The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 03/21/1990 SCOLLIF.{I COUI,TY I]OARD OF COII~ZD~TIOI! At~ ~EA~I~ OF FROPOSED 1} Zonin~ Reevaluation Ordinance 2) Rdequate Public Facilities Ordinance ~.EETII~/PUBLIC HF.~R21~3, per agenda cf ~arch 21, 1990 VOLUHE I F. card by the Board of County Cow.~issioners, cot~encin9 at 5:05 p.=., t~edz, esday, ~&srch 21, 1990, in the County Cor4~issioners Scard r. ccn0 .eT, ltd Fleer, l'.uildtn.~ F, Collier County Government Centcr, 3301 r,,t ?amtami ?z~il, and reconvoned, at 5:30 p.m., at Laly Hiqh ~chool auditorium, 324 Lely }:oulcward, ~laplet. ~lor£da, Vlce-C~,~lr~an {ltchacl J. Volpe Cc~..t~ier. ionet Anne Coc¢:night C~..r.i~cione~ Burl I,. ~aunC~rs C~to~loner Rict~arg S. SL~nahan I:eil Dorrill, County i,anagcr }~mneth ~yl~, County A~orney ~:~lcy Lltsl~ner, Ditcctoz el Growth ~nag~ent ~:~ ~. Olliff, Asolstant to C~nty l~nager :~u. O~rbaza Caohone, ~taff Representative DeI~uty ~yron Tbor~ae iRepr., fled by: Connie S. forts, IIotary lh~blic, State of Florida at LarGe Deputy Official Court Re~orter O001 1 [tALl'ti G. RROTH.P.~, O F Collier County Courtl~ouso, Naples Florida 33962 CHAIRHAN HASSEs The meeting will come to order. (Whereupon, at 5s05 p.m., the meeting having been called to order at the Collier County Government Center, the follo~ing procecdingo were had.) CHAIRI4A~! BASSEs I~d like to make a couple of announcements, first. We're going to open the m~eti~g here right nov, and when ye close this meeting, we viii recorrvene at 324 Lely ~oult-vard at the auditorium of Lely High School. This io being done primarily for the number of people that are going to attencl this meeting, I presume, and the facilities here would not handle them. So we viii have the ir~ocation given by Nell Dorrill. And pray hard for us. (Invocation was presented, followed by a general recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.) /~R. OLLIFPs You need a motion to -- CHAIRI4A~I BASSEs ! need a ~otion~ and ir~nediately after thc motion io given and the second is extended, ye viii i~ediately reconvene. At approximately 5s30. So -- COI4HISSIONER SAUND£RSs l~r. Chairman, I will make a ~otion that ye convene thio meeting at the Lely High School 00Oil4 ' auditorim~ at 5s30 this c~ening. COIO~,ISSIOIIER OOODITIGHTs I s~ond. ~AI~N HASSEI I Mv~ a ~o~ion and a second. ~11 ~bose in favo~ {~ereu~, the ~eeting was adJ~rn~s and then r~o~ at ~ly High Sch~l auditorim where the fo11~i~ preenings were heard,) ~ID~IFI~s Folks, once again, it's i~erative t~t y~ clear the ~lt d~rs and please keep the aisles clear so t~t the Fire ~rs~11 ~'t close us up, ~ith t~t, I'd like to intr~uce our chai~n, ~X HaSG~, ~I~ H~SEs ~dies and gentl~en. ~/rs~, ~ening. I'll call -- I'll call -- (Inter~pti~ by crud noise.) CHAI~I HAS~Es l*ll call this special meeting order, but in the beginning -- you can't hear t~? Herb? I'~ sor~ y~ can't hear me. But not withstanding, we convon~ tht~ moetin~ at tho County C~I~ and continued it to here, so the opening has already been done. O00t15 We're here this evm~ing to conduct a public hearing and consider adopting local plan development regulations. This involves zoning reevaluation, adequate public facilities, and for the purposes of this meeting, we will have a brief staff presentation first, hear the public input prior to tl~e consideration of the two ordinances. Presentations will be limited to four minutes, and your time will be governed by the light activated timing dc~ice, wherever i~ is, I~hor~ is it? ~. OLI~IFFs It's over here. CHAIR/tAN HASSP-s Folks, we'll signal the end ot the four minutes. The red light light will go on. The white light will go on at the beginning. Please conclude your rm~arks before or at that time. l~otwithetanding all o! this, I would like everybody who really wants to speak be ~iven the opportunity. Redundancy is not really n~cessary, and ! know that people want to speak, so we will let th~m speak. But please recall that we too, like you, have to 9o to work tomorrow morning at seven o'clock. So -- ! just thought I'd let you kno~. UNIDENTIFIED: l~r. Chairn. an. Er. Chai~. It's i~perative that we interrupt for ~ust a moment, please. I have the Fire Harshall standing here right no~. We ~ve been trying now for the last thirty minutes, and now it is ~andatoryo I'm going to let him tell you himself so that you won't think we're Just saying it. C~AIRI~A~! H~l~s There are seats in the front here, folks. Please use them. FIRE i~A£$HALLs ladies and gentlemen, you do need to get & scat. There are plenty of seats up here. ! don't think it's a question of not having seats. There are seats. I donJt think it's a ~atter of not enough seats. UNIDZNTIFIED~ L~erybody needs to ~aintain a seat and get out of the aisles before we can proceed. FIRE 14ARSItAI,L s UIIIDENTIFZ ED s FIRE HARSIIALL s Folks, this is for your own safety. You must cooperate, He needs you. You must have a seat. You cannot proceed until everybody is seated. 14e've got thirty seats up here. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right, folks. coherence as soon as possible. Scat do~n. we'd like to Let's get moving, please. FIRE HARSHAI,I~s Okay. The people along this back door back here are going to have to sit do~no ~ere's still plenty of seats up front. UUIDENTIFIEDs Come on, guys. C~AIR~I~ HASSE: All right. Let's start this meting° Your adher~e ~ these sidle time ~les are ve~ n~essa~ so t~t ~ can g~t thr~gb ~his meeting and listen to as ~ ~1~ as ~ ~ve to. First, ~e ~lll ~v~ a presentation by T~ Ollifi, th~ Assis~nt to the C~nty ~ger. ~r. Olllff~ are y~ ready? ~. OLdies Z think y~r ~anaoer ~y ~ant to say s~thing. ~AI~N HAWSE s ~t, NR. ~RRI~s By way ot in~r~uc~i~, I wan~ i~tcate Lo y~ t~t to t~ ~tent t~C the staff will have a pr~sen~atl~ ~his ~ening ~ill ~ly be those c~nges your ~irst p~ltc hosting. I think at t~is ~int u~erstands what the s~stantiv{, issues are. You directed us to do t,~o things as i~ relates to the ordinances, the two ordinances at hand. O~e of tht~ involved a staggered certificate of concurrency process, and then some ~xplanation in terms of el&boration of a unified plan of development scheme, as well as those properties that ~ould be exempt or have vested rights. So tho st~ff pree~ntationwill be limited to those issues. If the Co~nission has questions or wants to go back to some other areas, we can do that, but in the interest of ti~e, we*11 only touch on those changes fro~ our last ~ceting. CHAIRMAN HASSEs Fine. That*e the regulations that were read over the last f~weeks, and I think most of you people are familiar with th~m. ¥ICE-~IAIRMA~ VO~PRs Mr. Dorri11~ are we going to begin with adequate public facilities or zoning roGvaluation? CHAIRP~N HASSEs Speak up. HR. DORRILLs Tom. HR. OLLIFF~ Hr. Chairman, the agenda reads that we*11 start with zoning re~valuation first, because I think there's where we*ye had tho most recent public'.~omment, and then we*ll ~ove from that into concurrency. ~" 000( VICI~-CHAIRNAN VO~l~ s Okay. C~AIRI4AN HASSE~ All right. ~r. Olliff. ~R. O~I~Fs Hr. ~i~n, in 1985 the State l~islature ~ct~ t~ Gr~th ~gmnt ~t. ~ a result of t~t ~t, all c~nties were r~uiz~ to prepare and su~it to Yalle~ssee a n~ C~rehensive Plan or w~t was call~ a Cr~tb ~nao~ent Plan. Four years after t~, in 1989, Collier County ad~t~ its C~rebensive Plan as a resul~ oi ~er two hu~r~ p~lic ~etl~s, which ~as pu~ t~e~her thr~gh a twenty-five m~ ~lic Citizens gviso~ C~ittee, alon9 with tho Colliez C~nty Pla~ing C~issi~ and along this C~nty C~issi~. AS par~ o~ t~ plan, ~h~ Citizens C~it~ee and the c~n~y a~ the Plan~in~ C~lssion rcaliz~ t~ ~here wan one r~uir~ent In te~s of concurrency t~t ~as ~oino to r~ir~ by zhe ~ta~o zo be in our plan. ~d c~curren~ an idea where ~here must be ad~uate p~lic [acili~ies, prl~rily in tcr~s of roads, water, s~er, solid waste and drainage, available [or d~elo~ent a~ the time that the d~el~ent r~uireo those OOO 1 Realizing thatt the plan also -- the planners who prepared that plan also realized that the zoning that had already been approved in this county wao of an intensity and in a location that made it very difficult for this county to maintain concurrency. So they also prepared, as a part of our plan a roquirc~nt, that we go back and we re~valuate the existin~ and unimproved zoning that was on the ground in order to try and lo-er the d~nsities and create better commercial patterns so that we could provide for those roads, water and sc~eers bettor, The resulting two ordinances are ones that have 9one through six public ~etings, and we estimate somewhere around fifteen to twenty hours of public hearinget and these are the two ordinances that are here before you tonight, The first ordinance is the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance, and rather than ~o through the entire program or the proccss, because you've heard it before, we would like to have staff~ in terms et Barb Cashone~ who will go through and simply from ~he versions of the ordinance update you as to the changes that were Dado during your first public hearing and through the Planning Commission~s two p~blic workshops in the c~eenino. 0001 i 10 The packages t~,~t you have have the February 20th agenda, and all of the highlighted sections within that ordinance are the ones that have been changc~ since that date through the public hearing process. The colored sheets that are there are so~e additional staff recommended changes t]~t are not included a~ part of those Planning Co,mission proposals to you. So the ordinances that you have in your hand or in your packet is the one thaL is recommended for adoption to you by the Planning Co.~ission. COI~.ISSIONER BHANA~AN~ Is not included? ~fRo OLI, IFFz Does not include those pink sheets that are thoro as attach~ntmo VICE-CHAIRHAN VO~,PE~ Hr. Olliff, you said February 20 or is it Hatch 20th? Is this -- C~A3:RHAtl IIAS/~EI NO, Februar~o VIC£-CI~AIRKAN VOLF£~ February 20° liR. OLLIFF~ Febrvary 20th version is what those changes wore r~ade to, so that ~as the last draft. Those changes would have boon nado to that. ~:I~. OLLIFF: £arbara, wt~h ~h~ ~hy do~'.t you give 'o o 11 CHAIRI,'J~I! HASSE~ Barb Cashoneo I:S. ¢~HOlet tlith t~t, I'll begin to go thr~gh the c~ng e~. ~e ~ir~ c~nge ap~ars on page ~hree. ~is Zonl~ R~al~ o~lnance. Page ~h~ee~ ~ls is a s~aff ini~ia~d c~nge~ and ~s a ~nor ~anguage change. refers ~o c~rcially z~ pr~er~y. ~is has b~en c~ng~ ~o c~rcial ~ls c~ng~ has been ~de in f~r places in ~r a~ Section 3,2, ~ t~t c~nge d~s i~ take into acc~n~ c~crcially z~ tracts a~ ~. ~re ~as s~ c~fusion that ~ saying c~ercially z~ t~t c~rcial trac~s within ~'s w~ld not fall u~or that 19~1 ti~e fra~e~ and this was to r~o tha~ confusion. VICE-~AI~N VOLPE~ Do we want ~o say z~ desig~t~? I mean ~ust ~o ~alk abou~ c~ercial proper~y kind of -- ~= not sure what -- h~ we identify w~ is c~rc ia1 ~ld It be in the ~ itself? liS. CASHO~IE~ It woul~ be idon~ifiod ~n ~he ~ as a 00013 12 commercial tract, yes. The secomt change appears under co~patability determinationo on page six. The first change is to Section 2o4.5,1 on page six where we have changed at least fifty percent on both sides to -- excuse me. #here we have changed more t~n fifty person to aZ least fifty percent. That was a minor change, in staff es opinion. The second change in that section on page six is on corner lots where wc look across the street on a corner lot rather to the rear of the property. Because corner lots hzve two side yards, one is to the rear, that on corner lots we will no~ go across the street and take into consideration coam~rcial on that side, CHAIPJ4AIq XJ~SSEI Nhere does that sho~ on here, Ms. Cashone? That sho~s in Section 2.4.5.3 on page HASSEs All right, l'ye got it, The next change is on 2.4.6, which is also on page six, and this refers to the conveyance exe~ptiono We have changed that to include a substantial interest to any governments! agency and that the recorded 0001.1 13 will be if appropriate for that conveyance. The next change is occurs on page eight, Section 4.1, commencement of construction definition. And the change here is that we are no~ talking about the commencement of construction aa being infrastructure only. Before it also allo~ed for a building to be on a ami that to be co0~encement of construction. CHAIP. I~ HASSI~ Which one? Please make reference to which section. F~S. CASIIOIIEI ?age eight, Section 4.1, T~e next change was on Section 4.11, the definition of l~provod property, ~his definition was a~ended to allo~ for unified plans o£ development to have their definition of iN. proved property for a unified plan of d~velopment to be commencement of construction, Section 4,2 -- excuse me. Section 4°22, page ten° VlC~-C~AIRI'J~ VO~,PE~ l~s° Cashone, could you do~n ~ust a little bit, please, MS° CASHONE ~ ~ure° V1¢£-¢H~I~I VOL?8~ Just a little bit. ~S. CAS,Ot~ Section 4.2.2 on page ten'-- I'm sorry. 4.22 is the definition in unimproved.pYoperty0 and 000 ] 5 14 that change was ~ade in response of the definition of t~proved property. We needed to allo~ for unified plans of development in the unimproved section as ~ell. The next change is on Section 8.3, which appears on page thirteen, and this r~fers to the notice of consistency. This is a staff and minor language change that would allo~ us to do some exe~ptions up front and also to notice those Property o~ners and having the~ have the ability to apply for those exmeptions later on. It was felt that this would allo~ us quicker processing ti~e to get the notices out, and it would also provide property o~ners notice that tho~ are in fact lr~onsistent but exmepto Otherwise, they would never know if they were consistent or exempt, so this is another reason for that change. Section 8.3 also refers to the ~all out being returned receipt requested. We have done some initial cost esti~ates~ and it would be approxi~ately seven to $8,000 as compared to regular mail, which would be approximately $1,000o The next change appears on 10.1, which is page fifteen. This change also occurs in 11.1 under the vested 00016 15 rights on page seventeen, and this allows for the property owner in a unified plan of develc'pment to apply for the portion of the property that he has ownership In, rather than having that ownership or control over the whole unified plan of develop~ont. The next change is in Section 10.6.5 and Section 10.6.1.6, both appearing on page sixteen. And these were additional criteria suggested at the Planning Commission to be considered in a comparability exception. The next change appears on page sixteen. Tn this aection, we have deleted Section 10.6.1.8, and that was replaced with tbs section on development agreements that appears later at Suction 12. The next section is on page eighteen, Section 11.6. VIC£-CHAIP, vJ~ VOLPEs ~s. Cashone, ! notice that there are a number o! instances where you have removed the date April 1st and you have put the effective date of the ord inance. ~lt. CASHONEf Yes. ! have noted that as the change and will note elsewhere where it appears in the ordinance. VICE-CHAIRI~I VOLP£: Okay. . 1~$. CASItON£: The next change ia ~n phge eighteen, 16 Section 11.6. We have deleted the time frame that existed in the ordinance, liniting it to a half hour before the hearin~ officer. Section 11.10.2. we have extended the time frame to be two years from the date of whatever development order is approved, rather than two years from the -- CHAI~ ItASSEs Please refer to this page, please. NS. CAJOlEs !*m sorry. CHAIRNAN HA~SEs That would be -- repeat that again, please. NS. CAtI~ON~-s Page twsnty-one. And that would provide for a t~o-year tin frame from the development order that was issued. Section 12 is the a~ction that*s permitting development agre~enta for co~patability exc~ptions and also for vested rights. And that's on page twenty-two. Section 15 ia the change of the effective date, and that will coi.cide with the stipulated settlement agreement which is pzo~ected to April 24th. That change occurs in four different places in the ordinance~ Secticns 8.1 on page thirteen, Section 11.2 on page seventeen, Section 11.9.2.2 on page twenty, and Section 00018 17 15.1 on Page twenty-two. CHAZRNAN HASBE; That conclude what you have? ~S. CASHONE; That concludes the changes by the Planning ecx~misalon from their three -- two public hearings. CHAZRNAN liA~/~E~ ! don't see any particular need to changes in what you have here. HS. CASqlONE~ There are three -- four suggested staff changes on the colored sheets. VICE-CHAIRJiAN VOLPE= Could we go back ~usk a s~cond to Section 12. I~Lg. CA~OI~ ~ gure. VZCE-CflAZRJ~AN VOLPE: ~u~t some explanation as to -- CHAIRHAN flASSE~ Page, Commissioner. VICE-CHAIPJ~N VOLI~= Z'm sorry. That's page twent¥- two. Just by way of explanation, if you could explain to us what that*s o- if you could explain to us what that is intended to acco~plish, what that provision provides for. ~$. CASflOr-lEs That provision would provide for a development agreement to be entered into during a co~patability exception when there are cerkain'com~itments that need to be made and they need to average intensity and · 00019 18 density ami be consiste~t with the plan, that this can be done through a development agreement and there will be a local ordinance, as well, that will coincide with this section, for the implementation of it, VICE-CHAIILtI~N ¥OI, PE; Okay, C~AIR~J~ H~;SB; Would you continue with what your changes, you were ~ust Sl>oaktng of, on the pink sheet. Nit, OI, I, IFF; Hr, Chairman, if I could mention one thing, On page twenty-two, Section 13, under the effective ~ate, Nr, l~errill and ! discussed that-- (Interrupting by cro~d noise.) CHAIRNAN HA~SE~ Nuts, Get close to it, HR, CUYLER; Hr, Nerrlll and ! discussed Section 15, page twenty-two effective date, havino that read; This ordinance shall take effect upon the effective date of the remedial Comprehensive Plan a~end~ents as opposed to the adoption. As you kno~, we have to send our ordinances to the Secretary of State, and there is a tine lag of eight or ten days usually for an effective date, and that's the way that section should read. · · o CHAIRNAN HASSE~ k~at's the suggestion y~u have for 19 the time? HR. CUYL~It~ Xt doesn't have to ba any specific data in there. It will ~ust read take effect upon the effective date. CHAXRHAH HASSE$ Okay. HR. CUYLERt O~ the remedial, as opposed to the adoption. CO~Z~.ISSXONFR S1tM~: ~Ioption by the county; is that what that is? HRo CUYI, ER: Yeah, by the county. I~Ro Ot~-lflf~ Adoption is out. CJIAXRJ4AN HASSKs Een, will it be at tho time we adopt it or when it goes to the state? ~R. CUYI,£Rs It will be upon the effective date. Your adoption has a slOntficance, but in fact that ordinance is operative when you gat it back from the Secretary of State and receive notice that it*a been filed with the Secretar~ of State. It'~ only a r~atter of a fe~ days, but ~t's an important distl~ctiono VICE-CHAIRMAN VOI, PEs Mr. Cuyler, though, does this means that this ordinance will not become effective until O0{J ! 2O we've got final acceptance of our DCA settlement agreement? J4R. CUYLERs !~oo leo're only talking about in here the remedial Co~prehensive Plan auendments that we will adopt in ordinance form and then send to the Secretary of State. The key -- OOJ~ISBIONER SAUHDERSs 14r. Cuyler, I'n~ having a hard ti~e hearing you. You need to move the mike around. POt. CUYI. rR, The significant -- the answer to your question is no. The significant date is the effective date of the ordinance, as opposed to the adoption of the ordinance. ~e're not talking about anything to do with the Depart~ent of Community Affairs. We*re only talking internally when we adopt these remedial Comprehensive Plan amendments by ordinance. We have to send that ordinance to the Secretary of State, and then lt*s effective upon our receipt of notice that it's actually been filed with the Secretary o~ State, and we want to =dko thio ordinance effective on tho effective date of that ordinance, as opposed to the adoption date. VI CE-CHAI Rl~4q VOI, PE: Okay. 21 ~I~ ~SE~ Fine. #ould you like to speak on the yello~ sheet no~? !~. CASHOHEI The first o[ the reco~nended staff changes are a~-nding Section 2.4.7.3, on page seven, and this has to do with the up front -- VICE-CHAIRI~N VOI, FEs Hold MS. CASHOi~s This ~as to do with the up front exemptions on conveyances° Thts is staff recommended language that the exception under 2.4.6, which is the c~nveyance exception, shall not run with the land a~d shall not be transferable from owner to owner but shall be personal to the owne= who obtains the exemption. This is suggestod by staff because this ia an up front ex~ption0 and it's limited the application to the o~ner who has plac~d substantial rcliance on the conveyino of property to the county° and that is the roason for that requested change. CHAI~ HASSE~ & question, I~ the ownership changes~ in other words° the exc~ption does not go with the new o~ner? Is that what you're indicating? · ~$o CASHONE~ That's correct, That would be a consideration under Section 11, under vested rights, but could be considered ii they would pursue that avenue under vested rights. COMMISSIONER understand the rationale for that. CHAIRNMt HASIIEs I don't know. H{t. liERRIl,l,s The rationale for that, Cou=lssioner0 is that under the law there is a question of whether -- the law goes both ways-- as to whether or not -- {Interruption by cro~d noise.) HR. NERRII,I,s ~he la~ -- the law of veered rights goes both ways as to whether or not it would be transferable from o~ner to o~ner or whether it would run with tbs land, and the of idea of substantial reliance generally goos with the o~ner in this c&se~ so we telt that to make it a clear ~xomption that it would be so~ething that -- that that particular ~xe~ption should be by owner. {towover, that consideration could bo made in a vested rights determination under Section 11. CO[~lg, II;9IONER SAUIIDERS{ ! would like to direct this to I guess In terms of that particular language, what is the benefit to the con~.mnity in terms we adogt this particular language? I understamt the legal ratiormle for that language, but I'm not sure ! understand what the benefit is to the co~ftmnity. ~3o CASHONE** r th~.nk it had to do more with the fact {Interruption by crowd noise.) KS, CASHONEz ! think it had to do more with the fact of it beirq an up front exe~ption and being conveyed to the owner who bad the substantial reliance in conveying that property to the county. CHAIRIiM! HASSEs Yeah, but the owner has already obtained that VICE-CHAIRMAN VOI, PEs #e have already received the benefit of it. The dedication has already been made. ~.S. CASItOtIKs That's correct. HR. ~iERRILY, s In some instances, I think it*s -- CHAIRI4AN say a few words. COMMISSIOneR GOODNIGHT~ Barbara, my question to that would be that -o T mean if we were doing it only for the o~ners, then if something happened to the owner and the owner passed meay and this property was given to their children, then it's going to be taking away from them. ! mean, regardless of whether -- (Interruption by cro~d noise.! COH~II{glONER OOOD~T~ I mean ! think that we need to look at this as being the land instead of the person that's o~ning the land. CHAIRI4AN HASSE$ Okay. Folks, I think we can hear you better than you can hear us, so let's cut it a little down so we can move on thiao We get your -- (Interrupting by crowd noise.) C{~IPJ4AN {t~l{E~ That sort of stu~£ really isn't necessary. {~e can hear you. we kno~ what you're saying. You will have adequate opportunity to talk. I think Mrs. Coodnight is right, and ! wonder ho~ this was arrived at. Mi{. CASHOI~s Again, this is a policy issue. As Mr. Merrill said, it does go both ways in the case law. Host of the other exemptions do run with the land, and it is a policy decision. This was staff reco~uended change, 'and if you would 00026 25 like it to go back to the exmsptiona basically ~unning with the land in all cases, that's something we can certainly ~I~ H~SZs We will l~k into ~ha~, ~hen. ~ c~ wag tht we ~ve already receiv~ the benefit of ~t c~ance. ~a~ Is, the ~e~ental ag~cy ~s r~eiv~ the benefit of the co~eyance. I'm ~ sure I understo~ w~ld not ~n with the la~. relia~e, but ~hls w~ld take off ~he ~ trot ~tion a~ thr~ it back into the ~S. C~HO[~Es Essentially, i~ th~ would ~o thr~h a vest~ ri~hte dete~ifla~lon under S~ti~ 11, then it c~ld ~n with the la~ t[ th~ were gete~in~ to have vested rights in the pretty. ~l~ HASSE~ H~ can y~ dete~ine t~t if y~ve already sa~d t~ it doesn't? VICE-~I~ VO~PE~ ~Io. they ~ust said it doesn'~ ge~ an up front ~. C~SHO~IE~ ~is is for an up fror. t ex,priori 000 ' before they even go through the process. ?hey would not go through the process othervise. They vould be granted this up fro~t ~maption. CHAIRIO~N HA$SEs As long as they're not -- it's not precluded that it wouldn't be granted in that case. ~IR. I~ERRI~.I~s P.r. Chairman. CHAI RNA~! HASIIZs Okay. Nit. NERRIM, s If ! may make one other point, and again as Barb has indicated, it is a policy issue. I think that legally you could go either way on this, but I think the idea was that all of the other exemptions 9enerally involve all the different parts of the vested rights test, both the type of per, it involved and then some type of substantia! reliance that the developer or o~ner has roi fed upon. ~ith re. ilard to the dedication, he-over, that deals only with substantial reliance which that o~ner relied upon, and we have not required any condition of a building permit or any other type of development order. And oo in the inst~ance where maybe it was a cont2'!bution made ten years ago and nothing has been done on the property since then and it may have ch~nge~ hands a 000 S 27 number of times, there was a concern about that property being vested up front in an exemption, as opposed to having to go through a vested rights procedure under Section 11o But again, fro~ a legal perspective ! think you have the optio~ to ~ake a decision either way. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Are you saying, Mr. Merrill, that you ~ay have a situation where the property owner who Would have the benefit of the up front exemption is not the person who actually made the dedication or the conveyance? MR. ~EltJtll, r.,s 'l~Mt certainly could be the case. For instance, the property owner may have made a dedication ten years ago and sold the property three or four times over, and that's what this exemption would catch. There ma}, be other -- of course, there are other instances that it may catch. It could catch a person who made a dedication yesterday and transferred tho property over to~orro~, and it would catch that same person. But it's primarily intended as an up front exemption to not allo~ It to run with the land on that one instance for dedications. V~C£-CHAIRMAN VOI, PE ~ Okay. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ I ace what you mean by that. 00029 28 ec~misaloner Ooodnight, CON~ISSIOICL~ GooDs. elf, s Couldn't we ~t a t~me frame the thing? Y~ere ~lktng ~t ten years. C~ldn't ~e put a ti~ fr~ ~ it as far am t~ la~ being vest~ ~e= ~t time frame? Bill, You're saying put a time frame on how far we go back on the d~dication? C~AIRKAI! HASSEs Well, no. The transferability of this property within a period of time I think is what Mrs. Goodnlght is saying. Nlt, ~L'RRI~s Which way? You mean -- I don't understamt. You mean boy far -- HR. OLLIrFs Let me give you an example. She's talking about a case where somebody may have dedicated a piece of property and we'll go ahead and draw a line and say five years back, and anybody who dedicated Property within a matter of the most recent five years would fall into this exe~ption, those others would not. Is there a way we can do that. I!R. MER£ILL: I think we could do that under tho case law. Well, under what we've been doing also we have to draw the line somewhere, and ! think that if this Board felt that going back further than five years was unreasonable, I think we could draw a line there, as long as we had that type of a rationale and finding. CHAIR)tAN HASSE~ ~Jhat, five years? Five years you spoke of? MR. NL'RRILI, f Well, whatever the number of years that you choose, as long as we -- you know, that we feel that time period has given them sufficient time to either develop or give up their rights. CHAZRJ4AH J~ASSEs ~hat is considered sufficient time~ three years, two years, five years? What do you call it? ~4R. IqERRII, I,~ Again, one other thing that Z would like to cell your attention to is that this -- T said give up their rights, what I should have said is that either develop or be subject to the vested rights procedure later on in the ordinance, rather than an up front exemption. CO~Z$SZOIqER SHA~iAHJ~lz Bill, if we approve the ordinance as is, however, it is transf, erable from owner to owncr~ is that correct? 3O ~Ro NERRILLs ~hat is correct. CO~I SSIO~ER SHANAItAN s Okay. ~ank ~I~; ~SEs But d~s the ~tion exte~ with that -- ~. ~RILLs Yes. ~AI~ ~s ~er to ~er? ~. ~RI~ Yes. ~AIR~ ~ASSEs ~ t~t's the case. ~. ~I~s Do y~ wan2 to repeat those n~ors? ES. CASHOI~ ~e n~t c~nge I ~ve ~o on page nine u~er ~ho deflnttl~ of i~r~ pr~er~y where unl~i~ plans of d~el~n~, stair is rec~ding ~t i~ r~uire8 the s~stantial c~~t o~ c~st~ctt~. ~o way it's in there ~, t~t ~rd s~stan~ial t8 not in ~here. ~e last c~n~o fr~ staff Is ~he ~AI~ ~ASSEs ~, s~otantlal c~enc~en~ construction. ~. CASHO~r On the unt~i~ -- ~[AIR~H Jf~SEf Define t~t for ~. C~O~ It will va~ fr~ case to case. In s~e cases, it ~ld be s~stantial in te~mo of layin~ the infrastructure and a larger portion o[ the 'tract, ~nd in 000 -, 31 otl~r cases it ~ay vary £ro~ case to case. It will be a r~vie~ of the facts in t~t ~rti~lar unifi~ plan of d~el~t. VI~-~IR~ VO~s ~o is going to ~ke that ~. ~O~s ~t detemi~ti~ will be mdc ~ the VI~-~I~ V~ ~ then i~ there's disagre~t tn t~t r~a~, ~ ~ld go thr~gh a hearing officer a~ then ulti~tely to the Board of C~nt~ C~issi~ers? ~. ~~s Ii ~bere~s a disagre~ ~er ~h~ w~ld tb~ be s~t to the o~inance b~ause then ~h~ w~ld be unl~r~ pr~rty, no~ i~r~g pr~er~y. If tb~ fall ~ undor this definiti~, tb~ are not co this ordinanc~. ~. O~LI~s Conorally, the wholo idea bore was ~ha~ wo wore talking ab~t ~ster plans of d~el~en~ where an infras~ructuro al~e was 9sing ~o b~ used as well as building ~o dote~ine whether or not'i~ was an impr~ed property. And so rather than c~ncment of construction 000 . 32 definition, if you go to that if simply says anything that requires a building permit basically. And in the case of a this county, a building p~rmit is required for the infra side, and we didn't think it was good ~udgment to say that that alone was going to exempt that entire pro, eot. ~o we also included the idea, though, that some pro~cts would do all of their infrastructure up front before tb~y build the first buildino~ so in that case, we think that that ought to be an t~proved property as well. So this ~ust makes a Judgment call in terms of both infrastructure ami tho buildings above the ground. CHAIIDiAN HA~SEf As long as the people have a right to appeal to the Co~s~tmmion In that respect. ~R. OLLIFI~s Yes, mir. CHAIPJ~A[I HASBP-s ~o ahead, l~s. Cashone. ~lt. CASI1ONEs ~he next itm is an addition to page ton, a ne~ subs~:tion under the definition of lot. And thia nM definition wocld be the least fractioned unit of land under c~ o~ership which has limited, fixed boundaries deocribed by a final local develownent' order or final site dc'velow~en t plan. Thia was felt to be needed in addition to the second 0OO34 33 ite~, which is a metes and bounds description which is recorded in the clerk's office. Basically, when you come in for a final local development order, which could be a building permit or a final site development plan, those are not recorded with the clerk's office, and they could be a definition of a lot. CHAIRMAN HASSEI Any question on that? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs Hr. Chairman, not on that particular section, but ig X could lust go back to the substantial coe~ence~ent of construction, Ms. Cashone. A definition of unimproved property, which is In Section 4.22, four point twenty-two, shouldn't we have there where there ham been -- where we're talking about unimproved properCy, we should talk about where there has been no submtantial coe~encement of construction for since consis toncy? MS. CASHO~tE ~ well? Yes, That's correct. VZCE-CHAIPJ4AH VOCPE~ So we ought to put it there, as we're going to add it at all. But.if it is going to be added, it needs to be in both places. MS. CASHONE~ That's correct. 34 VXCE-CHAXRNAIq VOl, lEt All right. C~AXRMAN HA~SEt Anything else from the ~. ~s~o~f ~e final chanoe was ~he chan~e ~essed out on the orange sheet, the orange colored sheet. ~d this ~s a change -- this w~ld be a n~ s~s~tt~ ~er ~ti~s, ~ this c~ ~ at a ~lic hearing not long ago a~ it ~s to do with S~ti~ 2.4.7. It*s 1~ cost housing fu~ ~ f~eral, s~te or l~al g~e~ent. ~. O~IFF~ ~h~s was the it~ t~t was brought up back at the Board's las~ p~lic hearing, and we ~d Board dir~tt~ ~o go back ~ l~k at t~ hheru was a wa~ we c~ld d~el~ o~ la~age for ~erally f~ ~ of h~atng t~e of pr~r~. ~ls lo t~t language, and I think ~ d~o that. ~t's been r~t~ed ~ beth Bill and the C~nty Atto~'s O[[ice. ~l~ ~8Es FAne. A~ o~her ~estlons? ~AX~ H~SK~ All right. X ~ess Lhis As ~he ~ime ~or ~he p~lic hearing n~. CO~SS~O~E~ SA~S, ,r. ~ai~n ~us~ one clarification on ~ha~ q~ion 2.~.7. X*m no~ sure exac~l~ $5 where that fits MS. CASHONE: That would be a new subsection, Commissioner, and the rest of the sections would be r e~umbered. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERSs Thank you. C~AIF~4MI HASSEt Okay~ Mr. Sau~ders? COMMISSIONER SA~-NDER~ t Yes. C~ATRMAI~ HASSE~ Okay. I have had a request. First of ell, you know there is a four minute ti~e limit here on ~he s~eak¢=s. T have had a request from .Mr. Kessler because he ha~ sc~nep~oce t:o go. Is Mr. Kessler here? CHAIRMAN HA$SE~ L~ok, deco~ is necesse~ here. MR. KE$SLER~ My so~el~lace to go is to ny ~ome where :ny w~e is dying a cancer. ~o Z wou~d a~rec~a~e i~ you undera~ me. ~. KEBSL~z Mr. ~i~n ond ~ers of the Co,mission. Ey na~e is J~es K. Kessler.. I live a~ 3175 Green 36 Dolphin Lane in Naples. I a~ chairman of the Citizen~ Political Committee. I~y reason for being here tonight is to tell you that I have hired an attorney, a land use attorney, to evaluate for my purposes and my committee~s purposes tbs language in the two ordinances that you have before you. I have distributed to staff some time ago, your legal staff, and some of the Co~aissioners that I was able to reach, the suggested changes for the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. And I~m not going to go through them. I couldn't do it in £our ~inutes if ! had to. ! don't thirst you want me to do that. But I~m going to tell yeti the theory, the legal theory behind which I propose these changeo. It says: The following changes ~o the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance draft are being sugges=ed to make the ordinance consistent with Colli~.r County Comprehensive Plan and tbs Growth ~nag~ment Act. Wee11 Just point out a couple of tile areas that we think are inconsistent. There are ten ~&ges of suggested language changes, most o~ which a.':zn~ t terribly important. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You can address tbs section in there OOO88 37 that has been presente~ to us, can't you. ~. KESStEqts I'm starting with page eight, e×e~ptions. We have chang~ s~e lan~age in ex~ons. ~e believe ~hat the ex~ptions are ~ar t~ broad, tha~ ~ny land ~ers ~ho are ~~ here sh~ld go thr~gh the re~alua~ion pr~ess lot t~t ~at'a basically the theo~ behind what we've said. ~e -- one other ma~or change. ~e beli~e ~t under the law, the gr~th ~nag~ent law, the Act of 1985, 163, is that the da~e for which ex~ptions and devel~nt orders u~der ex~p~i~s ~e s~at~ to be ~be date of the ad~tion of tbe county's ~reh~sive Plan, which is Ja~ua~ 10th, 1989. ~ose duvel~ent orders ~s~u~ after t~t are not subJ ec2 to H~er, that does not mean, as s~e pe~le ~ve been t~ing to say, ~t pe~lo will be l~k~ ~t o~ their land. It silly means t~t th~ eh~ld be ~t~ ~o go thr~gh the regula2ions a~ pr~es~es that ge~ th~ where th~ want to be. ~at date c~nge goes through page n~ne. Page ten and under applications for 1~al d~elo~ent order, certain other d~elo~ent order~ prior to not appr~ed by Janua~ 00O39 38 lOth, and it goes on to say, below that -- if you don't have these sheets, it's very difficult to follow me, But we -- as for the deletion after that, o£ two point four point -- 2.4.4.1 through 2.4.4.4, which would make sense to you ii you made those changes. we feel that the proposed criteria for comparability determination should be limited to two acres and not ten acres. And that goes to then the hex~- -- the rest of that page where we say but not including exempted property. Under 2.4.$. (Interrupting by cro~l noise.) CI~AIRMAN HASSEt All right. Would you accord tho gentleman his day at court, please. Ev¢:rybody is going to have an opportunity. I didn't see a light 0o on, did I. MR. O5LIFF; It's on. CHAIRMAN HASS~ Mr. Kes31er, will you terminate. COlg:ISSIONER SAUNDERSt Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. CIIAIRMAN HASSE~ l{old it. MR. KESSLER: I'm being denied my due process at this moment. COF24ISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Kessler, Just one second. 00040 leto a -- maybe Z*m going to be speaking a little bit out of school here, but ! can assure.you that we're trying to do a fair Job here. Rudeness is not going to get you what you want. I guarantee you that. So please give us some decorum here, let Mr. Kessler finish his co~s~ento, and ycu'll be given an opportunity to finish yours. (Interrupting by crowd noise.) COMMISSIONER SAU~£RS~ l, ike ! said -- like I said, you need five votes. And ! guarantee yov my vote !.s not going to be swa}.ed by rudeness. Ail right? I guarantee it. CHAIRMAN [{ASSEs I lost -- one moment. One moment. One moment. We have a rule estab] lshe~ here for four ~lnutes, and I think of course Mr. Kessler should adhere to that. (Interruption by cro~d noise.) CHAIRMAN HASSE~ So I would thank you, Mr. Kessler. I am afraid I caner let you continue any more. MR. KES$I~ERs Mr. Chairman, you have-- (Interruption by crowd noise.) ER. KESSLER~ Mr. Hasse, i' am charging you with denying me my rights. You have taken away ~y time. 4O CBAIRMAN HAS$£: I have taken away your time? How do you figure that out? MR. KBSSI, ER: Because I can't speak with th~ and y~ w~ th y~. ~ISSIO~ SA~ERS~ Mr. C~i~n -- CHAI~ ~SSE= If y~ fuel t~t -- Just a ~ent. If y~ fu~l 2~t you have will be short c~rcuit~ ~n your time, we w~11 give y~ that one minute ~re. N~, so~ng that y~re the only person t~t is going to speak fr~ your organization. ~e minute. m~ght, Just at the ~tset of the meeting. Y~ kn~, I~d like to c~ent. ~t we're t~ing to do Js ~ve the mee2~ng along. Unlike other g~er~en~al en~ities, we have no~ in ~he pas= imi~ed time constraint~ on our opeakers. ~d when we've done tha~. a~ we d~d i~ at our last p~lic hearing on I.~rch 7th, we ~ve tc all~ :~e flexibility. I'm lust suggesting to y~ t~t we don't want pe~le to ~tand up and speak f,~r f~ftcun. But let's -- ~thin some m~icum of reason, let's all~ s,~e [lextb['lity here. And that's -- that's Just, and we'll m~e r~ghh along, and we ,~ant to avoid repetitiveness. And think, those of you who are attending the meetings for the first time will see that there are going to be speakers fro~ all areas that woul~ like an opportunity for a little flexibilltyo So I think Juat letes, aa Mr. Saundere said, let's havu Jus~ a little bit of d~o~. ~I~ HASSE~ All right. CO~4ISSIONER SA~Ss Mr. ~~n. ~AI~ ~SEs ~et ~. Let ~r. Kessler have that one minute, and that's ~t. CO~ISSION~ SA~S= Mr. ~n, I tB~ that -- you kn~, the speakin~ rule ~ th~ ~c a go~ ~a, but I th~nk there Bao to be so~ fl~bility. (Inter~pti~ ~ cr=~ no~le.) ~.~r. Cha~ ~an. C~I~N HASSE= Gentl~an and la~es, let's conduct ourselves pr~er]y here, or else we'll never ~et this ~ wi th. CO~ISSIO~R SAUNDE~S ~ L~ me sugqest one thing, Mr. 42 Chairman, that there has to be a little bit of flexibility In that rule. I see Hr. Varnadoe is standing up over here. He's going to want to sperm- for more than four minutes. guarantee it, because he~s a lavyor and no lavyer speaks for less than four minutes. And ! think It's in everybody,s best Interest, including all the contractors sitting out here, to be Patient with us, let Ere ~essler speak for a few mo~e ~inutes, ~nd when we get to Hr. Varnadoe ~e may waive tho rule [or his benefit also. CHAI~iAN HASSE~ Hr. Baunders, ! have given Kessler one~ore minute. You can coff~ence. CO~tl~IS~IONE~ SAUND~RSs One more ~inute is not 9~[[icien~. One mo~e minut~ is not ~uf[tcien~. CHAI.~iAN HASSEs How do you know? ER. KESSLEEs It is, indeed. Ey only reason for running out of time was the crowd and the fact that you asked me to point out some pages, and.I didn't.intend to do that in the first place. I'm here to tc~ll you that Collier'County has 0OO44 43 sixty-three thousand voters registered. Ami ! don't think there is here tonight. And tho silent ~aJority is sitting at home doing what they do best, but when election days come around, they do what :hey do best as well. What we have here tonight is a ruckus minority, not the silent majority. ! am finished. CHAIRHAN HASSE~ Ladies and gentlemen, please. You're going to make us take drastic acticn~ no~, and I don't want to do that. ! want to give everybody the opportunity, and Hr. Kessler is allo~od his time, and we .have granted him another minute to speak. Say it. MR. KES$~ER~ ! really don't need that much time. think I've pretty ~uch said ~hat ! ~md to saY. ! would like to have explained that we proposed these changes to staff. Staff does not accept the changes, and we have -- we have remedies for what,vet we have lined in here that we think is not suitable under the law. And that's the only thing I have to ssi,. I am the only speaker fr.,~ our crg~nizati.~nf and I'm 44 leaving and going home. CNAI~ HA$SE~ Will you send everything else you had on your agenda to speak on to us7 HR. KESSLER~ Vt has -- it's already been done. CHAIRNAN HASSE~ Z see that. Zs that a117 V~CE-C~AIRI~ VOLP~ Could ! ask -- could ! ask~ apropos Hr. Kessler,s co~ents -- Hr. Merrill, have you had the opportunity to review the ]~-gal lcsue, ~nd Mr. Cuyler as well, that has been raised as to whether the ex~tions that are being discussed are inconsistent with our Growth l~anagement Plan? HR. IWERRzI,r.~ With regard to, ! believe there are several aspects to what has been presented by Mr. Kessler and his organization. After reviewing the exemptions and speaktng with their attorney and other attorneys, as well as revimeing the declaratory utatements from the DCA and the l~w on con0istency with the Oro~h ~:ana~oment Plan, we feel that s~ne changes are :In order and others are not. And I can go through those very briefly with yOU now, ~£ you would like. ' CHAIRMAN ~A$SE: It might be a thought.' 00O46 45 COE~ISSIONER S~d~E~s ! would li~e to hear th~n, Bill. I also would like to kno~ what you think. ~R. NERRILL: ! was going to address ~ust the exe~ptions portion o£ it. ! can go through It rather quickly. CHAIRIiAN HASS£s How long will that take you, sir? I'm asking that because Hr. Kessler evidently has to get out of here, and ! can appreciate that. VICE-CHAI~F~N VOLPEs He doesn't ha,se to -- I mean, you know, this discussion unless there iea question. ~R. KESSL£Rs #e11, the only question I would have, and ! can*t ask it of your attorney, but maybe you can. think that he -- since ! won't be staying to listen to it. ! hJve a feeling tl~at he will agree with me that the applications exomptio~s are goin~ to be probably indefensible by law. CHAIPJ4Alq ~ASSEt ~qmnk you, Mr. Kessler, and Sod bless Hrs. Kessler as you go on your way. Do you wish to speak now? ~. HERRILL= Yes. If y~ would like me to address that issue, I will be hapuy to addr=ss that. Is that your pleasure? 0004? VICE-CHAIR~IAN VOLPl~s ! think thl~ Is the time to discuss lt. That's what we're here for. ~R. N£RRILL: 'lth regard to their comments on Section 2.4, ! do not believe that legally we need to accept those. ! believe that really is something that Is within the policy decision o! the Board. And consequently, ! would not -- ! do not feel that you have to adopt those. VICE-CHAI~HANVOLPE= }Iow, Just so khat I understand you. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLi~s 2.4? HR. E~R~II, L~ ~ly 2.a. T~t's where there's strikes oul and then they have it -- VICE-CHAIR~N VOL~= Okay. NR. ~ERRILLs ~d~ language ~'ega~tng the Collier County records cus~lan. Y~ ~Y ~ish to do ~hat, but ts no~ s~ething ~hat Is n~essarlly legally r~uired. ~i~h regard ~o ~o~ld 2.4.1, ~e feel ~hat -- or ~ feel ~ha~ ~he case law ts ~nclear e~o~gh and ~:~h given ~he fact ~l~a~ ~e do ~o~ have ex~p~ion~ in ~he Stipt:lated a~;ocmon~, ~ha~ ~as ~o~ s~e~hin~ ~hae ~as ~riglnally 00048 j 47 contemplated by the proposed remedia! amendment, that we should make some of those changes. The changes that we feel should be made to ensure legal defensibility of this on the grounds that it ia in line with quote, unquote vested rights, as referred to in the remedial amendment, would be to eliminate the gap period which would mean it would -- the revised Ianguage would read the construction authorized by the building permit or such final residential subdivision plat with a density of four dwelling .nits Per acre or less, haa co~,enced Prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Period. Now, we do not accel~t, from a legal perspective, that we have to go all tho way back to January 10th, 1989. And ! believe that your ordinance Would be fu11¥ defensible if you make the changes that ! have suggested as oi~osed -- without necessarily going back to January 10, '89. VICE-C~IIRNA~! VOL~P.z ~.un through that again so that '~e all are following you. ~,P.. 14ERRILL~ Okay. If you look ~,t the original -- If you look at ouz copy of the ordinance h~cause that'a what -- VICE-CHAII~I4AN VOL~E: I'm looking at the drait that 00049 48 was reviewed I~ our staff. ~R. NERRILLg Okay. I would leave tn ~he words the construction authorized by the building permit, and then cross everything off all the way to where the con~na, if any, comma occurs. Then ! would leave the word or in, and ! would cross off the phrase tho construction authorized by. ! would leave the next -- CHAIRHAN HASBEs Whoa. Easy. Okay. Go ahead. ~R. MERRILLs I would leave the next phrase in, where it says s,ch final residential subdivision plat, all the way tc the word ordinance, and that's where ! would put the period. And then everything after tl~e~or~ ordinance would be stricken, where it saysg Or will commence after. VIC£-CHAIRMAN VO~P~: Bo thates actually going -- okay. ! see what you mean. MR. ~L~RILLg That would then require the bottom line on cha~. Pr. Kessler wanto~ -- ! guess Mrs ~essleres proposal was that commencemen~ of construction would have had Co occu~ a~ o~ ~anuar!~. 10th, 1989. .~ proposal is that comm~ncemen~ o£ construction would have to occur as el the eff,~cttve date of this 0005O 49 ordinance, which would be presunmbly Aprl! -- somewhere around April 24th or shortly thereafter° COI~tlS$IONER $HANAHAN: Bill, is that your rocommendation, to change that? 14R. ~IRRRILL~ ?bat is my recor~nendationo VIC~--CHAIRIiAN VOl,PR: In this instance, we're talking about ensuring in the opinion of our attorney that what's been presented to uz is legally defersible either before the State Department of Comnmnity Affairs or a court of competent ~urlsdiction or both? ~IR. ~RRIl,t: That is correct. VIC£-CHAIR~iN VOl, PR: On the grounds of vested rights. CHAIR~L~ ~$F,s Ail right. ~he ne~t spe~kero Varnadoe, you ~anted to speak? ~R. ~l~RRIl,l,s Nr. Chairmau, if ! may address the remainder of the comments ~u~t regard to C~AIP~M.: [~$$E: ~ don't k~o~ wh~re you are. COH~ISSION£R S~A~A~All~ Page nine. CHAI,~AN HA$S~.: !'m sorry. Co ahead. ~rR. 14ERRll,r.: Okay. ~ovln~ on, ! would would leave ~e¢~ton 2.4.1.2 as it currently !~ proposed. No change. 5O ! would leave Section 2.4.2 as proposed, as staff has proposed, with no change. Hr. Kessler,s proposal would be~ again, to move the -- VICR-CHAIRHANVOLPl~: We don't need to go back over what the proposal was. ! think ye're looking at, you kno~, what is that that is legally defensible. };. MERRILL; Okay. Then unde: 2.4.1.2, Z ~ould make a change after the word ordinance in the third line. Well, after the ,zord ordinance, ! would put a period there and cross the remainder of 2.4.2ol off. That has the same effect as the previous revision is. CON~ISSIO~R ~HANAHANI Bill, you tre saying cross it all off? MR. MERRILLz After the word ordinsnce in 2.4.2,1. $o you will cross -- VICE-CHAIRNANVOLPEs ! ~ake out one, two and three there? HR. MERRILL: No. And then you leave in number two -- oh, yes. One, two and three. VICE-CHAII1MAN VOLPEz Okay. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. N~. MERRILL= And the portion right before that, 51 where it sayss Or will co~e~ce before the effective date of this ordinance, but within the earlier and colon and all the way through the end of that section, And then in Section 2.4.2 would remain the same. And the final change is that we would recommend deleting 2.4.4 on the legal grounds again that applications are not protected under vested right~ in this Particular tnotance. Ant those are the extent of tL~ c.hanges. VICE-CHAZ1LMAN VOLPE: I dcn't understand that last change, Mr. Merrill. ~4Ro MERRILL~ We would eliminate all of If I may refer beck, ~ro Eessler recommends making a positive or a negative statement that th~! are not protected under this ordinance, tie would prefer that that go through the vested rights determlnattor provision by ~ust simply deleting all of 2.4.4. There is a slight difference. It's more of a legal di£ference Chart anything, but we would recoe~end ~ust deleting that entire provision rather th~n it stating a negative that says that they are not a~proved. CHAIR~N HASSEI Oive us that n.umber again; Mr. 0005 52 Merrill. ~R. NERRIL~.s 2.4.4, VICE-CHAIR~ VOI~PEs Mr. Merrill, have y~ ~d the o~crCunity to r~l~ this with ~r. Cuyler and Ns. Student? VICE-~I~ VOL~: Ns. S2udent, do y~ have ~, ~~ Yes, Nr, ~al~n -- for the r~ord F~rJorfe Student, Assistant C~nty I Just want~ to advice tbs C~]ss~on t~t I contact~ David Russ, the s~Jor atto~ at the ~ar~ent of C~nfty Affairs, largely b~ause other gf~ps had contact~ the De~r~t ~ C~nfty Affairs c~ce~ing the three ex~tions t~t Nr. Nerrfll Just all~d~ to, and was DCA -- ~ly to get ~CA'~ ~.ition a~ a result of the presentation of this propos~ ordinance to them ~ these other groups. And it was DCA's ~sition tBat sh~ld the ordinance be c~lleng~, that the changes allud~ to by Nerrlll w~ld be n~essa~ in orgor for it to be c~sistent with our plan. And r Just want~ the Board to be adv~s~ of that. CHA~AN HASSE~ Thank yot~, ~s. Studentj' 0005.1 53 VICE-CHAI~N VOLP~ ~Y only coe~ent is ~t we're at the el~enth h~r, and we're ~lking ~t ~hc legal su[f~c[en~ of our ordinance. ~ ~h t~2 2his had been bright up earlier on in the pr~ess from y~, Hr. Merrill, and ir~ ~r legal advisors. ~I~ ~SE~ I w~ld i~gine if ~. ~errtll were to r~i~ It a~ ~y else r~i~, th~'d chDge a C~ple words also, N~t week. Not~iChstanding, ~ho else do we bare? Do ~e ~ve certificates or stickers here c~ th~ ~an~ Co call Pe~le up on? ~1~. OLLIFFz Mr. Chairman, I've got several register~ speakers, roughly about thirty-four to forty registered speakers, and I will -- CHAIRMAN HASSE~ I thought we had Mr. Varnadoe before, that was standing up waving his arms before, that he wanted to say something. Does ~,e still want to say something? ~. VARNADOE~ I'll wait my turn. CHAIRMAN ~ASSE: Okay. Thank y~a, Mr. Varnadoe. MR. OLLIFr: I'1] go ahead and make a quick announcement that if th-re are others who.' on top of these 00U55 54 thirty-five or forty who would like to speak, there are speaker slips here, and if you'll Just give them to me. And there are so~e of you who didn't fill out which of the two ordinances you want to talk about, so I'll go ahead and call you as part of this first ordinance and assume that you want to talk to either or both, With that, we'll start with the first speaker, lit. Chairman -- second speaker, ?om Shields. Follo~ing -- Mr. Chairman, to try and speed things up, we have mic~ophones located at ti;res different locations, and I'll go ahead and call a couple of speakers at a time so we can go ahead and position the next speaker. CHAIR~J~N HASSEs I think you ough', to line them up. I think that's what you did. The next speaker, would they please come forward to tho other mikes. ER. O~LIFF; MR. SHI~LDSs The next speaker will be Oeorge Keller. Mr. Chalrmaa, I'm ?om ~htelds. Hy family and X resid~ at 4815 ?enth Avenue Southwest. That's in Mr. Volpe's district and a rock's throw from Mr. Hasse's district. But I promise you, Co~isoioner Hasse, I will not throw rocks. 00056 CHAIRNA~I HASS~-] ! wouldn't advise you to. ~It. S~IEI~Ss I've be~ a cust~ builder -- VICE-~I~ VOL~ Do I get tbs s~e p~lse? ~. SHI~DS~ Yeah, y~ get the same praise. I've been cust~ builder in the Naples area for twenty-five years, and I ~ve worked with ~ builder father while atte~ing sch~l befor~ t~t t~h time. I c~s/der building a h~or~le profession, and not asham~ to admit t~t ~ depe~ u~n the local econ~ for a living. And I thL~ a g~ n~er of ~le in this r~ do the And t~ay we're c~siderLn~ -- (Inter~pti~ ~y cr~ no~Be,) ~. SHI~DS: ~ay we're c~sLderJng -- ~AI~N HASS~s Y~re eatLn~ up Nr. Shielda' t~e. ~, SHI~DS: T~y ye're considG~L.~g t~o ordinances that po~ent/ally c~ld Save a great l~ac~ ~ ~ ec~. For ~nths ~ representatives fr~ tbs building indust~ and others have vo:k~ vLth c~nty staff, ~ve been beforo hearLng~ on Planning C~L~sLon, and before you In an o[[ort to minimize the econ~ic ~act of ~he ordinances the~ were orLgLnall~ written, and also t- profit 2he ~obs 00057 56 of the working people we have in Collier County. We're not necessarily happy with the result, but they were far better than originally drafted. ! have always thought that the biggest problem with the Growth Nanag~ment Act is that to many, both in and out of government, the penalty is actually the goal. And the Grc~th F~nagement Act is quickly becoming the growth moratorium act. We can*t le~ that h~ppen in Collier County or we will destroy the very quali~¥ of li£e we're trying to presez~/e. We the current resident= ~t Collier COdnty certainly have the duty to be good stewards of our onvironment, but we also have the obligation to responsibly share the sunshine with those who choose to ~'e here tomorrow. And we can do both. Thero is absolutely no reason that there be contradiction between th~: terms ~cology and economy, environment and o. ntezprtse, i>oster, l~y arid prosperity. And if ~e ~ill t'.rogresstvely plan for POsitive g~o~h, we can build a bet~_er quality of life for both the r~ttre~ and the working couple ~ho have ~he desire to raise ~.~eir family here. 00058 57 Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSEs Thank you, Mr. ~ields. Okay. You probably understand, Mr. Shields, that we all share your wishes for this county. Mr. Keller. Would you please brtn9 the next person up. Mil. OM, IFF: McIntosh . MRo KELLER ~ Follo~ing ~eorge Keller will be Ross I'm George Keller. Z'm president of Collier County Civic Federation. I rept'esent eighteen civic organizations in Collier County, fr~m Ma~co Island to Bonita ShOres. We don't represent any special interest. We hope we represent citizens, but ! think a 1or of people here are laboring under a terrible misconception. ~ere is no intent by this Commission or the state or the ~overnor or anybody else to stop building entirely in Co!lief County or anyplace ~n tho state. We have 136,000 units right on the books today, and 55,000 of those are developments of regio~al Impact which, as I understand it, we can't do enything Now, when we get right dow~ to the facts, what we're 00059 58 ~alking about Is some 18,000 un/ts that could be subject to so~e kind of restriction, But with all of the exemptions that have been put into this ordinance, in the seven or eight changes, and we're making some more tonight, by special interest developers, there*$ very few of the units that are no~ on the books that are going to be restricted, 3o I don't kno~ what everybody is getting excited about. Your real problem is going to be here is financing the infrastructure, which is under t}..e next ordinance, on the facilities needed, and that pa 'ticul~r parr. is going to make the big difference, and ! would like to speak later on on that. But as [ar as this ordinance is concerned, there is going to be very little restriction in building because of this land use ordinance. Ar.d ! '.hink that you should r~-altze that, and ! think you have been misinformed that there lo going to be a general ~oratorium on this particular ordinance. · he moratorium is goi~zg to strike you when ~e can't aitord to go and build the roads and Infrastructure that we need to supply the demar~$ of the people who are going to move here. OOO60 59 Secondly -- first, let*s also give some thought to the fact that we're selling ourselves very cheap. ! talked to some of the gentlemen in this hall that are working construction, and they tell me they're making seven and a half to $9.00 an hour, That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous o And the reason why it's ridiculous is because what we're trying to do is sell condominiums for under $60,000 with swimming and recreational faciliti~s. You can't buy that kind of stuff anyplace in the 9hired States. What you're going Is telling a lot older people to retire down here to Florida, that it's cheaper. But when were they get here, they're goin~ to have to pay the tarriff. And the people who are here are ~oin9 to have to pay the tarriff, Including ~he construction workers. If we continue the way we are now, lust plan on paying anla'here from three to f£ve times more taxes than you're paying right now within the next ten years. There is no way of avoiding it. Our total requirements for roads alone is $146,000,000 for next ten years i,~ order to keep up with growth. ~,e've got a problem, aJ.d the problem .is that we 6O haven't been charging enough impact fees. We have to increase the impact fees, All other counties have impact fees that are running anthers from fifteen thousand to $2,000 per unit for roads. Our i~pact fees for roads have ~ust been increased to $813.00. Ires ridiculous. #sere not -- we're not making people pay for what they,re getting, and that's our real problem. And whether you like it or not, so~ething is going to happen. Secondly, ! would like to tal~: -- ~o ~ust remind you that If we keep on going at ~h~ rate we're going, in ten years we're going to be built out and you fellows sre going ko have to ~lnd another source of income, so you'd better go and start educating yourself on service industry because you'll need CHAIRMAN HA~$ES Thank you, Nr. lsller. Right under the wire. ~ho's next? I~Ro O~LIFF~ Hr, ~clntosh, CHAIRI~AN HASSE~ ! knew that, but who's th~ new one? I~Ro OLblFF: Savage. Following ~css Hcln~osh will be Herb 0006 CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Mr. Nclntosh. ~R. NclHTOSH~ ~4r. Chairman. ~ ~e 18 Nclntosh. I l~ve at 2746 Sixty-sixhh Street Sout~est In Golden Cate. I*m gratift~ that the C~lssion ~s s~n fit to meet this ~ming or this ~ing tn [r~t of a ~tentially and g~ns~rably un~ly cr~. I thl~ it reil~s your sincere interest tn the welfare of these ~le and of their [a~iliea, and I a~reciate that. l*m really here to s~ak to both o~lnance8, and like to take two minutes n~ ~ ZR~ and then a~rcach c~curren~ o~inance when t~t becks the t~tc of dtscussi~. I'm not here to bull~ y~. I'm here, instead, to attar t~a~s a c~nity t~t works ~or all of us. I think that y~ hays e~ure and y~ have c~tribut~ to a Mgnific~t a~ pr~u~tive d~ate ~ ch~ re~aluation ordinance. After all st these discussions, I thi~ t~t we bye n~e valu~le ad~us~en:8 to the d~cn~ t~t was originally put cn the table. ~ think t~t you 8h~ld be c~.nd~ for that ~ork, and I think that ~;e s~ld close the bo~k on that work. That work is done, As my ally Hr. Keller pointed outt the task becomes to raise the funds to construct the in£rastru~ture that is necessary to keep this community moving forward. ·hank you for the work that you*ye dons on zoning cwaluation. When you send your plan to ?Allahasaeeo send commtttc~t advocates along with it and we will pr~ail. Don't be bullied by ?allahaesee, either. Sank you very much. CHAIP~4At] HA~SEs ~lank your ~.r. ~.Intosh. I~R. O~F. IFFs following Herb ~avage viii be Dudle~ Goodlette, CHAIRHAIq ~LP~SEs Who? HR. OLLIFFs Dudley Goodlette. NR. SAVAGEs Mr. ~ha!rm~n. ~erb Savage, architect~ resident of ~larco Islan&, And ! have been here before, and 1 don*t want to reiterate that I live have on l~lrco Island, but I*ve been there for several years. Ir. fact~ I was involved in the original ~lanning of ~tarco. And it*s like .any other cor~,~unity, whether it b~. the north of r~aples~ East Naples~ aou~h Naples, but it is an -- ~ community that was 63 established ! guess 1964. And ! have a letter that ! have Just gotten a frc~ my for~er associate, ~lm Vincell (phonetic), who did a land planning and he had a nine-paGe F~X, and ! thought my machine would never stop, but it has written in it from the State of Florida, that ~4arco Island has -- is veste~o It has everything it has to be done in order ho approve the master plan. Ail the co~..~ercial lots, all the residential lots, all of the multi-£a~il¥ lots, the beach £ront, and all of those things which entail Narco Island have been approved in 1964, '68, '70. '78 was the date of this letter. And here we are on t~.is ~ap over here, and Z trust that all of you young people, and old, would co~e and take a look at this map and see wh~re in this area ~here ! live, all of the co~ercial propc, rtie~ th,~t we h~ve, there ara Just two areas that are ac~.vl~tes centers, where F~kerd~s ~rugs are and wher~ Publix nmrketo Every other ~ner[can European,' ~ho~ever he m~ght be, or ~he, bo'~ght ~ piece of prop~rt~ as a commercial piece property, and no~ this ordfnanc~ is goin9 to pass, has to go before a hearing of[icer, .Bas tc go to so~e procedural . 00065 64 nmtter and not be able to build a co~mercial building on his lot, Now, they say ! have a conflict of interest. Yes, ! do. I have designed buildings ever since I've been on Narco Island, and I do that for a living, and ! enjoy it. And every one of these young people here, and old people, all are in the construction business, and I co~pliment you for the ,.~ork that you have been doing on this because it's not easy. But ! would like to think, as ~ sa&d &t the last meeting, I would to think we '~ou]~ keep it as simple as possible and ! used the words last time. K-I-S-So Keep it simple, Savage. In other words, you start over here and you cnd up over here. When I hear of t~ra~t~ucture, ASI, · 11 these fine folks her~., it's a very co~usi~:g matter. And I'd like to have y~r~ ~vst keep it as simple as p'ossible. ~,'heu ! read a wh~le ago or heard about this vested rights and it's not transferable, I can well imagine it on ~rco Island where Deltona Corporation h~d written approval here for 33,000 living units t~.at, hav'.rg so~d the first lot, t~at person would bays lost his vested rights or 65 exemption rights. The way ! was listening. And I hog~ that you don*t change that. Coc~i0eioner Shanahan asked that ~estion a while ago. The present ordinance is from the land, as far as vested rights is concerned. Is that correct, Nr. Chairman? I believe it is. CON~gSIOI~R gHANARAN~ Yes, it is, Herb. CHAT RIiAN HASSEs Yes. ~IR. SAVAGEs So ! feel that ycm shouldn't change that, But remember ~arco Tsland, .~s is cther places in this county, these places have been plann-.d, ~ some of them you may say are not vested. They are vested, and they are exenpt. And 1£ you -- as ! said befor$, let's don't make a hcyda¥ for attorneys. They wil~ be nappy as the day they were born when we find out that this all passes and they have a client who says do ! have vested rtgh2sl the attorney says yes, you do. And thoro is one standing over there, and T bet he'll agree with me. Thank you very nmch, ~r. Chairman. CHAIRI~I HASSE.* Hr. Savage. Hr. Savage, ! would ~ust hope that those in 1964 loc.k,-d for~3rd to the 00067 infrastructure, the water supply and the sewer handling and the rood impacts and that sort of planning. MR. SAVAGE: Mr, Chairman, may ! answer that? CHAIPJ4AN HASSEt Please very shortly. ~R. SAVAGEt It was written in this letter from the State of Florida, and then, by the way, it is so, that every rood that was planned inN arco Island has been built. Every feet of water line has been put in. Now, there are sewers and are..ts that don't have sewers, but the law provides, I believe by bonding, after Jiffy pe~ent co~pletion of a sectim,, then there is a Frovision whereby the residents pay for their sewers. Ail of those things, the utility line sites, the church sites. Ail those things were already established and were built. CHAIRNAN HASS~: I understand what you're saying. was Just wondering -- (Interruption by crowd noise.} CHAIR/~N HASSE: Okay. Mr. Dudley Goodlett. IIRo OLLIFF: Follewing Dudley wil! be Colonel ~ohn Beebe. MR. GOOD~.ETT~s Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ~embers of 00068 67 the Commission. ~y name is Dudley Goodlette. I'm an attorney with the law firm o~ ~ings and ~~. I am year residen~ of ~ples and Collier C~n~y, ~d ~. I ~ant ~o sa~ ~o ~ t~t I'm here t~igh~ no~ as an interested citizen, bu~ s~onr who the Citizen~ ~vtso~ C~i~tee on gr~t~ se~ed as the v~ce-cha~n of that ~ttee, a~ I ~as pleas~ to have the ~rtunity to do I want ~o s~ak ~ this o~i~nce ~n ~rti~lar, because one of the things tha~ the Citizens Co~ittee rec~end~ and wi,ich the Planning C~issi~ appr~ and, indeX, that y~ ad~t~ In this Or. th ~nag~ent ~lan was the two and three-year wl~ ~ri~, or use-it-or-lose-it pr~ls~, t~ was c~t~ ~ ~ the D~partment of Ca~nity Affairs. ~d I w~ld like to ge~ back to that, perhaps ~n s~e time after with sm questions and an~er~. But I believe t~t the settl~ent agre~t t~t has been entered into betwean the county and the speaks to the need for -- to make it positive.dete~ination of yes tod ,00069 68 ~et me tell you that there were s couple o£ reasons why the Citizens ~dv/sory Committee chose the two and three- year window period. First, because we were told by consultants that it was the legally conservative approach chosen! that was the reasonable and it provided for a reasonable time period within which then existing d~.velopment plans could be modified. The early drafts of this ordinance, as you are vel! aware, nceded to provide some clarity on these issues of vested rights, and your s~aff -- an~ we appreciate the time they took meeting w/th us o~ these '~mportant subjects -- d~weloped the approac~ that is embodied in the ordinance that was before you tonight containing the exemptions for vested rights deter~/nations as veil as the compatibility exception~ and determinations, ! think it's important to keep i~ mind that the · pirit and indeed ~he letter of the growth m~nagement plan that this ~oard of County Commloston adopted in January 2989 provided for min~al periods of tir, o in which proper~y o~n~rs rights to use ~h~.)ir land .~ould be pre~erved in the t~o an~ t~ree year window period. Tha~ ~ethod was 00070 identified, the exemption. It was chosen for ~wo very significant reasons. First, to ensure compliance with the windo~ period intent of the Growth Itanagement ~ct, the plan that you adopted, as ~,odified by tho settlement agreement. And p~rbaps more importantly -- this is an issue that ~r. Kessler, he mentioned earlier -- to reduce the time consuming and costly administrative burden of individual vested rights determination. Those are costs not only to you, the count:~, but enormous costs to the citizens as well. And X think it's an opportunity in the up front exemptic,~m to avoid some of those expenses. Although the legislature, and I ~hink this is important as ~'oll, have mandated that loctl government adopt comprehensive plans to imp~emen~ thc Grow~.h Management ~ct~ ~he legislature did not lnten~ Lo invade the province of the local decision maker on how thaL was to be done. Xndeed, Tom Pelham, the Secretary for the Department of Community Af~.air~, has pronounced and often rel~eated by ~he S~a~o ~ha~ local ~overnmer.~ is vested with., the broad lm~i~ude and discretio~ in developing approache, s that 7O satisfy the requirements o! the Orovth Nanagement Act. In providing for exertions, as th~s ordinance ~o the ordinance, y~ are ~ercisi~g ~he discr~i~ of g~r~en~ and ~en enc~rag~ ~o under~.ake ~ha~ ~o ensure that the pr~erty rights ~ the ~lc ~'ellbeing of the c~nity is prese~. Y~ are also keeping faith ~ith the ~ny ~rs ~ere spent by C~t~zons ~vlso~ C~ttee, along ~ith your Planning C~ssior~ and o~hers in d~vel~ng th~s a~r~ch, I think that you sh~ld su~rt the ordinance that pr~ to y~ this ~ening. I thi~ ye ~ve se~ -- s~se of t~ dll~lli~, y~ had with y~r attom~, Nr. Herrill, earlier c~e as a real sunrise to those of us ~ho ~d been ~orking wi~h ~r. ~errill 1~ these ~ ~n~hs lnd had ~el~ the ~ption a~roach, and it se~s :~t yo.l sb~ld no~ be guid~ ~hls ~enin9 by a d~isi~ ~ha~ is ~oing to be renderS, in ~ ~ud~ent, to ~ut the ex~tl~ pr~ess, large part el~nth hour and done in private, ~ ad.ting the pr~s~ c~nges tba~ ~ve been ad~t~ -- pro~s~ you tonio~.t and In ~hi:h none oi us have been ~articipating i~ this priest. 00072 71 l~ho is next? Ped one o NR. BEEBE f Mr. Ooodlette, your time ia up. Mr. Beebe? Colonel ~ohn Beebe, follo~edby Hike live in Lake~x3d. I have lived in the Haples area no~ for t~elve years, and z have been active in support of many of the things that you're interested in and that all of uo here who apPreciate a good quality of life are interested in in thio coo~nunity. I am urging the Count~. Co~e~lcolon to enact the ordinances that have been created as a result of the Growth ~anage~ent Act. · he £1rot one, that ~,eOro now discussing, the reevaluation of zonings In going over that one care£ully, attending many o~ the hearings, it see~s to me that adequate provision has been made for fairness, for policies of hearings and reviews to sls,~re that the rights o£ people will not be extinguished without their having their opportunit), to be heard and to discuss the matterr and that If ¥ou'~e ~le~ptng on your rights and you're not doing anything to ~mprove propert~ an~ to do bcilding, then you don't have anything to holler about. No~, with respect to so=ething t~at staff mentioned earlier about ~ are we going pay for all o£ this. ~he -- a number of things have been done at the County Commission level. First, i~act fees have b~n raised considGrabl¥. was a member o! the first i~pact fees committee on road infrastructure five years ago, and we came up vith a modest $265.00 which helped fund for th~se past five years the roads that we have and that the county has been able to provide. ! regret to say that your then president, Hr. Shields, sent a letter to us and to tbs County Cosmission in which ho opposed the t~pact fe~,s. ! hope he has changed his opinion because that ia a necessary, one of the means of raising the monc~l~ noce,sa~,. In yesterday.s Itper, you will sea heret if you look back, an article about the ~as tax being at an impasse in ?allahass~e. ~he governor is flat against any increase in the gas tax. ~e don't have an income t~x in ~his state. Unless we have user [ees -- and all si us ~re users of-~heoe roads, we don't pay an adequate amount of qas tax -- we,re not going. 0007 to have the money to build the roads. And let me tell you something else. The grate Department of Transportation has been underfunded for the last two years and they are not bulldin9 where they should, be it on U,G. 41 north, UsS. 41 east, on 84 and on 951. these are the areas that are most likely to cause a moratorium to occur. The blame is not with the~.e gentlemen. These gentlemen are complying with tbs lay, imposed upon them by the Florida State legislature to e~.tabllsh these ordinances and to ~force the state's Oro~th ~anag~ment Act, The proble~ lo, however, in a govern who says no ne~ taxes. He isn't going to okay an increase in the gas tax, and without that kind of e~noy, you can't bvild roads. And the county is tn the l~aitton of trying to take up the slack, and we've got to have mo~ey to do it. [io~ there is s thlr. g co~ing up later, an~ that's the penny option sales tax. If w~. as a community ~ork to~ether, all of us, all the builders, all the bankers, all of co~lllerce -- CH/.IR~AN HASS£~ Hr. Beebe, would you please. Very rapidly. ." 00075 74 HR. BEEBP-s Thank you. ! ~t11. I£ we come together as a coa..unity, home o~ners, builders, developers, workers, Chamber of Coe~erce, realtors, the whole nine yards, in support of that tax, we'll have the ~on~y n~cessazy to build the roads, to bring the potable water in, to build the drainage, the s~ers, and ~verythtng that Is n~cessary. CHAIRNAN IlASSE~ l~ank yot, ~ro Beebeo HR. BEEBEs ~hank you. VICE-CHAI~iAN VOLPEs lgr° Chairman° lifo C~ir~an, could I suggest that the speakers address the chair a~d try to confine their r~arks to the issues relate! sP~el£icall¥ to the zoning r~val~atlouo C~IP~ ~AS$£, ~hat's ~he prell. VICE-CHAI~ VOL~I It's ~ust that ~e ~ up going to spend a lot of t!ee -- and I ~hlnk l~r. Be~e's c~ts are ~ell taken, and I think t~t ~. Keller's ~ere as ~e11. But ~e've got a lot of ~,ork ahead of like to suggest :hat we c~ftne ~r r~arks to the ordinance before CHAIRJ~N HASSE-- ! n. ight sugges~ that to all the panel P. ere, as well as the audie~,ce. Direct your remarks to 000?6 75 here, direct them towards what w~'re discussing tonight, and there will be due time for other things. ~o is next, ~.ro Olltff? HR. OI, I~lFl=~ Mr. Chairman, I have Mike Pedone, followed by Peter Glsselbecko C~IATRIqAN HASSEs Hr. Pedone. ~R. PEDONEs Good evening. ~.,,' name is Mike Pedene, and ! am a registered voter in ¢~nisoio~ers Hasse*s district. VICE-ClfAIRMAN VOLPEs ! don* ~ see Mr. Pedone. Where Is he, in the back? C'~A!RMAN HASBEs Jfl3ere is Hr, Pedone? ¥lCE-CHAIRMA~ rOLl. s Okay. CHAIRNAN HASSE: Oh, God. ~. PEDONEs It iS ,~orklng, Isn't it? VICE-CHAIR21AN VOI~Pl~s No~ it CHAI RIiAN VOI. I~ s Right. MR. PEDON~s ! came fro~ the Ne~ York City area, so ! think ! can sa£ely say ! know what overgorwth is like. When I came here down to Plorida, I looked at Ft. l~auderdale, ! lockec~ at -~ta~ni, and ! looked at Tampa, but ! Chose Naples becauoc of the atmosphere of Nal~les0 and ! sure .am ! who O00T'7 76 does not want to see It change. But we also have to be realistic. ~his is an area that is the fastest gro~ing area in the United ~tates, and for the same reason that people came here twenty years ago, fifteen, ten or five, they.re coming here day, ~he last one in cannot close the gate behind h~.o You can.t say I~m here and that,s it. ~e in this industry, we mak~ our living because gzo~th, but ~e also want control~eci growths The ordinance as amended is not the beneficial to the construction ~ndustry in this county, but we realize that ouz life is made up of co~pzomises and therefore we accept the ordinance as written and submitted by your staff as a fair way to control grc~th and yet not destroy ~n industry and thousands of poo~le ~bo are your constituents in this county, who rely on this industry to earr. the nosey to pay their rent or their mortgage, to feed their family, .~nd to hope to attain all the things tb&t overybo,Jy wante in life. ! urge you is to appzov~ the ordinance as written and not be dictated to by a select privileged few, Do not forget the ordinary wo~'k~ng man ~.~ this room and come November, he will not £orget ~R. OLLILPYt Mr. Chairman, followirq Peter Cisselbeck, ! have George Bottner (phonetic). ~R. GISS~BE~E~ ISm Peter Cisselbeck. I ~ust wanted to say that ! agree with ! think the ma~orit~ of the Cormission. ! donOt see what public good lo served by not ~.llowing the conveyance exen~tion to ~un with the land. Why clog the vesting right;- ~earinos with more casefl? Why not decide as explicitly as possible in the ordinances before we allow some commission, through somo individual who Isn't accountable to the voters, to decide Important issues like this. ! would also like -- and that is lettish to 2.4.7.1, ~hich we discussed earlier at the be~innt~g o£ the hearing. Also, ! would like tf~ knows k~at does the word substantial mean in this ordinance? ! think it would be Important again to decide these issues In the ordinance rather than pass the buck to an individual who is a t. earlng ao~misstoner that is not accountable to the constituency in this county. CHAIRMAN HA~$£.* ~ank you, Nr. Gtsselbeck. 14R. Oi, l, iPIP~ Hr. Chairmar,. tbs ne~;2 speaker was here 000 to speak on concurrency, so X*ll call two speakers. I have Edward £rpelding0 followed by Oeorge Wilson. CHAIRNAN HASSEs I didn't get that name. HR. O~LIFFs Neither did I. It's E.~pelding? Nit. ~ItP~DI~z F~eard Rrpeldl~g. HR. OM, IFFs Erp~lding. 14R. ERPEI, DIIgI, s Can you hear tie? CHAIRNAII HA~S£1 Okay. ~hank you. I'll skip the name and ,o forward. HR. ER~LOI~Os Mr. Chairman, ladles and gentlesmn. Ny nane is Ed Erpelding. As president o£ the Palm River Homeowners As~ociation, I represent the seven hundred ar, d eighty families living in P~lm Rivers ~-states. Ye favor strict growth management in Collier County. We favor no dilution in either the proposed Zoning ~eevaluatlon Ordinance or tbs Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. I£ anything, we favor strengthening these ordinances wherever possible. Most ~axpayers are really for cerefully plat.ned pay-ss-you-go grow° They want the developers to pay for all of the needed toads, schools, parks, water and sewers and other new public facilities. oOOso 79 The taxpayers in keeping pace with .~.nflation are willing to pay their share. The t~xpayer~ are not willing to pay for the new infrastructure created by the developers who do not pay their own share fair, ~veryone should p~y his o~n way. This ts the Aa~rican way. If a developer crcseds the rosd~, with five hundred new vehicles, then he should pay the coot of have the roads which will accome~date those five hurdred new vehicles, This is true whehter he planned his original grand scheme in 1950, ~n 1970 or 1990, Let's not perpetu&te into 2he 1990's mistakes made in planning for g~o~th in the '50's, '60's and '70'so ! represent voters, If ! represented developers or builders or architects or f~nancial interests, ! could come up and suggest many loopholes ~h,~t would riddle the ordinances and ~ake them ineffec~ive, ~ urge you not to buy these loopholes, The ta~l~syers of Collier County will kno~ almost instantly [rom the media and m~r own neighborhood P~blications whether you have served the cause of growth ~ana~ement or thwarted ~e certainly ap~reciate a[~. of your efforts in behalf O00B$ 8O of growth management. You have spent vast amouDt8 of time and effort in behalf of the people considering these ne~- ordinances. We are counting on you to ensure that Collier County's Growth ~anagoment Plan is not a watered down version of what was intended. The People want Strong ord inances. C~AIRNAN HAS~Es Thank you, sir. Next. Kll. OLLIFFs ! have George Wilson, followed by Losklll. HR. WILaONs Good evening. Ny name is George Wilson. I~y fam/Iy and ! live a~:d work on ~larco Island. As You'll be able to ~ell shortly, ! am not a public speaker nor am ! a civic l&~der. ! am a carpenter by trade, I am a builder by profe~alon. I have lived In this county for approximately fifteeen ~ars. ! vorked vith for Boran-Cra/g-Schr~ck (phoneLtc) for ten of these years, and I have had ~ ovn cc~pany for five. It s~ms realistic to expect thal the first area to suffer ~he an e[lects of a ~ora~ortum viii be Karco Island, ~ho only area which supports my cat, party. My.company is one 0005 81 of the smaller buildi.g companies re~rese~ted here, a~d my ~l~ees are seat~ here. N~ld th~ s~ u~ ~o= a N~ this is ~ whole c~any right here. (In~er~pti~ ~ cr~ ~. WI~N~ b~ ~*~ like ~ P~e no~ ~ly ~o ~us~ l~k a~ ~hes~ ~le, bu~ ac~a]~ see ~h~ ~d see ~b~ a~ ~h~ are. ~, ~hese are no~ men tn $1,500.00 su~s ~ha~ no~12y soo in these ~eting8. ~'=e not bei~ ~id to represent o~e abs~tee ~loyer ~c~ s~e ~mtFact issue. ~e c~ld sell all the clothes off o[ ~r back a~ all the shes off of ~r feet sh~s, ~e Pr~ably c~ldn't bu~ the suit that l~r. Eessle~ ~ore here this ~entng. (Int~rupting by cr~ ~. ~I~N~ ~ese ~le are not e~atls~ic~. ~ese pacpl~ are ~,ard workers, ~h~'re g~ ~le and they,re ~olid citizens of this county. ~ese are the pe~le that you ~ill rarely see in y~r chambers b~ause thc're t~ bu~y Pre,ding f~r their family and s~ing t~e ~ith their E~il~es and earnin9 a living. ~ese ~ple ~bat ~ ~us~ sa~ r~,resent a hu~r~ O00BB 82 and four fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, son., daughters, grandchildren that live in this county. ~ust that ninny people. If you apply that sa~e ~ultiplier to evorybody in this roo~, you're lookil~g at ten to fifteen thousand people ! lost ~y placeo Okay. These are th~. peopla that ~mve entrusted you, the County Cc~=.lssion, ~ith directing the affairs of this county in the ~anner as to provide £or their welfare. These are tho p~ople that have built your churchesr they,ve built your orocery stores/ they,ve built tho govezmsent center/ they*ye built this building that we're in rioht These are the people that have put the roofs over each and every one of your heads, and they've created shelter for each and every one of the so-called no-gro~thers t.hat will appear before you Lypocrittcally seeking to deny this home ~,nd shelter to others ~ust as deserving as they, and these are the people that will be put ouc of work, deoendtng on the votes ~.nd the decisions of this Commission. One of the things tlmt really irkl~ me is whefi' ! hear someone like Iir. [essler come her;~ and use catch phrases like growth management and quality of lif~,o ~hat hess 00084 83 saying las I got mine and ! want theirs, too, think that*a fair. {Interruption by crovd noise.) CHAI R~IAN HASSR s Okay. HR. I4XLSONs Could I wrap it up real quick, air? NRo WILtONs Could ! wrap it u,', real quick? T'Ve ~USt got three things to say. CRAIRHAN RABGEs Hr. #ilson, terminate. HR. WILSON: Can I make it quick? CHAIRtL~ HiSSEs Wrap it up. IiX. #ZLSONI Can I have ~y one millUte? CHAIRNAtl HASSBs One vord. IKW. OLLXFIPs More than one minute? He's got, one minute. Okay. C~AI~MAN HiSSEs L'verybo~y's entitled to the same thing here. HR. I~LSONs -qqlank¥ou. ~l~ ~SEs ~ust r~er i~. NR, ~IL~H: ~ank y~, sir. If you'vo ever seen a c~on man ste~roller~ by And X don't, 00055 84 government and wanted to champion this one ~an, this is your opportunity to champion not ~ust one but ten thousand ~en. I£ you've ever been bullied before and resented it, don*t let yourself be bulliod by the threats and the money and the arrogance which is a lot o! the ;trict no-growth I~o~ent o And if you*ye ever done an ~nest daye8 work for an honest day's pa~, i~ you've ewer gone hone bone tl:e but proud of It, and If you can remc~ber and respect the satisfaction you experienced with this tFpe of work, then r~c~ber and respoct these men and ~omen here today who have worked to butld Collier County. Thank you. C~AIPJiAN HAIISKI ~l~ar.k you, Nr. Wlleon. be Berrie Gulacslk. that act. ! tak, ~y hat off VICE-CHAIRNAN VC~PEI either. MR, LOSKiLL: Should be. ~Iy name i~ Jim Loskill. ~r. Chairman, following Jim Loskill will o¢ln9 ~o b~ impossible to follo~ to you o And he's not a public speaker, For the record,.i'm with O00 G 85 Barnett hank, and I~m here representing a numbar of the financial institutions this ~vening0 as ! have on prior ca,es, We would urge you in the strongest terms to accept the recommendations of the Plannin~ Commt-_aion. ! think a lot of hard work k~:. been done. ~here has been a compromise. The people t~.; t have to live under and work under that ordinance are willin;: to, by their representation here tonight, I think you need to have all of those exemptions in there that were recommended. The idea of eli=inating the exemption on conveyances is ludicrous, That's the one that gives you the ability to trade land and g~t the things done at low cost. ! think we ne~ to shift the focus, like it's been said before, on how the hec~ we're going to pay for these things in order to reduce the econo~lc havoc that is starino us in the ~ace. ! believe soz~Smod¥ mentioned a number of approximately $146,000,000 in road expenses over the next t~.n years. Moratoria do not improve facilities; they ~ust kcep incroasin~ ~he road traf~ic.~ but riley do increase tmemployment, raise taxes, lncre,m~e the b-siness risk and 000 ? 86 u~er~ainty and cause severe hardship. ! think there are several financing options. We have talked about the sales ~ax. and I think that's probably one of the best ones. ~here were also some otter ones in forms of local ~axing districts, which can ~e utilized, and I believe that the private sector c~n participate addt t tonal 1y, Thank you very much, CHAIRMAN HAWSE: ~hank you, This is the last speaker befors the break. CHAIPJtAIq H&B~Rs You fellows .qet all the breaks that there are during tho dayt and so do I, And ye have s'~enographers here that need a break fro~ typingt so tha~s th~ VZC£-CHAII~I~! VODPI~.~ Weere c~ly talking about ~aybe five or tea minutes, i~at'o all. CHAIRMAN JIAI~Es ~o we all appreciate it. Oo to it. ~. OU~AC~I~; Nr. Chairman, a~ na~e is Berrie Gulacsik, and ! represent the Leaque of W~n Votsrs. ~.ill b6. the only speaker for the League here tonight. will be on~ voice, but w~ represent many On February 28th, 1990, our president, Dorothy Fitch, sent all the Commissioners this following letter: This is another letter concerning the t~o ordinances no~ under discussion at the CCPC meetings, zoning reevaluation and adequate public facJ~ ityo Since mid January, members of the ~eague have been attending the CCPC meetings as wall as the ~orkshop held by the BCC, and we are disturbed by the ~anner in which they have progressed. Or perhaps not progressed is a better description. The tactics of long~lnded repetition, inappropriate cor~nents have all the e&rmarks of trying to stall, disrupt, undermine these very in~ortant ordinances that operation in this county. The r.eague o! ~,o~an Voters of Collier County charges you, ~s the final arbitraters, to ~ake sure that these tactics do not continue. We feel our positio~ repres-.nts a silent m~ority who normally have no clout° ~le hope you will not be influenced by a group that ~,ells the loudest but t¢ill ~udge those ordinances on their overall merit° The League of ~¢nen Vcter~ is not anti-gro~tho are for good planned growth. The reason ~e here in this O0089 88 county are deficient in some areas right nov is because in the past we alloyed over growth along certain corridors. Growth never pays for growth. As a consequer~ce, the population of tbs entire county must pick up the tab for past mistakes. We must also pay for ~l.ortsighted future ;uistakeso Host of those fighting so hare; against good planning are not looking at the future. We k,;ep hearing~ If construction is slaved, we will be a depressed area. Once everything is built out, will we rhea be a de~ressed area? The word moratorlu~ Panics so~e peopleo A ~oratorium is not county wide. A ~oratoriu~ Is not iorever. It is put on a specific area for a specific le,gth cf time to alloy the /nfras~.ructure to catch up. If we had had good growth management ten years ago, the citizens would not be complaining no~ of traffic congestion, lo~ water pressure, Inadequate ae~er facilitl,, poor drainage or the fear o£ ~oratoriums. If these or6tnances are so weakened, any time -- aLything -- are so weak~ned that anything goes, we no longer will bare a gro~th manaoement plan. The ~evelopers will continue to build up their bank accounts, leaving the 00090 89 residents to correct the mistakes and pick up th~ pieces. And, Mr. Chatr~an~ as a final statm~ent ! ~ould like to ask -- the question here tonight las Do we want haphazard growth or do we want good growth? And also, Mr. ~hair~an, we feel that It is i~p~rative that you have Mr, ~terrill verify that all of the changes ~ade in these ordinances which you received do not legally conflict with Oro~th Nanagment Act and the ComPrehensive Plan. CHIIRJSAN ~A~SEs ~hank you, lis. Oulacsik. I~ wht we*re going to do~ ~ ~or the g~tl~n tt~t will tht was c~lainl~ ~t a break n~, I'm gol~ to have a ten-~lnute break. I ~atch~ alat ~ ot~r ~le going ~t to the be~d~ a~ t'~ can be sure verve got to do the same thing. And another thing. I ~ore a hard hat before you were born, so bear it in mind. ?em minutes. (~ereupon, a brief recess was had.) CHAIRHAII ~ASSE~ Ploase sit do~n and give some courtosy to the speaker. 0009! 9O Mr. Nealo. CHAIRI~d~ HAf~SEI ~o to ~. ~Ef ~ n~e is Pa~FAck Nea~, ~d ~*m here as a m~er of ~he B~ o~ Dlr~ors of ~he P~o ~er ~ ~rce. ~ ~rco Isla~ ~er o~ C,~erce ho a2reedy s~t ica ~oi~t~ ~ ~he o~i~es ~o C~ission iff writing, bu~ we w~ld l~ke Co re~era~e and ~ke another s~~ ~hts ~entng. In ~he ~trs~ place, the ~ of Marco o~ ~rce sucres pla~ graph. ~*a ~ we live ~rco ~sla~, to ~ ~, b~ause l~ea a c~ni~y, lc has be~ for ~w~cy-five ye~rs~ con~l~es co be. So ~C*s cer~ain~y ~2r P~tC~.on ~ we feel ~hC ~rco We a3so beli~ ~ ~rc~ ls3a~ sh~ld bye all o~ its profiles tak~ as ta~ are. ~e pin hs been there since 1965. ~e also bell~e ~t ~rco Island sh~ld no~ be ~o suffer f~,r ~e Sca~e of Florida ~ransgreosions In no~ ~in~aining and d~eloping S~a~e R~d 051. I~ 'is ~he ve~ strong position o! t~e ~rco Island CNa~ber of ~m~rce, their Board of Directors at leasL, as voted this week, that the Board of Directors of the liarco Island Chamber of Commerce Is unalterably opposed to a growth ~oratorlum on 14arco Island. We feel that there is, in trut.~, no Justification for it, based on 951 and cert~ainly no~. ~ased on ~ater. ~hile 951 allegedly is belo~ levels of service at certain ti~.es of the year, at other tl~ee of the year it's almost an empty road. So wc certainly ieel that th~ 951 Issue is not one which is r:Ppropriate for consideration as a ~oratoriu~ Issue. Therefore, to smmmrize our position! ~arco -- the Harco Island Board of Directors of the ~arco Island Chamber of Commerce would like t.o state that we feel ~arcc is a plarmed co~munity, as Nfo Savage has said, ~nd he certainly has much more experience on ~arco Iflan~l than Just about any of us tn here. and we also ~:e opposed to a moratorium being ta~osed on Narco lolar~l. CHAI~i PJ~$S£z Thank you, Iix:. Neale. CO~I$SIO~/ER SHANAHAN= /dr. Chaired,n, ~ust a quick OO093 etatement. We have had that question asked over and over and over again, Pat. Not only by you, but by others, by Savages and to the best of my knowledge there has not been a definitive answer to date. ·nd I would like to ask our s~aff and attorneys to give you a definitive answer insofar as whether or not Marco Island is a planned community and/or a unified con~unity once and for all, or whether or not ~hey're going to have to go through the process. ~R. NEALEf Yes, air. CHAZI~ HASSE~ Who*s next, ~r. Olliff? V~CE-C~R~ VOLPE~ I ~hink ~h~re's a -- F~. H~E~ ~as t~t a quest/on? ~I~ ~S~s OKay. ~an. ~. C~O~f ~rco Lo ~e of the ~1~ Pla~Lng c~L~ies ~haC we designee for planning ~ses Ln ~he c~n~y, l~ LB no~ a (1~el~en~ of r~/o~l i~c~ b~ause when ~rco Island d~el~, L~ was no~ -- ~ha~ law w~s no~ in effect. ! do not believe that they ever h~,! a binding letter determination fro~ the State Department of Coununity Affairs OOOt 93 in terms o£ any vested rights they have, in regard to Marco Island. COIg~SSIONBR GHANM4~Ns They claim they have previous vested rights, Barbara, that we need to look at. They have ouJ~aitted Previous vested rights. They contend that the~ are a DR! and there£ore are e:cepted from the process, so ee ne~d co specifically answer it. C~AIRMAN HASSgz Well, ! might respond to that, 6hanahan. Evidently, according to what ! ~ust heard, that 951 t3 not an overtaxed road in any sense of the word, so it evidently is sufficient at the present 'Did I hear that properly [rom ~ir. Neale? CONNIgSIONER SHANAHAI~ ~at's wMt he said. CHAIRMA~ HiSSEs That's w~t he said. COMMISSIONER S~ANA~ANs He said a s~ratorium should not imposed because -- Cl~AlKJ~t,t~ HA~SEs But h~ also said 951 was sufficient, so the State doesn't have to do anything about it evidently. CO~SSION£R SHA~I~HA~I: Doc£ that maan wo don't hays to do anything either? 0OO95 ! don't think I've got an anmr.~r, Barbara, on Piarco Island. I~R. I~RRILLs ! think ! can answer one thing. One thing that is certainly not part of this ordinance is a ~oratorium. If ~ratori~ is to be discuss~, i~ ~s ~o do wi~h ~lic facilities, ~ this Ordinance i~ses ~lutely no ~ratoria ~ any pretty In the c~n~y. ~is i~ a Z~ing Re~alua~t~ ~di~e, not an ~ua~e Facilities or ~ra~or/a. H~er, to go b~ that, I thi~ t~t w~ we zeally need to l~k at is whothor or not a~ Pretty in the ~rco area will be r~aluat~. ~ u~ersta~ing is that none of ~his -- I beli~e this is corr~t, ~rb, a~ corr~t ~ if I'm wrong. Fr~ ~ discussions with n~ff, il lB my u~era~nding ~t n~e of ~h~ single-f~tly residential will be rezon~ ~der these ordinances in PJrco area. He-e-,er, there amy be ao~ higher density residential and some co~ercial that will be rezoned. CONNISSIONER BHAN~h~Nz Absclutely. And that's the question, Bt11. And that was the answer. ! think. Am 95 ! correct in that? VICE-C~I~ VO~l~z You*re saying that it is not -- for the purposes of this ordinance, it i',~ not a unified plan of development, and therefore it is subject to whatever the Provisions are of this land develol~ent regulation as it may finally be adopted. Nil. NERRII,L~ ! do not believe that it is an unified plan of development. He-ever, it is also ~ understanding ti)at none of the sinole-fomily residential ~,hat is in the -- v. don't kr. ow what the density cutoff is, but ! bel.~eve none of the single-family residential will be affected by this ordinance. COI~SSIONL~ SRANAHAN~ But there~a a considerable a~ount of coemercial tht, t wil! be reevaluated. Considerable. ~ll. CAiHONE~ ! think approximately ~'ifty-six acres is subject to the re~val,aatt~n. CO~IlS$IOt~ER SHANA~ANs She said fifty-six acres. NS. ~--~SHOI~Es ~he subject of the ordinance which my receive co~:patab!llty exception, vested rights, o~ exc~nption. That's Jus~ the total untmpro,,,ed commercial that is subject to r~evaluatlon. CON~.ISSIOI~lt SIt~N~I But ! think we nee~ to up a~ say it l. not a plann~ c~n~, ]t Is ~t a unifi~ c~nity, a~ therefore i~ ~i~ have to go thr~gh tb~ ZRO and th~ P~lc ad~uacy ordinancos. ~a~'s been the ~esti~, and ~e ~ve not, ~n ~inion, an~r~ It s~ifically. Y~. ~HO~ ~ thi~ that -- ~AI~ H~E~ Are y~ in a ~sition to say rJ. C~tO~s It ~ill b~ s~t to revaluation and ad. ate p~lic facilities. ~I~ISSIONER BH~A~s Fin~. ~at's the question. C~IP~I H~BEs Okay. ~. ~LI~s Mr. ~l~n~ the n~t t~ ~akers have ere -- ~ISSION~ ~H~AI~Iz I finally go~ an an~er. ~. OL~iFFs Jerw Phillips and Ntchel Daniel. ~SR. ~RT~f ~r. C~t~n~ I ~; not Jer~ ~illtps~ but he has asked me to s~ak on bc~lf of ~IRY~.I HASSEs ~t is your n~e, sir? }~R. IIcCART~I: M~ n~e is ~ward ~Carthy, and I'm a local builder here. O00U8 And ~y point here tonight ia tb~t tbere*s a lot of people out here that signed a slip of Pal~ez that it ssysl I'm a resident of Collier County, ! support the reco~aendation o£ the Collier County Planning Co~mission as approved ltarch 13, 1990. Now with ~lerry's family -- ! know ~Ierryo ! used to c~ploy him. So on behalf of hi= and bis family and many other families, I ask that you support what is wrltte= on ~.his piece of papor hero tonight. For the goodness of those individuals who have to live in this co~mutty, as we all do. Thank you very much. CIIAIRNAN HASSEt lqlank you, ~ro NcCarthyo ~r. Daniels. ~R. OLLIFFs ~ichaol Dantrl, followed b~ ~ay ,~Ro DANIEI,~ ! would like to step do~n here a little closer so ! can see the people I'm addrpssingo · ~ha~.'s a little bit tough to make. a speech or apply a Board ~hat has such stature as yours wh~:n you ~ork in a field ~hich a lot of things that you hear, a lot of things that you read sro no~. even rele'~a~t to ~lmt~s happening. .~s a p~rson that ~orks construction and has climbed 00099 the ladder from laborer, oPerator, foreman, and no~ superintendent, which kno~s the steps tic, at it takes to get this high in our society, which Is not always remembered by the people that have ~oved here, brought wealth here, and we appreciate that by building their places to live and the places for the elderly to retire and continue building those places, were not building smoke, bellowing to, ers for commercial use~ we are building buoinesses that provide clothing, shelter, food, et cetera. ~e are buildi~q a coat,unity which ia we're fighting a natural way of life. It wao said~ I~hat happens when we.re built out. But through you~ reco~mendatlofls, with the state and you ctandin~ flr~, controlling our crowth, ~e will not b~ built out~ ~e will build: ~e ~111 rebuild over and over and update our systemo, cc~plet.~ our utility systems. ! would like to say r~or myself and quite a few other working ptople, we are willing to pay the toll to build the roads, the utlli~les, and ! think that would be a lot of people agroeing to that that are in ~y class of younger, responsible parents with children and so on, and adults tbe~'re suppor~in9 t.~ ~hotr ~omcs, me,bets and fathers they~rc takin9 care of, ti. at aren,t accour, tod for, that 100 We have been going over these things for months and months and months. J~e havo been Provided with no less than five various drafts of this ordinance. We have worked thrOugh the process the way we're supposed to. It seems inconceivable to me ncw chat your legal staff, your consultant Lhat you'ze paying with my tax dollars, is coming back to you and saying that the~e exe~ptiona may not be legal/y defensible. Z -- where did that come from~ We shOuld have heard about that five months ago, if in fact ic was true, and don't believe that it ! would simpl,! close by sayin~ that if DCA has a problem with those ~/.emptio~8, l~t's them coa~ent publicly ami find Out that way, but I'm tired of the private background conversations, ! also resent a g~oup coming In here after the t~o minute warning has be~.n sounged in the game and exl>ectlng you all to let them coach the team. ! don't kno~ where Ke~sler~s has been during the months and months a~d months ~hat ! and others have been working ~tth yOur staff to tgy t~ come up with these ordinances, ~ut ! really think that,s -- t~ere*s ~o cr~.dtb!lity of ~]~ they're saying when they OOXO 101 co~e in at the last minute. CHAI~ HASS~.I ~hank you, Hr. Smith. will be Y~ Ne~les. ~. 0~~ ~ ~ening, Hr. ~ir~, M~ero of the representing Del tons Co--ration. ~ere ~s be~n c~std~rable ~iscus~ion t~i~ht conc~rnin,~ pr~lsion forth ~ y~r pi~ sb~e~. I don~t -- I ~ust ~an~ ~o ~larl~y a~ raia~ a t~ ~r~ ~lnts vith re~t ~o y~r re~tino the pink sheet c~n~es. First, when s~ff w~s dJscusstn9 this pr~lsi~ with y~ at the a land ~or c~ld qet thiu ~tion }ust ~y d~tcatlng s~e land and not havinv a :~el~ent orderl a~ therefore, this ~ion ~s~ different fr~ the cther ~ttons and shouldn't ~n vtth the land. If y~ elll go to the first sentence of the ~isting draft, ~htch begins on page six. 2.4.6. 00103 102 The first sentence of that section says~ The provisions of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any lawfully issued and effective development order. And then it goes on to discuss the nature of the dedication or conveyance that would have been made in support of that development order. I submit to you there is no difference between that exemption and the other ones that you are discussing this evening. And in fact, if there is any pure form of vested rights, it is the one represented by that particular exemption, that there is where someone has actually conveyed property to the government, to the public for the public benefit, as described in the provisions in 2.4.6. If you in any way limit the rights of a land owner to pursue those -- this particular exemption, whether it be by tying it only to the original dedicator, which the pink sheet would do, or by putting a time limit on the exercise of one's vested rights, you are limiting the vested rights that should probably be afforded the most amount of protection, because there we have a government development order issued and pure reliance, a dedication in support of that. 00 04 103 I submit to you that in the best interests of this community, you should be rejecting the pink sheet changes to that section. Then have been on exemptions. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE~ there -- I'm going to change the subject. We Maybe we ought to have some discussion. I mean maybe we ought to have some comment on it while it's fresh in our minds. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Mr. Merrill, Ms. Cashone, there was something I don't think ! understood at the beginning, in terms of what the reason is for in this particular instance having the up front exemption personal to the transferor. Can you just explain to us again -- Ms. Orshefsky makes a point -- of what the reason is that staff would recommended against change? MR. MERRILL: Again, I believe as we had said earlier, and as Debbio has stated now, the primary thrust of this particular exemption deals with the substantial reliance; in other words, the substantial expenditures or obligations that may have incurred by a developer or owner O0105 104 of -- in this case, the owner of land. And we felt that the -- this particular exemption, the staff felt that this particular exemption should not run with the land, primarily due to the fact that there may have been some, a number of dedications that had been made years before where there has been no activity on the land whatsoever. In those instances, either the statuatory -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEI But if that's the case, what she~s saying is that we need a development order. A development order and a conveyance or a dedication. ~. MERRILL= But it has to be a development order that would qualify under the law of vested rights, and any development order isn't necessarily that type of development order. This particular exemption differs from the other exemptions. The other exemptions deal with a specific type of development order that is more specific. For instance, we talk about building permits, we talk about particular types of subdivision plats. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE= Is thio a rezone? Would this be a rezone situation, where you have a rezone.of property ~ ~ IIII III I IIIII I I IIIII il- , ................. 105 and as an incident of the rezone you have a dedication of some right of way? MR. MERRILL: It may be something in that nature. However, let me continue. We are not denying any rights by elimi -- even if we eliminated this exemption, we would not be denying any rights. Those things are -- these matters contained in this exemption are still considered in the vested rights determination. The difference is that it's not an up front exemption. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Do you understand that, Ms. Orshefsky? MS. ORSHEFSKY= I understand that, and I have to disagree very strongly that what you are doing is creating a special class of exemptions that are not d~fferent from the other classes that you have created. We have a governmental approval and we have reliance. And in fact I would submit that we have -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: But your statement was that somehow we're taking away some vested rights, I think -- MS. ORSHEFSKY: Yes, the vehicle is available for a vested rights determination. But I believe that if' -- if 106 there were levels of vested rights, the conveyance of property in support of a development order, there can be nothing more pure than that. I don't understand why that type of exemption cum vested rights should be afforded less protection than the fact that I have processed a plan. 0uite frankly, that seems ludicrous to me. I also have an equal protection problem with it, because I don't think that there is a rational basis for the distinction that staff is drawing by not allowing subsequent purchasers or owners of the land to have the benefit of that prior reliance. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Two questions, Ms. Orshefsky. Are there any cases in Florida or in other jurisdictions that have held that the dedication of land in reliance on zoning is sufficient to consider that land -- that zoning be vested? MS. ORSHEFSKY: Zoning alone may not be it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I mean the zoning with the dedication of land in reliance. MS. ORSHEFSKY: Oh, the zoning with the dedicati~n is -- I believe is sufficient once you have the dedication, O0108 ,~l __111111111 II I I IIIIII I I III II III IIIIIIIII IIIII III III --' IIIIIII - III IIIII II II ~__ 107 because you now have a reliance. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. The question is -- ~!S. ORSHEFSKY: Just the zoning or Just the purchase of the property in itself would not be sufficient. CO~/WISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. The question Have there been any cases in Florida or other Jurisdictions that have addressed that particular point, the point of the zoning would be vested if there is a dedication of land in reliance on zoning. MS. ORSHEFSKY~ There have been -- I don't recall whether there are, specifically a case that relied on zoning, but there are clearly cases that we relied upon dedication connected to a governmental approval as the requisite reliance. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. j - Next question for staff. Has there been any consideration of this language by the Planning Commission, and if so, what was their recommendation in reference to that? I would presume that if they did consider it, they rejected it, but what would be the reason that it was considered? 00109 ~ _ I III IIII II IIIII I I IIIIII __~ II I I i i1~ 108 MS. CASHONE~ This language was not presented at any other Planning Commission hearing. COmmISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Ms. Orshefsky. MS. ORSHEFSKY: pink sheet. CHAIR~N HASSE: I truly hope that you do reject the Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Ms. Orshefsky, you keep referring to the pink sheet. There are three. MS. ORSHEFSKY: Item One, the two point four point -- CO~,~ISSIONER SAUNDERS: You have no problem with Item Two and Item Three on the pink sheet? MS. ORSHEFSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. ORSHEFSKY: Let me just raise one point that I am confused about. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You know, you realize you've over stayed your time. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE= I interrupted that, Mr. Chairman, by my question. MR. OLLIFF: I stopped the time as well. MS. ORSHEFSKY~ My next comment is.re~lly very brief. 00110 109 It'S In respect to a portion at page fivo, Soction 2.4.3. In talking about developments regional impact and how they would or would not be subject to zoning reevaluation, one of the points that's raise~ that they could be subject to this new ordinance is Subitem Three~ that the ordinance -- that the development order, development order, fails to address an issue in which event the provision ordinance shall apply as to that issue. I understand where that's coming from. It's very clear in many of the declaratory statements that you can reopen certain questions with respect to DRI's if they weren't addressed in the DRI. My understanding, though, of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance is that it is an ordinance with respect to intensity of use, types of use, and density. A~d I don't know of any DRI that could get approved without having that issue clearly addressed. That's Question 12.1 in any DRI applications What are you doing wit]] the property, what's your intensity and density of use. ~. OLLIFF: MS. ORSHEFSKY: Mr. Chairman, that's four minutes. I would suggest that-that provision 001.11 110 be deleted because it is confusing within the context of a discussion of what you can impose upon a DRI. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's four minutes. VICE-COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, what do you do -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Merrill, do you follow that? MR. DORRILL: MR. MERRILL: Do you agree that? Yes. I don't disagree with her that the densities and intensities may ]]ave been addressed in the ordinance; but in the event that something was not addressed, I still feel that this is fully in compliance, this language is fully in compliance with not only the case law but also the declaratory statements. And I would be happy to refer any of the attorneys or other people out there to the cases that specifically deal with this issue. If it does not have any effect on a particular issue dealing with intensities and densities, then of course it doesn't apply, and so I don't see the harm done in that respect. MS. ORSHEFSKY: I just wanted to make clear, though, that in the talking about the application or discussion of a DRI under the ZRO, the issue under the ZRO iS intensity and density and usage; not the other issues which have come up. 111 VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: other issues? MS. ORSHEFSKY: VICE-CHAIR~fAN VOLPE: issues. So you're saying there are no There are no other issues. She says there are no other MS. ORSHEFSKY: Within the application of this ordinance. So therefore, I don't understand why it's here. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: That makes sense to me. MR. MERRILL: We'll take a look at that. This was originally considered -- I mean some of these provisions were originally in here as a result of including the growth management exemptions as well as public facility exemptions. But before I give you a final on that, I'd like to take a look at that. VICE-CHAIRS~N VOLPE: All right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You said you're going to take a look at that. I hate to pin you down, but we're going to be voting on this ordinance tonight. MR. MERRILL: right now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: MS. ORSHEFSKY: I'm talking about taking a look at it All right. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Mary Needles, followed by Dale Chlumsky. MR. NEEDLES: And I moved into Collier County, and more specifically to Marco Island, over twenty years ago. And I came to this -- I came to see what was going on. I really did not intend to get up and speak. However, over tke last twenty years, I have kind of gotten involved in the community, and I think I would like to give my opinion when I think somebody might be listening to it. Fifteen years ago, this same facility held a program that was called the hearings for the Corps of Engineers. And many similar faces were here. A lot of people in the construction business nnd some of the peoDle who owned property on Marco were not going to see it develop, or few citizens of the town. Not only from Marco but from the entire county of Collier County who had a conscious stake jr~ the conservations of Marco Island. The Corps of Engineers denied some of the permits. However, in their wisdom, they did lcok at some compromises. We're looking or asking that we look at some compromises in this section to continue the ~onstruction on 113 Marco Island and other areas that are under cons~deration for moratorium. About ten years ago, not in this facility, but up at the courthouse, there was another situation that developed that had to do with the construction of Collier County, but more specifically Marco Island, and it had to do with the flood elevations. The federal government issued certain flood elevations and asked the county to impose certain restrictions. The county rolled over, the county commissioners and planners rolled over and played dead and for all practical purposes, Marco Island went into a moratorium. TWo years later the federal Government came along said we're gcing to raise those flood elevations by as much as two or three feet. It took a citizen's Group to come to the County Commission and get them, with the support of the rest of the community, to reevaluate and have an investigation for reevaluation. What came about was because the citizens cared, the County Commissioners later on reversed that, got an independent study and instead of raising it by two or five feet, they were lowered as much as two fgeto 00115 What we're asking today is that you give some consideration to some other factors. Now, let's look at the moratorium. There are severa: alternatives. I didn't come up by outline tO --, but twen:~ years when I moved to Marco Island, that was the only route to get to the Collier County. Today, it still is a way of getting to Naples or the rest of Collier County. There arc two roads to Marco, 92 and 951. There are other ways of getting to different places for evalcuation in the case of hurricane. The problem that we're looking at is we have on 951 what is -- for eight to nine hours a day, is too much traffic. Some people said it's not too bad. Well, I diffe: with that. It is bad. But that's for a limited time frame, for probably nine to five o'clock or nine to five thirty, and also only for about four and a half to five months a year. Now why create and make suffering for all the people here and cut out their jobs because people come and crowd the roads for five months and put people out of work for twelve months? I would like to take up another issue.' We have one 00116 115 item that is coming up. It's called the state legislatures. They're coming to session here shortly, and it's my understanding that there are some considerations that have to do with the penny sales tax, one of which will take it away from the possibility of putting it up for a vote. CHAIn, lAN HASSE: I think you ought to direct yoursell to what we're doing here this evening. MR. NEEDLES: It has something to do with it, sir. CHAIRMAN MASSE: Well, your time is running. MR. NEEDLES: I'm being interrupted. Thank you. What I'd like to -- I guess my time is up now. But there's -- I would like to ask that the County Commission look for other alternatives, rather than just look at the concurrency law as it is, and let's try and find a way of avoiding the moratorium. Thank you. CHAI~4AN HASSE: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, following Dale Chlumsky will be George Varnadoe. ~. CHLUMSKY: My name is Dale Chlumsky. I'm a resident Naples. I came down here with my parents over 00117 116 thirty-five years ago when the area was a nice,.green area. We had one doctor, we had no hospital, we had plenty of mosquitoes; and through the wise planning of our County Commission and the city council, the area's developed into a very nice area. What the general public I think still doesn't realize is that on that magical date of April 1 or, appropriately, April Fool's Day, there is going to be a tremendous transfer of wealth from the small property owner to the large developer. And there's some people, Mr. Kessler's group feel that the ordinance is too lax as it is. There's -- there's going to be a tremendous amount of money lost. People who own small businesses, £<,r example, who have built their businesses, they have bought property, they have paid off their property through the years in anticipation of owning their own real estate some day. Their dreams are going to be crushed, because maybe their property doesn't fall into the very strict exceptions or exemptions that you have now. I think when we think about these things, ~and they are very important decisions, we need to look at that flag up there, and we need to think about our kids and what 117 rights they're going to have in the next ten years. Look back ten years and see how much things have changed. When you look for%~ard, there's going to be an even greater change. One. other issue that I'd like to talk about was the limitation on dedication rights. Some years ago, your predecessors, the Commission, came to us, and they said, we need to widen U.S. 41 -- and we own about a third of a mile of coz~mercial frontage from the city limits eastward. We gave thc property to the county so that the roads could be ~.:idened. At no -- wc didn't get a penny for it, and we think that %.;e should get some consideration today in our vesting of the property. Thank you. CHAIR~,[AN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Chlumsky. ~.~. r. Varnadoe. ~4R. VARNADOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fo~ thc record, George Varnadoe, attorney. I'm ~3oing to scrap my prepared statements and talk -- since we are at the eleventh hour trying to make changes to the ordinance, I'll try to address my comments to proposed changes. O0,t19 118 The approach on the exemptions, wi~,ich have been discussed, to my knowledge, since last October, was to recognize that if a project got to a certain point in the permitting stage in Collier County, i.e., the SDP or SMP process stage, then we understood it had gone far enough that we wanted to go forward and we did not want to hold it up or subject it to the vacuum, if you would, for some period of time while we did a recveluation of that project. We l~ave already made a determination that it had gone forward enough to go forward. Now at the eleventh hour, Mr. l{essler comes in and says that he's going to have a legal challenge to this if we do this. So what is our reaction from the staff perspective? We're going to roll ov~.r and play dead; let's change our exemptions; let's weaken our exemptions; let's make a change in the thing. And as far as DCA's involvement, I met with Tom Pelham last wce]:, and I have had discussions with 5:r. Russ, who b'.arjorie has talked to some, Mrs. Stroud (phonetic) has talke¢! to some on behalf of Mr. Kessler, and probably everybody else in the county has been bugging him as some sort of a guru. O0 .t'2,0 119 But the truth is DCA has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of an LDR at this point in time. Their only involvement in LDR's is if someone makes a legal challenge to the LDR, they make an informal determination as to whether the LDR is consistent with your Growth ~anagement Plan, and then it goes to a hearing officer, not -- respecting that determination. So they don't have any jurisdiction. And I would remind you that the last time your staff came to you with conunents from DCA and said this is the best we can ¢1o on the settlement agreement with DCA, we've got to go right down the line with them, that didn't turn out to be quite the case, as I~rs. Goodnight can tell you because she helped us get more from the state than what staff was proposing. That's why we have this April cutoff date for these ordinances, as opposed to January 10th, 1989. The implementation process for our Growth Management Plan was the subject of great debate, as everybody remembers. Wc finally came to the conclusion we wanted to take a middle of the road position and have this use-it-or-lose-it process. Now that is subject to attack by, I ~3uess, not only ~'lr. Kessler but you~ own staff. But 120 let me tell what your consultant at that time said. Your consultate at that time said: Amortization -- this is out of your back-up material to your future land use element as in the plan tech report, and I should mention it was prepared by ~,'~rs. ~Iancy Stroud who is a partner in the Bosselman (phonetic) law firm and they are the lawyers that are representing ~,Ir. Kessler. So you want to pay some attention to %.:hat his lawyer said in 1987. Amortization is a concept commonly used in rezoning w}',erc' nc.~,~ zoning classifications create existing nonconforming uses. In the context of comprehensive rezcning, e>:isting uses are typically permitted as nonconforming uses for ~ certain number of years, after which they must be discontinued. The courts have permitted this c3race period as a way to mitigate the economic impact of s change in zoninG' and to give the property owner a chance to recoup his investment. In principle, the concept of amortization can be equally ap~>lied to lands that have been designated in the current plan but not developed for conu,nercial use. Use of this option would entail the adoption of a land use policy and a new Comprehensive Plan to tile effect that lands with 121 commercial designations would continue to be eligible for commercial uses, even though they are not so designated in the new plan, for a period of three years from the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. [':R. OFFITT: ~'lr. Chairman, that's four minute. [,;R. VARNADOE: ~4r. Chairman, I'm going to ask your permission to finish this, as you let Mr. Kessler finish his remarks. But I will be brief. CHAIRP.bIN HASSE: That's agreeable. But I notice too, ~.4r. varnadoe, attorneys have a habit of continuing and continuing and continuing. Let's get a couple words done Let's cut it short. there. ~IR. VAK~]ADOE: Thank you very much. This option -- in her conclusion. q~his option -- speaking on amortization -- is suitable for a relatively conservative legal position and the longer the amortization period, the less risk that the property owner would challenge the use of this option. Chapter 163 requires revisions to comprehensive plan every five years, so that five-year amortization period effectively delaying the land usc designations to the next 001.23 122 planning period is the maximum recommended amortization period. Three years is recommended as a reasonable time period because most development plans can be modified within From a planning perspective, amortization period of change to new plan this time period. simply extends the requ i re:'.~en ts. His own attorney told you you can do this. Nov; we ' re trying to implement this, and three years later they're back saying we can't do it. We've got a good. Growth Management Plan. It's been applauded around the state. Let's stick with it. Let's stick with ti]ese exemptions that have been worked on for six months and been the subject of public hearings. Let's not give into some eleventh hour hysteria and change our plan. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, ~.~r. Varnadoe. ~[R. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next statement is David Plummer, follcwed by Bruce Anderson. MR. A~]DERSON: ~<r. Chairman, Mr. Plummer is going to speak on concurrency, so we'll wait on him today. b[R. OLLIFF: Okay. Bruce Anderson, then followed bY John Jassy. 00124 123 CHAIRNA~ HASSE: the next one, l.~r. Olliff? I.~R. OLLIFF: John Jassy. CHAIRMAN t{ASSE: 51R. A~DI;RSON: ~,~r. Anderson, where are you? who is Jassy. Okay. Good evening, Commissioners. [~ly name is Bruce Anderson, and I wanted to address you about these last minute changes that have be~n proposed, specifically the one that would require commencement of construction in order to be vested. That is not the case law. Town of Largo versus Iinperia]. I!omes Corporation, 300 Southern Second 571, makes that clear. VICE-CHAIRI,[A~I VOLPE: [4r. Anderson, excuse me. Are you referring to a specific provision that you can identify first so that I can follow it? ~,:R. ANDERSON: You can refer to your notes Mr. ~4err~]l went over earlier. CHAIR~AN HASSE: What are the numbers? ~IR. A[:DERSON: They were in Section 2.4, sir. I would like to read from that court case. The theory of estoppel amounts to nothing more than the application of the rules of fair play. A citizen is 001 5 124 entitled to rely on the assurances and commitments of a zoning authority and if he does, the zoning authority is bound by its rc[~resentations, whether they be in the form or words or deeds. ~ow your current policy in the Comprehensive Plan, future land use pclicy 3.1.K, says satisfies that people can reccive development orders based on their existing zoning, even if their zoning ~'~-.' inconsistent, until they get a notice of inconsistency. ~any people have filed applications, timely filed applications, but their applications may not be reviewed and approved in a timely manner. Those people should be exempt up front. And as far as the last minute changes that ~errill was talking about, I believe he said that they were a policy deci£~ion. And I would ask you to e>:ercise your policy discretion to bend over backwards to be fair to honor tke ori~jinal commitment that was made when the Growth ~,[anagement Plan was adopted. I remember sitting in tke back of the Board room and marveling that in the fastest growing county in the United States there was a community consensus about how. grcwth 00126 125 should be managed in the future. The development community, the environmentalists, everyone was satisfied. It wasn't perfect, but we could live with it; and then big brother from Tallahassee stepped in and said he had a better idea. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Mr. Anderson, I didn't understand that. I didn't want to interupt your flow, but you said something about commencement of construction. I didn't underst:~nd the point that you were making. It may be helpful if you try to explain. MR. ANDERSON: Earlier Mr. Merrill, in response to Mr. Kessler's comments, madc some changes or recomanended some changes in the ordinance in the exemption section, particularly I believe it was one of the first ones, that would require commencement of construction prior to the effective date or by the effective date of the ordinance. And I'm simply saying the case ]aw does not require that. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN }{ASSE: MR. ANDERSON: CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, blr. Anderson. Thank you. Mr. Jassy. 00. 7 126 MR. OLLIFF: Farquhar. MR. JASSY: Mr. John Jassy, followed by John My name is John Jassy. I live at 673 Bridge%ray. I -- as I was coming here tonight, I was just overwhelmed by the diversity of the public that showed up and showed an interest in the project. I mean, you haw~ attorneys, you have land owners, you have stock people. You really have the core of the community turning out for this because they are interested. I think that your staff, the community, your special committees and everyone has worked very hard to come up with a plan that works correctly. And I think your issues, such as ycur automatic exemptions, are things that you absolutely need cr that you're actually going to clog the system and make them impractical and be, you know, grossly unfair to people. You've also got an issue of the vesting with the land, and I think Mrs. Goodnight brought out some great examples. You know, unless you have the vesting running with thc land, you're gcing to have situations were people die, they !ese their rights; people try to sell a piece of property, they lose their rights. I think the only 127 practical way is to let the vesting run with the land. And as far as the vesting and the construction issue goes, I -- from the gentleman who spoke before me, I think his case law states the point very well, that one shouldn't nccd to be under construction to have vesting. And certainly if one gets into an issue of what is substantial construction, it's something that is going to be very hard to determine and it's going to be something that is goinc to I think turn on and terribly complicate and take away a lot of property rights that it's not intended to. And I urge, as the other people have, that you pass it as was the form on March 13. And I thank you for your time. CHAIR~4AN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Jassy. b[R. OLLIFF: b:R. FARQUHAR: ~y name is John Fsrquhar. on behalf of Ronco Developments. After Mr. Farquhar will be Dick Clemmer. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm an attorney speaking I would like to address just a couple issues very briefly, and the first issue is the definition of final local development order. The ordinance before you at this point defines final ~[evelopment order as only a building permit. Earlier drafts O0.t 9 128 of the ordinance, such as the December 21st, 1989 draft, had f, ef]ned final local development ordinance as a building [~er~it, a final subdi~$.~'~ion plat, a final site development plan, a final subdivision master plan or final planned unit development master plan. The definition of final local development order is very important because, as ~ir. Merrill said earlier, there may be some question about the issues he was asking you to possibly strike. If you define final local development order more broadly to include the items covered by plats and final site ~lans, those are clear e>:cmptions. They are contemplated under 163, and there is no doubt that DCA will support those and so will the courts. In fact, DCA is in the process of coming out with a declaratcry statement right now that says -- that will say that the local ap~)roval, which should be the final local develo[~ment order, is that approval which sets the densities and intensity of development. And in Collier County, the density and intensity of development is set long before the building permit is set. Therefore, I would urge you to go back to what your OO.%3O 129 earlier draft said and define final local development order as more than a building permit and to include final subdivision plats and final site development plans that were approved and where constructien has conunenced and is continuing. That -- and that is something that would clearly be legally defensible in the state's courts or with DCA. And that is somethinc~ that is not a new position that I have urged to you tonight. ! have expressed that to both the Commission and to staff since it was taken out of the December 21st draft. At that point, I thought you were moving forward on the definition of final local development order the way the vast majority of other communities have. Very, very few -- only one or two -- have defined a final local development order anywhere nearly as narrow as your present definition is, and I woulc] urge that you go back to the broader defJ. nition which would vest a ].ar.c,e number of projects that would not have to go througk the whole vesting process, both here and in the adequate public facilities, and add a great deal more certainty in the development process and not require tke administrative time and effort that will be 001 130 required the way it is presently structu~'ed. The only other minor -- the only other point which I would like to make in summation is the suggestion to treat dedications as some other type of exemption and to put limitations on dedications an¢~ not have them run with the land seems to be a very strange concept because the dc~cat~or, i.s ,nctu0]ly taki~lg a ¥~iece of the land and giving it to the governmental authority. And then to say that that vestincj concept should not run with the remainder of the land just does not seem to make sense. Thank you very much. CHAIR~.%A~i HASSE: Thank you, sir. COi,'JIISSIO?.:ER S}~A~]AHA~]: ~.~r. Chairman, can we have a comment maybe on the final development order in the question that the gentleman just asked, a broader definition? CHAIR[IAi.~ HASSE: Would you do that? .~."R. [,~ERRII, L: Yes. With regard to his statements, he is certainly correct. There is no legal limitation for this Board to expand the definition of final local development order. However, I think that he also indicated the consequence of that, and that would be to vest a 131 significantly larger amount of land throughout the county. I believe that was the original intent of the restriction or reducing the number of, types of permits that are considered final local development order permits. VICE-CHAIR~,~AN VOLPE: £~ut he took us back to December. That issue was raised back in December; and since that time, we have been through several drafts. [.IR. ~ERRILL: Yes. VICE-CHAIR~A~! VOLPE: We've gone through a couple of hearJngs, at least, workshops and CCPC, and our first public hcarin£~s on the 7th. So -- ~'~R. ~,:EERILL: That's correct. Additionally, witl] regard to the DCA declaratory statement, that is not -- that has not come out as to what it will or will not contain. I cannot tell you. I don't believe that Mr. Farquhar can tell you, either. it will say. Finally, with regard to the dedication issue. I don't agree with ,~vbat he believes Again as I indicated in my preliminary statements, that is solely a decision by this Board. The case law would support you either way, I believe. And so I think that is something 132 that will have to be d<-c. ided by this Board as a policy issue. COb~,[,~ISSI©Nt:]R SHA~]AHA['I: So your reco~uv, endation is not to devcl©p a broader definition of thc final development cr0er as being3 the building permit? I,~E. LIEP, RILL: That is correct. VICE-CHAIR~.~A?~ VOLPE: Just a little aside. I~[s. Cashone, how will we know that there has been, wig, ere property owner has actually made a dedication? I mcan, how do wc tr~ck that? How do we know that someone has done t?~at? ~,~S. CASHO~E: We would have to track it through the public records and rely on the [~roperty o~,~ner to provide us information as well. CHAIRI,IAI] }IASSE: That would be recorded, would it not? >[S. CASIiO~.I[.]: It should be recorded if it was act~;a]ls,' dedicated tc t~'~e coupty. ~,[R. [,~EERII. b: %~he problem i,~: tkat in past practice net all of then~ i~ave been recorded, and there's been some i~roble~,, there; and we're trying to make up for past sins, so to s}?cak, in a lot of regards. 133 So we may have a practical VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: problem. MR. MERRILL: Yeah. There are exceptions to the rule, there is no doubt, and hopefully those would be corrected through the vested rights process, Section 11 of the ordinance. MS. CASHONE: If we'rc not certain that there is a conveyance to a govcrnmental agency that we can find, they would not receive the exemption. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. But if they can establish that in the fact the dedication has been made -- MS. CASHONE: And accepted. And accepted. Before the staff's proposed VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: · ,,~,'.~,~I LL: Y¢~. ViCE-CI{AIRMAN VOLPE: revision, that would automatically be an up front exemption and it will run with the land? fqP. MERRII,L: That is correct. VICE-Ct!AIRMAN VOL PF,: Okay. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. MR. OFFITT: Mr. Chairman, I have Dick Clemmer, followed by Jack Conroy. 134 C}IAIR~IAN IIASSE: Mr. Clemmer. ~1R. CLE~,~ER: ~ir. Chairman, my name is Dick Clemmer, and I'm L. resident of thc Maples Area Board of Realtors. We're twenty-five hundred members strong. In 1989, we represented and were involved in the selling of over a half a billion dollars of property here in Collier County. As realtors working mainly in the resale of property, we're in the formidable position of the win-win situation. If a positJon of la;: or no-growth management happens, we simply get more product to sell. If the position of no growth is taken, then our existing inventory would dramatically increase in value. As I'm sure you're aware, we work on a percentage basis, and this increase would increase the benefits to us economically strongly. I feel quite certain that neither of these extreme positions would be advantageous for the county take either of those positions, an(] we certainly don't recommend either one of these. I'm here toni~3kt to tell you that the Board of Directors of the Naples Area Board of Realtors recommends the adoption of the rcconm~endation by the Collier County 135 Planning Commission of both the zoning reevaluation ordinance and the adequate public facilities ordinance, including 2.4.1.2.3.4. point whatever they went to, that they tried to cut out, and 2.4.7.3. Let me take a moment to point out the reasons for our position. For over six months your staff, aleng with concerned interests from the county, have worked hand in hand to create a workable ordinance. Ordinance of this type cannot possibly serve every interest in the county or every interest that would be impacted by the new laws. The Haples Area of Board of Rearers feels that the time spent has been productive and that the changes made by yeu and your staff and your Flanning Commission and the concerned citizens of Collier County are as fair as possible to all concerned. We don't necessarily a{jrce with everytking, but we think that we've spent the time and it's time to move on. We're aware that higher taxes and building moratoria are a real -- are a reality in Collier County's not too distant future. Unfortunately, these are part of the price t]~at must be paid for sins of the past. Hobody in this county, do we believe, in~ended for 136 our growth situation to get out of hand. I guess we can't blame the people for falling in love with this area and moving here. Thirty-five years ago, my parents made the decision and since then, most of you on the committee and many many others have also decided to come here. I don't think many commissions before you went through -- or, I do think many commissions before you went through similar decisions such as you face tonight, and I feel they attempted to make decisions that were best for Collier County. I hope that your decisions here tonight will be made not from extreme pressure from special interest groups in eithez- camp and not from concerns about your political futures, but from genuine concern for the future of Collier County. Unfortunately, each special interest group is exactly that. It's a sF~ecial interest group. Some are trying to tighten things up. Some are trying to mitigate. Others are j~,st running around trying to muddy the waters saying that thc special interest groups are getting what they want. I think that all that are present here tonight are concerned with Collier County's future. If any of them would desire to change it for the worse, I hope you don't 0013 137 ]]ear them. If any of them would attempt to stop the inevitable, they will ultimately destroy what has been so well created. Let's face it; we're not the fastest growing community of the decade because we did a lousy job. We're the fastest growing community in these United States because we did a good jcb so fat', and I believe we will continue to do thc good job if we continue to work together as well as we have in trying to create these ordinances that you need to pass tonight. Time is of the essence. The agreement that you entered into with the State of Florida is fast approaching its deadline. The staff and your consultant have not indicated any concerns about not being in compliance with the DCA up until t. oday. [..{R. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's four minutes. MR. CLEM~tER: It's time for us to pass these ordinances. It's time for us to get together as a community to make these things happen. CHAIRMAH HASSE: Thank you, b!r. Clemmer. ,'dR. CI.,EI-~P;ER: And move on. Thank you. b:R. OLLIFF: Following b'~r. Conroy will be blike Carr. 001.39 138 ~°.R. CONROY: Good evening. b~y name is Jack Conroy I'm a corm]ercial realtor in town, and also an instructor of philosophy at Baylor (sic) Universi ry. I providcd you wit]~ a white paper, unsolicited, on the history of the idea of t~rivatc property. I won't read I would like to just point c, uta couple items that are in the whitc paper. One is that -- interesting tonight, that this should be the case or the relevance should be so apparent. Aristotle in his "Politics," says: In the opinion cf some, the regulation of property is a chief point of ali, bcing the question u~cn which all revolutions turn. Aristotle was pretty impressive. I would like to co~ent on the second item, and that is that ~.~e -- I hope to establish tee fact that the ability to o%./n and dispose of private property is in fact a central tenet of the entire western way of thinking, and that -- in 1848, Karl ~larx attacked that vcry premise. }iis ottack ',,~at; based on the idea that we have to be protected from ourselves; that the free functioning of a marketplace ~.~as not appropriate, an appropriate environment 00140 139 within which people could become human; and that, therefore, a vehicle had to be established by which we could be protected from ourselves. I ¥:ould like to suggest that that idea has historically proven to be bankrupt, and that the seventy-throe-year history of eastern Europe's adoption of that idea is crumbling before our eyes. Ironically, the idea of the power of a free market is now beccminc3 quite apparent in other parts of the world whi~e we in the United States are suggesting just the opposite. We are su£~gesting that we have to be protected from ourselves and that it's only by rigid rec~ulaticn that a human state of bein.q can occur. There's a sense in which our founding fathers' faith in th~ operation of a free market is in fact falling apart. Z would suggest that it may well bc that we're losing faith with the basic ideas upon which our country was founded. Within this framework, wc have the practical col~sidc,r'atic~n (',l' t~w c'.o you dc,~l wiLh la~,d use, and I would like to suggest that as you make your determination tonight as to which way you make your decision, for more or for less 9overnment regulations, I would like to suggest that to the O0.t41 140 extent that you respect the function of a free market and the fact that it has worked and tke fact that it's the free market that has created the beauty of Naples, and not necessarily planning. W'ithin this framework, I think that you would F, robe, bly choose to adopt the ordinance as it was previously recommended by the Collier County Planning Commission. CHAIRHAN I{ASSE: Thank you, Mr. Conroy. t~r. Olliff. ~IR. OFFITT: ~;R. CARR: b[ike Cart, followed by Lonnie Martin. i'm 9!ike Carr, Commissioners. I live at 1450 ~qisty Pine Circle in Conunissioner's Volpe's district. I'm a small real estate broker, very small real estate broker com.r~ared to ~.'ir. Conroy. b~y wife, my son and I make our living selling commercial real estate. I have lived in Collier County for thirteen years. Part of that time -- half of that time in the City of Naples. I would like to commend the Commission and the staff and the many concerned citizens that for the past five years, I guess, altogether, have been working on this Growth Nanagement Ordinance. There's been a lot of input, you've been very pati¢~nt, and I think we have come up with a good 00142 141 ordinance os recommended by the Planning Contmission last week. I urge that we adopt that. I just came back from a three-day conference in Tampa, four or five hundred people concerned with the legislative process, and particularly we're concerned with growth management. I'm proud of the fact that we have very tough Growth ~ian,ng(:m~nt ;~].',n herr, i[~ Ila[:lc':;, i~', Collier County. I just spoke with folks from over the state. There were bankers, there were even some lawyers, plumbers, electricians, real estate people, insurance people, all walks of life, and we were comparing growth management plans and the problems we're having with implementation of them. Collier County has, if not the toughest, one of the very toughest ordinances in front of it right now, and I think we should. Collier County is a unique place. It's a nice place with a tremendous quality of life, and we want to keep it that way, az~d I don't think anyone here thinks differently. I would like to point out to many people in the audience that we're saying all of these nice things about this plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. It's a 142 very tough plan and it hurts. It's going hurt everyone in this room. We are going to have moratorium, in all probability, because we don't have. roads that are up to sufficient level that they work properly. So we are going to have problems. It's going to hurt all of us. It hurts property owners. So it's not a real nice thing, but it will keep Collier County the way it should be and the way I want to keep it. Just two more conunents. I'm appel, led that our consultants at the very last n:inute, at the meeting tonight, come for~.,'ard with other ideas that have not been discussed over these five months and over these past five years. They are paid for by the County Commission, and ! don't understand how our paid consultants can come up with new ideas at the last minute. I don't think that's proper. One more comment. In speaking to these many folks from throughout the state, many of them have stood up to Mr. Tom Pelham and have stood up to the DCA, and they have won on occasion. And I would certainly commend our Commission' to do the same thing. I believe that we know how to run Collier County. 00144 143 You guys have done a good job so far, a.~d I think we should keep it that way and try to keep the state out of it. Thank you. CHAIR~Ai~I HASSE: Thank you. Lonnie [,~,artin, followed by Don ~,~R. OFFITT: Pickwor th. ~,]R. ~ARTIN: I, Iy name is Lonnie 14artin. I'm a resident of Collier County, 181 Carribean Road in Pine ~xlog c. I moved to Naples twenty-two years ago with my wife and three children a~d the clothes on our back, and I ]nave worked very ¢.].iligently in the field of real estate since then to try and acquire scme ccnunercial property and build some commercial buildings and was familiar with the Lely 7->r¢)ject arid tt,ey o~.;noc] the t?,ropert~,,' at the t~me, where the [,ely resort community is starting to be built today. And am presently the owner of several parcels of land, across from that development, that are zoned com~nercial, that were zoned cc::m~crcial then and have been zoned commercial ever since. And over the last five years have acquired these properties, and I have now applied for tv;o site development plans to develop the property. 00145 144 One was applied for before the end of 1989, the other was applied for I believe January the 5th, so they were both applied for before January 10 of 1990. t!owever, even with diligent efforts of myself, of my arcl~itect and my engineers, ~.;e have not yet received final a[~proval. Wc did in January receive preliminary approval for both of these site development plans. So one tking that I'm interested in bringing up tonight is the im[~crtance of allowing those of us who have apl~ticd, ~.~ho have sincerely n~ade an effort, even though we did not have cur final site development plan approved or applied for before January 10th, that you give us consideration, since we have made application and particularly if we applied before January 10th for our Frei iminary. That's one matter I would like to bring before you tonight for con[~idcration. I also would like to concur with the previous speaker in his co~nments, and obviously many of us came here tonight not realizing sonde of the things that were going to be brought u.~ with regard to changes. I ~ave tried to k¢:e¥~ myself informed of what was 00. 46 145 happening, and because of a very large investment of my savings that I have acquired over the twenty-two years I've bcen here, obviously I am very interested in not losing that investment, which would happen in these proposals were accepted that were brought forth by Mr. Kessler earlier this evening. Obviously I would not at that point get my site development plan approval, would not be able to develop my property which i have diligently worked to acquire. So I appeal to you to accept the recommendations of tt~c Collier County Planning Commission of the March 13th meeting, I believe it was, to accept this last draft that has been worked on and considered from every aspect for many months now by practically every aspect of our community. ~iany of us have based many decisions on what is happening knowing obviously that you hadn't approved it yet, but obviously a let of effort, a lot of consideration, a lot of study and so forth has gone into arriving at this draft, ond I certainly make strong appeal that you accept it in t}]at form tonight. And I thank you and apI;rec.iate your considerations and trust that you w~ll vote in the favor of the majority 00147 146 represented here tonight. CHAIR[.1A~! HASSE: Thank you. ?.~R. b[ARTIM: Thank you. HR. OLI,IFF: ~ir. Chairman, following Don Pickworth we head into the last twenty registered speakers for this ordinance and -- VICE-C}!AIR[4AII VOLPE: Did you [;ay the last twenty? '~,'.R. OLLIFF: The last twenty. CO~.'.I, IISSIC~ER S[~AI,;AHAN: In [:his group. ~.[R. OLLIFF: For this ordinance. The next speaker after Mr. Pickworth will be wayne Sprouse. ~lI~. PICKWORT!{: Good evening, b~r. Chairman, Commissioners. ~,~y name is Don Pickworth. It was mentioned earlier that when we adopted our Comprehensive Plan after many hearings, we ]]ad a document which was perhaps not perfect, but a document we could all agree upcn. AIl groups in our community. I thin]<, like that, %.;e have tonight a Zoning Reevaluation Ordinamce which has been the subject of many hours of ]~earings. It's been considered by the Planning Commission. And again, we have I think essentially a 00.148 147 reasonable consensus on what it ought to say. You've heard people from some groups tonight saying don't further dilute the ordinance. I don't think you have heard individuals from the business and development community tonight asking you to further dilute the ordinance. On the other ]]and, I don't think that at the eleventh hour we need to be considering what amounts to fairly major changes to the ordinance, and I would refer in particular there to the language with respect to the lose of the dedication exemption, where it doesn't run with the land. I think that is a fairly major change. I have been listening to the argument back and forth, and I can only say on that, that's the kind of thing that should have been and. was supposed to be debated thoroughly before the Planning Commission and prior to final hearing. I believe the same can be said of the dilution of the -- of t]~c suggested deletion of some of the exemptions. '.'~e ]~v~v(_, }~ad considerable debate over the past weeks and months over these exemptions. That debate has relied -- ?las entailed almost exclusively debate over the impact of such exemptions as to how many units are in, how many units 00.14£ 148 are out. At no time have we heard from our legal consultant tl~at tllese ex~mptions are seriously deficient legally. I believe that they are in fact defensible legally, and I think the Board should simply instruct its consultants and its attorneys to, if a challenge is filed, to simply raise the points as to defensibility of these exemptions. The only other point I would raise is with respect to the ordinances. I too, like Mrs. Orshefsky, am a little concerned about the Subitem Number Three in the DRI cxempticn, and that's the one that is on page five. It's two point four, four -- point three. I believe again that we're dealing with a ordinance which by definition deals with dcn~;itics and i~.~tensities. If there is a belief on the part of the staff that we need scme kind of comprehensive ordinance dealing with the subject of charioted conditions of D?..!'s outside of this, then we need to consider a separate ordinance on that. MR. SHANA[lA, i: Don, that item you're talking about is 2.4.3, pcint three, in that section? I, IR. PICKWORTII: address an issue. Right. Where it says fails to COI~-MI o.,IONEE S}IA[]AI{A~: Just point three? O015(! 149 MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir. That's the one that I thin}: is potentially troublesome and I think probably unnecessary in the context of this ordinance, perhaps something that could be considered separately, and I think we could have a lot of debate both ways on that, but I don't think it necessarily he, tongs in the context of this ordinance. VICE-CI]AIRNAN VOLPE: chance to look at t!~at? · ~,,~d,,ILI_.: Ye[;, wc i]o,%,o. k'.r. [.:erri] ], have you t0ad a With regard to -- in the coptcxt of this ordinance, wc don't have a significant !~ro]~,lom with eliminating number three, but I think that has to go with the understanding that this definition is -- would not in the future be taken out of context then and you can apply it in other situations with regard to DRI's. Sc I don't think there is a significant problem in eliminating parenthetical three under 2.4.3, with that Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. Is that correct? Wayne Sprcuse, followed by Alan 00.! 51 150 HR. SPROUSE: Hr. Chairman, Commissioners. I hate to tell you this, but in my hand is a few more sF, ca]:ers ';he: woulc] ]lave spoken to you tonight. I would like to present this list of people to you, to your staff, if I could, please. CI[AIRNAH HASSE: It mcans -- as long as it's not tonight. MR. OI,LI[.'F: T]~e, nks, Wayne. CHAIR~.!AN HASSE: Believe me, I've got a pile like this (indicating). I,IR. SPROUSE: of time, they havc asked me to speak for them. These people that you have seen here tonight have been the silent majority. They will be registered and they will be at the polls this November. I am not here to talk about numbers and regulations. I am here to talk about peoples and jobs. At each prior mccting -- I ]~ave spoken at both thc County Commission and Planning Commission. Each time I was asked where are these working ~eop]. e. Well, tonight, a few of them came. C}{AIR~,~AN HASSE: Just a moment, Mr. Sprouse. Considering the late hour, for the sake 00.t52 151 MR. SPROUSE: I would like them to stand up and be recognized. CUAIRMAN HASSE: I just would like to say to you that I don't remember you ever asking that question, I must say, where are these working people. i know where they arc. ~,'~R. SPKOUS~: The question was asked of me on two occasions. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Not by me. MP. SPROUSE: ]~ot necessarily by you; correct. Ct{AIRPiA~'i HASSE: Thank you. Okay. Go right ahead. iqR. SPROUSE: As you can see, this community is looking fcr direction. We want to know what is going to happen. We want to know what about our jobs. We have been telling our people that you and your staff have worked hard to come up with a fair plan. We are, now concerned as (3verybody else ha:~ mentioned prior to me, about the eleventh hour approach. I won't say anything more about tkat. It is time to pass these ordinances so we can get on with our lives. We want to make sure you know that we will OO153 ......... II I III I~ -' I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII! II -- ...................... I .¸0 152 support this plan and should you vote for it, we will support you. We need to pass this ordinance as written by the Planning Eoard. We are not just construction workers, we are people with families and this is our home. We plan on staying and want to keep our jobs. The government of the State of Florida has communities throughout the state in chaos. It is a black day in Florida ~..,hen t}le privilege of driving a car has beccme more important than the right of the American dream of having a family, a home and a job. Kemember quality of life includes having a job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, follo~ing Alan Reynolds will be Kevin Hale. C}~AIR~'~AN [{ASSE: Mr. Reynolds. MR. REYNOLDS: Good evening. My name is Alan Reynolds. I am a land planner. I work with the firm of Wilson Miller. I suI~port thc ordinance that has been brought to you by your Plannint~ Com~.,.is.~',ion cfter months and months of deliberaticn, the very same ordinance that was suppor, ted by O0154 153 your staff up untJ. 1 two hours ago. I'm going to deviate fron~ ray prepared remarks, and I have a new found respect for the power of k~r. Kessler because he succeeded in convincing your staff to completely turn around from a position that has been in tact for months and months, an¢l I'll speak now specifically to the legal steff because they are the ones that have expressed opinion tonight that we should go back and change the what has been thc e>:emptio~] process that has been worked long and hard on to provide a reasonable and a fair approach to zoning reevaluation. I contend to you, and I think you know this is true, that there are many public benefits that are associated with thc approach that has been worked out and recommende~t to you by 5, our Flanning Commission. These exemptions provide for the amortization process, for the smooth transition and the reasonable period of time that is necessary to move fron', one growth management Dlan to and another. This has been a cor~cept that has been endorsed by thc ~card ~n your Growth .qanagement Plan for two years. The public benefit is that it's going save your 00155 154 county staff time and money because they don't have to process exemption and vested rights determinations on projects that are clearly not -- should not be required to go through that process. It will reduce the risk of the legal battles that are going to have to be fought. It's not going to eliminate them, but it wi]] reduce them. And best of all I think, these exemptions provide some measure of predictability to ail the poor people out here that have for a year nov; been wondering what tl~e ]:ock is this ordina]~ce going do for me. Now I ask you to balance those public benefits against what I just heard, the suggestion, as far as the change. And, to put it in simple terms, what has beer: sugc3ested is that we are going to continue to grant ~he exemptions that we have agreed upon, but we're not going to allc'. '~ reasonable period of time to commence construction of those activities. Now that is, in plain language, what has been proposed by your ]e~3al consultant. Now I ~s]< you: What is the public benefit in 5'ranting someone a plat or a site development plan -- supp¢):~c, dly thc F:urDose ].s to get a reasonable period of 00.156 155 time, and then tell them that they have to construct -- commence construction immediately and not give them a reasonable period of time? I see no benefit to that whatsoever. I sec many detrimental effects from rushing the construction process, and that is the result of those changes that have been suggested tonight. I would just like to ask, in closing, a question, t~erhaps -- and it can be posed to ~.~,r. ~,~erri]l, and he can rcspon(i any t./as.' he would like -- recognizing that these e>:emptions that have been in place in this ordinance for two tc three months at this point, and I don't have the exact time. I picked up a copy of this ordinance that was dated yesterday, I believe it's time was t%vo o'clock or thr,~e o'clock, Uhat came from Mr. ~'~errill's office. I would like to know what legal research has been performed in that l.~erio~] of time, from then to now, that has caused him to completely reverse the position that we have had for two to three months. That's my question. I would like to know what basis of that is. 00.! 57 156 I would like to reiterate two comments that Mr. Varnadoe made. The very concept of amortization was proposed in the plan tech study that was prepared by the attorneys that now represent Mr. Kessler. That's the plan tech study. The other point is that the last time that we heard that the DCA ',.;as not going to accept something is when we were talking last surd}er about settlement agreement. We decided to stick to our guns, and we found out otherwise. ~.:R. OLLIFF: That's four minutes. [.iR. REYHOLDS: And I would ask you to please, please con.~;idor the lo]]g a~(] hard effort that was put fort~, by your Planning Commission, by 5, our staff, by the members of the public, and please don't make last minute changes on the basis of I thin}< what is a very arguable legal position. And once again, I'm not an attorney, but I am a Dlanncr, and I do understand growth management plans. CHA!RMAH HASSE: F.R. REYIIOLDS: CI!AI R~IA~! [1;\SS[~',: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Thank you. r'.~r. Merrill, you know, a couple good questions were just posed out there, and I'm somewhat interested in then, also. 00.! 58 157 You're not going to put a red light on that, are you? I have this paper dated the 20th, which is yesterday, where I spent a good ten hours at a Commission meeting, it seems to me. I think I remember most of it. Why were these changes submitted the day before we had tt~[~ J~earir~;? 1 don' t u~dcr':;I.and that. And wl~at prompted them? I mean, did you find something drastically wrong with this plan that was submitted to us? Perhaps you can tell me. I'm not here to put you on thc carpet. I'm here to find out something, and I would i]~dic&te that possibly Mr. Reynolds read my notes up here and asked the question before I could. So perhaps I'd pose them to you. NR. ~.~ERRILL: I believe the changes that you're referencing that are dated March 20th, those changes were marie by staff. They were changes that we had discussed. 2.4.7.3 was something that staff had discussed last week, and they, as Barb Cashone indicated earlier in her presentation, these are st~ff recommendations that were outside, that were not recom~ended by the Planning Commission. So two four seven -- 2.4.7.3 on page seven was a 00159 ............ I I I II I1~111 IIIII IIII II I .................. IIIII II I I IIII '- IIIIII II II 158 staff recommendation. 4.11 was something that staff also recommended outside cf Planning Comrission after reviewing some of the changes that we made pursuant to Planning Commission as, if you can appreciate, a lot of changes are difficult to make when you're sitting in front of a public hearing to have to cross-check all of the other sections. Section 4.15.3 was an additional change that had been discussed at a Planning Commission public hearing some time ago. However, we never did ultimately draft the language until recently. We feel that that is something that actually expands the definition of lot, and we felt tkat that ;.;as something that is -- should also be included. W.ith regard to the section on low cost housing, that language was referred to the County Attorney's Office. That's Section 2.4.7. That also was discussed at the Planning Cormission meeting on several occasions, and I believe that -- if I'm not incorrect -- that it was discussed at the Board level. Staff ¢]id not have the language until recently, and so we went ahead and submitted that also on a side sheet. :.IR. OLLIFF: Bill, I think the changes' that they're O0160 159 referrinc~ to, especially the ones that Alan at least was referred to-- CHAIR~,:AH HASSE: That's correct. I.~9. OLLIFF: Were the changes regarding the exemptions, the changes regarding the application. ~,~R. HERRILL: Eight. And none of those changes -- CHAIRF:A~ }IASSE: On page seven and nine and maybe ten, a 1 so. Were you involved with the staff at that time? Did you discuss this with them? [.!E. [,IERRILL: You mean -- hold on a minute. I believe you're referring to Sections 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.4.4, and I'll address those. ~.[R. OLLIFF: Yes. ~.iR. ~ERRILL: Those changes were not included in the staff recommendation because %ye did not original reconumend th. at. T~at %.~as not included ir, the ordinance from my office, either. That has been discussed. It is not somethino, new today. The actu~t revision I guess is perceived as being new, but it is something that at least one developer representative and I belJ. evc a couple others have brought up 0 0.1. f3.1 160 at previous meetings, so it is not a new concept. I believe tkat probably the reason why wc have so many people here is because everyonc knew that this ~.~as something that was going to be considered tonight. In addition, the I,,]ancy Stroud memo -- (Interrupting by crowd noise.) ~.',R. ~.:ERRII,L: In addition, the Nancy Stroud memo dated i,~arch 12th was also submitted. However, the position that I had taken that was, I believe ~r. Anderson, Druce Anderson and George Varnadoe indicated, was that my position on that is that from a legal Dcrspective, the ssfest route would be to take the rccoz~endation that I gave you. However, I also indicated that that is a policy decision, in my opinion, with regard to 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. I thin]< that ~;e could, that is something that is legally defensible if thi~,~ Eoard ~.;ants to do that. And there isn't -- [.!r. Varnadoe's points with regard to amortization arc well taken when he qucted fron~ Ms. Stroud or ~vhocver ?le wes quoting from. But with regard to 2.44, I am concerned that we are unable to make enough corrections in that to make a sufficient legal defense to a 00.162 161 challenge to that section. So again, my feeling is that 2.44 should be eliminated based on legal grounds. 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, in my opinion, should be modified as I recommended if you want t.o take the most conservative approach in that regard. You're not required to take the most conservative approach. I believe that that is something that is left to this Eoard as a policy decision, and it's a matter of whether or not you would still feel comf¢,rtable. I am not going to toil you that, to leave it as it is, you are going to lose that battle to do that, because I cannot tell you that and I cannot predict thc future in that regard. I can only /~ive you my best guess on t]~at, based on legal research. As far as the lec~al research that we have done in this regard, as the gentleman, Alan Reynolds, requested, we have looked at t~is for about two or three weeks, maybe a month. I don' t recall . It wan when it wns originally brought up at the Planning ComPission stage, and we had that ccncern. So it's not sou,~ething that has just been done overnight. VICE-C}{AIR~IAN VOLPE: }.Ir. Merrill, for clarification 162 purposes. I undcrstand that you identified a couple of these up front exemptions where you identified them as being policy decisions for this Board to make. Explain to us, if you would, 2.4.4. Are you saying that that's not a policy decision as far as your -- I'm just not sure what section you're talking about. ?,IR. [~[ERRILL: ~o. 2.4.4 likewise is a policy decision, but I believe that the case law is strong enough in that regard that I feel very uncomfortable in recommending to you that 2.4.4 as drafted will sustain a legal challenge, will be legally defensible. 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 don't go ~s far as 2.4.4, so ! ,zhink that is a little more of a gray issue, which I think the Board can make a decision on of how -- VICE-CHAIR~,~AN VOLPE: Well, 2.4.1.1. That addresses the amortization. ~.~R. ~-~ERF, ILL: That's correct. VICE-C};AIR~.[AN VOLPE: Of the zoning. It addresscs what ~'~r. Varnadoc and ~[r. Reynolds had brought to our attention. ~[R. ~ERRILL: That is correct. As does 2.4.2.1. 00164 163 vi CE- CHAIR[,IAN VOLPE: different category? I,[R. ~,IERRILL: provision. VICE-CHAIRMA~ VOLPE: Right. But you put 2.44 in a Well, that is not an amortization Okay. ~,IR. MERRILL: Those apply to application. CO[~I~[I SSIONER SHANAHAN: Bill. ~.'~R. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, let me -- if I can. Let me jump in for just a second here and tell you a ]ittle bit about these exemptions that we're talking about, how we got here: and maybe to try and answer Mr. Reynold's question about where we're at a little bit. We h~d very little direction in terms of drafting this ordinance, in terms of how far to go in terms of exemptions. Tt~e only direction that we could actually take was from the origins/ plan that was ac]opted by the Commission that allowed ¢]evelopment a one and a two-year window which gave us some d~rection in terms of a general policy that the Board wanted to take. And I think the exemptions that we tried to develop were just that. They were as lenient and they allowed as 164 much development and es much of a window as we could allow. These are the three exemptions that are on the outside of that leniency edge. Arid what I think Bill is telling you now is tl~at 2.4.4 -- frankly, whether it's the eleventh hour or thc eleventh thirtieth hour, if we feel that we find -- some information tells you that that's going to bca legally difficult exemption to defend, then I think it's our obligation to bring that to you. On t}~e other two exemptions, he's tellinc_! you from our discussiop, s that is more of a policy issue. The most conservative stance is to draw that gap -- what is called there, the gap for commencing construction in, but it's also a policy matter, and I think that he could tell you that he could defense it as well if you left it alone. So ]n ¢:ithcr case, those are thc decisions that have to be made for those three I think staff reconu~lc, ndation to you, with what we have hcar~ from our consultarlt would be that 2.4.4 probably s!]ou!c] come out of thc c)rctinance and that you should probably leave 2.4.1 alcne just as they exist. CO[.~[',IISSIOi,~ER SHAHAI[AN: Tom, you're saying take it out totally and not modify it? On two four four, 2.44. O0166 165 MR. OLLiFF: Yes, sj.r. COMMISSIONER SHANAIIAN: And Bill, that's your suggestion also; not to modify 2.44 but to leave it? HR. MFiRP, ILL: Yes. And the reason is because of the language that is proposed to revise it would make it a negative, and I don't believe that's what this Board wants. I believe that that's something that should go int.o the vested rights review process under Section 11. So, yes. Thc answer is yes. CHAIR~4AN [[ASSE: All right. What have we got? Any more? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Kevin Hale, followed by Anthony Pires. CHAIRMAN HASSE: How many more do you have, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLiFF: I've probably sixteen or seventeen, at least. C~[AI!?.[[AI[ HASSE: Ali. right. I:k. HALE: Mr. Chairman, my name is Kevin Hale. an employee of Sun Bank and I'm a director of the Economic Dcvelcpment Council. I have a question for Mr. Merrill if you agree that I am O01 6'7 III __Ii LIIII I ..... Jl ........... I 166 that is appropriate at this time. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Sure, ask him questions. CHAIRHAM [IASSE: Go to it. MR. HALE: Mr. Merrill, based on the last five mJnutcs of discussion, is it true that if you do not have an SDP today, you're out of luck? MR. ~ERRILL: If you do not have an SDP today? On thc effective date. As long as it's prior to ~-- if it's not prier to the effective date, I ]~elievc. you're correct. MR. ;{ALE: So cvoryone -- E~. MERP, II, L: Thc ordi~ance. ME. HALE: So evsryone that has applied and is currently in the process is going to be denied. MR. ~,~EERILL: If it's only an application, and you don't have a final SDF I assume that, yes, that's correct. U~der two -- we] 1, no; under the currect ordinance, t}~e way it's drafted, t}]at if; not correct. MR. [~ALE: But if your recon~mended change is made, that is v.,~:at t]:c effect will be; ii: that correct? ,',~,~,I~ILL: T};at's correct. VICE-C}IAIP, MA~ VOLFE: That's.: tho elimination of 2.4.4 ? O0168 167 ~:R. I,iE,qR i LI,: Yes. bUl. IIAI,F.: Cl~aJ~'luan, I would submit to you that that was not the intention cf the CCPC, and I would encourage you t.o impl~mcnt Linc ordinance a~ it'. was r'ecomm~:~r~ded by the CCPC to this Board. In my opinion, to eliminate any exemption goes against thc spirit of the settlement agreement. I think it's unfair for projects that are currently in process to be subject to any reevaluation process which may take a considerable period of time, could result in irreparable economic los~ wi:on they arc truly vested at common As a member of the financ:ia! community, I ~eel strongly that the exemptions must run with the land s~ that we can have some reasonable certainty in the lending community and that those exemptions, having, run with the land, must be avai]ab].c to success;or developers. T~ank you. VICE-CHAIR~:AI~ VOLPE: b~r. OllJ ff. [,~R. OLLIFF: Yes. VICE-CHAIR~.~AN VOLPE: This, in term of the practica]itie:~ of this provision that we're discussing, and we've got the advise of our attorneys -- 00.% 69 168 blR. OI,LIFF: Which provision? VICE-CIiAIRblAN VOLPE: I'm talking about 2.4.4. NR. OI,LIFF: Right. VICE-CHAIRN~AI~ VOLPE: Do we have any indication as to the nun~bers of applications that may be impacted or are affected under this provision one way or the other? ~.:R. OI,LIFF: Yc.~;, sir. In fact, you know, knowing flat this was a r.~ossibility, I had staff ~'o ahead and take a look at exactly hew many site development SMP kind of projects were: Jn thc pipeline, because basically that's what '¢.'c're talkin.q about. So i thir~k, Barb, if you wo~ld go ahead and ~Jve hint that information. ~:S. CASHONE: I think 4.4 is applications filed prior to January 10th. And of t}~osc final SDP's that have been filed prior to January 10th that ?~avc not yet been approved -- and I will tell you I don't ]',now how mans, cf these arc inconsistent witk the plan -- there are twenty-one petitions rcDresentinf~ a total cf five hundred and five thirty-nine dwelling units anC sixty-two thousand square feet of conm.~ercia 1. ,00170 169 VICE-CHAILkAk VOLPE: Twenty-one petitions. MS. CASHONE: ':'hat were filed prior to January 10th that have not yet been approved. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: dwelling units? MS. CASHONE: Five hundred and and some odd Five hundred and thirty-nine dwelling units and approximately sixty-two thousand square feet of c uremic rc i a 1. Of that number, I do not know how much of that is consistent with thc plan. VICE-CIIAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. I just wanted to be able to put it in context, the magnitude of this discussion while we're on it. MS. CASHONE: I will tell that you since January 10th, we have. bad forty-eight new petitions submitted for final SDP~ comprising seven hundred seventy-five thousand squaro feet of commerc]al and two thousand two hundred and t]';]rty-fivc: dwelling ur]its, of wh]c?~ I do not know how ~nuch of that is co~l[;istent with thc plan. VICE-CL~AIRt.!A~] VOLPE: What was the amount of commercial square footage? ~-~. CASHONE: Seven ]~undred and seventy-five thousand 00.1 ?! 170 nine hundred and thirty-nine square feet of commercial, two ['.]]out:and two hundred and thirty-five dwelling u~]its. And at~'~Jn, I cio not kr~c~w how muc]~ o£ tl~at is consistent wit}~ the plan. Those would not be permitted under 2.44 as it currently is in the ordinance becal~se those were filed after January ]0th. But riley do get their finals before the effective date of this ordinance, under 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, as they're written. They could come in under that, if they %,;~;re al;,l~.rovcd prior to the effective date of this ordinance. VICE-CHAIR~.'.,A~ VOLPE: So are we then -- if you filed before J~r]uary 10th, under the u~ front exemption you would a'~tomatically be c>:eF, q)t; is that correct? What I'm tryin,c3 do is distinguish between whether you filed before or after January 10th. >IS. CASHOHE: If ]'ou filed prior to January 10th, yes, you ;,,oul(] bo o>:nmp[: from thc ordinar~ce. If you filed after Ja~uary 10th, you would try to get ,your final SDP prior to the effective date of this ordinance and then the way the ordinance is currently written, you wottld a] so be e>:emDt. VICE-C~[A1F,,.b:A~; VOL,~:E: What i,~; the reason for the 00.t72 171 distinction? January 10th is the date on which we -- is that the date on which wc adopted -- ,qR. OI, LIFF: The reason for that was then if we had said ap]~lications beyond January 10t~, then anyone who ape',lied up to the effective date of the ordinance would be e:<empt or wherever you drew the line. An(] at sor~e point then, we're forced to issue devclopmemI: orders or approvals for those SDP's, after you amend yo~.'r Com~3 Pla~., that arc inconsistent with the Comp Plan, and the langu~,gc ¢]oesn' t ,2] lcw you to do that. So we ]]ad to draw a date at some point which staff could reasonably get the mass of applications in and .nut of proces£~ and reviewed. CHAIR~'.[AI,.~ HASSE: What made it a magic date, January 10ti]? [~3R. OLLIFF: We picked the date, one, that was some reasonable time this of side of April, and we also picked a ~ate t}]at was an a~niversary date or a one year from the time that tl]e Growth ~!anagcmcnt Plan ,,,;as adopted. CtIAtR,',[A~ HASSF.: I see. VICE-CHAIRb.IAN VOLPE: What are ute talking at, Mr. Cuyler, as a practical mattel- for tt~c effective .date of this 00173 172 ordinance? ~'.:R. CUYLER: Probably ['fay 2nd. VICE-CHAIR~.tAN VOLPE: ~;ay 2nd. Thank you. ~]R. OLLIFF: ~Jr. Chairman, if they are no other questions, we ]]ave Toni Pires, followed by Stanley Hole. ~-'~R. PIRES: ~,~r. Chairman, ~embers of the Board. '.,[y name is Anthony Pircs, Jr. witk the law firm of -- and I'/ood'~,/ard, ant3 I concur wit. l~ tho comments of all the other streakers this evening wit]: refjards to some of the provisions [3rof:osed to be ma¢le. [~cwever, there is one revision I believe needs to be made as to the as~cct of settle]nent agreement. That'~ in Secticn ].2 or; page twenty-two of the latest draft of the or¢]inancc. we have had discussions and 1 have discussed with the Beard and the Planning Commission at the prior public kearing tile cost of having a broadening of the opportunity to enter into developm£nt agreement to be able to develop [~roperty that zoning is inconsistent, its intensity and density of uses are ~nconsistent with the plan but the Droperty owners wish to develop it as soon as we can or in the ncer term in a manner consistc~]t with the plan, not 00174 173 await a rezoning, not have to go through a rezoning, but instead, enter into a development agreement. Thc language that has been pronoscd in this latest droft in Section 12 is too narrow in that it ties development agreement only into the process; it has been to be in conjunction with the compatibility exception or determination of vested rights. It does not al]cw an individual to come in on his cwn, that would not otherwise qualify for compatibility exception or would not otherwise qualify for vested rights, but still say, listen, I ]]ave this parcel of land, the inteusity and density of uses is inconsistent with th~ plan; I wish to develop it in a manner consistent wit]] the plan; let me enter into a development agreement with Collier County tc lower the density to a consistent level, and then let mc go ahead and proceed. VICE-CIiAIR.~,:AN VOLPF,: You're talking about early entry into the prccess, is what you're talking about. .qR. PIRF, S: Correct. Not having to wait for the rezoning, not having to wail: for that evaluation, and allow that tc occur. Not be a part of that whole blanket process. CI[AIRNA[: I{ASSE: Nr. Nerrill. 00175 174 MR. MERRILL: Hr. Chairman, if I may. i've reviewed the language and talked to Mr. Fires about this, and I believe that the issue would be resolved as far as -- ',,:t~at he's concerned about is tying this development agreement to approval of a development order. And what I suggested, and I believe Hr. Fires indicated to me that that was satisfactory, is after the word dcvc!cpment order [;ut comma, if applicable, comma. Cn the fourth line in Section 12, on page twenty-two. ~,';hcre it's capital B capital O development order. CHAIRNAN HASSE: Page twenty-two. ?,'iE. NERRILL: Yes. Pa~e twcnty-two Section 12, fourth linc down. Where it says in conjunction with the approval of a development order, add the words or add the phrase comma, if applicable, comma. CO,~!NISSiONER S}-IANAI{AN: What does that do? NF. MERRILL: It allows it to not be tied to just a development order. In ~.lr. Fires' particular situation, he already has rezoning approval, and he would like to come in for a development agreement without having obtained another developmcnt order of some sort. This would allow him to do 001.76 175 that. HR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may. RR. HERDILL: The ot]~er provision that I would suggest, pursuant to the draft tiler I reviewed of Mr. Pires, is at the bott©m on the second to the last line. It says: On surrcun¢]ing improved. Tl~e line starts: Or] surrounding, improved or exempt property. And he? requested that i~:proved, comma, vested or exempt property. In other wcrds, had a common vested right after the word imporved, and I don't -- nor staff nor I have a problem with that a ~ition either. may. COb{MISSIONER SAUNDERS: C-'e ahead. hlR. PIRES: ~{r. Chairman, one other comment, if I On that point, if we cannot tie it in to -- the way it reads now, if we can strike ev¢-:rything in the heading of it and just have it say development agreement, I think it would also clarify how this can be utilized. I don't know what ~.:r. Herrill's thoughts might be on that. }IR. !qERRILL: I think that we want this provision. There is a separate development agreement ordinance that the 00177 176 county attorney has developed which should operate outside of this, and I -- outside of this ordinance, and I believe that this provision wc want to pertin particularly to those items that are affected by this ordinance, however it may be affected by thc crdinance. So I don't agree with that particular comment. VICE-C[IAIR;,:AN VOLPE: }Iow about the inclusion of the word iml~roved or ir~proved? yes . What are we getting at with Do you undcrstend my question? MERRILL: Or] the second VICE-CHAIR~:AN VOLPE: Yes. to the last line? Tke one where you're -- PiE. [.[EERILL: [':e wanted to allow for development to occur in and to be consistent with or compatible with the surrounding land use patterns; and those surrounding land use patterns that are c~oing to be there, one way or another, would be surroundinc, improved property, surrounding exempt property or surroundin.q vested property. Of course, those ali have times on them. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: But exempt property is compatible property. O.t ,8 177 [,IR. ~ERRILL: That is correct. VICE-CI]AIR[4AN VOLPE: Well, I mean I think you're going to confuse things, then. Surrounding improved, vested or exempt property. I mean, if what we're talking about are the exeml~tions here, we have a compatibility exception and we've got vest~d rights exemption. ~4S. CASHONE: We also other planning exemptions. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: But it's still -- they are ezem!>ticns, if you're t~lking ~bout exempt property. MR. MERRILL: R~hat's correct. But those exemptions are presumably goi~g to -- if they use those exemptions, the>, have to use them within o certain period of time, and if they are going to use them, those exempt properties are going to be devclo~;od iD accordance with that exemption. Sc the concern that we're trying to address here is an equal protection concern relating to compatibility. We don't w&nt to ]~ave tDrol:~crty dowll zoned in the middle of all of this ¢:,>:en~pt and ve:;tcd and ir~,p~oved property. If all that is allowed to develop at sixteen units l.'~¢:r acre because it's either exempt or vested or already improved ~3t sixteen units per acre, yet our Comp Plan says 00179 178 that in this sea of sixteen units per acre we're going to have to put four units per acre, we want them to have the opportunity to come in in a development a%'reement, but they would get an e>:em[~'tion if thet -- MR. OLLIFF: I think you had the case where perhaps you had that property that were one acre shy of your Compatibility e>:cepticn size -- MR. MERRILL: That's correct. Maybe nine. MR. OLLIFF: Within that same example that ~e's giving you. So if you've got eight acres surrounded by sixt'.een acres a unit improved property, it doesn't fall into a compatibility c>:ception, but you probably wont to allow it scmc sorry of a development ac3rcement avenue to use. VICE-CtW, IRMAD VOLPE: agrcemen ts? NE. ~ERRILL: f,IR. OLLIFF: I,[R. MERRILL: Who approves these development This is something -- Board of County Commissioners. Yeah. This is something that would be ,or~ up with the staff, and it has to be approved by the Board of County Cor~m~'o~. ~ ....ich under Chapter 163. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Is that going to be continued 00.180 179 in that separate ordinance? MR. MERRILL: Yes. VICE-C[{AIR[.IA~; VOLPE: Bccau~,;e it's not here. NE. OFFITT: Yes, sir; it is. CtIAIR,~'~AN ~{ASSE: Ue are the ultimate, then. ~,IR. OLLIFF: ~.:R. ~.IERRILL: Yes, sir. We wanted only to reference it so that we didn't get into those discussions at this time. I think the development agrecment ordinance ~hould be handled separately, and county attorney has drafted one or is in t}le process of drafting one. ,.',IR. PIRES: l,~r. Chairman, thank you very much. I just wanted to make sure that's available if i don't qualify for compatibility or vested rights. And I believe, l~lr. Ncrrill, you've said that. VICE-CIIAIR[,iAN VOLPE: You got it. CHAIR,qAN HASSE: ~,:r. [,lerrill, do you want a copy of this? NR. ~':ERRILL: i didn't hear what he said. Yes, I've received that, but we didn't adopt all of ~=t because -- I talked with ,~-Ir. Pires about that, and there were some -- we some modifications that I think O0181 180 address the concerns that he has. ME. OLLIFF: Thank you, Toni. The next speaker is Stanley Hole, followed by James Scarborough. ~.:E. the Board. ,~r. Chairman, ?,~.s. Goodnight and Gentleman I'm Stanley Hole, civil engineer. I've had a business in and in Iivcd in L'.aples since 1956. I've got a couple of very brief things to say, but I want to raise an issue that I v:a.~:n,t going speak on before. The l>roccss t]~at you al} set up is a very long, complicated process, involves an awful lot of people. The Planning Commission spent a lot of time and a lot of effort. They dr-~.fted the ord.]~ancc, they drafted the c×em~ticn.~, and I think they believe in them. What I'm hearing tonight is that now v;e have to work ever }:ere th, rough Mr. ~lerri]l and make him happy, too. You know, it junt c]oesn't seem to mc to }-~e fair. Wc have taken our position on the basis of what the Ptannin.c, Commission offered.. ".'.~e have not sat down and tried to make any other arran~3ement, so I'm going to speak only on the Planning Commission recor~m:endations. o0182 181 I'm going to ask if you'll please consider not paying attention to wi:at was given to you this evening. I don't think it'~; fair to thc Planning Commission. I don't think it's fair to you. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to please approve the zoning reevaluation ordinance with thc exemptions that were a crafted and approved by the Planning Commission. For if you do this, you will have taken a yeti,, important step toward allowing the county to continue to plan, to build, and yes, even to manage growth, all in full compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but to do ]t without the economic chaos that will surely occur if the exemptions to the or.qinance are not approved. If you approve the ordinance without the exemptions, I think you're taking a giant step toward a moratorium that you'll not be able to back away from. I think you will have been caught. About these exemptions, I do~'t believe they're c:.:emptions to the plan. They form the bridges that tie the old and the new pla]] together. They're exemptions from the rezoning I~roccss that, if imF, lemcnted, 811ow the ordinance to fulfi].] the adopted Comp Plsn without doing violence to O0183 182 thc Collier economy. The old plan was very good. plan. It was a very good You ail worked very hard on it that received state-wide accolades. Tl',e new plan is very good. It also received accolade, but there is a gap betwcen the plans. The exemptions bridge that gap, and that gap has is to be bridc~ed. They allow a party who has proceeded in full compliance with the requirements. It was a highly praised -- former plan, your plan, to be eblc to continue the logical conclusion, and that continuation is the basis of your use-it-or-lose deal. To destroy these bridges ,-.tnd simply to say stop, just stop, you can proceed no further regardless of commitments you, we or they may have made, it's unfair, it's disorderly, and it strikes at the very heart of governmental responsibility. We've got to be able to rely on what the government as said. The no growth ethic m0y suit tl~e city, but the county has much more at stake. The county is much bigger than the city. There's jobs, families, homes, there's a cost of living issue here. These are all involved with the county. 183 Please don't let the issue become muddied by last eleventh hour. Please adopt the zoning reevaluation ordinance wit]: tho e>:emptions and a] low the bridges that have been approved by your Planning Commission. And tha~k you very much. Cf[AIRMAN HASSE: fiR. SCAF, BOROUGH: Commission. Napl es. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, Members of the name is Jim Scarborough. I'm an attorney represent Whispering Pines, Incorporated, the owner, dcv~lcp~:r of Imperial Col f Et;tares. I also, however, an, a member of the Collier County Builders and Contractors Association and thc Bc~:-d of Eea].tors. Arid I would like to say that I am very much in support of the comments that have been previously made by a number of members of this audience, that we've worked long and hard on these ordinances. I :~upport the adoption of them as t]~ey wcrc approved an~ recommended to you by the Planning Commi ss. ion. I think that there has becm enough discussion and opportunity for people to take a bite of this apple in the past, and t}:e l~ast minute changes that have been suggested, OO185 184 whether those ]:ave been by your staff or ~,~het:her they've been by outside members of tlle public, arc ul~fair and unv/arranted, in my o!:inion, for consideration tonight. Than]< you, ;Ir. Scarborough. ~c. i had eric: specific romar]< that i ~eeded to make on behalf of m!' client Whisperino Pines, Incorporated. And this relates to an issue that i brought before you at thc wor]:nhop meeting, and had some roponse to and I believe some attempt to address in this new draft. That had to do with the cor:m~unity such as Imperial Golf Estates which began devclcpment prior to PUD ordinances and prior to the issuance of development orders and that we believe is the typ{~ of commonality that is Jntcnded to be vested. And i think I was assured by Mr. F!errill that that was tho intent of the language that was in this ordinance, thc fact that a community mi0ht have predated the existence of ordin~,ncc and thc languaoe that you had relating to vesting wouldn't apply. I find that the definition that we have for a unified plan cf development is not helpful, and that -- it ]~ad been 00186 185 my suggestion earlier that's where we needed to take a look at it., that a unified plan of development is probably the triggcrin9 event t}~at should trcak thc consideration of this community as one that has acted in reliance and has reached ~ certain sta{~e of dcveloi)mcnt, in our case probably eighty percent developed out, with a con'gmnity that's twelve or fifteen or more year[; old now. And I had suggested some specific language aa that time. Perhaps your consultant didn't feel that it was appropriate for trackin9 the type of language -- I didn't bring it wit.]~ mo again tonight -- that was contained in the Florida Adn~inistrative Code v:hicb defines a unified plan of development for the purposes of z~akin[] DRI determinations and con~;] dcr'a tion[;. It is broad enough to encompass I think tlxe intent that a co~,.m~.~njty that has an ap~rovcd master plan and apl~rovcd plan that lies been presented to the gov'erning body in thc past in it~; entirity and it's been acted on and the developer has acted in reliance upon that should create this exemption that you tried to achieve, and I believe that I was given !:om(2 assurance at that workshop that that was the intent of it. 00187 186 And I'm not denying that it is. I'm just saying that as an attor~,cs; in looking at tills ordinances, I still have that conccrn ~..nd I come to [>~:t that concern or: the record. If tl,at is tile intent of the ordinance, fine. If it's not, thong, I've bccn misled I believe. · l.~.nk you. C~IAiRb~Atl ~{ASSE: Thank you, r.~r. Scarborough. ~c'vc q~oing to take a ten m~nute break, until about t',~,'ont~,' after, twcnty-five after nine. (Whereupon, a brief recess was had.) Ci[AIRY. A[~ t{ASSE: All r~ght, let's call the r, eeting to c~rder n~:ajn. Let':~ c~'] ] thc meeting to order. ~.~r. CHAIR[[AI~ HASSE: Fell in the cracks? Wc'l], let's go forward. i'm sorry. I'm eating. CO~qISSIONEF. SI~A[,~AHAN: Wait until wc get Mike back. C[{AIR~qA[; HASSE: b;hcre is ~[ike? COl<: 1I ~, ....... S[IAN;J[AN: T}:ere he Ci{AIR}.~AU ~ASSE: Azt. 5'ou ~;oing to sit up here with ~!E. OLI,IF'F: l.li]:e Volpo, come on down. 00.t88 187 CHA!F,i.[AN t{ASSE: I thought you went home, Hike. }!ow many more dc we have, ~r. Olliff? bR. OLLIFF: Hr. Chairman, every time I count, the count doesn't go down. I'm down to about sixteen or Sovo~tcon ~ow. CHAII{['.A?] I{ASSE: It's not going down; it's going up. You know, I tl~ink we've ~eard just about cv{-r5, aspect t~]is that we couid possibly ]~ear, and I think right new is risc, - ' ~ tz~.e for us -- and I don't want to circumvent anybody wire wants to tell.{, and they will have an opportunity to tal]:, and perhaps I can make it not necessary for them to talk. ! would be willing to entertain a motion in regard to t]~is particular Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. V!CE-CN;,INNAN VOLPE: Nr. Chairman, could I suggest that rlal, be at least Hr. O!]iff could call thc names and soo if maybe these people would like to waive or -- CNAIRMAN HASSE: Well, no. This is a tentative move, and if these people do not agree with that, of course, we'll m(;ve forward. .'x{R. CUYLRR: Only, F!r. Chairman, :,~e can't entertain a .q:otion on thc ordinance until we close thc public hearing 00189 188 on the ordinance, and we can't close the public }]caring until -- CHAIF, MAH HASSE: I'm aware of that, but I'm just giving an opDortunity to the people whether or not -- if it's redundant, I ask of you to -- [.:R. OLLIFF: A suggestion maybe for the Commi.~sion, a~d you ca~ take t)li~; or ]cave it. But is you want to take some straw I~:oI1. I mean, we seem to have understood and ti]ere seem to be a lot cf conscr]sus on the Board of where we're coing wit~ this ordinance. If you want to take some sort of a straw poll, then n'.aybc as I call thege speakers, if that direction the Commission would be gcing in is not what -- CO['~;.'[ISSiOHER S[[AHA[{A~3: I would like to do that, Hr. Cha j rman. CHAI~].[AH [{ASSE: Why don't you make a motion or son~eth]ng or at least let's; ]~ave a straw vote on it. CO~d[.'~ISSIO~EE S}]AHAIIAH: Let's discuss at ].east a [~otential motion based on what we have ]~eard so far, and based upon t}:e dimcussions and the recommendations that we ]:ave bet]-, free the audic~]cc and the reco;]~endations that we have from cur staff and from cur internal and from our' 00.19(] 189 external attorneys. And here is what it is. Adopt as is tt;e ordination t}~at ]]as been presented tonight, exccNt tc incluc]e the revisions as follows: Humber one: delete it totally. 2 . 4 . 4 . qA.,, o: suggested by staff. ?:umber three: ~eco::;m,.~n,Jed by staff. ~k~mbe r Four: To eliminate 2.4.4. To eliminate it, to 2.4.4 is on paue five. To eliminate Include in the ordinance 4.11 which was That's orl the pink sheet. To include 4.15.3, which was On 2.4.3, to delete number three in relationship to the DRI's, as ]]as been r'ecommended by more t,.~,n one speaker. LumLer five: On Section 12, to read -- redevelop the Section 12 which was -- VICE-CI[AIRMAN VOLPE: Development agreement. O,.~ I~o_O ,ER S[[ANAHAN: Development agreements to improve t]~e verbiage on Section 12. CON['.ISSIONF. R SAUNDERS: apFlicablo; and on line seven, COHi.iiSSIOi:ER S~tANAHAN: Four -- line four where to add the word "ve,sted." And number six. The next six, 2.4.7 as it relate to the low cost housing funded by 00191 190 federal, state or local government, and renumber 2.4.7 and 2.4.8 to 2.4.8 and 2.4.9, in ali. referc:nces in the ordinance. CO,~I,~IlSSIONER SIIANA~IAN: One other change. MR. MERRILL: Barb just said. If this recommendation goes through, why not substitute the two forty houeing provision into 2.4.4 so t~at we don't ]~ave to renumber. CO:I[<'ISSIOI)EE $;iAJ,"AH?,.~,!: No Problem with them. Lsstly -- last but not least, it's the recommendation by .~taff on 2.4.7.3, which was to amend that subsection on page seven as recommended by staff. I'm going to recommend tkat we do not accept t]]at recor,~mendatJ, on. CHAiI~MAN IIASSE: Read that one again. COL?.ISSIONER SHANAHAh': On thc pink sheet, I think we need to dc'termine wi]et]]er that's a yes or nc inclusion by staff or to deny that. Because it's my recommendation that Mr. Shanahan. Ycs, sir. One other change. cn the offcctive date on I think paoe fifteen. COMMISSIONER SHAHA]{AE: Yes. Fine. The phrase O01 ±'~ .......... m _'r-- ...... iIL~ '--~1111111 III ............ ~1 191 Doe~:: anybody have a question on that one? ¢:IIAJ l~l'iA[l IIA:iF, I",: CO~.LqISSiONER SttANAHAN: On page twenty-two. MR. [4ER~ILL: Mr. Chairman, if tl~is is the end of your recommendation, you may also want to indicate that you ]~ave considered 2.4.1, 2.4.2 proposed changes and yc'u find ti']at those are close enough to vested rights. COMMISSIO?IER S~{AHAHAN: In this motion that we leave tl~em as is, ti~ey are defineable, and I suggest that we leave t]~em in. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: COI<MISSIOI, IER SHANAHAN: !',',i k e? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: a fo] lov,,-u~ on thc am(~r~dmc2nt. CO?,i~,l I S S I O~{E R SHAI'~AHAN: VICE-C][AI RI~AH VOLPE: Any tt~in~3 else? T~at' ~' it for me. As a technical matter, this is For the 4.1 one. On the pink sheet? Right. I would like to add tl:at larlguaCle as well, to 4.22, w]tic:h we had discussed at the outset. t.H{. [.IERRILI,: Wi~erc: arc you again? CO,.,,,,I,_~cIONER SAUHDERS: Four point? VICE-C~AIRMAN VOLPE: Four point one, unimproved O019G 1.02 property. As a tect~nical matter, adding the word substantial. Plans and development on which there has been no substaEtial what. COMMISSIO~ER SHANAHAN: You brought it up. We discussed the ordinance. Anyi)oCy ]lave any problem? COM~.~- r'~ ~..,oIONER ~AUNDER~: I understand w~at comn~cncemcnt of conutruction means. I don' t know commencement of substantial construction means. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Define that. COM[,~ISSIO[~ER SAUNDERS: ~.~cre s a difference there. CI~AI~',A~ i[ASSE: What would you say? ........... ~ ..... ~',,, SAU~:DEDS: I'm not trying to explain a~:yt}l/ng by t}~o a6dition of that language. We're talking ~ocut the 4.1. MR. LITSINGER: Was t~e addition of the word substantial. That's somethin~ that I think most people understand. Substantial evidence, substantial construction. CO~,~ISolO~,[:,~, SAUNDERS: Okay. All right. VICE-C[[AiEMAN VOLPE: The only other thought I had, and again ther:e are tec}~nical matters. I ~:~pport, as well os what Conm:issioner Shanahan has, recommending that our 001 !)4 193 staff ]~a:~ deleted the word co~nmereial zoned property. We t~ave done this on a couple references. Is there any con~ercially desifjnated or somehow identifying? I woul~ want to substitute designated. ~U~. ~4[".RRILL: Excuse ~;~e. There is a problem. I t)~ink, if you wou]d l~ke, you could put zoned or desi[~nated. That's not a problem because some of it is zoned com~:~ercial. In the PUD, it's not necessarily zoned. I tbin)c that's your point. VICE-CI{AIR~dAN VOLPE: Designated i~ the PUD or i,U~. [dERRILL: it crTstal clear. VICE-C~f, IRMAI,~ VOLPE: Zonec~ or designatec]. ~:9. [qERRILL: Right. VICE-CHZ,,IR~.~AN VOLPE: I have just I think just a -- thoro are g. cou~le inst:.,~nce~c. I t]~ink that's all I've got, Con~n~is~;ioner Shanahan. COt~:.~ISSIONER SHANA~[Z,H: And if in fact that is acceptable, then -- and based upon the applause, seems that the speak<cra ~ould relinquish tY~eir tiu~e and we can get on with t]~e public a~]cquac:5, ordinance. Zmd probabl~, a good suggestion to make 00193 194 CHAIEMA~I t{ASSE: Do we }]ave any problem with this? COF,~,[I S S I ONER SHANAHAN: Art? CI{AIRMAI,: HASSE: You wish to speak anyway. ~.~R. DAVIS: Just one quy. CO~[~[ISSIONER SHANAHAN: It's Art]~ur Davis. MR. DAVIS: We all tivc here in Naples. If ~.,~% have a building pcrz:it -- it's unclear to me. I have been through fcur already. If we have a building permit and are under construction, ! think many of us in this room are in this situation, where will we be if -- e>temption under thc ordinance? CHAiEi,.[AH [{ASSE: When you're under construction, yes, you would be. COI,~[.]ISSIONEE SHA[~IAHAN: Any others? CHAIR~,tA~.~ ~{ASSE: Somebody else wis]~es to speak. ~.~R. PARRY: Timothy Parry, cf the city of here in Na]~l es. I wanted to urge you not to include the substantial rcc!u~r,;-~,cnt t)~aL ,,.,.,'~,,; being required by staff on thc pink sheet, number two. It's not required in the applicable case law tc substantiate vestJ, ng. Substantial -- that can get 00.%96 195 you in trouble, as to what's substantial and what's not. I would urge you not to make that change. It's so long as commencement of construction has begun that that meets the recluircn~ents. I would not have -- I would urge you not tc include that. Also, I rocor, mend Rt. Hcrrill's suggestion. 2.4.4 docs -- is not defe~sible. It doesn't hold up. It doesn't hold up. Fourteen point two. And wc would urge you to keep t}~at particular exemption in. Or pending applications. And that's -- t]~at would be my comments. CHAIRHAN I{ASSE: Thank you. Hr. ~erri]], you have heard the gentleman. What do you think? ~.{N. ~'{EPNILL: It's my belief -- all provisions are separable. As long as the rest ordinance makes sense. With regard to thc substantial. The case law does not necessarily support cemmenccmcnt of construction. I disagree with that point. I thi~k khc case law goes k~ore te substantial obligations or expenditure. Se it doesn't talk in terms of substantial. Thc statutory law talks about commencement- of c~,nstruction continuing in good faith, and we don't even OO.%9? 196 mention continuing in good faith in that rec3ard wit]} that !~articular ¥~rot~,e r ty. So v;c'rc talking about i~proved property and/or unaPi.:~oved property. So really substantial is something that the [%oard needs to decide. Thc concern is somecne will contend and it wouldn't b~' [~<)mct}~i~; :;cen as substant, ial tl~at would in thc normal order vest them or &ppear to vest them. C[IAIR~.[AN HASSE: Another speaker. LIR. GRANT: Hr. Chai~mar:. For reccrd I'm Richard Grant. I'm an attorney. I was the next speaker. I was [~'oin[~ to relinquish my time, if there was anyone who want to speak. On t]~e point on 2.4.4 being deleted. I was going to urge yo~ to adopt as is. I don't have a problem with that t~einq: deleted. Apparently Hr. Parry does. i dc -- I do ]]ave one cor~ment with w]~at ~qr. Volpe don't want to belabor the ~3oint o~[ this is ~nimproved -- a lot as not an im;.~rovcd let. It's the reverse of improved. It seer, s to n'~c to define it a~]y lot that is not an improved lot under that definition. 0019, Z 97 N,R. GRA[~T: similar. Ct{AIrMAN tiASSE: to move forward. COMI~ISSIOtiER SAUNDERS: t.!R. GRANT: MR. SPEAKER: MR. MERRILL: I think that's what we've done. CHAIRMAN ][ASSE: What's the difference? It's the same, but my suggestion is very Ail right. On this, or do we want One other speaker. I will relinquish. I'm a registered speaker. Is it my understanding of 2.4.4, the January 10th date will be struck, and that will not longer be in effect? VICE-CHAIR;<AI4 VOLPE: T]~at's only for applications fi]cd prior to January 10th. NR. S?EAKER: So what will be the effective date, that wi].l take place of January 10th. ~R. OLLIFF: NR. SPEAKER: HR. OLLIFF: That's the date -- Is there going to be another date? Means that there would be no exemptions for applications at all. ~iR. SPEAKER: ,,~,, Ol, I,l : W]~at it would mean -- That is-- Thc £ina] v-.it.c development plans o~' ~;,a,'.;t(~r Nlann at,proved prior Lc) t]~e of£ective date of this 00.199 198 ordinance in order to obtain an exemption. And wlmt will t~,e the effective date? HR. SPEAKER: That's r;',y question. NR. OI,LIFF: Approximately }lay 9. COHNISSIONER SIIANAIIAN: We're suggesting Hay 2nd. CIIA!~I<AN }!ASSE: It has to go back to the staae. NR. SFEAKER: If you've apr;lied before thc Hay 2nd NR. OLI,IFF: You would have to have received your SDP or your final Pr,: prior to that. HR. SPEAKER: Sc that's allowing you more time. RR. O[,b]'FF: You }~avc to u~,derstand. On or about, I guess I would tell. you, Nay 2nd. NR. SP[]AKNR: So from Hay 10th to -- from January 10th to ~lay ].0th. CO~.HqISgiOlU]R SAUNDERS: I,~3t's bare Hr. Herrill or Hr. Cuylcr cxplai~ w]~at t}]c deletion of 2.4.d because that's not undcrstanding. NR. HERRILL: There are aNplica~ions that are dealt with undoz 2.4.4, those applicatiens by deleting same have to a~.~a~r:cd final approval cf t.l~e types of agreement orders ti'mt arc roquircd in tl~is erdinancc. 0020O 199 So in other words, two four four allowed you to obtain an e):ception if you filed a~ application prior to January lOt]~., 1999. ] 'n; -- ~<R. SPEAKF. Ii: Just filed -- [''JR. I,',F. RRILL: You never ]~ad an exemption. never in th.[~ crdinance. ~!N. SPEAKER: I'm affiliated with, January 10th. ~<R. ~IERRILL: HR. SPEAKER: be brief. If you, filed .after January 10th, 1.989, Tbat was T]~e pro];,lc~:~ we have, the office that is that we i~ave a problem with the And you want t}~e date moved back. Right. For a couple reasons, and I'll We ]~ave been told at previous meetings that the Ja]]uary ]0t}~ date was because, the ordinance was adopted on January 10th and t~is is t]~e anniversary of that date, and staff felt t~at we ~,ad more than enou¢lh time to familiarize ourselves witt, this process an{] that there should not be a ~rcblem with rnga]?d to t}~o datc. Our problem is that the process was not physically applicated until Jul}' of last year which tectmically, gave us si:: menths to wor]< wit~lin the precess. And if I'm not 00 01 200 mistaken, there is a meeting on the 27th of this month to make a major exchange in tho SDP process. So our point is: How car', we become comfortable with a process that's constantly being changed and that they are not sot with themselves? !IR. Ot,I,IFF: Do you have an application? IIR. SPEAKER: A dozen of them since July. ~iE. LaHFNDOLA: Marie La~-'.et~dola, architect. VICE-CEAIRt.~AN VObPE: Th~:nk you. ~'.R. La[H~HDOLA: And the problere that we see is since this July date we h~ve worked with plans, whi. ch were assigned -- every job were assioned a preliminary planner to keep up up dated, what's itappcning, w}~at's gone through the meetings and approved and the last edit. And even as the April 1st was thc, vested date -- the first time I heard of January 10th was the second week of February, ,,,,'hic]i was a planning meeting. We have been told t!~is whole time tllat April 1st will be our vesting date, and a].l of our clients -- and I l~avc several people that can back me up that this came stra~ight from county planners that we, cica], with on a day-to-day basi~: sai. d that. We were told that. Al,ri] ] was the da'te that we have 201 been telling everyone. So that's tt~e date that we have been striving for. MI~. MERRILL: II~ ali of the public hearings, the apl>lication date, the last date that an application could be submitted has never been later that than January The original drafts included no provision whatsoever for application,~; at all. Later dr~fts included some e>:ccpti©n !:>revisions which still did not mention ~/esting provisions for exceptions for ap.~.)lJcations. TisCh when it was added, it :,.'as January 10th, 1989, the date of the Compre~ensive Plan outline. ~,:P.. LaEEI~DOLA: ~.~y question would be why: Why }nas everyone in t]~e planning departr,~ent told people April lst? MR. ['.IERRILL: I don't know unless the question in -- HR. La[iEi~DOLA: As we -- VICE-C~IAIP, HAN V(;LPE: We can go either. (Indistinguisha])le conversation.~; and comments fr¢)m multiD, le persons.) ilS. CAS~!OIi[,i: I think the A[)~.-i] 1st intention is the -- we recommended t]lat it be pu:~,hed back to April 24th. If they were able to acl~ieve fi. hal site devlcpm{:nt plan approval by April 24 or when effective through the Secretary OO2O3 ............... - .................................... ,~ ..................... IIIII I I ...... | .... III ............ I 202 of State, which may be as late as May 2nd, then they will be able to Qua] J fy the e;:emption. [.~-~. La[,IENDOLA: I ]lave no problen~ with that. It's just the April 10th date which just came out all oE a sudden. CHAIR[~A~.~ HASSE: So it's ~,[ay the 2nd. VICE-Cf{AIR,lAN VOLPE: 1%.~ant to ask 5fr. -- ~,~ay 2nd, [,lr. Cuylcr, ~vc ~ad asked about the effective date of the ordination. Is tt~at, is that -- i'm not sure why we've got it up to ~<ay 2nd now. ].;R. CUYLER: That is the effective date of the rerncdial [.~lan. This corresponded wit]: the ordinance. Thc -- if t]~i~ effective date is the date of a6option, you can have this in effect before you have your plan a~endment in eff(~ct. And all I ~,;as trying -- VICE-CHAIE~.~A~7 VOI, PE: T]]at's bad. ~.~E. CUYI, ER: T~:at's bad. Wt~at I'm trying to do is tic this document to the eff~ctivc date of that document, amc] t}~at will be a~prox~t~ate]y --- CH;,IR~.;AI,~ HASSE: And that's when? [.~R. CUYLER: ~:ay 2nd to Nay 3~d. It should be 203 adopted on or about May the 2nd or 3rd. V ICE-CttAI RI. lAN VOLPE: Okay. CHAIR~AN HASSE: Do you havc a problem? tlR. La~,SENDOLA: I was just wondering what is going to be decided and put in the ordinances. I mean, it's ?ort of ur> in the air. VICE-C}iAIP, MA?I VOLPE: It ' s -- it had been sugr3ested, there has been a sur.]gestio~ .ri:adc: that once we get the ordinance in place, perhaps an educational program with those involved in the development community, and people interested in knowi~tg, that is something we could do and l~:~'obabl,.,.' encourage, so I think the kind of questions that you've Cot is that were can be done. Y.R. Lai~'IENDOLA: As lonc as we reach an effective date that seems to be in accord witk any everyone else's thinking. At this point, any client and contractors and ot?~er profcs:;ional:: tl]at I have been in touch with, it was a surprise. VICE-CU. AIR[.:AN VOLPE: Tl:c way it's being discussed. Not talking about April 1 ar:y longer. Wc're talking about another thirty days. MR. LaMENDOLA: And that will be put in the ...................... II ........... I ' III '11 .... ? ........ ............. ~ ~ - 204 ordinance? VICE-CHAIR~iAN VOLPE: Yeah. CHAIV~[4AN liASSE: Do you concur with that, Mr. ~.1crril].? Does that fit in with -- I~R. MERRILL: The effective date of the ordinance would be pushed back to whatever the date was that Ken mentioned. Yes, sir. CllAIR~.~A~] HASSE: All right. satisfied? COMMISSIONER SHA~A}{AN: It looks like we have two sloeakers. STUART KAYE: I do have. ~.~o four four, but I will say that if ycu help direct your staff to diligently work with us out here over the cour[~c of the next thirty days or so, for all who have SDP's that are pending, I think we can go o]o~f! wit~, deleting that. But we neec~ to ]~car t]~at you will work witt~ u[: to ]~e].l:), hell) u:; get t]~osc al:,provod. CI-!AIRt,~A[: !{ASSE: Thank you. t. Tr. OilJ_ff, is everybody CO~.[~.IISSiOMEP, SHAt,~AHAI']: That has been done. ~.~P,. [~;',EF.: Jack P~aen. I'm a realtor with Prudential Florida Realty, and i'm a remember of the Board of Directors 205 of the N~]Dles area Board of Realtors. CHAIRMAN HASSE: little bit. ~.~R. BAEL~: Sorry. I have one. Would you [Dull thc mike down a I have to do this all thc time. Ther(, is one area that quickly I would like to make a comment, a question on, related to the work of this honorab!c Commission, and that's in the method of using legal consul taut. I would like to inquire in relation to this legislation. I respect consultants immensely. I made my tivino for about fifteen years as a marketing consultant I'm a layman when I comes to the before I came down here. law. However, it seems to me that thc area of growth management is so new that we're entering -- running a unc?]arted territory, and I question the validity of case law. VICE-C}{AIRMA[; VOLPF,: I didn't understand your Z~R. BAEN: ~s so new that we are all running a uncharted territory. And real question t~e validity of case law, nu~er one. I uuder that the area of growth management And 206 this point -- I used to work with a corporate president who · ,.,,as or had a favorite statement about his use of legal talent, and it was, "i want a lawyer who can tell me what I can do, not what I can't do." VICE-C~[AIRMTd~ VOLPE: Excuse me if I might ~nuerrupt just a minute. If this is the use of outside counseling wit~ drafting these documents -- is that the thrust of your comments? ~4R. BAEF,: But it's a specific of comment. VI CE-CHAI RIqAI~ VOLPE: Okay. ,~,E~: Okay. W]~at I would like to see as a citizen of this county is some old creative support for what tl~e citizens of the county really need and want, as opposed to puttin(~ us into handcuffs. Thank you very much. CHAIRI;AN [[ASSE: Th(~nk you. :,!R. OLLIFF: appropriate. CHAIRMAI! tfASSE: Mr. [,lerrill, if it would be Wait a minute. Folks like to -- ME. BARNES: [,~y name is Gary Barnes, and I have been a develc, pcr irt Collier County for exactly twenty years and two month:;. And I'm ho~.;ing tc say in business for at least 207 19 years and ten months. And I specifically want to the address the issue, I think it's the item two four threc regarding DRI's and not concurrency, the exemption. And i~stead of coming up with a .r, roposal, I ]~avc little question that I want to as!.;, each con'gnission~;r, specifically starting wit}~ Mr. Commissioner }Jesse, and it'[; a yes or no answer, that has been bothering me since 19~.4. And thc question I have is wt~ether or not you feel that devclopmcnt of re~3ional impact should be exempt from the concurrency requirements under the Growth Management Act. CHAIRMAN }{ASSE: ~Io, I don't think so. ~IR. BARNES: Okay. Commissioner Goodnight. CO~,~MISSIONEE GOODNIGI{T: DRI's exempt from concurrency under the Growth [.~.anagement Act, VICE-C!tAiRMA[,; VOLPE: I think the -- that decision l~as been made fear us. '~',q~at we think doesn't matter. .~',E. ~:;~,R~'~E.'~: What you think is important to I.!ax [lasso says no. CO.~'<]IISSIONER GOODNIGI{T: ~[o, I don't think that they .~',houid, but -- O02O9 208 fiR. BARNES: But no -- COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: said -- ,~lR. BAP, NES: Like Commissioner Volpe has This is a yes or no question. COMMISSIO~IER GOODNIGHT: Have you ever asked a politician to answer a yes or no question. ~.'d~. EARNES: I know. We have Max Hasse, Dick Shanahan, Mike Votpe and Bruce Saunders. I thought I might get in trouble. So I'm asc. uming that you would say probably no, though, right? y~s . COMMISSIONER SHANAIIAN: Talking to me? MR. BARNES: No still on number two. CO~,~..±SSIONER S}{AIJAHAN: COI.',,'[ISI;1ONER GOODNIGItT: COi, iMISSiON}',I~ SflANAHAN: Still on-- I did say no. !'m not a politician. I say ?.IR. BARNES: Mr. Volpe. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: The law says -- '.XlR. BARNES: I believe. ViCE-CtIAIRMAIi VOLPE: I believo they should be e>:cmpted because t]~at's what thc state says. The answer is O0210 209 COMMISSIOn:ER SAUNDERS: answer to the question is. And quite frankly -- MR. BARNES: Yes or no. CO~:~,,I,.,SIO~I}.',R SAUNDERS: with you. i have no opinion. IlO. since 5:00 o'clock. MR. BARNES: VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: you have a DRI? MR. BARNKS: I,:o, I don't. T]~o statute tells us what the I'm being perfectly honest MR. BARI3ES: Nolo contenderc. Ct{A}RMAI,: IiASSE: }{ow can you ask an attorney yes or They go by the hour. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: We have all been sitting here If there is a point let's make it. That was the point. I just made it. Let ]ne ask you a question. Do CO~.~.[iSSIONER S}IANAHAN: Wit]: that burning question in your mind since 1984. You wound uD witl~ a no vote. ME. BAR~!ES: I appreciate your no vote. Thank you. COM~,~ISSIONER SHANAHAN: There you are. MR. BAF, NES: May i make a -- one more moment. CHAIRMAN }IASSE: Make it quick. ME. BARNES: If you recommend eliminating 2.44, you said earlier that right now in the permitting process you 2~.0 have acquired, as of. January 10th, sixty-two thousand square feet of com~nercial and five l~undred residential. After that, you've got seven hundred seventy-five thous,~nd square feet of commercial in the permitting process and some two thousand in the residential. I think if you eliminate, you've got to get in there who is going to get their permit bcforc, say', June 1. How is that going to happep and what is the legal fees going to cost us from the people who don't, who take you tc court to find out. You have to find out where the real cost basis is on the county. If you make that decision, and w]~at's it. going to cost you, cost us? W~]at's it going to cost us? We all pay. CHAIRHA~ HASSE: I don't think, really. ME. BARNES: Before you pans it, don't you think you should know-- CHAIRMAN HASSE: What did you say. .MR. BARHES: Before you pass this? ti ink you :;]~¢~u]~l []r,d o~t? CO~,~i.[ISSIONER SI1ANAHAN: }<R. PLU[iP.~ER: How do you -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Mr. -- don' t know. And don't you 211 MI?. PLUMFIER: So -- VlCE-C~IAIRMAN VOLPE: We have to be told that we have 0 compensation which our attorneys trove said is not legally defensible. We know the number of units that we have. And what I have heard is that within t]~ose number of units and that amount of commercial square foot. ~.'.R. PLUHi,]ER: You have you have had more than one tell you it wa~; and more than one wl~o said no. Too, of the two, seven I~undred and seventy-five feet of con~ercial and t~e twenty-five hundred residential that have gone forward and acted and attempted to get these, and you're just questioning that. You're jumping. VlCE-CHAIR~.iAN VOLPE: What happens. [qR. PLUHMER: If this is all the discussion that you're coing to have on this point t]~at we have publicly here, and you passed it, I don't ti]ink you really represent the citizens. I think you better understand it better. For months, it was okay; and in five hours, it's not okay. And not discussed other than ramifications. And more [.:topic say: I t]~ink you need to discuss it before you pass it. I don't think that you know enough to make a decision 212 at this point. CHAIRMAN ~{ASSE: Is he still here? answer to this. MR. MERRILl,: I t]~ink our attorney has responded. Mr. Merrill, do you have any No, I stand by the same decision. I don't think it has nearly the chalice that the other provision does, from a legal perspective. ME. FI,U~.21ER: the room. it. Maybe we ought to poll the attorneys in CHAIRMAN HASSE: That's eighteen hours. CO~,,kIS~,IO~,,ER S[.AhAHA~]: Let's go on. Let's vote on ME. PLUMMER: You're not -- you're going vote on it without telling thc people thc answers to my question. CHAIRMAN }[A~oEOO: Mil. PLU~.IMER: ~tnnwor? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOL?E: I think we have enough before us So yogi're going to move on before you There are a lot of questions, .~ir. Plur~mcr, t}~at we don't }]ave the answers to. COMMISSIO[~ER SHANAHAN: When we make the decision, you'll have the answers. (]0 ,31 4 213 MR. PLUMMER: You can't give mc the answer prior to it. COMHISSIONER S}IANAHAN: eliminate it if we elect to. MR. PLUMMER: county why. CHAIRMAN HASSE: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAM: as quickly as I can. CO~,~,ISSIOI~ER SAUHDERS: ]~ear~nt~. I think we have the right to But you can't tell the citizens of the Mr. Shanahan. I'] 1 make a formal motion and We ~eed to close the public VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: ! make ~ motion to close. COMMI SS I O?'.ER GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All those in favor. For the zoning reevaluation. Would I be heard? COM[.!iSSIONEF, SAUNDERS: CO~[,'qlSSIONER SHANAHAN: C[{AIRbtAN HASSE: We have to close. (Wheroupon, the public hearing on Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance was closed and proceedings cf the Board continued as follows:) CHAIP,~AN }{ASSE: You're taking thc position that it doesn't render the entire ordi~ance indefennible, so you can say that it doc.,; no t:arm. If he's right, utlimately, and O0215 there is a difference in legal opinion on the defensibility issue. VICE-CtIAIRMAN VOLPE: It's right. It still doesn't render the rest of the ordinances. CO~:MISSIONER SHANAHAN: CiIAI RNA[', HASSE: Yes. CO~h'.~I,,,~SIONER SI{ANAl{AN: Mr. Chairman. I weuld like to make a formal motion. include the revisions regarding: 2.4.4, to eliminate. 4.11, recommended by staff to include. 4.15.3, recommended by staff, to As quickly -- adopt the ordinance as is except to Number ~h~mbcr Three: include. To add -- four, Number Four: DRI to delete. Number five, Sectio~ Five: 2.4.3.3 wi th respect to To -- in as far as the development agreements, to do the rewrite of the development ag] reemen ts. ~-!R. I.!ERNiLL: Section 12. COMP.!SSIONER SI{ANAl[AN: I beg your pardon. }lumber Six: 2.47 which was on the salmon Sheet, I believe. Ir: relationship to thc housing low cost housing 215 ordinance. And renurr~oer 2.4.7 and 2o4.8 to -- ,qR. ~.:ERRILL: 2.4.8 and 2.4.9. CON>%ISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's going to be renumbered. CO~I<I SSIONER SHANAHAN: Right. And then on, Number Seven: To delete 2.4.7.3 ss recommendcd hy staff. There was some additional minor house cleaning. Cashonc ]lad recommended than Hike had recommended, and I would include that in my motion. COt:2":ISSIOt,IER GOODNIGHT: COblHISSIONER SAUNDERS: thc effective date, and the word substantial. COfiNiSSIONER SHAHAHAN: COHr4ISSIONER SAUI,'DERS: I'd' S. I would like to -- me, me. The addition of the language, I would modify. Thc Sections 1.18, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.3. And Section 3.2 where you used the word commercially zoned or designated. VICE-C~iAIRNAN VOLPE: Just on t]~c motion with respect to Sectio:~ 2.4.3 it's -- we have the elimination of. Fails to address an issue. CO}~PIISSiO;U.]R SIIANA/[AN: On t}~e DRI, point three. C.~{AIRMAN I{ASSE: W'e have a motion and a second. All 216 those in favor? (Responses of aye.) CHAI R}~AN EASSE: Unanimous. How soon can we get t?:at -- can you get this back to US. today? Friday. :~]R. HERRILL: Immediately, this week. What js ViCE-C}IAIR[.:AN VOLPE: Today is Wednesday. COI'[}.~ISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's still Wednesday. ?~R. P.:ERRILL: We will bare that back to you on Ct{AIR~'.:AN HASSE: Now, let's move forward to. VICE-CNAIR}~AL' VOLPE: Thank you, Hs. Cashone. 216 -A STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) i, Connie S. Potts, Notary Public and DeL, uty Cffici~i CourL I~aportcr of Linc State of Florida, ~nd the 2Ot]-, gudic].c;] Circuit of Florida, do hereby certify that the fc:~'eoc;in[' !'.rocc'edinf~s were t'.akcn ]:,o[orc me, at t)~e t~me and [:;'~&[. I ',,:/',:. [~ltt~'~c, rj.:;C:.; LL, art~ (;],i nht(:z~d snid proceedings and rc!:o~'t t],c. z,;;,n;c: b~.' comf';uter-assir;tcd Stenotype; tl~at the fc, ref.:(.:i;'c: cc~:~;utc~:-,':~;sisted, ty}>cn.,'t'itten t-.:ranscription cc,::niz, tin.;¢ of [ages ~ti~i~er(~ 2 thzot~gh 216, inclusive, is a true a:;J accurate t. ranscril':t {:f ;~}, SLcnotype notes cf the tr~:;:sc~il;t of ]>roc,~c. din0:; takur: at [:aid Iii tllTI<ESS Uf~EilEOF I ]taro hereunto ~ubscribed my r',c~r.c this 23rd ,.Tc, y of Al,ri], 1990. Co~nie S. Ports, Hotary ?ublic State: of Florida at Large Del'uty Cfficial Court Reporter' COL[.IFR COU:ITY ]3OAN[) OF CO~'.['ISSIONENS COF, S!DF. RAq'ION AND ItEARI~IG OF PROPOSED .1.) Zonin9 Reevaluation Ordinance 2) Ad¢~qu~te Public Facilities Ordinance ,,R~I~ /PUP, LIC [IE?,NII','(;, pcr ac~r,nda of March 21, 1990 VOLUME II [{card i,y thn 5oard of CcunLV Comn'i'~Jsioners, cor~cncing at 5:05 :~.m., ~Iodr.~cc;Cay, .Uarc:h 21, 19~0, ir: t]~c Ceunty Com~.:issioners Noard Loc::, ~' ' FI Nu ' " . ~,.ir(",. oor, Jl~,Jnc.~ :, Ccl]i~':r County Government C£nter, 3301 East .... ' , ~.,:'.la.~]i Trail and r,"cc:nvc, ned, at 5:30 p.m., at Lely HiGh Sc}:co] au~iitoriu.~:., 324 Lc:ly Eout¢.vard, Naples, FlorJfa. Cc:r~is.%ioncr Anne Gcodnigkt Cor'N J SSiOrlOr ~Nrt L. Cer;',misnic:ncr Rici',ard S. S]~ana]~an ~:cil DorrJj.], County Manager I~cnu<,th Cuylar, County Atto]']~ey %.'i]!iam [',c,rri]i, E:,cj~Jrc, Legal Consultant Sta}:]c,.. [,it[.igncr, Dir.:ctcr of Growth Hanagement '":',o-,;..~ %;. O]liff, Assistant to Cou]~ty Hanager ;'s. Rar',)[.,za Ca:~]:o~(~, Staff Reprcsentative Dn~ uti· 12yl(:u, Con:'.ie c Ports, ~k" ....... r TM ,~'~;:Lr: c',f F!ozich:: at Large: Dq..uty Official Court Reporter 216a ........ }{NAr'",: Durir~9' Pu::,]ic }fearing on %¢:r'~ir:g i!cov~:il~atic, n Or~linan(;(~ {",rf;lu:?{} I, i3}. 2-21{5) , r. ,;ar?c :.: .-.{. ,,vr,,_.,~.lc:r !.:r. q'o::, i:iii [ir. Rc:',s [h':!r:tosk ~.r Dudley ~¢~o_~letke flr. J{}}',i: N, CC~3C · '} }'r ~.1 :£ (:, ,:,re : :'i]:'~ :~ ,ii'. Lo,q',:i]] Rr:-'. }'(.Ut'~..~ :'ir. Pa hrich [ir o Jay e.,,' ...... 1 :,:]'r. [}eb}::ic:' ¢',]':;].efn]:v ,.1 !ss-lo Ci:} u:":':]:y [ r G¢.,ql',; ~' VC',]'} ~}I' ,/C:] :il Farqu];0r ~tz: !)ici. Clef '.c.r ~.:r i?ikc C¢;rr ;ir i,o~:nie [.::. Pon iii. ',7,:~'~10 :(~",., i:~ ,~ntl;c;rr,' F'J 1 [:: . /.: t.l',uI [)ay.i: .-...u:,~t]'d {ir,ii t ~ . .: ~lt/.: :- t: ~[a',.'C. , ,i . Gary ".z. ,lac]: [,, ,. :: }.r. !5avi~i Plummet 0022! ?,Ccc '.:ate [-',,i~iic F,:~c] .i.',.~c :.~ ~1I. S,zwcl] Corkran [;~. f-.la:; Reynolc'.~: i.r. Davi~ Mi. Wayne Spzou[,c ~ir. dOl~n Farqu]~Ai- ~.;ls. Dobbin: C'rs]~e[sky b:r. F, rian HacKcnzic l'ir. Ross llclntoeh :'.ir. Stanl c:y ~.[r. (2eorg~ V,lr:qac]OC' [';I. Potrick I~eclc ~ir. Xcv i:. [.Ts. [,cfi Dut:za ?~z. I.)o:i PJ ;:r., Oeor'gc Varncdoc ?!z. bud!cy Gc;cdlc:to Nr. Xcn Eeilc. y [':u. Ccc:rue Wj lso~ t:r David O' i'r. Rci~crt Duanc: [ir. (] c, c; l',:-, c hr. Jack ;ir:':. Cd:,hie Or:,i,c 216aa Oul'ilv:; Pu}'lic Hearing on Ordir~,,r,<:e (V(~]ti,'u? Il, fY' 217-421) 217 CIIAIP,~.]AN HASSE: Now we move forward to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. (Whe~-eupon, the following public hearing proceedings in consideration of the Adequate Public Facilties Ordinance were had.) CHAIRi~AH ]{ASSE: ~]r. O1]iff, are you ready for this? ~U{. OLLIFF: ~%r. Litsinger is Goin~] to walk you throu~]k, and I think because of thc lateness of the hour Der~]a]os those colored sheet that are outside the ordinance, and then ~e'l! ~o through the l~ublic speakers. VICE-C}{AIR~.~AN VOLPE: Did you say -- [,~R. OLLIFF: I think just thc color pages that are outside the ordinance that were submitted to you at the Planning Cor~u~ission. ~,[R. LITSI~fGER: For t}]c record, Stan Litsinger, Growth [.[anaq~ement Director. Good r'.orning. On the oac]. of your ~ackagc you have to blue pages representing additional language which is which was not i~c:]ucle(] in thc bo~]y (~f y~}ur o~din~,ncc wl~ich we are l'.~roposi~[7 t~.~: we arc first -- the first of these pages r<:[(tr[; to ~a[~e ~:i~']{~tccn, a~d it l~,rol.,osc:; new lan~k~ge recommended by [;taff. CHAIR:.IA~I HASSE: ~.lr. -- Stan, did you say -- you Got 218 t}~ree blues, am I correct? MR. LITSINGER: CHAI F, blAN IIASSE: MR. LITSINGER: There are three blue. You're talking yellow. Your blue pages. Staff recommended ~;taff cilag, ge w{)uld appear on Dage nineteen of the ordinance. It would be a new g.3.6. Essentially the reason for tt~is language is to propose a new po]icy in tile ordina]~ce to provide for wide scale issuance of certificate of Adequate Public Facilities after thc [u~blication indicating potentially deficient or deficient facil]tics. This provides that any certificates issued in tills period as far as the ASI ordinance would be .n'rovision~l or conditional and subject to the conditions of any ASi ordi~ance. The second blue pages are page fourteen. These BCC directed changes which were prepared for discussion. It wo~ld be seven four two, and is specifically ASI boundary criteria w?~ic]~ has been prepared for discussion purposes at the direction of tt]e Eoard for inclusion -- possible inclusion in the ordinance. Those are the only side sheets that we have before the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. 219 CHAI R~iAH I{ASSE: Speakers. [~F,. LITSI~IGEE: Also, I ]~ave one other item to point out to you associated with the ordinance and that is a ~'~:~:<>l~tio~ establis}~i~ a fee sc]~cdulc for application for certificate cf adequate public facility outside of the normal developed review process. That is at an applicant's request, in (~rder to we may recoup t}~e cost of. VICE-CHAIEMAN VOLPE: ~.:r. I,itsi~,ger, under the current draft of tl~e ordinance, if wc have 9'ot ASI's where %~c are ~t ca[-:acity wit]~ rcs[~ect to one of our public facJlitie[3, and we have petition~: that may be filed for sit]ncr rezoned or for a site development plan or a sub~]ivision, arc we under thc exist, ing draft of the ordinance allowed to permit those application[~ to proceed t},roug]~ the process or do we just stop things? [~R. L1TSI}iGER: As t]~e ordinance is currently written, ~..'{~ do r, ot provide for developmcnt agreement order, if t]~at is t]~c cue~:ticn. ~[cwcver, wc do have a provision within our d{~veiopmc]-:t a{;rcemcnt language w~ich would providc for additional fin;,l }~roved orders. ~{R. [:E~RILL: With a caveat. We do for -- a 220 prclin~inary type of developme~t would. But once you get to the subdivision plats, final site development plan, and some of the others, tibet i.~; not allowed under the current ordinance to be conditional except through some type of a dcv¢:lopmer:t ;~]rcem(pnt, as [.]r. I,it:'.J~ger mentioned. VICE-CHAIRiqAN VOLPE: Explain to me. IIE. HERRILL: And specifically what we are referring. There was some language submitted regarding 8.3.1.1. Lnd the specific concern that we ]]ave is that that wi]l allow the developer or the applicant to go dcwn through t]~o ~](3velcpment process an(] obtain various permits upon w}:ich it is going to be expcndir]g pcssibly substantial amounts of m~mey and relying on it or at least able to make ti]ese claims and of course maybe expressly conditioned on adequat¢~ facilities, but nevertheless there will be a claim that the county is pulling thc rug out from under it if it's imposed, if .it's ever irr~pcsed. T}:at'.'~ this w}~ole concr'rn ir] this regard. VICE-C[IAI R~.~AI, VOL?E: allow that unc]cr -- MR. LIT$IMGER: Yes. Do -- could -- you do that One of the amended portions to tl~e ordinance is expressed wherein -- proposes for a government conditions whic]~ sl'>ecifically provides for development orders within a development agreemeut. VICE-CI~A!RMAN VOLPE: Okay. Thank you. MR. OI,LIFF: I l'~avc one of the public spcakers who aF4~a~.ontly ]~as a flight out. VICE-C~[AIRM;,N VOLPE: Tomorrow morning? MR. OLI,IFF: Before too long. COMMISSIOI,!F.R SHANAHAI~: VI CFi- CI{AI I~MAI,; VOLPE: o ' c iock. CHAIRMAN }{ASSE: Where is he going? The airport clcses at ten Who is it? ~-',R. OLLIFF: Mr. Larry Arnn. VICE-C[tA!Ri,!AN VOLPE: l';e want to see your ticket. MR. OLLIFF: [.~ollcwing will be Dick Tucker. ~'.R. AR~I~]: I bogin by sayir~g th. at my heart goes out to all of you, and nothing I'm going to say is meant to increase your troubles, whic]~ I know something about. I'm an ()utsidcr. From California. C}.~AIEMAN HASSE: I'm ju.~_~t curious. respond to that first remark. hamburger. I would like to You should have called the 222 MR. ARi'I~: I may get you one on the way out. I 1;ave two claims to talk. One is that seventeen years old when I was a college student, I helped to build thc local X-Mart. And to my surprise, I see that it's still standing. Thc second is that I study growth politics. I run thc Lairmont Institute. It we got quoted. Presidential discou~ted on housing forwards about. And I have made it in my business to know .~omcthing about tt'~e zoning issues. What I urge to you tonight is that you be flexible on the concurr~:ncy rulen and t}~at you allow a m~,.>:imum amount of roon~ in t}~e market to c~oose from. In Cai ifornia we have scrne horror stories that I can relate to you. Through attempts that are mostly vain, to solve infrastructure problems through land use planning, we }~avc ~nanagod to double t~e cost of our housing in soutl~ern California, we have nverage home [~riccs in Orange County of ~90,OOO ~145,00g of that i~-' rcg~latory of one kind or ~not~cr, acco~.'din~l to studio:{ conducted by us and soveral other !~eopl e. With inflation today, the cost of shelter as a percentage of !~er~:,onal income has doubled. In the next 223 generation oE Amc:titans, we are not going to be in a position to be at anything like the forebears have. It's interesting as an economics problem. More so in a social and en,otic~nal problem. For example, in Southern California and Florida, we have a ral~idly. ~,1ost white peo].~lc own homes, most Hespanics do not. That a general point. My second general point. solve infrastructure problems. It's very difficult to Especially road problems but land usc ~.;]~n. For a lot of reasons, of where the traffic is cc:ming from. It happens that eighty percent of the driving i~ Hcwark now is not ~:omc to work driving or work to home driving; eighty [~ercent of the driving is discretionary Criving, not wcrk related. At peak hours in mcst cities, most of the driving is not home/work driving, and that means that the location of buildings in relation to eac~ other. Since trips will increase laterally and most of the growth in traffic is non-work trips, the location of buildings in relationship to cac~ other [tas !ess and less to do with congestion. T]',~ rca] source of t]~c tr~ff].c l~roblcm in American is not s(, muc]~ pol~ulation growth. Population is growing at two 00279 224 to four percent. Vehicle miles traveled is growing at eight to nine each year. Because of that, it would be very difficult, even by building new roads, but certainly land use controls, to solve l~roblems like traffic congestion. In our basin, for example, in the end of Los Angeles wi~nre wc have doubled our home prices in trying to stop traffic congetion, wc still find that it -- we ]]ave conducted studies of thc number of homes in cities like Santa t{arbara. We also f~n¢! that once an area gets congested, it causes development to s~ift to different areas, anf that relieves of thc, congestion problem. If you are infle×ib!e in the way you apply the concurrency rules, you ;..,,ill stop one of the two escape valves t}]at are possible for crowded areas in central cities. What I would urge you to look at, instead of rigid areas for development, is deman{! management strategies for driving. There is more and more data that shows that because sc, much of the driving problem, the number of trips per vehicle per hi.chway was quadrupled in twelve years according 225 t¢, thc U.S. Department of Transportation, what you l~ave to dc is teach people alternate choices -- like the telephone company :¢logan of let your fingers do the walking -- and that is take discretionary trips at non-peak hours. An example of how that can be done: In Los Angeles, t];c worst traffic city -- C}{AI~?;Td~ I~ASSE: You ~u~vc had ye, hr four minutes. HR. ARNO,: Can I take ten seconds? CHAIN~,%AN HASSE: Ten seccnds. H~. AENN: Traffic is up eleven percent. ViCD-C[[AIN[4AN VOL~E: Total ~rJve, ten percent. ~[R. ARN[3: T~rough the use of management strategies. T]~cre was no conuestion, because of time shifting. CNAiR[4AN ~;ASSE: Ten seconds. Thank you. Following [4r. Tucker will be Sewell What ,.vas that nan:e? Corkran. George Tucker, and I'm in very concerned about F.t:tt. infj Judivi~tual arid starter ]~ouseholds into permanent shelter. !'m very concerned{ about l~ow it is that v;e want to pay for t]~ese items. 00231 226 I toil you, to save time this evening, I think the bottom line is over the last eigl~t to ten years, everything3 has risen with the economic tide. I think the bottom line is that everybody needs to pay a little bit for in f res t ruc tuft. i think I would like for you to take a lcok at in the plight you arc in. Tt~at is, I would like to see some type of a transfer for proI.~crties that ~re already developed, simJ. la~' down the road to raise capital for infrastructure. I t]~ink you %lot a good ],andle on the sales tax aspect cf iL. Thc committee bas clone a ross, geed job, but I think you have to rai[~e more funds down t~c road. And I appreciate thc difficulty, but put somebody on your list to do, ~av, sales tax arranoement, and Lee County I think is alread,.., putting that into legislature for enactment. And tl~ank you very much. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: You're not talking about a]~ythin~ wit], a v~,lue added tax, are you? }{R. TUCKER: Develo~mcnts created in the last thirty years. As I undcrntancl the position, perhaps DCA, that the v;hc!e direction is again on municipalities to come up with extra fundirw. It was to ~}ay for past items as well as new. 00 32 : ~ .......... II IIII IIIII IIII '- IIIIIII ................................. 227 And I t]~ink there were a lot of individual property owners currently in a position to enjoy all of the utilities and takin9 advantage of road paving and other infrastructure items that the county has provided, but not really provided any capital toward those items. VICE-CIIA]RiIAN VOLFE: So are you suggesting that I :~}:ould now pay society in the '80's or '90's for that, when we didn't have pul~lic utilities, ta;: and parks and libraries that we do now, presently I am able to sell my home for $150,000, that I should have to pay an impact fee. f.[R. TUCKER: A rctro impact fcc. VICE-Ck~AIR?4At,~ VOLPE: Interesting comment. · UCk : infrastructure. ~.iR. OLLIFF: CIIAI Ri.lAN I{A$S[:',: a~yway s ? ~4R. OLI,IFF: CH;,IRt4At,; HASSE: state. f. IR. CQRKRAN: Avenue South. And this is one of the much needed Following [,ir. Corkran -- Don't you ['.aS' a capital gains tax don't use it for our roads. I know that. Neither does the I'm Sewell Corkran. I'm not from California. I live at Ninth I have been around here for' a lonc~ timc. I ]~avc checked with the DCA, and I am a party to this ~:~;~tl.cr and ~.~] ] 1 co~[.inu(~ to t]~ese heari~gs. I'm very concerne[] about this Adequate Facilities Ordi~ance. And I [>reface tf:at remark by saying that I know that t]~(, state l'~as not been all that helpful, and I certainly don't t~ink some of the la~.;ycrs representing developers have been t]~at helpful, and I'm conccrned because I don't believe tills crdinance is going' to protect the ccmmunity from having a continuation of poor roads. We may have water restrictions in the future, sewer sn~. ot]~er Droblems. Easically the %.~ay this ordinance is structured, develo[~crs are [~oing to patrol what is f]oing on in the County Commission, and the County Commission is going to be rcactinq~. 'I']~c cnly realistic control t~]at tho developers are goin~ to have is command [~art of it. Pa~-t of it is natural and ~art can be The [>resent c~rdinance cannot assure the stated intent of concurrer]cy. And in plain, simI~le terms, what concurrency means here and what we're addressing is a joining of thousands cf 228 229 public facilities they need at occupancy. The connection between the residence and the facilities they need can fail because the permits are to be issued under the ordinance without a determination as to the time that it takes to produce the facility and whether it v,.~ ] 1 }~c i~ tim<~ fc, r concurr¢~ncy. I al-.~ -- t have ~3ive your office a copy of this, so I'm net ooinq to read it verbatim, but I'll get to the heart of it. This ordinance has a clause that says that I can get a ?er:nit ~,f adcquancy if thc facilities are recocjni;;ed in t)~e county adopted budget regardless of whether there's a controct. ?}~at language, in my opinion, is loose, it's wide of>eh, it doesn't consider thc concurr~2ncy factor and is coinc3 t© bc5 tt~c county dov~n further in catch up, and that's where t]~c county is. Even according to son~e of the land lawyers. I )~,nve discusse<i this matter %vith the DCA, and they have given me s¢)~,e !anguacjc %vhick ! }lave given you, because you ~verc. copied, and that language will tell you what other com~unitics have done tc rig]]ten up or] the concept of 230 concurrency, and '~hat they are doing as you will find from ~.Jhat I have given you is -- that the impact of development accel-ding to thc DCA t]~at ]lappens at occupancy, and I hope you will take this matter seriously. Thank you. CHAIR[.IAI,] HASSE: Thank you, sir. },%R. OLLIFF: b~r. Chairman, following l~[r. Reynolds will be Wayne S~ouse. VICE-CHAIRWomAN VOLPE: I don't understand that (Tiscussicn. ~.lr. Li tsinger. [,~R. b!TSI~:GER: I think ~'~r. Corkran is referring to t]'~e feature of our ~lan which is somewhat unique in that state due to the fact that we have a five-year window which all¢~ws us to find a facility eligible for issue if it's un(let contract ir: tko plan and funded or in the annual bud{/~ct; whez-cas, the strict provisions of the statute and fJvc o}~ five call for the facility, to be available on the date that thc iss~ed. t]ut that is a feature of our plan which was found to be in c(~mpliance as adopted ~n our plan. VICE-C}!AIRi'~[A~[ VOLPE: Thank you. 231 CIIAIRY. AN IIASSE: Mr. Reynolds. Mil. REYHOLDS: Good evening, bly name is Alan Reynolds. I'm going to talk very fast because of the two points. 7.4 and 8.2. Starting with 7.4, which is the situation I had suggested to you at a prior meetings. Some kinds of standard into thi~ document that give us guidance wit~ respect to the extent of ASI, ASi being the moratorium boundaries t}~at we're going to have to live with. At the prior to ]]caring, I gave you some rcco~ended language that suggested a certain geographical conditions on either side of ~'oad segments. T]~c mad that I have before you is that principle as applied now to your current arterial del Jciency. The areas that is s]~own in yellow on the segments is the one half mile either side of the arterial one half mile fron~ (~it~]er end of the an arterial read segment, that encompasses some ten thousand five hundred ninety-nine acres in urban Collier County. That was of the recommendation I gave you. Sec(u~d o~tion you have is the one that has been ]~r'esentec5 to yo,~ by staff tonigl~t. 232 VICE-CHAIRHAN VOLPE: Is this along certain corridors? Itov; do you come up. ~IR. REYIiOLDS: Arterial corridors and then the band is one half r,~ile on either side and one half mile from citijet segment. VICE-CHAIR~',AN VOLPE: State roads? .,tlR. REY[IOLDS: State roads. The p~-oposal that has presented to you by staff is the same or similar language that I proposed. However, as you can see, going a half mile to a two and a ]]a!f miles, thc moratorium boundary that we're going to be talking about. b~ext map by those standards as now represented by this yellow area, that yellow constitutes seventy-nine thousand acres of land in Collier County. That is more acres ¢)f lane~, than Js in our entire urban district costal urban district in Collier County. Okay? I would suggest to you that by making what seems to bc rather small changes in the dimensions, you wind with up a fairly siiTnificant result. %':hat I ~,,,culd like to offer to you is that you have four op. tions with rest'~ect to ,qize. 233 A -- one option is to adopt the ordinance that you l~ave before you. It has no standards. You determine the standards on a case-by-case basis. Option two is to adopt something that is similar to %~'t~at I proposed at the last meeting. VICE-CHAII,'MA~ VOLPE: What is the Planning Conunission rcccnu]~end a t ion? [,HI. REYNOLDS: Nothing. Sug0ested that the Board should decide whether or not they want standards in the ordinance. So the ordinance before you right now }]as no f3tandazd. T}'~at's it. That is greater than what you considered t~:e other week. It's a greater area, but less than map two. Th~. proposal is -- C}{AIRMAM HASSE: fiR. REYNOLDS: That is two. This is closer to map three. That is ~']~at :.~taff ha:.; f~ropo~';ed to you toni6'ht in the tl~ree mile VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: thouc,~]o I mean, that up to how much, it's the outer limits of what it could be? 234 MR. REYNOLDS: t]~at' s corrcct. VICE-CHAIRMAH VOLPE: Based on what was presented to you, Outer limits. But through this proces::, the Eoard of County Co,.:,.missioners can bring it back to what -- you have less on number one. i.'~R. REYI:O[.DS: Presumably back to nothing. If I could, those are supposed to be the guides for what you would gcr, erally consider to be the case, and then you deviate from that for specific r¢:asons. So I wouldn't suggest that we adopt a huge area and then cut back from it, kecause I think then there is no .~3oint in having standards at all. I think you ought to have standard tkat is reasonably probable guidance. The fourth o!otion that i'm going to offer you tonight which I have not discussed before. CO~.:~!ISSIOL?ER SAUNDERS: What is thc third option? ].ip.. R..,Y :,OLD,~: the blue sheets. CO,~.~[ISSIO~ER StiA~A[iAM: what }nas bce]~ represented to you on But you also said that this is a map, an expanded map, and expanded considerably. Do ycu knew how much it's expand over what we elected 235 MR. REYNOLDS: A week ago had thirty-three thousand acres, appro:~imately, in the deficient area. VICE-C}[A!RMAI~ VOLPE: Thirty-t]~ree tmndred, wasn't it? ~lT~. REYNOLDS: No. Tkirty-three thousand acres in the deficient and fifteen thousand in the potentially deficient, wi]ich gives you a total of forty-eight thousand ~c~os. That was two. WI:at ti,is shows you is seventy-nine thousand acres. That's tl'~e three mile recommended standards. l"curth o~tion I'm going to offer you, at a considerable difference, the last, the option that you have on a s]~ect in front of you which is entitled, and let me get t.o it. A{~ditional cn Collier County adequate -- proposal to provide ar: extent of an ASI moratorium. ~.'3h~t this does is doe~n't 0ive you the specific star, Cards for where they go, but what it says is that tl]e total geogra~..hical area that maybe included in an ASI for deficient or Dctential]y deficient roads segment at any one tis~e shFll not exceed fi. ye percent off the total acreage of the ccstal ~]rban area, i~cluding ~.~arco Island, or five 236 percent of the total acreage of Golden Gate Estates as set fortl~ on tl~e futul'e land usc map. %';],y would if we do somctl~in~ like, that tl~e .[igure is four fol~.. It al].ox~s the Board to have ~lexibility in determining wkcre the specific ASI boundaries are on a case-by-case basis. Eut as ti:e same time -- I'1] speed it up. But it a[~curer: ~::~ t]-~,:~l: wc ~re nc)t (fcJ. n~j to have county wide YS' im~luCing a maximum cap, we will wovern t~at we di~-~ct 5'our ASi to where we need them the most; it will mean that as wc create new AS!, wc must solve tke old ones, the one so al; not have the massivc social and economic impact in the county associated with a county wide moratorium. It woulc~ be, if you adopt that as applicable, a comfort to the co~uunity that we will not have these kinds of moratorium ~n Col licr Col~nty. VICE-CHAiI~.IA~ VOLPE: ~.]r. [leynolds, to suggest that we will ]~ave a county ~,,i~]e moratorium I think is over statcmt~nt to t]']c I~' t}~ t, cgree. ~'$0 not.; have five year plan, so the suggestion that we could w]r,d u!~ with a n~oratoriun, under any circumstances 237 seems to me very, very far fetched. NE. REYNOLDS: Tlte total acreage that we have in our ~rban area is -- whit], is where the area is -- an appro.~[imately seventy-six thousand acres cf the land. The map that you selected last week as the one -- you've got to advertise -- ]]as £orty-eight thousand acres in it. So Jf it I suggest that if not county w]de, it's the vast majority. VICE-C[IAIRNAN VOLPE: I think by doing that it establishes the outer limit, but it's impact. I heard what you're saying. ~[R. REYNOLDS: Those are the people who are going to come to the hearing and see advertising, and those are some ninety thousand was tNe num]~er I heard mentioned. So that's a lot of people. i would suggest that you might want to take a look at Nr. Chairman. I was just going to say that !'m not so .,u~c~' -' ~ that t!~e potential for what ~s' almost a count;.' wide moratorium, I'm not sure that I agree with your £'.tatemcnt that what is sometl~ing that is a gross exageration 238 or an over statement. If we're not careful on ]~ow wc define the ASI in this ordinance arid the other ordinances, we could have well come up wit?~ that. Tl~at's one of the rcasons why I suggested a week or so ago when we were talking about the three maps that we define it as narrowly as possible. Especially on state roads. D~Tf~nc a:~ narrowly as possiblc any potential moratorium area. For two reasons. One, I don't think it's particularly fair to property cwncrs to l~ave tl:e potential for a large moratorium area, even though in reality that may not happen. I don't think it's fair to d~fine an ordinance t}]at permits that possibil i ry. And, number two, I don't think any of us really fully understand t]~e economic impacts of a very broad moratorium. I'm t~ot so concert~ed about t]]c larqe ['~roporty ow]Jer. I'm not ccu-~,cerno~] ~bout what'[] his or ~t]y of those type of property ~wner's. They could withstand a short term But I'm concerned about a construction worker whose wJ[e is a school teacher who may lo[:e their home if there is 239 a two-year or an eigtltcen months moratorium in the county. So what I think what we're going to do tonight is very importa~t on wt~t we're Going to be forced to dc down the road if wc don't get funds for, for example, for tile state roads. If thc one ccnt salcs tax option doesn't pass and we don't have the funding for the arterial for the state roads scgments, wa have ordinances that sct a two and a half mile area around t]~ose roads segment as a moratorium area, what are we going to have to do? We're going to havc to comply with our ordinance. And I don't think t}:c possibility of a county wide or an effective county wide moratorium is beyond ccnsideration if we're not careful what we do tonight. the t. VICE-CHA!9MAI~ VOLPE: ! would like to follow up on i thi ,,,. [;robably we were saying the same thing last Tuesdoy about how narrowly this area of influence should be drawn, especially for state roads, w}~en we don't have the option ir: thc fir~';t instance. It's been foisted upon us. i 'm sas'i~-,C~ to you from .'~ r~ersonal perspective that I see the likelihood cf a county wide moratorium resulting 0O245 240 from the deficiency on state routes as being slim and none. I don't know by just drawing a quarter mile, half mile on either side of state roads -- is that what that is. ~.!R. REYNOLDS: That ~vas one o£ the suggestions that I ha~l made at the half prior to hearing. C}]AIR~'qAN fIASSE: What is that based upon? i,~R. REY[]CLDS: As principles t]~at ~ave been used on certain ordinances around the state that we have seen, tkere's -- on either side of road segments. VICE-CHAIE~.~AN VOLPE: Well, k~r. Saunders pointed out t}~at the smaller individual.~ t]~at may get caught up in the ASI. You, the larger D~I's arc exempt. ~,[R. REYNOLDS: Keet'~ in mind that that ten thousand as represented by this map re~rescnts up to forty thousand single-faultily homes if you use four units an acre. So even the little map is a fairly far' reachir~g impact on Collier County. C[{AIR~,;AI,; ~{ASSE: What:'s the other map? Wasn't there another m~.p hot,veer] those two? COE~[ISSIOL~ER £:HA?;A[{A[.:: Yc~, there were three maps. CHAIRr~AN HASSE: Three ~{~aps. COi.lt,'[ISSIONER SAU}:DERS: ~:r. Eeynolds indicated that. 00246 241 ?!iddle ma[,, had forty-eight thousand acres. COMMISSIONER SIIANAHAN: I think we have to revisit this whole th~ng of thc last week, we voted on a map that was middle o[ the road, and it was forty-eight thousand acres. It's now seventy-nine thousand acres. That thirty-one thousand acres difference. Last week we had much discussion. recommendation that we go with map one and if everybody donjon ' t remember ma~ one herc a~d had some very good reasons wl~y w~: ~l~(~,ld ~ciopt: tl~ai.. I ~uggcsted a -- number two, a moderate middle of the road, and that took the vote. But now we have a complete change, and I'm not happy with t}~e cilag,ge of that significance. HR. eLI,IFF: One of the major -- CO~.:MISSIONER SAUNDERS: One of the major differences between tonight and last week ir, last week, the Co~ission picked a map for notice purposes. Knowing that when we held t}~e ?ublic hoarinc sometime in April, we could 9o with whatever we wanted to at that point. Tonight we are being asked to provide an ordinance that will establish the standard that we are willing to comply with, regardless of our feeling, six months from now. Mr. Saunders had a I 242 VICE-CIIAIR~AN VOLPE: And at the same time, CCPC s}-lould contain no standards at all. TI:at we should go through that process that we started Thursday or the Tuesday before last. I t}~ink what we're hearint, now is someone is looking for, the L~eople arc looking for some certainty, and they would like to know at least the outward] limits of where the L~otential area of significant influence may be. Is that w}~at -- [,'.R. REYNOLDS: I would suggest if the outward limits ~re represented by a male: like this, we're not representing an~'thino though. That's w]~at of the new alternative. Just tell us we're not goin[: ar]y more than ten or seven tkousan(] acres or so~e other represented by the some Ferccntage of our urban area at a~]yone time. VICE-C}IAIR~,~AN VOLFE: One road criteria. What about county roads? P[R. REYI{OLDS: I think the principle, if you adopt a~y new sui]gestion, you still determine that, as staff has suggestc{] in t]~e past, of the modeling or certain deficient criteria, case by ca:3.? basis. So far as what we will subject to a moratorium, let's decide where it does the most O0248 243 good. Okay? if moratorium does ally good at all. Buu decide where it's most important to that moratori:lm. And half the -- is odd mingling. Half Marco Island, a quarter. That icj something that is proposed to y<~u by thc staff at t:l~at time. CHAIP,~.:AL' HASSE: quos tion. Commissioner Goodnight had a CO~![.;I .... ICI~ER (]OODI';IGffT: I!ot a question. On 7.4.2, two and three,. This is going to have an effect. This is i",ossibly ]~ave an affect on traffic road. Last week -- you all are talking about District Five. I,ast week, you all -- policy cycle will not be able to be pc'rmitto¢] becausc there is loss than two miles difference between lake traffic road, which is already at deficiency. ~,~ow we'rc working on it in the five-year plan, but we're not going to be a policy cycle plan because it's in And this would have to apply in that area this district. also. CUAIPMA~I }{ASSE: That's exactly what I'm trying to figure: out, whc, r.c, the other ~:~al.~ is. VICE-CIIAIRMAI; VOLPE: Tln~ other map was last Tuesday. CO~.[~dISSIONER SAUNDERS: ~Cr. Perry is getting the 00 4,0 244 other map. CO[.~MISSIONER SHANAHAN: MR. LtTSINGER: I don't think it's Going do We brought this to you for discussion [~urposc. Staff is not recommending this specific language. In fact, due to the fact that you're seeing too many possible scenarios to drawing these boundaries should they become necessary, that you need the latitude -- are not to be included ~n the land. On the other hand, we are ;~ot hanging our hats on t},] :;. VICE-CHAIRr, IAN VOLPE: option one. }!R. LITSINGER: Any criteria would be -- MR. ~ERRILL: Thc criteria boundaries are left up to the Eoard. COM~',ISSIONER SHANAHAN: Can we get some direction as to the staff as to the proposal by Mr. Reynolds of the Section 7.42. Can we get some direction from Stan? From Tom? MR. OLLIFF: At least some of the difficulties that we had with thc issue. I would like like tO know what the So your recommendation would be 245 boundaries or the outside boundary or something are. Because I understand that situation. A case in point of the Davis Boulevard. The say may have been three percent less. If that evident slowdown should happen, say a gas war was on, tke traffic changes so dra~qtically cn some roads that it changed that, a fixed bound, ary doe.'-~n't tie in. The traffic that capturing the traffic on that roadway. The most recent capture rate, the -- last week, which was a very narro~,,~ focus, the capture rate or traffic that i~;~acted t?~at roadways was t~c ~'3ercent. We were only capturing the two percent of thc tafffic that impacted that roadway,. Growth ra~nagcment says when get to a point where it's deficient, we cz~nnot approve development orders that nec3atively i~pact that roadway. New, for us to come and recommend to you that we draw that line where a two percent capture is and says complying, v;c -- I can't after that come to you and say, tell you that these two thin.qs make sense. CO[,!,';ISSICNEE SHA?,~AHAH: ~,',~o're not asking for a two percent band at all. We're asking for something maybe 00251 246 greater than. MR. OLLIFF: That tend to to carry from urban costal srea into the conducted at the other area. The way the plan an~ench~ent is written, it does not allow for us to have those sDecific .quidclines within the concurrency ordinances that are geographic boundaries of a mile or a l~alf mile or whatever they are. If that's the case, our plan doesn't allow us to do that, I can't recommend that at all, that you put that language in here. The ]3oard level public hearing. You directed us to do the test as well as to development a -- provide guidelines, that is sort of that worst case scenario, that we ,...,ill never do in moratorium worse than that, and we will in witk son~et]~ing less. CHAIR~.IAN HASSE: What arc we looking at maps for? [,IR. OLI,IFF: T},at's the point. ~[r. -- Alan is s}~ov/illi; yol] t]l{;~ wor:3t case scenario. A~]d what staff would investigate. W]~atcver effect it. impacts are, it's going to . maybe be better than what that is. VICE-CHAIRf.~AN VOL?E: So it's not a standard. You may just as well a county wide moratorium at some. (30252 247 ~lP. OI,LIFF: I'm not playing back on the request. The indiction is that the Board's feeling, thou.qh, supposing that they want to be able to tell what the -- the here is, what the boundaries ar(: -- VICE-CI{AIRP, IAN VOLPE: May we -- maybe should leek at the. CO~:"~ISSIONER SHANAHAN: I do not %~,ant to go with thc plan that is being displayed here, 1.5 AIS arterial roads. I think treat's far too encompassing. We need a ~odifying al.~l-,~roach, and thc other map that Alan has drawn out there -- CHAIR~,kAN }!ASSE: I'm still looking for the other map that we adopted last week. CO)[HISSIONEE SHANAHA~I: It's gone due to that. ~.[E. OI.LIFF: We didn't adopt it. ,~,[E. LITSINGER: Con,missioner, a clarification is needed here. What Hr. Reynolds is saying, that if you adopt this Dian, and the r.~a:<imum boundarie,~ ',,;ould be represented by the yellow area, that that would be the maximum. NR. REYN()LDS: [~'[y princ][~al in suggesting the five [,ercent rule is very simple to me; at least, it says how 00253 248 much of your urban area can we afford to put under moratorium at any one time and not wreck economic devastation. CO!IMISSIOEEE SHANAHA]i: How about zero? MR. EEYNOLDS: Zero is the best number. CO~4~:ISSIONEE $IIANAf[AH: What's your fall back. you assur:inc that the five percent is not defensible. Are REYNOLDS: I hear six. I don't know. I'm not. CO~qMI~,_,~OLER SHANAHAN: Is your fall back a half a NR. REY[.~OLDS: That I think are reasonable or five l:~ercent or half a mile. One ~.]eographical. COFIHISSIONEE SHANAHAN: Adopt, consider further or consider e>:amining -- MR. REYNOLDS: stc, r~dard~; aL t:~; Dc, iht in time. CO:'~}.;ISSIONER SIIANAHAN: And spend time on this, workshop this and spend some time taking a look at this. After ~;ix hours and start tryin~l to make this kind of a docJ. sion -- the only thing I was trying to point out is wh~t we do is very critical on what we're going to be able to cio in thc future. The ordinance that doesn't provide any 249 I suggest we leave ourselvcs as much flexibility into it and not put in ordinance in the tonight, and we start havi. nf,~ a '..;ork,~;h¢)p on what t]~c: rca] impacts are and what we ou[~ht to do. Let's not try to resolve that tonight. VICE-CIIAIR[.~AN VOLPE: Tl-~at really doesn't solve the issue as far as the community is concerned, because then t}:erc, really is no stazidarc]s. CO}.'!~!ISSIO}~ER ,~]AUNDERS: What you are -- VICE-C;[AIR['IA}: VOLPE: We're talking about a metbodolcgy. We started wit]] t}]e ASI, ASI around the state reads. As a part of that process, are we going to come up with a methodolcgy now? Is t]'~at going to be some standard that people will be able to refer to for future references? [.IR. OLI,IFF: You n~ay want to make that as a statement on t]~e record. The last ma[~ you looked at was a capture of rougi,,ly [orty-cif~ht to £J. fty percent, I think that map was. 1.iR. CUYLER: That gave credit for alternate groups of access ~..;hether Davis t3oulevard versus Radio Road or 951 in area 1-52. corridors. Fifty percent capture rate decreed for ultimate 00255 250 If you want to discuss that conceptually tonight or if you want to go back to a workshop, as Commissioner Saunders has suggested, and review a capture rate. CHAIPiqAN HASSE: For a while, I was beginning to think that I was getting too tired and I was going crazy. MR. CUYLi'.F.: }.I~. Vobane (pl~o~etic) is. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Finc. }~R. CUYLER: But it does not give credit for a capture rate. That's the back half of what you said you wan ted tc do. CHAI R~.:A~! HASSE: on that last week. VICE-CfIAIRMAN VOLPE: of the capture rate approach. MR. REY!:OLDS: From what I k~ow about modeling capture rates, a lot of hocus-pocus. And I couldn't take a, same for as arbitrary to assumptions that are made, and my own personal opinion is I don't t~ink it's a very good ~.l~proach to take. CHAIR~.[;.,].~ I{ASSE: Your map there isn't much more than. ~.:R. CUYLER: I thought which had basically agreed Mr. Reynolds, what do you think And sayin.q that we're only going to have 251 your scenario five percent or thirty-five hundred acres. Whose acres is in and who is out? r, lR. REYNOLDS: Whose acres is in or out is what the Eoard decides at the time. I'm approaching it -- what makes the cars tt~e ~:~echani[;m. I'n-, ta)..in~3 the stand on it from what doesn't wreck eccnon~ic devastation on Collier County. And there is a percentage of our area that wc can agree on arbitrarily that we can only live with five percent or ten percent, or whatever it ii;, at any one time, and then let's put take the put thc size w~;c:rc they are mosk needed. Size, not what comes out of some computer model. You -- there are all kinds of assumptions and models. To ~c, it's like a magic box. Let me be sure you understand that there ~.IR. OLI, IFF: is ordinance and -- M.~I. REYNOLDS: Profcrrinc of the flexibility that t~ere are no standards today and come back and have some work [;)3< q',n. that way. C[]AIRMAN HASSE: either one of these. A]~d come ~c). ~]o back and amend thc ordinance Frankly, I'm not comfortable with I'm tell you that. And I was more 00 257 252 comfortable with the one that is missing. ~IR. CUYLER: I do not have a problem with the capture modeling. You tell people what they are, and if they want to come and ar<3ue how to frame the complaints, that will be the. purpose of thc workshop. I think that if you adopt an acccDtable commuter r.]ethodoloc3y ti:at gives credits for all the -- that ordinance and captures one half of the traffic for the further degrade roads, and i thin]: those are are the kind of finite {!eci$ion,~; that you can make, ~nd then everybody understand. VICE-CIIAI.P,,~.iAN VOLPE: ~r. I]orri]l, though, if that is -- tiler is tl-:e aF, proach, does that set the outside limits? I mean, can we reduce that, I n~ean, if you're saying fifty percent capture rate, have the ability to bring that capturc¢~, rate down to something less than fifty percent, maybe five percent or ten percent-.. .~IR. CUYLER: I think tko Eoard has the flexibility to do that but also a develop an opportunity to negotiate their impact by buildi~g or providing an infrastructure that further prove a particular inter:~ectJcn which is the primary p rob 1 em. It's intersections and traffic lights that primarily 253 degrade level of service. ViCE-CIiAIRMAN VOLPE: Isn't that the second part of what our consultant is supposed to be doing? NE. CUYLF. R: Yes. And two spec ifJ. c things that you can do. CO~[":ISSIONER SAUNDERS: he. re? ~'~R ~ 'v · :~[',~ NOI,DS: don't listen. the -- Your transportation is on Some of the alternatives. Or i f you VICE-C}[AIRMAN VOLPE: Is he your consultant tonight? Pi, UMMER: I'm David Plummcr. REYNOLDS: And he. is the one that who spoke at I think A1 mi,qspoke. Wait & minute. Do we have any other ~'IR. P[,UIINEN: C[[AI R~:AI; HASSE: speakers on ti:is part? VICE-CUAIRHAN VOLPE: Are you our consultant our. representing George Varnadoe. We ,~h=t s the going rate. peso riqht now. I'm not sure there was a 00 59 connoc tion. VICE-CHAIRHAN VOLPE: P 1 u m::.~ e r. N.R. PI,~It.tMRR: 254 Wl;y don't you .go ahead, Mr. The con~;ultants to Lee County, and we ]:ave worked very }lard for, to get some flexibility in the ¢:o1,.c tl 1: rcl~cy.. You n:ay recall about two wee]tn ago, I spoke with you and suggested how to approac]~ the district approach to establish tl:e concurrency rule. And in this particular one, rather titan being route specific, you designate areas within tl~c county and you do not have a concurrency problem until t]~at district that you're looking at itself goes below the acceptable levels of service. So rather than to worry about a quarter or a half either side of a given routo, you approach it on district basis. Now, one of t. he t~ings that you also can work with; tl~at is t~l~ fact. tl~at you are a] lowed then to measure your growt}~ aoainst yo~r increases in levels of service. Fcr instance, if you're in tho first district and you've got a problem with too much traffic -- this may illustrate it. 00 60 255 You've got a district and you measure your service volume over thc whole, area and you measure your traffic in that .~an',e ¢~istrict and you project your growth for a ycar. As lcng~ as t}~e total growt]~ existing and projected for a year is less than the servicc volume in that district, you don't a problc::~ in tl~at district. And a.'3 I said before, a district -- maybe a, your impact sccn in Collier County. i~ to then direct a traffic. But the key to it, though, If the one district with its area of projected growth exceeds the service volume in that district, then you're allowed to put in increment rather t]~an tc~t. al im/';rovemcnt.~: ju.~;t s() ¥,ou con show on a year-to- },car basis you're matching the growth with increases from service. 41. service. It's a fifty, eighty, a hundred million dollars. The money is not available. ~:o rat]]¢.r than cuttin~ t]~e cou~ty down, w]~at you're able to dc .is go J.n a~u; make minor or incremental dcvelopment to matc]~ growth. %'7hat that state law is af'ter. We're not yet letting -- Abutting -- you've got a vicinity. Go up on U.S. U.S. 41 falls below are comprehensive order of level of 256 VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I think I showed that to us. ~,~R. PLU~.~ER: The rather than wait for the eighty million dollar profit. Gt4 and make a minor one. VICE-CHAIRt, iA~I VOLPF,: Is this a preview. ~,I~. pLU,~,I~,iER: We are actually calculating the levels of service. You use a generally t'ccognized principle. We are now going to bring you the calculations. VICE-CHAIRt, IAN VOLPE: And the second part of that has to ¢]o with this. When are we going to. t.!R. PLU~,~;,'IER: We will be suggesting in there. There were tt]eir recommended improvements that might be minor in nature, but I think t]'~at you should see in Lee ',;hall:. And probably work its way up to Charlotte. The way you can balance growth. C[{AIP, I.:A~; I[ASf;E: Tell i:~c, how would you draw it out. ~.]R. PLU~,:~/,ER: What we would suggest, and we haven't done it yet for Collier County, but ycu might consider your impact fcc zones a.~; a total district, and that way you could you would go an a~]d add up the .'.;crvicc levels and east-west and north-south, all the total volumes, and as long as the service volume was better titan the e>:isting volumes. You dor:'t have a concurrency volume in t]~at district. 00262 257 One of the things they put in the Lee County ordinances that then you don't have a problem, DCA wants you to go in and make minor improvements each year so that each distrist gets a little bit better. I didn't bring t}~at into that a little bit because just a -- but you really suffgest t~at it's a way to ensure thc roa~] system is better, but not to, major improvement. [.iarco Island is an c>[ample of where a district would ccrtaJnly ~.~ork out there. ~.:R. OLLIFF: ~.~r. Sprouse is ne>[t, followed by Mr. Farquhar. ~R. SPROUSE: Wayne Sprouse, Collier County Builders arid Contractors. As you well know, this particular subject that we're discussing is most dear to my heart because is moratoria ju~:t scare us to dearie. And ! can't hardly believe that I'm standing up l~ere trying to decide on what's the best way to %'~e need to bc considering definitely some sort of ]ic~itations. There is no ~.,ay that we can leave an open door policy so somebody can establish moratoriums wherever they want to establish them. 258 We need to guidelines to go by, and I thin]< what Mr. Reynolds has presented here, his program seems appropriate. We've got to considc, r again -- we're not -- we're talki~g numbers again, r,.'lc need to be thinking about people. W'c r]cc:d to be t]~inkinf~ about t.h(., c,.conomic impact again, and we've 9ot to ]]avo some sort of controls. So we would suggest that we would look at ~'.,'r. Reynolds' proposal. It looks fair, we would support it. Thank you. C}IAIRMAr~ [{ASSE: t.lR. OLLIFF: John Farquhar. MR. FARQUtIAE: John Farquhar. The point that I would like to address first is on Section 8.2.8 on page fifteen of tk.e Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. The begir:ning paragrap]] -- I mean the introduction to the whole Section 8.2.8, which has been added to your most recent draft of the ordinance. I would suggest introductory language at 8.2.8 in lieu of what's; there of any develoDment order or development for which a determination of vested rights for adequate public faci].it~cs has been made and vested rights found to exist in accordance with the provisions of this Section 259 8.2.8. The reasoning for that is to get away from this concc>F.t r~[ ttlc' ¢;~rr(~nt owner, w},]c]~ is ~ rcalitive]y vague concept ir: t]]c introducticn w~ich makes it so that it's not clear that if somebody went in today and owned the property gct a determination of vested rights and I buy the property tomorrow, thc t~amc l>ropcrty, I don't want to be in the position of havj. n[~ to Oo back through that whole process. For tt~at same reason, I would suggest that on page seventeen a Secticn 8.2.8.8 be added, which would be the same as the section in thc Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance which wculd say a determination of vested rights shall apply to the ladd, therefore it is transferable from owner to owner, of thc ]and subject to thc determination of vested rights. earlier tonight in thc ZoninG' Reevaluation Ordinance that once this determir~ation of vested rights has been made that it does run with the ]and, that it's not something that each new property owner has to go back and reestablish when they buy thc property. And I tliink that's something that would be very 260 appropriate and would appear to 9o alonu with the concept that you discussed and endorsed earlier in the Zoning Rceval~lat]on Ordinance. VICE-CHAI ~,]A?i VOL PF.: ordinance as it's drafted, Is that not the case in the that if there has been a determination of vested rights that that is not transferable with the property? MR. LITSI~GER: It's in a previous draft. VICE-Ci{AIRMAN VOLPE: Well, I think ~.Ir. Farquhar is saying that he doesn't see it in this ordinances. He sees it as being a personal -- before we were talking about dedication or conveyance and he's talking about - excuse me just a second. Here I think, if I understood what you were saying, is once the determination has been made of vested rights ur:der Adequate ?ublic Faci]iti¢:s that it's a personal determination and that it's not transferable. ?.:E. FARQUHAR: It doesn't -- right now, it doesn't say. aloes in thc Zoning3 Reevaluation Ordinance. clear. What I'm sug~!esting is that it specify the same as it ~4ake it very O0 GG 261 VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: That it runs with the land? ~.~R. FARQUHAR: That it runs with tile land. VICE-CI{AIRMAN VOLPE: I assume that's what was i n tended. ~'.IR. FAEQUi{AR: Not necessarily, from my discussions with staff. There was some question about that. VICE-CHAIRI,[AN VOLPE: What staff were you discussing it with? ~,iR. FAF, QUI{AE: ?<P.. OI,LIFF: ~qR. FARQUHAR: one primarily. CHA I R~,[AN HASSE: spo~ e to ~,ir. ~,1errill. Lelco~,,e a~;,oard, Bill. I'm sorry. Your consultant was the ~,~r. Merrill was the person that wi th? P.IR. [~!ER~!ILL: I'm sorry? C}tAIR[.IA~.; HASSE: [~:r. Merill was the person you spoke · ~':R. FARQUHAR: Yes. I spoke with Mr. Merrill about t}~is, the concept that there should be a section added. C[{AiE~!AN HASSE: ~,]r. Ncrri]], are you listening to this? t. IR. ~.IERHILL: Yes. Under the new language for vested 00267 262 ri~'hts, is that where we are? ~,:R. FAEQUI{AR: CHAIRMAN HASSE: ~.~R. ~IERRILL: ~iR. OLIJIFF: Yes. ~.[r. Merrill. Yes. Rill, the question is in terms of the transferability of vested rights, does it run with the land or does it run with t]~e person. VICE-C}{AIR~.~AN VOLPE: Or is it personal. ~:E. ~ERRILL: No, we madc that strictly with regard to -- the layout that I mcntioncd. Let me wive you the example that I gave to John. And it's intended to be in strict ccmDliance wit}~ thc case law and the statuatory law. If an owner owns property today and they are claiming vested cr they're c!aiminu vested rights o~ some sort and assun'~ing they oi~tain that vested rights determination and t]]cy sell the property a week down the road to owner number two, that owner %~'ould not -- or, excuse me. Yeah. And they :;ell the pror~crty to owner nunuber two who then goes in and claims vested r3ghts under this ordinance and obtains a detern~.i~lstic, n of veste¢l rights so that he is excluded from the Adquate Fublic Facilities Ordinance but then that owner sells it to owner number three, whether or not owner number 263 three is vested with regard to adequate public facilities ~,.,~.]] depend on ,,vt~at t]~e case 1,~w :;ay[; in t}~at regard, whether it would be determined by a hearing officer to be vested or not, or by the county attorney. VICE-CHAIR~,~AN VOLPE: become unvcsted? .~R. MERRILL: Once it's vested why would it Because there is a substantial case law rceva i ua t ion. property. that holds that vested rights are not -- do not necessarily run witk t])e land. In fact, most of them say that they are vested rights for a particular owner because that is the owner that relied substantially cn ]]is oven e×penditures and his own obl iqations. VICE-CHAIRFi7:~q VOL, DE: But the policy decision that we made in connection with the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance was that our policy was going to be that these determinatious of vcsted riwhts would run with the land. ~!R. FIEREILL: That is corr¢,.ct for zoning We'rc talking about taking away something We're: talking about dov;n zonir]g a piece of In this regard, we wanted to make it as strict as O0 .6,q 264 possible with regard to the vested ri§hts. We wanted it to be t}~e vested rights that are recognized by the case law and statuatory law and cases that have come under the statuatory law, and there arc: cases which in fact have indicated that even if you have a vested ri~ht and you have issued the buildin~ permits and you have sold those properties to other persons since that. time and then the local government adopts iml~act fee crdinance, that the impact fee ordinance can be retroactively -- in essence, retroactively applied unless that building permit }nad a condition that said it expressly could not be. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: What's the public benefit to doinq it in that way? }iR. ~fERRILL: The difference is that the more ~,roDcrty tt]at this county vests, the less development in the future that will be allowed tc have -- that may be allowed to have adequate public facilities when you're holding the facilities constant. This would force you -- this would -- tile more proL~erty you vest, the more likely you're going to have a moratorium. Do you understand that? VICE-C}IAIR~iAN VOLFE: Yeal~. 265 I~.~R. ;'.IERRILL: It just means that you're putting more -- you're committing more of your capacity. The more property you vest, the more capacity you are committing. Everyone is goinq~ for the same piece of pie. VICE-CHAIR5'iAN VOLPE: Okay. I understand. ~iR. [,iEREILI,: Whetker they're vested, whether they're r, ome time, ten years down ti~e road or whatever. Assuming ti:at ca[aacity ~s the same. V I CE- C}{A I i77~A~,! VOLPE: Okay. ['IR. FARQUHAR: I would like to just stress that I think that t}~is is the exact same language. What I'm sug~3esting is what you adopted in the Zoning Reevaluation O~dinance. VICE-CHAIR~A],I VOLPE: But our consultant is telling us different considerations. [.IR. FARQUI;AR: Well, that's what I'm trying to ex[~ress, i think that the concel3t is generally accepted that if you were not allo%.;ed to vest in t~e zonin~ -- if you'~-e not allowed to vest it here you were not allowed to vest in zoning reevaluation. I don't think the standards -- I mean, I understand that the results arc somewhat dJfferent, but it is also 00271. 266 taking your property right away if I can't use my property. The same as dow~ zoning it. If. I can't use my property, tl~at is also taking the property away from me or making tine property substantially less valuable to me, because to not be able to develop it £or a period o[ time has thc same impact on me. So wl~at. I would urge is float yo~ take a consistent position between the two ordinances. You do not }]ave the up front exemptions at all in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. I would at least suggest that you provide the provisions that once you have gone through this determination of venting that that determination would run with that piece of property, that you don't have to keep c.;'oing over if a new person buys that piece of property and go back through tI~e same determination. That seems to be, you know, unfair and rather unequitable. And that's what I'm suggesting that you put. VICE-C}!AINNA?: VOLPE: Fair and unequitable to whom? HR. FARQUHAR: To thc property owner. Perhaps to -- VICE-CFiAIRHAN VOLPE: Who is trying to sell his propcrty wit]~ thc clet¢~rmination of vested rights. 267 NR. FARQUHAR: And to the fact that you have to keep going back through the process. It seems to be rather cumbersome if you h3ve to keep goinc~ through thc process every time. There is no up front exemptions on 'the Adequate Public Facilities, unlike the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. It -- basically going tkrough the vesting process is the only way of establishing that you are vested and can continue your project even if you are substantially down the road on your project, even if your project is seventy or eighty percent complete. NR. OLLIFF: That's four minutes, Mr. Chairman. VICE-CHAiRMAN VOLPE: Could I ask just, Mr. Merrill, one question? I don't understand. If there's a determination of vested rights with respect to adequate public facilities, which is something we }lave ad.~]od since, our last meeting. HR. MERRILL: Yes. VICE-C[[AIRMAN VOLPE: And then the property is trans£errcd, under the draft o£ the ordinance that we're reviewing, tho transferree would have to be back through the 002'73 268 process for the determination of vested rights? MR. [,IEP, RILL: Yes, they would. Unless they had gone -- unless they're -- V ICE-C}]AI R[4AN VOLPE: DRI? IqR. blERRII,L: Unless they obtain one of the other exemptions or DRI. VICE-C~[AIRMAN VOLPE: So could you -- I just want to a~,,. one. Could you end up with a different result? MR. MERRILL: That's possible. I think the case law and, you know, again, I hate to say that it's thrown back and to the attorneys, but vested rights is a legal quest i on. It's a very difficult legal question, and I would assume that there is a possil~ility, yes, that it could have a different determination based on the fact that that new owner may not have any substantial reliance. CO~,~,~ISSIO~U~R SAUNDERS: Would the new owner be relying by paying a higher purchase price? UNIDENTIFIED: Of course. MR. !:ERRII,L: No, that's not a consideration under vested rights law, the purct~ase price is not. CHAIRMAN t{ASSE: You mean that '~'ou can take it away 269 from them or leave it -- are you going to remove that. HR. HERRII,I,: HO. What we had been instructed from, as we understood it from the Eoard, the concern especially from the att()rr:cys on the I3oard, was that we at least Drotect ourse].f from a vested riflhts claim with regard to concurrency. So we wanted to provide as narrow of an excmption in that regard that would still protect fully the county with regard to vested rights claims, and that's what we're attempting to do. If the case law says it runs with the land, then it's going to run with the land. If it says that it goes only wit]~ the owner, then it would presumably only go with the owner. VICE-CHAIRHAH VOLPE: I guess the other -- CHAIRHAI~' HASSE: How do you determine that? NP,. !.{~k'RILL: T]~at would be determined by the county at:tornc,.y and 11}~¢, ~.;rowt]~ l[lall,']OCl;;Crlt. -- t)~ere's two positions where it couz(~ ~ be determined. With t]~e country attorney and the Growth Management Dircctoz' agreeinc~ that it is so clearly established in the law and baseC on thc certain facts in that particular case 002'75 270 t~at they are willing to sign an agreement to that effect, a;~d ttmt would exempt t}~em. If t]~ey do not do that, which would likely be most of the cases, I would assume, then that would go to a hearing officer where tko owner will have his day before the hearing officer as well as thc county making its case in that same regards. The bcarino officer will make a decision. if it's against -- w]~ichevcr way it goes, it can be al~L~alcd thc~ to the Eoard and then to the courts. V!CE-C[iAIR~.~All VOLPE: I guess the most -- the one co;:~',ent that you made, that I didn't want to lost sight of, is that to thc extent that there is a determination of vested rights, those who have had that determination made will take up some of the capacity and that's going limit the amount cf capacity that's going to be available to the other l~eoplc who are coming on linc who, are the new people coming in. MR. ~,~ERRiI_,I,: That's correct. And I think what we're trying do in the whole ordinance wit]~ regard to who's vested and which exemptions, w~ w~nt to make it as fair as possible among all the O%.; ~ Q rs. 271 There is only a limited amount of capacity. Assurnming there's a limited amount of capacity, we want to try and allow c:veryone to have an opportunity to go after ti]at. If wc vest everyone witt] regard to capacity or if we vest a substantial number of Leoplo with we regard to capacity, we won't have anything else left to give. And that's just -- it's plain and simple and it's unfortunate, ~nd -- but that's how it is, and that's why everyone is t~lking about these funding proposals for one ce~t sales La:: and other mechanisms. ~.iR. OLLIFF: wa i ting. C[[AI}U, iAN [!ASSE: Chairman, I've 3et fifteen speakers Okay. VICE-CHAIP. blAN VOLPE: Thank you, Mr. Farquhar. !,]i",. ~n'"r'e~"-'~r~'~,~,.,.~.~,...,. Could I ]:ave a counle~, minutes? got to s}~'ea]{ fo;I:' a minute or two. ahead. F.R. SIiAliAi~AN: CHAIR['IAN Get yc'cr minute. MR. FARQUHAR: further. Right. We took mcat of his time. Nc, you spoke for four minutes. I only Go i would request that you consider that OO'Z?'7 272 The other issue is on the certificate expiration on ~oage eighteen. Section 8.3.2.4. One of the things I would suggest is that it be clarified between what has a one-year a three-year and a five-year period. I wculd also request that it be reduced to two hundred and fifty units instead of thc five hundred in order to get thc five-year certificate. Very few developments s¢?ll moro tl~ar: fifty or sixty units per year. The other request that I would have is that on page nineteen. T]~ero r',t-cviously war, in Section 8.3.2.4.3, thc r~rovision for renewing the certificates. That provision has bec.w: raj<eli out of the most rec¢';nt draft. I would cncourac~e that you put back a provision that allows the renewal of tiae certificates for an equal term to what their original term wac:, provided that there's det~rminatior: of adequate public facilities, or that thc dcv,,~,lcper agree::; to [~as' their s]~rc, of all facilities that impact just them and their pro rata share of facilities that impact them and other development. Thank you. C}{AII{~.iA~ i{ASSE: Thank you, '~J.r. 273 CO~'.',I.IISSIONEE SHAMAHAN: What about that last section? Did wc -- that -- did we take the renewal out? TiR. LITSINGER: It's staff position and we recommended that we remove the renewal provisions when we went from a three-year certificate to now a provision for a cnc, three, and a five under t]~e various conditions that are listed. Also, we have a provision for an extension beyond five years ~.~ithin the terms of the development agreement. Duc to t],c fact that wc plan capital facilities in a five-year period, we make a comn, itment for automatic renewals after the first five-year or three-year period, we would strongly recommend against that. VICE-C}{AIR~AM VOLPE: What did the CCPC do with respect to that provision? ~<R. LITSINGER: They took ntaff's reconm~endation. VICE-CHAIR~dAI~ VOLPE: To eliminate it? 2, tR. LIq~SIIX~ER: Uh-hu~. V!CE-CHAI R~iAI! VOLPE: Okay. ~<R. OLI,IFF: }ir. Cha]rmar,, the ,]ext two speakers I have are Debbie Orshefsky, followed by Brian MacKenzie. CHAIR~'~AN I{ASSI:]: How many more speakers to you have, 274 Ton;? Orshefskv. MR. OLLIFF: About fifteen. NS. ORSHEFSKY: For the record, my name is Debbie I'm an attorney representing Deltona Corpora tion. i have to take you back to page fifteen, which Farquhar was discussing, and I believe that Mr. Cuylcr has r, asscd out some text that is entitled Redraft of Paragraph 8.2.8. And this i~; what John started with. Let me take you through that in my own way, if I may. ;(ccl~ ~.n fi. nc: that the }',c:0dJn~l, t}qat 8.2.2 comes under is tile ~.2 which is what's froin9 to be exempt. And if nothin.j more, as a drafting matter, I think what you have is 8.2.8, and staff's draft is a bit awkward. What my proposed 8.2.8 would say is basically ~f you have had a deter'min~,tion that's found that you have vested rights under tl~esc operations and you had a development order or your some development, wl~ich is the way that 8.2 introduces this ~;cctlon, th(:.n ~,ou will be exempt. It's very simple, quite franltlv. tlc Oct to the question of w]~ether a project that is then fouled vested rights, whether that vested rights should 275 inure to the benefit of successors, which is really the bigger question here, and it's a bigger question that you dealt with appropriately under the ZRO and you said yes, it':~ tran:-~fcra[:)le. And I would submit to you that the reason that you say ycs is not, as hr. >~erri]] indicated, because there you would be taking scmethinG away, as in zoning, because as we know zoning isn't a some'thing that you can have just a vested right in; but what could be takcn away by requiring a dcvelcpment that should be vested from not getting its vested rights or that being benefited to its successors is thc vested right. Ncw, unfortunately, Florida casc law is very strange in this area, and Bill is ri~ht, I mean this is a unsettled area, it's 'a moving target in many respects. CHA! R,.' :AN ~tASSE: Just a moment. Do you concur with that, HR. MERRILL: Yes. CHAIRMA]] HASSE: What the lady's saying? ~,{R. NERRILL: :.{S. ORS}{F. FSKY: to dc is cc,~.u.~ . vcsted tic?his and equitable estoppel. On that point, y~s. But one think that Florida law seems It 276 says if you -- the cases merge these two concepts and say that you have to ~ake an equitable estoppel argument, show reliance and a governmental act or omission in order to get ,n vested right. In oti~¢,r' -- and then we don't know what that vested right is. If that vested right is in fact a property right, wh, ic]] I believe it is, then how do you take away a property z'ight es between one owner to another if the vested right arises from the actions with rcspect to a piece of property? Other jurisdiction have addressed this issue. In Dew Y¢~rk, it is very well settled; and I have cases I could begin to site but it's the late hour, so I won't. VICE-CHAIRMA[$ VOL?E: Please. [~,!S. ORSI{EFSKY: But they make it very clear that a vested right is a property right to arises from the Fifth Amendment. Flor.~c3a h~.s nc:vet gone quite that way because no court ]~as add[cssed it. Thc, re simply is not a case in this state that disc~sses vested rights as the pure property right but n~ushes it into this concept of ec.[uitable es toppel. 277 Whetl~er it's going to end up that way two, three years from now when we've all been litigating these questions, we don't know. But you have made that policy decision, appropriately in the ZRO that a vested right is a property riuht. l{ow you can say under the concurrency ordinance that it doesn't risc to that same level or acknowledge that so that we arc ~joing to be thrust into a body of law that doesn't even aacrcss tile issue. We're not going to wet the guidance in Florida law in t.~articular, an~ that's another general co~?~ent. We'll limit it to Florida lgw. I would have to say that it would have to be ~pp].icable law, because even if we t~ave an issue, ~,,'hether it's in the area of land usc law or other issues, where the courts haven't addressed the subject, the Florida courts, wc lco]< to other jurisdictions. Particularly where it affects riohts t]~at flow from the United States Constitution. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Is this the same argument that ~r. Farquh~ maOe? f.~S. ORSH~ll,'SKY: E~.;=-;entially, yes. VICE-Ct{AIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. 278 CHAIRHAN }{ASSE: It amazes inc. We have five attorneys sitting here or standing here and I'd like to get thc same answer from half of thc~m. I don't understand. ~.IS. ORSHEFSKY: I t]~ink at the outset, we have the languagc that, if nothing more, wrammatically works better a~d that you would incorporate the same vesting provisions. Completely off the subject -- · ~.':E. O[,I,IFF: Pr. Chair'man, t~hat's four minutes. MS. ORSH~:FS!(Y: CH?,IRNAN HASSE: MS. ORS}{EFSKY: IqR. S}{ANA}{AN: }~R. OI,LIFF: Of vesting. All right. If I can have one more minute. What did you say, Tom? That's four minutes. ~R. CI{AIR}:AN ~[ASSE: A short minute. }iS. ORSHEFSKY: On page fifteen. Sometimes in the discussicns, both with the CCPC and this Board, there was discussion witt', respect to paragraph 8.2.1.4. And wt~at wc did was, language was taken out of Chapter 380, language that tell you as a local government what you are required to Nave as a minimum standard in your development ordcr, and one cf those things is that you can down zone or make changes to a development ordcr if there is 279 some changed circumstances, et cetera. And that language was taken out of 380 and plopped into this ordinance. I think we have another circumstance where the plop may not ]]ave worked. to tho ,~amo place. to? I would suggest language that gets you If you could send t]~i~,~ around, please. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: What section are you referring I,[S. O~S[IEFSKY: It would start in Section 8.2.1.3. The language that is being distributed would be a substitute par~,graph for that. That would -- and that would then delete existing 8.2.1.4 because the language I'm passing out now combines thc point three and the point four into one paragraph. VICE-CHAIRMAn: VOLPE: 8.2.i..4 is what we added the last time at the suggestion of one of your colleagues. I-',R. [,Iq'SINGER: Correction, Commissioner. That was added at thc, directicn of the Planning Commission. ?,IE. ~,~I",[',t~ILL: t;]~at we dici adc! was the language just pursuant to Section 380.06, and I don't know if that %vas done on this Eoard or from the Planning Commission. MS. ORSHEFSKY: The vehicle this new language get in 280 is th~ concept that the development order would have to be amended so everyone is on notice what this provision is trying to dc. But there may be such a dire circumstance where you ttave to go in an¢] revisit a development order. The standards~ for wi~en it would be alopropriate for this Board to initiate some action like that are set forth in 380.06 fifteen C-3, which is essentially a quote of your -- VICE-C[[AIR~4AN VOLPE: What are wc trying to accomi~lish here? These are DRI's. I,IS O;'~,,H EFSKY: Yes. VICE-CffAIR!,IAI! VOLPE: Is that correct? And ~.~e're talking about they are vested and they're not subject to the concurrency requiremen ts. Generally speaking, I mean, that's what we have determined. ~.~S. ORSHEFSKY: Subject to certain limitations. VICE-CI[AI[~.,~A~; VOLPE: Eight. And when we've talked about 8.2.1.3, we were told thc last time that this is an inherent power that a governmental entity has, where it's ~]der our ~-.,olice po~.~cr. So what does your language do that's different than i i i tiI I I i I i I ~11 IJl _~.~ £ ~ IIIII III II I I IItL 281 the police power that we already have? M,q. OPS}IEF~;I<Y: It doe. sn't do anyth~.ng differel~t to 8.2.1.3. VICE-CHAIRMAH VOLPE: Okay. MS. ORS~EFSKY: Essentially the same. And in fact, you could keep it. [~owcver, if you'll look at in my language after "or that an an:cndmcnt to t~'~,2 DRI development order is essential and is made pursuant to subparagraph 3~0.06 fifteen C-3." I'll give you a copy of it. C}IAIRI.iAI..~ I'IAESJ']: ,.',iS. OR,q[1EFSKY: Ok a y. That would be substitute language for 8.2.1.4 that would have the same effect. What my language does i:; give you the vehicle to make the determination that',,; present it: your language here. T]~j.S language, what you have in 8.2.1.4 seems awkward tc ~c not knowing w};at you want to do with it. Here we're saying if tt:c~;c circu:r.~tances c>:ish, the circumstances you describe in 8.2.1.4, an amendment would be appropriate. VICE-CHAIR~.IAN VOLPE: Well, didn't we decide the last time that it was going to have to -- you'd have to go back through t}~e same process that was followed when the DtI was 00287 282 approved? MS. ORSHEFSKY: says that clearly enough. clarif ] cation. VICE-CIIAIRMAN VOLPE: I just don't know if your language And I was suggesting a Okay. That was the intent, as I recall, when we added the reference back to 380.6. MS. ORSHEFSKY: That's correct. does that it more clcarly. COMIqlSSIONE~ ..~qHAb, AHAN' ' : V I CE-C!iAI RMAi,; VOLPE: And I think this How about -- Bill. We could spend all night trying to clarify some of thesc things. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAL~: Mr. Chairman. Bill Merrill, do we have a problem with leaving eight two one tl~ree as is and changing -- Debbie, you're saying to make 8.2.1.3 here 8.2.1.4. Correct? ~.:R. ME[.',RILL: I would, depending on -- of course, it's a decision the Board can make. I do sec differences substantively betwcen the two. There is a difference between a public emergency versus public health, safety or welf~nre. So that limits your power to a certain e>'tent. T}~e case law says public health, safety or welfare O0 SS 283 under First English Evangelical Church. HS. ORSHEFSKY: I would take that. COH!.'~iSSIONER SAUNDERS: She has indicated that's okay. in. COHHISSIOHER SHADAHAN: So you're going to leave that HR. ~,]EREILL: And with regard to the second half of that, regarding the amendment to 380.06, to say that it is cssentia! adds an additional requirement to what is required under 380.06, I don't have a problem with trying to clarifying that it should be an amendment. ! think t~at the language you have now requires you to Co through thc procedures of 380.06 that says demonstrate pursuant tc 380.06. VICE-CHAIRHA~,~ VOLPE: That was the language that was added the last time. ~.'.R. }~ERRILL: And if you want to make it -- if you ,..;a~]t to add the words demonstrate pursuant to the rcquirc~.ents and proccd~r¢.~.s or something about amendment, we probably could work up some language in that regard. CHAIRHAN HASSE: Are you satisfied with what you've got in here? 284 [.iR. MERRILL: Yes. CIIAIRHAN HASSE: All right. now, you're satisfied with. ?.~R. ~4ERt.'.ILL: Yes. CHAI RHAN HASSE: Okay. t~ext speaker. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: gt]ess ~.%s. Orshefsky is finished? ~.~S. ORSHEFSKY: one is shorter. CHAIR[,IAN HASSE: 0?1. MS. ORSHEFSKY: VICE-CHAIRHAN VOLPE: other people. What you have in here Can I ask a question while -- I Can I ask -- I have one more. This Look, you've had your time. Come It's thc lost night. I know. We've got a lot of h'ow many other speakers do we have, Mr. ell iff? ~'.E. OLLIFF: We've got fourteen left. All rJqht. Would you bring somebody C'i-!AIT,~I.iAI,: IiASSE: else up, please. MR. OLLIFF: ~4cIntosh. ~.iS. ORSHEFSKY: Brian NacKenzie, followed by Ross In 8 2.1.6 -- 285 CHAIRMAN I{ASSE: Brian, you're bigger than the lady MS. ORSHEFSKY: I'm sorry. 8.2.1.5, where you have state and federal regulation. If what we're trying to achieve is that if the DRI says you're subject to concurrency, you're subject to concurrency, then I think that's what that provision should say. To the extent that you're subject to other state and loca] r¢:quir¢:mcnts, say environmental permits, through DER, thc water management district, that's something completely different from concurrency. An¢] if 8.].5 Js directed towards making a DRI subject to concuYroncy, if that's what the DO states, this goes much further than I think it needs to go. Thank you. I have a question about that, CHAi R:4AN HASSE: Okay. VICE-CI[AIRMAN VOLPE: t}~z:t: [;rovision, Mr. I,itsinger. What is intended by the language in 8.2.1..57 MR. LITSI~GER: ! can 9ire you a brief history of all of t'.l~is language related to DRI's conditions. The Planning Commission expressed a concern about the fact that -- the Planning Commission had expressed an 286 overall concern about the fact that ORI's were generally e>:empt from concu~'rency and any potential moratoria, and they had directed staff, spec]fically legal staff, to add all language tight could identify any specific statutory limitations which might be izlaced on a DRI's development under an emergency condition at the Board's discretion. And that is the source of all of these ph.-ases. VICE-CHAIR~.!AIi VOLPE: So do you mean if there is some tyl~e of an intervening state, local or federal regulation that could somehow preempt? ,>;E. [.!ERRILL: No. This language under 8.2.1.5 would req, uire the DO for the DRI, the actual development order, to contain ]anc3uage that says notwithstanding everything contained herein, this DP, I will be subject to all state, local and fec]eral regulationn in force at the time the permits are sought. I mean, I don't know if Collier has any of those, but -- I don't know. But it would require it to be subject to any additional Dossibly housing -- well, it could not affect thc ~ctual inhcrent rights of thc development; but, for instance, a new drainage ordinance that would not affect your intensity-density phasing, et cetera. Some of the 287 rights that are specifically outlined in there. Things of that nature. VICE-CIiAIRt4AN VOLPE: Would that be a provision that is ncr addressed in the DRI itself, s'3me matter that is not addressed in the zoning ordinance or the development order for the DRI? ~.[R. I, IERRIEI,: Yeah. It would likely be that. If it's addrcsscd, thcn thcy're pretty much vested in that regard. }.'.S. ORSHEFSKY: Chaptcr 380 provides that even though you get a DRI development order, you're subject to the ~3crn.ittin~.:} requirements of all other agencies. And that .qcnera]ly is included to DER, the water management district, and in fact there's a specific substantial deviation provision and prccedurc undcr 380 if you have a permit cor~dition that changes you ir] tho DER or the water management district. I think that is somet]~ing different from what we're talking about ]]ere, which is why I didn't understand having state and federal permit rcquirements superimposed into your concurrency ordinance. VICE-CHAIRI.b\N VOLPE: I undcrstand that. 00 , )3 288 I'm not '.Jure I understand what Mr. Merrill has told me yet, but I dc, understand what you said. CHAIF, MAH IIASSE: Thank you. COM[qISSIONER SIIANAHAN: One last question. On 8.2.8, B.i]], thc'. final determination wa~.~ not -- to deny any changes? >~R. ~EERILL: I didn't recon~end any changes, no. tlased on that -- thc language that was submitted would accomplish what the speaker was requesting, and that is that it would run with the development order, in essence running with the land. CI]AiR]]A[: IIASSE: And you're satisfied with yours? [,:R. [.:EREILb: Yes, I am. CHAIR[.]A~.~ HASSE: Okay. T]~ank you. ~,]r. MacKenzie. MR. OLLIFF: Following ~rian is Ross McIntosh. liE. [.[acKE~]ZIF.: Good eveninc]. [[y name is Brian [dacKenzie. I'm eml:loyed by Ccllier Resources Company. By way of introduction, Collier Resources Company is jointly owned by both Barton Collier Company and Collier Enterprises and serve[: as t]~e operating entity responsible for the :r:ar)f~ge~ent of ail mineral and petroleum assets owned 00 ,)4 289 by the referenced by the referenced parent company. CRC's concern with the draft ordinance revolves ~round a dilemma wherein the operations taking place on our assets, whic]~ underlie t.t~e bulk of the eastern half of the county, do not create a demand for infrastructure. They are very much self-contained, and when the operation is complete, it involves about a total of two round tr~ps ir, ,% car per day. They're technically a develoi:.mcr~t under Section 380 of Florida Statutes. Ine sclf-cont:aincd nature of the CRC's operations have no need of infra.~:'tructuze and therefore create no dc'r~an¢] fe.~ the public f~ciliti¢:s outlined in the draft orca, inazce. Some n?onths ago, I ]:ad submitted a letter to Olliff about cerements about the draft ordinance, and in it I at length dissertated about why we don't, and I think I've got a general agreement that we don't use infrastructure. ;,t t}~¢~, c:nc', of t'.t~c letter, I 1md three requests to make, to add to the draft of thc ordinance. One of them was that the Board make a finding relative to our lack of demand for infrastructure; the second was that a definition of oil and gas exploration 290 development be added to the ordinance; and the third was requc~st for a dircct exemption. Subscquent to t:tl].s letter, I i~ad a r~umber of conversations with staff, and the out~;hot of all that was that specific exemptions arc statuatorily prohibited. The request of definition ad¢~.ition woul¢] be inappropriate under this particu]~:r ordin(~nce, and tl~at thc addition of the requested f]n(]in(r would al:;o be i;,appropriate because there was nothin£r to relate it to. Subsequently, language was added to the ordinance ~.,,'hich a]lc',.,'~' for the Growth ~,;c, naoement Director to make the ~ietern, i~ation of applicabiJ]ty t]:r. ougtn a letter of, I guess you'd call it, declaration stating that our development under Section 380 does not require infrastructure demand and therefor(? 'would not be applicable under this ordinance. I talked to :.ir. Merrill subsequent to that, and he ],opefully has straightened me out. }lc a~]vi:]es th,~,t the Orowt]~, Management Director would write a letter c>:cmpting us from the applicability of the Adc~ua~.te Public Facilities Or¢~inance; and instead of the dc'finition being written into the ordinance, it would be added to ti~e letter of declaration that would exempt us, and 291 then when the more appropriate location for the definition would be un¢]er t.l~e zoning nection of the new land development regulations. Subsequent to that, I had occasion to speak to Mr. I, itsinocr -- actually, this morning -- and found that the new provision had been added that would enable the Board to make thc same fielding by re[;olut~n as the letter would, w]~cnevcr it's enacted, whom the tim~: is appropriate. So what I'm here to ask you for -- VICE-C}{AIRMAM VOLPE: We'll see you again. back to see us later. MR ?lac~, r, NZIE: }]ere. You'll be Is t]~at what you're saying? No, no. ! think there's a solution I mean it's a relatively peripheral issue, compared to what you're dealing with tonight, but I think we got an answcr. CHAi£MAN ~{ASSE: Mr. MacKenzie, if you use infrastructure to get where you're going and you have structurcs in thc area that you need them, our -- MR. ~,'.acKEh'ZIE: No. I']o, we do not. Wc ]:ave -- the only infrastructure that we use is the roadway, and that's -- 292 C[[AIRMAH t[ASSE: That's what I'm talking about. ~.~ackzlL,IF,: That only involves about two car trips in a day, out in the cast area of the county where there is -- :..,uu', tIASSE: '~l.. MacKENZIE: No cars? At least not listed in the ordinance, of anything that would extend to an ASI. CHA I R~<AN HASSE: NR. t,!acKENZIE: -con tained. Okay. Aside from that, it's totally So what I'm asking is for the Board's permission for the Growth .~:a~a~ement Director to write declaratory letter witk the request of definition included that would exclude CRC's oil and gas operations from applicability; the Board's permission, al:~o, to submit draft language to staff for a resolution to be brought before the Board ratifying the Grc, wth ~anagcme~t Director's declaratory letter; and, f~ally, th(: ~u'~rct'n D~.rmi:.;n~on %-.~ i~cludc the request of dcfin~t, ion in the appropriate zoning section of the upcoming unified development reg. CHAIR~,UJ,~ HASSE: See any problem with that? I have a comment. I spoke with Mr. 293 MacKenzie on this issue. ?~umber one, I would not recommend that the Board direct me to make any exemptions at this point. We would have to review.: the contents or the basis for his request. Ur:der exemptions 8.2.4, there is a provision that a]]o-,.,,s for ¢]etcrminaticn of a facility not impacting -- e;<cuse mc. A c]evelopmcnt not impacting public facilities. Any of their opergtions under existing permits, of course, would ~ot come under tibet determination. They would be subject to a determination x~'hen they applied for' a new dev¢'lo~>r:~er~t order. As a matter of procedure, we will probably come to the Board of County Commissioners in the near future with a resolution identifying- those minor development orders which have no affect on public facilities. But in }!r. Mac![enzie's case, we would look at his al}p]ication a~]d issue a recommendation based on its contents. CO:',2,':ISSIONEE SI!ANAHAN: VIC~'~-CHAIP, MAN VOLPE: Is that satisfacaory? I t]-,ink what he said is -- just what you said -- is that at a later point in time, under thc ordinance you would come back to the Board of County 294 Commissioners and you would obtain by resolution that which you sock. [.'~R. LITSINGER: Let me clarify a little bit. Wt~at I'm saying, Commissioner, is that we will probably as a matter of clarification propose a resolution to the Board of County Commissioners to identify a number of t?]c development oders identified in 4.14 as not affecting public facilitie.~ by policy. C]]AIR~4A[: [{ASSE: And that would be other situations sin,ilar. MR. LITSINGER: Go ahead. MR. eLl,IFF: what he's saying is there are a lot more ether developments issue throug]~ Collier County that don't have an impact as well as the ones that he. is mentioning. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. I was just curious when that might occur and what do I do in the meantime? MR. !,ITSINGER: At any time after this ordinance is adopted, }]e can apply ¢]irectly to my office for a dctermirlatjon ur,der this p~ovision. ~.U{. i~'TacKENZIE: k~o',./, that I apply and it's determined O0300 [nin,[[[[[i- ' I Illllll Il I Il- ~ --i~ L ! 295 that we do net use infrastructure, then what does that do for n,e? Does that leave me out of it? UrllDENTIFI ED: Mm. LITSINGEP,: You ' re cxen]pt. First of all, if you're asking a general question, that you do nct use infrastructure, we :,;ill !:robablv give you a general ans,wcr. If you're not al)plying for a development order, then the develcpment order would have an impact on public ~acilities or it may not. Your existing develo~ment orders, we wot:lc] not make a determination under t~ose. ~.'T, MacKE~IZIE: '-~ ..... O~,<~y. So then I can come to you and ask for a general determination then, right? i, IR. LITSiNGEP,: ~.[R. []acKENZIE: That's correct. Okay. And then you would give me a general answer', and then t~at would end the issue then. LIT,qI NGEF,: MacKENZIE: LITSI [fGE.q: CI{A I F,i,'.,AN HASSE: ~qR. MacKENZIE: CHAI F, MA;I HASSE: ,~R. eLI,IFF: Correct. Is t}~at is correct? I would think it would. For your particular site. Yes. Ycs. Does everybody un¢]erstand that? OOBO 296 MR. LITSINGER: I think we need to clarify here a little further. i ti]ink tibet th£ general answer to your general question would apply to your operation as you are now procecding. Should you change those -- i4R. t~acI<E[lZI E: ME. MacKENZIE: ~'~]Q. LITSINGER: detcrmina tion. ~R. ~.iacKENZ IE: Ycs; oh, yes. In [~ c:hangc substantial manner -- No. Than that would be a haw No. Given technology as it stands today, Jf we start anything -- we don't generally use human beiDgs cn tke site, e:~'cept in very remote instances, and everything else is self-contained bcycnd that. CHAIR?'~AN HASSE: I thought you went there too. But Jf ycu don't or if you do, are y¢:u a human being? ?lE. MacKENZIE: So given technology as it is and as it probably will be, at least for my career, then that would end the issuc then. Correct? VICE-Ci{AIR:.~A~! VOLPE: Sounds that way. i,!R. OLI~IFF: We'll have to wait and see. MR. Y.,acKENZIE: Thank you. 297 5~R. ~IERRILL: ~,Ir. Chairman, before we go on, I just wanted to go back so the previous speaker is not so distraught, }out I would recommend that 8.2.1.5 be stricten. CHAIRi4AI: [IASSE: Ei9ht two one what? ~,~R. ~.~ERRILL: g.2.1.5 be stricken from the ordinance. And then you add the word "or" -- that is, O-R -- to g.2.1.d, and yo~ renumber 8.2.1.6 to 8.2.1.5. CHAIR~,~AI~ I-{ASSE: Do you strike that? VICE-CIiAIR~,~AN VOLPE: You take out 8.2.1.5. ~,IR. ?.~ERRILL: Yes. VICE-CHAIRIdAN VOLPE: after ~.2.1.47 ?,'.R. ~EERILL: Yes. I<R. OLLIFF: And then renumber. ~,':R. ~4ERRILL: And then renumber the following section. VICE-CHAIR[4AN VOLPE: And renumber six to five. C~A I R]~.~A[~: [{ASSE: Okay. ~]R. OLLIFF: [4r. Chairman, the next two speakers I ]~ave arc Ross ~IcIntcsh, followed by George Botner. ~[R. ~cI~TOSH: ~,]r. Chairman, Members of the Cc~mission, I'~', o~ ~agc fourteen. 7.4.2. And. you're going to add an "or" 0031)3 298 C}{A I R~,1AN t{ASSE: same time? MR. 5~cIHTOSH: Mr. Chairman. C}tAIRMAH HASSE: ~,IR. ~Ic INTOSH: You are? What's your name at the I'm sorry. [.~y name is Ross McIntosh, Okay. Thank you. Page fourtcen, 7.4.2. I'm looking at t?,e lac, t three lanes that I think were added as a reult of my last conversation with you a co~ple weeks ago. That related to the concern that there might not be certificates ~{vai]able for single family -- for those folks that wanted to build sir.glo-family ]~omos for themselves. I want to confirm that uses which generate one peak ]]our tri[~ per c]ay that tka~ includes all single-family homes regardless of their size; four bedroom, two parents working, tl:at kind of thing. T]~at in fact -- MR. MERRILl,: Yes. ~R. ~cINTOSH: homes? We're talking about single-family ~[R. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. That's you and those friends that you mentioned at the last meeting. VICE-C[~AIRMAI..I VOLPE: Those two hundred friends of 299 your. CO?4MISSIOMER SI{ANAniAS,: it, Rcss? ~R. ~'~cINTOSII: It was two hundred, wasn't Two hundred of us. And I think it's a little remarkable here that we're tall:in9 about moratoria and tl'~inr3s where our numbers are so J. naccura re. Imagine a four-bedroom home. with two working parents and a mother who is living there, the maid taking the kids for a McDonald's at peak hour versus another home that might ]rave: a widow livJ. n~O in it. ?,.t.~d I sug[.!ost to you that these numbers that we're tossing around relative to trips are very dangerous numbers indeed. But thank you. What I want to make sure that pge do is ensure that these aren't absorbed. That is, can Ryan Homes or' Lenar Hemes come in and buy fifty of these things for a subdivi:;ion of [:ingle-family homes each of which only generates one trip? That really wasn't the intent. At least that wasn't the problem t~]at I saw. Let those -- let those certificates be available for 00305 3O0 the buyers that Ryan might have, but don't let them be absorbed. I'm suggesting that they should not be transferrable. Perhaps. And that is that they should be personal. Ross Mcintosh comes in for one to build his house. I can sell thc house, obviously. But w]~at we don't want me do is selling this ]o~ that I have -- complete with right to build. Leave '.'hat up to the individual that needs to build. So I would like to see language added to or language inserted tl-,at would make these personal and prevent them being con?,u, med and inventoried by developers. CHAIRMAN ~[A.qSE: Do you understand exactly. VICE-CHAiRMAN VOLPE: I think I understand what he's trying too~e=~ at. I don't know how we do it. ,~,[R. Tl:at'o the question VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I mean I hear what you're saying, but in terms of eligibility -- I mean, what do you },,ave to DO you have to show the deed, you know, to your home and thc b~rtlt certificates for your children and, you know, now can I have my certificate, you know, to avoid the abuse that's' ~%~c~.~.~ · ... ....... e. I don't know how you do it. 301 ~.U~. McIHTOSH: Is it issued to me before I build the home or is it issued to me when I come in for a building :.,c r~ i t? At wl~at point i:; this thing actually delivered to me? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I think the idea with single-families may be building permit. MR. ~cI?,:TOSH: That -- it's delivered to me at building pczn',it, it's not delivered to me a year in advance of -- I actually come in and say I want a building permit, and presumably I've come in a couple of months beforehand and paid $125 tc have a study done to ascertain whether one is going to be available for me. ~.:R. LITSItIGEE: A couple clarification. First of all, if he has applied for a building permit for single-family home, he would not be subject to $125 fee. If he has applied for a building permit for a single-family home as part of the building permitting process, t~e would not be subj~':ct to the $125 fee. I{cwevor, t~c owned a slnglc-family zoned lot for which he wanted t¢~ aLtac}~ a certificate,, to it -- excuse me. He would be cl~arged tb.e $125 fee, and that would run with the land. That is transferrable with the land. 302 MR. HclNTOSH: Okay. VICF-C[IAIRMAN VOLPE: I think what he's saying is he doesn't want to see that happen. HR. i,!clNTOSH: Oz' if it does happen, I don't want it c(~mi~,g out of. this thizty percent pool because the thirty percent pool is really designed for people that need them today and not for speculators to protect their investments. ?.iR. OLLIFF: I'm not sure that we -- ~.iR. LiTSINGER: for a year. MR. OLLIFF: Ross, you've got a minute and thirty The certificate would only be good seconds. Why don't we save you and give that idea of non-transferability some thought and see if we can't talk about tic. at and come up with -- I know what you're saying. Let's sec if we can't work on that. ~..',R. MclL'TOSH: Thank you very much. of you staying so late. C[[A I RMAL' HASSE: Who else, Mr, Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Thank you. I appreciate all I've got George Botner, followed by Tom CHAIRllAI2 HASo:,: Mr. BOther. 303 HR. BOT~ER: Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is George BOther. I'm executive vice-president of develoDment with Lely Development Corporation. Specifically, our areas of concern lie in the area of thc Sections 8.2.1.1, ~.2.1.5, which was already recommended to be abolished, and 8.2.1.6. As all ef you know, we are significantly under way with s rather sobstantial DRI in this county at the present time and have been for over thc past year. Substantial mil ] icmn (~[ ~lo1 ].ar~: ~'.avc gone JnLo this ~]evelopment to date. We feel we've got an interest to protect; we feel that thc subsections have a tendency to jeopardize that interest. In parLicular, on 8.2.1.1, wc would suggest that the words between the words concurrency and the word exist be de].eted since these words provide an avenue for local g~vc:rnm~t to byDas~: state law conc~rning D~I's. L~t rno jug:t go t~rougl~ tl~e thrc.~c. I can skid point five, if you agree to delete that one, to 8.2.1.6. ?~e would question who is going to make the deciRion as to whether or not our ability is affected to complete a 304 DRI and doesn't address any time frame, the lack of which could be just as devastating to us as having to go back t]lrough a rczoning. And then I guess just as an overall conunent, we would like to sec or to not(: that all of these areas in the ordinances if n, isapplicd could cause this entire ordinance to be inconsistent with state law. C}{AIR?4AI~I HASSE: Do you have see something to what he just said? HR. LITSINGER: Excuse me, Conm~issioner. I didn't hear the question. CHAIR~.[AN I{ASSE: Would you pose your question again. :.{R. BOTNER: Simply thn misapplication of the sections and subsections dealing with the exceptions to DRI e>:etr,:atiens couid cause the ord. inance to be inconsistent with the state law a.c it relates to DRI. VICR-C[:AIRHAN VOLPE: I don't understan¢] the concern about 8.2.1.1. I assume, there arc certain DRI's out there that contain provisions that actual, fy subject -- specifically and e>:l;rcssl¥ subject the DRI to the concurrency departments, and I tNink that's just a confirmation that if we've got a 0O1310 305 DRI that itself provides that it's subject to the concurrency requirements, then it's not exempt. MR. LITSINGER: And the county attorney, assistant county attorr~(~y tell',; me that every one of these was taken out of declaratory statements. MR. [.~ERF, ILI,: I don't understand. What was the request on 8.2.1.1, to take out which words after concurrency and before? MR. BOTNEF,: To remove the words between the words conc:urrcncy and tim word exist. COM!,',ISSIOMER SHANAHA?!: pub] ic fac~ ] J tics c()ncur're~t witl~ tt~e impacts of development. Is t],e.t what you're asking to delete? Or the provisions of adequate That's what fiR. B©TNER: Yes. ''~ q']:ey're one in thc: same ~":R. I ~t:,.',EI I,L: · concurrency i,': })e£ore ii: wan chi led concurrency po~',nibly, and I don't know of any DF, I's except recently where this county bas even imposed that requirement. UNIDEDTiFIED: bIarco Shores ii: one. VICE-CHAIR['?~N VOLPE: Substantial deviation on -- ~.IR. MERRILL: But you fully intended for those to 306 c:(mPly with concu VICE-CI1All','I,~AN VOLPF,: think there. Right:. So maybe other than those two, I don't It's only the recent: ones that will have that in there, i~ Collier County, ~.n any event. MR. BOTNEF,: I guess the general concern is that through the DHI process we address the issue of impacts. we wouldn't want to at this late date, this far into the game, have to go back and readdress tl~at same issue. C}{AiPMAN HASSE: You'll c:,:cuse me for a minute. How many more do you have, Tom? NR. OLLiFF: Speakers? Ct~AIR~AN HASSE: Yes. VICE-CHAIR~AN VOLPE: What else do you think we're t~lking about, Nr. Olliff? CHAIRMAN I{ASSE: What do you think? Well, we're going to limit everybody to the four ~ainutcs now without al~yt]~ir,~. ![ you're not finished, you're going to have to leave, ~:o sit down. CO[,~MISSIONER S}-IAMA[[AN: Let's get the question answered on 8.2.1, now which i[~ point five instead of point 00312 307 CHAIRMAN HASSE: COMMISSIONER S[{ANAHAN: well, did you not? [.UI. BOTNER: All right. Then that's it. You had a question on that as Yes, Commissioner, we did. We just wanted to know who is coing to make the decision ag', to whether or not our development or any develo[>ment, for that matter, that has a DRI has an ability tc complete the DRI. Who makes that determination? ~.IE. MERRILL: I couldn't hoer the last part of that. CCY, MISSIO~E]~ S~IANAHA~',]: Bill, he's looking at what . . ~,ic}~ wc just chanced to five. !;,: v,'~..ut~, to ].:nc',~.: ~.'ho is ~.~o]~c n~a]te the dotcrmi~z, tion cs to thc. ability,, to C;c e]~3a6 sn.'] complete a DEZ. CfJ;',I~Ai3 ~tASSE: Would tl]at bo your position, Mr. Litsin~;er, or v~oulc] it be the Commission's? ~,:I.'. r.,ITSIN(]EP.: I don't know. ~,'~ell, the c::cmptions are determined by tko Gro',.~th ~:anagoment Director, so that would be determined by thc Gro,,vth Manacement Director. VICE-CHAIrMAN VOLPE: Well, lot me -- what new 3O8 requirements will we be talking about? We're not talking about concurrency, then. It says the new requirements would not so change or alter a D~I development orC, er that they would materially or substantially affect the developers ability to complete the development authorized by the DRI development order. W]~at new requirements are we talking about? I.'.R. MEERILL: Concurrency. What if the case law changes within the next year or so that would say that concurrency can be applied to developments of regional iml~act? At this point, there is no case law on that subject. There is case law that says you can apply after the fact conditions to DRI's. There is also case law that talks about vested provisions with regard to DRI's. VICE-CI~AI~A~ VOI, PE: If tl~at were to happen, then wouldn't that lnw cot~trol -- I mcan, you know, our ordinance? ~.;R. MERRILL: entirely, with no exception. I suppc~so you could amend your ordfnanee, but of ~c, because you will have vested DRI's 00 14 309 course tine developed -- attorneys would claim that they were vested under the prcvicus ordinance. it's just an escape valve in the event -- I don't anticiDate probably that any of these exception to the rule under DRI's will be applicable unless the law does si.qnificantly c):ange some time down the road or starts bcccming clear. Haybe that's the better word for it. VICE-C}IAIRHA~,: VOLPE: So if you've got a DRI which under existing state statut~:s everyone has understood that tl.cy ,':re vested and e>:¢m~pt from thc concurrency requireR:ents, if there is a later cl~ange in state or if or if there is a case tl]a.t: sa}'s that DRI's could be subject to the conc'~.~rrcncy requirements, this clause then would read that change in law or that court decision into our -- HR. I'.IRERILL: Well, I t]~ink that it would allow for something in that nature. Right now, I do not know of anything that would necessarily allow that. It's difficult to sa}, when you don't have the case law sitting! there on that subject. CHAIRHAN HASSE: Yeah. VICE-CHAINHAN VOLPE: Okay. We'll stop discussing i t, then. 310 CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. BOTNER: [.ill. OLLIFF: ~,',F,. HIGH: Okay. Tl~ank you, sir. Thank you. Tom High, followed by Daniel Head. For the record, my name is Torn High. i live at 2599 Thirteenth Street North in Naples. I'm employe~ with and a part of the organization of Signature Communi t les. We're a small developer when you reflect land, when you compare us to a U.S. Uomes or some of the other large land developers in East lqaples, but we happen to have two substantial pieces of property on Davis Boulevard that under the narrowest scope of any of the moratorium areas suggested are both impacted. These are Crown Point East and West Crown Point. We have c,>:pcndcc] con£;idernbic sums of money, i~ excess of $].3,000,000, on these [~ropertics over tho past several years. As recently as January 2nd, the first meeting of the Commissioners t]'~is year, we platted the property. We put in ali the roads, water, sewer, infrastructure. Wc are currently in the process of rezoning one of the pieces of prcperty to allow us to accommodate 311 5ingle-family homes becaut:e under (}ur previous PUD, it was zonc~] multi-family. %':e weren't allowed to build single-family homes until we did modify our PUD, which has taken some months. '.'$e have been under way since October or Nove~er. We're schedulec] to have that completed sometime in the next thi ~-ty days. As we're sitting right now, wc have contracted for ~ole of 631 of our lots under a rolling option on one of the subdivision~ to t,,..'(~> large builders. They have built model centers. We have buJ~It clubhouses, ~nd the way I look at it right now and free.3 talking to some of our consultants that a~'c }3ere tonight, they think that we may be able to pull p<er~its fcr sin~ie-family homes after a long litigated i~>rocess or exploratory process to find out if in fact we are vested. And ,~hat I need to know -- first, I don't think this i[~ [air tl~aL w<, t,ave tel Jo<3 o~ yo~: for our zoning. We had our approved site development plan. We just platted, for crying out loud, this year. We've modified our PUD for Crown Point East subsequent to your adoption of t}-~e Collier County 312 Comprehensive Plan on January 10th. And, number one, I don't think it's fair. I think what we should really be talking about here tonight, not so much just dwelling on how we should adopt and ho~,~ ,,./e sl-~ould structure this ordinance but how should we avoid a moratorium. There's a lot of different avenues that we could have to avoid a moratorium. The one theft Mr. Plummer presented today sounded very logical to me, if it's something that we can use as a stopo~ap to 9'et by thc state cutting off our fundings. we have the ability of the one cent local option sales tax for. You knov:, I have here, and it was ratt~er hastily done, it was done today in preparation for this meeting. I think the intent behin(] it is good, but I have 850 signatures that says: To the Collier County Board of Commissioners: We, the undersigned, are all registered voters in Collier County. We are i,nvolved either' di~'ectly or indirectly on development and construction industry in Collier County. 313 we rely upon the development and construction industry fcr our livelihood, an(/ strongly object to the institution of any building moratorium or other slow down in the construction industry that is the result of infrastructure shortfalls as defined by the recently adopted Cc]lief County G~-owth Hanagement Plan. Wc support our Collier County Cot. missioners in taking w]~atever steps arc necessary to assure that no building ]:~oratoriun; or otl~.er slow down in the construction industry is direct result of actions taken by the ~]oard of Co~n~a i s s i on (.~ r s. We urge tke County Commissioners to take whatever steps are necessary to insure that all the infrastructure required tc maintain concurrency with the Growth .~4anagement Plan are a~L~roved and the funds committed as re¢!uired by the Growth ~.~r:a~.lcmcnt Plan. I think that gets a feel for a lot of people who are ]-~ere today, and I'm sure that given enough time, this represents based on earl~.er estimate -- someone said we had si>:ty-tl'~rec thousand rogi[;tcr'cd voters in Collier County. Tl~is ,_'s over one percent of them that we were able to gather in a period of about four hours. }~ow, they may not 314 all be registered voters, but I think it's an indication. I'm really concerned. Am I going to be able to pull a permit for a single-family homo? Ross McIntosh was ccnccrn(.~d about ~>ulling his pcrmiL, but he didn't want you to be able to transfer it with the property. An, I going to be able to sell my home -- ~.:R. OLI, IFF: ~'%r. Chairman, that's four minutes. ~.~R. iIIG}l: Am I going to be cble to sell my home to another, to an individual or to another builder, and arc they going to be able to pull a permit? CI[AIRi'.iAH HASSE: i. IR. LITSiI,~GER: Mr. Litsinger, what would you -- If he's on Davis Boulevard and it's a ~'~lanncd unit development, he will be exempted to the extent tk. at he has draw~ any building permits when the ordinance is adopted. Beyond that, he would have the vested rights process open to him. M]~. }{1G}[: So in other words, any homes that I have -- I've transferred thc property to different people. They pul. led c i'.~]ld]~] permit or, t:]~c,i~ house, then could continue building their ]~ouse, but ! couldn't go ].n after adoption or one of my ~:ewly platted lots and pull a building permit for a singlc-family home? 315 MR. LITSINGER: Under tt~e currcnt scenario for the ASI on Davis Boulevard, if you're not a DRI and you do not have a building permit at the time the ASI is adeopted, no, you will not. NR. l{IO~: What about under the provision, that 7.4.2 that Ross ~clntosh addrcssed that dcalt with the thirty pcrccnt and single-family homes? MR. LITSiNGER: That's in a situation -- you used Davis Eou!evard. Davis Boulevard is not an area where we have e}:cess capacity. That's a deficient roadway as we speak. We do not ]]ave excess capacity to allocate. The tkirty percent applies to the allocation of any exccss ca[~aci ry. VICE-C[-IAI!IEAN VOLPE: Boulevard is from Airport Road to Kings Lake Boulevard. MR. LITSI?:GEE: Correct. That dcficient segment of Davis VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: devclcDment is. Sc I don't know where your NR. HIG}]: Right nc>it to Kings Lake. Which actually on thc map, it shows that deficient road extending all the way to County Barn Road. And also from my understanding in talking w]th staff, O03kll 316 that segment of the road which impacts a tremendous, tremendous amount of the area that we're talking about. Any potential moratorium has a total cost to complete the infrastructure of ~3,000,000. Az:d, you know, maybe Mr. Olliff can address the numb~,r of units or number of acres that are going under moratorium for that relatively small expenditure. I would think tibet tiara, re has to bc some. methodology that Col].ier Ccunty Commissioner:°; can conm~it $3,000,000 to be spent over the next five years to present shutting down the construction industry in that end of town and causing severe economic h~rdship for sm011 firms like ourselves. ?iR. OLLIFF: I don't know that I've got a good answer for that. I mcan, you can look at that $3,000,000 as ncccssary for Davis Boulevard in light of the twelve million that is needed for 951 in light of umpteen million that are needed for U.S. 41, and t}~ey are all the same policy issue tibet we have grappled with all along, and that's local funds for state ro~¢]s. It's a fundi~g VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: We are, though, exploring what those alternatives are, and I think that you heard the 003' 2 317 consul taP. t. MR. }{IGH: Yeah. Mr. ,~.~AI] VOLPE: VICE-CI[AIn,'' PI ummer -- Who has just been put under contract as of Tuesday. And so wc are exploring what those alternatives are. Whether ~'c're going to have the answer before April 24th or [.'~ay 2nd --~.;e're going to try, but I think that -- you you know, I don't know what else we can do. Mr. Chairman, I've got eleven more b!R. OI,LIFF: speakers. CI!AIRMAN tIASSE: ~,~R. ObI.,IFF: MR. f~EAD: Yes. Go ahead. Daniel Head, followed by Mike McCommis. My name is Dan Head, and I live on Marco Island in Conm~issioncr Shanahan's district. First, the gcod news is that I'm not an attorney, so I won't need any extra time. I just have something quick to say here. I would like to ask you not to rewrite what you're doin,~ tonight, but to think about this as you go out and ap~)iy it tomorrow to the problems we're faced with in concurrence. First of all, no matter whether you decide how to 318 solve these problems tonight, six months from tonight or a year from tonight, they're going cost a lot of money. We all know that. Sccondly, whatever you decide tonight is going to impact a lot of lives, people's lives. And six months may not seem like s let of time to us sitting here in this room tonight, but to a lot of those young people out here who have families and children in school, that's a long time without a paycheck. And all ! want to say is please act boldly. Get some solutions in place. Don't let these F.~oratoriums happen if you can avoid it. if you have to, act boldly and quickly to solve them so that people don't lose their jobs and have their lives seriously disrupted, because we're dealing with policy and money. It's not right. Thank you. CItAIRHAN [IASSE: Thank you, Nr. Head. VICE-C~!AIRNAN VOLPE: T]~ank you. CHAIRNAN HASSE: Hr. eli. iff. Y:R. OLL!FF: Mr. Commissioner, I think Mike McCommis gave up the ghost and went home. So we're down to Ken Hunt 003 4 319 and Stanley Hole. COMMISSIONER St[ANAHAN: Good for Mike. CHAIRNAN HASSE: Stanley who? MR. OLLIFF: Ken Hunt, follcwcd by Stanley Hole. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Stanley Hole. dozing just tt~en. I thought he was Ifunt. ~.!R. ItOLE: Good evening. CHAIRMAN t~ASSE: You're up. NE. IIUNT: I think I'm up. C[{AIRMAN ~[ASSE: Oh, you're up. COI<~ISSIONER SHANAHAN: Ken's up. CHAiR~iAN HASSE: I'm sorry. COM!.IISSIONER SHANAHAN: Time's up. F,~. [~UNT: AIl right. Good evening. ! ].]ve on Marco Island. My r?ame is Ken I am a realtor. I'm also a builder. And I Nave also serve on the Collier County Planning Commission. I want to commend you for the first ordinance, for passing basically as the Planning Commission suggested it to be passcd. I hope this ordinance here is passed similarly. One Feint I do want to make, though. The comments r. adc by Mr. Reynolds, as far as trying to have some type of 320 definition or boundaries to determine the moratorium, does n~ake sense to me, to where we can limit in size. Now, I've .got J.n front of me a letter from the Island Arc,r, Board of Realtors, which ! am representin~ on this particular issue. As it pertains to Marco Island, we do feel that there were many o~tions out there which insure there wi].l not have to be a mc~ratorium on Marco. We also believe or I bclieve, I should say, that if the county looks at region01 impact fees such as pc?trains to Davis I~oulevard and so forth, there are some other solutions for f~nding. But the ~osrd of Realtors, and I tkink the Marco C}~]mber of Commerce will also support this position, has gone cn record stating t]~at if the study shows that 951 is deficient, that prior to us enacting any form of moratorium wc will look at directing all construction traffic, and all realtors are in an agreement to put all traffic on 92. Therefore, ask the county to do another traffic count an~ soo how much traffic co~nt h~£~ dropped, comparing one year to the other year, using the same time frame; in other words, ~.Iay to ~.'~ay. 321 In the event that those numbers do not drop the total below tl~e minimum level of service, we are then suggesting hl~at jf a moratorium w~t; necessary to look at doing it just si>[ montt:.~; out of the year, just during the four and a half months that we ere really impacted on 951. I personally encourag(~ flexibility and some broad thinking a.~] to hew to be creative and come up with alternatives to what is definitely ,-~. very challenging si tuation. Hea 1 e. MR. HOLE: 8.3.1.1. Thank you. CHAIRMAN }IASSE: Thank you, sir. MR. OLLIFF: Following Stanley Hole will be Patrick MR. i{OLF,: Go¢:d morninc, Mr. Ct]airman. CI{AIP, MA!: ![ASSE: I see you'r'e still awake. ~:P,. I~OL].':: Yes, sir. CHAIF, MA!'! I{ASSF.: ! thought you fell asleep. I want to talk to you very briefly about I couldn't find a planner here, so I asked George Varnadce to hel[~ :.ne. It won't take more than the allotted time. ,,Iz. Varnadoe is practicing planning again. 322 The only complaint I heard cnbout what we %.;anted to do or tl~c, o~,],7 concer~L I 'nc,,'~r~] vo]c.:.¢] by ~'our ~;taff was that by a]lo:,,,in.q an app] leant to proceed with a subdivision plan or with a plat, you might indicate to him that you had to give him permits later, and your county attorney is -- I mean, there is no question. All he has to dc, and I'm sure he can do it, is condition it and tell the applicant that we will allow to xyou proceed with a plat work, with }'our engineering, with your planning, but that does not guarantee you anything. VICE-C,tiAIR~"~A~ VOLPE: Didn't we decide or :,,asn't there di¢,~cussion, ~:r. Hole, that that could be accomplished thro, ugh an agreement, that there ;vas a development agreement that -- ,X]R. HOLE: I would like to turn that over to the F, lanner. VICE-CHAI~,qAN VOLPE: Just so I can clarify it. I mean, the point. I.~R. }{OLI.'.: That's his point. VICE-CHAIR[,iAN VOb?E: That's )]is point? iqR. VAR~IADOE: ~'~y point: is that Policy 1.5.1, Policy 1.5.3, Policy 1.5.4 £;ay there are two ways you can get a' 323 permit. Required facilities are in place at the time a building permit is issued or a building permit is issued subject to condition that necessary facility will be in place when the impact of development occurs. That's in your Growth Management Plan. So why do we have to ~o development agreement to be able to go up to the building permit stage prior to getting a certificate? I mean, this is some sort of aberration (sic) on the staff's -- ! don't understand. We havc this -- we have our Growth Manaoement Plan, and now we don't want to live with it. VICE-CIIAIRNAN VOLPE: [.{N. VARNADOE: It not? VICE-CHA! R~<AN VOLPE: our Crcwth ~':anaGement Plan? NR. VANNADOE: we can go with t~at. That's not true, Mr. Varnadoe. Why isn't it? That we don't want to live with Well, then lot's change this and say NR. !{OLE: I don't know any developer who if given ti e right to do thin -- your county attorney says, "Guys, you're not going to get to go an}, further than that," would not agree with it. ! really don't. 324 You know, by lcttin~ tt~em do this, you're .going to let the planning l. orocess continue. The valleys aren't going to bc as c]cep, the peaks aren't going to be as high, and it's going to be a much more lof~ical way to do business. I tt~ink it really makes a lot of sense. And we ask that you ~:leasc allc~, that to ~o ahead. CHAIR~<AN HASSE: ~.Ir. ~'.~c~-r~] 1. ~.~E. ~.~Et%EII,I,: Yes. Dc you want to? Ycah, why don't you address that. l-',R. LITSI~IGIiE: There are a couple issues here. And they k'clate to the fact conditional development approval prior to the i~oJ. nt at whic]~ we approve final density and intcnsity could lead to a claim for vesting under equitable cstop~-:el, v,'hick l.~r. l'~-c~"rill ~.~ill [~o further into. Also, the reason that v,,c are not allowing conditJor:al ~cvclc[)mcnt or~cr outsidc of the development agrccment, v;hich would provide terms under which you could go throuc]~ the l~rocess [,riot to obtaining a final local dcvclo!t~r:~7::t orCer J.s ~ve to t~e fact that 9J-5 says that the !'~oint at w]'~ic]~ determine concurrency is at the point you apl~rov(3 final density and intensity. ~';D. VAHI~IADOE: Then why does our Comprehensive Plan 325 Whicl~ poi i.5.1.A, 1.5.3.A, 1.5.4 all ~:ay the You caz: either get: it wl:en the required facilities ere in ['].ace, tlne time the building permit is issued, or bui]din~ Fc]:'mit can Nc issued subject to c:ondition that necessary facilities will bc in Nlscc wh~,n the impact of develop:horst occurs. Very si:;;ple. Very clear. Very straightffo~ard. It's Jn all o~ our concurreDcy managemen~ system. And toiling you not to do it. You're not implementing your Grcwth Hanagcment PI. an. T}mt's just the very simple point we all should be able to focus on, even at this wee hour. CI[AIRNAN }[ASSE: Late morn. NR. [,]ERRILL: George, it that the revised language in the stipulate the settlement agreement? ;{P,. GOODLF. q'TE: Yes. FR. ;~ERNILL: We] ] , t}~at -- Dudley, what's in Comp Plan is not necessarily -- that's not the same that's in the stipulated settlement agreement. It will change 326 this. VICE-C}~AI R~:AN VOLPE: sti!~ulatcd oz is that -- I, IR. }~OI,E: That:'s ~vhat I want. t.~R. VAk'I'.;ADOE: I think tl~at that language not ckanged, tkat I can sec, but -- ~R. SAU~,;DF.~S: It's a good thing to go do. to figure it out. Is that the language from the can -- has We have CfIAI~[A~! !~tASSE: As ~ve're doing that, can wc go for~.~'ar¢]s, ~r. Olliff. ~.IR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. ?atrick Ncale, followed by Kevin Hale. ~.!E. ?~EAr_,~:: Yeah. !'m Patrick I,~eale, once again u,l~eakin~.~ f~r t~c ~3oard of the ~,~arco Island Chamber, now s[~>ecifically addrcssin9 this Adequate Public Facilities Or(]i:-~ance at this late ]~our in thc evening. It is ti:c positicn the ~-]card of the Chan~er that we do su!~port what thc Eoard of Realtors ]~as just brought forth in L~at %,/c do sur,~port thc idea of rerouting truck traffic over to Route 92 off of 951 as a mode of satisfing the requiren:ent for a level of service on State Road 951 and then reevaluating 951's level of service after this have 327 been accomplisl~ed. That, as I say, was supported by the Board of the Chambers. We do support that position. We dc have some qucstions about the mode of counting and thc way levels of service are reached, both on the road area and on the area of water, but those are issues that are technical in nature and certainly I'm not prepared to speak to those issues on a specific basis this evening. One of the ~,roblems that did come up Jn our discussion at the lares board meeting was the fact that this ordinance apparently at this point does nothing more than titan Generate a Group of problems and 9enerates no specific solutions to those !-~roblems. And we certainly are concerned about that and would like to see more emphasis on thc problem sclving aspect of it, as opposed to the problem crcaticn aspect of it. !'m .~].:~o just -- and this is a concern on my own, not as a roI~rescntative of tko l~,oard or t]~c Chamber, that we certainly had c: very short string this evening to be able to re-review what I see as being very substantive and substantial changes in this ordinance. ! mean, wi]eh we came ir] at si:< o'clock tonight was 328 the first time any of us could see this thing, and there are sor:e substantial changes, so I do have a little bit of a T~ob]em wit1) the o,]ort tj~T;C~ r~v~(>v; period that we were wivcn. As I nay, that's the only real points that I have to make except tc say that ',.;e appreciate your time for staying here. Thank you. CHAIR?.'IAN HASSE: Fine. Thank you. CO'~'2!ISSIONER SHA?iA[IAh~: Pat, I just want to say I certainly share your concern and your suggestion relative -- and Ken's suggestion, to utilizing 92. I can tell tonight that 951 was backed up from 41 all the way to tho bridge. When I got on it, I had to back off and ccme around 92, and as a result was able to get here on time it's a totally under-utilized road. Cther than saying I wanted maximum speed limits, it is an totally under-utilized road. Wc need to think in tern',s cf truck traffic, heavy-duty truck traffic, al! the construction traffic, as we talked about before. We can takc several thousand vehicles off of 951 and 0031- ,1 329 put them on 92 wit]~ very little loss of time and very little additional cost, and I think that people would make that sacrifice to ]iccp 951 concurrent. I think we can do it with the five miles that we've got. in the growth -- in the FDOT plan for the next five years, and I thin]< and I have asked staff to find ways to circumvent moratorium on 951, not lock for ways to apply op.~3. So I certainly share that view, and I wish that everybody else would take, you know, that and heed that acC, vice to utilize 92. It's totally under utilized. You can drive out there as fast as you have tile couraf!e to do or as fast as the gccd Sheriff's Department wi] ] allow you to. Thanks an}7.;ay, Pat. MR. ;!E?,LE: Well, ',.;e certainly support that. Thc only other point %./e would like to make about tkat. As far as the shiftin[~ of truck traffic, a concern ;.:as c~!~ressed by at legist United Telephone. CO~i[,[ISS iONER SHA[,Uj{A~:: Yeah. I.!R. NEALE: And certain others. And others. That, you know, for service of areas such as Isle of Capri and so forth, that OO335 330 t.l~cJr tr~:ck,.~ b¢.~ ]?ermitted at least to use them for service ~,urposcs. You know, Palmer Cablevisicn and so forth. CO~[MISSIONER SHANA[[AN: Right. MR. NEALE: But thst all the other trucks would go the oti~er way. COMMISSIONER SHANAI{AN: And I understand that there would havc to be some exceptions. When I first make that reco~m~endation, I became very very unpot~ular, as you may well rcme~ber, with the people that deliverc.~] goods and FP&L and on and so forth. But we certainly are going to take those things into consideration. Dutra. MR. NEALE: Thank you. CHA!R~.:AN HASSE: Thank you, ~.~r. Neale. .~'!R. O[~LIFF: Fcl]owing Kcvin Hale will be Lori MR. I{AI, E: Mr. Chairman, my name is Kevin ~[ale, and I havc a cou[~lc of questions for ~,~r. Merrill. ["irt:t, ]' };~,ve a c;~ cr:ti(~n or, ]~ow we are going to treat ~sclaC. ed, singlc-family lots relative to obtaining adequate public facilities certificates? ;.TF~. MEF. PILL: In what regard? 331 ?.IR. /-{ALE: page is eighteen. Well, if I could direct your attention to Paragraph 8.3.2.4 states that a certificate of public facility adcquancy expires one year from the date of its aI"proval unless, and then it goes into the situations that deal wit!} what appear to me to be multi, for larger devclcpmen ts. You know, I l',ave asked the question in the past of how thi~ .is going to relate in the isolated single-family tots that are not in a pla~:ncd unit development that is C'o]n~ ir] for initial pormittin£~. I'm talking about lots in established subdivisions. :.:R. FH",ERILL: So what is your question? Are you aslcj, ng how lc~0 that -- :.;R. I!ALE: How loncj is the certificate -- which one a~.'~[~]ies to t]~ose lots;? . ,~'J~ILI,: One year. It says one year from the date o£ its; a.~zmrcval except to the extent that a building Permit hah 'bec~ issued. LI I oI~,GEF,: HALE: Okay. One 5'ear to draw the building permit. F;R. NE9RiI,L: Okay? 332 ~,iR. HALE: That's it? ~.~R. LITSIIfGER: Yeah. .~4R. ~AI.E: That's how we're going to treat isolated single-family lots. C[{AIRY, AN MASSE: difficulty hearin_q you. Nr. :4erril], I'm having a little Y, aybe my ears are getting tired, I don ' t know, but speak into your mike, pi ease. !.;R. t4ERRII,L: Okay. One year. · ":R. tIALE: Is there any reascn or is there any way that we can bare that c:xten~]ed for three or five years? And the problem that I have with this, Hr. Chairman, and tills is t};¢: problc:r[~ that I've: e>:prc:sscd in the past, is that we're im!;actin~j individuals that can least afford to be subject to thi[3 tyF. e of restriction, and I'm talking about situations where an individual wants to purchase a singlc-far,,ily ]Dome [;itc an~ finance that purchase with a local financial institution. :,:o one is _c, ojn~c to finance a let for cne year. It's just not feasible. :.~.R. ~,!ERRII,L: Oh, yea]], they could. CHAIRV.,AI: HASSE: ~{r. Nerrill? I,',R. ~F, Rk'ILI,: Ccrtai:~ly they can, yes. The could 333 choose a different time period. The conscquences of choosing a different time period are that it hclds that capacity open for a longer period of time witl~.out development going forward. b!R. OLLIFF: I'm not surc I understand the question, though. I mean, if the question is at the time of the sale of thc lot, we're not requirin~ a certificate. And I don't think the bank is going to require the certificate in }~nd from the lot purchaser in order to make that loan. Az'o they? NR. I~AI,I<: Absolutely. iJecau~;e the lot ha~; no value unless it's b~ildable and it's not buildable without a certificate. ~qR. [.[I.]RP, ILL: Dut let me back up. I'm somewhat famJ]ia~- wit]~ financing law since we do quite a bit of that with our law firm. If they -- if t}~o bank gives out n financing loan, t~ey arc goinq to e;.:pcct tl]e builder to co~ence -- or the }~ome owner -- to commence building in a relatively ~;hort period of time. They don't expect the builder to get the loan and hold -- not start building for t]~reo years. 334 ;,I[~. HALE: I'm not talking about loans to builders. I'm talking about loans to individuals. MR. MERRILL: Home owner, too. The same effect. Mil. HALF.: Tl~at's not thc same effect, Mr. Chairman, and the reason is that not everyone knows on the (]ay that they >urchc~se a lot w}~en and wher~ and what they're going to build. CHAIR,,lAN HASSE: I think that wl~at is being directed here, !',~r. ~.!errill, is the case that individuals all over thin county are buying lots throughout different area[; of this county and they're not ready to build but they're buying a lot where they're going to build. ~,~ow, they often eno~gt'~ sit on that lot or l~old the lot, I should :.:ay, for two, thrce, four years even, until thcy cat] get there to build on it. ?IR. LITSINGER: CHAIRMAN }[ASSE: But the issue is, do we-- In order to pinch, up or get the down payment even for a house or something like that. I can :;ympathize with that kind of thing, and I'd like to know what would happen there too. COM~',ISSIONER SAUNDERS: What time period are you recommcndi n~.], Kcvin? 00340 335 ~,tR. HALE: I would like to see it at five years. I do have a proposal that would modify Section 8.3.2, and I would like to ¢]istribute it tc you. It's very brief. CHAIR~,IAN }IASSE: Give it to the lieutenent. ].IR. [IAI.E: Essentially, it would £tive the owner the op~:o~tunitF to extend his ccrtificat(:. of fifty percent of the time period. CHAIE[qA~': I~ASSE: Are you reading that? to read it no;v? ~,[R. IIALE: I ~ill read it, if you like, after it's been distributed. CIIAIRMA~.~ [[ASSE: Please do that, and then -- go ahead. ~qR. I{ALF: We're recommending that Section 8.3.2.4.4 bc addod and t]'~at it read as follows: At any time after the expiratior] of fifty percent of the term of a certificate of public facility adequacy, the ]~older may apf~ly for e, one-year extension or' for a renewal up to the ori£:inal term l~rovided there are adequate public facilities to serve t]~e development or provided the holder agrees in writing to provide such facilities or funds for After the expiration Are you Going 00%4 336 it~: proportional share of such facilities concurrent wit]] t]~c: iron,ac:ts of d(~vclopment. ~ut sue}) application ~;}]al] be reviewed and approvc~ in the same manner and under the same criteria a~; a new application as set out hereon. VICE-C[[AIRMAN VOLPE: !s this limited to single-fatal] y residential? ~.~R. [[ALE: No, this -- the way this is written is that it would apply to all certificates. VICF'.-C}{AIR~IAN VOLPE: So it's not just that single-family lot person. This is a little bit different. C}[AIRi'.~AN }tASSE: This is entirely different frcm what I was thinking, ~nd I was t]~inking of what you were talking about in t]'~e beQinning. TI]is would apply to fifty or a hundred homes here. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I t]~ink the issue comes up, Mr. [{ale, in thc. context of t}~e Ross b[cIntosh. The fellow who wants to buy a lot, you want to finance thc lot; you don't want to finance the lct if you ~on't think he's going to have a certificate of adequate public facilitie[; so that he's going to bc able to build. That was the issue that I was focused on, and I don't know -- 337 ~]ere . I,!R LIq~INGI,.:R: ,Mike, I think there are two issues I think Commissioner l~asse raised one issue is the fact that by i.~.:uinc, these certificates for ~3reatcr than one year we're scttin© a~';ide capacity for someone w]~o may not be reedy to boiId and n:ay not to able is issue a certificate for someone who is ready to draw bui]dino permit. On the other .~:ide of tho coin, I believe Mr. Hale is attributino a r:ermanency and a fi~oality to a decision under the c¢,~curre~',c3, ordinance that would somehow eliminate the value of the land, and I don't believe that's the case. I would ask him: sin~3!e-far~ily ]ct for. What Defied of time he finances a Does be anticipate the value is either there today or it disappears? ~[R. [[ALE: Well, my concern is that under the ordinance and thc, if I understand it correctly, under the AUEI it's subject to reevaluation each year. ].:R. I{ALt<: Sc. my concern is that the borrower in this instance has got to vest some rights t}lat we can look to in order to calculate his ability to obtain a building permit over sor, e definite period of time that is greater than one 338 year. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: By setting aside -- didn't we agrce with the singlc-family residential units, the isolated case, we ]lave a sct-aside so that there will be. You know, we're trying to protect the little person, thc single-family lot owner, and to make sure that the certificates ~rcn't all used up by some of the larger developers, thc DRI's. I guests -- I don't know how you address the issue, ~<r. Hale. You know, I just don't know. ~iR. LITSI~GEE: i think you should also point out here t]~at i think Mr. Hale is afraid of the situation where for the long term his bank is holding paper on a lot which cannot be developed. ! think that if we end up in -- if we do end up in a moratorium situation, we all understand that has got to be a for e very definite, finite period of time, that it is MR. ~.~ERRILL: Right. [[E. L!TSI[,~GER: It's not a permanent determination. MR. IIALE: Well, ! think you have to appreciate my concern at this point in time, because we don't have a 339 moratorium ordinance. And we can talk about what's generally going happen in the future, but -- I mean, we have to deal in specifics. And what I can tell you is that we are not going to finance single-family lots for a one-year period of time, and we're not going to finance them unless we can get a certificate of adequate public facJ.].ities going into the loan. VICE-CI[AIK[.:AN VOLPE: How long a period of time, Mr. Hale? Wt~at are you recommending? ?<R. HALE: I would re:commend five years. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: For a single-family residential lot? F']R. [{ALE: Absolutely. .~[R. LiTSI~<GER: i have a comment to the Board, that we can issue certificates for any period of time that you would like as long as the Board understands that we are setting aside capacity and making a commitment to provide f~cilities into the future. , ,, I.,AIIA,.: an, J t there a -- ~iR. [_,I'FSIN(;ER: And that is capacity that we're allocating that may or may ~ot be used and may eliminate 00345 340 someone with imn~cdiate plans from proceeding. COMt,~ISSIONER SHANAHAN: Is thcre a way to accommodate it by building in a renewal clause in the single-family one ye0r, where you rcll it every year if there is adcquate invcntory? HR. LITSINGER: Well, ironically, the way Mr. Hale has written Nis language ]]ere, he calls for a reapplication. As it stands now, if your certificate expires without being exercised, by drawing a building permit, you are free to reapply at any time. faro] !y. family. CHAIRNAN HASSE: }'.R. LITSiNGEE: CIiA I F,M, AN HASSE: But it also doesn't indicate single E:<cu sc me? It doesn't indicate a single No, it does not. Is there some way to The other -- excuse me. CO[,{Ni c~ r o;~Id~ER SHANAHAN: Nithout five years? UNIDENTIFIED: You could do it. NR. HEP, RII,L: But -- they're saying you can do it. 00346 341 We just need to understand the consequence of it. VICE-CI',AIEV. AN VOLPE: The other comment I would make, Commissiner S~anah~n, is just that -- what we talked about before when we were talking about this issue in the context of the set-aside. We were talking about making these personal to the owner of the let and non-transferable. So you've got t]~c same person who owns the piece of Nropcrty, hc ]]as got a certificate of public adequate public facilities; and if we have it for one year or three years or w]~atcver, the banking community may need to be -- ~lave a certain comfort lc. vel in terms of what type of a loan you made on tke lot, it'[; personal to the owner. So we're tying up a certain number of certificates. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not going to be transferable, so he's not going to be able to -- ~.TR. LITSIHGER: Well, t]~e certificates are t~ar~sferab!e with the property, as the ordinance is currenI:ly wri tten. VICE-C!iA1RMAN VOLPE: i thought we were talking about with -- when we were talking abou~ the set-aside for the single-fa[~lily residential units, we ~ere talking about in that instance not having3 thom. OO34? 342. They would be pc:rsor~al so that you wouldn't have a situation where you would ]~ave someone coming in and buying a ~:umber of these certificates and then selling them along with their lot. MR. LITSIt,GEK: provision. We would have to write in a VICE-C.HA][R~.[A~; VOLPE: I ti]ought that's what we were talking about whcn we had thc discussion with Mr. t'~cIntosh. ~.iR. NERRILL: Well -- ~R. [[ALE: Well, Mr. Volpe, may I make one co~unent before Hr. Merrill answers t~at question? From tile banking com~aunity's pcrspective, the certificatc~ }~avc got to r~]] wit]] tt~c land and not stay with the owner. T]~e re&so~ is c>:actly the same as it is under tko Zoning Rcevaluation Ordinance, and that is -- it's the ~:amc argument you use with succcssor developers. If we're going to finance it, we've got to be sure that it has value that continucs out to the period of time that we have made thc commitment. Ir] ot~er words, j f there is a dcfault and wc obtain ownership of that pro[,crty, we have to be able to market it in the same status that it was when wc made the loan. And 00848 343 it doesn't solve thc problem to again have a piece of vacant property tl~at you can't build on. [qD. LITSiNGER: You can eventually build on all vacant pror~rty. Under t~e constitution of the United Statcs, we ca:~not deny property rights indefinitely. I thJ. nk we're talking short term versus long term, and thec~z-otic:J, 11y and hopefully tl~is county is not going to in?ese moratorJ, um on any wide-scale nature. ~}~. HALE: ~.lr. Chairn:an. CHAIRMAI~ [[ASSE: Yes. ~3E. HALE: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the staff is saying. }[owever, the reality of the situation is that we have lots of i~odividuals that, say, purchase single-family lots, make the 1.')ayments for two to three years to build up their equity ur~til t},ey're in a ]~osition to build a home. It ]]a!-,Z;en~ in your district; it happens iD Mrs. Goodnig}~t'f; district and it happens in Mr. Shanahan's district. ~IR. OLLIFF: Kcvin, just so I understand. What you're saying, though, is that the banks will not -- VIC!q-C~{AIRPiAN VOLPE: It also happens in District 344 Two. MR. OLLIFF,- ;';];at you're: saying, though, is that tile banks -- if we leave this language the way they arc, will not lc:.a~: thc ain[jle-family }~omes w~lo arc doing in that exact situation agoin. RE. HALE: The only way that we can make that loan, Tcm, is if thc borrower can sinew and demonstrate that he's gcing tc repay t]~e loan in one year. There's no a~3ility to reno:w, there's no ability to pay a deposit to ensure that your fair share of the improvements are needed are made. And that's wi:at this proposal does. ability to r~ncw and it future improven;onts. It gives you the givc.~; you the ability to pay for CO:;MISSIONI;N SAUNDERS: We have heard from Nr. Hale and what he's suf~Cesting' He's asking for five years. We've heard staff say that wo ca~: DUt in any number in there we waut, we just have to recognize what the consequences are. So wl:1, don't we ma]to a decision on that. Do },(~ v','~nt to ~:;tic:l: with one year or do you want to ~]o ~c) two, do you want to go to three or five? CHAIR}blt: HASSE: Why don't we rework this clown the 00: 50 345 linc, ,':tartin9 with two and tI~c,: ~orking up by to five with tlc ability to extend it for five. Would that help the rules? ~IR. IIALE: That's fine. As long as there is some ability to cxtcnd. CHAiKi..IAN I{ASSE: You know, I know exactly what you're aayin9 and I can feel with what you say. I can understand n(> many people out tl~ere in i:]~i~ dilemma that go to the bank and borrcw money to buy thc land so they can hold it until they get enough to get it together to go put down on a h 0 U 3 e. COI'.!}IISSIOI~EE SIIA}iAHAN: I asked a minute ago if we could put a renewal clause in. If we started out with one, rolled it over at the end of one, roll. it over at the end of two, roll it over at the end of three, et cetera. Is ti~at an acceptable position? P,[R. I{;,l,I.:: Yes. As long as when we get to -- COk~.'!I~,,~IO~.ER SAUNDERS: As long as it's automatic, right? [,iR. }iALE: automa t'J c. What ? As lon9 as the rollover is 0(:),'151 346 COMF. ISSIOF, ER SHANAHAN: automatic. 2;o, no. I'm not saying }~e i~'~. He's Doing to say automatic. Oh, I understand he would. MR. fIALE: Mr. ohanahan -- Obviously the best possible ;:~,. ,~tf.E: But, Mr. Shanahan, I thj. nk what's importa,~t and wt~at this proposal outlines is that if you roach t]~o point where there's a deficiency and the ccrtificatc would not normally bc renewed, you can post an amount tl:at is cqu~.] to your fair' share of wl:at's necessary to make those improvements. ~iP,. OLL!FF: And we have been told that the Co,-.'.f.~rc!~¢,~sivc Plan ~.~t we'vo got doesn't allows that, and wc have to go throug]~ a Compre]-~e~:nive Plan amendment which, you kn(~w, wc all ]~civc sort of said t:}~at we'll take a look at that as well. But, you know, we had sort of gerrymanned it around to wi~erc we vzc:.rc going to put this in the ordinance for the t}~rec-year ¢'erti£icate, a~]¢] wc were going to try and get the 347 Comt~ Plan ame~:ded in the meantime before that renewal period c~nmc.~ ut~, to see if DCA wc~ld ,~]]ow that in our Comp Plan. It's [~rcbably a better suggestion to go try and amend your Con? Plan first and the con',e back; and if that wcrks, then amend ~.'our ordinance so t]~at you can actually }-:ave those renewals with some Pir~c]ining or some fair [;hare contribution c~r whatever you want to call that idea. ~R. }~AI, I~: Well, if that's the case, then would it be ~o~;siblc to start out at five? ~R. OLLIFF: It would if you're willinw to we ahead end !~as' for that water plant t~at can handle -- CO~'i~:ISSICNER SAU~DI]Rf;: ~r. Choirman. CHAIE~.~A~ HASSE: Con;n~issioner Saunders. CO~'~'~If3SIOI"~i~'F' SAU~'$DEES: l';c understand the issue. Let's 6'0 on to tl~e nc:<t [;pca~,[er, and we'll resolve that when v;e fjct down to the -- ~[E. HALE: You understa~¢~ ~:hat thc -- I'kr',. OLLiFF: Lori 1.)utra, fo]lowed by Don Pickworth. ~;S. DUq'[.~;,: Good ~cr~inf3' Comn:issioners. Fo>i_ [.!~e record, I'm Lori Durra with the law firm of ~-[e:r:~:hrcy ~zrn~l I[nctt, l:err, on bc.l~alf of several owners in Collier Cr:t~r]tS. ce, ncerned about their rights in the 00353 348 ordinance. They ]]ave asked me to speak tonight regarding certain previsions of the ordinance. I think you have heard [~cvoral already, and I have a couple of other additions to make. Locking specifically to Section 8.2.8 on vested rigt~ts. F~rst, I'n~ glad to see that your staff has added a [:.rovis:[¢;n on vc~ntc~c~ ~'i~.]hts. '['h.nt was a very maj()r concern amonf; a lot o£ ownezs in t]~e county, that there would be no l~rovision. Our concern is, and I would commend Ms. Orshefsky for t~¢.r f!ood summary of thc unfortunate state of Florida law on v(.~stcd vJghtn. Put i believe that Doard needs to be very ~pccific on t]~at and needs to be sure that they don't turn vested rights decision in Cell ier County into a very long administrative [.~roce$,~ with a a lot of applications, a lot of ~taff ti~;~c and a lot of deter~,~ination. !~y first suggestion would be with regard to the fact that you }]ave label(:d final development orders as local fi]:al devaloi-~,cnt o]:d,.'~rn as ca-~l~. 'o¢:~n%~ b~ild.]ng permits. I thin]~ you wJl] find that w]~¢:n the vested rights deter:',~inations come in to be detormined by the Board that 00,354 349 those vested rif;hts determinations are often based on large developments that ]lave undergone, a substantial amount of dcx'c]cl'~cnt ~:~]d deve!o~'~mcnt has conuncnccd. I ',~oul(] refer to you t(> acceDt the DCA's general lanct~acfe out of t]~eir declaratory statement, that your attorneys and staff have referenced to earlier tonight, so say that vcztef rif;hts can bc granted. Period. By c~:e~q)tion, ~:eI']lap~3, to (~eve].c~ments that are approved and ]-~lvo cc~:7~{~ncc<! construction, to local develop -- to final site D]a~] e[>[)rova] or to ycur final subdivision plat that has beg~n construction. I thin]< that /~ezmissiblc u~]der the DCA rules. I t]~i~].: it's really a bold ste!~ by the county to narrow - c, own a lot of tkesc vested riq~hts c]etcrn~inations and they could go f c r~.; a r d. I would also like to commend to your consideration again that y{~u add a }'~rovision that the vested rights would ru~: v,'it!~ the land. I think that it'~ a very good idea, given a possible g.l>p]iceticn. I t]~ink ~qr. ]{ale referred tc, the previous speaLcr, that a residential dcvclcpment coming in, that may be fu]l]' v~:;tc</, l~.ecau[;c tt~?y'vc put in everything and 00355 350 ti:ay're sixty [,ercent complete and you may determine that tl:cy are vcstecl, may begin selling those lots. Those individual lot owners would not be vested. Tkcy would ])e subject to the ordinance and they would be su}.~ject comJnfl back in and should by that time there be a 13rcblem, riley would bc subject to tl]at potential on their ~>ro~;er ty. I feel tkat vested ri~lhts runnin%] with the land in that [~ituatic~n is definitely equitable, and if you think about t]~e ~.~t ti,at a vested ri~]hts dctcrn]inaticn will set tide:se nuz~bcr of trips, if you will, those number -- that number of service for that development that you are not vestjr:c~ an3~tkJ, nC; mc)re than what you know is vested at the tinge. Tf~e consequent purc]laser, or purchaser B, if you will, car, only develop to that e>:tent, and you have already taken that into account in your vested rights dc tcrn~ ina t ic;~. It docr~ not hurt t}~e county to go fo~vard. You may want to consider a time li~'it on that, but please do not t>robibit th(~ vested rights from being able to be -- to run wit]~ t]~{~ ].an(~ l~ecausc there are very f~ractical applications 0035G 351 of that that I t}~ink you need to consider wit)~ regard to large development transferred to individual cwner. Ny final com.~r~ent, and I will really a clarification on ~hi.';, is i~ $cctior~ ~.3.1.~ regarding the impact fee payment, and ! guess I'd like to go through really the first sentence cf that an(] be sure I understand it and perhaps have a suggcstic~n. The sentence reads that all applicable impact fees and syst. ctt~ develo!.~ment fees for a develcpment shall be paid to the county in the amount estimated to be due upon issuance of the final local development orders for the development, and those are paid upon or prior to issuance of thc ccrtjf]cate of public facility ~dcquacy. That could happen, for instance, at final subdivision l~]a t. N.R. OLLIFF: That's four minutes, ~,Ir. Chairman. }'S. DUq'RA: Can I as]< r.',y quc:;tion? 'l'l'l/s sce:,s to ii,ply that: at final subdivision plat if ycu are locking at a dcveloppont of, say, four hundred units that when you receive -- you must get the certificate of ac]equate public facility to go or: with that subdivision plat. If you receive that, you must pay the impact fees due 0035'7 352 for all of those building permits that are related to that d ov e 1 ot")mc n t. Is t}~at a correct analysj..~; of that? ~'-~. LzTSIHGER: It's a correct statement that you pay the estimated impact and system development fees that will be due at the time that you draw your final local devclcpmcnt orders. And if that's four l:undred units, that would be four hundred units. ~:S. .r)UTL'A: SO oven if you don't build those units in~ediately, you arc essentially fronting that money to the county and !,'ou would ]3e r¢.~imbursed for that on a building permit l~y bu'~ld~ng !.')er~t basis. Is that correct? MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. NS. DUTEA: Is there a time frame of that or a credit of, a~;q~licaticn of tl~at, for o'~..u:er:~ wl~o may have put in, for instancc, tl,roug]~ agrccment with the county significant public infrastructure that could be credited against those fccs, or bo,,; docs that work? Ericfly, if you cou].d, exl~lain. >!P,. LITSINGER: It relates to the --back to the O0,q5,q 353 impact fee ordinances and the provisions of those ordinances. I think-- is that the question you're asking? MS. DUTRA: So you could possibly get credit or the county would round them if you didn't built the units in a certain period of time? '4~' ~[ERRILL: ~!R. LITEINGER: 'Yes . There are provisions in the ordinance for refund of impact fees. ME. Obi,IFF: Yes. last public hearing, as well. MS. DUTRA: In a particular time frame. Okay. VICE-C]]AIEMAN VOLPE: Thank you. ~']S. DUTRA: I do have, a letter to submit for the rccc:ud, but will sub:-::it ti]at to you folks. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Fine. Thank you. Ue']l bavc to take a break because of our stc not7 ral~hCr COI2';ISSICKER SIIAr]AIiAt~: One more -- C~[AIRMAi~ }{ASSE: We're going to make it, very happily. At quarter till one we will reconvene. (Whcroupon, a brief recess was had.) And we went throug}~ this at the 00359 354 can go. group? MR. PICKWORT}[: Start the clock. CO}iHI~,qlONER SAUNDERS. lilt it, Don. CHAiP,;,{A}; I;ASSE: To'Il. mc -- Stan, toll me when they COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRMAN HASSE: ,~.~R. PICKWORTH: CO[<I':ISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are you ready, Don? No. Start the clock. Ye° Where is the rest of the C~{AIRllAN HASSE: Wo're wa]ting for -- UNIDENTIFIED: We've got enough. CHAIR?,iAN HASSE: Don, we're waiting for our legal bea¢,.lc w]]o ~, .... to tell us what to ¢:o. NR. PICKWORTH: CI{AIRMAN [IASSE: I'll be under four minutes. I hope. NR. OLL!FF: Are we ready? CHAIR~':AN }!ASSE: Not really. DC; wc .qo al~ea¢], Stan? NN. LITS!NGER~ Oo ahead. ::R. OI,LIFF: Ccorge Va~, ' . here. "lc. have Don Pickwcrth, followed by And we have some others standing around 00360 355 points. C~{AIR?.IAN IIASSE: Ail right. Let's go. MR. PICKWORTH: Mr. Chairman. Don Pi¢:kworl-~h again. I'll be brief. Just a couple One, on unve,-,ted rights, i don't think we got a rcsoluticn, but I want to again urge that you take a look at the language that ~ ~, ~-,. Orshefsky passed out as an introduction to Section 8.2.8. I don't believe the language you've got there right now in the ordinance even makes grammatical sense. I believe this language will resolve that issue. Secondly. In Section 8.2.8, going over onto page scventee~ ~nc]er t.]~c heading criteria for vested rights. I believe, the references to Flerida case law should be eliminated. I don't think that argument on this matter should be limited solely to Florida case law. I think several of the attcrr:eys here tcnight have recognized that Florida case law is either silent or not very helpful in many areas of vested rights law. Certainly in a COUFtl Situation, yOU have the right to argue relevant law ~rom any state. I think it simply 356 .n:;r;ict:: in m,~t:infl a ,.~cLtcr dccjr;ion. VICE-CHAIR;,IA~ VOLPE: Well, if you don't have to Florida case law, Nr. Pickworth, then you'll have to use -- case law. Obviout~]y. You may not have Florida VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Tb(:rc isn't any. I.R. PICKWORT}{: law from other states. That's what we were told. You may have much moro helD£ul case You may have much more specific factual situation,,: bearing on the issue from other states. ?t~e oth¢.r point ! want tc touch. Again, ju[:t-- I want to go back to something that tile fellow from Signature [-[omcs was talking about. He was ta!}[i::f~ about building3 a subdivisicn where they had gone throu~';h and tl,~y got it plattcc[ and they were putting in their i~frastructure, and I just want to carry that to the next step for just a minute on this issue of running with the land. '.¥ under:~tanding of wi:at we have here is he goes along, he put[; i:. tine infrastructure, he can come in, apply for vested rights. If he gets a vested determination, he c~n go ahead and contj, nue to develop. O0gG2 357 if he were to sell these lots, as a subdivision d(.'vc~lot)(:r:', c'3_f!t:('~,l~ (1o or tl~oy'l] ,-.r,"] .... ~ group of l()ts I.o a builder, unc~.r this, wliat I read is that the builder would not be vested. q'hat'll l~¢)w I ~eaci t]~in to work. That doesn't make t~la~ origincl subdivider obtained that vesting, l l~cl~ wl~(,n Ii,) ,~:o]l:: t.l~at %lr~mp o£ l~[li](lc.,r lots that same vcstiz~g sllould carry ti]rough. bio more cn that point. of it. Thc.. last one is ever on ~,age fifteen. This was touched on earlier, but again I don't think it was resolved and i'm concerned with it. And it's ,-Section 8.2.1.1, and it's that pl~i'asc after thc word concurrency in tile first linc w~crc it says "or thc provision of adequate public facilities ccncu]'rcnt with t]~e impacts of development." TIdaL pi~rn~c, w}~ich sc~meo:~c~ (']se had asked you to take out. ~ 'v(. :c.~. ~li~,:..,.. ~;~.cl;~,~l.,~.V ::l.ct~'m~(.q~Lt~ aisc, and tl~ere is language in t:]'~c, re wi]ere it ~'.oys thet if you've got stipulations a[d~licablc to conc~rrency, then those must be complied ~ith. I think you have heard enough 358 If t]iat phrase bcginnJng with "or" and ending with "development" i'.; simply another way of saying the same t),ing, then it's surplus and s]/ouldn't be in there. ViCE-C}[AIR',~A~I VOLPE: But doesn't this require that it be in thc DRI d~cumcnt itself? '~!P~. P!CKWORTIi: Yes. stotement sayn. VICE-CIIAIRMA~: VOLPE: That's what the declaratory So wt,,at is your concern? docume~ts contaim provisions conccrninu mitioatinu impacts om levels of service, and I guess my concern is: Is this i-~hrase, beginning with the word "cr," meant to bring those things in? Is this another type of level other than a phrase which ~c~,uircs. .< you to comely, with concurrency, which we acree., has to oo'. t:p O.,,,IF~;': Four minut .... , r. Chai]:'man. ~[E. PICKWCI~q'H: I'm throu6lt with my presentation, but I would iike -- ~.fR. [.~EERILI,: I don't -- it's the same thing as concurr~:ncy, and ! don' t sce it as surplusage because that's }:ow a let o[ ti;om arc: dc:fJn~:d. I do]':'t want it to bc -- or, 00364 .... __-'il Il llllllll lllllll Illl IIII IIIII1' ' 111111 Ill II,il --- I, 359 the intent was that it wouldn't be limited solely to the v;cr6 concurrency. I think you're r¢:adin9 a lot more into it than what is there. The provision of adequate public facilities may have been required in DR! prior to concurrency ever occurring. ,.,ay,_~e $(~meonc had the those. I don't know of any of I v.'oulo li;xc to knov;, you know, what particular dcvc. lopment order F. rovision are you concerned about that you have? That's thc only thing that i can figure, that you must }~avc something ~n your ordinance that says notwithstanding anything contained herein, this development order ]~c.s to provide adequate public facilJ, ties concurrent with the impacts of development. !f t}~cI:'L', w]~at your o~dc, r :~ays -- ['R P I C,.~,OP.T.t: NO. :<.q. iiERNILL: Theu it t~as to co~?,ply with this. I don' t understand whc]~e you' re coming from. VICE-CI~AIR~U~.]: VOLPE: Do you ]]ave a specific example, ~,~,... Pick'.,,'r(.)th, ~-'~"~,,c.~ you're d¢:aling O0365 360 ~R. PiCKUORTH: I don't have a specific example I'm dcalJn~.i with, although !'m sure I 9o could through a couple DRi'~. that I'.-.~,. i,'tc:ro~tcd.. ~ Jn ii,at would probably have language which deal with the subject of prcviding public facilities at certain specified times. And I agree that the developer must comply with these ~rr:~.~F.~.ctivc ~ ~ of tho concurrcncv, ordinance. [[y concern is draggin%~ t]~at into the concurrency situat]on. ',<]natcvcr t]~o ,'ievclo!:mcnt order says, the developer mu~t comuly witL as it's wrjtten. If it u~.~y:; t]~at it has to provide adequate facilities cc~:current with the impacts of development, don't you think thct concurrency a.nplies? ~.:R. PICKWORTIt: would say development CHAIRNAN HASSE: Dut if you to, ok that phrase out, it Okay. Conditions applicable to concurrency (~::ist Jn ti~e Dill development o~dcr, which I believe is all. V!CE-CtiAIN~<AN VOLPE: Has this issue been discussed at thc CCPC level? 00366 361 NO. No. I don't think so. All right· VICE-CHAIRMAN HASSE: ?4R. PICKWORTI{: I don't know. haven't di:.:cu:.;',:cd it at the CCPC. MR. MERRILL: None of these. CIIAIP,~.~AN HASSE: Thank you, ;,Ir. Pickworth. VICE-CflAIRMAI.? VOI, PE: haven't: been discussed? ay; a y. not been? I don't think so. These arc: all new issues that CHAIR~.~AN IfASSE: Al! rigi;t. COMt4ISSiONEE SHANAHAN: Hey, Don, before you get Did you rccon~mcnd tl~at we reconsider Debbie Orshefsky's 3.2.g langu~:~.]e -- MR. ?ICK;'iO~T!~: Yes, sir. C@I',?IISSiKER SHAI:AI{AN: To replace our language with? ?iR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir. (?O.tqY. I S S ! CNI]R SIIANAHAN: Okay. Yes sir Mr. Olliff. Mr. Chairing, n, following Mr. Varnadoe is :H{. PICI,,',ORTh: CI!AI E!.iAI,i iIASSE: t'~ OLLIFF: 00367 362 Dudley Goodt ¢:tte. C~]AIR,~.[AI'I I{ASSE: '.v.R. VARNADOE: cf Stanley'$ time. CHAIRNAN I{ASSE: MR. VANNADOE: Hr. Varnadoe. Hr. Chairman, wc want to use the rest Come on, will you? To get back to the question that we did not c3ct onswcred because your attorney started asking quc[,tiens al)out tko Growt~ ~!ana~ement Plan, which I thought riley understood. CHAI~[,~AN HASSE: Use the mikc, Hr. Varnadoe, please. ~[R. VANNADOE: Where is. And I i~avc re,viewed t~o settlement agreement. Sett!er::ent agrccr, ent doc~; i~ot change the policies to whic]~ I references, and they still say that there's two ways to get a building permit. One, if the facilities are in place or, the second, tko building pcr~it is issued subject to the condition that devolop~r;,'2nt occl;r[;. COHHISSIONER S~ANA[[AN: That being the case, why dc~]'t wc ado[_:t their recommended 8.3.1 to be consistent? PR. ~ERRILL: !'ye got -- if ~.~r. Varnadoe would have O0 gS 363 9ivcn us little bit of time, we have some language that we would bc propose. btIl. VARMADOE: MR. ?'tERF, ILL: Okay. To }se used at 8.3.1.1, but we're still woI ~l~]g on so~]~e other language. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: workin.q on, Mr..~crrill? ~E. }}EREILL: Yes. VICE-CIIAIRMAN VOLPE: Mk. VARNADOE: C]:a i rmap.. trust? picase. The laBguage you've been Okay. Then I'll start using my time now, Mr. COi.'iISSIONER SHAt']AHAt!: We have settled that issue, I C[[AIRMAN ItASSE: Figure that out. You put it in tl~¢-:re in four minutes, Mr. Varnadoe, VICE-CftAiRMAN VOLPE: into thc r,icrol',i:one, [:lease. }'R. VAR::ADOE: Certainly. VICE-Cf[AIRMAN VOLPE: MP,. VA,XNAr)OE: 1}~k yOU. I'll try tO go on. CHAIR[IAI'. HASSE: I'm afraid we w~ll. [!r. Varnadoe, would you speak How about that? Thank you. 00869 364 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Wondcrful. !.!R. VARNADOE: The ASI's, a couple general comments before I get to specifics. The ASI's and our inability to seem to focus on what we should do there. I think part of that comes from tl~e fact that we're really taking again this narrow look at concurrency and not looking at t)~¢., cor'ri~]cr or district approaches or what other Counties or local governments have done in termc of trying to limit thc ASI's. A ccu[~lc of cour~tics on the oast coast ]lave gone to direct access ASI's. Some of the counties have gone to a graduated scal~{. And I ti]ink there are things we can do to mitigate, if you would, t]:c necessity or the extremes of any moratoria t]~at we may find necessary in tho past. I would like for us to do some z:ore work on that. As far the vested rights that we keep hearing about, you've heard enough. I'll make one more comment on that, and tkat is thnt DCA's policy on vested rights, on DRI's and on things like Marco Island, whore it's not a DRI but it's vested under the C~:apter 380 law, those rights do run with the land and they are recognized as a land use right. 003'?O 365 tkere. aoa i n. So ! ;..'ould suc.;gc.~;t to you that there's a comparison Those arc vested rights that do -- CC!.'IMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We should be consistent there MR. VAP, NADOE: I would think so. Thc -- I got one suggestion I would like to pass around -- if you will help me there, Byron, I'd appreciate it -- and this is the ability on t]~cse ASI's once they are establis].ed, we don't have any way to modify them. we simply have a way to dissolve them at the end of thc year, and what we have proposed here is that a way for thc Board to modify thom provided there is a development, agreement wlucre tho dcvelo~er is going to provide a facility or ~t.n~.: a f0ci~ity for deficient rcao segment to mitigate t}:c impacts cf the proposed dev{->lopment. Kind of picking up on the langua0-e that we had previously on the rol]over of or the e>:tcn:.;ion oz renewal c.f the adequate public faci]it]cs cert]ficates. I thir, k t]]i:: wo~]d giro you a way again to have the Drivate sectcr participate with the public sector in helping us to solve our Pro])loms by Drovidin<3 the funding or actually building thc facility to offset the impacts of 0037.1 366 growt]~, which is w]~at everybody has said they want to hear today. VICE-CHAIR;,IA~ VOLPE: [Ir. Varnadoe, Mr. O!liff said tiler under our current Growth Management Plan that this is not allowed for, tkat it would require an amendment. Do you agree or disagree with that? ~}~. V~,=LADOE: I think I disagree with that. I ]~ave looked at it, but ~3robably not as much as m~],oe ~Ir. ~.~rri]]. has. But I think t}]at there's nothing in the adopted p!aD that would prohibit that. t;c do have som(~ becloud language, support language, but as you recall when we were talking about whether it t~nkes four voters' or three votes to ado!ot the Zoning Rccva]t~ation Orc]i~]a~ces or ame~odmcnts to the Comp Plan, we ~m not adopt tkat support language as part of the Cor,~prehensJvc Plan, and I don't see anything in there in our objectives an(] [.~olicics and goals that prohibit from us doin[~ this tyl~e of thing. All you're saying i[~ theft omce you have this ASI, if you can !]ct so~,e funds and you can modify the ASI to exclude t}~e guy w}~o [:rovidcd the funds to you to help solve the p rob 1 cm. 367 Gcing a little farther afield, but in the same vein, i a!-..o t~ave .~;on~c lan.c;uage that would, allo~q you, in setting the ASI, to take: a count of p,~ra].le] facilities. The same language I passed out to you at the last ~ublic hearin5~, so it's not new. I would like you to once agai~ (:ohs]der It's t~e same tyt~e of apl)roach, al. lowing a corridor tyL:~e aLG~roach !>rovided t]~at the development is asking to Go forward, a~ain is willing to offset their impacts on the deficient z'cac] sediment by mitiG'at, in~[ their impact through the use of ?ayme],t of ~'c;ne~, or by providing facilities. Sc it's ~;ot letting a [~uy f~o forward when there is simply a deficient road but w]~ere there is a suftable co~.'ridor or another alternative to let him, provided at the same time he's doing h]~; incremental improvement that you ]:card ~.[r. Plu~mer ts!k about on tho deficient road segment. VICE-C!{AI[~.~AN VOLP[]: Sec, I thin]< all of this may be o little -- I t~,i~]k [,~r. Snundcrs h~]s made the suggcstion t];at r:,nybc at t]~i[-, ]~articul~r ~,cint in time -- here we are, it's Slimiest two O'C1OC]<. T];~-,:,~. ar~' n(~w ~rol'~o:~alr,,, nnc] they're probably -- these c:rc ~.,robably some of thc more significant aspects of 003'73 368 this particular legislation. MR VAENADOE: You mean the~. are new proposals like ~..r. ke .... let s made tonight? V I CE--CHAII',MA}! VOL PF,: I was suggesting at Is that what you're saying? No, i didn't. That's not what The only !~oint I was trying to make, Mr. Varnadoe, is t:ha t -- PR. VARNADOE: I will suggest to you I did pass these out to you at thc ]asr hearing. They're not new at all. You've had them two weeks. ViCF.-CHAIIUqAN VOi. PE: i'm not being critical. CHAIRMAN [,A~.,~E: t,{r. Varnadoe. V!CE-Ci{A!IU.IAN VOLPE: The point l'm trying to make is I don't know if you realistically expect that we are somehow going tc incorporate these rather significant changes into this ordinance, at this late ]}our? I think thc suggestions [:hat Mr. Saunders had made -- I thought the ~-:uggestion was that if we could, we could workshop this. I mean, it's a very important aspect of this I just -- I mcan, I don't know how the others feel in terms of how we can absorb this and give our staff an 003'74 369 adequate ti:~c to look at it, to evaluate it, and to make 5;R. VAF, NADOE: I don't know how much time your staff needs. As I ~;eid, I passed -- VICE-C[IAII~,]AN VOI. PE: llow m~ch time t'~ave you had? [qR. VAI~NADOE: At the last public hearing. I've had t}qe ordinance the same -- less than they have because I didn't write it. But I've been working on it, and you l~ad thcsc at tho last public hearing. We talked about them bofore. I don't know where you want me to initiate this discussio~ but these public hearings, Mr. Volpe. I mean I don't have any otlqer forum to 6o that. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I think this is the appropriate forum. I'm just suggesting that -- 1,'.[~. VAI',[;ADOE: I dc it, ar]C you say let's do~'t act o~ it bec,quse wc }..aven't had a chance to study them. CI[AIR?~;,,N I[ASSE: Let's set this aside now. Nr. Varr',adoc, I think your time it up. Would you come forward. ~.]R. OLI, IFF: No. He's sti!] got about ten seconds. 008'75 370 MR. V;,P,I.IADOE: Thank you. CHAIDNAN HASSE: MR. GOODI.,F, TTE: Have ! {sot some more time? ~']0. tie relinquished it to me. CHAIRP, AN }{Af]SE: Don't start. COt2qI$SIONEP St{AI~A}{AN: Less that ten seconds. CHAIF.:'iAN HASSE: What do we Uet, two minutes the second time around? Four minutes. !'4R. GOODLETTE: Mr. Ckairman, this ls the first time on this ordinance. Really. I won't even take my four minutes. I want to cot:intent on a couple of things. I think ~,~r. Ecynolds h~d offered some language before on ~.2.1.1, that 6ir. Pickworth was talking about before, and I don't know whether that got circulated or not. But if -- and I don't know whether Nr. Merrill had a chance, to sec it. The language on 8.2.1.1 that Mr. Reynolds provided cz~rl i¢.r. i:P,. GOODI,ETTE: and stipula tion~-~. I don't know wl~ich one it is. Ts 1 ]: ~ n g ' ,~out development conditions 00376 371 MR. MERRILL: Let us find it. Just a second. C~AIRMAN HASSE: If you people would stop circulating things a little bit, I'd be able to know where it --- as Mr. Voile wa.'; :';aying, you know, we're trying to catch up with you fellows. MR. GOODI, ETTE: VICE-CHAIEMAN VOLPE: Coo~]lctte? NR. GOODLETTE: Maybe while Bill's looking at that -- Is this 8.2.1.1, Mr. That's correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: That's the one. COM.'.~ISSIONER SHANAHAN: Got it. i,;R. GOODLETTE: And I think that the language -- I w(~uld just cffer that to you. I think that that takes care of that problem, or certainly addresses it, and speaks to exactly what ccnditions thc DRI -- VICE-C}~AIRMAN VOLPE: Now, that's the same point that Mr. Pickworth spoke to and several other speakers have spoken to. Y,~,. GOODI,F. TTE: But that language was not in [rant of .Vcu at that time when they spoke to you about it, Mr. Volpe. T~:.e other comment I wanted to make just generally 00377 372 about the vc[:ting issue that every -- the last several speakers have spoken to. I just ,,,'ant to raise one issue with you, and that is that i ~3o thini< t]~e vest. incj should run with the land in this Adequate. ?ublic Facilities Ordinance, and I think it's an important, reason that Kev~n Hale pointed out to you. He can:e to you and he said that he is the lender of money and Jf it ~.!ocsn't run ~v~t}~ the land, ],e's not going to loan money. So ~,~]iat you're talk -- we've bad a lot of talk about moratoria this evening or moratoriums this evenin.c.7. Most of it has been directed at you and asking you, please, we bc:]ccc:h you, urge you, don't pass a moratorium. Well, ,,.;hat I'm suggestinf3 is by having the concurrency ordinance that doesn't run with the land, you're ge/nc to create a de facto mor~toria because lenders aren't ocing to loa;] money. runs with the 1-~:.nc~. It does run with the land. We have it in there. It run.~ ~,;ith whatever per~;~it is issued. ~,:R GOO[ Florida comanon law -- Concurrency But by applying the standard of .:i 373 blR. ~,iERRI I,L: I[R. GOODLETTE: HR. MEP, RIL[,: ~,II.i. GOODLETTE: addressing. Z~R. ',~EP, RILI.: NR. GOODLETTE: ~E. ~ENRILL: Nil. GOODLNTTE: it's an important one. You're talking about vested rights. That's correct. Different from concurrency. q'hat'~-o the .point that I was All right. Okay. 8.2.8. I'm sorry. I ' m sorry. And that was the issue, and I think And, fJ. nally, I have already provided language to Herri]i on 8.3.1.1, which was the discussion Mr. Hole and l'."r. Varnadoe were having a few minutes ago, and I think Bill l~.~s had a chance to review it and he can offer or he and the staff ca;~ offer tl]oir comments to you. That's all I have, Hr. Chairman. CI{A!RI'tAN }IASSt.:: T]~ank you. ilk. ()I.,I,I FF: GaoL'go ~,':ilson. turn in si ids. CI!AIRHAti HASSE: P)N. OLLIFF: ,'.'Ir. Cl:aJ. rK'~an, Ken Rc:Jley, followed by And i t~avo'~-~,:tc~ a couple of other speakers They what? I've had a couple other speakers turn in' 003'79 .} 374 slips. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: after one. CONMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Ycu can't take any more slips They're going to go into Ft. Myers and bus in the second shift. CHAIRI~AN lfASSE: Go ahead. ~,',R. RF. ILF, Y: F.y name is l<~n Reiley. Good mc:r.r~i:~g, Commissionor~,. CIIAIRF,;,.~ [~ASS}.',: What's good about iL? ~R. REILEY: }~y comments tonight do not necessarily rel~resent thc opinions of thc committees or associations Ll:at i'm invo].vcd with. T]~ey're persona] obscrvaticns, having been involved with tNis planning process of the two ordinances since August. And the major problem tt~at I see that has happened here, that has caused us a considerable amount of grief in the private sector and yourself as commissicners, and I have new grown in this whole process a real appreciation for thc jobs tNat you as commissioners face. The major problem, as I sca it, from the very !}ci~inning starte~] with Eichert (p]~onctic) and Merrill as being our c(:::::ulL~;:ts. I dc not believe that they have 375 served this county nor this Conuni~,;sion very well. From all tile way, going from the very beginning, and saying that this is thc best that we could do in August to saying that we had a number of issues that have set there, that has been dcn'onstrated all through these ccnunittecs that were not i n f o rmcd. in my opinion, they took the Monroe County ordinance and L%ut it in the word processor and made some minor changes aI]d submittcd that ordinal]cc to this Commission for their considera tion. From thet ordinance, we have been fighting for the last six months to gc.t sometl~inG- that we could live with, and I ~[o not feel that Eichert and Merrill have taken into consideration thc economic and social impact of what they h~ve gone wj.t]~ original ordinance. Ti~ank you so much. ClIAIR~';A~ IIASSE: T~:ank you, sir. Ilr. Chairman, George Wilson, followed by ME. OLL, IFF: David O'Connel]. r~.. WiLSO~,~: Ye.%. I only have a couple of quick cc~.ument.~ and a ~¢~:-~le of quick questions COMMI~ICUER~,.~ StlA~A}iAN: George? Is that GcorgcO. 0038.1 376 ViCE-CIiAIRHAN VOLPE: employees home.. HR. WILSOn,': No. about two, three hours. COFNI S S lOI:I,.]P, SHANAHAN: V I CE- CI{A I iU, iAI'~V OL PE: MR. WILSObI: Yeah. VICE-CI{AINNAN VOLPE: tcmorrow morning. come back? Or -- blR. WILSON: No, no. the rest of ti}c, survivors. CHAIRHAN ttASSE: is running. HR. WILSON: Yeah. I.:r. Wilson, you sent your They just -- they have to be up in Did you come back? Yes, you did. If you're ready to go to work George, did you leave and I've been hanging in here with Ali. right. Let's -- George's time A suggestion was made ear]ier to appoint a study. group to research thc c:<te~t and locations of the boundaries of the arc:a:~ which would be impacted by a moratorium. I just wanted to say that I agree to the wisdom of that suggestion. If the Cor:,mis's2en ncecs ,.c pull some arbitrary number 377 out of thc sir tonight, rather than a half mile or two and a half n~ilcs or t;,,o miles, I would su~3ge~;t on state highways anyway twenty foot on either side of the center road. CO~.~.~ISSIO~EE SHANAHAN: ~;enty foot? ~,iR. WILSO~i: Yeah, about twenty foot. And ba[~ically tkis is in regards to the state highways because the state has created kind o~ a no-win situation for us down here w]~erein they have mandated ![encra! moratorium regulations; at the same time, they are ~b~icatino t]]cir res~onsibilJt5- to bring the state highways up to tl~e criteria t]~at they have created, which -- you ]<now, it doesn't make any sense at all to me, and we're the [:~eople that ]~ave to live with it. T]~c Cc. unty Co~:mJ~sion has to live with it, the citJzen:~ of t]~c county have to live with it, and it's unfair te overycnc assoclated with that process. ~'.y two quick questions arc. I believe it was ~[r. Olliff that said there wa[.: a definite and finite period of time <~ssociated with :~:c~ratoriun~s. Cot;]d 5'o~1 bo sl-~ocifJc in terms of, let's say, what a ::~i:~i~u]~a or ~.a:<in,ur~ c:<pccte~] fir. itc period of time would be? Is Jr. si:.~ n]onths and twelve months or six and 378 oightccn m. ontl~s or what? [[R. LITSINGEF,: I'll -- very briefly. The. re i~ no statutory minimum or maximum. }{owever, tkerc arc so~o definite guidelines as to what is considered defc~]siblc and what is not. And maybe the county attorney would want to elaborate on tha t. ~]R. CUYLF.!.~: Tt;c ca::cs vary. It'.q not unccmn:on to ]~av(', six months or a year to two years ub:l:eld regularly. Going bcyond that, up to four and five ycsrs, ~'ou stuart to run Jt~to cases that don't allow ti:at type or length of a moratorium. [.~. W][I,SO~: ,,(, t',}~(.~, w~'. w~]~.~ 1)o looking at a mi~:imt~m of per]~0ps at six montl'~s and a maximum of four to fivo yc~:rs? Is that what? ~.J~.. CUYLEP: Thc minimum cch be very short. ~.;E. ?,'!I,Sfq~: Okay. [",R. CUYEI:: Anything tl~e ~oard wants to set up, from e couple of t.;c~.,~s to a couFle months. ~e, trouble you i~ave is, in case law, is maximums. VICE-CHAIRMA~ VOLPE: Don't we also, Mr. Cuyler -- CHAI Ei.',A~] HASSE: Okay. ()ORS,1 379 ViCE-CHAIEHAN VOLPE: But at the same time, aren't we -- dur'.it~g tl~at per[od of tl~c moratorium, aren't we obligated ~c ~," wo-~.~:..3 teward a positive solution to correct that si tue tion? ,,~,..~,: ..... HASSE: . c:;. [{P. CUYLRR: Cot'reck. VICE-CiIAIN}iAN VOl. P/;:: So I mcan, it's not ll,,c'"- we ' ve -- that there is a moratorium and then it sits there. I mean as a it:art ef t]~at, we ]]ave a obligation to move fo~ard to correct that situation. ~ik, CUYNNN: That's correct. And a lot of times, Nou'll have a morato];ium for a sot ~eriod of time; in fact, you will cure the I,ro~.>lem prior to that period of time, and that wi]l take care of thc moratorium. C~;,iRi, U,I.2 HASSIJ; All right. NR. ',~'ILSOi<: Thc other question I had was that I was told that areas impacted by a moratorium would be taken off o[ thc ta:.: rolls. !s that true? COt%liq~ We didn't hear the question, , .: I Ol;i:lP. S[!At';A}~AN: G C' 0 i' g C . F:R. UiLSOI:: Pne question is ~hat Z had heard from a couNle of sourcc[] t]~at areas that are under a moratorium are 38O either taken off the ta>: rolls or do not have to pay taxes during that time. Is that correct or is there any substantiation of tha t? VICE-CHAIRHAN VOLPE: I don't know of anything like tNat. Does anybody clse? CNAIRHAN HASSF:: No. NR. OLLIFF: No. CObI:,~ISSICNEE SAUNDERS: I don't know. NE. WILSON: Okay. Those are my questions. CO~.N.[ISSIOI,:N]{ S}[A~AH;d~: 'Phey wou!dn't, certainly, be takc~t off t]~e tax tells, would they? b:R. OLLIFF: Not to my knowledge. CHAIP, HAN }V~SSE: Okay. I think your time is up, Mr. ~';i ! son. ~:R. ~.';II, SON: I'r:', sure it i just wanted to say that on behalf of the_ survivors, I want to give you a roun(] of applause, everybody on the S ta~C-. (intc:rtu~:tien bl., applause.) HR. WILSON: You worked real hard tonight. COI{P.{ISSINOEP, S~ANA[]AI~: Thank you, George. 381 CHAI~U, IAN HASSE: We'll roll forwards. ~iR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I have David O'Connell, followed by ~he last re.qistcred speaker, Robert Duanc. CHAIRMAH }1ASSE: Boy. l;'.ight more minutes. ~R. OLLIFF: I c~ljoyed that. CHAIP,~,~A~i HASSE: Go to it. ,~'.R. O'CONNELL: Good morning. shot i~. I'll keep mine real David O'Connell here representing the W. W. Williams Company. %,:c're one of that groups that have the trucks running up and down 951 ali. day long. We've fou:]~ in thc last couple of months, since we've convcrLed our ['eoplc over to using 92 -- ~O~.~.II ~ I O;qER S}-]ANAHA~[: Right. ~'~R. O'COIq~ELL: That wc've found we've been able to give faster service with less hassles by using 92. CO~.~MISSIO~[.]~ SHA~]Ai{AN: Wit~out a doubt. ~lP,. ()'CONi;E[,[,: 'l'l~e l',eo[~lc t}~at we've talked to that are in thc trade: aren't using 92, and they're not even aware of the problem that's out thcrc. So is there a problem that they're not talking to the business people that are out there to use 92 more frequently? 00387 382 We weren't -- you know, we weren't approached that way. We found it by, you know, by using it on our own. VICE-C!fAIRHAN VOLPE: Con,missioner Shanahan, didn't W C - - ME. WILSON: }tow many other people are out there that are like us? COMMISSIONER S[{ANAHAN: Yes, we did, Mike. VICE-C~[AIRMAN VOLPE: I thought -- CONNISSIO~IER SHANAHAN: A year' ago. VICE-CHAIRNAN VOL, PE: I~o, I mcan about a year and a half ago. COMRISSIONEN S[{ANAHAN: We did. ViCE-CHAiRMAN VOLPE: ',Vc tatkcd about 92 as an alternate route and reverting truck traffic and putting weight limits on 951. CO}~4ISS!ONER SHANAHAN: Yeah. We petitioned the FDOT, and they responded back by saying we could put up all tl:o signage that it's an alternate truck route, that we would have to request moving heavy duty truck or any kind of special activity vehicle off. And so we got as far as tl:e signagc and -- VICE-CNAiRHAI~ VOLFI,:: We ran into a problem with the oosSs 383 brid~.;c, thougl:, didn't we? weight limit on that bridge? CC'.'31ISSIONER SIIANA[IAM: I',R. OLLIFF: Yeah. there some sort of a Tl~ank you. Well, the bridge needed to be VICE-CiIAIRMAN VOLPE: So that's -- CO,~[IISSIC.'iH:'.R ,qiIANAI{AU: But we did some shoring up on the bridge, I ::;igl]t add, and there's also, in the FDOT, Plans to rep]acc it. r,[R. O'COHNELL: Thank you. CHAIR~,~A~I HASSE: Did that turn red there, Tom? ~R. OLI,IFF: Yeah. i stop it when we're having disc~ssions, so that they ~ot their full four minutes. C[{AII4~.IAN HASSE: Ycu're confusing CO~.[MISSIONER SIIANAHAN: Last but not least. VICE-C}[AIRHAN VOLPE: Mr. Duane, you have the dubious ho:~or Or be]nfl -- CIIAIRMAN HASSE: cleanup hitter. hope, the last speaker. And VICE'-CIIAIRNAN VOLPE: h'.R. DUANE: For th('; record, I am Robert Duane. if ~:aticncc in a virtue, you have won it tonight. 00,389 Thc language in 8.3.2.6 in effect from the time that thc AUIR report is adopted does not allow building permits to bc issued until you put. into effect your area or your ASI arces. This, in effect, creates an ex post facto moratorium for a two-month period. I would ].iko tc relinquish my time to Mr. Varnadoe to discuss with you thc legal ramifications of this issue. CO,~!MISSIONEIq SIiANAHAI, I: ?lot him again. NR. VARNADOE: fiR. \ AI,1,ADG,'. : This is in your -- Boy, if that isn't neat. T}~is is your F, ink sheets or blue sheets or 5teen or whatever color were used tonight. And if I under.qtan~] this right, in Section 7.2 to 7.d, we move the due date for the AU!R annually from -- to ADril !. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPF,: NR. VAR?IADOE: MR. OLI, IF'F; To Hay? No. From May 1 to April 1. No. From April to May 1. VIC!i-CIi;,I}.',NAN V()LPE: I'~om Ap]-il to r'Xay. L:R. VARNADOE: I'm sorry. You're right. From -- to VICE-CUAIR}IAN VOLPE: For a change. 385 MR. VAR!qADCL: And ,~;~ move the due date for' adoption of the ASI's from P, ay 1 to June 1. So we're not goino to issue any building permits in the month of l,'~ay in Collier County from now on, so every year we're going to have a moratorium on building permits an~ we're going to do this without, i f~uess, going through the process you need to effectuate a moratorium ordinance which requires the same process. You go for a zoning ordinance and notice to all of the property owners, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I think you've ~ot a legal Drcblem here, albeit a small one, for a mc)nth each year. C~{AIT',[',A~: ~TASSE: q'ha~}: yc~u, Mr. Varnadoe. VICE-C}IAIR[,{Ai] VOLPE: I'll make a motion that we clcso the public l~earing. ;!il. OLI,IFF: Before ycu -- Hr. Chairman, before you do that, I've got one speaker who came up and said he had turned in his slip for both and would like to speak on this :,,'ell. CHAIRNAI: IiASSR: UNiDENTi FI.ED: NR. OLLIFF: l-]e wha t? Who's t]~e speaker? Jack Conroy. 0099.1 386 COM~.',I,qSiO~.][::R SI{AHA}IAi]: What: is it, Jac'k? ~:R. COMROY: I'll only take one minute. I'm not going to talk about any particular issue except for t]~e fact that the intent and l_]urpose of this ordi~ance reads t]~at we're -- t]~is is to insure that ail Ceve!cpmc:nt in Collier County be served by adequate public fac] 1 itics. The problem is that the ordinance doesn't really do that. Thc ordinar~cc [;imlply prevents developmont when i~adequate fac:i] i tics happen to e>:ist. Thc real thrust for adequate facilities happens to be in the County of Commission and it's not merely a funtion of funding because in reality we've got two conditions in Collier Ccu]~ty right now where the funding is in place. Section q'l,irty-zix and Section Eleven, which have )IST use established, two industrial Darts. T]~c: central issue w]~en we're dealing with moratoriums J.z the l~rcvision of public services, and the County Ccmz~issicn, as you folks, have the monopoly on providing the public services. So that the ordinance here is not going to be one that provides the public services. That's. uot to be on moral C(~cJs.ion on your part to actually get with it and OO392 387 get the job done. I think we nave a scandle with relation to Sections Eleven and ?h]rty-six because we've ha(] MST use in place between five and seven years, and we still haven't gotten thc activity of putting that infrastructure in place. CHAIRMAM ~{ASSE: Thank you, Mr. Conroy. I'd like to respond to one thing. In your -- in this p~rticular case, we're talking a lot about state roads. I think perhaps you should perhaps direct your remarks to the state and maybe we would get be something cooking there because it's their responsiblity and their ~.u~t. I get sort of tried of getting blamed for everything when the reads arc deficient. CO[[]<ISSICHEF. SHANAHAE: Mr. Chairman, may we close the public hearing? C}iAIRMAN HASSE: You may close it. COM~'."!SSIOTqER GOODNIGHT: I second it. C~IAiT~!.IAI~ IIASSI':i: We have a motion and a second to clo:':c t]~e i-u~b].i:~ l',eari~g. VICE-CHAIRMA[~ VOLPE: I'm just kidding. I have a question. 003D3 388 CO['[,~',ISSIOIIER SHANAHAH: VI CE- C,'{AI R~ tAI,~ VOLPE: still awake here. CI?Ai Ri,IAH HASSE: (Rc.~;ponscs of aye.) Found a question, huh. I wanted to see if everyone was All those in favor? CHAIEMA[~ HASSE: Unanimous. (Whcrc~up¢~n, the public: hearing was closed and proceedings continued as follcws:) VICE-C[[AIEHAE VOLPE: Ilow what do we do? CC,','I;,'[I£;SiO~.,;E~ S}[AHAEAH: It's cleanup time. M?,. LITSit-~GER: We have several is;sues on which we nc.e~? to reach a concession here. CHAIRMA[] HASSE: Would you speak into the mike? As I tcld you, my ears are tired no;,;. HR. LITSINGER: The first or:e I have is this, the lcncth of the certificate. The issue has been raised on the one-year certificate being a problem from the financial ccmmunity's viewpoint. Staff would offer a~ alternative of a three-year certificate. VICE-C}[AIRMAH VOLPE: What section, Mr. Litsinger? MR. LiTSINGER: Let's see. 00394 389 MR. [~ERRILL: Eight three two. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: UNIDENTIFIED: UNIDE[]TIFIED: ~.:R. MER~II.,L: CHAI RMAH liASSE: MR. LITSINGER: 8.3.2.4. CHAIF, MAN [~ASSE: Okay. COI'[~ISSiONER SHANAHAN: t}',rcc ycars? MR. ~,~EHEILI,: would do. Eight point three four. Three point two four. What is it? On page cightc¢:n and nineteen. Eight point three what? You're suggesting we go to Well, let me tell. you exactly what we Cross off the one-year in Paragraph 8.3.2.4, and put ~h~ce, paten three, ycars. ViCE-CHAIPMAN VOLPE: That's -- which it was. what it was before. MR. MERRILL: Original] y. !.~E. ].]EEF, ILL: Closs off the entire paragraph that is entitled 8.3.2.4.1, since that's also throe years, so it's just re!:,eti ticus. And renumber 8.3.2.4.2 to 8.3.2.4.1. That ' s 00395 39O VI CE- C}IAI R.~LSN VOLPE: Okay. NR. NEEEILL: And all the subscquent sections under that, and then renumber 8.3.2.4.3 to 8.3.2.4.2. One la,st change on that. On the t]~ird and fourth lines of that final photograp}~ where it says Sections 8.3.2.4.1 and 8.3.2.4.2, (:ross off the 8.3.2.4.2 and cross off the S on sections. And that should do it. NR. OLLIFF: And arc wc requiring on those, now that we're changing Jr, a three-year payment of those impact fees at t]~e time t}~at the certificate is issued? NR. LITSINGEE: Yes, we are. NR. OLI,IFF: O]:ay. b:R. LITSINGER: ! was going -- on Section 8.3.1.4, we had previously pzovic:ed for the one-year certificate that the impact fees would not be duc until the building permit was issued. With the three-year certificate, we would reco~end that we go T~ack to the estimated impact fees being due at the ti~'e thc, certificate is issued. V!CE-CI[AINHAI~ VOLPE: }!ow about the refund ~rovinion? t~a:: that changed? c~]ange. ,',!R. LITSINGER: Refund -- ~:R. OLLIFF: No. NR. LITSINGER: The refund provisions wouldn't VICE-C[{AIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. PR. OLLIFF: So in the same case where they didn't u[~e it, then they would come back and get the refund, as are a] 1 of O~:r VICE-C}!AIRMAH VOLPE: CHAI RMA~I HASSE: there on 8.3.1.47 }.IR. LITSINGER: C!{AI RMAI,; ,~.!R. LITSII'iGEF,: Okay. You leave, greater than one year in Eight three one four. What changes did you do in there? Strike that -- the payment of cstimatcd iml:act fcc with an expiration date of greater than CB. AIRHAN HASSE: i;R. ~,IERRI LL: striking? Just with an [.IR. LITSII,:GER: ~.:i~. .UERRILI,: Yes. t, wai t. ira t i on Right. Which part ar they date? T~:at porticn only. 00397 i~ ...... t[[l[n[[[[][n.[~ Inl Il .... Illl Illll Il Il Illll ............ [[[[ Il IIl[[ .................. -----I 392 Just the highlighted portion that says with an ex~r~iration date of greater than one year. VICE-CiTAIRMAN VOLPE: Just? ~'~R. [.~EEIIILL: Only that portion. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: With an expiration date of greater than or, e year. MP. I.J.,kRII,L: MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Right. VI CE-CIIAI EM, AN VOLPE: Okay. MR. Z';ERIIII, L: (]oing back to 8.3.1.1, on /,age scvo]~tcen, we }Jave attempted to accommodate the request to include a provision for conditional permits, and so you'll -- I'll toil you the language that we have in here. After -- fourth lino that says final site development [:lan or building permit. VICE-C[~AI~<MAN VOLP[.]: Hold on a second. Which sectio]~? Eigl~t point -- Z.:E. LIq'SIi,]GER: Eight three one one. 8.3.1.1. VI CE-Ct[AIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. MIl. ['iERRILL: On t}~c fcurt]~ line that start off "final site development plan c:r building permit," put a semicolon after permit and add thc long following language: OO398 393 "Provided, comma, however, con:ma, any" -- and then we're going back to the words that arc already printed -- "devclo!;mcnt orders." And then after tho word orders, we're going put the following langua~;e: "Except a final local development order." And then c:ross off from thc word "other," all the way to the next linc where it says "buJlding permit." So you're going to cross off "other than final subdivision plat, final site devclopn,ont [~]an and f~nal building permit." VICE-CHAI~[qAN VOLPE: I was just going to ask you if you'd zcad it: now. HR. NERRILL: Yeah. I'll read the whole thing when we're donu. ViCE-CHAIRNAN VOLPE: Okay. NE. ~:EP,~![,L: I've got: more. And ycu'l] leave in tnt w~ole next line where it says of that in. Go to t]~e next line where it says "the earliest to occtlr." Crc[::.: o££ starting wihh "t:he earliest to occur of 00399 394 final subdivion plat approval, final site development plan approval c:r." Cross off all the way, includin.q the word "or." And so it picks back up at "buildinc3 permit approval." And ttm~n the following language wi]]. be added at the end of it: "And provided the owner and applicant proceed at their own ri:;k and e>:prossly waive and release the county in writing from ar,,,x, and all present and future claims of vested rights and equitable estop!:ol resultin£~ from such conditional approval of actions relying thereon." A~:d tl~c.n I'll f. lo back and read the whole thing as it i~: proposed. You ready? "After thc effective date cf this ordinance, a valid unc:~pircd certificate of public facility adequacy shall be obtainc:d .'.it t!]e fi].ing for the earliest or next to occur of final subdivisJ, on plat, final site development plan or l'~uild].~.O permit, sc~.icol¢:n, provided, however, any develcpmcnt ore'ers (~>:cept a final local development order may be approved or issued proviz]cd they are expressly condJ, tio:'~ed o.,~ tile issuance of a certificate of public 00400 395 facility adequacy prior to building permit approval and provided t]~e owner and applicant proceed at their own risk and expressly waive and release the county in writing from any and all ~]:escnt and future claims of vested rights and equitable e[;toppcl resultjng from such conditional approval or actions relying tl~ereon." Period. ~,iR. LITSINGEE: On page nineteen, your blue sheet. Staff has recommended a correction, 8.3.2.6, with the striking] of thc last 13aragrap]~. it shall be -- the last building permit shall be ]~sued Dur~uaut to a certJ~ficate subject to this section. CO~ISSIONEII SHANAHAt~: Scratch it? CHAIRMAN }{ASSE: Give me that again. Section $.3.2.6, page nin(.,tecn on t:!~e blue sheet. CHAIE~IAN HASSE: I've got that. MR. LITSINGER: Strike the last sentence. NE. NEF, EILL: One point that I'd like to make on both tl~e cl~(~e that iqr. Litsinger jut~t mentioned; that is, the striking of t}~at last ~.ntc, ncc, and the provision I read for 8.3.1.1, is hi,at the county, this Board should understand that the potential consequences of that. Those ar~ conditional l~ermits, and when the developer 00401 396 oz- the c:wner Ooes in to continue to develop despite the fact that it is a conditional certificate and that -- or, excuse mc -- that it. is conditioned upon concurrency, that he may we througl~ the whole Drocess of putting in his infrastructure and f~oino all the way up to the point where l~e would be able to pull building permits in a -- for instance, in a subdivJ, sion, and that he may try -- he may attem~:L to claim these vested rights or equitable estoppel or cor:,.e to thc cet~r:ty and indicate if you don't give this to ~;~e all t. kc. sc facj].ities are going to be for naught, or that they will deteriorate or rot out, or whatever the case might be. You just need to be aware of that possibility that could exist from a practical and legal perspective. That was our original concern with conditional pern,its, i'Te're attempting to address that with the language that wc~ have here, and that's about t}~e best in this time frame t}-~at we're looking at that I thin]< we can really do. We -- I don't -- there's just a problem with doing conditional permits, and that's one of the risks that you take. VICI..]-Cf!AIRMA~,~ VOLPE: [,'.r. ~,~erri]l, are both you and 00402 397 Mr. Cuyler comf¢;rtable that ~..,¢: have p~otected ourselves in t}:at regard, that by this disclaimer language and tl~e expressed woivc in writing that we ]~ave not found ourselves unwitingly in a situation where we may find ourselves a ~.fendapt in a lawsuit as a result of that? ~.~R. MEEEILL: Ucl]., I think that it's going to protect -- I think that gives you some protection. I think that there -- and that claim can still be made. It's very difficult, as you know, for a court to say, sorry, you can't do any further even though you have put all t~esc -- you know, a n~J. llJ.(.u~ dollars worth of infrastructure i don't know wl~at else to say. :.by preference is not to put it in there, but I understand the very difficult, practical issues that the peoDle that spoke to this issue ' r)~:t. Thnrc':: not:i~ing' to be done about it. VICE-CIIA!I~MAI< VOLPE: ~ox..' does the financial coh,n,ur,.[ty f]nn~c<, l.]~c tvpc of ~l'(dt~'ct whore ~,ou'v{~ got only o conditional? COM~dlSSIONER SHANAHAN: asking for -- V ! CE- CIiAI P,[~A~] VOLPE: They don't. They're not Oh, I know that. That's what 004O3 398 I'm just wondering. I'm trying to get back into what the ] i].:cl ' c ~ !bpoe j..~ that semconc v;oul~ invest $1,000,000 based upon s, cenditic;nal ce'-'tificnte. Cn,~,,~r c,'~ ONEI?, SIIANAHAI~: crazy. They'd have to be slightly Yc.U 'vo c.]Ot kO rcE:ov.,hor there are CIiAIR'iiAi: HASSE: You're tight. I, il. i.iF. IIPILL: T}:ere arc also some very large developer.,.: in this comr.~unity t!h,,t may not necessarily rely c;n hi,at, a~d tl~c]-e n~,,-_,.y be ,,.~o~nc :'.mailer developers that don't tel!/ on that fc, r small, er projects. But it is -- it's -- these arc all difficult issues, and when you c}'.ange any of these, it has some major C O;! S eqll c Rc c .~;. Concurrency is not an easy thing to implement, by any ~C~P.S . VICE-C~IAIRNAN VOLPE: We understand that. .... · ~,..',., S}!ANAi-.'A?~: ~hcrc's also a considerable nur.~l)er c,f p]~:c~ fnr u~; to (]]'aft h}~at language, Bill, I t}~ink, that offset some of thc risks. 00404 399 NE. ."'IERt~II,L: I think so. I think a lot of the practical points that were brought up in -- I don't remember who wrote thc lctt¢:r to us, but the letter that you showed R~e . You know, a lot of those are definitely issues that need to be addressed one way or another. CO[~I[ISSIONI-iE S[{ANA[iAN: I think ur]der the circumstances, you have drafted it very we].l. VICk',-C~fAIIIF. AN VOLPE: May i ask one last questicn? ~[R. [~EERII,L: Tl-,ank you. VICE-CIIAIR~AN VOLPE: We've got conditional permits w]~en it -- or ccnditional apprcvals with a~reements. Do wc have the same kind of language -- that would be expressly provided in ti]ese agreements, as well? NR. NEREILL: With regard to development agreements? V!CE-C[[AIN[~Ap: VOLPE: Yceh. I moan, we've talked about there is anot}]er provision fer conditional ce~ ~if ~catos. k.{. LITSINGER: Within a development agreement, yes. Right. VICE-CHAIRMA~i VOLPE: ¢]isclaimcr i~:]~.~ua.qe in those? And wc would have that same 0O4O5 4OO :.;R. :,!~ERILL: t[ope£u]ly ',,'}~,,:rl your county attorney is dra£ting tl~ose specific development agreements, he'll have a little bit more time to give t)~is some thought to make sure t:}~a[. [1;(~ cc~unty is covered to the best. rqR. CUYLER: Yc.a h. C}U~I~?,IA~,[ HASSE: Another qucstion. Getting a li[tl~ bit e. waF from here. Can we move on to the other one or -- we have to call for this one: first. VICt":-CUAIRMA[i vor.,PE: ~Orc chari~os. Rig];t. We've got to got some CHAIRMAN HASSE: More changes? P'n OLLIFF: What else have we got. ME. LI~INGER: The next item I have is that we never reacl]cd a con~ ~. on,.,u[; on thc issue of whether or not there wculd be boundary criteria for ASI within the ordinance or whether wc would'leave that to each individual ASI ~!,~. LiTSINGER: MR. !;ERRII,L: And thc workshop proposal. Yes. Submitted by Mr. Saunders. 00406 401 COMI<Io,.IOLE:~ SAUNDERS: Would it be acceptable to leave tho ordinance as was l~,rcsented to us. ~'U:. l, iq ~ INGER: Yes. COME I q S ' '~ ,. ION,;,.. SAUNDERS: Whicl~ does not have tho criteria, and then we we can establish those as we proceed? i'.R. it does have criteria. dimensional boundaries. NR. LITSINGEE: Yes. VICE-Ct~AIRMAN VOLPE: That's staff's Ioconmeneatlon. Yes. I prefer-- I do say it's not -- It does not have specified Wcll, i think what we ought to work toward though if that's the way t]~c ordinance is ~:oing to be adopted at t]~is time, we ought to be osing the same method. I mean, you know, w¢:'ve heard that this is one of the more important aspects of the whole concurrency ordinance, and so I think there have been some good suggestions here. hq,.at i've Neard is that maybe v.'e need some more time to flesh it out. oo~onc, r Saunoers has said possibly worksl~.oppip.? it, and obvfous!y I think we all recoqnize that what we've got ir: not uoing to l)e perfe~.:.t, but it's a first 004 4O2 step. So I think that if we can commit ourselves to moving forward v.'itt~ the hope of tryJn¢~ to resolve that issuc. t',K. I,I .... II,GF.R: With t]le ordinance as it is, you have the. flexibility to just about do anything in that area that you wan t. That's good in some way, and Dut we do need to resolve it I~ my mind, ! Lhink it's a, you know, tremendously ir::port:a~t to got: it resolved. I know everybody else does too. MR. OLLiFF: We'll schedule that workshop shortly. COMNISSIONER SHAIqAHAN: As Quickly as possible. V!CB-C~[/,,iN~A~ VOL}?;: DC it one clay when we've got a lot of items ~n thc: ag(.nda though. Okay? CHAIRMA}I HASSE: Ycah. So we can stay there until throe o'clock. ................ n:o. Let mo clarify. .-,:ANAHAN: DO it on a blonday night. LIT,GINGER: You t]ave flcxib~!ity within the 00408 ~03 criteri0 of t)',e ordi]~ancc, to draw the boundaries as you see appropria tc. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. ~.~R. OLLIFF: What else do wo have? Ct{AI[~,IAN tIASSE: I ti)ink tl~at's it. MP.. MERRILL: On Section -- VICE-CtIAIRY, AN VOLPE: We still have a -- excuse me. MR. ~EERIr,L: E]imit]at~ng .qection 8.2.1.5 and doing thc renun'bering for that. VICE-CHAIEMAN VOLPE: Right. CUAiEMAN ~[ASSE: 8.2.1.57 I.'R. MEZDILL: Yes. Eliminating tI~at provision. CO~'IL;!SSIO[~ER SIIANAI;AN: That's out, and 8.2.1.6 becomes ~.2.1.57 CHAIK[,[Ai~ I[ASSE: I thought we already did that. VICE-C[{AIRMAN VOLPE: We had discussed it, yeah. How about t~le sug~estion that was made, a minor matter, about this liI:~itation on the vested rights to Florida ca~3e law? Is that -- I mcan, is that something that -- Mr. Cuyl er? MP. MERP. ILL: Again, that's something that is up to 004O9 404 ~"OU . 1 and. CO~'IMISSICNER SItANAHAN: Eight point two eight? MR. MERRILL: Both that an~ the running with the My only point is that if yo~ do make it run with the 1;,nd, it ~'ill broado~ t]mt critoria. VICE-C~{AIt,,~,,AI, VOLPE: I[o, no. that. I wasn't talkino about I wa,~ ju.~;t sin:ply talking about the criteria, where b]~ey were, saving about this sect/on is intended to strictly adhere and ~n'.l~lcmcnt Florida case law. And thor(, was some ~:uflf:cstion that we shouldn't be !imitimo this to tho ["lozida ca~;c, law. MR. [.[EEEILL: You can go either way with that. I don't have a ~rcblcm with changing that, is that's what you ViCF-CHA!RMAN VOLPE: imNlcmcnt cxi.~:tir:g ca:~c ]aw? I,,~. LITSIL'GER: vested Should we just put like That's fine. Eight twc one seven. Criteria for O041O 405 CI{AiR~iAI$ [tASSL': Yea]l. VICE-CHAIRNAN VOLPE: Is there SOl,ne case law ..... t,kPI[,L: Implement existing. CO,.~,~ISSiCN};R S[[A~AHAN: on t]~at last one? on that. Now, what was -- where arc: we ?,'.R. LITSINGER: Eight two eight seven, in the first sentence v:e chanfTcd to ]:cad: Thi.,: section is intended to strictly adhere to anc] inplcment existing, as opposed to Florida ca~;e law. CON~IIS£:IONER .c,[-;ANAi{Ab,?: Ti~at's similar to before. OLI,!FF: f'.iEP, RILL: LITSI~:GER: Okay. Ei9ht two eight seven. Okay. t{avc wc got anything else? [-:ave you ~3ot any i have maybe a clarification. Do we need a separate motion on the resolution to set tke ap.~'lic,~ticn fees, or is that ~oin9 to be a single r.:otion? ~,iP,. CUYLER: Yes. Th~:y'l! take a separate on that. CO~L',iISSiONER SHANAL'A~;: ].'ve got one other item, I t}]Jnk v:c outQ~t to have on(: r,~ore pa.~].~; at it, and tk~t i.~; that S.2.g, t}-!at thc vestincd floc. g: with the Drc, perty.. And I think th. at tl:at's somcthino, that v:c need to consider. 00411 4O6 We've discussed it amd rediscussed it, and it would be n~y recommendation that thc Doard consider it. VICE.-CNAIR~,IAN VOLPE: Well, we've come a long way. NS' comment is t'.l~at wc didn't have a provision for vested rigl~t.~; J r~ the original draft, and I think it was the result cf some constitutional issues that were identified to us at the last hearing that we have added the provision about t}~e vested r~ghts. So v.,c have cc~o a long way. CC[~2~iSSIOHER SHANAHAN: I think there is consistency involved. I th~nk that consistcncy, as we've been pointed out here tonight several times, with the zcning regulation ordinancc and while they are different, I think that we need Lc be lcokin~ at and ccnsi~3ering ccnsistency in that area. So that would be at least scmet}:ing that I would suggest we consider. It's awfully quiet. C~tAIRN. AN }.;ASSE: What do you think, Bill? I.~N. [,II':RN ILL: Pa rdo~ I real]y think that it's your r~e'~ision c)n this one. i wisk I could makc it for you. CHAIRNAN HASSE: Nei], I'm not asking you to make the 0041 407 CO~'.~HISSIONER SHANAIIAN: Policy decision? ~.U]. ~'.IERRILL: I drafted it. There's no doubt that I drafted it as strictly as possible within directions that I tho~ght t]~at we had reccived. And I think that really the issuo i~ vd~c:tkcr Vou want it. t:o r'~n wit]] the land of w}~ether you don ' t. If it runs wit}] the lane], it broadens the vested rigl~ts or the vested properties so they that they already go into your system so there's lcss caf~acity to Give to any new development, whether that's singlc-fa~:ily, cor~ercial, v~katever. If you keep it the way it is, it narrows the vested riG]:ts. VICE-C[IAIR~A~: VOLPF:: I:~ th(:.rc an exDiration, though, on t~e vested rig]~ts as there is with some of the others, or not? N,R. ~4ERRILL: No, there ion't. V]CE-CI{;,IR~.AI] VOLP]E: So we don't even have -- ~R. ~:I2~]',ILL: Tkat's something tz'~at you -- VICE-CHAIE~1AN VOLPE: They could tie these up forcver. OO41 3 408 consider in that regard. That':". anothc:r tl~ing that you could VICE-C[tAIR[,!AN VOLPE: Maybe we could time limit them. I ,7',c~;~, with tim issue of vested rights. NR. i'.IERRILL: You're saying make it run with the land plus put it -- a time limit. CHAIRNA~ HASSE: Thc five years, Commissioner Volpe? VICE-C}~AIR;qAN VOLPE: No. I was thinking about going back to where. I mean on some of the certificates, we're talking about three years or a year or two years. I mcan otherwise what's ~oinc3 to happen is we're going to tie up that capacity for a long timc, and -- ~]R. [']ERRiLL: If you'rc doing it to make it consist(mt witi: thc Zoning Reevaluation Ordinancc, the Zooming Reevaluation Ordinance allows it to run with the land but it also l.~uts a two-year time ].imit on it. V!CE-CI;AIRI.IAN VOLPE: I could go with that, Corer, i .... ' dr.,,n~..n. If we want to do it, we'll vest it CCMIi!Sc!CNER SHf'.I;AZA~,:: Well, yc.7.h. I think that there ~;hould bc some vesting considered and approved. You ~ncw, and if there l]as to be a time 1.[mit, at least that's 00414 409 better than where we are now. CtIAIP, MAN I[ASSE: Is two years sufficient? That's ;.;hat I'm asking. CO~L"[ISSIOHER SAUNDERS: I think we have kind of resolved the problem that Ms. Orshefsky had when we referred to other law other than just Florida case law, and i think if we go back to a two-year period, then we're making the situation worse than what it was before we tried to fix it. COMMISSIONER S;1AMA[[AN: So the best thing to do is leave it alone? C()~[MISSIOb!ER ,qAUNDEp, s: way it v:as. I would say just leave it thc fine. MS Ok,..,.hEi. oL~ : I~,~e it to core, non law and you're b!R. OLLIFF: And you've made that change already. VICE-CUAIP,~,!AN VOLPE: Thank you very much. CttA I RMAL' }IAS£;E: Good. :II~. OI.,LIFF: Any other changes? VICIT.-CHAIR,~Ai.~ VOLPE: So are you saying, Or.':hefsky, no,..; that ~ndcr ti,is ¢]et¢.~rmination, you're satisfied that it is vested and that it, will in fact run :vit:h the land and it won't be time limited and it would just 004.15 410 9'o on forever? MR. OLI,IFF: Apparently, there is some conu~on case la%,,, t]-~at says tl~at, so by our c]~anging that -- VICE-CI[AIRi, U,,i.! VOLPE: Ycal~. I mean I'm not sure. I'm not sure that I'm in favor of that. MR..~,]EERILL: It cat] still go either way. It's just that t~¢:y have a larger body of ].aw to choose from, and that's tl:e point that ! think ~,',s. Orshefsky -- liS. O[~SHEFSKY: !'iR. !~EREILL: least address that. ~,:R. ~tEREILL: ~.iS. ORSI{EFSNY: That's e>:actly the point. Wants to have that opportunity to at ,I q.:at'~ right: And I dou't ]~ave a problem with that. And I t}~ink that putting a time limit on a vested ria?:t, oarticularly this type Orshef-'- - - ~,~-Y, which a property right concc]~t, you can't limit the exercise of property- right. It's not t. be same as t)~e ZI%O in that respect. V ! CE- C}~;,I p~',3~t,! VOLPE: Why. ,".IS. ORgfilft.'SI<Y: Because t}-.,e time limit on t]~c ZRO, two vcars, i thought was to claim r. ho right. I mean -- ME. ~.!EEP. ILL: No. You have to take some action on OO4 6 dll it. that I have vested rights under the ZRO. Y,R. HERRILL: And you }~ave to move on it. to -- ! don't. Right. I have to to come in and say You have UNIDENTIFIED: Commence construction. ;.:R. ;':EERILL: I think you ]]ave to commence construction or .'~om¢.~ other activities. ,o. O~S}[EF$I<Y: I think that, quite frankly, at this late ]]our we are all best set'red by keeping it to con~on law genera] ly. [,!R. MEERILL: Yes. CO,.,.,I .... IOHER S;[ANAIiA~,: did make that change. C}{AI IIi<AN [[ASSE: i4S. ©RSHEFSKY: Where: is that thing? Yeah. That would be fine. And a time limit, I think is just completely contrary to where we were going with tl]i.q. COM:.i! C'~l ,.~._ ON]r:R r. ,~, ,c ~AO,',DELj: Pnat's what Mr. Merrill is al'lo fcc -- " - or;h.cnujnf; also at t]~is point, wi ah the reference to MS. ORSHEFSKY: And then we'll work it out on a ca [:e-by-ca be basis. 0041 4 12 CHA.!RMAN HASSE: does i t? That doesn't mean unlimited time, VICE-C~AiR[[AN VOLPE: It's going to be determined on a case-by-case, basis. I'm inclined to thin]: that if we're trving to (;o co~sintencv, th,~t we ought to -- you know, if the whole ccncept was to carry -- the arguments were that were talki:~g about zoning reevaluation, we're tying up capacity for new people who are coming in, who are ready to build, who want to build, and there is a certain ].imited ~:umbcr of these certificates that are available and we have got it -- we're trying do equity ]~ere and fairness. And it just seems to me that the point that Mr. ~'<errj.]] ]:a~ made is that you're taking t]'~ese -- we've set aside some fc.r single-family residences. I just -- I have a problem with tying them up. We've ticd them up for DRI's. ~,;S. OESHEFSKY: Mr. Volpe, my client has tied up $30,000,000 in land. Thau, in itself, should not require him to have tc build out a two thousand unit project in two years. It's out $30,000,000 in the ground. That's why I'm going to make my ca.~e to the hearing officer. And let's do t]~at on a case-by-case basis. 004 ,! 413 But don't tell me ! have to build out two thousand units in t~.,,o .%'ears. You can't do it. V!CE-Ct{AIi.I~.~A~.: VOLPE: I didn't realize we were talking about a specific client here. CHAIR[qA~; HASSE: I didn't realize that either. VICE-C~AIR[,~AN VOLPE: I didn't realize. ~qR. ~4~',RRILL: I didn't realize we were going; to be here this !ate. VICE-C[[;.,IRf,~AN VOLPE: I n,ea~ I thought we were about, you knew, generolly how we're dealing with capacity. ~{cw m~y u~,its does your client have? ~[S. ORS~[i.:FSKY: '~'o thousand. VICE-CHAIR~,~AN VOLPE: ~'o thousand. ~-IS. ORSHEFSKY: He's built five hundred. CO~C;ISSIC~]ER SAU~DFR~;: Let ' s don' t get into a dioct:ssJon. CO~[ISSICNER SHANAHA~:: That's fifteen hundred, then. )IR. OI,LIFF: Are thcre any other :~,anges? Dill? Stan? ~,~R. LITSINGER: Pardon? MR. OI,LIFF: Are there any other changes? 00419 414 ~IR. LITSiNGEE: That's all we have. MR. IiERRILL: That's it. CHAIR;,IAL' f{ASSI.]: !h~ve you got it a].l down? O~'.kISSIONER SHANAHAN: Wller-o are we? CHAI~HAN HASSE: I can't hear. VICE-C[{AIRMAN VOLPE: What is your recommendation as to thc time limit? I moan I don't -- MR. MERRILL: I ~,]uess at this point I would leave it a,n iL is. l~ut so tll~-:t you understand, with the existing -- chan.qin~,~ Florida to c>:i,qting. And ycu should understand, L}~ou~.~,h, t]'~at t}lat wo~ld bu t}:¢..'~] vested and there's not a time limit on it. CHAI2~',AN HASSE: So it could be ten ~":f~. ,"H':EP, ILL: UhIhuh. -,,,~R?.~AN HASSE: Twenty years? ?'R ', · OLLIFF: Yes. years? C}{AIR/.iA!: .UASSE: V/hat }lave we done? ?.IS. ORSHt':FSKY: So you fecl a littl:~ bit better tonight. Mr. Farquhar has in¢]icatc to me that the time ]iT:itation in hhe ve.~_;ted zig.ht,~; and ZR© i:; to commence son}cthin£~ ui:der the vested development. Is t}~at in fact is to cor~mence a portion of a two 004 ¢ 415 thousand unit project, then I don't have a problem with it because if I at least pull one building permit within that two year [,cried -- ~', · eLl,IF[.': That's- not ~,hat it '.,IS. OIS!-~EFS,,y: I can get .~;emething out m i l 1 i on. of my thirty yC~ rs, But if you have to complete the development in two then I've got a problem. ~'~R. OL[,IFF: ?l~at's not what ii: says. commence construction, and I think it ~.IS. ORSHEFSI<Y: It's 1.1.10.2. I t says goes to ~uostantial. Unless construction is con:merm'c~ pu, r,.~ant to a final development -- ViCE-CHAII.~?,IAii VO.r.pE: Wc:'re trying to do -- i".~;. Or~S~I:'SJ~y: Within t,...'o years. VICE-CHAIR[.:AN VOLPE: You know, obviously, y'ou know, we can oclaoor this. Rciley, ,qr. [.]cIntosh. I guess we've heart1 people like Hr. We have talked about the little guy who '.','a~:ts e. building ~:ermit to build his single-family re'cidence, ancl w£'re tryinf~ to ba]an(:o that gainst your c][cnt wbc,'.q~ got two tbot~c;and units and ail those D~lI's out t:herc: that }:ave ,3et fJ. fty-eight t]]ou~.:snd tm. its and s~,y there's 6'ot to be room for just plain folk here. 0042.1 416 COk!:ILSI(,]j ,k SAUNDERS: Mu. N~'rrill's got. iL. Continues in good faith. We've got it. Mr. ,v · ~errlll's got a NE. ~,~ERRII,L: Okay. We'll add a determination of vested rights which grants an application for determination of vo..qtnc] rjr2hE.% for APF uha]] ozpirc and be ntl]] end void unle::s cor:struction is commenccd P~]r£:uant to a final development order within two years after the issuance of the determination of vostcd rights under this section and is ccntinuing in [food fait]-:. · - . O~,.?}]l:,P .... 5.: of tb.c And that would he as to any r:.ortion ,,,~t if I ,pull one building permit in my tNi~ty unit cleve!cpment, then i would have validated my vc:sted rig]:ts that I've (jotton. ME. ~qERRILL: As long ar: you continue in good faith, whit]: :::cans tkat you would Frobably have to meet some type cf more than one permit, oc:r ~,car. ,.'c OP"ili::FSKy: A:~d tilc, n would it .,CUrl with tilde land? z. "~ ,~,~,N VOLPE: How do you want it to be? ViC~-C~u~I .... CONMISSIONER ~'~ ~, , 004 2 417 HR. NERRILL: rig}It? That's on the existing case law, COI:NISSIONER SAUI,ID],',RS: Right. I~R. OIJ,IFF: HJnety-ninc percent of that. CObI?dISSIONER SIIAHAHAH: ?~r. Chairman, do we have all of those chances and corrcctions -- CNA]' ~'~' ,~.,A~ [[ASSE: Oil, ycal~. ..... *~¢~,~',,, SkANA,.z..;: ti,at we can make a mo ~ ~ on ? ~-~:'17,?? I[?',SSF,: I've got t})c.r,; all irt my mir;d. '.¢,-' ........ · S t,¢,~,~,,:A O],:ay. Do you want to just ......... : don't need to l~st them again. I think if you just refer to the c~zanged outlined by tko staff -- Okay. t,he~: you n'~ake your motion. Well, I w3'_:.ld make, a motion that wc accept thc -- go ahead, Bill. i'~r~ sorry. · '-. ~',z~l,,F:ll,L: T],at will b(2 a new section 0.2.8.8 entitled lin'itntions on vested ri%ihts for APF. CHAIRRAi~ d,.~L. Ail rig}It. You got that down. 00423 COM~ISSIO~iER f;IIANAI[A?:: a motion? ~,~ow, Mr. Chairman, do we need CHAIRMAN tIASSE: Yes. Give us the motion. ,A~.J~..,d~: That we approve the Public Adequacy Ordinance with the changes as recommended by staff ,:(.rr] ] 1. C~!AIR~;AI! HASSE: AIl those in favor. ~"e-%l~onscs of ~';ye. ) ***Ordinance Title appended*** CL~AiE[4AiI HASSE: f.~S. ORSi[EFSKY: CHAIh[.Ii.:: }{ASSE: Unanimeu:~. Would you reread them? VICE-CHAIR~AN VOLPE: CHAIIU[AN [{ASSE: Friday. --~: ~: .I SSI O;~t:'.[~ S[~AI~AHAi,~: VI CE-CnAIR~,,Ar, VOI, PE: U~;IDE~[TIFIED: Hold it. Wait a second. ~'~[~. OLLIFF: The resolution. ~.R. LITSIiq(]ER: E::cunc ~4r Chairr:~,n. You can :,!c~[ them up on Friday. S tan. I make a motion -- CO[!~,!iSSIONER SAUNDERS: On the res¢'.lution. Mr{. LIT~ihGEk: 'fl~e resolution to establish fees for certificate apF, 1 ica tio~:. CO'~'~'i'~ISSiOI']EE £;AUNDERS: So moved. OO4 419 VICE-CllAIRMAN VOLPE: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: VICE-CUA II, MAN VOLPE: So moved. So moved. Second. Wa i L. we ought tc double these fees here. going to double some of these fees. attention. I think we did. On some of these I think Ms. Orshefsky, we're You better pay COMMISSIONER SIIAI,IAHAN: hundred and twenty-five? fifty instead of a MF,. LITSi~GER: We can come back at any time to do MR. OLLIFF: CHAIRMAN HASSE: YE. LITSi[[GER: MD.. SAUr]DERS: There's a motion and second. All right. Do I have a mot/on? Motion is set up -- I make a motion we adjourn. COMH!SSIONER GOODNIGt~T: I'll second it. VICE-C[IAIRMAL' VOLPE: I make a motion on that rescl u tier]. ~ o f.; COf~:<I,~..,IOI.!ER tiANAItAN: ;';aJ t a' second. k'e have a motion and scccnd to approve the resolution. I -- CIlAIRMAN t,~ASSE: What about the resolution? ~ - II ....... IIIIIII I[-- ' ....... _ ' i~ 420 ,~IR. LITSINGER: CIIAIRMAN [{ASSE: resolution? CO~i ti SSIQI,!]::P. GOODNIGHT: COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: C[[AI R~[AN }[ASSE: NR. SAUNDERS: All in favor? Did you make a motion to approve the Already did. Ail right. We have a motion and second to approve the resolution. ***Appended*** CHAIF,'~IA~I HASSF.: And yo~ $cconclod it? UNIDENTIFIt:D: CHAIR!lAN ~iASSE: Uh-l~uh. All ti]ese,, in favor. (Res.E;onsos of aye. ) C[{AIRMAN ,qASSE: Now, wait a minute. No're finished, are we? liN. :{ERP, ILL: Yes. }:r. Chairman, on some cf these changes, thcug]], I'd ]ihe like a little bit longer than Friday. if i can give it tc you early uext week, I'd apprcicate it. The new ordinance. CHAI R!4AN HASSE: Yeah. VICE-C[[AIRMA~ VOLPE: I'd like to-- C~{AIR2I/,.[: IIASSE: I'c] like to extend my appreciation 421 to ever~,body that came here tonight. I don't know why there's so many sea ts vacant. S~anks, anyway. Thanks for our staff. VICE-CHAIR~,,~Ai,~ VOLPE: I think that the staff is to be con?li~entcd. They havc wot]led long and hard to get us to the t>oint ~,e're at. C~{AIR~:A~,; i-{ASSE: You too, Byron. !,~. OLLIFF: And to thc School Board for getting us ir, ]terc as quickly as they did. CfiAIRI'~AN f{ASSE: Do we ]]ave a motion to adjourn? CO~.ii<ISSIO~;ER S[IA~fAf{A~:: ~[ake a motion we adjourn. C}[AI R~[A~: HASSE: Second? CO~,U.~ISSIOI~JER GOODNI(~i{T: I do. All in favor? (Responses of aye.) C}~AIR['IAI~I };ASSE: Burr, did you vote on that? (Whereupon, documents tendere(l h~3 oe entered into t]'~c re(3crd were r,rovided by ~,~r. Litsinger and, at 1:45 a.~n., the mcctinf3 hearing was adjourned.) OO4 ?? March 21, 1990 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 1:45 A.M. ATTEST: "JAMES C. GILES, CLERK ~ii~i'~ These minutes approved by the Board ~:~'~ as presented ~. -: or as corrected ~i, .. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER .ITS'. .',.. CONTROL , ~',~'~ ~ ~ ~,' , .~ 0042S