Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/22/1995 W (GMP Amendments)WORKSHOP MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:55 a.m. in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews VICE-CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Tim Hancock Pamela Mac'Kie Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Bill Hargett, Assistant County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney MR. DORRILL: With that in mind, the board had instructed me specifically to advertise the workshop until noon. And I just wanted to reiterate that you can talk about anything and everything you want till noon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Till noon, and then we're gone, huh? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think what we were saying we wanted to speak about were growth management, Land Development Code, and then -- MR. DORRILL: We had a discussion of potential goal areas as part of the board's work plan at the request of Ms. Hac'Kie and a discussion concerning the legislative and lobbying strategies as well. And after this was prepared Mr. Constantine had also mentioned perhaps a brief discussion about some regional economic development initiatives. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be happy to postpone that considering our one-hour-and-seven-minute time limit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We had also at last Tuesday's meeting invited Mr. Simpson to talk to us too about the EAR and activity of the CAC. And I would suggest for the sake of citizens who are involved in this we not consume any more of their time than we have to and discuss that part first. Mr. Simpson, you're on. MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And your salary will be the same as usual, Glenn. MR. SIMPSON: It will be very simple to qualify for nonprofit status I'm afraid. When we were at the last board meeting, there was some discussion on the timing and where the Citizens Advisory Committee is within the EAR process. If you recall, I spoke to the board members that there has been some question on whether we were going to be able to complete on the original schedule and that the CAC feels that we need some additional time for various reasons, and you requested that I come back and perhaps brief you in a bit more detail. Since then I have met with the chairman of all the subcommittees and members of staff. I know there are some items and information and background that the staff would like to present to you. And then I'll follow up with discussion based on that information and see if we can bring some answers to your questions and do it in a very timely fashion. We have no formal presentation. We haven't synchronized our watches or decided who's going to do what first. Mr. Cantero's standing up, so I assume he's going to be the first from staff to discuss the issues with you. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. Vince Cautero, community development, environmental services division. We have a status report that we would like to hand out to you now which basically outlines the various elements of the comprehensive plan by subcommittee, and it identifies the various forms and documents that will be presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee's subcommittees. And whether those documents have been submitted or not, our intent is to have all these documents as we relayed to you at your meeting last week by the end of September. What this is is a brief overview of those documents that will be submitted or have been submitted. You will notice that there are various notes at the bottom of the page. For example, the narrative has not been received by the housing subcommittee. That committee just is dealing with one element of the comprehensive plan. But discussions have been taking place on the objective policy forms, and they have been having some extensive discussions, and that we expect the narrative for policy forms for the capital improvement element to be submitted to the Citizens Advisory Committee on September 11. You will notice that the Citizens Advisory Committee is dealing with the capital improvement element and the intergovernmental coordination element as a whole. There is no subcommittee per se dealing with those elements, but all the other elements and subelements of the comprehensive plan fall into one of those categories. So we hope this just gives you a brief overview. It was written as of August 17. We did make some minor changes to it this morning. The Immokalee master plan narrative has been received and that narrative to the subcommittee for staff review. And we have a no on the narrative from the subcommittee, but that has been received. I believe the meeting we had with Mr. Simpson on Friday and the subcommittee chairman was extremely beneficial. We worked on some time lines, and we shared some thoughts about the process of where we go from here. And I think Mr. Simpson would probably want to share some of that information with you, but we're available to answer any questions that you may have. MR. SIMPSON: Just to give you a little background before I get into the exact time lines, there's some issues that have been discussed that are related to completing a quality product that aren't necessarily tied legally to it. One of them is the build-out stage, where we are as a county, where we're going to go. And it seems that the committee has expressed some interest in how accurate the report in our plans really can be without having a build-out, without having that vision or that idea of what our community's going to look at it when it meets its maximum potential and how to draw a road map to that point. Idealistically, that's the best way to start. Practically, that's really not within the realm that we have to work with right now. Perhaps in the future and as we go forward, one of our recommendations would be to consider what the implications of that study are as we look at future changes to our Land Development Code, to our Growth Management Plan. The visioning process that's going on right now is a very important process. The information that comes from that will also be very important in determining where our Growth Management Plan goes. So these are other things that are going on in our community, and there are many others in addition to those. These are just two that I mentioned that really will help over time focus in on what is the best plan for our county and how we really build the strongest community possible, what that format will look like, how we do that. That will develop our instruction manual for the future. At this point, though, there are -- we are primarily charged with reviewing goals, policies, and objectives that were established, seeing if we could meet those tests and evaluating whether we have met those specifically and making recommendations as to areas that have the potential or should be addressed through consideration of changes to the Growth Management Plan, but not to come up with those recommendations of what the changes should be. We're to give direction, ideas, and thoughts on that. That's a whole other process. That's a continuation of this process beyond what our EAR is. That's the way I interpret what's written in here. And from what I understand from planning staff, that's also confirmed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. This is a workshop, so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Trying to maintain some semblance of order regardless. So what you're explaining is the first phase isn't necessarily going to produce the end product but is merely the evaluation of the objectives and policies, have we met them, have we not met them, and part of the next step will be including in that such as how do we meet them; is that correct? MR. SIMPSON: The first step is basically a yes-no checklist to see whether the blocks were filled in correctly. The second part of that process is the intent. Did you meet the intent? Do we think that what was done through -- and the way the intent was laid out for the narratives and goals, policies and objectives, if that intent was met, that also is a bit more subjective, but that's part of the responsibility to say, yes. We have met the intent that our original plan suggested, or, no, we haven't. If we have or have not, we would make a recommendation -- we may make a recommendation as to how the intent -- or what best suits our community. The future of our community should be addressed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In that same phase would you be including the initial intent or the initial objective was flawed? I mean, you know, there are some parts of the Growth Management Plan that we may want to change dramatically. There may be things that are being realized in this community that we don't want to continue. And I'm just wondering where that fits in, because I mean I have my short list, but I'm not on one of your committees. MR. SIMPSON: Right. Well, that's starting -- that's really what comes out through the process and is addressed through the intent. This may have been the intent. What the recommendation that would come out is that we met the recommended intent or we didn't. But we feel that what really is needed for our community should be directed in a little different direction. For instance, the idea in one of the areas -- now, we're still early in getting the ideas back to the committee, but one of the things that has been into discussion is the whole idea of activity centers. Does the concept of activity centers increase the dependency on transportation infrastructure? Is it the best way to help develop our community, the spirit of the community, the neighborhoods, or does it create some isolation to that? That's some of the discussion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or is it something we don't want? MR. SIMPSON: Is the community center -- I mean the activity center concept something that we should perhaps change the way that we go forward. The other side of that coin or debate or position is this is a good way to help keep and separate commercial activities from residential activities. There's a lot of thought and different valid positions on both sides. The key is what does this group see as the best thing. And the recommendation will be what does that particular group of citizens feel is the best direction for our county to develop as a community. And that's the one thing I will say that is very consistent through the subcommittees and through our committee meetings is that idea of maintaining the spirit of community rather than maintaining an isolated cookie-cutter business or pattern for development. You know, developing communities requires development. It maintains that spirit of community, knowing your neighbors, developing that relationship with one another that has been the primary thing. So that's an example of the type of things that we would address. Now, I'm not going to say, here's what you need to do instead of the community center or the activity center concept. Part of our responsibility is to make a statement that you need to go into it in maybe a little different direction and maybe what we think that direction should be. So those are the types of issues that we will be dealing with and just an example of one that has surfaced in our discussions to this point. The timing and the work products that have been generated by staff and the volume of effort that has been put into getting us to this point has been tremendous. I do know that we have limitations on what we can ask support staff to do when they have their other responsibilities in their normal jobs also. We have been able to utilize the time, because we have had something to work with, but we haven't been able to do it in its complete context. At this point based on certain assumptions -- and I've kind of listed those out for my own memory here -- we anticipate having the final or the complete product to the committee by mid-September. A discussion -- one or two may slip till the end, but no later than the end of September. But right now we're anticipating mid-September we will have all the products. The time line we have based on that is generally directed toward when we will have our draft report prepared to submit to the Collier County Planning Commission. That's a very important point on the pathway. The amount of meetings that we need to have, going through the narrative, going through the public hearings, and bringing the issues and the draft report out, we feel that achieving that report -- getting that report to the Planning Commission would be right around January 1. Right now, since we haven't seen the products that we have to review, the level of confidence in that date is not 100 percent. By our October meeting we'll know for sure. We will have all the information, and we'll be able to get a better feel for whether it's possible that some of that time line can be compressed, perhaps, if some of the narratives or some of the efforts are not going to be as large as they are anticipated. But at this point it appears the very best I can tell you is we'll have that report ready to go to the Planning Commission by January 1. Certain assumptions is that we're going to have the ability from staff and support to do the writing and changes and modifications. And whether that's pulled from existing staff or whether the county -- whatever they need to do, if they need to contract for services, we haven't really addressed, nor do we recommend what that is, but our assumption is that the support's going to be there. So we have the fast turnaround of the documents. This is also based on having -- I don't want to say minimal controversy, but not having any major controversial issues come up and no major conflicts between one segment and one segment, one subcommittee and another subcommittee. There are many areas where elements that cross over from one to the other. What I'm doing to try to solve that problem is there is one large work effort that really a critical path runs through. As the other subcommittees are completing their individual tasks, I'm pulling them together to look over the potentially controversial issues and resolve those on a parallel track before we get to the end of the report and start putting our report together. So hopefully we can keep that down to a minimum, try to keep the controversy out of the scenario, don't let it affect the time line. If we can compress the time line, that's the area where I think we'll be able to just by resolving those kinds of issues before we ever get to the final product. And also, that's -- assume that the additional products that we will be reviewing and we'll be receiving for some reason aren't onerous or don't have a major philosophical flaw or that there's not something there that we need to go in a different direction. So those are basically the assumptions we have. There's been some question as to what it really means as to if we don't meet the finished report by the January deadline and where it goes from there, and I'll let Mr. Cautero discuss those steps and what the implications are from that January 1 date. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Madam Chairman, board members, again, we've been advised by the legal staff that if the report is not submitted on the original due date that was called for by the Department of Community Affairs, that the comprehensive plan could not be amended until such time as the EAR sufficiency report is deemed to be -- or excuse me, until such time as the EAR is deemed to be sufficient by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. What that would mean is that you may proceed with comprehensive plan amendments, but you cannot adopt them. And I would defer to legal staff to fill in the gaps, or correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I believe we've been told by the legal staff. Commissioner? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Assuming we get it submitted by January 1, which is the end -- the hopeful or anticipated deadline; is that correct, Mr. Simpson? MR. SIMPSON: That's when we would be submitting it to the Planning Commission. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When would we be amending the Growth Management Plan? What is the time frame that you anticipate between getting it submitted or getting to the Planning Commission? I believe that was your comment. In other words, if we don't submit it by February 1, are we just moving the adoption date of any Growth Management Plan amendment 30 days from there or -- MR. CAUTERO: Let me talk a little bit about the EAR report itself, and then that may blend in with amendments to the comprehensive plan. As you may recall, the evaluation of the initial report is the impetus for certain comprehensive plan amendments, not all, but certain amendments. It's my understanding that the state law requires that the EAR be submitted to DCA 90 days after you receive it. So if the Citizens' Advisory Committee can produce that document to you on or about January 1 of next year, you would have 90 days to submit it to the Department of Communities Affairs. We don't know how long the Planning Commission would take. We don't know how long the board would take with the public hearings. But it is safe to say that before you receive the document in a public hearing format, there would be -- there will have been a number of public hearings and hours of testimony before at least those two bodies, the Citizens' Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, which serves as a buffer for the board. I would think that's why you appointed the committee to have a lot of these public meetings and receive public input. During that time frame staff may be formulating amendments based on the document even before you should find it sufficient to send to the Department of Community Affairs. That doesn't mean to say that other amendments may not be forthcoming to you from outside applicants or from staff. So the timing on when the amendments would be official or not or adopted, which I believe you voiced your original question, may not be altered greatly. And I would again defer to my comprehensive planning staff members on that. But you're talking about a 90-day period when the staff might be working on those amendments anyway. So I don't think there's going to be a great delay on when those amendments would be adopted regardless of when you send the EAR up. It's a question of when you start the EAR-based amendments, because the document's not completed till October 1 -- excuse me, January 1, and you don't approve it till March 31. So there's a couple of months lag time in there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What part of the year do we normally make our Growth Management Plan amendments? MS. CACCHIONE: For the record my name is Barbara Cacchione from the environmental planning section. As you'll recall, this past year we did not run the cycle of comprehensive plan amendments, because we were going through this process -- through the evaluation and appraisal process. So there are no pending amendments to be adopted within this past year at this point in time. Normally it occurs anywhere between March and Hay when the board finally adopts those amendments submitted from the previous year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Cacchione, that deadline for submitting amendments to the Growth Management Plan is January 1 historically? MS. CACCHIONE: The deadline for submitting is the fourth Friday in March, and we did not accept any for the past year. If any amendments are forthcoming over the next several months for perhaps in conjunction with the DRI or something like that, those are things that we're not quite sure about that we haven't gotten final resolution from DCA. I think by submitting to the -- by the citizen's committee submitting January 1, it will delay our time frame for submittal. We're required to submit by January 1. That means we probably will not submit till the beginning of April. So that is where the delay comes in. And there are no -- at present there are no pending amendments scheduled in that time frame for adoption. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're really not looking at any difficulty then? MS. CACCHIONE: Currently there are no amendments waiting for adoption. I don't know for sure if there will be any effect on amendments submitted in conjunction with the DRI or any amendments the board may direct staff to work on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my question, is the staff-initiated amendments or staff-directed amendments. Will they be able to be submitted by our fourth Friday of March deadline? MS. CACCHIONE: There are no staff amendments proposed at this point in time. We're doing the evaluation and appraisal report. I don't think we would anticipate starting any EAR-based amendments until the board approves the EAR report. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So anything stemming from the EAR would be not in '96, but in '97? MR. CAUTERO: I guess the bottom line is this: EAR-based amendments can proceed, and it's my understanding they can be adopted. We're not going to proceed on them in a full-blown fashion, if you will, until we're sure -- we have a good understanding of where the report's going to go and how comfortable you feel with it. That's my understanding from talking with legal staff. Any other amendments can proceed, but they can't be adopted. So if the staff deadline wasn't until January or even February, March, in there, you're not really losing a lot of time on the front end, but you could lose a lot of time on the back end because those amendments cannot be adopted by the board until the EAR is found sufficient by DCA. And again, from talking to legal, it's my understanding that pertains to any amendments outside the EAR report. So if someone came in with a DRI application and needed to amend the comprehensive plan, they can apply in January, February, March, whatever the staff deadline is for the cycle. It's conceivable that amendment might not be heard or approved until 1997, until such time as we're done with DCA on the EAR. You run that risk no matter when you submit your EAR. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the EAR-based amendments can be heard and adopted at any time? They're not subject to the March deadline per se. Is that -- MR. CAUTERO: That's my understanding from talking with legal. If I'm wrong, I would like them to correct me now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If he's not, then -- I just want to make sure our hands weren't tied by missing that March deadline on EAR-based amendments. I think that's where the Citizens' Advisory Committee is going to give us our greatest assistance. MS. STUDENT: You can proceed with EAR-based amendments whether or not the report is submitted timely or found sufficient by DCA. Again, it's the sufficiency review that the DCA's going to do, not a full-blown consistency review to determine compliance. That's the EAR -- not the amendment, but the EAR report. So I think as a practical matter we really are in a position where we could do no other plan amendments until such time as the EAR is found sufficient despite, you know, a couple months late submittal. We couldn't do it then. And then for the sake of argument if we submit it 90 days late and then the EAR was up at DCA, theoretically, I suppose, we could start a plan amendment. But then I think it's a very short -- like 45 days that they have to review it and determine whether we're found sufficient or not. So if we're found insufficient, we couldn't amend again. So practically speaking, to me it would work out where we would not be able to do regular plan amendments until such time as we're found -- the EAR's found sufficient. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, Harjorie, could you tell us just based on present projections what does that mean? If you have a comp. plan amendment that you anticipate the necessity over the next two years, you better get it rolled into the EAR? MS. STUDENT: It depends on what -- you know, what the amendment might be. And if you could connect it up to the EAR, I think that that might be a wise thing to be able to -- you know, if could you do that, to do it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because if you can't, you're not going to be able to file it until '97? MS. STUDENT: It's only till after we're found sufficient on the EAR. If we're found sufficient right away -- say we submit the EAR in, let's see, April, and that review period is 45 days, so 45 days after April 1 -- like Hay 15 we are found sufficient and the EAR is sufficient, then we can proceed with regular plan amendments after that. It's not to have to go through the whole amendment process and the EAR-based amendments until we can do regular amendments. It's only till we're found sufficient by DCA on the EAR report, and then we can proceed with plan amendments. Now, if we're found insufficient because we have not been, you know, through that process yet -- and I don't know how long it can drag out. You know, it could possibly drag out longer. But it would seem to me that it would be in everybody's interest to try to negotiate with DCA and, you know, have that -- get that sufficiency finding. MR. SIMPSON: I think what's important, at least from my layman's perspective here, is that it's very important that we do a good job in completing the EAR to make sure we've done our job properly. Whether it means that we have or have not met the intent or met with the specifics, there isn't really a whole lot we can do right now, but at least make sure that we've discussed it properly and given complete responses to these questions and the recommendations that we make as we discussed -- or as I discussed in response to Commissioner Hancock's question, that we make sure that our recommendations are complete in addressing the issues that need to be addressed. That means we'll have to follow up with an amendment to fulfill whatever that recommendation is and make sure that we do a good job on evaluating what those recommendations are and make sure it is complete so that we can get the important issues to our community in that EAR-based amendment process and open that door early. And by doing a good job -- doing a good job with the report itself, that, in turn, shortens the time line so we can start a normal planning cycle. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me see if I can put this in a nutshell. MS. STUDENT: There's one thing I would like to clarify, too. As we were talking about, you know, post-January, if we have any comp. plan amendments that we want to do right now -- what I understand from Ms. Cacchione, that there were none in the hopper -- then it would be my opinion -- and I have mentioned this to staff, and this has been confirmed by Ms. Cowley's discussions with DCA -- that we could get started on those amendments right now. And, in fact, I understand DCA would accept them up until our due date, but that's like right now, you know, before this date. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there are -- let's go through what can't happen here just so I understand it. First of all, if we have a staff-based amendment as a result of the EAR -- okay, that can occur -- we begin working on it as soon as we're ready to begin working on it, but it cannot be adopted until the EAR is found sufficient; is that correct? MS. STUDENT: If you have an EAR-based amendment, I would think that you could -- whether your report is found sufficient or not, you can proceed with EAR-based amendments. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can waste all the time we want, but we cannot adopt it until the EAR is found sufficient? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the earliest it could be implemented and effective? MS. STUDENT: Well, okay. Let's say -- well, I would think -- the way the law is written is you do your EAR report first, and you could be doing comp. plan amendments along with the EAR report, and you can submit them simultaneously. Lee County did that. However, if you choose not to do that, you have within one year of the date of adoption of the EAR report to do your -- to adopt your EAR-based amendments, and DCA could grant you a six-month extension. So you could be going through that process whether your report is found sufficient or not. I think the idea is to be able to get you going on the process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We understand we can -- MS. STUDENT: For non-EAR-based amendments -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't there yet. I wasn't there yet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. We have a court reporter. One person at a time. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm trying to take this one step at a time, Harjorie. So, again, EAR-based amendments -- we can begin them at anytime, but we cannot adopt them until the EAR is found sufficient? MS. STUDENT: Yes. Well, wait a minute. Let me qualify that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a question. MS. STUDENT: You can start on them any time. If you elect to submit them with your EAR report, you can. So it wouldn't be correct to say you have to wait until it's found sufficient. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not talking about working on them. We cannot adopt them until the EAR is found sufficient; correct? MS. STUDENT: No. You could adopt them with your EAR and submit them simultaneously to DCA. If you choose not to do that, you have one year from the date you adopt your EAR report to submit them to DCA. So you could adopt them, I would think, you know, in that time period. I don't know that you necessarily have to wait till you're found sufficient, but I think you may take a chance on having to redo significant parts of those amendments. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So even though the law doesn't specifically say, thou shalt do it this way, the logical interpretation of it is you could be taking a big risk of wasting a whole lot of time and effort if you push it and try to do it before you're found sufficient. So the only reasonable choice is wait till you're found sufficient. So yes. I'm going with yes on that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We have an understanding here. MR. SIMPSON: I have a question for my own knowledge, perhaps. Is the question that whether the County Commission can adopt and submit amendments before the EAR is adopted, or is it can DCA approve those amendments? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was can DCA approve them. I know we can't submit them before the EAR is submitted. It's either with the EAR or one year after we submit them. We can adopt them and submit them, but they cannot be found in compliance with our plan until the EAR is found sufficient. MR. SIMPSON: And those are EAR-based amendments? MS. STUDENT: EAR-based amendments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What about the ones that are not EAR-based? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I was going. That's number two. Joe Q. Public comes in with their amendment, you know, before -- they just submit it. We can hear it. We can even adopt it if we want. We can submit it to the state with the EAR or within 12 months after the EAR, but it also cannot be found in compliance until the EAR is found sufficient. Same scenario; right? MS. STUDENT: Okay. If you have a non-EAR-based amendment, and if this would precede the date of our report, our January due date, I understand the DCA is going to accept those right up until -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The due date. MS. STUDENT: -- January. I have not talked to DCA on this. I didn't know we were going to get into this level of detail today. I have tried to call one of their attorneys about something else; he was on vacation. I can come back to you with specifically how that might work. Because if you recall on the amendment process, there is the first transmittal stage. Then at our request we get -- we ask for a report, objections, recommendations, and comments. Then it gives us a chance to fix it. And then we can send it back on up to DCA if there's any problems. And then it's finally adopted. So how that process interfaces with the January 1 deadline -- in other words, does that mean if we submit -- transmit one by January 1 and it still has to go through all these other hurdles, would we then be stuck if we didn't submit our EAR report on time, or would they look at it, that preliminary submittal, that that would catch it -- it would be vested, as it were, to go through the entire process? That's the answer I wanted to get definitively from their legal counselor. I will bring that back to you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about non-EAR-based amendments that are submitted after our January deadline? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They fall in the '97 cycle then. MS. STUDENT: If we don't submit on time -- and say we don't submit by January 1, we couldn't do any. If we do submit on time, then we can continue with the amendment process. And I would think that whether or not we're found sufficient, those amendments could continue through the process. If we're found insufficient, which would be like 45 days later, then we couldn't submit any non-EAR-based amendments after that date, because we can't amend the plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What if we don't submit on time? MS. STUDENT: If we don't submit on time, then after January 1 we cannot do any non-EAR-based amendments. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Until? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Until? MS. STUDENT: Until we're found sufficient. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CONNISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: report -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: on time. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think we all understand this I'm taking notes, but I think -- My preference is to have a good Me too. -- rather than necessarily being That's Mr. Simpson's responsibility. We'll hold him accountable. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll revoke his wages and benefits. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: We'll withhold his pay and -- MR. CUYLER: If it will help you, we can give you this in a memo form. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good idea, Mr. Cuyler. MR. SIMPSON: Could I get a copy of that, please. I appreciate the board's concern and support in generating a quality product. It's a very devoted group, and it's one of the most supportive committees, county or state level, that I've ever worked with. You're doing a tremendous amount of work. We appreciate your support and appreciation of the quality of product that we intend to turn out. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I think we all understand now that the report may be late based on what comes out of MR. SIMPSON: If you would like, I'll either get a memo to you or come back and make a presentation after our October meeting to let you know more firm certainty on our time line whether we can compress -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we ask for a memo of what you're anticipating. And if we feel that we want to find a way for you to speed that delay, whatever we may have to do, that after that memo we discuss it. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just as a comment, for what it's worth I'm told that the City of Naples has decided they're not even going to try -- they're not going to meet their deadline, because they don't want to submit their EAR until after the focus and visioning is completed so that that can be incorporated into -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the anticipated date of finality of that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The fair -- the vision fair is in February so -- and that's just going to be where the citizens are going to be asked to rank the -- you know, the various statements. So I don't see a final report on that until probably MAy. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't think waiting is in our best interest, because it begins falling into the next amendment cycle at that point. So waiting, in my opinion, would really tie the hands of a lot of staff and a lot of private citizens. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: amendments. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: the next item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just thought it would be worth I'm worried about the DRI I'm worried about that, too. Okay. I guess we'll move next to It may not look like it, Mr. Cautero, but we all learned something. It may not look like it, but I think we all learned something. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next -- we're really at the first item; that's the discussion of the goal areas for '95-'96. Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This was something that when I was at Leaders of Southwest Florida this past year, which was just a few months ago, the Lee County commissioner who was there was talking -- kept talking about economic development had been the Lee County Commission's number one goal for the past two years. And I asked him, you know, "How do you know?" And basically they have a workshop session, a retreat, a -- I don't know exactly how they go about it, but what they do is prioritize goals of the board in general so that they have sort of a framework or a vision or, you know, something to work toward. And I just wanted to bring that up as a possibility for us. Frankly, I strongly, strongly wish that we would as a board identify what's our mission for the year and try to set some goals. I know Commissioner Constantine does that on an individual basis, and those are rather specific. I don't know exactly how the board would go about doing it except that I wish that we would. I feel like we would be a lot more effective if you have to see the -- begin with the end in mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could we -- the former board -- prior to your and Commissioner Hancock's coming to this board, we were on the fifth Tuesday, four times a year, entering into workshops that were for strategic planning and attempting to set goals and objectives and so forth. And we stopped doing that after -- I guess October last year was the last meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I think we sat through one of those at the library. And "sat through," frankly, is the operative term in my judgment. The one I sat through was a waste. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, and that's the problem, because we really did get bogged down in not truly being able to pinpoint what our objectives were going to be, whether we were trying to chew too big a bite at one time or just what the problem was. But certainly as we progressed through the year that we were doing these fifth Tuesday workshops, the process just seemed to bog down and go nowhere. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just say something? I think we may end up -- maybe we can devote some time by picking some particular time and place, as Commissioner Matthews said earlier, and I think we started doing -- working through those every two months, three months, whenever we have these, we can find out where are our priorities and where our goals within that, whether it's Land Development Code or economic development or what have you. So I think even though we may not say, okay. Let's categorize these one, two, and three. As we address each category, we know what we want to achieve with that. So I think we may end up still being able to do what you're saying. But you're right. It's hard to get somewhere if you don't know where you're heading. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very difficult. I like road maps. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The nature of this board -- and I understand the legal sufficiency reasoning, but the nature of this board every time we want to get together and talk about goals is to set up a large-scale format and to have a meeting and to have, you know, staff. As far as I'm concerned, give me a round table, five chairs, and a court reporter, and let's just talk about -- I have some things that I really want to see us address. And I don't think we get an opportunity, the five of us, just to shoot the breeze about where we want to go. I have no idea where Commissioner Norris is coming from or what his goals may be or Commissioner Mac'Kie or Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: John, come on. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I'm not telling. It's all going to be a surprise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He can't. That's the bottom line is that we are almost prohibited from communicating. So even if it's just once a year -- it doesn't have to be a retreat where we go lock in a room or anything, but obviously, you know, open to the public to sit through. But, you know, let's deformalize this so we can understand a little bit more about where each person is coming from and maybe from that adopt a list of goals and objectives that this board for the next 12 months says are our priorities. And, you know, that doesn't have to be a huge process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I personally -- I have exactly the same picture in mind. I would like to see us sitting around a table. And I would like -- I'm willing to give a Saturday maybe, and let's all, you know, just spend a day in a room. And it has to be advertised, I understand, Mr. Weigel, and people could be there. But if just the five of us could talk and people who we ask to participate, I would love to do that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I likewise would be happy to give up a Saturday for that. I just think it's important that we know where each other is coming from. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask why Saturday -- we all are here during the week anyway. Why is Saturday suddenly jumping out? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think the reason is, you know, I've got a tough enough time getting everything Monday through Friday. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, my suggestion might be one of these Tuesdays that we have our workshops scheduled take that time -- instead of sitting around in this format, sit down in the format you two have suggested, but I don't think you need to pick a separate day to do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What kind of time would be devoted to a workshop like this? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What kind of time? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Couple of hours? Half a day? All day? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. You go getting into all day, you're not having a productive time. I'm talking two, three hours at the most, you know, just the ability to talk about what's important to us as individuals and as representatives of a certain constituency in the county. I would like to see that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion then? Our next -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Our next fifth Tuesday meeting is in October. Right now I believe we have the productivity committee scheduled to give us a report on what they're doing and ask for our input on their continued projects. Instead of trying to make that a nine to twelve workshop, why don't we continue that workshop in the afternoon after lunch and spend from one to four doing what you're talking about, because productivity committee will have just given us their input on all the various things they're working on. It seems to me that's a good time to do it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in support of that. The key to me is deformalize it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's get in the conference room where there's only eight chairs; we've got a court reporter. The press is invited. Whoever else wants to come can sit around the wall. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: As casual as possible, because conversation is what we need to have instead of -- I can barely see John down there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: workshop will be all day. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Okay. So our next fifth Tuesday Great. We'll break it into two pieces, the productivity report in the morning and the round-table discussion in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sense a humorous comment coming from my right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. He's smiling. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can feel it all the way down here, John. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm keeping it secret. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just going to say that you were going to keep it a secret. Can you get that on our schedule that it will be an all-day workshop? MS. FILSON: Yes. I just put it on the calendar, but can I have a location? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wish we could have it off campus. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam's house. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: South Beach. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: shooting for. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: at Mel's. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: South Beach is what I was I was just thinking the big booth Okay. We normally have the meeting at the library for our workshop and, you know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about the new Golden Gate Community Center? That's pretty informal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds good to me. Take a hoops break? Get to wear shorts? Shorts? Jeans. Remembering that the morning portion of this workshop will be, you know, received in a report. And, you know, I don't think that needs to be overly formal either, because they've gone to a great deal of work. I think our attention to that just needs to be serious and to listen to what they're saying. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should we receive them here, and then as soon as that's done maybe, you know, instead of one o'clock start at 1:30 to give us time to get out there just because there's 12 or 13 members on the productivity committee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They can meet at Golden Gate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should we just say Golden Gate Community Center and leave it to Commissioner Constantine to set it up? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Refreshments will be provided. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll make it a potluck meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So our next fifth Tuesday meeting will be productivity committee meeting in the morning, a round-table discussion in the afternoon at the Golden Gate Community Center. And the county manager's office, Mr. Hargett, will make those arrangements? MR. HARGETTE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item. We still got about 20 minutes. I know everybody's got -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I thought that was it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, no. LDC amendment process. I think Commissioner Hancock was wanting to discuss this one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Actually, there are some things that have come up at least in my district, and I'm sure others have heard similar rumblings, that may apply to LDC amendments. And I'll just list a couple of them quickly. There's been a lot of talk about along roadways having the ability to have some form of architectural overlay on those areas. We're talking about signature roadways for median landscaping. I also like the idea of signature roadways for aesthetics for commercial and industrial properties. What comes to mind is the big, grey box retailers such as Wal-Hart, Sam's, and those kinds of things that don't really add anything to the community. And there are little things popping up here and there that a lot of people just simply think are ugly. And I don't want to become the Boca Raton or the couple communities on the east coast where you have to get a permit to change the color of your house. That's not the degree I want to go, but I think there are things we need to look at. I'm wondering as those things apply to the LDC, what would be the format to bring those forward through staff -- obviously, I'm not going to give direction to staff to produce an amendment. I'm just wondering in the time frame of LDC amendment how we address things such as that. Our sign ordinance -- if you read it, you know, it will kill you. When I think things can be done simpler, a little bit easier -- there are just some things in the Land Development Code I would like to take a fresh look at and bring a new approach to, and I'm not sure what process by which I need to initiate that. MR. CAUTERO: I think the appropriate process or format would be general direction by the majority of the board. And that can serve as, if you will, a staff-based amendment or board-based amendment -- I'm not too up on the title of that -- and then take it into the next available amendment cycle. If you wish for it to be pulled out of the cycle and done as a separate amendment, that can be done, too. That would be at your discretion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask this board: If I want to maybe appoint a committee of folks to, you know, just look at something -- and maybe, Mr. Weigel, you can help me with this -- do I have the ability to -- in other words, I want to bring something to the board for you to consider, but I alone can't do that. How do I go about that? I mean there are architects out there that are very concerned about this, and there are other people in the industry that are concerned. And I guess I'm just looking for a way in which to get something done. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously, any one of us can bring anything to the board. I think if you were to put together a group of experts in a particular category, that would be beneficial. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Weigel, about advertising for that -- if it's just myself, one commissioner, talking to people in a profession or residents that are concerned about something, is there a need for advertising on that? MR. WEIGEL: There's no formal legal requirement for advertising. You can solicit the assistance from whatever sectors you wish. Obviously, that would become part of the information for the rest of the board as to whom you got and how you got them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask a question, because it seems to me, Mr. Arnold, didn't we get into a discussion about a year and a half ago about architectural review boards? We ran into a problem up in the Willoughby Acres area of modular homes next to CBC homes. And I thought they answered that. I received -- I thought staff was also continuing to work on it. Was that if we did an architectural review board, it would have to be county-wide, or we would have to develop some very distinctive districts to put this into effect? I mean it's not an overnight easy-to-do thing. MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. And when you start going to the level of having a separate review board and review function, you have to be very specific in how you set those up, because our codes are subject county-wide. If you create a separate district with standards, that's one thing. But there needs to be a basis for it. I think Mr. Weigel's had some experience in this as well with special districts for architectural review. What I'm hearing from Mr. Hancock's comments were not focusing so much on the architecture of the building, but maybe on, if you will, the term that we hear a lot these days, urban design. I can tell you that your Citizens Advisory Committee -- many of the subcommittees are also addressing that particular issue as to where's the urban design element of our plan. We mention that phrase in many places of our plan, but what are we doing to really attract urban design? I think that really comes out in a couple areas, especially with activity centers in our future land use map. Those are pretty much signature intersections of our community. We go so far as to make sure that each of those developments within it has some architectural similarity, but is that really urban design? Probably not. So I think there may be some distinction between the management plan that we have for Golden Gate Parkway for certain landscaping requirements for minimums, maximums, height restrictions, things of that nature, as opposed to pure architectural standards. And maybe that's where we make the distinction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that distinction, because you hit the nail on the head. I have no desire of forming a board or any type of panel to tell someone you have to build in architectural style A, and it has to be cover B and that type of thing. What brought this about is when you look at things like Wal-Hart coming into the community, and they are going to build their cookie-cutter program unless someone tells them that's not what this community would like to see. A case in point is in San Antonio, Texas, a Wal-Hart went in there, but they went into a historic district. Because the district existed with architectural review controls, Wal-Hart had to build a store with a brick front that its theme matched the adjacent building. In other words, the mechanism was there. The truth is most commercial and industrial properties over a period of time tend to deteriorate or start off in not so great a fashion, because they're more concerned about the business aspect and less about the aesthetics. The opposite is true when you go into planned developments. I mean Barnes and Noble did a very nice job architecturally, but it's within a planned development that required that. So what I'm not saying is that we are going to have an architectural style in Collier County, but I'm looking for a mechanism for either this board or if it's an outside panel to make simply recommendations on changes or improvement, just something to give us the ability to say, you know, this isn't what Collier County is about. We'd like to see these types of changes. I'm just looking for that vehicle. That's really the search I'm in right now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Personally, I would be thrilled if you with your planning background brought some recommendations to the board to give us -- I mean that's exactly what we're supposed to be about the business for doing, setting policy for how we want this community to grow. And I hope that you'll give us some of that leadership with your background. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll try. Obviously, I'm sensitive to the overregulation question. The last thing we want is layer and layer and layer, but I think there's an element of public concern that has to be addressed. My office phone rings every other day about someone complaining about the construction of something that's hideous, and you drive by and think this doesn't fit. So I would like for this county to have some impact on the way those -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a good one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's all I'm trying to do. And I know this is going to have a long tail to it and a lot of discussion later, so I'll try not to give it any more time here. MR. CAUTERO: Madam Chairman, just as an ancillary note, I just want to remind the board that approximately six months ago the board gave direction to the staff to look at sign regulations. And staff is in the process of doing that. And that's scheduled for the first cycle of '96 Land Development Code amendments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On the same issue of land use, not specifically Land Development Codes, but I have talked previously with the development services people, and I've talked with Mr. Cuyler, and yesterday I talked with Mr. Dotrill about this one. This is the land use items that come to the county commission. And sometimes we don't want to do a particular land use, and we wind up saying no. We don't want to do that. And the petitioner goes into court, and lo and behold what we want and what our citizens want doesn't seem to matter. And often I've been told that that happens because we don't put sufficient findings on the record to support the decision that we made. Now, I was talking with Mr. Dotrill yesterday about the possibility of having a person from our planning department -- actually two people, I guess, one person advocating for and another person advocating against a particular land use that's come before us. And that way when we get these that are really sensitive to the citizens around them and it's something that we really don't want to do, we've built a sufficient case for finding either way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be the Siscal and Ebert (phonetic) version? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I don't know. MR. CAUTERO: I'm not quite understanding what you want to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, for instance, on the APAC rock quarry situation a year and a half ago, we voted not to do that, not to permit the expansion of APAC. And APAC went into court. And fortunately, we had enough findings on the record to -- for the court to say no. You can't do that. But at the same time, we've had affordable housing projects around the area where we didn't have sufficient findings on the record, and -- but they've gone into court, and the courts have said, well, we will arbitrarily, capriciously have you, and we can't just arbitrarily do that. So, yes, petitioner, you can go ahead and do that. So in the process of doing that, the petitioner -- often the only limitations placed on them by the court are whatever the stipulations were from the planning commission. And the stipulations this board may have wanted to put on them get lost in the court battle -- in the court case. I guess my question is: We often have a member from the planning services give us a presentation as to what's going on, and then we get this list in our executive summary of pros and cons. MR. CAUTERO: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay? And it's not a bad way to do it, but it's not a real strong way to do it, because sometimes these pros and cons are not real strong. They're kind of, well, if you want to do it, you can do it. If you don't want to do it, you -- I guess what I'm looking for is maybe a way, especially in the really sensitive land use areas, that we have an advocacy to supporting the land use and an advocacy not supporting it so that this board can build the case it needs to do either. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, is it possible that we could end up tripping ourselves up by doing that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have to do it on every single one of them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly we have to have something to support -- we have to have legitimate reasons to support whichever side we take, but to make a menu that allows us to take either side and be backed up, it just sounds like we might be asking for trouble or might be providing more fuel for the fire for litigation there. MR. WEIGEL: Well, my peripheral vision doesn't allow me to see if Mr. Cuyler is nodding or shaking his head, but I think -- MR. DORRILL: He usually says give me a couple of weeks, and I'll get back to you. MR. WEIGEL: I'll be brave and make even a few answers now. And the fact is that I think there is a potential to create problems for the successful defense of the decision making that the board makes with that scenario. And keep in mind that the county attorney office and staff have been concerned -- it's been kind of a steady and routine drumbeat which this board and prior boards have heard and have picked up and started to pick up rather well that the findings are necessary -- not merely appropriate, but necessary for the defensibility of the decision. But the fact that findings are made, as opposed to not having findings made when a decision is made, merely changes the level or standard of review of any decision the board makes that comes up in the appeal process, because it makes it very easy for the Court based on petitioner's appeal to say, oh, this decision is no good. You didn't have adequate findings. The board can still reach findings, and the Court in the secondary level of review can say, you've got your findings, but they're not good enough. But the fact is that the record must show a factual basis upon which the findings of law and fact that you make come together in the decision. The answer is yes. I think there is a potential for difficulty and complication in the appeal process if you have staff purportedly providing the pros and cons. That's not to say that what you're getting right now already includes the pros and cons, and it's up to you to identify those. MR. CUYLER: I think -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we also have planners working for the county who look at our Land Development Code, and their interpretation is different. I mean we saw that. MR. WEIGEL: That's true. There typically is. And perhaps it could be pronounced that in the executive summary package that comes to the board in a particular land use petition, there is a CCPC recommendation, and there is also a staff recommendation or what the staff recommended to the CCPC which ultimately may or may not have accepted what the staff did. So if a further clarification can be provided, a little easier way for the board to distinguish both in the written executive summary package as well as what comes forth orally, clearly that can be done without really changing the staff's approach greatly. Ken certainly may wish to add. MR. CUYLER: I just want to point out one thing. And that is we have been successful in the last couple of years, and the board has been very good at paying attention to, as David said, the findings. And I don't want to hex myself, because we're waiting on a decision right now on an affordable housing case up next to Bear Creek. We're waiting on the decision on that right now. That should be issued any time. But the board has been very cognizant of the necessity to make findings. The staff may want to pay a little more attention to the pros and cons in the executive summary. The one thing, though, that you mentioned, Commissioner Matthews, is having to do it every time. If you're going to have a staff presentation, you've really got to be consistent. Just because something's not controversial, you know, you can't get into the, you know, take a quick vote on this, quick vote, now this one's controversial, let's have a full explanation by both sides. You've got to be careful of that, because you're -- when you get inconsistent in your approaches to land use matters -- of course, if you don't get sued, it doesn't matter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hate to have staff take an advocacy point regularly for both sides or for either side, but particularly for a petitioner. It's the petitioner's responsibility when they come forward if they believe the need to make a sale in front of the commission, to make that sale. If they have to convince us of something, it's not our staff's job to prove the petitioner's point. So I hate to have our staff doing that. I understand your point. We need to find a way -- and we have done better in the last couple of years, but we need to find a formal mechanism by which we can assure that. I'm not sure that particular one is it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Again, this is a workshop. I'm throwing ideas out. It's become a concern for me that as less and less land becomes available for development and especially in the urban area, the contentiousness of getting these land use petitions through is going to get worse and worse. And, you know, we may eventually have to look at a hearing officer. We've talked about it before and said we don't want to do it. But, you know, at the same time I'm looking at the number of times that we've been very, very close and wondering whether we're going to successfully win that suit or not. I mean we're all kind of sitting out there with APAC and not quite sure where it was going to go. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think our attorney was quite that positive. MR. CAUTERO: I had something to say, but Commissioner Norris wants to address you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would put my vote in on the staff weighing their arguments and weighing their arguments in on the anti side of every single land use just for the specific reason that they're not put in the position of supporting the petitioner. That shouldn't be their job is to come up here and plead the petitioner's case by weighing their arguments more to the anti side rather than the pro side. They do establish findings for the board just through that particular bias that they would put on it. And it would give the board the latitude, obviously, then to go ahead and make whichever decision we felt was appropriate. I think, obviously, if we find in favor of the petitioner, we're not going to be too concerned about any lawsuit or litigation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: From staff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: From staff. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: On the other hand, if we feel something is not appropriate, then we are probably in a better position legal-wise, I would assume. But Mr. Cuyler has not indicated through any motion of his head whatsoever -- MR. CUYLER: The only thing I would say about that is you have to remember that your zoning staff and your planning staff -- I'm sure Mr. Cautero would emphasize this -- they feel that, you know, they are there to serve you in a professional role. They are to look at these and exercise their professional judgment. And a lot of times when you overturn them, they still hold that position. But the key is to get enough evidence into the record -- assuming it's there, get enough information in the record and have you identify what you want to identify to either support or reject the petition. But the staff -- because I've talked to them about different scenarios on how to handle this, and their position has been, you know, we're professionals. We're there for a purpose. The board may not agree with us, but we need to give our professional judgment. So if they're in favor of it, they may have hesitation to, you know, take the opposite side. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think staff already does one thing that -- you know, whether it's heightened or not, the concept in planning is not to leave any stone unturned, if there's a potential negative impact out there, to research it, look at it, and determine its impact. If it's negligible, then it's negligible, and that's a professional decision made by professionals. We've hired people on staff to give their professional opinion as planners as to the consistency and viability of any given project. And I think we would be remiss in asking them to slant their opinion in one direction or another. And if all we're going to ask them to do is tell us what's not good about this, we can cut their salaries in half and get a whole new crop of people to do that. I assume we hired professionals that have the qualifications, have the ability to be impartial, and to have the county's best interest at heart. If this board chooses not to pursue or not to approve a zoning, it is incumbent upon those people who deny that zoning to state clearly their findings. If we fail to do that as individuals, we fail at our job. So if you're going to deny a zoning petition, you need to be able to clearly state the findings, which we have been doing rather well lately, and I think it's been remarked earlier. So I'm in favor of letting our planning staff be professional planners, to continue to look at everything from both sides and come up with what they feel is a recommendation that is best for the county population as a whole. And I think we have to trust them to do that. Beyond that it's our judgment and our abilities. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I don't know where it's going to go. MR. CAUTERO: I think it's a matter of formatting. I'm sorry, Commissioner Constantine. I think it's a matter of formatting and how we would present it. I would just reiterate what Commissioner Hancock and Mr. Cuyler said. Something that you alluded to me that concerns me a little bit is the fact that -- correct me if I'm wrong. I thought I heard you say sometimes planners have different opinions. That's going to happen, but I can assure you that -- and it's my goal that when a recommendation comes before you, it's a unified recommendation. When a recommendation goes to Mr. Arnold, he has the ability to overrule it or concur with it. Then I have the ability to overrule that. When my signature goes on something, it's a unified effort. Yes, it's going to be a minority at times. But when we come to you with a recommendation, it's a unified recommendation from my division. And if one planner or more disagrees with it, then professional recommendation and input is sought. But so be it, because someone has to be accountable, and that person is me. I believe it should be that way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Planners will disagree, and so will attorneys. Surprise, surprise. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Even CPAs disagree, but we seek each other out to come in the end with a weighted opinion. Okay. So we had wanted to try to finish this workshop up by noon. There's one other item. And I had distributed a memo yesterday, but why don't we handle that on the 5th, dealing with miscellaneous correspondence, and see if we can't find a way to solve that. We finished? It's lunchtime. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 12:02 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Anjonette K. Baum, CSR