Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/07/2008 S (LDC Amendments) October 7, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 7, 2008 LDC AMENDMENTS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Frank Halas Fred Coyle (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner Joe Schmitt, Administrator CDES Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 1 October 7,2008 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good afternoon. Welcome to the continuance of the Land Development Code amendments, cycle two (sic), for 2008. Would you all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Schmitt, I'm assuming that Catherine Fabacher is going to lead us in the discussion today. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. MS. F ABACHER: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's on your mind today? MS. FABACHER: A million things. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Do you want to go ahead and -- this is the continuation of our public hearing on the LDC cycle for 2008, cycle one. What we have today for you is an agenda of what we plan to hear today, and you got that in book two, which is a little yellow-bound packet. If you don't have that, I have extras. The other sheet that you received that looks kind of scary is, it's a tally sheet of where we are on this cycle. The yellow highlighted means we've finished with those. Of the ones that aren't highlighted, the ones with the check mark in that little box in the second right-hand column means they finished with the Planning Commission, but if the box is not checked, as is mostly the case on the back, those have not yet passed the Planning Commission. So we anticipate most of the stuff that is checked will be in book three for you for your October 30th hearing, which is an all-day hearing, okay? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a question on that, unless it's on the back. I don't see the counting of conservation easements for Page 2 October 7, 2008 shoreline conservation area here. MS. FABACHER: No, sir. I didn't -- wasn't directed that it was in this cycle. I didn't receive that information, if that's your wish. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the board directed to take it back through the different committees and bring it back to us for further consideration; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner, if I could explain. For the record, Joe Schmitt, your Administrator of Community Development. This cycle had already started by the time that directive came. Just for an update on that, we've had two meetings with the stakeholders involving the shoreline issue. Two factions diametrically opposed. One certainly has made recommendations to proceed with pretty much counting all the shoreline, another faction pretty much trying to eliminate any element of the shoreline that's in conservation easements. We've been back in touch with some of the members. We're trying to form a committee again or at least a -- convene the parties again to see if we can reach some kind of consensus to form a proposal to bring to you for review. But this cycle had already been started, was through several of the meetings while we were still working that issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I viewed the EAC meetings where they discussed it and made recommendations on that issue. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. And -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a correct statement? I mean, it's not a correct statement whether I viewed it and seen it. Is that your understanding, the EAC heard this LDC amendment? MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead. I'm not -- MS. FABACHER: No, sir. They may have heard that independently, but I know that I've been to all the EAC/LDC meetings, and it has not been in our book. They may have heard it independently. Page 3 October 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: They talked about it from a subject matter, but not as part of this LDC cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. Good. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your clarification on that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Commissioners, now I want to take-- bring your attention to the first two items on the list. Mr. DeRuntz won't be here today, but Mr. Weeks will be representing these amendments, and they are both -- we have had a first hearing of them, and we require, as you recall, a second hearing of them because they make changes to the land use lists, permitted, prohibited conditional or accessory. For that reason, we're back with them today. And Mr. Weeks can answer any questions, or would you like a brief presentation again on what it was? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. So we're considering LDC amendment 2.04. -- no -- 2.03.04, industrial zoning districts. Is there-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve the amendment, second by Commissioner Fiala. Questions on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Page 4 October 7,2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one is LDC amendment 2 point dot dot 40.2. And that is -- no, I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: I believe, Commissioner, we're on -- the second one is 2.03.07 and 4.02.37, and it has to do with the -- the Golden Gate downtown center commercial overlay. I believe you'll recall we prohibited some heavy industrial uses from that small overlay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions on the motion? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I know this is something you've been working on for a long time. Does this -- does this work toward meeting your goal for improving that area? CHAIRMAN HENNING: It meets it. I didn't have anything to do with it. It's just a -- an error, I understand, that's correcting the overlay. So I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. That's what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to approve, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. Page 5 October 7,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Weeks. MS. F ABACHER: Next we'd like to move on to one that you have heard previously, but we did change it from the floor at our last meeting, and unfortunately we got back and Mr. McNall, our landscape architect, reviewed the LDC again and found that we've written stuff now that, with what we added from the floor, is kind of in conflict and it actually weakens what's already in the LDC, in that we had requested, instead of just allowing 25 percent of the cypress mulch to be used on county required landscaping, we wanted to make it that there was no cypress mulch at all used, you know, to encourage preservation of the cypress swamps to protect the coastland. What happened was, is that we limited it to just for CO purposes, and after that it seemed like anybody could do anything, and we found another provision in the LDC that unfortunately we didn't have at our command when we discussed it with you which says that all plantings and all requirements shall by maintained as indicated on the site plan, which means it's in conflict with saying, after you get your certificate of occupancy, then you can use what you want. It's says in another section of the code that you must maintain your landscaping, your county required landscaping based upon what you submitted on your plan. So that's in conflict with the new language that you gave us. So we're here to -- Bruce is here to answer questions and see what your pleasure it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where is the language that states it would be in conflict? MS. F ABACHER: Wait a second. Do you have it on hand? Page 6 October 7,2008 MR. McNALL: I've got the section right here. MR. SCHMITT: Bruce, put it on the visualizer. MS. F ABACHER: Just read it. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, what we're recommending is that we just rescind the vote and revert back to the original language in the LDC. Do you have it? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe back off just a tiny bit. There you go. MR. SCHMITT: I'll basically read it. All required landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition in perpetuity as per the approved building and site plans. So basically it says what was approved on the plans when reviewed must be maintained in perpetuity . We were asking that no cypress mulch be used, then it was decided that -- on the floor that it would only be at the inspection, and then the consumer can use anything they want, which is in conflict with this sentence. So it's best just to remand this vote, rescind it, and just stay with the existing language and not even mention anything having to do with cypress mulch, if that's what you prefer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we already voted on this, but the language has changed, so this will be an actual new amendment, correct? MR. SCHMITT: You voted on it. You would have to bring it to the floor again and vote to disapprove the recommendation. We had -- then we would just withdraw it from this cycle and we stay with the original language. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we'd have to rescind the old vote. MR. KLATZKOW: You're rescinding your prior vote, yes. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Page 7 October 7,2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve rescinding the prior vote. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala to rescind the previous vote on LDC amendment 4.06.05D.6. MR. SCHMITT: And I think you want to recommend to deny the CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, let's get rid of this motion. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Entertain a motion to not approve 4.06.05D.6. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 8 October 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. MS.. FABACHER: So -- excuse me. . CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if -- MS. FABACHER: For the record, I believe that we -- in our first vote we rescinded the previous approval of this amendment and now we've just voted again to deny the amendment, correct? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, but there wasn't a supermajority. MR. KLATZKOW: You need a supermajority to approve. You don't need a supermajority to disapprove. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: So this has been disapproved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners. We have now Stephen Lenberger, and we have the two last amendments. The first one is section 3.06.04 and section 4.02.14, and this is groundwater protection. And it's merely a clarification. And I believe I'm going to allow Stephen to explain what he's doing, if you don't mind. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, engineering and environmental services department. This amendment here is to clarify in the LDC the process used to regulate the groundwater protection zones and to cross-reference requirements in the other section of the ST. When you look at special treatment overlay zones, they're indicated with an ST symbol on the zoning maps, and so are the other types of ST zoning, and it presented a little confusion of how they should be regulated. This clarification is just to say that you go to the groundwater protection section of the code to regulate the groundwater protection zones and to cross-reference it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. Page 9 October 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner -- wait a minute. This is the first hearing of it; is that correct? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, but you don't need two on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we don't need a motion. Do you want to withdraw that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll withdraw it then. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: No, no, sir. You don't need two hearings on this. MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't a zoning change. It only requires one hearing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is an LDC amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: Just an LDC amendment, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we need two hearings on the LDC amendment? MR. KLATZKOW: You need two hearings if you're changing the zoning map, in essence. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've always had -- when we had Land Development Code amendments, we'd have the first hearing and then we'd have the second hearing. MR. KLATZKOW: We've done both over the years depending upon the board's preference. The only requirement for two meetings is, in essence, when you're changing the zoning map; otherwise -- otherwise, if you're just making a change to the LDC, such as a change to the sign code, it only requires one vote (sic). MS. FABACHER: One hearing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's odd. Well, let's continue with this one. So does your motion still stand? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So I'll restate my motion that I make a motion to approve this particular Land Development Code Amendment. Page 10 October 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second stands. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Question? You've added new language in F. What is the regulation of groundwater protection, special treatment overlay zoning, and then it says, if two has -- references a W-1, W-2, and W-3, so on and so forth.. What is that? MR. LENBERGER: They're distances from the wells based on modeling. And I'm not an expert on groundwater protection. But they're based on modeling and how long it takes subsurface water to reach the well. And there's different zones away from the wells, and they're all indicated as a special treatment overlay zone, that's why it says special treatment. So it's just a different type of wellfield, special treatment zones. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that -- is that on maps? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, sir. It's on the zoning maps. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. So it's on the zoning maps. Do we have those so I understand what we're doing? MR. LENBERGER: I don't have one with me, but we could get you one, just an example, if you want to see one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not an example. It says, the regulation of groundwater protection treatment overlay zoning wellfield risk, and it has, I guess, these maps, and they have to -- they have to abide by those zoning maps, correct? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. It's in the groundwater section of the LDC. And we do have the LDC with that. I believe Catherine has it. But we don't have the individual zoning maps for all the county with us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which map is this? MR. LENBERGER: This is a map from the Land Development Code showing you different zones for that particular wellfield, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this wellfield W-1, W-2, W-3? MR. LENBERGER: It's the east Golden Gate wellfield, I've been told. The wellfield one zone would be the closest one into the center, Page 11 October 7, 2008 and they would move out, and the fourth one being the furthest. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question I'd like to ask. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I get my questions answered first, or do you -- well, go ahead, and I'll wait -- I'll go after you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this have to do with the type of soil in regards to where the wellfields are located as far as if it's a loam-based soil or a sand-based soil? Does it have -- is it part of the make-up of the overlay of the wellfield itself? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, this has been in the LDC for many years. It defines the wellfield impact zones. This was an LDC -- needed to clarify. It came up during a Planning Commission hearing because it did not -- no, that's not it then? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. It came up during an EAC meeting. MR. SCHMITT: EAC meeting where we had -- did not clearly define the ST treatment for wellsites. And I'm going to let Bill explain that. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, engineering environmental services director. In relation to Commissioner Halas' question, I believe you asked, did it have to do with soils? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. LORENZ: I'm familiar with the modeling that was done initially in the early '90s, and the modeling was done based upon the soil-- the transmissivity of the soil and the aquifer, the surrounding groundwater levels, and the pumpage rates. Together with that information and other information, the consultant identified how long it would take groundwater to travel to the wellhead. And within those travel zones, the W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, the groundwater protection ordinance now in the Land Development Code identifies restrictions on facilities as to what you can do on top Page 12 October 7, 2008 of the land within those zones. The intention of this amendment is simply to recognize that those W-1, W-2 zones that were mapped out as ST W-1, W-2, is not the same ST, special treatment, as the other ST designations in the LDC that dealt with mostly, for the most part, wetlands protection or wetland areas. So because the LDC has very specific regulations for W-1, W-2, W - 3, we wanted to make it very clear that the LDC, when it identifies -- when it says ST for a wellfield, is governed by this particular section of the code and not the overall ST section of the code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. This was a result of a conditional use in Golden Gate Estates, and their use of, I think, gasoline -- MS. FABACHER: Probably. MR. LORENZ: Yes, I believe so. I believe there was a conditional use whether there was a fire station. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. MR. LORENZ: Was it a fire station -- that came in and that was in -- was in an ST -- wellfield ST, and the'question came up was, did it have to go to the EAC because it would have to review it under the ST, special treatment, designation. Staff had -- staffs position was that, applying the code and applying how the groundwater protection ordinance was developed, that the ST wellfield designation was governed by the code within the groundwater protection section and not the general ST section. And this is -- and this is to clarify that application. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any further questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Basically staff argued it didn't have to go to the EAC, but the language in the code indicated that it needed to, and this is to clarify that and not -- if anything in these areas, we're saying it is Page 13 October 7, 2008 not the same ST, as Bill just explained. And now this clarifies that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. And then I want to go. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Go ahead first. I'll follow you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we -- on page 102, we have some changes to 4.02.14. It's saying that it -- it has to go through the EIS process and it has to go through the review and recommendation -- actually IF -- what are we doing here? MR. SCHMITT: That sentence just says, ST or AS -- ACSC ST, refer to 4.02.14. But if it's W-l through W-4, ST NAR is governed by this section. And that last sentence just directs you to 4.02.14 if it is a special treatment overlay or ACSC ST overlay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we have two different ST references, and 3.06.04, that is the T -- or the special treatment just for wellfields? And then -- correct? MR. LENBERGER: The wellfield and the natural aquifer recharge, designation two. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then what are we doing with the F below that in 4.02.14? MR. LENBERGER: That's the special treatment overlay dealing primarily with wetlands. There are also overlays on coastal barrier islands. And what it's saying there is, we added the language that -- for the wellfield risk management zones, you have to go to the section dealing with the groundwater protection, and that's where it's regulated, not in this section. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They have to go through a preapp. conference and then reviewed recommendation by the planning service director, Planning Commission, and Environmental Advisory Council? MR. LENBERGER: That's for special treatment permits which don't meet the exceptions from the public hearing requirements. But what we're saying for the groundwater is it wouldn't follow this Page 14 October 7, 2008 process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It would not, okay. All right. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just a simple question. From where our rules are now at this point in time, changing this, what impact will it have on property owners that have already built structures or have operations in place or future ones that are coming along? MR. LENBERGER: I don't believe it will have any effect in the wellfield zones because the groundwater protection zone is still going to apply. It always applied and still does. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there's no changes-- MR. LENBERGER: No changes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- after that part. All right. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So there's a motion and a second on the floor to amend the LDC. I cannot support the motion. I don't remember any time that we didn't have two hearings on LDC amendments. MR. KLATZKOW: We just voted at the last meeting on a bunch of amendments, sir, and it was just the first meeting. I mean, from time to time we've done one meeting, from time to time we've done two. It's been at the pleasure of the board. There are only a small minority of LDC amendments that truly require two meetings. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All LDC amendments, doesn't the DSAC hear them twice? MR. SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Doesn't the Planning Commission hear them twice? MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, sir. Catherine for the record. Only if there are revisions, significant revisions that need to come back Page 15 October 7,2008 would be why they would hear it twice. But, no, they just vote on it once. And I think the policy was made since -- just so they wouldn't make any errors earlier on. Patrick White explained tome that we only have to hear it twice through the board if it changes zoning or it changes the list of land uses that are permitted, prohibited, conditional, accessory. The rest of them only require one vote. It's been the pleasure sometimes of the County Attorney's Office or the chair to just go ahead and hear them all twice. But since this is just a huge cycle of 58, 60 amendments -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: What does the Florida Statutes say? Do they reference they have to have a meeting in the -- when you change the Land Development Code -- MR. KLATZKOW: My recollection is that the statutes require two meetings for a change in the zoning maps, which is why we do it here, but you do not need two meetings for just a nonzoning map type change. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify? Zoning map includes changes to the zoning districts in the LDC. The list of permitted and conditional uses, you have to have two hearings as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: In the Florida Statutes, does it say you have to have an evening meeting on Land Development Code regulations? MR. KLATZKOW: My recollection, sir, is that it does, and we did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: On this one? MR. KLATZKOW: On this one, no. You only have to have the evening ones for the ones that require the two meetings. The idea is, when you're changing people's zoning, you want people to have the opportunity to come out in force and say, wait a second. You can't be changing my zoning because I want to do this or I want to do that. But for the run-of-the-mill stuff in the LDC, you just don't have that public need. Page 16 October 7,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, that's in 163, right? MR. KLATZKOW: I believe it might be. Don't quote me on that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Basically all we're doing here is making a clarification in the wordage in regards to the overlay, special overlays, for these wellfields. MR. KLATZKOW: That is a clarification, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that's -- okay. MR. SCHMITT: All you're doing, truly, is exempting any -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MR. SCHMITT: -- impact in the wellfield designated areas from going through the standard ST review, and this clarifies that it does not have to go through the EAC because the wellfield ST NAR was not, and was never meant to be, as restrictive as an ST, special treatment, overlay or area of critical state concern. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm beyond that. I'm beyond that. MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, we have a meeting on the 30th. We can put this on the agenda for the 30th and bring it back, if you want -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well -- but I ask also go back in history and find out what we have done historically. MR. SCHMITT: We have done both. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And -- MR. SCHMITT: A majority of the time we have heard items twice, but some cycles, because of the size of the cycles, you have, as a board, chose to vote on items just to move them through the system. And, again, this was a very large cycle, and it still is. We have many items. W ehave a meeting this afternoon with the Planning Commission. I believe it's the fourth or fifth meeting, maybe -- how many now? Seven, six -- six meetings with the Planning Commission as we work through some of the LDC items. And most likely, at least four of those you will not see on the 30th because they're going to Page 17 October 7, 2008 have to go through extensive rewrite. So the -- those will most likely be continued into the springtime. But we're trying to finish this cycle, which was the -- predominantly consisted of amendments to implement the EAR. But we can bring this one back on the 30th and just -- if you want to hear it a second time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may suggest, Commissioner Henning. I don't think you've got a problem with the substance so much as the procedure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1 could be wrong on the procedure, and I think the best thing to do is for me to vote in favor of it and then go back and look at the procedure. And if I'm wrong, it stands, and if I'm right, I'll talk to Mr. Klatzkow about it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Would you be so kind as to possibly bring it back for a regular commission meeting to be able to discuss it so we can find -- share your findings with us? MR. KLATZKOW: I can give you all a memorandum on this issue, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would suffice for me. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Jeff, you want to explain what we're going to do on the 30th, because we're going to have one ordinance. We decided because of the length of this, rather than split it up, we're going to have one ordinance so every one of these, in order to meet the 10-day time limit, we're going to have to summarily approve and vote. If you want to explain that. I mean, that's going to come back regardless. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. We're going to be taking all this back to you anyways so that we can file just one ordinance with the Secretary of State rather than sending it up piecemeal. If we sent it up piecemeal, there'd be three, four of these. The people would have to go through to see what the cycle was rather than just having one ordinance change. Page 18 October 7,2008 So you're voting on this now. It's been approved, but we're going to get it back to you on the 30th for one final vote on everything to send it all to Tallahassee at once. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion? I apologize for all the discussion on this. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. The last one is -- oh, this is incorrect citation of 4.08.07, the CRA designation; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What are we doing? MR. LENBERGER: We're correcting-- MS. PABACHER: We are-- MR. LENBERGER: We're correcting the citation. The citation in the code now does not exist in the code. There is no such section -- subsection, I should say. So we corrected it and put the applicable subsection in there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: This went through review with the Planning Commission obviously. And how many times did it come before the Planning Commission? MR. LENBERGER: This was heard once by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there wasn't a lot of Page 19 October 7,2008 rewrites or anything else that had to be addressed on this particular issue; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve the correct citation, second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Any other business? MS. FABACHER: Just to say that we will continue to October 30th with this hearing. MR. SCHMITT: Well, that will be -- actually, legally we have to readvertise. MS. FABACHER: Well, we'll-- thank you, Joe. We will readvertise our next -- MR. SCHMITT: That will be the second hearing. MS. FABACHER: Second hearing, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioners, I thank you for your patience. We will have a book out to you with everything that was approved by the Planning Commission this past Thursday and those items we get through today, and that will bring to a close this cycle. Page 20 October 7,2008 Like I said, there are probably going to be at least three, maybe four items, having to do with preserve and preserve management and some other issues, that -- because of the issues raised -- and.this is all good stuff. It really is. We've got some great involvement now -- even though,they've been through the DSAC and been through several of the subcommittees, at the Planning Commission we had -- have had extensive discussions on the impacts and the language throughout the entire amendment. And my request to the Planning Commission is, when these get approved, especially the three or four most controversial, stormwater and preserves, some other issues, that they can be implemented by the practitioners who implement them. And we are working with the industry and Planning Commission and others so we can draft these amendments that clarify some of the areas that certainly are not clear in the code. Those amendments may be moved in the next couple of months because we have to bring groups together to try and rewrite a lot of that language, and we'll he working with the committees on that. So you may not see -- at least four of the items you may not see a close at the end of this cycle. We may have to bring them back under either a special hearing or into the next cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're not going to send us any of those books before the next commission meeting, are you? MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: You will not see those -- I think we booked you -- we booked you to death between compo planning and school concurrency, and appeal, so no. That will be out at least two weeks prior to your 30th meeting, and most of those amendments have been thoroughly vetted. They're Page 21 October 7,2008 fairly, I'll call them, not controversy and been amended as they went through the hearings. There are some involving environmental, environmental issues, but those have been well vetted and rewritten. The ones that are still under edit we will move to a future date. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm glad the county manager's here. I've got some real concerns with the amount of information that we have to go through for each of the board meetings. It seems to be multiplying to the point where it's almost impossible to get through all of the material that's given to us. And I realize it's reference material, but sometimes you have to dig quite a ways in the reference material. It would be nice if there was some way to come up with some important facts like a conclusion page with all the conclusions put on it so that we could readily reference that. It's -- to me it's becoming a real burden with the amount of material that's given to us and expected to absorb in a short period of time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the county manager and I had this discussion to try to space these meetings out so that material -- that we can review that ahead of time, not get it prior to the BCC meeting and get it on an every-other-day -- every-other-week type thing. Is that correct, County Manager? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, for the record? MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, County Manager. What you have this particular time is, you've got some GMP amendments which you've already read once, were already transmitted. The ORC came back. We made whatever corrections that the DCA wanted in that change. So you've got one book that has those that you've already seen before. And the executive summary, David Weeks and crew did a very Page 22 October 7,2008 good job summarizing those particular changes, if there were any changes, on the one book. The school concurrency, it boils down to two issues with the school concurrency. It basically -- and I'll even boil it down, even down to one issue; off-site requirements when a new school comes in and who is responsible for those particular issues. And based on what I've been able to ascertain with the meeting with the school's superintendent, it's basically going to be a site-specific agreement that we're going to have to go through based on what happens with a new school and when it comes on and who's going to do what to whom and who has the dollars in order to get things finished. I see a time when they might have extra capital money, that we actually borrow money from them in order to do a transportation improvement and then pay them back at a future year when that goes on. I see a time when they might be short when they actually borrow money from transportation in order to make an improvement and then pay back at a different time. How far do the sidewalks go? It's also -- we've just also had an adjudication out of a different district, but it dealt with the same substance, and that was out of Hillsborough, and we just got that last week. And that complicates it a little bit from a county perspective because they got very specific and they took -- and they took -- piano lessons -- and they took one portion of the Florida Statute and sided with it, but there's another portion of the Florida Statute that is diametrically opposed to that opinion. So it's something we'll have to flush out. But that's the school concurrency system in a nutshell, and we'll talk about that item just a little bit more, and then we have the appeal. You received the appeal book -- no, the first two items, the concurrency and the GMP, we had those for you on Monday. Yesterday afternoon Susan Murray, after I had a conversation with her, basically got you the appeal in a binder. Page 23 October 7, 2008 Now, you did receive two books last week. They're not bound in a loose-leaf type book, but they were bound with, you know, the plastic jobs in it, and that was brought to you by, was it Bay Colony? MR. YOVANOVICH: Golf Bay. MR. MUDD: Golf Bay, and that was their opinion on the particular appeal. So you've got them, but so far you've got three issues, three items on the agenda. The other items on the agenda are pretty mundane. And I've gone through those last night, and I'll meet with the commissioner on the particular -- but you'll have a total of 106 items, three of which you've seen which are the big ones, and we tried to get to you ahead of time before you got your other books so you could get a heads-up on it. MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner, if I could clarify. The school concurrency, we had a statutory requirement of March, which was extended by the legislature because of the difficulty counties were having in negotiating these agreements. That was extended till December. So we have a date -- a December date, which that is a critical -- more so to the school board because it would certainly impact their funding. MR. MUDD: There are penalties if we do not get this particular item passed and through and agreed to, not only for the school, but there is some veiled threats as far as the county is concerned as far as state funding is concerned. MR. SCHMITT: Certainly -- believe me, we don't -- we're not happy with the workload we get either. That's another unfunded mandate, by the way, from the state. MR. MUDD: But, Commissioner, I will tell you, you won't have another GMP series, okay, that goes on. We thought because it was going to be light on the zoning side of the house that it would probably be a decent idea to get this one going and because you'd already seen it before, and there were minor changes because of the ORC that it shouldn't have been a big issue. Page 24 October 7,2008 MR. SCHMITT: And these are not -- MR. MUDD: But it is -- but it is --let me finish, Joe. It is voluminous, and I understand that. My apologies for it. But I don't believe these items and -- will come back again, and I don't see any more appeals, at least in the short-term that I know about, unless Joe has -- Sue? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we have about three or four more. MR. MUDD: Oh. Well, I just learned something, okay. But it's not going to be for next Tuesday, right? MR. SCHMITT: No. MR. MUDD: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your explanation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Are we continuing this meeting or are we adjourning this meeting? MR. KLATZKOW: We're continuing it, but we're going to have to readvertise it as well. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It will be a continuation of this meeting, but it will also be a second hearing or a second meeting as well because we have to readvertise for a second meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to continue this meeting to October 30th. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Time is? Nine o'clock? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. I thought you meant what time is it now. Yes, sir, 9 o'clock. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nine o'clock, and who -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nine a.m. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nine a.m., thank you. Commissioner Fiala made the motion and seconded by -- Page 25 October 7,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. He made the motion. I seconded it. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Commissioner Halas made the motion to continuation and second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're continued. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. ***** Page 26 October 7,2008 ***** !~oal ci (yt t:otJotv ,_::,CITlil1I5~hJl\fJfS There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:43 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECI~IST TS ~DER ITS CONTROL /rf>r'L-- ..' \./ TOM HENNING, Chai ATTEST DWIGIiT E. BRGC;K, CLERK lj..:. ~ . ...... . "t;, AtttStu~'$ .toCh~.~\ del S 19natura~9~I.iI" ~ These minutes approved by the Board on as presented ~ or as corrected ),,/iJsjof I TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 27