Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/24/1998 S (Termination of Agreements with Golden Gate and East Naples Fire) SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, 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 districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:06 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Barbara B. Berry Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris ABSENT: Timothy Hancock Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #2B TERMINATION OF EXISTING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE GOLDEN GATE AND EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICTS FOR SERVICE PROVIDED TO THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome you to the Board of Collier County Commissioners' hearing on the Land Development Code. This is the second hearing on this particular item. If you would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have an item that we're going to deal with prior to our getting started with the Land Development Code. This has to do with a budget item that we had earlier this week and last week dealt with in terms of a contract agreement with the Golden Gate and East Naples fire control and rescue districts, and so we need to deal with that item first. Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. Good evening. For the record, Leo Ochs, Support Services Administrator. I appreciate you allowing me to add this item on to your agenda this evening. As you've just summarized, Madam Chairman, the purpose for the agenda item coming to you today is a request to terminate the two contracts with the two agencies that you've referenced for fire protection services in district one solely to accommodate the direction that the board gave earlier in the week in their budget workshops and specifically to allow staff to renegotiate those contracts prior to October 1st of this year in a manner that will allow us to allocate a portion of these dollars and set those aside to contract with the City of Marco Island for fire protection service in the Goodland, Horrs Island area, which, as you know through the recent charter for the City of Marco, the city excluded those areas from their corporate boundaries, and by definition, they've become part of your Collier County fire control district service area. (At this time, Commissioner Constantine entered the board room.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve this item. Commissioner Constantine, we're dealing with the contractual -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I heard it on the speaker. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question. We don't have any public speakers, I'm sure, on this. Okay then. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, zero. Thank you, Mr. Ochs. The reason we had to deal with this is, we had a July 1 deadline and the commission, after this evening, will be recessed until toward the end of July, so that was the reason for the emergency measure and why we brought another item in in front of our normally scheduled agenda tonight. Item #2A ORDINANCE 98-63, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Okay. Mr. Nino, I believe we're ready to start with the Land Development Code changes. MR. NINO: Yes. At your first public hearing on June the 10th, there were certain items that you directed us to review and make changes to and it occurred to me that perhaps we ought to deal with those items, and then if we're missing an item or there's an item that people are here further wishing to express some concern, that you might deal with those as those -- as those requests are made of you. The item -- the first item that we had -- that there was a suggestion that some change be made to was with respect to page 11 to the proposal to add to the industrial district provisions for gun shops, group 7699, with accessory shooting range for testing and training facilities. It came to my -- it's come to my attention that the amendment that staff offered and was at the suggestion of Development Services Advisory Council somehow or other, did not get into the staff worksheets, and that was an addition that said except for outdoor shooting ranges. We want you to acknowledge -- we'd like you to acknowledge that that will be an addition. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. NINO: The second item for which there was a suggestion or direction to add an additional provision had to do with page 48 and that was minor after-the-fact encroachments, and the suggestion or the direction by Commissioner Norris was that the encroachments would not continue to apply to the building in the event it were destroyed, that the replacement would -- would need to be corrected. Now, we did make that addition, however, in the actual ordinance that is in your packet on page 105 and that reads, administrative variances approved pursuant to the above do not run with the land in perpetuity and remain subject to the provisions of section 1.8.10, non-conforming structures. I believe that was Commissioner Norris' direction. It is in the -- it is in the ordinance but wasn't in the worksheets. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So that means that if a building is destroyed, then they have to build to the new regulation? MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Correct. MR. NINO: And -- and the next -- the next area where there were certain additions made had to do with the automobile service station section and I'm going to ask Susan Hurray to describe the changes that we made and the changes where there is still some concern. MS. HURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Hurray, Current Planning, for the record. The first change would be on page 57 and it was mostly just a clarification. It was staff's interpretation that the direction was that the board wanted to, under the separation requirements, measure the 500 foot separation distance as a shortest airline measurement rather than the Planning Commission's recommendation which was to stop the measurement at any four lane, arterial or collector road. So the language in the document in front of you does describe that measurement methodology as the shortest airline measurement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's the more restrictive? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. The next change was on page 59 under signage, and this is where a little bit of confusion arose in our interpretation of your direction, and that is that you all did give us direction to prohibit pole signs, which we added the language in there. There was a little bit of confusion on the methodology for measuring the height of the pole signs. The -- at the last hearing, the language in there described the measurement of height to the crown of the parking lot, and it was staff's interpretation that you wanted that measurement to be removed, that methodology to be removed and the methodology to be used which would be the standard measurement as we measure all signs which is measured from the lowest center line grade of the nearest public or private right of way easement or the uppermost -- to the uppermost portion of the sign structure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The idea being that's your line of sight as you're driving down the road? MS. MURRAY: Correct. Being that the ground signs are limited to a maximum of eight feet in height, you may want to consider, and we're suggesting language that measures the height from the parking lot or the crown of the road, whichever is higher. That might give a little bit of visibility to the ground signs, being that they are lower than the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes sense. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that makes sense. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You said eight feet? My material says 15. MS. MURRAY: Eight feet for ground signs, 15 feet for pole signs. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mine says ground signs shall be limited to 15 feet in height. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Top of page 59. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh. MS. MURRAY: You're right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we can fix that right now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We can correct that. MS. MURRAY: We -- okay. I apologize. The current code requires it to be eight feet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, a 15 foot ground sign is kinda funny looking. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Be a pretty tall ground sign. MS. MURRAY: So we'll make that eight feet, and then would you agree that the measurement should be from the parking lot or crown of the road, whichever is higher? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll go -- I'll agree to that. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Great. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have one other question, Susan. I understand that somewhere else in the code it mentions another ten feet? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. The sign code allows an additional ten square feet for gasoline pricing signs. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which means you could have 70 square feet? MS. MURRAY: Seventy square feet. That's total. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't like that idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is that? MS. MURRAY: I believe there are state requirements that gasoline service stations have to post their pricing, so I believe probably way back when, when the sign code was amended, they gave that additional ten square feet for the service stations. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we check on that to see if that is a requirement for sure or are you certain? MS. MURRAY: I'm positive. Yes, ma'am, it is a requirement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even if it's required though, they can utilize their sign space for that purpose. Gasoline isn't more important than clothing or any other retail operation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. Why couldn't they just put -- they could, couldn't they, the restriction does not require it on a separate sign? It just says it has to be advertised? MS. HURRAY: No, it just gives an additional ten square feet for pricing. They could use it all on one sign and put the price and their name on one sign. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm suggesting they shouldn't have any additional square feet. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we ought to keep it at 60, period. MS. HURRAY: Okay. We can remove that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you for catching that. MS. HURRAY: On page 60 under number 17, building colors and color banding. It was your direction that color accent banding on gasoline canopy structures as well as the other structures on site should be prohibited, so we added language to prohibit it not only on the canopy, but on other buildings. Right under that, number 18, it was your direction to add language for infrastructure for generators and so we added that language, and lastly, on page 62 under 14, it was your direction to lift the regulations on time frames for car wash operation, and so we did do that, and that's really it. That's about it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HULHERE: I believe there may be a couple of members of the audience who might want to speak to this issue. I don't know if you want to wait and have them all speak at once or -- or if they're ready to speak on this issue, come up now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the signs or gas station -- MR. HULHERE: On the service stations in general, yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers on that particular -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we have two speakers, Bruce Anderson and Wayne Hook. First is Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I waive my right to speak if there are no other changes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a permanent condition? MR. ANDERSON: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just for this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Hook? MR. HOOK: Madam Chairman, board. My name is Wayne Hook, for the record. Under section eight under landscaping, there were a couple of things that I noted in there that were a little bit -- and I applaud the effort of what you're doing here, but there were two things. One, the spacing of the canopy trees, I believe it states canopy trees shall be planted at least 15 feet on center within the cjusters. Horticulturally speaking, if you move them to 20 feet, you'll have better livability and eventually better coverage of what you're trying to accomplish, I believe. Fifteen feet on center with canopy trees is really gonna crowd them in there and you're going to have a horticultural problem for the owners and for your -- what you're trying to accomplish down the line, I believe. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So your recommendation is instead of 15, it should be what? MR. HOOK: Twenty. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Twenty. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Can I make a comment here? Actually, what it says is, canopy trees shall be planted at least 15 feet. That seems to say that 15 is the minimum. You could go to 20 or 25 or 50, so perhaps we need to look at this language -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no. I can see why you -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What page are you on, John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fifty-eight, 8-C. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Shall be planted at least 15 feet on center. MR. HOOK: I think what you folks are trying to accomplish is that would be minimum 15 feet on center and go to minimum 20 feet on center. Maybe somebody could -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did we arrive at 15 feet? MR. NINO: That was not staff's intent. Staff's intent was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Minimum? MR. NINO: -- minimum 15 feet. That recommendation came from the Development Services Advisory Land Use Subcommittee, and as a matter of fact, it came from a landscape architect on that committee and we incorporated their suggestion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: John's right about the language though. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, the language, 100 feet on center would be at least 15. MR. NINO: We agree it needs to be clarified. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So what you're saying -- what you're suggesting, Mr. Hook, is that it should say a maximum of 20 feet? MR. HOOK: A minimum of 20 feet rather than a minimum of 15 feet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we're still left with the same problem. If we say that, it could be 100 feet and that would be -- MR. HOOK: A maximum of 20 feet. I'm sorry, 20 foot on center. No more than 20 feet on center is what -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No more than. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right, a maximum of 20 feet on center. MR. HOOK: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Does anyone have any objection to that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't. Makes sense to me. MR. HOOK: And the second part of that would be under palms. Within our ordinance, three palms are considered one canopy tree, with the exception of the palms, royal palms and palms in the Phoenix family, and I think we just need to note that on there that if royals or any of the members of the Phoenix family, canariensis, reclinatas and so forth would be one for one because you just don't physically have room to put three reclinatas that close together. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd love to do that because I would hate to discourage -- nobody's going to plant three canaries together and they're such gorgeous trees, I'd sure hate to do something that would discourage anybody from planting them. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a very good suggestion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. You got that one, guys? MR. NINO: Yes, we have it. MR. HOOK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all we have, Madam Chairman, for this category. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Go ahead. MR. NINO: That being the case, I would imagine there are people here who are interested in -- in amendments for which you did not direct any change. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I do have a question on one, Mr. Nino. On page 68, this is the rural area subdivision. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Were you going to go over that or there was no question raised, I don't think, but I -- MR. NINO: There wasn't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could we add some language down at the bottom of the page, 3.2.4.10.1, the exemption for platting in subdivision, could you add language that says, except for projects who have had a previous hearing? How do the rest -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How would that apply? What would that mean? A previous fezone hearing or conditional use hearing or -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there has been a previous hearing on any particular -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any kind of public hearing? MR. NINO: We have preliminary -- we have hearings on preliminary subdivision plats that go to the Planning Commission. Those are the only ones that I can think of. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And basically what the current language is reading is that even though you have done that, they're going to require you to do this again; is that right? Did I read that correctly or did I misunderstand that? MR. NINO: Do you know what the derivation of that is, Bob? MR. MULHERE: The -- I think that perhaps, if I'm not mistaken, maybe the intent there is to have some level of vesting for a project that's already been approved, is that -- is that what the intent would be? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or is in the approval process. MR. MULHERE: Or is in the approval process? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. MULHERE: I think that perhaps there is some language that we could add that says that a project which has received approval by the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. MULHERE: I don't think that's problematic and that's very specific. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So it's not that we're redundant in doing this over and over and over again, you know. At what point do you finally say okay? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're done. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I mean, I'm not opposed to the public hearing, but we've done that. At what point do you say that's -- MR. MULHERE: I think we can construct an exception that says that projects which have received approval at a public hearing of the Board of County Commissioners within some reasonable period of time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. MR. MULHERE: Because that would exclude some project that may have been approved ten or 15 years ago that didn't come forward, so some reasonable period of time, and perhaps 24 months is a reasonable period of time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: The only one we had was Mr. Anderson and he waived on this one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Okay. Anything else? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think, if I may, Madam Chairman, a lot of the public who are here have to do with this -- the business about allowing private secondary -- private post-secondary schools in the community facilities district, and I just wonder if there is support among all of us for -- if a good compromise might be a conditional use for that -- for that particular use that -- let me tell you why I'm hanging onto this conditional use idea. In this neighborhood, this -- this neighborhood is very concerned about the -- the impacts of a college on their residential neighborhood. They are anxious to -- and this neighborhood, my neighborhood, because it's my backyard, literally, is going to have its day. We are going to have a public hearing. There's no way that this can come forward without a public hearing. I have -- am just concerned that because my neighbors have all had so much concern over that use, that would afford future -- 20 years from now, 100 years from now when we have some CF zoning somewhere and a secondary -- a post-secondary school may come into a neighborhood, that we allow those future neighbors to have the same opportunity as my neighbors are going to have. This doesn't affect my backyard. My backyard is gonna have its day in court. It's gonna have its hearing in front of this board, but just judging from the level of concern that they've had and -- and, frankly, seeing that the ability to impose conditions will, to a great degree, eliminate their concern that if this were a conditional use, then it's not a problem. So I don't know -- I know that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So CF zoning, Commissioner, doesn't allow the public hearing process? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, the CF zoning would, so when the -- so if property were rezoned to CF, there would be a hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's fezone. You'd have a fezone hearing, but what she's saying is if there's already a piece somewhere that's CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is a CF, there would be no -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It would be a permitted use and they could go through without a public hearing. That's what she's saying. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what troubles me -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What else -- of that, and help me again on the recollection of a couple weeks ago, how many acres currently are there in the county? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not a lot, and the problem though is that when we later someday put CF zoning, you know, in different areas when they're creating this district, when we later put this in different parts of the county and then five or ten years later, a school comes in and wants to build on that piece of property and it's next door to an elementary school or it's in some way relevant that we should have a public hearing. Conditional uses are merely for the purpose of uses that are a little special. This one is so special, we've never even had it in our code. I -- I just think it's appropriate. It's not anything that's parochial to me. It's not something that's gonna protect my backyard, but the -- the concern caused by people in my neighborhood has made me think that it's appropriate for a conditional use instead of a permitted use. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Conditional use the same as we are considering for nudist camps and for -- that we currently have for homeless shelters, for example. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And churches, for example. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's the advantage in having the CF or -- what's the advantage? MR. HULHERE: The -- the advantage of requiring a conditional use or '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, the CF zoning, what's -- MR. HULHERE: Well, the problem is one that there really is no identified district that allows for a private university, and so when we began to look at that issue, we realized that there was no district that allowed for private post-secondary educational facilities. The most appropriate one, of course, was this community facilities district. Either way, any property owner would have to go through a fezone to get new CF zoning or a public hearing, for example, in the case of a conditional use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So this way they're covered that they're going to have a public hearing and I just think that it's -- just judging from the reaction and the concerns in my neighborhood, that some future neighborhoods need to have that layer of protection that they have the right to impose conditions specific to their neighbors. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, I sense a little reluctance. What would you -- what's your feeling in terms of the CU being able to do that as opposed to including in the CF district? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think, the two schools of thought, as Commissioner Hac'Kie has advanced the one side, but on the other hand, Commissioner Constantine has alluded to the other, there's only a very few acres and, what, three other sites in the county -- MR. HULHERE: Three other sites in the coastal -- coastal county and 47 acres. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A total of 47 acres? MR. HULHERE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the coastal county. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Check your district. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So if you fezone something to CF in order to put a university there, you would automatically get a public hearing anyway. It just seems like a redundancy to me. It's a super majority vote either way you go. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: to be CF zoned now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: need to go to the speakers. more time. Right. Except for those three parcels that happen It's not gonna affect us, and we may just I just wanted to put that out there one CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If we go to speakers, you're speaking to the CF zoning. You're not speaking -- we're not -- again, I don't want to get into the merits. Tonight is not the night to get into the merits of International College versus the Park Shore residents. This is not the time to do that. You're gonna have a hearing at some point in time regarding this issue. If you wish to seek -- speak to the CF designation, then tonight's the night that you speak to that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And would it be appropriate to -- are we down to the question of whether it should be a conditional or a permitted use? I mean, I think a majority of the board is clearly going to approve a change in CF to add it either as a conditional or a permitted use. I support adding it as a conditional use. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can see the merit. I -- you know, looking at the total number of acreage that we have involved is -- is minimal. As long as there is a public hearing and there is a public hearing either way, I just don't see it that this is a monumental problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not a monumental problem and it's not going to be a monumental problem in Park Shore for this particular one, but I won't talk about that tonight. This is going to be able to be worked out even in this particular case with appropriate conditions, but the conditions is what makes the neighborhood feel safe. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then we can -- let's go ahead and have the public speakers, as long as everybody understands what we're doing tonight. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Jan Eark and second is Terry McMahan. MS. EARK: I'll waive. MR. MCMAHAN: I'm Terry McMahan. I'll waive also. MR. FERNANDEZ: Dennis Cronin and Wayne Arnold. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have others? MR. FERNANDEZ: Two more -- or one more, sorry. MR. CRONIN: Very briefly, for the record, Dennis Cronin. I'm a lawyer with the Law Firm of Bond, Schoeneck and King and I'm representing the Park Shore Association before you this evening, and I'd just like to speak in support of Commissioner Mac'Kie's suggestion only to the extent of a couple of particular issues and your ability to deal with traffic concerns and specifically your ability to deal with the size of the university, all right, the number of students who can, as a permitted use, come under community facilities. I think that International College is somewhere between 300 and 500 -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't want to talk about International College tonight, Dennis. You're talking about conditional use versus the CF, period. MR. CRONIN: I understand, but your ability to deal, as an example, with size as an issue as to a particular site and its impact on its immediate neighbors and how that impact might be affected by the size and the number of students and the traffic and its proximity to surrounding facilities. That's all -- that's all I feel and -- and our board feels -- the conditional use allows you to specifically deal with those issues and to deal with them in detail and to deal with how they affect a particular site in a particular neighborhood. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, Dennis did make the point better than I was making it, and that is that you can have -- a college in a district can mean a lot of things. A college with a football stadium or a college with -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, absolutely, and I think that that's -- whether five of us sitting up here or who knows who is going to be sitting in this seat, they're going to be making those determinations all the way from here until whenever, and that is something they're going to do, but if they have the CF -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can ask for some of those concessions during a fezone anyway, not just with a conditional use, and secondly, realistically, getting back to the 47 acres, you're not going to have a football stadium. I mean, let's talk real here instead of throwing wild ideas out to scare people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, I understand. I'm sorry. A football stadium maybe was a wild idea. I was trying to make a point. The fact is, however, that you may have a school with 300 students or you may have a school with 1,000 students. If you fezone to CF, we've talked about this before, it's difficult to put CF with an asterisk, but if it's a conditional use -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then you have one, two, three, four, five -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The conditions laid right out, and the definition of a private university is just so broad that we might need to have the right to put on conditions. MR. ARNOLD: Good evening. Wayne Arnold, Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek representing International College this evening and I'd just like to talk a little bit more about the permitted use aspect of this community facility district and I think it is important to know that there are only 40 other acres out there that are CF zoned, and the reality is, we're probably not going to get some other college who will be seeking to take over the YHCA or the driving range or the Boy Scout camp to operate this type of facility. The other fact is that we have other permitted uses there that are still contemplated in the educational facility change tonight. Public or private primary and secondary educational facilities are also included in the definitional change you're contemplating for CF zoning. They're also specifically listed currently as permitted uses in that district, but the educational facility district itself is broad and it would encompass things through colleges, but I think also looking at it as a permitted use why it's important to think that they should be permitted is that we have control over this through the stipulations you can place on any rezoning of property. I think it's also important to note that when you read the intent section of the CF district, I don't know what other institution we think of when we think about institutional uses, but I think of colleges, churches, schools, things of that nature as a traditional institutional use, and I think the compromise of conditional use is something certainly we might have to satisfy ourselves with if we can't persuade four members of the board that it should be a permitted use, but I think the fact is, it is a double public hearing burden for almost any property owner in Collier County to come through the process to fezone to CF and come along with a concurrent conditional use application for which you're going to attach probably the same stipulations that would follow the zoning change as well, so it is a double burden for the applicant in that particular case and I think that it's an issue where you can stipulate on the rezoning of property the size of the student body, for instance, or if it were some other specific use to CF, if you wanted to fezone to CF to put a private school there of some sort, like Community School, you would stipulate number of students, hours of operations, whether or not they had lighted outdoor fields, et cetera. Those kinds of issues will be dealt with at the zoning stage, and in fact, you have a more burdensome test at the time of zoning than you do during the conditional use, so I think it makes every sense in the world to hold it as a permitted use in that district, given the fact that you will almost always have a zoning hearing preceding any use of a college in this town outside of a commercial zoning district. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's the almost that worries me. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- to address that issue, I might offer up that if it really is that other opportunity that someone's worried about on the three zoned sites we have out there, maybe a conditional use gets added that is for any site zoned CF prior to a certain date. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why would you -- MR. ARNOLD: Maybe that's the way to handle that situation. So if the site was zoned CF prior to tonight, you'd have to come in for a conditional use for an educational facility on that site. I think that is an alternative where you have it as a permitted and a conditional use for sites that were previously zoned CF if that is the concern that we have. So I'd just offer that up for your consideration. Thanks. MR. FERNANDEZ: Neno Spagna is the final speaker in this category. MR. SPAGNA: For the record, my name is Neno Spagna. I'm here on behalf of International College and myself. When I first got into this and tried to find out where a college would be permitted, I came up empty-handed. There's no place where the zoning ordinance specifically permits a college. There are a lot of fringe definitions that can be interpreted or that can be looked at and perhaps a college could be squiggled in, but nowhere where it specifically refers to colleges. So the first thought that came to my mind was, well, obviously, colleges were just overlooked when the zoning ordinance was prepared, because how many times does one have to consider a college as a use within the community? Very few times. So I began going through the different zoning districts to see where -- where I thought the colleges would best fit and I came up with the same answer that the staff did when they looked to the zoning ordinance to see where a college would fit, and that would be in the CF district, and the reasons why I felt that was the best district, and I can't speak for the staff, but presumably their thoughts flowed along the same lines, number one, I looked at the other uses that are permitted in the CF district and by logic, it just seemed like colleges fell in with some of the other uses. Number two, if the CF were done today, I think logically, probably it would be put in the CF district, so after reviewing all the definitions, going over all the ordinances, I came to the same conclusion that the staff did and I'm not up here to decide whether it's a permitted use in the CF district or a conditional use or anything else. That's up to you, but I hope that you will feel that your staff, as well as some of the others involved, did do a thorough job in looking for the best place where it could be put and they came up with the CF district, so I thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all we have in this category. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I, again, just have no problem with CF, but the -- I do think that it's easier to impose conditions through a conditional use process than in a straight fezone to add conditions. In a PUD, you add stipulations to death, but in a straight fezone, that's hard to do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But it can be done. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It can be done. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Didn't we just do that yesterday with a gas station? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. I believe so. Okay. MR. NINO: I don't have anything else. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HULHERE: I would like to add -- Bob Hulhere, Planning Services Director, for the record. I think we do have a couple other individuals who wish to speak on -- let me find the item for you, page 75, section 39555, and that is the staff recommendation -- there are really two parts to it. The first is to better define bona fide agricultural uses which are exempt from native preservation requirements, and the second part of that was to allow, and we discussed the example of the Naples Memorial Gardens, was to allow the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator to grant an exemption from the native preservation requirements in all or in part for agriculturally -- on agriculturally zoned property for essential public services and for cemeteries, and I know that there are a couple of people who wish to speak to that item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Don Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: Good evening, board members. I'm Don Pickworth. I -- I represented Naples Memorial Gardens in this and -- and I'm here to speak in support of the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation because we -- we think it's a good change. We think that it's -- it's certainly not giving the Community Development Administrator any overly broad power or authority. In fact, he already has considerably more breadth of authority in these matters than that now and has had it all along, but it's -- it's important for the cemetery to move forward. The vegetation requirements would basically remove 15 percent of the remaining life of the cemetery, which is kind of a difficult situation with, you know, given the limited life of the cemetery, so -- so I guess, in short, I'm here to support the staff recommendation, the staff recommendation -- it came up during our discussions and this section was written by the staff to address that issue, so we're in support of it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two on environmental issues. MR. HULHERE: Same one. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Michael Simonik, and the other is Paul Hinchcliff. MR. SIHONIK: Good evening, commissioners and pretty young ladies, all three of you. My name is Michael Simonik. I'm the director of environmental policy for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I come to you representing our 5,500 members, our 670 volunteers and our 32 member board, and I'm speaking on the item that would have -- would allow the Community Development Services director to grant exemptions on the preservation requirements in the code, and after reading this, you know, I -- I think that there's going to be a lot of important issues coming up that we would like to have the opportunity to comment on and we won't have the opportunity if the exemptions are allowed to be given by the Community Services director and not come to a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners and there may be areas that were in that 25 percent preservation on a particular piece of property that we see as very important, are important and were preserved for a reason, maybe beyond just the 25 percent, maybe they're part of xeric oak scrub that very little is left in this county, and then an exemption can be made on that after the fact of them having that development and being there even for years like the cemetery is, and we would lose that property without even knowing about it. We would lose the habitat there. We would like to have the opportunity to comment on these issues and have this come before the board in the variance process rather than the exemption process administratively, and that's the point that we have, you know. Beyond that, it seems like this is being made for a particular -- a Land Development Code amendment is being made for a particular individual or entity, it just doesn't seem like good public policy not to allow the public to have input on what we think would be a very important issue for us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask the speaker a question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The exemption would apply to cemeteries, which there's only one of, so we aren't real excited about that one. MR. SIHONIK: Is that -- can I ask a question? Is that a public cemetery or a private cemetery? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bob? MR. HULHERE: It's the only cemetery in coastal Collier County. There is another cemetery in Immokalee and there is one on Marco Island. I guess it's a private -- it's a for-profit cemetery. I'm not sure that there's any restrictions on who can -- you know, if they want to pay their freight can be -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So to speak. MR. SIHONIK: And if it's a private enterprise, they could go out and purchase another area to create an annex to the cemetery or -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's very difficult, I believe, to permit a cemetery -- MR. SIHONIK: Well, that's not my point. My point is, I don't want to lose public input in the process of finding out that we could lose that 25 percent preservation requirement in the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is my question for you, Michael, was that I'm personally not real excited about -- I'm not real concerned about the administrator being able to give an exception for the one cemetery that we have in Collier County, but the essential public services as provided in section 269, that's a pretty broad -- MR. HULHERE: Well, it is fairly broad and some of those required conditional uses -- and obviously I would think that the administrator would defer that determination to the board during the public hearing process for the conditional use because they're required to submit a master plan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Since we don't have 269 in this little book, could you tell us what those are? MR. HULHERE: The -- the other permitted essential services are a little bit nattower and I think the thought pattern on the staff was while we were addressing this issue, we thought that there may be essential services -- it says in all or in part and I would, you know, again, I would suggest that the administrator would require some substantial reasoning behind reducing that to some degree or another. Two six nine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While he's looking for that, Mr. Simonik couches it as, surely you don't want to cut the public out of the process, and the other extreme someone could say is it's simply more government so that a third party can meddle in a private property right. I don't happen to think either one of those are accurate representations, but I mean, you can couch it any way you want. I think all we're trying to do here is make sure there is a reasonable process and I don't think every single action that ever happens has to be in this forum and I think what's being proposed is a reasonable process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there an appeal process if someone disagrees with the administrator's decision? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope not for a third party because that gets back to some of the things that have happened statewide. If there's an appeal process -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just mean to this board. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know, but statewide some of the environmental groups that have gone -- held hostage -- I mean, the university, prime example, got held hostage until concessions really that didn't have anything to do with the university were made, and so while there were good intentions there in having an appeal process, I hope that we're not thinking about making that available for a third party because all that does is create bureaucracy. MR. HULHERE: There is not an appeal process anticipated because it would be strictly administrative, just like a site development plan or any other administrative review and approval. The list of essential services under permitted uses, 269, are predominantly infrastructure related, water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, telephone lines, switching stations, cable television, electrical transmission and distribution lines, substations, power structures, private wells and septic tanks and similar installations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So how could those relate to -- MR. HULHERE: Well, it also -- it also lists governmental facilities shall be permitted uses in the agricultural and estate zoned districts, including non-residential not-for-profit child care, educational facilities, libraries, museums, parks and recreational service facilities, so there are some uses governmental in nature which could go -- and again, it's fairly narrowly focused because it's only in the agricultural district that we're talking about this exemption. We are not talking about in any other urban residential district or commercial district. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, the problem is though, guys, is that what we're saying is that thing that we hate when the state legislature says it, and that is, these are the rules that apply to everybody except us because it sounds like the only -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't follow you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That the rules for how you have to go about getting an exemption to this section are the following, unless you're a cemetery or government, and if you're one of those two things, then you just have to ask the administrator. Everybody else has to come to a hearing, because essential services are provided by government. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It says -- wait a minute though. Under bona fide agriculture uses shall be exempt from the above preservation requirements. MR. HULHERE: All bona fide agriculture uses -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it gives a whole list of things, not just government things; crop raising, dairy farming, horticulture, fruit and nut production, we've got a lot of that, forestry, groves, nurseries, ranching, poultry and egg production, livestock raising, et Getera, et Getera, et Getera. MR. HULHERE: Those uses are clearly exempt because they're agriculture, and as a matter of fact, in that respect I think that this amendment tightens because it very clearly tells you which agricultural uses are exempt. The other uses -- what we are suggesting is that we have some administrative authority in all or in part, depending on the circumstances and the situation, to reduce or waive the preservation requirements. That's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that -- that -- but that administrative authority would apply -- am I reading this right, the administrative authority would only apply to essential services and cemeteries? MR. HULHERE: In the agricultural district. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So it is different. We are giving ourselves a special exception, us and cemeteries get a special exception. MR. HULHERE: And other utility providers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's going to be an oversimplification, but I don't think -- I don't think the proposal is bad. I mean, it's -- what I hear you asking for is more government, another layer, another step, another, you know, another way to make it more difficult for anything to happen. More time, more money, more staff effort. MR. SIHONIK: Can I add public input, more public input. That's our point, public input. When something comes before this community we might not have any idea about, the public can come give you, the commissioners, more information on something that you might not otherwise get unless you're hearing it from the public. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and I don't think anybody wants to try to dampen public input, but there are certain items that are small enough in nature or, I don't want to say insignificant, but small enough in nature that they don't require a full-blown public hearing. Everything -- you could use the phrase you just said to apply to anything, but if we did that, we'd have these hearings 24 hours a day, seven days a week. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a good thought. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Every action -- seems like that this past month of June, doesn't it? I mean, every action the board takes -- or every action that happens in the county doesn't need to come to the board and doesn't need to have public input and -- and is it great if someone in the public brings that to our attention? Of course it is. There's no one arguing against that, but you can't reasonably do that with every single activity the government ever undertakes. MR. SIHONIK: Right, and probably this is the first time in a year you've heard the Conservancy come ask for more public input, and this is the issue we're asking it on is the 25 percent preservation requirement, that one thing. I don't remember coming before you all before about asking for more public input except for this one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And this is that you have to preserve 25 percent of -- no. Mr. Pickworth's shaking his head. MR. PICKWORTH: It's not even the 25 percent provision we're talking about. MR. HULHERE: It's 15. In the case of the cemetery, it's 15. It depends on the size of the parcel. There's different percentages. Also, there is no absolute requirement that you preserve the native vegetation in any scenario. You can take all the vegetation down, but then you're required to replant with native vegetation, so you can take all the vegetation down and replant under any scenario. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's the mythical -- MR. HULHERE: Most people retain it because it's cheaper. I mean, it's cheaper, it's better, whatever the reason. I shouldn't say that's the only reason, that it's less expensive, but most people do retain native vegetation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you have to plant it at the same size that you took it out? MR. HULHERE: Yes, yes, so it's more expensive to do it that way, but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So if you can, you will retain it probably? MR. HULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Makes sense. Thank you. Next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Paul Hinchcliff. MR. HINCHCLIFF: Good evening. For the record, my name is Paul Hinchcliff. I'm the current chairman of the Environmental Advisory Board and I'm here tonight to make a couple of points from a slightly different angle on this particular issue. I'm here representing the thoughts of the other members of the Environmental Advisory Board that would have you turn down this particular amendment because the LDC works. This process has been proven over the years. It provides for individual case review on any kind of issue, land use issue like this in the county. When something comes up before us and we don't agree on it and there's a discrepancy, we have a process called variance that ends up addressing this particular type of issue very, very well. We don't need to change the LDC. It's not broke. It doesn't need to be fixed. It's working very well. We have a volunteer board of six environmental professionals that come in and volunteer their time very studiously every month and offer their particular professional opinions on these types of issues. That particular advice is valuable to you, I would suggest. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you make that statement across the board? Do you think our LDC is fine, doesn't need any changes or are you just applying it to this one -- MR. HINCHCLIFF: In this particular case, the LDC is not broken, does not need to be -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then across the board -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you think the LDC is fine the way it is? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In this particular case or the total code? MR. HINCHCLIFF: In this particular case. I'm addressing this particular issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if the EAB sends us something a month from now that they think should be different, or if as individuals you think should be different, we shouldn't bring up the fact that you said the LDC works? MR. HINCHCLIFF: We don't wish to end up having our power of review diluted by -- by giving it away to the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Administrator. MR. HINCHCLIFF: -- the administrative arm of the county. It's something that we volunteer our time very, very willingly to do and wish to keep doing that, and to give it away somewhere else, to dilute that power takes just that much more of our public review process away from us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think all he's saying, Tim -- MR. HINCHCLIFF: The variance process will end up working very well in this particular case. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is the issue one of the LDC language itself or is it one of power? MR. HINCHCLIFF: Well, the LDC as it sits now serves the purpose very well and the process of variance that the cemetery could end up going through in order to -- to -- to find a way to end up doing what it needs to do will -- will prove out. This is a process that we deal with on a month in, month out type of basis. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the substance of -- or the hurdles that would have to be jumped here really wouldn't be any different, it's who would give the okay, so when you say -- when you're talking about process, I think Commissioner Norris' question is, you want to be the voice that decides it's okay instead of a paid staff member? MR. HINCHCLIFF: We want to maintain our role in the process. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's really the question more than the substance of what's -- what's there in the LDC. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it's does the -- is there a public hearing and a decision made by the Environmental Advisory Board or is there a private meeting and a decision made by staff. MR. HULHERE: I just want to clarify a little bit, not to be argumentative with any of the statements that are made, but I don't think the Environmental Advisory Board would review a variance. The Planning Commission would and the Board of County Commissioners would. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they have the right to review it if they find that it has some significant environmental issues, like if there was a -- if you're nuking all the native vegetation. MR. HULHERE: That falls within their purview. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but the EAB would look at the issue before it came to you for an administrative -- MR. HULHERE: Well, I guess that's something we'd have to look at because I think the code says the variance procedures require CCPC and BCC approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just don't want it to appear in any way that we're making it easier to do things or we're lowering the standards because that's not the case. We are trying to make a reasonable process and you have to keep in mind, this isn't just a big evil developer, this is other people trying to -- maybe a small business owner or a small entity or government, for that matter, and should it take months and months and months and hundreds of staff hours to get done on what is really a relatively small item and meet this exact same set of standards or should it be done in a streamlined fashion and come up with the same results at the other end, and we're not altering any standard here. We're entrusting our hired staff to meet the standards that we've laid out instead of causing a bunch of public hearings and a bunch of advertising requirements and our legal staff to spend time reviewing it and preparation for those public hearings. It's a matter of putting common sense into the process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Hulhere, is there discretion involved in this or is this just -- are there rules that it's just a question, as Commissioner Constantine says, it's just a question of who interprets the rules and says -- you know, is it black and white or is there gray? MR. HULHERE: You mean to ask for the -- the waiver of the vegetation -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's gray in everything we do. MR. MULHERE: I think it's gray. It would be an administrative approval. I guess it's gray in the sense that someone could ask for the total waiver of all of whatever percentage they were required to preserve and the administrator could say, I don't think you've demonstrated a need or a public benefit, and therefore, I don't approve it or I only approve a 3 percent reduction. I mean, I think there's -- it's going to depend on the professional judgment of the administrator or his designee in reviewing that request. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who do we have on staff with the expertise to -- that we have compared to, for example, the expertise of the volunteers on the EAB? MR. MULHERE: Well, we have several environmental specialists. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have one or two. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what we pay them for COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But Tim, check out the staff that we have. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have seven. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what are their credentials, Vince? MR. CAUTERO: Several biologists. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're not the credentials of the EAB. MR. CAUTERO: Well, on the other hand, I would stand up for the credentials of the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting our staff is inadequate, unable to handle -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I think our environmental staff is inadequate. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those seven people will be pleased to hear that, I'm sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I bet they wouldn't mind having some help. MR. WEIGEL: I'll just say that in regard to an amendment that is more administrative and delegative rather than substantive as far as land use goes, that if the board were to opt to approve this amendment, it could always come back and be removed or altered in a couple cycles after a track record's been established. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that makes some sense, but Commissioner Hac'Kie, you've raised an issue here that I take concern with. When we start talking about our staff members up here at this table, if you have any dissatisfaction with our staff, then you need to be relaying that to our county administrator. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we met about it just last week. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But a public hearing like this is not the place to be having that discussion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please let me be very clear. I do not for one second mean to disparage the abilities of the existing staff members that we have. As I have expressed to Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Cautero, I think we are understaffed in the environmental expertise area. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not at all what you said. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I appreciate the opportunity to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what you said because I asked if you thought they were unqualified and you said yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That gives me great concern. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you for letting me -- because I would not want to leave that impression, so thank you for letting me correct that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you know how many staff members we had prior to this public hearing? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim, we can talk about it later if you want to, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, we can't, unfortunately. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not going to debate it with you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not asking you to. I'm just -- you're saying we're understaffed and I'm thinking it seems like 60 seconds ago you didn't know how many staff we had, so I'm not sure where that judgment is coming from. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim, I spent an hour with Mr. Cautero and Mr. Fernandez on this subject Thursday a week ago tomorrow and so I -- I do have some information about it. I don't know why you feel the need to query me on it, but I have answers, but I don't think it's useful for this particular forum for us to have a discussion about them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just trying to be clear where those are coming from. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Let's continue. Do we have any further speakers? Thank you, Mr. Hinchcliff. MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Hulhere, any last items? MR. HULHERE: Unless there are some other speakers that I'm unaware of, no, those were all -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further speakers on any topic? MR. FERNANDEZ: On any topic. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioners, any questions, any further concerns on this Land Development Code? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How does the vote go on the code in total, because I support most of what's there, but there are two places where I'm -- I don't support what's written. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would hope, particularly because we have four tonight, that we would do similar to what I do every year. For the last three years, I haven't agreed with the sheriff's budget, for example, but when it comes time to support the overall budget, I support the overall budget and I carefully express those parts which I disagree with because I think it's important to have that on the record and I would expect you to do the exact same so that we don't end up with a struggle tonight with four people. I would hope you would support an overall change even if there are a couple of parts in there that you feel like you need to verbally get on the record some concern about. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, because this is an ordinance with -- this has several sections. This is not like adopt a budget or don't adopt a budget. There are many, many sections. We've made changes tonight. I'm going to ask us to make the school a conditional use in CF and I'm going to ask us not to allow the administrator to have that special discretion on the native vegetation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And suppose the rest of the board doesn't agree with you, then what Commissioner Constantine's question is, what are you going to do about the entirety of the Land Development Code? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I'm gonna -- I guess I'll move to approve the entire code except for those two sections and then they will stay as they're currently written and it will accomplish what I want to accomplish anyway. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So you are taking it singularly upon yourself to be the queen of the County Commission and have veto power over the majority of the board; is that what you're going to do? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely, John. That's exactly what I'm going to do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I'm just asking so that we don't end up in a -- in a stalemate and, you know, and stay here until midnight going nowhere or not make any changes in there that if we do get to that point, and I do think it's a fair analogy with the budget because there are several different sections in the budget, and if I was king, using John's words, if I were king, I would probably approve all the budget except those parts in the sheriff's and could vote against the budget and, you know, we've had years where majorities don't agree with particular parts, but do overall and could hold the entire budget hostage, but that's not a responsible way to handle it, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's just not relevant to this particular discussion, Tim, because every single time that we adopt changes to the Land Development Code, it's an ordinance and we agree -- we agree on sections that we change at the second hearing. That's what I'm asking that we do tonight. Frankly, I can't imagine why you wouldn't support it -- which of the two, is it both issues that I'm -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, really, they're both clearly more government and more hurdles for people to get through, longer process, more expenditures of taxpayer money and unnecessary, in my opinion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And important, in my opinion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, sure, and that's your opinion, but you appear to be outvoted on the board. Now, since we are one member short, you know, you can hold the Land Development Code hostage to your whims, but that is not responsible action by a county commissioner to do that. If you're in the minority, which I am a lot of times, you've got to just accept that and go forward with what the majority of the board wishes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: John, I'm so familiar with being in the minority, you can't imagine. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, maybe you should think about that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the changes as made by our staff in their entirety. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would that -- we made some minor changes this evening. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Including those corrections and additions made by the commission itself as agreed to by a majority of the commission itself. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Are there any further questions or comments? If not, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries three, one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, it doesn't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aren't we required to have four votes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Super majority. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have to have a super majority. What happens if we don't have a super majority? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I ask if -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment, please. MR. WEIGEL: The motion fails. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The motion fails. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I make a motion to approve all of the Land Development Code that was just proposed in Commissioner Constantine's motion with two exceptions; one is that the private college be a conditional use in the CF district, and the other be that we eliminate the administrative exception for the native preservation? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion. Is there a second? All right. It dies for a lack of a second. We're at a stalemate. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you are. If you'd like some procedural options, I can provide a few, not necessarily tasteful. This meeting could be continued and heard further with perhaps all five commissioners being present. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which means we'll have to wait until the end of July, correct? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it would have to be continued to a date certain and/or readvertised as far as that goes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What if we -- if we do that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's one other solution. Commissioner Hac'Kie could leave. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I'm not going to. There's one other solution. I would be willing to compromise the way that Mr. Weigel described on the environmental issue, but don't feel possible that I could change my vote on the conditional use in the CF district. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we continue this hearing until the Board of Commissioners' meeting of July 28th, 1998. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At which time we shall outvote Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's not part of my motion, but it might happen. MR. HULHERE: I just want -- I'm sorry, I just need to make sure, is this required to be an evening hearing? MR. WEIGEL: It will be required to be an evening hearing and if we are beyond five weeks, it will need to be readvertised. I think that's within the five week period, but I'm working off a mental calendar. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a shame to hit the taxpayer up for all those extra costs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a shame that you guys can't make a reasonable compromise on the CF district. That's all I'm asking you to do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: accede to your wishes? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: community want done, John. interest -- Your idea of a reasonable compromise is to Is to do what a lot of people in this It's -- it's legitimately in the best COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not going to sway -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to make a comment on the motion, and that is that I'm going to vote against the motion because you are adding an inordinate burden to this community when, as the speakers came forward, they made very articulate arguments for making a university, a private college, a conditional use in the CF district. Now, over egos, you're not willing to consider that reasonable request. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I find it ironic that one commissioner by herself who fears losing a four to one vote is accusing the other four of acting on ego. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm trying to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is the pot calling the kettle black. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just do the right thing and change the vote to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the way you want it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pam, I've tried to rationalize out why -- you know, CU versus CF and I don't find any rational thinking of why. I mean, I can understand the conditional use. I can understand the CF. I just don't see that there is that much -- you're not that far apart. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me tell you why. Let me try to tell you why -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I tried to understand when we were going through this and I just don't see why this is such a difficult issue. If I thought that the public was not going to have any hearing at any time, I would feel totally different about it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I feel that they are going to have their day in court. Everybody's going to get to hear this. They're going to say their piece. They're going to talk pro and con, and I think what's -- what -- what more do you want? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to be able to impose conditions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But we understood we could. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, and that -- Bob, could you correct them? Guys, the gas station that you just referred to that on Tuesday we imposed a lot of conditions, that was a PUD. The concern here is that in a straight fezone, you can't impose conditions. A CF would be a straight fezone. I'm asking -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Marjorie, help us out. MS. STUDENT: You can impose conditions on a straight fezone. However, there is a problem with the zoning atlas because when -- I think Mr. Mulhere may be able to explain that a little more in detail because it would just show up as a straight zoning district and you have to put an asterisk or something to let the public know that there would be conditions with that, whereas where there's a PUD or conditional use, it's already understood that you go to that resolution and pick it up. Straight fezone doesn't appear that way on the zoning atlas map and that's the problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Remember we rather recently had one where somebody wanted to say it's an RS -- it was some residential district with a certain density, but we were going to cap the density to something lower and Bob told us, yes, you can do that if you want to, but it sure does make our zoning map confusing. What we're thinking about is, we're so used to getting PUD fezones where we can impose conditions ad nauseam, that we're losing sight of the fact that in a straight fezone to CF, you can't impose conditions. I'm asking that a college, because it is so broad in its definition, it would be necessary to allow a community, a neighborhood to impose conditions. You can do it, Marjorie says, on straight fezone, but we all know that they ask us not to, they encourage us not to. MS. STUDENT: I have an idea, because if it's the zoning atlas map that causes the problem here, I think we could perhaps, in parentheses, after where that district is shown on the map, put the ordinance number that approved that fezone and an asterisk or something to indicate that this was approved by separate ordinance and you would have the number of the ordinance there for any member of the public to go to to look at the conditions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is an administrative matter. We ought to be able to take care of it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that right, it's an administrative thing then? MS. STUDENT: I believe so. Mr. Cautero may be able to shed some more light on it, but I believe so, it is. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you clear that problem up? MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. We'll make it work. It's purely administrative. I don't think we need to debate the merits of that at this level, but we'll make it work and implement your mandate, if that's your choice. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Vince, the point is that in a straight CF fezone, we can impose conditions on any of those -- any of the permitted uses in a straight CF fezone and that then you would reference those through ordinance number? MR. CAUTERO: As you've been advised by legal, you can impose those conditions under straight fezone if that is the board's wishes. Whenever you do that, we will make it happen administratively. Again, I just don't think we need to debate the merits of how. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it can be done. MS. STUDENT: And historically, we have imposed conditions in straight fezones. We have even rezoned to a certain district, but only had the person agree to only part of the uses in that district and that in itself is a condition, so we have a history of doing that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that, I'll withdraw my motion to continue and make a motion -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can't. She has to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not true. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll second your motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: To reconsider the first motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: She was the only prevailer (sic). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion to -- what do I need to do? What I want to do is make a motion to approve the code that's in front of us with the understanding that we can impose conditions on the CF. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have a motion on the floor to continue -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've withdrawn it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So now may I make a motion or do we need to do a motion to reconsider the earlier vote? MR. WEIGEL: No, because we're not reconsidering the earlier motion. However, for clarity of record, you can be as specific as you want about imposing conditions in the fezone, but we have stated that that is available to you without even providing that anew. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I will make a motion to approve the code with the advice of counsel that we can impose the conditions. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that would include the minor changes -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That the board discussed tonight. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, zero. Thank you for your help. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:17 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY HEATHER L. CASASSA, RPR