CPA 17-7, Altman Text Amendment APPLICANT

MARTIN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST

REQUEST NUMBER: CPA 17-7, Altman Text Amendment

APPLICANT: PLANNER-IN-CHARGE: Donald J. Cuozzo Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Cuozzo Planning Solutions, LLC Senior Planner P.O. Box 338 Palm City, FL 34990

REPRESENTED BY: DATE: October 1, 2016 Donald J. Cuozzo Cuozzo Planning Solutions, LLC P.O. Box 338 Palm City, FL 34990 (772) 221-2128

ORIGINAL MEETING DATE REVISION DATE LPA MEETING: March 2, 2017______February 14, 2017____ BCC TRANSMITTAL HEARING April 25, 2017______TRANSMITTAL TO DEO: ______ADOPTION HEARING: ______FINAL TRANSMITTAL TO DEO: ______

LPA Date RECOMMENDATION: BCC TRANSMITTAL HEARING: BCC FINAL ACTION:

SITE LOCATION: The proposed text amendment would be applicable throughout the Primary and Secondary Urban Services District. The Applicant has not identified any particular properties which would be affected by the proposed policy.

APPLICANT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) be amended to create a new policy. The Applicant has proposed that CGMP Policy 9.1G.2.(7) be amended to create a seventh circumstance under which an exception is allowed to Martin County’s rules that protect all wetlands from negative impacts. The Applicant proposes a policy to allow wetlands, that are less than or equal to one-half acre, are not tidally-influenced, and are located within the Urban Services boundary, to be impacted, subject to satisfying certain other enumerated criteria.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial

Page 1 of 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) Policy 9.1G.1. Protection of wetlands, provides in part: “All wetlands in Martin County shall be protected. Negative impacts shall not be allowed in wetlands or within the buffer surrounding the wetland.” Policy 9.1G.2.(7) identifies six circumstances under which an exception may be granted to the Martin County rule that all wetlands shall be protected from any negative impact. The Applicant has proposed that CGMP Policy 9.1G.2.(7) be amended to provide a seventh circumstance under which wetlands may be negatively impacted. The policy proposed by the Applicant, is as follows:

“In order to encourage infill development, applicants for parcels located within the urban service boundary, can apply to impact up to one (1) jurisdictional wetland that is equal to or less than 0.5 acres in spatial extent in accordance with the following:

1) The wetland limits must be approved by a State Agency in accordance with appropriate jurisdictional requirements and State statutes.

2) Only one wetland can be impacted within the entire applicant owned parcel.

3) The applicant cannot combine this waiver with any other wetland waiver (i.e. access waiver).

4) This exception does not apply to tidally influenced wetlands.

5) All mitigation for impacts to wetlands under this waiver must be completed within Martin County whenever possible. To encourage Martin County mitigation, wetland mitigation completed outside of Martin County is required to be twice the required biological value (credits) as within Martin County.

6) Applicants must provide an approved State permit for impacts prior to land clearing.”

The Applicant has provided no data and analysis to demonstrate that the current County waiver and exception policies are inadequate. The applicant has submitted no data or analysis regarding the potential cumulative impact on the numerous and diverse ecological, stormwater, groundwater recharge, scenic, and wildlife habitat services provided to the County and its residents by small wetlands. Basic data and analysis regarding the proposed amendment has not been provided. Rudimentary questions cannot be answered, including these: a. What is the total number of acres of wetlands that could be impacted by the proposed policy? b. What percentage of the County’s total wetland acreage is comprised of wetlands that are not larger than ½ acre (small wetlands)? c. What percentage of the County’s wetland acreage within the Urban Services District is comprised of small wetlands? d. How many parcels within the Urban Services District contain small wetlands? Where are they located?

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 2

e. What is the methodology for confirming that a small wetland is not a part of a larger wetland system? f. Why are the County’s existing wetland exception and waiver policies insufficient?

g. What is the basis of the Applicant’s assertion that “the availability of land in the USD, (excluding Indiantown USD), has become limited”?

h. What is the basis for Applicant’s assertion that allowing the alteration of small wetlands will “allow better and more efficient use of land within the USD”?

i. What is the basis for the Applicant’s assertion that more biological benefits will be provided by allowing the alteration of small wetlands in exchange for mitigation elsewhere?

j. What does the Applicant intend by use of the term “urban service boundary?” Is the proposal limited to the Primary Urban Services District or does it include the Secondary Urban Services District?

The protection of natural resources, especially wetlands, is a fundamental, long-standing Martin County policy priority. A significant change to the Martin County policy that all wetlands be protected should be based on the best available data and analysis that supports a conclusion that the change is needed and that the cumulative impact of the proposed change is consistent with the County’s commitment to protection of the natural resources and the character and quality of life for present and future residents.

For the reasons stated above and the analysis developed more fully in the body of this staff report, staff recommends denial of CPA 17-07.

STAFF ANALYSIS

I. Martin County Protection of Wetlands

Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) Policy 9.1G.1., Protection of wetlands, provides in part: “All wetlands in Martin County shall be protected. Negative impacts shall not be allowed in wetlands or within the buffer surrounding the wetland.” The protection of wetlands is a fundamental, long-standing Martin County policy priority.

 Martin County’s first Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1982, called for the protection of wetlands.1

 The Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, adopted in 1990, strengthened the protection of wetlands.2

1 See, for example, Article VIII. Conservation and Coastal Management Element, B. Estuary System Objectives; C. Flood Plain Hurricane Flood Zone Objectives; D. Land, Air and Water Quality Objectives, and the implementing programs. MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., Comprehensive Plan (1982)

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 3

 Between 1990 and 1998, the CGMP was further amended to more rigorously protect wetlands. Changes during this period required the preparation of Preserve Area Management Plans, acknowledged the existence of wetlands of special concern and buffer zones were established—25 feet for freshwater wetlands and 50 feet for estuarine wetlands.

 In 1999, the County’s wetland rules were strengthened again. The minimum buffer for freshwater wetlands was increased from 25 feet to 50 feet, buffers for wetlands of special concern were increased to 100 feet (subsequently reduced to 75 feet), and development applications were required to identify off-site, as well as on-site, wetlands.3

Given Martin County’s long-standing and firmly-rooted commitment to the protection, rehabilitation and preservation of wetlands, this report presumes there is no need to expound upon the economic, ecological, aesthetic, stormwater and groundwater value of wetlands, whether estuarine or freshwater, or to justify the rationale for protecting them.

II. Wetland Exceptions and Waivers

Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) Policy 9.1G.2.(7) identifies six circumstances under which an exception may be allowed to Martin County’s generally applicable rules that protect all wetlands from any negative impact. In abbreviated form, pursuant to Policy 9.1G.2.(7), Martin County permits impact to wetlands in the following circumstances, provided compliance with all enumerated conditions is demonstrated:

1. to provide reasonable use of a 1982 lot of record.

2. for construction or maintenance of a linear public utility.

3. to allow an elevated observation boardwalk or single-family residential dock, multi-slip dock, boat ramps or commercial dock.

4. to construct or maintain a bridge in a public right-of-way.

5. to construct a road in a public right-of-way.

6. for stormwater treatment projects constructed by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners and reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas and related facilities constructed as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Permission to negatively impact a wetland, pursuant to CGMP Policy 9.1G.2.(7), is conditioned upon compliance with several criteria including that the least damaging development alternative be chosen and that wetland mitigation replace the functions, value and spatial extent of the altered wetland. Additionally, no adverse impact on plants or animals designated threatened or

2 The 1990 Plan called for mapping of all wetlands in the County at the same scale as the Future Land Use Maps and provides “All development must preserve wetlands and native uplands onsite in grouped, clustered orientation with relationship to offsite, regional natural resources.” (page 4-17d of CGMP, per Stipulated Settlement Agreement, approved by Ordinance 400.) Policy 8-4.A.1.a. and Policy 7.a both provide “All wetlands in Martin County shall be protected.” MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP (1990)

3 The discussion of changes in the period 1990 through 1999 is based on a 2001 internal report by the Growth Management Department identifying changes in wetland regulations.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 4

endangered by the state or federal government is permitted. Finally, the natural hydroperiod must be restored to the maximum extent technically feasible, exotic vegetation must be removed, wetland buffers must be provided, and long term maintenance guarantees are required. Additional requirements and standards apply, depending on the circumstance permitting the exception. The full text of CGMP Objective 9.1G. and Policy 9.1G.1. through Policy 9.1G.4. is included as Exhibit A to this staff report.

In addition to these expressly enumerated exceptions to the generally applicable County policy that all wetlands shall be protected, the CGMP provides for general relief not tied to any particular CGMP policy under extraordinary circumstances. Section 1.3 of the CGMP provides as follows:

“Nothing in this Plan is intended to deny any person due process of law or to take private property without just compensation. If any person believes that the regulations of this Plan as applied to his or her property result in a taking of the property for public use without just compensation, they may appeal for relief to the Board of County Commissioners, which may grant such relief only when, and to the extent to which, such appeal demonstrates that relief is necessary to prevent a violation of statutory or Constitutional private property rights.

The Comprehensive Growth Management Plan was amended by the Board of County Commissioners in August 2013 (CPA 13-5). Due to challenges filed against CPA 13-5, the amendments did not become effective until July 7, 2016. Chapter 2, Overall Goals and Definitions, is one of the chapters amended by CPA 13-5. The amendments to Chapter 2 with regard to wetlands are generally not new policies. Chapter 2 now reiterates goals, objectives and policies contained elsewhere in the Plan because they constitute the County’s “Overall Goals.”

CGMP Goal 2.2 provides “Martin County shall ensure natural resource conservation and conservation of the area’s natural communities.” Pursuant to Goal 2.2, “Martin County shall preserve all wetlands regardless of size unless prohibited by state law.” MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP, Objective 2.2A. (2017). The County policy that negative impacts to wetlands are to be strictly limited is re-emphasized in these policies:

Policy 2.2A.2. Exceptions to allow wetland alteration are limited to:

(1) providing access for utilities, stormwater facilities, roads and bridges, removal of exotic vegetation, docks, boat entry, and elevated boardwalks

(2) lots of record as of 1982 to provide reasonable use

(3) CERP projects as outlined in Policy 9.1G.2.(7)(g).

Policy 2.2A.3. In all cases where wetlands alterations are allowed the least damaging alternative shall be chosen and mitigation shall replace the functions and values and the spatial extent of the altered wetlands. Exceptions shall not result in adverse impacts on plants and animals that are designated by the federal government or the state of Florida as “Endangered” or “Threatened”.

Policy 2.2A.4 Development plans shall provide restoration of the natural hydroperiod to the maximum extent technically feasible, and shall provide for buffers, exotic removal, long term maintenance guarantees, and any other

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 5

actions necessary to assure the continuing values and functions of the wetland area. MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP (2017).

The Applicant has not proposed that Policy 2.2A.2 be amended. Nonetheless, the Applicant’s proposed amendment of Policy 9.1G.2.(7) would have no effect unless Policy 2.2A.2 was amended similarly. The CGMP’s rules of interpretation provide that “The Comprehensive Growth Management Plan shall be interpreted and administered to achieve consistency throughout the Plan as interpreted by the Board of County Commissioners. Where provisions conflict, the more restrictive requirement shall govern.” MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP, §2.3 (2017).

Other CGMP Policies implicated by CPA 17-07 are set forth in Exhibit B.

III. CPA 17-07 Atman Proposal

The complete CPA 17-07 application package is included as with this agenda packet. The Applicant has proposed that CGMP Policy 9.1G.2.(7) be amended to provide a seventh circumstance under which wetlands may be impacted. The policy proposed by the Applicant, is as follows:

1) The wetland limits must be approved by a State Agency in accordance with appropriate jurisdictional requirements and State statutes.

2) Only one wetland can be impacted within the entire applicant owned parcel.

3) The applicant cannot combine this waiver with any other wetland waiver (i.e. access waiver).

4) This exception does not apply to tidally influenced wetlands.

6) Applicants must provide an approved State permit for impacts prior to land clearing.”

The Applicant offers only a short and conclusory justification for this potentially far-reaching change in Martin County environmental policy. The Applicant’s justification is founded upon several conclusions:

1. “The availability of land in the USD, (excluding the Indiantown USD), has become limited.”

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 6

2. To be able to continue to direct urban development into the USD and “to help reduce the requests to expand the USD this policy change is necessary.”

3. “From a pure planning sense it will allow better and more efficient use of land within the USD.”

4. “From an ecological sense it will provide for more biological benefits than preserving small isolated wetlands surrounded by urban uses.”

IV. Review of the Proposed Amendment

The Applicant has provided no data or analysis to support the proposed amendment and therefore has failed to satisfy threshold criteria for consideration of the proposal. Basic questions regarding the premises which form the basis of Applicant’s claim that the change is needed and about the potential cumulative impact of the proposal cannot be answered. As stated in the Executive Summary, any consideration of the proposed change to the County’s wetland policy must consider, at a minimum, answers to the following questions:

a. What is the total number of acres of wetlands that could be impacted by the proposed policy?

b. What percentage of the County’s total wetland acreage is comprised of wetlands that are not larger than ½ acre (small wetlands)?

c. What percentage of the County’s wetland acreage within the Urban Services District is comprised of small wetlands?

d. How many parcels within the Urban Services District contain small wetlands? Where are they located?

e. What is the methodology for confirming that a small wetland is not a part of a larger wetland system?

f. Why are the County’s existing wetland exception and waiver policies insufficient?

g. What is the basis of the Applicant’s assertion that “the availability of land in the USD, (excluding Indiantown USD), has become limited”?

h. What is the basis for Applicant’s assertion that allowing the alteration of small wetlands will “allow better and more efficient use of land within the USD”?

i. What is the basis for the Applicant’s assertion that more biological benefits will be provided by allowing the alteration of small wetlands in exchange for mitigation elsewhere?

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 7

Applicant has not submitted even illustrative parcels to support the contention that the proposed policy is needed. On several occasions, staff communicated to the Applicant the need to provide additional information to support the proposed amendment. These communications include a letter dated October 4, 2017, an in-person meeting on November 30, 2017, a follow-up memorandum on December 1, 2017, and several subsequent emails. The Applicant initially indicated that data and analysis would be submitted. Nonetheless, to this date, nothing has been submitted to the County. The written communications are included as Correspondence in the agenda packet.

State law requires that proposed amendments of the CGMP be supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis.4 Martin County’s CGMP reiterates this statutory requirement. “The Comprehensive Growth Management Plan may be amended pursuant to F.S. Chapter 163, Chapter 125, Article VIII, Florida Constitution, the requirements of this Plan, and any other applicable authority.” MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP §1.4 (2017)

Section 1.11., provides that “for the purpose of preparing a recommendation” regarding a proposed amendment to the CGMP “the Growth Management Director shall consider and evaluate any information that may be presented by the public. Other information may be used if it is determined to be the best available information. Staff recommendations shall be consistent with this chapter and with the goals, objectives, and policies established in this Plan, as well as good planning principles.” MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP, paragraph 1.11.C.(2) (2017).

Paragraph 1.11.D. provides that “No amendment shall be approved for transmittal that is not consistent with all goals, objectives and policies of this Plan.” MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP, §1.11.D. (2017).

Paragraph 1.11.D. (4) provides that a factual finding of consistency with “all goals, objectives and policies of this Plan are a condition of approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, but do not create an entitlement to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment. Reviews, findings, and recommendations for findings of fact on individual amendments shall consider the cumulative impact of that amendment, all other amendments being considered during the application period, and whether approval would be used to support approval of a similar amendment in the future, or amendments to support land uses complementary to the amendment under consideration in the future.” MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP, §1.11.D. (2017).

Section 1.11.G. provides Consideration of economic reports, appraisals and other technical information. No economic reports or studies, real estate appraisals or reports, and/or written reports of consultants or other experts in support of an amendment application shall be considered by either the Local Planning Agency or the Board of County Commissioners unless filed with the Growth Management Director at least 14 days prior to the first public hearing conducted by the Local Planning Agency. This provision may be waived by a vote of the Board of County Commissioners if any interested party demonstrates that an injustice will occur and sufficient time is provided for all parties to review and analyze the report. MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP, §1.11.G. (2017).

4 §163.3177(1)(f),Fla. Stat. (2017) (“All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government. . .”) and §163.3184(3)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The local government, . . .shall transmit within 10 working days the amendment or amendments and appropriate supporting data and analyses to the reviewing agencies. . . ” CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 8

In addition to the CGMP policies quoted above, the instructions provided to persons seeking to amend the CGMP also emphasize the need to submit data and analysis to support the proposed amendment. The instructions provided to all Comp. Plan applicants include these directions:

“The applicant must provide justification for the proposed amendment and cite how the amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.”

“The application should consider whether the amendment protects the safety, health and welfare of Martin County citizens, and addresses the impacts of development activities on natural systems, environmentally sensitive areas and the County’s historic resources.”

“The applicant should address CGMP policies, as applicable to their amendment, and provide a justification statement for a proposed amendment.”

“The application will be evaluated by County staff based on the application materials, relevant Comprehensive Growth Management Plan policies, and other materials gathered.”

If staff cannot make a “determination of consistency with all Plan goals, objectives and policies,” staff is required to recommend denial.

V. Capacity of Urban Services District

The Applicant’s justification for the proposed amendment indicates that the proposed policy change is necessary because “the availability of land in the USD, (excluding the Indiantown USD), has become limited” and “to help reduce the requests to expand the USD [Urban Services District].” The Applicant has supported those factual assertions with no data or analysis.

Of Martin County’s 354,967 acres, the Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) covers approximately 64,852 and the Secondary Urban Service District covers approximately 9,769 acres. The Urban Services District was established with the adoption of Martin County’s Comprehensive Plan in 1982. The Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, adopted in 1990, established the Secondary Urban Services District (SUSD).5

The current boundaries of the Primary and Secondary Urban Services Districts are illustrated in Figure 1. The cross-hatching to the northwest depicts the PUSD and the cross-hatching to the northeast depicts the SUSD.

Since 1990, there have been few requests to expand the Primary or Secondary Urban Service Districts. In 2004, 870 acres south of SE Cove Road were removed from the SUSD and re- designated PUSD. In 2010, 580 acres adjacent to the Indiantown Air Strip, were moved from outside the urban service boundary into the SUSD. A 2016-17 application is pending to a re- designate 215 acres on the southern county line from outside of the urban services area into the SUSD (CPA 17-3).

5 This background information about the Primary and Secondary Urban Services Districts is based on staff reports prepared by Clyde Dulin, AICP, for a March22, 2005 Board of County Commissioners Workshop and for a June 9, 2015 Board of County Commissioners Workshop on the Secondary Urban Services District.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 9

Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion that there is insufficient land within the Urban Services District, Martin County’s “2013 Residential Capacity and Vacant Land Analysis” concluded that the County has capacity for an additional 13,697 dwelling units on vacant upland areas within the Primary and Secondary Urban Services District. The “2013 Residential Capacity and Vacant Land Analysis,” approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 13, 2013, is included as Exhibit C to this staff report.

Figure 1. Martin County’s Primary and Secondary Urban Services Districts

The “2016 Martin County Commercial and Industrial Land Analysis,” approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 14, 2016, similarly concluded there is sufficient land within the PUSD to accommodate expected demand for commercial and industrial development to meet the needs of Martin County residences for the next fifteen years. As the report explained, this conclusion holds true even if the only commercial and industrial acreage included in the analysis are parcels at least five acres in size, with regional water and wastewater services available, and not located on roadway segments with capacity constraints. The “2016 Commercial and Industrial Land Analysis” is included as Exhibit D to this staff report.

The “2017 Residential Capacity and Vacant Land Analysis” has not yet been presented to, or adopted by, the Board of County Commissioners. In the event the “2017 Residential Capacity Analysis” indicates that the Urban Services District has insufficient residential capacity to shelter the County’s projected population over the next fifteen years, the Board of County Commissioners will want to explore and evaluate numerous policy alternatives before adoption of select policies that best advance the overall goals of the CGMP. The Applicant has provided no corroboration that eliminating protection of small wetlands is the most appropriate or effective response to eventual residential or commercial build-out within the Urban Services District.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 10

VI. Conclusion

The Applicant has failed to submit any data and analysis to support the premises of the proposed amendment and the Applicant has failed to submit any data and analysis to support a conclusion that the proposed policy would meet any of the essential purposes of the CGMP, such as “to protect and restore natural and manmade resources and maintain the character, stability and quality of life for present and future County residents,” and “to allow only orderly growth and development that achieves the purposes listed in this subsection”, MARTIN COUNTY, FLA, CGMP §1.1.

A significant change, initiated by a private party, to a fundamental County policy should be considered only after research and analysis confirms the need for a change and after identification and evaluation of alternative ways to solve the identified problem, including examination of the potential cumulative impacts of any proposed change. The obligation to support the amendment with appropriate data and analysis and the burden of persuasion lie with the Applicant. The Applicant has failed to produce data and analysis and has failed to persuade. Therefore, CPA 17-07, Altman Text Amendment should be denied.

VII. Appendices to Staff Report

A. Text of Comprehensive Growth Management Objective 9.1G., Natural Systems, and Policies 9.1G.1 through 9.1G.4.

B. Additional select Comprehensive Growth Management Plan policies implicated by CPA 17-07.

C. The 2013 Residential Capacity and Vacant Land Analysis

D. The 2016 Commercial and Industrial Land Analysis

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 11

Exhibit A

to CPA 17-07 Staff Report Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Objective 9.1G. and Policies 9.1G.1., 9.1G.2., 9.1G.3. and 9.1G.4.

Objective 9.1G. Natural systems. To protect and preserve the many functions and values of wetland and upland natural systems, including flood control, groundwater aquifer recharge and wildlife habitat.

Policy 9.1G.1. Protection of wetlands. All wetlands in Martin County shall be protected. Negative impacts shall not be allowed in wetlands or within the buffer surrounding the wetland. All development shall be consistent with the wetland protection requirements of the CGMP and Florida Administrative Code section 9J-5.013(3). Inconsistent and/or incompatible future land uses shall be directed away from wetland areas. Compliance with all wetland protection requirements must be demonstrated before issuance of a development approval or order. This policy shall apply regardless of whether or not the wetlands in question have ever been delineated through a binding or nonbinding determination.

The intent of Policies 9.1G.1 through 9.1G.4 is to protect natural wetland systems even when they are affected by manmade excavations. This policy is not intended to protect manmade excavations in uplands.

Though manmade wetlands are exempt from this policy and are not protected as natural wetlands, development review shall assure that impacts to them do not adversely affect drainage or natural systems.

Policy 9.1G.2. Wetlands, general provisions. The following definitions, restrictions, violations, waivers and density transfer provisions shall apply:

(1) Wetland areas. Wetlands, as defined in Florida Statutes, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and a duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Soils present in wetlands generally are classified as hydric or alluvial, or possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. The prevalent vegetation in wetlands generally consists of facultative or obligate hydrophytic macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having soil conditions described above. These species, due to morphological, physiological or reproductive adaptations, have the ability to grow, reproduce or persist in aquatic environments or anaerobic soil conditions. Florida wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bayheads, bogs, cypress domes and strands, sloughs, wet prairies, riverine swamps and marshes, hydric seepage slopes, tidal marshes, mangrove swamps and other similar areas. Florida wetlands generally do not include longleaf or slash pine flatwoods with an understory dominated by saw palmetto.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 12

In determining if a wetland meeting the definition in Policy 9.1G.2(1) is a natural system protected under Policies 9.1G.1 through 9.1G.4 the following standards shall apply:

(a) Only manmade wetlands clearly excavated in uplands will be exempt.

(b) Navigable canals connected to the waters of the State, whether excavated in uplands or wetlands, will not be exempt, if wetlands can be delineated consistent with Florida Statutes section 373.421(1).

(c) Wetlands artificially created following an excavation and where there are no wetlands beyond the bank top of the excavation will be exempt.

(d) Manmade wetlands that are within or directly adjacent to natural wetlands will not be exempt and will be protected as part of the natural wetland system.

(e) Excavation in upland soils where there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the excavation was manmade, but not within or adjacent to a natural wetland, will not be exempt and will be protected as a natural wetland.

The Martin County Composite Wetland Map, figure 9-1 (on file with the Martin County Growth Management Department) is a composite of several data sources: 1981 data on hydric soils, the 1985 National Wetlands Inventory data, satellite classification data (Thermatic Mapper and SPOT data) from multiple years and Martin County environmental field data. The use of data from multiple years and sources is critical.

The composite map is a useful guide to locate wetlands, but Florida Statutes section 373.421(1) requires delineation of wetland boundaries in the field according to Florida's unified wetlands delineation methodology. The methodology will determine the final jurisdictional location and extent of wetlands. As field and satellite data become available, they will be used periodically to update the composite map, ensuring it reflects the most date current, digitally derived wetland coverage. The general wetland vegetation types for selected hydric soils are shown in Table 9-4.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 13

Table 9-4 Type of Wetland Area and Associated Soil Types

Type of Wetland Area Associated Soil Types

Forested saltwater 30, 40, 50, 67, 79

Nonforested freshwater 3, 5, 10, 12, 19, 49, 54, 56, 57, 70, 74

Forested and mixed 13, 22, 38, 40, 51, 58

Forested freshwater 60, 62, 69, 73 Source: Soil Survey of Martin County Area, Florida (Martin Soil and Water Conservation District; U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1981; Florida Division of Forestry, 1981).

(2) Negative impacts. No negative impacts shall be allowed in wetlands or within the surrounding buffer.

(3) Illegal activity; wetland alteration. Restoration will be required at the site of alteration where (1) illegal activities in violation of the CGMP or the Land Development Regulations have altered wetland area so that all or part of the original area no longer meets the definition of a wetland or (2) have negatively affected a wetland. Restoration of buffers, habitat and hydrology of the original wetland area shall be required and the restored wetland shall be protected as a natural wetland. This policy shall apply regardless of whether or not the wetlands in question have ever been delineated through a binding or nonbinding determination.

(5) Preserve Area Management Plan (PAMP) provisions. Any application for development plan approval must contain a PAMP to protect all wetlands located on and off the site. The PAMP is subject to the review and approval of the Martin County Growth Management Department. Development approvals will not be issued until the Department has approved the PAMP. It must contain a statement indicating the County has authority to enforce all of its provisions. In accordance with the PAMP, the wetland areas on-site must be maintained.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 14

The PAMP shall contain provisions to:

(a) Remove and provide continued management of exotic vegetation and debris;

(b) Revegetate the wetland area or the surrounding buffer with appropriate native plant material, if necessary;

(c) Mitigate previous or potential drainage impacts, to the maximum extent technically feasible, in order to restore the natural hydroperiod;

(d) Maintain the quality and quantity of natural drainage patterns, which provide inflow to the wetlands, by incorporating these areas into the project's surface water management plan. Water quality and the rate, timing and volume of runoff must recreate natural conditions for the benefit of wetlands and recurring waters;

(e) Provide buffers of appropriate native vegetation adequate to assure continuance of wetlands values and function. Wetlands on adjacent property must also be protected from adverse impacts;

(f) Protect plant and animal species that are rare, endangered, threatened or a species of special concern as defined by the federal government or the State of Florida (including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). These must include any species or native habitat that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), Florida Natural Areas Inventory or Martin County determines to be regionally rare, endangered or threatened with extinction, in accordance with recommendations from applicable state and federal agencies. These must also include unique and rare upland native habitats in Martin County (sand pine/scrub oak associations, turkey oak associations, hardwood hammock associations, tropical hammock associations, coastal hammock associations and cabbage palm/oak hammock). All permitting conditions must be included as an attachment to the PAMP, and the recommendations, requirements and conditions for permit must be made part of the PAMP;

(g) Provide any additional measures judged necessary, to protect and maintain the values and functions of the wetland area, including monitoring provisions to assure continued compliance;

(h) Requirements for fines for noncompliance with the PAMP's provisions;

(i) Prohibit alteration of preserve areas except through a PAMP amendment approved by the Board of County Commissioners; and

(j) Monitor restoration of wetlands and wetland buffer areas to ensure they survive and are continuously maintained.

The professional responsible for the PAMP must certify in writing that (1) it meets all the requirements of the CGMP and the Land Development Regulations, (2) it will assure maintenance of the functions and values of upland habitat and wetland systems and (3) the natural wetland hydroperiod fluctuations and water table will not be altered by on-site irrigation wells or weir settings for stormwater improvements.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 15

(7) Waivers and exceptions. All wetland alterations allowed under these exceptions shall be mitigated sufficiently to ensure no net loss of functions or of the spatial extent of wetlands in Martin County. No exceptions or waivers will be granted to these standards except under the conditions described below:

(a) In all cases where wetlands alterations are allowed the least damaging alternative shall be chosen and mitigation shall replace the functions and values and spatial extent of the altered wetlands. Exceptions shall not result in adverse impacts on plants and animals that are designated by the federal government or the state of Florida as “endangered” or “Threatened.”

(b) Development plans shall provide restoration of the natural hydroperiod to the maximum extent technically feasible, and shall provide for buffers, exotic vegetation removal, long term maintenance guarantees, and any other actions necessary to assure the continuing values and functions of the wetlands area.

(d) Where the applicant demonstrates that encroachment of wetlands or wetland buffers is necessary for construction and/or maintenance of a public utility (as defined in Florida Statutes section 366.02(1983)), an exemption may be granted under the following conditions:

1) The construction or maintenance is for a linear facility (power line) that cannot be accomplished without wetland impacts;

2) The utility has demonstrated that the encroachment is necessary and no reasonable upland alternative exists;

3) The activity is designed and located to assure the least amount of damage to the wetlands;

4) The applicant has submitted a proposal for reforestation and/or mitigation to offset the impact;

5) Permits have been received from the appropriate state and federal environmental agencies, and copies of those permits have been submitted to Martin County prior to issuance of the County permit;

6) The Martin Soil and Water Conservation District or the Martin County Growth Management Department has reviewed the application, and has

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 16

determined in writing that the proposed encroachment is the least damaging alternative;

7) The applicant has provided proof of ownership or easement over the property to be encroached;

8) A plan has been approved by the Growth Management Department for the removal of undesirable exotic vegetation as part of the restoration and/or mitigation proposed in Policy 9.1G.2(7)(d)4);

9) The applicant has demonstrated that the construction or maintenance activity will maximize the preservation of native indigenous vegetation; and

10) The utility has demonstrated that, if fill is required, the minimum necessary will be used to assure reasonable access to the property or construction activity.

(e) When (1) a plan for elevated observation boardwalks or single-family residential docks, multi-slip docks, boat ramps or commercial docks has been designed and located to assure the least amount of damage to the wetland and wetland buffer and (2) the plan has been approved by the Growth Management Department as meeting all criteria of the Coastal Management and Conservation and Open Space elements, and has been approved by the appropriate state and federal agencies;

(f) For proposed or approved bridges in a public right-of-way crossing estuarine waters where public access may be maintained in accordance with the provisions in Policy 8.1C.1(3)(c)4).

(g) For the construction of public road right-of-way.

(h) Stormwater treatment projects listed in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan and constructed by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners, as well as reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas and related facilities constructed as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in any part of Martin County, subject to the following:

1) The project must be designed to cause the least amount of negative impact to wetlands. Waivers to existing requirements will be based on the principle of protecting the highest quality habitat and impacting the lowest quality habitat. Following are example habitats ranked from lowest to highest in quality and importance:

[a] Wetland buffers degraded with exotic vegetation;

[b] Wetland buffers, undisturbed;

[c] Wetlands, isolated and degraded;

[d] Wetland systems, large and disturbed;

[e] Wetland systems, large and undisturbed.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 17

Wetland quality will be assessed using criteria established by the State of Florida.

2) All projects must follow all state and federal regulations and permitting requirements.

3) Waivers to the CGMP policies or the Land Development Regulations will not be granted that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species as listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

(i) The Growth Management Department shall issue an annual report showing development approvals where wetlands have been, or are proposed to be, altered or destroyed, under the limited exceptions allowed in this Plan. The report shall show the areal [sic] extent and location of wetlands to be created to ensure no net loss of the spatial extent of wetlands. Annual monitoring reports to assure viable restoration and compliance with PAMPs shall be included. The report shall include a list of wetlands violations and required restoration.

(8) Density transfer. All property owners have the right to transfer density to the upland area on any site containing wetlands pursuant to the following stipulations:

(a) The development must be submitted for review as either a planned unit development or a clustered multifamily project in one of the multiple-family residential zoning districts.

(b) In addition, the following equations must apply:

1) The resulting residential density of the upland property must be no greater than 15 units per acre, except that for densities in excess of 10 dwelling units per acre there must be a 75-foot native upland transition zone around all wetlands;

2) The total number of units allowed in any development using this formula must be equal to or less than the allowed maximum density for the entire parcel as shown on the Future Land Use Map;

3) Density transferred must not exceed one-half of the wetland acreage multiplied by the gross density; and

4) For parcels with wetlands occupying 50 percent or more of the total site, the gross residential density of the upland property must not exceed two times the gross residential density of the entire parcel.

(d) The increase in net residential density created by density transfer must not create unreasonable adverse environmental impacts on adjacent wetlands or uplands, or land use incompatibilities with neighboring adjacent properties, unless such impacts are mitigated to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. All environmental mitigation must be consistent with the wetland protection policies in the CGMP, including Objective 9.1G. Land use

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 18

incompatibilities must be mitigated consistent with the policy in Section 4.4I.5 through 4.9E (Residential Land Use Orderly Transition and Buffering) and Objective 4.1F of the Future Land Use Element.

(e) Whenever density transfers are proposed, the provisions in Policy 9.1G.2(8)(b) notwithstanding, the net buildable residential area of all plans must include at least 50 percent permeable open space. A golf course may account for no more than 60 percent of the required open space.

("Net buildable density" is defined as the allowable number of residential units divided by the net buildable upland area. "Net buildable upland area" is defined as the gross land area less all wetlands.)

Policy 9.1G.3. Wetlands, special. In addition to the wetland areas defined in this element, certain wetland areas are considered to be of special concern. These are:

(1) The north county Savannas; (2) Britt Creek; (3) Arant's Creek and Swamp; (4) Warner Creek; (5) Hutchinson Island estuarine area; (6) St. Lucie South Fork and Islands; (7) Willoughby Creek; (8) Manatee Creek; (9) Intracoastal Waterway and adjacent marshes; (10) St. Lucie South Fork headwaters; (11) Myrtle Slough; (12) Danforth Creek; (13) Kitching Creek headwaters; (14) Cypress Creek and Loxahatchee River headwaters; (15) Bessey Creek; (16) Mapp Creek; (17) Hog Creek; (18) Allapattah Slough; (19) Barley Barber Swamp; (20) Bluefield Wetlands; (21) Boar and Myer Hammocks; (22) Bluefield Wetlands; (23) Cane Slough; (24) Roebuck Creek; (25) Wetlands within state, regional and/or federal designated greenways.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 19

In addition to the provisions set forth in Policy 9.1G.2 above, special consideration and additional protective measures will be required to assure protection of the special wetland areas. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval during the site plan review process to ensure maintenance of the biological, scenic and navigational qualities of these special wetland areas.

Policy 9.1G.4. Buffer zones and performance criteria for wetlands. The following buffer zone provisions and performance criteria for wetland areas identified in Policy 9.1G.2(7)(a) and (b) must be met. These provisions and criteria shall continue to be implemented through the Land Development Regulations.

(1) Buffer zone provisions:

(a) For wetlands connected to natural creeks, rivers, water bodies connected to surface waters of the state, and surface waters of the state, a buffer zone of native upland and transitional vegetation, at least 75 feet wide, must be provided and maintained. "Surface waters of the state" as used here are a subset of the more inclusive term "waters of the state", as defined in Florida Statutes Chapter 403.

(b) Where natural bluffs occur with slopes exceeding one foot vertical to three feet horizontal, required buffers must start at the top of the bank. The buffer must be sized and designed to assure both stability of the bluff and sufficient level ground to provide a visual and physical buffer of native vegetation.

(c) For all new developments obligated to submit plats or site plans, plans must show sufficient preservation area to protect natural banks and prevent future impacts to wetlands. Where banks have been previously cleared or filled and are not sufficiently stabilized, the banks must be resloped (if necessary) and revegetated with appropriate native vegetation. Martin County will determine if banks need to be stabilized and resloped to prevent erosion.

(d) Buffers must be measured from the edge of the delineated wetland and not from the wetland vegetation.

(e) For isolated wetland areas, a minimum 50-foot buffer zone of appropriate native vegetation must be provided and maintained from the landward extent of the wetland.

(f) The buffer zone must consist of preserved native vegetation and must include existing canopy, understory and groundcover of native species only. Areas that are void of existing, natural associations of native vegetation must be supplemented with appropriate native vegetation in accordance with a PAMP approved by the Martin County Growth Management Department. Noxious, exotic vegetation must be removed, and any native vegetation removed or destroyed subsequent to the adoption of this plan must be replaced with appropriate native vegetation.

(2) Performance criteria for wetland areas:

(a) The following restrictions apply to the direct removal of natural vegetation from the wetlands or the buffer zone surrounding the wetlands:

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 20

1) Vegetation must not be cleared or removed except in compliance with a PAMP approved by the Martin County Growth Management Department, or in compliance with those minimal activities permitted for riparian usage (e.g., docks and walkways).

2) All materials cleared from the wetland or buffer zone must be removed from the site, not piled or stored within the wetland or designated upland preserve areas.

(b) Dredging and/or filling:

1) Dredging or and/or filling are not allowed in the wetlands or the surrounding buffer zone, except in compliance with the provisions of the excavation and fill regulations and a PAMP approved by the Martin County Growth Management Department.

2) A separation at least 200 feet wide must be maintained between the wetland and any lake excavations unless an alternative plan using an impermeable barrier is approved by Martin County in consultation with the SFWMD.

3) Filling that occurs landward of the buffer zone must be stabilized or contained to prevent runoff and degradation of buffer zone vegetation within 30 days of vegetation removal.

1) The structure and foundation of docks shall be designed to accommodate surface water flows and must not impede, interrupt or impound surface water flows.

2) Marina development must conform to the marina siting section of the CGMP.

3) Maintenance of functional structures is permitted if it is performed in the least intrusive manner possible. Maintenance must not result in additional damage to the wetland or wetland buffer zone.

4) The use of heavy equipment must be minimized in wetland areas and/or buffer zones.

5) Temporary filling of the wetland area or buffer zone for construction is prohibited, unless authorized by another provision in this Plan.

6) All pilings must be secured, placed or set to the desired depth by the least disruptive method, based on existing site characteristics.

7) Wetland buffer zones, or any other designated upland preserve area, must be protected from encroachment due to construction or building maintenance activities, as follows:

[a] In adjacent areas, new construction must be set back at least 10 feet (or more if warranted by specific site conditions) for primary

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 21

structures. Accessory structures (pool decks, screen enclosures, driveways, etc.) must be set back at least 5 feet.

[b] For residential lots of record, setbacks for both primary and accessory structures may be reduced to less than 10 feet, but no less than 5 feet, if:

(1) Adjacent lots have similar setbacks;

(2) The wetland buffer zone, or other designated upland preserve area, can be protected from encroachment; and

(3) The lot cannot be reasonably developed under the setback criteria in Policy 9.1G.4.(2)(c)7)[a].

[c] The requirement for a five-foot setback may be rescinded for lots of record, provided that the Growth Management Director, in consultation with the Building and Zoning Director, determines that the lot was essentially devoid of vegetation in the preserve area on the date of adoption of the CGMP, meaning that no purpose would be served by the additional five-foot buffer zone.

(d) Prohibition of planting exotic vegetation in wetlands or wetland buffer zones:

1) Exotic vegetation or incompatible native vegetation must not be planted within or encroach upon the wetland area or buffer zone.

2) Any proposed planting in the wetland area or buffer zone must receive prior approval from Martin County and must be native vegetation compatible with the existing soil and climatic conditions.

(e) Disposal of wastes in and around the wetlands and buffer zone:

1) It is prohibited to discharge domestic, industrial or agricultural wastewaters containing heavy metals, herbicides, pesticides or any other toxic substance(s) in excess of concentrations established by state, federal or County guidelines into the wetlands and/or buffer zone.

2) New developments must comply with the provisions of Chapter 10, Sanitary Sewer Services Element.

3) Before receiving any development approvals, existing lots of record as described in Policy 4.1E.3 must meet the provisions of Chapter 10, Sanitary Sewer Services Element, and the requirements of the Martin County Health Department for a septic tank or other individual wastewater treatment system.

4) Septic tanks and drain fields must not be constructed within 75 feet of the delineated wetland.

5) Hazardous material in designated areas must not be disposed within 200 feet of the wetland or buffer zone. Hazardous material shall only be stored and used in accordance with adopted local, state and federal regulations.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 22

6) If a solid waste disposal facility is planned near a wetland or buffer zone, the facility must be designed to prevent negative effects on the wetland or buffer zone.

(f) Stormwater and surface water management:

1) Direct discharge of stormwater into wetlands or buffer zones shall be prohibited.

2) Stormwater retention basins must be used to maintain post-development discharges at pre-development levels. In addition, retention basins must be designed and constructed with sediment traps and litter or trash screens. The retention basin must be vegetated, and the use of herbicides or pesticides within the retention basin must be discouraged.

3) Any alteration of water levels in wetlands is prohibited unless determined necessary to restore or maintain the natural hydroperiod of the wetland system, by way of a surface water management plan approved by Martin County in consultation with the SFWMD.

4) The timing and volume of water discharge must be appropriate to restore and/or maintain the natural hydroperiod of the wetland.

(g) Waivers and exceptions. The following exceptions to Policy 9.1G.4.(1), buffer zone provisions, are allowed:

1) The buffer zone on any residential lot of record existing on April 1, 1982, may be reduced to 20 feet landward of the mean high water line if:

a. Native upland and transitional vegetation adjacent to the mean high water line is maintained and the 20-foot buffer is exceeded (1) if the lot size is large enough to allow it and (2) the larger buffer zone conforms to the neighborhood pattern. If no native vegetation exists within this zone, there is no requirement to replant with this material.

b. For slopes 4:1 or greater from the residence to mean high water, a stormwater detention swale at least 12 inches deep must be provided in the buffer zone and continued along the entire width of the lot.

c. For slopes less than 4:1 (e.g., steeper slope) from the residence to mean high water, a stormwater detention berm at least 16 inches high must be provided in the buffer zone, continued along the entire width of the lot and extended up the sides of the lot for at least one-third of its depth.

d. For slopes 4:1 or greater (e.g., Code standard or shallower slope) from the residence to mean high water, and with a buffer zone of at least 50 feet, the requirements for a swale can be waived.

e. For lots with existing native vegetation in the buffer zone, a berm or swale, as required, must be provided upland and outside this zone.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 23

2) The requirement for a setback of at least 10 feet from the wetlands buffer zone may be reduced or eliminated by the Growth Management Director where:

a. The lot is a single-family residential lot of record existing on February 20, 1990;

b. The lot has a total upland area of no more than 21,780 square feet; and

c. The required wetland buffer area was disturbed or cleared of native vegetation prior to April 1, 1982, to the extent that a setback would serve no practical purpose.

3) A wetland buffer of at least 20 feet from mean high water is required for properties with legally hardened shorelines (i.e., seawalls, riprap, retaining walls and/or interlocking brick) that do not contain a predominance of native wetland or upland vegetation, including those in the community redevelopment area (CRA). A wetlands buffer at least 25 feet wide is required for manmade, unhardened, shorelines within manmade canals and basins, and the first 20 feet from mean high water must be restored with native vegetation to stabilize the shoreline. Protection of adjacent water quality through stormwater control is required for all reduced buffers as set forth in Policy 9.1G.4.(2)(g)1).

4) For legal, single-family, residential lots that have hardened shorelines, the wetland buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet by the Growth Management Director upon a determination that special and unique circumstances have created a hardship for the property owner. Protection of adjacent water quality through stormwater control is required as set forth in Policy 9.1G.4.(2)(g)1).

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 24

Exhibit B

to CPA 17-07 Staff Report Additional Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Policies implicated by CPA 17-07, Altman Text Amendment

Policy 9.1E.8. Floodplain protection. Floodplains and natural harbors (i.e., Manatee Pocket) in Martin County shall continue to be recognized as unique resources requiring protection and conservation in the stormwater and flood control component of the Land Development Regulations. Floodplains and natural harbor banks and shores shall be treated specifically for slope protection and erosion control/mitigation. MARTIN COUNTY, FLA., CGMP, Policy 9.1E.8. (2017).

Policy 9.1F.2. Site excavations between or within wetland systems. Excavated lakes designed to be part of a site's stormwater management system shall be designed to protect and maintain normal hydroperiods in preserved adjacent wetlands against negative impacts of activities. The functions and values associated with preserved wetland areas shall be protected during and after excavation activities.

Policy 9.1G.2.(5) Preserve Area Management Plan (PAMP) provisions. Any application for development plan approval must contain a PAMP to protect all wetlands located on and off the site. . .

Policy 9.1J.13. Intensity and density transition zones. New land development shall provide for intensity and density transition zones abutting conservation areas and passive public parks. To maintain compatibility and to harmonize with the wildlife populations and natural systems, new development adjacent to conservation areas or passive public parks shall be limited to single- family development. The following activities shall be prohibited within the first tier or block of new development: (1) Altering the hydrologic regime or lowering the water table; (2) Generating, storing or handling of hazardous wastes; (3) Generating nuisance noise, dust, lighting or odors; (4) Generating high concentrations of excessive nutrient runoff.

Policy 13.2A.1. Reduction of discharges. Martin County shall reduce the rate and quantity of freshwater discharges, sediment and nutrient loads entering the St. Lucie River through cooperation with the appropriate regulatory agencies and development of programs to address all freshwater discharges. Toxic pollutants in these waters and their sources shall be identified and their discharges shall be eliminated.

Policy 13.3A.4. Increase in extent and quality of wetlands. Martin County shall continue to protect wetlands by preservation and restoration to increase spatial extent and functional quality of watershed wetlands.

CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment February 22, 2017 Page 25

2013 RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY AND VACANT LAND ANALYSIS

Martin County Board of County Commissioners

August 2013

INTRODUCTION

Objective 4.1D of the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) requires the County to “to collect and monitor development and population data to ensure sufficient land to address projected population needs.”

Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 13-5, Chapters 1, 2 and 4 contains proposed language that would amend the methodology of the Residential Capacity and Vacant Land Analysis. This analysis uses the proposed methodology and will be used as data and analysis for CPA 13-5.

The residential capacity analysis is made up of three parts. First, population projections are calculated in accordance with proposed Policy 4.1D.2. This residential capacity and vacant land analysis is based on the 2013 Population Technical Bulletin, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on July 9, 2013. The estimates and projections are primarily based on the 2010 United States Census and the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) annual report on population.

The second part of the analysis is to determine the future demand for residential units to accommodate the projected population. Calculations of demand are derived from formulas provided in Policy 4.1D.3. The demand calculations used in this analysis are provided in the 2013 Residential Demand Analysis.

The third part of the analysis is to determine the supply of residential units. Consistent with proposed Policy 4.1D.5, the residential capacity and vacant land analysis defines the available residential development options that can accommodate the demand from the projected population.

This report is broken down in three Sections. Section I breaks down proposed Policy 4.1D.5 into five parts to show the supply of units from each category. Section II provides a summary of the total number of units identified in Section I. Section III compares the supply of units in Section II to the residential demand found in the 2013 Residential Demand Analysis.

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 2

SECTION I

Policy 4.1D.5 Residential Supply to Meet Demand

The units needed (demand) in the 10 year period and the units needed in the 15 year period must be compared to the supply of vacant land and vacant units to determine if there is residential capacity in the urban service districts. The methodology to determine the supply of land and units is found in proposed Policy 4.1D.5. The policy is broken down into five parts, and therefore the methodology in this analysis is broken down into five parts.

Below is proposed Policy 4.1D.5 that outlines the parameters to be measured for the supply of units available to meet the demand in the previous section:

Policy 4.1D. 5 Residential capacity analysis. Martin County shall produce a residential capacity analysis every five years. Residential capacity defines the available residential development options within the Primary and Secondary Urban Service Districts that can meet the demand for population growth consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

Residential supply shall consist of: (1) Vacant property that allows residential use according to the Future Land Use Map. The maximum allowable density shall be used in calculating the number of available units on vacant acreage. For the purpose of this calculation, the maximum allowable density for wetlands shall be one-half the density of a given future land use designation.

(2) Subdivided single family and duplex lots. The following lot types shall be included in the residential capacity calculation: (a) Vacant single family or duplex lots of record as of 1982 developed prior to the County’s tracking of development approvals. (b) Vacant single family or duplex lots of record platted after 1982.

(3) Potential for residential development in Mixed Use Overlays.

(4) Multifamily residential site plans with final approval shall be counted as vacant property under (1) above until such time as Certificates of Occupancy are issued. Where Certificates of Occupancy are issued for a portion or phase of a final site plan, appropriate acreage shall be removed from the vacant land inventory. Appropriate acreage shall be the same percentage of the project acreage as the number of units with Certificates of Occupancy is to the total number of units for the final site plan.

(5) Excess vacant housing not in use by permanent or seasonal residents. Excess vacant housing is a vacancy rate higher than 3% of the number of housing units in actual use.

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 3

Vacant land

(1) Vacant property that allows residential use according to the Future Land Use Map. The maximum allowable density shall be used in calculating the number of available units on vacant acreage. For the purpose of this calculation, the maximum allowable density for wetlands shall be one-half the density of a given future land use designation.

The table below shows the calculation of vacant land available. This excludes units in the Mixed Use Overlays, which are considered in part (3) below.

Potential Units in the Primary USD Wetland Units Total Wetland Acres Net Density Future Land per Vacant Probability less Dwelling Transfer Total Use Acre Acres Acreage wetlands Units (Units) Units

Comm. Waterfront 10 18.64 0.28 18.36 183.6 1.4 185.00 Comm/Off/Res 10 16.07 2 14.07 140.7 10 150.70 Estate Density 2 UPA 2 197.59 53.75 143.84 287.68 53.75 341.43 High Density 10 12.61 0.02 12.59 125.9 0.1 126.00 Low Density 5 416.88 38.10 378.78 1893.9 95.25 1,989.15 Total 2,792.28

Potential Units in the Secondary USD Wetland Units Total Wetland Acres Net Density Future Land per Vacant Probability less Dwelling Transfer Total Use Acre Acres Acreage wetlands Units (Units) Units

Ag Ranchette 0.02 629.3 119.07 510.23 10.20 1.19 11.40 Rural Density 0.5 1,736.26 597.37 1138.89 569.44 149.34 718.79 Total 730.18

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 4

Potential Units in the CRAs - Vacant (Non-MUO) Wetland Units Total Wetland Net Density Future Land per Vacant Probability Acres less Dwelling Transfer Total Use Acre Acres Acreage wetlands Units (Units) Units

Comm. General 11.25 39.38 0 39.38 443.025 0 443.03 Comm. Limited 11.25 11.72 0 11.72 131.85 0 131.85 Comm/Off/Res 11.25 23.07 0.06 23.01 258.86 0.33 259.20 Estate Density 2UPA 2 484.98 94.07 390.91 781.82 94.07 875.89 High Density 10 11.78 0 11.78 117.8 0 117.80 Low Density 5 1,417.91 181.82 1,236.09 6,180.45 454.55 6,635.00 Medium Density 8 214.31 17.57 196.74 1,573.92 70.28 1,644.20 Mobile Home 8 8.46 0 8.46 67.68 0 67.68 Total 10,174.65

Summary table of potential units, Part (1):

Urban Service District Units at Maximum Density Vacant Primary USD 2,792 Vacant Secondary USD 730 CRA - Vacant (Non-MUO) 10,175 Total 13,697

The table below illustrates the number of vacant lots of record as of 1982. The vacant lots are identified through the Martin County GIS system, using Department of Revenue codes for vacant residential properties. The lots are then verified of vacancy using 2013 aerial photography.

USD Lots Primary 1,380 Secondary 369

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 5

(b) Vacant single family or duplex lots of record platted after 1982.

The table below illustrates the number of lots of record after 1982:

USD Lots Primary 1,608 Secondary 34

The total number of vacant lots of record for the Primary Urban Service District is 2,988. The total for the Secondary Urban Service District is 403.

(3) Potential for residential development in Mixed Use overlays.

The vacant land within a CRA mixed use overlay available for residential development is shown in the table, as outlined in 4.1D.5(3).

Potential Units in the CRAs Vacant (MUO) Wetland Total Wetland Acres Net Density Units Vacant Probability less Dwelling Transfer Total Future Land Use per Acre Acres Acreage wetlands Units (Units) Units

Comm. General 11.25 145.47 2.47 143.00 1,608.75 13.89 1,622.64 Comm. Limited 11.25 17.71 0.00 17.71 199.24 0.00 199.24 Comm/Off/Res 11.25 23.47 0.06 23.41 263.36 0.34 263.70 Comm. Waterfront 11.25 40.94 16.54 24.40 274.50 93.04 367.54 High Density 11.25 1.32 0 1.32 14.85 0 14.85 Low Density 11.25 114.29 35.79 78.50 883.13 201.32 1,084.44 Medium Density 11.25 28.32 0.50 27.82 312.98 2.81 315.79 Mobile Home 11.25 6.56 0 6.56 73.80 0.00 73.80 Industrial 11.25 168.71 8.33 160.38 1,804.28 46.86 1,851.13 General Inst. 11.25 1.17 0.00 1.17 13.16 0.00 13.16 Total 547.96 5,806.29

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 6

The table below illustrates the multifamily projects with final site plan approval that have issued a partial number of Certificates of Occupancy (COs). The COs associated with each project were identified through the Martin County KIVA reporting system.

Total Acres of Acres Units Units Units Percent Project Considered per Potential Project Built Approved of Total Phase Vacant FLU Acre Units Com/Off/ River Glen 32 104 30.8% 18.64 12.9 Res 10 129 Comm. River Marina 60 221 27.1% 17.41 12.69 Waterfront 10 127 Whitemarsh Low Reserve 146 213 68.5% 79.83 25.15 Density 5 126 Total 382

5) Excess vacant housing not in use by permanent or seasonal residents. Excess vacant housing is a vacancy rate higher than 3%* of the number of housing units in actual use.

Excess Vacant Residential Units, 2010

Residential Unit Census Data Units Total Occupied housing units (HO) in use by Line 1 permanent population. 54,709 Vacant seasonal housing units (HS) occupied less than six months of the Line 2 year 6,203 Add Line 1 and Line 2 for housing units in actual use Line 3 (HU). 60,912 Line 4 Vacant housing not in seasonal use 5,228 Line 5 Add Line 3 and Line 4 for total residential units. 66,140 Source: 2010 U.S. Census *Note: This assumption is supported in the Planner’s Estimating Guide, Projecting Land-Use and Facility Needs, pages 24 – 25, Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, 2004.

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 7

Calculation of excess vacant residential units Units Line 1 Vacant housing not in seasonal use 5,228 1,827.36 (round to Line 2 3% of 60,912 housing units in actual use = 1,827) 1,827 Subtract Line 2 from Line 1 to calculate vacant units available for Line 3 occupancy. 3,401

The 3,401 excess vacant units are allocated by location. In accordance with Policy 4.1D.4, these units are assigned to the Primary, Secondary or are assigned outside the Urban Service Districts based on the allocation Certificates of Occupancies shown in the Residential Demand Analysis, shown below.

Number of Certificates of Occupancy by Location, 2008 through 2012

Urban Service Percent of District 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Average Total Primary 274 121 185 168 266 1,014 203 91.85% Secondary 4 6 4 1 0 15 3 1.36% Outside 23 11 21 14 8 77 15 6.79% Total 301 138 210 183 274 1,106 221 100.00% Source: Martin County Growth Management, using KIVA database

Using the CO percentage data in the table above, the excess vacant housing is allocated into the Urban Service Districts or outside the Urban Service Districts, as shown in the table below.

Urban Service Percent of District Total 2010 Primary 91.85% 3,124 Secondary 1.36% 46 Outside 6.79% 231 Total 100.00% 3,401

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 8

SECTION II. SUMMARY OF THE SUPPLY OF POTENTIAL UNITS

Below is a summary of sections (1) through (5) of proposed Policy 4.1D.5 to illustrate the total number of units available to accommodate future demand.

Supply of Units Supply of Units Supply of Units Primary Urban Primary Urban Service Secondary Urban Service District From Policy 4.1D.5 District Service District (1) Vacant Land 12,967 730 (2) (a) Pre-1982 Lots of Record 1,380 369 (b) Post-1982 Lots of Record 1,608 34 (3) Mixed Use Overlay 5,806 0 (4) Multifamily projects 382 0 (5) Excess Vacancies 3,124 46 Total 25,267 1,179

SECTION III. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DEMAND AGAINST SUPPLY

The proposed language in Policy 4.1D.5 contains the following requirement:

The 15 year planning period for residential capacity began with the 2010 Census and shall be updated to a new 15 year planning period every 5 years. The residential capacity analysis showing the total residential supply within the Primary and the Secondary Urban Service Districts shall be compared to the projected residential demand as outlined in Policy 4.1D.3. and 4.1D.4 above. The report shall show demand and supply comparisons for a ten year period as well as for the 15 year planning period.

Therefore the residential demand for a ten-year and fifteen-year planning period will be compared to the amount of land available to accommodate that demand. The residential demand is taken from the 2013 Residential Demand Analysis.

2010 – 2020 Analysis of Supply versus Demand

2020 Population Percent of Need in the Urban Service District Demand Residential Supply 10-year planning period Primary 5,595 25,267 452% Secondary 83 1,179 1,420% Total 5,678 26,446 466%

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 9

2010 – 2025 Analysis of Supply versus Demand

2025 Population Percent of Need in the Urban Service District Demand Residential Supply 15-year planning period Primary 8,952 25,267 282% Secondary 133 1,179 886% Total 9,085 26,446 291%

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 10

2016 Commercial and Industrial Land Analysis

Martin County Board of County Commissioners Prepared by the Growth Management Department

Approved June 14, 2016 INTRODUCTION

Goal 4.10 and Goal 4.11 of the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) require the County to “provide for adequate and appropriate sites” for commercial and industrial land uses to serve the needs of the County’s anticipated residents and visitors. This report updates the County’s information regarding commercial and industrial future land use designations which will assist the County in achieving Goals 4.10 and 4.11 of the CGMP.

This report is made up of three parts. Part I shows the amount of acreage developed as commercial and industrial uses. Part II provides an inventory of vacant commercial and industrial parcels. This does not contain parcels that have approved site plans. A list of approved site plans can be found in Appendix I. Part III is an analysis to help guide the County’s implementation of Policy 2.4C.3 of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, which limits Commercial and Industrial land use amendments to that needed for projected population growth in the next 15 years.

Part I – Developed Commercial and Industrial Acreage

It is beyond the scope of this report to attempt to quantify the square footage of existing commercial and industrial facilities that may be vacant and available for lease. The exclusion of such properties could potentially overstate the amount of commercial or industrial land needed.

To aide in the implementation of the policy above, staff has created an inventory of acreage that is currently developed as commercial and industrial uses. To do this, a query was created in the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) using the Property Appraiser’s data on Department of Revenue (DOR) codes of property uses. All parcels are within the Primary Urban Service District boundaries. All data from municipalities was removed. A detailed methodology on the GIS process is available in the Growth Management Department. The following DOR codes were queried:

711 - Stores 732 – Enclosed Theatres/Auditorium 712 - Mixed use/store/office 733 – Nightclub Bars Lounges 713 – Department store 734 – Bowling alley/skating rink 714 – Supermarket 735 – Tourist Attraction/Permanent exhibit 715 – Regional Shopping Center 736 – Camps 716 – Community Shopping Center 737 – Race track horse auto dog 717 – Office Building 1 story 738 - Golf course/driving range 718 – Office Building multistory 739 – Hotels/motels 719 – Prof serv/Medical offices 746 – Other food proc: baker/candy 720 – Marina/air/bus terminals 804 – Warehouse condo 721 – Restaurant/cafeterias 841 – Light equipment manufacturing 722 – Drive-in Restaurants 842 – Heavy equipment manufacturing 723 – Financial institutions 843 – Lumber yards, sawmills 724 – Insurance office 844 – Packing Plant/fruit/veg/meat 725 – Repair service shops 845 – Cannery Fruit/veg/brewers 726 – Service Station 847 – Mineral process Cement Phosp 727 – Auto Sales/Repair 848 – Warehouse distribution terminal 729 – Wholesale and Manufacturing outlets 849 – Open storage junk yard 730 – Florists/Greenhouses 910 – Utility Gas Electric Telephone 731 – Drive-in Theatre/Open stadium 960 – Sewage disposal solid waste Martin County Growth Management Department Page 1 The query resulted in a total of 1,321 acres of developed Commercial land and a total of 4,815 acres of developed Industrial land.

Part II – Vacant Commercial and Industrial Land

The County strives to maintain a continuum of sites for business opportunities with a focus on sites with the correct land use and zoning, that are large enough to be buildable, and that have necessary infrastructure available or in place.

To accomplish this, the following site parameters were established: • Sites with a Future Land Use Designation of Commercial or Industrial; • Sites that have a Category “A” Zoning District that is compatible with the Future Land Use designation; • Sites of 5 acres or more; • Sites that are served or adjacent to water and sewer services; • Sites that are not located on road segments that have concurrency constraints.

METHODOLOGY

The inventory includes only those parcels in unincorporated Martin County that have an Industrial or Commercial Future Land Use Designation. All parcels are within the Primary Urban Service District boundaries. The commercial inventory includes General Commercial, Limited Commercial, Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and Commercial Waterfront.

Starting with the Future Land Use GIS layer, the following future land uses were queried: General Commercial Limited Commercial Commercial Waterfront Commercial/Office/Residential Industrial

A geoprocess was performed that attached the future land use attributes of the query above to a Parcel layer. A new layer was created that contained parcel and land use data. From that new layer, the DOR property use codes listed below were queried and a new layer was extracted.

352 – Cropland 670 – Vacant Institutional 357 – Timber Site Index 4 700 – Vacant Commercial 363 – Grazing Land Soil Capacity 3 800 – Vacant Industrial 364 – Grazing Land Soil Capacity 4 989 – Muni other than prev cvrd 365 – Grazing Land Soil Capacity 5 990 – Vacant Acreage 366 – Orchard, Groves, Citrus, etc 991 – Acreage with Nominal 367 – Poultry, Bees, Tropical fish etc Improvement 369 – Ornamentals Misc agric 992 – Vacant Acreage No Classed Ag

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 2 Next, the sites were categorized according to the zoning district designation on each site: Category A zoning district sites are compatible with the underlying Future Land Use Designation and Category C zoning districts in most cases require a rezoning prior to new development. For part of the Category A analysis, parcels were removed that did not have water and sewer services and/or had road concurrency issues. For the Category C analysis, vacant parcels with Category C zoning were extracted into a layer. The resulting Category A and Category C inventories were verified using the 2014 aerial photography. Figure 1 is a map of all vacant Commercial land before the site criteria was applied. Figures 1A through 1F show the same land zoomed in to different areas of the County. Figure 2 is a map of all vacant Industrial land before the site criteria was applied. Figures 2A through 2F show the same land zoomed in to different areas of the County.

A detailed methodology is available in the Growth Management Department.

Total Commercial Vacant Acreage before applying criteria: 842 acres

Size Category Number of parcels Total Acreage Greater than 50 acres 1 75 20 – 50 acres 9 269 5 – 20 acres 24 188 1 – 5 acres 383 310 Total 417 842

Total Industrial Vacant Acreage before applying criteria: 3,399 acres

Size Category Number of parcels Total Acreage Greater than 50 acres 10 1,917 20 – 50 acres 6 180 5 – 20 acres 23 278 1 – 5 acres 82 124 Total Industrial 124 2,499 AgTEC 3 900 Total 127 3,399

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 3 RESULTS AFTER APPLYING CRITERIA

1. “Category A” with Compatible Land Use

Commercial: 484.49 acres Future Land Use Acres Parcels Comm. General 192.81 40 Comm. Limited 46.85 37 Comm. Waterfront 163.79 13 Comm/Off/Res 40.55 22 Comm. General/Comm. Limited 5.8 1 Comm/Off/Res / & Comm. Limited 34.69 1 484.49 114 Industrial: 2,187 acres

Future Land Use Acres Parcels Industrial 1,286.77 69 AgTEC 900 3

2. “Category A” with Compatible Land Use, Greater than 5 acres in size

Commercial: 376 acres

Future Land Use Acres Parcels Comm. General 139.76 12 Comm. Limited 24.39 2 Comm. Waterfront 154.9 4 Comm/Off/Res 16.74 3 Comm. General/Comm. Limited 5.8 1 Comm/Off/Res / & Comm. Limited 34.69 1 376.28 23 Industrial: 2,125 acres

Future Land Use Industrial: 22 parcels totaling 1,225 acres AgTEC: 3 parcels totaling 900 acres

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 4 3. “Category A” with Water and Sewer, No concurrency Issues

Commercial: 17 parcels totaling 328 acres Future Land Use Acres Parcels Comm. General 106.53 7 Comm. Limited 24.39 2 Comm. Waterfront 140.04 3 Comm/Off/Res 16.74 3 Comm. General/Comm. Limited 5.8 1 Comm/Off/Res / & Comm. Limited 34.69 1 328.19 17 Industrial: 10 parcels totaling 611 acres

“Category C” Analysis

This analysis looked at the commercial and industrial parcels that have Category C zoning.

Category C

Commercial: 285 parcels totaling 357 acres

Industrial: 51 parcels totaling 1,212 acres

Part III – Plan Amendment Analysis

Policy 2.4C.3 of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan states:

Policy 2.4C.3. The county shall limit commercial and industrial land use amendments to that needed for projected population growth for the next 15 years. This shall be related to the increase in developed commercial and industrial acreage in relation to population increases over the preceding ten years.

For implementation of Policy 2.4C.3, staff has proposed a methodology to determine whether the amount of Commercial and Industrial acreage available accommodates what is needed in the 15 year planning period. This methodology assumes that the current ratio of commercial and industrial land is appropriate and that the same ratio in the future is sufficient to meet future need. Since permanent, peak and weighted average population have grown over time at the same rate, permanent population for the unincorporated area is used to show increased need for non- residential land use.

The acreages used in this analysis are from the developed land analysis in Part I and the total vacant acreage (before applying criteria) from the land use analysis in Part II.

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 5 Future Commercial Acreage

Source: 1. 2015 Permanent Unincorporated Population 130,261 2015 Population Technical Bulletin 2. 2030 Permanent Unincorporated Population 148,208 3. Ratio of growth 1.13 Row 2 divided by Row 1 4. Developed Commercial Acreage Part I Commercial Industrial 1,321 acres Inventory 5. Acreage needed in 2030 1,492 Row 5 = Row 4 x Row 3 6. Additional acreage required for 15 year population increase 171 acres Row 6 = Row 5 – Row 4 7. Total Commercial vacant acreage on Part II Commercial Industrial FLUM 842 acres Inventory 8. (Deficit)/Surplus 671 acres Row 8 = Row 7 – Row 6

Row 5 establishes the number of Commercial acres needed in the year 2030. The number of acres needed is then subtracted from the number acres available on the FLUM that is vacant (Row 7).

The result provides a surplus of Commercial acres of 671 acres. The same methodology is used for the Industrial analysis below, resulting in a surplus of 2,773 acres.

Future Industrial Acreage

Source: 1. 2015 Permanent Unincorporated Population 130,261 2015 Population Technical Bulletin 2. 2030 Permanent Unincorporated Population 148,208 3. Ratio of growth 1.13 4. Developed Industrial Acreage Part I Commercial Industrial 4,815 acres Inventory 5. Acreage needed in 2030 5,441 Row 5 = Row 4 x Row 3 6. Additional acreage required for 15 year population increase 626 acres Row 6 = Row 5 – Row 4 7. Total Industrial vacant acreage on FLUM Part II Commercial Industrial (includes AgTEC) 3,399 acres Inventory 8. (Deficit)/Surplus 2,773 acres Row 8 = Row 7 – Row 6

It should be noted that in the Industrial Future Land Use, some Commercial uses are permitted. For example, business and professional offices, hotels/motels and restaurants are permitted in both Light Industrial and General Industrial zoning districts; retail stores are permitted in the Light Industrial category. In the developed Industrial acreage, 54 parcels, totaling 114 acres, have

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 6 Commercial uses. The 114 acres represents just 2.4% of total developed Industrial acreage, therefore this is not significant to the overall results.

If the “Category A with Water and Sewer, No concurrency Issues” vacant Commercial acreage of 328 acres from Part II was used in the analysis above, there would be a surplus of 157 vacant commercial acres. If the “Category A with Water and Sewer, No concurrency Issues” vacant industrial acreage of 611 acres from Part II was used in the analysis above, added together with AgTEC, there would be a 885 acre surplus of Industrial Acreage.

Not included in the analysis above are approved, but unbuilt master or final site plans. A list of approved site plans can be found in Appendix I. The site plans were not classified as either vacant or developed land. There are 6 commercial site plans, totaling 141 acres. There are 8 industrial site plans, totaling 1,011 acres. Of those, 9 are subdivisions. Many are designed for specific businesses. This list can be provided upon request.

Martin County Growth Management Department Page 7 Vacant Commercial Land Legend Disclaimer Vacant Commercial Land "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of Major Roads merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as Figure 1 Roads to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 417 Parcels Miles 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 Vacant Commercial Land

Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" North without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as Legend to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is Figure 1A entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 ³ Acres 0 - 4.99 5 - 19.99 20 - 49.99 50 - 75

NE CAUSEWAY BLV

NE PINEAPPLE AVE

NW JENSEN BEACH BLV NE JENSEN BEACH BLV

NE INDIAN RIVER DR

NW FEDERAL HWY NE SAVANNAH RD SAVANNAH NE

NE DIXIE HWY N SEWALL'S POINT RD Vacant Commercial Land South Legend Acres

Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County 0 - 4.99 ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of ³ Figure 1B merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not Miles 5 - 19.99 warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is 20 - 49.99 entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 50 - 75 Major Roads Roads

SE FEDERAL HWY

SE BRIDGE RD

SE DIXIE HWY

SE BEACH RD Vacant Commercial Land Legend Acres Palm City 0 - 4.99

SW HIGH MEADOW AVE SW HIGH MEADOW

Disclaimer Figure 1C "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County 5 - 19.99 ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of ³ 20 - 49.99 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not Miles warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as 50 - 75 to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey."

SW MONTEREY RD SW MATHESON AVE MATHESON SW

SW MARTIN DOWNS BLV SW MAPP RD MAPP SW

SW MARTIN HWY SW MARTIN HWY

Vacant Commercial Land Legend Acres Mid-County 0 - 4.99

Disclaimer SE POMEROY ST 5 - 19.99 "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of ³ 20 - 49.99 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not Miles warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as Figure 1D 50 - 75 to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey."

SE SALERNO RD

SE WILLOUGHBY BLV

SE COMMUNITY DR

SW HIGH MEADOW AVE

SE COVE RD

SE FEDERAL HWY

S KANNER HWY

SE DIXIE HWY

SE SEABRANCH BLV

SW 96 TH ST

INTERSTATE 95 FLORIDA TRP

SW KANNER HWY

SW PRATT-WHITNEY RD Vacant Commercial Land Stuart Legend Acres

Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County 0 - 4.99 ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" Figure 1E without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of ³ merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not Miles 5 - 19.99 warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of 0 0.175 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4 correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is 20 - 49.99 entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 50 - 75 Major Roads Roads Vacant Commercial Land Indiantown

Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" Legend without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express Figure 1F and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not ³ warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the Miles results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of Acres correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 0 - 4.99 5 - 19.99

SW WARFIELD BLV 20 - 49.99 50 - 75

SW ALLAPATTAH RD ALLAPATTAH SW

SW CITRUS BLV

SW KANNER HWY Legend

Vacant Industrial Land Vacant Industrial Land Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" AgTEC without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not Major Roads warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is Roads entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey."

Miles 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 122 Parcels + 3 AgTEC Parcels

Figure 2 Vacant Industrial Land Legend North Vacant Industrial Disclaimer

"This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County Acres NE SAVANNAH RD SAVANNAH NE ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of 0 - 4.99 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of 5 - 19.99 correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is Miles entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 20 - 49.99 ³ 50 - 99.99 100 - 325 Figure 2A

NE DIXIE HWY

NW FEDERAL HWY

NW DIXIE HWY

NW WRIGHT BLV Legend Vacant Industrial Land Vacant Industrial Acres South 0 - 4.99 Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County 5 - 19.99 ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" SE DIXIE HWY without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of 20 - 49.99 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as 50 - 99.99 to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is Miles entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 0 0.325 0.65 1.3 1.95 2.6 ³ 100 - 325 AgTEC

SE FEDERAL HWY Figure 2B

SE BEACH RD

SE BRIDGE RD Legend Vacant Industrial Land Vacant Industrial Acres Palm City 0 - 4.99 Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County 5 - 19.99 ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of 20 - 49.99 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as 50 - 99.99 to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is Miles entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 0 0.325 0.65 1.3 1.95 2.6 ³ Figure 2C 100 - 325 AgTEC

SW MURPHY RD

SW MARTIN DOWNS BLV

FLORIDA TRP

SW MARTIN HWY

SW CITRUS SW BLV

SW HIGH MEADOW AVE

INTERSTATE 95 SE SALERNO RD Legend Vacant Industrial Land Vacant Industrial

S KANNER HWY Acres Mid-County 0 - 4.99 Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County 5 - 19.99 ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express SE COVE RD and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of 20 - 49.99 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as 50 - 99.99 to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is Miles entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 1.35 1.8 ³ 100 - 325 AgTEC

Figure 2D

SW SW CITRUS BLV

SW 96 TH ST

FLORIDA TRP SW KANNER HWY INTERSTATE 95

SW PRATT-WHITNEY RD Legend Vacant Industrial Land Vacant Industrial Acres Stuart 0 - 4.99 Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map SEProduct, MONTEREY received from RD Martin County SE MONTEREY RD EXT 5 - 19.99 ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of 20 - 49.99 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not Figure 2E warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as 50 - 99.99 to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is Miles entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 ³ 100 - 325 AgTEC

SE INDIAN ST

SE WILLOUGHBY BLV

SE DIXIE HWY

S KANNER HWY

SW MARTIN HWY

SE FEDERAL HWY

SE POMEROY ST Vacant Industrial Land Legend Indiantown Vacant Industrial Disclaimer "This Geographic Information System Map Product, received from Martin County Acres ("COUNTY") in fulfillment of a public records request is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, and the COUNTY expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of 0 - 4.99 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The COUNTY does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the COUNTY in terms of Figure 2F 5 - 19.99 correctness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as to the results and performance of any information obtained from the COUNTY is Miles entirely assumed by the recipient. This is not a survey." 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 20 - 49.99 ³ 50 - 99.99 100 - 325

SW WARFIELD BLV

SW ALLAPATTAH RD ALLAPATTAH SW

SW CITRUS BLV

SW KANNER HWY APPENDIX I

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REPORT APPROVED SITE PLANS Martin County, FL

Approved Site Plans The following development applications have received site plan approvals from the County. Some are free standing development, while others are subdivisions where active development has or will occur on individually platted lots. All the development applications in the table that follows are considered active.

2016 Commercial/Industrial Inventory

Table 1 Approved Site Plans

MAP NAME ACRES TYPE APPROVED APPROVAL EXP. DATE SPECIAL # SQ.FT./NO. DATE CONDITIONS OF LOTS OR CONSTRAINTS 1 West Jensen 12.53 Master 63,000 s.f. 11/18/08 Ph 3 (all PUD Par.6.1 Limited remaining Industrial parcels) need permitting by 12/30/2017 and completion by 12/30/18

2 Port Salerno 19.74 Master/ 7-lots1 11/29/05 Lots require Industrial Final Plat appr. Final site plan Park 4/25/06 approval.

3 American 12.67 Ph- 1 Ph 1 -10,000 s.f. 1/7/10 Ph 1 must obtain Prop-Share Custom Final Building, 16,500 building permits Agreement Yachts Ph- 2 s.f. uncovered by 1/7/2013 (paid) (South Half, Master boat storage and completed boat storage area and 31,000 by 1/7/2014 area) s.f. covered Ph 2- needs Final boat storage by 1/7/2015 area Ph 2- 18,823 s.f. October 2015, covered boat applicant has storage and requested a 50,000 s.f. preapplication Building meeting to

1 Four lots available. Three lots have obtained Final Site Plan. MAP NAME ACRES TYPE APPROVED APPROVAL EXP. DATE SPECIAL # SQ.FT./NO. DATE CONDITIONS OF LOTS OR CONSTRAINTS combine into one plan. 4 Seven J’s 166.10 Master 42-lots 2/3/09 Need 1st Final by North General 2/3/2013 and Industrial last Final by 5/9/2016 5 Lake 38.12 Revised 5/9/06 Time Ext. Michigan Master/ Pull Bldg. Marine Final 9,200 s.f. Permits by Facility Office Approval 10/12/15 and pending Complete by 10/12/16 6 Prism 19.20 Master/ 13 – lots 5/6/08 Time Ext: Business Final General/Light Pull Bldg. Park Industrial permits by Plat approved 5/6/2015 and 8/11/09 complete construction by 2/2/2016 7 Indiantown 97.25 Master/ 31-lot 4/3/07 Time Ext. Commerce Final Commerce & Until April 3, Park PUD Technology 2017 Park 8 Venture 103.72 Master/ 22-lots 4/12/11 Time Ext: No water or sewer, Park PUD Final Industrial Pull Bldg. except lots 6 – 14, 2- lots permits by which have an Agricultural 10/16/15 and exception for well Industrial & Ag Infrastructure by and septic until such Ranchette 10/16/16 time that Indiantown Company utilities are available.

9 Jensen 4.27 Master/ Professional 2/18/08 Time Ext: Beach Final Office 25,805 Pull Bldg. Professional sf & 5,031 sf permits by Center medical office 2/18/2016 complete project 2/18/17

10 Floridian 144.64 Master/ Warehouse 5/6/2008 Time Ext: Natural Gas Final Building/Storag Building permits Storage e Tanks by 2/2/2015 and 2/2/16 to complete project MAP NAME ACRES TYPE APPROVED APPROVAL EXP. DATE SPECIAL # SQ.FT./NO. DATE CONDITIONS OF LOTS OR CONSTRAINTS 11 Tarmac 4.74 Master/ Redi-mix 4/21/08 Deadline for Deadline for 1st Ready Mix Final concrete batch 1st Final 4/21/12 Final past due. Concrete facility Past due and last Batch plant Industrial Final by 4/21/15 12 Rybovich 8.16 Final Boat Building 5/18/06 Time Ext. 6/17/15 revised Boat Works Targeted Facility Pull Bldg. final under review n/k/a Industry Includes 5,900 permits by Ferreira sf Office 5/18/14 Marine Way 42,800 sf Complete by Warehouse 5/18/2015 13 Sands 35.48 Master (3) Buildings 4/3/07 Phase 1 Commerce Totaling approved 4/3/07 Park PH 3 459,500 sf .

Time Ext. Phase 2 & 3 Final site plan approval no later than 4/3/16. Complete all construction by 4/3/18. 14 Jensen Final 2746 s.f. Office 4/24/12 4/24/17 Beach Chamber of Commerce 15 Bridgeview 22.57 Master 99,000 s.f. 10/23/12 All final site plan Office/Comme approvals by rcial (4 10/23/17 buildings) 16 Kanner 9.17 Plat Timetable May Business acres 23, 2017 Park Table 2 Seven J’s Detail

Lot Company Project Process Activity

Lot 1 Coating Supply Inc C139-002 Approved Lots 2 & P102-005 3 P102-015 Approved Lot 4 No application Lot 5 High Times Crane P102-012 Approved Lot 6 No application Lot 7 No application Lot 8 VM Iron Works P102-043 Application under review Lot 9 Centerline Utilities P102-041 Approved

Lot 10 Ferreira Industrial P102-011 Approved Mancil’s Tractor Lot 11 Service P102-038 Approved Lot 12 No application P102-009 Approved Lot 13 No application Lot 14 Haverty's Furniture P102-010 Approved P102-007 Lot 15 Redi-Tilt P102-008 Approved Lot 16 No application Lot 17 Scammell Construction P102-028 Approved Lot 18 & Classic Golf 19 International P102-029 Approved Lot 20 Just Keep Going P102-006 Approved

Built Partially Built

The County’s development application process includes Master Site Plan and Final Site Plan options. A Final Site Plan approval is required before construction can occur. All Final Site Plan development orders mandate a timetable of development that requires permits to be obtained within one year of approval and the completion of the development within 2 years of approval. Master Site Plans are optional. They are generally less expensive to obtain and they do not permit construction to occur after approval is granted. The Master Site Plan option is often selected for larger more complex developments and multi-phased projects. Master Site Plan approvals are given a maximum of five years for completion. Within that period all Final Site Plan approvals are required for each of the phases within the development. The County’s development review process permits application for Master Site Plans and Final Site Plans to be combined into a single process. This is especially useful for permit-ready industrial projects. Application Package CPA 17-7 Altman Text Amendment

Correspondence CPA 17-7 Altman Text Amendment From: Irene Szedlmayer To: "Donald Cuozzo" Subject: CPA 17-7 Aultman Text Amendment Date: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 5:20:35 PM Attachments: CGMP.Policy 9.1G.2.docx

Dear Mr. Cuozzo:

The Growth Management Department is in receipt of the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the text of Policy 9.1G.(7) to create a new Policy 9.1G.(7)(h). The application was reviewed for sufficiency by the Comprehensive Planning Division which concluded that the application was insufficient for review.

The application can be made sufficient for review by the submission of the following information by October 15, 2016:

1. Identification of the applicant. Staff notes that your cover memorandum referenced “Fernlee” but payment of the application fee was made by Charles Aultman.

2. Disclosure of any financial interest the applicant has in property that would benefit from the proposed text change.

3. A justification statement that cites how the amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the CGMP. The submitted statement cites no CGMP Goal, Objective or Policy other than the policy sought to be amended. Furthermore, the justification statement provides no information regarding the number or location of parcels or the total number of acres of wetlands that may be affected by the proposal and identifies no specific parcels that could serve to illustrate the rationale and effect of the proposal.

4. Pursuant to amendments of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan effected by Ordinances 938, 957 and 997, the current text of Policy 9.1G.(7) is different than the text you submitted. The current text has not yet been codified by Muni-Code, but for your convenience I have emailed to you the current text. Please resubmit the proposed text as an amendment of the current policy. I suggest that the policy proposed by CPA 17-07 remain Policy 9.1G.(7)(h), but be followed by newly renumbered paragraph (i).

CPA 17-7 has not yet been assigned to a planner. In the interim, if you should have any questions, or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at 772-288-5931 or [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department c: hard cover by U.S. Mail to follow attachment to 10.4.16 email

Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Currently effective text of Policy 9.1G.2

Policy 9.1G.2. Wetlands, general provisions. The following definitions, restrictions, violations, waivers and density transfer provisions shall apply:

(a) Only manmade wetlands clearly excavated in uplands will be exempt. (b) Navigable canals connected to the waters of the State, whether excavated in uplands or wetlands, will not be exempt, if wetlands can be delineated consistent with Florida Statutes section 373.421(1). (c) Wetlands artificially created following an excavation and where there are no wetlands beyond the bank top of the excavation will be exempt. (d) Manmade wetlands that are within or directly adjacent to natural wetlands will not be exempt and will be protected as part of the natural wetland system. (e) Excavation in upland soils where there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the excavation was manmade, but not within or adjacent to a natural wetland, will not be exempt and will be protected as a natural wetland. attachment to 10.4.16 email

Table 9-4 Type of Wetland Area and Associated Soil Types

Type of Wetland Area Associated Soil Types

Forested saltwater 30, 40, 50, 67, 79

Nonforested freshwater 3, 5, 10, 12, 19, 49, 54, 56, 57, 70, 74

Forested and mixed 13, 22, 38, 40, 51, 58

Forested freshwater 60, 62, 69, 73

Source: Soil Survey of Martin County Area, Florida (Martin Soil and Water Conservation District; U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1981; Florida Division of Forestry, 1981).

(2) Negative impacts. No negative impacts shall be allowed in wetlands or within the surrounding buffer. (3) Illegal activity; wetland alteration. Restoration will be required at the site of alteration where (1) illegal activities in violation of the CGMP or the Land Development Regulations have altered wetland area so that all or part of the original area no longer meets the definition of a wetland or (2) have negatively affected a wetland. Restoration of buffers, habitat and hydrology of the original wetland area shall be required and the restored wetland shall be protected as a natural wetland. This policy shall apply regardless of whether or not the wetlands in question have ever been delineated through a binding or nonbinding determination. attachment to 10.4.16 email

(4) Identification of wetlands on-site. Martin County shall continue to require that all applications for development approval include an identification of all wetland areas on-site. This requirement shall continue to be included in the Land Development Regulations. All preserve areas and buffers designated on site plans shall be maintained free of exotic plants, trash and debris. (5) Preserve Area Management Plan (PAMP) provisions. Any application for development plan approval must contain a PAMP to protect all wetlands located on and off the site. The PAMP is subject to the review and approval of the Martin County Growth Management Department. Development approvals will not be issued until the Department has approved the PAMP. It must contain a statement indicating the County has authority to enforce all of its provisions. In accordance with the PAMP, the wetland areas on-site must be maintained. The PAMP shall contain provisions to:

(a) Remove and provide continued management of exotic vegetation and debris; (b) Revegetate the wetland area or the surrounding buffer with appropriate native plant material, if necessary; (c) Mitigate previous or potential drainage impacts, to the maximum extent technically feasible, in order to restore the natural hydroperiod; (d) Maintain the quality and quantity of natural drainage patterns, which provide inflow to the wetlands, by incorporating these areas into the project's surface water management plan. Water quality and the rate, timing and volume of runoff must recreate natural conditions for the benefit of wetlands and recurring waters; (e) Provide buffers of appropriate native vegetation adequate to assure continuance of wetlands values and function. Wetlands on adjacent property must also be protected from adverse impacts; (f) Protect plant and animal species that are rare, endangered, threatened or a species of special concern as defined by the federal government or the State of Florida (including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). These must include any species or native habitat that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), Florida Natural Areas Inventory or Martin County determines to be regionally rare, endangered or threatened with extinction, in accordance with recommendations from applicable state and federal agencies. These must also include unique and rare upland native habitats in Martin County (sand pine/scrub oak associations, turkey oak associations, hardwood hammock associations, tropical attachment to 10.4.16 email

hammock associations, coastal hammock associations and cabbage palm/oak hammock). All permitting conditions must be included as an attachment to the PAMP, and the recommendations, requirements and conditions for permit must be made part of the PAMP; (g) Provide any additional measures judged necessary, to protect and maintain the values and functions of the wetland area, including monitoring provisions to assure continued compliance; (h) Requirements for fines for noncompliance with the PAMP's provisions; (i) Prohibit alteration of preserve areas except through a PAMP amendment approved by the Board of County Commissioners; and (j) Monitor restoration of wetlands and wetland buffer areas to ensure they survive and are continuously maintained.

(6) Violations. Where evidence indicates that drainage, clearing or other development or manmade impacts have taken place since April 1, 1982, in violation of applicable wetland development restrictions in effect at the time the violation occurred, restoration shall be required before any development permits or orders are issued, or within 90 days after receiving a notice of violation. A minimum two-year letter of credit or other acceptable financial alternative must be submitted to assure the successful restoration of the violation. This policy shall apply regardless of whether or not the wetlands in question have ever been delineated through a binding or nonbinding determination. However, where there has been a binding determination by a state agency or the SFWMD, that determination will control as required by law. (7) Waivers and exceptions. All wetland alterations allowed under these exceptions shall be mitigated sufficiently to ensure no net loss of functions or of the spatial extent of wetlands in Martin County. No exceptions or waivers will be granted to these standards except under the conditions described below: (a) In all cases where wetlands alterations are allowed the least damaging alternative shall be chosen and mitigation shall replace the functions and values and spatial extent of the altered wetlands. Exceptions attachment to 10.4.16 email

shall not result in adverse impacts on plants and animals that are designated by the federal government or the state of Florida as “endangered” or “Threatened.” (b) Development plans shall provide restoration of the natural hydroperiod to the maximum extent technically feasible, and shall provide for buffers, exotic vegetation removal, long term maintenance guarantees, and any other actions necessary to assure the continuing values and functions of the wetlands area. (c) On lots of records as of 1982 to provide reasonable use. (d) Where the applicant demonstrates that encroachment of wetlands or wetland buffers is necessary for construction and/or maintenance of a public utility (as defined in Florida Statutes section 366.02(1983)), an exemption may be granted under the following conditions: 1) The construction or maintenance is for a linear facility (power line) that cannot be accomplished without wetland impacts; 2) The utility has demonstrated that the encroachment is necessary and no reasonable upland alternative exists; 3) The activity is designed and located to assure the least amount of damage to the wetlands; 4) The applicant has submitted a proposal for reforestation and/or mitigation to offset the impact; 5) Permits have been received from the appropriate state and federal environmental agencies, and copies of those permits have been submitted to Martin County prior to issuance of the County permit; 6) The Martin Soil and Water Conservation District or the Martin County Growth Management Department has reviewed the application, and has determined in writing that the proposed encroachment is the least damaging alternative; 7) The applicant has provided proof of ownership or easement over the property to be encroached; 8) A plan has been approved by the Growth Management Department for the removal of undesirable exotic vegetation as part of the restoration and/or mitigation proposed in Policy 9.1G.2(7)(d)4); 9) The applicant has demonstrated that the construction or maintenance activity will maximize the preservation of native indigenous vegetation; and attachment to 10.4.16 email

10) The utility has demonstrated that, if fill is required, the minimum necessary will be used to assure reasonable access to the property or construction activity. (e) When (1) a plan for elevated observation boardwalks or single-family residential docks, multi-slip docks, boat ramps or commercial docks has been designed and located to assure the least amount of damage to the wetland and wetland buffer and (2) the plan has been approved by the Growth Management Department as meeting all criteria of the Coastal Management and Conservation and Open Space elements, and has been approved by the appropriate state and federal agencies; (f) For proposed or approved bridges in a public right-of-way crossing estuarine waters where public access may be maintained in accordance with the provisions in Policy 8.1C.1(3)(c)4). (g) For the construction of public road right-of-way. (h) Stormwater treatment projects listed in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan and constructed by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners, as well as reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas and related facilities constructed as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in any part of Martin County, subject to the following: 1) The project must be designed to cause the least amount of negative impact to wetlands. Waivers to existing requirements will be based on the principle of protecting the highest quality habitat and impacting the lowest quality habitat. Following are example habitats ranked from lowest to highest in quality and importance: [a] Wetland buffers degraded with exotic vegetation; [b] Wetland buffers, undisturbed; [c] Wetlands, isolated and degraded; [d] Wetland systems, large and disturbed; [e] Wetland systems, large and undisturbed. Wetland quality will be assessed using criteria established by the State of Florida.

2) All projects must follow all state and federal regulations and permitting requirements. 3) Waivers to the CGMP policies or the Land Development Regulations will not be granted that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species as attachment to 10.4.16 email

listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (i) The Growth Management Department shall issue an annual report showing development approvals where wetlands have been, or are proposed to be, altered or destroyed, under the limited exceptions allowed in this Plan. The report shall show the areal [sic] extent and location of wetlands to be created to ensure no net loss of the spatial extent of wetlands. Annual monitoring reports to assure viable restoration and compliance with PAMPs shall be included. The report shall include a list of wetlands violations and required restoration.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is an informal compilation of the changes made to CGMP Policy 9.1G.(7) by Ordinances 938, 957 and 997. This informal document has been prepared by staff for the convenience of the reader. The text of Ordinances 938, 957 and 997, with the relevant strikeouts showing deleted text and underscoring showing added text are available from the Martin County website. If there is any deviation between this informal work product and the official version of the amended CGMP Policy, the official copy shall prevail.

From: Donald Cuozzo To: Irene Szedlmayer; Nicki VanVonno; Krista Storey; Toby Overdorf Subject: Re: FW: CPA 17-7 Aultman Text Amendment Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:25:21 AM Attachments: Sufficency Responce.pdf

Irene, With regard to your email of Oct 11, 2016, I offer the following on the four points, ( 1-4) 1. Donald Cuozzo / Cuozzo Planning Solutions, LLC is the applicant. We would like the amendment to be called the, "Altman Amendment" as indicated on the application. I have revised my memo of to you of Sept. 29, 2016 to reflect the Altman Amendment instead of Fernlea Land Use Amendment, (see attached).

2. No financial interest is required this is a text amendment request that effects the entire Urban Services District.

3. This a text amendment so it is not consistent with the current Growth Management Plan. I have provided you a justification, your comments are appropriate for a staff report not a sufficiency review.

4. see attached I hope I have got the numbering correct.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Irene Szedlmayer wrote:

Thank you.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP

Senior Planner

Growth Management Department

Martin County Board of County Commissioners

Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Donald Cuozzo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:20 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer Cc: Toby Overdorf Subject: Re: FW: CPA 17-7 Aultman Text Amendment

Thank You for Your Email. I never received your first one. Regarding your insufficiency letter I offer the following, 1. I am the applicant. Donald Cuozzo , Cuozzo Plaaning Solutions, LLC The cover memo will be revised to reflect the name Altman Amendment. Mr Altman is a property owner inside the USD as well as many others and has agreed to pay the application fee.

2. This amendment is for all the property within the USD. It is not possible to get all of the that info for a financial disclosure. As the applicant I own no property or have any finical interest in any property that contains a wetland.

3. This a sufficiency review not an analysis of the requested text amendment. We have provided a justification statement as required. The review of same is not part of the sufficiency and is adequate to be determined sufficient.

4. We will revise the text amendment to reflect the new numbering system but again this is not a sufficient item.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Irene Szedlmayer wrote:

Dear Don:

Here is the communication I emailed to you last week. The hard copy of the letter did not go out until today. Call if you have any questions.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP

Senior Planner

Growth Management Department

Martin County Board of County Commissioners

Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Irene Szedlmayer Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 5:21 PM To: 'Donald Cuozzo' Subject: CPA 17-7 Aultman Text Amendment

Dear Mr. Cuozzo: The Growth Management Department is in receipt of the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the text of Policy 9.1G.(7) to create a new Policy 9.1G.(7)(h). The application was reviewed for sufficiency by the Comprehensive Planning Division which concluded that the application was insufficient for review.

The application can be made sufficient for review by the submission of the following information by October 15, 2016:

1. Identification of the applicant. Staff notes that your cover memorandum referenced “Fernlee” but payment of the application fee was made by Charles Aultman.

2. Disclosure of any financial interest the applicant has in property that would benefit from the proposed text change.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP

Senior Planner

Growth Management Department

c: hard cover by U.S. Mail to follow

Donald J Cuozzo Cuozzo Design Group, Inc.

P.O. Box 338

Palm City, Florida 34991 cell 772-485-1600 office 772-221-2128

[email protected]

-- Donald J Cuozzo Cuozzo Design Group, Inc. P.O. Box 338 Palm City, Florida 34991 cell 772-485-1600 office 772-221-2128 [email protected] From: Irene Szedlmayer To: "Donald Cuozzo" Subject: RE: Altman Text Amendment Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:12:40 PM

You are welcome.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Donald Cuozzo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:31 PM To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: RE: Altman Text Amendment

Thank you

On Oct 18, 2016 3:38 PM, "Irene Szedlmayer" wrote: Dear Don: attached is a letter confirming that CPA 17-7, the Altman Text Amendment, is sufficient for review. Hard copy to follow by U.S. mail. Thank you.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Donald Cuozzo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:38 PM To: Irene Szedlmayer Cc: Toby Overdorf Subject: Altman Text Amendment

What is the,status of my sufficiency letter?

The comments and opinions expressed herein are those of the author of this message and may not reflect the policies of the Martin County Board of County Commissioners. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public records request do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. October 18, 2016

Donald J. Cuozzo Cuozzo Planning Solutions, LLC P.O. Box 338 Palm City, FL 34990

RE: CPA 17-7, Altman Text Amendment

Dear Mr. Cuozzo:

The Growth Management Department is in receipt of the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the text of Policy 9.1G.(7) to create a new Policy 9.1G.(7)(h) and your email responses of October 10th and October 12th to my October 4, 2016 email. The application was reviewed for sufficiency by the Comprehensive Planning Division which has concluded that the application is sufficient for review.

Sincerely,

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department From: Irene Szedlmayer To: "Donald Cuozzo"; Toby Overdorf Subject: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment Date: Thursday, December 01, 2016 5:05:05 PM Attachments: initial draft analysis.docx

Dear Don and Toby:

Thank you for coming to the Growth management department yesterday. To serve as a memorial of our meeting, attached please find the preliminary notes I had prepared regarding the proposed CPA 17-07, Altman text amendment. Some points in these notes were not discussed yesterday and are less important than the points we did discuss. Upon further reflection, I may identify other factors that need to be considered. The emphasis of our meeting yesterday was on the need for data and analysis to support the proposed change to the County’s wetland policies, as required by F.S. 163.3184(3)(c)2. and CGMP, Section 1.11.D (2), as amended by Ord. 938, effective August 13, 2013; Ord. 957, effective July 8, 2014; and Ord. 997, effective May 24, 2016.

I agreed that if the supporting data and analysis was submitted to me in the first week of January, I would have sufficient time to prepare the staff report for the scheduled February 16, 2017 public hearing before the Local Planning Agency.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk) attachment to 12.1.16 email

November 22, 2016 Initial Draft Analysis of CPA 17-7 Altman Text Amendment IAS

Acres in Primary Urban Services District: 65,228.55 Acres in Secondary Urban Services District Secondary: 9,769.38 Total acres in Urban Services District = 74,997.88; round-up to 75,000 acres

The applicant has proposed that CGMP be amended to allow impact to one jurisdictional wetland, per parcel, that is no greater than ½ acre, so long as the wetland is not a tidally-influenced wetland. If mitigation occurs outside of Martin County, acreage to be mitigated is doubled.

1. One wetland of up to ½ acre may be impacted regardless of parcel size. A ½ acre wetland can be filled on a one-acre parcel and a ½ acre wetland can be filled on a 100-acre parcel.

2. 75,000 acres would be subject to this policy. Applicant has offered no data or analysis regarding:

a. the cumulative number of acres of wetlands that this could affect, b. the number of lots or acres of land that may be effected by this amendment, c. the location of the wetlands that would be effected, d. the proposal includes not even a few examples of specific properties that would benefit from the revised policy. e. The cumulative impact that the change might cause to the environment

3. The proposal includes no data and analysis to support or explain that current policies are inadequate to allow or encourage in-fill development:  on lots of record as of 1982 to allow reasonable use  Buffer zones are reduced to 20 feet  Setbacks from buffer zones can be reduced or eliminated  density transfer

4. No attempt is made to distinguish wetlands of special concern, wetlands connected to natural creeks, isolated, degraded wetlands.

5. The proposed text is ambiguous as to type of “impact” to a jurisdictional wetland is permitted. This could range from completely eliminating the wetland, allowing its use for stormwater, Allowing an OSSF closer than 75 feet; providing a reduced buffer area.

6. The text is silent regarding whether a wetland to be impacted must be confined entirely within the applicant’s property or whether it could be located on a property boundary

7. The proposed policy is ambiguous whether the intent is the Primary Urban Services District or whether the Secondary Urban Services District should also be included.

8. Protection of wetlands is a long-standing and firmly-rooted Martin County policy and procedure. A significant change to that policy should occur only after thorough research, including some of the items identified above. The applicant has not done that research. Staff should not undertake that research unless this is identified as a priority project by the Board of County Commissioners. From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Toby Overdorf Cc: "Donald Cuozzo" Subject: CPA 17-7, Altman and Martin County GIS shape files Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 4:35:10 PM Attachments: GIS_Products_Policy.pdf

Dear Toby: Here is the link to access Martin County’s GIS Maps and downloads that may be of use to you in preparing the support for CPA 17-7.

http://geoweb.martin.fl.us/maps/

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Emily Kohler Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 3:53 PM To: Irene Szedlmayer Cc: Nicki VanVonno Subject: RE: meeting with you

Hi Irene,

This request would require a GIS analysis using GIS software. The wetland probability GIS data is available on the ITS GIS maps and data download website. The Urban Service District is also available for download as well. I have attached the link below for your requestor to download.

http://geoweb.martin.fl.us/maps/

Also, please be advised that we do not create custom GIS maps or analysis for the public. I have attached that ITS GIS policy.

Emily

From: Irene Szedlmayer Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 11:58 AM To: Emily Kohler Subject: meeting with you

Emily – Hope you had a nice vacation. When you have a few minutes, I need to ask you questions about how a member of the public could search our GIS system to identify wetlands of up to one- half acre that are within the urban services district.

Thanks. Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk) From: Irene Szedlmayer To: "Toby" Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:54:16 AM

Great. Thank you.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Toby [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:54 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer; 'Donald Cuozzo' Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Irene:

I will have the information to you by Tuesday evening.

Thanks,

Toby

Tobin R. “Toby” Overdorf, MS, MBA President, Founder Crossroads Environmental A Division of EDC, Inc. 10250 SW Village Parkway, Suite 201 Port St. Lucie, FL 34987-2362 Office: (772) 223 -5200 Fax: (772) 223 -5103 Mobile: (772) 260-9689 www.crossroadsenvironmental.com

From: Irene Szedlmayer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:50 AM To: 'Toby'; 'Donald Cuozzo' Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Dear Toby:

I am following up on my email from two days ago. Please let me know when you will be submitting the data and analysis to support CPA 17-7. The need for the applicant to submit additional information to support the proposed text amendment was first communicated to Mr. Cuozzo on October 4, 2016. That message was reiterated when we met on November 30th and in the initial draft analysis I provided to you on December 1, 2016. At our meeting on November 30th, you agreed to provide the required analysis in the first week of January. When we moved the public hearing before the LPA to March 2nd, I indicated it would be acceptable to submit the information by January 13, 2017.

I would appreciate submission of the required data and analysis as soon as possible and a date certain when I can expect to receive it. I thank you in advance for your reply.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Irene Szedlmayer Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 10:25 AM To: 'Toby' Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Dear Toby: I would appreciate hearing from you when you expect to submit the data and analysis to support CPA 17-07. Thanks.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Irene Szedlmayer Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 12:12 PM To: 'Toby' Cc: Richard Lawton Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Thank you. I will remove CPA 17-07, Altman Text Amendment, from the February 16th LPA agenda and place it on the March 2nd LPA agenda.

Therefore, receiving your data and analysis to support the proposed amendment no later than th January 13 would be sufficient. Thanks.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Toby [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 10:31 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer; 'Donald Cuozzo' Cc: Richard Lawton Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Irene:

The March 2nd date will be fine.

Toby

From: Irene Szedlmayer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 9:43 AM To: 'Donald Cuozzo'; 'Toby Overdorf' Cc: Richard Lawton Subject: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Greetings Toby and Don: Best wishes for the new year. Because some CPAs initially scheduled for presentation to the Local Planning Agency in January have been moved to the February 16th LPA meeting, the tentative agenda for the February 16, 2017 LPA meeting now has 8 agenda items including 3 proposed changes to the FLUM and concurrent re-zonings, one proposed change to the FLUM with no re-zoning, and the Altman Text Amendment.

CPA 17-1, Visiting Nurse Association FLUM with re-zoning CPA 17-2, Cove/Salerno Partners FLUM with re-zoning CPA 17-7, Altman Text Amendment CPA 17-6, Cove Royal FLUM CPA 17-8, Fernlea FLUM with re-zoning

Staff believes that agenda may be unnecessarily long. Additionally, Cuozzo Planning Solutions, LLC is the applicant’s agent for three of the CPAs. Would you be interested in re-scheduling CPA 17-07, the Altman Text Amendment, from the February 16th LPA meeting to the March 2, 2017 LPA meeting?

The tentative agenda for the March 2, 2017 meeting currently has three CPA items, including CPA 17-3, Bridgewater Preserve FLUM with concurrent re-zoning and CPA 17-4, Bridgewater Preserve Text Amendment. Please let me know. Thank you.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Irene Szedlmayer Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 5:05 PM To: 'Donald Cuozzo'; Toby Overdorf Subject: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Dear Don and Toby:

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

Hello:

2. I understand that calculating mitigation points it would be done on the wetland as it currently exist and NOT on the wetland after exotics had been removed, natural hydroperiod had been restored and native upland buffers had been provided. Is this correct? I do not know. Again you may wish to consult with State contacts.

3. Do you have any examples of development in Martin County where onsite preservation or mitigation was not possible and wetland credits were used? Could you share some examples? If I receive any from staff, I will provide them.

4. The justification provided is that we have run out of room for development inside the boundaries of the urban service district. According to your most recent calculations, how many years of capacity are left in the eastern USD? Sam is working on the analysis but has not completed it at this time.

5. Will this also apply to the Indiantown USD? How many years of capacity remain there? Same answer as above.

6. How many parcels within the USD have wetlands which are 1/2 acre or less and are not tidal? Will the applicant provide this information or will staff? Unknown. The Planner assigned to this application has told the applicant that they should do this analysis.

8. How many additional units could be achieved within the USD if one 1/2 acre lot on each parcel containing 1/2 acre wetlands were allowed to be developed as uplands? Unknown.. Would depend upon the FLUM designation on the parcels, and other factors.

7. I'm unclear if the amendment was intended to change the density calculation for wetlands or if it simply provides more buildable land area? I am not sure of the applicant’s intent.

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Maggy Hurchalla [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:50 PM To: Nicki VanVonno Subject: wetlands

I'm planning a public workshop to talk about the value of small wetlands on Feb 23.

Having read Cuozzo's amendment, I have a number of questions. I want to make sure that what we present and discuss at the workshop is accurate. Can you help me if staff knows the answers to any of these questions.

1. I'm told that state law pre-empts off-site mitigation and that it is not legal to require a developer to contribute dollars for more mitigation points than you lose. Can you check that with legal and with your own experience? 2. I understand that calculating mitigation points it would be done on the wetland as it currently exist and NOT on the wetland after exotics had been removed, natural hydroperiod had been restored and nativ upland buffers had been provided. Is this correct? 3. Do you have any examples of development in Martin County where onsite preservation or mitigation was not possible and wetland credits were used? Could you share some examples? 4. The justifivcation provided is that we have run out of room for development inside the boundaries of the urban service district. According to your most recent calculations, how many years of capacity are left in the eastern USD? 5. Will this also apply to the Indiantown USD? How many years of capacity remain there? 6. How many parcels within the USD have wetlands which are 1/2 acre or less and are not tidal? Will the applicant provide this information or will staff?8. How many additional units could be eachieved within the USD if one 1/2 acre lot on each parcel containing 1/2 acre wetlands were allowed to be developed as uplands? 7. I'm unclear if the amendment was intended to change the density calculation for wetlands or if it simply provides more buildable land area? From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: .5 acre wetlands Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:42:13 AM

Forwarding to save as PDF

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Nicki VanVonno Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:50 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: .5 acre wetlands

I forgot to copy you on this.

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Nicki VanVonno Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'Maggy Hurchalla'; Peggy Jennette Cc: Darryl Deleeuw; Shawn McCarthy; Public_Records Subject: RE: .5 acre wetlands

Hi We have a pretty heavy BCC day today so I am dashing this off quickly.

As you know all wetlands in Martin County are protected. Some exceptions are allowed through waivers in the Comp Plan and LDRs.

Yes we have records and you can review the files.

Wetlands are delineated in accordance with the State methodology. An environmental professional does the analysis typically. My staff verifies the delineation and usually SFWMD or DEP staff are involved in the determination.

The last statement about blowing off .5 acre wetland is wrong, but perhaps you are thinking of a situation where an area in question does not meet the state delineation criteria. Sometimes the State claims wetland that the USACOE does and vice versa.

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Maggy Hurchalla [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:10 PM To: Nicki VanVonno Subject: .5 acre wetlands

Nicki,

Can you give me contact info on the County staffers who has experience dealing with wetlands under Martin County policies.I need to understand better the practical aspects of how Martin County policies are applied when SFWMD signs off on a wetland.If it okay if I talk to them?

Does the County keep a file of wetland impacts where I could see how the policies are applied in order to let a wetland be destroyed? COULD I COME IN AND REVIEW THAT FILE?

Who in the County delineates wetlands? IF the SFWMD delineates the wetlands or the consultant delineates them under SFWMD rules which would not count .5 acre wetl;ands as wetl;ands, does the County delineate the smaller wetland or require a formal delineation under state law?

I have been told that if the District says a .5 acre wetland has low function because of invasives, that the County doesn't protect it. Is that true? If so, why is the Cuozzo amendment needed? If so, who decided that the comp plan did not apply to impacted natural wetlands if they were less than .5 acres?

Thank you,

Maggy From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: sfwmd email Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 4:14:30 PM Attachments: image001.png

From: Maggy Hurchalla [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:13 PM To: Nicki VanVonno Subject: wetlands 1 SFWMD

Nicki, The District has been most helpful in answering questions about wetland rules. Maggy

From: Parrott, Melinda Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 2:50 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Conmy, Barbara; Drozd, Jennifer Subject: RE: Regulation - Email from Who To Contact Page.

Good Morning- I’ve attempted to answer your questions below. Feel free to contact me directly if you have further questions or need additional clarification.

1. In my opinion, the county cannot require a different mitigation calculation than required by the state. Florida Statutes require consistent implement the ERP program statewide, and only two local governments (Hillsborough and Broward Counties) have delegation from FDEP (373.441, FS) This question should be directed to county attorneys. Counties have land use regulations, but authorizing wetland impacts and the amount of mitigation for an impact is determined under the ERP program using state wide methods, by FDEP, water management districts, and delegated local governments.

2. The amount of mitigation bank credit is determined by conducting a functional assessment. Rule 62-345, Florida Administrative Code, requires consideration of the current condition for an assessment using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), which is the only method to be used in the State of Florida. One of the exceptions within this rule is for mitigation banks- mitigation at a bank can use the assessment method used by the bank’s permit. For instance, many of our older banks use the Wetland Rapid Assessment Method (WRAP). WRAP also looks at the current condition of the wetland. The state would not require someone to first restore a wetland before impacting it.

3. Pursuant to Section 10.2.2.1, ERP Applicant’s Handbook Volume I, mitigation is not required for impacts to wetlands less than 0.5 acre in size unless : a. (a) The wetland is used by endangered or threatened species, (which are defined specifically in the Handbook as wetland or surface water dependent species). b. (b) The wetland is located in an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., (such as the Florida Keys) c. (c) The wetland is connected by standing or flowing surface water at seasonal high water level to one or more wetlands, and the combined wetland acreage so connected is greater than one half acre; (this is possible in Martin County and does occur) or d. (d) The Agency establishes that the wetland to be impacted is, or several such isolated wetlands to be impacted are cumulatively, of more than minimal value to fish and wildlife. (Because the burden in on the state agency, the agency would have to prove this is the case).

4. Credits are produced by a mitigation bank. Mitigation banks receive a permit that determines how may credits they have, using an assessment method (UMAM or WRAP for older banks). The mitigation plan for a particular impact, whether it is onsite mitigation, offsite mitigation or mitigation bank credits; is a proposal submitted to the state by the applicant. The applicant purchases the amount of credits needed (which is determined by the state agency) from the mitigation bank. Also, 373.4135 (2), F.S. - Local governments shall not deny the use of a mitigation bank or offsite regional mitigation due to its location outside of the jurisdiction of the local government.

Again, what powers the County has or not is a question for County attorneys.

Let me know if I can help you further.

Mindy Parrott, PWS Lead Environmental Analyst Regulation Division South Florida Water Management District 561-682-6324 [email protected]

From: Drozd, Jennifer Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 8:44 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: permits ; Parrott, Melinda ; Conmy, Barbara Subject: RE: Regulation - Email from Who To Contact Page.

Good morning Ms. Hurchalla -

Thank you for your inquiry. Ms. Melinda Parrott of our Environmental Resource Bureau will be responding to your questions regarding mitigation credits. Her contact information is:

Parrott, Melinda ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST - LEAD (561) 682-6324 [email protected]

Jennifer Drozd Permit Technician 2, Regulatory Support Bureau (MSC 9610) Regulation Division South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: (561) 682-6911, E-mail: [email protected]

Submit requests for permit information to [email protected] Submit inquiries regarding application submittal to [email protected] Statewide ERP Rulemaking information: Statewide ERP Rulemaking

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 8:39 AM To: permits Subject: Regulation - Email from Who To Contact Page.

Maggy Hurchalla (not verified) () sent a message using the contact form at https://www.sfwmd.gov/contact.

The sender's name Maggy Hurchalla

Message

Can you help me understand how mitigation credits work? Because Martin County policies require preservation and restoration on site, the county staff has had little experience with mitigation credits which are controlled by state law. They suggested I ask you.

1. Can the County require that whenever mitigation credits are used outside the county, twice as many credits must be purchased?

2. Are credits assigned to the wetland that is going to be destroyed based on its present value or on the value it would have after required restoration? In Martin County that includes a minimum 50ft upland buffer, removal of exotics, restoration of natural hydroperiod, and a committment to long term maintenance.

3. Is mitigation required for wetlands of 1/2 acre or less?

4. Can local governments determine where the credits will be used or is that a state function? Thank you for your help.

Maggy

Subject Area Regulation [1]

Phone Number 7722870478 [2]

Address United States

Introduction ------Please fill our the contact form with your email address and an address if you need publications or brochures sent. The more information you provide about what you need, the more quickly and completely we can serve you. Thank you!

About Your Email: Under Florida law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact the South Florida Water Management District by phone or in writing.

Your Email Address [email protected]

Mailing List *Mailing List:* Optional Information if you would like to be added to our publications mailing list:

Street Address 5775, Nassau Ter

City Stuart

Zip Code 34997

Captcha Instructions Check the Captcha

(This helps us protect you, other site users, and our agency from spam and other computer hazards.)

[1] https://www.sfwmd.gov/taxonomy/term/313506 [2] tel:7722870478 From: Toby To: Irene Szedlmayer; "Donald Cuozzo" Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:30:23 AM

Irene:

I am unaware of any economic study that will support or not support the proposed text amendment. We have a presentation, however it is based on the use of identified properties, rather than other data.

Toby

From: Irene Szedlmayer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:14 PM To: 'Toby'; 'Donald Cuozzo' Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Dear Don and Toby:

As you know, the first public hearing on this proposed amendment is scheduled for March 2, 2017. If you intend to rely on any report, study or technical information to support the amendments to CGMP Policy 9.1G.2.(7), pursuant to CGMP Section 1.11.G, that report must be received by the Growth Management Department no later than tomorrow, February 16, 2017. Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Section 1.11.G. provides as follows: “Consideration of economic reports, appraisals and other technical information. No economic reports or studies, real estate appraisals or reports, and/or written reports of consultants or other experts in support of an amendment application shall be considered by either the Local Planning Agency or the Board of County Commissioners unless filed with the Growth Management Director at least 14 days prior to the first public hearing conducted by the Local Planning Agency. This provision may be waived by a vote of the Board of County Commissioners if any interested party demonstrates that an injustice will occur and sufficient time is provided for all parties to review and analyze the report.”

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Irene Szedlmayer Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:54 AM To: 'Toby' Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Great. Thank you.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Toby [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:54 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer; 'Donald Cuozzo' Subject: RE: CPA 2017-07 Altman Text Amendment

Irene:

I will have the information to you by Tuesday evening.

Thanks,

Toby

Tobin R. “Toby” Overdorf, MS, MBA President, Founder Crossroads Environmental A Division of EDC, Inc. Public Comment on CPA 17-07 From: Nicki VanVonno To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: small wetlands Date: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:32:08 AM

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 3:12 PM To: Nicki VanVonno Subject: Fw: small wetlands

Cindy Hall District 1 Representative Local Planning Agency

Sent from my Verizon LG Smartphone

------Original message------From: paul laura Date: Sun, Feb 19, 2017 2:34 PM To: [email protected];[email protected];[email protected];Jim & Kim Moir ([email protected]);[email protected]; Cc: Subject:small wetlands

Dear All, We are concerned at the start of an effort to reduce our wetlands. We all know the effects of allowing the areas to be paved over and where the water will end up!! How much are we willing to go toward what has happened in Orlando and the cause of these discharges. Where will it stop. I am sure that best intentions are being made now at keeping it small but once you open this box?

Vote NO on CPA 17-07 DON”T weaken our environmental protection Reject the Plan amendment that lets little wetlands be destroyed.

Paul Laura Chair Treasure Coast Democratic Environmental Caucus

From: Nicki VanVonno To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: CPA17-07 Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:24:37 PM

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Steve Zimmermann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 4:49 PM To: Nicki VanVonno Subject: CPA17-07

We urge you not to vote for this CPA. it will allow the destruction of our little wetlands so important for birds and the environment that we love. Thank you, Steve and Mary Lu Zimmemann

Sent from my iPhone From: Nicki VanVonno To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Wetlands Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 8:52:21 AM

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Regina Wood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 8:45 AM To: Nicki VanVonno Subject: Wetlands

We are opposed to changing the wetlands regulations in Martin County. Why is Martin County different from other South Florida counties? Wetlands, even small urban ones, are important for our environmental health, and the people in Martin County are smart enough to realize that. Please do the right thing. Jerry and Regina Wood Palm City

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Save Martin Cty Wetlands! Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:23:50 AM

Forwarded to save as Adobe.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

-----Original Message----- From: Nicki VanVonno Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:47 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Save Martin Cty Wetlands!

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Paul [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:38 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nicki VanVonno Cc: Donna Melzer; Sarah Heard; Ed Fielding Subject: Save Martin Cty Wetlands!

Dear Board members

Please do the RIGHT thing here! Even smaller parcels of wetland should not be recklessly gobbled up to favor contractors.

Paul Vallier Stuart, Fl From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Wetlands Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:21:34 AM

Forwarded to save as Adobe

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Joan Seaman Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 7:38 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Wetlands

Is this one for you too?

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 5:54 AM To: Joan Seaman Subject: FW: Wetlands

Cindy Hall Martin County LPA District 1 Representative

From: reginawood Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 3:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Wetlands

We are opposed to making changes in Martin County's Wetlands regulations. Wetlands, even small urban ones, help to keep the county environmentally healthy. Martin County residents are smart enough to understand this. As long-term residents, we urge you to vote to maintain the current wetland regulations. Palm City From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: wetlands protection CPA 17-07 Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:23:22 AM

Forwarded to save as Adobe file.

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Nicki VanVonno Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 8:42 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: wetlands protection CPA 17-07

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 1:15 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nicki VanVonno Subject: wetlands protection CPA 17-07

Commissioners:

"Vote against CPA 17-07 on wetlands. Protect our water, our birds, our flooding, our wildlife, our river."

NOT preserving wetlands is one of the reasons we now have the Lake “O” discharges and Everglades restoration PROBLEM! Wetlands up stream have be abandoned, drained and paved.

What values do small wetlands have?

1) They provide flood protection for the neighborhood. If the water can’t flow into wetlands it has no place to go.

2) Wetlands act as sponges and help prevent flooding.They protect our drinking water. Wetlands clean runoff and replenish the aquifer which feeds our wells. 3) Without small wetlands, wading birds cannot begin the nesting cycle.

4) Wetlands are the key feature in the natural system that “gets the water right” in terms of runoff to the river. The river’s health depends on the timing, the volume, the rate and the water quality of runoff from rainfall. Every time we destroy a wetland, we make our river and our other surface waters worse.

5) Mitigation somewhere else doesn’t mitigate the damage to our river, our flooding, our water cleansing, nor help our birds and other wildlife. There are no mitigation banks in Martin County so the developers CANNOT double their in county mitigation bank dollars.

Let the wetlands, no matter how small, stand as they are and continue to process water as have they have historically and protect us, wildlife and human alike, from extreme flooding and long draughts.

Laureen Odlum

Citizen of Martin County

From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Wetlands Preservation, NO to CPA 17-07 Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:18:04 AM

Forwarded to save as Adobe

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Nicki VanVonno Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 11:16 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Wetlands Preservation, NO to CPA 17-07

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Dick Landrum [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 10:14 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nicki VanVonno; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Wetlands Preservation, NO to CPA 17-07

Dear LPA and County Planning Department:

It’s sad that we have to go over this and over this and over this so many times- Wetlands, no matter their size, are invaluable to the ecology of an area. Wetlands mitigation is an oxymoron- it doesn’t work. Oh, these are just little wetlands- in the history of Florida we have mistakenly allowed large and small wetlands to be destroyed, all in the name of economic development – it should have stopped decades ago – we can’t afford the loss of any more, no matter their size.

Please say “NO” to CPA 17-07; protect our environment; keep Martin County and Florida special for us and for all other living species.

Dick and Jane Landrum 2949 SW Cornell Ave. Palm City, Fl 34990 772-287-4930 From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Save Our Wetlands Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:17:44 AM

Forwarded to save as Adobe

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Nicki VanVonno Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:19 PM To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Save Our Wetlands

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Ron [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:05 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nicki VanVonno Subject: Save Our Wetlands

Planning Members,

Please Vote against CPA 17-07 on wetlands. Protect our water, our birds, our flooding, our wildlife, our river.

The Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (CPA 07-17) says that the developer will have to buy twice as many credits for mitigation outside the county so we will really be better off. That’s B.S. Mitigation somewhere else doesn’t mitigate the enduring damage to our river, our flooding, our water cleansing, nor help our birds and other wildlife. Respectfully, Ron Hutchinson Four Rivers, Palm City

From: Irene Szedlmayer To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: PLEASE Vote NO on CPA 17-07. Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:17:11 AM

Forwarded to save as Adobe

Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners Telephone: 772-288-5931 (direct line) 772-288-5495 (front desk)

From: Nicki VanVonno Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 9:03 AM To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: PLEASE Vote NO on CPA 17-07.

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Valerie Clark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 11:21 PM To: Nicki VanVonno; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Comish Subject: PLEASE Vote NO on CPA 17-07.

Dear Commissioners and colleagues:

Please vote against Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 17-07. CPA 17-07 allows wetlands to be destroyed. DO NOT destroy the Martin County way of life and its natural treasures. We do not want to be paved over and with even more traffic like the rest of South Florida, so please let's keep MC clean and green!

PLEASE Vote NO on CPA 17-07.

Sincerely, Dr. Clark

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+ Founder & President Dr. Valerie C. Clark, the Indigenous Forest Research Organization for Global Sustainability (i.F.r.o.g.s), Florida: www.facebook.com/iFrogs National Geographic Society blogs: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/author/vclark/ Research Assistant Professor, Ecology & Evolution, Stony Brook University, New York ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+ From: Joan Seaman To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: CPA 17-07 Date: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:48:18 PM

Here you go

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:26 PM To: Joan Seaman Subject: FW: CPA 17-07

Cindy Hall Martin County LPA District 1 Representative

From: Florence Chatowsky Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 1:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: CPA 17-07

Dear People; My husband and I moved here 27 years ago. We chose Martin County because IT DID NOT LOOK LIKE MIAMI, PALM BEACH, OR ST. LUCIE. It was green, tree filled, space between houses that did not look alike. Stuart had a cute, accessible downtown area. Please do all you can to preserve this livable environment for us.

Please vote AGAINST CPA 17-07.

Just yesterday we were visiting the small wetland within the Palm City Park off Mapp Road. As we were leaving the dock a small, bouncy woman came,asked if we had seen the EAGLE'S nest. We had not so she lead us back to view it.

The nest contains 2 young eagles which an adult came back to feed. As we watched a horned owl flew into another of the pine trees. Then the adult eagle flew up to discourage ,not the owl, but a juvenile eagle who had flown onto the scene. In the meanwhile a great egret, some white ibis, 2 sandhill cranes, and a little blue heron foraged below. ALL ON THAT LITTLE WETLANDS.

This is probably happening in many of those small wetlands even if no-one sees it. Please vote AGAINST CPA 17-07.

Florence Chatowsky -past president of Martin County Native Plant Society Tony Chatowsky--Former Conservation Chair of the MC Audubon Society AND VOTERS 1750 SW Coxswain Place Palm City, FL 34990

From: Nicki VanVonno To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: wetlands Date: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:57:32 PM

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Vera Parkes Casselbury [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:42 PM To: Nicki VanVonno Subject: wetlands

Please protect our wetlands for the future of our children! Vera Casselbury Hobe Sound

From: Nicki VanVonno To: Irene Szedlmayer Subject: FW: Reject CPA 17-07 Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 6:57:09 PM

Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners 772-288-5520 [email protected]

From: Mary Starzinski [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:35 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nicki VanVonno; Kathy Petteruti Subject: Reject CPA 17-07

"Vote against CPA 17-07 on wetlands. Protect our water, our birds, our flooding, our wildlife, our river." As a physician, I understand the importance of clean water. In addition, we know that clean watered, filtered naturally by local wetlands, is essential for the long-term survival of Florida's Aquifer.

Please act to keep our community clean and green. Otherwise we will lose everything that we love.

Thank-you, Mary E. Starzinski, DO Stuart, FL

12A Wednesday, February 15, 2017 Treasure Coast Newspapers MC PAID ADVERTISEMENT W ORLD 1WeirdTrick To North Korean leader Kim Naturally Boost Jong Un’s half-brother slain Your Testosterone Police say attacker covered his face with Senior menare poisoned cloth regaining their former THOMAS MARESCA glory using this SPECIAL FOR USA TODAY ground-breaking new JAKARTA, Indonesia - The older half- brother of North Korean leader Kim scientificdiscovery. Jong Un died after being attacked at AHN YOUNG-JOON/AP Kuala Lumpur International Airport by A TV screen at a railway station in Seoul, a woman who covered his face with a liq- South Korea, shows a picture Tuesday of Kim By Jim Kennedy uid, Malaysian police said Tuesday in Jong Nam, the older brother of North Korean Senior Health Journal Editor-At-Large what appears to have been an assassina- leader Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Nam died after tion carried out by a North Korean agent. collapsing at the airport in Kuala Lumpur, rug companyexecutives areworried Malaysian police official Fadzil Ah- Malaysia, officials said. Dsick afterseeing the shocking results mat told Bernama, a Malaysian news of arecent study done by scientists in site, that the victim was Kim Jong Nam, Napoli, Italy. who was at the airport to catch a flight to Jang Song Thaek, was executed in De- Macau, China, when he was attacked. cember 2013. In this study,researchersdiscovered “While waiting for the flight, a woman Joel Wit, a senior fellow at the U.S.- that acertain little known nutrient came from behind and covered his face Korea Institute at the School of Ad- can boost testosterone by up to 42% Martin County Commissioners N/A A-12-All NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS immediately commissioned his with a cloth laced with a liquid,” Fadzil vanced International Studies at Johns within 12 days in men over50. And Big Research Advisory Boardtoformulate a said. “Following this, the man was seen Hopkins University, said Kim Jong Nam Pharma is panicking,since this nutrient struggling for help and managed to ob- had long been viewed as a potential could eliminate the need for ED drugs newtestosterone boosting supplement tain the assistance of (an airport) recep- threat by his half-brother. likeViagraand Cialis. based on D-Aspartic Acid. tionist as his eyes suffered burns as a re- “He was living overseas and was criti- By supplementing their diets with this To amplifythe testosterone boosting sult of the liquid. Moments later, he was cal of the regime, and he was a potential effects of D-Aspartic Acid, six carefully sent to the Putrajaya Hospital, where he figure around which any opposition one strange nutrient, senior men across the country been able to seemingly chosen vitamins,minerals,and herbs was confirmed dead.” could rally,” Wit said. “It’s pretty clear were added to the formula. These South Korea media reports, citing un- that if you’re an outspoken opponent of reversethe effects of aging. Men have ingredients put the newsupplement named government sources, said he had the North Korean regime who used to be reported that stubborn belly fat melted been attacked by two women, suspected part of the regime, that your life is in off, that theyhad moreenergy and in class above allother testosterone to be North Korean agents. They re- danger.” drive, andthat theirlibido skyrocketed supplements currently on the market. mained at large after flee- after theyadded this nutrient to their The Research Advisory Board ing in a cab, according to diet. In this article,I’ll showyou exactly decided to name the newsupplement the reports. what this nutrient is.I’ll also showyou Test Reload, to recognize howitwas Kim Jong Nam, who theresearch that provesthis nutrient designed to “reload” thetestosterone of was 46 according to a po- older men. And when Test Reload was lice report, was the eldest boosts testosterone,and I’ll showyou CassFIidNEy’LINEs NS howyou canuse it to boost your ownT launched, amazing stories from users son of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, and was at one MakingPrivate Places levels starting today. started to pour in. Men reported that time considered the heir Beautiful Spaces Since 1979 WhyAge Related Testosterone they... apparent to rule the isolat- Advertiser: Agency: Section-Page-Zone(s): Description: Decline Is The Source Of •Feel more “ready to go,” both ed country, which has been All Your Problems sexually and mentally governed by three genera- Harbour Bay Plaza•Sewall’sPoint tions of the Kim family. 3778 SE Ocean Blvd. But first, let’sdiscuss testosterone •Have an easier time losing belly fat and maintaining ahealthyweight In 2001, he was arrested 772-286-1158 www.cassidyslinens.com and whyit’ssocritically important for at Tokyo’s Narita Airport older men. •Experience morefrequent erections after trying to enter Japan in the night and in the morning on a forged passport from Testosterone is the hormone that the Dominican Republic. GATEWAY makes men masculine.When youhave •Feel increasedintensity during He told police he wanted to high testosterone,losing belly fat, being orgam visit Tokyo Disneyland. THE ONLY "FILTER STORE" active, and enjoying agreat sexlife •Have an easier time maintaining After falling out of fa- IN THE AREA all become easy. But when youhave muscle and strength, and vor with his father, Kim lowtestosterone,gaining fat, feeling •That their sexdrives went through Jong Nam lived in exile in sluggish, and experiencing sexual the roof Macau, a Chinese island A/C FILTERS dysfunction is inevitable. known as a gambling mec- However, the success of Test Reload ca. In emails to the Japa- We SolveYo ur Odd Size Problem And here’sthe worstpart for us older has not come without problems. nese newspaper Tokyo men… Shimbun, he said the rift 781-6976 Because older men experienced such Scientists have discoveredthat amazing results with this supplement, had grown because he in- 2399 SE Dixie Hwy., Stuart • Airport Business Park testosterone declines by an average of sisted on reforms. “After I TR-1469609 Science-Based Senior Nutrition had 1% per year in older men after the age 1481060 N/A 3 Col x 5 in N/A went back to North Korea tremendous trouble producing enough following my education in Cruise by the of 30.That means a50year oldman has Test Reload to satisfy demand. Not only Switzerland, I grew fur- 20%less testosterone than he did in his this,but pharmaceutical companies are ther apart from my father Homes of the Rich & Famous prime...and a67year old likemehas lobbying to shut down production of because I insisted on re- 37% less testosterone! Test Reload, since it could threaten their form and market-opening On our Jupiter Island Lunch Cruise This massivedecline in testosterone profits from ED drugs. and was eventually viewed is the reason whystaying healthyisa with suspicion,” he wrote. Tuesdays and Thursdays However, Senior Health Journal has Kim Jong Nam also challenge as we age.And age related been able to secureasmall supply.In criticized North Korea’s testosterone decline waspreviously partnership with Science-Based Senior dynastic succession and thought to be completely inevitable. Nutrition, we areable to offer you… that he had no interest in That is,until… running the country, which An ExclusiveOpportunity remains in the iron grip of The Discoveries Of The Napoli ForToday’sReaders his 33-year-old half-broth- Study Rocked The Scientific World! After lengthynegotiations,weare er. It was widely speculat- In the study,agroup of men wasgiven able to get Mr.Livingston to agree to ed that he lived in fear for 2 hour Sunset Cruises on Fridays Ad Number: Insertion Number: Size: Color Type: adaily dose of of alittle-known nutrient aspecial deal for our readers. Fora his life under Kim Jong limited time,you cantry Test Reload Un’s harsh regime, and 2 hr afternoon Cruise on Saturdays & Sundays called D-Aspartic Acid. D-Aspartic Acid there have been reports of is classified as an amino acid, and it yourself completely risk-free for afull previous assassination at- Special Locks Lunch Cruise February 20th had been previously studied for other sixty days. tempts. Call about these and other cruises nutritional and medical uses in the past. To try Test Reload risk-free,call North and South Korean Call also for private charter information Weddings, The scientists were shocked 1-855-720-2060 now. authorities did not imme- Anniversaries, Birthdays, Corporate Groups, to discoverjust howpotent of a diately comment on re- Science-Based Senior Nutrition has Reunions, and other events. testosterone booster D-Aspartic Acid ports. If confirmed, it agreed to this deal because theyare would be the highest-pro- 772-225-2100 provedtobe. The researchersobserved confident you’ll get the results youwant www.Islandprincesscruises.com that “supplementation with D-aspartic file North Korean death Follow us on from Test Reload -- less belly fat, higher

since Kim Jong Un’s uncle, Sails from Sailfish Marina, Stuart Facebook TR-1486449 acid wasable to increase testosterone libido, moreenergy and drive, and better by 15% after six days and 42%after daily mood overall. But if youdon’t get twelvedays relativetobaseline.” these results or if you’renot satisfied NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS with Test Reload for anyreason, youdon’t have to payadime. The Martin County Local Planning Agency will conduct public hearings on March 2, 2017, Just givetheir team aphone beginning at 7:00 P. M., or as soon thereafter as the items may be heard, to review the call or email for ano-hassles,no following items: questions asked refund. 1. Application CPA 17-7, Altman: The proposed amendment of Comprehensive Growth Mr.Livingston has also Management Plan Policy 9.1G.2.(7) (Wetland Waivers and Exceptions) to allow alteration agreed to set up anutritional of wetlands that are ½ acre or less, subject to certain conditions, including that the consultation hotline for our wetland be within the Urban Services District. readerswho want to see if Test Reload is right for them. If you All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. The meeting will be held in the “After taking Test Reload, my energylevels have been have aquestion about Test Commission Chambers on the first floor of the Martin County Administrative Center, 2401 off the charts!” Toby Buttle -64, Austin, Texas Reload or if youwant to see S.E. Monterey Road, Stuart, Florida. Written comments may be sent to: Nicki van Vonno, if it’s right for you, his team Director, Martin County Growth Management Department, 2401 S.E. Monterey Road, of nutrition experts will assess your Stuart, Florida 34996. Copies of the items will be available from the Growth Management Manyother studies were later done needs and recommend anutrition and Department. For more information, contact Richard Lawton, Planner II at (772) 288-5495. which also support the effectiveness supplementation plan to youatnocost. of D-Aspartic Acid as atestosterone Persons with disabilities who need an accommodation in order to participate in this booster. To talk to anutrition expert nowand proceeding are entitled, at no cost, to the provision of certain assistance. This does to see if Test Reload is right for you, call The World’sMost Trusted Senior 1-855-720-2060.And when youcall, not include transportation to and from the meeting. Please contact the Office of the Health Expert Creates His Own ADA Coordinator at (772)-221-1396, or the Office of the County Administrator at (772) ask about the special deal set up where Supplement Based On These youcan receiveFREE BOTTLES of Test 221-2360, or in writing to 2401 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, FL, 34996, no later than three Discoveries days before the hearing date. Persons using a TDD device, please call 711 Florida Relay Reload with your order. Services. James Livingston is the Chairman & Editor’snote: Thereare only 500bottles CEO of Science-Based Senior Nutrition, of Test Reload available under our If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered one of the most trusted senior health agreement with Mr.Livingston, and we at the meetings or hearings of any board, committee, agency, council, or advisory group, organizations in the world. Upon anticipate selling out very quickly.We that person will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to hearing about the discoveries of apologize to anyone who is locked out of insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include the the Napoli study,Mr. Livingston this deal when our supply runs out. testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. THESE STATEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED BY THE FDA. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT INTENDED TO DIAGNOSE, TREAT, CURE, OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE. RESULTS MAYVARY. Wednesday, February 15, 2017