Loading...
06/26/1986 Sprecial FF ~77 Special Meeting Board of County Commissioners Thursday, June 26, 1986 Key Colony Beach A Special Meeting of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners convened at 9:45 a.m. on the above date at the Key Colony Beach City Hall. Present and answering to roll call were Commissioner Alison Fahrer, Commissioner william Freeman, Commissioner John Stormont, Commissioner Ed Swift, and Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey. Also present were Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk; Kermit Lewin, County Administrator; Lucien Proby, County Attorney; Charles Siemon, Planning Consultant; Charles Pattison, Director of Building, Planning and Zoning; County Staff; members of the Press and Radio; and the general public. The Commissioners discussed the emergency nature of the meeting in that the DCA would be making their recommen- dations to the Governor and Cabinet concerning any proposed changes to the Land Use Plan. Mr. Siemon then presented to the Board a letter dated June 4, 1986, which set out in detail the proposed changes to the existing proposed text of the Plan and also his comments and recommendations. Mr. Siemon discussed the language at 27F-9.l9. He advised the Board that, in effect, this would override the Board's action on the Land Use Map and would be unad- ministrable. His recommendation was that the language be deleted. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to request that the language in 27F-9.l9(3) and included under the "Purpose and Effect" be deleted. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey ~s ~s No ~s ~s Motion carried. The Board then proceeded to act upon the remainder of the letter as follows: "Specific Authority 380.05(8), F.S. Law Implemented 380.05(8), 380.0552(4) F.S. History - New. 27F-9.20 Comprehensive Plan. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Volume I (Background Data Element) and Volume II (Analysis and Policy Element), which was adopted in Monroe County Resolution Number 049-1986 and portions of which were approved by the Department of Community Affairs in Rule 9J-14, F.A.C., is incorporated by reference with the following amendments to Volume II: (1) Chapter 1, Introduction, page 1. Delete the fourth and fifth sentence and insert: 'This volume of the consists of each of the entire substance of the Background Data Element Monroe County Comprehensive required elements, however, elements is supplemented by adopted as Volume I of this Plan the the Plan and FF 178 s implemented, in part, through the land development regu- ations contained in Volume III.'" OMMENT: This is a clarification of the Plan language that ncorporates references to controlling statutes. ECOMMENDATION: BOCC should adopt rule language as an ~endment to the plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded y Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing ecommendation as set out on Page 5 of the letter from iemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote as unanimous. (2) Subsection 2-113 B2, page 17. After the word "development", insert "and reconstruction". OMMENT: Addition of word "reconstruction" to ensure con- istency with controlling statute. ECOMMENDATION: BOCC should adopt the rule language as an ~endment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Fahrer and seconded y Commissioner Swift to approve the foregoing ecommendation as set out on Page 5 of the letter from iemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried nanimously. (3) Evaluation and Ranking of the Impact Potentials and mpact Sensitivities of Florida Keys Habitats, page 148. nsert the following after the third sentence: These matri- es are to be used as planning tools for evaluating the mpacts of development on different habitat types. Within ix months after the effective date of the Administration ommission rule which establishes portions of the Monroe ounty Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations, onroe County shall review and revise the matrices and lated text as necessary in cooperation with applicable tate and regional agencies. The purpose of this process ill be to (1) review the basis of this habitat sensitivity valuation and ranking and (2) ensure that its purpose and pplication is appropriately identified in the comprehensive Ian. This process shall be initiated by the County staff or consultants) and any recommendations for change or modi- ication shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for eview and subsequent submittal to the Board of County ommissioners." OMMENT: The rule proposes that the Habitat Evaluation ndex be further evalutated during the next six moths. The OCC has already indicated during the planning process an ntention to reassess a number of issues for the 6th month eview and this would be one of the subjects that would be eviewed during that process. ECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the Rule language as n amendment to the Plan in order to expressly identify the abitat evaluation index as a subject for further review. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded y Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing ecommendation as set out on Page 6 of the letter from iemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried nanimously. FF 179 "(4) criteria for Designating Areas of Particular Concern, Page 194. Following Item 4, insert: Generic Designations and Management Policies: GENERAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES 1. The natural features of biological communities which are designated as areas of particular concern shall be inven- toried. Such features shall be depicted on the existing conditions maps. 2. These areas shall be protected to the maximum extent possible through the application of local zoning, tax incen- tives, public acquisition, easements, transfer of develop- ment rights and other on-site and off-site mitigation techniques. 3. Scientific research and invesigation of these areas shall be encouraged and supported. 4. Alteration of native vegetation will be allowed only if it is demonstrated that the proposed development or site alteration will not involve the removal of native vegetation to the extent that the habitat and its wildlife cease to function as a self-sustaining viable ecosystem. 5. The County shall implement the management pOlicies regarding freshwater aquifiers, marshes and ponds within 6 months of the effective date of this Plan." COMMENT: Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are desirable additions to the Plan. Paragraph 4 is presented in a "negative" way that is inconsistent with the approach and language of the Plan. Paragraph 5 is ambiguous because the term "management poli- cies" has no defined meaning or reference in the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the lanaguage of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 as amendments to the Plan. Paragraph 4 should be deleted and the following language inserted: "4. Development in designated areas of particular con- cern shall be designed, located and constructed so that the functional integrity of the area of particular concern is maintained and protected." Paragraph 5 should be modified as follows: "5. The County shall implement the management policies established in sections 1 and 2 of Generic Designations and Management policies (p. 200-201 of this Plan regarding.... Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Page 7 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: r"""-" Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No Yes No Motion carried. "GENERIC DESIGNATIONS High quality high hammock, High quality low hammock, High FF 180 quality pineland and Cactus hammock 1. Development within any of these designated areas shall be reviewed to ensure the ecological integrity of the entire hammock or pineland community of which the parcel under con- sideration is a part. Development shall not be allowed which would act to disrupt the continuity of existing tracts of undisturbed hammock or pineland. 2. All development proposals in these designated areas shall identify the extent to which the area is habitat for threatened or endangered species. Any development in an area containing endangered and threatened species shall be required to be consistent with federal and state law on endangered and threatened species. 3. Any development within areas of high quality high ham- mock, high quality low hammock, and high quality pinelands which would result in significant disturbance to native vegetation shall be required to provide for mitigation as a condition of development approval. Such mitigation shall take the form of replaning disturbed areas with native spe- cies or by the acquisition and donation of land containing the same quality and vegetation type as that disturbed in an amount greater than than disturbed. 4. Development within areas identified as Key Deer habitat shall be subject to the following management guidelines: a. No fill will be allowed which would eliminate natural watering sites for Key Deer (e.g., sinkholes and ponds). b. Fencing will be prohibited except to enclose a single-family residence and its accessory yard area, pro- vided that no more than 10,000 square feet of area will be so enclosed, and provided that no area to be maintained as required open space shall be enclosed. Any fence that impe- des or prohibits the movement of Key Deer, except as pro- vided herein, shall be prohibited. 5. The excavation of wells in high quality pineland areas shall be prohibited until General Management POlicy number 5 has been implemented. 6. Any development within an area designated as cactus ham- mock must include special measures to avoid damaging the character of the feature. Any disturbance shall be limited to areas which would not require the removal, relocation, or destruction of any specimen of cactus which is listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies. Areas designated as cactus hammock shall be a high priority for public acquisition." COMMENT: Paragraph 1 reflects the same negative approach referred to above and the language is inconsistent with the context of the Plan. Paragraph 2 is nothing more than an informative restatement of current law. Paragraph 3 is ambiguous as to when mitigation is required. Paragraph 4 is consistent with current knowledge of the Key Deer and is the subject of an on-going Area of Critical County Concern pro- cess. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are generally consistent with the plan although there are ambiguities that need clarification. RECOMMENDATION: Paragraph 1 should be modified by deleting the second sentence. The BOCC should adopt Paragraph 2 as an amendment to the Plan. Paragraph 3 should be deleted and the following inserted in its place: "In the event that any development within areas of high quality hammock (high or low) or high quality pinelands results in clearing or significant environmental injury of an area greater than that authorized as a matter of right, or in the event development that is consistent with the ~F181 requirements of this Plan has a significant adverse impact on the functional integrity of the hammock or pineland in which development is to be undertaken, the developer shall provide for mitigation on a 1 for 1 or equal basis in the form of replanting disturbed areas with native species or by the acquisition and preservation, including donation, of land containing comparable quality and character of vegeta- tion as the area disturbed.n Paragraph 5 should be approved. The first sentence of Paragraph 6 should be deleted and the second sentence should be modified to read as follows: "Any development in areas designated as a cactus hammock area on the existing conditions map must include....n The last sentence of Paragraph 6 should be modified by the addition of the following language at the end of the sentence: "for public acquisition as environmentally sensitive lands. II AI Damron discussed the recommendations concerning Generic Designations. Motion was made by Commissioner Fahrer and seconded by Commissioner Swift to delete above Paragraph 4 of the proposed DCA recommendation due to lack of sufficient information and then to approve the Recommendation set forth on Page 9 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986 as amended. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey ~s ~s ~s ~s No Motion carried. "(5) Coastal Zone and Conservation Element, Marina Facilities, Page 199: After Item 9, insert: 10. Applicants for development approval of commercial or residential marinas containing 3 or more slips on state- owned submerged lands shall meet the requirements of the Florida Keys Marina and Dock-Siting policies and Criteria, Chapter l6Q-2l.04l, Florida Administrative Code. 11. Marina facilities which are designed for, or are capable of, accommodating boats with greater than 3 feet of draft, shall provide greater than 4 feet MLW water depths in order to allow for a minimum clearance of 1 foot between the deepest draft and the bottom." COMMENT: law while Paragraph Code. Paragraph 10 represents a restatement of existing Paragraph 11 is necessarily included within 10 by reference to The Florida Administrative ,~- RECOMMENDATION: Delete Paragraph 11. Motion was made by Commissioner Fahrer and seconded by Commissioner Stormont to retain Paragraphs 10 and 11. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: I FF 18~ Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey ~s ~s ~s No No Motion carried. "(6) Chapter X. Implementation, Section A General, page 229 through page 230: Delete the second sentence in Subsection 3 on page 230 and insert: The transferable development rights program provi- des that all residential development rights allocated under the plan shall be severable from the parcel of land to which they are allocated and shall be transferable to any other parcel of land of equal or greater allocated density pro- vided that the maximum net density permitted in the land use district in which the receiving parcel of land is located is not exceeded." COMMENT: This proposed revision prohibits the transfer of development rights from a less restrictive site to a more sensitive site. It is a very good idea and should have been incorporated in the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the language of the Rule as an amendment. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Page 10 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was unanimous. "(7) Section X.C. Amendments to the Plan and Future Land Use Map, page 232 through page 236. (a) Delete Subsection E and insert: Technicalamendments to the text to correct typographical or drafting errors may be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners without posted notice or public hearing at any regular meeting. As long as the County is within an Area of Critical State Concern, notice of such amendments shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs within 30 days." COMMENT: A technical rule to allow simplified correcting of typographical or drafting errors. This is a good idea. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the proposed rule language as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Page 10 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(b) After Subsection F, insert new Subsection G: G. Review of the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission, who shall recommend amendments to the Board of County Commissioners within 6 months after the effective date of the Administration Commission Rule which establishes portions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan FF 183 and land development regulations to supplement those por- tions of the comprehensive plan and regulations approved by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The purpose of this review and amendment process is to ensure that the boundaries and land use designations on the Future Land Use Maps conform to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, and depict transportation services and public facilities." COMMENT: This provision requires a 6-month review of the maps, a course of action the BOCC has already committed to but did not expressly include in the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the language of the proposed rule as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Page 11 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "Specific Authority 380.05(8), F.S., Law Implemented 380.05(8), 380.0552(9), F.S. History - New. 27F-9.2l Land Development Regulations. The Monroe County Land Development Regulations, which were adopted by Monroe County in Resolution Number 049-1986 and portions of which were approved by the Department of Community Affairs in Rule 9J-14, F.A.C. are incorporated by reference as the land development regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern in Monroe County, with the following amendments: (1) Section 2-202 Rules of Construction, A. Generally., page 5. Delete the first sentence and insert: In construction of the language of these land development regulations, the rules set out in this section shall be observed unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Board of County Commissioners as expressed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, or an element or portion thereof, adopted pursuant to Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes (1985)." COMMENT: The language of the rule is generally consistent with the County's language but adds references to controlling statutes. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the language of the rule or an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the top of Page 12 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(2) Chapter 3 Definitions, page 9 through page 31. (a) After Definition H-7 on page 20" insert: new Definition I-I: IMPROVED SUBDIVISIONS are those subdivisions which are serviced by electricity, roads and water; in areas north of Big Pine Key improved subdivisions are those in which lots have only water and roads. Then renumber so that previous I-I becomes 1-2, 1-2 becomes 1-3, 1-3 becomes 1-4, and 1-4 becomes 1-5." I FF 1.84 COMMENT: The Rule adds a definition of "Improved Subdivision" to the land development regulations. We do not believe the definition is necessary because each operative reference in the Plan refers to the Improved Subdivision District, which is a mapped area that is defined by the maps. RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 2 and the definition of "improved subdivisions." Motion was made by Comissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out in the middle of Page 12 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No Yes Yes Motion carried. "(b) Delete Definition S-2 Scarified Land, and insert: SCARIFIED LAND means an area that is cleared of all native vegetation, and or topographically modified such that the land has not been or is not presently in a successional sequence leading to the establishment of the vegetative com- munities that were cleared or disturbed." COMMENT: The proposed rule reinstates the original defini- tion proposed by the consultant and makes the successional stage of previously disturbed land relevant to the issue of scarification. The existing language, however, contains a patent ambiguity that needs to be corrected. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should modify the existing language of the Plan so that the definition reads as follows: Scarified land means an area that has been cleared of all native vegetation or has been topographically modified by human activity. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the bottom of Page 12 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986 amended to insert the word "substantial" after the word "all" and before the words "native vegetation" in said Recommendation. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No Yes Yes Motion carried. "(3) Section 4-104, Department of Planning, page 45. Insert new Subsection I, page 45: I. To ensure the successful implementation of the plan and FF 185 land development regulations by qualified personnel, all divisions heads within the Department of Planning shall possess a four-year college degree in a major area related to their position, or shall possess an equivalent amount of professional experience in the area of employment, unless minimum qualifications are otherwise specified in Section 4-104." p'~- COMMENT: This language prescribed particular minimum requirements for all division heads in the Departement of Planning. A good idea so long as sufficient financial resources are available to pay for qualified persons. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the language of the propoed rule as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Page 13 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986, amended to include the following language: "and any other licenses required by the State or County". Roll call vote was unani- mous. "(4) Section 5-301 through Section 5-310, pages 54 through 60. (a) Delete Subsection 5-308 E and insert: Consideration of a minor conditional use approval shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 14." COMMENT: The proposed rule modifies the minor and major conditional use procedures to provide citizen standing to take appeals of conditional use permits. The justification is that it would be better to provide for a review by the County than to force a citizens' group to go to court where the Growth Management Act gives citizens standing. The amendments, however, are complex and cumbersome and we believe a confusing way to achieve the desired subjective. RECOMMENDATION: Delete Paragraph 4 and modify the language of Section 5-308 E and F as follows: E. Within fifteen (15) working days after notice of a minor conditional use permit is given by the Director of Planning, the applicant or any adversely affected person as defined by Section 163. 3215(2) FS (1985) may file a notice of appeal with the Planning Commission. "b) Delete Subsection 5-308 F and insert: The public hearing on an application for minor con- ditional use, if requested by the applicant, an adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected per- son, as defined by Section 163-3215(2), Florida Statutes, shall be conducted by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 14-101 E." COMMENT: Same note as above. RECOMMENDATION: Delete the language of the proposed rule and modify the language of Section.5-308F to read as follows: F. Public hearing on an application for a minor con- ditional use permit. Within thirty (30) days after the filing of a notice of appeal from the issuance of a minor conditional use permit, the Planning Commission shall hold a duly FF186 noticed public hearing and consider the application for a minor conditional use permit. within fifteen (15) days after the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall issue a development order granting, granting with con- ditions, or denying the application for a minor conditional use permit. "(c) Insert after Subsection 5-309 C: NOTICE OF GRANT OF A MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. The Director of Planning shall give notice of any development order granting a major conditional use by sending a written notice to all owners of real property located within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the major con- ditional use permit. (d) After the first sentence in Subsection 5-309 D, delete the second and third sentences and insert: If the applicant, an adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person, as defined by Section 163.3215(2), Florida Statutes (1985), requests an appeal within 15 working days after publication of notice, or if a majority of the Board of County Commissioners votes to remove a development order from the consent agenda, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the development order on the record established before the Planning Commission. The Board shall affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, or remand with specific directions to the Planning Commission in compliance with the applicable provisions of this Plan and these regulations." COMMENT: This provision provides for citizen standing for appeals of major conditional use permits. The consultant team is now persuaded that it would be better to provide standing for appeal to the BOCC than to force citizens to invoke their legal right of standing in court. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the proposed rule language as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to approve the foregoing three Recommendations as set out on Pages 13, 14 and 15 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Sandy Barrett addressed the Board concerning these matters. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey ~s ~s ~s ~s No Motion carried. "(e) In 5-310 F Final Plan Approval, page 59 to page 60, insert new paragraph (g): Evidences development which is consistent with the stated purpose and with any Special District Requirements of the land use district. Then re-letter the existing paragraph (g) as (h)." COMMENT: This is one of several changes required in order to implement the special district concept. The concept of special district requirements (to be more accurate "district special requirements) is useful but relatively awkward. The I FF 187 ,.,.- vast majority of special district regulations could be dealt with on a district by district basis. RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate the special district requirement from the proposed rule. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out in the center of Page 15 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986, and also to include a requirement for reconsideration at the 6-month Plan amendment period. Roll call vote was unani- mous. "(5) Section 6-105 Expiration of Building Permit, Subsection A, page 79 through page 80. Delete Subsection A and insert: A building permit shall automatically expire and become null and void if work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 30 days from the effective date of the permit, or if such work, when commenced, is suspended or abandoned at any time for a period of 90 consecutive days. The effective date of a building permit is 45 days after the rendition of the deve- lopment order to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as long as the parcel is located within an Area of Critical State Concern." COMMENT: This provides for a stay in the effective date of any building permit until after the DCA appeal period runs so long as the Keys are an area of critical state concern, and then provides for an effective period of 30 days, a period that is impractically short. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the proposed rule language as an amendment to the Plan but that 30 day effec- tive period should be changed to 60 days. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Page 16 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986, as amended by insertion of the following language: "Development under- taken pursuant to other permits issued are subject to the provisions of 380.07 in regard to the appeal of local deve- lopment orders." Motion carried unanimously. "(6) Section 9-101 General Purpose, page 97. (a) At the end of the first paragraph on Page 97, insert: All development within each land use district shall be consistent with the purposes stated for that land use district in Sections 9-103 through 9-125 of these regulations." COMMENT: This is an innocuous reiteration of what had been thought of as a self-evident truth that may, however, avoid confusion. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the proposed rule language as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Fahrer and seconded by Commissioner Swift to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Page 16 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. FF 188 Motion was made by Commissioner Fahrer and seconded by Commissioner Swift to include a representative of the State Land Planning Agency as an ex officio member of the Development Review Committee and to amend Section 4-l04(c) of the Plan accordingly. Motion carried unanimously. "(b) After Section 9-101, insert a new Section 9-l0lA as follows: Section 9-l0lA Special District Requirements To insure that the objectives and policies of the Plan are implemented, all development shall comply with the Special District Requirements" which are listed under each land use district and are in addition to the other require- ments imposed by use as of right, minor conditional use and major conditional use. The Planning Commission may propose additional Special District Requirements to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 13 of these regulations." COMMENT: This is a part of the Special District concept. RECOMMENDATION: Delete Paragraph 6(b) (Section 9-l0lA). Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Page 16 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986, but to add in Section 9-l0lA language concerning reconsideration at the 6-month review period. Motion carried unanimously. "(7) Section 9-113. Purpose of the Improved Subdivision District (IS), Page 99. Delete the existing paragraph and insert: The purpose of this district is to accommodate the legally vested residential development rights of the owners of lots in subdivisions that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of these regUlations. Subdivisions which do not meet the special district require- ments of the Improved Subdivision District Section 9-2212 shall be automatically considered by the Planning Department for a change in the Land Use District Map. This district shall not be used for new areas within the County." COMMENT: This is a provision that reflects concern over possible mapping errors in regard to the improved Subdivision District. The provision does not require that inconsistencies be changed, only that they be reconsidered. Given that all development is required to be served by ade- quate facilities is doubtful that the provision will do anything more than create confusion. RECOMMENDATION: Delete Paragraph 7 (proposed revision to Section 9-113). Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out in the middle of Page 17 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(8) Section 9-114, Purpose of the Destination Resort District, Page 99. Delete the second sentence and insert: This district contemplates multi-use developments of ten acres or greater that provide on-site recreational, commercial and resort facilities." Wl~ ----- COMMENT: This proposed change is a response to the DR issue that the BOCC deferred to the 6-month review. The 10-acre minimum was included in a recommendation the consultant team provided to the County and is appropriate as long as the presumption is rebuttable, that is smaller site may be appropriate if on-site amenities reduce off-site impacts such as traffic. (The proposed rule actually adopts this approach in the text.) RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the concept of the proposed rule language and amend the Plan by adding the following language to Section 9-114: Destination resorts are contemplated to be located on sites of at least 10 acres except where the location and character of the site or the development itself is such that off-site impacts will be reduced or mitigated. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the bottom of Page 17 and top of Page 18 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986, amended to delete the words "or mitigated" at the end of the sentence to be added to Section 9-114. Motion carried unanimously. "(9) Section 9-126 Land Use District Map, Page 101. Delete Subsection C and insert: The Official Land Use District Map shall be reviewed, and amended to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, as pro- vided in Volume II, Section, X. C., Subsection G, page 236, of the Plan. The Official Land Use District Map may sub- sequently be amended from time to time as provided in Chapter 13 of this volume." COMMENT: This is simply a codification of the commitment the BOCC made when it adopted the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the proposed rule language as an amendment to the Plan, though the reference to "future land use map" should be deleted. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out in the middle of Page 18 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was unanimous. "(20) Section 9-127 Existing Conditions Map, page 101 to page 102. Delete Subsection C, and insert: The Existing Conditions Maps may be refined, reviewed and amended pur- suant to the procedures in Chapter 13 of this volume." COMMENT: This provision allows a change to the existing conditions map. In that the Plan uses the existing con- ditions map as a "picture" of circumstances on the date of the adoption of the Plan the BOCC did not see any basis for future changes. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed rule language should be changed as follows: The Existing Conditions Map be corrected or refined to reflect conditions in existence on February 28, 1986 pursuant to the procedures in Chapter 13 of this Volume. Motion was made by Commissioner Fahrer and seconded I FF 1.90 by Commissioner Swift to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the bottom of Page 18 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(11) Division 2. Permitted Uses, page 102 through page 155. (a) After each Section title in Sections 9-201 through 9-225 insert: SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS 1. All development within a land use district of one acre or less shall undergo major conditional use review to insure that the propose use is compatible with existing adjacent uses. 2. All development in any areas of particular concern, including those generically designated, must comply with the applicable management policies established in Volume II, pages 185-2.6 COMMENT: These provisions are a part of the special district regulations approach that the State has proposed as a means of dealing with a number of issues including spot zones, DR designations and IS designations. The approach is conceptually good and relatively consistent with goals and objectives of the Plan as adopted by the BOCC, the approach is cumbersome as engrated on to the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Urge the State to delete the special district language and amend the Plan as follows in its place: 1. Section 9-201. General. A. No structure or land in Monroe County shall hereafter be developed, used or occupied unless expressly authorized in a land use district in this Division. B. Notwithstanding any provision of this Division all development listed as permitted as of right within a mapped land use district with an area of less than one acre shall be considered as a minor conditional use. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to delete language at the top of Page 19 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986 identified as "SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS:". Motion carried unanimously. Motion was also then made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the Recommendation as set out on Page 19 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986 which is I-Section 9-201, General, amended to delete the words "less than one acre" in the fourth and fifth lines of Item B and insert in lieu thereof the words "one acre or less". Motion carried unanimously. "(b) Section 9-210 Mainland Native Area District, page 124. Delete Subsection B." COMMENT: This is the Everglades Institute amendment. Apparently, State and Federal agencides have objected to the use and inconsistency with management plans and objectives. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC previously voted to permit this use despite the consultant and staff recommendation to the contrary. The BOCC should amend the plan to eliminate this use. \ FF 191. RECOMMENDATION: Delete the special district language for the IS District. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the Recommendation as set out at the top of Page 21 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No Yes Yes Motion carried. "(e) Section 9-213 Destination Resort District, page 127. Before Subsection A, insert: 3. All proposed developments less than 10 acres shall be evaluated to insure that the development: is not located in an area with already identified inadequate roads or public utilities; will be preceded by a traffic study which demonstrates that the trip generation rate for the proposed development will be less than fifty percent of the trip generation rate as shown for hotels and motels in the Institute of Transportation Engineering Trip Generation Manual." COMMENT: This is a good concept to ensure DR's are really mitigating off-site impacts but perhaps too restrictive and confusing because of the cumbersome character of the special district concept. RECOMMENDATION: Delete the special district concept but the BOCC should amend the Plan as follows: Sec. 9-213. Destination Resort District A. The following uses are permitted as minor con- ditional uses in the Destination Resort District, subject to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 5, Division 3: 1. Hotels of fewer than 50 rooms, provided that: a. the use is compatible with established land uses in the immediate vicinity; b. one or more of the following amenities are available to guests: i. swimming pool; ii. boat docking; and 111. tennis courts. c. if the site on which the use is located is less than ten acres, the applicant has demonstrated through a traffic impact study prepared by a qualified professional that traffic generated by the use will not exceed 75% of the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the Institute of Transporation Engineering Trip Generation Manual. 2. Commercial retail uses of less than 5,000 square feet of floor area, provided that the use is inciden- tal to the principal use of the parcel proposed for develop- ment. 3. Detached residential dwellings. B. The following uses are permitted as major con- ditional uses in the Destination Resort District, subject to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 5, Division 3: FF 1.92 that: 1. Hotels providing 50 or more rooms, provided a. the hotel has restaurant facilities on or adjacent to the premises. b. access to u.s. 1 is by way of: i. an existing curb cut; ii. a signalized intersection; or iii. a curb cut that is separated from any other curb cut on the same side of u.s. 1 by at least 400 feet. c. if the site on which the use is located is less than ten acres, the applicant has demonstrated through a traffic impact study prepared by a qualified professional that traffic generated by the use will not ex- ceed 75% of the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the Institute of Transportation Engineering Trip Generation Manual. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Pages 21 and 22 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey No Yes No Yes Yes Motion carried. "(12) Section 9-302 Maximum Residential Density and District Open Space, page 156 and page 157. After MILITARY FACILITIES DISTRICT, PAGE 157, INSERT: PARK AND REFUGE DISTRICT 0.5 5.0 0.9" COMMENT: This is an omission in the Plan that has been corrected by allocating the lowest comparable density for uses listed as permitted. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the language of the proposed rule as an amendment to the Plan. "(13) Section 9-307, Maximum Hotel - Motel, Recreational Vehicle and Institutional Residential Densities, page 161 and pagae 162. After MILITARY FACILITIES, inst. res., page 162, insert: PARK AND REFUGE 5.0 20.0" COMMENT: This is an omission in the Plan that has been corrected by allocating the lowest comparable density for uses listed as permitted. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the language of the proposed rule as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to approve the foregoing two Recommendations as set out on Page 23 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. FF193 "(14) Section 9-305 Transferable Development Rights, page 158 through page 159. (a) At the end of Subparagraph A5 on page 158, delete "and". (b) In Subparagraph A6 on page 159, delete "land that meets the density requirements of this Plan," and insert: "land that meets the density requirements of the Plan and these Land Development Regulations." (c) At the end of Subparagraph A6 on page a59, insert: "and". (d) After Subparagraph A6 on page 159, insert Sub- paragraph A7: "7. The allocated density of the receiver site is greater than or equal to the allocated density of the parcel from which the TDR is severed." COMMENT: This language implements the concept that TDR1s may not be transformed to less dense (more environmentally sensitive) parcels of land. RECOMMENDATION: This is a good idea and the BOCC should adopt the language of the proposed rule as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the top of Page 24 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(15) Delete Subsection 9-502 B Allocation of Development Permits, paragraph 5c., page 171." COMMENT: This eliminataes the relief from the adequate facilities provision after one year if facilities are not available at the fault of the County. The elimination of this provision must be considered in the context of the effective date of the adequate facilities provisions which are not yet in effect for other coastal counties under the Growth Management Act. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should accept the proposed change but only if the following language is inserted in the place of Subsection 9-502 B(5)(c): The requirements of Sections 9-501 and 9-502 shall not become effective until February 28, 1988. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out in the middle of Page 24 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Pu~dy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey No Yes No Yes Yes Motion carried. "(16) Section 9-503 Surface Water Management Criteria, page 171 to page 172. After Section 9-503, insert new section: Section 9-503 A Revision of Surface Water Management Criteria. FF 194 The Monroe County Planning Commission shall consult with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the South Florida Water Management District, and shall recommend a stormwater management ordinance for adoption by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, which is consistent with Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. Said recommendation shall be provided to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Section 13-101 of these regula- tions, within 6 months of their effective date." COMMENT: This is a codification of another of the "further work" matters. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the language of the proposed rule as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the top of Page 25 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(17) Delete Subsection 9-811 B Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Associations, paragraph 1., page 205 and insert: No fill shall be placed on a parcel proposed for development except the minimum needed in conjunction with an accessway that complies with the requirements of this subsection. For the purposes of this subsection, fill does not include pilings when used to support a permitted structure." COMMENT: This change focuses on the provisions of the Plan allowing development in the transition zone. The State's concern is well taken, however, the total elimination of the provisions may result in a hardship on some landowners, par- ticularly in light of the conflicting permitting practices of DER and the Army Corps. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed rule language should be deleted and the Plan amended as follows: B. Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Associations 1. No fill shall be placed on a parcel proposed for development except for fill in conjunction with an accessway that complies with the requirements of ...paragraphs 2 or 3 of this sub-section and except for a limited area of 1,000 square feet of 7-~% of the parcel proposed for development less the area of any buildings developed on the parcel, whichever is greater, provided that: a. the area proposed to be filled is not vege- tated with woody plants; b. the area of fill is to be used for landscape purposes in conjunction with developed structures; c. the fill is composed of a porous material; d. the area of fill is not located within the area of required open space; e. the area of fill is the least vegetated part of the site; f. the area of fill is located and oriented so that the direction and rate of historical surface water flows are not altered; ~ the area of fill does not serve as habitat for a threatened or endangered species; h. the edges of the fill area are development with retention swales so that contaminated surface water is retained prior to infiltration or flow into the undisturbed portion of the site; and i. the location and design of the fill area will I FF 195 not have significant adverse impact on the functional integrity of the method of which the area is a part. 2. All structures except for surface access roads shall be elevted on pilings or other supports such that the natural hydrologic regime of the site is not altered; 3. Access to any structure shall be by elevated structure or surface road or path that is designed and constructed such that the natural movement of water including volume, rate and direction of flow will not be substantially disrupted or altered; and 4. Wastewater treatment shall be provided by: a. a waterless toilet approved by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; or b. wastewater treatment system that is located or discharges in or on on upland habitat type, as shown on the Existing Conditions Map. Gene Lytton addressed the Board regarding the Recommendation as set out on Pages 25 and 26 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986, concerning the proposed DCA change regarding Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Associations. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out on Pages 25 and 26 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No Yes Yes Motion carried. "(18) Chapter 11, Areas of Critical County Concern, page 253 to page 262. (a) After Section 11-103, insert a new section: Section 11-103A, Threshhold Designations. When the Planning Department's annual report, prepared pursuant to Subsection 9-502 B, identifies areas with speci- fic service deficiencies, these areas shall be designated as Areas of Critical County Concern (ACCC) in accordance with Section 11-103 D5. As part of this designation, the Planning Department shall formulate a work program and mana- gement policies for each designation. Threshhold designa- tion areas must meet all requirements of Chapter 11. Areas within Monroe County which meet the following cri- teria in the annual report shal be designated ACCC: a. areas within twenty-five miles of a solid waste site with a minimum expected life capacity of less than five years; b. areas within three miles of any section of US 1, State Road 905 or any secondary road which is operating at or below Level of Service D on an annual average. Additional threshholds for designations may be proposed by the Planning Director. A threshhold ACCC may be repealed only after the deficiencies which caused the designation no longer exist. (b) Delete Section 11-105, and insert: "Upon designation of an area of the County under the provisions of this Chapter, no person shall carry out any development unless a development impact report demonstrating that the proposed I FF 196 development will have no adverse impact on the values iden- tified as the basis for designation of the Area of Critical County Concern is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a major conditional use. Development within an Area of Critical County Concern shall conform to all environmental standards of the Plan and deve- lopment regulations, and the maximum net density in an ACCC shall be no greater than the maximum net density of the land which the designation supersedes." (c) Subsection 11-107 A, page 254, delete "the area which is described on Appendix B", and insert: "as that portion of Key Largo located between the junction of State Road 905 and U.S. Route 1 and the Dade County boundary at Angel Fish Creek. " (d) Subsection 11-107 0, page 255, 1. In Subparagraphs 1 and 3, delete each "on Appendix B" and insert "within the North Key Largo Area of Critical County Concern." 2. In Subparagraph 4, delete "in Appendix B" and insert "within the North Key Largo Area of Critical County Concern." (e) Subsection 11-108A, page 256, delete "Appendix C", and insert "Land Use District Map Number 10 of 21." (f) Subsection 11-109A, page 258, delete "Appendix C" and insert "Land Use District Map Numbers 8 and 9 of 21." (g) Subsection 11-110 A, page 260, delete "Appendix 0" and insert "Land Use District Map Number 14 of 21." COMMENT: These changes establish a mandatory planning response to a facilities deficit and clarify a series of cross-references. The concept of the planning response is a good one; however, the language of the rule is unclear as to the effect of the designation on development permitting. The language must be harmonized with the existing provisions of the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the threshhold con- cept but the language should be modified by adding the following language to the end of the proposed Section 11-103A and proposed Section 11-104: provided that the designation of an Area of Critical County Concern as a result of a threshhold designa- tion shall not have any effect on development permitting. (11-103A) "Upon designation of an area of the County under the provi- sions of this Chapter except for threshhold designations no person shall carry out any development unless a development impact report demonstrating that the proposed development will have no adverse impact on the values identified as the basis for designation of the Area of Critical County Concern is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a major conditional use. Development within an Area of Critical County Concern shall conform to all environmental standards of the Plan and development regulations, and the maximum net density in an ACCC during the period of the planning program shall be no greater than the maximum net density of the land which the designation supersedes." Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the Recommendation as set out on Pages 28 and 29 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was unanimous. FF1.97 ,.....'- "(19)" Section 13-101 E Typographical or drafting errors, page 302. Delete Subsection 13-101 E and insert: Amendments to the text to correct typographical or drafting errors may be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners without posted notice or public hearing at any regular meeting. As long as the County is within an Area of Critical State Concern, notice of such amendments shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs within 30 days." COMMENT: A ministerial matter of no substantive impact. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the proposed language of the rule as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Fahrer and seconded by Commissioner Swift to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out in the middle of Page 29 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(20) Subsections 14-101 A and B, page 303, delete Section 14-101 A and insert: The Planning Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Chapter other than decisions in regard to application for major conditional use permits sub- ject to the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth, except that the Board of County Commissioners shall hear and decide appeals fropm administrative actions regarding the floodplain management provisions of this Volume." COMMENT: This is a technical amendment to accommodate the new citizen standing provisions. RECOMMENDATION: The language of the proposed rule should be adopted by the BOCC except that the reference to the con- dition use be deleted as follows: ...other than decisions in regard to applications for major conditional use permits subject to... Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the bottom of Page 29 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(b) Delete 14-101 B and insert: An appeal may be initiated by an owner, applicant, adjacent property owner or any aggrieved or adversely affected per- son, as defined by Section 163.3215(2), Florida Statutes (1985), from any order, decision, determination, or interpretation by any administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Chapter." COMMENT: A ministerial matter of no substantive impact. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the proposed language of the rule as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the top of Page 30 of the FF 1.98 letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purdy dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "(21) Delete Appendices B, C, and D." COMMENT: A ministerial matter of no substantive impact. RECOMMENDATION: The BOCC should adopt the proposed language of the rule as an amendment to the Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out in the middle of Page 30 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Pur day dated June 4, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. "Specific Authority 380.05(8), F.S., Law Implemented 380.05(8), 380.055(4), F.S. History New. NAME OF PERSON ORIGINATING PROPOSED RULE: Estus Whitfield, Senior governmental Analyst. NAME OF SUPERVISOR OR PERSON WHO APPROVED PROPOSED RULE: Estus Whitfield, Senior Governmental Analyst, Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting. DATE PROPOSED RULE APPROVED: May 20, 1986 COMMENT: The draft of the Plan that was submitted to the State included the 4/5ths requirement for an appeal. It is my understanding that the Board of County Commissioners has voted to eliminate that requirement; therefore it is necessary that the Plan be amended to delete that require- ment. RECOMMENDATION: Page 235 of Volume II should be amended to delete subparagraph c and to renumber subparagraph d as sub- paragraph c. In addition, Section l3-l0lD (5) (c) should be deleted and subparagraph d should be renumbered as sub- paragraph c. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the foregoing Recommendation as set out at the bottom of Page 30 of the letter from Siemon, Larsen & Purday dated June 4, 1986. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner Stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey No Yes No Yes Yes Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to adopt and transmit to DCA, the Governor and the Cabinet the following Resolution concerning the Board's responses to the requested changes by DCA to the Monroe County Land Use Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 203-1986 See Res. Book No. 50 which in incorporated herein by reference. FF189 Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Fahrer Commissioner Freeman Commissioner stormont Commissioner Swift Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No Yes Yes Motion carried. Mayor Harvey discussed the appeal of Mrs. Hamil scheduled for July. Motion was made by Mayor Harvey and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to place this item on the Agenda for consideration. Mayor Harvey read a letter from Mrs. Hamil requesting a postponement of her appeal to the August 20th meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to approve the request for the postponement of the appeal of Mrs. Hamil to August 20, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. County Attorney Proby discussed the terms of the transmittal Resolution concerning the Land Use Plan. Motion was made by Mayor Harvey and seconded by Commissioner Fahrer to adopt the following Resolution amending Resolution No. 049-1986 amending the effective date to August 15, 1986. RESOLUTION NO. 204-1986 See Res. Book No. 50 which is incorporated herein by reference. Roll call vote was unanimous. Charles Pattison, Building, Planning & Zoning Director, advised the Board that he had been requested by a candidate for a County Commissioner's seat to spend time in the Building, Planning & Zoning Department to observe its operation. Motion was made by Mayor Harvey and seconded by Commissioner Freeman to reject this request on the basis of it being disruptive to the operation of the Department. Roll call vote was unanimous with Commissioner Fahrer absent from the meeting. Motion was made by Commisisoner Swift and seconded by Commissioner Freeman directing Mr. Pattison to set up a public forum for the interested citizen at which time he could explain the operations of the Building, Planning & Zoning Department. Motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Fahrer absent from the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. * * * * *