Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/18/1992 R Naples, Florida, August 18, 1'i .~ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in 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 been created according to law and having conducted business .i.!.j.herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. ir REGULAR SESSION tn Building it"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the ~.~ollowing members present: CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan Patrtcia A. Goodntght Max A. Hasse, Jr. Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance ~il~ector; Kathy Meyers, Annette Guevtn, and Ellis Hoffman, Deputy ; Leo Ochs, Acting County Manager; Jennifer Edwards, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Assistant County !?Attorneys Howell, Student and Wilson; George Archibald. Transportation ~ '-Services Administrator; Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; Tom Olliff, Public Services Administrator; Ken Pineau, Emergency Management Director; Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities ; John MadaJewski, Project Review Services Manager; David · fPettrow, Development Services Director; Tom Conrecode, Director of Office of Capital Projects Management; V/ad Ryztw, Engineer Project Manager= Dick Clark, Code Enforecement Supervisor; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; Ed Kant, Transportation ';'Tr&fftc Senior Engineer; Bryan Milk. Project Planner; Russ Muller ;Transportation Engineer; John Stanley, Tax Collector Compliance ~ Sue Fi/son, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy !(Huff, Sheriff's Office. Page August 18, 1992 Cmeei~ton~r Shanahan norad0 seconded by CoenteeIoner Rasee ~d ,' ~t~ ~tnly, to a~ro~ the agen~ with the pr~e~ c~geo ~t~l~ ~ tb A~a C~ Sheet ~d the additional c~8 n 1. Ite~ ~14(A) - Update on ~andscaptn9 regardln9 ULDC. l. Itel ~16(D)1 - continued to September 1, 1992. Page APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED August 28, 1992 The motion for approva! of the Consent Agenda ts noted under Item ~IIUTI~-OP'BCC 0/4/92 REGULAR MEETINO AND 8/5/92 SPECIAL M~ETI~6 - Comm/utoneF Sh~n&h~nmoved, eeconded by Contssloner Ooodntght ~ad c~t'~tedmmntmou~l¥, to a~r~ the minutes of the Aunt 4, 2992 ~l~ttng ~ Aupt 5, 1992 S~ctal Meeting. Commissioner Hasse congratulated the following employees and pre- sented them with Employee Service Awards: Kathryn S. Bartoe, Community Development/Customer Service-5 years Milton L. Ktllibrew, Road and Bridge - 5 years Frank Surtano, EMS - 5 years BOI~TJI~IDN~NT 92-411 CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1992; BUDGET 92-405, 92-408/409 AND 92-412 - ADOPTED Commissioner Volpe questioned the $15,000 to provide for a tem- porary position tn Water Administration. Mr. Yonkosky suggested that Budget Amendment 92-411 be continued to the next meeting date to al/ow to provide further information. Comld~tone~ Hasse loved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan mhd Clt~'~ld~mMIntlOUally, that Budget Amendments 92-405, 92-408/409 ~nd :92-422 bt adopted mmd 92-422 be continued to September I, 2992. ~OW PLAII~ FOR tVILLAGBS OF BARFIELD BAYt APPROVED SUBJECT TO · TAFF"I 5'I"ZPULATIONO AND ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator, reviewed that this property ts situated on Marco Island, and this Item ,,00' ~OP'G£ ~ Page 3 August 18, 1992 with approval of the final construction plans for the !~ttnimproved, partially constructed subdivision, He noted that the pro- Ject has had financing difficulties. /['['.,~ Mr. Brutt summarized that Staff recommends approval of the revised ?.construction plans m/bmitted by Ann Arbor Builders, Inc. subject to Staff ts ~uggested stipulations, John MadaJewski, Project Review Services Nanager, recommended an !additional stipulation that the Board grant a limited waiver of Code Ordinance 91-56, concerning prohibited activities prior to permit issuance, so that a proper drainage system can be 'created that will not impact the existing neighbors abutting the sub- -:Ject property. · ~, Alex Deparry spoke to this item. Mr. MadaJewski reported that the Applicant is requesting that be built over time, as each lot is built. Mr. MadaJewskt suggested Instead that a condition of approval be that the sidewalks would have to be installed by final acceptance. ~toner Sh~mt~n ~wd, seconded by Commissioner Rases and i~' c~v~iedm~mi~ou~ly, to approve the revised construction plans sub- mit-ted b~innirbor Builders ~ubJsct to Staff's stipulations and granting a ll~ted tt~e waiver relating to Section i 103.111 and that m ti~e fr~e be provided on sidewalks to coincide with the final i~f~T OF eTIGER ISLAND ESTATESt APPROVED FOR RECORDING WITH Com~tesioner Volpe Indicated that he will abstain from voting on item, Mr. Brutt noted that generally this item would be part of the · i;~onssnt agenda. Mr. Brutt summarized that Staff recommends the approval for of the final plat of Tiger Island Estates per the stipula- Page 4 '. AUgUSt 18, 1992 [one listed within the Executive Summary. C~lto~e~ Sh~n~h~n ~oved, eeconded by Conteetoner Saunders and August 18, 1992 L:~'& 23B1 DZ~'"O~XON ON ~ NRX~ 0PXNZON$ FROM MR, P~f"I'RCRfRI~G&RDZNG INC. County Attorney Cuyler distributed a copy of Section 2.6.9 of the Land Development Code. He advised that Nr. Pettrow rendered the opi- nion that this facility was most akin to a water pumping station and would be considered a permitted use under Essential Services. He noted that Mr. Varnadoe's Appeal questions this decision. Mr. Cu¥1er distributed a handout to the Board which was a copy of .the portion of the Land Development Code dealing with the Rural Agricultural District 'A' (pages 2-8 through 2-10). Mr. Cuyler noted that Mr. Pettrow stated that In his opinion water withdrawal Is an extraction, and the extracting of water Is a ~> ·Permitted Use under Essential Services, and a Conditional Use under ,;the AgTlcultural District. Mr. Cuyler said this creates a conflict. ;:',' Mr. Cuyler distributed a copy of the Rules of Construction provi- · sion within the Land Development Code. Mr. Cuyler advised that the parties want to address the Board con- cernlng whether there is a conflict which prevails between the two . iopintons and ultimately If a Conditional Use is required. George Varnadoe, Attorney, referred to a sptral bound book sub- mitted by his office, and asked that it be made part of the record. Mr. Cuyler advised Commissioner Saunders that the two opinions · ubmltted by the Community Development Department are two separate Interpretations and should not be considered in a single appeal as ;.*it would be subject to challenge. Mr. Varnadoe requested that the Board determine which of the Interpretations is controlling, as they conflict. - Commissioner Saunders suggested that the Board proceed to hear argument from Mr. Varnadoe as to why he perceives that there ia a conflict between the interpretations, and hear argument from Mr. Page 6 August 18, 1992 Ooodlette as to why he believes there Is not a conflict. ~mio~w~ Saundsrs leov~d, seconded by Conatssloner 3hanahan ~d ~i~ ~nly, to proc~ to he~ leal ~nts frn c~el fo~ b ~tin ~rties a~reestng the ~estton u to conflict with s~s~ it 10:30 l.N. - lec~~ at 10:52 l.N. Hr. Va=nadoe e~/atned that he represents Six L's Fa=ms, Southwest F2o~da T=optca/s, N. T. Ga=gtulo, Southern Tree Fa=ms, David C. B~o~ Fam, Roge=s N.K. Seed Company and 3. N. ~homas Farms. He referred .to the second tnterp=etatlon and explalned that 1~ spectflcal]~ states that water w~thd=awal ext=actton fo~ ag~tcu~tura] pu=poses a Condlt~ona~ Use. He agreed ~tth this interpretation, ~htch he ~deemed to be the contro/~1ng tnte~p=etat~on. H~. Va=nadoe asked the Boa=d to consider the ~mpact of the wlthdrawa~ ext=actton on the public bsa]th, safe~y and welfare of the ~rro~dtng neighborhoods as ~e]l as economic effects, app=op=~ate l~d use, ~d conststenc~ with Growth Nanagement Plan and Land ~lopment Code. ~. Va~adoe =erst=ed to photographs (copy not provtded to the C~e=k to the Boa=d} of the Dude Pit p=ope=ty, Six L's Farms and ~==o~dtng pa=cels, and pointed out for= sto~age tanks containing ac/ds ~d pesticides. He exp~atned that unde= the G=oundwater P=otectlon Act, this type of facility should not be tn c]ose to a ~dwater supply .ou=ce. Hr. Va~adoe s~mma~tzed ~hat he ts tn ag=eement with Co~ty ~yler as to his =evtew of all the legal opinions and Conditional Use app~tca~ton ~evtew. ~dley Goodlette, Attorney ~1th Cummings and Lockwood representlng 8outh~teld Fa=ms Ltds., V, p~esen~ed his ar~ments and reviewed that Staff adv/sed hi. that only a Condtttona~ Use ~s requlred fo= the excavation. He =ere=red to documents contained ~htn a blac~ binder Page ? August 18, 1992 prepared by hie office that he submitted to the County. He indicated Section 2.6.9, the Essential Services Provision of the Land Development Code, should govern the interpretation, and that the Board ' should consider the needs of the residents of Marco Island in having a ~upply of potable water at a reasonable price. He noted that there is a limited number of sources for raw water in Collier County. Commissioner Saunders referred to a Memorandum dated January 27, ii 1989 from County Attorney Cuyler regarding whether a provisional use · ~perait ia required for construction and installation of a well water .l;mmp,-in reference to the old Code. County Attorney Cuyler advised that the Board will have to make a decision as to whether the interpretation is that it is a well pump. The Board concurred unanimously in concluding that Section 2.6.9 of the Land Development Code is the controlling provision and the determination as to whether or not a conditional use or a permitted 2;~ use applies will be determined after Mr. Varnadoe's appeal is heard. ! Commissioner Volpe declared that the Board will now proceed with the Appeal of the determination that was made by Mr. Pettrow of May 27, 1992. elected at 12:10 P.M. - Reconvened at 1:05 P.M.a~e "(3250) ~~ ~ ~OL~ION NO. 92-439 ~OV~NG A ~~~ ~E~0N Legal notice having been published in the Naples Da~ly News on July 30, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Assistant County Attorney Wilson noted the following changes to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance which has been reviewed by Nabore Giblin: Added to title a reference to new section providing for use of the previously collected tax receipts, and removing a reference to a repeal of Ordinance No. 90-43. Assistant County Attorney Wilson noted that there is an additional 18 Page 8 August 180 199R being recommended to be included which requires renumbering, and further noted that Section 2B would reqmtre a typographical correction of 9 being changed to 10. A~stst~mt County Attorney Wilson distributed a handout with pro- posed changes ~bmttted by the ?ax Collector to be added to Section Virginia Corkran spoke to this Item. Assistant County Attorney Wilson clarified that there is a penny designated to be used only for the purpose of debt service on bonds for a professional sports franchise facility, and can be added after a ~.'two cent referendum, a specific third cent that can be used only for that purpose. Commissioner Volpe further noted that an additional penny can be i'.added by the Board of County Conunissioners by a super-majority under the original plan after three years. Pamela Johnson and Mike Salter spoke to this item. Comm/~to~w~ ~under· moved, seconded by Commissioner Shan~ and cazTied ~ly, to close the public hearing. Oe~s~t~i~ Saunders ~oved0 seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and c~t~led ~nA~ou~l¥, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-60, the Tourist De~el~t Tax Ordinance, including all changes outlined by A~sistant ~unt~ Attot-ne~ #tlson u ~11 u d~s/gnat/ng the authority to change he~l/~ ~mab~z~, and tnclud/ng the changes proposed by the T~x Coll~-tg~, ~nd that Ordinance No. 92-60 be entered into Ordinance Book )1o. 84. C~l~tmmionsr S~unders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shan~tmn and Ca,Tied unanimously, to approve the Resolution calling a refersndu~ · electi~n regarding · 2 cent tourist tax, thereby adopting Resolution Page 9 August :18, :1992 92-440, CALLING FOR A STI~N 1992 ~ ~r.,KCTION BALLC~ AS TO TR~ ADDITION TO TH~ T~O TOURIST TAX LEVY OF A THIRD C~q~T TO BE USED TO FINANCZ A PltOF~SI;O~ SPORT~ FRANCHISE FACILITY - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Brenda Wilson referred to the details of the Executive Summary regarding this item. The following people spoke to this item: ';'~< ~ane Varner Gtl Erltchman Tom Ballon Jim Stewart : Fred Tarrant Frances Barsh Ron McLemord ~~ ~1~, to place the mtrn ~te on the I~r 3, 1992 ~ II--tn ~llot as to the addition of a third c~t to ~ ~ed to f~ a ~fnmt~l ~rtm fr~cht~ factli~ ~ include t~ ~ 1~ ~ttt~ ~ the C~W ittonq, there~ a~ttng Page 10 August 18, :1992 aea.,~ltoe~oed: 2:35 P.N. - Reconvened: 2:45 P.N, at which Clerk Guevin replaced Deput~ Clerk Neyere e,e Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on August 2, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication fi/ed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. David Pettrow, Development Services Director, briefed the Board on the history of the Southfield Farms requests. He said along with the Provisional Use request for earth mining, a companion item for water pumping was received. He indicated also received were applications for commercla! excavation permits for three trenches for purposes of .extracting raw water and for earth mining. He noted a consumptive use permit had been granted for the proposed project by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). He mentioned the Environmental Advisory Council, the Water Management Advisory Board and its suc- cessor, the Environmental Advisory Board have al/ considered the m requests, which were subsequently recommended for approval by the '.Collier County Planning Commission. With adoption of the Unified Land %~: Development Code (ULDC) in October, 1991, he said, water pumping became a permitted use under essential services. Mr. Pettrow continued, explaining the requests for interpretation 'received from Attorney George Varnadoe. He recalled his written response dated May 22nd to Attorney Varnadoe was that a raw water wAthdrmwa! facility is not a Conditional Use under essential services, 'b~cause At was eliminated from Ordinance 82-2, the old Zoning OrdAn~x~ce, and not included in the new ULDO. Me added it is also his opinion that water pumping An itself does not represent something that Am obtrusive or something that carries with it a stigma, which are ~%PrimarAl¥ the reasons why matters are associated with Conditional Page 11 Au~.tst 18, ~992 ~ Commissioner Volpe asked if Mr. Pettrow considered when rendering his interpretation, that this is not simply a water pumping station [[i and is actually part of a larger system on a 20S-acre site? Mr. Pettrow reported the ordinance is silent to the scale of a proposed project. He agreed that resource protection should be addressed in the regulations, to allow the Board an opportunity to Judge the impact of a resource being affected within Collier County. Attorney George Varnadoe advised the Board that he is representing Six Lts Farms, David C. Brown Farms, Roger N.K. Seed Co., S.W. F/or/da Troptcals, J.N. Thomas Farms, N.T. Gargiulo and Southern Tree Farms, In their appeal of Mr. Pettrow~s interpretation. He asked that the comments ~ade during the morning~s session of this meeting be incor- Porated Into this hearing. County Attorney Cu¥1er indicated he has no objection to Attorney Varnadoe~s request. !;i.'. Attorney Varnadoe asked the Board to consider the potential con- tamtnants around the subject site and not to lose sight of the fact that a Conditional Use is the only way to control where the public water supply facilities are located. He said if they are interpreted as l~ermttted useB, they can be located anywhere and the County has no u~e control over them. He asked the Board to remember that the .request conflicts with the Wellfteld Protection Ordinance. He enu- imerated his reasons for requesting the proposal be looked at under the Conditional Use criteria. He communicated the Board of County !i~ Commissioners must have the recommendations from Staff a8 well as the adviao~ boards as to the water extraction and any impacts, such as ~i-&Pproprtateness and compatibility, it might have on the surrounding '( land uses. .i Attorney Varnadoe'submitted David Depue as an expert in land ~ planning and comprehensive planning as well as zoning and public poltc~ analysis. He said Mr. Depue has been certified as an expert ~:! w~tneos tn a variety of legal and administrative proceedings, Page 12 ~- ~ August 18, 1992 i~nClud~ng the Circuit Courts of Lee and Collier Counties° Commissioner Volpe swore in all those intending to offer any evi- dence relating to this item as we1! as Petition CU-91-1. C4:~d~o~z' ~h~ ~ov~d, seconded by Colm~sm~one~ Hums ~i~~~ly, to accept ~vid Dele ~ ~ e~rt In David Depue, PresAden~ of Morris Depue Associates ~n For~ Myers, ~e~ressed The opinion ~ha~ ex~rac~ing wa~er is an essential ~ervice ~d a Conditional Use. Referring ~o a char~, he expounded on wha~ are [.'~rm~tted essent~a~ services versus condi~Aonal essentia~ services. A~orney ~d~e~ Goodle~te asked If ~n Mr. Depue's opinion ~here ~ld ~ ~y instance where ~he Board of County Co~AssAoners may con- sider a raw wa~er wi~hdrawa] ffac~li~y as a permitted use An conjunc- tion with ~he Conditional Use application for excava~ion? Mr. Dele co,ended ~ha~ issue is not beffore the Board In response ~o Co~issAoner Sanders, Mr. Depue s~a~ed ~he size as ~ a~ ~he scope and Impacts off ~he activity are a~l elements tha~ ~t the proJec~ Into the Conditional Use Category. He said ~he scope ~st t~e ~nto consideration no~ only withdrawing 4-million gallons of wa~er per day, but also wha~ is being done with that wa~er. A~torney Good~e~Te refferred ~o documents submitted ~o ~he Board during the earlier discussion of ~he issues Involved ~n ~his hearing. He said ~he proJec~ ~s no~hing more ~han a wa~er pumping station, and A~ As A~or~an~ for the Board ~o consider wha~ ~he legAs~a~ive Anten~ ~s when adoption off ~he ULDC changed wa~er pumping ~o a permit~ed use. He con~ended A~ As very clear ~ha~ ~he in~en~ was ~o allow exactly the kind of activity proposed at ~he subJec~ si~e. concluded ~ asking ~he Board lo uphold the Anterpre~a~ion of S~aff Cond~ona~ Use app~ova~ ~s no~ n~cessary fo~ ~a~ wa~e~ Attorney Goodlette offered Stanley Hole as an expert tn water Page 13 August 18, 1992 ? . ~0mm/emtone~ Shanahan nove~, seconded t~ Co~ntsetoner Ooodnlght :and ~tM ~ly, to accept Stnl~ Hole u u ~rt tn ~ter St~ley Hole with Hole, Montes ~ Associates, communicated that the ' hteto~tc relationship between Collier County and the S~D ts at risk over this issue. He said the Count~ makes the land use decisions with the S~ advising, and the S~D isles water perm/ts wht~e the ~:~.Co~ advteee. He satd that re~attonshtp has worked because of much .'..hard ~rk for close to 18 years on the part of both part/es, Jn order to ~vot~ the water wars that have pla~ed other areas. Re sat~ if the O~ty n~ attempts to control water ~ermtts through lan~ use deci- sions, Co,lief County has crossed the line. He concluded by asktn~ · he Board to conttnue allowtn~ the S~D to issue the water ,..; Responding to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Hole stated the S~D wtll consider the tmpact of extracting 4-million gallons per day tn its ~rmtt. ~....' Attomey Goodlette presented Attorne~ Steve Walker, the former general co~sel to the S~D. He Indicated Attorney Walker will offer legal oplntone regarding Jurisdictional issues that reflect upon land use dec/o/one. Co~ee~oner Volpe swore ~n Attorney Steve Walker. · Attorney Steve Walker with Messer Vtckers tn Palm Beach, remarked that ~ of the author~ties the Board has been asked by Attorney Vat,doe to exercise call into ~estton ~he Board of Count~ Co~eelonere~ authority to exercise them. He said the Board has been repeatedly asked ~o respond to the pub/lc health, safety and ~f~e concede e~ressed tn terms with water resource impacts asso- ciated w~th these withdrawals. He reported as a matter of law, the Board te pre-empted from considering ~heee matters tn the de~lbera- t~one on whether the project ~s a permitted use or a Conditional Use. He prodded the Board and County Attorney Cuy]er wi~h a memorandum ~esponse to ~ earlier memorandum of Attorney Varnadoe. He Page 14 ' * August 18, 1992 handed ont excerpts of Chapter 373, which ts the operational Statute 'that governs the operations of the SFWMD and the other four Water i.Management Districts tn the State of Florida. (Copies of the above noted documents not provided to the Clerk to the Board.) In response to Commissioner Haese, Attorney Walker stated the kind of Impacts the Board is concerned about, I.e., the withdrawal and · .transport of water off-site, the transport of water beyond overlying land, the impacts on adjacent legal uses and the impacts on land uses associated with the withdrawal of water, ts a pre-empted regulatory authority that Is vested solely in the SFWMD in Collier County. Commissioner Volpe commented the Board ts not attempting to regu- late the consumptive use of water, only where the activity can take place wtthtn Collier County. Attorney Walker contended if the Board of County Commissioners .9..: changes the lmpacta associated with what SF~MD has permitted, the allocation of water is necessarily changed and water rights of people who have obtained a permit are necessarily effected. ass l%ec.e.e~e~: 4:10 P.M. Reconvened: 4:25 P.M. ese Attorney Jim Garner was presented as co-counsel for Six L's Farms, et Upon being sworn in by Commissioner Volpe, Attorney Garner com- ]anted he agrees with Stanley Hole that consumptive use lies with the SFWMD and 2~/1d uae wtth Collier County. However, he said, he disagrees with Attorney Walker that the County is pre-empted from .. ~tng land use decisions or determining whether this ts a permitted ~i*:uee o= a Conditional Use. He quoted from Chapter 40E of the Florida Admtnlatrattve Code as well as sections of the Basis of Review for i~(; Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water /Maltagement District, providing the Board with copies of same. Attorney Varnadoe concluded that the Board has the right to look the land use aspects of this issue, and the only way to do so ts to c°nstrlla this as a Conditional Use and overturn Mr. Pettrow~s Page August 18, 1992 Attorney Goodlette pointed out that It was prudent of Staff to iii:eliminate water pumping plants from being Provisional Uses to what ts !/ no~ a permitted use. He said as testified by Mr. Hole, County should .' not be in that business and as stated by Attorney Walker, there are ~ii. technical legal considerations as to why the County should not be in ithe water regulatory environment. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the standard the Board must revie~ and apply to Mr. Pettrow~s Interpretation is debatable or is it lubstantIa! competent evidence? i~!?' C~nty Attorney Cuyler replied Section 1.6.6. under Appeal to the -i. Board of Zoning Appeals or Board of Adjustment and Appeals, states the Board cannot modify or reject the Development Services Director's :! interpretation unless the Board finds the determination is not sup- ~orted by substantial competent evidence or that the interpretation ts 'contrm~F to the ULDC. C~to~l~ l[l~ee loved, seconded by Commissioner Goodntght and Commissioner Volpe expressed the opinion that the subject activity falls within Section 2.6.9.2 as a Conditional Use. ~l~e~ ~se ~ved, seconded by Co~aiselonsr ~k~dnt~ht, that ~ ~le~ent ~e~vices Director's interpretation Is contrary to th~ ~vtlt~e~ of the L~nd Development Code. Commissioner Saunders agreed that the activity falls within Section 2.6.9.2, Essential Services, however, a fair interpretation of the Ordinance would dictate this should be considered a permitted use. ~ ~lll foe. the question, the ~otton passed 4/1 (Co~tleloner -F~P~TNNININe AND RELATND PI~OC~SSINfl FOR FROI~RTY LOCATED NORTH OF ' AID]~I~JAC~31TTO U.S. 41, APPROXIMATELY FOUR (4) MILES SOUTHEAST OF i~:.: ~o~. I~ - (~31TIIIIED UNTIL HEARD MaTH CONDITIONAL USE FOR MATER I~gal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on July 30, 1992. as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the August 18, 1992 public hearing was opened. Contsstoner Volpe swore tn Planner Bryan Milk. Planner Milk gave an historical brief regarding Petition CU-91-1 '~fros Staff's point of view. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Planner Milk stated the Issue debated before the Environmental Advisory Board was earth mining based on depths, amounts of material, access, fenclng and the environmental concerns relative to the refuge area to the north. Contsstoner Volpe ~estloned what additional consldera~on~ mus~ ~ r~e~d ~ Staff tn connection with a Conditional Use for a water withdrawal facility that have not already been considered ~n connec- .tion ~th the excavation? Plier M~k e~la~ned Staff would have to review Information from the ~t~t~oner on the compatibility Issues of the wells of ne~ghboring .proper~ o~ers, the economic affect on the farming ~ndustry ~n the area, the actual transm~ssion of water from the dude p~t to Marco Isled ~d the health, safety and welfare of where the water ~s going, h~ the ~te= w~11 ~ treated and ~ that t~e of water can be treated. Co~ Attorney Cuyler noted he has conversed w~th the S~ w~th Fegard ~o some of the above mentioned ~ssues. He sa~d they have ~nd~- cared to h~m that pesticides affecting the property ~tself ~e not w~th~n their Jurisdiction wh~le consumptive use ~s clearly w~thln their ~ew. He concluded he w~ll have to meet w~th Staff ~d the S~ to d~s~se the Jurisdictional cons~de=at~one. Co~se~oner Volpe Inquired ~f ~t is Staff's reco~endat~on, based on their ~alys~e, tha~ the Board gran~ a Conditional Use for c~al exca~tlon ~d related processes, to which Planner M~lk repl~ed ~n the aff~r~t~ve. Co~ss~oner Volpe ~est~oned the need for another co~erc~al excavation pit ~n Collier County. He asked If that is a factor to be considered ~n the granting or den~al of th~s Conditional Use? C~ty Attorney Cuyler responded the Board has not considered that Page 17 August 18, 1992 ~i~-.t~ of economic impact in the past. Attorney Dudley Goodlette, representing Southfteld Farms,' Ltd., V, encouraged the Board to agree with Staff's recommendation for approval of this petition. Re pointed out the CCPC was advised to conduct their proceedings based upon compatibility of land uses and not get .into Issues not within the Jurisdiction of the County. He reported 'until the petition was heard by the ~-nvlronmental Advisory Board (EAB) in January, 1992, this request was being considered for water extraction uses. He said although the petitioner must now apply for a Conditional Use for water extraction, he urged the Board not to require them to be heard by all advisory boards again. The following people spoke regarding this Item: Paul Rodtnsky Ray Brtll sss ltec~d: 5:45 P.N. - Reconvened: 5:55 P.N. Attorney George Varnadoe submitted a petition and letter into the record. (Copies not provided to the Clerk to the Board. The following people spoke regarding this item: Jues L. Dozier Wesley Roan Rick Ltpman Don Thomas Robert Bean Kent Chema .;'j. John Gargtulo 'Contssioner Saunders commented it appears that the primary use of i/'Lthe dude pit is for a water extraction operation and the earth mining ia a subsidiary use. Attorney Goodlette offered a petition Into the record from citi- zens of Narco Island In support of the subject petition. (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board. l Comiaatoner Volpe expressed his belief that the water extraction and earth mining Issues are Inextricably tied together. He suggested this petition be sent back to the Planning Commission and that it be heard in conjunction with a Conditional Use petition for water extrac- Conissioner Hasse questioned whether this area has the only source available for water supply for Marco Island. Page 18 August 18, 1992 Commissioner Goodnight communicated when the Growth Management Plan was adopted, the Board decided to preserve the agricultural district in the subject area. Commissioner Shanahan agreed with Commissioner Volpe that the two ?'Conditional Use petitions should be heard together, and the Board 'ehould work with Southern States Utilities in developing a long term program for water availability for Marco Island. Commissioner Saunders concurred with the suggestion that a con- solidated application be brought back for the excavation as well as the extraction. Attorney Ooodlette reiterated his request that these Issues not be back through the entire process of being heard by all advisory Planner Milk communicated the review must be heard by the EAB, CCPC and eventually by the Board of County Commissioners. He indt- cared Staff can expedite the process by all possible means, but the fact remains that the EiB and CCPC only heard the earth mining and companion commercial excavation requests. with the direction if the ~ttttoner ch~oes to file b a~lictti~ ~~t to the pr~isto~ of Secti~ =, the ~ ~tttlo~ will tog~ g~ing back through all the procedurea and that the petitions ,; ..... be e~q~dit~ to the fullest extent possible. Iq~CI31~IIIJATIOMTO APPROVE KXCAVATION PKRMIT NO, 59.423 "DUDE PIT" AND B3[CAVATXOMPJ3IM~T NO. 59.80 "BASS PIT" (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #1OB1) --BOTH lARD This Item was not dis~ussed. Deputy Clerk Hoffm~n replaced Deputy Clerk Ouevln at this tim e,, Page 19 County Attorney Cuyler revealed that he has a made a review to deteraine whether there was a point of entry for an alleged grieved party relative to the issuance of the building permit, but noted that .he has found nothing in that regard. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler suggested that the Commission look at the criteria relative to the factors involving the security for the landscaping and deal with the issue with respect to the building permit at another time. Attorney Bruce Anderson, representing "Cellular One-Sun Century Road', indicated that he objects to the procedure that was employed to place this item on the consent agenda last week and then remove same ! .in an attempt to revoke a building permit and site development plan approval. Mr. Anderson stated that this item involves a $400 cashier's check for a landscape surety bond. He pointed out that the Land Development Coda (LDO) does not require that a landscape bond come before the '..County Co~ateeton for approval. He reported that the LDC merely requires that the bond be in a substance and a form acceptable to the County Attorney. He announced that his client has posted a cashier's check and there clearly cannot be an objection to the substance and the for~. Mr. Anderson affirmed that his client has met the criteria under :tho ordinance. Attorney Anthony Pires, Jr. stated that the security for the landscaping for the SDP was issued contrary to the LDC. He indicated that he feels that the Board will be ratifying an illegal activity. He ~l~eeted that staff investigate and look into the issue concerning the inconsistencies between the LDO and the issuance of the permit. Mr.' Pires pointed out that in January, 1992, he provided Page 20 August 18, :1992 correspondence to staff that he be notified of any permit Issuance, sate development plan Issuance or development orders ~n Section 10, Township 48S, Range 2§B which is the location of the communication tower subject to this landscaping. He indicated that he was not so Comm~ssAoner Volpe stated that Mr. Ptrea had the opportunity to telephone staff on a weekly basis to ascertain whether any appllca- tAons had been fAled. County Attorney Cuyler suggested that staff coordinate with his i?. offAce and report back to the Board as to whether the permit was An error. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Attorney Ptres indicated that provAsAons An the LDC Industrial Diatr~ct regulations do not allow towerf as permitted uses, pointing out that no formal Interpretation has been made tn thAs regard. County Attorney Cuyler recalled that the Board adopted the Commurlication Tower Ordinance at the same time the LDC was being pro- cessed. He remarked that at the time the Tower Ordinance was adopted ~t was not Ancorporated Into the LDC and there are some inconsteten- clef between the two documents. He divulged that staff acted tn good faAth eAnce they were specifically Instructed by the Board at the Tower OrdAnance hearing that towers are to be a permitted use in cer- tain dAetrActe. He related that staff ts tn the process of amending the LDC to make the two documents consistent. He stated that Mr. PAres poAnts out that the permit was issued tn the interim between those two periods of time which was tn accordance with the Tower OrdAnance but Inconsistent with the LDC. Planner Milk remarked that the prior language tn Ordinance 82-2 'was carried forward Into the LDC which resulted tn Inconsistencies. He advAeed that all the Inconsistencies will be pointed out during the glitch amendment hearings and staff will attempt to resolve same. He reported that Section 2.6.3.5 of the LDC acknowledges the . Commv/lAcatAon Tower Ordinance. He affirmed that under good faith tn Page 21 August 18, 1992 ~i~al! conversations with GTE, Cellular One and any other applicants, C~' staff has used the Tower Ordinance as the prevailing document. County Attorney Cuyler announced that he Is of the opinion that the County could prevail on the fact that the permit was Issued pro- i Attorney Ptres stated that the Tower Ordinance was adopted on September 9, 1991, effective September 23, 1991 and the LDC was adopted on October 30, 1991, effective November 13, 1991. He read a statement from the transcript of the October 16th adoption hearing, !. relating to Division 2.2 which details the purpose and Intent of the districts, permitted uses and conditional uses. He pointed out that his letter of October loth to the Board, lists the permitted uses con- tained in the LDC and other provisions with regard to conditional uses in the Industrial District. He Indicated that he does not believe towers are permitted uses within the LDC Industrial District. Nr. Ptres indicated that there Is no official Interpretation pur- suant to the LDC providing for towers to be permitted uses and requested that the Board direct staff to take the necessary action With regard to the building permit. Attorney Anderson explained that Nr. Ptres~ argument ts without merit in several regards. He reported that the land in question ts zoned industrial and for the past ten years, communication towers have been a permitted use tn the industrial zoning district. He stated that neither the LDC nor the Tower Ordinance changed tn that regard except to place a height limitation on such a tower as a permitted use. He affirmed that this tower ts within that height limitation. Nr. Anderson called attention to Section 2.6.35 of the LDC which refers applicants and objectors to the Communication Tower Ordinance for applicable regulations. He pointed out if the Intent of the Co~misston when adopting the LDC was to repeal the Tower Ordinance · that had only become effective one month earlier, there would not have been the specific reference tn the LDC to the recently adopted tower ordinance. Page 22 August 18, 1992 Nr. Anderson recalled that he served on the LDC committee that helped write the Code, noting that the specifics of communication towers were not addressed precisely because the County Commission was In the process of adopting a Communication Tower Ordinance. Mr. Anderson affirmed that the transcript of the Tower Ordinance adoption hearing c/early reflects, by statements of each member of the Commission that the intent was to allow communication towers tn the Industrial Zoning District as a permitted use up to a specified height. Mr. Anderson divulged that his c/tent has spent $450,000 and incurred obligations of $725,000 in reliance upon the permits issued b~ the County. County Attorney Cuyler advised that there are good arguments on both sides, however, the better argument is that the permit was Issued properly. Commissioner Volpe remarked that he ts prepared to take final action on the application to accept the security for the landscaping for Site Development Plan 92-59. C~emds~lo~ez. Volpe moved, eeccrnded b~ Com~teeloner Hasse mhd ctr~ted~nen~mo~sly, to accept the security for landscaping for Site Dalai,Icier Plm 92-59, 'Cellular One-Sun CenturF Road'. O~D~I~II~.~-~I, AI~NDINa ORDINANCE 90-105, THE COLLIER COUNTY ~OBT~I~I~ LXC~I~INa BOARD ORD~NANC~ - AD~PTED Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on July 30, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Contractor Licensing and Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark stated that this Item ts a recommendation to adopt the Contractors~ Licensing Board Ordinance. He noted that the amended ordinance will bring several issues Into compliance with the current status of Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes and facilitates the Investigative provisions Page 23 August 18, 1992 the lnterlocsl Agreement with the City of Naples. There were no speakers. O~dmi~ ~ss ~oved, s~conded by Co--lsetoner Shanahan ~nd CaZTI~ ~/~o~ly, to close the ~bltc hearing. ~l~ ~~ly, t~t 0rdln~c~ 91-61 ~ adopted ~d enter~ Into ~~ ~k No. 54. · ~ ~ ~ ~ICA~ 0F C~~ - ~~ Contractor Licensing and Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark announced that the fee resolution would finalize the recommended con- soltdatton of licensing. He indicated that currently the City of Naples has a $?5 yearly fee for ma~or trades and the County has a yearly fee of $80 for a total combined fee of $155 for those con,rec- tors desiring to work in both the City and the County. Mr. Clark advised that under the proposed resolution, the City of Naples ia foregoing its fee for any licensing and only that amount will be charged for the licensing Investigative services. He pointed out that in lieu of the $155 a contractor would currently pay for both ~urisdictional licenses, one license would be obtained for $87. ~o~dmioner Sh~n~han ~oved, seconded by Co~aiseloner Saunders and ~t~t~d ~zd~ou~ly, that the C~tractors~ Lice~lng F~ ~luti~ Page 24 Aus~,I, st 2.8, 2.992 ~'"F'ZN&~IIBiBOTY. ATI3)~CT ]1~ N'ZTH GI~:Z~, IRC. FOR D~SZGN OF CODIITY B&RII'lladiOFOUR-LI,WZNG l']~r,R~ _ STAFF'S R~COS~qERDATZON/G~,ROV~D Engineering Project Manager RyzLw reported that the County Barn Road pro~ect Involves approximately two miles in length between SR-84 [.~[ and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. He recalled that pursuant to Board action of May, 1991, Greiner Engineering was selected as the number one ranked firm. Mr. Ryziw stated that staff has completed contract negotiations :.-. with Gretner, Inc. He advised that the total base contract fee is $329,899.54 which covers the entire engineering and environmental per- ~i'! - ~Itttng serv/ces for this project. Mr. R~ziw indicated that staff is recommending that the Commission accept and approve the negotiated lump sum fixed price base fee amount }: of $S29,899.54; accept and approve the recommended contract budget ~i.. set-aside of $16,180.86 for contingent/optional services If so deemed necessar~ by the Transportation Services Administrator; approve and authorize a b~dget amendment to increase project appropriations in the mmount of $16,080.40 from Fund 336 Reserves; direct staff to proceed w~th the preparation of a design contract with Greiner, Inc. in the l~3cimu~ contract fee of $346,080.40; direct staff to subsequently pre- sent the final Consulting Engineering Services Agreement before the Board for final approval and execution under a pending Consent Agenda .,.,- In response to Commissioner Hasee, Mr. Ryztw reported that pre/i- engineering and the environmental assessment for Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is scheduled for September, 1992. ~LNtone~ Sh~nahan ~oved, seconded by Commtss/ona~ S~unders ~nd C~ZTJed~n~m/~ou~ly, to approve staff's five-part recommendation. ~R~-.UT~-442, ESTABLISHIXO A POLIC~ FOR ACCESS MANAG~NT FOR ~AI~COF~IL"TOR ROAD~A~ IX COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED Senior Engineer Ed Kant reported that this item is cons/stent with '. the strategic goals of the Transportation Services Division and is a Page 25 August 18, 1992 ~',~mmdated Growth Management Policy. He noted that the objective is to establish an access management policy for County arterial and collec- tor roadways for controlling points of access and requiring atte spe- cific access Improvements for safety and maintaining roadway capacity to maximize the safe use of existing and new through lanes for the .~ovement of traffic. Nfo Kant pointed out that the safety and capacity Issues of access management carry with them a substantial economic gain to the com- irantty, ~ore efficient circulation, reduction of accidents and the delay for the need of road construction by maintaining existing levels M~. Kant Indicated that staff is recommending that the Board approv~ and adopt the proposed resolution, a policy establishing the access ~anagement system for arterial and collector roadways. Oe~dmtm~ S~nders ~oved, ~~ ~ C~isst~e~ S~ ~d ~~ ~ly, t~t Resolution 92-441 ~ adoptS. P~ 26 :~ Zt'me 'APTO~ OF ~ C01~f~SSIO~ TO SERVE ON THE VALUE ADJUSTI~NT 0/21, O/S4~ 0/26/92 Comm~mtoner Volpe moved, seconded by CoBmteeIoner Shmnml'mn ~d mm ~ WW ~tct~te on the Value AdJ~t~ent ~d; t~- tatt~ ~1W ~t~ set for Septe~r 21, 24 ~d 25, 1992. ~. (909) ~ ~ ~CATI~ Contractor Licensing and Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark requested direction with regard to amending the Noise Ordinance. He explained that staff ts receiving an Increasing number of complaints from residents llvtng within close proximity to business establish- ments that have open air amplified entertainment. He indicated that this problem ts ongoinG. Mr. Clark revealed that members of the public have suggested that there be some /imitation on open air amplified entertainment within a 8pacified distance from residential areas. He remarked that there are currently eight restaurants that are continually being comp/a/ned about. Mr. Clark stated that unless some standards in this regard are ;:. developed, the problems will continue to worsen. He indicated that · i.; the LDO ts tn the process of being amended and if so directed, staff will look into appropriate language amendments. ::',.. Commissioner Shanahan divulged that he feels it is essential for ... ataff to look into this matter and determine what can be done. Mr. Clark advised that staff has been checking with other coun- ties, some of which have distance limitations. It was the consensus of the CommJssion for staff to Investigate and report back as to whether amendments to the Noise Ordinance are needed. Page 27 August 18, 1992 III~SOLUTZOJI 92-443, RE 12KTZTZOR AV-92-003 TO VACATE A 30 FOOT ROAD RZGHT-OF-W&Y, UTZLZTY AND DRAINAGE KASKMKRT LOCATED AT TH~ SOUTHF. JLST COB311ROFA/3ql~RT-PULLING ROAD AND IM~OKALKE ROAD - ADOPTED Lega! notice having been pub//shed in the Naples Daily News on 3u1¥ 5, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. ~:,.. Transportation Services Engineer i~ss Huller presented Petition ~AV-92-003. ;?[ Contsstoner Volpe questioned whether the vacater of the easement i"'i-wt1! be allo~ the petitioner to use the piece of ground they pre- vioual¥ attempted to consolidate to be brought into their use. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald explained that this vacation wil! not affect the SDP, which contains a stipulation addressing Commissioner Volpe~s concern. He reported that this ts ~art of an approval process that occurred some time ago with the exception of allowing the petitioner to come back and process this *~.,vacation for an easement that had existed. He noted there wll! be no change from a land use standpoint as to what has been developed. There were no speakers. C~mmt~Aoner Seunde~o moved, meconded by Comatsotoner Shanahan and ca~*led-~ly, to cloae the public hearing. Oomdmslouer Smmderm moved, oeconded by Commissioner Shanahan and C~Ti~iuumtmMms2y, that Reoolution 92-443 be adopted. Page 28 · --'BOM~D"OF~UBTT C~tB(ISSZONKRS* CGtOiUN~CATIONS August 18, 1992 Commissioner Ooodntght recalled that during the LDC amendment hearing ~wo weeks ago, she raised concerns with regard to the incon- sistencies of. South Florida Water Management District and Xericscape. She noted that she has asked John Begeman, County Horticulture Agent :if he would work with staff tn this regard. She explained that a reconendatton will be presented at the second LDC hearing. Comm:isstoner Goodntght advlsed that Mr. Fred Thomas ts requesting that the County's Chief Elected Official sign various letters to help process the Section 8 Housing Vouchers. She reported that the deadline ts Au~st 28th, and the Co~tsston will not be meeting again ~t~l September 1. Co~t~ Attorney Cuyler stated that he has reviewed the subject docents. ~~te ~ts wtth re~ct to the Section a H~ing ~chers. At this time a discussion took place with regard to the Mullet Fishermen Safety Program. Off,ce of Capital Projects M~agement Director Conrecode related ~ha~ 8~aff ~o coordinating w~th the Cit~ to ensure that ~here are no conflict8 with regard to the 8~ parallels. He reported that staff As pro.sAng to have the warnings spray painted on Mr. Conrecode ~ndtcated thak staff lo prepared to go out for b~ds ~n seven days. It ~ ~ me~ of the Cm~sston that staff ~te the ~ ~Ablo ~nto with the ~ ~nt~ng c~eg ~d pre- ~t m to ~ ~d Sn order to ~leaent the pro~u &~~A~ ~ ~dlng the oche~l~ng ~, ~tt~ Mere nde to t~tat~ly oche~le Page 29 ,i:~';to~ ~e~temb.~ 15, leo2, Aupt 18, 1992 at the end of the regular ~eet/ng. *** Comm/utoner Sh~nahan moved, eeconded ~ Coutaetoner ~ ~e~ ~rted 5/0, that the following tteu under the Con- ~ ~ be approved and/or adopted: Xtu #1~kl ~CC~FTAII~OF ZI~RNVOCJtBLK STJLRDBY LKTT]~ OF CI~D/T J~ SECURITY FOR '~gI~A~kT~IF~IZT NO. 59.424 '~J;LSHZI~ LAIRS" - IN TH~ &MOURT OF $27,110.00 See Pages /7 ?'- '~ ~OLOTZOII 92-432, PROVIDING FOR &SSKS~ OF LIEN, FOR TH~ COST OF T]~ &~kT~IT OF FUBLIC RUIS&NCK ON LOT 89 IN HALLNRD&LK, A ~D~DI~i~SIO~ACCORDING TO TI~ PL&T TH~I~0F, RAYMOND G. W~LLIJd~3, R~OY~T/O~ 92-433, PROVID/RG FOR JLSSKSS~T OF LI~N, FOR TH~ COST OF T]~ J~JkT~I~IT ~FF FUBLIC RUIS/LRCE ON LOT 9, BLOCK B, POINCIARA VILLAGE, URZT ~/, GJ~LO~ VZLJtJUqD EST~LLE V. V/LA, OMI~RS OF I~CORD ~OII02--4S4, PROVIDING FOR &SSgSS~RT OF LI~N, FOR TI~ COST 0Y T~J~&T~IT OF IRF~IC NOISJt~CB OR LOT 20, BLOCK 66, U~I/T~IO. TIle, DIeTeR S011D~I~OG~R &RD CHRISTIR~ SORD~GG~R, G OF ~D. J~]T~O~ 92-436, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATIJIJflIT OF PqYBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 26, BLOCK 40, NAPLES PARK P~ge 30 &ugu~t 18, 1992 RICH&RD L/LIEN AND LESLIE L/LIEN, ~ OF lt~O',~flO~92-4S?, FROVZDXNG FOR &SSESSI~I~T OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF T~JI~&T~I~ITOF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 22, BLOCK 255, U~ZT 5 P&ItT -- GO~d:Y~I~, NITS. D. R. KOSI~NER, C/O $. HZCHAEL CARTORE, JR., O~IER OF~D R~OLUTZO~ 92-45S, PROVZDZRG FOR ASSESSIRERT OF LIEN, FOR TI~ COST OF T~&~&T~N~F OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 25, BLOCK 32, NAPLES ~O~DI~J~SIO~UNIT ~, ARTHUR N. HERI~ARD DOROTHY W. HERRY, ~ OF ;'' 17JL~L ~ OF 'CRYSTAL LAK~ R.V. RESORT PHASE ~E'* - W~TH ~~ OF ~ FACILITIES FOR LA SCALA - ~J:TH ~TXFULJtTX0~J Item #16B1 OR Book Page NOTEs DOCUI~I~ NOT RECEIVED CLE~.~TO BOA~ OFFICE AS OF DECEI~BER 21, 1992~ CO~IV~T~ OF (~UZTCLAIM DKED, GRAIT~D BY COLLIKR COUNTY HOUSING &UT~O~-"TT, FOlt TI~ CONSTRUOTZON OF A PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS OV~t ~TAT~ See Pages Xtemd16D1 contLnued to 9/1/92 IRC. OF T&MPA FLORIDA FOR AN&LYT/C&L SIRVXGI~-IR:JftUTILTTIES MASTKMATKR AIFD PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION - 33JTI~*dM~q~ITOF ~18,406000 · J~M~OFBl~d~9201894 FOR~IkSTE~ATER DEP~ LATHE ACCESSORIES TO · 11tOF/C&L~F~O~//ONSUP~,Y, 1~C. OF PORT CHARLOTTE, F~ - IWTHE 'J~00~T.OFO42,169.25 Xtra ~1~D4 Page 31 August 18, 1992 :I~VZS~I) BZD AMAItD FOR GOLDEN GATE NELLYIKLD MATERIALS BID #92-1917 TO J~RGU~O~UIID~I~O~D - IN TEE AMOUNT OF $178,590.20 ~OL~~~ OF J'LYGT 5U~I~/BL~ LIFT STATION IIZSeJZSIZ~OF~OF BZD #92-2854 FOR "SLUDGE HAULING FORUTZLZTZES ~ ~ Glt&ll & TRUC~I]IO, I~C. OF CRJ~IFORD~/'/LLE, EXECUTXOM OF JgOTXC~ OF PRC~qTSK TO PAY AND AGREKMEHT TO KXTKND PATMKIFT OF ~ IMPACT IPK~S FOR FRANCES THRKLKKLD - IMPACT FKE AMOUNT OF See Pages / ~..~"* / 0 ~ :Item ~'16D0 B3~BCUT3:OJJOFNOTZC~ OF PROMZSK TO PAY AND AGR.KKMKNT TO KXTKND PAT~(XlqT OF S~d~:~33~PACT FEES FOR MALTKRN. SPOKRLEIR, TRUSTEE - IN THK AMOUNT OF $7,840.00 See Pages / ,0 '?- //0 M&.L-VIR OF lq3gtS~tL BZD PROCESS ~ A~0RZ~T/O~ TO ~~K P~ ~ AMB~IBMSIFr TO BUD~KT FOR FUND 109 TO PROVZDK THE IFA'W ~ TO BKG'II' THE -Jq:JJt(3~iBiSI OIP 4:UillrZTAT- TTKMS RKQUZRKD FOR TH~ IN-HOUSK LA.NDSCJ~ZIVG FOR THI PKLZCAN BAY SKRV/CKS DZVZSTOR lt~ e1~2 ;¥.'. ~*' ~ ~ TO D&TE OR ~ )IAI~E$ PRODUCTION PARK PR03ECT See Pages &~AR~OFI~IT~I~"~f TO AB~C LIGHTINg, INC. ~ ~ ~Y LZ~ZNG AT ~ ~ ~IFICATION M.S.T.U. - IN ~ ~ 0F 08,800.~ Page 32 August 18, 1992 ~ ~ ~O. 2 TO ~ CORSUT, TTNG LAR'DSCAP1~ ARCHT/'~CT S'~R'VZCl~ ~ lrz1"g HCGEE & ASSOCZATES, INC. TO PROVZDg SKRVZCIES DO]I/]~ C~I~I'~OC~O]I' 0F T. JLRDSCA/~ I'NP~~S FOR I:'~ILSE ORg OF ~ $~,S00.00 Ztem ~J, LTl C~RTr~XC~T~ OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRES~IITED BY THE · ~ APTR~TSER~B OFI'IGg 1991 TAX ROLL !10. Date 214/216 07/33./92-08/04/92 ~qN~I~O~E - FZL~DJLIID/ORP, J~I'~RIt~) The following miscellaneous correspondence was flied as presented by the Board of County Commissioners: Page 33 August 18, 1992 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the ~eettng was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 8:30 BOARD OF COUNTY COM~IISSIQ~S~? ..... BOARD OF ZONING APPEALed. fi OFFICIO GOVERNING BOAR~[S');OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UND~ :ITS · CONTROL ,~ [ ' ' , ~5 . . .. · ...~ MICHAEL ~ VOL~E, CHAI~ ATTEST: JAMES C. GILES, CLERK Fheae minutes approved by the Board on ~J~2_--~ &a preaented ~ or as corrected Page 34