Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/12/1994 S (LDC Amendments)Naples, Florida, October 12, 1994 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 5:05 P.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members presentr CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine VICE-CHAIRMAN: Betrye J. Matthews John C. Norris Michael J. Volpe Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Fern]ey and Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerks; Nell Dotrill, County Manager; Bill Hargett, Assistant County Manager; David Weigel, Ramiro Manalich and Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorneys; Wayne Arnold, Acting Site Plan Review Director; Robert Mulhere, Acting Current Planning Manager; Dick Clark, Interim Community Development Services Administrator; Barbara Cacchione, David Weeks, Bryan Milk and Fred Reischl, Planners; and Deputy Dennis Huff, Collier County Sheriff's Office. Page 1 October 12, 1994 (09) Item #3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 26, 1994 AT 5:05 PM Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 4, 1994, as evidenced by Affidavit of Pub]ication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was; opened. Bob Mulhere, Acting Current Planning Manager, stated that this is the first of two (2) evening public hearings for the Land Development Code (LDC) amendments. He pointed out that many of the 26 proposed amendments address scrjvener's errors and provide clarity. Mr. Mulhere stated that Page 7 of the agenda packet addresses non-conforming structures and provides clarity where a residential structure may be rebuilt, current Building Codes and FEMA Codes must be complied with irregardless of the percentage of destruction. David Weeks, Planner, stated that Policy 4.4 of the Future Land Use Element requires that the County establish Access Management Plans to control the number, type and location of access points within acti- vity centers to lessen the adverse impacts upon the roadway while assuring adequate access to the property within the activity centers. He explained that Staff was directed to initiate an amendment to the Growth Management Plan to remove the requirement that the Access Management Plans be within the Plan and allow them to be adopted into the Land Development Code. Mr. Weeks indicated that a Staff workshop, Collier County Planning Commission workshop and public hearing have been held where comments were received and incorporated. Mr. Weeks pointed out that one recommendation made by the Planning Commission was to provide an appeal process to the Planning Commission and not to the Bodr'd of Zoning Appeals, which the Board of County Commissioners acts as, regarding determinations the Director would make, i.e. variations to access point and/or median opening locations. Page 2 October 12, 1994 In response to Commissioner Norris, Mar3orle Student, Assistant County Attorney stated that legally the Board of County Commissioners can make the policy decision to delegate authority to an advisory board as long as sufficient standards within the ordinance exist. Commissioner Norris indicated that he prefers that the Board of County Commissioners continue to stand as the appeal body. Commissioner Vo]pe concurred. Ms. Student pointed out that the Preservation and Historic Review Board and the Environmental Impact Study process provide for inter- mediate appeals to be heard by other bodies prior to final appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Weeks indicated that the Planning Commission feels that the Board's agenda would be eased somewhat by acting as the final appeal board. Lee Layne, representing the Collier County Planning Commission, stated that the Commission reviews numerous variations to access points and/or median opening locations during the PUD or fezone pro- cess and feels that a step could be saved by appointing them as the final appeal Board, Commissioner Matthews stated that the proposed change in the final appeal process would mean that when a developer disagrees with the Director's determination, the developer then presents his case to the Planning Commission and if he still disagrees with the deter- mination, then he will appear before the Board of County Commissioners. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Student replied that the process would be a quasi-judicial review, Commissioner Saunders pointed out that only Staff or the peti- tioner would be likely to appeal an Access Management Plan and by making the Collier County Planning Commission an intermediate level of appeal with the final appeal to the Board of County Commissioners, an extra step is being created which does not benefit Staff or the petitioner. He stated that unless the appeal to the Planning Page 3 October 12, 1994 Commission is final, there is no reason for having another appeal. Commissioner Vo]pe and Commissioner Constantine concurred. Commissioner Volpe stated that this issue will arise most often relative to future activity centers. Ms. Layne indicated that the real estate activity centers would also be affected and there are quite a few that have not had building permits approved. Commissioner Volpe explained that the interstate activity centers will also be affected but he was thinking about the future activity centers at Vanderbilt and the North Naples planning community which could have significant impacts upon existing businesses and residences. He pointed out that the County is already in litigation relative to access at an interstate activity center on Pine Ridge Road. Ms. Layne pointed out that the litigation involves access and denial of the fezone. Commissioner Constantine questioned if problems are being experienced with the process presently in effect? Mr. Weeks indicated that there is no set appeal process in effect presently as this is a proposed regulation. He pointed out that the existing access management policy is administered by the Transportation Services Division. Commissioner Constantine stated that if someone is not happy with an access decision made by a Director, they can always appeal to the Board. Mr. Mulhere stated that the Board desires that the proposed amendment be revised to provide for the general appeal process to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Mulhere stated that the next proposed change appears on Page 20 of the agenda packet and offers two (2) options for amending the Land Development Code relative to solicitation within the public right-of-way. Ramjro Mana]ich, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the two (2) options available regarding solicitation of open public roads is Page 4 October 12, 1994 the total prohibition or a permit based approach. Mr. Manalich explained that constants to keep in mind while reviewing the item are solicitation for charitable purposes and newspaper hawking have been found by the Courts to have First Amendment protection even if there is a commercial aspect to the tran- saction. He indicated that any total prohibition enacted needs to apply to all groups equally. Mr. Manalich poit]ted out that the Courts have found that streets are traditional public forum which means that a specific Constitutional test applies, i.e. that the regulation must be content neutral, an ordinance or regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve the governmental interest, and the ordinance leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Mr. Manalich stated that all Courts will agree that a significant governmental interest is involved which is safety on the streets but the difference of opinion occurs with the phrase "narrowly tailored." Mr. Manalich pointed out that there js no option relative to sidewalks as long as hawkers are not obstructing pedestrians and traffic. Mr. Manalich explained that a Federal judge in Miami found in a case of newspaper hawking that State Statute in force at that time, 1988, was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored. He indicated that presently in Tampa Federal Court, a case is pending wherein tile County had enacted a total prohibition in the medians, streets and keeping people four feet (4') from the streets on the sidewalks. Mr. Manalich mentioned that the Magistrate's report claimed that the ordinance is valid but the report has not been acted on by the Federal judge and is not ]aw of the district until it is acted on. Mr. Manalich stated that the problem in the Miaml case where the judge declared the State law unconstitutional was because the law applied not only to the medians and streets but also to the sidewalks. He indicated that there is a legal risk, however, if that ruling is interpreted as meaning that as long as sidewalks are provided for Page 5 October 12, 1994 hawking, the medians and streets do not have to be provided. Mr. Manalict] stated that the safest approach will be the permit based approach for the limited First Amendment activities as enu- merated, at least until a final decision is made by the Federal judge in Tampa and thereafter a total prohibition can be revisited if the report by the Magistrate is upheld. Mr. Manalich mentioned that the Naples Daily News is in favor of the permit approach. He indicated that the Planning Commission feels that nothing should be done. Mr. Manalich stated that he understands that both Dick Clark, Interim Community Development Services Administrator, and the Sheriff's Office feel that a prohibition from the medians and streets is necessary to address the safety concern. Commissioner Vo]pe concurred with a prohibition from the medians and streets. Mr. Manalich mentioned that a representative of the Naples Daily News would probably point out that they have been engaging in hawking of newspapers for quite a period of time safely. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Manalich stated that a fee could probably be charged for administrative costs with a suf- ficient volume of requests. Commissioner Constantine questioned if limits can be established relative to clothing permitted while hawking and the type of activity? Mr. Manalich explained that under the permit approach there are a number of conditions required such as reflective vests and persons only allowed in the roadway when the light is red so a number of time, place and manner type restrictions can be made. Dick Clark, Interim Community Development Serv]ces Administrator, stated that his concern is public safety because the more distractions in the roadway and adjacent, the more accidents wl]] occur. Commissioner Saunders stated that no one will dispute what Mr. Clark is saying but this issue deals with First Amendment rights so in order to prohibit this activity due to public safety concern, evidence Page 6 October 12, 1994 must be available to substantiate such a claim. He questioned whether other communities have tracked accidents and public safety problems directly as a result of hawking activities or is the problem just perceived? Commissioner Constantine pointed out that the question of whether the County by prohibiting a particular activity in effect is prohi- biting the exercise of free speech and thereby violating First Amendment rights or is there another manner in which the message can be gotten to the public. Mr. Manalich stated that tile newspaper would argue that hawking is the most effective way to provide to the motoring public but there are other ways to distribute newspapers. Mr. Clark pointed out that the County can regulate where and how the newspapers can be hawked and suggested that the hawking only be allowed on sidewalks. Commissioner Volpe stated that Staff is advising the Board that a public safety issue exists and the Board needs to balance the issue against freedom of speech. Commissioner Saunders indicated that he would like supporting data to substantiate the conclusion that public safety is a large issue. Commissioner Volpe explained that the Courts have acknowledged that areas where free speech can occur can be expanded as evidenced by prohibiting demonstrators from trespassing within 400 feet of an abor- tion clinic due to the safety factor. Mr. Manalich indicated that Staff is recommending prohibiting hawking within four feet (4') of the shoulder of the roadway. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Manalfch replied that it becomes more disruptive if purchasers of a newspaper along a roadway throw coins arm~] the r~ewspaper in return is thrown which why the newspaper would argue that they cannot effectively distribute their newspapers if limited to the sidewalks. Mr. Manalich stated that the Board in Tampa made some specific Page 7 October 12, 1994 findings based on the number of vehicles and the amount of congestion on the roadways and the Board of County Commissioners could make a public safety finding without taking an actual street study. Deborah Rockwell spoke on this item. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Manalich informed the Board that a free speech element exists even with direct solicitation of contributions because of advocating a position such as Muscular Dystrophy. Mr. Manalich pointed out that that even though a Judge in Miami struck down the ordinance, the Judge indicated that it requires neither towering intellect nor an expensive expert study to conclude the mixing of pedestrians and temporarily stopped motor vehicles in the same space at the same time is dangerous. Commissioner Norris questioned if the Board decided on the permit process, could limits be placed on the duration of permits and the number of times annually an organization could solicit? Mr. Manalich indicated that the number of organizations at the site cannot be limited but the duration can and has been limited by the proposed ordinance to no longer than 30 days and if more than one (1) organization applies at the same location, a lottery would be held so that no favoritism is shown. Commissioner Norris pointed out that if only one (1) organization applied for a location, there would be no ]ottery and they could soli- cit 365 days a year at a particular location which would not be effective. He questioned what would have to transpire in order to deny a permit? Mr. Manalich explained that a permit could not be denied unless the petitioner fails to meet the conditions. Mr. Mana]jch [~ojr~tec] ou~ that the newspaper shared a trial ]eve] state court decision froxn Denver, CO wherein the court clearly ana- lyzed the narrowly tailored aspect of the Constitutional test and indicated that keeping the hawkers off the medians and roadways with a total prohibition was not narrowly tailoring the ordinance that what is flC. 09 Page October 12, i994 necessary is to restrict them as the County is proposing in the permit process. Commissioner Volpe su99ested that the Board consider a prohibi- tion based upon the public safety issue and complaints received by citizens relative to this type of activity occurtin9 in major intersections. He acknowledged that the Board will probably be challenged no matter what the final decision Commissioner Constantine concurred and pointed out that alter- native means to distribute and solicit are available. Mr. Manalich indicated that an issue needin9 addressing is the conflict between a provision in the Land Development Code which creates a total prohibition and Ordinance 76-11 which allows hawkin9 activities provided the Board grants permission on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Saunders stated that Staff indicated that with the permit process any organization can obtain a permit or with a total prohibition all organizations will be denied, but Ms. Rockwell indi- cated that in Lee County an applicant must be a 501C3 or~anization to obtain a permit. Mr. Manalich explained that Staff has structured the permit pro- cess by limiting activities to organizations enjoying First Amendment protection such as sales of newspapers, sollcjtatlon of charitable contributions by registered charitable organizations with the State, distribution of religious literature and political campatgnin~. He indicated that the categories were identified by Staff based on court cases. Commissioner Constantine pointed out that the County is not pro- hib]ting newspapers from dissem]nating information by asking them to utilize racks on street corners, stores and morning delivery service. Mr. Manalich stated that a case can be presented based on other avenues bein9 available but the problem ]s how the courts interpret "narrowly tailored." Commissioner Norris stated that he feels the County needs to take October 12, 1994 care of the health, safety and welfare of the motorlng public. Mr. Manalich explained that an emerging voice in the court cases indicates that the streets are not traditional public forums while being utilized by vehicles and open to traffic. Commissioner Saunders agreed with his fellow Commissioners that preventing any hawking in the medians and on the pavement is favorable because of the public safety issues which are best addressed by prohibiting these activities from occurring. Commissioner Constantine indicated that before the next public hearing in two (2) weeks, Staff should contact Lee County to ascertain how they handle only allowing 501C3 organizations to solicit funds. Commissioner Saunders pointed out that if Collier County Js addressing a public safety issue, whether an organization is a registered 501C3 organization or not does not matter and if the trend is that streets are not traditional public forums then that conclusion applies to everyone. Commissioner Matthews stated that the problem is a public safety issue. In response to Commissioner Constantine, Commissioner Norris indicated that the information obtained from Staff contacting Lee County relative to their permitting process may be of interest. Mr. Mulhere stated that Page 31 of the agenda packet contains a revision to minimum yard requirements for nonconforming agricultural parcels and was directed by the Board. He indicated that the Code allows for utilizing the closest associated district relative to size and width and in the case of the agricultural district, the RSF-1 district would apply which provides for the same setbacks as con- forming agricultural lots; the proposed minimum yard requirements addresses the issue. Mr. Millhere lndlf:al. ed th.it Page 32 addreMses the mobile home district where the current setback is 50 feet from a public right-of- way which must have been a result of the old Mobile Home Rental Park District and Subdivision. He pointed out that a 100 foot deep lot Page 10 October 12, 1994 abutting a right-of-way which requires a 50 foot setback makes the property undevelopab]e and Staff feels that a 25 foot front yard set- back is sufficient. Mr. Mulhere pointed out that through the sub- division process, a minimum buffer depending on the right-of-way can be obtained. Mr. Mulhere stated that the changes found on Page 33 were directed by the Board of County Commissioners and addresses the TTRV district brought about by the Code Enforcement issue on accessory structures. Lew Mangum spoke on this item. Mr. Clark expla/ned that TTRV is a classification of its own and is not considered a permanent residence. Commissioner Matthews questioned how to reconciliation the fact that the Property Appraiser is allowing people living in the TTRV district to permanent tie down trailers and homestead same? Mr. Clark indicated that State rules allow the homesreading of any structure that is considered your principal residence. Mr. Mulhere pointed out that the County cannot restrict obtaining a homestead exemption from the State. Commissioner Matthews stated that when citizens attempt to obtain permits and are told that the property is zoned commercial by County Staff, how does a person reconcile the difference when another agency is telling them the property is residential. Wayne Arnold, Acting Site Development Review Director, stated that the distinction was made in the Zoning Code and has been debated numerous times in the past, but the TTRVC is considered a commercial zoning district. Mr. Mulhere indicated that Section 2.1.14.3 reads "Where the phrases "commercial district", "zoned commercially", "commercially zoned", "commercial zoning" or phraseology of similar intent are used in this Zoning Code, these phrases shall be constructed to include: C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, TTRVC, and commercial components in PUDs." Commissioner Matthews questioned what impact fees are being 12 Page October 12, 1994 assessed on new structures? Mr. Mulhere replied that a commercial square footage calculation cannot be used, so he is guessing that a residential impact fee would apply. Commissioner Norris pointed out that this topic should be discussed under another forum and not at this public hearing. Mr. Mulhere indicated that Staff can supply an answer to the Board relative to what formulas are being utilized to calculate impact fees for the TTRVC district. Commissioner Matthews stated that the problem of whether the TTRVC is residential or commercial needs to be addressed. Mr. Clark indicated that by Ordinance, TTRVC is zoning commercial and the County cannot call it residential because a person is not allowed to live in the district full time by direction of the Board. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald explained that a separate fee schedule exists for TTRV parks and established what a dwelling unit impact fee would be for TTRV. Mr. Clark pointed out that the County cannot reconcile the dif- ference relative to the Property Appraiser classifying the TTRV as residential. Mr. Clark stated that the proposed change will allow for exterior walls to be enclosed with screen, glass or vinyl windows except the storage area which js to be enclosed with the same exterior structural covering material as the principal unit. Mr. Arnold stated that 70 to 80 residents of Imperial Wilderness appeared before the Board under a public petition due to the viola- tions found by County Code Enforcement personnel which prompted the proposed changes. He explained that the changes are relatively minor tn nature, i.e. to allow installation of glass windows in a screen enclosure and air conditioning/heating supplied to same, while still treating the structure as accessory. Mr. Mulhere stated that Page 35 of the agenda packet addresses fencing or screenln9 of storage yards in the heavy commercial C-5 and October 12, 1994 industrial zoning districts and is due to numerous calls and complaints received by Code Enforcement from property owners abutting various types of storage yards. Mr. Mulhere indicated that the C-5 districts require opaque fencing for storage yards and is limited to no closer than 25 feet to any public street. He pointed out that the change is to eliminate fencing requirements in the principal section of Storage Yards and contain the information in a separate section under Fencing Requirements which is the same way fencing is handled in the industrial district. Mr. Mulhere explained that the opaque fencing is also required to be seven feet (7') in height. Mr. Mulhere stated that where a storage yard is a principal use or where a piece of property abuts a residentially zoned property, an opaque fence is necessary even though it limits visual inspection by security officers. Mr. Mulhere explained that various contractors have informed him that the additional cost of installing an opaque fence versus one that is transparent will be $2.00 per foot to as much as $20.00 per foot for a wooden fence or higher for masonry In response to Commissioner Norris, Mr. Mulhere stated that at the end of Paragraph 17. the words "...shall not be considered a per- mitted use in the C-5 District," can be added for clarification. Mr. Mulhere indicated that Page 37 of the agenda packet addresses a scrtvener's error, i.e. numbering. Mr. Mulhere explained that Page 40 of the agenda packet addresses the fence requirements in the Industrial District and requires storage yards to be fenced with at least a seven foot (7') opaque fence or landscaping equiva]enl or c~nlbination thereof where the storage yard abuts residential]y zoned property or is the principal permitted use of the property. In response to Commissioner Vo]pe, Mr. Mu]here replied that the fence requirement does not address wrecking yards, Junk yards and salvage operations because they are considered outdoor storage yards October 12, 1994 and are subject to the Conditional Use process. Mr. Clark indicated that Staff has tried to address legal noncon- forming storage yards numerous times. Mr. Mulhere explained that unfenced storage yards in the Industrial Park were most likely in existence prior to enactment of the Ordinance. Tape #2 In response to Commissioner Norris, Mr. Mulhere replied that Staff has excluded vehicle storage when intended for sale or resale which will include boats also. Bryan Milk, Planner, stated that the purpose of the amendment starting on Page 42 of the agenda packet is to provide a new zoning designation, Business Park Zoning District, in the industrial designated area of the Future Land Use Element. He informed that the proposed new zoning district provided for mixed use of industrial and commercial zoning designations or up to 40 percent commercial use (business offices, professional offices, health care services, restaurants, etc.) Mr. Milk stated that Christopher Smith of Naples' Realty Company provided a letter of recommended uses in the Business Park District but after review by Staff, none of the recommendations as proposed will be provided. He explained that Staff is attempting to less intensify the Business Park District in order to make it more user friendly, open space oriented, and to promote professional offices and management related offices with manufacturing and light tndustria] uses. Mr. Milk pointed out that the Business Park District does not include or propose any conditional uses; Staff prov]ded for permitted uses only and that the uses be compatible. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Milk informed that an existing industrial park will be subject to a fezone. He indicated that the intent is that every new Business Park be industrially zoned or fall within the industrial designation of the Future Land Use ,oo, riCO,:... 15 Page 14 October 12, 1994 Element. Mr. Milk explained that typically someone will need 35 acres under common ownership or in a general tract or parcel to apply for a PUD or zoning designation as a Business Park whtch will help provide more business and commercial related activities in the industrial district and keep the industrial nature of the park in existence. Mr. Mulhere explained that Page 47 of the agenda packet addresses clarity of density calculation for mixed use PUDs. Fred Reischl, Planner, stated that Page 48 presents the current policy of the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) to allow an exception to the special treatment (ST) for renovation and/or replacement of a mobile home in an ST area through administrative review without going to the EAB and the EAB requested that the po]tcy be inc/uded in the Land Development Code. Mr. Mulhere indicated that Page 50 presents a request by the Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board (HAPB) to allow for the Community Development Administrator to require an examination of a site by an accredited archaeologist when someone requests a waiver of that requirement and doubt is raised to the request. He explained that the associated cost will be born by the developer/property owner and a three to four (3-4) hour site evaluation will be required at a cost of between $200 and $300. Mr. Mulhere stated that Page 52 presents a compromise to a public petition request for amendment to the Land Development Code by Robert Duane of Hole, Montes& Associates and will allow for off-site parking on lots not under the same ownership, under certain circumstances and subject to certain restriction, i.e. the properties are contiguous and the parking is ]n excess of that required by Section 2.3.14, Off-Street Parking and Stacking: Required Amounts. Mr. Mu]here indicated that the proposed amendment on Page 54 sets a mlntmum loading space size for small developments as the LDC does not currently provide for same. Mr. Mulhere stated that Page 55 of the agenda packet presents the addition of the Business Park Zoning District to the Landscape Code Page 15 October 12, 1994 Land Use Classifications table. Mr. Mu]here explained that the changes on Pages 56 and 57 incor- porates the Business Park District into the sign code. Mr. Mulhere informed the Board that Page 58 addresses a scrive- ner's error; the change was approved during the last LDC amendment but was inadvertently deleted from the final draft sent to the Secretary of State. Mr. Mulhere stated that the Solid Waste Disposal section changes start on Page 59 and is the result of a public petition. He explained that this proposed change will require a developer to provide appropriate locations and screening for bulk solid waste container and multi-family recycling container services dependent upon the number of dwelling units and proximity to the solid waste bulk container sites prior to turning the development over to the owners. see At this time Deputy Clerk Barbiretti replaced Deputy Clerk Yernley *** Mr. Mulhere stated that page 62 reflects a change requested by the Collier County Planning Commission. He said this will clarify where a boat dock extension is measured from. He said that the second change would allow that a dock be considered a permanent use on unbrjdged barrier islands only. He explained that would allow the dock to be built prior to the issuance of a single family building permit. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Mulhere replied that the definition of "Barrier Islands" is defined in the Code. Mr. Mulhere explained that pages 64 and 65 do not depict a new regulation but this regulation is found within in the Code in three or four different sections. He said that this change is proposed to make it easier for companies that are coming in for temporary use permits for model homes. He said that the regulations for mode] homes now be found ]n one convenient place. Mr. Mulhere stated that page 66 is another Scrivener's Error correction. Mr. Mu]here explained that the changes on pages 67 through 72 are October 12, 1994 intended to reduce the requirements that a plat be recorded after approval by the Board of County Commissioners. He said that the pro- posed change would authorize Staff to administratively approve the plat which will reduce the turn around time by ten days. Assistant County Attorney Weigel commented that these plats are the required improvements in subdivisions which are usually taken care of by construction and escrow agreements. He stated that a complete package for the appendix has been prepared. He said that it reduces the step of bringing to the Board what was previously called "preliminary acceptance" of the subdivision plat prior to recording. He explained that statutorily there is a difference between acceptance and approval. He said that a change included in this proposed amend- ment is that the Board is preliminarily approving not accepting. He said this makes perfectly clear that the Board's obligation for main- tenance of dedications occurs only upon the Board's agreeing to that maintenance responsibility. He said that there may be dedica- tions within a plat to the County or public and the County can approve these things but does not have to agree to maintain them. He said that will only occur by a separate resolution at the end of the pro- cess. In response to Commissioner Vo]pe, Mr. Wefgel replied that the final plat is still approved by the Board of County Commissioners by resolution. Mr. Mulhere stated that the proposed amendment on page 73 reflects Board directed changes to allow for administrative approval of activi- ties that are generally cons/dered to be beneficial seaward of the coastal construction control line. He said that Staff will still review activities and come back to the Board with an amendment to the resolution. He noted that the standard fee for a variance Js $425.00, but the fee for a coastal construction control line variance is $i,000.00. He stated that he believes that the Board approved that fee because they did not want to entertain a proliferatlon of that type of variance. oo, firlOP,'.! 18 Page 17 October 12, 1994 Commissioner Volpe asked what was the reason for the removal of the exemption procedure7 Mr. Mulhere replied that it will be replaced with the permitting procedure. Planner Fred Reisch] explained that there are two procedures; there is an exemption where there ]s no permit and no variance for certain activities and the permit for such an activity as a dune walkover. He said that Staff feels that the exemption procedure became more cumbersome than a permit itself. Commissioner Volpe remarked that this was intended to give the residents notification of certain activities that would be occurring seaward of the coastal construction control line. Mr. Mulhere pointed out that the residents would still be notjfled because this would only apply to activities such as reapplying sand to the beach or removal of exotics. Mr. Mulhere announced that was the end of the proposed amendments. Commissioner Saunders announced that he would be unable to attend the meeting of October 26, 1994. He stated that he was comfortable with the proposed amendments. It was the consensus of the Board to continue this item to the meeting of October 26, 1994. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 7:10 P.M. OWXeST E. SRO~K, C%'ERK ,. Thes~m~n~'tes approved by the Board on BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROLS,~ as presented //' or as corrected Page