Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/08/2010 S (LDC Amendments) June 8, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 8, 2010 LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE 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 districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Frank Halas (Absent) Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Susan Istenes, LDC Manager Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA June 8,2010 1:00PM Fred W. Coyle, Bee Chairman Commissioner, District 4 Frank Halas, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 2 (Absent) Jim Coletta, Bee Commissioner, District 5 Donna Fiala, Bee Commissioner, District 1 Tom Henning, Bee Commissioner, District 3 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. COLLIER COUlNTY 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." PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. 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. 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 TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE. Page 1 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Land Development Code (LDC) Amendments Adopted - 4/0 3. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Land Development Code (LDC) Amendments Land Development Code (LDC) Amendments - Not previously heard on May 17. 2010. Subsection Description Author Publication Sum. Pub. Ord. Sheet Page Page Environmental 5.05.02 Marinas (MPP S. Lenberger Bee OS20-Book DD 1 126 Shoreline 2 Calculations) Adopted - 4/0 Private Petitions 2.03.07 lmmokalcc R. Mulhere nee OS20-Book 1 7 17 Deviation 2 Process/lnteri m Standards Adopted - 4/0 CDES Business Management & Budget I Transportation Planning 10.02.07 C Submittal Patterson I Bee 0520-Book II ]7 ]78 Requirements Casalanguida 2 Adopted - 4/0 for COAs B. Aquaculture (from Consent Agenda) Motion to approve Option A - Failed 3/1 (Commissioner Henning opposed); Motion to bring back to the next LDC Cycle after review by DSAC, EAC, and CCPC - Approved 4/0 C. Ordinance 2010-23 Adopted w/changes 4/0 D. Motion to Adjourn - Approved 4/0 4. ADJOURN Approved - 4/0 Page 2 June 8, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commissioners' Land Development Code hearing is now in session. It is a continuation of a meeting that began last week, and it was continued until one o'clock today. Weare at the consent agenda decision point, Susan, I think, aren't we? Item #2 CONSENT AGENDA MS. ISTENES: Correct. If you'd like, I can just rehash the agenda, if you wish, very quickly. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And I do need to put one thing on the record that we discovered after we met last time. So we're starting with the consent agenda. And if you look at 2A, these are items that were heard on May 17th by you and approved with changes to be made. So if you're following down, you'll see the shaded lines under each one. That describes the changes that you-all directed that were then made in the packets you have now in book two; however, let me just put this on the record, please. In your agenda -- or in your book one, the highlighted item, xi, on Page 146, was -- is showing up in the ordinance, but we did not have it on your worksheets. So that is just a change that was already in the ordinance but just not in your worksheets. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Following down on the agenda, B, Items B, these items were heard on May 17,2010, and they were approved as submitted. And traveling back to Page 4 of your agenda, if you go under 3, advertised public hearings, under letter A, these are the amendments that were not previously heard on May 17th. And there is one Page 2 June 8, 2010 environmental, that's the MPP shoreline calculations. There's one private petition. That's the Immokalee deviation process, and then there's one from CDES, Business Management and Budget, and that was the submittal requirements for COAs. The other item under 3 is B, and that was returned for discussion because we pulled it for the -- from the consent agenda, and that's from the County Attorney's Office, the aquaculture, and they can explain that when you get to that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So if you're not interested in hearing, or rehearing any of the items under 2A and B because you've already heard them and the changes that have -- that you've directed have been made, you would be ready to go to 3A. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I really think we should go through each of these individually one more time just to make sure we understand what they mean. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can't do it in 45 minutes. MS. ISTENES: I'm glad you're smiling. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, what I'm going to do is ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda unless there are commissioners who would like to have a specific item pulled for additional discussion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: A second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 3 June 8, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then the -- opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. So all items under the consent agenda, 2, including subparagraphs A and B, are approved because they have been previously heard and approved. Item #3A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENTS: MARINAS (MPP SHORELINE CALCULATIONS) - SUBSECTION 5.05.02 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN COYLE: Item number 3A, we will begin with -- subsection 5.05.02 is the shoreline calculations. MS. ISTENES: And that is in book two on Page 1, and summary sheet double D. And we do have speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have? MS. ISTENES: Looks like about-- MR. BELLOWS: Nine. MS. ISTENES: -- nine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's too many. Go ahead. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Land Development Services Department. This amendment is the Manatee Protection Plan shoreline amendment. It's to address how shoreline within a conservation easement is used and calculating the amount of wet slips in accordance with the Management Protection Plan. The board reconsidered the item back in 2008 and asked that -- Page 4 June 8, 2010 made a motion on bringing back an amendment in accordance with the motion, which we did. We brought this amendment through stakeholders. There was very little consensus, if any, among stakeholders on this amendment. We brought it to the EAC. The EAC recommended approval of -- pretty much approval of the amendments as is with some changes and also questions regarding clarification of the vesting. Development Services Advisory Committee recommended that all shoreline within conservation easements be used in calculating the number of wet slips according to the Manatee Protection Plan. And the Planning Commission recommended that we drop the amendment entirely. They felt that there was very few products this would apply to, and staff is going to be required to readdress the Manatee Protection Plan with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. They approved their Manatee Management Plan in December, 2007. And in the management plan, I looked it over, and it requires all existing Manatee Protection Plans to be reviewed and reevaluated. The plan itself has a schedule of 2009/2010 for this activity. I did call the Florida Wildlife Commission representative, Chris Bolin. They are somewhat behind on some of the tasks identified in their management plan, and they said that they would convene with staff at the end of the year to start the process. The Planning Commission also recommended, it also suggested, that the amount of wet slips calculated within conservation easements could be addressed during public hearing processes for either rezones, PUD rezones, or boat dock extension requests, both of which require public hearings. Staff and -- consulted with management, and staff is recommending that we go with the Planning Commission recommendation or that this item and other items be addressed in a more comprehensive manner at the time we re-evaluate the Manatee Page 5 June 8, 2010 Protection Plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions by the commissioners right now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: If not, I'll proceed with the speakers. Okay. Let's hear from the first speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Robbins, to be followed by Bruce Burkhard. MS. ROBBINS: I'm going to cede my time to Bruce Burkhard. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That means, Bruce, you'll have two minutes now. MR. BURKHARD: Okay. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Bruce Burkhard. I live in North Naples. And as we all know, the LDC is prescriptive in nature, that is, if a specific use is stated in the code, it's not allowed. If it's not stated, then it is allowed. In cases where a landowner has put some or all of his land in a preserve or a protected conservation easement in order to gain something in return, such as increased density, the public is led to believe, as well they should, that the set-aside land is no longer usable for other purposes. Developers often use such reassuring words as, the land will be protected in perpetuity. Those words should have meaning. If docks, marinas, and other intense water uses are not integrated into the Site Development Plan and into a specific conservation easement until years later in the application process, then those things were left out for a reason, probably to gain some other advantage, and they should not be permitted. Staff has stated previously that the shoreline was not counted for wet slips in the past when shoreline was fronting on a conservation easement, no doubt because that interpretation conformed to the letter and the spirit of the code. Page 6 June 8, 2010 If shoreline use for wet slips is not addressed in a conservation easement, then the proper interpretation of the code says that the shoreline cannot be counted for wet slips. Over the years, we've witnessed over and over again instances of governmental bodies charged with protecting the public from overzealous individuals and corporations not doing their jobs. Rather than protecting the public, the environment, or sometimes even the security of the nation, we find that these agencies either are looking the other way or actively working to assist the overreaching entity. It's not the job of government bodies to help private business enhance their bottom lines or to make their job easier. Seems to me government's job is to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the community that it serves, yet we continually see examples of government acting unthinkingly in exactly the opposite manner. In this particular amendment, the goal that benefits the community at large is not to see how many boats we can jam into a particular area to benefit a given landowner or a few boatowners but rather, how can we protect and actually preserve, not just the manatees, but the total environment? If we allow development to encroach on every piece of shoreline one development at a time, what becomes of the estuaries that are the spawning ground and habitat for so much of the wildlife and fish that add to our quality of life? I think we all believe that when land was being put into conservation easements or wetland preserves, a good thing was being done for the environment that we live in. If it turns out that they're nothing more than a sham, then we all lose. We need to keep in mind that we are a tourist mecca and a desirable retirement community but that we can quickly reverse that through bad development decisions. The number one job of all of us should be to see that our development legislation takes into account nature's delicate balance. Page 7 June 8, 2010 I went on talking about various options that are presented, but Steve presented the staffs view. It apparently has changed somewhat from previous views, and essentially I think that's the way to go, that we should basically table this motion, essentially, and go on a case-by-case basis. And I think the county attorney is in agreement with that, and so that's what our association is recommending. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Bruce. MR. BURKHARD: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Nicole Ryan, to be followed by Rich Y ovanovich. MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And you do have a menu of options before you today, the EAC, the DSAC, the Planning Commission, and what was staffs recommended language. Certainly glad to hear that Stephen mentioned the Planning Commission recommendation as what staff is now recommending, because that's what the Conservancy believes would be the best option for you to take. The Planning Commission felt that taking a look at each of the Conservation easements on a case-by-case basis and taking a look at a project when it's in the PUD or boat dock extension application phase was essentially the way to go as far as determining how the shoreline usage should be done. Thank you. I saw my time down. I thought, wait a minute. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. He did it right. MS. RYAN: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Give her the yellow light. MS. RYAN: I promise, I will be brief. However, realizing that at your April, 2008 meeting, you did want to see actual LDC language that would clarify in the LDC how these policies are interpreted, the Conservancy would ask that if you do want language, that you take what staff had drafted but end it after the sentence, shoreline within Page 8 June 8, 2010 county required preserves or within state and federal conservation easements which do not allow wet slips within their conservation easements shall not be used in calculating the maximum allowable number of wet slips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan, period, and ending it there. This really follows your April, 2008 direction. It's very simple, straightforward language. The Conservancy was concerned about the second part of that sentence which then allowed an exemption for marinas that would be open to the public if 50 percent or more of the spaces were available to the public. We felt that that was really extraneous to the issue of how you interpret conservation easements, and unnecessary. And the last sentence with exempting existing and vested rights, vested rights are vested. You don't have to put in every single policy that vested rights will be exempted by law. They are. So we felt that sentence was unnecessary. So we ask that if you do not follow the Planning Commission recommendations and go on a case-by-case basis, that you take that modification of what staff had drafted and move it forward in that manner. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MS. RYAN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Rich Yovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of Signature Communities. This doesn't happen often, but I find myself agreeing with Bruce Burkhard -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Quick, turn off the mikes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- agreeing with both Bruce and with Nicole as saying -- regarding how this issue should be approached. We also agree that since Signature Communities for The Dunes project -- which really this language was originally geared at trying to address retroactively -- since they did identify early on that they were going to ask for 60 slips through a future petition through the boat Page 9 June 8, 2010 dock extension, that they should be allowed to have that petition heard on its merits regarding the number of docks, and I think the Planning Commission's recommendation would allow that to happen through the public hearing process. So Signature Communities would support the Planning Commission's recommendation that you not address it specifically in the Land Development Code. As each individual petition comes forward, you would evaluate on the merits whether the requested number of slips made sense in that specific area where they're attempting to put the slips. So we would request that you follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and your staffs recommendation, which is the do-nothing approach at this time and then consider each petition on its own individual merits. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BELLOWS: Timothy Hall. MR. HALL: For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall & Associates. I'm on -- I'm here on behalf of my company, as well as the Marine Industries Association of Collier County. And I guess I can just say we'll make it unanimous where we also agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation that this LDC amendment maybe isn't the correct forum to address this issue and that each project would be more appropriately reviewed on its own merits through the other public hearing processes. A lot of the concerns had to do with maybe unintended consequences. You've got properties down in Everglades City or Chokoloskee, Plantation, Goodland, that this policy could also possibly apply to. And the overall, we believe that the overall result of it would be to limit the number of boat slips that could be -- you know, contrary to what may be allowed in the Manatee Protection Plan, that this would actually serve to limit slips within the county. And then if you guys do decide that you -- that the policy is necessary, you do not want to follow the Planning Commission's Page 10 June 8, 2010 recommendation, then we would actually recommend the language that the development services, the DSAC committee had, whereas boat slips are allowed as long as they're not expressly prohibited within the conservation easements. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Judith Hushon. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you say ditto? MS. HUSHON: I'm going to say ditto with one little change. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. HUSHON: Judith Hushon, representing EAC. We did do a little wordsmithing on it. And one item that -- should you decide to go with this, we had one piece of language that we were adding that you need to really consider adding, and that's not intended to allow publicly owned wet slips within a NRP A, Natural Resource Protection Area. It's just an explicit exclusion, that if you had an area that was not a NRP A, you should not allow public wet slips in that area, because that's obviously a protection area, and you're not protecting it if you're putting the wet slips in. Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Kit Sawyer. MR. SA WYER: Hi. I'm Kit Sawyer, Sawyer's Outboard, Bayshore. I say ditto, too, to all this. I hope there's no more maybes and can-bes. I hope this will kind of be okay for me to keep going where I'm at. So I thank everybody. MR. BELLOWS: And the last speaker is Rich Yovanovich representing the Pelican Bay Foundation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, come on, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have two different clients. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're just double billing now. Page 11 June 8, 2010 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, if you're not going to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Pelican Bay Foundation would agree with the language that Dr. Hushon would like to see added regarding no slips within a Natural Resource Protection Area. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does your other client agree with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. They both agree. They have the same position. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just wanted to make sure you weren't going to come up again and talk to us about -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh. I've only got two. I'm done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: On this one. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, on this one. All right. Tell me about the NRP A issue. Does anybody have a problem with that, or is it clear already or -- MS. ISTENES: Steve? I'm sorry. Steve, if you would explain that, please. Thanks. MR. LENBERGER: The issue came up with Clam Pass, Clam Bay. They just didn't want any boat docks in there if you were going to have boat docks available for the public use as an exclusion, counting the shoreline. CHAIRMAN COYLE: My question is, is the additional language necessary to prohibit docks in a NRP A? Is that already prohibited, or is it superfluous verbiage? MR. LENBERGER: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then in that case I'll vote to put it in, all right? If you don't know the answer immediately, then there must be some confusion about it. I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning was first. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the purpose of any natural resources, protected or not, is not to limit access of public. It's there Page 12 June 8, 2010 for the enjoyment of the public. So by limiting any public boat docks in a NRP A area would limit the public's access. That's my concern about putting it in there. I'm not even sure that this is the proper part of the code even to put it in there, because the natural protection area has -- is in a different part of the code. That's my first thing. The second thing is, is it -- where we're going is to have these conservation easements come to us one by one? Is that your understanding? CHAIRMAN COYLE: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that be all conservation easements or just shoreline conservation easements? And if it's just shoreline, do we have an equal protection problem, County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: The issues is, these easements come to you as part of an overall development order usually in the form of a PUD. And during that process, the board decides what the density's going to be for residential, where the commercial might be. Docks are just another one of the issues. So at that point in time, the issue will be debated in a public manner. And as far as a conservation easement would go, the board would determine how many docks, if any, should be in this particular conservation area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that would be -- I think the issue is not in the conservation but whether we calculate it. But you're saying we're going to do this at the PUD level. MR. KLATZKOW: As part of the creation of the conservation easement. If there's already an existing conservation easement, then whatever that easement says, we'll do, whatever the intent was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But when we create a PUD ordinance, it states -- we're not creating a conservation easement. MR. KLATZKOW: We often do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, we do? MR. KLATZKOW: We often do. For example, there might be Page 13 June 8, 2010 wet areas in an area, and we'll have the development in the upland areas, and the wetlands we'll put a conservation easement over. We're constantly putting conservation easements in these PUDs, moving the densities from one area to the other. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But it shows it on their site plan where the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we taking away the rights the people have previously had to be able to do this? MR. KLATZKOW: None. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We mentioned Clam Bay. How about Seagate; would they be permitted -- not permitted to be able to put in docks if this goes through? MR. KLATZKOW: No. They're private residences. They have their own riparian rights. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's talk site specific. Everglades City, Goodland, that particular area. What happens there, I mean, the rural parts of Collier County as far as seashores go? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the Planning Commission was concerned about that, which is why the Planning -- one of the reasons why the Planning Commission recommended that this item be tabled and then brought back as part of the general overall discussion of the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But that's not what we're looking at today though? MR. KLATZKOW: It might be. I mean, the Planning Commission was concerned about that issue. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm very concerned about it. And if we can't incorporate that in what we're doing today, I'm Page 14 June 8, 2010 going to be very leary about moving this item forward, if this item in any way imposes restrictions upon that particular area. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I think just the reverse is being accomplished if you accept the Planning Commission's recommendation. Some of the other proposals might very well cause you problems there, but it's my understanding that if you accept the Planning Commission's recommendations, then anything that happens with respect to Goodland or some other area, Everglades City, would come back for individual hearing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let me make sure. The staff and Planning Commission are in agreement on this? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Ifwe -- if we added this about not allowing wet slips in the conservation easements, and then Judy Hushon also said to add it in the NRP As, how does that change that? I mean -- or would they be one in the same or -- MR. LENBERGER: Ms. Hushon was referring to specifically language just to exclude the NRP A. If you go with the Planning Commission's recommendation, you wouldn't adopt this language, and just table it, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not quite sure I understood that answer. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, if I could help a little bit. The language that the Conservancy has suggested is suggested only if we fail to implement the Planning Commission's recommendations. If we implement the Planning Commission's recommendations, that language is not necessary according to the Conservancy, but Ms. Hushon has said, but we really should put something in there to make sure that NRP As -- that we do not build boat docks in NRP As, and I think I've got that right, don't I? Okay. Page 15 June 8, 2010 MS. HUSHON: If you don't accept the Planning Commission's recommendations. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. So if we accept the Planning Commission's recommendations, everybody's okay. No added language, no nothing, right? MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER FIALA: The motion to approve -- oh, I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #3A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENTS - Page 16 June 8, 2010 IMMOKALEE DEVIATION PROCESS/INTERIM STANDARDS - SUBSECTION 2.03.07 - ADOPTED MS. ISTENES: Next item on your agenda is subsection 2.03.07, the Immokalee deviation process interim standards. That's in your book two, Page 7, summary sheet I. And Bob Mulhere will present. MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Mulhere & Associates here on behalf of the Immokalee CRA. I think you're probably familiar with this amendment. Some time ago, I'm thinking seven or eight months ago, I appeared before you to discuss -- it may have actually been longer than that -- to discuss bringing forward this interim set of amendments. As you know, we're working on the comprehensive revisions to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. We've just completed getting through the Planning Commission on that, and it will be coming before you in just a few weeks for transmittal. Part of that process, or after adoption of that process, we will be bringing forward a comprehensive set of land development codes for the Immokalee community in an overlay format. This LDC amendment is interim in nature. It would last for 24 months from the time you approve it. It could be extended by you if it took longer to get the comprehensive set of permanent LDC amendment in place, but the idea would be to allow for deviations from various -- and very specifically cited code provisions, and some of them could be administrative at certain thresholds, and the others would go through a public hearing process. We've worked extensively with the Planning Commission and with staff, and I would express my gratitude to both staff and the Planning Commission for that process. We've worked extensively with them, and what you see before you is a document that gained unanimous support and approval. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? Page 17 June 8, 2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since it's going to be interim, why don't we just make this an ordinance and put it in the Code of Laws and just reference Land Development Code interim Immokalee, whatever? MR. MULHERE: One reason -- well, first of all, we felt like we had to amend the LDC because that's where the actual various provisions are that we're going to ask for the deviations from, and there's a whole lists of them in here. Second part of it is, a lot of this, and even this format, I'm going to suggest to you, may remain in place in a permanent fashion. We're either going to change the standards to comport with what we believe they should be in Immokalee, or maybe for flexibility, retain some sort of a deviation process, which would be similar to this. So it's possible, when we come back to you in 24 months, we may not have all of these sections cited, but we may still have a deviation process that would not be interim. I can -- I really can't answer as to where it belongs. It seemed to me it had to be in the LDC. I guess I'd have to defer to the county attorney for that because there's a whole bunch of sections that we're asking to be able to deviate from. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And if it doesn't work, the only time that we can correct that is during the LDC cycle. MR. MULHERE: And we're going to be submitting probably, within your next -- I'm hoping within the next cycle, for the real fix, which would be the overlay provisions. The problem was, it's -- even if we submit in the next cycle, it's probably 18 to 24 months before -- we wouldn't do it until the Compo Plan's adopted, and that's several months away, and then it's probably another 18 to 20 months before we actually get back to you again with the -- based on past track record. Could be quicker these days. Who knows. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, where does this Page 18 June 8, 2010 belong? MR. KLATZKOW: You raise an interesting issue. I'm thinking about it. I think, given the fact that this is going to be least two years, and I'm guessing it's going to be more by the time -- because I've seen -- I've seen this process in work. It's taken a very long time to get the Immokalee Master Plan put together. I think it's going to take a very long time to get their code together. For whatever reason, things in Immokalee work at a slower pace as far as getting these things done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's because of Fred Thomas. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, they just do. I mean, I remember talking to Mr. Thomas like six years ago on this. MR. MULHERE: Well, I haven't been working on it that long. Put that on the record. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, given the length of time, sir, I think a change to the LDC is probably the appropriate way to go. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think I do, but I'll wait 'til Commissioner Coletta gets done. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you. If you review where we've been on this already, it's been before the EAC, it's been before DSAC, before the Planning Commission. Every single one of them have passes it unanimously. I haven't found one person that's voted against it anywheres in the process. Is that correct? Has anybody had any objection? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. Well, I mean, really quite the contrary. We actually worked quite a bit with those bodies, too. This is an evolution. This is a product that reflects the concerns that were expressed. We brought it back to them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This has been in the works so long, I'm surprised it's not written in Latin. With that, I'd like to make a motion for approval. Page 19 June 8, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta has made a motion for approval. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner Fiala. I have a question. My only concern is, what do you do with this if hometown democracy passes? MR. MULHERE: It won't be subject to that because that only applies to Comprehensive Plan amendments. You mean if we -- we would hopefully have our comprehensive plan amendment in at least the transmittal, if not the adoption stage, prior to the approval. Certainly we're going to be well into the transmittal process. But this is an LDC amendment, so it shouldn't have any impact on it. I'm sorry I jumped in. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But isn't there an easier and faster way of dealing with this rather than going through the LDC amendment process? MR. KLATZKOW: No, there really isn't. I wish there were. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because this is crazy. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, what we're essentially doing is, we have the -- I guess I'm sort of going along Mr. Thomas' line of thinking. We have the coastal code, and we're developing an Immokalee code now -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: -- within our code. There may come a point in time where we want to -- we may want to consider a separate code for Immokalee, but at this point in time, this really is the way to go. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the problem as I see it, is giving Immokalee the right to make adjustments to this to suit their needs in a simpler way. If you've -- you've got this many deviations, I'll guarantee you there's going to be something that doesn't work out right. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I think you're right. Page 20 June 8, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And it's probably going to happen lots and lots of times. And if you have to wait years in order to get it worked out, it is going to have unintended consequences that you don't want. MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing I can offer -- and I agree with you 100 percent. And in fact, when I first wrote this deviation process, it was much broader than what you have before you right now for that exact reason. But in order to appease all the stakeholders, it's a little bit more specific than I would have liked or intended for it to be. And that's okay. It still, I think, gets to the issues where we've seen repetitive issues or problems. It then becomes my job, working with the community, to bring back to you in a year or 12 -- 14, 15 months, as soon as we can get it back to you, a more comprehensive set of amendments that will make this easier. And then I think we do -- the last thing that I wanted to say is, I think we do need to coordinate with staff as they begin to remove procedural matters from the Land Development Code and place them into a separate procedural code or manual that will be much easier to amend, and that is process driven. So much of this is process driven, and some of it is -- you know, is code requirements. But if we can take the process out, and then if we have to make changes to the process as part of the county's procedural manual, that will be a lot faster than having to amend the Land Development Code. So there are people sort of thinking and working in that direction, but unfortunately we're not there yet, and it's going to take a little while to get there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 21 June 8, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Item #3A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENTS - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COAS - SUBSECTION 10.02.07C - ADOPTED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is 10.02.07 C, submittal requirements for COAs. That is in book two, Page 17. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adopt. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not at adoption stage yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I know. I was trying to figure out what motion I wanted -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Transmit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about, yeah, motion to transmit or motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we don't -- MR. KLATZKOW: Motion to approve. We're not transmitting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right, not yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we have one more hearing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, motion -- and seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Page 22 June 8, 2010 Amy, anything you have to tell us on the record? MS. PATTERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney, anything here? MR. KLA TZKOW: No. I think Amy did a great job. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Very well. Any further discussion by commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. Item #3B LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENTS: AQUACULTURE SUBSECTION 2.03.08 A4 - MOTION TO BRING BACK TO THE NEXT LDC CYCLE AFTER REVIEW BY DSAC, EAC AND CCPC - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next item is 38. This is being returned for discussion, so it's been pulled from the consent agenda. It's subsection 2.03.08 A4, and it's aquaculture. It's in book two, Page 41. And Jeff Wright will present. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Last time we were here was on May 17th, and this item was approved by the board. And I'd like to put up the approved language Page 23 June 8, 2010 on the overhead here. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, you do have one speaker on this item as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: What you'll see on the overhead, the highlighted language is what you approve last time by a vote of 4-1. The stricken language is what the Planning Commission had recommended, and I'm focusing on that highlighted paragraph. It's stricken language there. So that's your final approved version, the highlighted language. You also, in approving that, you suggested that we come back with alternatives that include a bonding requirement. So what you see below are two alternatives. The first is, I guess you could say, environmentally more strict because it's -- it includes the fill removal prohibition plus a bonding requirement. The second alternative -- Ray, if you could scroll down just a little bit -- is your approved language; however, the fill removal prohibition has been stricken. So you're allowed to move fill in that second alternative, but you need to have a bond. So that's what we -- following your direction, we brought that back for your consideration. And ifthere's any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What does properly stabilized mean? What is the standard against which we will measure that? MR. WRIGHT: Well, a lot of this will require details which we were hoping to flesh out in the administrative code, and that would also -- the administrative provisions would also address the details, the nuts and bolts of the bonding requirements. So some of this stuff that you don't see in the language would be detailed in the administrative code. That's where we would put that. Right now I can't answer that question. I'm not familiar with the engineering of these things. I'm not sure what proper stabilization would be, but we would address that in the code. Page 24 June 8, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there's no requirement here that it be restored to its present condition? Is that something that is important? MR. WRIGHT: Well, that is important. That's the whole idea. Now, if we go with your approved version, it says you can't remove fill. And implicit in that prohibition is that you're limited on what you can do to harm the environment permanently. It doesn't say you have to restore it to its original condition. Now, the two alternatives that we've provided, you can see in the shaded language, both of those alternatives have, in the last sentence, sufficient security must be provided, dot, dot, dot, to ensure that it's properly stabilized, reclaimed, and restored following cessation of aquaculture activity. It doesn't say original condition, but that's intended to capture that same concept. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, if you're going to retain the fill on site, you're going to have to disturb the land even more. Is there any limitation to do that? MR. WRIGHT: Well, these operations are huge, and it's very -- it's quite likely that if you have to remove all the fill and put it around the perimeter, for example, of the pond, that there would be some harm to that earth that you're impacting. I'm not sure with this -- the way it's written, it's a pretty quick amendment -- that we would be able to conclusively address what happens there. It's really hard to say. The-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me pose one final question to you. Would it not be better from an environmental standpoint to allow them to remove the material from the site but to provide sufficient security to make sure that the site can be restored to its original condition? You would disturb a smaller amount of environmentally sensitive land, but you would have to truck the fill, or some kind of fill, back into the area. But as long as you've got a security to cover the cost of doing that, doesn't the environment gain a little bit more Page 25 June 8, 2010 protection? MR. WRIGHT: That makes a lot of sense, and there hasn't been a comparative analysis done to determine which one is better for the environment, piling it up along the sides for a number of years, or removing it and then putting it back in the hole. It's -- I suppose that that answer could be obtained, but I don't have it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't either. MS. PAYTON: I do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who are the speakers? MR. BELLOWS: One speaker, Nancy Payton. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Maybe Nancy has the answer. Do you want to speak before or after Nancy? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just be very brief, in may. Please, continue up there, Nancy. I won't that be long. The way this thing is constructed, it's very simple. It's put together in such a way that it's extremely unlikely that anybody would ever find it financially advantageous to dig a great big hole in the ground to try to store fill to be able to compete with the third-world countries out there to raise farm fish. It's probably not going to happen. This isn't unlike years ago. It used to be that they passed laws against marijuana, but if you wanted to have marijuana, you had to pick up a special stamp from the government so that way they could identify you and come after you. In other words, this is built in such a way that, even without the fill being removed -- the fill would have to be stored on the site -- there's no economic advantage to be able to do this anymore. So I really don't think you're going to have another problem with anybody trying to dig a hole out there to be able to raise fish. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You never know that on our present course that we won't soon be the greatest third-world country on the globe. So people will be wondering how we can raise fish so cheaply, Page 26 June 8, 2010 more cheaply than China. But nevertheless. We'll see. Nancy, go ahead. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and we're here to support alternative number one, which is an improvement on what you approved on May 17th which requires the bond. We're not supportive of digging the hole and removing the fill off site, because you're going to have to have a highway system to support the roads to truck it off. That's not environmentally good. And secondly, you're going to have to dig another hole to refill this one, which is not environmentally a good thing. This is a -- frankly, a disincentive to digging holes and leaving holes in environmentally sensitive land. It only applies to sending lands and to NRP A lands. Other lands across the county that don't have that designation are still eligible for all types of aquaculture operations. So we're going to stress that this is a measure to protect the environmental sensitivity of sending lands in the TDR program, and the ability to have that land restored by maintaining that fill on site is a very good thing, and it's a better thing to have that bond to ensure that you can move that fill back into the hole when the fish operation fails for whatever reason or is discontinued or never happens, and there's ability to restore that land to an environmentally acceptable level. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. MS. PAYTON: So please, alternative number one. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion? MS. PAYTON: Yes, if! could make one. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to second it, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make the motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second your motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. A motion by Commissioner Page 27 June 8, 2010 Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta. Commissioner Fiala was first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just wondering, the way I would like look at it -- and I'm certainly not an environmentalist. But if you're digging this dirt out of the hole and put it outside of it, at some point and time when you have to refill it, at least you're going to be filling it with the same kind of dirt that belongs in there rather than having to get something from a junkyard and fill it up, you know. Because people will fill it with anything, right, whatever is cheapest, and then it might not -- it might not fit into that area or that ecology. I would think it would be most advantageous to use the same dirt that came out of the hole. MS. PAYTON: A lot easier, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just ask the motion maker a question. How does stockpiling dirt on the property where you're going to have aquaculture make it more environmental (sic) sensitive? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just thinking of using the same dirt. I read some of these things that -- these reports that we get about the environment, and they talk about the different qualities of dirt and the different -- they have names for that dirt; some of it's, you know, more sensitive than others. I didn't even realize there was different qualities of dirt. And so I'm just thinking that, if you want to fill it with the same stuff you had on there rather than -- you know, you get somebody who digs a hole, sells all of the dirt, and then wants to fill it back up with lesser than that or just get rid of -- you know, they could use it as a dumping ground, that concerns me. So I prefer number one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the whole reason why you had the rural fringe is the lawsuit Ms. Payton was involved in to protect natural species. By keeping dirt on the land, you're destroying more natural species. Sure you are. Page 28 June 8, 2010 MS. PAYTON: Could I comment? In may. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala's not going to comment. I think she wants you to comment. MS. PAYTON: I'd be happy to. There may be some temporary inconvenience, but it's far better to keep it on site, and when the restoration is done, should it need to be done, then that area where the fill was stored also could be restored. So there may be some temporary inconvenience. It may be used by wildlife. They may like to have that hill to observe. I think that the environmental disadvantages to maintaining it on -- keeping it on site are far less than trucking it off site and then trucking it back onto site. So it's a -- the lesser of possible evils. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-1. MR. KLATZKOW: Actually. It fails. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It failed. MR. KLATZKOW: LDC requires four. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay. All right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, is there -- ask Commissioner Henning if there's a second motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I prefer B. I think that is more in tune of the purpose and intent of the rural fringe because you are protecting more native species. Page 29 June 8, 2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please, go ahead, and then I have a question to ask. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. B. Would you explain what B is? MR. WRIGHT: Well, the easiest way to explain it is, fill removal is allowed, but you have to have a bond if you're going to do it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, off the site? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't go for that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me ask a question then. The current -- the current law states that you can't remove the land (sic) from the site; is that true? MR. WRIGHT: Well, the current law -- and we ran into this with the Fawzy thing -- is very confusing. What we did was we -- because you're allowed to do ag., we jumped over into the ago zoning district and allowed them to get a conditional use, and that system is not air tight, so current law is confusing, to answer your question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if! understand this -- well, let me back up. The underlined text is new text to be added, right? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, and you have approved -- if it's not shaded, you've approved it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's what I'm getting at. And under 2.03.08 A4.a.l.a, it says, agricultural uses consistent with the appropriate sections of the Florida Statute, Right to Farm Act, excavation for new aquaculture shall be limited in quantity to the amount necessary for construction of facilities. Due to the environmentally sensitive nature of sending lands, fill removal from site is prohibited. That's already existing law; is it not? MR. WRIGHT: It's not. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not. Page 30 June 8, 2010 MR. WRIGHT: And that's -- it's underlined because you approved it on May 17th. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh. When you said it was approved I -- I didn't realize you were saying it was approved for the first hearing. Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioners, this is one of the difficulties we have when there's only four of us here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we get Commissioner Halas on the phone? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we bring this back? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't think you can't. MR. WRIGHT: I don't see any problem. I think there is a meeting set for the 10th. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, boy. You're really defeating the purpose, you know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think you can. Ask the county attorney. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I tried to participate by phone; we had to continue the meeting. I'm here. You guys don't like it because the law provides a supermajority. Supermajority on land use is difficult for me to understand when it only takes a simple majority to raise taxes. So you don't -- you don't like giving property rights, but it's real easy to raise taxes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I don't like it because I don't think it's good for the environment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I disagree. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think it's good for that, and that's why I'm against it. And so I want to see the fill remain on site. That has nothing to do with a majority, simple majority or anything like that. I just feel it's better for the environment, and that's where I'm gomg. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ifthere is a desire to bring this Page 31 June 8, 2010 back for reconsideration, what would be the possibility for doing that? MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, let me just make sure I have all the facts. Susan, this is last -- this is the last open issue, correct? MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So that you could vote on the rest of the LDC now and be done with the LDC. We can always bring this back during a regular board meeting, understanding that this is just, you know, a single issue item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would it be more properly brought back under reconsideration? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have to be in the minority, don't you, to be able to bring it back for reconsideration? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, right now the -- right now nothing passed today. At a prior meeting what you did was you passed the first language, you know, with the understanding you'd come back and relook at it. You've come back and relooked at it, and you've decided that -- well, there aren't four votes for it. So my understanding is that, you know, we're not moving forward with this particular LDC amendment at this point in time. We could do it at the next cycle if you'd like, or we can bring it back during a regular Board of County Commissioners' meeting -- it's just one item -- if that's what you want. I mean, we've lived in this county without this language forever, and the reason for this language is because we were concerned that people were going to be mining environmentally sensitive lands because the price of dirt was so high. I don't think we're living in that environment right now. I mean, I don't think anybody's going to go out there to mine dirt to sell it in today's economy. So it's not -- it was pressing when we first started this process. This is not a pressing amendment today. Page 32 June 8, 2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I make a recommendation to solve this? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead. Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make recommendations to bring it back in the second cycle of the LDC, go through DSAC, the Environmental Advisory Council, and the Planning Commission. This is new language that came up to the Board of Commissioners. It can't be passed. And that way we'll get input from all of the advisory boards. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to -- well, we have a motion of disapproval right now, so it's disapproved. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well -- but what he's offering is a new cycle. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he doesn't have to do that. You can do that anytime you want to. I mean, this board can instruct staff to come back with a new cycle. But the action on the item is finished because it failed. MR. KLATZKOW: That's true. The question is, do you want to direct staff to come back in the next cycle with this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: As far as I'm concerned, that should be a separate motion. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we have a motion by Commissioner Henning to bring it back for the next cycle, and second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please -- yes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good time to bring this up. Nick Page 33 June 8, 2010 Casalanguida with the Growth Management Division. We don't have a next cycle scheduled. And one of the things that's going to be coming up in front of the board on June 22nd is to kind of put a stay or -- on LDC amendments, other than those required by the GMP or errors, so we can move forward with the administrative code and administrative variance process. So I don't want to mislead the board to think there's another cycle coming up. We're going to ask the board probably on the 22nd to say, let us get the administrative code done with the work of the County Attorney's Office and administrative variance process, and then if this needs to be done, like the county attorney pointed out, it could be a separate item coming to the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I amend my motion to bring it up in the next LDC cycle. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Whenever that might be. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I amend my second the same way. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then the motion passes, and we'll bring it up at the next LDC cycle. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. Item #3C ORDINANCE 2010-23: MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE Page 34 June 8, 2010 W/CHANGES-ADOPTED MS. ISTENES: I think at this point, Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, the board should take a vote on the ordinance removing 2.03.08 that was just denied. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. MS. ISTENES: And then also on Page 127 of 196 of the ordinance, if you would strike G that had to do with the decision you made on the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve with those caveats. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the ordinance with the changes as noted by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. MS. ISTENES: I believe Mr. Casalanguida wants to speak to the board. No? MR. CASALANGUIDA: First of all, to thank the commissioners. We've had a big change in the department since the first of the year. Susan, Raymond, County Attorney's Office, and John Kelly and staff have done a great job in picking this up and getting this in front of you without kind of missing a beat. Page 35 June 8, 2010 You're going to hear in front of you on June 22nd, there's a proposal to move forward with an administrative code. W e'lllay it all out in executive summary so you can get a chance to hear that. But as I mentioned a few moments earlier, we really want to take a step back and decide as a board if that's what you want us to move forward on, because we're not staffed to really be doing an LDC cycle and an administrative code review at the same time. So that's coming up on the 22nd. If you have any questions now, Susan or I could answer it, but that's our intent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as we get involvement with the public -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- like we do with the LDC. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, good. That's great. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that means advisory boards, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I meant, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No doubt. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. You have anything, Susan? MS. ISTENES: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to adjourn by Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Henning. There is no discussion. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 36 June 8, 2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you made me 15 minutes late. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made you? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm glad I could get you to do something. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~w.~ FRED COYLE, Chal an ",i. "'ll/ll".'I/':',~'" ' AT ST" \.', ~:':~ "',';1' . ' , . TE . :-'.1,>" "", (, ~'..1 ,'_', '~"" "t ~ '. DWI~,ltJ:'i ]~':l3':~~K, CLERK , ~/'- t~~ "'. \.' ",,'~?~'-'.:' j "J" " "\.) .:._~ ! 'd- ' . ";;'\ \... L-1 \~ !,,{ :l"r.~, . ~ A"tta.",:W tit';" ' .,,....,. , ~1 gnaiUrf' 'Oft,. .. Thesrinutes approved by the Board on 'l1J~ ,1.010 A- or as corrected . ., , as presented Page 37