BCC Minutes 06/18/2002 S (GMP Amendments - Rural Fringe)June 18, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RURAL FRINGE ADOPTION PUBLIC HEARING,
Naples, Florida, June 18, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., at County Commission
Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
JIM COLETTA
DONNA FIALA
FRED COYLE
TOM HENNING
JAMES CARTER
ALSO PRESENT:
Tom Olliff, County Manager
Joseph Schmitt, Community Development
Administrator
Marjorie Student, Assistant CountyAttorney
Jim Mudd, Assistant County Manager
Nancy Linnan, Counsel
Maria Pia Gooch, Interpreter
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
June 18, 2002
5:05 p.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 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
1
June 18,2002
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.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA
Ae
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)
AMENDMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL
ASSESSMENT FOR THE RURAL FRINGE AREA - APPLICABLE TO THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, EXCEPT THE
EASTERN LANDS PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA (ADOPTION
HEARING).
3. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
2
June 18, 2002
June 18, 2002
Item #2A
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE RURAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE RURAL FRINGE
AREA APPLICABLE TO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, EXCEPT THE EASTERN LANDS
PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA- CONTINUED TO
JUNE 19, 2002 AFTER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
HEARING
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May we proceed? Please stand for
the Pledge of Allegiance.
Thereupon, (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you all for coming today.
And where do we start.
MS. LINNAN: I'll take over, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm
Nancy Linnan. I'm the County's outside growth management
counsel. My role tonight will be to assist in guiding the process
through the adoption of these amendments and will be to serve, kind
of, as the MC of the proceedings. I'll try to keep it light. I want
everybody to know, however, that by doing that I'm not denigrating
or taking away from the seriousness of the business we're about
tonight; just that it looks like it could be a long evening and
sometimes that keeps the process moving a little bit faster.
Let me take care of some housekeeping items very quickly.
First of all, on the record, we have provided real-time Spanish
translation to those who would be interested in it. I understand that
those in the room prefer to stay in the room. Also during the public
comment portion of tonight's proceedings we will have a Spanish-
Page 2
June 18, 2002
certified language interpreter available to assist in folks making
their points before the commission.
Finally, there are two sign-up sheets that people might be
interested in. One, if you care to speak there is a speaker's form --
and if you could hold one up so folks could see what they look like --
outside, available on the table. If you care to speak tonight, you
must sign one of these forms and give it to those gentlemen over
there.
Number two, the Growth Management Act was recently
amended by the Florida Legislature to say that at any public hearing
where you're adopting a comp plan amendments or even transmitting
them, the local government needs to have a sign-up sheet for
individuals who are willing to put down their name and address.
That sign-up sheet is provided to the Department of Community
Affairs, and when the Department makes its decision on whether the
Comp Plan Amendments are in compliance, that person will be sent a
copy of that decision so they are not limited to just reading about it
in the newspaper.
That's important, because once that decision is made, if
someone disagrees with it, they have 21 days from when it appears
in the newspaper. So if you live outside of Collier County and are
likely not too see that newspaper or even if you live in the County
and want a personal copy of that, please sign up. And where are
those sign-up sheets? Those are on the table outside. I think it's an
eight and a half by eleven sheet.
Let me start by introducing the consultants and the County staff
that will be making presentations or even answering questions
tonight. I know you folks know them but many in the audience
might not, and it will be helpful for you to know their roles. First of
all, Marty Tumbler. She's with my law firm; she's also my partner;
Page 3
June 18, 2002
she's also my lawyer. She tends to be my litigator when I get in
trouble in these proceedings, and it's just nice to have her around in
these kinds of instances. She's also very familiar with takings law;
she's the one that prepared the memo to you on how far you can go
in agricultural lands, regulation; those kinds of things.
Next will be Bob Mulhere. Bob is a consultant with RWA. He
is a planner, he used to be the head of County Planning; this has
been a three-year process. He left in the middle of that process and
the County hired him back to continue to work on this. He has been
one of the leads in working on the policy issues and working with
the various committees.
His partner-in-crime is Bill Lorenz. Bill is the director of
Natural Resources for the County. This is the guy who knows where
the wetlands are, where the critters are, and keeps all the information
about it.
Where is Stan Litenger? Stan is in the back. Stan is the
Comprehensive County Manager.
And we have David Weeks, Senior Planner. Where's David?
There he is?
And finally we have Marjorie Student who is the Assistant
County Attorney who has followed this through with the County and
will be responsible at various points with dealing with the Land
Development Regulations that come out of these Comprehensive
Plan Amendments or others.
Let me start offby asking a series of questions. Again, the
commission has probably heard this at our numerous public
meetings, but perhaps members of the audience haven't. And I will
try to make them very simple questions and answers to try to
explain what we're about tonight. First of all, why are we here.
Page 4
June 18, 2002
In 1997, Collier County adopted a series of Comprehensive
Plan Amendments. Those were found not in compliance; they didn't
meet the statutory requirements, at least regarding natural resources,
critters, wetlands; those kinds of things.
The County chose not to settle that and litigate it. In the end,
the County lost, the matter went to the governor and cabinet. It got
to the governor and cabinet on June 22nd, 1999, and that's an
important date because they issued what's known as the final order.
It's about a 15-, 16-page document that basically said, guys, you
messed up, you got three years to fix it, which is a lot longer than
they have given most other local governments. Most governments I
represented get three months, or Hillsboro County, in that case, got
six months; even though they were asking for more time.
So what are we doing tonight? Tonight we are taking action, or
at least starting the process of taking action, on the final adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendments that affect the rural fringe.
It's hard for me to see it from here, but on that wall there is a map.
And there are certain areas of that map outlined in dark lines -- I
hesitate to call it black-- kind of out in the western third of the
County. And that is the area that we're talking about tonight; just
that area, Comprehensive Plan Amendments that affect that.
And those are the amendments which would follow the -- I can
see it better now, that would follow the governor and cabinet's
mandate to basically fix it. And that's what we're doing. There have
been three years of the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee meetings,
I think they had 54 in all, transmittal hearings back last January and
February before all of the counties agencies: The Environmental
Advisory Commission, the Comprehensive, the Planning
Commission and then for the board.
Page 5
June 18, 2002
We have now gotten the Department of Community Affairs
comments back on those plan amendments in the form of what's
called an ORC, an Objections Recommendation and Comments
Report. And tonight we will focus primarily on many of those
comments, not to ignore what has gone on before, but this has been
a marathon process; this has been three years. So we are focussing
on the things that have occurred since the last county meetings.
In that adoption, I would remind you only that it takes four
votes under your Land Development Code to adopt a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. So what are you graded on when you adopt that
Comprehensive Plan Amendment? The Department of Community
Affairs under our State Statutes will review what the County has
done and make a determination as to whether you have met the
statutory requirements and the Growth Management Act that's
Chapter 163 and also what they call rule 9J5 that is the agency rule
under which they implement those statutory requirements.
Also they will look closely at the final order. And the governor
and cabinet went on for some pages about what we had to meet in
that process. I'm not going to go into the details of that. I think Bill
Lorenz has a slide that would probably explain it a lot more quickly.
What are we not doing? And this is important because earlier,
as I was going off to a conference room to figure out what to say
tonight, I ran into an individual who wondered if the Corps of
Engineers was going to be here tonight and the Department of
Environmental Protection because he thought we were going to be
talking about ROMA's, Regional Offsight Mitigation Areas.
We are not talking about those tonight. We are talking about
those areas outlined in black on the map. If you have an interest in
those, if you own property in those, chances are you would want to
be concerned and sit here. We can't talk about the ROMA's because
Page 6
June 18,2002
it's not within the authority of this board. That is the Collier Soil and
Water Conservation District, an independently elected board that is
dealing with that issue. This board really can't deal with that even if
it wants to.
So, again, that's not the issue in front of you tonight. We're not
talking about Golden Gate Estates. We're not talking about Orange
Tree. We're not talking about what we call the eastern lands, that big
light green area to the east, that's about 195,000 acres, we're only
talking about activities which will be permitted in those areas
outlined in black.
Another question I had been asked a lot is do we have to go
tonight? Can we delay this thing? What's the big hurry? And
somebody pointed out correctly that the statute says once the
Department of Community Affairs sends down their comments in
the form of this ORC, that the County has 60 days in order to
respond and set the public hearing to decide how it's going to react
when it adopts amendments. However, don't forgot we're subject to
a final order.
Governor and Cabinet said, County, you got three years to do
this and you have until, as they started on June 22nd, 1999, you've
got until June 22nd, 2002. Now, about six months ago we got a little
nervous about the eastern lands area -- the 195,000 acres that we're
not talking about tonight and was transmitted just last week --
because in that area the landowners had agreed to get all new data,
and the data was just coming in at the time.
So we went to the Governor and Cabinet and asked for an
extension of time, only until November 1st, and asked what would
happen if we missed the June 22nd date on the fringe. And the
reaction was, don't even ask. We had to get an agreement signed by
all the parties to the litigation before, we had to go in front of the
Page 7
June 18, 2002
Governor and Cabinet and ask them for an extension, and in order to
get one we had to promise that we weren't asking for an extension on
the fringe.
After all, we got three years; nobody else has ever gotten
anything close to that. And there were extenuating circumstances
that involved the eastern lands. We also had to give them a very
detailed schedule. We will have the Environmental Advisory
Committee meeting on such and such a date. We will have this
meeting on such and such a date.
So they were comfortable throughout that process that we
wouldn't need anything. Even then, with all of that, we still had two
folks arguing that they shouldn't give the extension on the eastern
lands, and we just got the order within the last month. So the
question is can you extend from what the Governor and Cabinet
said? I have told people when asked if we miss it by a day, if we do
it on the 23rd, is something bad going to happen to us? Probably
not. Look a little foolish after three years, but nothing bad legally
will happen to you.
A week, that's if-fy. Given the feeling of the Governor and
Cabinet in a month, I would say, I'll sit in the back of the room and
let you guys go up and explain to them why we didn't meet that.
What happens if you don't do it, if you don't do it on time, or you're
ultimately found not in compliance.
If we don't do what the Department of Community Affairs feels
is necessary to bring this into compliance with the statute, they laid
that out in the final order, and what they said was, you got two
choices at that point. You can either face sanctions, and sanctions
under the statute means that the County will lose its revenue sharing,
the County will lose all monies for widening roads, providing water
and sewer grants; stuff like that. The kind of infrastructure things
Page 8
June 18,2002
this county needs. Or you can, you know -- and at the same time the
Department of Community Affairs will write your plan amendment.
And I can tell you, having negotiating with them over the last couple
of months, while some folks would not be comfortable with the
package you have before you tonight, trust me, if DCA had its way,
you would see a lot more stuff in there that would make a lot more
people uncomfortable and wouldn't be tailored to the unique needs
of Collier County.
So what's the process from here? If you act, or when you act, it
is sent to the Department of Community Affairs. They then have 45
days from when they receive it to determine if it's in compliance. If
it meets the statutory and rule requirements, and I suspect there will
be some looking at the final order and all of that, they will then
place an ad in a newspaper. And that's why I mentioned that sign-up
sheet that's outside. If you want to get a copy of that ad which will
be what they call their Notice of Intent, you need to sign up today.
And then any party has 21 days to challenge that determination.
Now, hopefully that determination is going to be, hopefully,
we're in compliance. And I spent an awful lot of time talking to
them, so has the staff, and we have every reason to think that if the
package that's in front of you tonight or something close thereto is
adopted, it will be found in compliance.
Let me just describe the agenda tonight and give people a better
idea of what we're looking at. When I get done, which will be in a
minute, I promise, I'm going to introduce Bob Mulhere and Bill
Lorenz and they're going to take a total of 15 minutes between them
to do an executive summary of the information that they based a lot
of these decisions on, because we need to get them into the record,
although we have big books that go up to the Department of
Community Affairs. And to give you an executive summary of what
Page 9
June 18, 2002
the proposed amendments are, we found in talking to people that
there's a lot of misinformation; not that this is going to fix it, but we
would like, once again, to go on the record about what these
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments will do.
When they're done, Dr. Jim Nichols from the University of
Florida is going to speak for a couple of minutes about Transfer of
Development Rights, TDR's. He's one of the national experts in this
area and just wants to make the point of what kinds of things would
make them work.
Then we have -- we're lucky. Jim mentioned to us that there is
a very successful program in Montgomery County, Maryland, and
we were able to get the former director of planning from that county,
Dennis Canavan, who is with us tonight. He's now with Anarundal,
but he can now explain what made the program successful and
answer any questions you have about that because I know that's a
major concern.
Bob Mulhere will then get back up, talk about the
Environmental Advisory Committee recommendations, the Planning
Commission recommendations, and the responses we have, in fast
form, to the Department of Community for care concerns. They
really were not major concerns. He will also mention there have
been a couple of changes to the document we have in front of you,
and we want everybody to know that at the front end before we go to
public comment.
We have run those changes by the Department of Community
Affairs and feel comfortable with those. At that point, Mr.
Chairman, I would suggest we take a break, let folks move around a
little bit. Hopefully we're talking about an hour and 15 minutes total,
take the break then, and then public comment. It's been my
experience that most governments, given a large number of
Page 10
June 18, 2002
speakers, in order to hear from all of them would limit those folks to
about three minutes. And I know Mr. Mudd at that point can
explain the light system to give people an idea of that.
I would suggest to you at that point you might consider closing
the public hearing, and then you have the ability to ask any member
of the audience, any member of the staff, or consulting team
questions, raise concerns that you have, discuss those without
everybody having the ability to get up and comment on those;
whatever. And at that point, at your pleasure, deliberate and vote.
Any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, but I think the one thing that we
want to make sure that we do is that we get public comment early
enough so that we can complete it at a reasonable time, and then at
that point in time, poll the commission. I'll see if they want to
continue the meeting on the following evening after we finish our
LDC which I understand is a very short meeting, or I'm more than
willing to stay for the duration until we finish the whole thing, but
let's get on with it and see where it takes us. MS. LINNAN: Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob
Mulhere with RWA, Inc. As Nancy indicated. I've been retained by
the County to work on this process and have done so for the last
three years, about the last year and a half as a private consultant for
the County. We're now at the adoption stage of a very long process.
And I just want to reiterate that the final order set forth, really
three primary objectives that we've kept repeating time and time
again, those are: Number one, to protect natural resources including
wetlands and listing species in their habitat. Second one is to direct
incompatible uses away from agricultural lands, preventing their
premature conversion to other uses and fostering agricultural
Page 11
June 18, 2002
economic liability. And the third is to identify lands that may be
appropriate for conversion to other uses.
Now, all of this was to be accomplished while still recognizing
private property rights and by utilizing innovative land use planning
techniques. We believe we have accomplished these objectives set
forth in the final order, and we think we have done it in a manner
that is consistent with the provisions in Florida Statutes Chapter 380
and it's implementing Administrative Rule 9J5.
There's been over 175 hours of advertised public meetings held
during development of this plan to date. Those public meetings
culminated most recently with the EAC and CCPC Adoption
Hearings, and you'll hear more about that in a little while. At this
point I would like to ask -- what we would like to do in keeping with
that 15-minute deadline here is do a brief overview of the plan as it
was proposed at transmittal.
And I would like to start with Bill Lorenz to give you a little
overview of the issue of natural resource protection and how we got
to that. And then I'll continue with the land use strategy, about seven
minutes each. Bill.
MS. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources
Director. You'll recall at the Transmittal Hearing that we had --
basically, we had two days of Transmittal Hearings, February 27th
and March 4th, the staff presented a large amount of environmental
data and analysis. And this was basically summarized from a whole
host of data that we have been developing and working with the
Advisory Committee through those, basically, two years, two and a
half years, that we've been working on the rural fringe.
And what I would like to be able to do today is to just briefly
touch base on the major inclusions that we developed as a result of
Page 12
June 18,2002
that data and analysis because obviously that supports the policies
and the amendments to the plan that you transmitted. And for
tonight what you will be doing is adopting and making any
modifications to respond to the ORC, the O-R-C, the Objections
Recommendations and Comment Report from DCA.
That report was a result of their review after transmittal, and
from an environmental prospective they put that report, they put the
transmittal amendments out to a variety of environmental agencies,
specifically the agencies that deal with the environmental protection
side of the house, Southwest Florida Environmental Management
District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
I think what is very important for me as the Natural Resources
Director, because I was concerned that we were going through the
transmittal that we would not have identified the proper areas for
protection, basically, the DCA came back and had eight objections,
and really there were no substantial environmental objections.
However, there was a letter from True Trust that I'll touch base on at
the end of my presentation dealing with concern of some of the land
that we put in the receiving status as opposed to a sending status.
So I'll make sure I cover that before I turn it back to Bob.
I'm not going to go through the three objectives here of the final
order because Bob touched on them, but I would like to talk about
the second objective and that is from an environmental prospective.
The final order required us to direct incompatible uses away from
wetlands; not only wetlands but also upland habitats, to protect listed
species and their habitats. So when we start talking about the date
and analysis and the rationale for our sending and receiving schemes
and our preservations standards, what we're talking about is an
overall comprehensive planning process to direct those incompatible
Page 13
June 18, 2002
land uses away from not only wetlands but upland habitats, and, of
course, a protected list of species.
We focussed in on, if you recall from our presentation back in
February, of two scales of planning, if you will. A landscape scale,
that is a very large scale, you know, at the square-mile level, if you
will. The big picture, focussing on the big picture. And then we also
developed some strategy that dealt with the project or the site scale.
Those are the individual policies that deal with site preservation,
vegetation retention standards, and some other very specific wildlife
policies.
At the landscape scale, what we're trying to do is we're trying to
prevent the fragmentation of these very large interconnected
systems that we have identified as a result of our data and analysis.
And then at the project scale, of course, as projects or individual
sights are being developed, we have, again, those preservation
standards that will deal with that particular level.
I would like to try to walk you through again in terms of the
final conclusions of the information that translated into our
transmittal policies. What's important about getting to that point is,
again, the identification of these large eco-systems, and the
information that we use to identify these broad areas. And you recall
that I walked you through the land cover data, wetland and upland
cover data that we had from the South Florida Water Management
District database.
That database was based upon areas that were flown in 1994,
1995. Unlike the eastern land's portion of study where they were
able to go out and collect new data, we're relying upon the data that
existed in 1994 and '95 with regard to land cover information.
We also looked at wildlife data. And the wildlife data that we
work with from a variety of Federal and State databases, we were
Page 14
June 18, 2002
able to plot that information and again use that information to find
what our broad protection areas would be. We used information in
terms of what was called the "GAPS report". I know the information
on the GAPS report was based upon 1986, '87 satellite imagery, but
we were able to modify that with the 1994, '95 land cover data.
In fact, we were able to change or reduce some of their habitats
by as much as 17 percent in terms of an average of the whole rural
fringe because we were able to update that database with the '94, '95
land cover data. So this is the information and the data sources that
we use to develop the whole plan and the strategy. And you can see
a number of habitats, what the wetlands and upland types of habitat
and wildlife information that we utilize in this process.
What did we transmit, or what did the board transmit? This
slide summarizes these features that are landscape scales. Our
conservation lands and our sending lands are those lands that have
been established because of their environmental features; they have
significant natural resources within those areas. And, for instance,
let's take a look at wetland land cover. The conservation and
sending lands account for 87 percent of the wetland land cover in the
rural fringe.
Remember the final order, "Direct incompatible land uses away
from wetlands and upland habitats." So in our transmittal to DCA
we said that we're going to direct those land uses away from these
areas and these areas comprise 87 percent of the wetland land cover
in the rural fringe.
You can see, similarly, strategy habitats are those habitats
responsible for listed species. That comes in at 84 percent. We look
at total vegetation within the fringe, that's 82 percent.
Page 15
June 18, 2002
So we've done a pretty good job at directing the incompatible
land uses away from these areas using some of these parameters as
our measures of analysis for the transmittal amendments.
For the receiving areas, what we're doing in those receiving
areas, you'll recall we're going to increase density within those
areas. That's where we want the development to occur, and that's
where it has the least amount of these sensitive habitats.
We walked the Board through a slide presentation that showed
how we applied these preservation standards that we developed at
the project site scale level. So for receiving lands, for instance, we
have a 40 percent vegetation retention standard, even in receiving
lands. So when a development comes into receiving lands, they have
to set an inside of 40 percent of the vegetation. And it goes up in the
scale within sending and natural resource protection areas up to 90
percent.
The conservation lands, of course, are public ownership, so
we're assuming 100 percent preservation within those lands. And
that's an important factor within the fringe because they do tend to
take up a lot of land within the fringe. But that does give us the
overall strategy for natural resource protection. So if we're looking
at vegetation preservation in the fringe within these large areas,
we're talking about 85 percent of the total vegetation in the fringe as
we portioned out these lands and as we applied the preservation
standards. We've done a very good job and DCA I think has
recognized it because we did not receive any substantial
organizations in the ORC report of directing those incompatible land
uses away from the natural land resources within the County, or
within the fringe, I should say.
We also presented the information to the board with regard to
vegetation preservation and the TDR's, the transfer of development
Page 16
June 18, 2002
rights. I'll let Bob talk more specifically about the TDR's.
Remember, we put these high preservation standards in place and
we start reducing some of the allowable uses within the land, we
want to be able to give the property owner the value and the TDR
program provides that value to them. So we start off with a point of
if we don't even have any TDR's we'll be still preserving 85 percent
of the habitat in the fringe, and if we were successful and 100
percent of TDR's were getting used, we're getting close to 89
percent.
Again, this information was sent up to DCA in the transmittal
and this did pass muster with regard to their analysis of how well is
our plan to protect these sensitive habitats. Now as you went
through adoption, of course, at this particular juncture, what we're
proposing is a various land use designations within the fringe. From
an environmental standpoint, the sending lands or those lands that
we are having the high preservation standards and we're directing
the incompatible land uses away from those areas.
You can see in this slide that sending lands is roughly equal to
the receiving lands. So we're able to go through the analysis,
identify the descending lands, and that's where we're going to direct
incompatible land uses away from and we're going to direct it to the
receiving lands with all the myriad of controls and density increases
within the receiving lands as well. So I wanted to make sure that
when we start talking about some of the acreages of the different
land use designations that this is where we are with regard to the
proposed adoptions for tonight.
As I noted, let me just cover real quick -- zoom into the
comment about the crew lands. There is a comment by Ellen
Linglad who is the Executive Director of the Crew Trust and
indicated that these receiving lands that are in blue right here, that
Page 17
June 18, 2002
are west of Immokalee Road and butt up against this particular blue
line here, that those receiving lands are actually within the Crew
Trust acquisition boundaries and they are.
The Crew Trust acquisition boundaries comes out to Immokalee
road. But the staff has recommended that those lands be receiving.
You notice there's a little notch here; that's sending lands, and that's,
actually it's an NRPA sending land. And that particular area is
environmentally sensitive, but the areas north and south of it, the
data analysis would indicates they are not environmentally sensitive.
This is the land that is in question; this is Immokalee Road right
here. This is the notch, if you will, that's within the sending lands,
and you can see that through this area it's highly vegetated. And
then you can see the fields that are north of it and south of it do not
have any vegetation. So when we -- AUDIENCE: Can't hear you.
MR. MULHERE: -- when we begin to analyze the information,
we put this in as the sending area but we left these areas as receiving
areas. One question in the letter is is it a flow way? That would be
where we would be able to pass water through a wetland system.
To get everybody oriented again, here's Immokalee Road, here is the
sending lands, this notch. What's the dark area on this map is
depressional soils. These are wetlands soils that are very hydrant,
they're very wet. These would be the areas that you would expect
the flow way to exist in.
We're outside of these areas; we don't show any type of very
hydrant soil. So we think that from at least staff's prospective, that
we have properly identified as the area of NRPA and the sending
lands with regard to the Crew Trust relationship to Immokalee
Road. That was a question that has come up, so I feel like I needed
to answer that.
Page 18
June 18,2002
With that, Bob, I think you're next.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you, Bill. Bill took up some of my
time, so I'll shorten my time here. Just in summary, again, you have
a land use strategy that does protect the natural resource areas by
designating those lands as sending, and in some cases as NRPA, or
natural resource protection areas sending lands, and allows for the
transfer of the development rights, residential development rights,
from those sending designated lands to receiving lands.
And you also have some lands that the environmental quality
didn't rise to the level of a sending designation but perhaps were not
appropriate for designation as receiving, and those lands retain a
neutral designation and would enjoin all the rights they previously
had. With the implementations of these strategies, there is no
question but that some property owners will experience changes to
their allowable uses that they currently enjoy. They will also be
required to meet higher preservation standards, pretty much
throughout the rural fringe mixed use district.
In order to provide an effective means for those property
owners to recoup the lost value from these new regulations, the
County developed a TDR, or transfer of development rights,
program. And that's a program, which as I said, allows those
property owners to sell or transfer their residential development
rights in all or in part to other interested buyers and transfer them
over to more appropriate lands.
We recognize, and you've heard before the transmittal meeting,
that the track record for TDR programs is really not very good. In
most cases they really have not worked well. However, I think we
were aware of that, and it was for that reason that we enlisted the
services of Dr. James Nicholas who is an economist with the
University of Florida.
Page 19
June 18,2002
Dr. Nicholas, as Nancy indicated, has been involved in
constructing and architecting many successful TDR programs and
provided us with his input as to how we could do the same thing.
And one of those success stories occurred in Montgomery County,
Maryland. And as Nancy indicated, we're fortunate to have Dennis
Canavan to talk about that program.
I would also like to first ask Dr. Nicholas to come up and
briefly remind the Board and the public listening and public in
attendance of the key components of the TDR program that will
make it be successful. And, by the way, I also want to put on the
record that we have incorporated those components into our TDR
program. And Dr. Nicholas will introduce Mr. Canavan and he'll
make a brief presentation and then entertain questions from the
board. Dr. Nicholas.
MR. NICHOLAS: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, good
evening. I'm Jim Nicholas from the University of Florida. The
program or the amendments we have before you contain a TDR
program as of course you are well aware. I have spent a number of
hours with you on a lot of detail of this and certainly would not
repeat that tonight.
The objective of the TDR program is to provide value to the
owners of regulated properties. And the reason for that is that when
you preserve the natural environment of those properties, their
economic value will tend to go down. And so the whole purpose of
the TDR program is to restore or maintain that value and become
severable or sellable for development in other places.
As Mr. Mulhere said, TDR's have a very spotty record, and the
main reason the TDR's have a very spotty record is that the
programs themselves were ill-created from the beginning. A TDR
program has to be clear. You have to have allocations that are clear,
Page 20
June 18, 2002
easily understood. It has to be nonavoidable; there can't be any
escape routes.
Once a TDR is created, what can be done with that TDR has to
be known and people have to be able to do it. They have to be able
to go to a receiving area and do it right; that's what gives the TDR
value. The TDR that you have in your materials is based upon the
successful experiences, a number of jurisdictions, not the least of
which is Montgomery County. It's also based upon the failures, the
knowledge of why they failed, and so that we don't repeat those
mistakes here.
You have every basis to expect that this program would be
successful. You know there is demand here, there is growth here.
And that's the first and most important ingredient. You know that
the property you're dealing with, if developed in receiving areas will
be highly valuable, and that value in turn goes back to those sending
areas. I estimate that the value of TDR is $18,500. Ultimately, of
course, the value will be set by the marketplace. But I suggest that
number to you as something of a mark to give a sense of the dollars
and the values that are on the table.
You've heard all of this from me before. The big question
before you and before everyone in Collier County is will it work?
Will this thing work? And the best way to get some insight into that,
of course, is to turn to those where they have, in fact, done it. And
that's why the presence of Mr. Dennis Canavan is so important.
Mr. Canavan is presently the -- what we would call the Director
of Planning and Zoning for Anne Arundel County in Maryland, prior
to that he was the Administrator for Planning and Zoning for
Montgomery County; one of the more successful programs in the
country. In that role he set out and did the design work several years
ago. Actually, it was about 1980, so we have 20 years of experience
Page 21
June 18, 2002
there. And after doing the design work he was the administrator of
the program for approximately 20 years.
So he's got the experience of looking at what worked and what
didn't work and how to keep it going. And we're very pleased to be
able to have him here this evening to share that actual in the trenches
experience. Dennis.
MR. CANAVAN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission, and to the public. For the record, I'm Dennis
Canavan. And I'm from Anne Arundel County, Maryland. I'm the
Planning Director with Anne Arundel County, and I started that
initiative in 2000.
Prior to February of 2000 1 was, as Jim noted, Planning
Administrator with Montgomery County, Maryland. For 22 years I
assisted in drafting the necessary master plan for the land use
recommendation, the legislation, the regulations to amend the zoning
ordinance and the subdivision regulations, and then I had the
privilege, I refer to it, of administering the program.
Let me say that was not my only responsibility, that once the
program was started it only took about five percent of my time.
And that goes to one of the points that Jim noted in his paper that
there should be simplicity to the program to administrate it. In
reading Jim's program as submitted into the record, let me highlight
several of the issues, because I fully endorse those essential
elements of the program. You'll note on page 32 of his report those
elements, and let me quickly use my own words because this is in
part what Montgomery County did.
First and foremost you have the enabling legislation and public
purpose to implement a TDR program. And let me say a TDR
program is one of several planning tools. You are at that stage where
you have selected TDR's. Montgomery County was at that very
Page 22
June 18, 2002
point in 1978 because we were losing agricultural land at 3,000 acres
per year. And a single-county commissioner and a single-planning
board member said if we don't do something quickly, we're going to
lose that valuable resource.
We instigated a moratorium and asked for a two-year period to
study the project and invoke new regulations. The then county gave
us one year. We wrote a master plan quickly, we advocated the
preservation of agriculture and rural open space for Montgomery
County. And to orient everyone to Montomery County, Montomery
County adjoins Washington D.C. Areas ofBethesda, Rockville,
Interstate 1-95 would be to the east side of Montgomery County, and
Interstate 270 splits it north/south interstate. It joins Fairfax County
to the north and Virginia on the west.
But the County Counsel and the Planning Board said take this
on and preserve TDR's, and do it in such a way that you're equitable
to the sending landowners, to the developers, and to the receiving
areas. And if you can do it, do it at no cost to the County. Point
number two, what are the incentives? You have to have incentives
in the sending area in order to make use of the TDR's, to be willing
to transfer those TDR's. You have to allow incentives to purchase
and to use the TDR's in the receiving areas, and you have to have
confidence that when you do purchase those TDR's you will, in fact,
be able to use them.
There will be no subsequent political decision -- I refer to it as a
rezoning of a receiving area -- subsequent years out. You should do
it up front so the developers know precisely what they can do with
those development rights and it's clearly laid out in your zoning and
subdivision regulations.
Another point that Dr. Nicholas brought up was the simplicity
to administrate the use of TDR's through the developmental process.
Page 23
June 18, 2002
I said earlier initially when the program started out we had to go
through very much like this, an educational program, to teach what
the landowners have in the sending area and the receiving areas, to
understand the development process and to create the mechanics so
every player understood what it was. I refer to myself as sort of a
marriage broker; you have to find necessary sending and receiving
area individuals and then the developers and make the mechanics
work.
And then you have to have compatibility in the receiving areas.
You have to have suitable zoning density and review procedures so
that the neighbors to the receiving areas understand what kind of
development may occur in their areas.
Where was Montgomery County.'? Montgomery County in 1978
had approximately 100,000 acres of area which we refer to as a
sending area. We then went forward to find all the receiving areas,
and we didn't have the blessing, which I think Collier County here
has, insofar as we did not have all the receiving areas to date in
1980. We did not have them all; it was with the confidence of the
County Commissioners knowing that their planning staff and they
themselves, the County council, could find suitable receiving areas.
They adopted the TDR regulations creating the sending areas,
and they said the commitment was find a receiving area for every
TDR created. We've done that. We've done that. To date, we've
transferred in excess of 8,000 transfer development rights, valued at
one unit per five acres. We have in excess of 41,000 acres preserved
by TDR easements.
It is not the only program that we use for preservation in
Montgomery County but it is our most successful program. There
are other issues with regard to TDR's and we don't take them lightly.
Financing TDR's, Mr. Nicholas mentioned about valuing TDR's at
Page 24
June 18, 2002
approximately $18,000. Montgomery County relied on the private
market to facilitate the TDR transfer.
However, let me share with you, Montgomery County also
recognized that we had to instill confidence in the program, and we
started with what we refer to as a TDR fund, a $2 million budget
item to ensure those landowners in the sending areas that the County
is taking it seriously and we will value those TDR's. The money was
appropriated for the purpose of underwriting any commercial loans
that were taken evaluating TDR's as collateral, and in a worst-case
situation, to actually purchase those TDR's.
I'm pleased to say that there was not a single application nor a
single purchase of TDR's, and the reason why it was a high real
estate demand to purchase the TDR's, it was confidence in the
developers to use the TDR's knowing that there was a market for
housing. Now, knowing that there is a market for housing, another
important point of the successful TDR program, and Dr. Nicholas
made reference to it, please adhere to your receiving areas and
allowing the density to increase only by the purchase and use of
TDR's.
If you simply upzone, thereby increasing the density in your
designated receiving areas, you are taking the underpinnings out of
a successful TDR program. You will not have any desire to
purchase and use the TDR's and you effectively downgrade the
significance of a TDR program.
Let me also share with you that over the years, I think I would
compliment the County council of Montgomery County because we
have had six county councils since 1980. We adopted the plan
October, 1980, and we implemented it by downzoning that property
from one unit per five acres to one unit per 25 acres, valuing TDR's
at one per five. We implemented it January 6, 1981, so it's been
Page 25
June 18, 2002
over 20 years of a program and has remained strong in Montgomery
County. Six county councils have been elected and applaud and still
embrace the TDR program.
Ifs not to say -- and I will be the first to admit it -- as Dr.
Nicholas says, you must adhere to a TDR program. I administered
that program for 20 years, and I know over the course of those 20
years I had 19 zoning text amendments to the TDR program. I've
been in court on three issues. We strengthened the TDR program as
a result of some court cases. We amended the program in order to
broaden its influence.
Initially, we started out with a density and receiving areas, more
or less on the fringe; low density capability, one, two units per acre
in receiving areas. And that's in the upper portion of Montgomery
County close to the rural area, close to the resource that you want to
preserve.
But there's other opportunities to employ TDR's. I'm not
suggesting it's here in Collier County, but in Montgomery County in
Bethesda, blocks away from the Washington D.C. boundary, we
have TDR's that can be used up to 100 units per acre; you're on
metro rail system.
I'm not suggesting it here I'm just saying how we broaden the
program over the years and it has been embraced by Montgomery
County, pleased to report. And I would also share with you that I
intend to use it in Anarundal County for purposes of agricultural
conservation and environmentally sensitive lands. Questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, in Collier County we have a
tremendous demand for land. I know the prices have been
continuously rising, so I would assume that these TDR's would take
on a value. I do have concern on how we arrived at the eighteen-
Page 26
June 18, 2002
five, and I would like to see an opening price of 25,000 per unit.
This is one commissioner speaking at the bill to get a feel for the
direction that we should go.
But what I would propose is that we come up with this money
in the financial year 2004 and use that money on a predetermined
basis to buy these units; up to 400 units, at 25,000 to help drive the
market to that price to make these people whole that are going to be
out there taking it under their chin in some cases.
And I kind of feel like the people in your county did that in
order for us to make this program a success, we have to put our
money where our mouth is. We have to be able to stand behind it
100 percent and give it a value and a real value and get it up there to
the point that it's going to make economical sense to do it.
What my question to you is, is this the direction we should be
looking at? How should I modify my thinking on this to make it
work.
MR. CANAVAN: Before I would undertake the dollar amount
-- first of all, to budget money, to appropriate it, and to go after it to
give value to TDR's, I applaud that 100 percent. That's the direction
to go in. To choose that particular dollar value, I would certainly
want to know what is the value of the TDR's in the receiving areas.
Someone has got to purchase that TDR in order to put
residential units or commercial space -- residential units here in
Collier County. In order to purchase that at $25,000, they have to
make a profit on the other side, so I can't speak to the dollars. I
would refer to Dr. Nicholas on that and other members of the staff
and consultants, but the initiative I applaud, to budget the money
and to take it seriously. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Questions.
Page 27
June 18, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Mr.
Lorenz. The data that was used, was that the most recent data that
was available to you to determine the landscape in this area?
MS. LORENZ: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: At this point, I do want to walk you through
the EAC and CCPC and staff recommendations. Actually, before I
do that, just in response to your question, not only did we use the
most recent data in terms of determining the environmentally
sensitive areas of wetlands and listed species habitat; we also
modified any of the data sources with new information that came in
from property owners during that process. So if we had some
information that was different, then the information that we had from
those data sources, we modified that as a result of receiving that
information; just a little addition to your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: I thought perhaps just to start out, very
briefly, it might help that since, really, I think most of the concern
relative to this plan centers around the designation of sending and for
property owners to have that proposed designation on their property.
Just to reiterate a couple points briefly, the proposal is to take the
density in sending lands from one per 5 to one per 40. However, the
transfer rate we would retain for TDR's would be retained at the one
per five.
If you have agricultural uses on your property and you're in a
sending area, as proposed you may continue those agricultural
operations. But you would be precluded from intensifying them or
increasing the area that has been conducted on within sending areas.
If you choose not to participate in the TDR program, you're free
Page 28
June 18, 2002
under the right to farm act to farm and even expand the farming
operations, you do not have to sell all your TDR's.
So if you retain a partial in sending, you may retain not only the
one per 40, but you may retain the additional unit if you so desire.
You can build a house if you have sending lands. You can build a
house on each parcel that existed at the effective date of the final
order.
So if you had two or three parcels that existed at the effective
date of the final order and there were 20 acres, 15 acres, and 5 acres,
you may build a house on each one of those. I think those are just
some issues that maybe, perhaps, bear repeating at this point in time
for the members of the public and listening audience.
Now, I do want to go over the EAC and CCPC
recommendation, and also I believe that David Weeks had
distributed to you errata and addenda sheets which are several pages
of blue and red strike through underlined words. And perhaps it
would be easy, we're going to refer to two documents: The errata
sheet and also the attachment A, which is just behind your executive
summary on the agenda sheet on page six.
Since you have this in your packet, I'm not going to go into a
great deal of detail. I will touch on those issues that there were
revisions to or that there are some issues that bear discussions. Start
out with the EAC vote. June 5th the EAC held its meeting
regarding the adoptions of these amendments and there were five
members present, which made it a little bit difficult because that
would require that all five members vote in favor of the motion.
Since there are nine members on the EAC, any motion that is
carried requires five votes. So everybody present had to vote in
favor.
Page 29
June 18, 2002
The motion was, "To forward the amendments as transferred to
DCA with the changes proposed by staff with the recommendation
of approval subject to the following changes: One, golf courses not
be allowed in greenbelts; two, agriculture be more restricted after
the property owner uses the TDR program." As I indicated, the way
it's proposed now you can continue your ag operations; they wanted
more restrictions. And, "Three, delete the uses of sewer lines and lift
stations from conservation designated lands, sending lands, and
NRPA's."
That vote technically failed. The vote was three to two with
two members in opposition to that motion. Now, it would be my
interpretation of the EAC's motion was the two members that voted
in opposition were not voting necessarily in opposition to
forwarding these amendments with the recommendation of approval
but that they specifically identified that there were some of those
three conditions, all or part, that they did not agree with.
The Planning Commission held its meeting on June 6th and 7th,
somewhere exceeding ten hours of public hearing, and their motion
will take a little bit more work because there was a number of
elements associated with it. And I'm going to go over those and
also that will bring us to the errata sheet, and it will give me the
opportunity to tie all of that together with the DCA, ORC and the
objections and comments contained therein.
And I should mention, I don't think it's been mentioned yet, that
the DCA's objections -- if we fail to address the DCA's objections,
that may be a basis for finding of noncompliance. We believe we've
satisfied their objections, and we've been in close contact with them
as Nancy indicated. But just for the record, if we were to fail to
address, in their opinion, their objections, that could be a rationale or
a basis for finding of noncompliance.
Page 30
June 18, 2002
The reason I say that is because alternatively their comments
are not binding in nature, and they will not be the basis for a finding
of noncompliance. However, we have gone ahead and tried to also
address each of their comments as well. Starting on the bottom of
agenda page six, or actually on the top of agenda page seven, the
Planning Commission's motion was, "Forward the amendments as
transmitted to DCA with changes proposed by staff that the
recommendation of approval subject to the following changes and
revisions."
The first one dealt with the provision of golf courses being
allowed within the greenbelt that is required to surround the rural
village. That was also a condition of the EAC's motion, and that was
also raised in the comment portion of DCA's ORC. It was not a
suggestion but it was a comment.
We proposed that golf courses be allowed within receiving
areas because -- excuse me, within rural village greenbelts because
they are within the receiving area, and golf courses are permitted in
receiving areas. However, we support the CCPC's recommendation,
the staff does, and their recommendation was to -- I think it's on the
errata sheet -- their recommendation was to allow golf courses
within the greenbelts but only within the first 100 feet of the edge of
the greenbelt either from within the rural village into the greenbelt or
on the outside of the rural village in the receiving lands into the
greenbelt, and we supported that.
The second condition of the Planning Commissions'
recommendation was dealing with the allowances of the sewer lines
and lift stations within conservation and sending lands. That was
also an issue that was raised at the EAC. And the Planning
Commissions' recommendation, as you can see before you, was to
basically require that the sewer stations that -- sewer lines or lift
Page 31
June 18, 2002
stations that might go through a sending or conservation area would
first be directed to areas within an existing right of way or right of
way easement that are clear, thereby minimizing any impacts to the
natural resources. And, alternatively, if there had to be some
clearing to accommodate a line
area, it would be a sending use.
recommendation.
running a conservation or sending
We have no problem with that
If I could, I'm just going to step to the map quickly. There is a
little, for example, there is a little area of sending here that, you
know, presumably that a line may be necessary to run through that
area. And that was the example that we thought would make that
something that we wouldn't want to entirely preclude in the future.
Number three on the top of page eight, "Use TDR's to
encourage work-force housing through the residential infield bonus
and the density rating system." And we concur with that provision,
and we think it's a very good idea. But rather than trying to structure
a policy at this point in time relative to residential infield in the
urban area, we would defer that to the Affordable Housing
Committee. That would be something that we hope they would look
at and bring forward in a future amendment.
Examples might include allowing, by right, an increasing
density in providing a bonus for affordable housing and infield. It
really doesn't have a great deal to do with the issues of the rural
fringe mixed use or the TDR's. Now, another matter is affordable
housing within rural villages, and Commissioner Fiala has raised
some questions about how we might ensure that there would be
affordable housing in rural villages, and I will deal with that. I have
that on my list of questions to deal with.
Number four deals with section 24. And the Planning
Commission's recommendation was to change the designation from
Page 32
June 18, 2002
sending, which is what we transmitted, to neutral, but to require the
vegetation and retention standards of sending lands and then within
one year to go ahead and complete the red cockade woodpecker
survey which is part of the Board's transmittal motion.
This was not an issue raised by the DCA, by the way. But we
support the Planning Commission's recommendation. I just want to
remind you of what --
AUDIENCE: We can't hear you.
MR. MULHERE: --just want to remind you of what transpired
at the Planning Commissions transmittal hearing, Section 24 was
designated at receiving. Subsequent to that meeting, some additional
data came forward that there was some red cockade woodpecker
habitat in that area, and that was discussed at the board meeting.
And at the board meeting your motion included designating Section
24 as sending with direction to staff to complete this red cockade
woodpecker survey within one year, and then, if necessary, bring
back that designation for you to reconsider based on that red
cockade woodpecker survey.
The Planning Commission took a slightly different approach at
their adoption hearing and suggested we go back to neutral --
actually, we're not going back to neutral; we're going to neutral,
which was the staff recommendation at your transmittal hearing --
but apply the higher preservation requirements of sending lands.
Now, this would allow the property owner to have all the uses
that he previously enjoyed but he would have to meet the higher
preservation requirements which would protect the red cockade
woodpecker or other listed species habitat if, in fact, it exists. We
would still complete that survey and bring back those findings to
you. And so we supported that recommendation; it seemed it was
the appropriate recommendation.
Page 33
June 18, 2002
Number five on top of page nine of your agenda packet dealt
with some changes to the industrial area that you directed me on
designated industrial, the 300 plus or minus acres close to the
landfill. And really all we have done there is set out specific
preservation standards and also amend the list of permitted uses in
that industrial area so that it's the same as it would be for urban
industrial. And, again, that was the recommendation of CCPC and
staff and certainly has no objection to that and we feel like that
makes sense.
On the next page, ten, really that's just a list of all of the
preservation standards that would be applying to the various
designations, and we added a reference to all of the designations
under the Comprehensive Plan rather than just the rural fringed
mixed use district. And I got to remember to refer to the errata so
that I don't miss something here.
AUDIENCE: Fifteen minutes; time is up.
MR. MULHERE: Page 11, the top of page 11. We
increased the qualifying acreage for density blending where it was
adjacent to sending lands for 88 acres to 400 acres which really
limited the application of that, and that was an issue raised by the
DCA and we feel -- and we spoke to them and we feel that
addresses their concerns. There were also some revisions or
clarifications on some of the references to that throughout the
document.
On page 12, we have an issue related to oil extraction and
related processing, and I think you'll recall from the Transmittal
Hearing that this was an issue that the Colliers have retained -- I say
the Colliers collectively; I mean the Collier family, different entities
-- have retained the right to extract oil and gas from underneath the
property that they may have otherwise sold off in the fee simple
Page 34
June 18, 2002
format or otherwise donated to federal management, Federal
government, State government. And we had not really raised this
issue as staff because we felt that that was something that they
enjoyed for a long time, and it was a right that they had, that they
could extract that without really impacting natural resource areas if
they needed to. And we really didn't want to necessarily pick a fight
over that issue.
However, the issue came up by several environmental groups
that they were concerned about that use. And DCA at one point
indicated, well, we want to take a close look at this. We want to see
how we feel about this. And so we have kept in touch with DCA
through this process, and as recently as within just several days ago
they've indicated to us that they would not have a problem if the oil
and gas extraction use remained a permanent use as it has all along
through this process. And so obviously if they're not going to
objecting, it's not going to be a noncompliance issue; we would not
have a problem with that. You may hear some comments from other
stakeholders on that issue.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me, Bob. I understand
oil extraction permitting is really under very tight scrutiny by the
Federal and State agencies, and we've done it for years.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. There is a very significant
amount of regulation, and I'm sure there are representatives that will
speak under public comment to put that on the record as well.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Number eight is just the incorporation of
standards protecting wetlands within the rural fringe from
hydrologic alterations.
Number nine on page 14, "To provide adequate staff to
implement provisions of wetland and wildlife protection policies,"
Page 35
June 18,2002
That was the Planning Commission and obviously there is no
objection from the staff on that part.
Number ten, "Provide for appropriate land uses and intensities
with NRPA's," and we believe that we have done that. We have
clarified the language to address the DCA's comment -- excuse me,
objection with respect to that.
Number 11 we have already gone over. There was an issue
about the land north of the landfill that the County owns, that
surplus land, and there was a request on the part of the Planning
Commission that that be clarified to indicate that the intent was not
an expansion of the landfill, that there are some uses that are
appropriate but that was not the intent; and we clarified that
language in here.
Number 12 was the deletion of the reference to a scarcity of a
specific type of rock in the North Belle Meade overlay, and we've
gone ahead and we agree with that; we have taken that phrase out.
And number three was a major change, changing shall from
may -- or, excuse me, changing may to shall.
And number ! 4 was clarifying language provided per minimum
clearing standards. It just didn't appear to be clear to the Planning
Commission what our intent was. We went back in and revised that
language; we believe it's now clear.
I do have a couple other issues on the errata; I just want to make
sure I have gotten to all of them. You have in front of you, but if
there's something that needs to be put on the record, I would just like
a minute to look through it. We added some language pursuant to
the comments from DCA and other agencies relative to the
management plan or Southeastern American Kestrel, on page two of
the errata sheet.
Page 36
June 18, 2002
Under rural villages on the top of page four you'll see the
language I refer to regarding golf courses only being allowed within
100 feet on the very top of the paragraph on page four. On page four,
item number four-- the FLUE -- page 60 to 80 refers to exemptions
from the rural fringe mixed use district development standards. We
have revised that language to make -- to minimize the exposure of
exemptions but also to provide the appropriate exemptions for those
projects that have been submitted and are not subject to the final
order and should be exemptions.
I said I would talk about -- Commissioner Fiala had raised an
issue regarding affordable housing in rural villages. The intent on
rural villages was that they be mixed-use, not only in the types of
uses, commercial and residential, but also in the types of residential
uses. And I think, as you're aware, we have created a bonus in the
plan for developers who would come in and get an approval for a
rural village, would also get a bonus for providing work force or
affordable housing.
I think the issue was one of strengthening or adding a policy
that would ensure that we would look at what the criteria and
qualifications for that bonus would be and perhaps establishing some
minimum amount in that rural village. And we think that's a very
good observation, astute observation, and one I think we can
accomplish. And I pared some language that would go in plan right
in the rural village section where it would go that would read,
"Within one year, the County will develop qualifications and criteria
for work force affordable housing density bonus, including a
minimum percentage, in order to qualify for the above reference
bonus." And I think that gets to that issue.
Page 37
June 18, 2002
We don't want to do it here on the fly; we can do it in an LDR
and bring it back in a land development regulation. But at least in
the policy in there, we will make sure it happens.
Secondly, the point was raised by Commissioner Henning on
several occasions regarding the fact that there might be some lands
owned by the County, the State, or the Federal government located
within receiving or neutral areas where the County could work with
the appropriate agencies to negotiate a swap to exchange those lands
within the receiving or neutral areas for lands that are owned by
private property owners in sending lands.
In fact, Marty Chumbler indicated to me before the meeting
here that that is contemplated in the Burchey/Harris Act. So we
think that would be an appropriate provision. I don't know if there's
going to be circumstances, but by putting in a policy, and we would
work with those agencies to, one, identify the lands and, two,
develop and work towards creating a swap so that property owners
instead of maybe having to transfer their units could actually give the
County, State, or Federal government lands within the sending areas
in exchange for lands they already own, those agencies already own
in receiving or neutral. I hope I got that right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I went on the
GIS map and there are lands that the State would like to have and it's
not an eminent domain but it's a willing seller program. And I think
that program can benefit and also the people, the private people, that
own land that the State wants can benefit on lands that the State
owns. And I think it's a win/win for everybody. In this case, the
landowners that would want to swap, I think they would become
whole.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good idea. Another tool in the
tool box, Commissioner Henning.
Page 38
June 18, 2002
MR. MULHERE: And I actually structured some language for
that policy, "Collier County will identify lands owned by the
County, State, or Federal government which are designated receiving
or neutral and will work with the applicable agencies to facilitate a
swap of these lands with lands that are privately owned and
designated as sending, or which are located in targeted acquisition
areas." So I think that covers both of those areas.
There is one thing I don't think I was clear on; I got a note and I
appreciate that. On the oil traction and related processing, we had--
the transmittal recommendation was to change that to a conditional
use and now we're talking about putting it back to a permitted use.
But I did want to bring up that the Planning Commissions
recommendation of requiring that, at least initially, that the
extraction, if it's possible, be achieved through directional boring
which would minimize environmental impacts could certainly also
be attached to that permitted use, or that if there are areas that are
clear and surface or drilling -- I don't know if that's the right word,
but instead of directional boring going straight down-- that, if
possible, that that first be directed to cleared areas; that would
minimize impact. So I think we can retain those provisions but also
make it a permitted use.
Have I forgotten anything? I think that concludes it. I think at
this point we wanted to take a break. No, Nancy has got to say
something first.
MS. LINNAN: Let me mention a few things before we take a
break. For now, at this time, we would have public comment. Two
things, a reminder to those individuals -- and could I ask the
interpreter to step forward. Where is our interpreter.
We're about to take a break, and I want the folks to know what
the staff recommendation is so we will be taking comment on
Page 39
June 18, 2002
number one and number two, to know that you would be available to
assist any of them that would like your assistance in making your
comment. So if they can find you during the break so they will
know to come to the podium, will you? Commissioner Coletta
asked that you be able to do that to assist them in your presentation.
THE INTERPRETER: The gentleman wanted me to make
clear it is not -- I said if anyone has any comments after the break
that I will be available to help them. He wants me to make clear
that it's not to comment or to make comments but to speak. MS. LINNAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's just worthwhile to
emphasize, once again, and perhaps through the interpreter that this
hearing has nothing to do with ROMA. We will not make any
decisions about ROMA, it is not within our jurisdiction to make
decisions about ROMA. So that people are not disappointed, we're
not talking about ROMA.
THE INTERPRETER: Even if we're not dealing with ROMA,
the citizens have the right to speak and to defend the areas where
they are living in and to express their comments -- concerns.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When we come back, we're going to
allow everybody to speak three minutes. They can speak on ROMA
if they wish, even though that's not a subject we're dealing with
here, that we don't have the authority, but they're more than willing
to speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I object to that, too. There are
people here who have legitimate concerns about the rural fringe
study. I believe their concerns deserve our direct and exclusive
attention.
Page 40
June 18,2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
disagreement with respect to who
I think that's a decision by the
And I think if there's any
speaks, the Board should make
that decision. The comments of people who do not live in this area,
who do not own property in the area under consideration, have
absolutely no bearing upon what we're doing here today. And so if
we -- so I would suggest --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Order. Okay. Let the
Commissioner finish, and then we'll all have a chance for comments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would suggest that the
Board take a vote on this issue, and let majority of the Board
determine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll make a motion at this point in
time that we allow the citizens that come out here to speak to speak
about the subject they wish to speak about for the three-minute time
period that's allotted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that going to include the
vegetable crops that are growing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me put it this way,
Commissioner Henning, three minutes is not going to be the end of
our lives, and I'm sure there's not going to be that many of them that
are speaking about subjects other than we have before us but try to
restrict them to the point where we're going to cut them off in mid-
sentence. And how are you going to cut off somebody that's going
to do them in Spanish? Are you going to let them finish and then
the next person in English you're going to prejudice yourself by that
person being cut off and not being able to speak.
I say we should use a little bit of accord in this particular thing,
and a little common sense, and allow these people to speak about
Page 41
June 18, 2002
what they want.
evening was to
able to speak.
That's why we schedule this meeting for 5:00 in the
give these people time to come from work and be
Thereupon, (The audience applauded)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I guess if nobody minds
being here in the mid-night, but I would think that if you want to
address the subject and a lot of people here have land that they want
to talk about that's in this particular area. I mean, why would you
want to talk about something that we can't do anything about, that's
not on our written pages, that has nothing to do with anybody else in
the audience? It's like coming up to the podium because you want to
speak and talking about your cat. I mean, it has nothing to do with
today. I don't understand that. We can't do anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The thing is how are we going to
limit them to exactly one subject? If the ROMA subject is important
to them, it's probably going to fail for the lack of a second in which
case we'll go forward. I don't have a second on this I take it. Would
somebody like to make a second motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion we restrict the
input to the agenda and to the subject at hand.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If we clarify that, Commissioner
Coyle, that that says the purpose of this meeting tonight is to talk
about the rural fringe transmittal. If you have other business in this
commission, we have two regularly scheduled meetings a month
under public comment of which you can exercise that prerogative. I
will not entertain anything other than what's in front of this board
tonight, and I will second your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one piece of discussion, being
that so many people are interested in speaking about ROMA, why
don't we arrange some time type of a meeting with the soil people to
Page 42
June 18,2002
talk to the people about ROMA where they would actually get
answers to their questions? I mean, we don't even have anything to
do with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the problem. We know
nothing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They need to speak, but they need
to speak to something that can do somebody about it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. There are ROMA
meetings, and certainly ROMA should talk with them, but ROMA is
not a jurisdiction of this organization. We don't have any control
over ROMA. We didn't dream it up, we're not supporting it, we'll
never vote on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It will never come before us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is nothing that we can do
about it. ROMA has nothing to do with Collier County Government.
End of story. You get up here and speak all night long and we're
not going to be able to help you. So what I would encourage you to
do is to go to the people who are sponsoring ROMA and ask them
the questions. They might be able to help; we can't.
There are ROMA meetings scheduled, and I think if anybody
has any information about when and where they're scheduled they
should be announced to night so people can go. But I doubt if we
even know that because we're not involved in ROMA.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just a moment, please. We have a
motion from Commissioner Coyle and we have a second from?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Carter. I'm still
here, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I wasn't too sure who
made the second with all the commotion that was going on. With
that is there any other discussion.
Page 43
June 18,2002
MS. LINNAN: I hate to do this at this point, but can I have a
clarification of the motion because what you have before you
tonight are what we call the rural fringe amendments. Some of those
amendments affect property outside the fringe, particularly with
regard to environmental policies. So I believe I heard the maker of
the motion say "to these amendments," in which case you need to
know it will affect some properties in the County, not eastern lands,
but some properties in the County outside the actual fringe areas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will it affect the ROMA lands.
MS. LINNAN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That is the intent of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's the intent of the second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Without further adieu, I'll call for
the motion. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. ALL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed.9 Aye. Please put me on
the record as being in opposition. Go ahead.
MS. LINNAN: One more thing, can I just make clear what is in
front of you is a staff recommendation. So if members of the
audience would like a copy of the errata sheet, I can supply it to
them. It's the information in this book, which is out front, as
amended by the information and what staff provided as an errata and
addendum to the Board of County Commissioners, Rural Fringe
adoption, Growth Management Plan Amendments, June 18th, 2002,
and permanently done up in orange and blue, University of Florida
Gator colors. I would add to that a couple items. Having my lawyer
with me helps. She has been reviewing these amendments and
noticed we missed a couple, and in terms of the staff
recommendation on oil extraction related processing which we will
Page 44
June 18, 2002
now recommend be permitted uses. You would also need to strike
subparagraph G on page 167 of your packet, and I will remind you
later, if this is your intent, and subparagraph three on page 177 of
your packet. That would also be amended by the affordable housing
language that Mr. Mulhere read, and the language on the swaps with
governmental agencies that Mr. Mulhere read.
Finally, in looking at this document, we have another one on
that oil and gas extraction. We would also need to strike the words
on subparagraph H on page 168 of the packet that says, "If a
conditional use of the such would prove." That would clarify the
packet.
I would also ask the permission, the board, if it deems
appropriate that the staff be able to make nonsubstantive changes. I
noticed a number of typos; just those types of things in this
document. And with that that is the recommendation that is in front
of this board. And when we come back, if Mr. Mudd could please
explain the light system to those who would be speaking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We will now take a break for 15
minutes. We will convene again at five minutes to the hour.
Thereupon, (A break was taken from 6:39 p.m. until 6:55 p.m.
and the meeting continued as follows:)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, please take
your seats. Before we begin with the speakers, if you wish to speak
and you haven't turned in a speaker slip yet, if you take a few
minutes to do that it would be very much appreciated. Possibly, if
our translator could also relay that to the Spanish-speaking people in
the audience at the microphone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd.
MR. MULHERE: Or Mr. Mulhere, either way. We have gone
through that set ofjokes either way. It was necessary for me to just
Page 45
June 18, 2002
correct, or perhaps clarify a statement that I made regarding the
Planning Commission recommendation. I had a conversation with
Mr. Mark Strang who sits on the Planning Commission and also
helped structure this recommendation and felt I hadn't adequately,
although it's correct in the report, I hadn't adequately explained the
Planning Commission's motion relevant to the oil extraction and
related processing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page what.
MR. MULHERE: You'll find that on page 12 of your agenda
package, and it's item number seven in the middle of the page. And
I'm just going to read verbatim the motion, "Was to allow oil
extraction and related processing as a permitted use first through the
use of directional drilling techniques to the maximum extent possible
to locate the surface footprint outside the conservation designated
land, NRPA's, and non-NRPA's sending lands, and placement of
drilling and supporting equipment in non-vegetated areas. And,
secondly, if directional drilling cannot be used, then the impact shall
be limited to already cleared areas. Third, if the above two options
are not met, only allow oil extraction and related processing as a
conditional use." So that, I mean, is verbatim what their motion was
with respect to that, and I felt it was appropriate to clarify that on the
record if I have not properly stated that earlier, although it was
correct in the report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what we've submitted?
MR. MULHERE: That's what the Planning Commission's
recommendation was. At this point, based on the conversations
we've had with DCA and representatives of the property owners, we
are proposing that that be a permanent use, not a conditional use.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So item number three would be
stricken in the final discussion if we were to stay with this decision?
Page 46
June 18, 2002
MR. MULHERE: Correct. There's actually a number of places
that Nancy iterated where they would have to be corrected because
if the Board stays with allowing that as a primitive use. And I know
you have public speakers as I indicated on both sides of those issues.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we ready for the speakers?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, we have 48 speakers. I'll call
off the speakers' names, I would ask if you be prepared to speak as I
call the names for the person speaking and the following name. So
the first speaker is Eliu Vega, followed by John Vega.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One short note while the gentleman
is on his way to the podium. I'm going to ask the audience to respect
the rights of the speakers that speak, not to interfere, not to applaud
or boo, but allow them to exercise their right to speak. Also we're
limited to three minutes, if you make your point well and you're
going to follow somebody that's already made the point, you may
wish to waive at that point in time just by taking your hand and
going like that (indicated) and we'll move on to the next speaker.
MR. WEIGEL: State your name for the record.
MR. VEGA: I am Mr. Vega. And my wife, Virginia Vega. I
am here to complain about this project because this project is only
going to benefit the high-end people. They're trying to take away a
piece of land that poor people have, killing us, working like animals
to have this piece of land, and they're trying to take it away from
them to protect and give benefits to the rich people who got on the
white shirts. Thank you very much.
Let all the Latin people be united because we have all worked
together hard to build up this piece of land.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Page 47
June 18, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: John Vega followed by Rolando, it looks like,
Mesa.
MR. VEGA: Good evening, and a remarkable coincidence,
similar to the Michael Jordan commercials, I'm also Mr. Vega. I do
not own land in the rural fringe, but I am here on behalf of Dr.
Francis D. Hussey, Jr. and Mary Pat Hussey. They own
approximately 1,100 continuous acres in the southern half of
sections 29, all of sections 32, and some scattered lands in sections
33. That's all township 41, range 27 east.
On your maps that would be the North Belle Meade Burma. It
would not be in the protected area; it would be in the sending area on
the left-hand side. In fact, portions of it would border the receiving
areas which is the blue land. I do not wish to denigrate the amount
of time that staff has put into the herculean task on behalf of my
clients, so I must object to the proposal before the County here
tonight.
The reason is that the TDR proposal compensates for lost
residential uses. It does not compensate for any other type of lost
uses. My client has a contract with Florida Rock for earth mining.
Road bed grade rock exists on the land. It neighbors the land that
APAC and an additional landowner are using for earth mining.
In fact, the neighboring landowner who has a better attorney
than my client, evidently, has not only had his current use permitted
but is encouraged to expand earthmining on to 2,000 acres enjoining
my clients property. Perhaps there are some occasions for a
monopoly is in the benefit of the consumer; I cannot imagine this is
one of them.
By designating my clients land as sending lands, not only is a
permitted use or at least a possible use that has existed on the land
since acquired in 1988 be taken away, it's not even listed as a
Page 48
June 18, 2002
conditional use. I think it makes sense to list the areas as a
conditional use, examine what areas might be mined, examine the
value of the rock, examine the value of the County of possibly
having competition in sources of road bed grade rock for road
expansion in the future and make a determination at that time.
The current program flatly prohibits it. I know that learned
folks here of Carlton Fields would disagree with me, but I can't
imagine for the life of me how that won't be a taking. Someone has
an investment-backed expectation, they acquire 1,000 land acres 14
years ago, they have a residential density of one unit per five acres,
they have potential uses as earthmining. Their potential using of
earth mining be taken away, their maximum density is being taken
downgraded to one use in 40. I greatly respect our Chairman
Coletta's estimate or proposal as to what a TDR should be worth.
That's getting close to what the economic value of this land would
be, right around 5,000 an acre, maybe 6,000, maybe 7,000.
The TDR proposal as it's structured gives one unit per 40 acres
taken away regardless of whether someone owns 25 scattered 40-
acre parcels or one continuous 1,000-acre parcel. There's a world of
economic difference between the two. You can build a Grey Oaks
on a continuous 1,000-acre parcels; you can't do it on a scattered 25-
acre parcel. As it is put forward, and I noticed at the Planning
Commission, there was some discussion of allowing flexibility in
the assessment of TDR's to bear in mind the greater economic value
of continuous parcels and nonresidential uses.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll ask you to wrap it up, sir.
MR. VEGA: I ask that the council consider either adopting
flexibility in the TDR proposal or in adding earthmining as a
conditional use within the sending areas, or else I don't see an
alternative to litigation.
Page 49
June 18, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Rolando Mesa followed by John Cowan.
MR. MESA: Good afternoon. I think that if we distribute
property at the time that has been used for all the speakers, we're
going to make a better use of it. I don't know too much about what's
being said here. My problem is that we're defending the animals
natural influx of water, and I am wondering if you want to give back
all of this land, all of this part of Florida, to that seal.
Since Mr. Collier did the Tamiami Trail, he destroyed the
natural fluxation of water with that street. Then they built bridges to
allow the water to continue running; after that they started the
process of building and building houses. I believe that around the
year '3 5 there was a big tornado -- hurricane, a big hurricane, that
caused a lot of flooding in Miami; maybe here, too.
And my understanding of engineers of this country of the
military designed and built a series of canals to drive the water
towards the sea and to avoid flooding. I do not understand why here
and now they want to stop the development and the construction
which is what benefits the country. To those people who are
defending the animals, reservations were made for the Indians to
live in, why don't they make some habitats for the animals,
specifically for the animals, to protect them.
Regarding the gentleman who's saying the property is going
down in value, it is due to all this problem. That's why, because
they're not allowing the construction to go forward. I believe there
has to be some other alternative, or some other alternatives, and not
stop the construction or protect the animals.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You need to make your final point.
MR. MESA: I would like to know if those who protect the
animals so much have some animals and they care for them.
Page 50
June 18, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're past the three-minute time. I
ask him for final comment.
MR. MESA: There must be some other alternative aside from
this project and not accepting this project without studying
alternatives.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: John Cowan followed by Donald Pickworth.
MR. COWAN: John Cowan, 37 years engaged in the real
estate business in Naples. I'm a broker, I'm not a developer, and I'm
certainly not a spectator. Something distinctly unfair has happened
in Section 24, which is my favorite section; it's not something I fell
upon by accident. Nine years ago I became interested in Section 24
and I bought up the middle third of it.
It's by far the most valuable part of the rural fringe area. There
is no land comparable to it. It's both very, very high, very, very dry,
slash pine entirely; and it's right off the eastern terminus of Golden
Gate Parkway. It's an extremely unique and valuable piece of the
rural fringe area.
Over the nine years I bought the 102 acres in six different
transactions, all the while getting nonstop assurances from your
planning division that I had one residence per five acres zoning. I
was entitled to build one house for every five acres; that's 20 houses.
Something bad happened on February 22nd, bad for me, $700,000
bad, because my land was reduced to sending, and demoted to
sending.
That means six residences instead of 20; that's a loss of 14 at
$50,000 each, even after Dr. Nicholas has reimbursed me for the
TDR's.
As a young man with limited financial resources, I can't absorb
that type of a beating. It was a closed meeting and it was a secret
Page 51
June 18, 2002
meeting, and it was held after my land was sent up as receiving land
to the Planning Commission and to you commissioners. And it was
approved by the Florida Wildlife Federation and Audobon Society,
and by your own planning division. Now it's sending. That's absurd.
It's the worst possible piece of land to be a conservancy issue.
Most of the trees are gone; 60 percent of the trees have either
been removed or are going to be removed when they build the
school up in the northwest comer. Going counterclockwise,
Southwest Florida is the Old Naples Citrus Farms. Every citrus tree,
orange trees mostly, has been removed to build a golf course, which
has no trees on it. The southeast comer is Della Drive, which is
closely packed house; there's no trees there whatsoever. And in the
northeast comer, of course, is the American Farmsman, the largest
nurseries in Collier County. There's nothing growing there higher
than an 18-inch petunia.
This was all done with respect to the woodpeckers. There has
never been a woodpecker sighted on my land, and we have
numerous studies made by three of the best land use people in the
County. They have never found a cavity, they have never found a
nesting area, never found a woodpecker on my land, which, I admit,
is dense slash pine; very ideal for woodpeckers.
Why did they make the northwest comer neutral? Because it's a
school board, and they are taxpayer? I'm a taxpayer, too; a very
major one in Collier County. Why should we be neutral? Why not
make the whole section neutral? It seems to me that's an easy
compromise. I have to back off from receiving to neutral and that
hurts me, but I'm willing to do that.
Otherwise, it's totally unfair and prejudicial to single me out for
special treatment. As far as neutral with some hokied up garbage-
type of arrangement on retention, I can't build that grand, obviously,
Page 52
June 18, 2002
if the retention is not more than 60 percent. And furthermore, on
behalf of the 220 other landowners that I've seen their property
values decimate in Section 24, that's not going to be acceptable.
Thanks very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Don Pickworth followed by Cindy Kemp.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Don
Pickworth. I respect not only Mr. Cowan, but also other members of
his family who have interest in the property that he has accumulated
in Section 24, and also Mr. Tom Buckley who owns 80 acres
adjoining Mr. Cowan's, kind of wrapping around the nursery that's in
the northeast comer.
I'll try not to be repetitive of what Mr. Cowan said, but I think a
few things bear repeating.
The property that was designated throughout the entire -- all of
Section 24, throughout the entire process, was designated as
receiving land. It is even designated as receiving land in the report
of the Audobon Society and the Florida Wildlife Federation which
in the book was transmitting under a memo on January 30th, 2002.
It went to the Planning Commission designated as receiving
land; it left the Planning Commission as receiving land. And, as
Mr. Cowan stated, a few days later in a staff level meeting, the
recommendation was to go all the way from receiving to sending.
But interestingly enough, the school board property, right adjacent to
Mr. Cowan's, was neutral.
Now, there's no habitat or resource base reason for that kind of
a distinction. And we have been complaining mightily, as you
know, about this inequity ever since.
The decision made by the Board at the transmittal hearing to
keep ascending and subjected to some kind of a habitat study just
Page 53
June 18,2002
continues the inequity because there are hundreds of acres of similar
pine habitat in the already designated receiving areas in the North
Belle Meade area which are not going to be required to prove their
environmental bona fides, if you will. Only these few pieces of
property in Section 24 have been singled out for this kind of
treatment.
We think that is highly inequitable. The Planning Commission
attempted to make some adjustment to that. The Planning
Commission's recommendation, as Mr. Mulhere indicated earlier to
you, was that this property be neutral but be subject to the
preservation requirements of sending lands. Those are extremely
onerous sending requirements, and, again, unjustified, given the fact
that this is upland pine habitat; just like hundreds of other acres in
North Belle Meade which is favored with the best classification,
receiving.
And so our feeling is the only -- and we're willing, as Mr.
Cowan said, we'll go from receiving to neutral. We think that's a fair
compromise. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Next speaker.
MR. WEIGEL' Cindy Kemp followed by Lynda Hittinger.
MS. KFiMP: Cindy Kemp, Property Rights Action Committee.
I used to live around the comer from Cal Ripkin in Northern
Baltimore County; so I am familiar with Montgomery County. And
it's a beautiful county. I think it might be number one or number two
in affluence, and it happens to be in a metropolitan area.
I don't know if those things have any bearing on what we're
doing in Collier County, but that might be something to take up for
consideration. As we sat down tonight and Nancy told us that
everything has to get approved and all of that, my husband ribbed me
and said, "It's a slam-dunk; it's over." But I told him, you know, your
Page 54
June 18, 2002
brother, who is the number one salesperson for the top negotiating
company in the United States, and he would say, "Everything is
negotiable." So please remember that, everything is negotiable.
Transfer of development rights top down planning in disguise,
radicals in the 1930's had a favorite saying, "Take it easy, but take it."
The most successful strategies today are processing that demand
active public participation, thereby creating an illusion of popular
control and bottom-up policy and decision-making. And in every
case where property owners' rights and the land itself had been
trampled by agents from the Fish and Wildlife Services and the Army
Corps of Engineers, thousands of quiet takings are extracted by local
governments using TDR's.
TDR's. What are TDR's? Who in their right mind would give
away their rights? Only people who don't understand that their
property rights are the basis to give them power. It empowers them.
That's the basis of our constitution, our property rights.
This is nothing more than a conservation easement and giving
away people's property rights. When you give away rights, I think if
I go in the morning into my closet to get my closet to get my clothes
out, and I have certain clothes I want to pick out, I have the right to
pick out different clothes. It's not prestashed in there by my husband;
I have the choice to pick which clothing I want.
If I don't like it I can chuck them out, I can go to the store, I can
buy something else; but I have the right.
Once those rights are taken away, they're gone, and that's what's
happening here. For the Commissioners to jump-start this is to
travesty because you're supposed to be representing the people and
you're throwing our rights away. Please do not do that to us.
I read through the final orders. Nowhere in the final orders does
it mention a TDR as an alternative. The planners are creative people;
Page 55
June 18, 2002
certainly there's another plan that they can do. What about the
original idea of land use, of people cohabitating with nature? The
citrus canker that just came up, people were upset about that.
This was over people coming into their land, chopping down
their citrus trees. Well, you're talking about people's property now.
Just in conclusion, please delay this. Do some more research on this.
There's a lot more information about this. And remember, everything
is negotiable.
MR. WEIGEL: Lynda Hittinger followed by Helmat Hittinger.
MS. HITTINGER: My name is Lynda Hittinger, and where do I
start? There's so many things that are inequitable in this whole
program that it's very difficult in three minutes to say everything I
would like to.
But for the past year I've been hearing Collier County
landowners in this area opposing the TDR and the NRPA
designations. Dr. Nichols by his own admission has said that it's a
very difficult program to put through and it is a difficult program to
make successful. And as you know it's only been done successfully
in two areas in the United States.
This is central planning as far as I'm concerned. In order to
fulfill the final order these designations are not necessary in order to
fulfill the final order. I was in the rural fringe committee meetings
several times as a bystander, and this question, this point, was
brought up several times, and it was never answered.
This is an unjust compensation for people's lands. It is
inequitable, and it is taking away our property rights. As our elected
representatives, you're supposed to defend our rights. And I would
like to know what part of we do not want the TDR and NRPA
program you do not understand.
Page 56
June 18, 2002
We are the sovereigns, you are our servants, and if you pass a
TDR program you are not serving us, we, the people. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Helmat Hittinger followed by F. Craparo.
MR. HITT1NGER: Helmat Hittinger, Golden Gate Estates.
My wife said it very eloquently, but let me add something to this. If
you go out and buy a loaf of bread and you pay $1 for it, when you
want to eat it, every time you take a slice off of it, would you spend
another dollar? This is exactly what you people are trying, or these
people are trying to do with us.
This thing about the cockade woodpecker, I have lived here for
over 30 years and I say we have more wildlife today than we ever
had. And I live with it, not like some of these people that I could
lose in five minutes in a place where there are roads like Golden
Gate Estates. So it seems to me that it smacks from central planning.
I went to this same meeting and there were phrases used, you
know, what are we going to do with the property owners, we use --
this gentleman over there -- we use carrots and sticks. Ladies and
gentlemen, I don't want anybody to use a carrot or a stick on me in
any form, shape, or matter.
And it offends me to no end, you know, that this could happen
in America because if you don't respect private property rights,
you've lost it. And I rest my case at that. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: F. Craparo, followed by Ty Agoston. Can I
please make sure everybody is prepared to speak and could be ready
so we can keep the speakers moving along.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go back then.
MR. WEIGEL: Ty Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty
Agoston. I almost missed you guys. My son offered me a better
deal and took me out to dinner.
Page 57
June 18, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I tell you what, Ty, I'll go out
to your son with dinner and you stay here.
MR. AGOSTON: That's not a bad deal. I am not involved
financially in this transaction. The fact that now you are trying to
rape all these nonpolitical contributors, because these guys don't
spend one lousy dime to get you re-elected, and I recognize that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whoa. I'm telling you right now
that you're insulting us personally. You stick with the facts, Mr.
Agoston, or else I'm going to ask you to step down. There's no call
for those kind of charges. There is no way in this world that I'm
making judgment decisions based upon somebody having the ability
to vote or even living in Collier County.
Please continue, sir, but be a little more civil.
MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Coletta, I have dealt with people all my
life, maybe more people than you have. And I raised five children
reasonably well. I have all the credentials I need to speak to anyone
and I'm never out of line, and if you find this objectionable, maybe
you have a problem yourself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you're making claims that are
totally incorrect. You're putting me in a position --
MR. AGOSTON: Look, I didn't come to you to get into a
dialogue with you; I came here to make a simple statement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then make a statement.
MR. AGOSTON: Now, if you would like to debate it, you
know, we can have a martini somewhere and we can debate it. But
this is not the time or the place for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue.
MR. AGOSTON: I often wonder that you guys do this
intentionally just to lose someone's train of thought. But be as it
may, I'll go back to my original statement.
Page 58
June 18, 2002
Most of these people don't vote, most of these people don't
contribute to your political campaign, and if you find it
objectionable, you might check it; it might be factual. On the flip
side of that, the Naples Daily News considers urban sprawl a send.
Today one of its columnists had a column that these people
should take a lesson from the wealthier estate owners further out on
eastern lands that they accept it, what the County offered, and they
should do the same. I have personally --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Another minute, please.
MR. AGOSTON: Okay. Because that's all you took. As far as
I can see, these people and I wasted the time coming down here
because I recognize a running train when I see it. And nothing is
going to change here, and I would be honest with you when I come
to the conclusion don't any of you come to the point where you have
sufficient money, you have sufficient standing, and somewhat of a
pride in yourself not having the need to rape
people?
These people have small lots, building lots, out there.
being raped. And I believe that it's unconscionable to take
all these relatively poor
They are
their
property or something that you consider distressful development
rights where academically it has no backing and you're trying to use
something that is not going to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Closing comment.
MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Coletta, it's always a pleasure to have a
commissioner representing us, or I should say misrepresenting us.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I like the martini idea best.
MR. WEIGEL: F. Craparo. I guess we'll bypass that one.
Gary Davis followed by Karol Montalto.
MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm
Gary Davis. I'm here on the behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest
Page 59
June 18, 2002
Florida, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak, and I just warn to
say first of all the Conservancy supports the TDR program. We
believe that it's absolutely necessary to preserve the critical areas that
we need to preserve in Collier County and in the rural fringe area.
And we also think that the compensation will be adequate for the
owners who will be able to sell their development rights as well.
But the points I want to address specifically are fairly minor
about this, but we think that the commission should consider these
before transmitting this, before finalizing it. The agu's issues in the
sending areas and the conservation areas is one that we think has not
been defined well enough and the plan as it is being transmitted
now. If you look at page 164 of your document, it refers to
agriculture as defined by the Florida Right to Farm Act.
Well, that definition is extremely broad. We prefer a definition
that's more specific such as what's in the receiving area, and we
prefer a definition that ties it into the Land Development Code and
has some restrictions on agriculture uses, particularly where
development rights are transferred because the council for the
County has opined that if development rights are transferred then the
Florida Right to Farm Act does not prohibit you from regulating
agriculture uses. And we think that those should be regulated in the
sending areas where the rights are transferred.
The issue of the rural village land use, we believe that there
ought to be more incentive in this plan for the rural village land use
as compared to other land uses in the receiving areas in order to
avoid the issue of sprawl in this receiving area. And we think that if
you don't provide more incentive for the rural village concept that
we're going to see cookie cutter golf courses, gated communities
throughout the receiving area, which would not be prohibited in any
way by the plan we have now.
Page 60
June 18,2002
So those are the major issues we have, at this point, and we
think they could be fixed relatively easy. In terms of the agu's, we
would recommend that there be a definition or refer the definition of
agriculture to the Land Development Code for further refinement,
rather than peg it to the very, very broad definition in the Florida
Right to Farm Act. And as far as the uses of receiving lands for
either rural villages or other types of land uses that would be
permitted, we would like to see some sort of incentive put into the
plan. Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Karol Montalto followed by Suzette De Armas.
MS. MONTALTO: My name is Karol Montalto. I'm a member
of Property Rights Action Committee. This has been a three-year
process. Meetings have been held and notices were put in the paper.
There were no notices sent out to property owners in person or
through the mail.
The majority of the property owners who are here tonight
fighting for their rights to use the property as they had dreamed of
when they bought it, uses that were legal when the land were sold to
them, land they bought and they paid for, they're here because they
were notified by a private firm, somebody that let them know what
was going on.
I wonder how many people would be here if there were prior
notices sent out so they could be here to notify this. They just left
out of luck? You know, a day late, dollar short; too bad for them.
Listening to gentlemen who had run successful TDR programs, I
heard a lot about the people in the receiving lands and how to have a
successful TDR program.
I have no doubt that the plan would be successful for those in
the receiving lands, especially if you consider it was sheparded by a
Page 61
June 18, 2002
person who was listed as a developer/lobbyist/consultant; I'm sure
there are plenty of incentives in there by them. What about the
small, private property owner? Is there a compensation for them? I
don't think so.
And, Mr. Coyle, I asked you a question during the break, and I
want to ask you now maybe you can get the attorney to answer it for
me. What if we send this back and we don't have the TDR program
in it and we don't have the NRPA'S in it; we just send it back, we
meet the deadline. That's fine. Then do they say yea or nay, and if
they say nay, do we get 21 days as the county to respond to it just
like a normal citizen would? Is that a possibility? Could you ask the
attorney that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we ask the attorney to
respond to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we can.
MS. LINNAN: If you adopted the plan without the TDR's, we
believe we could support the plan at one to 40 acres. So we look at it
as staffs that you put the one to 40 in in February because you are
concerned about that, but the TDR process would only add to that
and assist those people who are affected.
If you send it along without the NRPA language, it will not be
found in compliance. The County could challenge that, we would
fight it again, and then at some point end up probably in front of the
Governor and Cabinet. And we would not recommend that action to
you.
MS. MONTALTO: I would recommend that action. Because I
think the people should have a chance to come here, all the people
that are affected by the land; not just the people that made up this
arrangement. I think that if we are allowed legally to meet the
deadline to send it in in a way that protects the people that you
Page 62
June 18, 2002
people do represent, and I believe that you do, but this is not
representing the people.
And it's not giving us a fair shake, and if the only reason that this is
included is to meet the deadline and it doesn't have to be included, I
think you should take it out. I think you should give us a chance to
go and find a better way to do it that would protect the people's
property rights. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. MONTALTO: May I ask just one quick question? The
last time you were here we were restricted by that timer; three
minutes we were cut off at the knees. I would ask that's the same
consideration given to other people on the other side of the issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For you, the forum, continuously
this evening, please view the tape when you get a chance; it will be
on television. And see if not the people from the Conservancy and
everyone else has been limited right to that three minutes.
Three minutes I ask for a closing comment, I give somebody a
chance to move on. Ty Agoston, I allowed him an extra minute and
about a quarter because we had some dialogue going that we
shouldn't have had. And, you know, I suppose to try to develop in
fair for everybody, but watch the tape when you get a chance and see
it from the angle where you see the light going off.
MS. MONTALTO: I have a watch. Last time I watched
someone up here for 15 minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. The people that are
giving the presentation from staff--
MS. MONTALTO: No. No, it was during the public comment.
I know this is out of order and I shouldn't be out here talking, but I
have to address this. The last time during the public comment period
we were cut off at three minutes, period.
Page 63
June 18,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'll find that it will be uniform
tonight. If it did happen before, I apologize.
MS. MONTALTO: I could find the footage directly because I
know who it was. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Suzette De Armas.
MS. DE ARMAS: Good evening, commissioners, good
evening all of you. I'm just going to make comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your name, please.
MS. DE ARMAS: Suzette De Armas, D-E, space, A-R-M-A-S.
I'm here today to ask you-all to please take the TDR out of the
program. People's property rights is that, their rights. Transfer of
rights, transfer of anything means you will lose those rights.
We do not agree. The rights are yours, they're given to you by the
Constitution. They are yours to keep forever, unless we leave this
country.
With respect, Mr. Mulhere, I was here at the June 6th meeting
and I'm still concerned that today we're still making changes and
showing the same slides and same papers with lines and dashes, still
makes changes to amendments that's going to be voting tonight. It's
very concerning, and it sends a bad message. Also I'm very
concerned that the only scientific data that you have presented is
1994.
It's the year 2002, and you're saying it was an aerial shot of '94
designating wetlands. It's the year 2002, eight years later. I suggest
we do another aerial photo. The year 2000 would be good enough.
I'm very concerned about this. This tells me that this program is still
not good and because of this I do not advocate this program. I am
against it.
I am also concerned, Mr. Mulhere, again, the last meeting you
only touched upon woodpeckers and golf courses. Collier County,
Page 64
June 18, 2002
I'm an investor here, a big investor. I love Collier County; it is a
recession-resistant county, if you may. What you do with these
lands, especially transfer of development programs, affects
investigators, especially out-of-state, out-of-country, wherever. This
is not good. This is not a good message for an investor.
And when you're stamping our lands today TDR with data that is
eight years ago, it's not good either. I am just appalled by this
because then you are using TDR rates that may have worked in
Montgomery County. Did they use '94 aerial shots? What year
shots did they use, I don't know, but I'm concerned that Collier
County is using 1994 aerial shots.
Collier County has changed a lot since 1994. That's why I have
invested in Collier County. Thank you, very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Gerardo Morales followed by Esperanza
Cuervo.
MR. MORALES: Good evening, everybody. All the people
that have spoke before me, they already spoke about TDR and all the
programs --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A little closer to the mike, sir.
MR. MORALES: I believe these program is a little bit
exaggerant. Why? Because in the 1980's they took over the Big
Cypress. The big Cypress concerned about a million of acres, acres
of land, wetland. Then they took over Tunnel River, then they took
over Highway 99 from Everglades City to 1-75, then they took over
1-75 north to Immokalee Road, or Immokalee city.
By now, with all these lands, they should have about 1.5 million
or 2 millions of wetland. Why to sacrifice 4,400 families in Golden
Gate for more wetland? Is it enough wetland with almost 2 million
Page 65
June 18, 2002
wetland acres? Plus Okeechobee Lake; I assume we have plenty of
water.
One of these gentlemen spoke about D.C., Washington, and
Montomery County. Every city, every State is different. We have
people over here, they have land that had cost them $25,000 and they
got back $1,500, so I think that's not fair. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. CUERVO: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am
here tonight because as a citizen of this country, my family and
myself, I disagree with what you want to do. And I am not -- I do not
want to give up my constitutional rights. Good night.
MR. WEIGEL: Millie Haylock followed by Donald Scarpa.
MS. HAYLOCK: Hi, my name is Millie Haylock, and I'm just
here because I have property on Section 25. My sister has property
in section -- my sister has property in Section 30, and my aunt has
property in Section 31. I also have a lot of friends and neighbors
that are here tonight which at the last time I spoke with them. Also
my boss has property in Section 24, Mr. Conlin's (phonetic) section.
I'm very sad that it has come to this decision that it looks like
just like everybody else in this room sees and feels that you guys are
going to let us down, and not even going to say, you know, how we
feel about everything. Also I know a lot of people cannot be here,
that they wrote letters, they called, they sent e-mails, and at the last
meeting we found out nobody ever put that on the records or said
anything at all about it.
It's very concerning to me and depressing that I picked Collier
County for its beauty, its trees, its animals. I have five acres. I have
my own chickens, I have my own goats, I have my baby bull, and I
really enjoy all the animals, all the birds that come to feed, all my
chicken feed and everything like that. And as an owner in Collier
Page 66
June 18, 2002
County with my residence and everything, I really enjoy all the
animal life and wildlife that's out there, including the deer.
And we do take care of all those animals, we do not protrude in
their territory; we enjoy them coming to our residences and enjoin
our properties, our lands. I planted broccoli, I planted strawberries,
I planted all kinds of veggies in my garden, and believe it or not the
animals has eaten it. But just the joy of seeing them eating them
doesn't make me upset.
It does make me upset when I see big developers and Collier
County how they're treating us little people. It kind of reminds me
of how the vegetable garden is growing in my five acres, that the
animals are eating it. That's kind of how I see what's going on right
now. The people who have the money are the big animals and
nobody can stop them, they just come and run over us little people
that are the vegetables and just eat us up; spit us out like we don't
matter.
It is very depressing and very concerning that nobody here --
anybody up there -- has really looked at us as people; just as
numbers. As, oh, you only own five acres, this really does not
concern you. It does concern us because it is our property. We
bought out there, we built our homes, and even those who have not
built are looking forward to building in the future and also when
they retire.
And, as such, I really hope that you do think about this and you
send this back with a big no. And, yes, I know they spent three
years, but three years of not listening to us; just doing whatever they
wanted to do. And I think it's about time that you listen to us and tell
the County, the government, wait, the people want to say their speak,
and then we'll go from there. Thank you.
Page 67
June 18, 2002
MS. SCARPA:
stating that I am--
MR. WEIGEL:
MS. SCARPA:
I want to go on record as a property owner
State your name, please.
My name is Donna Scarpa, not Donald. I want
to go on record as saying I'm strongly opposed to this action and that
I would like to have you folks listen to us and take into account what
you're hearing from us. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Jack Rice followed by Nelson Torres.
MR. RICE: Sitting down causes the blood to slow up, so I have
a little problem. My name is John Jack Rice, and my wife is
Florence, and we own the property described as 274927, the east half
of the northeast comer of the northwest comer of 20 acres and OR
book 508 page 598 in Collier County.
I've owned the property for at least 20 years. I bought the
property with the idea of this just being a very nice area that
eventually it's going to bloom, and it's blooming. The only trouble is
you're all taking the bloom out of my property. You're taking away
something and giving me a CDR (sic.) A CDR is -- I don't
understand it, and the people in Maryland probably don't understand
it very well. And besides that you don't have Washington D.C. on
your board to create the CDR in use.
This area isn't growing like Maryland. Maryland has got
everything from New York to Washington DC to utilize a CDR.
You know, we haven't heard the other side of the story; we only
heard the good side. You bring them there, you'll probably find a lot
of problems wrong with the CDR.
I want to tell you about my property. My property is high, it's
dry. And as far as I know there's nobody cultivating it, planting
crops. Although I do have a man that wants to lease it to feed his
cattle. And there's no animals there that I know. In fact, I got more
Page 68
June 18, 2002
animals on my property and I live in the center of the City of Miami
than you probably have on this property. I got two foxes, God
knows how many squirrels, those little lizards, little lizards, and
iguanas on my property.
And I caught a snake there that was four foot long and it's
driving my dog crazy, so there's animals all over the State of
Florida. Why? It's tropical; Ponce de Leon told you that years ago.
And that's why we all own property down here.
Now, when I bought this property, not only I but a lot of-- I
was formerly a policeman. A lot of fellows on the police department
in the City of Miami bought property there because the guy that
came over that was an ex-policeman, he's selling all this land, telling
us how good it is. And I tell you it is really good.
And I talked to, oh, I forgot the real estate man. He was up
here, but it is a good piece of land. But you're taking away the value
of the land and taking away the CDR. Now, you say -- I heard the
mayor say he's going to have a method of financing it. I used to be
the City Attorney of the State of Miami; that ain't easy. And that's
going to be a long way away, and I don't think you'll ever
accomplish it.
Now, I think it if you want our land, condemn it. Don't give us
this tit-tat where you have to sell a CDR, they ain't nobody buying
CDR's in this area, and I'll defy you to find somebody. Most of the
people don't even know what the heck CDR is.
Now, the planners are doing this not only in Dade County;
they're doing it all over the State of Florida, figuring out what --
how to get your land without paying for it. And that's it, a CDR.
Now, I ask you to help us old folks and us poor folks and do away
with the CDR and just figure out something else where we get
money for our property.
Page 69
June 18, 2002
I hate to say good night and leave.
to be here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You were great.
MR. RICE: But my health is such that I must go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Marjorie Torres Gonzalez,
I have two names on this.
I appreciate the opportunity
Thank you.
and Nelson Torres.
AUDIENCE: Nelson Torres stepped out on another law issue.
MR. WEIGEL: Manny Castinerra.
MR. CASTINERRA: Right here, but I pass.
MR. WEIGEL: Tim Hancock followed by Vilma Palma.
MR. HANCOCK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, my name is
Tim Hancock with the firm of Vanasse Daylor. I have the pleasure
of appearing before you on this matter representing more than 50
landowners in the area referred to as the zero to one mile corridor.
These lands owners total over 2,000 acres of that area.
We supplied information to you previously that has established
that a property values in this five-section area, noted right here,
which is next to the urban residential fringe, that that acreage is
conservatively at $9,200 per acre in value. The current TDR plan
which would allow you to transfer one unit at an estimated value of
$18,500 would compensate these property owners for a whopping 48
percent of their land value.
I propose raising transfer rate in this area from one unit per five
acres to two and a half units per five acres in order to compensate
these property owners fairly. And you, in fact, recognized that
relationship in your original transmittal where you put language in
saying that you had the authority to increase transfer rates where you
deemed it appropriate.
Page 70
June 18,2002
The DCA has objected to your language and told you they want
it quantified. A concern that's been expressed from your planning
staff is by increasing the transfer units you may jeopardize the
success of the TDR program. I believe just the opposite is true. By
not increasing transfer units you have jeopardized the TDR program
by not making property owners whole.
According to Dr. Nicholas's final report you should maintain a
ratio of two receiving units for each sending unit. This is a
preferred ratio. And your current plan with 22,000 acres of sending
and 22,000 acres of receiving for every one unit on a five-acre
parcel that you can send, you have received four. You actually have
a four to one ratio built in right now; nearly double what Dr.
Nicholas has recommended. That should be very healthy.
So the prospect of increasing that number by 1,600 units to
compensate property owners in five sections of land should not
scare anyone. I'm going to ask you tonight, and I'll give you specific
language for that in just a moment, but I ask you to consider the
effect on everyone here who is being told we will consider your
plight in the coming year. If you can't recognize property values
that have been presented to you that are based on property appraiser
data, not an appraisal from actual sales data, and you can't recognize
that in this transmittal by increasing the transfer rate, what
confidence does anyone have that you will recognize their property
values in the coming year.
The language I'm requesting for these five sections of land
under Section C, sending lands, in your transmittal document under
number two, maximum transfer rate, it states that, "Dwelling units
may be transferred from sending lands at a maximum rate of .2
dwelling units per acre." I ask you insert the following language,
"Lands located in sections 1, 12, 13, 24, and 25, township 50 south,
Page 71
June 18, 2002
range 27 east, may transfer dwelling units at a maximum of .5 units
per acre."
That's the nature of my request, and I simply ask in considering
this request you again look at statements made by Dr. Nicholas that
if this is not equitable and fair it will fail. And I thank you for your
consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you Mr. Hancock.
MR. WEIGEL: Vilma Palma followed by Carl McKinney.
MS. PALMA: My name is--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A little closer to the mike, please.
MS. PALMA: My name is Vilma Palma. I'm representing here
my neighbors. I would like to ask you something. This is my first
time of buying land here in the United States. I bought all of this for
the welfare of my children, and I do not want to have to regret it in
the future.
I would like you to be in my shoes. Why are you doing this with
us? I would like to establish myself here, my home, and myself
here and now I do not know what to do with what they are doing. If
you are saying that that area is wetland, then the whole of Golden
Gate is wetland. So why did you authorize or give permits to the rest
of the people who are already there and now you don't want to give
us that permit right now? Why are you deciding this right now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good question. Can I answer the
questions or can I have the questions answered.
Mr. Mulhere, please stand up and address these questions.
There's some misconception here of what we're all about, and I need
you to straighten it out. Very slowly. I need you to translate every
single word into Spanish so nothing is lost in the translation.
MR. MULHERE: With respect to Golden Gate Estates, we are
not this evening considering any changes --
Page 72
June 18,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. We're not talking into
the mike. This is not just for the lady; this is for the total audience
and the viewing audience out there. I need you to be very vocal and
get it across.
THE INTERPRETER: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: So with respect to Golden Gate Estates, the
items under consideration this evening.
have
land
THE INTERPRETER: Sorry? Say that again.
MR. MULHERE: The items under consideration this evening
nothing to do with and will have no impact on any lands or
uses in Golden Gate Estates.
MS. PALMA: For today.
MR. MULHERE: They don't have anything to do with Golden
Gate Estates, in terms of permitted land uses. If you want to build a
single family home in Golden Gate Estates -- MS. PALMA: No, in TDR.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I really can't answer the question
unless I know specifically where her property is. Anyway, even
under the TDR provision, there is no policy here that would prohibit
someone from building a home on their property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me ask a question of you and
you can translate it back and forth. Sorry, I cut you off too quick
before you finished. My question, one more time. If I own land
that's in Golden Gate Estates or in a sending area and I own five
acres of land, will I be able to build on that land in the future?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. PALMA: Yes, but they are saying and you said that it's
going to cost a lot of money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not true.
MS. PALMA: You said that the other time.
Page 73
June 18, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not true.
MS. PALMA: I heard that in the other session.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. That's misinformation. It's
been placed out there by people that want to buy your land from you
at a small price.
MS. PALMA: They said that it would cost $30,000 to build
and that if we wanted to build we would have to use canoes to get in
there because there were going to be building channels or canals.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you respond? I can't.
MR. MULHERE: I can only say that I'm not sure about what
happened at some other meeting. But, again, within North Golden
Gate Estates, there aren't any provisions under consideration to
prohibit construction of a single-family home nor does this board
have the legal authority to issue permits related to wetlands in North
Golden Gate Estates. That's a State agency.
MS. PALMA: I wanted to clarify this because I want to build
for my children for the future, and I want you to be concerned about
us human beings rather than with the animals because we are the
human beings, not the animals. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Carl McKinney followed by Eleanor Boyce.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you hold just one second, sir.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll only keep you a second. I think
one of the greatest damages that have been done is that this whole
program hasn't been described in basic terms. When a person owns
two and a half acres or five acres in a sending land, in a sending
land, you could still build a house on that five acres, you can still
have all of the trees. And don't shake your head; that's exactly what
it is.
Page 74
June 18, 2002
Don't let anybody kid you. This is the way it is, and I'll put it in
writing. That's the thing. They can't take that away from you. It's a
sending area, but you have every right to keep your land. You don't
have to sell it, you can build your house on it, and you know you're
moving out there because it's beautiful and private and nobody can
do earthmining next to you and so forth; you'll have that.
Don't let anybody fool you and tell you they're going to take it
away, or that you can't build. This is your land and you have a right
to build a house. You can't build a development on it, you can't
build a grocery store on it, but you can have your house on your
land.
MR. WEIGEL: But not your children.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many houses do you want on
your land.
MR. WEIGEL: She wanted to build for her children.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is just your land. People
haven't even been told that; they've been told their land will be taken
away from them. That's not a fair thing. I think people take
advantage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to restrain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll stop.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the things from up here, the
commissioners will ask questions of certain individuals and then
direct them to other ones, too. So please, we're trying to work
through this process just as much as you are. We are concerned.
The reason this meeting is taking place now in the evening, going
late at night, is not because we don't care, it's because that's the time
we knew most people can take advantage of it.
Let's please continue with the proceedings. As I see questions
arise and being repeated, I'm going to have staff answer them. In
Page 75
June 18, 2002
some cases, they'll repeat the answers and repeat the answers again.
But we're going to come to the consensus here and get it all done. If
we don't agree, at least we're going to have an understanding.
Sir, please continue and I appreciate your patience.
MR. McKINNEY: That's fine. My name is Carl McKinney. I
would like to wish you all a nice evening. I've been here 15 years in
Collier County. I have worked on a lot of large projects, many high-
rises and deadlines, a lot of pressure, even death. I have seen people
die on these buildings.
I enjoy people going home in the evening and being quiet. We
live way out off of Everglades; it's quiet it's peaceful. And in my
spare time I do model railroading; it's like people don't bother me. I
do projects for NASA, I have turned out numerous kits for the
military, people commission me to build models for them. I enjoy
this out there; it's quiet.
How is anybody going to pay me and reimburse me for this?
I'm putting in a live steam operating railroad on my property; small
gauge, like the Naples Depo.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You live on Everglades Boulevard,
sir?
MR. McKINNEY: I live off of Everglades, yes. I'm not
actually in the TDR area, I just want to voice an opinion. I'm sorry.
That's what I'm looking at. This might just be the stepping stone, we
start with the TDR. I know you guys have nothing with ROMA,
and we won't go there. But I enjoy coming home.
I took an oath like 20 years ago when I was in the service to
defend the constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. So
right now we're fighting terrorism all over the world, here in the
United States, Afghanistan; it's pushing into Pakistan and other
places. And what you guys are kind of proposing is like equal
Page 76
June 18, 2002
terrorism to people's property, I think. I honestly do, and if you
don't agree with me, I'm sorry, but I have that God-given right under
the democratic form of government to voice that opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll protect it to the end of the world;
you're right.
MR. McKINNEY: That's right. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, thank you, sir.
MR. McKINNEY: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Eleanor Boyce.
MS. BOYCE: I defer.
MR. WEIGEL: Ralph, it looks like, Bechtel. Ralph Bechtel.
Don Lester.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You might want to call another one
on deck after Mr. Lester.
MR. WEIGEL: Robert Diffendorfer.
deck.
MR. LESTER:
I represent a director
Robert Diffendorfer on
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Don Lester.
of 15,000 coalition. I represent landowners
that own property within the TDR area. We thank you for this
opportunity, and I would just like to begin by saying we're opposed
to the adoption of the Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments as
they apply to the TDR area. In the TDR components, we're certainly
free to go ahead.
AUDIENCE: Speak up, please.
MR. LESTER: Certainly. If you remove the TDR element,
we're pleased for you to go ahead with your comp plan amendment.
Our basis for the objection to the TDR decision/determination is the
lack or absence of reliable and good scientific data.
I would like to draw your attention to an article in Naples Daily
News in July 4th of 2000. And in that article there's some
Page 77
June 18, 2002
interesting things that came out. They said in that article, as of that
time, the only credible information that is available at that point was
1985 and '95 satellite imagery, and that that was all that was
available. And I'll quote, "We hope that they'll give a lot of credence
because it's the best information available out there at this point."
This was a quote done by Eric Staats when he looked into this
situation back -- this thing has been looked at for 20 years.
So as of 2000 there was no data at that time, and now we're
relying -- we're told tonight we're relying on 1994/1995 data. Just a
few weeks ago a representative with the DEP, the State DEP, wrote
an e-mail; I have a copy of it. It said, "Elevations are fairly good
wetlands indicators when you're looking for marine wetlands within
tidally influenced areas. The areas in Golden Gate and TDR
freshwater wetlands that receive water from groundwater sources or
surface water.
Elevation does not indicate the presence of wetlands in these
areas. The extent of wetlands must be established by on-site
elevations of the soils and vegetation."
To date there has been no on sight evaluation of this property. I
was there in 1994 when this entire 15,000 acres was rejected,
removed from the list of a buy area by the State of Florida and the
seven agencies that correct the LAAC, Land Advisory Acquisition
Council. I was present all day for that hearing. I testified at that
hearing; I heard the information that was presented.
There has been nothing presented that gives any scientific basis
whatsoever to call this a wetland and this land qualifies for any
program whatsoever. We ask you leave us to our land or allow us
the opportunity to put information in the record, sufficient time to
put it in the record, to show that the land is not a wetland, is not a
Page 78
June 18, 2002
habitat, and doesn't qualify. If you'll give us that opportunity to put
it in, give us like you suggested in other things, you'll be happy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can turn it over and it will be
part of the record. Hand it to the stenographer over here and she'll
be happy to take it and have it as part of the permanent record.
Thank you very much for your time. Next speaker.
MR. WEIGEL: Robert Diffendorfer followed by Pat
Humphries.
MR. DIFFENDORFER: Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, I'm Bob Diffendorfer. I represent the 15,000 coalition
and literally thousands of individuals. I will be submitting for the
record a letter of objection. I'll explain a little bit more briefly. On
behalf of coalition and the individuals, I have the list here. There
are 4,000 plus of them. In the interest of brevity, I'll confine my
remarks to two minutes apiece.
We're objecting to the proposed rural fringe amendments that
you have going on tonight with particular emphasis on the treatment
of the North Belle Meade area, the NRPA designation on that areas,
the TDR scheme involving that area, the land uses, the intensities
plotted for that area, and the restrictions placed there.
As someone else has said, the order in 1999 does not require
that this commission adopt NRPA or that area or does it require
adoption of the TDR program. With all due respect to your council,
we believe you can pass this plan tonight without them, we're urging
you to strip them away from them, and we'll help your council to
defend this plan.
A couple of points, on page 73 of the future land use settlement,
there's a description of the North Belle Meade NRPA. It's described
as misconsideration combined with a fragment and ownership of the
Page 79
June 18, 2002
pattern and the State's desire to purchase significant portions of it
require it be designated a NRPA. That is false.
I have and I will submit for the record also the Florida Forever
Acquisition list which lists Belle Meade, but that is southern Belle
Meade. I will submit the Save Our Rivers Acquisition list which
does not include Belle Meade. That is a flat inaccurate statement in
your plan. As Don said, this area has been considered before and
rejected for inclusion of the coral project on the basis of absence of
hydrology.
There's nothing about this project which has changed. It has
gotten worse, not better. In fact, Florida Wildlife Federation sued
the County on the Interim Plan Amendment. One of the issues in
that hearing was North Belle Meade. I will insert for the record as
well the recommended and final order from that hearing, which said
that North Belle Meade was excluded from the interim NRPA for a
number of reasons, surrounded by areas of accelerated urban
development bordered by 1-75. The development of northern estates
to the east and north will reduce the habitat value.
There have been specific factual findings litigated by your
council concerning this exact area of land, and they have said that
nothing about the information urged to support NRPA designation,
the closing the gaps report, was criticized heavily in these orders.
Nothing about that requires this land be designated NRPA.
that information is dispositive on this question. AUDIENCE: What was the date of that?
MR. DIFFENDORFER: 2000. More importantly, however, if
you just simply look at the map you have attached to that plan
showing this whole NRPA area in North Belle Meade, you see
straight lines drawn on there, you see a number of lines which
clearly don't correspond to the natural system on there, you see a
We think
Page 80
June 18,2002
bunch of lines that were drawn at your staff report and the letter from
Florida Wildlife that's included as part of your package to make
clear that it was done --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll allow you two more minutes.
MR. DIFFENDORFER: It was done in aid of settlement
litigation. That is an admission on the face of this plan and on the
record today that these lines are not resource lines. That's an
admission that there is not data and analysis supporting where these
areas are. It's an admission these lines are personal.
That violates due process. That violates the public participation
requirements, and that violates all these little people out here who
own little pieces of this land. We're asking you to reject the NRPA
designation, we're asking you to reject the TDR program, send the
plan on without them; we'll help you defend it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Pat Humphries followed by Andy McGowan.
MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I'm here to
address the concerns of the directors, officers, and members of
Golden Gate Estates Area Civil Association related to the rural
fringe assessment. Part of the North Belle Meade overlay calls for
the expansion of APAC, a landmining operation, and two and a half
sections: Sections 21 and 28 and the western sections of 22 and 27.
Since they are 640 acres to a section, two and a half sections is
1,600 acres. That's a lot of fill and the mining will go on for years.
This expansion will not require petition for conditional use as it has
in the past. On May 24th, 1994, APAC appeared before the Board
of County Commissioners requesting conditional use for the
purpose of expanding their earthmining operation in Section 20 of
North Belle Meade. The petition was denied for the following
reasons: Commissioner Constantine stated that he is voting against
Page 81
June 18, 2002
the motion because compelling evidence was presented to deny the
petition. He indicated that consistency with the Land Development
Code is questionable, and the negative economic impact to the value
of homes in the surrounding area is real.
Commissioner Constantine pointed out that truck traffic will
increase by home front, a school, a proposed park, and a proposed
library. He explained that approval of the project is not in the best
interest of health, safety, and welfare of the community, and there
has been three accidents in five years with at least one fatality.
He indicated that the Golden Gate Estates and one of the fast --
is one of the fastest growing areas in the County and this operation
is clearly in conflict with the growth in the area. Those reasons still
apply except there are more people and there have been more
accidents.
We were under the impression that when the petition was
turned down the landmining would eventually close, but it didn't,
and now it will expand even more than requested eight years ago.
I ask you to picture the tremendous impact that this mining
operation will have in the community of Golden Gate Estates,
bearing in mind that instead of one section they will be mining two
and one half sections, equivalent to 1,600 acres of land. But with 5th
Street Southwest and as outlined in the plan, the North Belle Meade
overlay plan, Wilson Boulevard would bear the brunt of this mining
operations traffic.
In the 1994 petition, which was turned down, it was estimated
that daily truck trips would be over 1,000, so I don't think it would
be exaggerating that in the not too distant future at least 1,000 trucks
a day would be thundering down our roads five to six days a week.
The only way that this landmining operation could be
compatible with the estates is if a proposed extension of Wilson
Page 82
June 18,2002
Boulevard South to the landfill road becomes a reality and
landmining traffic is restricted to this route. I don't mean south of
Golden Gate Boulevard, I mean south of where Wilson Boulevard
now dead-ends, completely away from residential areas.
The only way this land -- a stipulation would have to be written
in the Growth Management Plan that is being reviewed today. This
is the only way of relieving the burden of the dump trucks and other
heavy equipment that would utilize the residential streets in Golden
Gate Estates. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Humphries, before you leave, I
want you to know that I took your letter to heart and I have met with
that person Mr. Anderson who represents the landowner out there,
APAC. And I told him that in no way on God's earth do I support
what they're trying to do because of the traffic when we come the
other way.
Today, and he's going to be announcing shortly when he comes
up, they said that if we allowed them to go forward they'll build the
road at no cost to the County, which to me is an amazing concession.
But there's still a lot of unanswered questions that we'll be getting
into if not today, tomorrow. And I'm very well aware of the impact
that it will have if the traffic from that ended up on Golden Gate
Boulevard or even White Boulevard.
MS. HUMPHRIES: Wilson Boulevard, Southwest 5th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It would be astronomical and we
have to do something if that's going forward to protect the rights of
those people in that area.
MS. HUMPHRIES: I thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Andy McGowan followed by Ray Pelletier.
MR. McGOWAN: Good evening, all. My name is Andy
McGowan, I live on 16th Avenue Southeast. I guess you call me a
Page 83
June 18, 2002
ROMA kind of guy. And out there I had the very good pleasure of
having some pamphlets put in my mailbox discussing what my
future could be and what the legacy of my son could not be.
I'm a veteran. I almost parachuted in Cuba to fight Castro on a
very special mission, and I'm proud to be with you. Anyways,
getting back to this legacy that I have for my son, hopefully, I have
this new word I'm using called intimate domain. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine.
MR. McGOWAN: But after being with these gentlemen here at
a special meeting, I picked up the paper on Sunday and saw that
word and said, "What country am I actually in?" I mean, I fought for
this country and I have a very good understanding that I could
possibly lose my property at a future date. So these are the things
that I have to address.
Our property out there is supposed to be a wetland, but you
could fry an egg on my front porch any day or on the ground. As far
as the animals, I could fight a bear every morning for the garage.
And I like my property very much. I love my privacy because I deal
with the public a lot. Also I see a lot of new homes being built, and
I'm wondering if all this thing is going to come to date how are all
these new homes being developed if this stuff is going to be taken
away from them at a future date.
Those are the only things that I am concerned of. I'm going to
say to my son if I'm going to be shot I want to know what kind of a
bullet it is. Thank you, very much. Have a good evening. MR. WEIGEL: Brad Cornell on deck.
MR. DELLETIER: My name is Ray Pelletier, and I'm having
as much trouble reading my writing here as the attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, a tough time reading that one.
Page 84
June 18, 2002
MR. PELLETIER: Just a few general comments. I'm here on
behalf of my family, myself, and my business, and just to respond to
the esteemed gentleman from Maryland. One of the things that
concern me was there was no political decision involved or required
after the TDR's are passed. And I don't think that -- I'm looking for
you guys to represent me, my family, and my business, and I would
want you to be able to do that and future commissioners to be able to
do that, too, and not restrict them in any way.
We would like to see ag course remain in the sending areas as
was depicted in nice pictures by the gentleman from one of the
greatest universities in the world, University of Florida, and not to
restrict it whatsoever. Another note I had was I found it interesting
there was no significant environmental concerns from the DCA, and
I believe that's because they exceeded their wildest imagination. I
couldn't, you know, with 90 percent restriction in NRPA areas with
the clearing standards it was just like, oh, my gosh; what are guys
doing? That's great.
I would be a little bit reluctant, I would like to see a little bit
more concern from the DCA so that, you know, you know you were
going in with the base of the minimum, so you're negotiating from
the bottom maybe working your way up instead of the reverse. I
would like to propose a plan right now, and I'm kind of concerned
with saying throw out TDR's because the development standards as
they propose always consider TDR as a benefit. So what I would
like to recommend you do would be to throw out the TDR's and
reduce all of the development standards by 50 percent as a starting
point, and then work your way up.
Those are the only comments I have right now. I want to thank
you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 85
June 18,2002
MR. WEIGEL: Brad Cornell followed by Richard Yuvarovich.
MR. YUVAROVICH: Good evening, commissioners, I'm Brad
Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audobon Society.
Thank you for the opportunity to briefly say a couple of things. On
behalf of Collier County Audobon Society, I will say that we
support the majority of the rural fringe policies for adoption. I
believe these policies are providing good protections for our vital
natural resources and compensating landowners for property impact.
There's one important policy adjustment that we strongly feel is
needed, however, and that is the issue of allowing existing
agricultural uses after sale of TDR's. We believe that that is
undermining the goal of the resource protection policies, and it's
already compensated for them when you sell -- when a landowner
sells the TDR units. So it's a voluntary participation in the TDR
program, we believe that passive ag uses like unapproved pasture
and grazing are the acceptable ag uses after you sold your TDR's but
not anymore intense ag uses.
One other important issue I want to bring out that you'll find in
there and that is staffing to implement these policies. You do have
language in there that addresses the need for an increase in staffing,
and I don't want to underscore the importance of that, of all those
policies, staffing for wildlife and wetlands, policy implementation
and monitoring. I know that your code enforcement staff is not
adequate to address a lot of these issues that they're going to be
required to as well as other counties departments. We're going to
have to very quickly access what the needs are for staffing in order
to adequately implement these policies.
They are, as I said, we believe that these are good policies; this
is a good plan. It accomplishes the goals of the final order, but we
also need to look at implementation. Again, considering our
Page 86
June 18, 2002
comments, we highly recommend adopting the proposed rural fringe
policies. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Covell, don't go away. I have a
question for you. Sir, right at this moment I'm weighing everything
in my mind. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm trying to find the
public good that's there, and I'm still looking for it. That extension
of road from Wilson, the landfill road, there's a little part of the
public good, but it's only half-done.
What I'm looking for is the road from Desoto, parallel running
75, to join up the landfill road, so the people out there that live on
Desoto have a way to access back and forth having to come back to
Golden Gate Boulevard, put pressure on those roads. Also I realize
that those roads in the future would help increase the value of their
land and give them more of a saleable position if it ever comes up to
negotiations.
What I need from you, sir, today is to say that if we were to go
forward with this plan and endorse it, nothing more than just the
verbal, that you would have no objections to us taking that road from
Desoto down to Wilson and joining up that road that takes you into
the Landfill Road and East Naples.
MR. CORNELL: Commissioner, I would like to take a look at
the map and examine what your proposal is. I support the proposed
extension of Wilson Boulevard down to Landfill Road as an
alternative to taking truck traffic through Golden Gate Estates. We
certainly recognize the importance of that and--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, we're running short on this, and
I don't want to belabor the point and I don't want to take up
everybody's time. That is a given if we want forward. What I'm
looking for is the other end of the equation from Desoto to Wilson to
be able to make that happen; paralleling along 75. Not that we can
Page 87
June 18, 2002
say today it's going to happen, not part of the record making it part
of the thing. I just want to know if we're going to pursue that
avenue, that we're not going to have objection from the
environmental community. And I have to get this straight before we
get to the end of this proceeding so I know what I'm going to do.
MR. CORNELL: If I may take a look at something else?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may, sir, and we'll ask
you for a comment later.
MR. CORNELL: Please, if you would.
MR. WEIGEL: Richard Yuvarovich. He has two slips; I guess
he's representing two different clients.
MR. YUVAROVICH: And I don't think I'll need more than
three and a half minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll give you four. How's that?
MR. YUVAROVICH: That's fair. For the record, Rich
Yuvarovich. I'll address the first issue first which is on behalf of
Wally Lewis. This is property that you-all saw at the transmittal
hearing dealing with the White property is what you transmitted as
industrial to the DCA.
I would like to -- the Planning Commission recommended
certain changes that were incorporated in your staff report as Mr.
Mulhere pointed out to you. We, my client, is in support of the
changes that were made to the document as transmitted by including
the high-tech uses and also addressing the preservation requirements.
So we would request your support with what the Planning
Commission recommended to you for adoption and what your staff
is recommending to you for adoption.
Do we have any questions regarding that specific piece of
property? I'll be happy to answer those at this time before I move on
to the second one.
Page 88
June 18, 2002
The second property deals with on behalf of Mike Taylor. It
deals with the density blending provisions for the properties in the
urban residential fringe sub-district that straddle the sending area.
This process, we worked with your staff, with Collier Audobon, and
Florida Wildlife to come up with appropriate density blending
provisions that will address the environmental concerns in the
sending area properties and also the environmental concerns in
urban properties so that we can shift density back and forth.
I believe if you could ask Mr. Cornell since he went first, he
didn't have an opportunity to say that, but we have reached an
agreement as to what the appropriate blending provision should be.
They are reflected in the language that the Planning Commission
recommended you adopt and what your staff recommends you adopt.
I want to point out that the collaborative effort's not ending by the
adoption of this language. There is a commitment from the property
owner to submit the project plans to those two entities first for
review and comment before we start the permitting process and the
zoning process with Collier County and the State and Federal
agencies.
So I'm happy to report that we have worked together to come up
with appropriate density blending provisions, we have committed --
the property owners are committed to working with those two
entities, and those two entities have committed to working with us
to make sure that the ultimate project is a good project for Collier
County. And, again, we hope that you can support the Planning
Commission, support your staff, and support the property owner and
the Wildlife Federation and Collier Audobon by approving the
designated lending provisions as recommended.
Do you have any questions? I'd be happy to answer them.
Page 89
June 18, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On your property by the landfill, I
think that what they came up with is more than adequate and I think
it was more than generous; to be honest with you. Not to shoot you
down on that, but you're talking about the commercial property.
MR. YUVAROVICH: The industrial property?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. At this point in time the way
it has it structured, I think it meets all the needs for your client and
for the public.
MR. YUVAROVICH: And that's why we endorse what the
position was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, as long
as we're going to stop and make comments on this issue, that piece
of property is west of the Naples landfill. The landfill that
everybody uses, what I would like to see is -- and we've had this
discussion before many times -- is to stop this progression to the
west of people going to work. This property, if we designate it as
urban industrial, will help that process. And I think whatever we can
do to provide more areas for people for the workforce, the better
we're doing our job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we listen to what has to
be said by Mr. Mudd. At this point in time, the property owners
agreed to these provisions as listed in there, from what I understand.
I don't think we want to go to the point where we're making this a
heavy industrial area. We've got to remember that we have an
impacted area around Davis that's very much enacted. There's a
moratorium on there, so we have to be realistic on our goals and very
much for commercial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This area, it will have to come
back to us for the permits. It is not -- we're not permitting it today.
Page 90
June 18, 2002
It's going to have to come back rather as a PUD or rezone. This is
just a submittal for the asking of rezone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: The only concern I would raise with respect
to that, I'm not sure it would have a bearing on some future -- being
urban industrial versus rural industrial -- some future potential use of
the site; it very well might. The issue that concerns me is really
more of a procedural one. We have transmitted to DCA and they
have provided us with their ORC, with that being -- without
changing the urban boundary, with that being rural industrial, we
have met the property owners' needs in terms of the uses on the site
and we have developed a preservation standard that protects the
natural resources that might be on the site as well.
If we change that, if we change it to urban industrial now, and I
just think there's potentially a greater risk of the DCA having a
problem with that as part of the adoption hearings. I don't object to
it. I think a way to do it would be in a separate amendment that
would deal with changing that. I would defer to Nancy if she has any
additional comments on it.
MS. LINNAN: I would agree. Frankly, before just now I was
not aware we were talking about changing the urban boundary. And
I know we have never discussed that with the department so long as
the use in the plan that's proposed by staff is meeting your clients
needs, do we need to change that boundary now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we talk about the
preservation standards instead of the urban boundary line?
MR. YUVAROVICH: Commissioner Henning, we have had
an opportunity to do some evaluation of the property as it is. What
was paramount to us was the uses, and what was paramount to us is
that the preservation requirements not be a flat 50 percent of the
Page 91
June 18,2002
native vegetation. What we worked with staff on was it will be 50
percent of native vegetation not to exceed 25 percent of the site.
We've had a chance to ground truth the sight. Those standards work
for the property owners proposed. If they don't, we would be happy
to come back with a separate compound amendment, if necessary.
But we would like them to go transmit -- or adopted as it is today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm glad it works out for your
property owner, but I'm look out for areas that we need to put jobs.
And that's where I'm getting at.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I'm sure
we're going to be addressing that but why put everything that has
been done to this point up to jeopardy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will drop it.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Commissioner, if it pleases the board, I
just thought I would suggest perhaps, I think we've been going
almost two hours, I don't know if the court reporter needs five
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll do that. We'll take ten
minutes.
Thereupon, (A break was taken from 8:36 p.m. until 8:50 p.m.
and the meeting continued as follows:)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats.
MR. MUDD: Can I get you to take your seats, please, and we
can get public comment moving. Please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next speaker.
MR. WEIGEL: Tim Hancock followed by Larry Basik.
MR. HANCOCK: Good evening again, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. I have the pleasure tonight of representing three
separate and distinct entities, and I'll do my best not to confuse any
Page 92
June 18, 2002
of them. The second individual I have the pleasure of representing
this evening is a young lady by the name of Lisa Knodel.
Lisa and her husband Richie own 20 acres of property right here
which is just about a mile beyond the urban fringe, just south of
Sable Pond Road. This green-shaped L surrounding them is property
they previously owned and sold to the State for somewhat of a loss,
but we're told by the State they couldn't use it anyway, and they
eventually took the State's offer and sold it.
They maintain the balance of their property for one very simple
reason. Lisa is a waitress; she works two jobs. Her husband is
disabled, and their goal was as they get on in their years to be able to
sell pieces of that land off and still remain in their home on the
remaining five acres.
Back in 1999 property in the area was selling for just around
$10,000 an acre. So the 15 acres they had outside of the five they
would live on represented about $150,000 to them and was pretty
much their nest egg.
What's being proposed today with the exception of those
properties, I think, you have the data to recognize the values, for
folks like Lisa who haven't had the opportunity to really come in and
make their case is they're going from $150,000 to right about
$45,000 or $50,000.
The nest egg is gone, and I don't think Lisa can work three jobs
at a time. She couldn't be here tonight because they're up in New
York. As a waitress she follows the tourists. When they go up to
New York, she goes up to New York, and they'll be back in the
season.
The reason I bring up Lisa and Richie's story is really just this:
We say in the plan that in the coming year we're going to visit the
TDR issue for those properties who have not been addressed or
Page 93
June 18, 2002
cannot be addressed here tonight, and I ask that you keep people
like Lisa in mind in doing that and we not wait until the 30th day of
the 12th month to address this issue for people like Lisa, that we set
a date in which your staff will bring back a comp plan amendment
and all property owners who believe that they have not been made
whole by that point can present their case to you in a unified effort
without a $2,500 application fee as is the current for a comp plan
amendment.
It's not fair to say to them today the regulations will take the
value of your land but for a significant application fee you can try to
get it back. So what I ask is for everyone here who has concern in
the coming year that it may not work out the way you're telling them
it's going to, that you continue to make that commitment this evening
and do so in a way that is fair and equitable so that they, too, can be
made whole. And on behalf of Lisa and Richie, she said they were
sorry they couldn't be here but asked me to convey their concerns to
yOU.
MR. WEIGEL: Larry Basik followed by Mary Stamatinos.
MR. BASIK: Larry Basik, 30-year resident of Collier County.
Regarding a receiving area, I guess I would like to file an objection
that the removal of TDRV, or RV zoning and agricultural zoned
areas in the receiving area, it was in, the best I know, it was in the
previous, but now when we look over the final draft that's going in
that has been taken out of the agriculture zoning area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure on that. Mr.
Mulhere? We'll get to your question in just a second.
MR. MULHERE: I think Mr. Basik is partially correct and
partially not. The TDRV use was taken out at the very beginning of
this program in the rural fringe mixed-use district; it's still obviously
permitted in the rural agricultural district, but not within the rural
Page 94
June 18, 2002
fringe mixed-use district. And we didn't change that during the
process; that has remained the recommendation throughout. But that
is correct, it is no longer permitted in the receiving areas in the rural
fringe mixed-use district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was it that was taken out.
MR. MULHERE: Travel trailer park, recreational vehicle
parks.
MR. BASIK: We have one in receiving area, and we were
scheduled to close on some property to -- that's adjacent to it that's
agricultural so we can bring that in under the agricultural zoning it's
permitted. But now with this change that eliminates the possibility
of bringing it in under ag zoning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, Mr. Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the effective date of that
restriction.
MR. MULHERE: It would be upon adoption.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if his permit was drawn prior
to the adoption of this particular growth plan amendment, he could
continue with his travel trailer RV resort.
MR. MULHERE: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. The
existing travel trailer RV park, to the extent it's permitted, yes, he
can continue. By the way, that use was also prohibited by the final
order on the interim basis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if he were to proceed to draw
a permit before this rural fringe proposal is adopted, what would
happen.
MR. MULHERE: It's going to be presumably some portion of
it. We don't know what's going to happen at the end of evening, but
whatever happens, that is the adoption, unless it is continued.
Page 95
June 18, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But I understood it correctly,
you couldn't do it during this study period?
MR. MULHERE: During the final order it was prohibited, and
we, in reviewing that use and compatibility of that use with the
intended receiving area, we recommended that prohibition become
permanent in receiving areas. And, again, that use is permitted in ag
rural outside fringe mixed-use district.
MR. BASIK: I might suggest that, you know, if it could be
where it's adjacent to the existing RV park, that it might be allowed.
It might be a compromise in there, so you're not having this -- I
guess it was eliminated because of density or something. But, you
know, if it's agricultural property adjacent to an existing RV park,
then you can bring that in. I don't know if that's possible.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, as I see it, it's no different than
any other use that we're restricting. And if the restriction holds,
then any new rezone under these provisions would be prohibited.
The existing use, the extent that it can be expanded, no problem;
new use would be prohibited.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
issues, sir?
MR. BASIK: No, that's it.
Thank you. Do you have any other
Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Mary Stamatinos followed by Bill Clark.
MS. STAMATINOS: My name is Mary Stamatinos. My
husband and I have owned five acres of land in Section 30 and have
been paying taxes on it since 1956; 46 years. We have planned to
build a home and retire there but after Collier County moved the
landfill to Section 36, which put our five acres just half a mile, five
city blocks, from the landfill, we changed our plans for a home and
anticipated that in as much as the land field was industrial zoning our
land could logically be zoned industrial in the future.
Page 96
June 18, 2002
In all of the 46 years that we have been paying taxes on the five
acres, they have never been considered or designated as being
environmentally sensitive. Nothing had changed and we were not
officially notified about anything until about the early part of this
year when we were informed that, pursuant to Governor Bush's final
order of June 22, 1999, our five acres had been designated as being
in a sending area in the rural fringe assessment area, whereby we
would have the option of transferring our development rights to an
owner of land in the receiving area.
Under this program of transfer of development rights, TDR, we
would still retain the land and pay taxes but we would be deprived
of the right to apply for a change of zoning or to develop anything
except a home which, of course, was precluded because of the
landfill. I will not go into the unconstitutionality of the TDR
program and what constitutes taking property for which
compensation must be paid which does not always require physical
possession. Property is taken if its value to the owner is diminished.
The land in this rural fringe assessment area are allegedly
supposed to be, quote, protected for environmental reasons, and
growth is allegedly to be controlled by establishing development
regulations. What is important here is the hypocrisy of the County
in designating a rural fringe assessment area where the County has
properties and projects in said areas, is operating said project, is
planning to continue operation, and is even planning to expand
operations, but the private landowner is deprived of said privilege.
Such projects consist of the landfill operated by Waste Management,
Water Treatment Plan, the permitting of High-Life Golf Club, and
the proposed construction of a middle school; among other things.
These projects are in Sections 24, 25, and 36. There are two
Page 97
June 18, 2002
sections adjacent to these three sections which are Sections 31 and
30 where my five acres is located.
And this was brought to my attention because of the situation
where I was affected. Because of the similarity of the terrain and
the proximity to Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City where
there has already been full-blown development, I submit that the
boundaries of the rural fringe assessment area be changed and of
these five sections, 24, 25, 36, 31, and 30 should be excluded from
the rural fringe assessment area, and the designation of the lands as
being in a sending area be eliminated. This is only fair and would
not adversely affect either the environment or growth because these
five sections have already grown. And particularly in view of the
report dated 2000 referred earlier to by Attorney Diffendorfer which
stated that the lands had been exempt and excluded. Thank you for your consideration.
MR. WEIGEL: Bill Clark followed by Tim Hancock.
MR. CLARK: Bill Clark, Golden Gate landowner. Well,
there's a lot. I think the people need more time to come up with
different ideas and things. What you did with Mr. Brown's property,
that was wonderful, but I think we need a chance to talk to staff and
different ways or have more meetings. The three meetings we had,
that was all -- that's when I found out about it, that my property was
in this.
Mr. Mulhere and staff is doing a great job, but I think they need
to turn their attention to the people now. That big book he's got
over there, he goes through it like nothing, you know. But TDR's,
that's not even coming close, even with your, the $25,000. I
appreciate that offer, but my property, that's about two and a half
times less than what is needed. So I don't know what to say about
that. It won't cover. Like Mrs. Fiala said, we're not taking property
Page 98
June 18, 2002
away, but you are. Like some of my lots are 15 acres, so I can only
build one house instead of three. So then the responsible TDR's will
take care of it, but they're just not there.
So I just want to tell you that I'm against it for those reasons.
It's for the wrong reasons.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Tim Hancock followed by Robert Duane.
MR. HANCOCK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, the good
news is I have no more slips in that stack over there. I appreciate
your indulgence. I'm here representing Six L Farms. Six L Farms
owns 5,000 continuous acres which makes up the predominance of
area D as shown on your visualizer.
When this process was fairly young, what I recognized was
when the receiving areas were set up there were no development
standards to how they would end up. We were going to end up with
kind of the same low density development pattern there that really
was part of the problem in the first place. These receiving areas gave
us the area to change the way in which we developed, so I proposed
a concept which I called rural villages. I realize now that I had a
naming error in that because what I had in mind was a 5,000 acre
tract not a 300 acre hamlet.
And after I submitted what I thought was the concept, it kind of
went into the committee and got changed around and we had a
minimum acreage of 500 and no maximum and it came out the other
end with a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 1,500. So the
concept got altered significantly. But the point of it for everything
in particular was that area at some point, thanks to NAPA, is no
longer going to be good agricultural land. When that's done, the
property will develop. To say otherwise is just sticking your head in
the sand.
Page 99
June 18, 2002
When it does develop, the question is what do we want down
there? Right now the maximum acreage for a rural village is 2,500
acres. What you end up with is a rural village with a buffer, and then
outside of that there would be another approximately 1,500 acres of
low density development.
What I'm suggesting, by increasing the maximum size of rural
village to 3,500 acres is you would have a rural village of that size if
you could even achieve it through the purchase of TDR's, with a
buffer around it, and it would be the development in total for the
majority of the area D.
The second benefit it has is it creates yet additional purchasing
requirements in the TDR system. Again, we're going to increase --
because rural villages are the only incentive to purchase TDR's, it's
the only place you can buy one and get a bonus. So it seemed to me
we don't want to cap the maximum size of those villages if they are,
one, a positive planning tool, and I believe everyone here will agree
they are, and, two, they're the only program in which you're
incentivized to purchase units.
That 5000 acres someday will develop. Right now it's actively
farmed. And when it does, I would like to see it as a single rural
village concept or new town concept instead of a core with a border
of lower density golf course development. That's the nature of my
request and, again, I thank you for your indulgence.
MR. WEIGEL:
Kluever.
MR. DUANE:
you.
But what I have to say is
Robert Duane followed by, it looks like, Kay
Mr. Duane will pass for the moment. Thank
MR. WEIGEL: Kay Kluever followed by Richard Schlinder.
MS. KIJUEVER: I'm Kay Kluever, and it's spelled with a K.
we are in Section 25 right next to where
Page 100
June 18, 2002
they're building, or going to be putting their fishing pond for the
hideout. We've got 25 acres right next to that, so we are definitely
what's being called the rural fringe. However, we were told at one
time that we were not to be concerned, that we were out of the area.
Then this year we got switched back to being told, oh, you are in the
area.
Although I went to County Planning, I've gone to all of the
meetings since I learned I was in the area, I know you have seen my
face before, but County Planning on Friday there were three on the
planning board who all agreed that there were eight sections that are
coming down from 24 across and going down to the U that should
not be included in this TDR program. Number one, there's so many
people that are involved.
And when they've taken these aerial pictures, our property has
always been the one that stood out as the high, clear land because it
is clear from the air. All of our neighbors are in the trees, and those
trees are pine trees; they're not cypress, and so they are all in high
lands. So, again, with all of the people that's involved, with the
effort that has been given to come out and see how many people are
involved, I think that more consideration should be taken. TDR's
should not be considered in this area at all. That's what I want to
say. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Rich Haylock followed by John Woodward.
MR. HAYLOCK: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we
are here to ask you for a simple thing; it's not very complicated. It
doesn't have to go into any rigmarole; it's one simple thing. Listen to
the people who have come before you. They're the ones that pay the
taxes, they vote on issues, they elect you as their representatives.
Their voice needs to be heard tonight.
Page 101
June 18, 2002
It cannot be ignored. It cannot be neglected in this important
process. What is being pushed through is something that is not their
will. You have here before you it says "United we stand." Well,
we're standing here before you saying, "No. Stop, look, listen.
There is something wrong with this plan."
I lived in Silver Springs which is in Montgomery County, and I
saw the plan as it was implemented, and there are problems with it.
In the Bowash area you have millions of people, so the demand for
land is extremely high. So for five-acre lots, that might be a
different thing over there than what's coming over here. And we
haven't implemented five acres; we're at 40.
So it's a completely different plan. And how it's going to be
implemented here might not have any correlation to how it was over
there. So we need to take a look at this; there is no need to rush
through this. The people who have come here before you just want
to be heard.
They were assured that they would be protected, that their
property rights and values would be unaffected in the other
meetings. And now we are being told that that is not the case. We
were told you would have nothing to worry about, that you would
watch out for our interests. Now we see that this is not true, and at
least those with the least will suffer the most. And the developers
and those with the most are assured as the winners in this.
Why is this? Is there no one here to represent the people? We
voted for you. You must remember that you are here at the people's
will whom you represent. It is at their pleasure which you serve, and
they will remember how you voted and this is very important today.
So I submit to you, think about this. There is no need to rush. We
can put it off, we can go through it, we can look at what has to be
Page 102
June 18, 2002
done in order to make it fair for everyone, not just a few. Thank
you.
MR. WEIGEL: Rick Haylock followed by John Woodward.
Was that Rick? Did I miss one then? How about Richard Schlinder?
Okay.
John Woodward followed by Vince Cautero.
MR. WOODWARD: I'm John Woodward or more people
know me as Jack. I've been a real estate broker for 18 years. We're
building a new house on Everglades Boulevard South. I've got a
whole lot of interest in the area. I can understand the principle of
taking rural land development rights and putting it into the places
where it's most suitable with the best lands to take construction are,
but that would just completely exclude Golden Gate Estates. I
mean, this was developed 30, 40, years ago; there's people living
there, there's roads, canals; everything.
This isn't something to be preserved, you know, really it should
not be put into this program.
give us some credibility and
neutral.
I mean, if it's not intended to be taken,
take it out of the program; leave it
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, you're not in the program.
MR. WOODWARD: Yeah, we are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Everglades Boulevard?
MR. WOODWARD: We're in the TDR program. We get stuff
off the web sites; we get stuff in the mail.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere, you sound like the
voice of authority; he obviously doesn't believe me.
MR. MULHERE: I would have to look at exactly where he
lives. Nothing in Golden Gate Estates is in this proposed program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry? I didn't hear you. Say that
again.
Page 103
June 18, 2002
MR. MULHERE: Nothing in Golden Gate Estates is in this
program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you say nothing in Golden Gate
Estates is in this Transfer Development Program; did I hear you
right?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
MR. WOODWARD: Why does the web site show that 10th
Avenue Southeast and 14th Avenue Southeast to the interstate are
part of the program.
MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure that it does. Maybe the map is
confusing. I don't know the answer to that question, but I think I
have answered the question; it's not in the program. We'll have to
look at the map on the web site and you'll have to show me how it
shows that that's in the area, and I can't really do that here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whose web site?
MR. WOODWARD: The counties.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, it's the ROMA program you're
thinking of.
MR. WOODWARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's not us.
MR. WOODWARD: We don't want in on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the Soil and Water; you
elected those people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That isn't us. That has nothing to
do with this program tonight.
MR. WOODWARD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know it's confusing.
MR. WOODWARD: But we are getting letters from people
making offers to buy.
Page 104
June 18,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. If you believe all those
letters, you're in a lot of trouble.
MR. WOODWARD: And I really don't think it's appropriate in
Golden Gate Estates that it's not part of any of these problems.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not, not of this program.
MR. WOODWARD: Of any of them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take that up with Soil and Water;
they're the ones.
MR. WOODWARD: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Vince Cautero followed by Phil Mudrak.
MR. CAUTERO: Good evening. Vince Cautero, for the
record. I'll be brief. I represent BCB Land Development Company
that owns approximately 2,200 acres in receiving area A which is in
township 47 and range 27. They are very supportive of the document
as written substantially with a couple of suggestions that we might
on the east side of Immokalee Road, I apologize, here. One of the
items that has been mentioned to you previously by some of the
speakers in the documentation dealing with increasing the maximum
rate in the sending areas upon the amendment of the Comprehensive
Plan is our belief and our request of you that you look at that sooner
than later in the program.
I don't think any of us really know how this is going to unfold
until all the criteria are established and all the regulations are in
place. However, we believe this would not only give a greater
return for the people that are in the sending areas to sell their rights
to people in the receiving areas. However, one of the things that
we're interested in is increasing the economic viability in the
receiving area.
Our client is interested in developing a rural village, and if they
were to do that upon approval of the program and upon setting up
Page 105
June 18, 2002
the program, they are looking at purchasing anywhere between 2,000
and 2,100 of the units that are from the sending areas; that's almost
half of the units that would be available as written today. I'm not
really sure you want to do that and set it up that way.
We see it, the program right now, as one that may be catered
more towards small tract development rather than large scale. That
may be a policy decision you want to make; we recommend you look
more towards increasing the rate in the sending areas as time goes
but earlier in the process rather than later. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Phil Mudrak followed by Ron Nino.
MR. MUDRAK: Good evening, commissioners. Phil Mudrak,
for the record. I think the consensus out there for the majority of
people, I think it's 100 percent of the landowners in the sending area.
Fortunately, I'm in a neutral area and I think that's where most of the
other people would like to be is in the neutral area.
I think the TDR is basically set up for the developers so the
developers have more credits to build their developments out in the
estates. I hope you reconsider the TDR and take it out of permitting
to rezone those and put that into a neutral area, all the sending areas.
Talk with the people, get with the people, and see what they actually
want. And I think ! 00 percent of them is going to want a neutral
area.
Also -- I lost my train of thought for a second here. I have one
question for the people in the neutral area. I know it's only like 20
percent difference in the land clearing, and I know myself, I own
land in the neutral area, and are you allowed to -- I guess this would
be directed to staff-- to put fences up, to contain your animals, such
as horses, dogs, so forth; protect your property, like a nursery.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Page 106
June 18, 2002
MR. MUDRAK:
it be eight-foot?
MR. MULHERE:
restriction is even less.
agricultural district.
And that's with the eight-foot fence? Would
No. I think in the agricultural district the
I mean, I think you can go higher in the
MR. MUDRAK: All right. I appreciate that. But, again, I
hope -- and I sympathize with some of the speakers who have been
greatly misled by a lot of e-mails out there. And we contacted the
County and let them know about the misleading information out
there, and it's sad that a lot of people are being misled to thinking
that they're not going to have any land rights whatsoever and sell
your land, and I know we've gotten the letters. And we are up in the
uproar because I have lived for my property for three years and that
North Belle Meade area is beautiful land. It is all high and dry, and
it's a lot of pines, very few cypress, and I haven't found any --
virtually any exotics on it whatsoever, which is virtually a miracle in
Collier County with all the pepper and romeldales and melaleucas,
and so forth.
So I hope you just take to heart and listen to the people and
maybe even send them letters and ask for their response and what
they want to do with their land, because after all, that's what they
built their dreams on is buying that land and seeing what they can
do for the future, building their futures on that piece of property.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Ron Nino followed by Ken Cuyler.
MR. NINO: My name is Ron Nino, I'm with the firm of
Vanasse Daylor. I'm here on behalf of the owners of Mirasol PUD
who own two sections of land that are located within the rural fringe
Page 107
June 18, 2002
area. So we're very concerned with the outcome of the rural fringe
amendments.
We support the amendments as they're currently crafted because
they do allow density blending within the rural fringe section 15 of
the Mirasol PUD which is a very important concern of the Mirasol
PUD owners, and similarly under the transitional rural water and
preclude district would allow the extension of water and sewer
facilities into Section 15. We support that, urge you to adopt that,
and my purpose for even being here is to go on the record in the
event that there is a challenge, we, by addressing this issue, we
maintain our standing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Ken Cuyler followed by Bruce Anderson.
MR. CUYLER: Good evening, commissioners. For the record,
Ken Cuyler with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson. I
represent two private property owners; fairly small property owners.
One owns 40 acres, directly adjacent to him is a property owner that
owns 120 acres. If I can get Mr. Mulhere to -- I showed Mr.
Mulhere where the properties were, they're in the North Belle
Meade just south of and adjacent to the neutral area, and the location
is very important with respect to my comments. They are in a non-
NRPA sending area, or at least have part of their property.
If I can refer you to page 59 of 80 of your document, there is a
provision that's been put together by staff that allows a property
within a sending area that is directly adjacent to a neutral area, if it
meets certain criteria, 40 acres or less, it's contiguous to neutral
areas. What it does is allows a property owner to come in at a later
time and make a specific presentation as to the environmental worth
of that parcel of property. And, for example, the 40-acre parcel that
one of my clients owns, Mr. Curt Mitchell, is an orchard. In other
Page 108
June 18, 2002
words, it's actively farmed. That property is going to meet this
criteria, so he's going to be able to come in and potentially have a
comp plan amendment, if he convinces staff that that is a low and
environmentally qualified parcel.
Mr. Clark, however, has the piece of property just adjacent to
that. Forty of his 120 acres are within the neutral area. In other
words, if you'll look at the map, they're just north of that line; 80
acres are below. And I have a specific request in language that I
would like the Board to consider. Mr. Clark would also like the
ability, since a third of his property is in neutral, another third
qualifies under this language to come in and at least petition for
neutral. If he decides to do that on an environmentally specific
evaluation of his property, that leaves only 40 acres of his. I would
suggest to the Board that it makes sense if a parcel of property is, in
fact, divided by that neutral line, that a property owner be given the
opportunity, even if he has in excess of 40 acres adjacent and part of
that unified piece of property, to come in and at least be able to make
that argument to staff if he decides to do that through a site-specific
environmental plan.
I'm not sure since this is -- we're not adjacent to receiving lands;
we're adjacent to neutral lands -- I'll use the interpreter if I can get
another three minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: About another minute and a half.
You're asking questions, and why don't we ask Mr. Mulhere to get
up here.
MR. CUYLER: I don't think the staff has a lot of heartburn
with what I'm suggesting. And I would ask that they --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Rather than going on and on, let's
get these questions as they come up.
Page 109
June 18, 2002
MR. MULHERE: I think you have a somewhat unique
situation here. I want to be able to make sure we're treating
everybody the same, however, which is why we proposed a 40-acre
limitation for properties right on the boundary adjacent to be
receiving or neutral, be able to come in and show us that they didn't
have the environmental qualifications that the sending lands, on a
large scale were purported to contain, that we would bring back in
one lump sum within about a year those Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to you; no charge to the property owners for that
process. We would just do that, but just for those boundaries. What
doesn't give me a great deal of heartburn is you've got a piece of
property that's one third in neutral, another third of it would be right
adjacent and fall into that provision; that 40-acre provision.
Neutral, I think, is less problematic because it still has a fairly
high preservation rate of 60 percent. Receiving, I think, would give
me some heartburn because we would begin to increase density in
those areas. Neutral does not increase the density; it still has a fairly
high preservation rate. So I don't object to that, but I think we need
some standard, some size, and I would recommend that considering
then in those circumstances that Mr. Cuyler has, you know,
expressed that it is adjacent to neutral, for the portion of property in
neutral, that we could consider the balance of the property provided
it didn't exceed some size. And I'm thinking the size should be about
100 acres.
You don't want to go into 200, 300, 400 acre parcels, and I don't
know if they exist. But then you're really beginning to get into that
sending area and have some natural resource of protection impacts
that would be negative. And I think it would also be viewed by the
DCA as a wholesale change in the plan. But if you limit it, I don't
think it would be problematic. Limit it to neutral, limit it to
Page 110
June 18, 2002
properties which straddle the boundary, which is different on the
border. In other words, the property on unified control straddles that
boundary, and I think you limit it to a conversion of a maximum of
100 acres to the adjacent neutral designation.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I think the common sense of
this is if it is a relatively small parcel and a good portion of it is
going to be entitled to come in and petition for this, it makes sense to
allow what is, you know, a third or less of the remaining property to
be included within that, at least petition ability. You're not
designating as neutral tonight; all you're doing is setting up the
ability to allow the petitioner, and he still has to provide
environmental evidence to that effect.
MR. MULHERE: Right. I guess the key point is if the
environmental evidence indicates that it should be protected, then
that portion could be protected and the portion that doesn't have it
can be changed. We're not going through the process tonight; it's
just the policy that opens the door for some consideration of that.
And that was why I didn't think there was a great deal -- I mean, I
don't think that's very significant issue that we're concerned with
impacting that sending area en masse.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm just concerned about the point
that we're coming back at this point in time we're reaching the very
end of the process. So I take it this is something we don't want to
wait for until next year.
MR. MULHERE: No, I think these are up to the pleasure of the
Board. Let's face it, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be
brought forward two times a year really at any point in time. What
this does -- all of these are going to come back next year, all of those
that submit the data that are on the boundary, all this does is open the
Page 111
June 18, 2002
size a little bit for those properties that straddle and are neutral in
designation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I myself, without knowing more
about it and seeing it in front of me, I don't have that comfort level to
be able to make that decision tonight. I kind of hope the
commission agrees with me that they would like to see this brought
back and in the next cycle we can look at it.
MR. CUYLER: The only thing I would ask is if your
consultants tell you that they feel it in any way jeopardizes your
plan, then that's obviously their opinion. But if they were to tell you
that it doesn't have an effect, I would ask you to take that into
consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm concerned about the size of it. If
we're going to start deviating at a moment's notice here and there,
then we have to go back and start doing it for everybody else. And I
just don't feel comfortable with it myself. But how does the rest of
the commission feel?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If it's good for one, it's good for
all.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ms. Linnan is taking a lot of
notes this evening. I'm not going to ask her to interrupt that. I will
be looking for her comments and a great deal of this before we go
into debate. I'll remind you again of your statement, just now you
don't want to be expanding and changing things at the 1 lth hour. I
will wait until I hear all of council's input, staff's input, for a final
discussion and take Mr. Cuyler's comments under consideration.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Cuyler.
Page 112
June 18, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: Bruce Anderson followed by Ms. Deputri.
MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson. I
represent the following clients, James A. Brown, Jr., doing business
as East Naples Land Company who has interest in 2,800 acres,
approximately, in rural fringe area C, also known as North Belle
Meade. I represent US Home Corporation who has interest in 2,400
acres approximately, in area B, and I represent SR 846 Land Cross
and related entity which have interest in approximately 2,500 acres
in area A.
Other than concerns about whether the TDR transfer rate will
make it financially feasible for a developer to purchase and use
them, my clients support the rural fringe amendments that have been
recommended to you by the Planning Commission. If there are any
changes to these recommendations, my clients preserve their right to
object to the amendments approved tonight or tomorrow night;
whenever that may be.
I have distributed to you and also provided a copy to your
council of some language to address Commissioner Coletta's
concerns and questions about the Wilson Boulevard extension, and I
will read that into the record.
The following additional language would be proposed to be
added to the North Belle Meade overlay under the heading of
planning considerations, number two transportation. It would go at
the end of the first paragraph under transportation and would read as
follows: "Except to the extent that the necessary public right-of-way
does not already exist for the east/west extension of Wilson
Boulevard to connect to Landfield Road, the County should acquire
the necessary right-of-way, and it shall be the responsibility of the
earthmining operator in Section 28 to construct the east/west
Page 113
June 18, 2002
extension of Wilson Boulevard to Landfield Road. The east/west
extension of Wilson Boulevard shall be constructed to meet at least
the minimum standards of Florida Department of Transportation for
rural roadways.
The County shall begin to immediately acquire the necessary
right-of-way for the east/west extension of Wilson Boulevard to
Landfield Road, and shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary
permits and approvals for the roadway to be constructed."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Anderson, a question on
"immediately." I mean, we have some plans within the County and
everything goes through a process. Can we put down reasonable
time limit or something? Immediately means that we're going to start
it in a period of time that might not be realistic and that could be
argued at some future date that we didn't live up to our agreement
and thus we lose the road.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Reasonably --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Reasonable.
MR. ANDERSON: Reasonable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't have anybody from roads
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about sometime in the
future?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Near future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't want to constrict ourselves to
the point that we can't perform that, then we lose our ability to be
able to take advantage of this. Maybe Mr. Olive might be able to
offer something on this. Since he just walked in the room he has no
idea what I'm talking about.
MR. OLIVE: I'm working on the air conditioner, Mr.
Chairman.
Page 114
June 18, 2002
MR. ANDERSON: We can simply say the County shall
commence acquisition of the necessary right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be better for myself, but
I kind of hope we have some people here from legal that can take a
look at this and see if there are any flaws. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I think that the
process should be handled in the MPO and identify when it's needed
to come on-line whether it be 5, 15, or 20 years. Well, knowing the
conditions of the traffic in Golden Gate Estates, I can tell you that
I'm in favor of doing it sooner than later.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I think that process should
be played out and it should be put in through the transportation
network and let that process be played out. The other thing, Mr.
Peter, our transportation director, is not here. So we don't know if it
is -- I think we know it's feasible, but is it good transportation
planning to connect the Landfield Road, and I would like to just
change it to Collier Boulevard and let our transportation director
determine where it comes out onto Collier Boulevard, whether it's
Landfield Road or north of Landfield Road. Do you see where I'm
coming from?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That leaves the options open. The
only concern I've got is we're talking about the trade-off is if they
start to do earthmining at a point where they're going to be impacting
the other roads. This road here is an intricate part of being able to
transport that out there to relieve the pressure from the rest of
Golden Gate Estates, plus the residents of Golden Gate Estates get a
direct benefit from this road.
Page 115
June 18, 2002
So it's going to have to be a lot sooner than 10, 15 years if this
plan is going to work. My concern, like Pat Humphries brought up
from the Golden Gate Civic Association, has to do with the fact that
APAC before was refused because of the fact that expanding their
operations was going to put a tremendous burden upon the roads
that were already existing within Golden Gate. They come down, I
believe it's 5th, this case here they'd be coming down Wilson, and I
assume their operations would pick up. The idea behind this road
was to be able to relieve that from happening and to the point where
the traffic would be disbursed in another direction and it would take
the main impact off of the roads that already exist within Golden
Gate, plus the local residents would still have the benefit of the road.
So it's a little sooner than later, but I agree with you
wholeheartedly about leaving the opening to where it's going to
come into at 951 open. I wish we had somebody here from
transportation, but we don't at this time. Maybe Mr. Olive might be
able to give us some feedback.
MR. OLIVE: Well, I think the Board is trying to work out
details that probably are better left for, frankly, a separate hearing.
And then I guess if you're going to put me on the spot and ask me for
a recommendation, I make a recommendation to you that you require
some additional public hearing process on either the field pitting or
the road condition rather than trying to make a decision here at the
last moment on what's going to be required and where it's going to
be required, I think--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How do we make it work in this
process.
MR. OLIVE: I believe there has been some discussion about a
conditional use requirement as part of this application, and I'm not
sure where the petitioner is on that.
Page 116
June 18, 2002
MR. MULHERE: I think the issue now is really trying to
maintain flexibility in terms of road and connections on the road.
And, you know, I think we need to be able to create something that
retains that flexibility but also contains the sense of urgency that
Commissioner Coletta described, because before the mining comes
on-line, you certainly want the road being constructed there to be
utilized.
My advice would be to try to leave the road access points on
Collier up and open, whether that's the Boulevard or through
Landfield Road, leave that open, but leave the, basically, the use
intact because I think if you defer to Bruce, he's going to tell you
that his commitment -- and maybe I'd better let him speak about the
commitment he's making rather than speak for him.
MR. ANDERSON: One thing I'd just point out is in reference
to the east/west connection to Landfield Road was what you-all
approved and transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs.
And I don't have authorization of my client to open up his
checkbook to go all the way to 951. Landfield Road was what we
talked about, that's what DCA reviewed and is comfortable with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Gentlemen, we're in a little bit of an
impasse in the fact we're lacking information to be able to work in
the qualified people that advise us. How can we do this in such a
way that we can make the transmittal to be able to come back and
address this later?
MR. MULHERE: First of all, if the Board is collectively
satisfied with the commitment to construct the road to Landfield
Road, I think that's the first question that has to be probably
deliberated upon. If you're not satisfied with that construction to
Landfield Road and you're suggesting it has been constructed further
to Collier Boulevard, there's nothing to permit that from happening;
Page 117
June 18, 2002
it's the question of whether this property owner is going to pay for
that additional construction. The commitment on the table is that he
construct it to Landfield Road which would eliminate the concerns
of the truck traffic.
So, again, it would be my recommendation that you structure
that agreement in that way and then this whole issue simply gets
brought back up through a process relative to the roads ultimate, you
know, alignment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Student, have we secured this
well enough with what we're talking about so we're protecting the
best interest of the County here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: While she's coming up, please, a
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The limit of our responsibility is
the acquisition of right-of-way, essentially. And are we going to
need the right-of-way regardless of what happens with respect to that
road? I mean, short-term or long term.
MR. MULHERE: I think if it makes sense, then, yes, you need
the right of way. And it appears it does make sense, so I would
answer that question yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the only issue is whether or
not we should commit to acquiring a right-of-way for that road, for
that segment of the road.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. And the County-- and the private
landowner doesn't have the power of imminent domain, so that's
why that's structured that way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So if we're ever going to build that
road, one way or the other, it is probably in the taxpayer's best
Page 118
June 18, 2002
interest to buy it early than buying it later when it is depreciated in
value; is that a true statement or not?
MR. MULHERE: I think it's the true payment. The value is
going to be the lowest now at any point in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except, Commissioner, we
don't have right-of-way for roads in our five-year work plan, that still
needs to be acquired. So I think what we need to consider is either
of two things, either we -- and I would hate to commit to the
taxpayer's dollar for acquisition on it when we can use the taxpayer's
dollar in a better way. Or the other option is to continue this and
finish it up tomorrow until staff could work on it between now and
some point tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are at a loss. I agree with you,
Commissioner Henning. We're dealing with the unknown, also, too,
what about the traffic that comes off of Landfield Road already
from the landfill? How are the two of these things together going to
merge together? If we take it down further, we end up coming out
there -- what's the name of the development?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's City Gate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We come out through City Gate
then we're going to run out at Davis where there's a moratorium. So
we have quite a few things to balance here and final decisions being
made at a moment's notice; I think we're going to live to regret them.
The offer is sincere and I can see where we can take advantage of it
and make it work for the best interest of the people that live out
there. It's just the timing of this whole thing and getting Mr. Feeders
in and everything else to do it.
I think Mr. Henning's idea about doing this last part where we
continue it tomorrow after our LCD meeting makes a lot of sense.
Take this as far forward as we can and finish the last of it up at that
Page 119
June 18, 2002
point. But in the meantime, we're going to take care of all the
speakers that are here now, and tomorrow's meeting will just be the
speakers will be taken care of and we'll be dealing just with the
Board itself and asking questions of our staff to be able to come up
with our final conclusion.
Does this sound like this -- hopefully by tomorrow we can come
up with something for that meeting. I hate to put you off Mr.
Anderson, you're bending over backwards to try to accommodate
everyone. I wish we could tell you we have all the answers, too.
MR. MULHERE: But just for clarifications sake and
discussions then with, I guess, Norm Feeder, what we would be
looking for to create flexibility, not only his recommendations, but
also flexibility to make sure those recommendations, if they become
necessary, can be implemented.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Also, too, to be able to come up
with a time-line so we're reasonably protecting the residents that live
out in Golden Gate Estates for all the truck traffic. And I don't know
how all of that is going to come together; that's why we need to
have Mr. Feeder here and several other people and they need a little
bit of time to be able to put together. Possibly you might be able to
get ahold of Mr. Feeders so that he can get here real early in the
morning and start addressing this situation. He can free up his
schedule so this is his primary thing.
MR. OLIVE: He already called me just now, and I do think he
will probably need some time to be able to sit down with both Mr.
Anderson and Mr. Mulhere and try and craft up something. Because
I think he does have some concerns about the merging of traffic
from that field pit with the traffic coming out of Landfield Road, and
he's got some concerns about the timing and the County's
acquisition of right-of-way for that road in terms of your other
Page 120
June 18,2002
priorities and your road, especially your five-year plan. He needs to
tie that timing down, so I think your idea of your postponing it at
least that decision until tomorrow makes some sense.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually, I want to give
Commissioner Henning credit for that and I think it's an excellent
idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just put it in my paycheck.
MR. ANDERSON: I will share with your County Manager an
old memorandum from County Engineer W.H. Turner dated March
1 lth, 1964, which indicates that there may well be 50 feet of public
right-of-way reserved along the north side of Interstate 75 so the
County might not even have to acquire any; I don't know. The
second point I would want to make is that we were and are still
perfectly willing to live with the language that you approved at
transmittal.
This offer that I made here was to solely address the concerns
that Commissioner Coletta had raised to me privately. I don't want
our offer to try to be accommodating and to address some concerns
to turn out to be a sword that's used against us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, Mr. Anderson, I hear you loud
and clear, and your offer is made with the greatest of intentions.
And I do appreciate it, and I know I bent your arm and pulled your
shoulder out of socket when I got you to make that wonderful offer.
So I'm not going to abuse you in any way, if I can help it.
So we're really going to try to work with you on this to come to
some sort of resolution. I'm sure Mr. Feeders is going to be here
first thing in the morning, and we'll come up with something that's
reasonably understandable and we can go forward with it. It's going
to be kind of unusual to have government do something in about a
1 O-hour or 12-hour time span. That's going to be remarkable.
Page 121
June 18, 2002
MR. ANDERSON: The last thing, I don't want to respond to all
the comments that have been directed at North Belle Meade or my
client, except the one, and that is I want to make clear on the record
that there was an allegation about a potential monopoly on
earthmining out there. And let me just be real clear, Florida Rock is
free to compete with APAC for the right to mine my client's
property. There's no need for monopoly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Ms. Deputri followed by Robert Duane.
MS. DEPUTRI: I would like to thank the Board, Councilmen,
and all the people here present this evening. I really have no interest
in this particular area, but I'm concerned for the small people or
people in the low income and middle income brackets. And I almost
dropped when I heard them say
of $2,500. What was it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For what?
MS. DEPUTRI: It was a fee that they
that they have to pay an impact fee
You lost me.
had to pay of $2,500.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's an application fee for--
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's waived in this portion.
MS. DEPUTRI: That stymied me, okay. These people have no
write-offs; the developers have right offs. I'm not saying to saddle
the developers, but I don't want these developers strangling the
majority of the citizens in this city. We are inundated with traffic,
we are having serious water problems, we have had serious problems
with our sewage systems, and they're mediocre, I'm telling you,
mediocre.
If we keep developing at this aggressive pace, where is it going
to leave the citizens of this city? Who will pick up the tab for these
extended exorbitant expenditures to comply with all this excessive
building? I'm not saying pull a moratorium on it, but I'm not saying
Page 122
June 18,2002
let's have the train, the locomotive, full speed
as it may with no direction. Do you hear me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you're
what we're doing tonight.
ahead and just let it go
speaking in favor of
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, very much.
MS. DEPUTRI: This is it. I have no interest at all; I'm an
outsider. But I just picked up the paper, read it, and I got myself up
here tonight. I didn't know even what building to get into. And I
would like to make one little note. Now, the people in Golden Gate
Estates, when they bought those
could build a home --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
properties, they were told that they
They still can.
MS. DEPUTRI: Why were they told to sell their properties?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No one told them to, ma'am, that's
the misconception that's going on out there. That's the evil letter that
we're trying to override that's been out there. There's nothing that's
changed; their rights are still the same. Nothing has happened in
Golden Gate that's affecting their will to build.
MS. DEPUTRI: They said they had letters sent out, if you
didn't take affirmative action that the State would get their lawyers
and then they would take matters in their own hands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. DEPUTRI: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
And you know who wrote the letter?
It was not the County, it was not any
government entity; it was a private entity writing the letter, speaking
their own opinions, which they're entitled to do. The letter bears
very well to do with the truth.
MS. DEPUTRI: Who was the private entity; may I ask?
Page 123
June 18,2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I really am not going to get into that
at this point in time, but I think if you do a little more research you'll
come up with everything you need to know.
MS. DEPUTRI: I see. Well, I voted for some of you people.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you for that.
MS. DEPUTRI: And I'm hopefully appreciated thinking of
seeing you people take the best interest, not only for these people,
but for the interest of Naples as a whole.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not Naples, ma'am, it's Golden
Gate; it's a big difference, Collier County. MS. DEPUTRI: Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Naples is a small coastal city that
we love dearly, but it's not Golden Gate.
MS. DEPUTRI: All right. Golden Gate; Golden Gate
community. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for your time.
MR. WEIGEL: Robert Duane followed by your last speaker
Nancy Payton.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane, representing
Naples Preserve, LTD. I'm here this evening to support the density
blending provisions just to maintain our standing that are in the plan.
We championed this issue for three years, and we think it's a good
policy and appreciate your support of MR. WEIGEL: Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Yes, I'm getting
it this evening. Thank you.
organized.
MR. MOLDAVIAN: I put my name on the
it called.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll make sure you're called, sir.
MS. PAYTON: Good evening, Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation. The Florida Wildlife Federation only
Thank you.
list and I didn't hear
Page 124
June 18,2002
has one unresolved issue tonight, and that is essential services on
sending NARP and conservation lands. For years Florida Wildlife
Federation has advocated that sewer and water lines and lift stations
should not be permitted uses on environmentally sensitive lands. In
the rural fringe these lands are designated sending, NRPA, and
conservation.
Our comprehensive plan states, and I quote, "Barrier islands,
coastal bays, wetlands, and habitats for listed species deserve
particular attention because of their ecologocial value and the
sensitivity for pervalgation" -- I learned a new word today but I can't
necessarily pronounce it. That's disturbance; I looked it up in the
dictionary. "It is because of this that all proposals" -- and I'm still
quoting --"for development in the conservation designation be
subject to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the
development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent
functional values," end of quote. Yet natural protection strategies for
these conservation lands includes sewer and water lines and lift
stations as permanent uses.
The plan also identifies NAPA's as mechanisms to direct
incompatible land uses away from listed species in their habitats.
Sewer and water lines and lift stations are not compatible uses in
NRPA's, one, because of the disturbances of the lands to put them in
and secondly, because of the concerns of overflows, breaks, leaks,
and backups and contaminating lands that we have identified as
having the best environmental values left in our county.
Therefore, we request the following: One, that sewer and water
lines and lift stations are prohibited uses in NRPA -- it's a little
distracting to me -- and conservation lands, and, two, sewer and
water lines as well as lift stations are conditional uses on non-NRPA
sending lands and that's to address Section 24 and the concern that
Page 125
June 18, 2002
Mr. Mulhere brought up about the potential for sewer lines.
Although, we would recommend that they go along the northern
boundary, but that they become one of those conditional uses that's
evaluated during the coming year along with other essential uses as
to whether it's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's a great idea.
MS. PAYTON: Thanks. And then the appropriate changes
should be made in the water and sewer sub-elements. I wanted to
speak a little bit about Section 24.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to allow another minute
and a half, but please wrap it up. I'm sorry, I've got to keep --
MS. PAYTON: Well, I going to submit a slip that says I'm
representing Panthers and I'm going to submit another one saying I
represent RCW. Okay. Section 24, the data support sending status,
and it was transmitted to DCA with this status, saying that the data
and analysis supports it as sending.
We agreed during that and we asked and you accepted that there
be a study of Section 24 to evaluate whether it truly is RCW habitat.
We thought it was a very responsible and reasonable way to address
this issue about whether it is or isn't RCW habitat.
We were willing to accept the proposal by the Planning
Commission that it go to neutral with sending status and the study
went on, but that was not acceptable to Mr. Pickworth or his client.
And, therefore, our position tonight is stick with the plan, you
transmitted it as sending, your data and analysis supports it as
sending, and the study can proceed, and they should be cooperating
with that plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Two questions, if I may.
MS. PAYTON: Yes.
Page 126
June 18, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The item, you don't think it's
adequate for what we have planned to do with that land where we
made it a -- what was that now? I don't remember the terminology.
MS. PAYTON: It was transmitted to DCA as sending.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me address the question to Mr.
Mulhere, if I may.
MR. MULHERE:
was to designate that as
The Planning Commission's recommendation
neutral but apply the sending area
preservation standards, and the staff supported that recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Have we changed anything.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean our recommendation hasn't
changed. I think what Ms. Payton is saying that if they couldn't live
with that compromise, she wants to go back to her original
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I can't promise you one way
or the other on that yet, on that particular issue, but we will be
discussing that tomorrow.
MS. PAYTON: I'm just letting you know that we backed down
twice and it still wasn't acceptable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now my mm.
MS. PAYTON: Oh, I'm not finished here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need you to wrap it up, Ms.
Payton, we're exceeding the time limit.
MS. PAYTON: It has to do with the North Belle Meade plan.
And if you look at the boundaries for sending and receiving
throughout the rural fringe, you'll find that most of those are all on
section lines or straight lines. North Belle Meade is no different
from any other area if you look at the map.
Our challenge was for the interim boundaries and the response
back from the Judge was that, hey, they're interim boundaries;
Page 127
June 18, 2002
there's a study going on. And I urge you to please support the North
Belle Meade plan. It was delicately crafted, it was transmitted to
DCA, and they accepted it; there were no comments on it, no
objections.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Now it is my turn. I
need some help on what we talked about before. In order for me to
make the people whole out there in Golden Gate Estates that live out
in the far parts of Desoto and Everglades Boulevard, I want to be
able to put a road in that parallels 75 and join up with the new road
that will be taking place from Wilson hooking up to Landfield Road.
I need some assurance that I've got a reasonable chance of
making this all happen. I don't want to get involved and find out that
I'm going to have you and the Audobon Society and the
Conservancy all over me to try to make life better. Is there some sort
of assurance?
MS. PAYTON: I can't give you any assurance at this five
minutes to midnight that we would not object to it. What I told you
yesterday, and it stands today, that we will work with you and
evaluate it. I understand why it might be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Quiet, please.
MS. PAYTON: -- why it might be appropriate. It seems to me,
though, that this is more that should be part of the road plan
discussion for the Golden Gate master plan that's looking at a road
network for that area. And it seems as though that would be the
appropriate avenue to begin to explore this rather than at the last
hour through the rural fringe amendments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I wasn't planning to enter this into
the rural fringe amendment. I'm just trying to look for some sort of
assurances. Could I get from you some sort of assurance that you'll
Page 128
June 18, 2002
work very closely
possibility?
MS. PAYTON:
work with you. We
with the Golden Gate master plan to explore this
And I gave you that yesterday that we will
understand the need to get additional ways for
people to get out of northern Golden Gate Estates for hurricane
reasons, for fire reasons. We understand that, but I can't --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
the power of your Board. But
them.
No, I understand. You don't have
I know you do have that power with
Mr. Cornell, do you agree with that particular statement?
Please, bear with me, this is very important for Golden Gate Estates.
MR. CORNELL: Brad Comell with Collier County Audobon
Society. Commissioner Coletta, your proposal to connecting Desoto
to Landfield Road has considerable merit and deserves full
examination. And I agree with what Nancy suggests. I think it
would be an excellent fast-track proposal for the current Golden
Gate master plan restudy which is chaired by an estates activist, Mark
Strang.
And Collier County Audobon Society commits to using all our
reasonable resources to work with you on your very considerable
idea which I, frankly, had not thought of before. So we do commit
to working with you. We suggest that through the Golden Gate
master plan --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CORNELL: -- restudy would be a good idea.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I know you're a gentleman and
I know Nancy is a lady. I've dealt with both of you for a
considerable amount of time. And I found you to be very helpful in
reaching resolutions in other problems that we ran into. Forgive me
for putting you through this little routine, but I have to give not only
Page 129
June 18, 2002
myself assurance that we're going to move forward on this but my
residents who live out there in Golden Gate Estates, it's very
important also. Thank you, very much; I do appreciate that. Nancy,
thank you so much.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, we have one last speaker.
COURT REPORTER: I need to change my paper.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold on, we've got to change paper.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Christian Moldavian.
MR. MOLDAVIAN: First thing I wanted to do was ask you a
question. Are crackers on your list of protected species? Are those
who designated -- and I want you to ask yourself this question -- are
those who designated the protected species objective scientists or
animal protection radicals?
The terms used to describe things have a lot of emotional
content, and I don't expect to be a Patrick Henry. I don't think I'm
going to be able to make you go 180 degrees, but I hope so. The so-
called wetlands are very subject, and in the mind of a Florida
graduate in biology who studied the State from one end of the State,
literally, Ft. Morgan, Alabama, to Key West in plant ecology, they
are clearly designed to demote very usable, basic drylands to the
category of wetlands. A red cockade woodpecker a couple of weeks
ago drilled a hole for a nest in the fascia of my son-in-law's house.
Should his house be designated as a protected area? To take any of a
party's rights is a taking. To take somebody who bought 20 acres of
land with the view of perhaps letting one of their children build on
this five acres and another child build on this five acres and live
next door to them is a taking. And that's not what I served for when
I served.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
Page 130
June 18, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. So, say, for instance,
somebody did own 20 acres of land and they wanted to use it as a
family parcel and they wanted to build one home on five acres and
then when their son had family he could build. Can they build one
home on each five acres in that 20 acres?
MR. MULHERE: Not in the sending area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not in the sending area. They can
build one home? So then they can build the one home on the 20
acres, but they have the transfer of development rights then to the
rest of it?
So they keep the 20 acres and they still live on the 20 acres;
right? That is theirs forever, but they also have three development
rights that they can sell, so that even though --
AUDIENCE: No, they all do not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. So then they can sell
those three development rights, say, for whatever amount, X amount
of dollars, but still the land is still theirs to live on; correct? MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I also wanted to ask one more
question while I have you there and that is somebody said in a
meeting today that you get one TDR for, say, five acres, but then
they said you only get one TDR for 40 acres. MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I wanted to just, for the
record, would you state for me what you get for 40 acres.
MR. MULHERE: Sure. What we're talking about is the
sending land designation. Within the sending land designation, the
density is proposed as one dwelling unit per 40 acres. Prior to
transmittal it was one dwelling unit allowed per parcel. The Board
changed that to one developing unit per 40 acres.
Page 131
June 18, 2002
If you have a 40-acre parcel, you would then have eight, a total
of eight TDR's; 40 divided by five is eight. You may retain one and
build that one on your property and sell seven. If you have 20 acres,
you have four TDR's. You may retain one, build on your property,
and sell three. If you have ten acres, you have two TDR's. You may
retain one, sell one, and live on the property. If you have three
acres, you have one development right just as you did before this
process started.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's good. I don't think
that thatwas really clear. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: I appreciate that opportunity.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Mulhere, one other point of
clarification. If prior to this initiative, I had plotted my 40 acres into
eight, five unit parcels, I retained the right then to build eight homes?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time, would
you; just to make that clear.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If it was plotted prior to the
government or to the cabinet in the governor order, if you had
plotted that 40 acres into five unit parcels, you still maintain the
right to build one unit per five acres.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. It's actually more liberal than
that. The same definition that we used in Land Development Code
for nonconforming lots, what it says is that if a lot or parcel existed
prior to the date of final order, and existed is defined as not plotted,
necessarily, simply for which a contract or deed exists, so it's more
liberal than to simply have subdivided or plotted it, is any parcel
which existed prior to the final order for which a contract or deed,
and obviously if it was plotted that would also apply.
Page 132
June 18, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So I don't know where some of
these landowners might be, but if I was a landowner out there I
would certainly want to know what had been done or not done,
number one, and, number two, with the new formula you still can
build a home and sell the rest as TDR rights as has been outlined by
Mr. Mulhere.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So one more thing then. So
now I have five acres of land. Okay? And I have my own already
on my five acres and I'm growing a vegetable garden and I have
some cows. Okay? Now this program is in effect and I'm in a
sending area. I still have, because I have five acres, I have a TDR
on there; don't I? I have one TDR?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, you could. You would lose -- you have
a house then you don't -- you have an existing house?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Then you would have to take that house
down. That's not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I either have a house -- just so I
understand. So I have my house, I never have to take my house
MR. MULHERE:
concentrate with all the
Very distracting. It's very hard for me to
discussion going on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to make it very clear.
So I either, on my five acres, I either have the right to sell a TDR or
-- and still retain my five acres -- or I have a right to build a house on
my five acres, or I might have one already built, and I never have to
sell it at all.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
Page 133
June 18, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I never have to trade the land
in.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I can still grow my garden. I
just can't earth mine on that property.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I just can't start an agriculture
venture on my property, but --
MR. MULHERE: Actually, you can. In that scenario that you
described, you have a five-acre parcel, you're not involving yourself
in the TDR program because you're retaining your home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Agriculture is a permanent use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Is that clear? I'm trying to
make it really clear.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we can't go to participation back
and forth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have to limit it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted it to be clear for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It came to an end. If you want to,
you can call anyone you want up to be able to discuss this with them
from the podium. But as far as public participation, per se --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The meeting is closed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's closed.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of letters here
that I do want to submit into the record. I won't read them verbatim;
they'll be submitted into the record. But I just want to indicate that
one is from Robert D. Duncan, Jr., and that deals with the oil and
gas issue, the Collier resources. One is from Neal Montomery, an
Page 134
June 18, 2002
attorney who speaks on behalf of the amendments or supporting the
amendments, and one is from Rick Mercer, vice president of
planning and development from WCI Communities who also speaks
to support certain provisions of the plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have anything else you want
to cover this evening because what I would like to do -- MR. MULHERE: Nancy may.
MS. LINNAN: No, I'll be happy just to listen to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, what I was going to do, Nancy,
is you go ahead and make whatever presentation you have and we'll
hear from staff. What I would like to do is go down the line with
these commissioners, in mm, to get questions, whatever comments,
and then bring this meeting to a close so we can reconvene it
tomorrow through the LDC meeting.
MS. LINNAN: I have a question for you. Would you like to
hear from us now on all of the comments made tonight or would you
rather-- you have to close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We closed it.
MS. LINNAN: Which hasn't technically be done and then
respond tomorrow night with all the questions and recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you rather do it when we're
fresh.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ms. Linnan, will you be here
tomorrow to guide us in that discussion?
MS. LINNAN: Yes, sir. This is an
over.
important issue, we'll stay
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Personally, I would prefer to
absorb all of this tomorrow after I had a chance to think about a
number of things and I have notes, and I will wait for your report
and enter into a discussion with the Board tomorrow evening. I will
Page 135
June 18,2002
tell you now as I approach this, mine is global. Mine is one after
three and a half years of being here from the inception of this that
you can't delay it without severe consequences of the action.
So I will be working with the staff, with my fellow
commissioners, with all the inputs tomorrow to try to get this in a
reasonable transmittal for final approval by the governor and the
cabinet. I do not want to be in a position as a citizen of this county
where the DCA or the governor and the cabinet, if we fail, dictate to
us what you will do. And at the end of that period, I can assure you,
that you'll be worse off than anything that we worked through as a
Board of County Commissioners at the local level.
Fellow commissioners, that's where I will be in this input of
further information in discussing tomorrow evening.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, do you have
any closing comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It's just a little warm, and a
little late, and we all worked all day long and all night long. I guess
we will come back fresh again; there's a lot of good information.
Thank you. I have many comments, but I'll save them for
tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I have
several things, but I will wait for tomorrow. I do need two things for
tomorrow, naturally, that is the input of our transportation director.
There was a Mr. Vega representing Mr. Hussey about earthmining,
it is my understanding that is a conditional use in agricultural.
I asked if Mr. Hussey has submitted a conditional use
application to the community development. If you can get that for
us, that would be fine, so I can make some sound decisions for
tomorrow.
Page 136
June 18, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm concerned that a number of
people who were here, are here now might not be back tomorrow
night, tomorrow evening. I haven't gotten that far yet; that's the
chairman's job. He gets to speak after I do. But I'm concerned about
the fact that many people will not be back and will not hear what I'm
about to say now because I think that this expresses the feeling of
this entire board.
There have been a number of people who have gotten up and
said, "Why aren't you looking out for us?" And you have to
understand that's what we're really trying to do. You have had
something very bad happen to you, and it happened in June of 1999.
It's not happening now; it happened in June of 1999. There's been a
virtual moratorium on your property for three years.
And none of us believes that the government should be taking
personal property rights. I certainly feel that personal property
rights are one of the fundamental benefits of a free country, and I do
not believe the government should be taking your property rights
unless you're properly compensated. We are in a situation here
where we're given two choices. We either come up with a plan
which tries to get you compensated for the loss of use of some of
your property, or we tell the governor and the cabinet, "Implement
your own plan."
And their plan has been implemented for the past three years,
and it means you don't get anything. You don't get paid for
anything, you can't build anything. And that's what we're trying to
avoid. We don't want to be placed in that position; we're trying to
find a way to solve it.
Now, I have heard several people say do away with the TDR
program. I'd be happy to do away with the TDR program. But you
Page 137
June 18, 2002
know what that means? You get not a penny. The same restrictions
apply and you don't get any money.
The TDR program is the only way we've been able to find
where you can get some money for this loss of use of your property.
If someone could come up with a better idea, I would really be
happy to hear about it. But you can't say just do away with the TDR
program because when you say that, you're telling me that you don't
want $18,500 or whatever it is for a TDR right. You're not going to
get any money. You'll lose your rights and you won't get any
money.
We're trying to find a way to get you some money for this.
Now, first of all, this is a voluntary program; you don't have to
participate in TDR's. You're not going to be forced off your land;
you do not have to sell anything. You can, in fact, build your home
on a parcel, so there's a lot of misconception about what this
program really does.
And I know why you're concerned; I would be concerned, too.
I think is a terrible thing that is happening to the people here. My
only hope is that we will have the opportunity to evaluate the
effectiveness of this program as we go forward. And, yes, I would
be willing to bet there's some faulty data here, and I think we will
have an opportunity to verify that as we go forward and hopefully
make some changes. And I can assure you that I'm working in your
best interest. I know from working with the other commissioners
here that they have your best interest at heart.
We're working for you against the plan that was imposed by the
State government, and that's what we're trying to do. And we're
doing the best we can, and I know what we do is not going to make
you happy. It wouldn't make me happy either if I were in your
shoes. But please understand we're not trying to do anything bad to
Page 138
June 18, 2002
you. We're trying to undo things that were done to you. So with that
I'll close and I hope you'll come back tomorrow night.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, I have been pouring my
heart into this. Believe me, there's been many sleepless nights; I
have attended many meetings. I try to approach this to see every
opportunity that's available. We're getting down to the very end
now. Do I like everything that's coming down? No. You can see
we're at the last hour, the 1 lth hour, and I'm still beating people up
out there that try to salvage something that's going to try to make a
better life for everybody possible.
I know what's happening. I know how it's going down. I'm not
exactly sure what's going to happen tomorrow. But I tell you, it's
been really difficult, and I can't say going home tonight that I'm 100
percent certain how I'm going to vote tomorrow. I still have to
weigh a lot of different things out. But there is one thing I want to
leave you with. There's been a lot of misconception that there's a lot
of double-dealing, that there's a lot of underhanded dealing. There's
been a lot of misinformation that's been put out there for reasons to
help certain people profit.
And I want to tell you right now, some of that has done
tremendous damage; it's done a lot of times to help people correct it.
You send out 5,000 letters with a lot of miscommunications and to
receive 2000 phone calls, it takes you forever to try to return them.
It's just about impossible. There's been many meetings, there have
been many mailings of information, a lot of energy and time has
been spend to try to cover the bases of the misinformation that's been
sent out.
A lot of people have been degraded into this. And I listen to a
lot of people talk tonight and you hear misinformation after
misinformation, totally irrelevant to what we're dealing with it. It
Page 139
June 18, 2002
just has no bearings at all. So remember when you receive this did
it come from the government, no, it came from this private
individual. This private individual has reasons for what he sent out,
and I'm not going to try to analyze them at this point in time. But
tomorrow we will reach a final conclusion on this; at least I hope we
do. And with that--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before we go--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I wasn't quick enough, was I.
MR. MUDD: No, you want to do this. The first thing you do
not want to do is say adjourned; you want to say continued until
tomorrow night--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was going to do it.
MR. MUDD: -- until 5:05 in this chamber; make it quite clear.
MS. LINNAN: Actually, can I clarify that, please? According
to Ms. Student, it would be continued until tomorrow evening, June
19th, immediately following the LEC meeting in this room.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may quote you, that's it.
Thank you, good night.
Thereupon, (The meeting was concluded at 10:21 p.m. to be
reconvened on June 19, 2002.)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
~IRMAN
Page 140
DWIC~E;)BRO~} CLE~
These mi6~tes'a~proved~y the Board on 7- ~ ~ - ~ ~
as presented~ or as co~ected
June 18, 2002
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER )
I, Lori L. Hagedom, Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify
that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and
place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the
foregoing computer-assisted transcription, is a tree record of my
Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 15th day of
July, 2002.
Lori L. Hagedom, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
20th Judicial Circuit
Naples Court Reporting, Inc.
(239)417-5898
Page 141