..e....;-*.•:.",,,,-`e.' ..IA. , -..- ,.
0....
I r- --,'41 : .-
',. ,: --; ;,...::: .';.''''-1' ,c,k...-
, • - -.1' 7-. 't'' Q '-....
, •,,,,_..„,..inir.•,_.„..-_,_-:,-.$•.„.„,-.a.„ ••:„.....-
. 4,4,.•,:0_,,,,;,_,a,- •-,,,,_,_,A---. ,,,,,-- - . .- • ''., '.-,N
_...,,.......„:_4,-,..„mswek•;:•:,::,..„,,„ . = 1-1--,-.,_?.-Ar.**,- -- # ; - ...., -' ,,,..•.:-. -1,*•-$1.1f1%,..ets.:.-'.•.IL---.,-.-,t .•:-._
‘ -
--.s.---7,-.•.:-,-:-.--',,,,-#,.,te,,,:-'::.,-,•,-,,-- .--- . r--,-,.# c.14-4,,„:-f •••• • •,e•- I .'6.14t-, 5141'k.:; -.;:,.."-- -- ,,,.., ,-, s.. . - -.-____ :._, '.. iogit.
4.44. .4-,- - - .-.(•0‘.f.-! ..4.4.,,. ..;.•,:-:..--,,,:,.F.9_7-3?-4-:-.,,-_, 4 ' ---.--...:. . - •''.
-..t,t-...,.• igx...-.e-',--_•• ----,---- ,• ,"
.- -:: --,-t, -,-t--e.,-.0os Iv.---, • .-. :-.. - - -- 4-
tilYt" p1Zna4.-1! .,. ; 1454I-:-:#•....--.? g ;, ,,,,,4 ,.,. .,...y.,,,e.? „,r.t.4,,, • - ...,./-e • • ''--•,•---,`"1---"-- If - . 1...
-e '-'rr if :W.,„..,-*"••'--",,.- ,:..WKzU„:,t, '7, • -,7-.de:,la,‘,.,I ; agrik,-.. :-• ,7,:•,,.
- .44001,,,..,•!-A0 -,.,'!„:"•-•;,"•-..,:,,,,... .. .,.......:;....7-••". •"..:,,,i,„.. . l•1 `34,....," i;
.7,-,:t..... ,...2-,-*.•.-,..-2:-..v'a,-,,c:t!,,,w,;,,L11.,:•• . -., 1.._,4„:.,..,*.i.r...-,,k , :•......:-k .,.. . .V
';':',7-''''''...." -7'7",.. ..-'1''''.i.,,fre,•-g.1.,.'''-' 7•''-/•' -,',.*,s,, . ; :'..J-'.^-r• li-.",: 1 1 . -'0-,,•-,7-,-- 11,4-11410.-e7..i.4t:i7,7-e.--.. .-,
, 'if 1 4.ti- •.6 es,
''''"•...iti, .4,---,-Ar.,..,,,,.',,:.•,,':,':'.;1 E"..,:•.,,,,..".. . ;;.,-,',' ,,.„::, 1 •t •;, ?f, .t..11.4,,,c, 4,,,,. .,
. _ :,„;...,„, .,-,_•":,...,--, ,,.7_:•,.r.70.,,...,-,,,,,,...,..;w4„,...,...:_ ..... t../ „ ,..• . ,./....,..„:„...•. •
,•,,„,,,A,..,,,,,,,,....„...,....„....„,„.., , ,. ... ._ .. . • ,,...4..,...,:, .,.:_.:...„...,. ,. ...„,._..r... ,._„„,,„. ,:_.:. . ...;_. _._• ,,„.. .. • ,_,., ,
4,,..1„..,...... ...,.. ,...: ..•,,.., . ,__•,„.„„2„,„:„_, •:. , ..._._...„. , .
-0,,,z2,00,,,,,..,03,-,K.:::,T,,.,:„..: • . •-.. . I .• • •
,. _. ... .,.._
41,41.1' :2- : ',,-;-''.' 2?.,.."0,1 ,, i::'-,;i;?:- ,--,----.--,-. c ,. .' - 7.• *.J..;
s ,.., .. . ,.. •3 • ., .. .
..,..; .1 - - - - ;.;,-1,:,g 1 7 .. - -- . . .. • _... . ..---.:.-...-.- --...----,------- --% ,.., -. - ., ... ft..
.:,'',:f:.- '.7.;-",:'%'-'2,,I,:•.,,VF:.t,tri,f,.....e, ,,r...- ...•,-,•, .- -7- i '',:
---:: --.,4;!,;..'...#,.,;,;-:,.,:y.-i#,- , -i"-.,, -:••-• - .-• - • •
.m.,. ,
..-,,, -,---...-t,,-,--,..,,,s.--eV;,-..tt'aN,..e-y--,_-:-;,--- .., • .
;#, --., Is. ,20-ii-..y:4---:, ''-'•• s-'% . -. ' '1..- ' ''''' i .; ..:r... ,-, :- - .,-..[:.:*`.--'17.'.-1SaX -V--. '-e--,.Z. '..- - ." ' F4,-;'. Ili 4:t-,•,1-1`.
-41-, A 0.•:•'‘.-- '''''-'.'•. ;._ ..- . ' •.4 c,--...... .41••••f fa„4.,t?. ,..„ .,,, .../
V
4 , ft,, "I. •
„„,,,,..w..:...:-.•,. ,y,L„„_.,,,-..,-,,,,, ,L.. .,:.,... - -- . _ ...-. ...- 7i. .VW ''.... 4" c I.,.t -„,-.1.4• , - •, - ,. .
t-%-.. ' •
--,•,410''a..4?) ,4".,f,.-,'.!'.-::,<-.r.---7; '."....-7 - f"-:•:• •-•-•-•'• • • 4.,....i,.. ...:,:-.• •941!•''7••?•; -,-;,.-1'......',..,.. . .. ,
.•,-- . .,,1 •',.. --- --.•:',•',-. 0 v----Ag;• •:•• . r .,mir.-.-- ..--- . • f tk: :_p_44,..-t
:.•;;,--V0-. :\ .10-___,„,,,, ,,f, .. ' - . ,- LL,a,.4,-:',.. ----
,„*.ix
-- . .„,.....-7.- - ,,,.-
.----re! '..,...r..- -r-m...,. F77.7.--:.
't:',,a,a- ,..!*.'-', ..--0.•°,kii.,0,-..- -.. '-' r . : ---'.:. :
.. "• : ,• .- , -,
, . . _.,,:, • .;,..
..' • :, '
Slyi/AC/....,4% '°V:IV' ,,,,,,, .. 0„.',../ -, ,. '.... - 1 ` Ica...-.•-•
'.,f,k"' ,Vi.',!‘;',Af.• • tp.4:01°. .:' • --.:1434.,- t,-- -.- j -•- -4_,f#;':,
rr..:-:.•••":e• -i',,14 : -•`•-.0„...!4.:4Ft...-. -:.:2••- -..f: .- - i :r#i 1
rel. -,-,;t:•,;-,.;...t 4.&,;........,. ,-,..._.,. .e.t -.,-.-;-/r.its,;-- -.. Liku _. ,
. .--..:,/ “-- -.;41-t,... • , - e• 1-:.:.:'.(!• . :X --:'.\. .
r"-:4' 4.' 74'.. '-''''/Vjr'''''' r:14c:- :. - 1..‘m - • . ...
;..4/4.;- .0' .4.7. r_.....,,,,v,:,..t._....;.., _ ........ .-. _ _1, .• • ,--... _
.-s ,„,..
0 :S,...
-*: a- "' "N,.;.rN.
'-•t;.',e..-'• -lc 01"'f-...:- .i•- 1. ":::•:•••:-• - -..:..
. .., ,. . . .
4,•,. ...
.,'**.t.i.''• - fr,',•=..r:'.'"_;:.-: /I ..„,i P-, '‘‘..,`...4;i4 , ••„,
.,_„,-,,,,,p 2....,_ ,,,...,,Av,..- .,... n'i, .-, .- -,--,,,• ..4.
...--,,,,,g,.,,-, ;,..,,,,,,,;:-....-.,,,,‘-.-4 't":-..1,1--:.'-'-(44.•;,...' 21....,' ',„ .`:, :
,4ptL,--,„ ,,,,,,'-,- ,,,.. .:,--,i,t-.1, 1-1, .. ..:,••••4.4.741„
- .
•_:-. -'. -- '''."-,-,,`PA,k.-.‘• • : , - -..
.. . , . .. ---,;,.-...-Ff, sr.. -.,.. ,....
-:, . *„.. ..:-,f.f., I..,,.._,,•
r
.. , ..,. .,.. ..ii, ;,,,..:_ .. r ...:.--.7.4:,',.41.,, ',.;•-•,"911illr.... -
,, C11.--;9, .1, _, .Vr''',1 t, ',';•?:45fitt Vt1:4:r
0
' , -,•
• ,L t ' ..:40,).•no!.!,. .
.1 ,41"'—' - ' .hr,i1.- . ' 7'.: ..'!itiNp ' .::-. .°.
.1:- •. ' •,..s.,•:.:;,,, .---- x%, ..• 4 ".--,t,:, ,-,Vr.i-..,, , . ,,, T• •
', `, ;.•-?%V Sr------„:4 .,. i.'r ": . .•r••:' t. -,nilt '-••-, -, •
i F
t' i I:
•
4110
i wrk} ' . z .--,4:.
,- ..-r,-,..;44„. ,,,.. 7:'hi%
ppi ] �r
y I1i, r.yc � a
� { a
Ate•
.�ro Lsr*�- rl r. 4L ••
�: �•_,� � * {-t Citw: •tea'
:Y,..;4•1;-.--3.ft.-..rAtiO.,„,.-.T;s-1 - •- • `,01 gl ittit ' Cil 1 ---,,,,,,,,,,..,4-;,..<„,,,,,••• Z1. "' T-tif •
J .,4„1 ,L 4 i- t[, :' 3 r ' .�- .
�r - €i It,
� gam•. '{ j 4 yi.. ■ �••�
y.5."fix. • p^ ��4 ,z rs' sy• i• f n r ti I.
.r f>C».- /ii r� �r s �,{ _ tr si rL�"' > f,• n�1- 1
f.� F 4 S 4'+4'
;.;;;;;'"'- .‘,
�;y v ae:n r r i''F��� { Y �."f i " .�£ ; `� ,' ''"�A;13.4.,..1?.‘
� . ��.
r ` ' ' i*' 'f 4,-: ,,,- t.. - it ak,_.,., £ '"• M
•
,p
.--.4.3ii."-.;:ir,-..i4.!:-.A.-- ,..,''f.e.-..:•.1.i -:':;_.", fio.....„..„,...,.,„_,„,,,T .,....,..„t....
...,,,..f,„.......,,....„...,.... . . _ .._ .. ,
..,.,:„....1„:„,,...„45.3...„.. „ .....,.., .,., .... ..,,,, ,,:....,„.„,...„.
,... , 4',11,."' ,,,4.k.%.
1.
5 �6W ref;• +. p .,. r;f s� r• r "'14,-;',..,c,;4;.-f; ',
: 4 • yam'. „--. ----1-•--!...„,,,,y.., ! " s-'>
- _ -
£y a m - : .-• •�- r+ w, s,f ..�r i is. %,} ,,{ .
-_ . ,'., 0 ,,,*. ,..'0W-7-'...-,_„..o--,-,,,,_•...,,,',;. -, ' - .riV A .447- -4,....,,xf_. 1 '-41 ---
Vis . ,, i > fir- - i {k c
. � rZ 's 9o- .g 'QS '3.
f.
: --f -t - ��• ��
l�r�l x n x�;
tri T.
1r': '�` s'�` "`,s"'r ? -
0 tryp g V
'\{.. , .-: '.•
_4' _ i ,. cam_ !; 4 k r ti y �, t
x-s
. . . .
• . '?'""'•.-It--,-;•--; g ,=;. . :
•
•..: ;:-.4--4-'".--)51.i ,.. ) Ai ,
7„7,-..--tr7-7'-:•, .e ,,,._ e
--------- ---.:",-;..4-71.7.4 '-• 'i:9-•.-.-Yei..--...•, ,. •
. -: ' - ''..'1 ,-;•••'",•-ft 1:- , :. .
-.,.. ",.,2'. •'::"....,..--:- ,,-..•---..-.••-,„ek.:,-•-fi.-.-:.-- "::!-2-•-,V4.g&:•••'.-,."1-. . .' _
• - - •=:'•'- -. •-...ii-t--;,;.---tin--, 0,•,-
046';::(44h...:-74.4.,:c--.. c... . s- . -r
.... #4 4. ,•-' •
1.•,,,i,;:,,-.,,,5'44--",) ,;".4";:ct-4:;••ti-':-54 :1 - .'V T...70tl('•rsr. -,,.•••': ••-li,
')7::17,r r'')*--4;-:.4.---17 .72 j •'",,,r417g',,,A4-‘'''
.1 3•,•-...L.,-•t-,.i.! 5
itid 5,:igt!)f6-4, .,,,--, •4,),-••1', 4 -, ,._::•.,_ . . .t.,..„ :_,-„,
....:*„.„:„. .-_,,,....,..„-4.-•-„i-.,. ,:a..-4,;::,,.., -,.-_-.--....„. . ....- ,L 40 u../---,t-
Ai.
. , ... ,,I.,,...x...,_,...,...,....1.41., t,.; .... , , .
i'"'"e
.,..4.-,..„-,-,„1-..:-..--:::,...,,,,,,;:x ....,e.,,,,*-,.--',•-' :-..."-t.7.---"-''' '-,-1,-:'''‘, ..-., '7.1.".,
-;. -.:.-•,,,,".ei*,r-, -.
•:1'7:'ti4-;'7. •<;.:.'er±':j4-17%=' ,1-:';'. . .;-.:Yr-:---;`4'.....,...7-2.14 f 4"'' -i''
• er.. .. ,,... ..,,....,. _.., (D to
.
-,-_PO-4 -.1',-',,," .r:?....::: : .:.. _ . . . i.:: ...:,-.4.- -:.!_i4A,f.ft:z. '..-...'•:•.2'<- •.'
..,....fier::,..„.,...::::4,,,,,r„.: '-';:- ”.1.47'?A•f:f t.g.ig•'''''' "t .;j..1..?, • •4 11.111%..,.:.
. ' -• ,.•,......-:Z.,--;.1,-'•'"-' ;'-',f.14455•4 V '''.. 1 1 1 y
,---to:ys.1-,
.2..c.1.-.•;1,,-,,,,)),..-T,, ,,,,...lyf-,k,.. :,. .., , . .
..,- . --.•,. ,, --.7"-',..V..;,,-4-Z4 ,":.r. r't LI•i! ...
•,-.,W-,f.,,,- ;- :silm,azt•-4,,,,,,• 1:i.•;,.,.i
. • --, --J.-. -..---.-4--0.if..-wir,:..z., .,. ‘..../
-*,1,.4•:.,.:: ,.;,---,,Az-F.-6-•:-';?,,;.:,,•jWikt--.42:.• •:••,. ..C;44-dr- 7.-•,:!..z
-44o-.*sgr,,i•vs,•;?!.m?,,,,,,v8r,,. .• • -, .- ..-,1,77.1k.. .:..-4-',
-;:.-.i.„7.i.,,-, ."-•--.-:::•-,=-:1`t-'1.,4-.-i);'----°,-..--,-) -,1. k till°,'-'-'-:
. -' )-• • ---''-'-',* 4- 414.• Z
--.5--If.7- ,4-q,1;.•''''_ ";*':;';','-i'it•-• '. " 1 ' ',- actlii:.'
'..7-7A5:::-Q:-'.4A,Siikigr';'4),.--.. .- ' ' • ; -
•:••:.''''.-'''..7'. '-..---_,_•-fs'AS--,k''''. 4. 't-'•• '
., .,•.2.;-,,:,..-........A --4.-4.•=1--.--4,4, ,,,,-- :-.
-••-:•'---••••-.W:::-.t.'-'1;4],-;... '-'V--=,,.''''" - - '
M.': - -,v-.•-,..-- :"..,--,-*-M..1-,r) ,ft7i1=7-_•.... !.,-I
7-4-0-,' .-:?).`f- -4,-,,P,-.);.‘,;.'...,-,,,,,,-4: :•...';'--2.-f-,,,-. • t i Art•
•. - . t.--t-t.., ,-
.,••-•?i,-,v,:• •)•;-.±,;•;... ---;,-,,4-,•-?),)-.'4 44' • '
.•-',,••,•,,..,.•-",• ,-,4•47r,)ea•-tt.'s't-•t-.....,• =4.:.•• : LLI 0 •
..,...,„,*_...0.4 ,,,,,,,,,,,•„.... .T.e•t„,.,vi.,,:„...„4..„. . .. . ul 0
- -,-. -.:-:-,.,4,...-„,..-p_rgy,g4.-„,.,..,-,:,--; ..-;
-.5r-,40A;.,..5.0.• ... -,/,-,:,..„..,•::31;,,,,,. • ;,.:•,,,. •,
. „. ..--,-•-•,:••K-,-,0,,,otog.„-.,•--,4-.::,,„ 5' ...... ("1
" ":V.---:47::,,,,c..',4.4-,:..,.'-.-..-' --;;,:k"'-""..'-'0• i ..7%z a.... _.
.. :.,;.:,,,-..i,:ipf*I..10,--wz• --. . , 4.N„ ,...•
2.:=,,•i::,:ii --1 ,-": ;;:,--:i1,- f
. - -,... -,_,...,.,„...,,,x,wv,--,A. ,„0-,, 1
tf„,v,,ti.,,,,,,:w.:;:;,*,„:,,,,,y0.,,•?..1,74. .i u...I : ,..- -. . -,-
„4"-*41-.."•-''' ,:z..- :., ...,
• -- .•.';-'7,-1-..-.:.',..:7-.• ' r:X.V.3st$„.= " gr i:-• ,114 ;' '.'1-
r :,:., r:,..:..4','''.:''' .g.ViA,fr%,,•)23,.. ..,:,' •.• • •
'' •-cf:L'0": 4 r-161----,•_.4.t..;--• --"I V ,4, '---....,„:f IT.ne...: .
-- ---•••• )--.--r-,,.1.:-..i- ,--:,.. ..'4- ::-71, 1:- Nom. '' .
•_ -- ---. .-.-.,,••••,-,11:-.3•:--•:,,r,--:&.t-,--,s--•,.:0-irtik-e-- :11--, - ,..LE. • : - .
.-- '•:.. . _-i-;•!.'" ,1"-•.'„?.*:1 . :',--
.•';),-2,V ,4,A 4'-' .',. .7‘; `,7--1- -- --7>41417. -CL:,_
. --e • . .. .
-)-- -. -.- V":',71„••-•• •4•••.' - . '`' , - .
=41.---)." tIAL, -Ve-,..:-.-- ..•- - - -
..--,,,i, -70 -•.zii".;-;-,---.:'- -• 2' . . .112;.
04.41v
-:-.-r---: - - ,,igrt-,P.t. 441.t. i • . , '. ..
. . .,.
- ,-. ...----.-4, . .w.,,...
.--,,:F -, "'••- /ft„.- ipr) •
.-,..-f .---., • .. *,,•• .... •7.t
li ' Ur.
.-.'..r::• ''...:.-;.T.-;•T':f•i1;407714•1 • t7):
.7',..•=.41,"- ..i.a.:1*.• Vil it.;•':7 • . • '
•.-2. • -",e--t.-.47:1.4 4 t.
::',:•
•
• .,r
., ...,.
- •-• • •
_Is40:110 J4A-- ''.4tik; ' •. 4
'•.rt--b- ...1,.4-11,2 .c.„)..;.7%I.!,..,t,„ , .. .
sk,
:,i„.•_:•;,„,r.,,,,. •
,......
4010
:,--,,-- --A-A11-44. ..t
4.,,,:. .---;.4.4t .„,,,... ,..„,.,..4.. .., L
. . .,..1...rv,..•,, '.,`- .-..,• -.--. O' ,!
':5-r.V4-,• r .•4-,•-.'•-•,,,,:
tr.-.-,,Z.,,,4.4,"/.,
..-,.--;-•'•--,-..). -•-t--11, -,-7,-4.,,,'....: A, I •
, -- '..--V- ;•-;;. '2;-3,,ti,-. '-• _ ' ..itCfri.17,4'4.:`7%;I:- ;--r,7,,,,.A.-K7,47-....t.-,-,„,..„. .
' ''` ';:- '-
.----,---:-.,-. .A13';',V&-g-wtg--i:-..5.4.-;?k,;;;;.L;:-'•,1‘
. , —....
1
.' •;.)--.-2---47.1741 -7 - ' V,•••,-,,,,,,,,,i• - -,,,s,:•-•*..*X1,111%-f•PI-ti--iii-a!, :-'• >-
i
fAtik i7/ ' '
. PI liCi .1 1 ' ' ,. 77;'•‘'.'Z.: :(V414';
' ''''r'...'...'..
'. , .' . :::::Nel.:S.: „ : . J :-• ' -—
t. .,•T CCI
, . 1 ;
„,.1/iri;ft..47, ' •,
, 7':::
:474,:,V4o4:-.-..:" •.,i..F7W.g$ S i.i:
. ---' -'-'."' .."'-""--4-• " '.'.0 - .I-• r",'-- 4, -,:gz,m5_-_-",,,Qic-r:A-..,..' -e,..-.4-t--_-:. „4,-;. .„.„ .4.
SI ' w-1.4.,-- ----$5.---...f„6--Tio----'-.:*_,-9, •At :-...
. :., .,. .,..,;:,,,,rov.„....05... .,-&-1---ti„. • -f .,:r--...-:- - r;'-
4' e',',.#1417W•V"';'', 1. * ,rIt'v
. ;-_--- -,;•0,y.3.•,•
•
, . .. : . ..„:,..M.,.:E4 101;.:),;,-,--"T-1,7-7% ' 4. . -,'-•-•--- 'f•rt74 et,A1,,11 -'.... :- .-•'-'1.7•:'.-
. --A g.-4--....,-.',..,.;77.7*$ ,--7 5,s.1- , •',•,•.. ,._;•... :• ,..-;d .,,_.„...._ .„,.,
k,..x15.VW-.v.'-.4'....
- ,"'''l ''-'-'$ ;'-.2qi...-1----i4. -- -----. )::--..•-• 7.r -•--.,. ir v._-r_i),) j 7:•-.t"-.5,.:1.-
I 1 F.Wt--$.;;...V1:-Jx-:,:- .-:&-rt•ii-t4,..2.i -.- , -;;,
.1.-.. '- ,it -11 -4'-'.- -
i?te.:1-171:-.',•';7%.1•7:S'.74•'',7, -i*-'r-..z-'1&-IY-t'' it-. u.... 0
vt,
.i...*.y.cle--,•,.07 -5-:?m-.." -ier ,..tai if::, 1-"..- --- ----II I r. '..,r'.!:;:t.-042,A.,....'-..,/,5''''•n 1,1'41'''a.''''';k i f :.,' >, Z
;I':-- ---,"--:-,1-. .-.7,-q4).-:.-417,-77..;?,..._'_,--•._ ' t
.• 4'i4•P • (;4,-;;31-3,3."'' -; - •.1'-"---.r'.- !' t ,,• ;Malt%
-''*':, '4....reW`.'t--,.• '''. -: '• CIX.V=. f-.:,'!1.- --- -''..",.)fft: .-,-'14-7T44-..-,N.. . :P. F.. LLI e...%
- V
•'. !..,:, ''..4e..,614it'''.':',... ---,' . .-. - -.•:' ''.." -. 1.- ..13 . - ---.:-.--,..: inii-.4,-T6' -- •••..".. e•N
: .'-',—. ---- . I‘ - ; •.,* . , ..,r_.....„
. _..............-
-t-
. -..:- ....
. -•'-r'-.V.;:::;;;4-c-,-.-, :i-4,,,t,?' i e .."- 1/4.1
'''-‘; ;••i. •w".-..i ----....-•- .....-----......- .. '. ' .-.' -A--Xt-
:A '‘• ..A'`..i--r ..'-rfif-akt ...i.,___- `' - 4''''ft21.- L11,5,.._,1- -:
N--
••,,A. . .7.4 -1.8.,: i.•;1.- ''Ik g‘•.:."---- .'.--- "'"'''''''''--- ' .1'ela 11';
----)-=-.:,•,-,-,- -..-'-p-k =,-::-.;-,-x--..• ,1-1,
-1,!••... - .1;,.,- 11'(,• .;;.•,,. _-,zt- .7.-!--.- 1 •."`-P ..! -_ t.74,_
,L,„...,f).*.i-•.'- :--'-...,I.,A•.7,',-.•.- .,.•-:, It-
fr,C.I.-' *.,-.. \.:• ttt:‘ 70.-r•k% .,' --- .•'•'''• • - - ...j .‘,...-.1/4.''
4?4,
' ''''''.:4:•ESW7 :'',,'-''''''''' 7: -
4-•
___.,,...>- ..s..,..Z. .::..-... e
' - '----,•-.:V.i';t::.1-4W7 7,1:k:4:. I
.- .... -.., . • ..1- .-,,,.,-.,-. •:,...,..._
'.:•-It.1."7'-*... , s' sOg.... '..., '-.?"*c-. ' - ---;:- t:;i4c4.1::-}.-4. ,:;!'7.:Alrgtzfg;:f1;:,,:l.",'.C, .1,c, i
t.'-!,4, Vc, 4-...'-.. 'i• .."-..'..'"..": t!!' "..0 _..-:: Iii''''=t-:f.:i4-''''''-. -'-.'--'.'''..57:7,A"-.Prvisjx..;-:: r-•
!.-.4 g•A. ; -•- ' 4: -, .).:•;:!'...0 '- . ;..7 4..., __ .. \....• ii...:r-14•:?,ei--/
'' '4' * ,•• iv 1....--_,.-.- .7*.e..,-:." • - ' -- .'1,':'l'IW•4,-'-'
406
,-:fi.)•-:'J.fi„4.4.-.%,..4.:4-401,1 ,.,,
I •.• ie.,,,i4N ••••---epstc • 4- . :••• 1 - •J , •-f 1-4ii• --)-•
• .-,--e;.,-,-.,..,-:-.,--44, *:••.'3,4 .
4 --_ -%•:.: ,}-..,,,,....‘ ,,,...% ..,, ..: Ire .. _.__,-..._ ., 7,...1....,;.„,... .
,,,..,,•; ,.,•,,,
..r r. .- :, .-- s-,t —r -.;..7- ;.--y •', 0:1-L1.y, .. ..
_•_
. it „..,:„ , _ •
RE-VEGETATION PLAN FOR ST PERMIT #ST-1045
This is a continuation petition from the August 7, 2001 Environmental Advisory
Committee meeting.
Petitioner was asked to submit additional information to the Board as follows:
1. Re-vegetation plan including a schedule of native plant species and specific planting
locations.
Petitioner received from Stephen Lenberger of Natural Resources a list of county
approved native plant materials (attached). Working with a landscape designer and an
architect, a plan was drafted for the EAC board's consideration. Special attention was
given to selection of species that would compliment existing Keewaydin vegetation.
Dune preservation was also considered with the selection of additional sea oats to the
dune area. The petitioner is very open to other suggestions the board may have regarding
plant selection or layout.
Review of petition data:
• Proposed development is 3.3%(3200sq ft) over allowable 10% primarily due to the
addition of a 6048sq ft tennis court.
• Petitioner has proposed a 2:1 re-vegetation plan that would add 6.6% (6400sq ft)
native vegetation to the site. Since planting is not required for development under
10%,the site ends up having 6.6% more native vegetation than would if development
were kept under 10%.
• The additional 3.3% would be located in open area so as not to disturb any existing
native vegetation.
• Nearly all 13.3%of the development is sited in open spaces so as not to disturb any
native vegetation.
Petitioner respectfully thanks the EAC board for considering this additional information.
k McVicker
8/17/01
US/U`J/UI I0:4U CAA 1,41O4JOU00 LA/IA.11%A '.0 I. JMPIl,•11I ulat yJr. LP L.
Suggested plants for dune/coastal strand restoration:
GROUND COVER
beach sunflower (Helianthus debilis)
sea oats (Uniola paniculata)
golden creeper (Emodea littoralis)
railroad vine (lpomoea pes-caprae) it EA
bay bean(Canavalia maritime)—bay side near water ,� 4414:
coontie (Zamnia pumila) (13QP
spider lily(Hymenocallis latifolia) �1 )'rtl .5
prickly pear (Opuntia stricta) +4 P�g
blue porterweed (Stachytazpheta iamaicensis) � vtte
02.
SHRUBS -x C,hp 404 1b
ink berry (Scaevola plumieri) i'jvp
white flowered Lantana (Lantana involucrata)
sea oxeye(Borrichia frutescens)—bay side near water
seven year apple (Casasia clusiifolia)
sweet Acacia (Acacia farnesiana)
wild lime(Zanthoxylum fagara)
bay cedar (Suriana maritima)
indigo berry (Randia aculeata) bay side near water
Florida privet (Forestiera segregata)
coco plum (Chrysobalanus icaco)
necklace pod (Sophora tomentosa)
saw palmetto (Serenoa repens)
eastern coral bean (Erythrina herbacea)
cat's claw (Pithecellobium unguis-cati)—bay side near water
TREES
geiger tree (Cordia sebestena)
scagrape (Coccoloba uvifera)
buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus)—bay side near water
cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto)
gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba)
Jamaica dogwood (Piscidia piscipula)
wingleaf soapberry (Sapindus saponaria)
native fig/strangler fig (Ficus aurea)
August 2001
m_
[7
r -- • s v $t.
4
1
ifill
0000000000000 `•
000000000a-.
7,d kr) rV
s , kn —, -. .-
- - . . r-- ,.
;-, t P
CD >� r i i
O -11
E""
1) fa.
.Q . - as .. - awn ,•
.. cd r.) = = cl 0 ct En , 11'.tto +.,,, .t
TGr — U U y �� a) Cc Ct i-� U .c
Ct
*ill
' 11 .7 4 tql
k 3 c Y O c z cci .0 as - *'#. 1CA tt)
1
It O.—ir"r„1,1,74,0' .,.
'"'' ' O • Ts ccs
. -t 0 ,..,..., 4. g
>, $... ,
C o a' 0 a) o o U " d .}� i :•
_ 3
+ U = z �..ioD rd Q) i.r fa, d F' %,., 7
C s~ o a) •a v, a) 'tbJ) -4-, cr) CI, 0 '—' ' 0.0 4.4b L i 0 o
CII 3imo y `° = CI al ma (..Th
ao �ao ,..c
o
a� 11) zwv) Aav) aac� c7 � lPP � H I et
r.
___
14
ip/- il : : -, . - • Or:I '
OA
�� coy 0w +
1.+ .. t..
q oti V4 t
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
August 23, 2001
Special Treatment Permit# ST-1045
Jack McVicker
4100 Cutlass Lane
Naples, FL 34102
RE: Special Treatment Permit No. ST-1045
Dear Mr. McVicker:
The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming
meeting scheduled for September 5, 2001. The Public Hearing to consider this item and other matters
will begin at 9:00 a.m. at the Collier County Government Complex,Administration Building,Third
Floor, Commissioners' Board Room.
It is recommended that you or your appointed representative be present at this meeting to answer any
questions the Environmental Advisory Council may have regarding your request.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Environmental Advisory Council's Agenda and Staff
Report for this meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office at
(941) 403-2400.
Very truly yours,
Stephen Lenberger
Environmental Specialist II
SL/sp/h:\EAC letters
Attachments
cc: EAC File
PHONE(941)403-2400 FAX(941)643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us
phillips_s
From: burgeson_b
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:25 AM
To: lenberger_s; hadleykim; murray_s; lorenz_w; phillips_s
Subject: FW: Next EAC meeting
FYI
Original Message
From: Joedcarlson@cs.com [mailto:Joedcarlson@cs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 3:38 PM
To: BarbaraBurgeson@colliergov.net
Subject: Next EAC meeting
Hello Barbara
This is my official notice that I will be on vacation and not able to attend
the September meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council.
Ed Carlson
714 CU I e d 6c W(o(e Pa c e4-
- c 3 - 0
lorry
1
August 7, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, August 7, 2001
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory
Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chester Soling
Alexandra Santoro
Michael Coe
Ed Carlson
Erica Lynne
William Hill
ABSENT: Larry Stone
Alfred Gal
ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Stan Chrzanowski, Development Services
Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental
Specialist
Stephen Lenberger, Planning Services
Page 1
August 7, 2001
Ray Bellows, Planning Services
Chahram Badamtchian, Planning Services
William Lorenz, Natural Resources
0
3
Page 2
Aust 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barb, are you ready to go? Okay.
don't we call the roll. sbu
d San
Why ON' Mere.
MS. BURGES N SBURY
CHAIRMAN S A
MS. BURGESON' Cpe.
MR COE' Here.
MS. BURGES
ON: Carlson.
ON: Here.
MR. CARLS Hill.
NIS• BURGESON:
MR. HILL Here.
BURGESON: Santoro• Alfred
MS• ORO: Here. excused absence.
MS• SANT N: Larry Stone has an
MS• BURGESO
Gal
has an excused absenCe•
Lynne.
LYNNE: Here.
MS• URGESON: Soling• with seven of
NiS• B LING: Here. uorum
CH R SBURY: We haVe a a enda, does anyone
CHAIRMAN SAN Okay. The g to the agenda
bens
with us tOday'�ents, or anything
our nine members
deletions, co
have any additions,
(No response.)
MR. COE: ImoVewe approv
CHAIRMAN It'sSANSBURY•
been moved andap
pr
oved• Do
I hear a SeCond?MR.
CARLSj1soi : Second.
CHACAMISNSANSBURY: It's seconded. All in favor -
once ) no opposed, the
(Unanimous response.) : There being
CHAIRMAN SAN
agenda is approved as written.
page 3
August 7, 2001
How about the minutes from July 3? Any corrections, additions,
deletions?
MR. HILL: I move we accept them as written.
MR. COE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill and seconded
by Mr. Coe. All in favor --
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, the minutes
have been approved. Okay. Let's go home.
Barbara or Steve.
MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen
Lenberger, development services.
The petition before you is a special treatment permit, an ST
permit, on Keewaydin Island for a single-family homesite. On the
visualizer I have an aerial with the subject property shown on it. It's
bordered in white. The property about a year ago was covered with
quite a bit of Australian pine and Brazilian pepper, and the applicant
received an exotic vegetation removal permit to remove the exotics
from the property, which he did. So as you you can see, there's quite
a bit of open sandy areas on the site.
The petitioner would like to build a single-family home with a
pavilion, generator building, and a tennis court. They also have a
request in for a dock extension into the pass on the east side of the
property. Since the petitioner is requesting to alter more than 10
percent of the site area, we cannot do administrative approval of the
ST permit. It has to go forward to the EAC, the Planning
Commission, as well as the Board of County Commissioners.
Site alterations are not that much over the 10 percent site
alteration. They're 13.3 percent. I'll put another aerial on the
visualizer. What the applicant has done for us is indicated in white
lines. It's rouhl the area of the proposed site improvements. The
Page 4
August 7, 2001
single-family home is basically the area outlined on the lowest
portion of the visualizer. The tennis court is off to the side, and
smaller buildings are the pavilion and the generator building.
The area where the structures are going has been disturbed as
mentioned previously with the removal of exotics on the property.
I'd like to put up another aerial. The aerials -- the two photographs in
the center of the visualizer pretty much show the area cleared with
scattered seagrapes and grass as well as some cabbage palm, younger
cabbage palm. There are no protected species on site although there
are gopher tortoises on the island. They may eventually colonize the
area. The petitioner will be doing some revegetation on the site as
stated in the staff report to make up for the difference in area altered
over 10 percent allowed by administrative approval.
The petitioner is here if you have any questions specific to his
proposal. I'm here to answer any questions. That concludes my
presentation.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill.
MR. HILL: We did not receive a staff report with the -- at least
I didn't. Did anybody else?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No.
MS. LYNNE: I didn't either.
MR. HILL: Are you saying that the real petition is based on
13.3 percent as opposed to 10 that's the criteria?
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. The site alteration is 13.3 percent.
It should be on the site plan. Hopefully you'll be able to read it.
You'll have to excuse me. When I did the staff report, it was right
before I went on vacation, so I was not here for the mailing.
Apparently some of the members did not receive some of the staff
reports for some of the projects on public petitions. I can pass around
my staff report. You can take a look at it. There's also an original
that should be attached to here somewhere.
Page 5
August 7, 2001
MR. COE: I've got two questions.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe.
MR. COE: Two questions. I notice there's -- it looks like
Marco Boulevard. Is this a proposed road down the middle of the
island?
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. That's the platted easement down
the length of Keewaydin Island. Obviously, there's no bridge to
Keewaydin Island, so it will not be built.
MR. COE: So what is that going to be? Is that for golf carts or
something?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, it was historically for a road. I guess
maybe Stan can answer a little bit more of the history on that. He
probably is more familiar with, than I am, the area.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not Keewaydin.
MR. LENBERGER: But it was an easement that was platted on
Keewaydin Island historically. Obviously, there's no bridge to
Keewaydin Island, so it probably will not be built in the future.
MR. CARLSON: My understanding -- my historical
perspective is that that was the issue, building the road to Marco
Island. Rather than its present alignment, building it through
Keewaydin. The community rallied against it. They started The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida and the establishment of Rookery
Bay. It was the issue over this road, if this is the same road. Yeah,
that's it.
MR. SOLING: Question.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. SOLING: If this is an easement, how do you build on it or
under it because there's the potential of somebody in the future
exercising the easement?
MR. LENBERGER: That's a good question. The petitioner has
located the structures outside the easement.
Page 6
August 7, 2001
MR. SOLING: Well, you have a septic --
MR. LENBERGER: But he does have a septic area, that's
correct.
MR. SOLING: And the back of the house is right on the
easement. It looks or appears to be right on the easement line.
There's no setback. Some day somebody 50 years from now builds a
bridge or makes that road, which is a perpetual government easement,
then the house is going to have to be -- it's right on the line of the
road with no setback.
MR. LENBERGER: I honestly don't know if it's a government
easement. I think it's just a private easement.
MR. SOLING: Well, whoever's easement.
MR. LENBERGER: It would be the developer's risk to put a
structure in there, yes.
MR. SOLING: Second question: Just out of curiosity, how will
the McVeys get to this -- McVickers get to this house? Are they
going to build a dock or something?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes. They currently are in for a petition
for a boat dock extension so, yes, they'll get there by boat and have a
dock.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have any questions for the
petitioner? Yes, ma'am.
MS. LYNNE: Under what circumstances are exemptions
usually made? Is it like with zoning where there has to be a special
quality? What are the guidelines for issuing exemptions over the 10
percent?
MR. LENBERGER: For single family, that is the exemption, 10
percent site alteration. The only other exemption for single family is
in the area of critical state concern. You're allowed a minimum of
2,500 square feet of alteration for your very small lots such as in
Copeland or Plantation Island. But it's spelled out in the code. That's
Page 7
August 7, 2001
the only exemption for single family.
MS. LYNNE: Is there supposed to be an extenuating
circumstance why we should allow an extra 3 percent or 3 1/2
percent? I mean, I just don't know.
MR. LENBERGER: This is the first petition that I know of that
we've had over the 10 percent site alteration. Obviously the lots on
Keewaydin are fairly large. The petitioner wishes to have a tennis
court for his children, and that's why the petitioner has forwarded it to
you.
MR. HILL: What is the total acreage of the lot?
MR. LENBERGER: Perhaps --
MR. McVICKER: It's about 2.4 acres.
THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir.
MR. McVICKER: Henry John McVicker.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. McVicker, come on up to the
podium.
MR. McVICKER: It's about 2.4 acres. That's my understanding
of the calculation. It's about 96,000 square feet. The 10 percent
would have been about 9,600 square feet. I think we're at about
13,000 feet with the tennis court.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So 12,642. A question for either
one of you. I go up there all the time. You'll notice as you look at the
pictures that
Mr. McVicker's property has had all the exotics removed, but then
when you get down there, you've got one lot down here that has not
had the exotics removed. Is that because of the permit requirements
or somebody just hasn't done it? A lot of Keewaydin down there
completely has all of the Australians gone. Did you do that yourself?
MR. McVICKER: When we purchased the property, it had had
some work done by a previous owner who apparently owned it for a
year or two. There were still a significant amount of exotics on the
Page 8
August 7, 2001
property. So in talking to Mr. Lenberger, he recommended that prior
to the issuance of a permit we would need to eventually deal with the
exotic cleanup. So we took the opportunity to essentially get the site
in order by removing the exotics. That way we could also understand
the siting of the home and basically put together our plan. So we did
that recently, about two months ago, and then took those photographs
that you have in front of you to try and indicate, basically, the
existing remaining natural vegetation, native vegetation, and also
give you some good pictures of where the site elements would go on
the property.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It looks to me, like, about half of
your site coverage is that tennis court.
MR. McVICKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's essentially in an area -- it looks
to me like there's nothing there but sand right now.
MR. McVICKER: Unfortunately, they take up a lot more space
than we appreciated, yeah. Tennis courts take up over 6,000 square
feet. That's correct. In fact, they're normally 7,200 square feet. We
reduced the size of it to 6,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anything else? Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: Well, my understanding is to get a certificate
of occupancy on this house, it's county regulations that you have to
take the exotics off the property anyway.
MR. McVICKER: Yes, that's correct.
MR. CARLSON: So that would happen no matter what.
MR. McVICKER: That's correct. We just chose to do it at this
time so that we could understand what would be left on the site and
how we could essentially prepare the site plan to present to you and
to the state for permitting.
MR. CARLSON: So with the rule in place, the 10 percent rule
in place, why would we approve or set a precedent to go above that
Page 9
August 7, 2001
10 percent for this project?
MR. McVICKER: That's a good question. We thought that in
the spirit of how we've understood the vegetation issues and natural
resource issues to relate to the island, that what we would try and do
is create a natural environment there, even though clearly we'd be
disturbing 13.3 percent. We would revegetate a significant portion of
the area at a 2-to-1 ratio to try and essentially bring it back to a
natural state, in fact, more natural vegetation than would be there
after the removal of the exotics, so the site location for the tennis
court and for the house essentially doesn't disturb the area any further
than was required for the exotic removal; slightly in some areas, but
not much. It's 1 or 2 percent.
That's what we tried to illustrate with the overhead, showing
those things would be placed in areas that are essentially open spaces.
But we would be very willing, and actually would like to do it
anyway, to revegetate the area with native vegetation. We think it
would just look nicer and be appropriate in this case. So if we were
doing that, essentially, we would build it back up to an area of net
disturbance to be significantly less than 10 percent. So in the spirit of
conservation and compatibility, that was our thought.
MR. CARLSON: Well, I think, you know, for me to approve
the deviation from the rule, I would have to see some sort of plan
about how this is an advantage to go to 13 percent, and I just don't
have that.
MR. McVICKER: Okay. I can try and take a shot at that. If we
were to go to the 10 percent, we could do that, as I understand it,
without needing to revegetate anything. We could go along with our
plans and develop the site. If we go to 13 percent, we will actually
revegetate 6 percent of the space. Six thousand feet is what we talked
about, and I believe it's reflected in the staff report. So the net
disturbance after revegetation would be 6 percent according to this
Page 10
August 7, 2001
proposal as opposed to the 10 percent that we would be allowed
under normal administrative procedures.
In any case, we're very motivated owners to make this an
extremely natural landscape, and we do recognize that you have
guidelines, and we don't want to create a scenario where a precedent
makes your life more difficult. We think in the spirit of what you're
trying to do -- and we applaud it on the island and elsewhere -- we
would embrace trying to make that a very natural environment.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are we correct in this case that Mr.
McVicker just told us that there is no requirement -- if he does the 10
percent coverage -- to do any replanting of native vegetation? What
he's saying is he's going to do about 3,000 square feet greater
coverage than allowed and for that 3,000 square feet he's going to
revegetate 6,000 square feet. Is that what I'm reading here?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So it's a 2-to-1 ratio.
MR. LENBERG: Right. For the area over the 10 percent site
alteration, that's correct, 2 to 1.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think that's a pretty reasonable
approach to it.
MS. LYNNE: If this land and buildings are sold, can the next
owner relandscape, in other words, put in exotics and change the
whole character?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, the code prohibits planting exotic
vegetation, non-native species on undeveloped coastal barrier islands.
MS. LYNNE: So there's no allowable planting of any non-
native species on the island?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
MS. LYNNE: Okay. I just wanted to verify that.
MR. LENBERGER: The only exceptions that I am aware of is
occasionally coconut palms are placed in because they're naturalized.
Page 11
August 7, 2001
MS. LYNNE: Yeah.
MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. HILL: Two quick ones. Steve, is there any way if this is
approved of making it a covenant attached to the deed that the
revegetated area cannot be disrupted by subsequent owners? Can that
be put into the approval?
MR. LENBERGER: It will be stipulated in a resolution with the
final --
MS. STUDENT: I don't think the deed is the proper place to put
it. The county's resolutions and ordinances control, and they run with
the land. Any property owners, when they are a perspective
purchaser, are put on notice to exercise due diligence and ascertain
what the restrictions are on the use of that land, not only private as
well as public.
MR. HILL: Would that be fairly binding to the new owner?
MS. STUDENT: It should be.
MR. HILL: The other question I have -- I see nothing in the
report about the dock and nothing on the photographs. Is this a city
dock requirement that needs to be satisfied?
MR. LENBERGER: No. It's a county dock extension. It's not
on the property. Technically it's off the property and into the water,
so it's a separate petition.
MR. HILL: Okay. So we're not to consider the dock itself?
MR. LENBERGER: Right. Because it's not on the property or
the area that --
MR. HILL: So that's not part of the 13.5 percent --
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
MR. HILL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: Just one last question. Since you've discussed
Page 12
August 7, 2001
this with staff, why don't we have a revegetation plan to look at?
MR. McVICKER: We felt we would come before you to get a
sense of the board's position on this, and we're certainly happy to
develop that and represent or resubmit that to you. We're also open
to suggestions from the board as to what revegetation.
I had a brief conversation with Stephen. The island is new for
us, and so the species are -- we're still learning about what species are
appropriate. I know the coastal dune area has some sea oats and
seagrapes up in there. We would continue to expand those and
revegetate the area in consistency with those types of elements. Then
as far as the balance of the property and where it would be
revegetated and what would be used, we're very open to that. We do
have some resources. There's several people who have worked on
the island revegetating, and we would look to them to get some
guidance. But we would be more than happy to submit a plan.
MR. CARLSON: There's certainly lots of help out there in that
department. Let me ask one more question. For 6,048 square feet,
how many tennis courts do you get?
MR. McVICKER: One.
MR. CARLSON: Just one net?
MR. McVICKER: Yeah.
MR. CARLSON: One tennis court?
MR. McVICKER: Yeah.
MR. CARLSON: Wow.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's 60 x 120.
MR. McVICKER: It takes a lot of space.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Would you consider,
Mr. Carlson, if we took No. 3 on the recommendations and added a
sentence to No. 3 that would require the submission of a revegetation
plan to -- if it's acceptable to staff-- prior to approval by the County
Commission?
Page 13
August 7, 2001
MR. COE: I'd go for that. That would solve the problem as far
as I'm concerned.
MR. HILL: A point of interest, Mr. Chairman, on the aerial. Is
that line the mean-high water line?
MR. McVICKER: It's very close to it. That's the vegetation
line which -- I don't have the site plan in front of me, but the mean-
high water line and the top of that dune are pretty close to each other,
yeah. There's actually a pretty good elevation there. It's about six
feet at the top of the dune there. It happens to be one of the higher
pieces.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am.
MS. LYNNE: From what I know about Keewaydin Island and
the fact that it has been sold and houses will be put on it, I do like this
approach, and I do like -- I do see a justification for granting more
disturbance based on preserving the rest in a really natural -- not only
vegetation, but what's going to fit in with the tortoises and the rest of
the life there, and it seems that that might encourage other
landowners to do similar-type things. The only thing I would like to
see is something that's somehow more permanent and enforceable
beyond your tenure there, and I don't know what those possibilities
are.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think Miss Student just told us
that a resolution is binding on future landowners. Is that not correct?
Is that what you told us?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. Land-use regulations run with the land,
and so any new person purchasing the land is subject to those
regulations.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Subject to this resolution that
would approve this?
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So it is binding with the land, and
Page 14
August 7, 2001
it would go to the next one.
MR. SOLING: One --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
MR. SOLING: -- simple question. Where do you get water?
What do you do with the sewage on this property?
MR. McVICKER: You have to have a self-contained system,
obviously, on the island.
MR. SOLING: Can you drill and get water?
MR. McVICKER: Apparently there is an aquifer that runs
under the island. That would not be our plan. I know that there's one
home that has done that. It's brackish water that needs to be treated.
The typical process for water is a cistern system or rain collection off
the roof, and that's what we would do, and you'd have solar panels.
MR. SOLING: Is electric there too?
MR. McVICKER: Solar panels.
MR. SOLING: Oh.
MR. McVICKER: You use a battery system, and then a septic
field for the septic. Also,
Mr. Soling, to your point on the right-of-way, I do have some
knowledge that some of the owners in different parts of the island
that also have that right-of-way on their property have had that
vacated.
MR. SOLING: Oh, yeah?
MR. McVICKER: So pieces of it are missing. And I think also
somebody mentioned The Conservancy has been motivated to try and
block a development of that as well, so I don't know that that would
ever be utilized.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe.
MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion, please, that we pass this
Page 15
August 7, 2001
particular project with the caveat that an appropriate revegetation
plan be submitted to the staff, and if they approve it, then the project's
good to go.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second?
MR. HILL: Can we add to that motion a request for a resolution
attached to the property that that vegetation be maintained?
MR. LENBERGER: It will be stipulated in the resolution. ST
permits are approved by resolution.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: Discussion on the motion.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second on the motion by
Mr. Carlson. Discussion.
MR. CARLSON: I didn't second it. I'm discussing it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, you're discussing it. Mr. Hill
seconded it. Okay. Now you can discuss it.
MR. CARLSON: Yeah. I'm going to hang tough on this one
because I don't like being in this position. If you come in for an
exception to the rules, then you should have a plan in hand, and we
should see what we're getting for the 3 percent above the rule that
we're giving up.
MR. McVICKER: I apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. McVICKER: We'll get that in order.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any further discussion on the
order?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. A motion is on the floor
that we approve the staff report with the additional language that
requires the petitioner to submit a detailed revegetation plan to staff
that's acceptable to staff prior to the time that final approval of the
resolution is submitted to the County Commission. Does that satisfy
Page 16
August 7, 2001
you, Mr. Coe?
MR. COE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye.
MR. COE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye.
MR. SOLING: Aye.
MR. HILL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed?
MS. SANTORO: Aye.
MR. CARLSON: Aye.
MS. LYNNE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So it's 4-3, thus we do not have a --
it does not pass from the standpoint of the requirements of the -- or
how we're put together. We have to have five to pass it. So,
basically, it will go forward to the Planning Commission with a
report --
MS. BURGESON: Actually --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me. Go ahead.
MS. BURGESON: At this point we usually recommend to the
board to try to make another motion that can pass with a vote of five,
if anybody is willing to try to make another motion.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Someone who voted for
that would have to make that amendment. Mr. Coe?
Mr. Hill? Anybody have any ideas?
MR. COE: Three negatives. We ought to let the negatives
figure out how they're going to get it passed.
MS. LYNNE: I'd really like to see the petitioner come back
with more information and more assurances for how it's going to
happen. I think it is a good idea. I'd just like to have more work on it
before we see it.
Page 17
August 7, 2001
MR. McVICKERS: In terms of--
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If I could, please. You know, we
just got the petitioner to agree to submit a detailed landscape plan to
staff that would be approved by the staff. What additional
information can the petitioner submit other than a detailed landscape
plan? We've had the county attorney tell us that the resolution that's
passed will run with the land so that anybody else that takes it has got
to live by it. If we ask for additional information, we need to tell
them what additional information we're asking for.
MR. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: All I'm asking is we not be in the position of
approving things that we haven't seen. That's all I'm asking. So I
would move that we move for denial of this petition until petitioner
can come forward with a detailed plan so we can see what he's
proposing to compensate for the impacts above the
10 percent rule that's now in place with the county.
MS. BURGESON: One option you might want to consider is to
continue it rather than deny it. So you would continue it until next
month's meeting and they can bring forward that.
MR. CARLSON: I amend my motion to continue this until next
month's meeting.
MS. LYNNE: Is that what the petitioner would like?
MR. McVICKER: Whatever you would like. We're happy to
comply with the needs of the board.
MS. LYNNE: I second the motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A motion has been made and
seconded to continue this until next month. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All in favor of the motion?
(Unanimous response.)
Page 18
August 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, it continues until
next week -- next month.
MR. McVICKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MS. BURGESON: Before we start this next petition, I just
wanted to ask the EAC members -- we were not aware on a staff level
that some of those staff petitions did not get -- that staff EAC reports
didn't get out to you with these packages. Can you tell me if there are
any other projects or petitions in front of you today that you don't
have staff reports for, and I'll make copies of those right now and
hand them out.
MS. SANTORO: We have all the others.
MS. BURGESON: Oh, you have all the others.
This was the only one. Okay. In the future if anybody's missing one
MR. COE: I don't have one. I don't have one for Silver Lakes
and Walnut Lakes.
MS. BURGESON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You don't?
MR. COE: Nope.
MS. BURGESON: Okay. I'll make copies of those.
MR. COE: Now, remember, my mail gets forwarded if they
haven't changed that address yet.
MS. BURGESON: Okay.
MR. COE: So that could be the reason. It may have been sent
out separate and I just didn't get it.
MS. BURGESON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Did we send it up to Pontico
(phonetic) or what?
Page 19
August 7, 2001
MR. COE: No. They've been sending it to Egypt.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Silver Lakes. Here we go. Okay.
MR. BADAMCHIAN: Good morning, council members. My
name is Chahram Badamtchian. I'm from planning services staff.
This is a PUD amendment to the master plan of the PUD, only, for a
Silver Lakes PUD which is located along 951, Collier Boulevard,
almost two miles south of the 951 and U.S. 41 intersection.
This PUD was approved with the master plan which -- with the
large recreation tract at the top and smaller conservation tracts, and
what they are proposing, basically, is to make most of the recreation
tract at the top a conservation tract up to here, and they are changing
these back to recreation.
Let me give you a list of things that they are doing basically.
They are increasing the acreage of conservation tract from 3 to 18.
They are reducing the park/TTRV area from 26 acres to 24 acres.
They are reducing the buffers from 5 to 3 acres and reducing the
recreation areas from 97 acres to 86 acres, and they are reconfiguring
some lots. As you can see in the older master plan, this street went
all the way to the end, and there are lots on both -- on the south side.
And in here, this street ends here, and they were proposing a lake and
some golf course.
Basically, that's the extent of changes, and I believe most of the
changes are due to the permitting or environmental permitting
through the state and federal agencies. Steve Lenberger, the
environmentalist who reviewed this in detail, is here to answer all
your questions. That's basically the extent of the changes.
MR. LENBERGER: Good morning again. For the record,
Stephen Lenberger, development services. The subject property -- I
have an aerial on the wall here -- is pretty much developed on its
southern two-thirds. It has an undevelopment portion roughly of
about one-third of the property on the north end.
Page 20
August 7, 2001
Vegetation on the site is a mixture of pine flatwoods, hydric pine
flatwoods to the east, and basically a kind of mixed wetland forest,
wax myrtle cabbage palm, laurel oak to the west. The whole area
was claimed as jurisdictional wetlands by the state and federal
agencies.
The property is located -- part of the property is located in the
Deltona settlement. I have a map of the Deltona settlement on the
wall. The areas in red indicate the developable portion within the
Deltona settlement agreement. This property sits -- this red portion at
the top and the yellow portion outside the Deltona settlement area
here is this vegetative strip that you see in front of you which the EIS
pertains to.
The PUD master plan -- the original master plan identified this
whole northern strip as a recreation area with a large lake and, I
believe, also a maintenance facility as well as nature trails. There
was also a preserve area, roughly, in this portion of the PUD and in
this area two very small preserve areas.
The petitioner has reconfigured the master plan and removed
these two preserve areas. There are no preservation requirements on
the southern two parts of the property since they are within the
Deltona settlement area and also identified as developable area within
the Deltona settlement area.
So we're dealing with the north piece here. We're designating
roughly -- or at least over three-quarters of it as preserve or
conservation area. They'll have a commons recreation area in the
front, and there will be some lots encroaching on the south end over
here. Wetlands on site -- well, the whole northern portion is
wetlands, 37.3 acres, and they'll be impacting 11.7 acres for the
project. Preservation will be 25.9 acres of wetlands by the north end
of the PUD.
The petitioner is also proposing, in addition to on-site restoration
Page 21
August 7, 2001
-- and there are quite a few exotics on the property -- the petitioner
has removed quite a bit of melaleuca, an early vacation on this
portion of the preserve. There were also some berms and agricultural
ditches which will be removed, leveled off, as necessary. They're
also doing off-site mitigation. At the time we processed the EIS,
there was about 4.89 acres of off-site mitigation proposed or credits, I
should say.
MR. CARLSON: Could you repeat that?
MR. LENBERGER: 4.89 mitigation credits are proposed or
were proposed at the time I reviewed the EIS. I did a protected-
species survey. There were no protected species observed on site.
The petitioner is here as well as the environmental consultant to
answer any questions you may have, and I, of course, will answer any
questions.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: Have you been on the site?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, I have.
MR. CARLSON: The condition of the wetlands hydrologically?
I mean, I know there's exotics, but are they hydrologically intact or
impacted?
MR. LENBERGER: They look pretty good. There are a lot of
exotics, mostly Brazilian pepper towards the west, melaleuca, and
earleaf acacia. The areas they removed the exotics look pretty good,
so the habitat has pretty good quality. The laurel oaks and other
woody vegetation towards the west are still fairly young. They're not
very large trees. Towards the east property of the property the pines
are fairly large.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. HILL: In the existing layout compared to the proposed, the
internal lakes look like they're identical, the two lake areas inside
your pink.
Page 22
August 7, 2001
MR. LENBERGER: Okay.
MR. HILL: Apparently that large lake up in the original north
portion is gone.
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
MR. HILL: Has that been cleared by water management to be
acceptable with respect to water control on the site? You're losing a
significant lake up there.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's not necessary for the water
management.
MR. HILL: Okay. They have passed on the removal of that
lake?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Uh-huh.
MR. HILL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. SANTORO: Steve, which way does the drainage flow in
that area? Does it go south?
MR. LENBERGER: I'll let Stan answer that question.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. I was listening --
MS. SANTORO: Which way does the drainage go from that
area? Does it go south?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Some of the drainage passes under --
yes, it goes south. Some of the drainage passes under 951. Stan
Chrzanowski from development services. It passes under 951 to the
other side of the road and flows south. There is some drainage out
through the mangroves directly -- I guess it's to the west. As you
drive down there, you see all the culverts under the road and drainage
just going out into the mangroves both to the south and west.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions of staff?
Would the petitioner like to address the subject?
MR. NADEAU: Yes. Good morning, council members. For
the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for RWA,
Page 23
August 7, 2001
Inc., representing Conquest Development USA, LC.
Dr. Badamtchian and Mr. Lenberger have done a fine job
explaining the project. I will again emphasize that the purpose
behind the petition is merely to reflect the current development
intent. They have platted and recorded eight phases in the project.
The amenity for a golf course, which was originally proposed in this
area on the old plan, had a strip of lots along its southern boundary.
What the petitioner found was necessary was to have some additional
room to make a playable nine-hole executive course. Therefore,
they've opted to remove this tier of lots in here and move them up
slightly above the Deltona settlement agreement line, thus the
permitting process with the Army Corps of Engineers and the water
management district.
Really, with the changes in residential opportunities and RV
opportunities, there's been a reduction of two acres of those lands for
development and a net increase of two acres of open space, not to
mention the increase of the conservation tract from 3 acres to 26
acres, not 18 as Dr. Badamtchian had said. I have members of -- the
environmental consultant here as well the project engineer if you
would like to ask any questions.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The area, previously, that we're
saying is preservation now was previously recreation?
MR. NADEAU: This area on the north side of the Deltona
settlement agreement was designated as commons recreation.
Everything around the development, including the lakes, is all
classified as commons recreation. So the commons recreation area in
here was reduced such that it could be redesignated as conservation.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for the petitioner?
MR. HILL: Would nature trails be compatible with the
conservation area? In other words, the original says you have nature
trails in that upper northeast portion.
Page 24
August 7, 2001
Reserve PUD, which I believe is currently under construction right
now. The reason they're doing the mitigation at the north end of the
preserve is to align with the preservation at the south end of Naples
Reserve. If you're not familiar with Naples Reserve, the native
vegetation on the property pretty much is in this corner of the
property. There were some native areas here, but most of this is farm
field. That's why they have most of the preserve at this end of the
property.
They did a protected species survey on site. They didn't find
any. The project meets the 25 percent native vegetation requirement.
They're preserve 25 acres -- I mean, 21 acres of vegetation on the
site. Technically, they would only have to preserve 5.25 acres for
impacting this portion outside the Deltona settlement area.
The petitioner is here, as well as their environmental consultant,
to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
Go ahead.
MR. CARLSON: So when the Deltona settlement deal was cut,
the areas in red were exempted from preserve requirements -- natural
-- from preserve requirements; is that correct?
MR. LENBERGER: That's right. They were identified as
developable areas. Some of them were indicated in the EIS done by
the Army Corps of Engineers as uplands. Some were just indicated
as areas to be for construction, but they're all identified areas for
development.
MR. CARLSON: That's the crux of my question here. Did the
regulatory agencies say, "We're not going to exert jurisdiction over
the wetlands in those red areas"?
MR. LENBERGER: Pretty much no mitigation is required.
That's my understanding in areas indicated in red on that map in the
Deltona settlement area. And there's no preservation by the county
Page 29
August 7, 2001
for areas indicated in red on that map because the lands were set
aside in other portions of the Deltona settlement area to satisfy the
county's requirement.
MR. CARLSON: I mean, that's a really important question. Is
there an expert in the house?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The petitioner may have a
comment on it.
MR. PASSARELLA: Good morning. Ken Passarella with
Passarella & Associates here on behalf of the petitioner. Real quick,
I'm not a, quote, expert on the Deltona settlement agreement. It was
before my time. But I can tell you it's my understanding that the
areas in red did have identified wetlands on them, and the wetland
impacts were assumed when they colored those areas in as red. And
the areas or the remainder of the property was set aside as mitigation
for those impacts. So the wetlands that are being impacted in the
areas in red were accounted for by the preservation of the remainder
of the wetlands on the property. So there was mitigation done. As
Steve mentioned those areas are considered mitigated for.
So there are wetlands on the property that have to be accounted
for with the water management district. They keep a running
tabulation of all the wetlands within those development areas, and
they account for those impacts. It's an internal bookkeeping process.
But all the mitigation has been done up front by the preservation and
the setting aside of those other areas on the map.
MR. CARLSON: Which would be the areas that look black to
me?
MR. PASSARELLA: Correct, yes.
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. Both of the areas, black and blue.
Some of it is open water bodies, of course.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Mr. Hill.
MR. HILL: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Naples Reserve came
Page 30
August 7, 2001
before us a couple years ago, and as I remember, they made some
definite strides toward handling the waterflow south from their
property. Does anybody remember that? Is that going to flow on to
this property?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski from community
development. I think July Adarmes has been pursuing that with the
developer. The water management district has looked at it. I don't
know. I don't remember which way they're running their water.
MR. HILL: It seems to me they made a very, very concerted
effort to handle that flowing south, and I didn't see anything in the
staff report relative to that.
MS. MINOR: Good morning. My name is July Adarmes
Minor, senior engineer for the stormwater management department. I
spoke to the district a couple of days ago to understand this project a
little bit better. The Naples Reserve is not taking any off-site flows.
The Winding Cypress, which is on 951, is taking most of the off-site
flows in that big region. So this one has old berm around it. There's
no off-site flows coming into this project, the Walnut Lakes, or the
Naples Reserve. They are discharging directly into 41 through their
access road; is that correct?
MR. PASSARELLA: Yes.
MR. HILL: I stand corrected. It was Winding Cypress that
came before us that had the --
MS. MINOR: And they're taking all the outside flows.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Those Winding Cypress guys are
really good guys.
MR. HILL: Really? Do you have that on good authority, Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Uh-huh.
MR. HILL: Yeah. It was Winding Cypress.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have further
Page 31
August 7, 2001
questions for staff or for petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Again, hearing none, what's the
pleasure? Have we heard from everyone? We heard Steve. We
heard everybody involved; right? Okay.
MR. HILL: I have one just very minor one. I don't know. On
page 2 of the staff report, it says the final density will be
approximately three units per acre. Does the petitioner have any
more exact figure than that?
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. Density --
we're asking for three units to each acre. It may end up being less by
virtue of how many single family you do versus how many assisted
living. We have a conversion rate in there for assisted living to
single-family and multi-family units. So at this time we can't really
do that. Actually, most of my projects end up building less just by
virtue of whatever the market is. So they may start out saying,
"Here's the maximum we're going to do," but it's all based on what
the market is going to bear.
MR. HILL: Part of the case was to reduce it from 4 to 3, and
then approximately 3 to -- I was just curious if you had a better
figure.
MS. BISHOP: No, sir.
MR. CARLSON: Since you're there.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go right ahead, Mr. Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: Would you describe what the preserve area is
going to look like at the north end of this project and how it's going to
integrate with the one to the north. Is it all going to be planted from a
scraped downgrade, or is there something there already that can be
preserved?
MR. PASSARELLA: Well, let me go to the map over there, if I
may. As Steve mentioned what we tried to do is tie into the Naples
Page 32
August 7, 2001
Reserve preserve area located to the north of the site. Unfortunately,
this part of the site here, as Steve described, has been previously
disturbed. This area was all ag field, as far as I know, back as far as
in the '70s, and then around 1980 they excavated the lake here, and
then they spread the fill around the property.
So this stuff was all disturbed. There has been some
revegetation that has happened naturally in this area here, and we're
trying to save some of those cypress areas that have come back
naturally.
This area up here is -- there's really nothing there worth saving
at this point. So this is a system we're going to have to actually
restore. We're going to have to move some dirt, and we're going to
have to come in and plant vegetation. The idea here is that we're
going to be planting a forested system, so we're going to be planting
with, you know, cypress and pine and material like that. We're going
to try to tie it into this system here. We're going to preserve a portion
of this area here so we can create this connection and bring it on up
into here.
Unfortunately, the area that is existing native vegetation, if we
were to stay out of this area, this area would become isolated within
the landscape surrounded by this development, and this development,
and this neighborhood over here. And then there's more ag over here
that will -- you know, that's over in this area that's already developed.
So what we try to do is create something in here that would
compliment the preserve area to the north.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay?
MR. CARLSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Any other questions for
staff or for the petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Hearing none, what's the
Page 33
August 7, 2001
pleasure of the council?
MR. CARLSON: Okay. When I look at this project, I hate the
80 percent wetland loss, but I think there's -- it's a very unusual
project with the predisturbance and it's location in the Deltona
settlement area, so I'm going to move for approval.
MR. COE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Carlson and
seconded by Mr. Coe. Questions? Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, all in favor of Mr.
Carlson's motion signify by saying aye.
MR. SOLING: Aye.
MR. COE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye.
MR. CARLSON: Aye.
MS. LYNNE: Aye.
MR. HILL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign.
MS. SANTORO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion passes 6-1. Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, my name is Ray Bellows.
The petitioner is requesting to amend the Indigo Lakes PUD to add
approximately 40 acres of land to the site without changing the actual
number of dwelling units approved for the existing Indigo Lakes
PUD.
As a result the density from the proposed additional land will
decrease from 3.14 dwelling units per acre to 2.43 dwelling units per
acre. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on
the west side of County Road 951 just south of the elementary
school. It goes back in along the section line.
In the petitioner's project, the added land is located to the south.
Page 34
August 7, 2001
I have a copy of the master plan to show where the added lands are.
Basically, the agriculture zoned lands are along this portion of the
southern property line and then down in here.
The amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and
the Future Land Use Element since none of the previously approved
density will be increased or the number of dwelling units will be
increased and no other use changes are proposed. They're just adding
these additional lands. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Oh -- and I'd also like to point out that I have a memo from
stormwater management. They would like the petitioner to add two
stipulations to the stormwater management section of the PUD
document. The first one is prior to approval of construction plans, a
20-foot drainage easement along the west property line of the parcels
shall be dedicated to the county for access and maintenance of the
adjacent canal as required by the Harvey Basin stormwater
management plan.
The second stipulation is Section 4.9 of the PUD document shall
be revised to read, "Stormwater management" department director
instead of "water management." That's all I have as additional
stipulations.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Steve, do we have any
questions? Any questions of staff?
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger,
development services. The Indigo Lakes PUD is an existing PUD, as
Ray mentioned. The petition here is to add two 20-acre parcels
roughly here and here. It's these pieces right here. From the map it
looks like the native vegetation preservation was pretty scant. It only
included these two areas. You have to remember that much of Indigo
Lakes PUD was farm field historically. You can see that on this
aerial. These are the two parcels to be added. This is some of the
original PUD. You can see it was a farm.
Page 35
August 7, 2001
Vegetation on site is mostly pine-cypress mix, pine. This
particular site is heavily impacted with melaleuca. Of the 40 acres to
be added to the PUD, about 25 acres are wetlands. The petitioner
will be impacting almost 18 acres of wetlands. As far as mitigation is
concerned, the petitioner will have some preservation areas, and they
will do on-site restoration and removal of exotics as well as
replanting of the native species. They have proposed some off-site
mitigation. The last I heard it was 1.46 mitigation credits to purchase
the site. The protected-species survey did not reveal any protected
species on site.
Do you have any questions? I would be glad to answer them.
The petitioner is here as well as their environmental consultant.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for staff? Questions for
the petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'd just like to ask a question of the
petitioner. I mean, it's got to run -- I don't quite follow you. I see the
additional land, but just run through what you guys are doing here.
MR. PASSARELLA: As far as the two additional parcels there?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. PASSARELLA: Sure. Ken Passarella with Passarella &
Associates. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. The project is for
the addition of two 20-acre parcels, as Steve described, on the south
end of Indigo Lakes. The idea there is to add additional residential
units in those areas. I have the project planner and project engineer
to address specific questions as far as the units and the road layout
and the lakes and that type of thing.
With respect to the environmental items, those areas south of the
existing Indigo Lake, as Steve mentioned, are heavily infested with
melaleuca. There are jurisdictional wetlands in there which we will
be impacting. We have set up a preserve area on site and are looking
Page 36
August 7, 2001
at mitigating off-site for wetland impacts.
Now, specific questions to the site plan, I can have somebody
else answer those if that's what you have.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions?
MR. SOLING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. SOLING: Just out of curiosity, you're adding housing on
these two sites, and you're adding roads from the existing site. Do
you have houses where the roads are being extended, or have you left
the space vacant to build onto? I'm just curious.
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. We
originally had plans that showed housing along those. We are in the
process now after our petition is completed to replat those area. We
have not built those into those areas. That's a phase. That's for the
future. But we will be changing that design to accommodate the
access through this project, the existing project.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have any input from
the public on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, do we have any
further questions for the petitioner? Yes, sir,
Mr. Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: Just so I completely understand, you're
adding 40 acres to the site which is dominated by jurisdictional
wetlands. You're not asking for additional units, but you're going to
relocate units that were already approved into jurisdictional wetland
areas. Is that just -- is the goal there just to lower the density of the
development?
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. Actually, when you look at this whole
neighborhood where these last pieces are, this is predominantly in the
area of these 20-acre parcels. You're bounded on the north by Indigo
Page 37
August 7, 2001
Lakes. You're bounded on the west by Island Walk. You're bounded
on the east by 951 . You're bounded on the south by Wolfe's Road.
What you have there is a series of these 20-acre parcels, some
farm, some not, and what has happened over the years -- Island Walk
used to be a big farm field, and they had these huge pipes. For years
and years and years there was pumping in this area. What has
happened is the pumping stopped, and now you're getting a
tremendous amount of melaleuca and infestations there. What's
happening is the district has looked at this area as a whole and has
seen that each of these 20-acre parcels could be developed on their
own, and access to these pieces are going to disjoint this whole
section. There's no flow-way here. The stuff is becoming highly
infested. And so what they're looking at is trying to create corridors
of preserves from project to project, which is what we're doing.
Our project preserve connects to another approved project called
Brittany Bay, which has some preserves to it. So what we're trying to
do is trying to create a corridor out of these disjointed 20-acre
parcels. Some of these people, I think, at one time had tried to
assimilate a bunch of them together. I think farther south there's
some other cypress heads that are nicer, and it doesn't work out that
those are going to be in development. In any kind of development
scheme that I can see, those are definitely going to preserve -- this is,
like, the fringes of those areas that the district is looking at as trying
to keep continuity for preserves.
MR. CARLSON: Then why wouldn't it be appropriate to have a
preserve on the south boundary of that southeast corner?
MS. BISHOP: Actually --
MR. CARLSON: You can almost hook those up and then on
the -- you can almost hook those preserves up across the south end of
this property.
MS. BISHOP: Actually, during our negotiations with the
Page 38
August 7, 2001
district, we, in fact, have done that. That master plan will be updated
based on the latest district's agreement. We are in the process now of
doing that, but they did negotiate with us to do that. I do have a
picture of what the plan is going to look like, but it does, in fact, wrap
around that bottom piece now.
MR. CARLSON: So does that mean there's less wetland
impact?
MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. If you were to look at your EIS -- I
don't know -- Figure 4 in the actual document.
MR. CARLSON: Is there a page?
MR. PASSARELLA: That would be page 8. I'll step over to
the drawing that Steve just put up over there.
MR. PASSARELLA: This is preserve on the existing Indigo
Lakes, this little corner here. This was the proposed preserve here.
This preserve area has been added to the plan. So this ties in down
here, and then this preserve is here. When this piece would be
developed, this preserve would then connect up through here, and this
preserve connects to another off-site preserve over here.
MR. CARLSON: You could connect them in this project right
there.
MR. PASSARELLA: Right there. Well, what we did was in
negotiating out this with the water management district, these are the
areas that made sense to connect the preserve up. The habitat in this
area is of poor quality, and the idea was that this piece -- when this
piece comes in, all these would be connected up together.
MR. CARLSON: Are you saying that --
MS. BISHOP: Excuse me. Those are uplands too. Karen
Bishop, again, for the agent. Those are uplands on that one corner
there, not wetlands. So we are not impacting wetlands there.
MR. CARLSON: But since you are impacting 80 percent of the
wetlands that you're acquiring, it would be nice to have some upland
Page 39
August 7, 2001
preservation there.
MR. PASSARELLA: Those areas have been disturbed from the
farm fields, and there's really not much native vegetation left in that
little corner there. So there's really not much left to preserve.
MR. CARLSON: All right.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am.
MS. LYNNE: I don't understand. The point of wetlands -- the
county policy is to direct development away from impacting
wetlands. You have clustered the development all in one place and
have approved that, and now you're asking us to move that
development into wetlands, and that seems like the opposite of
county policy.
MR. PASSARELLA: As Karen touched upon, we have been
looking at this area from a bigger picture. Unfortunately there was --
Tim Durham from WilsonMiller was going to be here, and he's
working on a study that's looking at these areas from a standpoint of
what's in the basin and working with the water management district
on identifying areas that, from a basin-wide standpoint, are areas that
they can identify as impacts without creating overall cumulative
impacts within the basin.
This Harvey Basin area here -- and I can put up a little aerial I
have and try to explain this the best I can. Unfortunately Tim's not
here. I don't know how well you can see this aerial here, especially
all the way down at the far end there, but this is the project site right
here. This is a recent aerial of the property. These are the two
additional 20-acre parcels that we're looking at right here. The
ownership pattern, as Karen mentioned, in this area is scattered.
These are 20-acre pieces that are coming in and being developed
either one or two together or by themselves or three to four together.
This area is building in and developing in here.
Now, the water management district has looked at this area from
Page 40
August 7, 2001
the standpoint of what the existing vegetation is, the current
hydrology of this area, the potential for restoring or creating flow-
ways through this area, as part of the overall West Collier drainage
basin. And this is a particular area where they've looked at, and
we've got a high degree of exotic infestation in here. We've got
problems with the hydrology and the wetland.
As Karen mentioned, historically, these farm fields here used to
pump into these wetlands here; that would alter the hydrology during
the wet season. When there was too much water, they dumped all the
water in here, and these areas had elevated water levels. During the
dry season, there wasn't water there because the farm fields were
using the water themselves, and these wetlands remain dry. The
draining in this area from the Cocohatchee Canal north and the canal
on 951 and all the other drainage areas or ditches have basically
drained these wetlands.
Historically, a good portion of this area was jurisdictional
wetlands. To date, the majority of the wetlands up in this area are no
longer jurisdictional. They have not been exerted jurisdiction over by
the agencies. So this is a system that's in decline. It's -- the
hydrology is no longer there to support these wetlands. You have
exotic infestation coming into these areas, and you have an
ownership pattern that doesn't allow or lend itself to preserving large
portions of this.
As such, based on the study that Tim Durham had been working
on and in working with the water management district, they have
identified this area as an area that would be acceptable as far as
wetland impacts, where other parts of the basin, around here in the
West Collier Basin, you know, may not be acceptable for impacts.
But that's why we're moving into these areas in here, because the
water management district and the Corps of Engineers and other folks
have looked at this and identified this area as an area that would be
Page 41
1.
August 7, 2001
acceptable for wetland impacts.
MR. CARLSON: Have we got some documentation of that with
this?
MR. PASSARELLA: Unfortunately, one, we were hoping that
Tim would be here and, two, we were hoping that the water
management staff would be here. Unfortunately, Karen Johnson is
not here, because she's been part of those negotiations. They've been
also working with Rob Robbins in the West Palm Beach office on
this as well, so I can't speak on their behalf.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. LYNNE: For staff, in the new wetlands policy where Class
III would be the most disturbed type wetlands, what was the major
impact we're considering for those, I mean, the maximum amount of
impact for Class III wetlands?
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources
director. We specified 50 percent that's allowed to be directly
impacted. We would allow it to go all the way up to 100 percent if
there was appropriate offsetting upland mitigation.
MS. LYNNE: If there were appropriate --
MR. LORENZ: Offsetting upland protection.
MS. LYNNE: Okay. And then how much -- what's the
percentage impact on this new additional property?
MR. PASSARELLA: We're looking at 63 percent, so we're
slightly above the 50 percent.
MS. LYNNE: So 20 percent above the 50 percent.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 13 percent. Okay.
Other questions for the petitioner? Staff? No one from the
public wants to comment on it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure?
MR. SOLING: I'll move for approval.
Page 42
August 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Soling moves for approval.
Do I hear a second?
MR. CARLSON: Discussion. Mr. Carlson. Questions?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
Discussion?
MR. CARLSON: I hate to be put in this spot. We don't
You know, I don't think this was complete as presented.
have
the documentation from the district. Even if the district wasn't
here, any
kind of correspondence or anything from them with this
would havep helped. You know, the ordinance to avoid wetland
Impacts, you
know, I don't understand -- I really don't understand the
motivation of maintaining the density and buying wetlands and
moving
into them. I just -- somehow that's just not -- I just don't
understand that.
I would
-- havingheard the motion, I would not vote in favor of
that at this time, but perhaps an extension where we can get more
informationa
from the district for the overall planning in this area,
because we're going
to have other projects coming to us. I think we
might as well know what's going on there up front. It's news to me
that there's an overall plan for this basin, and if we've got projects
coming to us, I mean, we need to know that. the maker of the
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could you request r. Soling, would
motion to revise his motion to add such language?
you be willing to do that?
MR. SOLING: Yes, I would.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And that revision would be to
request a continuance until we have South Florida -- now, what
would that do to us on the schedule before the Planning Commission
and the County Commission? that -- in the past the
MS. BURGESON: It would just require oto the EAC prior
Planning Commission has required that petitions g
Page 43
August 7, 2001
to them hearing them. So if it is scheduled to go to CCPC later this
month, they would just need to continue that or reschedule that
hearing.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am.
MS. STUDENT: Just a point of clarification. Is the motion then
being amended by the motion maker from one of approval to a
continuance?
MR. SOLING: Yes.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. LYNNE: I'd like to agree with Mr. Carlson and also ask --
I don't know who's responsible for this, but it seems to me to be a
routine problem that projects are being presented to us with critical
pieces of information missing. Is there anything that we can do or
that staff can do when they're discussing this with petitioners to make
sure that all the information is available, because this wastes
everybody's time?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Steve.
MR. LENBERGER: I guess the question would be, how much
or what degree of information do you need as far as the wetland
impacts? What are you looking for? We would be more than glad to
request those of the petitioner prior to coming and writing a staff
report, but we'd like to know what degree or level of comfort you're
looking for.
MS. LYNNE: That's a good question. But, for example, in this
-- it just seem to me if-- maybe that's why we're the EAC and not
staff or the petitioner. When I look at this, there's not enough
information. If there's really a master plan, that should have been
presented to us. That seems fairly obvious. I don't think that's
something I should have to suggest.
MS. LYNNE: That's a good question. But, for example, in this
Page 44
August 7, 2001
-- it just seem to me if -- maybe that's why we're the EAC and not
staff or the petitioner. When I look at this, there's not enough
information. If there's really a master plan, that should have been
presented to us. That seems fairly obvious. I don't think that's
something I should have to suggest. If you guys are aware of the
proposed classification systems where even a Class III -- assuming
this is a Class III wetlands -- would only allow 50 percent impact,
this seems to be going entirely against county --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Remember, that is not -- it's a
proposed ordinance. That is not the law at this point.
MS. LYNNE: This isn't the law, but the current policy does say
that we are to direct development away from wetlands, and this
project specifically puts current development into wetlands. So
there's just a lot of problems with this.
MS. BURGESON: What I can recommend from what I'm
hearing you say is that if it appears to staff that the impacts to
wetlands are against Collier County either comprehensive policies or
Land Development Code policies, then you would ask us to present
to you with the staff report justification from South Florida Water
Management District for those impacts.
MS. LYNNE: Yeah. Sounds great.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think what we have here is -- and
staff has done a good job presenting this. Normally Miss Johnson or
somebody from the district is here to answer those kind of questions.
I think your question could probably be answered if they were here.
Unfortunately, they're not.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If I may -- Stan Chrzanowski from
development services. If you-all go back and check your e-mails, I
think on Monday --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Exactly.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- you got the e-mail from Karen
Page 45
August 7, 2001
Johnson saying that she would not be here --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right. •or problems with
J
p
MR. CHRZANOWSKI. -- and she had no major I
this ro•ect or with any of the other projects we heard today. le
forwarded that to everyone. We always check with them a coup
head of time to see if they're going to be here or if they do
have
days a
any problems with it.
I'm not aware of any Harvey Basin study that they're doing, but I
do know that about six or seven years ago John Boldt did a study on
the
entire Harvey Basin, and we've been going by their discharge
rates
and their off-site flows ever since. If the district's doing one, it's
news to me, but I'd like to see it too. I don't see how it affects what's
going on here. That's just -- Mr. Carlson.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: for a living, and we
MR. CARLSON: Stan, a lot of us workas I was
have other jobs and are on the road and out of town,
yesterday. So an e-mail the day before the meeting doesn't always
get to me, and that sort of information should be in our package so
we can review it.
MR.
CHRZANOWSKI: The packages are done well ahead of
time. We don't always know that the district is not going to show up.
This time Karen had intended on being here, but something came
up,
and she had to cover a meeting for Chip Merriam, so she went to that
meeting instead.
Like I said, with me it's always just a reminder to them, "Hey,
,
we've got a meeting coming up. Are you coming down? And if
you're not coming down, do you have anything you want me to go
over with the board?" This time she had nothing or apparently
thought it was not important enough to send anybody down either.
You'll
probablysee that when you get back and check your e-mails.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I did read the e-mail. Miss Lynne.
Page 46
k
August 7, 2001
MS. LYNNE: I didn't receive that e-mail, so I'll look into that
with whoever sent it out.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think I'm lacking two of your e-mail
addresses. I noticed that when I was sending them out. I got one
back that the e-mail is no longer active either. It might have been
yours.
MS. LYNNE: So you may need a new e-mail address.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead and check on that.
MS. LYNNE: If I could just say, I do not mean this as criticism
to staff. I just meant this as an observation of things that I've seen
coming in here. I don't think you guys are doing anything wrong. I
just see sort of a chronic problem, and I'm hoping that petitioners and
staff and everybody can work together to have this information when
we meet.
MR. PASSARELLA: Well, I have to apologize from the
standpoint that, you know, unfortunately Tim was not here. Tim is ill
today, and he couldn't be here, and Karen Johnson couldn't be here.
So the two people we're relying upon, you know, hopefully one of
them could make it, and neither of them made it. So this was
additional information that we were going to provide to the EAC to
help you-all in your decision. This is no reflection on the staff report
or the EIS. This was additional supporting information that we
thought would be helpful in your decision. So, you know, I don't
reflect that upon staff, you know, not having that in the staff report.
But what we focused on in the EIS is the particulars of this particular
site. This additional information became, you know, available, and
we wanted to present it to you-all.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If I could ask the petitioner a
question on this. We have a motion on the table right now for a
continuance. I would like to, you know, have your thoughts on your
Page 47
August 7, 2001
preference of this situation, and then put this before the council. A
continuance means going back on the schedule and going back for an
additional month on the Board of County Commission and Planning
Commission's schedule versus proceeding as we are proceeding and
taking the risk that you're going to get a negative vote from this
council. Which of those two would you prefer?
MS. BISHOP: Unfortunately, we really do need to move
forward. With the vacation of the board as it is, the schedules being
moved puts us in jeopardy of contracts that we have for that site, and
we need to get moving on that. So, unfortunately, even though I
certainly am sympathetic -- and believe me, the reports that Tim had -
- I mean, he became very ill last night. This wasn't something that's
been ongoing, or we would have had someone else come and speak
for him. But we really do need to have a vote, and we really do need
to move forward as much as -- and we can forward you this
information, which will substantiate that.
And since Karen Johnson did e-mail Stan, I feel confident that
you can -- she would have spoken up had there been a problem, like
she does on any other project that comes before you, so I would
respectfully request a vote.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What's the pleasure? Mr.
Soling?
MR. SOLING: I'm at a loss right now.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me?
MS. LYNNE: Which way do you want to go on your motion?
MR. SOLING: I guess I'll go back to my original motion, and
we'll see how it goes. I move the approval.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. LYNNE: I have a question. Is it up to the petitioner for
whether we do a continuance? Can we vote for a continuance? I
mean, is that --
Page 48
August 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. It's not up to the petitioner,
but I just asked the petitioner to let council know what their
preference would be.
MS. LYNNE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Now, if the maker of the motion
after hearing that from the petitioner determines that he would like to
revise his motion, that's entirely up to the maker of the motion. If the
motion fails and we want to put another motion on the table, I don't
know where we go from there. The first time we had a motion on the
table to approve the project. We had a second to that motion from
Mr. Carlson. Do you continue with that second,
Mr. Carlson?
MR. CARLSON: No. I withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What's the pleasure? Mr.
Hill.
MR. HILL: I can be sympathetic towards what we've before
been asking from water management and perhaps the Harvey Basin
study. To me we are looking at it as having a non-negative impact on
the rest of it rather than a positive impact. I don't see a justification
for approving this expansion and encroachment into questionable
lands simply by saying we don't think it's going to negatively impact
the rest of those areas. I would vote for disapproval as presented.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We don't have a second to
the motion that's on the table right now, so the motion dies for lack of
a second.
Okay. Do we have a replacement motion?
MR. CARLSON: I'll move -- I appreciate your problems with
timing, but I would move to continue until we get further information
on this, specifically from the water management district and not just
WilsonMiller.
MS. STUDENT: Just a point of clarification. Would that be a
Page 49
August 7, 2001
continuance, then, until the September meeting?
MR. CARLSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. There's a motion on the
table by Mr. Carlson to continue this item until the September
meeting and request staff and the petitioner to have information to us
from South Florida and their professionals additionally.
MS. SANTORO: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Santoro. Any questions
on that or discussion on that motion?
MR. HILL: I prefer we go the other way. If you're going to
assist the petitioner, I'd rather us go through, in my mind, with a
disapproval which would allow it to go through into the process but
with our disapproval based on not having proper information.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I concur with you, sir, but that
motion failed for lack of a second, so let's vote on what we have. We
have a motion on the table for a continuance. All in favor of that
motion signify by saying aye.
MR. SOLING: Aye.
MS. SANTORO: Aye.
MR. CARLSON: Aye.
MS. LYNNE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's four votes.
THE COURT REPORTER: What four?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We have Soling, Santoro, Carlson,
and Lynne; correct?
MR. COE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Against the motion say aye.
MR. COE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye.
MR. HILL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Coe, Sansbury, and Hill. So the
Page 50
August 7, 2001
motion does not pass; is that correct?
MS. SANTORO: Uh-huh. Try another one.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do I hear another motion?
What are we going to do here? Are we going to take action on this
item?
MR. HILL: I move that we recommend disapproval of this
project because of insufficient information regarding the full impact
of the encroachment on the lands -- the added lands in question.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. HILL: And that this necessary positive -- the necessary
impact be substantiated by the water management district.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do I hear a second to that
motion?
MR. COE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seconded by Mr. Coe. Discussion.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Miss Burgeson -- we lost our folks, didn't we?
MR. COE: Yeah, they left. You may want to give her a break.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we need a little break?
THE COURT REPORTER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's take five.
(A break was held from 10:35 a.m. to 10:47 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right.
MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman --
Page 51
August 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. HILL: -- when they do come back, would you ask, I guess,
Barb to produce a new member list with appropriate addresses.
MR. COE: I think there's one on the internet site, isn't there?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mine's getting a little --
MR. COE: I think the one on the internet site has got the names
and addresses and e-mail addresses and all that business.
MR. HILL: Of the council?
MR. COE: I'm assuming that it's up to date.
The last time I checked it was.
MS. SANTORO: I had trouble getting into it. I think a printed
one would be in order for everybody in case they don't have e-mail.
MR. SOLING: That means you have to know the internet
address.
MS. SANTORO: That's right.
MR. HILL: Is it Colliergov.net?
MR. CARLSON: Yes.
MR. HILL: That would be the web address?
MR. CARLSON: And then you go to --
MR. HILL: EAC?
MR. COE: I think there is a site for committees, and then it kind
of gets you in there. I don't know. I just -- I don't know how to do it.
I just do it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. The young gentleman at the
podium would like to speak.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. Thank you. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
natural resources director. The item in front of you is to have council
further discuss the wetland policies. Everything that we've been
doing here recently is, quite frankly, more of a discussion of the
classification system that staff initially proposed, and that's the
November 8th, 2000, draft that we presented to the EAC back then.
Page 52
August 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. Bill, you
started to have a discussion a little bit ago -- oh, excuse me. Yes,
ma'am. I'm sorry.
MS. BARNETT: Thank you. I'm Eileen Barnett, environment
consultant with Vanasse & Daylor. I'll keep my comments brief.
I just had an opportunity to look over this proposal recently and
will be providing more comments as the process goes on. We're very
supportive of using a unified method for functional assessment of
wetlands. The WRAP is what was being mentioned today, and Bill
and his group are aware that the state right now with the water
management district are working on a unified wetlands assessment
procedure that defers from WRAP. They're also taking comments,
and this might be an opportunity for them to be on notice that these
other factors, such as aquifer recharge and things like that, should be
considered.
I do appreciate The Conservancy's opinion on trying to save as
much in the way of wetlands as possible. I have questions, however,
about the "no net loss" or limiting net loss to 50 percent. This is a
question for Bill. Maybe you can clarify it. If there are very low
functioning wetlands on site that the site plan requires to be impacted,
would there be an opportunity to make new wetlands somewhere else
on the site or mitigate them off-site?
What I'm thinking is -- I agree that it's very difficult a lot of times
to create wetlands from uplands. There's a very long time lag, also,
in a lot of cases to get that created wetland functioning. But on the
other hand there's a category called restoration which sometimes is
not differentiated from enhancement, and that is where a wetland has
been so impacted that it's not even a jurisdictional wetland anymore,
but the soils and the conditions can be recreated. In other words,
possibly a spoil berm along a drainage ditch. That ditch may be
aquatic, but it lost a lot of its wetland function. The berm is not a
Page 67
August 7, 2001
wetland at all anymore.
But if you took that material from the berm and put it back in the
drainage ditch, that whole area would become a functioning wetland.
That's usually called restoration, which may not be captured in those
figures. I was just wondering. That is one example of different
opportunities where a situation may be improved for wetland
function. How would that be captured in this proposal?
MR. LORENZ: The way this would work is that we're saying
that the allowable direct impact you have to mitigate for. So on that
curve, if we go from 5 percent down to 50 percent at zero
functionality, even with a zero-functioning wetland system, you still
have to maintain 50 percent of those wetlands on site. Then the other
50 percent you're going to have to mitigate for.
MS. BARNETT: So the 50 percent of wetlands protected on
site would be where they were located in the field prior to -- well,
while it was being mapped out, basically, before development. In
other words, a particular pond or pit -- 50 percent of that, at least,
would need to be preserved at its location, not somewhere else on the
property.
MR. LORENZ: That's correct.
MS. BARNETT: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: And we would be looking at it. I mean, we
would be crafting language and looking at that as the average
condition under this alternative.
MS. BARNETT: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: And, quite frankly, let me state this, too, from a
staff perspective -- I know the subcommittee and maybe the EAC is
taking a position that that third alternative is the preferred alternative.
I'm not willing to say that from a staff perspective yet, but that's the
preferred alternative from what we would be recommending up the
line. I think we still have to have a little bit more discussion amongst
Page 68
August 7, 2001
ourselves and the biological consulting community. But that would
be -- but if we were to move with that third alternative, that line,
that's how that would work out.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Hill.
MR. HILL: I think in our -- correct me if I'm wrong, Ali and Ed
-- but I think in our discussions on the subcommittee we recognized
that WRAP was going to be updated --
MS. SANTORO: Yeah.
MR. HILL: -- so this caption here should perhaps not refer
specifically just to WRAP, but any updated --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Updated version.
MR. HILL: Yeah, that's in the process.
MR. LORENZ: That's correct, yeah. We would be doing that.
MR. HILL: This isn't perfect, but I sure feel comfortable with it.
It goes a long way towards solving the problem. If it's appropriate,
Mr. Chairman, I move that the EAC go on record as recommending
it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do I hear a second?
MR. COE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seconded by Mr. Coe. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The motion on the floor is that we
recommend to the county commission that this procedure set up into
wetlands -- well, just verbalize it if you would, Mr. Hill, in case I
mess it up, what we're voting on.
MR. HILL: Okay. I move that Option III, according to the
documents, Exhibit D, the graphical representation of impacts and
WRAP or adjusted WRAP assessment -- that we recommend that this
be a methodology of assessing and delineating impact, allowable
impacts on wetlands -- I guess that's it; that's sufficient -- recognizing
Page 69
August 7, 2001
that the language which will be developed to accompany this will tie
up any loose ends in the verbiage.
Did that confuse matters or --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. It sounds good.
Mr. Coe, do you concur?
MR. COE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any further discussion on
the motion?
MS. SANTORO: Could I just add one word? There seems to
be some confusion. Just adding "on site wetland impacts." I think
there's some confusion if we're talking about wetlands on site versus
mitigation.
MR. HILL: I don't understand what you mean. This is on-site
wetlands.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Everything is on-site wetlands.
MR. HILL: Yeah. The mitigation policy would then follow, or
the rider.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passes unanimously.
MR. LORENZ: Then what staff will do is we'll put together the
associated language with that alternative as to how the rest of the
mitigation language and the impacts and some other information that
we have to put together -- how that will work with your
recommended classifications.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MS. LYNNE: May I ask one more question?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am.
Page 70
August 7, 2001
MS. LYNNE: Earlier we also talked about -- and Mr. Simonik
brought it up about what is a justifiable impact. Is there going to be
any language anywhere in here about what -- I can't remember the
word. It's not justifiable, but unavoidable -- unavoidable impacts. I
mean, is unavoidable impacts the second golf course, for example?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, there will be language. At the moment
we'll be borrowing a lot or heavily upon the language that we have
currently proposed to you. Although I have seen some additional
language come through, perhaps in what Barbara had passed out to
you from the one commenter, and I think there's some other language
that I've seen that we might be able to beef up that second draft with,
so we'll be putting that language together for you.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. All righty.
Moving right along. An update on beach events and sea turtles.
MS. BURGESON: Again, Barbara Burgeson with planning
services. As a result of the recent storms and the bad weather that
we've had, we've had notice from the state that there will be no beach
raking of the beaches until -- it's 90 days past that storm event. I
believe it goes until September. Don't quote me on that. I think it's,
like, September 11th from the date of the original storm event.
So we've notified everyone who was issued a vehicle-on-the-
beach permit that they cannot beach rake up until that time. Because
what happened is a great deal of the nest markings were destroyed or
washed away during those storms or those high tides. What that
leaves us with is the only vehicles that are allowed on the beach are
vehicles that are being used below the mean-high tide and for access
through corridors that we identify and then down to that wet sand for
traversing along the beach for any environmental -- typically if
there's environmental work that's being done.
MR. HILL: That dates back to June, not July. The major impact
was in June.
Page 71
August 7, 2001
MS. BURGESON: Again, it's 90 days past the storm event.
MR. HILL: I was thinking that it would be July, which would
have put it in October.
MS. BURGESON: I could double check and forward that e-
mail out to the EAC members. In fact, that's what I'll do when I get
back to the office. I'll forward that notice from the state which gives
the date of when we'll be allowed to beach rake again.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. CARLSON: Since the nesting season, we commonly have
storms. Is this a common occurrence for the nest markings to be
washed away?
MS. BURGESON: No, it's not. This was an unusual result of a
combination of a number of-- most of it was the heavy rains that
washed them away, and the combination, I think, with probably some
of the winds. Maura is not available to be here today. I should have
asked her by e-mail.
MR. CARLSON: Because, certainly, we can figure out a way to
mark those nests that wouldn't wash away.
MS. BURGESON: What they do is they tried to get some
satellite information to remark those nests. However, I understand
that it's not as accurate as originally field marking them. That's why
the state has requested that no beach raking occur until that 90-day
period because of the possibility of not being able to accurately
remark those nests. But they're looking at a different way in the
future to mark them --
MR. CARLSON: Sure.
MS. BURGESON: -- to prevent something like this from
happening.
MR. LORENZ: Well, we can take a look at that. We've had -- I
mean, in places where we lost the nest, we lost -- that scarp on the
Clam Bay system was dropped down the beach about 5 feet at the
Page 72
August 7, 2001
dune level and in other places, you know, 18 inches to the point
where we washed the whole nest away. One of our concerns is when
we start driving stakes, even though we think we know where the
nest is, we don't want to go too far down.
MR. COE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right.
MR. LORENZ: But when you lose, you know, 18 inches of
beach, whatever you've got as a stake is going to be washed away as
well. But we can -- I can -- we can still ask the question and check.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. One other --
just an update on old business. As you-all remember, you gave me
the honor several months ago of sitting on the selection committee
for the new community development/environmental services
administrator. I know that that -- we have been having our meetings.
We had some -- oh, in excess of 35 or 45 applications for the job.
The county HR staff narrowed that down to about 24 or 25 that did
meet the requirements of the job description. We have then reviewed
all of those resumes and have met and selected six individuals who
we are going to be personally interviewing next Monday with the
goal of passing three or four recommendations onto the county
administrator. So that's proceeding.
Okay. Growth management update. New business.
Any new business? Yes, sir.
MR. HILL: Could we get an updated list of addresses, numbers,
and e-mail addresses of the council?
MS. BURGESON: Yes. I spoke to Ali about that earlier. I'm
going to mail that out when I mail out the colored map of the Deltona
settlement area.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have anything on the
growth management update?
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources
Page 73
August 7, 2001
director. I think the biggest thing to update you on is the schedule;
that we're having our economist, Jim Nicholas, take a look at the
transfer of the development rights program, the TDR program, and to
evaluate the viability of the various density bonuses that we are
proposing for vegetation preservation. That was part of the
conceptual plan of the rural fringe. The feedback he's given us is he's
going to have a final report for us at the end of October. So that
means we're slipping on the schedule a little bit more. It's getting
somewhat uncomfortable. So that's the way the time line falls out.
We'll have that -- of course, we'll try to keep the EAC through its
subcommittee briefed as to where that process moves forward.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Subcommittee report on
growth management.
MS. SANTORO: I'm trying for the second month in a row. Ed
wanted me to be sure and tell you that what we're trying to do in the
growth subcommittee is to look at some of the items that are coming
up, to keep the EAC appraised, and to have your input. This
particular item is on the use of receiving and sending.
It's a device whereby -- where we want to direct activities away
from natural resource areas. The device is that the person who is
keeping the land out of development can sell it to a receiver. The
receiver pays money for this right. The receiver can increase density
in a different area. So it's one device that's being advocated.
Now, I think Bill mentioned that all of this will be subject to
review by an economist to try to assess how much sending and
receiving -- how much receiving lands are necessary for those who
want to send. We don't know that yet. We don't know, also, with
some of the other transfer devices how this will fit in, and that's being
looked at by the economist.
But what the subcommittee would like is -- and, again, you may
want to bring this up next month allowing for public input, but what
Page 74
August 7, 2001
we did discuss was setting up some priority receiving lands. So this
is in the proposal that's before you and on the map.
The other area was in C-2, but it's in the upper corner. If you look
at your map in C-2, it's the upper northeast corner. We want to
consider changing that from what was designated as a receiving land
to a sending land. That upper northeast corner has the same wetland
wildlife and other qualities as the other sending lands. So we wanted
to change that area from a receiving land to a sending land.
Then the other portion of our report we would like to have you
endorse are the areas where we've designated are priorities as far as
receiving lands go. This is where we would like to see the direction,
at least in first phase.
I've tried to give you an introduction as to what sending and
receiving are. I've tried to give you the proposal and the map. The
rest of it is just background as to why we selected these sections as
priority areas.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Discussion.
MR. SOLING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. SOLING: Am I to understand you're talking about
transferring building rights from one site to another?
MS. SANTORO: Let's say that someone has land in a NRPA.
MR. SOLING: Pardon me?
MS. SANTORO: Let's say we have someone that owns land in
a NRPA area, you know, where it's very less dense, and they want to
develop it. We want to keep the density of population away from the
natural resource areas and wetlands and so forth. So this device
allows the person who owns that land to leave it from -- to not
develop it, but also have the economic benefit by selling his right to
someone in another area, in other words, into the receiving area so
that that person can pay the one who's sending, keeping his land
Page 75
August 7, 2001
undeveloped. The receiver pays for it and also gets a credit to allow
higher density where the receiver land is.
MR. SOLING: Which leads me to a question. What about
zoning? Here we have a governmental organization laying out a
zoning plan which takes into effect surrounding areas and says we
will have a certain amount of density here as compared to a different
density there. You're saying you're going to obfuscate this by
transferring building rights. That sort of negates all of the zoning
principles.
MS. STUDENT: I think maybe I can address that and maybe
Bill, too. I think the regime is going to be set up is that those areas
will be identified, and no doubt as part of the study it will be looked
at to make sure that they are compatible at those maximum densities
that would be allowed with surrounding areas. There would also be
language in the comp plan and much more detailed language in an
ordinance that would spell it all out as to how it's going to work. So it
would sort of like an overlay of what we already have in our zoning
district.
Is that an adequate explanation, Bill?
MS. SANTORO: Can I just mention -- also, we're talking about
the rural fringe right now, and this report will go back to the rural
fringe subcommittee. What they're trying to do is to look at devices
where we're going from very dense urban to not dense rural area and
how in the middle -- how are we going to accommodate how we're
going to have it mesh. So all of this is part of discussions as to this
kind of middle area.
MS. STUDENT: It's a transitional area between the lower and
the higher.
MR. LORENZ: We'll have to identify within those receiving
areas what we would want to see as the maximum density so that
we'll have a maximum density cap. We'll also have -- or at least I
Page 76
August 7, 2001
envision that we would have various performance or zoning
standards that if someone wants to utilize a TDR program, that he's
going to have to build according to these types of principles, where
we start looking at the smart-growth new town village types of
principles for him to be able to utilize those additional density units,
such that we have a well-planned community at that point.
From an Environmental Advisory Council's perspective where, for
one thing, it's very important to get your input into the process, is to
look at the sending areas as being those that are of high enough
environmental sensitivity that we want to direct development away
from and that the receiving areas that we've specified are truly those
areas that do not have a lot of environmental sensitivity, and we're
saying from an environmental perspective that it's okay to increase
the density in those areas.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: I have a comment. For those who are looking
at this map and trying to evaluate it, part of the logic was if you now
have lands that are designated rural agricultural, zoned rural, very
low density, and those become receiving areas, and they are
contiguous with a NRPA, and those densities go way up, well, then
you're putting a subdivision -- you're putting residential -- you're
putting a suburban-type development next to an NRPA.
A NRPA is a preserve area. Most of them are wetlands, very
sensitive hydrology. Well, you're not going to put that kind of
development up against a NRPA without requiring, you know,
drainage. You're going to be infringing on wildlife habitat, existing
low density where large animals can move around that won't go
through those suburbs. And then as a land manager in a NRPA, I can
tell you that NRPAs will continue to manage property and that
includes the use of fire.
So if you have your receiving area up against a NRPA, you're
Page 77
August 7, 2001
inviting a residential community to move next door to a natural area
that's going to be continued to be burned, and we know that doesn't
work because of the problems with the affects of smoke on the
residents. So, you know, it's just, basically, poor planning. We're
going through all of this to plan properly, and right out of the box, in
my opinion, you know, having a receiving area adjacent to a NRPA is
just bad planning for a lot of reasons. So that's part of the justification
for why the map looks like the way it does.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Bill.
MR. LORENZ: Just one point in terms of the process and
coordination. If the EAC were to accept this in terms of their
subcommittee report, my intention will be to take the information,
transfer it to the rural fringe advisory committee that meets tomorrow
evening, and let them know that you have been -- that this is your
current discussion. Then if you put it on your agenda for your
September meeting and try to get some additional public input, then
we're trying to broaden the base of the public input for these types of
issues. I then will provide that feedback back to the rural fringe
advisory committee at the same time staff will be working with the
consultant.
I notice that David Ellis must have left, but David Ellis was here
for the wetland discussion. He's the current chair of the rural fringe
advisory committee. I thought maybe he might want to say
something as well. But that's the process to try to have staff
coordinate the efforts of these two committees.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I was going to ask Miss Santoro,
do we need to have a motion from the council now that you're back
on this side?
MS. SANTORO: I would like a motion.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. Why don't you do that.
MS. SANTORO: I would like to move that the Environmental
Page 78
August 7, 2001
Advisory Council accepts this report.
MS. LYNNE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And by accepting this report, it
will be passed on to the rural fringe advisory committee; is that
correct, Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. It's been moved and
seconded. All in favor?
MS. LYNNE: Or some discussion.
MR. HILL: Well, I think Ed fell short. It was, I think, at his
initiative that we included the concept of a NRPA buffer relating to
the comments he made, and I think that ought to be stressed in this
report, perhaps even more so than the starred footnote or whatever we
have on that page. I think that's a very, very important item, and I
think it was at Ed's instigation that we included that.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Now can we vote on this?
All in favor of the motion?
MS. SANTORO: Aye.
MR. COE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye.
MR. CARLSON: Aye.
MS. LYNNE: Aye.
MR. HILL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed?
MR. SOLING: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passes 6 to 1.
Okay. Do we have any comments from members of council?
MR. COE: Nope.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any comments from anybody in
the public?
MR. COE: Nope.
Page 79
August 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're adjourned.
* * * * *
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :45 a.m.
ENVIRO ► TAL ADVT 0 RY COUNCIL
f/
THO AS W. SANSB , ' , CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED 0 ► B - ALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY M A CARET A. SMITH, RPR
Page 80