Loading...
EAC Minutes 04/02/2008 R April 2, 2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 2, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon (Excused) Allison D. Megrath Roger Jacobsen David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review Melissa Zone, Principal Planner Chris D' Arco, Environmental Specialist Claudia Piotrowicz, Environmental Specialist ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA April 2, 2008 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of March 5 & 6 meeting minutes - not available at this time; will be provided later V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Plat and Plans No. PPL-2005-AR-7703 Amerimed Center PPL Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East B. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUD Rezone- PUDZ-2006-AR-9486 Freestate CPUD Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East C. Planned Unit Development Rezone No. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Esperanza Place PUDZ Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX. Subcommittee Reports X. Staff Comments XI. Council Member Comments XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment ******************************************************************* Council Members: Please notifv Summer Araaue, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 26, 2008 if vou cannot attend this meetina or if vou have a conflict and will abstain from votin!! on a petition 1530-62901. General Public: 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 proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. April 2, 2008 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 9:00 AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Jacobsen moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Approval of March 5 & 6 meeting minutes - not available at this time; will be provided later V. Upcoming Enviroumental Advisory Council Absences Mr. Jacobsen will not be present for the June meeting. Ms. Megrath will not be present for the August meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Plat and Plans No. PPL-2005-AR-7703 Amerimed Center PPL Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in by Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright Mr. Sorrell arrived at 9:05 AM Tim Hancock addressed the Council on behalf of the applicant providing a brief overview of the project noting that the application is for Construction plans and Plat for four (4) lots zoned Commercial Intermediate (C-3) and five (5) lots zoned General Commercial (C-4) on 18.9 acres. The property is located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (SR95l), just south of the Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection. The site previously has been utilized as a nursery and a staging area for the improvements on Collier Boulevard. The existing wetlands have been impacted by previous disturbances in the region and become heavily invaded with Melaleuca and other exotics, with approximately 2.65 acres of the site deemed as wetlands for calculation purposes. The site has received South Florida Water Management District approval (permit #11-027-48-P.) This District as well as Collier County Staff has recognized the wetlands on site are of such poor quality, they support off site mitigation. The Army Corp of Engineers permit is still under review at this time. Mr. Penniman provided a 2007 study entitled "Is Melaleuca Really Drying-Up Florida Wetlands?" prepared by B.D. Bovard, R.M. Leisure Ill, and E.M. Everham III from the Department of Manne and Ecological Sciences. Florida Gulf Coast University. He noted that the Introduction of the study states "Melaleuca 2 April 2, 2008 transpiration rates are thought to be greater than bald cypress and slash pine, and it is thought that Melaleuca's water use leads to reductions in groundwater." In the Conclusions and Future Research section of the study it is noted "In our study, we found that at the physiological, whole tree and ecosystem levels, Melaleuca is generally more liberal in its water-use compared to slash pine, but more conservative than bald cypress. When bald cyprcss loscs its leaves during the early dry season, Melaleuca uses more water at the physiological and whole tree scales, but at the ecosystem scale, bald cyprcss still uses more water. The mechanism for this is unclear......" Mr. Penniman stated that in his time on the Council the statement has been made numerous times that Melaleuca is drying up wetlands and is concerned the concept of this statement made by many firms appearing in front of the Council may not be accurate. Tim Hancock stated that the driving force of the altering of the wetlands on this site is more due to the construction of Collier Boulevard canal (951 canal) and Florida Power & Light easements and other related disturbances creating a siphoning effect on the land rather than the Melaleuca (and related transpiration) found on site. The study was completed in 2007 and has not bcen the subject of a large amount of scrutiny at this point. Mr. Penniman agreed the study has yet to face "peer reviews." It was noted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was required by County Staff because of the prior agricultural use on site. Jim Krall, PE, Davidson Engineering provided a review of the stormwater retention system which will utilize dry retention prior to entering the Stormwater Lake proposed for the site. Chairman Hughes asked Staff if there were any concerns regarding the overall impact of stormwater impacts from this project and the development of the region in general (i.e., Marco Island secondary water supply, flooding issues, etc.). He wanted to ensure for the record that adjacent properties are protected from flood situations. Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review provided the UDAR map in the region, noting that the region has been previously altered by developments and that the impacts downstream from this project should be minimal. Tim Hancock stated that the South Florida Water Management District did not require Floodplain Compensation for the project; however, the water quality and flow standards required by the District have been met for the application. Chairman Hughes requested the applicant address Florida Panther concerns. Jeremy Sterk of Davidson Engineering stated that impacts on Panther habitat have been mitigated off site via credits to the conservation bank as required. 3 April 2, 2008 A discussion ensued between Council members outlining concern over the individual review of applications and the possible overall future environmental impact of the numerous developments combined. Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist stated the Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the following recommendation: A copy of the USACE permit shall be forwarded to Collier County upon issuance. Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Petition with the staff recommendation that a copy of the United States Army Corp of Engineers permit be forwarded to Staff upon receipt. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Carried unanimously 7-0. B. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUD Rezone - PUDZ-2006-AR- 9486 Freestate CPUD Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in by Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor presented an overview of the project noting that it is located on the south west corner of Davis Blvd. (SR84) and the future Santa Barbara Blvd. Extension. The application is for a proposed 16.8 +/- acre commercial development consisting of up to 150,000 square feet of commercial/office land uses. The South Florida Water Management District and US Army Corp of Engineers are currently reviewing the necessary permit applications. Mike Myers, Sr. Ecologist with Passarella and Assoc., Inc. addressed the Council on Environmental issues noting the site is primarily forested and has been invaded by exotics. The project has been designed to preserve the highest quality 2.5 acres of wetland on site. This area is adjacent to the Falling Waters development preserve area. In addition, the applicant has agreed to purchase 12.99 credits for the regionally approved mitigation bank for the wetland impacts. No listed species were found on site in a survey last conducted in April of2007. The applicant agrees with recommendations 1-4 in the Staff Report but requests a change in recommendation #5 on page 9 of II, line #3 "Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)..." to "Conservation Commission (FFWCC) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)..." This request is to prevent redundancy in reviews by different Agencies. Michael Delate of Q. Grady Minor addressed the Council on the Stormwater Management design proposed for the site noting that the project will utilize dry detention areas for pre-treatment before discharge into the stormwater lake area. He noted the statement in the Staff Report on Page 7 of 11, line #1 ("In the EIS, the petitioner states his intention to make the Preserves a part of the stormwater treatment system") is incorrect and should be removed. The wetlands will be hydrated by the stormwater lake as required by South Florida Water Management 4 April 2, 2008 District, but will not be utilized as part of the treatment area. The applicant has provided floodplain compensation as requested by Collier County Staff. It was noted that the proposed preserve is interconnected with the Falling Waters preserve which was permitted in the mid 1990's. Mr. Bishof noted the difficulty in reading the details of 24" x 36" plans that are submitted and have been reduced to 8.5" x 11" and encouraged Staff to assist in providing plans that are more legible if possible. Mr. Sorrell noted that the black bear telemetry map is from 1999 and information provided should be more up to date. Mike Myers agreed that they periodically update their information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and some is out of date. However, in this case, he agreed that there is more recent black bear telemetry that should have been included in the package. Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review provided a brief overview of the status regarding the stormwater design noting the South Florida Water Management District review is ongoing. Claudia Piotrowicz, Environmental Specialist stated that Staff recommends approval of the project with the following recommendations: 1. Approved Preserve Management Plan and Conservation Easement. 2. Florida Black Bear Management Plan 3. Provide a Big Cypress Squirrel survey prior to any vegetation removal. 4. Big Cypress Squirrel protective plan. 5. A full nesting and foraging RCW survey prior to any vegetation removal, unless written technical assistance from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Susan Mason noted that the Staff is in agreement with the previous request by the applicant to change the wording in #5 from "and to or" providing the approval letter from either Agency refers that they have coordinated with the other Agency referred to in the recommendation. It was noted by the applicant that if the Santa Barbara Blvd. improvement project is not completed by the County, the landowner will be required to provide the improvements for this portion of the Santa Barbara Blvd Extension as the design of the application requires access to this road. The following revisiolls for the Staff Report were recognized: Page 7 paragraph I, line #1 elimination of the statement "In the EIS, the petitioner states his intention to make the Preserves a part of the storm water treatment system." 5 April 2, 2008 Page 7, paragraph 4, line#l and #2 from "dry detention areas and a preserve to achieve water to quality....." to "dry detention areas to achieve water quality.... " Page 7, paragraph 8, line 5 from "through the dry detention area and the wetland preserve areas to "through the dry detention area. " Susan Mason noted the changes to the Staff Report and future versions for review will address the changes. Mr. Jacobsen move to approve PUD rezone PUDZ-2006-AR-9486 including the recommendations #1-4 in the Staff Report and revising recommendation #5 to include a caveat from one organization to the other in the letter. Second by Ms. Megrath. Carried unanimously 7-0. Break- 10:05 AM Reconvene-lO:25 AM C. Planned Unit Development Re-zone No. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Esperanza Plaza PUDZ Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East The presenters were sworn in by Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Heidi Williams of Q. Grady Minor and Assoc. presented an overview of the application and noted half of the property is under contract with the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida and the other half is under contract for Florida Non Profit Services, Inc. The property is located on the North side of Immokalee Drive approximately % mile west of State Road 29. The proposal is to rezone the property from Rural Agricultural Zoning with Mobile Home Overlay to Residential Planned Unit Development. The project will provide affordable housing for up to 262 dwelling units. One half of the property will be utilized as rental units, with the other half for single family residential units. One, 2 acre parcel will remain to be utilized as a single family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development and historically been utilized for agricultural purposes including row crops and cattle grazing. Marco Espinar of Collier Environmental Consultants provided a historical overview of the use of the property via aerial photos from the 1950's to present. He noted there is a small poor quality wetland on the southwest portion of the property that was excavated for a watering hole for cattle. The site contains some slash pines that have been in existence from at least the 1950's and are present today. In cattle production, it is a common practice of selective clearing leaving some trees for shade for the livestock. In conclusion, he stated after reviewing the site and historical aerial photos and data, the site was legally cleared and utilized for agricultural use for approximately the last 50 years. 6 April 2, 2008 The cattle grazing on-site were temporarily removed a year ago so the consultants could complete any necessary work. It was noted that the Environmental Advisory Council does not make determination on whether or not the parcel has been "legally cleared". It was noted that the soil boring results from the Geotechnical Engineering Service Report prepared by Allied Engineering & Testing, Inc. dated November 19,2007 were not included in the submittal but has now been provided to the Council members. A discussion ensued regarding the comment in the Staff report that Staff does not recommend approval of the project. Heidi Williams noted that the Staff recommendation was based on the 2"d Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) submitted. Subsequent to this there has been submittal of a 3'd EIS for review by Staff. She noted the 3'd EIS is not substantially different than the 2"d ElS. She hopes the presentation contradicts Staffs position for the Council. Susan Mason noted that Staff has not completed review of the 3'd ElS as of the meeting date but is still within the allotted time frame for the review. Heidi Williams addresscd the issue of the application being on the agenda before review of the 3rd EIS by Staff, as the project requires Grant Funding. Susan Mason stated that the main area of contention is the applicant's statement in the 2"d EIS that the project does not have any "native vegetation" therefore exempt from native preservation requirements. Timing in clearing of the property can affect the requirements, because this can determine various routes of compliance regarding vegetation requirements. Clearing on the site took place after permits and notifications were required. The Staffrequested the applicant obtain an "after the fact permit" for the clearing and base the preservation requirements on the status of the property. There is a separate issue of the ground cover vegetation and in Staffs opinion, the EIS does not adequately address what exists on site and why it should not be considered "existing native vegetation." It is unknown information in the 3'd EIS to support the applicants claim. Marco Espinar noted that the 3'd EIS does attempt to address the issue. Susan Mason stated that in addition to the upland ground cover and vegetation there is a wetland on site that contains native vegetation that is an issue. Chairman Hughes noted that the vegetation is not as much a concern as the land was historically used as agriculture, but rather the impact on the hydrology as the wetland located on site is being 100 percent impacted and the potential re-charge zone associated with the area could be adversely impacted. 7 April 2, 2008 Michael Delate, of Q. Grady Minor and Assoc. noted that the intent is to fill in the wetland area and create a stormwater lake in a different location. The lake will provide a greater groundwater re-charge area than now exists. The new excavation is within 200 feet of the existing wetland and the soils capabilities are essentially the same as those in the area of the existing wetland. Therefore, the hydrology of the area will not be negatively impacted. Mr. Penniman noted that the lack of a Staff Report regarding the 3cd EIS and based on this fact, it is difficult for the Council to make a thorough review of the application. Michael Delate noted that the Council has been provided a copy of the 3cd EIS; however the Council does not have an official Staff Review of the document. He noted that the issue is the pines that were left standing on the site for shade purposes for livestock. In the applicants and landowners view, leaving the trees for shade purposes has penalized them as the area is now deemed to meet the definition of "native vegetation" under the County guidelines. This determination would require the applicant to provide a "native preserve" on site (one is not currently proposed). In their opinion, the vegetation should not be defined as native vegetation under the guidelines as evidence has been provided that the land has been utilized for agricultural purposes. Susan Mason noted that Staff requested more information; however the applicant requested this date for the hearing prior to review of the new information. Heidi Williams noted Staffhas worked with the applicant on the timing of the hearings, however the grant funding deadlines are a hard fast deadline and no extension is available. Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney stated that any recommendation made by the Environmental Advisory Council would be forwarded to the Planning Commission who is scheduled to hear this application in May. He noted the Staff Report (based on the 2nd EIS) recommends, "the EIS be revised to include the justification of the Applicants contention that no preservation is required." With the Staff and the applicant present and a 3rd EIS available, he asked that the applicant point out the portion of the 3cd EIS that addresses the issue and alleviates Staffs concern. Susan Mason noted that review of an EIS is complex and it requires Staff sufficient time to evaluate the data to provide an opinion, and Staff should not be limited to the amount of time required to properly review the document. Claudia Piotrowicz noted the 2nd EIS considers the vegetation non-native vegetation and read the Staff recommendation "the EIS be revised to include the justification of the applicant's contention that no preservation is required. The ElS does not demonstrate compliance with CCME Policy 6.1.1 (I) For purposes of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species." The vegetation retention requirements specified in this policy are calculated based on the amount of native vegetation that conforms to the definition. 8 April 2, 2008 She has not reviewed the revised (3'd) EIS submitted by the applicant. Chairman Hughes noted that the land has been utilized for agriculture and could have been clear cut without any violations ofland use laws. Susan Mason noted that this is true if it had happened long enough ago and used as agriculture for long enough. Besides the wetland area, areas of the eastern portion were cleared and require an "after the fact" clearing permit to be considered legally cleared with no preservation requirement. Further, portions of the wetland as well as portions of eastern half of the property have been determined by Staff to qualify for a native vegetation requirement. Marco Espinar noted the applicant has been dealing with the issue since July of 2007. They have included a letter from the Environmental Services Director that the land is in bona-fide agricultural use, etc. The last submittal by the applicant states "since this parcel was historically cleared and a bona-fide agricultural use for decades, it was identified and labeled as 212, unimproved pasture, therefore no native habitat exists on site. Since the parcel has no native habitat, no preservation is required for this project." He noted that there is a fundamental difference with interpretations between Staff and the applicant over this issue. They have provided aerial photos, and data that show even though native trees exist on site, there is no native habitat, thus they have no preserve requirements. In addition he stated that he reached agreement with Joe Schmitt and Bill Lorenz to conduct a tree count and plant an additional 15% of the sum of all the trees on site in addition to the landscaping requirements, which they agreed to. This was later rcvised to provide 20% additional tree coverage. Staff rejected this agreement. Susan Mason cited the definition of requirements in the Growth Management Plan which states "For purposes of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native species." It does not refer to "native habitat." Marco Espinar read an email into the record from Heidi Williams (consultant) to Cheryl Soter (Collier County Principal Planner) stating "it was confirmed in our meeting with Bill Lorenz and Joe Schmitt that no preserve requirement will be required, however, we agreed to plant 26 trees on site in excess of the regular landscaping requirements. We are preparing an exhibit that demonstrates the potential layout of these trees near the main water management lake. " The 2nd EIS was submitted subsequent to this and the agreement was rejected by Staff. Susan Mason requested a copy of the email. Carl Kuehner of Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. provided a brief history of the project noting that the timing is critical and this application was to be on a "fast track basis." The application requires approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This requires review by the EAC and Planning Commission 9 April 2, 2008 subsequent to a Board of County Commissioner hearing. The application requires approval on or before June 16th 2008 for the grant application to be considered. There is no extension allowed for the grant application. Susan Mason stated Staff is not disputing the historical agriculture use of the property, but the fact that native vegetation exists on site. The preservation requirement is based on this fact. Staffreviewed the initial EIS and did not agree with the conclusions provided by the applicant. There was a meeting where Staff was not present between the Applicant's consultants, Bill Lorenz (Environmental Services Director) and Joe Schmitt (CDES Administrator) and a compelling case was made that the native vegetation preserve would not be requircd. It was her understanding that the 2nd EIS submittal would address the reasoning for this, as well as other additional information requested by Staff. Upon receipt of the 2nd EIS, she notified the Staff Supervisors that the information was not addressed in the document. She recommended that the application not be heard by the EAC at this time; however the applicant requested to move the application forward without the information present in the 2nd EIS. Ms. Megrath noted that no information was provided on the results of the soils sampling and expressed concern regarding the prior agricultural use of the property. Susan Mason noted that this concern could be addressed later through the process if necessary. Mr. Bishof noted issues of concern which are Staffs contention that a portion of the eastern area of the property contains native vegetation and whether or not the land was cleared for agricultural use. He noted that this area of the site is characterized as improved pasture cleared for agriculture as opposed to native vegetative ground cover. Further, the existing status of wetland area located in the southeastern portion of the site. He requested evidence on the assertion the wetland that remains on site has been "excavated." Marco Espinar stated that this is based on aerial photos and a field visit when identifying the jurisdictional limits of the wetland. The dominate vegetation is secondary growth. Mr. Bishof noted the wetland may be poor quality, however more evidence is needed to substantiate these claims. Claudia Piotrowicz stated that she confirmed there are plant species in the area of the wetland that are native vegetation and it is not clear to her that the area had been "excavated." Mr. Espinar stated that the project does propose off-site wetland mitigation and the existing wetland on site is poor quality. Susan Mason stated that there is a provision in the Growth Management Plan which allows the applicant to provide off-site preservation mitigation for the existing vegetation. She also stated that was an option that could be considered, however it is not proposed by the applicant at this time. 10 April 2, 2008 A discussion ensued noting that the project is an admirable cause (provision of affordable housing) however there is more information required that needs to be addressed before approving or denying the proposal. Susan Mason re-iterated that Staffrecognizes the land was utilized for agriculture and "after the fact" clearing permits could be obtained by the applicant. However, it does not alleviate the native vegetation requirements that may need to be addressed in the application. The main issue is the difference of opinion between the Applicant and Staff over the definition of "native vegetation" for the requirements contained in the Growth Management Plan. Staff has not reached the same conclusion as the applicant. She noted the Council could review the information and could reach its own conclusion. Mr. Espinar reiterated there was a settlement agreed to by the Staff Supervisors; however staff is not in agreement with the settlement. Mr. Penniman stated that any decision herein could set a precedent for future applications that are reviewed by the Council. A discussion ensued on the hearing deadline requirements for scheduling purposes for the EAC, Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners and the possible re-scheduling of hearing dates to allow the Applicant to meet its Grant deadlines. Mr. Bishof noted that the main area of concern by Staff is the native vegetation requirement and if this were resolved, the proposal could possibly move forward. Susan Mason agreed. Mr. Bishof asked the applicant if they were deemed to have 1.73 acres of native vegetation on site (the area identified as 618 on the FLUCCS map) would they be willing to provide a native vegetation preserve off site as required under County guidelines. Heidi Williams stated if it is the Council's recommendation they would consider that condition. Mr. Bishofmoved to approve PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Esperanza Place PUDZ for approval with the condition that the applicant provide a native vegetation preserve that meets Collier County Standards (consistent with the Land Development Code and/or the Collier County Growth Management Plan; if the native vegetation preserve is done on site it needs to meet the standards for native preserves) prior to issuing of the Site Development Order and that the area used in calculating the size of the preserve is equal to the area mapped as FLUCCS code 618 (1.73 acres). Second by Mr. Williams. Mr. Penniman indicated he will vote no based on the lack of information and the possible setting of a precedent as other applicants have been rejected who have provided more information than that in the application under review. 11 April 2, 2008 Mr. Sorrell noted the application is a noble cause but has concerns in the area of the wetland and agrees with Mr. Penniman. Ms. Megrath agreed. Claudia Piotrowicz stated that the soils samples were provided and no pollution was found on site. The motion failed 5-2. Mr. Bishof and Mr. Williams voted yes. Mr. Penniman, Ms. Megrath, Chairman Hughes, Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Jacobsen voted no. Mr. Penniman moved to continue the application until the May meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council. Second by Ms. Megrath. Mr. Delate stated the Applicant would prefer a denial of the application as opposed to a continuance. Mr. Penniman withdrew his motion. Mr. Sorrell moved to deity the application based on the recommendation in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Penniman. A discussion ensued regarding the County requirements for definition of native vegetation with regard to areas that have been cleared for agricultural use. Susan Mason stated that there is no dispute that the area in question (an area in the Eastern portion of the property) has been cleared for agriculture use, however (with the timing of the clearing), the remaining vegetation located in this area qualifies as native vegetation under standards of the Growth Management Plan. This is due to the amount ofremaining canopy cover on this area of the site. The Council could determine if this area does or does not meet native vegetation standards of the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Sorrell withdrew his motion. Chairman Hughes moved to deem the property as "agricultural" in intentfor agri-business therefore not subject to the additional Land Development Code requirements. Second by Mr. Williams. Motion failed 4-3. Chairman Hughes, Mr. Bishof and Mr. Williams voted yes. Ms. Megrath, Mr. Sorrell, Mr. Penniman and Mr. Jacobsen voted no. Mr. Penniman moved that PUDZ -2007-AR-12581 be continued until the May meeting of the EA C with the provision that Staff be given adequate time to review EIS #3 and make every attempt to reach an accommodation with the applicant on any points of contention. Further, the applicant contact members of the Council for an opportunity to walk the land. Second by Ms. Megrath. Carried unanimously 7-0. 12 April 2, 2008 Chairman Hughes stated there was debate over the regulations pertinent to farmland. The Council was split on more than one vote. The Council was unanimous on the last vote as it puts the application back into its standard operating procedure. VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects None IX. Sub-Committee Reports None X. Staff Comments It was noted that Allison D. Megrath is now a full time member of the Environmental Advisory Council. It was noted some vacancies have been filled; however there is one alternate position still open. XI. Council Member Comments Chairman Hughes thanked Lee Horn for his service to the Council. XII. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:56 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended 13