EPTAB Minutes 05/18/1992 Mr. Fran Stallings, Ph.D.
-_aural Resources . ._„
jv
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVII
Minutes of 18 May1992 Meetii �8
y 199 ----- --,
OURCES
.�:Present: David Addison Gary Beardsley
212LW
e
CTDavid Land David Maehr
Tony Pires Larry Richardson Michael Saadeh
Absent: Glenn Simpson (excused)
David Wilkison (unexcused)
Observers: Kevin Dugan, Cathy Owen, Maura Kraus & Fran Stallings
(Collier Co. NRD) , Kim Polen & Barbara Burgeson (Collier Co.
Project Review) ; Virginia Corkran (League of Women Voters of
Collier Co. ) ; Nancy Payton & Chris Straten (Friends of the Bald
Eagle) ; Tony Polizos (Soil Conservation Service) ; Barbara Cawley
(Wilson, Miller, et al. ) .
1. Meeting called to order at 4 : 03 P.M. by Chairman Simpson.
2 . Chairman Simpson stated that David Wilkison would be late
(but he did not attend) .
3 . Chairman Simpson, as he was ill, turned the meeting over to
Vice-Chairman Maehr.
4 . The 18 May agenda was corrected, under "Meeting Schedule" :
June 18th was changed to June 15th (Monday) .
5. The minutes of the 4 May 1992 meeting were approved.
6. Gary Beardsley gave a summary of the 15 May Coastal Zone
Subcommittee meeting; Dave Addison, Tony Pires, Mike Davis,
and Maura Kraus were also present at this meeting. The
subcommittee reviewed the CZMP 4/16 (CCPC) draft, and had
decided to bring any unresolved areas back to the full EPTAB.
A) Maura Kraus reviewed the issue re: the use of may, will,
shall, and gave definitions of usage for each. EPTAB's
recommendation was to change "will" to "shall" throughout;
she noted there were few instances of "will" (e.g. , p. I-1
1st para under "Recommendation 1") .
B) Tony Pires had 2 issues of concern - CZMP recommendation
# 's 4.35 (p. I-18) & 4.27 (p. I-17) . These were discussed at
length among EPTAB, staff, and members of the public, as
follows:
♦ 4.35 - re: CCSL vs. CCCL; problem with setback line vs.
control line; difficulty of variance process. Staff's
recommendation to keep wording as is; staff's concern is that
line needs to be revisited and possibly revised, as CCSL is
18 years old. Much discussion on this item.
Tony Pires made a Motion: wrt 4 . 35, delete everything after
1st sentence; motion failed 5 to 4 .
David Land restated the Motion: change existing wording of
4 . 35 as follows:
By June 1, 1995, the County shall consider revising LDC Div.
3 . 13, the CCSL Ordinance Variance. Revision shall inelude
extending consider creating the a County setbaek control line
landward to more closely match the existing State DNR CCCL
revision, extending the line landward along the banks
now have no coastal sebbaek control requirements, such as
the Cape Romano barrier complex and the 10, 000 Islands, and
revising criteria for allowing variances (reference F.S.
161. 053) .
• Motion passes, with Beardsley opposed.
♦ 4 .27 - re: problems with U.S. Dept. of Interior' s CBRS
process; policy as stated adopts federal designation of
undeveloped coastal barrier before approval by Congress;
problems with how and when it should be designated as
undeveloped, when it's submitted or when it' s approved. Maura
Kraus noted that there were few remaining designated
undeveloped coastal barrier systems. EPTAB's recommendation
was that the County staff should go out and ground truth
Federally designated "undeveloped" coastal barriers, i.e. ,
not simply rely on the Federal designation.
• Motion passes, with Beardsley opposed.
C) Maura Kraus also noted, re: recommendation # 4.55 (p.
I-27) , that the CCPC wanted to change "prohibited" to
"discouraged" , and that staff is against this change.
7 . Tony Pires and David Land expressed concern about correlation
and overlap between the HPO & CZMP; also, where in the LDC
the HPO would be inserted. David Land suggested the
possibility of interim HPO language.
David Land made a Motion: EPTAB wants the ability to make
changes later, i.e. , when the HPO is adopted. There will be
review of LDC/ordinances, and then some modification of HPO
components may be recommended by EPTAB upon further review.
So, at this time, EPTAB, @ the completion of the HPO process,
may make recommendations which will vary from 50/50/80
percentages.
• Motion passes, with Beardsley opposed.
8. Land moved that an EPTAB representative (Maehr or Simpson)
attend the 5/20/92 BCC evening hearing re:CZMP, to state that
EPTAB has reviewed the CZMP recommendations, & supports them,
with 3 additional comments (see #6) . Dave Maehr volunteered,
and requested that he be able to speak subsequent to the
staff presentation.
• Motion passes unanimously.
9. Dave Maehr stated that he had a final draft of EPTAB's
mission statement; he wants maps to go with it (urban, AG,
wilderness) , and hopes to have them at the next meeting.
10. David Land noted that he had distributed a HPO resolution at
the last meeting. He requested written comments, and wants
EPTAB to lay out a schedule with dates, in order to have a
draft for public review (he was originally hoping for
6/15/92) .
Gary Beardsley requested that a management plan be done
(within 6 months) for the interior of the County, as was done
with the coastal zone; this was to include the identification
of NRPA's.
Barbara Cawley stated that the LDC was not interim; that a
HPO was not necessary, as there were too many regulations
already. David Land stated that there had to be a HPO.
David Land wants input from all sectors (in the form of an
outline of the management plan & a timetable) re: what they
want accomplished with the HPO.
11. Dave Maehr wants the following agenda item for the 15 June
meeting: definitions and objectives of NRPA' s. David Land
suggested that the 15 June meeting be a long session.
12 . Dave Maehr stated that the topic of "what to do with the NGGE
area" would be discussed at an upcoming meeting (date not
decided yet) ; persons present would be Maehr (chair) ,
Beardsley, Land, and Bob Gore.
13 . Cathy Owen distributed information to EPTAB - (1) the HPO
"5/18/92 Draft" and (2) LDC DIV. 3 .8 & 3 . 9 information
indicating where the HPO may affect the LDC.
LDC glitch amendment side sheets were also made available by
Project Review staff.
14 . Meeting was adjourned at 6: 13 P.M.