Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/30/2008 S (LDC Amendments) October 30, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 30, 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 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 1 .-.~~,-.--,--~-._~-'"^--'---"" "~.."..,~._,,-------"~--_..------_._-'-' COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA October 30, 2008 9:00 a.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 October 30, 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 CERTAIN 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 IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3. ADJOURN Page 2 October 30, 2008 October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. Welcome to cycle one Board of Commissioners' Land Development Code meeting. This is a continuation of a prior meeting, but I think it's appropriate to rise and pledge the allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) ORDINANCE 2008-63: AMENDING ORDINANCE 2004-41, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioner, if I might. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. MS. F ABACHER: This is actually not a continuation. This is the second and final hearing. This has been an advertised -- this is an advertised meeting. I have the Affidavit of Publication. It went in the October 19th Naples Daily News. Also -- let's see. I want to explain the book to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, for the record. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. Okay. We have the summary sheets. You recall how they work, the summary sheets in the beginning. And we have the red tab which says book one, which are the ones we did not finish on September 24th, okay, just a few of them. And then we have book three, which we hope to do today, get all that done today, if possible. And we are basically, if it's your wish, we're going to follow this checklist, except that I think the chair has to let -- a couple people have to go first because they have other business, correct? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bob Mulhere is an outside consultant for transportation, I understand, and he's requesting the board to hear the amendments for, I believe, transportation. He has prior commitments and would like to get that done first. Page 2 October 30, 2008 Does anybody have any objection? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. The amendment that I was engaged to prepare starts on Page l37 in book three, and it is a -- it's an amendment to section 1.04.04, which is entitled, Reduction of Required Site Design Requirements. There are also some amendments to the definitions section associated with that. In summary, I've worked -- both while I was at the county and subsequent to my leaving the county, I've worked with the transportation department and the County Attorney's Office on a number of roadway projects where the county had to acquire properties, and my role in that capacity was to either develop cure plans to minimize the impacts of the take on developed properties or to determine what the general impacts of the take were even on unimproved properties. What we found is that, particularly with improved properties or certainly more so with improved properties, there are -- there are a number of ways where a cure plan can be developed that would minimize the impacts, and by doing so, would reduce the claims, severance and damage claims that a property owner would be likely to secure from the county through the legal process. I guess there's two kinds of legal proceedings that allow for or end up in a jury trial. One is capital murder, and the other one is eminent domain. And always the objective is to try to get through the process without going to the final stage. And so a good example I think I can give you is -- and a real life example, and you may recall -- was, for example, we had a Wendy's on the corner oflmmokalee Road and Airport Road that had a landscape buffer reduced from the required 20 feet through a couple of takes, but the most recent take dropped that Page 3 __"_R_"~_'___~'______'_' October 30, 2008 down to 11 feet, and really the only way to remedy that was through the variance process. And it seemed that there should be an easier way to remedy that. And we looked around and we found that a number of municipalities did have a process that wasn't entitled a variance but was sort of a deviation process or a cure plan process, municipalities and counties, and so what we've come up with here is was a process that would allow the county to develop a cure plan when a property is impacted by a take, and at some level it's administrative, and that's provided for within the amendment, but exceeding certain thresholds, it then would go to a higher level and require a public hearing process objections from surrounding neighbors. We would notify the surrounding neighbors, and if they object, then there would be a public hearing process. This would -- has the potential, and I believe -- and I think everyone that's involved believes -- would significantly reduce the likelihood of unnecessary damage claims through the acquisition process. We'd be able to, even if a landowner on the advice of his counsel tried force this to the -- the through the final legal hurdles and end up in front of a jury trial, the county, through this process, has the right to have already looked at it and approved a cure plan. And by going through that process, could, during that trial, stand up and say look, we know exactly how this is impacted and we've made considerations for that through this cure plan, and that would reduce the likelihood of the property owner succeeding or, you know -- I guess for lack of a better word, the amount of damage claims that might be on the table. And so that -- we've written this such that the county can actually submit this if the landowner doesn't choose to. So I guess in conclusion, this has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in depth, that we made some significant changes based on their review and input. We've had the public review it and made Page 4 October 30, 2008 some changes as a result of public comment. I think everyone feels that it's a very good change to the LDC that will provide a very well-defined process that staff can follow not putting staff in jeopardy. It's very well defined. It spells out exactly when there has to be notice, when they would trigger a public hearing process and so on and so forth. So I think we have a process here that will -- that will ultimately allow us to do a much better job in the acquisition and cure process for properties affected by a take, and save the taxpayer's money. Happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members? Can you tell me what summary page that would be on for all the committees? MR. MULHERE: The summary, I'm going to have to -- I've got this right here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: DD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: DD. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sorry. Summary sheet DD. MR. MULHERE: Anybody know? MS. ISTENES: It's double D. Did you find it? MR. MULHERE: Double D, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mulhere, are we putting all this language in the definition? MR. MULHERE: No. Well, for the definition section, actually, I think towards the end of the amendment -- let me just turn to that. No. The two definitions that we're adding are the definition of take or taking and the definition of post-take plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What page would -- MR. MULHERE: 145. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Are we -- we also changing-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: 142. Page 5 October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're -- but we're also adding language to 9.03.07 -- MR. MULHERE: That-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or is this different or -- MR. MULHERE: Well, no. That is -- Mark White is a consultant that the county has hired to broadly revamp the LDC to make it more user-friendly and so --I'll defer to staff for the specifics, but part of that is going to be a remuneration of the LDC so this -- what is presently l.04.04 will become 9 point whatever -- MS. FABACHER: 03.07. MR. MULHERE: -- 03.07. So it was asked that I use that number because ultimately that's what it's going to be. MS. F ABACHER: I have some more information on that. You remember we retained Mark White, and he reworked the nonconformity section, which is 9.03.00, and there they have nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses, nonconforming signs, nonconformities created by a take, which originally, when Patrick White did it, was put in 1.0404, but it really belongs -- because it's nonconformities created by a take in the nonconformities section. So we're just moving to 1.04.04 language, essentially what's been reworked, back to nonconformities instead of being out of place in the front of the book. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but -- that was a better explanation than I gave. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So are we just adopting the definition and later on putting it into 9.03? MS. FABACHER: Yes. MR. MUDD: Well, right now I think you're adopting the amendments -- and correct me ifl'm wrong. It's all of the proposed amendments, which is the process, and the definitions, and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The header is wrong then. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's my question. I would have to Page 6 ,.-~_._,._.' -------....-.-..--.--- ,..-.... October 30,2008 defer to staff. Is this actually going to be an amendment to l.04.04 or is it going to be an amendment to 9.03.077 MS. FABACHER: Well, it's going to be an amendment to 1.04.04 because we'll be deleting. So we have to state that in the title and in the adds. So we're going to delete text from 1.04.04. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: And we're going to move it. So we have to list both of them in the advertising and the title of the ordinance. MR. MULHERE: Well, you're correct. If you look at the end of the amendment, you'll see the whole existing is struck through, so I think that's what Catherine was referring to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we are changing two sections of the code, the definitions? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did the -- did all the committees hear both of these amendments -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the definition-- MR. MUDD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and -- MS. FABACHER: And even the EAC. MR. MULHERE: Yes, and that was unanimous as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And this would -- I guess it would include all of -- I mean, like conditional uses, too, besides straight zoning and PUDs? MR. MUDD: It applies, yes. It applies to any single parcel or -- it's multiple parcels along a roadway, but it would be dealt with parcel by parcel. When the county goes in and takes 30 feet or 40 feet, generally if it's a large conforming undeveloped parcel, there's going to be not much of an impact. You're paying for the land. And they've Page 7 .-,.....,------~.,-~--_....,,---" -,---"'" --." ,-,-".._,,_.....~,-"'-,_._._... October 30, 2008 lost some land, but they're still conforming. It's when you make a parcel nonconforming or when you impact a developed parcel by taking away a landscape buffer, taking away parking spaces. We get literally damage claims in the millions of dollars, and most often we can remedy or largely remedy those impacts through a cure plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But, you know, if you -- if you're a property owner and someone's dangling millions in front of you, you kind of might be in a condition where you're less likely to be willing to acquiesce to a reasonable cure plan. And in this case, we allow the county, if that's the case, to actually apply to this cure plan and be able to utilize that as evidence that the county has minimized, mitigated, remedied the impacts of the take. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What about if it impacted stormwater storage? MR. MULHERE: And, again, either you can remedy that through -- some stormwater lakes are overdesigned, so you might be able to have a reduction and still not have impact. You'd have to go in and modify the permit through the water management district or you might have to relocate the stormwater, in which case, this would allow you to do that through a cure plan and demonstrate that what you're going to do will address the impact of the take. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What if -- what if we had a -- either a PUD or a conditional use heard by the Board of Commissioners, a lot of citizens' input about the impacts of that development -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and you want to, you know, take them through screening, buffering or whatever, government comes by and says, you know, hey, we've got to take this wall, we've got to take this landscaping buffer, so on and so forth. So that could -- that will impact the citizens that, their Page 8 October 30, 2008 understanding through a public hearing, they were protected by their government. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's the potential drawbacks of that. MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah. Except I think we've covered that because what we've done in here is we've created a de minimis reduction that staff can approve, and it's minimal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- get us to that? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I can. If you look on -- starting on Page 143, A -- paragraph A, and then on the next page, Band C, it deals with landscape buffers, water management facilities, and required native vegetation, okay, on those, and it has thresholds for those. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And it has to go -- it deals with the Land Development Code. So this board, through a conditional use or a PUD, goes above and beyond -- MR. MULHERE: That would apply. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is required? MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They can still only do a 5 percent? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. Well, whatever the threshold is as far as the PUD, that's what would apply. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The PUD or conditional use or -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or resolution or ordinance? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Because it says, all code required. So if the -- if the PUD is more restrictive, that's what's going to apply. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Code required -- MR. MUDD: Well, the PUD is a code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- but resolution -- conditional uses Page 9 .._.._.,..,,--~.,~._--_.._---_..-._-'"._--'-"--"-- ..' October 30, 2008 we adopt by resolution. MR. MULHERE: And I think ifthere were a greater requirement in a conditional use for a buffer and we were impacting that, these would apply to that greater standard. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it says, property owner or the county may request the following deviations from the LDC. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I see what you're saying. You'd prefer that -- or other applicable standard if one exists that is more restrictive than the LDC? I think that's what you're suggesting, yes? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just, you know -- MR. MULHERE: You bring up a good point. I'll be honest with you, I think that in the case of a PUD -- we can spell it out. I think that's probably a good point that if there's something more restrictive, that's what would apply. That's oversight. Good point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have to adopt this today? MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. MS. FABACHER: No, we can schedule another meeting if you'd like. This was the last meeting we had scheduled on our tentative proposed hearing date list. MR. MULHERE: I think it's other related PUD or conditional use requirement, if that is more restrictive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I mean, I think this is a good amendment to help protect the taxpayers -- MR. MUDD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- but we also want to protect neighboring properties. That's my point. MR. MULHERE: Yep, I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know what else is in here. MR. MULHERE: Well, we don't -- let me just -- I think we've worked real hard to make sure that there was an opportunity for existing property owners to come in. And anything that goes over that threshold, that de minimis threshold, we would -- there's a requirement Page 10 --.._-<-~..._".-..,.,._-, October 30, 2008 to notify all those property owners, and you have to send them a copy __ you have to tell them what the deviations you're requesting are, you have to send them a copy of the site plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where's that at? MR. MULHERE: On Page 144, paragraph three. That says, deviations other than those set forth above or exceeding the minimums or maximums established above may also be approved but subject to the following procedures. And then right here A, B, and C require this notice, the same notice that's required for a conditional use or a rezone. And then it tells you in those little I and -- lower case "i", lower case double "i", and lower case triple "i", what you have to provide in that letter, in that notice, and that is -- and what -- and also what the CCPC would base their decision on. So what happens is, once you've distributed these notices to the property owners, if any property owner objects, then it's scheduled for a hearing before the CCPC. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, that's good. Then it says, in such case the Board of Commissioners delegates the authority. MR. MULHERE: Correct, to the CCPC. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So do we have the ability to delegate our discretional authority to the Planning Commission? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's like with the boat dock-- MR. MULHERE: Yep. MR. KLA TZKOW: -- petitions that happened where you delegated that to the Planning Commission and they heard it. An appeal would go directly back to you. It's the same concept here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But there's specific requirements under a boat dock extension that the Planning Commission hears. MR. MULHERE: Right. And I think they have that here, too. Not the same standards, but these standards here would be their basis for review and approval, and it would follow the same notice Page 11 ___.____.. ..". "H_~__~_"'~"'''''~_''''' October 30, 2008 requirements as any other public hearing for the zoning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's then these parentheses "i", parentheses "ii". MR. MULHERE: Yes. And then it can be appealed to you. By the way, I think you're only -- in terms of the scale or the scope of this, our estimate is you're talking about five or lO of these things coming forward per year. It's not a really big number. Typically these things get resolved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, going back to my original concern about previous approvals. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Shouldn't that be in the consideration of the Planning Commission instead of in two, deviations -- well, it should be recognized, but also -- MR. MULHERE: I think it will be because -- you have to talk about it because you're talking about a deviation from that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you're saying -- here in triple "i" you're saying, whether the requested deviations are consistent with further applicabilities, policies, and GMP or LDC. MR. MULHERE: And, again, your language -- your language that talks about, or other more restrictive regulation contained in the PUD or the conditional use. It would go in there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And I think that would cover it, because I think you have to look at what the regulation is to determine whether the deviation is appropriate. So you will -- you will be, or the Planning Commission, will be looking at that, or you, on appeal, will be looking at that, whether it's the minimum amount necessary given the take to still allow reasonable use of the property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And those extra restrictions that, just for that example, were too restrictive and they can be -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. Page 12 ---.._~"..".._"--- October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- lessened because there's -- the neighboring property does not have that concern. MR. MULHERE: And I would give you an example -- a couple of quick examples. In the case of Wendy's, you know, even though the buffer was being reduced down to II feet along Immokalee Road, within that width, the county in their cure plan installed extra -- all of the extra landscaping such that it met the vegetation requirement even though it was lesser of a width. You could even -- I mean, the Planning Commission, or in a case like that, they could say, we want to see a six-foot wall in there. I mean, whatever condition is appropriate on a case-by-case basis, you have that opportunity. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: If you want, Commissioners, you can do this with the Planning Commission like they do most other things, and they would make a recommendation for your review. That's the other approach. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I -- I'm starting to feel comfortable about this amendment because it does spell out the criteria for the Planning Commission. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, you know, anybody -- can anybody appeal to the Board of Commissioners? Let's say there's a neighbor that doesn't like what -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is being proposed -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- but they have to pay a thousand dollars or something to come to the Board of Commissioners. MR. MULHERE: It says, within 30 days of approval, approval with conditions or denied of the post-take plan by the Planning Commission, the applicant, affected property owner, or aggrieved or Page 13 October 30, 2008 adversely affected property. There is a definition of that in the Land Development Code. You know, we didn't open it up to anybody anywhere. You know, there is a definition of who is qualified as an appellant, but it's obviously any neighborhood or any affected party or aggrieved party. So anybody that would have standing could appeal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. But we had a boat dock extension that Nelson's company was shepherding it through. The Planning Commission denied it, he appealed it to the Board of Commissioners, the Board of Commissioners made a decision on it. Well, let's say in this case that an affected property owner doesn't like the decision of the Planning Commission and says, you know, I want to go to my elected officials -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- but, Susan, I think you could answer that, that's going to cost them a thousand dollars. MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, for the record. That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So government does eminent domain taking, wants to settle for less, impacts the neighboring property, and then he has to give a thousand dollars to appeal to his elected officials. MR. MULHERE: Well, the only easy solution to that is that-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make Nick pay for it. MR. MULHERE: -- is that the appeals -- is the appeal costs are paid for by the transportation department because that's who's initiating -- it's the take. It's the county that's causing the impacts on the property in the first place. And what we're trying to do through this is what we do on every property. We do this right now today. Every single property that's impacted by a take that's improved, the county develops a cure plan. That goes on right now. And the citizens are paying for that and it's appropriate. They're affecting somebody's property . The question is, how does that get authorized if there's a deviation required for that? And in most cases we've had to go Page 14 . ..-".,,---....---------..-..-- October 30, 2008 through a full-blown variance process, which only the landowner can do, and in that case the county's at a disadvantage if the landowner chooses not to try to drive it through the damage claim condition. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MULHERE: So I think, you know, if what you're suggesting is that any appeal fee, the application fee for appeal or whatever -- is that the correct terminology? MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. MULHERE: Then -- that that would be covered -- in such cases that would have to be covered by the county. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the fee schedule needs to be changed to reflect that, except for in -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, because we didn't address a fee here. Probably do it in the fee schedule. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9.03.07, Nick Casalanguida's going to deal with. MS. ISTENES: Yes, the fee schedule would need to be amended and possibly the administrative code, too. MR. MULHERE: Pay for all this anyway. MS. ISTENES: But that's further on down the road. But I think it could be covered in the fee schedule, and we could just make reference to the applicable fee here in this LDC, and it would refer to the fee schedule. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm comfortable with it. MR. MULHERE: Okay, okay. So what we would -- we would put something in here that says, yeah, in this such case, any fee associated with the filing of an appeal will be the responsibility of the transportation services division. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He said Nick Casalanguida. MR. MULHERE: Or Nick Casalanguida personally. MS. ISTENES: I would just make a reference to the fee schedule, and then we'll -- we need to amend the fee schedule anyway, Page 15 ~_.._-~--------,._-_._._..._... --- .. October 30,2008 that way if this changes in the future, it's not too complicated, and the fee schedule's very easy to amend. MR. MULHERE: That's fine. That makes sense. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm comfortable with it. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, I had one question from staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. MS. F ABACHER: Is Nick Casalanguida going to pay for the applicant's advertising and notification letters also for the first time around for the hearing? Quite expensive. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's already -- he's -- the county covers those costs. MS. FABACHER: Okay, good, because-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that has to be reflected in that. MR. MULHERE: It's done. I mean, it is the way it is. The county is the one causing it. I mean, they pay for it right now, whatever they do. They're paying for the cure plan, they're paying for the design, they're paying for the private property owner's legal fees, they're paying for his consultant fees, all according to the law. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Taxpayers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happens if the aggrieved party is not a private property owner who is a neighbor? MR. MULHERE: You mean if it is -- who -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: A contractor, developer? MR. MULHERE: In other words, do we want to limit the county's responsibility for paying for these things? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think it's a policy decision, but I agree, I think that's a very, very good question. Do we want to pay for everybody and anybody and anybody (sic) to appeal and cause a problem. And it seems that we ought to say, an adjacent property owner or something like that, you know. Page 16 .-..,.._--~-------'~--~_. . October 30,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have no control over who the aggrieved party might be. We have no way of forecasting who might be aggrieved. MR. MULHERE: I agree. MS. ISTENES: You could also have multiple appeals. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. It appears to me that there should be a provision under the public petition process for an individual taxpayer or landowner to come before the county commission and say, look, I've got a problem with the decision that was made by the Planning Commission. What can you do to help me? They don't pay anything for that. We make decisions during those kinds of hearings where we solve the problem of the aggrieved party. The question arises as to the identification of the aggrieved party, why they are damaged, and it becomes a very difficult thing to decide whether or not we really should handle it through the public petition process or some other process. But I have a problem with a blanket policy that says, the government's going to pick up the tab. MR. MULHERE: Yep. Well, let me offer a suggestion. Maybe this doesn't get it. But it seems to me that, in my experience anyway, over the lasts 15 or l8 years, the likelihood of anyone having a legitimate grievance that would generate an appeal is really limited to an adjacent property. I really -- you know, somebody -- and I think you have a point that, you know, you could have a large community that has a landscape buffer and one parcel within that land -- well, they're all going to be impacted. In that case, along that roadway, and if the county's going in and widening the roadway, every parcel is going to be impacted. So the treatment is -- they're going to have to have some say-so in the cure, in the treatment, so the association would have some interaction with staff in the development of a cure plan. Page 17 October 30, 2008 But individual parcels are really where you have an impact, I mean. And so I would think you would limit that to, you know -- and the owner of an adjacent parcel or an adjacent parcel property owner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the objective, I believe-- there probably are two. One is that you need to provide the taxpayer an opportunity to petition their elected officials, but number two, you want to make sure that we're using taxpayer funds efficiently. And if we're going to force the government to pay for the petitioner's costs in all cases, it really goes right back to the taxpayer. MR. MULHERE: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so our objective should be to find a way to permit people to present their grievances to us without charging them money. And if we're talking about a relatively limited set of potentially aggrieved parties, like a neighboring property owner, I don't understand why we don't just handle it through the public petition process and not have a fee at all. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think that's perfectly fine. And I'd like to add that, you know, remember, they're going to get -- in these cases, they're going to be notified. They're going to go -- if they have a grievance, they're going to go to the Planning Commission, they're going to have testimony at the Planning Commission. Their testimony's either going to affect or not affect the Planning Commission's decision, you know. So they had a process to air their grievances, and now we're talking about an appeal, they don't like the outcome. So, again, maybe in those cases, is it really inappropriate that they have to pay the fee if they really want to go through an appeal process. I mean, you know, they got a shot and the shot is at the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I personally would like to let them appeal at no cost, and if it becomes a problem, change the fee resolution and just remove that except for 9.03.07, or whatever it is. Page 18 October 30, 2008 MR. MULHERE: For neighboring property owners? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, yes. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, you okay with that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am except I don't know how we project the potential costs of an appeal, and an appeal can be something as simple as someone saying, hey, I've got a problem with the decision they've made, or it can be a situation where it can be relatively drawn out and it can be hours of testimony by neighbors or expert witnesses and people like that, and then we're going to have to provide -- MR. MULHERE: No. I think I probably -- and I agree with you. I think I may have probably brought us in the wrong direction as it relates to this. Instead of saying transportation's going to pay the fee, I think the way to do it is there is no fee for appeal if it's appeal by a neighboring property owner, and that's all we're talking about is the appeal fee. Anything else is on them, experts, lawyers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Advertising? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't believe on an appeal -- MR. MULHERE: There's advertising. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- it has to be publicly noticed. It's just on the agenda. MS. ISTENES: It is advertised. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is. MR. KLATZKOW: It is advertised. MR. MULHERE: And it has an additional fee beyond the application? MS. ISTENES: That's correct. We just charge what the newspaper charges us. MR. MULHERE: I would say anything, anything besides the application. You know, you're concerned, they get in the door. Page 19 --"---,,---,.---~----"."--'''-''''-~-'---'-~"''~'-^ ...._._-----,.~-"...,--"~~~ October 30, 2008 Anything beyond that, it's on them. MS. ISTENES: Our difficulty, of course, being a fee-for-service organization and processing and showing up at these appeals is we don't get compensated for our costs and our time, too. So that's what the fee covers. And I can tell you, it doesn't cover it, all costs in all cases. MR. MULHERE: He'll pay for it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me finish. That's why I think the public petition process is a good way to go because we're talking about a person who has had an opportunity to present their evidence. Their evidence would be at the Planning Commission. We would have an opportunity to read that evidence, and it would be merely a case of us taking a look at the evidence at the request of the petitioner to see if we agreed that -- MR. MULHERE: An appeal was warranted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that we should overturn the decision. So here we solve the problems. The person gets a chance to talk to their elected representatives; number two, they don't have to pay a fee, and we also solve the county's problems. We don't have to spend taxpayer money doing something -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that could be relatively expensive. Ifwe then take a look at the record and we say, there's sufficient evidence here to support the commission's -- or the Planning Commission's decision, it's all over with. If we don't think there's acceptable -- an acceptable level of evidence, then we can overturn the decision or refer it to the Planning Commission again all without costs to the individual who was aggrieved. So we have, I think, the authority to give the person a chance to be heard and to take action based upon that without expending great sums of money. Page 20 __.._~_o_"~" ,._____._...._._,.___ October 30, 2008 MR. MULHERE: I'd have to defer to the county attorney. But my only concern -- I think it's appropriate to allow someone through the public petition process -- which they can do today. They can come here today through the public petition process and say, hey, we didn't like the way things worked out. We want you to look at this, and you could then say -- well, what do you do at that point? You almost have to then schedule it because there are other parties involved, right? There's the county and then there's the -- maybe another neighbor and, you know, so on and so forth. So you almost have to schedule it. And I don't know what else to call that but an appellant (sic) hearing of some kind, and I would defer to the county . MR. KLATZKOW: From a due process standpoint, I'd prefer having the affected property owner given the opportunity to come to the Board of Zoning Appeals. That's just the cleanest way of doing it. I understand that there's a cost involved on this one, and the board can waive that cost or defer that to Nick's group or anything. Really the cleanest way of doing this is the way it's structured in here presently. Having them -- we could amend this to say you have to come back on public petition and then they can do this, and I guess you could get the transcript of the Planning Commission before you, but it gets very cumbersome at that point. And I think you're still going to have to advertise it anyway for the $800, if you're going to go through that. So I don't know what it saves you. MS. ISTENES: Would you possibly consider deferring or charging the county on a case-by-case basis depending on who appeals it? And I don't want to be subjective about it obviously. I don't want to step on your legal toes, but there's always the option for somebody to ask. MR. KLATZKOW: Don't forget the fee serves two purposes. The first purpose is it does reimburse us for actual costs. The other Page 21 .,.. <._----_..,.,_.__._~"._._- October 30, 2008 purpose is, it gets rid of a frivolous claim. I mean, if somebody has to dig in a thousand dollars in their pocket, they're not going to do it on a whim. MR. MULHERE: And Nick had a good suggestion, I think, with respect to that. His suggestion, just whispering over here to me, was that they would -- that if the appeal is successful, then transportation services picks up the costs, and if it's not successful -- so they have to think about it before they come in to go through that process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think Commissioner Coyle made a very good point. The aggrieving person has to be affected by being abutting, the abutting property owner. MR. MULHERE: Well, we can limit it that way. I mean, that's easy to limit. In terms of their obligation to pay, we can limit it. You know, we can't limit it to those that can appeal, but in terms of covering the costs in a successful appeal, we can limit it to neighboring property owners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Abutting. MS. F ABACHER: Abutting, you said. MR. MULHERE: Abutting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Abutting. Whenever we do a road project, people down the street or even blocks in are not going to like it, whether it's a new -- most likely a new road. They're not -- they're not going to like that in their back yard. And limiting it to the abutting property owner would limit those things that we have to do all the time, is people don't like this road, we understand it, we know what we have to do. So I mean I like it just saying abutting property -- adjoining property or whatever. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think on Page 145, paragraph four, at the end I think we add a sentence that says --I'm just, you know, sort of thinking it through right now. But if an appeal is initiated by an abutting property owner and such appeal is -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Within the 30 days. Page 22 ,------_.._~.~-------'----,..., October 30, 2008 MR. MULHERE: Yeah, under this provision, and such appeal is __ what's the correct word? Is it approved or -- MS. ISTENES: Successful. MR. MULHERE: -- is successful, you know, before the Board of County Commissioners, then the costs of such appeal shall be borne by Collier County or Collier County transportation services. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Put it right in four. MR. MULHERE: Right. That sort of limits it to that condition, and it only -- and it further causes somebody to think about it because the costs are covered. They have to have good reason to do it, because they're not going to be successful if they don't have a good reason. MR. KLA TZKO W: And just for clarification under the LDC, an abutting property owner shares the same property line, and adjacent could be separated by a street. So I'm not sure if you want the abutting -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Abutting. MR. KLA TZKOW: -- or the adjacent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Abutting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Abutting. MR. MULHERE: That makes sense to me. MS. F ABACHER: What if it's someone just across the street who has to look at the property? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tough. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't look in that direction. MS. F ABACHER: That's pretty clear direction. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: So Catherine and I are going to get together and go through this whole ordinance to make sure that we're comfortable that everything is captured of the board members. Page 23 October 30, 2008 MR. MULHERE: So in other words, at this point that's your sole recommended change, but you're going to hear this again. This is going to be continued to another -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think it needs to be. MR. MULHERE: Okay, good. That's-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not just one change. MS. FABACHER: Quite a few. MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. I made notes about abutting property owner and the appellant and the conditional use and the PUD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I should say, that's my opinion. I don't think it needs to come back. We just need to make sure we all capture it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're okay with that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Good. Thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for your time. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to vote on these separately as they come up or at the end of the whole day? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm not sure I'm in favor of all these, so why don't we just take it one at a time. Entertain a motion to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: As corrected? CHAIRMAN HENNING: As amended. MS. F ABACHER: As amended. COMMISSIONER FIALA: As amended. I second. Page 24 October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that would be the definition of nonconformities created by public acquisition and also the 9.03.07; is that correct? MS. ISTENES: Yes, yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Motion by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Coletta. Second by me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Question, yes. Is there something-- you've said that afterwards, after they've reworded it, you just wanted to go over it one more time. You're okay with it, just wanted to make sure the words reflected the conversation that just took place. Does that need to be someplace or is that just understood and that's fine? CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's -- I think Catherine understands it. MS. ISTENES: He signs the ordinance, so Catherine and him can set up a meeting before he signs it and walk through it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go through all of them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by a saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) Page 25 October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. KLA TZKOW: Just one more bookkeeping item. For that item and all the other items you're going to be voting on today by a positive vote, you're also affirming that it's consistent with our Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want that at each-- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't need it for each one, as long as we get the one vote at the end of the day. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll do that at the end. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes. We can do that at the end. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Ms. Koehler? MS. KOEHLER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. MS. KOEHLER: Lisa Koehler, transportation planning. If you'd like to go to the next one following Bob Mulhere's, streetlighting on 151. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have a cheat sheet. I thought we were going to go by that. How do you -- do you want to go down through the list or do you want to take it however you want to take it? MS. KOEHLER: We could do streetlighting, I can walk you through that, and then we can go to the top. Whatever you'd like. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Which one is streetlighting? MS. KOEHLER: It's -- I think on your cheat sheet, it's the following page, but it's -- it follows this one in your book. COMMISSIONER COYLE: l51. MS. KOEHLER: l5l in your book. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. Okay. MS. KOEHLER: Okay. This amendment is really adding flexibility for us. It begins with changing a word from applicable streetlighting for arterial level lighting from subdivision to residential Page 26 .,...._"_.~----~.~_.__..,~-_._-_._-" October 30, 2008 or commercial developments, and that was really done just as a matter of clarification. It's always been applicable to commercial developments, but the word subdivision was confusing for people. So it's just always something, you know, that had to be debated. So we just are providing clarification in section B on Page l52. The real flexibility from this amendment comes on Page 153 and Item 2 where right now the current requirement is that you provide two lighting fixtures as you're coming into a development; however, if __ what we're finding is that by adding two, you either go over that maximum foot candle requirement or that can be met with the existing lighting in that area or maybe even one pole. So we've created some language that allows that flexibility so that you can -- if you can achieve that foot candle, between two and five with one pole, then that's all you have to add, or you can do a photometric plan, and if the existing lighting levels get you in that range, then you don't have to add any lighting. So we're providing the flexibility . And what I wanted to show you, what you've got on your screen, is this is a site that meets the current lighting levels. It was -- it's a newer development. It's at Pine Ridge and Livingston. And this is one that's just down the street that was approved prior to some changes in this section that required the minimum two-foot candles, maximum five. And so we wanted to show you why it's important that we've got that two- to five-foot candles. You can see, this is a pretty dangerous situation for a pedestrian/bicyclist crossing at night. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Committee's recommendations? What page is the recommendations? MS. F ABACHER: It's going to be -- it's on your cheat sheet. It's on Page ii, summary sheet ii. That's -- it's listed here also on your summary sheet, page number from the book, and then the summary Page 27 October 30, 2008 sheet number. It's all on your checklist. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm following it now. Unanimous recommended approval by the Planning Commission. There was one objection from the DSAC. MS. KOEHLER: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's one objection to the DSAC, correct? MS. KOEHLER: We made one change. If you go back to your amendment, there was a change that was recommended by DSAC, and that was the part in yellow, by allowing the photometric plan. Their comment was, if you -- if your existing street level lighting __ let's say you've got a light pole right in front of this development that meets that minimum foot candle, why should they have to add an additional pole and cost? So we agreed. So what you see highlighted in yellow is a recommendation by DSAC. The Planning Commission, if you'll see on your summary sheet, wanted to change the foot candle lighting level, and that's why we showed you the paragraphs. We were in disagreement for their recommendation. We feel very strongly that we need to keep the minimum two-, maximum five-foot candles. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. KOEHLER: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala makes a motion to amend 6.06.03 streetlights, and there's a second by -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Halas. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. Page 28 -,,--~_.~--,-,-_....-.._---- ,._----_.~...- October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Now I think we can go to the top of the checklist and follow the order, Lisa. MS. KOEHLER: Okay. So that takes you to Page 67 in your book, which is LDC section 4.02.27. MS. F ABACHER: That's in -- right behind book one tab. MS. KOEHLER: Everybody there? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. This is an amendment, specific standards for the Immokalee state road -- MS. KOEHLER: Overlay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 92A, commercial overlay district. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. And again, adding flexibility for your acceleration and deceleration lanes in these overlay districts. What we found is a lot of the lots in this sub-district are very narrow, and if you follow the excel and decel regulations, it makes those lanes cross the adjacent property which creates a very dangerous situation. But there was no flexibility. Ifwe had a property that came in like that, it was, sorry, the code says you have to put that lane in. So we're allowing the flexibility that you follow the right-of-way handbook, and so it's -- if it's appropriate, then it goes in, but we also have the flexibility to not have those acceleration and deceleration lanes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to Page 29 October 30, 2008 approve the amendment of 4.02.72 (sic), second by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Point two seven. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two seven, yes -- 4.02.27, thank you. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Next one is on Page 69. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. Section 4.03.08. This is a scrivener's error -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. MS. KOEHLER: -- correction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve the scrivener's error in section 4.03.08, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 30 October 30,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. And the next page is 71; is that right? MS. F ABACHER: Correct, and that is section -- amending section 4.07.02, design requirements in PUDs. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Koehler? MS. KOEHLER: This is a change so that any new developments that are coming in, their roadways would be considered private and not be maintained by the county. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the existing roads will still be maintained by the county? MS. KOEHLER: If they've turned them over, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where does that spell it out? Because I know one in particular that they're not gated; county maintains them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation. This is with the approval process ofPUDs. It just says that all new roads. It wouldn't apply to any existing roads that we have now currently in our maintenance section. Many developments coming forward shall be maintained by the master association unless otherwise approved by the BCC. So ifthere's any question, they have to come to you and seek approval for us to take it over. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But I don't see where it states the existing public roads in a PUD are maintained by the county. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe're taking care of them now, then they're in our maintenance log right now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know. But in six it doesn't say, all new. Page 31 October 30, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I see what you're saying. So you want us to just put all new public or private streets developed? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That's what you said. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Make that change. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we say that all public or private -- all private streets constructed following the date of this ordinance or this LDC change rather than just say all new ones? MS. ISTENES: Please, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe could do that, that would be a good point, and I would like to keep it public or private. They may make it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Public or private? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. They may make it a public throughway but still maintained by that PUD, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless they turn them over to us and they meet our requirements and we agree to accept them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The key point is, you agree to accept it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. And is that clearly specified here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Subject to those changes. MS. F ABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to accept the changes and the amendments addition dated (sic) of 4.07.02, design requirements, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion on the motion? Page 32 October 30, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying 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 unanimously. You're going to keep me straight on this, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, good. Next one is on Page 73. MS. KOEHLER: Yes, section 6.02.02 and 6.02.03, and this simply codifies the GMP amendment that was done a year ago changing your TIS requirements for reviews, that they will be -- all reviews will be done as per our TIS guidelines. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Committee's recommendation, DSAC's? MS. KOEHLER: Yes. It went to DSAC and Planning Commission with approval, recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except there was one at DSAC that didn't approve or voted against it. Why? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe that DSAC or Mr. Jarvi. It was a fundamental agreement of going against the 2-2-3 count of the threshold significance test, even though it was already -- it was just his objection to that policy of2-2-3. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions? (No response.) Page 33 "."----"-.-*--"....--..------......--'.. October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- approve the amendment to 6.02.02 and 6.02.03, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one's Page 75. MS. FABACHER: Right, and that will be section 10.02.02, submittal requirements for all applications. Lisa? And that is on your summary sheet on n. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala's following that for me. MS. FABACHER: Okay, all right. Thank you. MS. KOEHLER: On Page 76 you're going to find that these are new requirements whenever there's an application for an SDP, SDP A, or PPL and PUDA, that any of the PUD commitments have to be listed and given their status at that time of those applications. As you know, currently staff looks at PUD requirements, but this is another -- another check by the applicant, that they understand what the commitments are on that PUD and that they know how they're Page 34 October 30, 2008 being addressed, if they've been taken care of, or they will be addressed through that PUD application that's coming in. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know what we're addressing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to ask the same thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll have to dumb it down a little bit. MS. KOEHLER: Okay. Do you want to? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. This was my brainjelliness, so I guess I'll take the credit or the pain for it that goes with it. What we had was, you get an annual PUD monitoring report that goes in front -- a review right now. But -- and through the process of that year, you get submittals for SDPs. And so you're not sometimes catching these things from the other end of it, the developer's side. So what we've said is, when you submit any sort of development order, you'll sign an affidavit that you reviewed all the PUD commitments and show the status of those commitments at the time you submit the SDP, and it's coming from the other -- the development side of it. So they're going to certify to us that they're in full compliance with the PUD commitments. And I know it's been a painstakingly (sic) process and discussion in front of this board about PUD commitments. So we've put some onus on them to say, you will certify it, the engineer will look at it, and the owner will sign an affidavit that he's in full compliance at that time, and that's what this amendment does. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But that's what PUD monitoring does? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does it annually, and what we're -- the concern is that from the development's side, for a PUDs that's adopted today, you may see seven submittals for SDPs throughout the year before it goes through the annual monitoring process. Page 35 -~-----~..._.~,--~_..__..".._~'-~_.--~- October 30, 2008 And so what we're saying is, not only will you submit -- annually tell us what you've done through that year, but each individual development order where these commitments have come up, then you're going to look at each one of those and tell us you're in compliance. Checkbook concurrency, checkbook PUD monitoring, same thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- Site Development Plan A, what does that mean? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Site Development Plan amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Amendment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So in other words, it was a commercial parcel, and they do it in phases and they amend the site development plan to have another building. It's checked at that time as well, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Would that be change in use? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it's covered. MS. ISTENES: It could be. As long as -- yeah, as long as it's a permitted use, they could -- I mean, it could include a change in use, let's put it that way, if they were going to add a building to a site, for example, add a new use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's say that they were a carwash and now they want to change it into a fast food restaurant. Is that an SDPA? MS. ISTENES: It depends on what changes they're making to the site. It could possibly be one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see. If they were making it larger or MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If they were making it smaller, it would be an insubstantial change, right? MS. ISTENES: Not necessarily. It's -- yeah, it gets really complicated because you get architectural landscaping if they're Page 36 -~_.->....,_..,..._..."~.._,-_._- October 30, 2008 reconfiguring drives, parking. There's a whole list of criteria in the code that talks about the difference between an insubstantial and a non-insubstantial change. CHAIRMAN HENNING: This only applies to PUDs, not straight zoning? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. There's no commitments in straight zoning. This would apply to PUDs. MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in the section of -- the PUD monitoring section. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve the amendment to 2 -- lO.02.02, submittal requirement, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion on the motion? (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: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. You only have one more, Lisa. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. Page 37 _._--_.,-_..._----;---~.,-~...._'--_.,.._"._" October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's on Page 77. MS. KOEHLER: It's on Page 77. It is section lO.02.07.C.B -- or l.b. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sounds like it belongs in the old code. MS. KOEHLER: This is, again, adding some flexibility to our annual traffic monitoring on an annual basis. PUDs are required to submit their annual traffic counts. What we've done with it -- the big change you're going to see is on Page 79 and V where there's -- we've outlined some area -- three different scenarios where, if nothing has happened in that PUD in the last year or there's been -- there's less than 25 P.M. peak trips, there's no reason for that owner to submit that annual report. So we're providing flexibility in our code so that that doesn't have to be done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions on the amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to approve lO -- now, is that point or dot dot. No, I'm sorry. I was up at MS. FABACHER: It's 10.02.07. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 10.02.07 C.1. MS. FABACHER: Well, you don't have to read that in. You don't need to read all that in. CHAIRMAN HENNING: By Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. Page 38 __~_~...____m.__,""'_ October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. KOEHLER: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Now-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one now is -- MS. F ABACHER: -- we're going to switch gears and look at the sections -- 3.05.07 and section 3.05.08, and this is in your -- chapter three, of course, is your, really, native preservation kind of preserves chapter. And this ordinance, which -- amendment, which Susan O'Farrell from code enforcement is going to explain, has to do with the certification of people who apply pesticides in preserves and wetlands; am I correct, Susan? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, you are. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which page are we on? CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's 83. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Eighty-three in book one. MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning, Commissioners. Susan O'Farrell for Collier County Code Environmental. I'm an environmental specialist. I want to preface this proposal for the certification of our herbicide sprayers in wetlands and in natural preserve areas. It's a story that, if you get tired of it, just tell me to stop. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Stop. MS. O'FARRELL: Really? Because I will. I'm an environmental specialist, and when we get an exotic complaint for a preserve, I go out and inspect the preserves, and I determine ifthere's a violation when there's exotics in this preserve. I had a preserve where I had a violation, I had a contractor who Page 39 October 30, 2008 was contracted by the management company. I went out and discussed what exotics needed to be removed and what the code requirements were for that. When I returned the next day, which is what I generally do, or always do, to make sure they were following these restrictions, I found that the contractor had subcontracted to a smaller company. I explained the exotic removal, I explained everything that needed to be done and how to do it. I showed them some exotics that they didn't know and set them on their work. When I came back a week later to do the final inspection, they had taken machinery into the preserve, they had removed exotics using the machinery, pulling them out by the roots. They had ruined native vegetation. I felt responsible for this. I felt like I could have done better, and I felt like the county could have done better in order to maintain this preserve. So I am proposing in section 3.05.07 H, which is preserve standards, and it is beginning on Page 83. This is the preserve standards. And we're also addressing the section 3.05.08, which is the general, and covers the use of herbicides, pesticides, and applications. This is beginning on Page 87 and addressed on Page 88. We would like to base this requirement on the Florida Statute 487, which requires an exam and certifications in the natural areas and aquatic areas. The Florida Statute only applies to individuals using restricted-use pesticides and herbicides; however, we feel that because of the pollution danger to our environment by chemicals that are not restricted are -- and are untested and a potential danger as they are unknown. These chemicals are a major source of pollution in stormwater runoff. Many of the aquatic areas are an essential part of our Collier County storm water management. Many of the aquatic areas contain littoral plantings, which are Page 40 October 30, 2008 actually a filter for the stormwater management and work to remove pollutants and other things that we don't want to travel into our areas of waters. This can affect our economy as well as our ecology, and regulating the tainted water would affect these waters. Those potential dangers could be alleviated by the regulation of those spraying chemicals in preserves, natural areas and littoral shelf plantings areas, yeah, as these chemicals may have a profound effect on our environmental. Although it would be an amendment difficult to enforce, it would give me the ability in my direction to correct the preserve violations by requiring these property managers or owners to -- to require them to have companies that have these certificates. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta has a question, Commissioner Coyle, I do, several. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And so does Commissioner Fiala. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm ready. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I commend you for coming forward with some solutions to this. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But my first question is, is this an isolated incident that happened or have you seen this many times? MS. O'FARRELL: I have seen this many times. What we're having in this economy is we have companies who have obtained these certificates, they have done the training, they are, you know, protecting their consumer, and now we are having companies that are not paying for that extra licensing, not training their individuals who are spraying, and are charging less to the consumer. So, yes, I have seen this on a regular basis. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So what's happening out Page 41 October 30, 2008 there is we have an element of our society that is not holding the same standards as the rest of the business world and they're competing unfairly; is that how you would -- MS. O'FARRELL: That's how I would see it, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happens with an organization of fewer than eight people? They don't have to meet any of these requirements, but yet they could -- MS. O'FARRELL: The amendment that I am proposing would be up to eight people. So if they have one person, they need to hold the certificate. If they have eight people, they need to hold the certificate. If they have 16 people, two people must hold this certificate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So no one escapes this requirement? MS. O'FARRELL: No one escapes my amendment, if it's approved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just have a little confusion there. Like in the case that you just mentioned, maybe the person that originally had the license then subcontracted it to somebody else who has a license, and the licensed person sends out somebody else who has -- you know, who started clearing on Monday in his new job venture. He hasn't any idea what he's doing. How do we stop something like that? How can we make sure that even though the person who sent them out is licensed, this person that they sent doesn't know the first thing about it and so does the damage anyway; how can we stop that? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, prior to this amendment, ifit's Page 42 October 30, 2008 approved, a lawn service company would have a license to spray chemicals; however, they're only licensed to spray on a yard. So right now we don't have any licensing at all for people who are spraying in preserves. And in every preserve and aquatic case, I go and meet with the contractors that have been approved by the property managers or by the owner of the property and I check for any licenses. Most of my people that I work with -- because I recommend that my respondents look for companies that have these certificates, because obviously they've done the work required. But I can't control it when I show up, you know. And every meeting that I have had, I go over these requirements from the Land Development Code over and over again in order to understand that they understand what they're doing. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes, except you did say the key words, but you can't control it when you -- MS. O'FARRELL: When I go that morning and I show them the rose -- or the downy rose myrtle is an exotic and then I leave and then they send out a worker who doesn't know that, I -- really I can't stay there the whole day. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MS. O'FARRELL: I have other preserves to protect. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is -- it's a good plan for those that will obey the rules. For those who don't, there's nothing we could do about it anyway, right? MS. O'FARRELL: However, I will have a way of enforcing it. And when I meet with contractors, I can say -- or even on my Notice of Violation, I can say, this work must be done by people holding these certificates. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. And, of course, you'll be able to identify who does and who doesn't. MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, thank you. Page 43 --_..,-- October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then -- yeah, thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: Because I've actually been asking contractors to produce the certificates. I photocopy them and put them with my case. I'm tough. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the fiscal impacts? MS. O'FARRELL: The fiscal impact is that the license costs $160. It's good for four years. There are CEUs required. I believe it's between l2 and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's CEUs? MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry. Continuing education unit-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: -- and you get those by going to seminars, by going to classes. You could go to an FNG (sic) --I'm sorry, Florida National Landscape and Growers Association meeting, you could go to one of their conferences. Anything that someone is offering where you get training and where they offer the continuing education units. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where do you get the -- where do you go for the exam? MS. O'FARRELL: You can go to the county extension office out on Immokalee Road or you can also go to other -- they show other locations. The other fiscal impact included in this is that there's a core exam which is provided free. This is a free exam. They need four of the continuing education units in order to maintain it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Per year? MS. O'FARRELL: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Per year? MS. O'FARRELL: No. That is for the -- the core exam is required before you can apply for the certificate exam. The other financial costs would be the seminars if there is a cost for those, the classes, if there is a cost. All of the study materials are available on Page 44 ,.__. _'_... ., ~._^.w,,_..~~__~_..,~ October 30, 2008 websites, the IF AS website, which is the International Food and Agricultural Service, which is run by the University of Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You refer to statutes. What is the statute number that you reference? MS. O'FARRELL: It's the Florida Statute 487, chapter 487, which I have here with me, if you'd like me to read off any of it, and I also have written down -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's just answer my questions. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. It's Chapter 487, which is titled, pesticide regulation and safety. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 487 is -- that doesn't sound like a statute. MS. O'FARRELL: It's a chapter of a statute, of a Florida Statute. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What is the statute number? MS. O'FARRELL: I don't have the -- I have the 2007 Florida Statutes which only pertain to pesticide regulation. So I'm sorry, I don't have the statute number. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What section of the statutes would you find it in? MS. O'FARRELL: Chapter 487. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's in -- MS. O'FARRELL: A statute. Okay, so-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's -- you're referring to what's in the statute which you don't know, you don't have with you, but, I mean, there's, you know, elections, local government, municipalities. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's-- MS. O'FARRELL: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, there's schools, criminal. MS. O'FARRELL: The chapter 487 covers pesticide regulation and safety and Florida Agricultural Workers' Safety Act. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think Mr. Klatzkow's looking that Page 45 ""_<___'_"'___'U"~_ ,.__ October 30, 2008 up for me. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, this only pertains to preserves that is recorded, preserves? MS. O'FARRELL: This would be required of anyone who was spraying chemicals. The only way that I'm going to be able to enforce it is by preserves that have violations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Well, let me-- MS. O'FARRELL: Unless somebody calls in a complaint. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me ask you a different way. What do you consider preserve? MS. O'FARRELL: I consider a preserve a natural area that has been required as designated during their development of Site Development Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it has a conservation easement over it. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Recorded in the -- MS. O'FARRELL: In the plat book. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, okay. MS. O'FARRELL: And the aquatics also designated in there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, you said littoral zones. MS. O'FARRELL: Littoral zones are plants that are planted on a bank or a shore of an excavated lake. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. O'FARRELL: Those are -- you must have three different species, and you go from the bottom of the lake to the high water mean. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not a preserve. MS. O'FARRELL: Our excavated lakes are covered under the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I know that. Page 46 October 30, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I have on my amendment proposal, preserves, aquatic areas, and the littoral shelf planting areas. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the littoral shelving is not in 3.05.07. That's in a different section. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What section is that at? MS. O'FARRELL: Jeff, do you have the code in front of you? CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's trying to -- MS. O'FARRELL: I don't have that number right now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wouldn't it be better to put that in that statute? MS. O'FARRELL: The code number for the LSP As, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Instead of-- MS. O'FARRELL: Or in our ordinance, not in the statute, yes. MS. FABACHER: We could cross-reference it, Commissioner. But Steve's back there looking. He's the expert on 3.05.07. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That would sure mess up our code if we're putting in requirements oflakes and plantings of lakes and then how you maintain them, because there is a section in that part of the code. You have maintenance of it. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And to put it in the preserve standards, management standards, sure would -- I think you need to do that another time. MS. O'FARRELL: Well-- or we could include it in the aquatics, because they are actually aquatic plants that are being put in on those shelves. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely, but they're not in preserves. MS. O'FARRELL: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It doesn't belong in preserves. MS. O'FARRELL: No. Page 47 --,.~~-~. October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: So where is that language at about littoral shelfing in this amendment? MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, it's not. It's only included as the name, because I was including it in the aquatics. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What page? Is that 84? MS. O'FARRELL: That would be-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eighty-five? MS. O'FARRELL: -- 3.05.07, design standard of exotic removal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it in ii? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, exotic removal. MS. ISTENES: LSP A is the acronym she used to refer to that in that -- the underlined section of that paragraph. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. It is covered under this description of the exotic removal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, can you give us some guidance on this? Do I have a valid concern? MS. ISTENES: I want to make sure I understand your concern. Could you summarize it for me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, my concern is, is we have in our code about lake banks and littoral plantings and maintenance of those littoral plantings, and that might be all you do. In fact, I know a company that that's all they do is plant littorals in lakes. That's my concern. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I have asked someone from one of those companies here to speak if you would like to hear his -- MS. ISTENES: And I guess I'm not quite sure of your concern as far as including that in this. MS. F ABACHER: I think I understand. I think he's saying is -- that we're talking about preserves in that whole section, and yet we're going to regulate wetlands and littoral plant shelf area -- MS. O'FARRELL: Those are all shelf-planting areas. Page 48 October 30, 2008 MS. ISTENES: Got it, okay. I understand. MS. F ABACHER: And those might be found under other sections, and we could either cross-reference by putting the sections where the wetlands regulations are located and cross-reference where the littoral shelf planting area is located just behind those two, and I think that way we'd be covered, huh, Jeff? CHAIRMAN HENNING: But also, my earlier question of asking, this only applies to conservation easements, it actually does apply to more? MS. O'FARRELL: My amendment is applying to all three. It's applying to the preserves, the aquatic areas, and the littoral shelf planting areas. And the littoral shelf planting areas have a definition in 3.05.10. It is in A, design requirements. And it doesn't actually have any written verbiage for the removal of exotics in that part of the section. So actually if we cross-reference to that section, we would be creating a more restrictive of the 3.05.l0. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a wetland in my back yard. I have pepper hedge in my back yard. I want to treat it. Are you saying that I cannot do that unless I'm certified? MS. O'FARRELL: This is for a commercial. This would be commercial appliers. This would not be for a non-public commercial applier. Residential single-family homes are generally exempt from these kind of rules. MS. ISTENES: The commercial use, they'll use different chemicals, much stronger chemicals than your average citizen could buy at Home Depot, for example. So they need to be trained and qualified, I think -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I went to a commercial pesticide company and I bought -- I forget the name of it -- and also bought sticky or stick -- MS. ISTENES: Sticker-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to apply -- Page 49 _~"",.,,__,,__,,___,~__"__N~"""'_"_ October 30, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: It's an oil that makes sure -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- apply on my exotics. I can't do that anymore; is that correct? MS. O'FARRELL: No. My understanding is that when you go to a commercial place that is selling these pesticides, that you are actually allowed to buy restricted-use pesticides. For instance, a homeowner can go and buy one of these and use it without any regulation. My proposal is only for commercial applicators. So you can still spray -- you can still cut your pepper hedge and spray Garlon on it in order to make sure that it doesn't come back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't cut it. MS. O'FARRELL: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't cut it. I just sprayed it on. MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, well, cutting it is actually better because it will keep it from coming back when you spray it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It looks pretty good. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm glad you asked all those questions. They were very interesting. I wouldn't have thought of them myself. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know how statutes apply to this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well-- but we got a letter, and I thought it was an interesting letter. We got a letter from a citizen who actually does this type of work and is not licensed, and he commented and said, you know, I'm not licensed, but I guess I really should be, and I think it's a good thing you're putting this into place. And I thought, now, that's really open for somebody who knows they're going to have to go through classes and pay the extra dollars to do it, and yet he felt that the preservation of preserves as well as aquatic areas are more important than whether he has to pay $160 for four years. Page 50 _--.--,~~..,-" October 30, 2008 And so with that, I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second it. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. We have two speakers, public speakers. Sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion. I'm going to recognize the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to amend 3.05.07 and 3.05.08, second by Commissioner Halas. Mr. Klatzkow, did you look up the statute? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I got it in front of me. Based on my cursory look at the statute, if you're going to be in the business of applying certain restricted chemicals, you must be licensed by the state. Failure to do so would be a penalty by the state. My understanding, what this amendment is doing is we're saying we want everybody who's applying anything in preserves to have this license. So we're being more restrictive than the state is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Not only preserves, but also wetlands and -- MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MS. F ABACHER: LSP A. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- right, littoral. MS. O'FARRELL: And they have a section in that for the -- it's two different certificates. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're saying -- you're saying that it also applies to landowners, homeowners? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, my cursory look at the Florida pesticide law is that I'm not sure how you could be sold something that's a restricted use pesticide without a license. Whether there's an exemption buried in here, I don't know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: Actually in the statute it does break down Page 51 .____.,_">...___0__'.._.'__.'.._ October 30, 2008 what kind of people need to get which license, and it is only -- it's only applied to commercial licenses. So in the Florida Statute, it is not addressing the homeowner. The Florida Statute is addressing the public, which is the applicators for government buildings, schools. And the other -- the applicator is the commercial applicator which is applying chemicals to any other area besides that. It does not -- it excludes the residential single-family homeowner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have two public speakers? MS. FABACHER: Yes, we do. We have Ed Kaulbars, with Davey Tree; is that correct? Did I miss -- murder your name? MR. KAULBARS: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't you come over here, if you don't mind, please -- MS. F ABACHER: You know, just state your name. And, for the record, spell it maybe. MR. KAULBARS: My name is Ed Kaulbars. It was close. It's K-A-U-L-B-A-R-S, and I represent a nationwide company called the Davey Tree Expert Company, which is out of Kent, Ohio. I am a Florida certified arborist and also a Florida certified pest applicator. And there's an office locally here in Naples, and I represent our community here in Collier County for discussing the use of pesticides in areas such as the wetlands and preserves and that. There are different forms of licenses to apply. You can have a license just to apply Roundup. But to apply Garlon that you would use, perhaps, in a preserve area, you do -- you do need to have a certified pest control license. And it's really important because you've got to know how much to apply. For example, Mr. Henning, you were saying that you could go in and purchase a particular product. Well, actually under the Florida state law, the only kind of product that you can really buy is a Page 52 October 30, 2008 ready-use product, like at Home Depot or something, that you can pour into a backpack or solvent and apply it right there because it's already mixed. The products that we buy are concentrated and it requires us, through the knowledge and the studying, of how to use the correct measure of that product for that particular plant in that particular area. And I'm just here also as a citizen concerned about our areas. I live here, my children live here, my grandchildren live here, and I think it's really important that we take this step. It's $l60 for four years. We pay the money to keep ourselves certified and continuing education, and I think it's just something that's going to help our community now and then even protect it in the future. That's pretty much it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. KAULBARS: Okay, thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. And then our next speaker -- our next speaker would be Les Stephens. I don't think you need to spell that. MR. STEPHENS: Good morning. I'm Les Stephens. I'm here to support Susan and everything. I just want to clear up a few things. I've got a natural -- I'm in the private sector. I own my own company. I've got a natural area license and a wetland aquatic license which make up the uplands of a preserve. The uplands and the wetlands are all part of a preserve. Littoral shelves, you know, also, are planted adjacent and in also some of the wetlands. There's --I've seen a lot of damage caused by lawn maintenance, other individuals going in with machinery, raw chemicals, hand tools, taking out natural vegetation that should be left alone, and they're affecting the wildlife, too, and you've got to have -- it takes a lot to take -- I actually graduated from a university, and taking my state exams for my licensing was the hardest two tests I ever had to take. They're not easy. Page 53 ~'~~-'-'-~"'<-""'------,--~"-~~.~.,-- October 30,2008 I -- to have both licenses, I have to have 32 CEUs and four core credits to keep my license every four years, to keep it up to date, which keeps me current with what's going on in the industry. So you'll know, there's lO chemicals that you're allowed to use in preserves, wetlands, and in ago and lawn care, there's over 300. So you can see the big range of what we're limited to use and why. We have to be educated what to do and we have to educate our employees where any -- and some of you who bought chemicals, actually that wasn't legal. You're not allowed to go in a wetland and spray by the State of Florida unless you're licensed. And there's a lot of people, which Susan mentioned a few things -- and I don't want to keep all of you, but I just wanted to make you concerned -- or aware of what I do, and if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just, how will this change affect you, or won't it? MR. STEPHENS: It won't affect me because I'm already licensed. I think it will keep a lot of people out that shouldn't be in there destroying the natural habitat and wildlife and the state and county preserves that you all are wanting to maintain and have to do for perpetuity. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How did you hear this amendment that was on our agenda? MR. STEPHENS: Actually, Susan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan called you? MR. STEPHENS: She emailed me, yes-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: To be here? MR. STEPHENS: -- among the others, yes. MS. O'FARRELL: I also wanted to add that I have five members of a team who helped me create this amendment. There was Layne Schwartzburg, Dustin Horman, Les Stephens, and Ed Kaulbars. They all read the amendment, made revisions to it, expressed concerns Page 54 October 30,2008 which we then addressed. Unfortunately only two were able to make it because the others are out trying to make the money. So I'm sorry that we didn't have -- of course, it would have taken all day to listen to their comments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: But we did have a stakeholder team on this amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any other discussion on the amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take a lO-minute break. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to say you did a super job. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. Appreciate that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was nice the other guys came to support you. MS. O'FARRELL: I was very relieved when they showed up. (A brief recess was had.) MS. ISTENES: You've got a live mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The next amendment is public utilities -- Page 55 October 30, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Phil Gramatges, and that is on -- in book three at Page 107. Mr. Gramatges? MR. GRAMA TGES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Phil Gramatges, public utilities engineering. This LDC amendment allows property that is donated in fee simple or dedicated by easement to the Collier County water/sewer district to be deducted from the project acreage used to calculate the usable open-space acreage. What it does is allow the Board of County Commissioners the ability to create an incentive for the developer to donate property in fee simple or by easement dedication for wellsites at the time that the planned development unit is approved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What was -- can you explain the recommendation by the Planning Commission? MR. GRAMATGES: The Planning Commission had two votes to recommend approval and four votes against, and the reason for the votes against is that the chairman voiced a concern that he felt that this was not in line with the Growth Management Plan. Let me see if I can find the specific -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What we have, it says, recommendation of a denial, 6-2. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. GRAMATGES: I said four, I meant to say six, sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought you said recommend to approval (sic). MR. GRAMATGES: No, no, I'm sorry, no, no. Two recommended approval. The rest of them recommended to disapprove it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Page 56 October 30, 2008 MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. MS. ISTENES: And their recommendation was denial to you at 6-2. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Six-two, yes. Thank you. Can you -- can you explain -- you were about to explain the Growth Management Plan. It's not -- MR. GRAMATGES: Well, all I can say is that this was reviewed by comprehensive planning, and comprehensive planning did not see a conflict because they allowed it to go forward. I really am not an expert in the Growth Management Plan, so I would have to defer to comprehensive planning on this. But like I said, comprehensive planning did not pose any concerns about it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? Then I'll go back. COMMISSIONER COLETT A: Yeah, thank you. What would this amendment mean to the ratepayers? MR. GRAMATGES: This amendment provides an incentive for the developers to give us the property free of cost. If that was not to happen, we would either pay cash or give impact fee credits for the easement and, therefore, that would mean that we would have to find a way to pay it, and obviously the ratepayer ultimately is who pays for it, either through impact fees or through rate fees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this would be a cost-saving measure that would directly impact the person that's paying the bills, the utility bills? MR. GRAMATGES: Correctly (sic), sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also the impact fees that would have to be paid up front, too, by new owners or new people coming into the area and building? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? Page 57 October 30,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: The problem I have with this is it seems like we're almost forcing them to give us the land with absolutely no compensation or no credits or anything to them, and I don't think that that's fair. MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, if I may, this is an option. They do not have to accept this option. They're not forced to accept this option. If they decide not to go with this option, we would either pay outright, which is what we would prefer to do, or we give them impact fee credits. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What section of the GMP did the Planning Commission cite that it's not in compliance with? MS. ISTENES: Catherine, can I -- I'm going to summarize what I believe their concern was based on -- I'm going from memory here, but -- and then Catherine could add or correct me. My understanding was they were concerned that there was no master plan, per se; in other words, there was no plan set designating where these wellsites were located, and it was somewhat arbitrary of the utilities department in their selection of sites, and that's why I believe they felt it was inconsistent with the GMP. In other words, arbitrary choice, no predetermined plan, or at least a general plan or idea. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Does that summarize it, do you think, Catherine, accurately? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. And I would want to point out, too, that a lot of times the utilities department does acquire this land, and not a lot of land. It might be what, a hundred square feet or something or -- MR. GRAMATGES: Typically a hundred by a hundred. MS. F ABACHER: Right. So -- but the issue also was is that they get a lot of sites, but they don't necessarily use them, and then they'll just turn them back; am I right? MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct. If I may, Commissioners, Page 58 October 30, 2008 this process requires that someone comes through with a PUD. We cannot predict where they will be, and in many cases we request an easement. And in order for us to be able to connect that well that would go into that easement to a plant requires, of course, a collection system. We cannot take an isolated well in the middle of or several miles away from the plant and collect an isolated well. We need to wait until we have enough of those to make it financially viable for us to put the necessary infrastructure to make the connection. So consequently, we sometimes require these easements and these easements stay idle for long periods of time until others are available nearby. And in some cases, it may be, indeed, very long. But if we did not do this, eventually we are going to run -- run out of places where we can put wells. As you know, the growth that we have experienced in the last few years have locked up a lot of areas we cannot put wells. If we don't act proactively now, when the time comes that we need the water, we won't have a place to drill a well nor to get it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We are on Page 107, right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I don't understand the discussion. This change provides an incentive to a developer to donate the well. It doesn't extract anything. It's providing an incentive for the donation of the well property by letting them reduce their usable open-space requirements by two times the acreage or square footage of the donated wellsite. To me, that's fairly simple. The question, however, is, if we're talking about 100 by 100, that's roughly a quarter of an acre. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're talking about giving someone credit for a half acre to reduce their otherwise required Page 59 October 30, 2008 open-space requirements. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we're actually giving the developer something in order for us to get a wellhead. I think that's a pretty good deal, and I would recommend approval. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to approve the amendment 4.07.02. Catherine says I don't have to say the rest of it. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's a second by Commissioner Coletta. I have a -- did you have a question? I have a question about this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead. I'm still uncomfortable with the disapproval by the CCPC, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- if you're requiring reducing the calculations of open space, why not also the native vegetation retention requirements? MR. GRAMATGES: We felt that this was sufficient incentive as it is. We didn't consider providing any more than that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But you know that on a site you have to have a certain amount of native vegetation? MR. GRAMATGES: Correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And you also have to have a certain amount of open space. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, that's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if it reduces the calculations of open space and you have to impact native vegetation, I mean, if you're going to give an incentive, why not make it equal to the requirements if you're getting a site for free? MR. GRAMATGES: Like I said, Commissioner, we only address the area. We did not address the vegetation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the area was going to have Page 60 October 30, 2008 native vegetation on it unless it's a farm field. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, I'm not all that familiar with the way in which CDES requires this land. In most cases, this land is open field, and we typically require these in large PUDs. A single-family home would not -- we would not require this from -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't say single-family home. MR. GRAMA TGES: No, of course. We typically do not require it from small developments because while a hundred by a hundred is only minuscule for a golf community, it may be very large for a smaller development. Like I said, once again, sir, we did not consider native vegetation in this case. We simply looked at the land. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me give you an example. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You did the same for the commercial development on Davis Boulevard and 95l. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that -- they had to take out native vegetation to give that donated wellsite. That's my point. And that reduces the calculations -- that's less land that they have to work with their native vegetation calculations within the PUD. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think it's true that the native vegetation requirements is based upon the usable open-space. In other words, the acreage on which the native vegetation can be planted based on an acreage or square footage requirement. So if you reduce the usable open space requirement, you are, in fact, reducing the native vegetation requirement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to have a 25 percent retention. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But, you see, the thing is, if you're Page 61 October 30, 2008 measuring the area upon which you have to have the 25 percent retention, if you've reduced the usable area, you have, in fact, reduced the area for which the 25 percent retention is required. So I think this takes care of that. MR. GRAMA TGES: That's my understanding, Commissioner, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's only for open space. It's not -- it's not for -- and maybe -- I mean, we have an expert on the code, Susan Istenes. MS. ISTENES: Well, I'm going to let Bill answer that. We were kind of discussing -- I'm not quite sure what the concern is again, so -- MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, engineering environmental services director. The -- first I thought the question was, could there be a reduction in the vegetation retention requirements as a result of this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. MR. LORENZ: The Growth Management Plan specifically says that these -- the vegetation retention requirements are explicit in the Growth Management Plan. There was -- there was a policy that was adopted, I believe, as part of the EAR-based amendments, that talks about right-of-way acquisitions by any governmental entity for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities and including utilities within the right-of-way acquisition area shall be exempt from mitigation requirements. So that's the only caveat that I see in the Growth Management Plan that would allow a reduction in the retention requirements. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're absolutely correct. It's in the Growth Management Plan about percentage, so it would be in conflict with the land -- or the Growth Management Plan -- MR. LORENZ: Correct. That's how I see it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- if we had that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a follow-up question. I Page 62 October 30,2008 didn't quite get finished with this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me how you calculate that requirement. MR. LORENZ: Well, the calculation of the vegetation retention requirements is a calculation of the amount of vegetation that's currently on site. It's not the total site area. It's the amount of vegetation. So if there -- you have a hundred-acre site, you have 50 acres of vegetation on site, the retention -- if it's 10 percent retention, it would be five acres of vegetation to be retained on site. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, you've got, let's say, two acres that we're going to give credit for to a builder or a PUD if they donate a wellsite. MR. LORENZ: Two acres of open space? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two acres of open space. And you would presume if there is any native vegetation on those that it would be retained there; is that a fair statement? MR. LORENZ: The retention requirements would be based upon the total vegetation and so it would just be a calculation at that particular point, the location of which would be then defined by other requirements of the code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think we're following this logically. MR. LORENZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If! have -- if! as a developer have donated a quarter-acre site to the county for a wellhead and that has native vegetation on it, how is it going to reduce the vegetation if we give them credit for twice that area for open space? MR. LORENZ: It wouldn't necessarily, as long as the total amount of vegetation retained still equals the preservation requirement of the -- Page 63 October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Percentage of the preservation requirement? MR. LORENZ: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it really depends upon whether or not there is vegetation on that area when it's donated. If there is no vegetation there, then the percentage is still based upon the total requirement, and they've got to make up for that somewhere else. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that correct? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if somewhere else is based upon total usable open space, I mean, they can't plant vegetation where a building is planned, right? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it's based upon total usable space, they only have one require -- one option, which is to plant more vegetation, right? MR. LORENZ: If you -- if you're talking about the -- reduces their total acreage below the minimum requirement, then they would have to make it up through recreation, and that could be allowed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, if I may address the chair directly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You were suggesting that it might be fairer if it was also allowed for the vegetation to be on that donated spot along -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- along with the open space; is Page 64 October 30,2008 that correct? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think that's an unreasonable request. The only thing is, it would have to have vegetation on there, or could it be something that would be added by the person that's donated it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Mr. Lorenz cleared it up for me because it's -- it would be in conflict of our Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So -- and we can't do that. We must stick to the policies of the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What was the motion? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion was to approve -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You made it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. But I didn't get an understanding as to whether or not there was an expectation that the other things we were talking about here had been somehow included in the motion. But the motion is to approve as written? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Fine. Then aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 65 October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All opposed to the motion, signify by saymg aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion fails, or the amendment fails. MS. ISTENES: What was the count? CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was 3-2. Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala voted against the motion. Commissioner Henning voted aye against the amendment and Commissioner Fiala did the same. MS. ISTENES: Okay. So that's -- okay. Thank you. Sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next amendment is -- MS. FABACHER: Would you like me to read the sections off, Commissioner? Section l.08.02, section 4.06.04, section 4.06.05, section 5.03.02, section 5.05.05, section 5.05.12, and section 10.02.03. By way of maybe giving you a little intro, this is to accommodate little pieces of equipment that belong with the water system, but they might be located -- or the sewer system. It might be a lift station or something, but when it's located previously, they had to go through the complete Site Development Plan approval just to put this little thing in. So two years ago they amended the code to lessen the requirements for well- -- MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. MS. F ABACHER: -- wellfields, and now they've decided they want to arrange the code so that they don't have to go get a big SDP, which is time-consuming and expensive, just to put in a water valve or a lift station. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. MS. FABACHER: And so they've amended just all these Page 66 October 30, 2008 different design requirements, which are really site design requirements, to take care of the problem that this wouldn't be a big SDP. MR. GRAMATGES: The -- we're not proposing to expand the uses of this streamlining process by amending the LDC to include additional ancillary uses, and that includes pump station, water and wastewater storage tanks, walls, valves, antennas, and other appurtenances, equipment. MS. F ABACHER: So I think you have a picture -- did you have a picture you were -- MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. There's a picture here that shows a typical lift station with vegetation around it. MS. F ABACHER: And this is -- the landscaping code and all has been amended to require what you're seeing there with the screening, with the hedge, and then you've got the palm trees and -- MR. GRAMA TGES: Correct. MS. F ABACHER: -- we just recently amended it to say -- or we amended this one to say that you should -- you could also put in small native trees because the palm trees don't fill out quick enough for the residents. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. The residents were complaining. If you look at those palm trees there, they don't fill up a lot of space. And the amendment also includes the ability to use native vegetation for the hedging, which will fill up a lot faster. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you saying you want to deviate from it so you don't have to do this? MR. GRAMATGES: All I want to do is add to the definition that this board approved two years ago that specifically spoke about raw water wells to add what we call ancillary equipment to those raw water wells. And those ancillary equipments, of course, would be landscaped in the same manner that you see in this picture. In other words, we're not asking to put a tank outside of this enclosure. What Page 67 October 30,2008 we're asking for is to streamline the approval process for those equipments. The condition as it was before was rather narrow, and we want to make sure that we clarify it that all those ancillary equipments would be included in the LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. These ancillary equipment items, would they be really tall or anything, or will they be unseen behind landscaping? MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, the only items that will be tall as you expressed would be the necessary antennas for control, and those are, of course, very wispy and they're not very obvious outside of the enclosure. It would not include any voluminous ancillary equipment that would be very obvious and on siting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. This is -- what we're seeing here is what we also see like on Wilson Boulevard where we have a number of different wellheads? This is what we're talking about? MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. That's what we're talking about, Commissioner. I believe that most of the wellheads along Wilson do not -- this is the newest one we have. This conforms to the existing requirements in the LDC. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would this mean for some of the older wellheads that are out there that have these structures on them and everything? Would something be done to bring them up to new standards or -- MR. GRAMA TGES: There's no plan to do that, Commissioner. That would be extremely expensive to do at this time. Now, whenever the -- whenever the neighbors complain, we try to accommodate their concerns. And in many cases, we have added vegetation in order to do that. Page 68 October 30, 2008 There are instances where, as it is in many cases, we can't really satisfy everyone, but we certainly do our best to try to provide whatever landscaping is necessary to make it -- to make it blend with the landscape. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I haven't received a complaint in years, to be honest with you. I'm just trying to, in my mind, get a grip on what's going to take place that's different. Nothing's going to change in the rest of that area. It's just -- this is for new ones that are coming on line? Is that what we're talking about? MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct, yes. The intention is for new equipment and new wells and new stations coming on line, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, obviously you're doing something to keep the residents that I represent reasonably happy or I think I would have heard by now. Okay. I have a better understanding. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle. We're amending the definition 1.08.02 and 4.06.03,4.06.05,5.03.02, 5.05,5.08 (sic), 5.05.12, and 10.02.03, and that's seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 69 October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. And we have -- MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Phil. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, Mr. Smith, we have a whole bunch of amendments, and I think they're the same. We just have to have the different citations. Would it be -- would you recommend taking all these all at once? MR. SMITH: That will be fine. MS. FABACHER: Well, except for the one with aquitard and aquiclude, I think you should do -- MR. SMITH: Yeah, that is a language amendment, and that's something new we were proposing to the board. For the record, Ray Smith, director of the pollution control department. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What page do you want us to be on? MR. SMITH: Beginning on Page l17. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SMITH: Just to sum it up, these are proposed three-dimensional computer models for three existing wellfields that I'll be talking about, and also to propose amendments for a new wellfield, the Ave Maria wellfield, and that's a new wellfield. The reason I'm here is the Growth Management Plan requires that in the event any changes associated with withdrawal rates or the number of locations of wells within wellfields, that I make the appropriate changes to the model and bring it through this process. I've been also -- you've probably seen some of these maps already as I went through the growth management process, and I updated the FLUE map within that. So that's -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. Page 70 October 30, 2008 MR. SMITH: -- all I have to offer right now. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? I know we have a public speaker. MS. FABACHER: Yes, we do. You ready for him now? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Bruce Anderson, please. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel & Andress law firm, and I wanted to talk to you about the map that is on Page 1l8. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: That map is for the North Belle Meade area. And if you will recall, the North Belle Meade overlay is a special overlay in your Growth Management Plan, and it says that receiving lands, only receiving lands, are exempt from the county's environmental regulations. And we simply want the map to reflect those Growth Management Plan provisions. And I do it with proposing to add language to the bottom of that map. That's what I'm asking you to place on there, so, again, we eliminate any inconsistencies with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Smith, are you okay with that added language? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Questions? Do you have a question, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Tell me what parts of this map conflict with the Belle Meade receiving lands. Maybe you could do it on the overhead. MR. ANDERSON: Maybe we can do a comparison here. I've highlighted the North Belle Meade receiving lands in yellow. MS. ISTENES: What do you want to show? MR. ANDERSON: The map is kind of indistinct, and that's the Page 71 October 30, 2008 concern. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have one in my packet that has section numbers on it. Why can't we identify it by section number? MR. ANDERSON: Well, we certainly could based on this map. This map is already in your Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I guess, Commissioner Coyle, your question is -- and maybe they can verify it. It affects section l5, l6 -- now I can't read it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Looks like it affects the entire lower portion of the more heavily protected area of the wellsite. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you put that map back on the overhead? MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think they're trying to identify which ones it will affect. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's upside-down. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can read upside-down; 20, 2l -- now I can't -- 28. That's the affected sections in the wellfield? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I believe that's -- I believe that's the case. I'm not sure if that's all inclusive or not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It -- you know, we're not going to get anywhere unless you can take the wellhead map and draw an area that tells us what the impact is on our protected wellheads. End of story . MR. SMITH: Commissioner, this is just an illustration. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What-- MR. SMITH: We're referring -- we're actually referring to the application of the rules and regulations through the Land Development Code and the zoning maps. The intent of this language here is to simply indicate that this is just an illustration that's in the Land Development Code. Page 72 October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. You've just given us a map which you've said was a three-dimensional picture of the protection areas for these wellheads. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, as an illustration in the Land Development Code and also with the language -- I'm sorry, sir -- but also with the language on there that indicates that the mapping zones accurately depict the location of where these lines cross through the specific sections. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, we're going to exclude those lands in the Belle Meade sending area. MR. ANDERSON: Receiving. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Receiving area. Now, how are we to make a judgment as to potential impact of that change in wording upon the protection of these wellheads without knowing where that area really is with respect to the wellhead? Are we going to say that our wellheads will not be protected if they fall in the North Belle Meade receiving area? Is that what we're saying? MR. SMITH: That's what's being proposed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what's being proposed. And you said you didn't have any problem with that? MR. SMITH: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- now, tell us why we should feel comfortable that our wellheads are going to be protected if we don't -- if you can't show us where the wellheads are and what impact they will have upon our wellheads. MR. SMITH: I can't. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I'll -- the only option I would have is to suggest that it be continued until we can get the appropriate information. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was the next -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: I'm curious -- because this just came up Page 73 October 30,2008 really today. MR. SMITH: First thing in the morning. MS. F ABACHER: But I want to ask Bruce. The GMP exempts everything in the North Belle Meade overlay from environmental regulation. What's the exact word, please? MR. ANDERSON: Now, under the North Belle Meade overlay, receiving -- mining that occurs on receiving lands are still subject to the excavation ordinance that you had in effect at the time the Comprehensive Plan amendments were originally adopted. So anything that's already in there that covers well field protection, they're subject to. See, one of the problems is, my client cooperated with the county and allowed some wellfields to go on his property . COMMISSIONER COYLE: So now, though, in your interpretation he can just come in there and just dig up our wellfields and do rock mining, right? MR. ANDERSON: Taken to its extreme without consideration of the excavation ordinance, yes. But you have to throw in consideration of the excavation ordinance, and that looks at the effects on groundwater certainly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it probably gets us into another legal fight if we have to go there. If we don't have our wellheads specifically protected and we can't enforce the protection except through a court of law, then that's where we're going to go, I would presume, ifthere's a conflict. MR. SMITH: Sir, you bring up a very good point regarding the protection of the wells pertaining to the excavation. These wells do need to be protected from potential pollutant sources. And as we move through the language of this proposed LDC, we will have some protective language associated with excavation coming up, pertaining to the aquicludes and aquitards, which are confined in semi-confining units. But it doesn't rule out your concern Page 74 October 30, 2008 associated with, anything could happen in these areas. And recognizing that and recognizing what I've heard in the discussion pertaining to the protection of the wellfields, I would prefer that the language remain as initially presented to the board and that we not have the exception associated with the exclusion of the North Belle Meade receiving lands. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I guess it's my personal feeling that the language Mr. Anderson is citing in here is very broad. We should have some very specific language somewhere in our code or in our ordinances relating to the protection of our wellheads, and I believe we do. MR. SMITH: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I believe that this very general language that Mr. Anderson is citing here does not obviate those more specific protection procedures which we have for our wells. I would hope that would be the case, but I need to have some proof of that before I could vote on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I just -- Commissioner Coyle said what I was about to say. In my reading of this it says that you still have to apply to public facility element in the Growth Management Plan. And really the wellfield protection zones are not -- when you say environmental, you're thinking about preserves and this, but this is really from pollution control and it's an essential public service and we have to protect our drinking water. The three -- I don't know where Bruce's property owner has his land but, you know, it's not much of a prohibition if you're in the outside circle because that's the 20-year migration zone for something to get there. If you're in the one-year, you certainly couldn't do a hazardous waste injection well nor would you want to do a pesticide production. They're just some really obnoxious land uses that you couldn't do Page 75 October 30, 2008 close in. Am I right on this, Ray? MR. SMITH: Yes. The injection of hazardous materials are prohibited throughout the county based on this rule. MS. FABACHER: But what I'm saying is, is that if Bruce's property owner is in this 10-year, there's not much prohibition, is there, on that, Ray? I think it's just, you have to go inspect -- do a lot of inspections, I think, isn't it? MR. SMITH: Well, the area looks as ifit may be in the W-l, W-2, W-3 and W-4 zones. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, so that's significant? MR. SMITH: That is significant. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Susan, could you put it on the overhead. This is the existing LDC map, Ray, right? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: And so my understanding is, all you want to do is just replace the map but you're not changing anything substantively, or you're changing something substantively? MS. FABACHER: We added a little. MR. SMITH: Okay. Specific to -- this is the 2004. This is what we have on our books right now. This is the well field we're discussing. In this particular case, this proposal takes into consideration three different -- or three new wells. If you take a look at the shape, it's pretty much the same except they changed some pumps right here, but that's the difference. MS. FABACHER: And bringing in that extra well. MR. SMITH: Yes, ma'am, right here. MS. F ABACHER: Right. That's the -- really the major change. MR. SMITH: And right here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Anderson, help me with this a little bit. Is this -- your client, does he have an approved Page 76 October 30, 2008 excavation underway at this time, or is this something he's going to bring to us in the future or -- MR. ANDERSON: Some that are underway and some that will come to you in the future. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, some that are underway, would you indicate on the map on the wall where that is within that cone of influence? MR. ANDERSON: It's going to be easier to do it on this map. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I'm not seeing it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Put the overhead on. MS. ISTENES: It's on, it's just not on in the TV room. MS. FABACHER: There we go. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. SMITH: Twenty-one or 20? MR. ANDERSON: I think it's in the section-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right in the middle of the wellfield. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This isn't helping that much. I mean, if we could see it on the other map, it would make a little more sense to me. It's probably hard for you to do it that way, I know. MR. ANDERSON: We're just concerned about this blanket new language that applies to mining in an area that you've already approved for mining. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. And I understand. Maybe I don't understand. MR. ANDERSON: On an individual basis, you have applied some requirements, monitoring requirements which, you know, that's okay. But we're concerned about this blanket language that's being added that's tied to these maps. And it's different than what you promised in the Comprehensive Plan when my client gave up about half of his holdings to become sending lands. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would somebody comment on Page 77 October 30, 2008 that from staff? MR. SMITH: My apologies. I was getting some guidance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's okay. I didn't mean to -- I hope I didn't sound abrupt. Mr. Anderson just made some comments as far as promises that were made to his client when this deal was originally put together, and somehow we put in some restrictions as far as groundwater affected, and we won't allow them, I guess, to be able to excavate; is that what it is, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: That's the concern is some new unknowing regulations that are going to be imposed on this property. MR. SMITH: Excuse me. If we're talking about excavation solely here, there is a -- if you refer; if you don't mind me, Catherine, . . Jumpmg -- MS. F ABACHER: No. I was going to suggest we go to page l28. MR. SMITH: l28. MS. F ABACHER: These are the new -- more or less new restrictions that I think Mr. Anderson's referring to. MR. SMITH: Ifwe're -- and you agree, excavation only, okay. Here we go. Here's new language here that we're proposing that will deal with excavation and earth mining, and it will prohibit any excavation of an aquitard, which is a semi-confining unit, or an aquiclude, which is a confining unit, in close proximity to a wellfield, that being in zones W-1, one-year travel time; zones W-2, a two-year travel time. And specific criteria associated with a geologist, professional geologist, providing a map, a geologic map that identifies aquitards and aquicludes are on the proposed site and that they're not going to be breaching, excavating, or removing any of those materials that provide protection between the movement or the protection from the movement of a pollutant from the surficial aquifer system on the Page 78 October 30, 2008 surface, through these aquitards or acuicludes into the lower Tamiami where the well resides, and that's where you're pulling water from. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's only common sense. Don't we already have something that says they can only excavate so deep and that's it? MR. SMITH: They have -- yes, they do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's not enough? We have to come up with something that's more explicit? I'm lost now. MR. SMITH: Well, what I'm bringing up is these protective measures pertaining to the aquitard and aquiclude are designed to eliminate -- eliminate any other -- or provide protections to ensure that these wellheads are protected. A depth -- a depth, specific depth of, say, 45 feet may not necessarily indicate or -- in that area that an aquitard or aquiclude is at 30 foot. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. SMITH: So you may go through that. So this just requires the geologist provide a geologic map that identifies that so in the excavation plans that can avoid -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It makes absolute sense. Mr. Anderson, why would your client object to that? MR. ANDERSON: You can talk about these things on an individual basis when they come in for their excavation permits. And on other -- you have required a bond to be posted, you've required monitoring to be done, which is fine on an individual basis as they come in, but this is blanket language, and that's what the concern is, that they get swept up in areas that they shouldn't be. They cooperated with the county in two ways. One with the wellsites that they allowed on their property, and had they know that this was going to come about, they might have sought severance damages. MR. SMITH: As we were preparing this language, we, of Page 79 October 30,2008 course, approached several of the excavation areas and we did speak with a representative from AP AC. That's in that general area. And he was indicating that these semi-confining units or confining units are Bonita Springs morro, and they use a dragline system, is what we've been informed, and they are avoiding it anyway. Because when they go into the Bonita Springs morrow, it's gumming up the roborations. So they haven't indicated to us in any way that there would be a concern associated with this language. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I do feel that it's imperative that we make provisions right now to protect our water sources and our future water sources at all costs. I understand big business and I understand mining and so forth, but at the same time, I understand our responsibility to our citizens, and I think we must go along with this recommendation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I, quite frankly, am hard pressed to see the difference between the diagram as it existed before and the diagram as you're proposing it now. There seems to be very, very minor changes in the external configuration which is, I think, the 20-year? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the 20-year indication. And I don't see much, if any at all, in the other configurations down to the one-year or two-year. I really don't see the difference. So how this can create such an important problem for the landowner is something I do not understand. And without somebody showing me on a map where they want to excavate in relation to our wellheads, I'm not going to understand it. And certainly no one would expect that they would have the right to penetrate the confining layers to our aquifers in the immediate vicinity Page 80 October 30, 2008 of a wellhead. There's no reason that anybody should expect that kind of right for a wellhead. And I'm amazed that the county did not already have that language for the protection of wellheads. The city has had that protection for years and, in fact, forced the developer to move a well at their own expense because the developer had dug a lake too close to the wellhead. Those are protections that are fundamental and in my estimate have been in existence for decades. And I'm amazed to find that this is defined as new language here, but nevertheless. I think there's too much -- too many questions concerning this issue. Either we should vote it -- we should approve it as it is unchanged or we should request substantial additional information about why this has become such a big problem. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the problem is, we can't adopt any of these, including the new development requirements. We can adopt the maps but we can't adopt the development requirements for that -- that's where the problem comes in -- for one issue, one site. And I think that we should have some kind of protection with those other maps of what Mr. Smith is proposing. So is there any recommendations? Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Ifl might, we've asked Tom Messimer to take a look at this. Just was contacted about it yesterday. If you could continue this particular amendment, the map and the language so that Mr. Messimer can take a look at it and come back and give you some expert opinion on it. MS. ISTENES: Are you talking about today? MR. ANDERSON: No. MS. ISTENES: I mean, this has been going through a public hearing processes now for months. I'm sorry, Commissioner, but, I mean, to surprise you guys first thing in the morning here, Ray, I don't think that's really fair to the process or to the public. And I don't understand why all of a sudden this didn't come up Page 81 October 30, 2008 during the whole public hearing process that we've gone through for this amendment. MR. ANDERSON: Did anyone bother to send notice to the individual property owners notifying them that these new regulations were proposed for their property? MS. ISTENES: No. It was properly placed, Bruce, and you know where to find it, with all due respect. I don't appreciate that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, I have a question. Since this is restricting and possibly taking property rights, does this need two hearings from the board? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's --I don't quite understand how this is restricting property rights, to be quite honest with you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the language on page l28, that's what I understand. MR. SMITH: It's not restricting excavation in this area, sir. All it's doing is placing some protective measures when they -- if they choose to excavate in that area, but it is not restricting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SMITH: Or prohibiting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, maybe -- how about the language in the purple; that's not more restrictive or limiting? MR. SMITH: It doesn't prohibit it still. It's just requesting that we identify. IfI'm looking at the right line, sir, the geologic map, to identify where the aquitards and aquicludes are within the proposed excavation area, and also to identify the depth of the excavation so we can be ensured that the aquitards and aquicludes are not impacted. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So what's the pleasure of the board? MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. As Susan mentioned, this has been thoroughly vetted, and it went through DSAC and anything that's going to cost the developer more money to get through DSAC -- but they agreed, because when you get an excavating permit, nine times Page 82 October 30, 2008 out of lO you've already hired your certified geologist to work the permit through us, so you're not adding to that expense, and all they're asking now is that you indicate where these levels are. Now, I don't think that this gentleman has -- that Mr. Anderson's client has a vested right to break through an aquitard or a confining area, so I'm not seeing, personally, what's being lost because -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I hope we all recognize that the public has a right to petition their government -- MS. FABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- in that, our advisory boards. MS. ISTENES: Understand. Mr. Chairman -- and I understand that. And it's just a little frustrating to see everybody spinning around, you know, in circles when this could have been addressed even before we got to a hearing, and we're always willing to do that. To that end, I know Bill Lorenz has some information that I think will help you, and I'll -- if you don't mind, I'll turn it over to him. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. MR. LORENZ: Yes. This relates to the adoption of the Growth Management Plan, the North Belle Meade overlay, and we did provide a presentation to the board back in 2002. And I've just pulled the presentation up in front of me that we gave the PowerPoint for. And it specifies that the policies would include -- that policies that would be exempt from the North Belle Meade receiving lands, includes the 40-percent vegetation retention standard and the application of proposed wetlands, wildlife, and groundwater protection policies. So that was something that was stated on the record during the Belle -- North Belle Meade overlay discussion. So that -- I just want to make sure that you understand that that was part of the process of the Growth Management Plan adoption, and that's the policy that Bruce has referred to earlier. Secondly, there -- it does not exempt from the excavation permit, Page 83 October 30, 2008 and the excavation permit does -- and I know Stan is here and he might be able to help me with this. The excavation permit does not allow for a breaching of a confining unit. So if we do apply the excavation ordinance to the receiving lands, which is not exempt, that will preclude -- that will prevent a breaching of the confining unit; however, the groundwater protection policies through the groundwater protection ordinance, was stated on the record, would not apply during the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we have a problem; is that what you're saying? MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm saying that the Growth -- the maps that you're seeing here are properly constructed maps. It's the application of those maps in the receiving lands -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. LORENZ: -- that is to be constrained. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're saying that Mr. Anderson's comments are valid? MR. LORENZ: That's what the North Belle Meade overlay discussion was about during the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's an answer yes, right? MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're heading towards continuance, to be quite frank. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I make a motion that we continue this item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that -- we just need a clarification, Mr. Smith. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For these items, I should say. MR. SMITH: All the items, sir, or just that one map? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we need to -- to postpone Page 84 October 30, 2008 consideration of all of these items concerning wellfields until we get the necessary information. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want this to go back to the Planning Commission to be bandied around before it comes back to you? Because I'm thinking this is going to be a lengthy hearing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's particulate of your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to defer these amendments of the wellfields and the regulations of, and that's a second by Commissioner Fiala, and also in the motion is to reprimand -- it's not reprimand -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Remand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- remand these items back to the Planning Commission. Discussion on the motion? (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 unanimously. MS. F ABACHER: I have a -- just a staff clarification. Are we going to defer them to the next LDC cycle, or are we going to try and bring them to -- because this cycle has ended. Are we going to try and Page 85 October 30, 2008 treat them just as their own and bring them back to you at regular meetings, or how would you like to deal with it, when we defer it to -- I'm trying to figure out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we defer it to a regular meeting, because we can do that and hold off the whole ordinance? That's what you'll be doing, or creating a new ordinance. MR. KLA TZKOW: No, you can bring this one issue back at a regular meeting. MS. F ABACHER: And it would have its own ordinance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it would have its own ordinance? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know if this is the right time to talk about this, but just a quick question. I don't understand why we don't have a wellhead protection ordinance. Why are we putting this in the Land Development Code? Why is it necessary that we put it in the Land Development Code? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would think you'd want it -- MS. ISTENES: I think it's just historical. I don't have an answer. MR. SMITH: I would just like to voice something. These wells have been going through the Growth Management Plan. I had to do that first and then bring it through the Land Development Code, and that's two years. That's two years from the day these were updated that it takes to run this entire process. And that's an -- for such an important protective measure, an essential service for Collier County Government residents, that's just way too long. And if it were to be placed in an ordinance, if we could avoid that length of time that it takes for us to bring this process to an end very quickly thus protecting the water quality for our residents at these wellfield locations, that would be very acceptable to me personally. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm just dumbfounded. I don't understand why we have to do these things. In fact, I feel the Page 86 October 30,2008 same about 90 percent of the stuff that we do for Land Development Code. I think it is a worthless exercise. I think we should pass ordinances on those issues that are really important to us, and forget about sending all this stuff to Tallahassee for approval. Now, I can see this has been a worthwhile exercise because it does affect land use and Mr. Anderson's client has a concern, I guess. But how we can let wellheads exist without protecting them is beyond me. I don't understand that. I do not understand how we can waive the protection of wellheads during an approval of a stewardship area provision or rural lands area provision. It is -- it is inconceivable to me that we would permit anything like that to override our protection measures for our wellheads. I just can't believe we'd do that. And if we can do it by ordinance, I'd like to do it by ordinance and get it done as quickly as possible. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hear, hear. MS. F ABACHER: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The only concern that I have is the application of going through site planning or whatever. Susan, I'm sure that maybe you could write just a little summary when we consider an ordinance, how it might affect the applicability. MS. ISTENES: Would it be approp -- it sounds like you all are in agreement. Would it be appropriate just to kind of look into the process and make sure -- of course, we've got to make sure it's consistent with the state statutes and our own Growth Management Plan, then just maybe outline kind of pros and cons and/or the process or pitfalls or whatever -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MS. ISTENES: -- and then bring it back to you later so you'll -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: At a regular meeting. MS. ISTENES: I just don't want to say great idea and then us come back later and, say, oh, we can't do that, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why not? We've done that so Page 87 October 30, 2008 many times in the past. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Every day. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I would agree. We need as much information as we can and make sure we're doing it right, okay. It might be a good idea, it might not be a good idea, but let's at least look at it and see. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did we vote on this one? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll just add just, just reemphasizing -- and what Commissioner Coyle said as well as Ray said, the importance of this is -- well, it's so important we ought to be moving this thing forward quickly because we don't want to start permeating any of these confining or semi-confining areas before this thing is in front of us. So, you know, we've got to get this done quickly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We already have it --I'm sorry. May I? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, yeah. Please do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We already do have in our ordinances that they can't do it, and I'm just concerned that we need to hear this whole thing out, and that's why I'm for having it continued. We already addressed it. Where are we going with it at this point in time? Are you adding extra expense on? I'm very concerned with the fact that we came to an agreement with the landowner early on before we got to this point where they gave us the sites for wells, in other words, created a problem for themselves. And so we need to look at it. But we already have this covered as far as permeating the protective layers that are out there. Maybe we don't need to go any farther. But like Commissioner Coyle -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Expediency. Page 88 October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and I think everybody else said, I'd like to hear more, I really would. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Expediency. That's the only thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. I agree with what Commissioners Coyle says. I don't know that the map itself -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We're going to continue it. MS. F ABACHER: -- needs to be in the Growth Management Plan. All we have to say in the GMP is to protect the wellheads. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MS. F ABACHER: Then you go to the code of laws, which you could change with the resolution. We're there -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion-- MS. F ABACHER: -- with the permit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. The next one is on page 155. Stan Chrzanowski is going to present, and this is to amend lO.02.04, submittal of requirements for plats. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did we jump a little bit? MS. FABACHER: We kind of jumped ahead. I don't know if you meant to. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we did. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Zoning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we've got two more. Page 89 October 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, you guys want to take a lunch break and come back or -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you think we can get it done? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we can get it done fairly -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got another half an hour at least. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Let's just set a target of getting it done in 30 minutes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I promise I won't talk. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners, barely. Stan Chrzanowski with engineering review. This LDC amendment is -- we have had some problems lately with budgets getting approved without showing certain things on the plat that we could show easily, like preserve setbacks. That's all this is about. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions on the amendment? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- amendment of 10.02.04, submittal of requirements for the plat, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 90 October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You talked me into going back to -- it would be on page l29, and definition of passive recreation. And Susan -- or I mean Catherine Fabacher has this amendment. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can read it. We've read it. MS. FABACHER: You've read it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just a definition of what passive recreation is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta has a question, that's all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, more than a question. It's a statement. It's the definition of passive recreation. I won't support it unless it says hunting where appropriate. I don't want that ruled out as a passive type of recreation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you're going to have bird watching. Why you would have hunting? COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you can shoot the birds that you see. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanksgiving. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's about it. But no, under some circumstances, permitted hunting where they have a limited number of permits where somebody can have a wilderness experience would be very appropriate. MS. FABACHER: Well, since I'm the one presenting, the problem that we've been facing, we've tried to since '06. In fact, you voted on this very same definition in '06 in the context of the Page 91 October 30, 2008 Conservation Collier lands. But the problem is -- and you said, we do need a definition of passive recreation. You said this at many meetings when you see that as a use in PUDs. That's kind of, I think, where it's coming from because we don't know what it means. We've included -- staff has included the attorney general -- an older attorney general's opinion from a state of -- you know, Florida's. And the state itself does not have an opinion -- does not have a definition because it is problematic because it depends on -- really, it's site specific and it's user specific. And what the Planning Commission wanted us to do was to write one definition that would cover the uses allowed in preserves, the uses allowed in parks, and the uses allowed in Conservation Collier lands. And the whole point of it was, was we have always said, there's no way to marry those -- to make one definition for all three of those people. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's why the words "when appropriate" was included in my suggestion. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. Where would you like that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At the very end. MS. F ABACHER: Where appropriate? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where appropriate. In other words, it's not an excluded use. It could be considered if conditions are right. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. And plus -- I mean, there's some preserves -- the preserve in chapter 3.05.07, it's being deferred, but under the EAR-based, they did come -- those are supposed to determine what passive uses can be in preserves, but they haven't done that yet. But Alexis Sulecki is going to put it in a master plan of every Conservation Collier parcel that we acquire. She'll put in there specifically which things can be done, and that's more or less our plan. Page 92 October 30,2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Most of the preserve land that we have now would not be appropriate for hunting because they're in the urban area or they're just too small to be able to manage. But there will be examples coming forward in the future, and I just want to be able to keep that option open. MS. FABACHER: Absolutely. And I think -- yeah, to be able to ride your bikes through there or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever, wheelchairs, bikes. MS. F ABACHER: I mean, currently we have preserves on golf courses where there are walk -- you know, elevated walkways and you drive your golf cart through the preserve. I mean, it's -- I don't know how that would affect future golf course development, but I don't think that's a problem. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Coyle was making the motion. I don't know if he got a second, but if he would add that to the motion, I would be happy to second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor to approve the definition of passive recreation on -- MS. FABACHER: Section 1 -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 1.08.02 -- MS. F ABACHER: -- 08.02. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and add the words at the end "where appropriate". COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hunting where appropriate. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hunting where appropriate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, hunting where appropriate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion on the motion? Page 93 October 30,2008 (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 unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one is on page 131. That is the accessory building and structures, Estates rear setbacks in 4.02.03A. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. And this comes from the problem that we had that the board had to redefine policy on where people had been allowing, unfortunately, setbacks to be as close as 10 feet from the rear property line in the Estates, and you -- and the board passed a resolution, and it kind of grandfathered in the ones that are already there now, and it addressed all these situations. So we're just putting in the code on this table in the title -- and it says, in zoning districts other than Estates, just so that people will know that a utility -- well, let's see what would be one of them? Someplace -- oh, the swimming pool or screen enclosure. You can see on the waterfront setbacks on page l33, it has 10 feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Question on the amendments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: What was the Planning Commission recommendations? MS. F ABACHER: To approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: To approve? Page 94 October 30, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: Yes. And I asked just to straighten out some footnotes, which we did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas to accept the amendments of 4.02.03 -- I'm going to say it anyways -- accessory building structures, Estate rear setbacks. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you have a second? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you a second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nice catch. Second to the motion by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. We have next -- Barbara Burgeson is on sick leave, but this is the eagle nest -- you'll recall the eagle nest amendment that we've tried to put into place I think -- and so I think Steve Lenberger's going to speak on it. But Barbara is not available, and she's the actual author. But this has been through, what, two cycles now, the eagle nest? MR. LEN BERGER: I don't know exact number. Page 95 October 30, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: It's on page 157 in book three. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question on the amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion on the amendment? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to approve the amendments. Now, there's actually three citations; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Amendment of -- MS. FABACHER: 1.08.02, section 3.05.05, and section lO.02.06. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Protection of listed species nest cavity protection. Discussion on the amendments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Who seconded that, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala seconded that motion. Page 96 October 30, 2008 The last one we have is to amend 3.05.07, Frank, Lake Trafford wetland requirements. Mr. Lenberger? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, engineering and environmental services department. This amendment here for the Lake Trafford wetlands, connected wetlands, within the urban area of Immokalee, are part of the GMP requirements, which I put on the visualizer. It was changed to CCME policy 6.2.4(4), and what it says -- I'll just read it briefly here. It says, within the Immokalee urban designated area there may exist high-quality wetland systems connected to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system. These wetlands require greater protection measures than the wetlands located in other portions of the urban designated area, and therefore, the wetland protection standards set forth in policy 625 shall apply in this area. It also says, within one year of the effective date of these amendments, the county shall adopt land development regulations to determine the process and specific circumstances when the provisions of policy 6.2.5 will apply. Policy 6.2.5 is also on the visualizer below the preceding 6.2.4. We went through subcommittees on the GMP-related amendments. Most of those we are requesting to be deferred. The Planning Commission heard these amendments. This particular one did pass through the Planning Commission that's before you today, and it's basically to imply the rural fringe wetland protection standards to that connected wetland system within the Immokalee urban designated area. That area is identified on the Future Land Use Map for Immokalee, and-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions on the amendment? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Has this been run by the people that have been working on the Immokalee Master Plan? Page 97 October 30, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: The amendment was not brought through them. The Compo Plan change related to this, I would have to defer to Bill. Bill was handling that. MR. LORENZ: The Compo Plan change would have been -- I think would have been -- predated -- MS. F ABACHER: 2004. MR. LORENZ: -- the Immokalee master plan EAR-based amendment. So I don't believe this -- I don't believe this particular set ofLDC amendments or the GMP amendment went through the Immokalee master plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Here's my concern. I don't know how the community stands on this particular measure. I mean, we got it before this county commission at this point in time, but I have no feedback from the community. I have no idea. If you told me you held community meetings out there, if you told me you ran it by the master plan or the civic association, or the Chamber of Commerce, you'd give me a level of comfort. But if! may, I would like to make a motion that we continue this and bring it back on a regular agenda and that you work this with the -- with Immokalee to be able to see where we are with it, through the __ probably the Immokalee master plan would be the best way to be able to reach the community because they all interact through that. Get a little bit of feedback back before we move on it. MS. FABACHER: If! might point out-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: -- Catherine Fabacher, for the record. This has been promoted by your Planning Commissioner from Immokalee, Mr. Midney, Paul Midney. He has been promoting this for several years now. And I think -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep. And if! may, Paul Midney's my pick on the committee, and one of the reasons I picked him is because of his stand on conservation issues. He usually Page 98 October 30, 2008 exceeds the will of a lot of people within Immokalee, and I still think it's absolutely necessary that we bring it before that committee. I would expect Mr. Midney to be very supportive of this, but I'd still like to hear from the rest of the community. MS. FABACHER: Certainly. We hope to meet with Penny Phillippi and Bob Mulhere pretty soon on these issues. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if we move forward today, when does this come back again? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, is this final now, or -- MS. F ABACHER: If you vote on it today, it's final. If you -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, motion to be able to continue it, please. MS. F ABACHER: Or -- you can continue it or you can -- we have a whole list on the back of your checklist here of things that we -- staff is asking to defer because it's just -- hasn't been worked out. It's been so contentious, and so you -- if you wanted to add that and ask to defer it to that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I personally would. I don't have any feedback to work with at this point in time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second his motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion? Is there any way to, in the future, ask these committee people or community leaders of what their opinion is before it comes up this far? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be an excellent idea to be able to work it through, because this could have a major impact on some of the plans that are taking place in Immokalee as far as the master plan goes and what the CRA's working on. And if they don't take this into consideration in their planning, it may be a disaster. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're going to call them in the future before it gets to this -- Page 99 October 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I would kind of hope that staff, early on, before it ever gets to the point that it comes before this group, would be able to make the initial outreach, and then I'd be more than happy to follow it up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- but they would have to do it for every commission district, too, like going to the Golden Gate civic association, the -- MS. F ABACHER: Been there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- I was thinking of North Naples Property Owners Association, they're not there, or East Naples Civic Association. What I do is, if something's on the agenda, I try to get it to them to get their feedback on it ahead of time instead of just -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's an excellent idea, but also, too, you know, the schedules conflict considerably with their meetings that take place there and what we'd be required to have here. I would suggest this isn't any different than what we went through recently with the setbacks within the Golden Gate Estates, and we ran it by the Estates Civic Association to be able to get some positive feedback one way or the other, and it was totally rejected. From there we were able to go forward. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I'm suggesting -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not every single issue is it necessary to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I'm suggesting to you is you go out and you talk to the civic associations or the people that you depend on for feedback for things to come before the board and share those concerns to the Board of Commissioners. That's all -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be more than happy to. What I'd like to do is have staffbe able to get in touch with me on any other issues coming forward in District 5, arrange a special meeting to come in to see me so that we can sit down to go over it. This is way in Page 100 October 30, 2008 advance so they have a chance to weigh in during the initial planning of the process. That would be a great idea. We'll do that. MS. FABACHER: That's a very good idea. We're looking for ways to expand public awareness of what we're doing because we don't get a lot of participation. I've been thinking maybe we need to go on CTV and talk about these issues or what to do. But I think if we could give you a list of the amendments that are proposed very early on when they're submitted instead of giving it to you at the end of the process -- I'd be happy to do that and you could look at ones that you want to have some community outreach on. And if we know then, we have time to do it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It will have to have enough clarity to it that we'll be able to pick it up rather than some brief sentence, one sentence, to be able to explain what it is. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well, I mean, we do. We have a thing that we make up for the county manager when we -- we go over the list. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do they have cable TV out there in Immokalee that broadcasts this information like the Planning Commission meetings and stuff like that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: They don't even have telephones out there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They do have telephones, they do have flush toilets, and they do have cable TV, and they do receive our commission meetings live, but most people within the community are working people and there are very few of them -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'm saying is that the people that, like for instance the CRA people, I'm sure that they would look at -- observe some of the meetings that are going on with the Planning Commission and have some idea that these amendments are Page 101 October 30, 2008 coming up to the board. And if there was any concerns -- because I think this was vented (sic) a number of times. Yeah, it was vented one, two, three, four, five, six times. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Make a simple request. Anybody that's out in Immokalee right now that's listening to this meeting, please give Commissioner Halas a call within the next hour and let him know that you're viewing the meeting. If you get five phone calls, I'll be absolutely amazed. This is not something I would expect the average citizen to have to view on a regular basis. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We have a couple more piece of business. I see you have that adjournment look, but we are requesting, if you -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries 3-2. Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Henning dissenting. Okay. MS. FABACHER: We have in gray on your -- that were originally in this cycle, and staff just needs -- they're mostly environmental and a lot of them are EAR-based, but staff just needs a lot more time to resolve the issues because somehow the environmental amendments are always the most contentious and they do bring out a crowd. So we're asking to be allowed to defer these from this cycle to the Page 102 October 30, 2008 next cycle, which we anticipate, if we have it, to begin in June. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You need a motion to approve these indefinitely? MS. F ABACHER: To defer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: To defer these indefinitely? Second by -- motion by Commissioner Halas to defer it indefinitely, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just the word indefinitely. I don't know if that was what was suggested. MS. F ABACHER: It says to future cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That could be -- MS. F ABACHER: Well, if we needed to, you could approve a special cycle. Well, I said the next one we're looking on a regular schedule, but you can approve a special cycle anytime you want for LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Indefinite is indefinite. It's not means forever (sic). It's just means indefinite. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, a future cycle. MS. FABACHER: Well, Compo Planning plans to try and have it done for the next LDC cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if they don't? MS. FABACHER: We'll have to ask to defer again. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. F ABACHER: Or just have to say -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion is fine. MS. F ABACHER: -- it's impossible to agree. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know, now that you're going through this and we've just discovered you send some, kind of Page 103 October 30, 2008 like a pretty thorough synopsis to the county manager, maybe at that time you could send all of us just a copy of that so we know what's coming up and what it entails, and we could take it -- each one of us has our own advisory committees. We can discuss it with them. That would be great, thank you. MS. F ABACHER: I appreciate it. I think that would really help the cycle, and we're looking for ways to help this cycle. In fact, let me just say that in June we hope to be bringing you the new administrative code, which will pull two-thirds of these things out of the LDC. It will be an administrative code. We can either maintain it on line ourselves, have MUNI code maintain it, but the point is is that it could be amended by a resolution from you all, and it's things that are like level of service. You know, why do we have to go through a nine-month process to say that, you know, it's $270 instead of 240 per capita for parks. I don't know why that's in here. I'm agreeing a lot with what you all said today. But I'm very hopeful with this process, when we pull out all of this stuff into the administrative code, that this won't be as torturous as it was. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and second on the floor to continue the balance indefinitely. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Mr. Lenberger, did I neglect to recognize you? You need to say something else? Page 1 04 October 30, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: No. I was just -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just standing there. MR. LENBERGER: -- standing in case you needed to ask any questions about the environmental amendments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. MS. FABACHER: The last thing would be to request that you reaffirm your original votes on September 12th on this ordinance that you've already voted on. The purpose is is we want to put them in one ordinance together and send them to MUNI code because sending all these different -- part of our problem is sending all these different little pieces of ordinances. So I would ask that you would reaffirm your vote, and that would be contingent upon me sitting down with Commissioner Henning and thoroughly checking and make sure that we've got everything right prior to sending it to Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala makes a motion COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Approve the one -- MS. FABACHER: To reaffirm-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- reaffirm. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the one ordinance. MS. F ABACHER: -- the votes on September 24th that we voted on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, yes. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second by Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And also in the motion that you find these amendments -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Consistent with the growth plan. Page 105 October 30,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I include that in my motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion? (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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Do we have to put that same qualification into our motions for today for those that we have approved so far, that we find them consistent with the Growth Management Plan? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we've included that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We did? I don't recall it being done individually. But nevertheless, if-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It wasn't. It was just in that motion that we took, because we're putting all these amendments in that one ordinance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the one ordinance that we just -- okay, I understand. Then are we finished with that business? I'd just like to ask the board to consider something. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I would -- on this LDC Page 106 October 30, 2008 amendment, I just have one thing and, you know, we're -- on our calendars, this LDC amendment is for the whole day. So in consideration of the -- my colleagues' time, I would ask in the future for the staff to update on -- us on the calendar, you know, whether we should shorten it, lengthen it, those things, and -- MS. FABACHER: Very much, recommendations for making this not such an ordeal, the LDC amendments. Yes, be absolutely thrilled to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And as a way to achieve that goal, this is not the first time we've discussed this. But I would like to ask the board to agree to provide guidance to staff that anytime we have a land development decision, that the first question that should be answered by staff is, can this be accomplished through a local ordinance or resolution rather than through a Growth Management Plan amendment. That would be the first question that should pop into the staffs mind. And if you think it is proper to do that, please bring it to us for consideration under those kinds of conditions, because we're doing -- we're putting too much detail into the growth plan. It shouldn't be there. It limits our ability to respond to the needs of our community. We can't spend two years dealing with wellhead protection plans. It's just crazy. It takes up your time, it takes up our time, and it hurts the community. So if you can find ways to have less of this sort of stuff going on and more opportunities for doing it in easier ways, it would be greatly appreciated. And I'd ask the board, you know, Mr. Chairman, if you'd determine ifthere's enough support to provide that guidance to the staff so there's no misunderstanding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely. Page 107 October 30,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're talking about the GMP and the LDC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Both, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think we're kind of getting that way with the administrative code -- MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- of laws. MS. F ABACHER: For the LDC, right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. And I -- GMP has way too much information. MS. FABACHER: Yes. If you pull up other cities and counties, it blows you away at how short they are. It's the old adage, K-I-S-S works best. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any further business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to adjourn, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Page 108 October 30, 2008 (No response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Catherine. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:21 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DIS RICTS UNDER ITS CON OL ~ TOM HENNING, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHI.&.,JlROCK, CLERK ~~11~t~ . Attest .sJ.().ch.t-t,..,. , ~ h~n~tur~'on', 'd } I. I "\ /" c} These ~iitlltes 3Pproved by the Board on~, as presented ~ or a corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 109