EPTAB Minutes 01/14/1992 3,S
aN 23 2992
NATURAL REsoulmfR
f 1/' NAcEi!%3!._}'t
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BURRO
SUBCOMMITTEE: Habitat Ordinance
General Minutes of the January 14th, 1992 Meeting
Present: Gary Beardsley Steve Means David Wiikison
Absent: Tony Pires
Staff Present: Ilene Barnett (NRD), Kevin Dugan (NRD), Bill Lorentz
(NRD), Maura Kraus (NRD), DR. Stuart Santos (NRD)
1 . The meeting was called to order at 3:25 P. M.
2. Dr. Santos noted that meeting notes need to be taken. Gary
volunteered to take them.
3. There was some discussion regarding the boundary of the
coastal zone. U. S. 41 was identified as the upland boundary.
4. It was stated by NRD Staff that the Coastal Zone was being
treated as a Natural Resource Protection Rrea (NRPR).
5. Dr. Santos emphasized that he and NRD Staff wanted the EPTRB
to look at all habitat types both in and outside of the Coastal
Zone during their review.
6. Ranking habitats will, for a given site under review, first
consider all identified habitats on the parcel.
7. The NRD has now received the Coastal Zone Mgnt. Plan back from
Legal review.
S. EPTRB is to look at (review) the Coastal Zone Ordinance before it
is scheduled to go to the county attorney for its legal review.
9. Bill Lorentz noted that the NRD considers that the "Habitat
evaluation and I. D. process" would consist of:
a.) Landowner would conduct a field evaluation using the
ranking criteria, this prior to staff review.
b.) During the pre-application meeting staff would evaluate
the site and determine the "ideal" location, size and
-page 1 of THREE
configuration of habitat to be set aside, preserved on the
site.
note-The Board of County Commissioners would make
the final dicision as to ertactty what over-all
"percent" would be set aside.
c.) The applicant would then move through the county review
process.
10. Steve and David suggested that the applicants team of
consultants would, prior to the pre-application meeting with
staff, in all likelyhood, have already considered an appropriate
design for the site under review. All agreed that the "process"
was important and not that the staff had to first review the site
plan without development features.
11 . Both David and Steve believed that the development community
would look favorably on a set of clearly defined criteria for
evaluating and ranking habitats.
12. Ilene noted that NRD Staff, during their review and early
analysis of the draft habitat criteria ranking, determined that
the Monroe County Plan resulted in too much fragmentation of
on-site habitats. NRD believed it was important, biologically, to
preserve blocks of contiguous habitat (if possible).
13. There was discussion regarding whether identified lands set
aside to meet the "H%" requirement would be under the
protected status in perpetuity. David and Steve suggested that
if the functional value of the habitat was lost it might be
reconsidered for development. Staff felt was in perpetuity.
14. Discussions then centered around the timing of filing the
Conservation Easement document as well as how this overlay
would show up in the county record system. fill agreed that it
was important that the status of the land be easily eHhibited to
and available to the public.
15. Gary asked if a representative from the Community Development
Services Staff could attend the subcommittee's meeting as their
-page 2 of THREE-
input was critical to any program developed by NRD and EPTRB.
Barbara Prynoski, in a conversation with Gary, had indicated she
would be able to schedule someone to attend as long as she
received sufficient prior notice of meeting dates.
16. NRD Staff informed the Subcommittee that it was presently
developing a third draft of the Habitat Criteria Ranking System
and would incorporate suggestions made today. This draft
would also include an introductory, data requirement section.
Staff would review the E. I. S. to see how it might be
incorporated.
This draft would be ready for review and discussion at the neHt
Subcommittee meeting scheduled for January 28th.
17. It was suggested that the subcommittee might meet at a
location convienent to Staff. Dr. Santos said he would identify
a location for the January 28th meeting.
18. Dr. Santos stated that the considerationsladgenda for the neHt
scheduled subcommitte meeting would be:
I. Coastal Zone Habitat Protection
II. Habitat ranking criteria
19. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 P. M.
/ -14CA:
-page 3 of THREE-