Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/16/2007 S (LDC Amendments) October 16, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida October 16, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle (Absent) Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA October 16, 2007 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". 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 THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF Page 1 October 16, 2007 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3. ADJOURN Page 2 October 16, 2007 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the Land Development Code amendment 2007. Cycle I? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Cycle 1. And we'll start this meeting like we start all meetings, with the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Halas, would you be kind enough to lead us? (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to stand corrected. I might have said good morning. If I did, I want to make sure that everybody knows that the time now is 5:05 in the evening. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you did, I didn't notice it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I had to make that correction. I didn't want to let it go by. I didn't want to confuse people any more than they've already been confused. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to -- for the record, Catherine Fabacher with the zoning and land development review. I want to say that we are here for the second meeting of the first hearing of the LDC amendments for 2007, Cycle 1. And we have heard a lot of amendments the other day, and now what we're going to start with tonight is on summary sheet B, and we're going to start with Section 5.05.13, heliports. Provide siting and design and operation criteria for private use heliports. And our speakers -- this is a private petition, and our speaker tonight will be Clay Brooker. Thank you. Thank you, Clay. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, that is in your blue book. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, Joe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 5. MR. SCHMITT: And it's Page 5 in your blue book. It's behind the tab that says hot topics. I don't know why, Clay, it says hot topics. I can't figure that out, Page 2 October 16, 2007 but it does. MR. BROOKER: It's good hot topics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, the applicant on this private LDC amendment request. And that applicant is E.B. Simmons Electrical, Incorporated. It's an electrical contractor here in Collier County. With me is Stephen Rhuby of Architects, Ltd. He deserves a lot of the kudos for the behind-the-scenes work on researching heliports and helistops and so forth and so on. What I hope -- in your packages, if you look down the title page of your LDC amendment request, there's about three-fourths of the way down is an other notes/version date. The one we are working on, at least that I am working from is August 28th. And I hope that's in your packets, because that's the latest and greatest. This version that you see before you has enjoyed a unanimous recommendation of approval from all three boards that have already seen it. That being: Development Services Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory Council, and the CCPC. Each of those groups made comments, recommendations, and all of their revisions and suggestions have been incorporated into the version you see here today. Just a little bit of background. Mr. and Mrs. Simmons purchased property off of Enterprise Avenue, just east of the Naples Airport, back in 2001. That is in the industrial zoning district. They intended to move their electrical company to that site and incorporate a helipad on top of one of the buildings on the business site. At that time in 2001 and today, as we stand here, a permitted use in the industrial zoning district is called transportation by air. And transportation by air includes airports, flying fields, scheduled and non-scheduled air transportation, air courier services, air cargo carriers, air passenger carriers, air ambulance services, air taxi services and so on and so on. Page 3 October 16, 2007 What the Simmons' did was they submitted an SDP; they showed the helipad on the SDP. Initially it was approved by staff, the SDP was, but then later it was retracted. That approval was retracted because staff got a little bit concerned about approving a helipad, which may be the first private helipad approval in Collier County, or at least in recent history. So because of their concerns about that, they asked us to propose this amendment to give a little bit more beef into the code, give staff a comfort level that we're not just going to allow helicopters to fly all around the county. And that's what this does, this proposal does before you today. In a nutshell, what it does is it creates three categories of heliports or helistops. The first is a public heliport. That's exactly the way it sounds, where air passengers from the public can take a helicopter to and from the location. Then there are private and public -- then there's a private use heliport. That's again a facility that's a little bit more grandiose in scope, but it is for a private use only. And then finally, from Mr. Simmons' perspective, and most important was what we called a private use helistop. And the difference between a heliport and a helistop as discussed at length before the planning commission is the helistop does not allow any fueling or maintenance, heavy maintenance or repairs. So essentially it's just a helipad. It's a place to keep the helicopter, fly in and fly out, but if you need fueling, if you need major repairs, you have to go to a more established grandiose facility. In essence, the private use helistop is permitted as an accessory use in the industrial zoning district. And all the other types of the heliports, which are larger facilities, they must come before you for conditional use approval. So the idea was, given that transportation by air is already permitted by permitted use, we're going to allow small private use Page 4 October 16, 2007 helistops permitted as an accessory use in the industrial zone only, and anything bigger than that that deals with fueling that might get into bigger and greater concerns, that must be brought before you as a conditional use. A couple last comments, and I'll try to answer any questions you may have. An important part of this is remember we're dealing only with the industrial zoning district. And then on top of that there is a 1,500 foot setback from any residential zoning district or residential component of a PUD. So we tried to build a fairly substantial setback between any residential and the industrial zoning district where a helipad or a helistop or heliport may be proposed. Secondly, all of the Florida Department of Transportation and FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, requirements, criteria, standards, all of those have been incorporated and adopted. They are very thick, they are very comprehensive. They go through a serious notice process where everyone around, all the airports around get notice of what you're proposing to do. And they have final say as to whether a helipad or a helistop or a heliport is going to be approved in the first place. So we tried to build in all the safety measures to make sure this doesn't fly out of control, so to speak. And at that point -- with that, I'll close and try to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we'll start with Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we approving each one of these or all at once? MS. FABACHER: We would be approving everything in the amendment, which means the conditional uses, the accessory use, so forth, based upon what's been submitted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We're approving each of the amendments -- MS. FABACHER: No. I'm sorry. Page 5 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- separately? MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry, Commissioner, no. This is our first hearing, really. We're not approving anything. We're just taking comments and hearing it for the first time. And this is the first time we've heard about the heliports. So on October 24th we'll begin our second hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the only question I have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was a good question. We'll go to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, it's my understanding, you said that this has already been approved by the FAA, it's been approved by the state, and that all the airports such as Naples Airport, which is right across the street from them, basically have been notified of what is being addressed here this evening as far as a change in the Land Development Code in regards to a heliport, right -- or a helistop? MR. BROOKER: This proposal itself does not require approval, prior approval by the state or the federal government. What the state law, what Florida law says is that the design and operational criteria of all airports and these types of facilities are strictly their prerogative. A county cannot even get into that business because of the highly expert -- expertise that's required. But what the county can do is impose zoning requirements such as setbacks from various areas, and can tell the state and federal governments where they would like to see or whether they would permit in the first place. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we have here is that the final approach and takeoff has to be 1,500 feet away from any residential area; is that correct? MR. BROOKER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So this has already been measured out, that radius of where this is going to be located on -- what is it, Enterprise? Page 6 October 16, 2007 MR. BROOKER: Yes. And I have a map of that, if you'd like to see it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I'd like to see that, please. MR. BROOKER: This is a map of the county. And we tried to highlight the industrial areas in the county by those little circles. This area here is in the area where my client owns his property. Now, what I'll do is I'll show you that area now with the residential setback imposed, and you can see. The airport is here. My client's property is somewhere around in here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then what's to the south, right in -- whoops, right there. Put your pointer. Bring it down, bring it down, more, right there. Whoop. Back over. See that little white block with -- it looks like a number of streets? Right here. What area is that? MR. BROOKER: That's a single-family three units per acre zoning district. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. BROOKER: And this is the measurement, the 1,500 foot measurement back. So the yellow portion is where it is even possible that someone could propose, per the proposal in front of you, to have a helipad. So nothing could even be proposed here. The state and federal government could not even entertain a proposal down in this area. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In this criteria that was given to us here, it also says that the private use heliport are limited to use by single-engine helicopters with a maximum takeoff weight not to exceed 12,000 pounds. That's a pretty good size helicopter, wouldn't you say? MR. BROOKER: The idea -- I'm not an expert on helicopters, but the idea was we looked at the various helicopters out there. And actually, Mr. Schmitt had a lot of valuable input here, given his military background. We wanted to make sure not a great big double rotor type of aircraft would be able to come in. This aircraft is -- that Page 7 October 16, 2007 12,000 pounds is probably a little larger than -- heavier than a typical single rotor helicopter. And so what we were trying to do is give a little bit of flexibility, but in fact what that does is it limits it to a single rotor on what in the grand scheme of things, and whole scale of the type of helicopters that are out there, on the smaller side. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So would this be equivalent to a Black Hawk helicopter? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, no, it would not. This would probably be equivalent to a commercial version, kind of a BellJet Ranger. That type. A Black Hawk is much, much larger and certainly would be a lot noisier. But I have no idea what your client owns, but I had a vision of something that size, almost a little bit smaller even than the EMS type of helicopter that we have. And that's -- I can't even think of that -- that's Augulette (phonetic), but I can't remember what the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: What the takeoff weight is on that? MR. SCHMITT: No. MR. BROOKER: In may add one other thing. I wanted to throw in the proposal, because of the takeoff angles required by the FAA and the Department of Transportation, we did not want to impose anything on like a first-come first-serve basis and somehow infringe our neighboring properties. So what's built in here is when you get your approval from your FAA and the FDOT, you must get the approval from those agencies, assuming that your adjacent properties are fully built at the maximum building height, even if they're not. So you're preserving their property rights to be able to build to their levels that they're entitled to today and not be able to somehow -- if you were to approve a helipad and a takeoff zone and now your next door neighbor can't build a 25-story building because he's in a takeoff path, we've eliminated that possibility by requiring the assumption that everything is built to the maximum development standards around Page 8 October 16, 2007 him. And that way we're not infringing on any private property rights around us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Why are we considering -- why aren't we considering just this particular helistop rather than now I saw all those circles around there with industrial areas. And you mentioned all these different purposes and heliports and helistops and private and public. So what we're actually doing is really opening the door for misuse and abuse. I mean maybe this guy has a helicopter or so-and-so, but you never can tell what else is coming in on all the others. And I want to tell you, we have a lot of problems with things like that. One guy may have the right intentions, but then other people don't. So why are we doing this for the whole county? Why aren't we just considering this particular helistop? It's the guy that wants to do this, Mr. Simmons, and why aren't we just considering that? MR. BROOKER: Well, and that's a good question. And I think the way to start off answering it is to say your existing code as it exists right now that just allows transportation by air, there's no other criteria in the code right now. So we are actually imposing more restrictions, more limitations that currently exist in the code today. So when we came before the staff, the staff asked us to make sure that it's going to apply throughout the county so we're not making sure someone else can do something that's perhaps not desirable. And so what we're proposing is a set of criteria that does not exist today. For example, in any of those circled areas you saw on that map, someone could come in and place a public heliport. Because transportation by air is permitted right now. And that's a staff decision right now. And if staff wanted to say no, then you've got a fight on your hands, because it is a permitted use as of right in the industrial zoning district today. Page 9 October 16, 2007 This stops that. This gives control to the county from a conditional use process standpoint for any of the heliports, whether they're private or public. This board will have the right to, say, impose conditions or flat-out reject it if that's deemed appropriate by the commISSIOn. So we believe it's just the opposite, that what we are proposing, maybe it's a little bit legal in nature, but I don't think I could propose zoning for just my property. That might be considered spot zoning, I don't know. But I couldn't come in and just say I want this on my property and no one else gets it. But I'll let Mr. Klatzkow weigh in if you think that's appropriate. But the purpose here was give a full set of criteria and close the holes that exist today in the code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jeff, do you-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead, that's okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may. Jeff, did you have anything to add? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it might be a problem just doing just this area. But if that's the will of the board, we can certainly sit down and try to work through that problem, if we can. I'm not saying we can, but if that's the will of the board, we can try to work through that problem. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have some concerns here. I know we've been through this thing with the airport before like Everglades City, remember we had that discussion about how do you declassify an airport? And you don't. Basically when it's declared an airport, it's an airport forever. I mean, to try to get it declassified practically takes an act of Congress. By giving this type of permission, anyone that establishes a heliport, will that be the same as considered an airport under the regulations that govern that? MR. BROOKER: I don't believe so. That gets into criteria Page 10 October 16, 2007 promulgated by the FAA and the State Department of Transportation. And I know there are monitoring requirements and reporting requirements on a routine basis. And at any time if things are violated or gets out of control, the FAA and the Department of Transportation come in and take care of it. But that's more their role, as I understand it, than county zoning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, here's what I'm getting at, is you already said that you've made allowances in here for what the building heights are going to be, the maximum possible building heights. But you made no allowances for what people may want to do with their lands 20 years from now. If this is permitted, then everybody would be held to a criteria from then on out that they wouldn't be able to do anything different. That's my concern. And then we have to deal with the federal government because now we designated this an airport. Now, you know, try to give me a little comfort level on this so that -- MR. BROOKER: Well, I guess if in fact 20 years from now the code changes and a helipad has been established somewhere, I think the zoning district would have to reflect that there's now a helipad in existence. Now, if the helipad is abandoned, probably things can be done in that regard. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The thing isn't so much as it would be abandoned. Suppose the heliport wants to stay there. It determines everything else that would happen within a certain radius what could take place. There may be -- I mean, I can't foresee the future. There may be a time coming when the industrial zones don't fit into what's going to happen. Possibly they may want to build high-rise buildings or they may -- any number of things. But now the limitations to the industrial zone, at least wherever there's a heliport, forever more is limited to what the code is now, and it can't change because the federal government's going to oversee -- now, I'm not saying we automatically determine this to be fact. We Page 11 October 16, 2007 don't. But if this goes forward to bring it back again, maybe you would be prepared to answer some of these questions. Possibly the people that are in this industrial zone that are landowners might have some concern over what's going to happen to their property in the future. Will it still have the same retail value with this limitation put on by this industrial use? MR. BROOKER: I can tell you the only feedback I've had from other industrial property owners is why the 1,500 foot setback. If your property is going to meet that setback, we want it too. And that means the people in the blue area around this yellow area, they wanted to have this right to put this on there. And the comment to me was did you tailor fit the 1,500 feet just to meet your property? And to a certain extent that's true. And so I've taken away property rights from certain people by converting it to a conditional use in some areas. And I understand the question, and perhaps I can say that a property owner's rights are framed by what is allowed today. You have no expectation greater than that. So 20 years from now, if someone complains that well, back 20 years ago they placed a helipad and that's now circumscribing my property rights, no, it's not. Because 20 years you didn't have those private property rights bigger or better than you had back then. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you're absolutely correct on that. But still, if I was a landowner there and I was going to be looking to resell my property or give it to my children, this would become a criteria of future development that would have me concerned. Now I have to deal with the federal what do you call it aviation -- MR. SCHMITT: FAA. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: FAA. I'm going to have to be able to deal with them in order to be able to get anything changed. I'm locked m. Sure, I'm fine now. I'm fine for the immediate future. But Page 12 October 16, 2007 whatever that future is, my future is now dependent upon this heliport. And forgive me, maybe I'm thinking way beyond what I should, but somebody has to have some forward thinking on this to make sure that the rights down the road. Also, too, let me ask you this: Suppose we're putting this ordinance together to give them the power to be able to go forward to be able to set up a heliport which will come under the federal guidelines and regulations and everything. Would we ever have the power to be able to withdraw that permission, or would we be locked in because now the federal government's at play in it? I know we ran into this problem when we were discussing a long time ago about the Airport Authority over Everglades Airport. MR. BROOKER: You would certainly have the ability to amend this proposal to play around with the setback or do whatever -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I mean to be able to eliminate the use. MR. BROOKER: Eliminate the use altogether? Yes, you could do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. BROOKER: But whatever was in existence would be grandfathered in at that point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I mean -- okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think I could help you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And my concern too is the fact that suppose it goes in there and it becomes a detriment to the whole industrial complex, the noise, the background, the dust that comes from it. Now they're grandfathered in and we've got the problem. How do we eliminate it? All we'd be able to do is maybe eliminate it in future places. Just a bunch of issues that really haven't been answered. I don't know what's happened in other areas of the country where this has taken place, if there's been negative connotations to it or not. Listen, Page 13 October 16,2007 I've had enough time here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jeff wanted to answer that for you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. MR. KLATZKOW: One approach you might want to discuss is creating this as a conditional use. If you were to create these things as a conditional use, then you could put conditions in there. You could put say we'll look at this every five, 10 years and, you know, see what's happening in the community, or whatever conditions the board -- would please the board at that point in time. And that's how you would tackle that issue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, that sounds interesting. MR. BROOKER: And if I may comment on that. That was the beginning of all of this, the -- I won't call it a dispute but a disagreement between my client who purchased this property with the right to put an airport on it ifhe wanted to, under current law. And then the staff said no. Even though the code was very clear that he could place air courier services, scheduled and non-scheduled air transportation, helicopter carriers, air ambulance services. Matter of right, can go there today. Then staff -- even though that's the case, that's true, that's a right he holds today, staff said no, you have to pay the $3,000 to propose this private amendment, even though that's the law today. And they said, well, what about making it a conditional use? And we thought we have narrowed this down to the most finite thing that we are able to live with, a huge buffer. Everyone else, if you want to go with a heliport that has facilities for fueling and repairs, that's a conditional use. But given what the law is today, given the fact that my client was forced to come before you to propose something, notwithstanding what the law is today, this is what we're able to live with. And my client, he's not here today, but I would imagine he would object to making what he is proposing, which is a very limited Page 14 October 16, 2007 proposal, from his perspective, a conditional use. Because now you're a year and a half down the road again and tens of thousands of dollars in fees, even though the existing law is on -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Be as it may, you know, we're here today to be able to discuss this all out. And we appreciate your input. Let's go to Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in this geographical area there can be more of these helistops there; is that correct? MR. BROOKER: Pursuant to the zoning requirements, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So long as they're in that white area there. MR. BROOKER: Right. Whether the FAA would allow that is an entirely different question, because they're going to be looking at established airports, traffic patterns, all of that sort of thing. And that's another point I can make is they -- the FAA comes in and does a very comprehensive study of everything that surrounds your proposed site. And they design a takeoff and approach corridor that is the best one from their perspective in terms of not impacting other people on the ground. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why do they want to do this when they have right across the street the Naples Airport? MR. BROOKER: I asked that same question. They said that he has a right to fly a helicopter ifhe'd like to, number one. And then number two, apparently in 2005 during the hurricane season he lost a tremendous amount of business opportunities from the Charlotte County area because he could not spend the manpower to drive up and back to Charlotte County. He apparently has the wherewithal to purchase a helicopter and he would be able to take advantage of those business opportunities which are at a greater distance and from his perspective and analysis in a cost effective way. And that's why he wants it on the property Page 15 October 16, 2007 there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But he's less than half a mile away from the Naples Airport. MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just drive over there half a mile. I don't -- it's -- I'm trying to figure out where this Jeanie's going to get out of the bottle and how we're going to get it back in. And if the man is -- the person that's asking for this lives within less than half a mile or half a mile of Naples Airport, it seems to me that ifhe's got the ability to purchase a helicopter, he's got the ability to have a tie-down over there at Naples Airport or something to store this. MR. BROOKER: He considers it a value added service to his business to be able to land and take off straight from his location and serve his clients better. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where does he live? MR. BROOKER: Sorry? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where does he live? MR. BROOKER: Where does he live? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. BROOKER: I have no idea. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wonder if he's thinking about flying from his residence to this location. MR. BROOKER: He lives in the City of Naples, so that would be a short flight. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. BROOKER: To give you an idea that the comprehensive nature of the FAA -- if we're worrying about the Jeanie getting out of the bottle, I think it might be -- perhaps I can allay your concern in this way: That the comprehensive regulations are inches thick. For example, for site approval from the FDOT alone, and I'm not even getting into FAA, you have to give notice to all VFR airports and Page 16 October 16, 2007 helipads within three miles and all IFR airports within 10 miles. You have to give a statement of compliance from your local government, which would be Collier County, including any governments within five miles of your site. You have to give notice to all property owners within 300 feet of you. You have to give notice to the general public by an advertisement in the newspaper. You have to give a memo of understanding regarding air traffic pattern separation with all airports within three miles of your site. And you have to have FAA approval. That's a summary of the FDOT requirements. So there's a lot of thought and a lot of paperwork and a lot of analysis that goes into each proposed site. And so to think that there's going to be helipads all throughout the county I think is -- I don't believe it's realistic. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, what types of businesses using a helicopter can operate out of the Industrial Park today? Air transportation. So you can actually have an airport there. MS. ISTENES: Technically yes, I believe you could. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So air transportation, ABC helicopter rides, could you have that today? MS. ISTENES: I believe you could, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I don't know why we're discussing this so much. If somebody wants to provide an extra value service to his customers and have that helicopter on top of his building, if it's already allowed then, you know, what's the fuss? I don't understand, from the rest of the colleagues. MS. ISTENES: I will agree with -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If a business can ride around with a clown in the sky with a helicopter, can do it today, what's Page 17 October 16, 2007 wrong with somebody using that in their business? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're asking the question directly of commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. I'd like to respond, in may. The truth of the matter is it is here before us today. And the reason we're discussing it is to be able to find out if we want to move forward at this point in time to be able to give it a place in our Land Development Code, to be able to identify what the use is. I don't know if there's a negative connotation to this or not. I just raised a number of questions that I have that I really don't have the answers yet. It may be truly permissible. And if the people there don't mind it, I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the argument about the Everglades Airport, the issue with that is we accepted grants for the development of that airport. That was the whole issue with that. So it's not that we can't use it for other things, but there's some paybacks to the federal government. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But you do agree to the fact, Commissioner Henning, that if we do this that they'll have to limit the building heights from then on out, whatever they are. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. What you have in zoning districts now, it is what it is. Now, if the board wants to change that, let's say raise that, that would be an inhibitor. But in a matter of fact, just two years ago we lowered the height in the commercial districts. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's true, we did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I can see the only thing that we're going to do is lower it more instead of, you know, raising it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't know that. You're putting 20 years or some time in the distant future when they may need to do this. And at that point in time, not only could this ordinance get in front of us, but the federal government could. Page 18 October 16, 2007 That was just questions. And I'm not saying I really know the answers, I don't. I'm just raising the questions. But let's go, anybody else wants to address. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas said before, he was talking about this particular area, but actually this amendment affects all of the industrial areas you had circled; is that correct? MR. BROOKER: Yeah, it applies to every industrial zoning district in the county. And once you -- some zoning districts are so small that once you apply the 1,500 foot setback, it completely swallows the zoning district. So no helipads would be allowed there at all. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, my second question is staff must have had a reason for their concern. And you were saying before, you were kind of complaining a little bit that you had to be here and you didn't think you should be. But staff must have had a reason for their concern. Susan, could you tell me what your reasoning is? MS. ISTENES: I actually probably will defer to Catherine, because I know her and Clay have worked pretty extensively on this in kind of trying to break down the issues and trying to break down the various uses within the industrial zoning district. I will say, we obviously don't deal with this that much. And this actually does -- I will agree with Clay, this actually does kind of tighten the position and the regulations as far as dealing with these types of uses. So from that perspective I think it's a good thing, because I think the way things are written in the code now, and I think that was probably part of the issue of the debate, it's fairly loose and not clear. And I'm talking in generalities. Maybe Catherine can give you a little bit more definitive. Page 19 October 16, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Susan. Under the SIC code, transportation by air included activities that were all for the public; sightseeing, these various sort of things where people paid money to do it. As far as the staff was concerned, this was not for a private use, this was public use. People paid money, go to the fairgrounds, want to take a little helicopter view, you want to take a -- you need to take a helicopter somewhere. As far as we were concerned under the SIC code, transportation by air involved services that people paid for and it was a public service. We couldn't see that a private use of a helicopter at a helipad or a helistop was included in this use, which is why we recommended that it go as an accessory use to a permitted use. But that was staffs concern, that this use was not permitted by right in the industrial district. What was permitted by right were these different air carriers that you paid a fee for or sightseeing trips on a helicopter. That's what the SIC code says. So we're having a difference on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so what you're really saying then is you're trying to tighten up the Land Development Code with this amendment. And also that you recommend approval? MS. F ABACHER: I'm going to defer to Joe on that. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we met with Mr. Brooker and his client, Susan, Catherine, some other staff members, and there was concern, exactly what Catherine said. But the second piece is we offered to Clay for clarification submit for an official interpretation, we would render an opinion, and of course that could be appealed to the BZA. We also discussed the option why don't we just look at amending the LDC to clarify locations. And we worked with Clay, the staff worked with Clay in really tightening I'll call it a noose around this. Because we did. And trying to make sure that number one, depending -- and there's three Page 20 October 16,2007 options that you see in your proposal. And this is really a private helistop, which was going to be deemed a permitted use, a private -- a public heliport or some other measure they would go through a conditional use. So there was different thresholds. And that's how we got to where we are today. So this does add some discipline to it and it does define criteria. And the federal process is a very laborious process. This is the first phase that -- the applicant still has to go through the FAA application. I spoke to Ted Soliday about this at the airfield as well. He's been well briefed on this. He knows about it. It's just the mere fact of once they get the identification, it's identified, notice to airmen, this goes out to update a chart. They're under control of the approach at the Naples tower. That's all under approach. That's nothing we have to worry about. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's just this one. There's a lot of them that they could -- is there a downside to this? MR. SCHMITT: Frankly, the downside is going to be will it create a nuisance? Will somebody complain about the noise? I even sent an e-mail to -- MR. BROOKER: Grey Oaks. MR. SCHMITT: -- Grey Oaks. And I'm trying to think of -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tom Sansbury. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. Tom Sansbury. Sent Tom a note saying, Tom, are you aware of this. Sent him the LDC amendment, your Grey Oaks staff, the foundation needs to be aware of this. And basically he responded but never had any concern. I informed him as well of the hearing dates and no one raised any objection to it. The approach is going to be clearly controlled as part of their application. We have noise ordinances that we can uphold. I'm not trying to defend this, I'm just trying to point out we've been through this pretty thoroughly, and I think what we have here Page 21 October 16,2007 gives us more discipline and more oversight and control than kind of what we had in the past which was debating whether a heliport could go in there and if somebody wanted to have a private air taxi service or a public free rides down the beach service, I guess. And this gives us a little more control. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I guess. And so does that mean then they can do this by right? MS. ISTENES: It depends on what they're proposing. Because they've got private use heliports, which would be allowed as a conditional use, so that would be a public hearing. And then they have public use heliports, which again would be allowed as a conditional use in industrial. So that also would be a public hearing. And then you have private use helistops. And that is allowed as an accessory use to a permitted principal use in the industrial zoning district. And the differences are defined under number two, three and four on Page 6. And so to answer your question, Commissioner, yes, a private use helistop would be allowed by right as an accessory to a principal use permitted by right in the industrial zoning district. The other two types would require conditional use approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. BROOKER: As long as that setback is met. MS. ISTENES: Yes, yes, thank you. And Jeffpointed out, you know, you could always as a condition of a conditional use approval ask that it be reevaluated or brought back to you or set time limits on its approval so that let's say you say well, we want to reevaluate this in two years to see if there's been any problems. We could -- you know, we could put that as a condition of approval and it could come back into another public hearing forum for further discussion. So that's the benefit of the conditional use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like that. I would feel a little Page 22 October 16, 2007 more comfort with that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would, too. Let's go to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe staff can answer this question. Was this pretty well vented (sic) by the planning commission? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes. It was -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was there a lot of time spent on this? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes. It was debated probably two different hearings, and I'm thinking well over a couple hours each hearing as we went through this process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So I can see from the vote they must have felt very comfortable of where they ended up with on this, the planning commission. MR. SCHMITT: At the end, yes. By the time we went through all this and we created this thing defined called private use helistops, I think that solved the problem with the planning commission. And this would be an exclusive private use. It would be restricted only to this individual, basically. MR. BROOKER: They did make it painful for us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have a better level of comfort on this then. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm just amazed. And I'm trying to find the SIC code for private heliport. But I'm amazed that your client can apply for an application for -- to take a ride with Funky The Clown in a helicopter, but he can't use it in the business. And I'm just trying to find the difference between public uses versus one individual business use. And it must be defined in the SIC somewhere; is that right? MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioners, since this is the first Page 23 October 16, 2007 hearing, we can provide that information for you. But the uses that they provided for under this SIC code were all public carriers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public carriers. But there must be an SIC code for a private carrier then. MR. BROOKER: If I may jump in. And I researched that and I could find nothing. And so that was what we used as support for our argument. If all of these things, a 24/7 scheduled on the hour leaving and taking off helicopter is permitted, there's no other SIC code that we could fall under, then this must fall under what we are proposing. And that didn't get very far. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any problem with it already because, you know, somebody could have a 24-hour service in an industrial area to where I think he's just going to be using this for his business and maybe pleasure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have two commissioners so far, I don't know if we've got a third, that would like to see that additional language added to it that would give us the right to be able to review it at a future date. MS. ISTENES: Actually, that's already your right. It doesn't have to be spelled out in the Land Development Code. That's really an inherent right within the conditional use process to attach conditions of approval to that. And that could be one of the conditions that you could attach. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are we doing this as a conditional use? MS. ISTENES: Well, let me clarify that. Like I read earlier, you have two uses that are conditional, and you have one which is accessory to permitted principal, provided it meets the setbacks. And I believe that is -- Clay's client in particular would fall under that category number four on Page 7. So that would not be a conditional use. So they would be just a use permitted by right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: As an accessory use. Page 24 October 16,2007 MS. ISTENES: You know, your option would be to require that it be a conditional use like the others. That's your option, if you want to change that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we figure that out in the next hearing? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Just to put things in perspective, if you own 20 acres out in, let's say, beyond the Estates somewhere and you built a large home and you wanted to fly an aircraft from out there into the airport, it's again a matter of applying and notifying the FAA that you're going to move an airplane or in this case a helicopter from a private location. That's kind of what we're talking about here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a conditional use? MR. SCHMITT: Well, that again depends on zoning, Commissioner. If you're out there in an area that is ag., there really is no restriction. You can land a helicopter out there, if you had a home out there. It depends on the zoning. That's the first phase of this. This is a piece where they're actually getting the local government to sign off in saying they agree on the use, and then he goes through the process of applying through the FAA. But to answer your question, Commissioner Henning, we'd have to research to find out if in fact if you were out in ago in that area and built a home and you had a helicopter, could you land it there and park it there. Most likely yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was just trying to understand where you were going. MR. SCHMITT: Well, this is using a similar type of discussion with the business park. This is a private use business for a helicopter and it's private transportation. We're just trying to add a little more control with this criteria that we're developing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, let's move on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, Commissioner Fiala. Page 25 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to ask a fast question. What does Funky The Clown have to do with a helicopter? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Funky The Clown has been in Golden Gate for years and years. And I just -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Threw him on the helicopter? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Threw him on the helicopter. Take a ride with blow-up balloons. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like how we can blend these things together. I think we are ready to move on. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Clay. Originally -- I'm on sheet C of the summary sheets. And originally we had intended to hear permits for outdoor serving areas tonight. However, we have received additional direction to modify this amendment, and so we are requesting that we bring it back on the 24th with the modifications that would bear on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the -- how drastic is the modifications? MS. FABACHER: We're looking at another section in the modifications. And what we're looking at, it goes to the planning commission on the 18th. What we're looking at is giving the -- under SDP review, although a use may be permitted under the underlined zoning, it may be permitted under the PUD document or what passes for that now, but when you come down to it, SDP, the signing of the use, it might be a fine use in a certain location, but when it's less than -- when it's less than 300 feet from residential, it may not be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You answered my question when you said it's going to go through the planning commission. MS. FABACHER: On the 18th. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because if it's going to be a Page 26 October 16, 2007 different animal, I think they ought to weigh in on it. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. Okay. All right. And I'm going to go back and on our summary sheet. And we have really done a good job, because we've heard almost everything the first time. There was a question, though, on our last meeting on October the 11th was to come back and ask Mr. Joe Thompson to come back and talk about TDRs. And he's here tonight. And I'm on sheet M, and I'm under section 2.03.07.D, special treatment overlay ST, Page 141 in your book. When we discussed this on the 11 th, we didn't have the benefit of having Joe here, and we got kind of tangled up. And so now we've asked -- you requested that he come back to kind of explain on Page 141 and Page 145 in the bluebook. Do you have your bluebook? MR. THOMPSON: I actually have. I don't know if this is an older one. Mine's on 135, so -- MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm giving them their pages. Sorry. I have one here, if you want. MR. THOMPSON: For the record, Joe Thompson, comprehensive planning. This first one here, if it's on 141, the same one that the board's looking at, it's really a simple administrative change. Initially the code just references that severance applicants have to submit a title search for other evidence sufficient to establish, which really doesn't have a legal backing to it. So we're requiring that they submit a title opinion. It's really just a matter of something that's more stringent. In conjunction with that, in terms of process right now, there's no requirement for a GAP affidavit or any affidavit that would basically attest to the time frame between the date of the initial title opinion that's submitted and also the time that we would record the instrument that's associated with TDR severance. So by having this as a requirement, it's really a fail safe that Page 27 October 16, 2007 shows us that gap period where something could have been recorded that would have restricted residential development. So as a result now that we have this signed by the owner, that won't be an issue. And that's really the -- that's the main focus of this first amendment here. Just a process, procedural change. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. THOMPSON: I guess moving on to 145. Real simply, this one has to do with environmental restoration and maintenance bonus associated with the TDR program. If it's a private restoration and maintenance plan, the applicant has to submit financial surety to the county, just to show us that they're going to actually maintain the restoration and maintenance. And initially it was -- a performance and surety bond was required. But in dealing with this about a year ago, we had an applicant come in that wasn't really familiar with how to go about getting one of those, and we thought an easier route would be a letter of credit because it's an instrument that the board is familiar with and you see routinely. So we went ahead and went with that, and you actually approved on I think last November. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please move on. MR. THOMPSON: Okay, thanks. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. Actually, we've covered everything except the pink book which, as you recall are the land use lists. And we were ready to discuss it tonight, but over the weekend we received some comments that we need to address and we need to research. And so we thought we could more fully address these comments and present to you on the 24th on the land use list, which you recall is going to replace the tables. So that's it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's some other things Page 28 October 16, 2007 here. There's some strike-throughs on this list that changes the meaning. Let me find them. And they talk about numbering things. Like on Page 73. MS. F ABACHER: Are we in the pink book, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number two, it says accessory uses. You have some strike-throughs. Uses and structures that are accessory, those are struck through. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, that's just because it's redundant. Accessory use is a defined term and we don't need to explain it again if we define it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where did you define it at? MS. FABACHER: It's defined in the very front of the LDC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's in the definitions? MS. F ABACHER: It's in the definitions, so we thought that this was redundant from the old language. And we did look at the amendment that you did refer to us and we agree that there is a problem there and that it might be a Muni. code problem. And because of your comments over the weekend, we have decided to look at it with paralegals and really look at it very -- give it intense scrutiny again, and like I said come back on the 24th, because we haven't had quite the he time. But thank you for your comments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not bad for the village idiot. The accessory uses are strucken (sic) out of all of the zoning districts. Is that true that they're within the definition of the Land Development Code? Like agricultural, residential, estates. Those accessory uses is strucken. MS. F ABACHER: Which page are we on, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it doesn't matter. I'mjust saying -- well, let's say Page 11. Again number two, accessory use is stricken in the Golden Gate Estates district. And you're saying that is Page 29 October 16, 2007 in the definition of a Land Development Code -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- under each zoning district. MS. F ABACHER: I'm saying that accessory uses, as bolded out, identifies a defined term in the code, and the code defines what an accessory use is. Therefore, we thought it was redundant to explain -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. FABACHER: -- that they're accessory and incidental. We haven't struck the uses, we just thought we wanted to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that applies to all of the zoning districts. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my only point. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. We're not striking the uses. We're just saying it's a defined term and that we don't need to explain it twice. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's some other strike-throughs in here. I think you did it because it is not allowed legally, such as owning and maintenance and operating a facility and a part thereof for the following purposes is prohibited (sic). It's saying it's prohibited, fighting and abating of animals by owners of such facilities. You're striking that out because you can't do that anyways, right? MS. FABACHER: Exactly, sir. It was listed. It's a prohibited use, but it's listed under the uses saying you can't do it. So we said under modern code terms it's a prohibited use. So we simply took it from the discussion under the permitted uses and said no, this is prohibited, and made it what it is. I mean, it's kind of our thing to update the code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I understand. But the understanding of this, this is a codification -- or recodification of the code. That was my understanding of it. And what we have here is in some parts is just a correction. Page 30 October 16,2007 MS. F ABACHER: Exactly, sir. Trying to upgrade it and make it proper. To be in the uses and say you definitely cannot do this, well, to me that's a prohibited use. And we just simply moved it from the permitted uses where it said thou shalt not to the prohibited uses which made it pretty clear that this can't be done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So maybe just in the clarification in the front is where it addressed it in the different ordinances, you know, just a double strike through or something of, you know, it's outdated or something like that. MS. F ABACHER: You're right. And we did not clearly identify these changes for you, and that's why we want to do it again on the 24th. Because we have staff looking at it to strictly tell you exactly what was done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just to comment a little bit further on Commissioner Henning's comments where you say that it's redundant. Like accessory uses. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you say it's already in the front of the LDC. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are there ever people like me who don't know the code very well, who don't understand it very well that would read it and then would not know to go to the front or would prefer to see the definition right there rather than try and fish through and find it just for ease of reading? This is wonderful for people who like a Clay Brooker or staff members who know it, but maybe for somebody like me, it would be nice to have it right there so they understand what the definition is. MS. F ABACHER: I understand, Commissioner, but -- MS. ISTENES: Catherine, can I respond to that? Page 31 October 16, 2007 MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, go ahead, Susan. MS. ISTENES: Because it's actually what I would call one of the improvements we made when we recodified. The reason you'll see the bolded words there is because that identifies words in the text that are actually defined in the LDC in the definition section. Whereas before in the old LDC you would read a term and you would say oh, gee, I wonder if that's defined in here and then you'd have to flip back. This catches your attention and it says this is a defined term, by being bold. And I believe that is in the beginning of the code and it says that, you know, defined terms are bolded within the text. So it culls it out to you that this is defined and you can then go back and read the definition in the code. Yeah, there's a lot of fine print in the LDC, so you would certainly have to know that a bolded word is something that's defined, and you would have to read that in the LDC. But it is actually better this way than it was before, because you would just never know if a term was defined without having to go look it up. I hope that helps. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioner, you can always call me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's me. I mean, I wonder if Jane Smith is reading it. MS. FABACHER: Jane calls me all the time. MS. ISTENES: You know, another nice thing about having this on Muni. code is a tool, and I don't know if you used it yet, but it's actually the search tool on Muni. code. If you pull it up on-line, you can actually do a word search or a phrase search, and it will search every part of the LDC for that word and where that word is used within the text of the LDC. So I was looking up something the other day to do with alcohol, and so I put in alcohol, alcoholic, you know, all-- and everywhere in the code it pulled up where that word was referenced. Page 32 October 16, 2007 That's a very, very handy tool. And now that we have everything on-line in Muni. code, I'd recommend you check that out as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thanks. That would make it easier for others, too. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, to expand on what Susan's saying, if you would were run accessory use, the first hit that you would get from Muni. code would be in the definitions to tell you what it was. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're all set. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners, that's what we have tonight. We plan to meet with you again to continue this meeting, the second hearing, on to October 24th at 9:00 a.m. in these chambers, and at that point you'll be hearing all of these amendments for the second time but the first time for the outdoor seating. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I sent a couple -- Catherine, I sent you an e-mail. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't received a response. I sent an e-mail to Bruce McNall, I haven't received a response. MS. F ABACHER: No, Commissioner, I believe he did respond to you. I was copied on that one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But I also responded back to him. MS. F ABACHER: Subsequent one? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my issue was the way the maps are drawn out, or a particular vegetation species, you can find them in other districts wild -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- growing wild. But they're not allowed. So the further away from the coast, the less choices that you Page 33 October 16, 2007 have for -- to use vegetation. MS. F ABACHER: No, excuse me, sir, but the farther away from the coastline, they have more choices, because they have less native requirements. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They have less native requirements. MS. F ABACHER: The farther away from the coastal zone you get to the inland zone and the mid zone and they have less of a requirement for native because of the salt. But I understand your comments and I'd be happy to have Bruce back here on our next meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean in my house I have seagrape, but it's not allowed in the district, or Cocoa plum or wax myrtle, I think. MS. F ABACHER: Sir, I'm going to have Bruce here, because I'm no landscape architect. MS. ISTENES: The requirements are -- for certain plant types are requirements for the required buffer. So when you have a commercial zoning district, for example, and you have a required buffer around a parking lot, for example, depending on your location that buffer has to be comprised of a certain percentage of native plants. When it comes to just your home, I mean, and this is going from memory here, there may be some restrictions like for the ficus and things like that. But I don't think there is restrictions on anything else as far as just residents. But I'm just shooting, you know, from memory here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But in want to rezone my property from residential to a bar, I couldn't use those type of plantings. And maybe if Bruce just e-mails me, we can have that conversation. MS. ISTENES: Okay, we'll do that. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, we'll be happy to bring him Page 34 October 16, 2007 back on the 24th. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure if it's really needed. I'm not sure if the other commissioners really have a question about it. Maybe we can settle it with communication. That's all. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Commissioner, that's all we have tonight. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're adjourned. Thank you very much. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:10 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL r d~;I 1m ea, a1 an ATTESI:,.,. . DWIGH'r-E: BROCK, CLERK ~~,~3~PcW-,%t4 he ' At~st IS fQ,'OlI'tl'ftlllfl 1 S 1 qn4tur'~ 0.1 i;,-' These minutes approved by the Board on i Ilr;(f;2 presented ~. or as corrected , as Page 35 __..__ .~._ w_"._._.."...~