EAC Agenda 03/01/2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
March 1,2000
9:00 a.m.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building(Building"F")—Third Floor
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of February 2, 2000,Meeting Minutes
W. Land Use Petitions
A. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-29
"Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD"
Sections 11, 14 & 15,Township 51 South,Range 26 East
V. Old Business
A. Review of Draft Annual Report
VI. New Business
A. Listed Species Protection—Gopher Tortoise Land Development Code
Amendments
B. Martin County Wetland Ordinance
VII. Subcommittee Report
A. Growth Management Plan
VIII. Council Member Comments
IX. Public Comments
X. Adjournment
*********************************************************************************
NOTES:
Council Members: Notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Administrative staff no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 2000 if you cannot attend this meeting or
if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition(403-2370).
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.
February 2, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, February 2, 2000
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 9:01 a.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government.Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: William W. Hill
Ed Carlson
Michael G. Coe
.-� M. Keen Cornell
James L. McVey
J. Richard Smith
Jack Baxter
ALSO PRESENT:
Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer
Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist
Bill Lorenz, Natural=Resources Director
Marni Scuderi, Assistant County Attorney
Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager
Page 1
February 2, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: I'd like to call the February meeting of the
Environmental Advisory Council to order. If we may have roll
call, please.
MR. CORNELL: I could do that if you need somebody to call --
looking for a volunteer?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Oh, okay. Cornell?
MR. CORNELL: Here.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Smith?
MR. SMITH: Here.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Coe?
MR. COE: Here.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Carlson?
MR. CARLSON: Here.
CHAIRMAN HILL: McVey?
MR. MCVEY: Here.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Hill? Here.
Let the record show that we have a quorum of six out of the
eight constituted members.
Call your attention to the agenda. I have one small item to
add to the agenda and Mr. Gary Julian is here and would like a
few minutes under new business to talk about the Sanibel gopher
tortoise ordinance. Did I get that correct?
MR. JULIAN: Protection ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Protection ordinance. I'd like to add that as
the first item under new business and that will just take a few
minutes of presentation.
(Mr. Baxter entered the hearing room.) G
MR. LENBERGER: We have our new EAC member, Jack
Baxter.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Mr. Chairman? John DiNunzio has an
excused absence.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Fine, thank you.
MR. CARLSON: Hunting season?
MR. COE: Gopher hunting season.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. I'd officially like to welcome Mr.
Baxter to the council.
Page 2
s 4
February 2, 2000
MR. BAXTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILL: It's good to have you, good to have-that
seat filled.
Is that an agenda copy there?
MR. BAXTER: Yes.
MR. NINO: I just gave him the reports, that's all.
CHAIRMAN HILL: With that addition under new business, I'd
like a motion for approval of the agenda as amended.
MR. SMITH: I'll so move.
MR. CORNELL: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Those in favor, aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Minutes approved then, count of 7-0.
You have before you, I think, minutes of both the December
and the January meetings, I think December the 1st. Are there
any additions or corrections to the minutes?
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the minutes for December do not
show me as present, even though I was.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. Could we add that then, please, that
Mr. Smith, was, in fact, here?
Any other comments or corrections to the December minutes?
MR. CORNELL:e=.Move.we approve.
CHAIRMAN HILL: bIs, there a second?
MR. CARLSON:° Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. '-
Opposed,
wOpposed, same? .
No response)
( p ) '
CHAIRMAN S HILL:.. January the 5th meeting of the council, 's,= ,
minutes are before.you I think.
MR. CORNELL::- Move we approve.
MR. SMITH: Second. :> hA
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? All those in favor, aye. a'
Opposed?
(No response)
Page 3
February 2, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Both minutes are approved
unanimously.
*** Item number four, believe it or not, land use petitions is
vacant. I assume we have none added to the agenda?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's correct.
MR. CORNELL: Does that imply the growth is slowing down in
Collier County or --
CHAIRMAN HILL: Either that or they don't want to come
before us or something.
MR. SMITH: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I'm not kidding, there is a
note here in front of me that explains it all. It says, good
morning, this is God. I'll be handling all your problems today. I
will not need your help, so have a good day.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Do I hear a motion to adjourn then?
*** Item number five, old business. We started our growth
management sub-committee, which is mandated by -- or
legislated when we were considering the NRPA in particular, and
since that time, it's kind of gone by the wayside and it's an
agenda item. I think we have to revive that and take a look at
our responsibilities.
Mr. Lorenz?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural
Resources Director. Just to give you where we are with the
growth management process, we've got two advisory
committees that the board has developed and they were working
on various aspects -- or actually two geographical areas in the
county that would cover the requirements of the finalek,
assessment.
What -- as staff, what I would like to be able to dog is.to have
the EAC's growth management sub-committee, the-ability to
provide information to that sub-committee;-bouncelideas Toff'`of
that sub-committee, get input from the sub-committee as we :a
work through these other two committees, and to°the degree
that that sub-committee would want to bring some major issues
or -- up to the full Environmental Advisory Council for
consideration for formal input into the process, then obviously
that's -- that would be the -- up to the sub-committee and how it
Page 4
•
•
February 2, 2000
works with the full EAC, but I definitely would like to be able to
have that ability for the EAC, especially since part of your
mandate in terms of your ordinance and your responsibilities isin
growth management.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but it seemed
to me from the outset that the growth management
sub-committee of EAC was to be built into the process, as you
said, mandated and be a part of the planning process along with
the two committees that are in existence, so that we were, I
thought, to be contacted in that process. Now, is that true or are
we totally to be active on our own?
MR. LORENZ: Well, I think that's kind of a -- maybe a choice
that -- how -- the direction -- your preference as the EAC. I mean,
there are advisory committees that -- that do meet. I know that
some of -- I know, for instance, Mr. Smith is on one of the -- is on
the rural lands committee. I think that some of the advisory
members may have attended some of the -- some of the
committees. I'd like to be able to get a -- the way you'd want to
^ be able to handle the -- your participation. For instance, if the
sub-committee -- if you want to have a standing meeting, let's
say, monthly for me to brief the committee and receive input, I --
we can do that. Basically I want to be able to, in other words,
confirm that your sub-committee will be involved in the effort and
set up the mechanism by which you prefer to be involved in it "r1'
because I can work either way.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I -- just to -- to kind of have some
discussion here, and I don't mean this to -- to say this ought to be `1
what it is, but I just wanted to explore the idea that.what we're
dealing with really is a -- an order from the administrative :• 't r
department with the governor and the cabinet ordering that the-
community
he community be involved as much as possible and that there betas "•'
much input as possible from as many sources as possible locally,
so in that sense, I think the more, the better, but I wondered if
there might be a - instead of having a sub-committee, and'I don'ts
suggest that we do away with the sub-committee, but I'm
exploring maybe that as a possibility, that this EAC, the council,"
schedule a time for public input at some point or another or for
Page 5
February 2, 2000
ideas or for reports from the various other -- from the other two
groups that have been set up specifically for that purpose rather
than having a sub-committee. It seems to me that the
sub-committee step may -- may impede rather than enhance the
ability to have more community input.
MR. CORNELL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Isn't it true that the sub-committee is a part of
the ordinance?
MR. LORENZ: The EAC ordinance requires a -- one standing
sub-committee. It can be more, but it requires a growth
management sub-committee.
MR. CORNELL: Yeah. I mean, I personally think your idea's
great of getting together on a monthly basis and, you know,
working out with you the best way to interact with these -- with
these two advisory committees.
MR. SMITH: I'm just not clear on this. You mean the
ordinance that sets up the Environmental Advisory Council has a
requirement that a sub-committee be established? Okay. I'm
sorry, I didn't -- I was not aware of that.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Right. That's only one -- that's the only
sub-committee that's postulated in the enabling ordinance.
MR. SMITH: Well, then obviously my comments don't have any
significance.
CHAIRMAN HILL: When that committee started, it was my
understanding that with the heavy load of petitions before the .x
council, that it would be much more efficient to have some of
those considerations done on k a sub-committee basis with T '"
contact with the full council rather than have all of ittoccur - -.-
before the full council, but that sub-committee, I thought, was tom""
be built into the process, and we have not heard anything from
the other committees to involve us.
Now, maybe that's partly our fault for not taking the initiative,
but I think we do have to form the committee and I Would hope
the council would feel that it would be a vital part of that whole
process. Now, how do we do that?
MR. LORENZ: Well, my -- my suggestion is to have the
Page 6
February 2, 2000
standing -- your standing sub-committee, whether it's three
members or five members, and I think we may have to even
maybe take a look at who's on the sub-committee, to meet on
some regular basis to get really detailed briefings and have a lot
of interchange with staff. The sub-committee at that particular
point -- your sub-committee then can determine what are the
issues that are -- that are important to bring to the full EAC, so
that the full EAC's time is spent more effectively through the, and
I'm going to use the term filtering process, of the sub-committee
members.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I think it makes the efficiency of both
sub-committee and the full council much more -- much higher. I'd
like to suggest, with the approval of the council -- see, Dan was
on that, and now with a new member, that we re-form that
committee and I think we had a committee of four and I was an
ex-officio member, I think, but however the council would like to
structure it, but let's, today, put that committee back together
again.
MR. NINO: Mr. Hill, if I may -- Ron Nino. If I may editorialize
from your comment. You said in the process. I think that once
you set up your committee and they meet on a regular basis to
review an agenda, which may be in part initiated by staff, but
certainly could be initiated by the committee itself, that that is
the process, you're then in the process.
MR. CORNELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HILL: But the process also includes the other two
standing committees, and I thought we were to be an integral
part of that process.
MR. NINO: Well, whatever comes out of those committees
would eventually end up on your table.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. The council's table?
MR. NINO: Yes, EAC's table.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Right.
MR. CORNELL: So what do we do or who is on it or is it a
it's been a while since we've talked about it.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Let me take privilege of the chair, and with
your permission, well reconstitute that committee completely at
Page 7
February 2, 2000
this point.
MR. CORNELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there somebody that would like to serve
on that committee?
MR. CORNELL: I would love to.
MR. SMITH: I would also.
MR. CARLSON: I will.
MR. NINO: Again, if I may, that committee could be an
unlimited number. It could be the -- it could be your entire board, ` 1
if that's what --
CHAIRMAN HILL: I think the efficiency would be highest if it
was a small portion.
MR. LORENZ: So it would be Keen Cornell, Ed Carlson, and
didn't hear the —
MR. CARLSON: Mr. Smith.
MR. SMITH: Did you miss Smith?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Why don't I again -- let me digress for just a
moment. Between EAB and EAC and the reformation, when is .�
our anniversary year? It's not calendar year now, but -- and the
reason I ask, there will be people going off the -- the formation
was April; is that correct? Do you remember, Bill?
MR. LORENZ: It was April, yes. The terms
CHAIRMAN HILL: So there were some one year appointees
that will go off the council in April?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. The terms would expire April 30th of
2000. Mr. Sansbury and Mr. McVey had the one year terms, so
your terms would expire in in April-of 2000.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Sansbury and McVey?
MR. COE: Because_l think I was two.
MR. NINO: However, they can be reappointed
CHAIRMAN HILL: Right, yeah.
MR. LORENZ: Subject to the board's appointment process.'
CHAIRMAN HILL: And when do we need to notify the Board of
County Commissioners and ask for reappointment?
MR. LORENZ: Well, typically.for --!Sue-Filson, who is the
administrative assistant to the Board of County Commissioners,
typically monitors these expiration dates and will send out
Page 8
•
February 2, 2000
notices at an appropriate time -- time frame. I will.-- I will take it
on my own and I'll just give her a ring just to make sure since
this board was -- this is its first year and I can give her a call and
make sure of that.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I will add my name again as ex-officio and
maybe suggest that the chairman might serve in that capacity
when a new chairman is appointed.
So let's have a -- a motion then from the council to appoint Mr.
Cornell and Mr. Smith and Mr. Carlson as full-time members of
our growth management sub-committee.
MR. COE: I'll make a motion to that effect.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Second?
MR. MCVEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
MR. LORENZ: And Mr. Chairman, would -- just for scheduling
purposes, is there a time, a day, times that like kind of work on
here right now, because then I've -- we cant talk together, so is
there any better times or worse times for the members?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Let me ask for the three members to —
MR. LORENZ: Maybe we can set the first meeting up right
here and then we can get it on the schedule and I can get it
noticed.
MR. SMITH: Well, for me, evenings would certainly be Whelp.
MR. LORENZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HILL: We met at five, I think, the last time, didn't
we, when the committee met? It was five o'clock that we --
MR. SMITH: Two separate meetings. One of then' was at five.
MR. CORNELL: Well, you guys work for a living, so I would'` ` f.
think it should start with you.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Don't look at me, I don't work.
MR. CORNELL: I'm looking at Bill also, so
CHAIRMAN HILL: Ed?
MR. CARLSON: Afternoon meeting is fine, at five o'clock
would be fine with me.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Keen?
Page 9
February 2, 2000
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Richard?
MR. SMITH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Any day of the week any better than
another?
MR. SMITH: Tuesday for me is probably the best.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Tuesday?
MR. CARLSON: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Keen?
MR. CORNELL: So you're talking about normally Tuesday, two
weeks before --
CHAIRMAN HILL: That's a suggestion, yes. Okay. I think we
-- we ought to have one before that two week window.
MR. CORNELL: Sure. That sounds fine. Sure.
CHAIRMAN HILL: May I tentatively suggest February 15th,
two weeks from yesterday?
MR. CORNELL: Okay. That's at five o'clock? And we'd meet
probably over at the -
CHAIRMAN HILL: Conference room over at --
MR. LORENZ: Probably over at Horseshoe, but let me -- I'll
shoot to set that -- that location up, but I will call everybody and
I'll confirm it and then we'll go through the regular public notice.
MR. CARLSON: I have an event that day and I'm not sure
when it's going to be over.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I just picked that as in between now and
the --
MR. CORNELL:. Is Wednesday any better? Do you have a
better day, Ed or '-
MR. CARLSONJust the ..15th is
MR. CORNELL: Oh just`the 15th? =
MR. CARLSON: Just the 15th is a conflict with me.
CHAIRMAN HILL: How about next week, the 8th?
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Ed?
MR. CARLSON: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Richard?
MR. SMITH: I don't have my calendar here. I don't --
Page 10
•
•
February 2, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: Why don't we tentatively set five p.m.
February 8th, and if you would notify us, Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Okay. We'll be able to do a public notice for
that.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah. Does that give you time for public
notice?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Six days.
MR. LORENZ: Yeah, for -- in the past -- of course I'm looking
at Marni, in the past for sub-committee meetings, we've done it
as -- as less as 24 hours, but --
CHAIRMAN HILL: Does -- does that conflict with any of staff's
commitments, Tuesdays at five o'clock?
MR. LORENZ: No, that is fine. I'll be the lead staff for it, so
MR. NINO: Wednesdays and Thursdays are bad days for staff
because DSAC holds their -- the DSAC and their sub-committees
tend to meet on Wednesday and Thursday and, of course, the
board meets on Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Right.
MR. NINO: So hopefully the board's done by five o'clock.
MR. LORENZ: And since we're talking about the growth
management plan, the rural fringe committee has been meeting
the second and the fourth meeting -- second and fourth
Wednesdays at 5:15, so,this month they'll be meeting on
February 9th and February 23rd, so just for kind of informational
purposes, that's the rural fringe committee.
CHAIRMAN HILL: The second and fourth Wednesdays? ".
MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's what they've been -- that's been ; . +*$
their meeting schedule.
CHAIRMAN HILL: At what time and where?
MR. LORENZ: 5:15 at conference room E at Development
Services.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay.
MR. CARLSON: Could those of us on this sub-committee just
get on the mailing list for all the agendas and meeting timesand <<
minutes and summaries and everything that's going onin thoser .yk
meetings so that we can attend if we want to and --
Page 11
February 2, 2000
MR. LORENZ: Yes, we can -- we can make -- I can make an
arrangement that if -- if -- just the sub-committee members or
would all the EAC members like to receive the packets?
CHAIRMAN HILL: I'd like all the members to --
MR. LORENZ: Okay. We can make that arrangement so when
we -- we send those out. For past information, we do log on to
the natural resources web site, the growth management section,
and what we have done is we have put all the related information
on that web site in addition to the agenda and the -- all the
meeting minutes of the past two advisory committee meetings,
and what I'll also do too for the public is, we'll be posting the
dates and times of the EAC sub-committee's meetings as well on
that web site so the public has an opportunity to see -- to
participate as much as possible.
CHAIRMAN HILL: You know, I would hope that you'd pass on
to them, and maybe that should come in a letter from me, that --
that we and our sub-committee would like to be involved in this
and be thought as a part of the whole process, if you would pass
that on --
MR. LORENZ: Yeah, we certainly will. We'll make that
announcement at the next two meetings of the two
sub-committees -- of the two committees.
CHAIRMAN HILL: So their next meeting will be the 9th then?
MR. LORENZ: The fringe committee, that's correct.
MR. CORNELL: And what about Eastern Collier?
MR. LORENZ: That meeting has not been scheduled yet, the
next meeting, although we're looking at trying to get something
within the next month to look at what we're calling
environmental impact methodology for various land use
alternatives.
MR. CORNELL: Good deal.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, Mr. Lorenz.
I failed in my duty to welcome the public. What I'd like to do
with the permission of the council now is to ask, since we have
no petitions, but is there any member of the public that would
like to address the council under the new business category?K
All right. Okay. I would like then to ask Mr. Julian, who has
Page 12
February 2, 2000
requested some time relative to the Sanibel gopher protection
ordinance -- did I get that right?
MR. JULIAN: Gopher tortoise. We'll have you saying it right
soon.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, not gophers. If you would state your
name and --
MR. JULIAN: Good morning. My name's Gary Julian. I'm just
a private citizen concerned with the plight of the gopher
tortoises. For months now, I've been trying to get the
commission to adopt the Sanibel gopher tortoise protection
ordinance. It's been working over in Sanibel. It supersedes the
state's policy. It's called the incidental take fee where they can
pay $6,000 an acre to develop without too much regard for the
gopher tortoises, and at this point, the population is estimated to
be around 25 percent, that's what's left of the gopher tortoise
population here in Florida, and since the gopher tortoise protects
by its burrows, I'm sorry, I'm kind of nervous, it supports the lives
of 360 other species. That's why I find the gopher tortoise so
important and I'm trying to bring this to everybody so we
understand and start really protecting the gopher tortoise
because he's not being protected. He's in danger, but he's not
protected by the State of Florida. He's an endangered species.
That's another thing everybody gets wrong, they get confused
with endangered and protected. Well, he's not protected: He's
endangered, and 1 propose that this ordinance Sanibel has
already, that Collier County adopt it, and that we do a study an
the gopher tortoises to find out exactly howmanywe have in,k
Collier County and start protecting them and that's - that's what
I'd like to propose to this committee.
MR. CORNELL: You say there's-an ordinance in the City of 4 -
Sanibel?
MR. JULIAN: Correct.
MR. CORNELL: Okay. And you would likesomething like that
to take place -- or we should have one here? �Y
MR. JULIAN: Yes, I'd like Collier County to adopt Sanibel's
ordinance.
MR. COE: Do you have a copy of that ordinance?
Page 13
February 2, 2000
MR. JULIAN: Yes, I do. I'll make sure all you gentlemen have
one.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, If you get copies or -- leave one for
us.
MR. JULIAN: Yeah, before I leave this building, I'll make sure
you all have a copy. Are there any questions?
MR. BAXTER: Do you have a proposed study?
MR. JULIAN: Do I have a proposed study? Yes.
MR. BAXTER: Do you have the cost of it?
MR. JULIAN: No.
MR. CORNELL: Was there a study? How did it goin Sanibel, .v
was there a study done? What was the --
MR. JULIAN: Not to my knowledge.
MR. CORNELL: How do they happen to have one? I just
wondered.
MR. JULIAN: Sanibel doesn't have a study, that's the second
phase.
MR. CORNELL: But they have an ordinance? •
MR. JULIAN: They have an ordinance, yes. I shouldn't say
they don't have a study, they might, but --
CHAIRMAN HILL: What was the impetus behind the ordinance'
then, was an original study made on Sanibel Island?
MR. JULIAN: I guess just what was transpiring with the
incidental take fee, the money goes into a mitigation fund and
the tortoises are relocated, but the relocations aren't as good w %°-1
habitat as they were taken out of and because of-the upper
respiratory tract disease, you know, a lot of them:were'dying>:out
CHAIRMAN HILL-:- 1 knowwe've:had some difficult and hearty-,-'
and heated discussions in the council on the gopher tortoise and
I -- I certainly think the council would like to .take a Iook'at what
you're suggesting.
MR. JULIAN: Great. Thank you. Again, I'd like to apologize
for my nervousness. This is my first time for —
CHAIRMAN HILL: Don't even consider it. We're all ,nervous up 1
here too.
MR. JULIAN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILL: If you would get us copies of --
Page 14
February 2, 2000
MR. JULIAN: Yes, I will and I'll work on the cost of the study.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Lorenz, do you know of anything in
existence that might complement what Mr. Julian is saying?
MR. LORENZ: What we have done -- Commissioner Carter had
requested a report from staff that we presented to him in the
December, January time frame and he's -- he indicated back to
us that he was interested in staff pursuing the matter to some
degree, even to the point of perhaps proposing some land
development code amendments for the next appropriate land
development cycle. Just yesterday I began the -- the effort to
bring Barbara Burgeson in and my staff and to start to create a
little bit of a work plan and a study scope, and what I'll do is I'll
present -- I'll copy the EAC on that report that went to
Commissioner Carter.
We've addressed some -- some of the items in the Sanibel
ordinance. Very briefly, we're not sure that the Sanibel
ordinance is going to do much more from what -- from our
ordinance. However, we do have some areas for some possible
improvement, so that's part --
MR. JULIAN: Yeah, because our ordinance doesn't supersede
the state policy.
MR. LORENZ: Right. So that's part of the information that we
have in that -- that report. So I can present that to the I can
make copies of that available to the council and then we'll be
putting ourselves on some -- some type of schedule to to
develop that, flesh that out a little bit more, and then of course,
any of this information would obviously come back to the full
EAC for -- for input or for approval and recommendations to the
board.
MR. CORNELL: Bill, :didn't you express a concern awhile>ago
about the need for habitat protection ordinances in -- in -- more
generally?
MR. LORENZ: Well, yes, that was back in '92, '93, we were -
staff was working on what we called a habitat protection * .. '''
ordinance that would have addressed some of the concerns, 1 0.s
think, for the gopher tortoises with regard to prioritizing habitat
and looking at the highest quality habitats to be preserved on
Page 15
•
February 2, 2000
site through a ranking process that was built into the ordinance.
It may not have addressed all the issues for gopher tortoises,
but --
MR. CORNELL: Could this give new life to that effort or did
that just sort of fizzle or something?
MR. LORENZ: Well, I think this could be, to some degree,
incorporated into -- into that process. The process for the
growth management plan, the final order, we have to look at
listed species concerns through the final order, so that will all be
part of it as well. So one can kind of take a look at it as
everything kind of coming together through it all, so we're trying
to coordinate all those recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HILL: A question for Mr. Julian, have you
presented this to Lee County? Have they --
MR. LORENZ: No, I haven't. No, sir. I've introduced it to the
Conservancy and FGCU.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Any comment from the public members
relative to this?
Mike?
MR. SIMONIK: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Michael Simonik from
the Conservancy. Gary did come and talk to us at the
Conservancy and we support all of his efforts that he's doing on
the gopher tortoises, and as I told him, he wants us to make
gopher tortoises our number one issue. We'd like to have it our -
number one we'd like to have everything our number one(issue:t x -
We're working on 133 different items right now, but we just our -4
board decided to pick the top ten for the year 2000 and gopher
tortoises doesn't make the top ten, but it's::great to-ghave citizens;
and Gary didn't tell you, he's from Marco Island. He's. from Collier
County and he's been working behind the scenes on this issue:g
He has a group that's been formed, the Gopher Tortoises g i s
Guardians, he has a web site out on the web, people can read =,
about the gophers and find out more about them and educate •
themselves about the gophers, and I come to these meetings, I . m
watch the EAC meetings, I watch what goes on with the _ x
permitting and what happens with the gopher tortoises every g g
month that you guys meet and every Tuesday at the County
Page 16
February 2, 2000
Commission, and on the point of gophers, I had a call maybe two
weeks ago from one of the consultants on Little Pine Island that
was passed through EAC, and I don't know how far it's gotten in
Planning Commission and the Board, but they've got 40 gopher
tortoises, 30 to 40, he said they're trying to find a home for, and
he said, do you want them at the Conservancy, and I said, no, we
don't want any gophers, we've got enough already in rehab that
we're trying to fix their shells and find places for them to live too.
One of the ideas I had for him was the new Fleishmann
property, which, very good, was supported yesterday in the
election and won it four to one, now we have Fleishmann
property that used to have gophers on it, probably the only
gopher habitat in the city proper of Naples that some of those
gophers, maybe 10, 20 of those from Little Pine -- what's it
called, Little Palm --
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, not pine.
MR. LORENZ: -- Little Palm Island can go to that site and
maybe be relocated onto Fleishmann if there's nice little fencing
put in or something, I don't know, it's an idea, but we're always
trying to figure out what to do with the gopher tortoises, and
really do believe, Gary, that we don't protect them here in Collier
County.
There can be a better ordinance and this is the perfect
opportunity for the EAC members to work on issues exactly like
this. It's an environmental policy issue. It's analysis of the
policies that we have here in the county. It's the role mandated
by -- in the ordinance:to the,EAC. The reason why EPTAB was
molded into the EAC was because they told us on EPTAB, all of-* `T
these policy issues would be taken up at the EAC and in your
sub-committee meetings"and:meetings like this today. I really'
haven't seen that happen as much as I'd like to see it happen on
the EAC, which is why I again tried to get on the EAC, and I think
your Mr. Baxter, congratulations, they'll never put me on, so 'don't
feel bad, and I'll keep trying, I'm 'persistent, but it is important to
talk about what our policies are,in the county and what we have,
are they the right ones, are they the best ones, and I hear allthe
time from land use attorneys, oh, Collier County goes over and 4:,t, °
Page 17
February 2, 2000
above every other county. Well, that's just not true.
I've had DCA tell me that Lee County, some of their r a
protections are better than ours, which shocked me, to think that
Lee County was better than us, and now I'm going to go into
another subject that I want to talk about today.
There are other counties that protect environmental
resources better than Collier County and Martin County is one of _.r,. `•
those. We keep hearing, oh, they're making us do too much, the -
governor and cabinet is pushing too far for Collier County. Well,
they're not, because other places have passed and approved ;F
ordinances that are much better than the ones we have here in
Collier County, and for example, is the Martin County wetland
protection ordinance, which is what this is.
A couple months ago, I had a commissioner from Martin
County, an elected commissioner, a Republican, call me and tell
me she wanted to send me their wetland ordinance they just
passed this June of '99 because they had heard that we were
dealing with the same issues here in Collier County, so she sent
me this whole packet and I talked to her on the phone, and I
think it's Commissioner Melzer, I can't remember her name, but --
it's been a few months, but this is a no wetlands loss, no
wetlands impact ordinance, and it passed, and it passed in
Martin County, and other places are looking at it and I believewe
ought to look at it.
They have just as many wetlands in Martin County. They're on'
Lake Okeechobee and in the Everglades area. They have just as
many wetlands as we do. They have developers, they have
development pressure just as we do and they have a no wetlands Tr
impact ordinance.
We don't come anywhere near that. .1 sit here on Tuesdays at ,1
County Commission and watch us pass hundreds of acres of
wetland impact, wetland loss, wetland destruction, wetland _ s
obliteration is what I call it, and we watch it every month here in
Collier County and this is something that I think the EAC should : {
take on in their sub-committees, growth management.
In EPTAB,.;we used to have a natural resource sub-committee
and we would deal with policy issues, do we have the right policy1
Page 18
February 2, 2000
in Collier County, is it what's best for Collier County? We're the
western Everglades. We're not just somewhere in the middle of
Ohio. We're the western Everglades. We're a national treasure.
Eastern Collier County, all of Collier County, it's a worldwide
treasure. It's called the Everglades, and it's up to us to protect
it.
Martin County's doing their job. Other counties are looking at
it and I would like the EAC, and I'll leave a copy for Steve or
somebody to copy for all of you, so that a sub-committee can
look at this ordinance, see if it's -- whatever you want to pass on,
but at least look at it because other counties have done it. We're
not the only ones trying to protect natural resources in Florida.
So I'll just leave this with you, and thank you very much, but I
do support everything Gary says and he's really working hard and
he's just a regular guy from Marco Island and I think he owns a
sign shop or something, but this is the first time he's ever, you
know, called the Conservancy. He's not one of us. He's what
people are thinking out there, and the county ought to be doing
'something about it because Gary's not the only one. I can tell
you, I get calls every day about this. Gary's not the only one. So
I urge you to look at both of these issues, on gophers and on
wetlands. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILL: How far is he from your top ten? How far:
are the gopher tortoises from your —
MR. LORENZ: Today, it's number one.
MR. CARLSON: I have a question for Mike. Rather than just n
handing us that ordinance cold, ..have you done a review of it ora z
summary or an executive summary to --
MR. SIMONIK: I haven't -- normally the Conservancy does A
positionstatements on issues. ;I haven't done that, but I plan on
doing one for this and giving-- a background of it, what we
believe is right for this, but I have perused through this. I haven't
read it all. I can say with everything else we're —
MR. CARLSON: But you expect us to read it. Come on. t, ;t ,,.
MR. SIMONIK: Right. Well,•.you're sitting up there and l'mnot.
Thanks. Anybody else?
CHAIRMAN HILL: I guess it needs to be said on behalf of the
Page 19
February 2, 2000
council, I'm sure we have missed some of the efforts that we
should be involved in, but we're brand new. We're feeling our
way in this whole process and we've had disruptions and
tremendous responsibility with respect to petitions, a lot of new
items for this group, but I think once we get our -- our focus
correct, I think we'll be involved in a number of these things.
When EPTAB and EAB were put together, a lot of
responsibilities were piled on and we weren't totally aware of all
of our responsibilities, but it's a growth problem and a learning
curve for us too. Thank you, Mike.
Mr. Coe?
MR. COE: Marni, I -- I have to get my mike over here. I've got
a question for you. We have a court reporter that, you know,
does the minutes for us. They've got like 30 days, I guess it is, to
complete it and get it back to us. In that 30 day period, the
Planning Commission's met, the County Commissioners have
met. In other words, all the minutes do is, they come back to us
and we approve them.
Now, we also have VCR taping done of the proceedings here.
MS. SCUDERI: Right.
MR. COE: Why are we doing both? It seems to me the
minutes are a total waste of time and money when it's all on
tape.
MS. SCUDERI: We -- as far as I know, the reason that we have
the court reporter here is so that we have the written record,
which is necessary in case anybody tries to bring something up
to the next level. The video, I guess that's just'
MR. COE: Why isn't the video good enough? It's good enough
for the police in their DWI cases.
MS. SCUDERI: Generally, if something want's to go to the
next level, you need to have a written record.
MR. COE: Can't you take it then, if they decide to go to the
next level, just take it right off the VCR tape? It seems like we're- r,
wasting a heck of a lot of money.
MS. SCUDERI: I can find out about it for you. I can't tell you
the exact policy reasons right now, but I can find out for you.
MR. COE: All right, fine. Thank you.
Page 20
February 2, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: I don't want to put words in Mr. Coe's
mouth, and I think one of the problems, and I think we've
discussed this before with the council, our deliberations
reflected in part by our minutes should be of value to people
down the line such as the commissioners or the Planning
Commission and it -- it's non-existent by the time our
deliberations and the petitions get to those -- those staff. So in
that sense, it's not doing any -- or isn't of any value to later steps
in the process.
MS. SCUDERI: So your request would be that the written
minutes come earlier so that the other councils can see it?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, I think we're all concerned that our
deliberations, except in very brief summary form, don't get to the
Planning Commission and the Board.
MS. SCUDERI: That, I would have to ask Ron about.
CHAIRMAN HILL: And whether there's a solution to that or
not -- Ron, do you have --
MR. COE: See, we discussed this a while back. You know
'where it's coming from. You all don't even have the advantage of
having it when you write your summary, so basically, if you aren't
taking notes now to write the summary for the Planning
Commission and for the County Commissioners, the only thing
you've got is the possibility of getting the VCR tape or doing it
from memory, so why do we have minutes anyway?
MR. NINO: Well, the minutes are the official record, of course.
MR. COE: But the tape could be just as official, couldn't it?
MR. NINO: Well, I -- howdo you get a tape and — ;- :.
MR. COE: I've done it. Alla you do is call the little lady over
there and she makes you a copy and sends —
MR. NINO: Makes you a copy?
MR. COE: Yep.
MR. NINO: And that's a verbatim record of the minutes? -: -.,
MR. COE: Exactly what we've°got.here. They throw on the
camera and we start blabbing.
MR. NINO: Then we should fire this young lady here and do
that, but you asked for, I think it was at your direction, that we
solicited the recording organization so that you could have
Page 21
February 2, 2000
verbatim minutes in print. We could always change that, but to
get back to your -- where you're coming from, in many instances, *'
we do have the minutes - staff does have the minutes available
to it when it is preparing its executive summary for the -- for
presentation to the BCC, but aside from that, I mean, normally
what goes into an executive summary is a very is basically
your decision and why you made your decision.
I don't think we need the verbatim we don't need the •
minutes in their verbatim style in order to convey that position to
the Board of County Commissioners. However, in the last couple
of months, we have included in our executive summary package,
the EAC staff report that I believe the commission -- you sign,
Chairman Hill, and once you sign it, that, in fact, becomes your
report. Now, those do go with the executive summary. We've
been doing that for the last couple of months.
MR. COE: So basically you're saying the same thing we're
saying, that generally speaking, you aren't getting a copy of the
minutes, you really have no use for them?
MR. NINO: Other than they're -- other than they're an official
record.
MR. COE: Which a VCR tape is the same.
MR. NINO: Correct. We don't need them.
MR. COE: Okay. Well, Marni, if you could get back to us, that
would be great.
MS. SCUDERI: Absolutely.
MR. COE: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Marni, were you saying that a written
record has more standing in, lit use the term
court, not necessarily in the total formal sense, but - than a
videotape?
MS. SCUDERI: Well, the videotape would have to be
transcribed. When it goes to another level, it has - it generally,
unless there's a situation I am unaware of, which Is possible,It
has to be written. I understand Mr. Coe's point that the
videotape could be transcribed.
I don't know is my - is an honest answer between the -k
transcription of the videotape versus the court reporter being in
Page 22
February 2, 2000
court, and that, I can find out for you.
MR. NINO: For what it's worth, of course, the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting is both video recorded and recorded by
a recording service, similarly, the Planning Commission. We -- I
would think that there's some legal, just conclusion behind the
fact that the Board does it.
MR. COE: I don't know that, so I'm not going to speculate.
learned that a long time ago. As a second lieutenant, I never
assume a thing.
MR. SMITH: All right. Can I say something since I do have
some knowledge on this? The -- the transcription is something
that can be introduced as evidence. The tape probably cannot
be, even a transcription from the tape cannot be, so that's the
reason.
CHAIRMAN HILL: So a videotape would not have any standing
in the legal sense?
MR. SMITH: Likely, there would be an objection that would be
upheld, if somebody made such an objection.
^ CHAIRMAN HILL: I'm going to plead ignorance, and I -- I'm
sorry I missed it. What happened to the Little Palm Island when
it went before the commissioners?
MR. NINO: That entire that petition has been put on
indefinite hold. So we won't know for another three or four
months if they decide to go ahead with it or not. Well let you
CHAIRMAN HILL: Anything else with respect to an official
copy?
*** Okay. Official new business, item:6(A), planningand land < ,
use approval process.
MR. NINO Ron Nino, for the record.
CHAIRMAN HILL: (Excuse me, Ron;.can I interruptyou? Do
you need .a break? Are you sure? ,:Would you,raise your hand :A<
when you do?
MR. NINO: We're going to try to walk you through the y;
development,:decision making process. I'm going to talk about
where it starts, and it starts, of course, with vacant land and
zoning, in most instances. However, in those instances where
the land isalready zoned, then it immediately jumps to:an
Page 23
February 2, 2000
administrative site plan review and platting procedure.
Our rezoning process, of course, starts with a pre-application
meeting with the person who is interested in doing something 4 -=4
with their land or a use other than that which it is zoned. Now,
we have applications -- I mean, this is pretty elementary, but
we're not going to give you a course in 101 planning, we're goingk"
to tell you what our procedures are. We have application forms
for various types of rezoning applications, for a standard
rezoning application, for a PUD, and for a conditional use.
I gave you the one application, but really the other
applications are -- are very similar and so to that extent, this
application indicates to you what we ask the -- the applicant to
tell us, and you'll note that a great deal of it is who owns the
property, who's buying the property, who has interest in -- if the
owner is not the applicant, the buyer's the applicant, who are the
members of that buying trust, who are the members of the selling
trust.
We're not only interested in who appears as the trustee in
many instances, but who are all the beneficiaries of the trust. So
it's important, and the Board has directed us time and time again
to make sure that our application fully apprises them of who is "F
receiving a benefit from selling land and who is receiving a - =
benefit from rezoning land, and that's why the application is
structured as it is.
Most importantly, the land development code simply doesn't
leave to the planning staff and to the county Planning
Commissionttheability,;without any foundation or:basis for its
decision, to recommend that land be rezoned, and the land '""
development code specifically hasiindings that staff has to
make and findings that the Planning-Commission have to'make,
and indeed, findings that the Board has to -- they're all the same t r :
findings, but we need to all make those findings in order to
justify a recommendation or an action to rezone land.
I've given you a copy of the rezone findings and the PUD Y-
findings. However, there are findings not as elaborate as the-
findings for a rezone, for conditional uses and for variances and -
indeed for boat docks, and indeed for any type of land use
Page 24
February 2, 2000
petition we have. It's necessary for staff to make a positive
finding that supports the decision, the recommendation to
approve the petition. So it's not a shoot from the hip kind of
thing, or believe me, I'm a planner and I've been trained and I'm
telling you that this is a good land use decision and that's it, you
know. We have to follow the findings that are prescribed for
each and every application.
Now, it doesn't mean that you have to meet 100 percent of
the findings, but you need to meet a preponderance of the
findings and that -- to justify a recommendation to rezone, and of
course, the Board has to do the same thing.
Now, in addition to the findings, however, the growth
management plan says that a recommendation to rezone
property has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan for
county -- Collier County. That also happens to be one of the
findings, but remember, the zoning -- a recommendation to zone
land has to be based and has to be -- complement a
comprehensive plan for the community. Many years ago, the
courts said that zoning has to be based upon a plan and that
decision was some 50 years -- is some 50 years old now.
For a long time, we didn't know whether the zoning plan, the
zoning map for the community, in fact, could constitute the
master plan. However, that -- that lack of understanding has
gone away many years ago, and today what is a comprehensive
plan is something that is a lot more in depth in terms of how you
strategize the development of your land use resources, and the
land use -- anda zoning map simply doesn't do that.
A zoning :map is -- is a wish list, you might say not aTwish
list, but it's how you intend to carry out your master plan and
there needs to be a nexus there. _We can't recommend rezoning
land that is inconsistent with the future land use map, for
example.
Keen? Stop me anywhere along the line.
MR. CORNELL: Just a question on that point. Does a if a
citizen feels that a rezoning is inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan, does he have standing in court?
MR. NINO: No, I -- well, now you're asking a legal question.,
Page 25
February 2, 2000
That -- I don't believe so.
MS. SCUDERI: I'm sorry? You asked -
MR. CORNELL: I'm just asking, if a citizen --
MR. NINO: I can't play lawyer.
MR. CORNELL: -- let's say of the county, felt strongly that a
rezoning decision was not consistent with the comprehensive
plan, does he or she have standing to bring -- to bring an action
against the county or the --
MS. SCUDERI: I'm going to give you an off the cuff answer,
I'm going to say probably not, and Mr. Smith might know more
about standing than I do, actually, in these situations with land
use petitions. My -- my thought would be no, because there are
certain case law and standing that you need to fit into specific
groups.
MR. CORNELL: So you need to have a reason for standing - to
have standing?
MS. SCUDERI: Right. I could research that issue more for
you, but as far as I know, it doesn't seem depending on that
landowner's proximity.
MR. CORNELL: Okay.
MR. NINO: So most importantly, when we stand here and
recommend a rezoning action, we're doing so because we have
concluded that that action is consistent with the county's
comprehensive development plan. That is a key relationship.
However, that's not the only relationship. The comprehensive
plan also directs that staff make a finding of compatibility.
Compatibility, as you know, puts you into a whole subjective '
area. Everybody's opinion of what is compatible is different than
somebody else's.
However, it's my understanding that in terms ofthe legal `
definition of compatibility, it has always been the relationship of -t
one classification of zoning to another classification of zoning, kla
and -- and more definitively, it has been residential and its "'
relationship to non-residential, or non-residential in relationship
to residential.
The -- the strict interpretation of compatibility is residential'to't
commercial to industrial. It's traditionally not multiple family
Page 26
February 2, 2000
� I
residential to single family residential, but that has become one
of the more modern usages of the compatibility test, although l
personally don't believe that it is legal -- it would legally apply if
one made a compatibility conclusion based on single family
versus multiple family or two units per acre versus four units per
acre. In my opinion, that is not consistent with the legal test for
compatibility, but nonetheless, it is widely used and, you know,
don't think we're ever going to dissuade people from arguing that
it isn't a valid compatibility test.
MR. COE: Wouldn't somewhat of a glaring example be the
boat storage there by the bridges in relationship to the
condominiums that are so close by?
MR. NINO: I would say that's probably a --
MR. COE: I know that wasn't a county deal, but --
MR. NINO: Yeah, sure. The traditional test has been a glue
factory next to a residential area would be the extreme example.
However, in addition to the compatibility test, there are also
there are also relationships -- planning -- good planning
''' requirements that talk about the -- the availability of
infrastructure, you know. Is there a good highway system
serving it, is there sewer and water, is storm drainage adequate,
are there community facilities? Oftentimes, nobody thinks
about, you're putting a community out there and there isn't a -
drugstore or medical facilities, so the relationship to community
facilities and services. The planner is charged with justifying.
that rezoning action or recommendation based on that host of
available infrastructure. Is it adequate to support another,urban
development in that location?
Timing is also a consideration. I would hope that if you
picked up our staff reports, you would see all of these things in
them. Timing. Is -- is the action to rezone premature? Is it
urban sprawl and is there a wide gap between the -- the nearest
urbanization -- urban portions of the county? That becomes a
question of timing. Is it appropriate at this point in time to move z
the boundary, to jump 100 -- several miles and jump to anothera.
area? That becomes an issue of timing. Even though your
comprehensive plan may have an urban boundary, it doesn't uq.
Page 27
February 2, 2000
necessarily follow that an action to rezone anywhere in that
urban boundary is appropriate.
Unfortunately, Collier County's master plan - or Collier •
County's future land use map really doesn't give us direction in
terms of that benchmark that planners use in terms of the
question of timing.
Basically, the philosophy here has been, if you're yellow if
you're asking to zone land on the yellow portion of the future
land use map, we have to approve it, aside from whether it's
consistent with a timing theory that says you ought to progress
from the highly urban areas out in increments.
We have been, quite frankly, jumping land areas to get to
other land areas and --
MR. COE: How do we get that turned around?
MR. NINO: Pardon?
MR. COE: How do we get that turned around?
MR. NINO: By amending the growth management plan to say
that development ought to progress in an orderly fashion
outward to meet the extreme limit of the urban boundary.
MR. COE: I use for example, like I noticed a newspaper
article recently where Collier County accepts, I guess, level D
roads or whatever it was, that are like worthless, and if we
would require the higher level of road -- the infrastructure to be r=
in place ahead of approval of the developments, then it kind of
puts our feet, as citizens - puts our feet to the fire and says, we
need to pay for that infrastructure before the development goes
in, and we've got countless examples in the county. -
MR. NINO: Sure. That's not the way our - •
MR. COE: Before - before, what happens, the citizens step'up
to bat, like just happened in Naples, and said, wait a ininute,,we,
aren't gonna have that kind of height, we aren't gonna allow that
growth.
MR. NINO: Yeah. I certainly wouldn't argue with you, Mr. Coe.
That's not the way our growth management's set up. Our •
growth management, in terms of the traffic element -- you know, r
we have to make a finding that is consistent with every element. -r-z
The one that usually binds around here is the traffic element.
Page 28
February 2, 2000
Our comprehensive plan says, you know, to put it in the
simplest terms, it says that the road system can become -- can
be deficient, can go to pot, so to speak, for a period of three
years, as long as we have a committed correction of that
condition. In other words, within that three year window, we
have committed the dollars to bring that road up to standard, so
to get at your question would require us eliminating that window.
What you're saying is, it ought to be done before the
development is permitted. That would require an amendment to
the growth management plan. That's not the way our plan is
structured. Our plan is structured to say that, indeed, you can
permit development, even if the road has gone to pot, i.e., has
fallen below its design level of service, and in Collier County, in
most cases, that's D. However, in some cases, it's even E.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Are you saying, Ron, that there is no
method whereby an approved development can be delayed in
implementation until the infrastructure's in place?
MR. NINO: I'm saying that our growth management plan
doesn't provide for that. In other words, to meet the consistency
test, we merely have to find -- not merely, we have to find that
the road that is deficient will be corrected within a time frame of
three years.
For example, the Whippoorwill projects, you're going to get a
couple of those, Pine Ridge Road is operating below its adopted
level of service. The adopted level of service for Pine Ridge
Road is E and it's operating at F. We have to recommend
approval of those projects, even though that condition exists f,i ,4
because Pine Ridge Road, within the next three years, will be 16,-
widened to six lanes, and upon completion of that widening, that
level of service will become C, higher than D. In other words,1it
will be corrected and that's the — you know, that's the legislative
position we find ourselves in.
Now, that's not to say that -- that's not to say that the Board*
of County Commissioners cannot take a -- a more restrictive view
of that position, say, for example, phase those projects to t..
minimize the impact on an already deficient road, but that's a
decision the Board has.
� II
Page 29
February 2, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: That was my question. Is there a
mechanism whereby the Board can say, all right, this
development is approved, and we've had, what, four or five along ~'
Livingston Road and Whippoorwill, can they say, right, we'll
approve that, that's consistent, but you can't implement -- you. K
can't make the development until the infrastructure's in place?
MR. NINO: No, I don't believe the Board can -- the Board can
do anything it wants to do, but to the extent it makes decisions
that are inconsistent with its own plan, it invites litigation and it
may not prevail and we could end up spending a lot of money in
the court system.
MR. COE: Correct me if I'm wrong, Pine Ridge Road is at E?
MR. NINO: Uh-huh.
MR. COE: We approved the money to widen it to bring it up
from E to C?
MR. NINO: Yes.
MR. COE: That's based on the current traffic conditions,
correct?
MR. NINO: It's based on projected traffic.
MR. COE: Also projected. Well, if it's running at E right now, ,E
one more lane is only going to bring it up to C, correct? Does it
take into consideration all those projects on Livingston Road .K
that are going to flush onto Pine Ridge?
MR. NINO: Well, Livingston Road will also be eventually
constructed to a six lane facility itself"and ,
MR. COE: But that traffic that's going to come down
Livingston Road to Piney Ridge is not going to overload Pine Ridge
and -- and drop it from a C to E again?
MR. NINO:. Correct. That's -- at least that's what our traffic"
experts tell us. That's what our MPO people -
MR. COE: Those are the same guys that are on their way to
work at three a.m. too, right?
MR. NINO: I can't say that. They have a model and their
modeling process supports the proposition that they're telling us, ,-
that six laning of Pine Ridge Road will correct its current
deficiency and
MR. COE: The reason I say that, I'm not a planner, obviously,
Page 30
February 2, 2000
you can tell by the haircut, but -- what hair's left, but I look at »°
Highway 41 that's been widened and I see all these homes that
are gonna eventually go out there, particularly if the Colliery.
project comes through. I don't know if you've been on that road
lately, but it's wall to wall traffic during the daytime. Obviously
this is the season, but you take the traffic that's there now and
what is projected for that area over the next five to ten years, I
don't see how there's any way that road is going to handle that
traffic.
MR. NINO: Well, they have to because we're required by law.
The minute that -- when we go beyond the three year window and
that condition still exists and now we've widened the lanes to six
roads -- I mean, we've widened the road to six lanes, we know
we're not going to widen roads any more than six lanes, then we
have to trigger, and there's a mechanism in the growth
management plan, there's a mechanism that triggers in the
process leading to a moratorium, and we have to follow that
process. It's -- we have to declare the area as an area of
'-.N significant influence and we need to then trigger the public
hearing process to establish the moratorium. That process alone"
takes a year.
MR. COE: But does that kick in before, say for example, Pine
Ridge Road drops to E again?
MR. LORENZ: No, it would Pine Ridge Road would have to
drop to E again, and there's no solution immediately in mind, in r
sight, we have to trigger: in the moratorium process or --
MR. COE: But we could change the ordinance and rather:Ethan
let it go to E, if it drops to D, then the moratorium would kick in?
MR. NINO:: Yes, you could do that, but again, that would <44w
require increasing or improving the level of services over and lot" G
above what we've now said is satisfactory, and that would 'be a"
I suggestto youthat would probably be a tough sell because we
think that — I mean, traffic planners say that while you might
you and I might find level D inconvenient based on where we're
from and what we've historically been accustomed to, the traffic
planner would say level of service D is a satisfactory level of
Page 31
February 2, 2000
service in an urban environment.
I mean, you know, I -- I'm -- I grew up in areas of stop -- you
know, stop and go traffic. I personally, I don't know how many
other people would -- would say, I am not terribly inconvenienced
traveling around Collier County, but somebody else may have an
entirely different perspective of that. They may find any
inconvenience as not -- you know, needs to be corrected.
mean, their level of service standard is higher than mine, and I'm
sure that applies generally to a lot of things in life.
The experts -- the experts have set the standards. The Board
has adopted them, and by virtue of that, we've made a statement
that says that is a satisfactory level of service. Now, when it
goes below that, then we have a mechanism for -- we need to
correct it. By law, we need to correct it, and if we can't correct
it, we need to institute a moratorium.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Nino, I'm impressed sometimes when I -- my
son goes to Florida Gulf Coast University and I travel up there.
I'm impressed with the magnificent roads, as I know everybody
here has seen them, that go through the woods, basically, and
provide access to the university in a setting where you can
anticipate that there's going to be growth, but there has been
some planning done way ahead of time with some vision.
Is there anything in place here in Collier to put those kinds of
roads in areas where, right now, there's nothing but woods, but
where there can be anticipated growth?
MR. NINO: There isn't. We're not going to -- I don't believe `
we'regoing to spend money onan if,come somewhere else when A
we have so many problemswithin the urban area that need to be
addressed, you know. The whole business of -- of -- the ultimate
solution, of course, are the fly overs and, you know, we're talking
in terms of just fantastic investments that need to be made if s,
we're going to deal with that that issue satisfactorily.
The day will come when Pine Ridge Road will be deficient
again, Livingston Road will be deficient and they'll be six laned
and --
MR. SMITH: That's what I'm concerned with is that and then
it becomes very, very expensive, as you well know, the higher
Page 32
February 2, 2000
the property values, the more expensive it is to build roads.
Whereas now I would think there's an opportunity to build for the,:.
future at much, much less of an expense.
MR. COE: If we know this area is going to be an urban area N'
in other words, the only way I see that it would not be an urban
area would be if some big benefactor came in here with a couple
of billion dollars and bought up the land between here and the
Everglades, so if we know it's going to be an urban area, why
can't we plan now, and this is what Mr. Smith's saying, why can't
we plan now, plat out the roads for the county? Not leave it for
the developers to do it, but -
MR. NINO: No, I think you're going to --
MR. COE: -- let the county take control of our county, plat out
the roads where we expect the development to be and how we're
going to do these roads.
MR. NINO: If I may, that wasn't really part of our workshop
agenda. The workshop agenda was the --
MR. COE: This is interesting. Again, it's not a battle with --
MR. NINO: No, I understand, but you need somebody else
here if you're going to discuss that type of question. My -- our
function was to tell you, here's how we make land use decisions:
MR. COE: You thought you were going to get away easy,
that's all.
MR. NINO: The issue that you're talking about is -- is a whole
different issue and --
MR. SMITH: But I think as faras the environment is
concerned that -- that it's a very important issue because,you
know, by doing what Mr. Coe's suggesting, we can have a look at
big environmental issues rather than take them piecemeal as
each development comes in. .
MR. NINO: Sure, it would be very easy to widen Immokalee
Road to six lanes today all the way to the City of Immokalee,'to"
widen Pine Ridge Road to six lanes all the way to Wilson °'
Boulevard.
MR. SMITH: It doesn't go to Wilson.
MR. NINO: Well, where -- as far east as we can carry it and
MR. LORENZ: That's one of the things that we'll be looking at
Page 33
1
February 2, 2000
when we start talking about the fringe area and the rural area.
We have the opportunity, through the final order, even though the'`R i`
final order may provide some minimum requirements, to look at `'
what that growth pattern potentially will be on those areas and
look at what the impacts will be on various infrastructure or
community services, and so we do have that opportunity in the
next three years through the final order to maybe perhaps look at °y
those types of questions.
MR. NINO: Yeah, but I suggest -- I think the suggestion here is µ
that we build -- we build the road far -- far earlier than we A`
anticipate a problem to arise. In other words, I hear you saying,
we should six lane roads long before the need to six lane them is
in place.
MR. SMITH: Not really. What I'm suggesting is that it might
be possible to look at the overall Collier County area and
anticipate where there's going to be substantial future growth,
and instead of waiting for that growth to come project by project,
prepare for it by putting some infrastructure in and alleviate
problems that are already in existence by doing that and -- and
also in that process, perhaps address some environmental
concerns that otherwise just aren't going to get addressed. {d
MR. NINO: Well, basically we're talking about roads. The
degree to which we marry the land development with the
preservation consciousness, you know, that could be easily
handled.
Maybe our standards aren't high enough right now in terms of
the degree of preservation that ought to occur, but you known= ra: °=
those;numbers can be adjusted and that's your function, to
adjust those numbers, because that's the issue that Michael
Simonik makes, that we're not doing perhaps a good enough job
here in Collier County in preserving those natural resources. ws
MR. SMITH: I grew up in Broward County and when I was ins K,
Broward County as a child, areas that were -- where we used to
take horses and go out and spend days -- you know, a whole day %
without seeing cars and just -- are now the center of town,
basically.
MR. NINO: Sure, sure.
Page 34
February 2, 2000
MR. SMITH: And it occurs to me in looking at where Collier
County is now, that if there had been vision, Broward County
would not be, in terms of traffic and congestion, nearly the
problem it is now, and what I would suggest is that perhaps
there's a way to envision where the potential growth is going to
go so that you can lead it there, if you will, in a way that is going
to be less of an impact on the environment and on the
community as a whole and make it better for the people to have
the development as opposed to make it worse.
MR. NINO: Doesn't that mean building the road prior to -
MR. SMITH: I think it would have to, yes.
MR. BAXTER: Secondary system.
MR. SMITH: I think it would have to.
MR. NINO: And to give you a corollary, we're building
Livingston Road currently from Immokalee to Bonita Beach Road.
We know that road's got to be six laned someday. Aren't you
basically saying, build it six lane right now?
MR. SMITH: Well, one of the problems, I happen to own land
^where they're building that road and they're taking part of it, and
one of the problems with Livingston Road is that they waited way
too long. They waited and waited and waited and the property
values kept going up and up and up, and finally they said, we
can't afford it. So what do they do? They look to a private
developer for the money. What I'm suggesting is, why do that. :.
again?
MR. NINO: Because we can't afford to do otherwise. ,w
MR. SMITH: Well, you can't afford to do otherwise either. It's
a question of, pay me now or pay me later.
MR. NINO: Well, it could - what you're suggesting would
require Collier County-to go up and borrow a ton of money in}r
anticipation of sufficient revenue from impact fees to make the
bond payments.
MR. SMITH: I'm not too sure about that, Mr. Nino, because 1
wonder if it might be possible to have a private-public
partnership of some sort where there would be enthusiasm on
both sides and much less of an expense than you might •
anticipate from the public coffer.
Page 35
February 2, 2000 r`
MR. NINO: Well, we -- that's exactly the scenario with
Mediterra and Long Bay Park.
MR. SMITH: Yeah, but unfortunately there, it didn't happen
until the place was built up way out of proportion.
MR. NINO: Well, how would we have gotten the public
partnership from Long Bay Partners prior to them buying the
land? I mean, it wasn't going to happen.
Let me also say that Long Bay Partners is not building a road
free of charge for Collier County. They're getting credit for -
impact fees. No one -- no developer builds anything for nothing
in Collier County. We give them a credit on their impact fees, so
we're paying for it from impact fees.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Of course, that was the reason the impact
fee was --
MR. COE: So what's wrong with that?
CHAIRMAN HILL: That's what it was for.
MR. NINO: Correct. The problem is, impact fees -- we don't
have enough impact fees to build the roads prior to their
requirement. So the only solution is to borrow money and make
the bond payment on anticipated revenues from impact fees, and
if they fall short, then it's the ad valorem tax, and I suggest to
you that elected officials are not going to gamble to that extent, ri
at least I don't think they --
MR. SMITH: I think there should at least be some exploration
of the idea. Impact fees, for example, in Golden Gate Estates,
that's, I guess, now the fastest growing area in Collier County, so
that each time there's a new home put up there, there's another
three -- what is it, three or four or five thousand dollars put-into
the county's..coffers, but very little or none of that money is used
to assist in the Estates, and I find that to be wrong. -
MR. NINO: Well, it has to be. In fact, impact fee money has to',
be spent in the area that it comes from within the district: There s
are a number of impact fee districts and the money does have to -
be spent there. In other words, impact fees from Golden Gate`
Estates cannot be used to widen Vanderbilt Drive in North f
Naples. It can't be. Thedmpact fee money is an escrow account *t°
that is directed to road improvements within defined districts .t
Page 36
February 2, 2000
from which they come.
MR. SMITH: Other than the anticipated -- very long
anticipated widening of Golden Gate Boulevard and the long
anticipated widening of Immokalee Road, nothing has happened.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I have a more fundamental --
MR. NINO: Can we get back to your agenda? I'd like Susan
Murray to tell you how we do the rest of our business in terms of
dealing with land use petitions.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Could I raise one question quickly? I think
there's probably a quick answer.
I'm frustrated every once in a while when a petition comes
through here for rezoning. Some come with half a site plan,
some come with no site plan. To me, rezoning simply says it's
land use compatible, but environmental issues, quite often, really
need more than just that, and yet we're not consistent in what
we require on those plans that come before us.
MR. NINO: Let me -- let me try to speak to that.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Is my question clear?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is. First of all, a site plan is not required for
a standard rezone. As a matter of fact, there have been -- I think
there are some legal cases there that suggest that if you require
me to submit a site plan on a straight rezone, you are, in fact,
contract zoning because you're -- because that requirement is,
tell me what you're building. That -- we can't do that on straight
rezones.
On PUD's, however, a PUD is its own -- establishes its own
development strategy, and traditionally, there has been a master
plan unique to that PUD, i.e., Pelican Bay and all of the - Pelican
Marsh.
The question I think that you're getting at there is the.,degree.
-- the degree of detail on that master plan for that community.
That has always been conceptual. ;You know, when Pelican
Marsh first decided they were going to ask for rezoning and
develop a master plan, I'm sure they didn't, at that time, and 1
don't think any developer knows exactly what he's going to put
on every tract of land within that master plan community.
I hope that we have -- I hope that the master plans, however,
Page 37
February 2, 2000
accurately delineate the preservation areas, because that -- and I ft
think we have done that in all cases. If you look at the Pelican
Marsh master plan when it came in, it delineated very accurately b;
the preservation areas, but it didn't say where single family
housing was going to go versus multiple family housing. It didn't
lay out footprints for how commercial was going to occur within
the commercial tracts, and it would be unreasonable to ask them :-
to do that because that's market driven. So I don't know how we
could ever develop a plan that was less detailed than your
traditional bubble diagrams that say, this is going to be
residential, this is going to be commercial. They -- at that point,
they haven't even worked out the alignment of all the roads, you
know. It's very conceptual. Your kind of master plan is
something that we just never asked for and we don't feel is
justified at that --
CHAIRMAN HILL: When the process then is completed with a
site plan, et cetera, there may well be environmental issues that
arise that were not obvious when the conceptual plan was
introduced, and yet we and other environmental agencies are not
in that loop. Now, I don't know, should we be? It seems to me
that we should be in that loop.
MR. NINO: Well, if you're talking about -- if you're talking
about environmental involvement down to each and every site
plan, then you're suggesting that you ought to become involved
in the review of each and every site plan and I don't think that's
going to happen. The board doesn't -- the board hasn't asked - I
mean, the board hasn't asked for -- the board has said, we're
comfortable with the site -- the process post-zoning as being'an
administrative process, and that's by and large the way it is
handled throughout the country.
Legislative bodies and appointed advisory bodies generally .
don't get involved in the day-to-day handling of the building
development process. You get involved in the more conceptual'
stage, and that is the rezoning -- the rezoning stage.
That's not to say it can't be changed, but we're not going to
change it. The Board would have to change'it. You'd have tot
convince the Board that, indeed, you're -- you ought to be
Page 38
February 2, 2000
involved in -- in the use of land at the day-to-day decision making
stage. I'm going to have Susan --
MR. CARLSON: Can:I ask one more question real quick? I
know you're not a traffic engineer, but we're talking about these
levels of service on these roads, the C's, D's and E's and that
must be -- it must boil down to some number somewhere. Can
you tell me what the main factors are that decide what level of
service it is? Is it just, they put out the traffic counters and it's
so many cars per day on a two lane road, or do they figure out
how many times you have to wait for the light to change, you
know, or something like that?
MR. NINO: I certainly would think that that's all factored
within the number of -- traffic lights, the stop and go's, the turn
lanes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It has to do with numbers, but there are
also criteria like traffic moves freely,traffic must stay in its lane
and goes down to 45 miles an hour. A lot of traffic slows down --
MR. CARLSON: Well, I decided never to come to this meeting
on 951 and Davis Boulevard again because you get to within
about a mile of the interstate and you stop, and all the traffic
coming off the interstate heading, I guess for Marco, just totally,
totally gridlocks that area right there, so -
CHAIRMAN HILL: Does any of the council or staff need a
short break before we
MR.; NINO: Did you ever go to work from the suburbs of 1--
downtown
sdowntown Detroit and -- work in downtown Detroit and come-.
from.the suburbs? You:know, people da it every day.
MR. COE: You know something? This ain't Detroit.
MR. NINO: . Or Atlanta, what have you. People do it every day.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Would anybody like a break, including the
court reporter? Let's take five minutes. We'll reconvene at
thirty-six.
(A recess was had)
MR. NINO: Susan Murray's going to get into the more detailed
day-to-day aspect of what we do in dealing with land use
petitions.
MS. MURRAY: Hi. I'm Susan Murray. I'm chief planner in the
Page 39
February 2, 2000
current planning section, and I'm going to talk about the site A`
development plan review process which would occur f°
post-zoning. So if you look on the overhead, I have a site
development plan review process highlighted in relationship to "`"
the development approval process. It's -- and that would occur
just prior to pulling building permits.
I'm going to speak in very general terms about the process. '
I'm not going to go into too much detail. I'm going to talk about
the various processes within the overall site development plan
process, so feel free to ask questions, stop me. Steve Lenberger
and Stan Chrzanowski, I invite them to jump in. You`may also
ask them questions relative to what they are charged with
reviewing through this process, so I had already invited them to
do that.
Basically, the site development plan process is an
administrative site plan review process to ensure compliance
with land development regulations prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and it's not applicable to all projects in Collier
County, but probably to a majority of them and that would be -
they would be applicable to commercial, industrial, multi family.
Single family residential and some minor improvements like to •
golf courses and things like that are not required to go through
the SDP process.
The SDP process does require engineering site plans. That
would be specifically a site plan showing generally the location
of the buildings, structures, parking area and traffic circulation,
utility location, storm water management, conservation areas, et`
cetera.
Some projects require signed and sealed architectural plans:
The county has an architectural ordinance which"applies to
commercial development and some industrial;development. And
also the site development plan process requires signed and
sealed landscape plans. •
The purpose of the site development plan process is
essentially to ensure that development complies with the °-°
fundamental planning and design principles, and that would be
consistency with the county's growth management plan, which
Page 40
February 2, 2000
us, as planners, are primarily charged with, and we basically
would look at consistency with the growth management plan and
compliance with the land development regulations.
We also have various team members that participate in the
site development plan review process and they would be looking
at other things, for example, like configuration of traffic
circulation system, the layout and arrangement of buildings in
open space. Other review agencies would look at things like
emergency access, architectural design in open spaces, the
availability and capacity of drainage and utilities, the overall
compatibility with adjacent development and the impacts on
natural resources and any environmental considerations.
I hope you can read this. You're gonna hear various terms
thrown around when you are reviewing land use petitions like
SDP, site development plan, site improvement plan, SDP
amendment process, so I thought I'd just throw up a slide that
shows -- gives an outline of the various processes. The first one
being the site development plan process, and again, I already
explained where it was applicable, and I just wanted to give you
an idea of how long it takes and how much it costs also.
The review time for a site development plan process is
generally ten to 20 working days, and I say that review time
being that that's generally the amount of time that county staff
has the plans in for review.
You also have to factor in time for revisions because often
there are various phases to the review, and I don't mean to say
phases, but I mean, for example, when somebody submits,a`plan,''
comments are received, but the applicant receives county staff
comments and subsequently has to make revisions to the plan,"
so they may have to resubmit.
MR. CORNELL: Susan?
MS. M U RRAY: Yes.
MR. CORNELL: At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I
love the overheads. Is it possible to get a copy of them?
MS. MURRAY: Sure, sure, no problem. So I just wanted to
clarify that, because the review time is generally the time that':
the staff has the plans in their office. There is a time frame in `
Page 41
February 2, 2000
which corrections and revisions need to be resubmitted and
re-reviewed by any applicable county staff.
We also have the site development plan amendment process,
and that would apply generally to any proposed change to a
previously approved site development plan. Generally our staff
takes five to ten working days to review a site development plan 1.
amendment and we also have what's called a site improvement
plan, and that generally applies to where a site is currently
improved and where there is no expansion of existing impervious
areas or effects to on-site surface water management treatment.
Site improvement plans we use a lot for some of the older
structures around the county that were never that are
established, but we do not have a record of a site improvement
plan, and then that generally takes five to ten working days.
An SDP amendment would generally be applicable to any
proposed change to a previously approved SDP, and we define
those amendments as substantial or insubstantial. A substantial
change would be any change which substantially affects the
existing transportation circulation, building or parking
arrangements, drainage, landscaping, or preserve and
conservation areas. And an insubstantial change would be all
others.
Just to give you an idea of the cost for a substantial -r
amendment, that costs the same as a new SDP, $425, plus $9Aperri,
dwelling unit, plus $21 per residential building structure, and
then you can read the rest for non-residential. Review time is
generally ten to 20 working days, so that gives you a little•bit of-
an idea of how much that costs.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Susan, excuse me for interrupting. Could
you back up to the previous overhead?
In one of the substantial amendments, you have preserve and
conservation areas. Can this be significant from an
environmental standpoint, and if so, would that come back to us?
MS. MURRAY: Yes, it could be - well -
MR. NINO: Steve, we have brought back some, haven't we? fe
MR. LENBERGER: Are you talking an insubstantial change to
an SDP? These generally involve - substantial change? I can
Page 42
February 2, 2000
•
think of no cases where the preserve areas were significantly
changed.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, what I'm saying is if they were,
preserve or conservation areas were one of the possible
changes, would that, in fact, come back to —
MR. LENBERGER: We would -- it would have to be drastically
different than what's on the zoning, the PUD, which the
Environmental Advisory Council had reviewed previously.
MS. MURRAY: Generally that -- that would probably trigger
some type of PUD amendment, which would then come back to
you in that form, if it was a PUD.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: Insubstantial amendments, $85, five to ten
working days. Pretty straightforward. Site improvement plan, I
already touched on that. It's applicable to a currently improved
site where there is no proposed expansion of impervious area or
changes or effects to on-site surface water management
treatment areas. That is for a cost of $85 and five to ten working
days for review time.
I wanted to give you a little overview of how the process`
works. It's an administrative process. The project review
section coordinates a review process. Site plans are submitted
by developers, by the developer's engineer primarily. They are'''
distributed to various county departments for review and
comment. The departments are basically reviewing the project
for compliance with county codes, regulations and permitting
requirements, as you know, and the comments are then returned'''"'
to the project review section and then are funneled back out to'',
the developer for correction to plans.
They are then resubmitted and re-reviewed by any applicable
agency. So they would not go back through the entire review 2
process if the engineering folks had a couple concerns which
rendered corrections, then they would be the only ones to review
the resubmittal, and the planner also.
When all the reviews are complete and the plans meet the;,`
county codes, provided that the applicant has met any of the '`"
code and permitting requirements, administrative approval is r
Page 43
February 2, 2000
given to the SDP, and once the SDP is approved, the developer
may begin applying for building permits. Once permits are
approved, the developer may begin construction, so that's kindlof
the tail end of the development review process, that being
applying for building permits, and that's kind of it in a nutshell. '-nt
That's a very brief overview.
If you have any specific questions, feel free, I'd be happy to 2
answer them. y
MR. NINO: Let me give you an example of where the kinds of Of
things that you guys are concerned about comes into this
process. For example, the native vegetation, the preservation
requirement, you know that every project needs to preserve 25
percent of their native vegetation. Steve and Barbara and - and
the environmental staff, they're charged with making sure that
that happens, and believe me, they are very vigilant in that
process and -
MR. MCVEY: Amen.
MR. NINO: And you know that, being on the receiving end,
and -- and similarly with the conservation areas, I mean, those
jurisdictional lines are hard and fast and they're certainly not
going to be varied in the site development plan process.
However, you get to the - one of the buildings that got a lot of 2
attention a few years ago, do you remember when Sports T4
Authority, they built on a beautifully wooded pine forest. They fY
knocked the trees down. They have a right to do that, you know. '4.
That's -- that's not going to change unless our rules change
dramatically in this county, and that's not - and I suggest tolyou'Iti
that that's not an environmental issue over which we have'any
authority to deal with, but that is was one of the things thatib
you know, kicked up a lot of heat. Nothing we could do abouttit,
and if we were to do anything about it, we'd need new rules.'.
Like I say, we work with rules. You give us the rules and we'll " "rA
enforce them.
I -- I hope that our discussion of how we do business has tiS
helped. If you think we need to do something more, keep
scheduling these kinds of meetings, we'd be happy to do so. II
MR. CORNELL: Thank you.
Page 44
•
•
February 2, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other questions for Mr. Nino or Miss
Murray?
MR. CARLSON: You know what I thought was important today
was Mr. Simonik coming in with that Martin County wetland
thing. I mean -- and you've got to wonder how many other
counties have grappled with all of these questions about how to
save stuff and do better and have better rules and how much
great stuff is out there that we could just look at and adapt and -
MR. NINO: No question.
*** CHAIRMAN HILL: Item 6(B), is that --
MR. LORENZ: Yes, your annual report. Well, actually, that's
the segue into your annual report, because what I presented
everybody at the break, I presented one little handout for you,
your enabling ordinance and the code that I've quoted requires
the EAC to present an annual report to the Board of County
Commissioners, and it's due in May of each year, and this report,
as noted here, wants to look at your achievement, so what you
have done for the -- for the past year, your objectives for the
^ coming year and any -- and highlight any environmental issues
that need further study.
So that's exactly the type of thing that -- that we talked about
today earlier, the gopher tortoise, possibly amendments for
protection of gopher tortoises. I know that in the past, there has
been discussion -- some of the projects that have come across
the EAC's review, they say, well, is this enough wetlands that
have been set aside, and as Ron says, staff presents to you a
recommendation based upon our existing rules, and if you, as a
body, as an advisory body to the Board of County Commissionersx• w
would like to see those rules change, these would be issues that,
as you come up with this annual report in May, that you could
identify and tell the Board of County Commissioners, we would y
like to study these particular issues. So this is your this is the-
opportunity
he opportunity here, in this annual report format, to obviously be .,
retrospective, but then to be prospective as well.
I've outlined a little bit of a timetable as a proposed timetable
for you to consider. This is your first annual report. Different'
advisory committees do it differently. Staff -- for some advisory •
Page 45
February 2, 2000
committees, staff simply develops the report and puts it into the
advisory committee, they sign off on it and it goes to the Board
of County Commissioners just as part of a written report.
It was envisioned -- the intent was for -- for this particular
advisory board, however, to make a presentation to the Board of
County Commissioners as part of the regular agenda, with the
chairman making a presentation of the report and then engage in
some dialogue with the County Commission for the County
Commission to say, yeah, you know, those are -- those are good
issues to work on or, well, maybe not these issues, but maybe
these issues.
That was part of the discussion process as the EAC's
ordinance was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
more than a year ago, so the question -- the alternative for the
advisory council is, staff would be certainly willing to take a shot
at providing the retrospective portion of the report, providing,
you know, some of the statistics and the information, but in
terms of what the objectives are, your objectives and what your
issues are, that needs to come from you.
Another alternative would simply be to have EAC here assign
a member to draft a report for the EAC's consideration for March
1st and that could be either taken on by the chairman or have --
have that be assigned, but -- but the point is obviously, you've got
-- you have to meet to discuss it as part of a regular EAC :u
meeting, even though we're talking about May, meeting once a
month, you need to start working on it fairly soon here.
MR. COE: It doesn't have to be real elaborate. We can just
get the information from them and do it.
CHAIRMAN HILL: You mentioned that you would be able to --
or be willing to supply the statistics of the events that have R
occurred in the last 12 months. That certainly would be part of'r
the report. Would that also then govern actions, in other words,
approvals, disapprovals, summary of of reasons and that type
of thing?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, we -- we do draft that for you and -- and
put that in your -- probably your agenda packet for you to review
on -- on March 1st, but as I said, the objectives for the coming
Page 46
February 2, 2000
year and the issues that you want to study, I think that needs to
come from you all.
CHAIRMAN HILL: What I'd like to suggest then, if staff will do
that for us, if the council members would come to our March 1st
meeting with items for inclusion for adoption in our report for
activities in the future, why then, we can put that together at the
March 1st meeting.
MR. COE: Can we get another e-mail --
CHAIRMAN HILL: And at the same time, if you would -- if staff
would get to us a history of the past year?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, that would be -- that would be in your
packet for March 1st.
MR. COE: Can we get another e-mail and telephone list made
up? Because I know like my e-mail's changed.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I just got everybody's e-mail at the
break and I told Kim that I would give them a copy so we can
e-mail each of you the new e-mail and telephone list of
everybody.
MR. COE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Be as specific, but not
necessarily great detail, but if you come to the March 1st
meeting with -- and Mr. Baxter, I would hope that maybe as a
newcomer, you have some fresh ideas of where we should be
going, so please let us know what you have in mind as far as
EAC's future.
MR. BAXTER: I will.
CHAIRMAN HILL: And if you remember, I handed out a couple
months ago, and we never got around to it, what I called the EAC
horizon. There were a lot of things on there. You might revisit
that and see if any of them are worth considering. If you don't
have a copy of that, I'll get you one, but it was based on a list of
responsibilities and the enabling legislation and it's -- a whole
potpourri of things we're supposed to be doing.
MR. SMITH: Would you mind e-mailing that to me?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, sure. Thank you, staff, and
everybody for your participation today.
Are there any comments from the council?
Page 47
February 2, 2000
Remind you five p.m. on the 8th, growth management
sub-committee. Mr. Lorenz, you'll let us know -- probably one of
the conference rooms there, so you'll confirm that indeed we can
meet there?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Would you also, when you -- Stan, when you
give us the e-mail addresses, I think in that table we had before,
we also had the terms -- term limits.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, Kim has a copy of that. Yes, we
did.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. And I think --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We'll just update everything, the e-mail,
the telephone, the term.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah. Any comments? Public? Eric?
I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.
MR. CORNELL: Move we adjourn.
MR. COE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Any objections?
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:00 a.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
WILLIAM W. HILL, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY HEATHER L. CASASSA, NOTARY
PUBLIC
Page 48
F , l
•
Item IV.A.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF MARCH I.2000
L NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-29
Petition Name: Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD
Applicant/Developer: Raymond James Smela
Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.
Environmental Consultant: Turrell&Associates, Inc.
H. LOCATION:
• The subject property is an undeveloped 101.15 acre parcel located on the east side
of Silver Lakes RV Resort and Pelican Lake RV Resort, immediately north of
Fiddler's Creek in Section 11, 14 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. Access to the property is from County Road 951 via an
easement between the two adjoining RV parks.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Surrounding properties include a mixture of developed and undeveloped
properties with the following zoning classifications.
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N- Agricultural Undeveloped
MH.GH(Quails Roost MHP) Developed
S- PUD(Fiddler's Creek) Partially Developed
E - Agricultural Undeveloped
W- Estates Undeveloped
PUD(Silver Lakes) Mostly Developed
RSF-1 Proposed Access
Road for project
PUD(Pelican Lake) Developed
c EAC Meeting March 1,2000
PUD-99-29
Page 2 of 6
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests to rezone the property in question to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum of 300 recreational vehicle units
and/or resort homes for a density of 2.97 units per acre. This PUD will also
provide accessory facilities such as pools, fitness facilities, tennis courts, and
clubhouse and community buildings. There is also a proposed convenience store
open only to the property owners and guests with an area no larger than 15,000
square feet. Approximately 39 acres of the site will be devoted to open space,
preserve and lakes. The preserve area will allow boardwalks, landscape buffers,
nature trails and shelters.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
This property is located within the Urban Residential Mixed Use designated area
on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan, specifically the
property is located in the Urban Coastal Fringe area. Areas within the Urban
Coastal Fringe area are eligible for rezonings to a maximum of 4 dwelling units
per acre. The property in question is located within the Traffic Congestion Area;
therefore, one unit per gross acre is deducted from the base density of 4 dwelling
units per acre. According to the growth Management Plan,this property is eligible
to 3 dwelling units per acre. The requested density on this property is 2.97
dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the Code requirements. The
Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan states recreational
vehicle parks are allowed within the Urban Designated areas at a density
consistent with the LDC,provided the site has direct access to a road classified as
an arterial and the use will be compatible with surrounding uses. These criteria
are met; therefore, this project is consistent with the requirements of the Growth
Management Plan.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Water Management:
Champion Lakes will be permitted by the South Florida Water Management
District because of its size and the impact to wetlands. However, since the
project is within the limits of the Deltona Settlement Agreement, the engineering
stipulations set forth in that agreement will govern how the project is developed.
The water management system consists of two lakes which accept runoff from the
site and provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. The lakes
•
EAC Meeting March 1,2000
PUD-99-29
Page 3 of 6
serve two separate basins, one of which discharges into an easement and the other
into the preserve.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The subject property is vegetated with a mixture of wetland and upland habitats.
Vegetative communities on site include hydric and non-hydric pine flatwoods,
cypress/pine, palmetto prairie, maidencane/cattail marsh, wet prairie, Brazilian
pepper/mixed hardwoods and Brazilian pepper/wax myrtle/willow.
Seasonal high water elevations in the wetland areas were determined by using
water and lichen lines on various trees. These levels varied between 0 and 6
inches above ground level. These levels were surveyed at the time of the
jurisdictional wetland survey and varied from 3.6 feet NGVD to 4.0 feet NGVD.
Four soil types occur on the subject property as mapped by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). These include Malabar fine sand (Unit 3),
Oldsmar fine sand (Unit 16), Holopaw fine sand (27) and Urban land (Unit 32).
Two of the soil types found on site, Malabar fine sand(Unit 3) and Holopaw fine
sand(27), are listed as hydric soils by the NRCS. A map showing the locations of
the soils on site, along with descriptions of each soils type are included as
attachments in the environmental impact statement(EIS).
Wetlands:
Jurisdictional wetlands total 64 percent (64.26 acres) of the 101.15 acre project
site. These consist of 31.62 acres of pine/cypress mixed forest, 20.89 acres of
hydric pine flatwoods, 4.80 acres of mixed wetland hardwoods, 1.35 acres of
maidencane/cattail marsh, 2.20 acres of wet prairie, and 2.14 acres of Melaleuca.
A brief summary of the major flora within these wetland areas is found on page
six of the EIS.
Approximately 57.30 acres (89%) of the on-site wetlands will be impacted and
lost through the proposed development of the property. The remaining 11% of the
wetlands will be enhanced through removal of the exotic vegetation (mainly
downy rose-myrtle and Melaleuca). The hydroperiod will be maintained by an on-
site control elevation of 3.0 feet NGVD that will contribute flows into the
wetland. The hydric pine flatwoods community requires seasonal saturation of the
soil with periodic inundation and the control elevation of the project should serve
to provide the hydrology necessary to support the preserve wetlands. The
connection of this wetland to the adjacent off-site wetland system will not be
affected.
EAC Meeting March 1,2000
PUD-99-29
Page 4 of 6
Non jurisdictional areas total approximately 36.89 acres. These areas include
23.31 acres of abandoned farm fields that are now a Brazilian pepper/wax
myrtle/willow thicket, 4.83 acres of pine flatwoods, and 5.21 acres of palmetto
prairie. A brief summary of the major flora within each of these vegetative
communities is found on page nine of the EIS.
Preservation Requirements:
The subject property is identified as a "proposed construction area" in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for the
Deltona Corporation and as a "residential/mixed use" area in the Stipulation for
Dismissal and Settlement Agreement for the Deltona Corporation. Since the
County is a signatory to the Settlement Agreement and because preservation lands
have already been set aside pursuant to the Agreement, no additional preservation
is required by the County for this project.
According to the site plan, 87.76 acres (87%) of the 101.15 acres on site will be
cleared or topographically modified in some manner. Approximately 13.39 acres
(13%)of the site will remain in preserve and buffer areas.
Listed Species:
A threatened and endangered species survey was conducted according to Florida
Fish& Wildlife Conservation Commission guidelines. The survey was conducted
over a 15 day period from July 15th to July 30th of 1999 with a total of 36 hours
spent on site, evenly divided between early morning (6:OOam-10:OOam), midday
(10:OOam-2:OOpm) and evening (4:OOpm-8:OOpm) sessions. There were no
observations of any threatened or endangered species during the survey, however,
several protected wading birds were observed foraging along the perimeter canals
and one small American alligator was seen in the canal just north of the project.
Wading birds seen along the canals included white ibis (Eudocimus albus), wood
stork (Mycteria americana), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) and snowy egret
(Egretta thula). No other listed wildlife species were observed on or adjacent to
the subject property.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-29
"Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD"with the following stipulations:
EAC Meeting March 1, 2000
PUD-99-29
Page 5 of 6
Water Management:
1. Prior to submittal of any final construction drawings, the developer's
engineer will submit, for approval, proof that the proposed offsite discharge
route can legally and physically accept the design runoff from the site.
2. Prior to Site Development Plan approval, the developer shall obtain a South
Florida Water Management District permit for the site.
Environmental:
No additional stipulations.
PREPARED BY:
if)777
/) ?cr-25
STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE
SENIOR ENGINEER
STEPHEN LENBERGER DA 1'E
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II
REVIEWED BY:
ag/�"CO h^ \ZICt , G1,:a tom-, 2/ ! ) / 2 east,
CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN,Ph.D.,AICP DATE
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
EAC Meeting March 1,2000
PUD-99-29
Page 6 of 6
P D eft '
THOMAS E. KUCK,P.E.
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
ca • 11. op
RON A D F. NIN , A DATE
CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
'OB T J. MULHERE,AICP DATE
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR
APPROVED BY:
4111
02-/i/--vt6
VINCENT A. CAUTERO,AICP DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR
SL/gdh/c:ChampionLakesStaffReport
•
Annual Report
Environmental Advisory Council
Prepared according to the requirements of the
Collier County Land Development Code
Section 5.13.2.3(14)
May 2000
EAC Annual Report March 1999 through April 2000 D-R-A-F-T(2/4/00)
II
Introduction and Purpose
In January 1999, the County Commission consolidated the functions of the
Environmental Advisory Board and the Environmental Policy and Technical Advisory
Board into one advisory board, the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). The EAC
acts in an advisory capacity to the County Commission in matters dealing with the
regulation, control, management, use or exploitation of any or all natural resources of or
within the county and the review and evaluation of specific zoning and development
petitions and their impact on those resources. See Exhibit A for the EAC's enabling
legislation and specific powers and duties.
The County Commission subsequently appointed the required nine members to the EAC.
n The primary consideration for membership is to provide the County Commission with
technical expertise and other viewpoints that are necessary to accomplish the EAC's
purpose. The current membership of the EAC is provided in Exhibit B.
One of the duties of the EAC is to provide an annual report to the County Commission in
May of each year. The EAC shall list its achievements for the prior year, present its
objectives for the coming year and highlight environmental issues that need further study.
This report has been written to fulfill the EAC's annual reporting requirements and
covers the period from April 1999 through March 2000.
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
` �iii ?"1 forward this report to the County Commission.
Page-2-
• EAC Annual Report March 1999 through April 2000 D-R-A-F-T(2/4/00)
Prior Year Achievements
Land Use Petitions
The following petitions were presented to the EAC from May 1999 through the January
2000 meeting.
PUD's 18 presented 18 approved
Excavation 1 presented 1 approved
SDP 1 presented 1 approved
CU's 5 presented 2 approved
ST 1 presented 0 approved
The 4 applications that were denied by the EAC were:
1. CU-99-17 "Section 25 Conditional Use" for a 36 hole Golf Course
2. CU-99-8 "Sabal Palm Golf Course"
3. CU-99-27 "Little Palm Island"
4. ST-99-3 "Little Palm Island"
Growth Management Plan
The EAC provided the County Commission with several recommendations for the
County's Growth Management Plan:
1. On August 24, 1999, the EAC Growth Management Subcommittee conducted a
workshop to receive public input on the boundaries of Natural Resource Protection
Areas (NRPAs) required by the Final Order from the Governor and Cabinet.
2. On September 1, 1999, the full EAC received public input and provided the County
Commission with recommended boundaries for NRPAs.
3. On November 3, 1999, the EAC reviewed staff's proposal for the Remedial
Amendments and recommended their adoption to the County Commission.
The EAC's Growth Management Subcommittee has been reviewing work products
generated by staff and other advisory committees to complete the Agricultural and Rural
Assessment required by the Final Order.
Page-3 -
EAC Annual Report March 1999 through April 2000 D-R-A-F-T(2/4/00)
Future Objectives and Issues
A part of the EAC's function is to provide written and oral reports to the County
Commission regarding recommendations on matters dealing with the protection of
natural resources.
The EAC recommends that the following objectives be accomplished for the coming
year:
[List to be provided by the EAC at their 3/1/00 meeting]
The EAC also recommends that the following environmental issues be studied:
[List to be provided by the EAC at their 3/1/00 meeting]
Page-4-
• EAC Annual Report March 1999 through April 2000 D-R-A-F-T(2/4/00)
Exhibit A
Division 5.13. Environmental Advisory Council
Land Development Code
Page-5-
� I
EAC Annual Report March 1999 through April 2000 D-R-A-F-T(2/4/00)
Exhibit B.
Current Membership List
Page-6-
� I
_ 101711I
. - •. Memorandum
6n+,41s
ivo.
rI-',til
To: Timothy J. Constantine,Vice Chairman G4y SUUA7i
Board of County Commissioners
2/2hvac, ,ffk7,444
From: Robert F. Fernandez, County Administrator
Date: September 20, 1999
Subject: City of Sanibel Gopher Tortoise Protection Program
The City of Sanibel's Comprehensive Land Use Plan does provide for the protection of the
gopher tortoise and its habitat. Policy statement "5.6" of the Plan reads as follows:
"Protect the habitat of gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snakes, eagles, ospreys, loggerhead
turtles, alligators,pileated woodpeckers and river otters by continued implementation of
the development standards and performance standards established in the Land
Development Code."
The City also provides developers with an "attachments checklist" which is required to be
completed as part of a development permit application. There are two items on this
checklist which specifically relate to gopher tortoise protection:
1) Wildlife Habitat Identification and Plan for Pres::ration
"Identification and location of wildlife habitats of gopher tortoises, eastern indigo
snakes, eagles, ospreys, loggerhead turtles, alligators, pileated woodpeckers, and river
otters on the lot or parcel to be developed,to be verified through a field inspection by
• the City. In the case of the development of a single-family dwelling, the City, upon
request of the owner,shall conduct the field inspection; and a plan to preserve a
portion of any existing indigenous wildlife habitat or to provide evidence of additional
sanctuary area on or off the property to mitigate unavoidable destruction. Such plan,
sanctuary, or mitigation is to be at the applicant's expense."
(NOTE: Sanibel's Natural Resource Director advises that the wording "upon request of
the owner" as cited above is somewhat misleading. The City does, in fact,conduct the field
inspection through its volunteer Vegetation Committee.)
•
iZ 2) Gopher Tortoise Protection
"Verification that gopher tortoises have been protected on the site or have been
removed from the proposed area of construction by
according to a plan approved by the city." a city authorized handler
The aforementioned Volunteer Vegetation Committee performs a field inspection of each
and every site proposed for development. They are charged with the responsibility of
conducting a site inventory of native vegetation to be disturbed and providing protective
recommendations for wildlife and its habitat. One of this committee's duties during the
field inspection is to search for gopher tortoise habitat. If habitat is identified,then that lot
is "flagged" by the Committee.
The owner is then required to provide for a plan for protection of the tortoise(s) and its
habitat. The preferred alternative is to have the tortoise relocated "on-site" in the general
vicinity of where it was found. If this alternative is not feasible because of the surrounding
environment,then the tortoise is relocated to any of a number of"conservation lands" that
the City has set aside on the island for species protection.
Comparatively, Collier County also provides protections for gopher tortoises. The
difference lies in when that protection occurs.
For example,when a new subdivision is platted and approved,the entire development site
is reviewed for the existence of gopher tortoise habitat. Those tortoises that are found must
be relocated on site,whenever possible. There are requirements for large-scale residential
developments that 25 percent of the site must be preserved in its natural state. Tortoises
would need to be relocated to the area that has been designated for preservation.
This differs from Sanibel's review process in that the County does not then subsequently
review each individual building site within that subdivision for the existence of tortoise
habitat as they are permitted. The initial "subdivision-wide" site review is the occasion
when County staff addresses the issue.
• cc: Board of County Commissioners
RFF/fec
nffiro of filet 1^n,o.,ti,
U." c.* \ck r L1tG. • cunt i-a,yw IJ'ev,
e
•
CITY OF SANIBEL
ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 08
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF
SANIBEL, PERTAINING TO BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEMS, BEACHFRONT LIGHTING
AND MARINE TURTLE PROTECTION IN THE CITY OF SANIBEL TO IMPLEMENT
THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH AND SHORE PRESERVATION ACT OF 1995, AS
AMENDED BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE IN 1996; STATING THE PURPOSE AND
INTENT; AMENDING SUBSECTION I .B.2 .c. TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR
"ALONGSHORE", "BEACH", "DUNE", "FRONTAL DUNE", "PRIMARY DUNE",
"DUNE VEGETATION" AND "LINE OF PERMANENT VEGETATION"; AMENDING
SECTION I .E. 14 . , GENERAL OUTDOOR LIGHTING AND LIGHTING FOR MARINE
TURTLE PROTECTION, TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR "ARTIFICIAL LIGHT OR
ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING", "BUG TYPE BULB", "CUMULATIVELY ILLUMINATED",
"DIRECTLY ILLUMINATED", "INDIRECTLY ILLUMINATED", "GROUND-LEVEL
BARRIER", "HATCHLING", "MARINE TURTLE", "NEST", "MARINE TURTLE
NESTING SEASON", "POINT SOURCE OF LIGHT", AND "TINTED GLASS" ; TO
ADD BEACHFRONT LIGHTING REGULATIONS AND TO AMEND CURRENT
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Land Development Code to
implement the goals, objectives and limitations of the Sanibel
Plan; and
WHEREAS, a procedure has been established to revise and amend
regulations in the Land Development Code in a manner consistent
with the Sanibel Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to make such
revisions to the Land Development Code, as contained in this
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings for
such revisions have been properly given and held; and
•
WHEREAS, such revisions have been referred to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation as to the consistency of such
revisions with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
has established guidelines for the creation of local government
regulations that control beachfront lighting to protect hatching
and nesting marine turtles; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sanibel desires to implement regulations
to protect marine sea turtles from the adverse effects of
beachfront lighting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Sanibel, Lee County, Florida:
Section 1 . Purpose and Intent.
It is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to protect
nesting and hatchling marine turtles from the adverse effects of
artificial lighting, improve nesting habitat, and increase nesting
activity and the production of hatchlings .
Section 2 . Subsection I .B. 2 .c. of the Land Development Code
of the City of Sanibel is hereby amended by the addition of the
following new definitions, as follows :
Section I .3.2 . Definitions .
c. Throughout this land development code, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings indicated unless the text
2
of the article or section in which used clearly indicates
otherwise:
Alongshore. Directional reference meaning along or
approximately parallel to the shoreline; alternatively, shore-
parallel, or longshore. (Ref. 62B-33 . 002 F.A.C. )
Beach. The zone of unconsolidated material that extends
landward from the mean low water line to the place where there is
marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of
permanent vegetation, usually the effective limit of storm waves .
Unless otherwise specified, the seaward limit of a beach is the
mean low water line . Beach is alternatively termed the "shore" .
(Ref. 161 . 54, Fla. Stats. , 62B-33 .002 F.A.C. )
Dune. A mound, bluff or ridge of loose sediment, usually
sand-sized sediment, lying upland of the beach and deposited by any
natural or artificial mechanism, which may be bare or covered with
vegetation, and is subject to fluctuations in configuration and
location (Ref. 161 . 54, Fla. Stats . , 62B-33 . 002 F.A.C. ) . It
encompasses those ecological zones characterized by the presence of
dune vegetation, or suitable for dune vegetation. As to areas
restored or renourished pursuant to a permit issued by the city or
state, it encompasses the area specified in the permit as a dune or
any area specified as suitable for establishment of dune
vegetation. In the absence of a discernible dune structure, the
3
,1CCIT1C2.S iN EXT INDICATED BY UNDERLINE; DELETIONS tlT STRIKEOUTS
seaward boundary of a dune will be deemed to be the line of
permanent vegetation.
(1) Frontal dune. The first natural or manmade mound or
bluff of sand which is located landward of the beach.
(2) Primary dune. A significant dune which has sufficient
alongshore continuity to offer protective value to upland property.
It may be separated from the frontal dune by an interdunal trough;
however, the primary dune may be considered the frontal dune if
located immediately landward of the beach.
Dune vegetation, or common native dune vegetation. Vegetation
which, if left undisturbed by manmade forces, is typically to be
found on a dune. A list containing examples of common native dune
vegetation is part of the city vegetation standards, adopted
pursuant to Section I .E. 19. of the Land Development Code and kept
on file with the city manager.
Line of permanent vegetation. The location closest to the
shore containing, or suitable for, dune vegetation. If there is no
such vegetation upon a parcel or portion of a parcel, it shall
encompass a line alongshore projected from the closest areas on
each side where such vegetation does exist .
Section 3 . Section I .E. 14 . of the Land Development Code of
the City of Sanibel is hereby amended to read as follows :
Section I .E. 14 . General Outdoor Lighting and Lighting for
Marine Turtle Protection.
4
W.( INMATE() BY UNDERLINE; CELETIONS BY STRIKEOUTS
a.
Definitions. For
definitions shall ur.oses of this
Artificial a 1 s section, the followin.
czal 11•ht
or artificial 1i.htin.
!� „Bu. ►► a human-made device, The li.ht
t bulb. An
eliow colored Dred
attract . treated in such a wa 1i•ht bulb that is
(-3� CumUlat . n of bu s to the li ht• so as to reduce the
z vel
illuminated.
11 um.i
artificial li•ht s Hated. Illuminated
onion of the sources that as a 'rout) b numerous .
Dir beach, Q illumin e
ectl a t an
illuminated.
i11uminated. Illuminated as a result of
artificial li.ht .lobe (s) , or reflector(
eflecto •lowin.
on the beach, source which is visible to rls) of an
(5) Indirectlilluminated.
an observer
111 um,i
na ted.
Ii.ht source which is Illuminated as a resultbeach, visible °f a
to
(6) nd- butwhich results in ill e an observer on the
Ground-level
roU lev
e1 barrier. � amination
artificial st ve etation, of the beach,
ructure natural'round
•reVents beachfront I resin. from the •ro feature or
the beach-dune s i.htin. from shinin. and which
Xatchlin. , stem, directs onto
An s•ecies of marine turtle, within or
outside of
a nest, that has reCentl
hatched from an e..
S
•�6,I1...•.4 .n ;LAI ;r.;,iCaliO 81 UYCFP.UtiE; DELETIONS Br STa,!x:CUT$
(8) Marine turtle. Any marine-dwelling reptile of the
families Cheloniidae or Dermochelyidae found in Florida
waters or using the beach as nesting habitat, including
the species : Caretta caretta (loggerhead) , Chelonia
mydas (green) , Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback) ,
Eretmochelys imbricata (hawksbill) , and Lepidochelys
kempi (Kemp' s ridley) .
(9) Nest. An area where marine turtle eggs have been
naturally deposited or subsequently relocated.
(10) Marine turtle nesting season. The period from May 1
through October 31 of each year.
(11) Point source of light. Man-made bulb, lamp or other
device that directly radiates visible light.
(12) Tinted glass. Any glass treated to achieve an industry-
approved, inside-to-outside light transmittance value of
forty-five (45) percent or less . Such transmittance is
limited to the visible spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers)
and is measured as the percentage of light that is
transmitted through the glass .
b. Outdoor lighting generally. All outdoor lighting shall
be installed in such a manner and be so shielded that the cone of
light shall fall, substantially, within the perimeter of the
property, and where applicable, landward of the Coastal
Construction Control Line. Through the use of shielding and
r-�
6
TEXI 1NCICATED 8Y UNDERLINE; DELETIONS ST STRIKEOUTS
limitation upon intensity, ambient light traveling outward and
upward, producing a sky glow, shall be reduced to the
extent possible without unduly greatest
interfering with the intent and
purpose of the outside lighting in the first instance.
c. Beach walkover li htiti.
The lighting of beach walkovers is permitted seaward of the
Coastal Construction Control Line but only mushroom-type light
fixtures, which direct the light downward, shall beg t
permitted.
Such lighting shall also meet the following requirements :
e-=-(1) Such fixtures shall be installed at least twenty-five
(25) feet apart and not more than one (1) foot above the
surface of the walkover.
--(2) Illumination shall be limited to 25 watts through the use
/-• of a 1
-- "bug" type bulb.
d. Beachfront Li htin Marine Turtle Protection.
(1) Newl installed artificial li•htin. sources . Newl
installed artificial li.ht sources shall com.l with the foilowin.
conditions :
(a) Artificial li.ht fixtures shall be desi•ned and
positioned so that•
i • The •oint source of li.ht or an reflective surface
of the li.ht fixture is not directl visible from
the beach;
s-�
7
ire (EXT INCICAT;D BY UNDERLINE: OFCETIORS QT S'QIMFr'fITS
ii . Areas seaward of a
frontal, or •rimar dune are not
directl indirectl
or cumulative) illuminated.
(b) Exterior artificial li•ht fixtures within
direct line of
si•ht of the beach shall be complete)
downli•ht-onl fixtures, shielded
or recessed fixtures havin• low
watta•e, i . e. , 25
watts or less, with "bus " tre bulbs
and non-reflective interior surfaces . Other f•
that have fixtures
a••ro•riate shields
louvers, or cut-off
features ma also be used if
the are in compliance with
subsections
(a) i . and ii .
(c) Floodli•hts, u•li•hts, or sootli•hts that
are directl
visible from the
beach,
or which indirectl or
cumulative) illuminate the beach
shall not be used.
(d) Onl low-intensit li•htin• shall be
used in •arkin•
areas within line of si•ht of the beach. Such li•
shall be : htin•
1• Set on a base which
raises the source of light no
hi her than 48 inches off the round; and
ii . Positioned or
shielded so that the li•ht is cast
downward and the source of li•ht or an refle
• surface of cove
the li•ht fixture is not visible from
the beach and does not
directl indirectl or
cumulative) illuminate
the beach.
8
fEXT I(C:GATED BY UNDERLINE; DELETIONS BY STRIKEOUTS
. I
(e) Parkin,
areas and roadwa
s, includin• an •aved
un.aved areas u•on which motorized vehicle or
o•erate, s will "ark or
shall be desi•ned
and located to •revent
vehicular headli•hts from directl
illunlinatin °r indirectl
the beach.
(f) Vehicular li•htin.
li•htin. the•arkin• area li•htin. , and roa
shall be shielded fromdwa
beach throu.h the use
of 'round-level barriers. Ground-level barriers must not
interfere with
marine turtle nestin• or hatchlin.
emer•ence, or
cause short- or lon•-term dama•e to the
beach/dune s stem.
Tinted •lass shall be installed
on all windows and 'lass
doors of sin•le- or multi-stor
,-• structures within line of
sight of the beach
Existin artificial
li htin sources .
Existin• artificial
li•htin• sources shall, within sixt
da s after ado•tion of this ordi (60)
ordinance, comDl with all of the
followin standards
(a) Existin• artificial li•ht fixtures shall be reaositioned,
modified, or removed so that:
•
i . The •oint source of
li•ht or an reflective surface
of the li•ht fixture is not directl visible
the beach. and from
9
IEXI tNC1CATED BY UNDERLINE: DEETI(+NS !f7 STPrI(E'+IITS
I
ii . Areas seaward of a frontal or primary dune are not
directly, indirectly, or cumulatively illuminated.
(b) The negative effects of existing exterior artificial
lighting shall be eliminated by taking such of the
following measures as may be applicable :
i . Repositioning fixtures so that the point source of
light or any reflective surface of the light
fixture is no longer visible from the beach;
ii . Replacing fixtures having an exposed light source
with fixtures containing recessed light sources or
shields;
iii . Replacing traditional light bulbs with yellow "bug"
type bulbs not exceeding 25 watts;
iv. Replacing non-directional fixtures with directional
fixtures that point down and away from the beach;
v. Replacing • fixtures having transparent or
translucent coverings with fixtures having opaque
shields covering an arc of at least 180 degrees and
extending an appropriate distance below the bottom
edge of the fixture on the seaward side so that the
light source or any reflective surface of the light
fixture is not visible from the beach.
vi . Replacing pole lamps with low-profile, low-level
luminaries so that the light source or any
10
:N TEXT INDICATED BY UNDERLINE; DELETIONS BT STRIKECUTS
reflective surface of the light fixture is not
visible from the beach;
vii . Replacing incandescent, fluorescent, and high
intensity lighting with the lowest wattage low
pressure sodium vapor lighting possible for the
specific application;
viii . Planting or improving vegetation buffers between
the light source and the beach to screen light from
the beach;
ix. Permanently removing or temporarily disabling any
fixture which cannot be brought into compliance
with the provisions of these standards during the
nesting season.
(c) The negative effects of existing interior lighting
emanating from doors and windows within line of sight of
the beach shall be eliminated by taking such of the
following' measures as may be applicable :
(1) applying window tint or film which meets the
transmittance values for "tinted glass" as defined
in this section;
(2) rearranging lamps and other moveable fixtures away
from windows;
11
�•�� : �:. ,n rix( :NUCAIED BY UNDERLINE; DELETIONS 13T STRIM.:2UTS
(3) using window treatments, such as blinds and
curtains, to shield interior lights from the beach;
and
(4) turning off unnecessary lights.
(d) For purposes of this section, the replacement or
alteration of a non-conforming, artificial lighting
structure, for the purpose of bringing such a structure
into compliance with this section, shall be deemed a
repair for purposes of Part J. (Nonconforming Lots,
Structures and Uses) of the Sanibel Land Development
Code.
(3) Any person may submit an alternative lighting plan as
long as it demonstrates that the point source of light or any
^ reflective surface is not directly visible from the beach and that
areas seaward of the frontal, or primary, dune are not directly,
indirectly or cumulatively illuminated.
Section 4 . Violations; Enforcement.
A violation of this ordinance shall constitute a violation of
this Land Development Code and shall subject the violator to the
penalties set forth in Article III, Part L of this Land Development
Code and to the enforcement provisions set forth in Article III,
Part N of this Land Development Code.
Section 5 . Codification.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to cause
the amendment approved herein to be incorporated into the adopted
Land Development Code .
12
AGUi MAS ah [EV INCICATED BY UNDERLINE; DELEr10n5 SY STP'KrPC'S
Section 6. Conflict.
All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
shall be and the same are hereby repealed. If any part of this
ordinance conflicts with any other part, it shall be severed and
the remainder shall have full force and effect and be liberally
construed.
Section 7 . Severance.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance, or application hereof, is, for any
reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion or application shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion or application
'-` hereof.
Section 8 . Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
DULY PASSED AND ENACTED by the Council of the City of Sanibel,
Lee County, Florida this 6th day of
Mav 1997 .
AUTHENTICATION:
7
if
• 1
Mayor -/
j y Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: , C-‘ t" ' �+ ^,,, c,1 ,? C' -,
City Attorne // / e
Date
13
April 15, 1997
First Reading
April 25, 1997
Publication Date
May 6, 1997 Second Reading
Vote of Councilmembers :
Davison Ave
Janes Aye
Kain Aye
Madison Aye
- Reding Aye
MAY 7 1997
Date filed with City Clerk:
OROCA733.ORDS10
14
t.b
k
yr y
v'41
Memorandum
To: James D. Carter, Commissioner District 2
From: Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, Administrator
Date: December 10, 1999
Subject: Gopher Tortoises
In your November 23, 1999 E-mail to Bill Lorenz you asked him to advise you on the plan for
saving gopher tortoises (GTs) in the Bay Forest area and the status of the County's effort in
duplicating the Sanibel Island Ordinance for tortoise protection. Your request stemmed from the
attached E-mail from rbrownell@worldnet.att.net.
Bay Forest PUD
The most recently developed SDP at Bay Forest(Bermuda Bay) had GTs on site. The tortoises
were relocated into a preserve at the rear(west side) of the parcel, as required by our site review
process. The SDP stipulated that all tortoises be relocated prior to any site improvements and
that the fencing erected at the edge of the preserve remain in place until the completion of the
site work. The last parcel on the west side of the PUD is currently in for SDP review. Bermuda
Bay II is the petition name. We have it on hold to make sure all the GT issues are resolved. We
have calls in to FFWCC to discuss the proposed relocation.
DuplicatinE Sanibel's Ordinance
Neither Community Development and Environmental Services staff nor the County Attorney's
Office are working on amending our LDC to duplicate Sanibel's Ordinance. Sanibel has a level
of review of GTs on single family home lots that Collier County does not have.
Existing County Process
GTs are listed by the state as a Species of Special Concern(as opposed to Endangered or
Threatened). Policy 7.3.5 of the County's Conservation and Coastal Management Element
provides the following:
The County's policy is to protect GT burrows wherever they are found. It is recognized,however,that
there will be unavoidable conflicts which will require relocation of burrows. The suitability of alternate
sites should be evaluated as to:
Community Development& Environmental Services Division
Memorandum
December 10, 1999
Page 2
a. physical suitability of the site,
b. long term protection,
c. conflicts with other management objectives for the land,and
d. costs of relocation.
Although the County's LDC does not specifically mention GTs, Section 3.11.3.1 does state that
"plans shall be submitted for review and subject to approval by the Project Review Services
Department of the Development Services Division, for the management of habitat and wildlife,
including measures for protection and/or relocation of species of special status. Such
plans shall comply with current federal, state and local policies". Section 3.11.3.4 also provides
that"all protection plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Project Review Services
section of the Development Services Department. The county may consider and utilize
recommendations and letters of technical assistance of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, and recommendations and guidelines of the USFWS, in issuing development
orders on property containing wildlife species of special status".
Whenever GTs are found on a piece of property which is being reviewed for site development,
we require the following:
1. GT survey identifying the locations, numbers and status of the burrows.
2. A relocation/management plan for the protection and survival of the tortoises.
3. All state permits for relocating tortoises shall be obtained prior to any site work or handling
of tortoises.
4. GT relocation(and feeding if needed) and maintenance of the preserve area until completion
of work.
There are a couple of examples where we would not review for GTs on property. One is where a
subdivision was approved a long time ago and now the lots are coming in for single family
building permits. We do not do environmental reviews for a standard single family building
permit (except when there is another mechanism to get involved such as an ST overlay). The
best example of this is Golden Gate Estates. Another example would be if an applicant applies
for a building permit on a parcel of land that was never rezoned or subdivided and is now
interested in putting one home on the site. We would not see this application.
Current Problems
A few things have changed over the past 5 years or so. The first is that the State stopped issuing
letters of technical assistance to Counties because of a staffing issue that made these reviews too
cumbersome on their workload. Around the same time, the State started issuing Incidental Take
Permits which allows a developer to pay for impacting the GT habitat. This allows a developer
to bury both inactive and active burrows.
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Memorandum
December 10, 1999
Page 3
Before the State started issuing Incidental Take permits, our environmental staff would request
letters of technical assistance for the protection of GTs on projects that were under review. The
State would provide us with guidelines for the appropriate amount of habitat needed to ensure
the survivability of the tortoises on that parcel. We tried to make our own calls on the minimum
habitat needed for the tortoises, but were often challenged and required to accept what was
provided. The native vegetation preservation requirement in the LDC usually allows some
uplands to be set aside on larger parcels to which tortoises can be relocated.
However, there have been cases, some recently, where the County has approved the relocation of
GTs into small fenced-in pens and upon completion of construction, would not provide enough
adequate habitat on site for all the tortoises. Movement of GTs off-site to adjacent parcels would
be expected. A recent example would be Glen Eden on the Bay. They preserved more than the
required 25%on site, almost all of which was wetlands. Since an Incidental Take Permit from
the state does not require a developer to relocate tortoises off-sitedevelopers are usually not
willing to pay the additional cost of off-site relocation. We cannot also require off site
relocation. We try to convince the applicant they should do more for the tortoise population, but
that rarely works.
Opportunities for Improvement
Our current preservation requirement (the 25% rule) does not allow staff to require what 25%
must be preserved; this is left up to the developer. Indeed, if more than 25% of the native habitat
is wetland, then the preserved area will probably be wetland, which is not GT habitat.
The County's strategic goal for gopher tortoises should be to preserve viable GT populations
where they are found. Preserving many small sustainable populations helps to ensure genetic
diversity, to prevent the spread of diseases, and to reduce the chances that catastrophic events
will result in losing large numbers of tortoises when confined to a single large preserve
(Technical Report No. 4, FGFWFC).
The following modifications to the County's LDC could be implemented to improve our upon
our current level of protection:
1. Require that GT populations and habitats conforming to applicable Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission guidelines for maintaining sustainable populations be preserved on site.
2. Require that an appropriate buffer with allowable uses be placed around the preserve areas.
Widths of these buffers could be adjusted to preserve suitable GT habitat on site.
3. Address connected preserves that may exist in adjacent areas off-site.
4. Require off-site relocation where appropriate.
Community Development& Environmental Services Division
Memorandum
December 10, 1999
Page 4
Staff may be investigating these possibilities further as part of the Rural Assessment required by
the Final Order. Note that proposed GMP amendments to date do not address wetland and listed
species concerns by DCA. Therefore, we may want to strengthen our listed species protection
for GTs to help us with our GMP issues. Alternately, staff could begin the LDC amendment
process in the next cycle if so directed by the BCC.
VAC/
cc: Robert F. Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Bob Mulhere, Planning Services Director
William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E., Natural Resources Director
rss
Community Development& Environmental Services Division
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARTIN COUNTY
ORDINANCE NUMBER 548
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING SECTION-41, WETLANDS PROTECTION, OF ARTICLE
4, SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, OF THE MARTIN COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, PROVIDING FOR A TABLE OF CONTENTS;
PURPOSE AND INTENT; GLOSSARY; APPLICABILITY; MAN-MADE WETLANDS;
DELINEATION; BASIC INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS; WETLAND AREAS OF
SPECIAL CONCERN; WETLAND BUFFERS; SETBACKS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE; PRESERVE AREA MAINTENANCE NOT IMPLEMENTED THROUGH
A PRESERVE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN;PRESERVE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN;
DENSITY TRANSFERS; PERFORMANCE STANDARDS; WASTE DISPOSAL;
STORMWATER AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT; SHORELINE PROTECTION
ZONE; SHORELINE STABILIZATION; PROHIBITION OF CANALS; PROPOSED
__ ALTERATIONS TO NATURAL FLUSHING PATTERNS AND CIRCULATION OF
ESTUARINE WATERS; SHORELINE ACCESS AND USE; WAIVERS AND
EXCEPTIONS; VIOLATIONS, CORRECTION, RESTORATION AND SET-ASIDE, AND
HEARINGS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING -FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEL11vE DATE; AND
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has adopted the Martin County
Comprehensive Growth Management Plan within which are included goals, objectives and policies
related to the adoption of land development regulations;and
WHEREAS, Section 1633202, Florida Statutes, requires the adoption of land
development regulations which are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan;and
WHEREAS, the Board of .County Commissioners has directed that wetland protection
• regulations be incorporated into Section 4.1 of.Article 4 of the Martin County Land Development
▪ Regulations;and
_ WHEREAS, the proposed Section 4.1 of Article 4 has received public hearings before the
Local Planning Agency and the Board of County Commissioners.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED. BY THE BOARD OF 'COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MARTIN COUNTY,FLORIDA,THAT:
Page l of 31 /
PART ONE: ADOPTION OF ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.1, WETLAND PROTECTION
REGULATIONS,OF THE MARTIN COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
Section 4.1 is hereby adopted as follows:
•
Section 4.1.0. Table of Contents. 2
Section 4.1.1. In General. 3
A. Purpose and Intent. 33
B. Applicability. 4
C. Glossary 5
Section 4.1.2. WetlandProtection Standards. 5 ,
A. Man-Made Wetlands.
B. Delineation. 56
5
__ C. Basic Information Requirements. 6
D. Wetland Areas of Special Concern. . 7
E. Wetland Buffers. 9
F. Setbacks for Construction and Building Maintenance Activities. 9
G. Preserve Area Maintenance Not Implemented Through A PAMP
H. Preserve area management plan(PAMP)• 10
I. Density Transfers.
J. Performance Standards. 15
15
K. Waste disposal. 17
L. Stormwater and Surface Water Management. 18
M. Shoreline Protection Zone.
N. Shoreline Stabilization. 18
9
O. Prohibition of Canals. Circulation of Estuarine Waters. 21
21
P. Proposed Alterations to Natural Flushing Patterns 22
Section 4.1.3. Waivers and Exceptions• 23
A. Waivers for certain lots of record. 23
B. Waivers for access. 24
C. Bridges in Public,Rights-of-Way ., 24
• D. Waivers and exceptions for public utilities .... . .. 2S
E. Boardwalks,Docks and Boat Ramps
: 25 _ k'
F. Clesring.foraccess under this Section25
— G. Removal of exotic vegetation. 265
H. Maintenance. .. 26
L Eliminationofail reasonable use._ 28
Section 4.1.4. Violations;Restoration and Set.Aside Correction;Bearings': 28
A. Correction of ViolationNotice of Violation.upon . ... ... . . .. 29
B. Hearings. 29
C. Penalties. 29
D. Unmitigated Violations. 29
E. Repeat Violations.
F. Threats to Public Health,Safety and Welfare;Irreparable or Irreversible Violations 29
1
l'" ' �q�, .Page 2...of31
,i
.aw soRu.. .k .. xY,.,. xp� r <c�-�c .c�-. m ..,- •
A. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose and intent of this Section (4.1) is to protect natural wetland systems and sustain
natural wetland hydroperiods, to minimize activities that degrade, destroy or otherwise
negatively impact wetland values and functions, and where appropriate, to re-establish and
restore productive wetland systems. Further,it is the purpose and intent of this Section(4.1)
to promote ecological stability, improve water quality, prevent flooding and protect property
and environmental resources.
Wetlands serve many important hydrological and ecological values and functions. They
reduce the impact of flooding by acting as natural retention and water storage areas.
Wetlands act as groundwater recharge areas for the surficial aquifer, and protect water
supplies for environmental, urban and agricultural use. Wetlands protect ground water table
levels and help minimize damage from fires. Wetlands provide in-flows of clean water to the
rivers and estuaries through surface and groundwater connections and minimise urban
nm-off by filtering water. They provide green space and biological diversity, and serve to
cool the atmosphere. Wetlands act as productive biological systems providing habitat,
foraging and denning areas for listed, threatened and endangered species. Wetlands are
important to our community values and aesthetic appearance.
The intent of this Section(4.1)is to protect natural wetland systems. Man-made excavations
in uplands, except those that are navigable and connected to waters of the State, are not
protected by this Section (4.1). While man-made wetlands exempt under this Section (4.1)
are not protected as natural wetlands, development review shall assure that impacts to them
do not adversely affect drainage or natural systems.
B. Applicability.
All wetlands in Martin County shall be protected. No negative impacts shall be allowed
within wetlands or wetland buffers except as specifically provided for in Section 4.1.3,
Waivers and_Exceptions. All development must be consistent with the wetland protection
• requirements of, this- Section (4.1) and the Martin County Comprehensive Growth
- Management Plan (hereinafter referenced-as the'Comprehensive Plan). Compliance with
these requirements.must..be demonstrated by'the-applicant, prior to the issuance of any
development approval or order.
The requirements of this Section(4.1)to protect wetlands and wetland buffers shall apply to
all activities, whether urban or agricultural: A clearing permit shall be required for any
clearing in order to demonstrate compliance with this Section(4.1).
Where illegal activitiesin violation of-the Comprehensive Plan, the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Martin County or the Land-Development Regulations(LDR)have altered any
wetland area so that all or part of the original area no longer meets the definition of a wetland
or has negatively impacted a wetland,restorationrshalLbezequired at the site of the alteration.
Restoration of buffers, habitat, and hydrology of the original wetland area shall be required.
The wetland shall be protected as a natural wetland.
Page 3 of 31
The Atlantic Ocean, eastward of the easternmost coast of Martin
County, shall not be
considered a wetland for purposes of this land development regulation.
C. Glossary.
applicable definitions from Article 2, for purposes of this Section (4.1) the
In addition to
following words,terns and phrases shall have the meanings as set forth below.
Buffers means a transition area managed for the protection of preserved upland and wetland
habitats from the destrnctiVe impacts of human activities.
Estuarine shoreline protection zone or shoreline protection zone means the Indian River,
the Loxahatchee River,the St.Lucie River and their navigable tributaries.
delineated
isolated wetlands mean delineated wetlands and wetlands that ds and would been
e nut naturalexcept for being illegally altered,but which are surrounded by up
or navigable connection to waters of the state.
Navigable canals mean canals that can be used by boats or watercraft.
Natural wetland hydroperiod means the normal seasonresponse
al fluctuations the
surface and
ground water levels of wetlands and the resulting duration of surface flooding
seasonal rainfall.
Self-contained plant community means a sustainable native habitat appropriate to the local
conditions.
Waters of the state, for purposes of this. Section (4.1), include navigable waters and
connected wetlands as defined in Chapter 403,Florida Statues,and the Clean Water Act, and
exclude underground water and isolated wetlands as defined in this Section(4.1). Excavated
included d and constructed non-navigable stormwater treatment
and conveyance systems,are water bodies, except legally which connect directly or via an excavated water body
or series of excavated water bodies to waters of the state as defined above.
Wetlands mean areas as defined in.Section 373.019(22),Florida Statutes,and are those areas
that are inundated acssaturatedby..surface water or vound water at a frequency aion
'on
sufficient to suppoctwand undeki . °support,a prevalence of vegetat
m: ac+e classified
typically adapted for life m _� associated �►.reducing soil
hydricas or alluvial; or possess characteristics .that of facultative or obligate
Thewetlands consists
conditions: are•typically adapted generally
having soil conditions described
hydrophytic , .Y. reproductive adaptations,have
due to mocphologicaLPhYSiologrcal,or
above. These species, or: soil conditions.
environments
the ability to grow,reproduce or persist in aquaticdomes and
ude. ,marshes, bayheads, bogs, cypress Florida.wetlands`geaerally.°:wc1 , swamps., � and :maishea -hydti�sccps8n,w
��slopes, tidal
strands, sloughs, wet prairies,.nvenne s ramps , , not
pd>erw.sumlar areas. ,Florida "'Wands_
generally
marshes, mangrove�swamps'�',
include longleaf or slash pine.tlatu!oods;w an nnderstofy doh by saw palmetto.
Page 4 of 31
4
�,s� ,x -. � :
Section . i.: P� 9 •
A. Man-Made Wetlands.
This policy is intended to protect natural wetlands even when impacted by man-made
excavations. This Section (4.1) is not intended to protect man-made excavations created in
uplands except those that are navigable and connected to the waters of the state.
While man-made wetlands exempt under this policy are not protected as natural wetlands,
development review shall assure that impacts to them do not adversely affect drainage or
natural systems.
In determining if a wetland which meets the definition in Section 4.1.0 above is a natural
system protected under Section 9-4.A.7 and 8 of the Comprehensive Plan and under this
Section(4.1),the following standards shall apply:
1. Only man-made wetlands clearly excavated in uplands are exempt.
2. Navigable canals connected to the waters of the state, whether excavated in uplands or
wetlands,are not exempt.
3. Artificially created wetlands where there were no wetlands at the time of excavation and
where there are no wetlands adjacent to the bank top of the excavation are exempt.
4. Man-made wetlands which are within or directly adjacent to natural wetlands shall be
protected as part of the natural wetland system.
5. If there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the area delineated as a wetland both was
man-made in upland soils and is not within or adjacent to a natural wetland, then the
system shall be protected as a natural wetland.
B. Delineation.
State statute and the Comprehensive Plan require wetland boundaries to be delineated in the
field according to the state unified wetland delineation methodology. (See the• wetlands
definitions in Section 4.1.1.C). This delineation determines the final jurisdictional location
and extent of wetlands and shall occur prior to any alteration on the site.
All those-contemplating land,purchase or development are urged to consult the Martin
County Composite Wetlands Map and obtain field delineations of wetlands prior to decisions
on land use and project design. The Martin County Composite Wetlands Map is a composite
of several data sources. These sources consist of 1981 Hydric Soils data, the 1985 National
Wetlands Inventory data, Satellite Classification data (Thematic Mapper and SPOT data)
from multiple years, and Martin County environmental field data Future field and satellite
data,as it becomes available,will be used periodically to update the composite map to reflect
the most up-to-date digitally derived wetland coverage.
•
Page 5 of 31
... •... 1 +
.. .. ,-
C. Basic Information Requirements.
Applications for development shall identify wetland locations, area locations that were
wetlands on April 1, 1982 or after,required buffers, and water levels in the project design to
assure that the project will meet the requirements of this Section(4.1).
All applications for development shall identify all wetlands on and offsite within 300 feet of
the site. Wetland delineation shall be verified on site as provided in subsection B above. The
following information shall be verified for each wetland:
1. A topographic survey indicating the elevation of wetland boundaries and of the deepest
part of each wetland..
2. Normal wet season elevation of wetlands surface water as determined by local surface
water stage records or locally calibrated hydrologic models. In the absence of this
hydrologic data, the wetland normal wet season surface water levels will be provided
based on field surveys of biological indicators such as vegetation and reduced soil
indicators according to the expert opinion of professional wetland ecologists or biologists.
Appropriate biological indicators include moss or lichen lines on the buttress of cypress
trees or other wetland tree species and the landward extent of perennial aquatic vegetation
species.
3. The normal high surface water elevation for wetlands surface water as determined by
local surface water stage records or locally calibrated hydrologic models. In the absence
of this hydrologic data, the normal high surface water elevation for wetlands surface
water levels will be indicated as 1.0 feet above the normal wet season elevation as
determined in paragraph 2 above or until such time that a method for determining an
equivalent water level is determined by the South Florida Water Management District.
4. Sheet flow patterns illustrating pre-development hydrological connections between
wetlands on and.off.site in a high water year.
5. A site delineation on each of the following mappings at the,highest resolution scale
available through the County:
a. Aerials from each 1979, 1986,and current from the Property Appraiser's Office;
— b. Martin County Composite Wetland Map most updated version or its successor;
c. Martin County Soil Survey,and
d. 1985 National Wetland Inventory.
D. Wetland Areas of Special Concern.
Designated Wetland Areas of Special Concern include:
1. The North County Savannas
- 2. . Britt Creels
3. Arant's Creek and Swamp
4. Warner Creek
5. Hutchinson Island estuarine area
6. St.Lucie South Fork and Islands
7. Willoughby Creek
8. Manatee Creek
9. Intracoastal Waterway and adjacent marshes
10. St.Lucie South Fork headwaters
11. Myrtle Slough
12. Danforth Creek
13. Kitching Creek headwaters
14. Cypress Creek and Loxahatchee River headwaters
15. Bessey Creek
16. Mapp Creek
17. Hog Creek
18. Allapattah Slough
19. Barley Barber Swamp
- 20. Bluefield Wetlands
21. Boaz and Myer Hammocks
22. East Creek
23. Cane Slough
24. Roebuck Creek
25. Wetlands within federal,state,regional or county designated greenways.
^ E. Wetland Buffers.
Wetland buffers and setbacks from-wetland buffers shall be provided and maintained in
accordance with the following requirements:
Areas of native vegetation shall be preserved as buffer zones to all wetlands. Areas of the
buffer zone that are devoid of existing, natural associations of native vegetation shall be
planted with, or supplemented by, appropriate native vegetation in accordance with a
preserve area management plan approved by the Growth Management Director. Where
plantings are-necessary they shall-be sufficient.lo create a self-contained plant community
• capable of functioning as a natural habitat Exotic vegetation shall be removed. Any native
{ vegetation removed or destroyed in violationofylaws in effect at the time such vegetation was
removed or destroyed shall be restored`-pursuant 10 Sections 9-4.A.7.b(3) and (6) of the
Comprehensive
1. Buffers shall,bemeasuredlandward''of the boundary of the wetland,wetland vegetation,
or mangrove tree line, the mean high waterline, or the ordinary high water mark,
whichever is further landward. For natural- bluffs with slopes steeper than one foot
vertical to three feet..horizontal, required buffers shall start at the top of the bank. See
Section 4.1.2.N for further shoreline stability requirements.
2. For natural creeks,rivers,water bodieiconnected to waters of the state,and waters of the
n state,a wetland buffer zone with a minimum of seventy-five(75)feet shall be required.
Page 7of31
E2 and
4.12E-4,an
For isolated wetlands and any wetlands not coveredSections
ec i n p4.1212.E..
3 upland buffer zone with a minimum of fifty(50)
feet
measures will be to assure protection of the Wetlands
The following protectiverequirements are more resuictive
of
4• in this Section (4.1). These and for those
Special Concern listed for both those waters of the state
than the buffers and setbacks � Wetlands of Special CO°cern' These specialisolated wetlands which are not listed during_ the site plan
ve measures will be incorporated as conditions d approvalqualities of these
protective
Process to ensure that the biological � � applied to all site plan
special wetlands are maintained. These hundred (300) feet of a
-- approvals and to all clearing of native vegetationof record greater than five (� acres in
Wetland of Special Concern as well as any Concern shall
size and/or any
new plats. Development adjacent to Wetlands of Special
be governed by the following regulations:
a. In order to reduce nutrient inflows to Wetlands of Special Concern, the location of
septic tank
leachfiedrzd
effluent pe
sludge spreading, sewage plants,"on-site disposal syrmust be three hon
rcolation ponds,and irrigation quality storage ponds
(300)feet from the wetland,as measured oda 4.1.2.E-1.
of the We of Special Concern are
b. In-order to assure that the biological resources of native vegetation.
protected,there shall be a one hundred(100)foot buffer
andprotect breeding of threatened and endangered wildlifen
c. In order the requirediin and endangered pe�or
buffer on sites wliae-thr�t�
species, shall extend 300 ft. outward
den.within Wetlands of Special��ed circumferaux o f the nest and/or donning buffer is entirely
mn paragraph ,no
ofddl buffer
t threatenedll ande
den. Where the b. above,►
within the In assessingftbuffer Oof nesting or denning siteil by thret scientific
wear eesthe l meth d menti � System'
endangered c ; los ilia Growth ,.in Florida's Areas
literature, such as Closin8'.Yt1re Gapt 1994) the Florida Manual
Inventory,
Game and Fresh Fishetlands CListed 'es, and other_ Fresh
s as
' °� Fish and:Wildlife Service and the Florida
recommended Ganz and by the U.S. conducted by an
Water Fish A biological survey documents and
guidelines, tither singly or in
combinaenvironmental
tion,
will be or endangered species would.be use
that the
— the fac g or denning. The tirnefnime of theor denning period most
and
most recent normal order is to be issued more than one(1)year after
shall.be�up�` developmentif the
the submittal and ^
to allow reasonable use of the parcel while protecting thereg��quality
five
d. In orderWetland of Special Concern'
the wildlife which use the edge of the one hundred(100)foot buffer of native
from the outside uses be limited e
ve b. above) where"lands can.be cleared but
= Noe limited
in
rotect the natural resource from IIeg
ativeintensity t structures (other than fences), impervious areas. feed lots, golf course
accessory
greens, or row crops shall be allowed within this 25 ft. setback. Existing uses can be
maintained and replaced so long as the intensity of use is not increased.
5. See Section 4.1.2.M below for buffer regulations in the estuarine shoreline protection
zone.
6. A supplemental vegetation planting plan for the wetland buffer zone shall be prepared
and reviewed for compliance with the following minimum standards:
a. A planting area map will be prepared showing the extent of proposed plantings
together with local soil information.
b. Construction drawings of the replanting areas showing any proposed alteration to
topographic contours.
c. A topographic map showing various elevation contours to be planted and the plant
species appropriate to each contour.
d. Description of the current hydrologic conditions affecting the replanting area and
adjacent hydrologic contributing and receiving areas.
e. Schedule and details of replanting including the type of construction and measures
to minimi 'e impacts to the adjacent wetland buffer, water management and other
irrigation practices that will be used until the vegetation has been established.
f. Planting density shall be sufficient to provide approximately 80% vegetative
ground cover in the first year.
g. Monitoring reports detailing the progress of the supplemental planting plan will
be submitted within six months after planting. Information provided must be
adequate to determine that planted species have survived in sufficient number and
health as needed to reasonably meet cover requirements in the above. The
Environmental Monitoring. Report Guidelines developed by the South Florida
Water Management District may be used as a reporting template.
h. Replanting.of portions or all of the affected area will be required if the cover
requirements are not met within the first year.
F. Setbacks for Construction and Building Maintenance.Activities.
Wetland buffers shall be protected from'encroachment.during. construction and building
•
maintenance-activities as follows: New construction (including fill proposed adjacent to
wetland buffer zones andupland preserve areas)shall be set.back a minimums of ten(10)feet
for primary structures;tures; setbacks for accessory structures, such as but not limited to pool
-- decks, screen enclosures=and driveways=shall be five (5) feet. Graded areas landward of
these required buffer protection areas shall not exceed a slope of one(1)foot vertical to four
(4) feet horizontal. AIL slopes shall be-properly stabilized to the satisfaction of the county
engineer.
G. Preserve Area Maintenance Not Implemented Through A PAMP.
For those developed areas where a Preserve Area'Management Plan(PAMP) does not exist
for the preserve"areas identified in the site plan approval, the following basic preserve area
maintenance is required:
1. All exotic vegetation and trash must be removed at least annually.
Page 9 of 31
•
2. No new drainage or irrigation which negatively affects wetlands, wetland buffers or
upland preserves shall be allowed.
H. Preserve Area Management Plan(PAMP).
Any application for a clearing permit for 5 acres or more or any application for development
plan approval must contain a Preserve Area Management Plan (PAMP). An abbreviated
PAMP is authorized as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 below. However, all applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan shall apply regardless of whether a PAMP, an
abbreviated PAMP or no PAMP is required.
Preserve area management plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Growth
Management Director, and no development approval shall be issued until the preserve area
management plan is approved by the Growth Management Director. The wetland areas on
site must be maintained in accordance with the PAMP.
1. An abbreviated PAMP shall be required for maintenance of drainage features passing
through wetlands.
2. When a PAMP is required for individual residential lots, an abbreviated PAMP form will
be provided by the County with the following requirements:
a. Responsibilities will be outlined to protect and preserve any native vegetation
within the preserve area including limits for the-type of maintenance that can be
performed.
b. Guidelines for any exotic removal to be performed by the least damaging method
to the preserve area.
c. Restrictions stating that a preserve area cannot be modified or altered in size,
vegetation type;or function without BCC approval.
d. Responsibilities for protection of any rare, threatened and endangered species in
accordance with state and-federal laws.
e. Restrictions stating that no new drainage:or irrigation whichnegatively affects
wetlands,wetland buffers oruplaad preserves shall be.allowed..
3. All other Preserve Area Management Plans must contain provisions to:
a. Remove and provide continued regular;management of exotic vegetation and debris.
Survey and removal of trash and exotics shall occur at least annually.
b. Revegetate the wetland arta and/or the surrounding upland transition buffer with
appropriate native plant:mate:rialOf necessary.
c. Mitigate previous or potential drainage impacts, to the maximum extent technically.
feasible and consistent with permitted flood..control, in order to restore the natural
hydropeaod. The PAIS shall identify on-site.drainage which is lowering wet season
water tables. Where artificial drainage has lowered the water tible,,natural water
storage shall be restored. When monitoring reports indicate that the-surface water
management.. system improvements are. _lowering the site's water table,
•
Page 10 of 31
predevelopment wetland hydrologic patterns shall be restored. Artificial
shall be blocked to the extent possible without flooding existing buildings.
• d. The applicant must demonstrate that the quality and quantity of inflow. .
wetlands from natural drainage patterns are maintained by incorporating these areas
into the project's surface water management plan. Patterns of flow between wetlands
• shall remain open. Hydrologic connections between wetlands shall be maintained.
Water quality,rate of run-off and volume of run-off shall re-create natural conditions
for the benefit of wetlands and receiving waterways.
e. Provide buffers of appropriate native vegetation adequate to assure continuance of the
wetlands values and function. Wetlands on adjacent property shall also be protected
from adverse impacts.
f. Provide for the protection of plant and animal species that are rare, endangered,
threatened or a species of special concern as defined by the federal government, the
State of Florida, including the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
(FGFWFC), and including any species or native habitat the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council determines to be°regionally rate, endangered or threatened with
extinction, in accordance with recommendations from applicable state and federal
agencies; and include all permitting conditions as an attachment to the PAMP. Such
recommendations, requirements and conditions for permit shall be made part of the
Preserve Area Management Plan. The Preserve Area Management Plan shall include
the protection provisions for endangered, unique or rare habitat in accordance with
the Upland Protection regulations (see Section 4.2 of the. Land Development
Regulations). For those aquatic or wetland dependent listed.animal species listed in
Figure 4.1.1 for which habitat management guidelines have-been developed by the
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) or the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission (FGFWFC), dee=. applicant .must provide compliance with these
guidelines and assurance that the proposed development will not adversely affect the
listed species. For those aquatic or wetland dependent.listed..animai species for
which habitat management guidelines have not been developed_the applicant must
propose measures to avoid and minimize impacts to habitat function.
g. Provide any additional measures deemed necessary to protect and maintain the values
and functions of the wetland area including regular monitoring and reports on
compliance.
h. Provide requirements for fines for non compliance of provisions contained within the
PAMP.
i. Provide language that native upland or wetland vegetation within the preserve area
can be altered only in accordance with the PAMP. Preserve Areas shall not to be
altered except by way of a PAMP Amendment approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. The PAMP may provide for necessary habitat management
practices if approved by the Growth Management Director, such necessary
management shall be for the purpose of protecting, preserving and enhancing but not
altering or removing the existing native vegetation. The PAMP document and
guidelines may be modified as needed to fulfill required management obligations that
Page 11 of 31
do not conflict with the purposes of the preserve area. These modifications must be
approved by the Growth Management Director. The PAMP shall provide for fire
Management and other alternatives necessary for the long term viability and habitat
value of the preserve area and shall also provide for protection against imminent
threats to public health and safety.
j. Provide monitoring provisions to assure the survivorship and maintenance
responsibility for the reclamation areas of littoral and upland transition zone buffer
areas around constructed lakes.
k. The applicant must demonstrate that a regulated activity will not cause adverse
secondary impacts to a water resource. The PAMP must also provide reasonable
assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or
reasonably expected use of a proposed activity will not cause violations of water
quality standards or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface
waters.
1. The applicant must demonstrate-that the..construction, alteration, and intended or
reasonably expecteduses of development will not adversely impact the ecological
value that uplands provide for aquatic or wetland dependent listed animal species for
enabling existing nesting or denning by these species.
m. The professional responsible for the_PAMP_shall certify in writing that the PAMP
meets-all of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable Martin
County regulations and thatpthe PAMP willt assure the maintenance of functions and ^
values of upland: habitat:- and: wetland, systems, and that the natural wetland
hydroperiod fluctuations and water tables will not be altered by stormwater
improvements or on-site wells. Stonmwater Management..plans shall be carefully
coordinated with the PAMP. Weir height must beset to maintain or enhance water
tables-throughout the.site:in order to maintain.natural storage and natural wetland
hydroperiods on the land.
•
•
•
Page 12 of 31
Figure 4.1.1.
LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES THAT ARE AQUATIC OR WETLAND DEPENDENT AND
- THAT USE UPLAND HABITATS
FOR NESTING OR DENNING
(Source: South Florida Water Management District-November 1996)
Fishes
Species of special concern
Rivulus marmoratus (mangrove rivulus;rivulus)
Reptiles
Endangered
Chelonia mydas mydas(Atlantic green turtle)
Crocodylus acutus(American crocodile)
Dermochelys coriacea(leatherback turtle;leathery turtle)
Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata(Atlantic hawksbill turtle)
Kinosternon bauri(striped mud turtle)
Threatened
Caretta caretta caretta(Atlantic loggerhead turtle)
Tharnnophis sauritus sackeni(Florida(Keys)ribbon snake)
Species of special concern
Alligator mississippiensis(American alligator)
Graptemys barbouri(Barbour's map turtle;Barbour's sawback turtle)
Macroclemys temmincki(alligator snapping turtle)
Birds
Endangered
Mycteria americana(wood stork)
Rostrhamus sociabilis (snail kite)
•
Threatened
Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris(southeastern snowy plover)
Charadrius melodus(piping plover)
Columbia leucocephaluslwing-crowned pigeon)
Grus canadensis pratensis(Florida sandhill crane)
Haliacetus leucocephala(bald eagle)
Picoides borealis(red-cockaded woodpecker)
Polyborus planus audubonii(Audubon's crested caracara)
Sterna antillarum(least tern)
Sterna dougallii(roseate tern)
Species of special concern
Ajaia ajaia(roseate spoonbill)
Amrnodramus mariturnus juncicolus(Wakulla seaside sparrow)
Page 13 of 31
Ammodramns maritumus peninsulas(Scott's seaside sparrow)
Aramus quarauna(Iimpkin)
Cistothorus palustais griseus(Worthington's marsh wren)
Cistothorus palustris marianae(Marian's marsh wren)
Egretta c acrulea(little blue heron)
Egretta rufescens(reddish egret)
Egretta thula(snowy egret)
Egretta tricolor(tricolored heron:Louisiana heron)
Eudocirnus albus(white this)
Haematopus palliates(American oystercatcher)
Pandion halisetus(osprey)
Pelecanus occidentalis(brown pelican)
Rhynchops niger(black skimmer)
Mammals
_
Endangered
Fells concolor coryi(Florida panther)
Oryzomys agentatus(silver rice rat)
Threatened
ened
Ursus americanus floridanus(Florida black bear)
Species of special concern
Sorex longirostris eionis(Homosassa shrew)
Page 14of31
I. Density Transfers.
All property_owners shall have the right to transfer density to upland areas on any site which
contains wetlands, in accordance with the following standards. Net buildable density is the
allowable number of residential units divided by the net buildable upland area; net buildable
upland area is the gross land area less all wetlands.
1. The site shall be submitted for review as either a planned unit development or a clustered
multi-family project in one of the multi-family residential zoning districts.
2. The resulting residential density of the upland property shall be no greater than fifteen
(15) dwelling units per acre. In those instances where the density proposed is greater
than ten (10) dwelling units per acre, there shall be a minimum seventy-five (75) foot
upland transition zone around all wetlands on site.
3. The total number of units allowed in any development using this density transfer formula
shall not exceed the maximum allowed density for the entire parcel as shown on the
-- Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.
4. Density transferred shall not exceed one-half(1/2) the wetland acreage multiplied by the
gross density.
5. For parcels with wetlands that occupy fifty(50)percent or more of the total site,the gross
residential density of the upland parcel shall not exceed more than two(2)times the gross
residential density of the entire parcel.
6. The increase in net residential density created by density transfer shall not create adverse
impacts or land use incompatibility with adjacent parcels.
7. Whenever density transfers are proposed, the net buildable area of all plans shall include
a minimum fifty (50) percent permeable open space. Golf courses shall account for no
more than sixty(60)percent of the required permeable open space.
. J. Performance Standards.
The following performance standards`'shall be followed for all wetland areas and wetland
buffers.
1. Vegetation removal. The removal of natural vegetation from wetlands and from buffer
zones surrounding wetlands shall be governed by the following regulations:
a. Clearing or direct removal of vegetation shall not occur except in compliance with an
approved"preserve area management plan or in compliance with those minimal
activities permitted for riparian usage(e.g.,docks and walkways).
b. All materials that are cleared from the wetland or buffer zone shall be removed from
r-� the site and not piled or stored within the wetland or designated upland preserve
areas.
Page 15 of 31
2. Dredging and filling. Dredging and filling activities within 300 feet of wetlands shall be
governed by the following regulations.
a. Dredging or filling shall not occur within the wetlands or the buffer zone surrounding
• the wetlands except in compliance with the provisions of the Excavation, Fill and
Mining regulations.
•
b. An additional separation with a minimum width of two hundred (200) feet shall be
maintained between the outer edge of any wetland buffer and any lake excavation
unless an alternative plan utilizing an impermeable bather is approved by Martin
County in consultation with the South Florida Water Management District. Any
excavation which is likely to result in drawdown of the water table through pumping
or through off site outfalls must be separated a minimum of 200 feet from any
wetland.
c. Filling which occurs landward of a wetland buffer zone shall be immediately
stabilized and contained to prevent runoff of sediment into buffer zones or wetlands.
3. Construction Within or Adjacent to Wetlands and Wetland Buffer Zones. No alteration
or construction shall be allowed within wetlands or buffer zones except as specifically
provided in.Section 4.13,Waivers and Exceptions.
a. The structure and foundation of docks shall be designed to accommodate surface
water flows and shall not be designed to impede,interrupt or impound surface water
flows. Public and private dodo structures shall be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and with any applicable County dock.regulations. Marina development shall be
consistent with the Marina Siting section of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Routine maintenance of existingstructures shall be permitted,but shall,be performed
in the least intrusive manner;possiblecand shall not result in additional:damage to the
wetland or wetland buffer zone.
c. All pilings shall be secured, placed or set to the desired depth by the least disruptive
method based on existing site characteristics....
d. Boardwalks shall be designed to minimize wetland disruption while allowing access
for wildlife and water viewing. Where boardwalks are provided for:golf course
access and fore access between.facilities,.,they must be part,of an overall site plan
designed to minimize wetland intrusion.
e. The use of heavy equipment shall be minimized in the wetland areas and/or buffer
zones..
f. There .shall be no temporary filling of. the ,.wetlands area._or buffer zone for
construction. •
Page 16of31
4. Exotic Vegetation.
a. Exotic vegetation must be regularly removed from all preserve areas including
wetlands and wetland buffers by the least damaging means.
b. Planting of exotic vegetation or incompatible native vegetation shall not occur within
or encroach upon, the wetland area or buffer. Any proposed plantings occurring in
the wetland or buffer shall consist of native vegetation which is compatible with
existing native plant communities, soils, and climatic conditions, and must be
approved in writing by the Growth Management Director.
K. Waste disposaL
Disposal of wastes in and around wetlands and buffer zones shall be governed by the
following regulations:
1. The discharge of domestic, industrial, leachate, or agricultural wastewater containing
heavy metals, herbicides, pesticides or any other toxic substance(s) in excess of
concentrations established by State and:-Federal and County guidelines into the
waterways, wetlands or buffer zones shall be prohibited.
2. 'Sludge, sewage and septic systems which are adjacent to Wetlands of Special Concern
shall be setback from such wetlands in accordance with Section 4.1.2.E.4a
3. The disposal cf hazardous material in designated areas shall not occur within three
hundred(300)feet of a wetland.
4. Any newsolid waste disposal facility shall be subject to the wetland protection provisions
of this Section (4.1)and designed in such a manner as to have no negative effect on the
wetlands or buffer zones.
L. Stormwater and Surface Water Management.
Management of water in and around wetlands is critical to the survival of a healthy wetlands
•
system: Seasonal:freshwaterxin.flows:in appropriate volumes are critical to thehealth of the
estuary.. Theze is ptesently.excess freshwater-run-off to the estuary during the.rainy season
which may contributelo heavy pollutant loads, fish disease andfreshwater imbalance. Dry
-- season freshwater.flows are cur ratly,inadequate to supply base flows for a healthy estuary.
Stonnwater and surface-water management in and around wetlands and buffer zones shall be
governed by the following regulations:
1. Maintenance of wetland hydrology and water quality.
a. Direct-dirs. charge-of:°stormwater into wetlands or buffet zones shall be prohibited.
Stormwater must be provided retention and/or detention water quality treatment prior
to being discharged into wetlands or wetland buffer zones. Stormwater retention
and/or._detention:basins,.shall be usedto maintain post-development discharges at
pre-development levels.
Page 17 of 31
b. Stormwater retention basins and outfall structures shall be designed to assure that the
water quality, rate of run-off and seasonal run-off volumes are equal to natural
conditions. Tuning and volume of water discharge shall be appropriate to restore
and/or maintain the natural hydroperiod.
•
c. Retention and/or detention basins shall be designed and constructed with sediment
traps and litter or trash screens. The retention and/or detention basins shall be
vegetated, and the use of herbicides and pesticides within the retention and/or
detention basin for vegetation and insect control shall be discouraged.
2. Any alteration of water levels within wetlands shall be prohibited unless determined
necessary to restore or maintain the natural hydroperiod of the wetland system by way of
a surface water management plan approved by the Growth Management Director in
consultation with the SFWMD. Outfall structures shall be designed to assure wet season
water tables will be maintained throughout the development and that quality, rate, timing
and volume will maintain sustainable on-site wetlands and healthy receiving waters (See
above also re flowways-under PAMPs.) -__
3. Timing and volume of water discharge shall be appropriate to restore and/or maintain the
natural hydroperiod
M. Shoreline Protection Zone.
The Shoreline Protection Zone shall include all of the Indian River, St. Lucie and
Loxahatchee Estuaries and their navigable tributaries along with connected wetlands and
required buffers. This zone shall be the same as the Waters of the State in Martin County as
defined in Section 4.1.1.C.' Protection of shorelines throughout this zone is important to the
health of the estuary. Martin County shall protect the shoreline protection zone in order to
protect the stability of the estuary, enhance water quality, and preserve shoreline mangrove
communities. The following shoreline performance standards shall be enforced in review of
estuarine development proposals,including docks:
1. Buffers within the-Shoreline Protection Zone,shall be the same as:those required for
Waters of the State;Section 4.1.2.E above': Buffierzones:for Waters of the-,State-have a
minimum width-of seventy-five (75)feet The Upland Transition Zone as identified in
Section 9-4.A.S.a.(2)of be Comprehensive:Plan .is_included_within the-:.Shoreline
Protection Zone and shall be extended the same protection and restrictions.
2. Shoreline Access and Use. Within the Shoreline Protection Zone as defined in subsection
(4.1.2.M),no development shall be permitted except as allowed in Section 4.1.3,Waivers
and.Exceptions, and the uses outlined below to provide the owner reasonable use of the
shoreline... In these-exeeptioos'the-useof heavy',egnipment-.-shall:'be minimized in the
wetlands and buffers-and there-shall be no temporary filling of any wetland or buffer
zone. The uses outlined below shall be'allowed:throughout the:estuarine shoreline
protection zone. Where other buffer requirements-applyTwithiLthe:estuarine shoreline
protection zone, these uses shall be allowed. No structure:other thandocks, bridges in
public rights of way and county approved public utilities shall be allowed in the estuarine
shoreline protection zone.
Page 18 of 31
•
N. Shoreline Stabilization.
No new construction shall threaten the stability of the estuarine system. Decisions regarding
• shoreline stabilization shall be coordinated to protect adjacent properties and to protect the
values and functions of wetlands, spoil islands and submerged lands throughout the estuary
and its tributaries.
1. Shoreline stabilization shall be accomplished by the establishment of appropriate native
wetland and/or transitional upland vegetation.
2. Hardening of the shoreline shall be allowed only when erosion is causing a significant
threat to life or property in light of the circumstances listed in subsections 5 and 6 below.
Limited exceptions will be allowed as provided in Section 4.1.3 regarding boat entry and
retrieval. Proposals for bulkheads or seawalls must prove revegetation used in
combination with rip-rap materials, pervious interlocking brick systems, filter mats and
other similar stabilization methods will fail to provide shoreline protection within the
shoreline protection zone
3. Native plant revegetation used in combination with rip-rap materials, pervious
interlocking brick systems, filter mats and other similar stabilization methods shall be
used in lieu of vertical seawalls.
4. Vertical seawalls may be allowed to stabilize or harden a shoreline only when the Martin
County Public Service Department in coordination with the Martin County Growth
n Management Department•determines that significant erosion exists due to hydrological
activity in the waterway and that no other protection method is suitable to the specific and
unique conditions of the site. An example would be a significantly eroding shoreline
which drops so sharply that no suitable bank exists for the placement of native plants,
rip-rap materials or other materials used in other similar stabilization methods. The lack
of any suitable alternative to the use of vertical seawalls must be field checked,reviewed
and verified by the Growth Management Department and the Public Services Department
prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of vertical seawalls.
5. The following minimum criteria shall be used by the Public Services Department in
coordination with the Martin County Growth Management Department to assess each
application for shoreline hardening for the-determination:that erosion is causing a
significant throat to life orproperty.
a. Increasing, destructive loss of native vegetation, which results in a documented
accelerated shoreline loss greater than one (1)foot per year, for a,period of not less
• than fifteen (15) consecutive years, due to wave, wake or stormwater activity (not
related to rainwater runoff from the upland portion ofthe property) where the
applicant has provided clear and convincing evidence that properly designed
alternatives employing the establishment of native:vegetation,gently sloping or tiered
shoreline have failed to provide.shoreline protection-within she-shoreline protection
zone. Aerial photographs over the 15 year period shall be supplied by the applicant
as available from the property appraiser. The-burden of proof shall be the
responsibility of the applicant,or
Page 19 of 31
•
b. Lawfully existing, permanent structures on the subject property, including legally
permitted bulkheads, seawalls and retaining walls, which are demonstrated to face
imminent threat of destruction from continued shoreline loss.
6. When minimum criteria for demonstrating serious erosion has been met,then hardening
may be considered as an allowable shoreline protection methodology on residential lots
of record as of April 1, 1982,along man-made canal if,but only if:
a. The lot is immediately adjacent to and.between existing, riprap, bulkheaded or
seawalled lots on either side of the subject property, or is located in a private
residential canal exhibiting greater than seventy-five (75) percent existing riprap,
bulkheaded or seawalled lots and the lot is less than 150 feet from existing, riprap,
bulkheaded or seawalled lots on either side of the adjoining shoreline;and
b. The establishment of the riprap, bulkhead or seawall shall not increase the waterward
extension of the existing shoreline;and--
c. The design and installation of the permitted riprap, bulkheaded or seawalled system
shall not cause the erosion of abutting properties to be accelerated by the
establishment of the applicant's riprap, bulkhead or seawall. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner who has constructed the riprap, bulkhead or
seawall to remediate such accelerated rated erosion activity on adjoining properties and the
applicant shall be required to state such responsibility on the approved plans;and
d. The design of the permed,riprap, bulkheaded:or seawalled system shall include
revegetation with native shoreline vegetation appropriate to tidal and upland sections
of the shoreline as an integral part of the project. The intent of this subsection is to
avoid direct runoff to wetlandsand waterways from lawns and impermeable areas.
Such vegetation shall:be protectedand maintained-in accordance with a preserve area
management plan approved by the Martin County Growth Management Department;
and
e. The designof thepermitted bulkheaded or seawalled system includes a
,riP�P+
• minimum twelve (12) inch deep water.quality. treatment swale installed directly
landward of the area proposed for shoreline hardening.
— 7. Shoreline hardening proposals must,provide plans,test results, or other professionally
accepted information that affirmatively_demonstrates that any proposed shoreline
hardening project-wiil not
a. Adversely;impact water quality;or
b. Adversely affect adjacent properties;ac
c. Adversely affect biological communities;or.
• d. ` Adversely affect the flowotwater;or
e. Increase the waterward extension of the existing shoreline;or
f. Create a navigational hazard.
Page 20 of 31
8. Native indigenous vegetation within and adjacent to the estuary, including mangrove and
upland vegetation, especially on slopes and bluffs shall be preserved. Such vegetation
contributes to marine productivity and water quality, offers protection from erosion and
flooding, and contributes to the natural soil building process. Vegetative and landscaping
• requirements should emphasize the importance of planting indigenous coastal vegetation
to minimize the water usage for irrigation purposes.
•
9. In all new development, in which plats or site plans are required to be submitted, plans
shall show,and the engineer of record shall certify,that sufficient preservation area exists ,
to protect natural banks and prevent the necessity for future shoreline hardening. Where
banks have been previously cleared or filled and are not sufficiently stabilized then the: .
banks shall be re-sloped(if necessary)and revegetated with appropriate native vegetation
in order to assure that future shoreline hardening will not be necessary.
10. In all cases where shoreline hardening is allowed along the estuarine shoreline or its
direct tributaries, revegetation with native shoreline vegetation appropriate to tidal and
upland sections of the shoreline, shall be required as an integral part of the project. The
revegetation plan shall provide a minimum of twenty-five percent(25%)of the hardened
shoreline to be planted with red,white or black mangroves spaced two(2) feet on center
where technically feasible. Such vegetation shall be protected and maintained in
accordance with a preserve area management plan approved by the Martin County
Growth Management Department. This requirement is intended to provide scenic
buffering along the waterway and to improve and/or maintain the biological functions of
the shoreline protection and upland transition zone.
0. Prohibition of Canals.
Martin County shall prohibit construction of navigable canals. Canals have been shown to
have a variety of negative impacts on the estuary.
P. Proposed Alterations to Natural Flushing Patterns and Circulation of
Estuarine Waters.
Any proposed alteration shall not permit significant alteration of tidal flushing and circulation
patterns by development without demonstrated proof by the applicant that such alteration will
not have a negative impact on the natural environment.
The phrase "significant alteration of tidal'flushing and circulation.patterns':is defined as an
alteration that would:
1. Reduce water quality
2. Cause erosion
3. Reduce nutrient input into estuarine system(mangrove detrital matter)
4. Cause potential for saltwater intrusion into groundwater
5. Cause siltation or shoaling
6. Prevent or restrict tidal flushing
Page 21 of 31
This Section(4.1)is not intended to result in a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution or Section five of the Tenth Article of the Florida Constitution, and
waivers and exceptions may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners under the
procedures and provisions of this Section(4.1)where a landowner proves that the implementation of
this Section(4.1)will result in such a taking. All wetland alteration allowed under these waivers and
exceptions shall be sufficiently mitigated to ensure that there is no net loss of functions or the spatial
extent of wetlands in Martin County. If waivers or exceptions are allowed under this Section (4.1),
the use of heavy equipment shall be minimized, and there shall be no temporary filling of any
wetland area or buffer zone. No exceptions or waivers to these standards shall be granted except in
accordance with Section 4.1.3 and under the conditions and provisions described below.
A. Waivers for certain lots of record.
-- Buffers and setbacks may be altered on certain lots of record to provide reasonable use of such lots
of record under the following circumstances. It is not the intent of this section (4.13) that this
subsection(A)be used in conjunction with a division of a lot of record into more than one lot
1. Required buffers under this Section (4.1) for (i) residential lots of record of one acre or
less so existing on April 1, 1982, (ii) residential lots of record so existing on April 1,
1982 that abut navigable waters, or (iii) lots on a man-made canal as of February 20,
1990, may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet; provided that existing native upland and
transitional vegetation adjacent to the mean high water line shall be maintainedand the
twenty-five (25) foot buffer should be exceeded if the lot size is large enough to allow
such a site design.
2. Single family residential lots of record on plats approved between April 1, 1982 and
December 15, 1998 may be developed in accordance with the wetland regulations
(buffer, transition zone, setback, and performance criteria) in effect at the time that the
plat was approved.
3. Lots of record on the adoption date of this Section(4.1)which are less than five(5)acres
in size shall be exempt from the buffer provisions.for.Wetlands of Special Concern as
outlined in Section 4.1.2.E.4, and shall remain exempt if such lots or parcels are
subsequently subdivided, provided that-such lots or parcels are not part of a contiguous,
commonly owned lot or parcel that is larger than five acres at the time of subdivision.
This waiver or exception shall not affect other buffer requirements contained in Section
4.1.2.E,above.
4. Retaining walls for primary or accessory structures may be placed five(5)feet wat'erward
from the upland edge of the buffer or upland.transition zone on residentiallots of record
so existing on April 1, 1982 if slopes are maintained and the buffer area is replanted in
native vegetation compatible with elevations and proximity to water;and provided that all
• zoning district setback criteria are met.
5. Replanting of native vegetation,shall not be required on new single family homes on
residential lots of record so existing on April 1, 1982 where no native vegetation existed
on such-lot on April 1, 1982 or at_the time of adoption of this Section(4.1).
•
Page 22 of 31
B. Waivers for access.
The provisions of this Section (4.1) may be waived for access purposes only under the
following circumstances:
1. Water access. Within the Shoreline Protection Zone defined in Section 4.1.1.C, no
development shall be permitted except to provide the property owner reasonable access to
the water. Development shall be restricted to accessways running perpendicular to the
shoreline, shall represent the minimum destruction required for access, and shall be no
greater than twelve (12) feet in width. The use of heavy equipment shall be nsinimi7ed,
and there shall be no temporary filling of any wetland area or buffer zone. The owner
shall submit and upon approval implement a proposal which will minimi7r damage to the
extent feasible.
a. For those properties that are designated and zoned for Marine Waterfront Commercial
use, development associated with access to the water through the shoreline protection
zone must be accomplished in a manner that is least disruptive to the environmentally
sensitive wetland communities, and generally shall not exceed a width of thirty (30)
feet. The access must be accepted by the Growth Management Department and
provide for a public benefit Where vehicle turn-around and maneuver are needed,
the area of alteration shall likewise be limited to thirty (30) feet in width as with the
approach road, but they may be designed to be contiguous with the accessway. Said
access shall comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations. Boat entry and
retrieval facilities shall be allowed.
b. For those properties that are designated and zoned for Institutional use,and used for
public boat ramps, docking facilities, fishing piers, and related facilities providing
benefits which exceed those lost as a result of shoreline protection zone alterations, an
accessway running generally perpendicular to the shoreline shall be no greater than
one hundred fifty(150) feet in width. Public use shall demonstrate the need for direct
water access in any proposal for shoreline clearing under this subsection (B.1). This
exception shall be used only to the extent necessary to provide access to the water.
c. The Growth Management Director (or designee) shall approve a request for access
under-this subsection (B.1) only after.receiving a satisfactory plan of the proposed
development which shall demonstrate the need for access and shall designate the
property boundaries to scale(including the limits of the estuarine shoreline protection
zone). The plan shall also demonstrate the reason for the development and other
information as may be required by the Martin County Code of Laws and Ordinances
or the Land Development Regulations. The decision of the Growth Management
Director may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Access to uplands. Where the owner of the property demonstrates that encroachment of
wetlands or wetland buffers is necessary for access and no reasonable upland alternative
exists. An exception or-waiver shall be granted only when appropriate environmental
agencies, including the:Martin.County Soil and Water Conservation Dist ict and the
Growth Management Department,certify in writing that(i) the encroachment is the least
damaging alternative,and(ii)the encroachment is the minimum encroachment capable of
Page 23 of 31
providing the required access, and (iii) the applicant submits an acceptable proposal for
mitigation which will minimize damage to wetlands or buffers. --�
C. Bridges in Public Rights-of-Way.
An exception from these regulations may be granted for proposed or approved bridges in a
public right-of-way crossing estuarine waters or waters of the State, so that public access
may be maintained in accordance with the provisions in Section 9-4.A.8a(4).(c).(4) of the
Comprehensive Plan. For proposed bridges within public rights-of-ways crossing estuarine
waters or waters of the state, public access shall be allowed by clearing that portion of the
affected wetland vegetation so long as a revegetation and management plan is reviewed,
adopted and implemented in accordance with applicable State regulations. The Growth
Management Director(or designee) shall approve a request for access under this subsection
(C) only after receiving a satisfactory plan of the proposed development which shall
demonstrate the need for access and shall designate the property boundaries to scale
(including the limits of the estuarine shoreline protection zone). The plan shall also
demonstrate the reason for the development and other information as may be required by the
Code of Laws and Ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development
Regulations. The decision of the Growth Management Director may be appealed to the
Board of County Commissioners.
D. Waivers and exceptions for public utilities.
An exception from these regulations may be granted where the applicant demonstrates that
encroachment of wetlands, or wetland buffers, as defined in this Land Development
Regulation, is necessary for the construction and/or maintenance of a public utility, (as
defined in Section 366.02Florida Statutes(1997)),subject to the following conditions:
1. The construction or maintenance activity is for a linear facility that cannot be
accomplished without wetland impacts;
2. The utility has demonstrated that the encroachment is necessary and that no reasonable
upland alternative exists;
• 3. The activity is designed and located in such a<mannerthat the least amount of damage to
the wetlands is assured;
4. The applicant has submitted a proposal for reforestation and/or mitigation, to offset the
impact; -
5. Permits have been received from the appropriate state and federal environmental agencies
and copies of those permits have been submitted to Martin County, prior to issuance of
the County permit;
6. The Martin Soil and. Water Conservation District and/or the .Growth Management
Department has reviewed the application and has determined in writing that the proposed
encroachment is the least damaging alternative;
Page 24 of 31
7. The applicant has provided proof of ownership or easement over the property to be
encroached;
• 8. A plan has been approved by the Growth Management Department for the removal of
• undesirable exotic vegetation as part of the restoration and/or mitigation proposed in
subparagraph 4 above;
9. The applicant has demonstrated that the construction and/or maintenance activity will
maximize the preservation of native indigenous vegetation;and
10.The utility demonstrates that, should fill be required, the minimum necessary is used to
assure reasonable access to the property or construction activity.
E. Boardwalks, Docks and Boat Ramps.
An exception from these regulations may be granted when a plan for elevated observation
boardwalks and single family residential docks,multi-slip docks,boat ramps and commercial
docks,has been designed and located in such a manner that the least amount of damage to the
wetland and wetland buffer-is assured; and- the plan meets the provisions of the dock
regulations and has been approved by the Growth Management Department, as meeting all
criteria of the Coastal Management and Conservation and Open Space Elements; and been
approved by the appropriate state and federal agencies.
F. Clearing for access under this Section.
The Growth Management Director shall approve any authorized request for clearing under
this Section 4.1.3 only after receiving a satisfactory plan of the proposed development which
shall demonstrate the•need for access and shall designate the boundaries to scale (including
the limits of the estuarine shoreline protection zone). The plan shall also demonstrate the
reason for the development and other information as may be required by the Martin County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development
Regulations.
The decision of the Growth Management Director maybe appealed to the Board of County
Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners may approve thesubject request upon
a finding of compliance with this Section(4.1).
G. Removal of exotic vegetation.
An owner of land may impact wetlands and wetland buffers for the sole purpose of removal
of exotic vegetation only if a plan for such removal(including revegetation with appropriate
native plant material if necessary, and using methods that are the least intrusive to the
wetland and wetland buffers)has been approved by the_Growth Management Director.
Page 25 of 31
H. Maintenance.
The maintenance of existing legal uses, if done in accordance with this Section (4.1), shall
•
not be considered a violation of the requirements of this Section(4.1). Maintenance shall not
include fill and shall be done so as to create minimal impacts to wetlands and buffers.
•
I. Elimination of all reasonable use.
Any provision of this Section (4.1) that precludes all reasonable economically viable use of
the property and which if applied would result in a taking of the property may be waived to
the extent necessary to provide the minimum reasonable use based on the following
1. One single family home shall be allowed on residential lots of record established
as of April 1, 1982 which are vested under the Comprehensive Plan where there is
insufficient upland property to make any reasonable use of the land,provided that
(i) access shall be through the area of the lot which is the least damaging to the
wetlands and in accordance with the criteria contained in Section 4.1.3.3.2, Cu)
fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the home, (iii) stem wall or
piling design shall be used whenever possible, (iv) the footprint of the home
(which shall also include the first floor of a home constructed on pilings) is no
greater than three thousand (3000) square feet, including accessory uses if the
footprint must encroach into a wetland,and (v) all other development regulations
are satisfied.
a. For purposes of this subsection (4.1.311), the lot of record shall be a lot in
single ownership,and contiguous lots owned or controlled by the same person
or entity which can be used for a common use shall be considered as one lot.
b. For purposes of this subsection (4.1.311), the hardship shall not be self-imposed,
such as by transferring contiguous property that could have been utilized.
2. The provisions of this Section(4.1) may be waived with respect to non-residential
lots of record established as of April 1, 1982 which are vested under. the
Comprehensive Plan, but only to the extent necessary to allow for,the minimum
reasonable use. Fill shall be the minimum necessary to provide for-minimam
reasonable use.
a. For purposes of this subsection (4.1.3.1.2), the lot of record shall be a lot in
single ownership,and contiguous lots owned or controlled by the same person
or entity which can be used for.a common use shall be considered as one lot.
b. For purposes of this subsection-:(4.1.3.1.2), the hardship shall not be self- imposed,
such as by transferring contiguous property that could have been utilized.
3. For lots of record created in accordance with Martin County ordinances and
regulations after April 1, 1982 and prior to December 15, 1998 (the effective date f.
of Ordinance 537),the provisions of this Section(4.1) may be reduced or waived .-.
but only to the extent necessary to allow for the minimum reasonable use. Fill
shall be the minimum necessary to provide for minimum reasonable use.
•
Page 26of31
a. For purposes of this subsection (4.13.1.3), the lot of record shall be a lot in single
ownership, and contiguous lots owned or controlled by the same person or entity
which can be used for a common use shall be considered as one lot.
b. For purposes of this subsection (4.1.3.1.3), the hardship shall not be self-imposed,
such as by transferring contiguous property that could have been utilized.
4. Procedure for obtaining waivers under this subsection (4.1.31). Upon a showing that the
application of the wetland regulations in this Section (4.1) would preclude all
economically viable reasonable use, the Growth Management Director may approve a
waiver or exception provided in Section 4.13.1.1. Applications for waivers and
exceptions under Sections 4.13.1.2 and 4.13.I3 shall be decided by the Board of County
Commissioners and shall be processed in accordance with the following procedure:
a. An applicant shall file an application for waiver or exception with the Growth
Management Department on a form specified by the department. The application
shall include such materials, documents, and information as the department
requires,and shall include,among other things:
(1) The name of the present owner of the property and the name of the owner
from which the present owner took title.
(2) The date upon which the present owner took title to the property.
(3) The relationship of the present owner to prior owners if the present owner is a
successor in interest.
(4) The purchase price paid for the property, and any other investments made in
the property by the owner.
(5) The history of land zoning_and land uses of the property,and the history of the
development of the property.
(6) Proof that the lot is a lot of record for purposes of the waiver or exception
subsection relied upon by the applicant Proof may be a plat, a deed, or
another title record that demonstrates that the lot satisfies the lot of record
(7) The record owners of all properties contiguous to the applicant's lot, and the
date the properties were last conveyed.
(8) A complete description of the use(indicating activity,scale,and intensity)that
the applicant believes is the minimum reasonable economically viable use.
b. The applicant shall include-in the application a site.plan showing all of the
proposed development for the lot. The applicant's plan shall show that the
applicant has considered and used flexible and innovative design techniques to
Page 27 of 31
accommodate the project with minimum effect on the wetland protection
measures intended by this Section(4.1).
c. The applicant shall establish by clear, substantial competent evidence that the
application of the regulations in this Section (4.1) precludes all reasonable
economically viable use of the property. The applicant shall further establish by
clear, substantial competent evidence that the use and project proposed by the
applicant for the lot is the minimum use that can be made of the lot.
d. The Board of County Commissioners will make its decision on the basis of the
facts of the particular case presented by the application. To grant the application,
the Board of County Commissioners must fmd that the owner of the lot will be
denied all beneficial use of the property (as such is described is controlling
federal and state case law), considering the impact of the application of the
• regulations and the extent to which application of the regulations interferes with
the owner's investment backed expectations: Among the factors to be considered
are: the history of the property, the history.of development, the history of zoning
- and land use regulation on the property, changes in development when or if title
passed, the nature and extent of the property, the developability of the property
with and without the application of the regulations,the reasonable expectations of
the owner,any diminution of the owner's investment backed expectations,and the
minimum development necessary to prevent a taking of the property under federal
and state takings law.
The Board of County Commissioners shall make a specific factual finding on
each of the above factors and any other factors considered by the board if it
approves the application.
e. Proceedings under Section 4.13.L4.shall be the only proceedings available under
the Code of Laws and Ordinances or Land Development Regulations for waivers
and exceptions to wetland rules based on elimination of all reasonable use.
c -
A. Correction of Violation uponNotice of Violation.
Correction of a violation of applicable wetland preservation regulations, shall consist of the
following:
1. Where evidence indicates that drainage, clearing, or other development or man-made
impacts has taken place, subsequent to April 1, 1982, and in violation of applicable
wetland development restrictions ineffect at the time the violation occurred, restoration
shall be required before any development permits or orders are issued or within ninety
(90)days after receiving a notice of violation. This requirement shall include submittal of
.:a minimum two.year letter of credit,or other acceptable financial alternative,to assure the
successful restoration of the particular violation.
Page 28 of 31
. II
2. Where illegal activities in violation of the Comprehensive Plan, the Code of Laws and
Ordinances, or the Land Development Regulations have altered any wetland arca so that
all or part of the original area no longer meets the definition of a wetland or has
•
negatively impacted a wetland, restoration shall be required at the site of the alteration.
• Restoration of buffers, habitat, and hydrology of the original wetland area shall be
required. The wetland shall be protected as a natural wetland.
B. Hearings.
1. If the recipient of the notice of violation requests a hearing before the Code Enforcement
Board, then the provisions of subsection A above shall not apply until final action by the
Code Enforcement Board. The recipient of the notice may,at its option,proceed with the
corrective actions provided for in subsection A above before the Code Enforcement
Board acts on the notice.
2. If the matter goes to a hearing before the Code Enforcement Board upon request of the
recipient of the notice of violation or if correction has commenced but has not been
_ completed in accordance with subsection A,then the Code Enforcement Board shall hear
the case and issue a final decision on the notice of violation.
C. Penalties.
In addition to the foregoing, the Code Enforcement Board may assess monetary penalties
provided by law.
D. Unmitigated Violations.
Should the violation continue beyond the time specified for correction as provided above or
if the violator fails to take the corrective actions provided above within reasonable time, the
code inspector shall notify the Code Enforcement Board and request a hearing.
E. Repeat Violations. •
If a repeat violation is found, the code inspector shall issue a notice_of violation,but is not
required to give the violator further time to correct the violation. The code inspector shall
notify the Code Enforcement Board and request a hearing. The case may be heard by the
Code Enforcement Board and penalties and corrective measures imposed in accordance with
this Section,even if the repeat violation has been corrected prior to the board hearing,and the
notice shall so state.
F. Threats to Public Health, Safety and Welfare; Irreparable or Irreversible
Violations.
If the code inspector has reason to believe a violation or the condition causing the violation
presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare or if the violation is
irreparable or irreversible in nature, the code inspector shall make a reasonable effort to
notify the violator and may immediately notify the Code Enforcement Board and request a
hearing.
Page 29 of 31
PART TWO: CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
To the extent that this Ordinance conflicts with the requirements of any other provision within the
Code of Laws and Ordinances of Martin County,the Martin County Land Development Regulations
• or the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, the more restrictive requirements
shall govern.
PART THREE: SEVERABILITY.
If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional,inoperative
or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance of
any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person,property or circumstances, such
holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person,property or circumstances.
PART FOUR: APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE.
-- This ordinance shall be applicable throughout the unincorporated area of Martin County.
PART FIVE: FILING WITH DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
The Clerk be and hereby is directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the
Department of State, Bureau of Administrative Codes, The Elliot Building, 401 S. Monroe Street,
Tallahassee,Florida 32399-02.0.
PART SIX. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State.
PART SEVEN. CODIFICATION.
Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the Martin County Land Development
Regulations and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article" or other word, and the
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relcttezed to accomplish such intention; provided,
however,that Parts TWO through SEVEN shall not be codified
Page 30 of 31
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE,1999. ,
BO' ' 1 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A'T'TEST: • ' CO , ORIDA
//, LL/ 41 A )
MARSHA STILLER, CLERK J- is :
d (?JtL2461 .6 7'C, APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
-,- - CORRECTNESS:
G• • S.OLDEHO
- =" C U U ?• T y COUNTY ATTORNEY
7, -
•
/"\
Page 31 of 31
- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Planning Services Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Naples,Florida 34104
February 15,2000
Q. Grady Minor&Associates,P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs,FL 34134
RE: Planned Unit Development Petition No.PUD-99-29
"Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD"
Gentlemen:
The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming
meeting scheduled for March 1,2000. 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,
jK4i/
Stephen Lenberger
Environmental Specialist II
SL/lao/h:\EAC letters
Attachments
cc:
EAC File
Raymond J. Smela
Phone(941)403-2400 Fax(941)643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us