Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/14/2000 S (LDC Amendments)June 14,2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 14, 2000 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 present: CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine Barbara B. Berry James D. Carter Pamela S. Mac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Page1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, June 14, 2000 5:05 pm NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTYMANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE 1 June 14,2o00 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS: SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT: SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, DIVISION 1.9. ENFORCEMENT; ARTICLE 2, ZONING, DIVISION 2.1. GENERAL; DIVISION 2.2. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.3. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; DIVISION 2.4. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING; DIVISION 2.5. SIGNS; DIVISION 2.6. SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 3.2. SUBDIVISIONS; DIVISION 3.5. EXCAVATION; DIVISION 3.9. VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION; 3.1 1. ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR LISTED SPECIES PROTECTION; ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF DOCK FACILITY, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT; APPENDIX D, AIRPORT ZONING; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. 3. ADJOURN 2 June 14, 2000 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' LDC MEETING JUNE 14, 2000 5:05 PM ADD: ITEM 2(A): APPROVAL OF A FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND FOR JENNIFER EDWARDS IN HER CAPACITY AS SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. (SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS' REQUEST). June 14,2000 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND FOR JENNIFER EDWARDS, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there. We have three? Commissioner Mac'Kie is on the way. We're going to take care of one other item as well. We had the add-on item we talked about very briefly yesterday, and that is approval of a faithful performance bond -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Move approval. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- for Jennifer Edwards, who is the new supervisor of elections until election day. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Move approval. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any objection? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 3-0. Item #2 ORDINANCE 2000-43, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE I understand we've got a got a couple of speakers today on the Land Development Code items. MR. OLLIFF: We do. We have three speakers all registered for the gopher tortoise. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Let's go right to them. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. The first speaker is Amanda Stein. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And she'll be followed by? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do we have any environmental -- of our environmental staff here? I didn't look. Who's -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, Bill Lorenz is here. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Because I have some questions about these little guys. MR. OLLIFF: Following Amanda would be Nancy Payton. MS. STEIN: Good evening. I'm Amanda Stein, Collier County Audubon Society. And I would like to once again, on behalf of Page 2 June 14,2000 the Audubon Society, offer support for the proposed amendment, the gopher tortoise amendment, to the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. STEIN: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Following Ms. Payton would be Nicole Ryan. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have on my outdoorsman attire today, by the way. MS. PAYTON: Very nice, very nice. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. We're here also to support the staff's proposal, staff's amendments for the gopher tortoise ordinance. And also again, we'll go on the record as looking forward eagerly to working with staff and other interested individuals in additional amendments to this particular section of the Land Development Code, and also working for a gopher tortoise preserve. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MR. OLLIFF: Following Ms. Ryan, you have one other speaker registered to talk about the communication towers issue. And that would be Doug Wilcox. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi. MS. RYAN: Good evening. For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And the Conservancy would also like to support the LDC amendment changes dealing with gopher tortoise protection. We also look forward to working with staff and other environmental organizations, individuals, everyone who wants to make the amendments better. One of our main concerns is, as Nancy pointed out, off-site relocation assumes that there are places for the tortoises to be relocated off-site. And in a lot of cases, it just isn't there. So we want to make sure that there is some kind of gopher tortoise sanctuary or preserve. Funding could be available through land acquisitions to the state's Incidental Take permit fees. Another avenue would be finding a willing seller, perhaps out in the Immokalee area where there are still some large, contiguous, tracts of land for gopher tortoises, upland areas, perhaps scrub areas. And the money could be gained through the land acquisition referendum, which the Conservancy is still planning to help put on the ballot. So that's a big issue. If you're going to relocate them, there needs to be an appropriate place. Page 3 June ~4,2000 But for now we do certainly support the amendments. They're a great step in the right direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. And we had one additional speaker on the antenna towers? MR. OLLIFF: We do. Mr. Wilcox. MR. WILCOX: Good evening. I'm Doug Wilcox, speaking for American Tower. American Tower Corporation is a direct competitor of Lodestar, which of course this ordinance is not of benefit to us. Of course, it's quite the opposite. But it's also -- we don't see any benefit of this ordinance to the county. And we currently have a tower application in review with this county that's located in close proximity to one of Lodestar's facilities. And this amendment we feel will not encourage co-location at all. It was our understanding that Lodestar was to contact American Tower to address whether or not the Department of Transportation equipment could be located on our tower. And so far as I know, that hasn't been addressed by Lodestar. We feel if they were limited to government carriers, we would not be opposed to this proposal, but they're not. They plan to compete directly with American Tower by leasing antennae space to commercial carriers, which is a problem. You know, it's fine for Lodestar to have an exclusive contract with the FDOT to build sites, develop sites on FDOT property. We assume that they went through an open bidding process, and that's free enterprise. We feel that's great. But if you, as a local government, provide less restrictive requirements for Lodestar to develop tower sites for a direct commercial private carrier, as they are doing, we feel we all have a due process problem with that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. That concludes our public speakers? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Commissioner Berry had some questions for our environmental staff. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question. Something was brought to my attention, maybe you can answer the question. Are gopher tortoises native to South Florida? Page 4 June 14,2000 MS. BURGESON: They are native to South Florida. They're not as common in South Florida as they are in Central Florida and Northern Florida. Barbara Burgeson, planning services. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. And they're usually found in dry, sandy areas? MS. BURGESON: Typically found on the high scrub ridges, which would have been along, say, U.S. 41, along the Pine Ridge area originally. Quite a bit in Immokalee. Along the shore. There's quite a few up at Lely Barefoot Beach, the beach park up there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Would you find any, say, in the south blocks? Do you know? Are you aware? MS. BURGESON: Not that I know of. I do know that there are some scattered in Northern Golden Gate Estates. Not very many. I spoke in fact with Gary Beardsley just the day before -- maybe it was yesterday, I guess, and he said that he rarely sees gopher tortoises in the North Golden Gate Estates, but he came across one on a piece of property recently and wanted to know how the county wanted to address that. So that's what -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then that's a concern I have. What about if people have property out in the Estates, and they go to build a home and they find that they've got these little guys out there? What's going to happen? MS. BURGESON: The way the Land Development Code and the Growth Management plan exists right now, the gopher tortoises are protected. It's just that we haven't had any process in place to address that on single-family homes, even though there still is that responsibility for them to be protected. So at this point what we're proposing is to design some guidelines to basically say that if gopher tortoises are identified on single-family homes, particularly in the Golden Gate Estates area, that they be relocated and protected during construction; that they contact the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and obtain permits, if necessary. Typically that's a very, very simple process with Florida Fish. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there cost associated with it? MS. BURGESON: A very minimal cost associated with it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What does minimal mean? MS. BURGESON: With Florida Fish, it's under $100 for those Page 5 June 14,2000 permits. For a consultant to go out and take a look at the property for tortoises specifically -- we're not asking them to do that, we're just saying that the property owner needs to be aware of the possibility of them on the property. We are going to put in some language for the builder. If they hire a consultant for other purposes, typically they'll hire consultants to take a look at the property for wetland issues. We would ask them to also take a look -- it's going to be much simpler than what we ask for developers. The developers have to put together a gopher tortoise survey, they have to map and identify the activity of the burrows. On the single-family homes, we just want them to identify whether there are burrows and whether they're active, and relocate them. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I may be heading the same way as Commissioner Berry. While we certainly value the gopher tortoises, if they are rare in the Estates, I don't want to add extra time and extra money to the single family who is struggling to build their home. And you look at the cost. We always talk about the average cost of a home in Collier County being $250,000. While there are $250,000 homes in the estates, that's not the typical home. They are people who are making ends meet and they build their $110,000, $130,000, whatever it happens to be, and if you happen to slow that down by a few weeks, that can be a lot of money. If you happen to require -- even if it's another 100 bucks or 500 bucks or anything else. I would prefer to see some sort of exemption here if you have a single-family home being built in an individual -- I'd want to craft it so you can't have someone use it as a loophole when they're doing a development. But if someone is doing one single home and, you know, they're on five acres or less or seven and a half acres or less, whatever we think is appropriate for the Estates, that we exempt them. Because if we start trying to make them jump through hurdles and it's uncommon -- if you're unlikely to find them there anyway, I don't want to make that person who's struggling to build that house have yet another hoop to jump through. MS. BURGESON: They already have to do that. It's just that they don't have the guidelines in place to do that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What I heard you saying, Page 6 June 14,2000 though, is there might be some guidelines to define whether or not there are burrows, whether or not they're active. I'd prefer to leave it as is. If it's a responsibility and they happen to stumble across them and they do the responsible thing, God bless. But to give them -- I mean, I wouldn't know. If you send me out there, what's a burrow look like? So I've got to go hire somebody that does. And that's more money to write. Now, I happen to be able to afford that check, but a lot of people in Golden Gate Estates building new homes, that's one more check they don't want to have to write. So I would prefer not to create a whole other set of guidelines there. I don't know about the balance of the board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if I understand it right, all we're talking about, though -- you know, a gopher tortoise hole is just a hole. I mean, you'll trip over it. It's just a hole in the ground. You'll catch your foot in it if you walk across it. And all we're saying is -- if I understand correctly, all we're saying is we're going to give people more information to be able to tell if they tripped over a gopher tortoise hole, and if so, what to do. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are we having a problem with the way it is right now? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In -- MS. BURGESON: The way it is right now -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm asking Barb. MS. BURGESON: The way it is right now, I have no knowledge of tortoises being relocated in the Golden Gate Estates area. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you know of any problems where they've been there and people have just blown it off and the gopher tortoises have been harmed or injured? MS. BURGESON: No one has told me. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So we might be creating an issue here. MS. BURGESON: Well, we could create a brochure for the single-family homeowner what would help them identify whether there's tortoise burrows on-site without hiring a consultant. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My point is if we haven't had any cases where it's been a problem and we haven't had any cases where it hasn't been a problem, are we inventing Page 7 June t4,2000 something we don't need to? MS. BURGESON: I couldn't tell you. I don't get involved in single-family home review in Golden Gate Estates except for freestanding permits. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why are we doing this? MS. BURGESON: We're doing this to make sure that the gopher tortoises are protected in single-family homes because environmental staff doesn't do any review on those properties. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, it's really just to do the least amount possible while still doing a little bit of something. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're already doing the least. Why are we adding more of them? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we're not doing anything. And just -- all we're doing now, all this proposes to do, is an education campaign for the people in the public who might want to do the right thing so they'll have a little bit of information. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's not what I heard Ms. Burgeson say. This isn't just an education campaign. You want them to identify if they're there and if they're active or not. That's not just education. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what if they failed to do that? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's requiring one more thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the penalty if they fail to do that? MS. BURGESON: The penalty is identified at the back of that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a penalty? MS. BURGESON: There is a penalty. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It is creating one more expense. And those areas where we want to take care of gopher tortoises and there's genuinely concern and they are honest to God really there, we need to be doing exactly what we're doing and creating a little stiffer ordinance. However, to create a hardship on families in Golden Gate Estates where there has been absolutely no identified problem I think is going too far. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me ask -- if I might ask this question. It seems if you identify one, all you're doing is asking -- Page 8 June 14, 2000 they could be moved and actually could be returned to the property again once you complete the home. MS. BURGESON: We're just asking that if they're within the outline of any construction or impacts on that property, they be dug -- removed from the burrow, moved out of harm's way during construction, and then let go when the construction is done. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we ask that already? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I don't think we do. MS. BURGESON: No, we don't have anything -- MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino. I'd like to remind you, however, that this opportunity can be used to further amend the material that's before you to exempt, say, existing single-family plat subdivision, which is kind of what I hear you saying. If, you know, that's a concern, then this opportunity is available to you to do that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would want to be careful here I don't eliminate single-family homes everywhere, because they may be right in the middle of something that we don't want done. Now, if it's in an area where there isn't any activity, then I don't have a problem with that. MR. NINO: Appreciate, this amendment was -- the thrust of this amendment was dealing with substantial acreages that came in for development review. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right, okay. MR. NINO: It wasn't intended to deal with single-family houses. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's my whole point. And I have no problem whatsoever with those developments. And I don't even want to go so far as to say platted single family. Because you may have a development that has their plats completed but they still have, you know, dozens of things near each other where there could be fibered communities, and you actually have developers still owning those properties and so on. But when we're talking about individual single families, I don't care how the legal mechanism works, I just don't want to hit up those folks -- and what you've just said is that wasn't the goal of what we were trying to achieve here anyway. We were looking at the big development. We're not trying to hit the little guy in the Estates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, so if you're going to have to Page 9 June 14, 2000 do something, it sounds like the safest way to go would be to reference the Estates as an excluded area or something. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, but I don't know that it's -- you know, if you've got a single lot somewhere, I'm not sure that that's fair either, Pam. But I think the main thing is that that wasn't the idea. But when you again sit up here and make a policy, it's going to be broad, and it's going to cover those areas, and until we write something into it where there's an exemption. And right now, and when I got to thinking about this, I thought there's no exemption, and this is ludicrous to be doing this. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's just try to stay on what the intent was. I mean, Ron's described that. And I think we can achieve that without banging the little guy over the head. Any other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's all. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Somebody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, not after that change. MR. NINO: I'd like to -- for the record, Ron Nino -- remind you that we did hand out -- we handed out three additional corrections. We don't think any of them are of substantive nature. The parking lot thing was the result of further discussions with the industry. And there was some -- one minor change there that staff is in concurrence with. It's a replacement of a -- really, it was a map issued in error having to do with the airport zones. And then a further refinement of the requirement dealing with violations for early clearing in the Estates area. All of the amendments that you have before you have -- are -- have been approved by -- recommended for approval by the Development Services Advisory Council, Planning Commission, and those that were pertinent, the EAC. We think there's total concurrence between the staff and reviewing agencies and interested clientele. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' So if we don't make any changes, we keep that kind of consensus. If we make this change on the Page 10 June 14, 2000 gopher tortoise, we will be upsetting that apple cart just a little bit. And based on that, what I'd like to do is to move approval of the package as proposed by staff and agreed to by all of the many, many agencies and people who have participated today. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that. And I would like to keep in reserve the one on gopher turtle, and see if we can't reach some conclusion here, where we can get the rest of it approved. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the motion is saying not change that, as we discussed just a couple of minutes ago. Commissioner Mac'Kie would like to keep it so that even the little guy gets hit over the head. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that everybody who's worked on this has got -- it's the first time we've gotten 100 percent consensus from every group, from the environmental groups, from the developers, from anybody. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I don't want anybody to take away from this that we are in any way gutting that. This is a tiny little part that even the environmental folks like Gary Beardsley are saying you don't find these in the Estates, so it's not going to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he is saying that when you do find them, you should protect them. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And so are we. We're just saying it shouldn't be an extra expense for every single person who happens to be struggling to build their first home out there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, can we find some language that would say what we want to do is educate the individual homeowner so that they're aware? And I don't want to penalize them, but if they do discover it, we show them there's a very easy way to remove that tortoise during the construction of that home. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: for single-family homeowners? COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: stays in place. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What if we eliminate the penalty No penalty, but just -- No penalty, but everything else We just say, here's what we Page 11 June 14,2000 would like to you look for. There's no penalty if you don't do it, but there's a lot of citizens that, I think, and homeowners and builders, and people would say well, yeah, I didn't know that, but I will. And first there's only a few, and within that few, if you get a couple that don't do it, I would bet you, you would probably get 90 percent that would do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll amend my motion to that effect. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I will amend my second to that effect. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support it because two things: One, I think a penalty will slide its way back in there. But two, I think most people are law abiding, and regardless whether there's a penalty or not, will go and incur that expense and for some people, that's going to put them over the top again. It's going to be several hundred dollars to get somebody on-site to tell them what they can or can't do. And if you're out there trying to build $100,000 home, several hundred dollars is going to make a difference in whether or not they can do it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let me ask this question: What if there's a brochure, and I don't know anything about this, but I discover one on my property, is there any way that we, the county, the Department of Natural Resources, can go out there and remove this turtle, and no expense to the homeowner, but we do it as a service to take it off the property? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a nice idea. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we do it there, though, we're going to have a hard time explaining why we're not doing it for everybody else, for the big developer, and -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, no, no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CARTER: This is only the single -- we're talking about protecting the small homeowner in an area to keep it affordable. And that's the way I would construe that language to mean so that we don't open the door to the big developers. Now, I'm not saying that. I'm just -- I'm with you. I want to make sure that individual has an opportunity to be aware. Because I will tell you, in properties that I've had, I didn't know a gopher tortoise from anything, and I saw these burrows Page 12 June 14,2000 and I didn't even know what they were. But if someone would have told me all you have to do is dig them up and move them, fine. I just didn't know. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, we need four votes, I'm not going to support it. So we can talk about it from now until 7:00 and it ain't going to pass. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're the one with the radio show that goes to dead air. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I have a higher responsibility to the county, and I'm not going to hit up the little guy so I can hustle back to a radio show. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, and I don't want to hit the little guy, Commissioner. What I'm just saying is that there's a workable solution here -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- that they're not penalized. They're not penalized. All we're saying is, if we educate you, Department of Environmental Resources, to remove it, how can it hurt it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's wrong with that? COMMISSIONER CARTER: How can it hurt it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll remove it for you if it's discovered. And again, it's going to be so few times, because it's not going to happen a lot out in the Estates. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I. et's call the question. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye. Motion fails, 2-2. Is there a substitute motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: What you want to do is eliminate the single-family homeowner in Golden Gate Estates? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If somebody is -- if it's a single-family individual and they have 7.5 acres or less, it doesn't even have to be limited to the Estates -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- if it's a single family, if they've Page 13 June ~4,2000 got a lot somewhere else in the county, and that's -- they shouldn't be hit up with that extra thing. You know, the idea, and as Mr. Nino described it, the whole intent of this thing we are still meeting and that is, when you do a development, when you're -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right, you have to look at -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- altering a big piece of land -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- all the environmental concerns. So I'm just -- I would agree to just forget the single-family -- MR. NINO: And appreciate-- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- single-family homesite. MR. NINO: -- a lot of those developments will end up being single-family homes -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. NINO: -- but they will have been addressed up -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly. MR. NINO: -- front by the developers. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How will you -- how will you avoid if right now -- I have clients who right now have platted subdivisions with hundreds of single-family platted lots that they are going to sell to individuals tomorrow, and those individuals are going to go build houses on them. Now, you tell me how that's addressed. MR. NINO: Well, I'm not aware if there's hundreds of lots out there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pebblebrooke Lakes, that's my client. Pebblebrooke Lakes and Indigo Lakes. I just didn't vote on that plat on Tuesday. MR. NINO: The gopher tortoise issues were addressed up front on both of those developments. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's already done. MR. NINO: It's already done. And the vast majority of lots, your Pelican Marshes, your Pelican Bays your -- all of your developments have been addressed up front, the gopher tortoise issue. So we're dealing -- basically we're dealing with Pioneer -- Pine Ridge, which is an old single-family subdivision, which no doubt probably does have them, tortoises throughout, because it's a sandy ridge. But those are the older subdivisions that -- Page 14 June 14,2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're talking about -- when did the law come into effect that you had to handle this up front if you were platting? How old does a subdivision have to be for it not to matter? Ten years? Five years? MR. NINO: 1990 when the Land Development Code was adopted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So anything that was approved before 1990 is what we'd have to worry about? MR. NINO: I suspect that that's the issue. Largely the issue. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But there are not a lot of PUDs. And those -- anything that's just been hanging out there come back under the Sunset provision anyway at this point. You have an opportunity to review it. MR. NINO: If you were to add an exemption for existing subdivisions, I don't think the impacts would be all that significant. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- It's just opens a silly loophole. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, would we have to exempt them? Well, I would like to see this passed. I would like to exempt the single-family homeowner that has 5 acres or 7.5 acres out here in Golden Gate Estates where the probability of a gopher tortoise being there may be one who is a maverick, versus where they formally end up being. But at the same time, I don't want some guy that was grandfathered under some subdivision way back in '85 to get away with it and say I don't have to do anything. Is there any way to loop that back in and say if you're a subdivision and you were a PUD or you were a planned development, I don't care who you are, this applies. But if you're the person who bought 5 or 7.5 acres, we're going to exempt you, no matter where you are. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But if it was platted 20 years ago, they weren't responsible to do it then anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. NINO: But I think the issue-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they need to do it now. MR. NINO: -- has some merit in the context that you're still responsible to obtain approval of the respective Florida regulatory agency, the -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Florida Wildlife? Page 15 June 14, 2000 MR. NINO.' -- Florida Wildlife. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whatever they're called this week. MR. NINO: Whatever it is. You just can't walk away from it. And to that extent, the suggestion is that our office does in fact prepare an educational brochure which can be distributed to those types of property owners so that they're at least aware of their responsibilities. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we ask them to do it, but we don't penalize them if they don't do it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: May I make a motion, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the Land Development Code with the exception of the gopher tortoise section in here stating that it would be applicable for everything over seven and a half acres for lots -- for a lot over seven and a half acres. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speaking only of single-family homes -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Of single-family homes. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: --and individual lots. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Single-family -- individual single-family homes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not going to support that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it's going to be a long night then. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let me tell you what my concern is. I think that if we don't do it -- let's look at if we don't it. We continue to do what we've been doing, and that's not where we want to be. We're destroying a species. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hold on right there. That's not accurate. The only limitation we're putting on is primarily aimed toward Golden Gate Estates, where we are not destroying a species. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Wait, hear me out. If we don't do anything tonight, we have -- there is really loopholes for people not to do anything. And that means the bigger developments can just go in and do what they've been doing. Page 16 June 14, 2000 What I want to do is get that covered so that doesn't happen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: than seven and a half acres. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So give me something better Could someone tell me what percentage of single-family homes that we've got out there in some of these areas? We look at all the development in this county; are we talking 10 percent? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got a lot. And here's why. And what Tim keeps saying -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, we're not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, let me just say this because I really think that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, maybe Mr. Mulhere or Mr. Nino can tell me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- about something a minute ago. The fact is we're not talking about PUDs that come back in under monitoring. We're talking about old subdivisions like Pine Ridge that won't come back under monitoring, but where houses will be demolished and new single-family homes will be built. And that's going to happen forever and ever and ever, and that's going to continue to happen. I'd like for those single-family lots to have to comply. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But Pam, do you think that -- how many houses do you know or lots in Pine Ridge that have houses on them today, how many of those have gopher tortoises running around on them? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They easily could in Pine Ridge. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, they could. I mean, you could have, you know, the moon fall out of the sky, too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's a prime habitat. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I want to know how many in that area, Pam, do you really think there are? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a real -- a likely habitat in Pine Ridge because it's sandy soil, it's hot. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's likely, but I'd say it's very unlikely with the population of people up there right now. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let me just take that for a second. Let's say that it's vacant land and somebody does it. I think that's one issue. But if somebody goes in and does a Page17 June 14,2000 retrofit, then maybe that's something that has to be put in there. If it's a retrofit on existing property, that's part of your commitment to retrofitting the property, tearing it down and building a bigger house. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But maybe they're liking those gopher tortoises. If they're living there now, the house -- the footprint of the house is probably already there and those tortoises certainly aren't under the house. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they're going to build bigger houses, then they tear those little old houses down. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I doubt that the tortoises are around there. I'd like -- if somebody could find me one in Pine Ridge, I'd sure like to go take a look at it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, are you aware of any individual cases where we've had to relocate tortoises from Pine Ridge? MR. NINO: I don't know. I don't know the gopher tortoise population in Pine Ridge. I mean, I don't go around counting gopher tortoises. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I guess most of the people in Pine Ridge would be pretty empathetic towards them anyhow. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They would want to do the right thing, if they knew what it was. MS. BURGESON: Yeah, I'd say that the property in Pine Ridge is pretty close to prime habitat for gopher tortoises. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. BURGESON: I don't know how many are there. I would assume that there's a fair number of them in Pine Ridge. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's the same place where there's human and homes. MS. BURGESON: Yeah, they do fine. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fascinating. MS. BURGESON: We just have to protect them and move them out of harms way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And again, we're protecting them during the construction process and then we put them right back and let them have their little burrows again, if that's where they want to live. Nobody's -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, can you repeat for me what the intent of this ordinance was as we started out? Page 18 June t4, 2000 MR. NINO: Yes, the intent of this ordinance, which got a lot of its impetus from something called Palm Isle, over in the Palm River area, was to preserve viable gopher tortoise populations in land that's undeveloped, currently undeveloped, for which we would expect development applications to be made to this body. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And where was that stated, Ron, that that was the purpose of it? You know, I mean, I'm trying to have a little bit of calm here but -- MR. NINO: Well, the-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, let me finish asking my question. Because, you know, I'm afraid that what you're giving us here is your personal opinion about what is the best thing to do instead of -- I happen to get a zillion E-mails a day from a guy on gopher tortoises, and it ain't his intention to merely protect them on undeveloped land. So I don't know where you get the idea that that was the impetus for this, except for that you know that's the answer Mr. Constantine is looking for. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sure Mr. Nino is only trying to please one commissioner. Commissioner Mac'Kie, come on, let's not beat up staff. They're here to do a job -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's just not true. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- they're here to represent all of us and all of the public, and to beat them up doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Tim, that answer isn't true. I've been involved with this gopher tortoise, you have to, from the way back, and that wasn't the purpose. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And because Mr. Julian would like to see it as restrictive as possible, you think any builder, any individual homeowner, should have to pay a few hundred dollars more in Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nope, nope. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's what I heard you just say COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the answer -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- is that you got a million E-mails from one guy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The answer to your question -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: As we all have. As he has insulted Page 19 June 14,2000 us, and certainly insulted me in his E-mail. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The answer to your question is not as Mr. Nino answered it. And that's what bothered me about that. Ron knows I have the highest respect for him professionally, but I disagree with that answer. MR. NINO: I'm sorry if I gave -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, you can -- MR. NINO: -- you the impression that -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- excuse me just a minute. You can disagree with him professionally, but don't make an insult at the podium suggesting because it's only the answer another commissioner wants to hear. That's not okay. You can disagree with him, don't insult him. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's right about that. I apologize for the remark about trying to please Mr. Constantine. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion that we approve all parts of the LDC, with the exception of the gopher tortoise part so that we can get that part through, and then we'll deal with the gopher tortoise on our own. We'll deal with that individually. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean separately this evening? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This evening. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that. MR. NINO: Let me remind you that a large part of the impetus for the gopher tortoise preservation effort also comes from our recent dealings with DCA, which says we have to pick up our socks, basically, to protect -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand. I'm not suggesting -- don't anybody misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that we don't do this tonight. I'm just saying let's get the balance of the LDC done so that everybody who is here for things other than gopher tortoise will be free to go. And then we can hash that out on our own. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I made a second to your motion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Discussion? All those in favor, please state aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now we can come back and deal Page 20 June 14,2000 with the tortoises. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You want to talk about the gopher tortoise? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If anybody's got a reasonable suggestion, I mean, I'm-- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're not going to open this up -- I mean, we're not going to open up, because then everybody-- if we do this for you, George, everybody's who's got opinions are going to want to get up. We had public speakers, we have a sign-up process for that. MR. OLLIFF: The only suggestion I'd make is that, frankly, just -- I can count to four and it looks like the only support there is this evening for anything that relates to the gopher tortoise is for the exemption for single-family home sections, which at least provides you the opportunity to deal with the large developments that do come in after this Land Development Code amendment gets approved. Now, if the board at some point wants to go back and re-look at that other section as part of the Land Development Code at some later date, they can do that. But for this evening, that looks like the only thing that I can see that's going to get any consensus on the board. COMMISSIONER CARTER: May I propose this? And I agree with you, Tom, is that if we can do it and then by the next LDC cycle come back with a little statistical evidence about what's going on in some of these areas, is there any way that we can get a little more information so we know what we're talking about? I really hate to lose the impact that we can make with the bigger developments. And particularly, I know I've got one coming up in my district, and if I don't do something, I've got a real problem in trying to protect the species. And I would rather defer and exempt a very small piece of this to get to the bigger picture. MR. OLLIFF: That's the point I'm trying to make. But I do want to tell you that it is going to be difficult to get you specific type information. We can get you some broad categorical kind of information, but from single-family individual permits, there's just simply not a lot of information to be gathered. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What we might be able to point out, though, is whether it's a red herring to suggest that there Page 21 June 14,2000 are all these giant developments out there that are going to slip through. Because I don't think that's the case, but I bet we can find out factually. And the only correction I'd make, Commission Carter, is I don't think this is a small piece. I think this is 95 percent of it. MR. OLLIFF: And-- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We are only leaving behind a small piece. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm sorry, that's what I meant. We're only leaving behind a very small piece. I want to get to the big picture that encompasses -- I agree, we're probably talking 95 percent of what we've got to do here. MR. OLLIFF: And the only reason I'm suggesting that is I know in Commissioner Carter's case, there is a very large development coming on board that I think would fall under subject to this Land Development Code amendment now if it's approved and wouldn't if it's not approved. So I think there's some opportunities here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the next cycle of amendments? COMMISSIONER CARTER: December. MR. NINO: Next December. Would begin about the latter part of August. That would start taking -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Moving on. MR. NINO: -- making reviews. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. That's what I'm checking on. And you'll have that -- you'll bring this issue back to us in the next cycle? MR. NINO: We certainly will when bring back the single-family issue. I think staff would prefer that you adopt the regulations that are before you and that we rethink the single-family component. Because we think there is the possibility that in the interim, we might lose something from a large parcel of land that comes before us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's what Commissioner Carter -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is proposing and I'm going to go along with to get something -- Page 22 June 14,2000 CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, you want to put it in the form of a motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to move that we accept the gopher tortoise Land Development Code, and exclude single-family homes construction at this point. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Individual owners under seven and a half acres. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Under seven and a half acres, whatever the criteria is. MR. NINO: You mean platted single-family? Because there's CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. NINO: Seven and a half acres, metes and bounds parcel of land, that's really no different than -- MR. OLLIFF: Platted. MR. NINO: -- the person who owns 25 acres of unplatted land. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, platted. Let me add that language, platted. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you. Page 23 June 14,2000 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL~TS UNDER ITS CONTROL TI M~/~ R--M-~ ,,, ..... ATTEST: /,"i,~,,,~.:~,~i,D~W.!GHT E. BROCK, CLERK '~ ........ TH~Se minu~s approved by the Board on presented ~ or as corrected , as B TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 24