Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/19/2008 S (LDC Amendments) February 19,2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 19,2008 LDC AMENDMENTS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and 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: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Jim Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA February 19, 2008 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4 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 PRESENTATION 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. Page 1 February 19,2008 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 CERT AIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE 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 February 19, 2008 February 19,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of Commissioners' Land Development Code meeting of cycle 2 of 2007 -- the date is February 19,2008. Would you all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Catherine, we have two amendments on there besides the recodification of the -- MS. F ABACHER: Land use tables. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- land use. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: I think we have a lot of public speakers if you want to -- I think they're all here for the marina shoreline calculation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Will the other one take that long? Did staff get together and duke it out and make a settlement? You want -- will it take that long; that's the question, I guess. MS. F ABACHER: Depends on the speakers and the questions, SIr. I have no way -- I understand Nick has a time limitation, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick has a time limitation? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, he has a conflict, I guess. Why don't we go with the printed agenda, which is the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got to leave at 6:30. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta -- Halas leaves -- has to leave at 6:30, so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hope we get this thing taken care of. Item #2A ORDINANCE 2008-10: AMENDMENT TO 3.07.02 INTERIM Page 2 February 19,2008 WATERSHED REGULATIONS -ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, we're on page 1 with the interim water, section 3.07.01, section 3.07.02, and then numerous other sections where there's a cross-reference. So I can give those to the court reporter afterwards. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And the purpose of this amendment? MS. F ABACHER: Robert Wiley's here with our stormwater, floodplain expert. MR. WILEY: For the record, Commissioners, Robert Wiley with your engineering and environmental services department. And we're here today to talk about the interim watershed management regulations to be incorporated into the Land Development Code. As we discussed before, these regulations are to implement what's already contained within the Growth Management Plan under the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, policy -- objective 2.1. We took the language that is in the Growth Management Plan and basically duplicated it into the Land Development Code, and then through the process of the various reviews coming up to this point we have had some tweaking of the language to reflect more specific issues than would be necessarily addressed within the Growth Management Plan. One of the issues that came up when we were before you the last time dealt with the issue of whether or not it would include, within the 150 percent of water quality treatment volumes, the county roadway projects. And so after Nick and I -- we've had quite a few discussions, we've had discussions among a bunch of us here, what we've done is we've edited it to include within there -- in the red you'll see before you -- and if you each want an individual copy, I have them. I will Page 3 February 19,2008 give a copy to our recorder over here. But it basically would say, under section A of3.07.02, interim watershed regulations, all new development and redevelopment projects, and then we added in, except public roadway projects as defined in the MPO long-range transportation plan, and from there on it's the same language it was before. So we did add that one phrase in there. Nick is here to talk to you about it, if you also want to discuss it. But we tried to come to a meeting, and that's the way it ended up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. Questions by the board members? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'd like to hear from Nick about that particular exclusion to make sure it's going to fit the needs for Collier County. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation. It does, sir. I think there are times when a developer builds public roads in their private developments, and we wanted to -- if they're not on the MPO or LR TP and they're not an arterial or collector, they would not be exempt. So this covered roads that were already reviewed by the MPO board, found to be as a need in our LRTP, and we'd be exempt from that regulation. One note, I've been discussing with Robert further into the future we may want to consider, even with this amendment, the ability to say, we are in response of development to build capital projects. We are not -- we are not built -- we don't build roads so development can come. We respond to development. So if there's a way to take a credit from that ability that they overcompensate their stormwater retention and treatment, that we'd like to be able to do so. Even brought up and suggested, you want to increase this even further. But right now as it's written, it meets our needs. Page 4 February 19,2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One further question, if! may, Nick. Out in Golden Gate Estates we have a number of limerock roads that are being retrofitted with asphalt on them to be able to meet the needs out there. Now, would these roads have to comply with this because of the fact that they're not being approved by the MPO? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Right now they are already impervious, considered impervious, and you're just putting, you know, pavement down on impervious material right now, and they already have side swale treatment in those roads. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So those swales would not have to be increased to take 150 percent? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What are you approving? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Approving this amendment, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING. Okay. You're going to put this in the court reporter's -- okay -- so we don't have to read all -- MS. FABACHER: Well, a motion to approve with the amended text on the visualizer, which we'll turn over to the court reporter. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Question, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How would private development have to construct their roads different than what -- how you would have to construct your roads with this amendment? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the way it's written right now, if a development, for instance, a gated community, their impervious would have to meet this increased requirement. Page 5 February 19,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: What would that look like? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's exactly as written. They would have to increase to 150 percent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hundred fifty percent water capacity? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And discharge, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Just in gated communities? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Private communities, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Private roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Private roads. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MS. FABACHER: We have a public speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public speaker on the amendment? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call them up. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I hadn't intended to speak to this provision, but when I had heard that there was going to be the exemption for county transportation, I do want to point out that roads, because of their very length, are going to create a lot of stormwater runoff. And as the county is moving forward with watershed management planning, incorporation of the 150 percent treatment is going to be something that is very important. Weare a little bit concerned that the county's exempting the road networks from this. A hundred fifty percent treatment is something that the district is moving towards, that obviously the county is moving towards. So -- just share that concern. I know these are interim standards. But having the county be at the same level of provisions as private Page 6 February 19,2008 roads, something that you're going to need to look at in the future. So I just share that with you as you move forward with this. We believe that the other standards that have been put in place and proposed for the interim Watershed Management Plan guidelines are very good and we're very supportive of those. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Did you -- the next one in my page is the permitting for outdoor seating. MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioner, that's -- yes, we can-- that's at the end. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, it's at the end? Item #2B AMENDMENT TO 5.05.02 MMP SHORELINE CALCULATIONS - MOTION TO DENY - APPROVED; MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE THE SHORELINE CONSERVATION AS PART OF TH MULTI-SLIP BOAT DOCK CALCULATIONS- WITHDRAWN; MOTION TO BRING BACK WITH GUIDANCE FROM STAFF (NO VOTE TAKEN) Page 7 February 19,2008 MS. FABACHER: It's at the end. The next one is on page 27, which is the Manatee Protection Plan shoreline calculations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: And Steven Lenberger with engineering and environmental services, the author's here. MR. LENBERGER: Good evening. For the record, Steven Lenberger, engineering environmental services. Staff, after our last meeting, revised the amendment to take in some of your concerns, and I have put that amendment on the visualizer. Also the County Attorney's Office has also taken a look at it and given you a memo regarding this amendment. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you explain what the revised amendment does? MR. LENBERGER: What your concerns were is having government facilities being exempt from the provisions of this amendment to allow them basically to use shoreline within conservation easements when calculating wet slip density, so we had added that. And we restructured it. Since the amendment got quite large, the paragraph, we broke it out into three different areas, one dealing with the government-owned boat facilities, one dealing with private facilities which are open to the public 100 percent, and one dealing with artificially-created shorelines. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I do. Along the Bayshore area, we've got a few marinas, yacht companies, boat sales, and they also have or want to build ramps that allow the general public to put their boats into the water. Well, this is something that we've had as a top priority here on the county commission trying to give people more Page 8 February 19,2008 access to the water. I want to know, is this going to prevent people -- these marinas -- say, for instance -- Gulf Shores Marina, for instance, will that prevent them from building a ramp to allow their boat to go into the water? MR. LENBERGER: The current amendment to the Manatee Protection Plan, the code version of it is is just to exclude using shoreline within a conservation area. Whether the marina can put in a boat slip is going to depend on the siting criteria of the Manatee Protection Plan. That is not going to change. If the site has a preferred rating under the Manatee Protection Plan, they can put in a boat ramp. If it doesn't, then they can't put in a new ramp. That's already existing in the current Manatee Protection Plan. I don't know what those marina facilities have down on Bayshore. If they don't have any impact to marine shoreline, then they're probably, from what I've seen in different applications in that area, going to have a preferred rating because Haldeman Creek was just dredged to the appropriate depth. The projects I saw come in did not have a high manatee use area within the five-mile sphere, which -- we looked at it, and also basically those canals which go into Haldeman Creek are all seawall ed, so there wouldn't be any impact to native marine habitat. They would, therefore, qualify for a preferred rating, and a preferred rating would allow for a new boat ramp. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me ask a question. On Bayshore Drive, Traviso Bay, I think -- or not -- is it Traviso, that big development on the East Trail? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They came to us and wanted to change a marina siting for their private docks for the residents. How will this affect them? MR. LENBERGER: This won't have any effect. I reviewed Page 9 February 19,2008 Traviso Bay -- that is a marina facility as well -- so I'm familiar with it, and they have a small area of mangroves which they saved, but they had no impact to any marine habitat adjacent to them. They received a preferred rating. It had no effect. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Explain to me marine habitat. You mean the manatee? MR. LENBERGER: The Manatee Protection Plan identifies -- a merge of vegetation such as mangroves and impact to them. It's based on a percentage to qualify as a preferred -- preferred rating for that criteria, and it's 5 percent impact is allowed. You also have submerged vegetation, such as sea grass, the hard-bottom communities. And they're -- the Manatee Protection Plan identifies, a high impact is 100 square feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if you make this 100 percent available to the public in a conservation area, shoreline conservation, then you're allowed to do that, right? You're allowed to put the docks in, the multi docks in with this amendment? MR. LENBERGER: This amendment's only going to -- only affect people where the shoreline is within a conservation easement and you won't be able to use that calculation for wet slip densities. It doesn't affect the placement of the dock. It affects using the amount of shoreline in the calculation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: When it's -- whether it's 100 percent owned -- 100 percent available to the public or not? It's still the same? MR. LENBERGER: The criteria we have regarding the public -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. MR. LENBERGER: -- was at the board's request at their last meeting, if I'm not mistaken. And there was some concern about public access and keeping access open to the public. So what we did on the amendment is craft language to exempt government -- government facilities. We also took a look at the marina facilities, and if they had a Page 10 February 19,2008 preferred rating, which is where the Manatee Protection Plan would want a marine facility, we said, well, then you can use all that shoreline in trying to keep with the board's desire to not restrict public access. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas has had a burning question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe -- oh, did you -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. No, that's all right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I believe what we discussed at the last meeting was that there was some concerns that we wanted to make sure that it was open to all of the public. And I believe that's what the direction was that was given to you in regards to this. I think what we were looking at is conservation easements that were given up by the development community that set aside conservation easements. I think that's where -- the direction that we're at. And I believe that some of the questions that Commissioner Henning asked and also Commissioner Fiala, basically, I think we have an understanding that -- of the areas that would not be impacted by this particular ordinance; am I correct? MR. LENBERGER: I guess I don't quite follow your question, what you're asking. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the question is that it's only in an area that deals with the conservation easements that are privatized; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, according to this amendment, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that's basically what we've always had at the county level, is that correct, with conservation easements? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Commissioner, anytime there's a preserve -- a designated preserve area up to the shoreline, at least in the last three years, we've required the dedicated easement to be recorded identifying that as a Page 11 February 19,2008 conservation easement. And these -- this amendment would then prohibit that land from being used to count as shoreline for the calculation for the number of slips that they would be allowed to construct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is basically the type of count that you've always had; is that true? MR. SCHMITT: Policy as shown here is the policy we've been applying. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: This is -- came up over a year ago when we came back to the board on this, and Bill Lorenz did a white paper explaining the difference between how it would come out in counting shoreline versus being prohibited, but we've been applying it as written here for -- Bill -- several years, last -- at least several years been applying it as written. We came back to the board for clarification. Your guidance was to continue with -- as -- continue applying it as we had, and then to prepare this amendment to clarify it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And all we're doing is just codifying everything? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So when I asked a question, Joe was kind enough to send me an answer back. But part of this answer, which I feel is what we're supposed to be doing here today, staff still needs the BCC to provide the direction as to what should constitute shoreline for the purpose of the wet slip calculation for any future applications for the permitting of dock facilities. I appreciated you gIvmg me -- MR. SCHMITT: That is correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes -- giving me this answer. So I guess that's part of what we're supposed to be doing here today as Page 12 February 19,2008 well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two points. First, Commissioner Fiala asked a question earlier about boat ramps. I'd like to point out that this language has nothing to do with boat ramps. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what you -- I think in order to answer her question, you really need to get to the section that deals with boat ramps. And I think the preferred rating criteria associated with that is the place to go. But this particular language does not have anything to do with ramps. It has to do only with boat slips. Now, my second issue is, if this is a Manatee Protection Plan, why is it protecting the manatee against private owners but not the government? It seems to me that if we're going to have a Manatee Protection Plan, the government should play by the same rules that everybody else has to play by. And I don't know many circumstances where we're building a lot of boat slips. We like to build boat ramps so people can get their boats into the water, but this is a boat slip change that we have before us right now. I don't understand why the government is being allowed to use a different set of rules under these circumstances than the public. MR. SCHMITT: I'll answer that, Commissioner. We were directed by the board to consider government to be exempt. That was at the last -- well, it was not actually the last meeting, but the last time we discussed this amendment at the LDC amendment hearing. The board, through direction from -- to staff was to basically provide language that would exempt the government from these restrictions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you sure there wasn't confusion at the time about exemption for the creation of boat ramps, not boat slips? Page 13 February 19,2008 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. I'm -- the direction was to -- in this language was to exclude -- basically provide language that would exempt the government. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I, quite frankly, can't support that. I think we need to play by the same rules everybody else plays by. And now, if you want to talk about boat ramps, we always have the opportunity to get a preferred rating under those circumstances, I presume, and we can build boat ramps for public to get access to the water; is that true? MR. LENBERGER: If you have a preferred rating, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, if you're building this facility in the middle of an intense manatee area, you shouldn't be allowed to violate the law as the government. We ought to do the same thing everybody else does. So from my standpoint, I don't remember it that way, Joe, but you might be correct. I don't recall all the details. But I certainly couldn't support exempting the government from the manatee protection measures that we apply to everyone else. MR. SCHMITT: I believe that was the meeting you were on the phone and then we lost you, and there were only four commissioners, and that was -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's right, that's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes, yes, I remember. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta wants to -- got my attention first, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. And I have to be just as adamant in the other direction in the fact that it's into the government. It's the gosh-darn public out there that we represent. There's a lack of boating facilities out there to be able to meet the public needs. And if we can't do something that's proactive to protect the public's best interest, then we've failed, and I won't support Page 14 February 19,2008 anything that doesn't support the public's best interest. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I believe what -- I thought the direction we gave was, there was some concerns about the possibility of a future boat ramp going into Goodland. MR. SCHMITT: Goodland. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that was the discussion. I don't think there was anything about docks. I think it was strictly boat ramps because we were talking about just putting a dock in whereby people can launch a boat and I that's where the discussion went, if! recall. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, hang on. Let me -- if you don't mind. Well, the Goodland boat park, there will be slips there. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Boat slips. Hopefully there'll be a boat ramp there, don't know, but that was the intent. There was some concerns about five-acre Goodland boat park. And I just need a clarification. Mr. Schmitt, you said you've been applying this in the last three years? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The way it's been applied is to consider that the conservation easement would negate the calculation of the shoreline for any slip calculation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So-- MR. SCHMITT: And we came to the board with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three years ago. MR. SCHMITT: For guidance, I'd have to pull the dates, and it was in your other dates that we had, and I don't have that one. Bill, Bill? If you could come up and clarify. I mean, we had an executive summary. We came to the board. What was the date of this? Because we came to the board, asked for clarification. We described the problem we were having with this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was a year ago? Page 15 February 19,2008 MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, engineering environmental services. It was about a year ago. It was February, 2007. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you've been applying this policy for the last three years? MR. SCHMITT: It's been in the LDC through the Manatee Protection Plan as the interpretation on how to apply it. When we found -- we realized that there were potential problems in the -- at least the interpretation in the application of it, we came to the board for clarification. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any base science that manatees live in mangroves? I was -- being a three-decade resident here on the water, I thought they always hung around the sea grasses. MR. LORENZ: For the purposes of the Manatee Protection Plan, as Steve has noted, that we were looking at habitat protection, habitat consisting of both mangroves and sea grasses, and those were the -- those were the criteria that were generated to calculate that preferred rating. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make sure. I remember the discussion very well that took place, and I kind of drove it in the direction it was going for the very reasons I stated earlier. But am I interpreting something wrong between now and then? We were talking boat docks. We weren't talking boat ramps. MR. SCHMITT: This is about boat slips or boat docks. It's not about boat ramps. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, exactly, but we understood that at the last meeting. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that was the direction we gave you. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Page 16 February 19,2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Anything else before we go to the public speakers? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one more question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: One more question from Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just so that I understand, along -- along the Bayshore corridor -- and I know that isn't even my district. I'm just concerned with it, okay? Just along the Bayshore corridor for those waters along there, how will it affect those -- I think there must be three, four marinas along there. How will this provision as proposed affect those people who still have plans to use their property? MR. LORENZ: Let's have an example of where a marina, existing marina, comes in and they want to build additional wet slips. For the purposes of the calculation of the wet slip, the maximum amount of wet slips, we will look at the amount of shoreline that they own in their property, multiply the amount of shoreline times the rating value in terms of number of wet slips per thousand feet of shoreline. That would be the calculation. This amendment as proposed would say, in that calculation the shoreline that you have in a conservation easement cannot be used in the calculation. That's the proposal. So this is -- this is -- if, for instance, you have 50 -- let's say you have 5,000 feet of shoreline. One thousand feet of it would be in conservation easement. You will then only be able to use the 4,000 feet in your calculation of maximum wet slip density. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So now -- we're not saying where the manatee live. We're just talking about where they could live, where they could hide, where they could feed or anything. Who determines what that conservation easement shoreline is or where it is? Page 17 February 19,2008 MR. LORENZ: The Manatee Protection Plan provides for the criteria to come up with whether you're a preferred, moderate, or protected rating, and those criteria depend upon the manatee deaths or the manatee abundance within that area, the amount of -- the amount of habitat that would be impacted by that area. And Steve will have to help me for the third criteria. I think adequate water depth in terms of getting out from your facility to what was called a preferred destination was a third criteria. Those criteria would determine whether you have a preferred, moderate, or protected rating. And that -- that would tell you, for instance, a preferred rating, you would have 18 -- 18 boat slips per thousand foot of shoreline. The protected rating would only have 10 -- I mean one boat slip per thousand foot of shoreline. You would then take that rating and multiply it by the amount of shoreline, qualified shoreline, and that's how you come up with a maximum number of boat slips. So the question for -- the question that we have for clarification is, should we be counting all the shoreline or should we be counting just the shoreline that's outside of conservation easements? That's the heart of the matter for the clarification. And what staff has been doing since the development of the Manatee Protection Plan is applying the shoreline that's outside of the conservation easements for that calculation. MR. SCHMITT: And I want to correct the record. It's since the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan since May, 1995, staff has been applying that rule. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? I've got so many dates in my mind, I don't know where I'm going. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's -- let's pursue that line of questioning a little bit further, Bill. Is this going to have any impact on an individual's ability to be able to build a boat dock? MR. LORENZ: Not a single-family boat dock, no. Page 18 February 19,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It includes only a -- it deals only with a marina? MR. LORENZ: It deals with multi slip facilities, which could be a commercial marina or could be a -- simply a condominium, for instance, that would have multi slip facilities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it deals -- does not deal at all with dry slip storage? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The calculation does not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's where most marinas are going; if they have a larger volume of boats they want to service, they're going to dry slips, not wet slips. It does not impact their business substantially. They can still have as many dry slips as they want or can service. It only deals with wet slips. MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right? MR. LORENZ: The details for dry slip is, you can have dry slips in a preferred siting. You can expand it in a moderate siting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, tell me what is -- would you go back to the slide with the new language. Would you tell me what is a county-required preserve? MR. LORENZ: County-required preserve would be the preserve that's set aside to meet the vegetation retention requirements of the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What portion of the Goodland park is a county-required preserve? MR. LORENZ: I'd have to check with staff to answer that question. MR. LENBERGER: The Goodland -- the Goodland park has a -- doesn't have any native vegetation other than the mangrove fringe, so it would be based on 15 percent of that area of the mangroves. That would be the county-required preserve pursuant to the Growth Management Plan. Page 19 February 19,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would be 15 percent of the area that -- where the mangroves are in? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And do you know how much that is? MR. LENBERGER: Not off the top of my head, no, but-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many wet boat slips would the Goodland Preserve be allowed under this criteria? MR. LENBERGER: I don't remember the exact number. I do remember that they were allowed more than they actually came in for when they came in for a preapplication meeting. I was at that meeting, and I also -- they also came in for a second meeting, which they scaled down a number of boats. They scaled down a number of boats to have less impact on mangroves so they can keep a preferred rating in order to construct the boat ramp. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you removed this exemption for the county, it wouldn't impact the number of boat slips at Goodland park at all? MR. LENBERGER: I don't believe it's going to have any effect on the Goodland park. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So Commissioner Coletta -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- this provision does not, in fact, solve your problem. It doesn't permit more boat slips to be built at Goodland or probably anyplace else we own. So I still oppose giving the government the right to do things that private owners can't do except to build a boat ramp to let people get to the water. It will not in any way reduce the facility at Goodland park to remove this provision. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You want to go to the public speakers? Page 20 February 19,2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, why not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And last chance to sign up if you want to speak, or forever hold your -- and we're going to give three minutes per speaker. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioner. The first speaker will be Alex O'Brien followed by Rich Y ovanovich. MR. O'BRIEN: Could we just switch those speakers? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. I hate to go first. All right. My name's Alex O'Brien. I live at 21 Bluebill Avenue, in Commissioner Halas's district. And I'd like to say that I am here to support the passage of the Land Development Code and, in particular, I am concerned with the area by Delnor- Wiggins Park which seems to be a hotbed of interest right now. I think it's time to have some home rule here in the county and keep the environmental fate in our own hands. We can see that the state capital, in my opinion, is not environmental friendly. This is a good step forward, but I don't think it is enough. And, again, I'm speaking for the Delnor- Wiggins, not the whole Collier County, because I'm not familiar with the whole Collier County area. This is a good step forward but not enough. This dock issue should be stopped and a firm no-way be given. The area near the Aqua condos used to be the former Wiggins Pass Marina, with the county marina being there also, and there's plenty of area for development of boat slips there, since it was already there. My concern is, why build them in an environmentally fragile area since others exist? If it is the intent to offer boat slips, why not bus the people that want them from the Dunes condos over to that particular area? They've already set a busing precedent by taking one of their buildings and busing the people to the Floridian Club to go to the beach, so it's not an unusual concept for them to do. The Dunes buildings will not be affected but the people on Baker Page 21 February 19,2008 Carol Point will be there 24/7 looking at the boats, looking there. I particularly go fishing in the canal along with my grandchildren and that. The canal will be narrowed significantly, and the recreational areas will not be available to them. I would like to see you vote a 5-0 in favor of this and send a message to the developers that the coastline is important to both you and to us. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask the speaker a question? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sir? MR. O'BRIEN: Boy, that's funny. I'm getting asked a question, great. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want -- don't want the developers to be able to build boat docks. Would it be okay if Collier County government built the boat docks up there? MR. O'BRIEN: Let's put the -- I mentioned the developer because that's what I'm concerned with and that's what they want to do, okay. I would assume that the Collier County government, you folks up here, would be looking at the facts and seeing that it is an environmentally fragile area and you wouldn't even put them there. That's my concern. I'm assuming that you, if you wanted to do it, you would look and see that is not a proper area. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it seems that developers have the money, and money talks, and they've been doing an awful lot of talking with some of the things they wanted COMMISSIONER COYLE: You understand that if this is approved the way it is written -- MR. O'BRIEN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we could go in there and build boat docks for the public? Page 22 February 19,2008 MR. O'BRIEN: And if you did build the boat docks right along that shoreline, I'll be standing right here bringing my objections again for the same reason. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. O'BRIEN: The boat docks should not be put in a fragile environmental area, period, but I don't care by who. It just happens to be the developers that are doing it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a question. MR. O'BRIEN: Oh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know that area, Baker Carol Point. MR. O'BRIEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's on Baker Carol Point? MR. O'BRIEN: Eleven condos. Eleven condos? Eleven condos. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eleven condos. MR. O'BRIEN: Ten, sorry. Ten. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do they have boat docks? MR. O'BRIEN: They have an inset, I guess, cul-de-sac would be a way to describe it. Where-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: So they don't have any boat docks there? MR. O'BRIEN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: They don't have boat docks there at Baker Carol Point? MR. O'BRIEN: Yeah. And there's a cul-de-sac in there with boat docks in it, not out in the canal and not built -- see, I don't know exactly when they were built because that was like before my time, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow. MR. O'BRIEN: Yeah. Well, no, not before my time. I'm 63. I don't mean before 6 -- you know, 63 years ago, but before I came Page 23 February 19,2008 there to find out all the specific facts. I'm sure some of these people here from Vanderbilt would know better exactly when. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You answered my question. Thank you. MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Apologize. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Y ovanovich. And after him will be Tim Hall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good evening. Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of Signature Communities. First of all, what the previous speaker just said, the boat docks that will be constructed will not be destroying the mangroves. They will not be taking the mangroves out. What Signature Communities did is they bought waterfront property, and as every other owner of waterfront property, they have riparian rights and included in those riparian rights is the right to utilize the water, including the construction of boat docks, like many other waterfront property owners in Collier County. Signature Communities made no secret about that and what I went through, and I did their PUD for both the Dunes and Cocohatchee Bay. They knew they'd have to go through the county's permitting process, but at the time they negotiated their PUDs with the county, contrary to what your staff is saying, there was not an application of, if you had a conservation easement over mangroves, you didn't get to count that as shoreline. You still owned that property . You still pay taxes on that property. So it is still your shoreline for purposes of calculating boat docks. What -- and I know for a fact that recently -- and I know B.J. was there, I think, supporting it when the Regatta went through. The Regatta has a conservation easement along its shoreline. It was there at the time the project was permitted and that shoreline was, in fact, Page 24 February 19,2008 included in the calculation of the number of docks at the Regatta. So I know from firsthand knowledge, at least since 1995, that that policy was not applied to that particular project. And, in fact, the language of the LDC doesn't say that. It says that you don't count -- it basically says, your shoreline, you calculate it. You still own it if there's an easement on it, and that's how it's been applied in the past. And that's -- and this came up a year ago, as you all remember, as a discussion item for the Cocohatchee Bay settlement agreement. We said, pull it out of the settlement agreement. Let's come back and discuss how this has been applied, and your staff at that point said that this has been the policy for 10 years. I know Tim Hall has asked for examples over that 10-year period when this has been applied, and I don't think they've responded to him to give him any examples. So what we're requesting is that the county apply the literal writing of the LDC as it currently exists. If you own the shoreline, you get to calculate it. We're not asking for permission to destroy any mangroves in constructing those docks. Those docks will be located outside of the mangroves. They'll be in the appropriate location, and, in fact, your Comprehensive Plan encourages water access. It encourages boat docks. It encourages recreational use of the water. What you're saying to these two projects, and every other project, whether the county builds them or not, if you have waterfront, you cannot, if you have any easement on it, you cannot include that in your calculation. What the county ignores is that when you go to the state for the state permits, they require you to put an easement on that land. We have to go through the state process first before we can come to the county process. So what you're effectively saying is, everybody, you have to get a state permit to build a dock. You're not going to be allowed to build Page 25 February 19,2008 docks in Collier County because the state-required conservation easement will prohibit you from counting that shoreline in Collier County . Commissioner Coyle brought up an interesting point, and I've always thought this was the law, and I think that Steve clarified that. When you asked, what is the county's required easement, on the park example you gave, they said, you only have to count 15 percent of those mangroves. So if! apply that rationale to the projects that Signature Communities owns, they only have to -- they only have to put 25 percent of those mangroves because they have a 25 percent requirement in the conservation easement, and the remainder of those mangroves can be excluded from the county-required conservation easement. They can elect to have a larger conservation easement, and in that conservation easement, I guess, put in there the right to have boat docks. They say, we'll give you a conservation easement, but we're reserving the right to put boat docks in that conservation easement. I just would like clarification, because I think that's exactly what Commissioner Coyle asked staff. And if that's, in fact, what the law says, is that we only have to put 25 percent of the mangroves in a county-required conservation easement, then I would submit to you, you know, then we'll have to go forward with that and we'll do that and we'll deal with it appropriately. So I don't know who to ask that question. I hope we can get that clarification through this process. These are rights that Signature Communities had. The taking away ofthose rights, you know, obviously, is an impact to property value and should not be foisted on Signature Communities. They-- MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, excuse me. The three minutes is up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, it is? MS. FABACHER: Yeah, sorry. Page 26 February 19,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, can you wrap it up, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Anyway, they should not be -- those rights shouldn't be taken away from them when you're not taking those rights away from anybody else who owns waterfront property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Halas has a question, right? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. To -- for our attorney. How does the discussion of conservation easements, how does this affect waters that are considered outstanding Florida waters? How does that all play into mangroves and habitat? MR. KLATZKOW: For purpose of your LDC in calculating wet slips, it doesn't. We're silent on that issue as I read your amendments in your LDC. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there's no state or county LDC amendments in regards to protecting those waters, if there is outstanding Florida waters in any particular area that has a conservation easement on it? MR. KLATZKOW: No. There may well be state restrictions on this, but we're dealing here with the county restrictions, and your LDC, in calculating wet slips, it just doesn't have that as a factor. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Well, the calculations that we presently have, all we're doing is -- there's not that -- that much of a change. All we're doing is codifying what we presently have been doing in the past; is that true? MR. KLATZKOW: Your staff is saying that they've been doing this since 1995. Mr. Yovanovich is saying that's not so? COMMISSIONER HALAS: And who? MR. KLA TZKOW: Mr. Y ovanovich has just said that that's not so. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So staff, are we -- what's the real side of the story here? Page 27 February 19,2008 MR. SCHMITT: That's the information we brought forward a year ago when we discussed this. We also identified to the staff -- to the board the difference of opinion, I'll call it, between the application of this section of the code. That's why we raised it to the board. The board's direction at that time was to continue to proceed and then come back in and try and clarify this through an LDC amendment. We had two recommendations, and they basically covered -- we were then asked to do research to verify where the conservation easement was and define -- or based on what was defined on the conservation easement, that's how we would apply it. And each particular case, when we looked at the conservation easement, looking at the legal language in the conservation easement, and then applying it based on those -- well, on the calculations for the docks. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just very briefly. It appears that this is an item that will have to be resolved between the two parties at some point, and the best way to do that is to present the examples of those circumstances where this language has been used in the past. That should not be a difficult thing for the staff to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I've asked for a public records of all the docks, multi slips (sic) docks since 1995. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you haven't got it yet? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I've asked for the information earlier. I never got it, but I did a public records request with the county manager today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're going to get that answer. MR. SCHMITT: Barbara has a list of, I think, five -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've done the same thing. We asked and we've not been provided -- we thought it was readily available. Page 28 February 19,2008 MR. SCHMITT: It isn't -- there are not many. Barbara, do you want to -- Barbara has a list that we compiled today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want all the information, right? You want to go? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would hope so, Commissioner Henning. Do you think we should proceed with this item without that information? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I want -- the reason I wanted-- I'm hearing two different things. And we've been grappling with this thing for a long time. And I -- you know, I don't know if! want to keep on talking about the same issue. But eventually I'll get the truth, and through my public records, is what has been applied. If it's -- like it was said, if it hasn't been applied to the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Regatta. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the Regatta but it's been applied to others, then we have a problem. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The issue's of fairness. In this case here, if it hasn't been applied uniformly -- well, I guess the big question would be, who authorized it to begin with? It would have to come -- the authorization would have to come from the commission. Ifit hasn't been applied uniformly, then there should be something in the way of a grandfather clause to be able to protect those people that are in the process now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, you know, the Manatee Protection Plan was written a number of years ago. It was the first one in Collier County. We had two gentlemen come to us -- I think Lee Lyons (phonetic). This is a similar issue -- Lee Lyons and Duke Turner, who was the -- one of the original authors of the Manatee Protection Plan. In my opinion, we need to reach out to the history of, what was this Manatee Protection Plan all about and what applied to it, you Page 29 February 19,2008 know what I mean? In other words, coastal conservation, shoreline conservation, did it apply to that? You with me? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The whole issue of the Land Development Code here is to amend what we're being told staff has been making policy all along, since 1995. I question that. But I -- my point is, ask the people who wrote the Manatee Protection Plan of what -- did it -- was the intent to include shoreline protection as a prohibition for docks? That's what we're doing here. Basically ask them, is this what you meant? Is this what we're doing here today? Is this what you had intended to do in your Manatee Protection Plan? Because we're having staff clarify it, and I'm not sure if we're hitting the target. That's all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sorry to take up so much time. MS. FABACHER: All right. Next speaker? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? MS. F ABACHER: Tim Hall is the next speaker, and after that, Bruce Burkhard. MR. HALL: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall & Associates. I wasn't sure I was going to be here so I sent all of you an email yesterday with my comments. I hope you got that. I'm not going to go over those points again. But in regards to some things that were said here today, I think I would have to respectfully disagree with staff on a couple of issues. One is that I agree, this amendment does not apply to boat ramps or dry storage; however, when you normally design a boat ramp or a dry storage, you have to have slips there to support the boats that are going in and out of the water so people have something to tie up to, after they unload it from the trailer, go park the trailer and so forth, Page 30 February 19,2008 and then come back to the boat. There needs to be slips there to support that use, whether it be dry storage or boat ramps. And under this amendment, those slips would be affected. So you could have the ramp and then you just have to have your boat floating out there while you went and did your -- parked your car or whatever. And then I believe the other item that came up where you had asked specifically about the Goodland boat park, granted that there's only 15 percent of the park that's under a county easement; however, the entire shoreline is under a state easement. And according to the way this is read, a state or federal easement that does not specifically allow boat docks would also be excluded, and that easement was put on there for mangrove protection. It does not specifically allow boat docks. It does not specifically prohibit boat docks. The boat docks were permitted as part of the entire project, so that was taken into account when that easement was put in place; however, because the easement does not specifically allow boat docks, my interpretation of the way this rule is written is that then that shoreline would not count, so you would be left there with none of your shoreline counting towards your wet slip -- your wet slip calculations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You just heard staff say that that's not true for Goodland. This would have no impact at all on the ability to build boat slips at Goodland. MR. HALL: And that's why I'm saying I disagree. If they are saying that it doesn't -- that it doesn't apply, the way I read this, there is a state easement along the shoreline. It does not specifically allow boat docks. So by the letter of the law, the way this is written, that shoreline would not count. Page 31 February 19, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: What kind of state easement is it? MR. HALL: It's a DEP conservation easement along the shoreline to protect the mangroves, that was put in place to protect the mangroves. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it extends even in those areas where there are no mangroves? MR. HALL: I believe it goes along the entire shoreline. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Even though there are not mangroves -- MR. HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- along the entire shoreline? MR. HALL: There's still that wetland interface, and they wanted to protect the entire thing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'd be interested in hearing staffs response to that too, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you need to look on page 29G, the second sentence, shorelines within county-required preserves or within state or federal conservation easements which do not specifically permit boat docks shall not be used in the calculation. Is that what you're talk about, Tim, that -- MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- specific -- Mr. Hall? MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if it requires a -- preserves or within state and federal conservation easement, state or federal conservation, that's key? MR. HALL: Right. And if the easements are not specific to where they actually in that easement say that this easement does not preclude the shoreline from being counted, then it would not count. And until last year, none of the easements that my office has worked on, which is probably in the hundreds, has include any language like that. Page 32 February 19,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in the language that is before us, it doesn't mention any state or federal easements. It says, any -- having shoreline within county-required preserves shall be exempt from this provision. MR. HALL: No. I'm talking about -- not in the -- maybe I'm looking at the wrong -- at a wrong -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. HALL: -- version then because-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, no. It says in G or within-- MR. HALL: The version -- I'm saying in the very top, in G, it says, shoreline within county-required preserves or within state and federal conservation easements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But then G2 says, the County will be exempt from this provision, and that's the thing I'm objecting to because it is -- it is not only contradictory to the primary paragraph of G, it is, in fact, unfair. MR. HALL: Well, and I put that in my letter to you that I agree with your opinion there. I just was putting forth that I disagree with -- that regardless of whether they're exempt or not, I think that this amendment would affect the Goodland boat park even if that exemption criteria is not out there. And then the only other thing is, I can offer, is that I know of five projects that have had conservation easements on shorelines that have counted that shoreline in their slip calculations when they got permits through the county. As they said, I requested back in March of last year for examples of projects that this had been applied to. And to date, I haven't received any. If Barbara does have some, I'd be happy to take a look at those. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next speaker? MS. F ABACHER: Bruce Burkhard. And then after that, we'll hear from Carson Sawyer, Jr. MR. BURKHARD: I'd like to cede my time to Susan Snyder Page 33 February 19,2008 and Nicole Ryan in the interest of saving time. MS. FABACHER: Well, they have a slip later on. Did you-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Burkhard, explain what you want to do. You want to yield your time to who? MR. BURKHARD: To Susan Snyder and Nicole Ryan, and basically -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: How much -- MR. BURKHARD: -- in favor of -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: How much time are you yielding to each person? MR. BURKHARD: My full time, three minutes, I guess. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're going to split it up or what? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two and a half minutes each (sic). CHAIRMAN HENNING: A minute and a half each or -- MR. BURKHARD: I'll just give it all to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You all want to flip a coin or-- MR. BURKHARD: Funny. Maybe just to Susan Snyder. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Six minutes to Susan Snyder. MS. F ABACHER: Anyhow, I think we had Mr. Sawyer next. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, Mr. Sawyer. MS. F ABACHER: And then Mr. Osborne. MR. SAWYER: My name's Carson Sawyer, Jr., nickname Kit. Been here all my life, my family; all commercial fishing and everything. I've built a place down on Bayshore, Sawyer's Outboard Service. And I kind -- I listen to all this, and I'm really scared to death. If you ask me anything about outboards, I'll tell you, I can help you. But it -- when I've asked a whole bunch of different people things, it's interpretation is what -- the word interpretation scares me to death. I put a deposit on my property July 11 th of '97. Took me two and a half years to purchase, I bought it. I had plans for different Page 34 February 19, 2008 buildings, and then September 11 th hit and I had to stop, and then I started again, and then Hurricane Andrew laws came in effect, so I had to redo all my plans. And meanwhile, I was under the interpretation that I could not go for dock and ramp permits because of the manatee plan, which was written in '95, and we have people that are still alive in this town that I wish you guys would talk to to let them interpret what they said, not anybody else. But interpretation -- and I wish somebody could tell me. I think it was in '01, '02, they interpreted the word four-foot access into the marina as all the way out to the pass or whatever. So that allowed me not to build my boat docks and ramp. So meanwhile, checking everything out, I moved my building 15 feet away from my wetlands. And at the time I had zero lot line, so I could have had 15 more feet out in front of my building, which would have really helped me. But I -- I didn't want to wait two years. I can't afford to wait two years. I got to get it built and move in there and start running my business. So I moved it 15 feet away, built my building, and now I finally have submitted my plans. And I've been in my building five years. What really scares me right now, I'm in the middle of building my ramp and dock, which I wanted to go the whole distance of my property, but I really can't afford that. Fire department wants me to put fire and everything on it. I can't afford that right now. So in a couple years I would like to be able to come back and put docks all the way across there. Well, if this is interpreted that I can't do that, or whatever's interpreting it in a couple of years, is this going to affect my chances for having docks? And I don't really know what else to say except for, I guess if we listened to my grandfather below the bridges, nobody would be here probably. So I kind of feel like, when you tell people they can't do Page 35 February 19, 2008 something with the property they own, that's really wrong. Thank you. MS. BURGESON: I have a -- excuse me. Barbara Burgeson with environmental services. I have an email response regarding the specific issue I'd like to read into the record. From Mac Hatcher, who -- I'll just read this. It was sent Friday, February 15th at 4:14 p.m. This is sent to Bill. Commissioner Fiala relayed that Mr. Sawyer had concerns about the proposed LDC amendments on marina docks. I spoke with Kit Sawyer because Steve was busy. Turrell & Associates is assisting Mr. Sawyer extend his dock currently. He has been in for a preapp. and is working on his state permits now. Although he doesn't have any preserve or conservation easements, Turrell advised him to inquire that he had been affected by -- that he may be affected by the changes. He does have mangroves growing in the riprap seawall and that will be reviewed during the review process but no conservation easements. So if there's county conservation easements, we will not disclude -- discount any of his shoreline. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if we remove the language that is presented, shorelines within the county-required preserve or within state or federal conservation easements, if we remove state and federal conservation easements, how many people will that affect then? Will that hit the target where certain people want to go with this? MS. BURGESON: I think the main concern is that when the county reviews a brand new project where there's no conservation easement, for instance, when the Dunes came in brand new, fresh in the -- either late '90s or 2000, they had no conservation easements proposed or -- no conservation easement existing at that time. At that time when they were going through the PUD amendment or the brand new PUD, should they have been proposing docks at that time, that would have been evaluated and reviewed, there would have Page 36 February 19,2008 been a discussion as to where and what shoreline needed to have conservation easements placed over it, the calculations would have moved that number of docks to wherever staff and the Board of County Commissioners agreed they belonged, and the conservation easement would have been placed over the remainder. However, at that public meeting, Commissioner -- actually Commissioner Tim Hancock specifically stated on the record that he understood there would be no docks with that PUD, and that's how that original PUD was approved with the conservation easement put in place with a promise of no docks. And so that's the issue where, when there's an existing conservation easement, that staff has not -- existing county conservation easement, staff has not calculated that shoreline for boat docks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if we remove -- please answer my question. If we remove state and federal conservation easements, Mr. Sawyer would be okay, right, in the future? Because he has to get a state conservation easement. MR. SCHMITT: No. No, sir. There's no requirement for a state conservation easement. You're going for a state permit to allow you to build docks. MS. BURGESON: Just boat docks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But then you have put a conservation easement over it when that happens. MR. SAWYER: I have to get that. MS. BURGESON: No. Well, I can't tell you it for certain. I do know that it's under review, and I do not know of any way that this amendment, with that language in or out, will have a negative effect on Mr. Sawyer. MR. SAWYER: Didn't our government vote the manatee in in '95? Don't we have enough rules and regulations for Collier County? I mean, didn't the state do the right thing? What worries me is have -- Page 37 February 19,2008 and maybe you can tell me what this is. The word maybe here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. SA WYER: This scares me to death. That's interpretation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a government phrase, maybe. MR. SAWYER: Yeah, maybe. My customers don't accept maybe. MS. BURGESON: The other issue at hand is -- to answer one of the commissioner's questions earlier, is that scientific data supports the need to provide additional protection to the shoreline by further limiting the amounts of boats utilizing the area. Sea grasses likely suffer damage from sedimentation and sluffing that occurs during dock construction. If the sea grasses survive vessel egress and ingress, it may impact the entire area of sea grass beyond recovery. There is also evidence that boat wakes and shallow water contribute to the damage of sea grass beds by increasing trepidity, which can attenuate sunlight required by sea grasses in the report written by Kenworthy and others in 1989, resulting in sea grass loss. So that's the concern that staff has and has been using to protect the fringe along the shoreline of the mangroves. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. So the whole purpose of what we're doing here is to limit the number of boats that are using these waterways? MS. BURGESON: I wouldn't say limit the number of boats. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's just what you said. MS. BURGESON: I would say to put the boats in the appropriate areas to protect the mangrove shorelines that are sensitive and critical. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Help me with where the appropriate areas are. MS. BURGESON: Where there are not already existing Collier Page 38 February 19,2008 County conservation easements. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And could you identify what those areas would be? I mean, just give me some examples. It would help an awful lot in my deliberation. MS. BURGESON: Any undeveloped property that has shoreline would not have an already required conservation easement for Collier County. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if it's undeveloped. But once it's developed, then there would be an easement on it. MS. BURGESON: But through the development process-- when we do that review, it does not already have the easement on it, so we count the entire shoreline. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I -- I apologize. I really apologize. But Commissioner Halas has to leave in 15 minutes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. No, I got to -- I'm going to leave in two minutes because I got to drive up to Pelican Bay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I think I'm getting my point across. I accept your apology. MR. SAWYER: Thank you all. MS. F ABACHER: We have Philip Osborne, then Nicole Ryan and Susan Snyder left to speak. MR. OSBORNE: For the record -- for the record, I'm Phil Osborne, speaking on behalf of the Marine Industries of Collier County. Prior to the beginning of this dialogue, one of the authors of the original Manatee Protection Plan that Chairman Henning referred to was not here to sign up for the sheets, but he is here now, and so I just wanted to put that out there. And I think it would be to everybody's benefit ifhe were given an opportunity to speak. Having said that, the Marine Industries Association's position on Page 39 February 19,2008 the change to the LDC, in 1990, Collier County Natural Resources wrote the first draft of the Manatee Protection Plan -- program. This draft was rejected, as it had no marina siting criteria. (Commissioner Halas left the hearing room.) MR. OSBORNE: The Marine Industries Association of Collier County volunteered to spearhead a committee to reach a consensus with interested groups within the county, including the City of Everglades, the City of Naples, Collier County government, the Audubon Society, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Wildlife Federation, the Save the Manatee Club, and included boaters of Collier County. After numerous meetings and trips to Tallahassee and convincing officials to visit our county to inspect our waterways and our shorelines, an agreement was reached that included the marina siting criteria within the plan. This plan has been in effect since 1995 and has been used by both state and county planners to determine the issue of dock permits, which have included shorelines within conservation easements. In many cases the state and/or the county provides benefits to its citizens through conservation easements created during the permit process. Safeguards for permit oversight are already in place within the current LDC, and they have been working. The Marine Industries Association of Collier County believes that this LDC change is an attempt to unnecessarily inhibit legal boating access, boaters' rights, property owners' rights, and has the potential to negatively affect all waterfront development and severely restrict redevelopment, especially after a severe weather event, such as hurricanes. That whole issue is still in question as to how that would be handled going forward. The Marine Industries Association is requesting that this amendment be rejected or postponed until the real consequences can Page 40 February 19,2008 be assessed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Nicole Ryan, then Susan Snyder. And Commissioners, Mr. Donohue, I believe, one of the authors, has signed up to speak, of the original plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's go ahead and get through the speakers we have, and I'll ask the other commissioners. MS. RYAN: Good evening. Again, for the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Since the last LDC hearing, you've been receiving a lot of comments and concerns about this proposed LDC amendment change and how this new change is going to impact property rights and the like. So it bears repeating -- and this was something that I stated at the last hearing. The staffhas been excluding the length of shoreline within the county preserves when they calculate the maximum number of wet slips when applying the Manatee Protection Plan. It's already been applied. When the issue was brought to your attention last year in February, it was to get clarification that you, as the BCC, did support that interpretation, and you did. You asked staff to go back, draft an amendment, and bring that forward so that you could codify what is currently being applied. Now, since the amendment has been drafted and redrafted, some changes have gone through, and I want to speak to some of those. First of all, the first portion of that amendment in G, the Conservancy supports the definition of shoreline as that interface between land and water and at the mean high water line. Second, we support the language stating that shorelines within county-required preserves or within state and federal conservation easements, which do not specifically permit boat docks, should not be Page 41 February 19,2008 used in the maximum wet slip calculation. If a project is going to be putting boat docks in, they're able to negotiate that through their state and federal conservation easement. This doesn't exclude all of them; just the ones that don't speak to the boat docks. So, again, not a new provision. It's something that has been requested by you to make sure that there's a clear and concise provision, transparent government, within the LDC, and we support and ask you to adopt that language. The exemption of the government-owned properties, that is something of an equity issue, sort of like the Watershed Management Plan exemption for transportation to the 150 percent. Yes, ideally, we would prefer that there be no exemptions, but if that does move forward, we ask that the language be tightened down so that it cannot be misused or abused. And the final thing that I wanted to mention -- and this hasn't been brought up, but in case it is in the future in your discussion, the County Attorney's Office had put forward some recommended language, and we're very concerned in that language, point number three, which recommends including the statement of any existing or vested right with respect to wet slips shall be exempted from this ordinance. Again, that states that rights are being taken away, and we don't believe that they are. I'm concerned about how that specifically would be applied if you have a water management district permit. Is that considered an existing or vested right? We believe that that language should not be allowed in there, so I just bring that up in case the County Attorney's Office language is discussed in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, is it Susan Stackle (sic)? MS. SNYDER: Snyder. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan Snyder. She has the extra three Page 42 February 19,2008 minutes, right? MS. SNYDER: And I'm not going to need it, I don't think. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you take your time. MS. SNYDER: Good evening. For the record, I am Susan Snyder, and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. In 1990 there were 152,000 people living in our county. Between 1990 and 2000 the population rose 65 percent, while in the state of -- the State of Florida, only a 24 percent -- which is still high -- increase, and that of the United States was 12 percent. By 2012, the projection is the population of the county will be nearly 390,000 people. That's two and a halftimes what it was in 1990, and that doesn't count the visitors to our county. In 2005, Collier County had over 1.4 million visitors who spent over $713 million while in the county and provided a total direct and indirect economic impact of over $106 billion to the county's economy. What are the attractions to this county? We all know, it's the sunny, warm climate, the beaches, water sports, and wildlife. We attract those who want a break from northern winters and want a relaxing place to spend some time. Our county is unique. We're the western Everglades. We're home to some plants and animals found nowhere else in the world. Our beaches and backwaters are beautiful. We aren't as crowded as the Florida's east coast. Now, the dilemma is, how do we keep increased population pressure from ruining those very features of our environment that attracted us all to Collier County? The county has preserve areas, and there are state and federal conservation easements within the county. We must preserve these areas for the future. Construction and use of wet slips in these waters would have an extremely negative impact on water quality, marine life cycles, and Page 43 February 19,2008 public use. I support the creation of an LDC amendment that will protect Collier County's aquatic preserves and state and federal conservation easements and prevent the lease of submerged land for construction of wet slips. I support, and I represent my community here, the amendment option proposed by county staff that will best protect our aquatic preserves for the benefit of manatees, other aquatic organisms, and people. And I'd like the people in the audience who are in support of this amendment as discussed to please stand. And we represent more than Baker Carol Point. We represent the whole community where this issue of the Dunes docks has been in reference, including residents of the Dunes themselves. And thank you, Commissioners, for letting me speak. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. That was the last speaker? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, except for Mr. Donohue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. What's the pleasure of the board? You want to get a little history on the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Manatee Protection Plan? Okay. The answer is yes. MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you. Mr. Donohue? CHAIRMAN HENNING: He looks too young to know anything about the Manatee Protection Plan. MR. DONOHUE: Yeah. MR. OSBORNE: Don't let that physique fool you. MR. DONOHUE: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to speak. For the record, my name is Frank Donohue. I'm vice-president of Marine Industries Association for the State of Florida, and a resident of Naples since 1972. My first job here was, matter of fact, running Wiggins Pass Page 44 February 19,2008 Marina up in North Naples. I'm familiar with the area and some of the issues that are being discussed here tonight. I did communicate with some of the -- with all the board my feelings about this as a 36-year resident and boater and working in the recreation boating industry all my life here. The proposed amendment change would have an adverse effect on future waterfront development and future public water access. And I'm also a member of the parks and recreation board for you. One of our mandates is getting people to the water any way, shape, or form, whether it's a fishing pier, a boat ramp, an internal pier in a bay, we're trying to get water access, because that's the big draw for people here, and there's a lot of population, and we're trying to get people to the water. Eliminating the use of the conservation easements, which to start with, is privately owned property, takes away a substantial amount of property credit as to how they can measure to get the shoreline to build their marina. It cuts down on the economics, it only allows them to build lesser slips, so the slip cost goes up. It's to the detriment of getting people on the water. In the end it means less boat sales, it means less fuel sales, it means less income, less jobs, and we're already in an economic downturn for this. As one of the original members of the Marine Industries Association of Collier County, I was actively involved in all the original Manatee Protection Plan planning, working the siting. I worked with Duke Turner and Lee Lyon on all these issues, worked with the county staff, come up with marina siting plans and so forth, to get this passed. I worked in Tallahassee, anywhere we had to go, the Marine Industries stepped up to the plate and got the job done. And our plan was the model for the state. It was the first plan independently approved in the state other than Crystal River where the state mandated it. Afterwards, all the other communities that put in the Manatee Protection Plan used us for a model. It was a great effort Page 45 February 19,2008 between county government and the private enterprise to get a job done. I was also a member of the Manatee Protection Plan Revision Committee, which was suspended some two years ago. Never found out why. Working with Bill Lorenz over at county environmental, and all of a sudden they said one day, no more meetings. Don't know whatever happened to that. I don't feel that some of the statements that were made that the Manatee Protection Plan is in effect -- I'm done, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can wrap it up. MR. DONOHUE: One statement that I did want to feel that was there, in this day and age, a person wishing to pursue development of any marina or waterfront facility must go through all the county agencies for approval, including all its building, zoning, environmental, Manatee Protection Plan, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, the Corps of Army Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission. Is this not enough oversight to properly build an environmentally protected marina? Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. That was the last speaker. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion on this amendment, LDC 5.05.027 I'll make a motion that we deny this amendment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my preference would be to table the motion until we get answers to our questions. There are a lot of questions that haven't been answered. We still have the question about whether or not we've really been placing -- we really have placed this procedure in practice over the past 13 years. Page 46 February 19,2008 We still don't have a clear understanding of whether it will have an impact on the Goodland boat dock. There's a dispute about that. So I find that there's -- there's too much conflict here to approve it, but at the same time, there are elements of this plan that are very, very good and I think we should adopt, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle, I asked twice, if we remove the language about state and federal conservation easements, if that would -- who would that affect then? I never got an answer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So do you think -- do you honestly believe that you will get answers? I don't. You know, this is a driven issue. I don't know what's driving it. I don't like it that I don't get answers. I don't like it when you don't get answers, or Commissioner Fiala. You know, it's a staff-driven decision. If they have been applying this, they're -- just want our blessing for them making policy for at least three years. We don't know. But I tell you what, I'm going to find out. We've been going through this amendment for months and months, and I think it's time to vote on it personally. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And the reason I seconded your motion, because I see this as an effort to limit boat access. I heard it over and over again. And of course, we tried to turn it around and say it wasn't it. Truth of the matter is, that if we keep going the way we're going now, it will only be the very wealthy that live along the waterways that will have access to it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And I'll tell you, one of the other things, I worry about how this amendment will hurt the little guys who are trying to stay in business and who are -- who are the people, the backbone of our community, and I worry terribly about Page 47 February 19,2008 what's going to happen to them. I would have to support your motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-0. MS. F ABACHER: Motion to deny, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to deny. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, can I get staff clarification on this then? As far as applying the rule, I mean, we're here based on your direction, and that was the result -- so I just need clarification. So based on that, we no longer -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- count -- we will now allow for counting the shoreline? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. That was what we asked for a year ago was clarifications on that. We were asked to put this together and proceed as staff had been applying in the past, and now we got clarification. We'll apply it based on your new direction. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I appreciate -- appreciate the question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick clarification. I didn't hear that part in the motion. But what I heard is that you have been Page 48 February 19,2008 using this procedure to make decisions in the past and that you have LDC -- an LDC basis for applying that provision. I didn't hear that the board directed you to ignore the existing LDC with respect to this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, I think that's very interpreted. We heard from the authors of the Manatee Protection Plan. It never was counted that way. Can we have a simple vote on this as far as direction? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to make a motion that we direct staff to include the shoreline conservation as part of the boat slip calculations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second. MR. KLATZKOW: And that would be unless the conservation easement specifically provides otherwise. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: If there's language that expressly prohibits that as recorded in the conservation easement, then it wouldn't count. But if it's not expressly prohibited, then we would count it, count the shoreline. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I -- we need to clarify that. Who would -- who would make them put a conservation easement so it doesn't count wet slips? Would that be county government, or would that be state government? MR. SCHMITT: Normally these type of docks are usually through the boat dock extension public hearing process. That may come about as part of the boat dock extension application or part of the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we need to be fair and honest with everybody, so I mean, 1-- MR. SCHMITT: Clarify that that is before the Planning Commission. You do not see those? Boat docks extension public Page 49 February 19,2008 hearings are before the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they would cite criteria under the Manatee Protection Plan to prohibit those? MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to turn to my experts on that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Never mind, never mind. MR. SCHMITT: I need to ask Bill or one of my experts. MR. LORENZ: Excuse me, Commissioner. Can you repeat the question, please. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- MR. SCHMITT: It's to prohibit -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. It's to prohibit any docks on conser -- on conservation easements. MR. SCHMITT: A language that would expressly -- who would put language in a conservation easement that would expressly prohibit the counting of the shoreline for docks? That was your question. MR. LORENZ: My understanding is sometimes the state-- some conservation easements that the state has provided, sometimes will provide that language, not -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we can't -- MR. LORENZ: -- not always. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we can't usurp state law. MR. SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that -- that's not a part of my motion. Simple. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Repeat your motion again. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the motion is to -- is to allow conservation shoreline to be counted as far as a multi slip boat dock. And they ask unless it -- a conservation easement prohibited it. Well, if it's only the state that does it, then we can't trump the state. So it's a moot point; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: It could be county easements that also, though, restrict this as well. Page 50 February 19,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to second it. I just -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You did second it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did, but I need a little more clarification. Would you help with this motion, could you, Jeff? MR. SCHMITT: Could we bring this back again as a scheduled item for discussion during a board meeting if we provide some background, would that help? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. MR. SCHMITT: We'll have the executive summary brought back and we'll clarify the guidance, we'll provide some -- the history as to where it was applied, and we'll provide that for guidance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're going to bring back just the issue about where a requirement for a conservation easement -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- would be prohibiting boat dock -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- extensions. MR. SCHMITT: All we're going to bring back is the issue of how that language gets in a conservation easement, who puts it in there and how we would -- would at least enforce or comply with that language. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to remove my motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take dir -- give staff direction. Yeah, okay, fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're done except for -- MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, we have, if you look on a blue page. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Except for a break. Page 51 February 19,2008 MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ten-minute break, and then we'll be back and do the final thing. (A brief recess was had.) MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, you have a live mike. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board is back in session. And is there any questions on the recodification packet that the board heard at the last LDC amendment? Commissioner Coletta, you have any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And -- I'm sorry. What did you say? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I said motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by -- MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, I'm sorry. We do need direction to bring it back. It has to have a second public hearing, so we need to bring it back as a regular agenda item. We were looking at March 25th, if that's okay for the final approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, then we don't need a motion. MS. FABACHER: Right. Item #2C ORDINANCE 2008-11 ; ACCEPTANCE OF CLERICAL CHANGES THAT DO NOT AFFECT THE LDC ORDINANCE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought this was the same document Page 52 February 19,2008 that we viewed at the last Land Development Code meeting. Is this a new document? MS. F ABACHER: It has -- I think I included the -- it's like 33 typographical errors, but this is about as best as we humanly can get it. This is based after the county attorney's thorough review. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So-- MS. FABACHER: Nothing substantive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have to have a second hearing on typographical errors? MS. F ABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, that's something that the county attorney needs to answer. MS. FABACHER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I had thought we had looked at this one time before. MR. SCHMITT: We did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We did. MR. SCHMITT: I was going to make that correction. We looked at this before. MR. KLATZKOW: We're ready to go for this, but we can hear it a third time if you'd like. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why meet if we don't have to? Ifall there was is gramical (sic) errors, there is no substantive change, there is no SIC code, 5313, Stevie Tomatoes bar where it's not supposed to be. MR. KLA TZKOW: Technically this isn't even an amendment. We're just simply taking existing codes and we're putting it back into -- going from table form to the written form. MR. SCHMITT: And this was at the request of many of the users. They prefer -- and -- it be written rather than tabular form. Tabular form became very confusing. The intent was to put this in more definitive written form, as you have it. And this has been Page 53 February 19,2008 thoroughly reviewed, Planning Commission, cover to cover, you've seen it, and this is your second time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, I believe the issue with the 27th was, how do you want it to come back -- how do you want to it to come back and are you ready for it to come back, the ordinance dealing with the outdoor seating, but that's the next topic after this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And I want to get to that for you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we can vote on this? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm resurrecting my motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. The motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: None. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: That carries. Mr. Schmitt? Item #2D DIRECTION REGARDING OUTDOOR SEATING AND Page 54 February 19,2008 PERMITTING - PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW ORDINANCE AND BRING BACK ON MARCH 25, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The other issue was, at the last LDC hearing you asked to have separated the issues involving outdoor seating, the issues involving the Land Development Code, and separate from that the permitting for the outdoor seating. That's been done in an ordinance, and we would like to get direction from you. What we would like to do is bring that back at an advertised public hearing on the 25th. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, my preference, since the Planning Commission heard this, is have them look at the ordinance and give us recommendations. MR. SCHMITT: That would work. CHAIRMAN HENNING: My preference. MR. SCHMITT: We can certainly do that. And there's a meeting Thursday, I believe -- I'd have to look at my calendar, but we'll try and get it to the Planning Commission for them to review. We will get it to them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: And based on that, we'll schedule it for -- during a regular Board of County Commissioner hearing, we'll schedule it as an advertised public hearing because I know there's still some concern that had been expressed. Steve Hart from the chamber, I forwarded Steve a copy of this. I don't know if we'll hear from the chamber again, but they were certainly interested in the impact that this would have on the community, the ordinance itself. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So if the Planning -- if this is not enough time for the Planning Commission to get them the document for them to review, comprehend this amendment, we can still put it on the next Planning Commission -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. I'll schedule it for a Planning Page 55 February 19,2008 Commission meeting. If there isn't sufficient time, it will be in your April Board of County Commission meeting rather than the 25th of March. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have one thing, County Manager. I would like to have all the records of the Planning Commission restricting docks, multi purpose docks, since the Planning Commission is the one that is the final decision on docks. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. The Planning Commission is the -- your decision authority for boat dock extensions. That is -- that's for commercial facilities, which are either commercial marinas or multifamily residential, 10 or more slips. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So that's since 1995 they've been doing this? MR. SCHMITT: I can't tell you how long it's been they've dealt with boat dock extensions, but they are your -- the authority that rules on the approval and the permitting of boat dock extensions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: They do not come to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I would like that public record to see if there's -- what was the reason why, if there was any restrictions on it -- MR. SCHMITT: In six years I can't think of one that was denied. In fact, at one time we -- the board -- the Planning Commission was even looking at trying to make that somewhat of an administrative review rather than the public hearing, and the Planning Commission debated and said, I think it's best to continue to have a public hearing. That is expensive though for the homeowner, who comes in for a boat Page 56 February 19,2008 dock extension. If they have to exceed the distance they can protrude from the shoreline, then they have to come in for a boat extension. But we'll get you the history of every application for how many years? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ever since the Planning Commission dealt with it. It's not that I want all of them. But the issue that we were discussing is the county may restrict through a conservation easement or some kind of restriction through the county, so I want to see that. And if there wasn't a restriction, then why should we do it now? That's my point. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow, you understand? MR. KLATZKOW: I understand the direction. I thought the Planning Commission was just looking at single-family boat dock extensions, but we'll get you the information. MR. SCHMITT: They do all boat dock extensions, yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: For permitting for boat slips, period? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It's a public hearing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, when you say boat dock extension, I'm thinking of one is, you take and stretch it, kind of to extend it. But if you don't have boat docks and you want to put boat docks, do they hear those, too? MR. SCHMITT: Let me correct. If it's commercial, they do not. If it's residential, they do. I need to make that correction. I just -- because the LaPlaya would be one where it's commercial. As long as it meets the criteria, it's a commercial and the defined space that it's allotted, it's -- it meets the requirements of the Land Development Code, there's no public hearing. If it's residential, then it -- then it is a public hearing for a boat dock extension, and that would be a single-family or a multifamily. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've been listening to the Page 57 February 19,2008 discussion going back and forth. You know, possibly we should give reconsideration to how that's done. Should this be a political issue or something that's done administratively? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I don't know. It sounds like they have to go through a big process to try to get a permit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whoever can have the best lawyer and yell the loudest gets the most attention, where if you have it administratively where it's particularly designed to do a certain function, I think you'd get there just as quick and cause a lot less pain along the way and make it even fairer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I need to -- personally need to know what the process is to go through it. MR. SCHMITT: Do you have it in the LDC there, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. It's a public process. The ones I'm familiar with have always been single-family boat extensions. They've been granted nine out of 10 times. The only time they weren't granted is if a neighbor complained about view or some other thing. They've been very perfunctory. But we can get -- I'll get you the procedure, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, I'm hearing that they have to go to the cabinet. Some cases they need to go the governor and cabinet. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's for the submerged land leases, yeah. MR. SCHMITT: And for some multifamily, or for the multi slip, 10 or more, may require a state permit, u.s. Army Corps of Engineers permit or some other -- well, the state and federal permitting process. It depends on where the dock is and what it's impacting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coletta is -- his point is, do we need to regulate it since others are regulated, and should it be just an administrative permit; that's the question. And I don't know the answer to that. Page 58 February 19,2008 MR. SCHMITT: I think it's -- it is a costly process for the homeowner applying for a single dock if they have to have a boat dock extension in some areas of the county where they have to go out so many feet in order to have the deep water access that they may need for their boat, and that's an expensive process. It's a public hearing process. It's the advertising. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, were those -- they don't have to go through -- they don't have to go to the governor and the state? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. They do not go to the state. Normally they will not go unless they're impacting U.S. waters that are deemed navigable waters or some other -- again, it depends, the answer, as to what permitting is required based on the dock that is being built. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I think what we need to do is come back and explain the whole process to you both for commercial docks and for residential docks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. I would like to know that. Okay. Anything else? You? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're adjourned. No, this is a meeting, so I need a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're adjourned. ***** Page 59 February 19,2008 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPE~S CTS.UNDER ITS CONTROL TOM HENNING, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ~U~~^t:,lJ ~'(-' ........ .1" These minutes ap~roved by the Board on Q)1td'l lb, tnJg , as presented v or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 60