EPTAB Minutes 02/24/1992 lG c ,
ff
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD (-`e'
Minutes of 24 February 1992 Meeting y' .
Present: David Addison Gary Beardsley Mike Davis'
David Land David Maehr Steve Means
Tony Pires David Wilkison
Absent: Larry Richardson
Michael Saadeh (excused)
Glenn Simpson (excused)
Observers: Ilene Barnett, CCNRD; Virginia Corkran, League of
Women Voters of Collier County; Kevin Dugan, CCNRD; Bill Lorenz,
CCESD; Elizabeth Moseley, The Naples Garden Club; Cathy Owen,
NRD; Chris Straton, Friends of the Bald Eagle.
1. Meeting called to order at 4 : 15 P.M. by Vice-Chairman Maehr.
2 . Vice-Chairman Maehr stated that board members M. Saadeh & G.
Simpson would be absent.
3 . The minutes of the 10 February 1992 meeting were approved,
with the following corrections:
a) page 3 (under "8 . ") , 1st para, reword last phrase: from
"houses were allowed only on parcels >2 .5 acres" to
"houses were currently allowed only on parcels >1.25
acres - the pending lawsuit was for >2 . 5 acres" .
b) page 4 (under "9. ") , 3rd para, 1st sentence, change
"Kupferberg" to "Kuperberg" .
4 . Vice-Chairman Maehr called for EPTAB members ' comments on the
draft of EPTAB' s "Natural Resources Protection for Collier
County" narrative. He also asked about the status of the
narrative, and D. Land said it would be finished by next
week.
5. Bill Lorenz stated that the CCPC would be having a public
hearing on the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) on 5
March. D. Maehr asked about the status of EPTAB's input into
the CZMP; B. Lorenz indicated a future role for EPTAB during
the time when the LDC will be amended as a result of the CZMP
"blueprint" . D. Maehr also asked if any EPTAB members should
be there; B. Lorenz suggested D. Addison & G. Beardsley, as
they had been previously involved.
6. David Wilkison relayed G. Simpson' s communication: a) re:
Golden Gate Estates (GGE) , establishing a 100 ' setback as a
conservation area is the most fair & equitable way to provide
NRPA in GGE; b) also, he wants a map of what the NRPA's are
going to be, before HPO is approved.
-1-
7 . Bill Lorenz reiterated the GMP policy requirements and dates
for habitat protection regulations and NRPA' s. He requested
EPTAB input on the habitat protection ordinance (HPO) , to
determine the minimal level of protection to be provided by
the HPO, as follows:
► Where should the HPO apply? (County-wide or in more
specific areas)
► What size properties should the HPO apply to? (?# acres)
► What type of land use should the HPO apply to? (AG, single
family residential, commercial, etc. )
He also said that what the HPO does is identify the best
habitats (through the habitat ranking criteria) , and require
preservation of X%. He also stated that a function of the
HPO is the incorporation of uplands adjacent to wetlands; the
result will be a better functioning, more diverse habitat.
8 . A general discussion ensued concerning what should be
included in the HPO; the general consensus was that
flexibility should be incorporated into the HPO. Comments
from EPTAB members included:
- the HPO should apply to all native habitats excluding the
northern GGE;
- owners of small size lots (e.g. , 0. 5 acre) should not be
exempted;
- flexibility in % preservation requirement;
- consideration of the costs/burden on the landowner;
- if size of parcel precludes the applicant from meeting X%
preservation requirement, there should be options, e.g. ,
"fee in lieu of" (which would go into a fund for land
acquisition) ;
- if the applicant exceeds the preservation requirement, he
should receive a density bonus;
- suggestion for higher % in certain areas, i.e. , all
development >X acres will protect X% native habitat, unless
it's a RUE, in which case protect >>% (e.g. , 80% scrub as
suggested in the CZMP for coastal zone scrub) .
9 . Vice-Chairman Maehr made a "motion for minimum agreement" on
the following:
► 25% preservation requirement as a starting point;
► for habitats such as RUE 's, require >25%;
► for habitats with poor quality, then <25%.
He wished for it to be noted in the minutes that EPTAB agreed
on this; at the next meeting, specifics will be discussed.
10. The next meeting date was set for 9 March at Development
Services. The next habitat protection subcommittee meeting
is tentatively set for the end of next week, as they will be
receiving the draft HPO ca. next Monday.
11. D. Wilkison relayed another of G. Simpson's communications,
-2-
that to develop the NRPA' s was simple = all scrublands,
wellfield contribution zones, everything west of U.S. 41, all
acquisition lands, & need to identify the Gordon River
corridor & CREW lands connection to the Imperial River.
12 . D. Maehr requested that the results of the CCPC meeting (re:
CZMP) be an agenda item for the next EPTAB meeting.
13 . Public comment was received from C. Straten (Friends of the
Bald Eagle) ; this organization has 250 members & their role
is the protection of the local bald eagles. She has been
working with the CAO re: the bald eagle protection ordinance.
14 . B. Lorenz stated that Neil Dorrill addressed EPTAB's request
to deliver letter re: LACQ to BCC. He requested that when
EPTAB has finished the letter, to notify him & he will get it
put on the BCC agenda.
B. Lorenz also stated that Pat Cookson was compiling minutes
of BCC meetings/workshops re: LACQ.
15. B. Lorenz distributed copies of the executive summary re:
rates for Stormwater Utility program, to be presented at BCC
25 February.
16. Meeting adjourned at 6: 05 P.M.
-3-