Backup Documents 04/12-13/2011 Item #15
IS l:fI
RaineyJennifer
From: White, Patrick G, [PWhite@porterwright.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:07 PM
To: RaineyJennifer 15 Meeting Date. ~/3
Cc: HillerGeorgia Agenda Item #
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Bee Meeting-Blocker
Presented by Co{'(\r'V1/'E.S/ONbf.- 1~'Lu=R
Jennifer-
Thank you,
I have received the message, and merely add that although not directly invited I was asked by my client to
attend to assist in assuring the factual and procedural history of the matter were most accurately & completely
understood, which was readily and repeatedly evident from the Commissioner's statements.
And as an aside, we never understood the meeting, before, during, or after, to be in the nature of a settlement
discussion-only informational to aid in the anticipated BCC hearing on the lAMP adoption.
Best regards,
Patrick
Direct 593-2963 I Fax: 239-593-2990 I Toll Free 800-876-7962 I pwhite@porterwriaht.com
porterwright
From: RaineyJennifer rmailto:JenniferRainev(ij)collieraov,netl
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:02 PM
To: White, Patrick G,
Cc: RaineyJennifer; HillerGeorgia
Subject: fIN: Tuesday's BCC Meeting
The Commissioner asked that I send this to you.
Jennifer Rainey
Executive Aide to Board of County Commissioners
Aide to Commissioner Georgia Hiller. District #2
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite # 303
Naples, FL 34112
(239) 252-8602
(239) 252-3602 Fax
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 1:58 PM
To: KlatzkowJeff Agenda Item # .. 6 Meeting Date 'I JI..:!} II
Cc: RaineyJennifer
Subject: Re: Tuesday's BCC Meeting
Jeff: Presented by G.Of"~\CL H.\\e r
This was not a settlement meeting.
In fact, you suggested a settlement meeting as a possible next step during the course of yesterday's discussion.
t
"-_..._-~,_..' . ........._-,,--'"_.~,_..~._---
15'" , ~.~j
Further, I did not invite the people who chose to attend. My invitation was limited to Norm, Bob Mulhere,
Penny, Jerry Blocker and his reps from Phoenix. Everybody else came of their own choosing.
I invited you after I saw that Patrick decided to come.
Your interpretation of the meeting is incorrect, and I find it peculiar that you didn't even have the courtesy to
raise your incorrect conclusion with me before you sent the e-mail below to the BCC, or at any other time.
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
Cc. Klatzkow Personnel File
On Apr 7,201 I, at 11 :20 AM, "KlatzkowJeff" <JeftKlatzkow@colliergov.net> wrote:
Commissioners:
Yesterday at around noon I was called and asked to attend a meeting that was already in progress in the
Commissioner's conference room. The meeting was being chaired by Commissioner Hiller. Those in attendance
included the Blockers, their counsel Patrick White, Norm Feder, Diane Flagg, Jamie French, Bill Lorenz, Carolina
Valera, Penny Philippe. and Bob Mulhere.
As discussion unfolded, I perceived the meeting to be a settlement conference of the Blocker litigation tied into
the Immokalee Area Master Plan scheduled for the Board on Tuesday. This was the first time my Office was aware
that such a meeting was taking place. The meeting lasted until approximately 2:00.
I will be asking for Board direction at Tuesday's meeting during the communications as to
whether in the future this type of settlement discussion requires prior Board approval.
Please note that this document is a public record. It is intended to be a one way
communication. Please do not respond to this e-mail. Should you wish to discuss this issue, it
may be discussed during a publicly noticed Board meeting.
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow
County Attorney
(239) 252-8400
Under Florida l.aw, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a pubHc records
request. do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
".***."*Notice from Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP**********
This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not
read, print or forward it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank
you.
To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this message,
including attachments, is not a covered opinion as described in Treasury Department Circular 230 and therefore cannot
be relied upon to avoid any tax penalties or to support the promotion or marketing of any federal tax transaction.
********************End of Notice...*...*.*****"**...
2
- ---" -<--" --.-,-.------..-- - -"---'~-~.--
.' Agenda Item #~IS Meeting Date~' 15 t ' \
'I
D\XTA'NC
Presented by -->>., I 1& ~ 41/b (1 \\( 1--\
CONSlILTI"'C;
.&. " , ,..... .JL.
. Plannin. 'Vilualizalion
'Civil Encinec:ring I Surveyin, lot
..-- S~ ft"t1....'t::o -va ~
PROFESSIONAL PLANNING OPINION
Purpose: The purpose of this Professional Planning Opinion is to review the
historic and ongoing uses of the subject property and to provide an
expert planning opinion as to the consistency and compliance of
those uses with the Collier County Growth Management Plan
(GMP), Land Development Code (LDC), and any other applicable
County ordinances, both historically and at present.
Prepared by: Robert J. MuIhere, AICP
Vice President Planning
RWA, Inc.
Date: March 6, 2007
, A. Background ,
The subject property is located at 1101 AIachua Street, ImmokaIee Florida, The
folio numbers for the subject property are 63864680001 (Lots 6 & 7),
63864720000 (Lot 8), and 63864760002 (Lots 9 & 10) and is more particularly
described as Block 48, Newmarket Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book I, Pages
104 and 105, Public Records of Collier County Florida, The subject property is
alk/a "Shell's Trailer Park," To the west, the site is bounded by a platted public
right-of-way (ROW), an extension of Broward Street. Across this public ROW to
the west there is a Junk Yard and/or vehicle salvage operation, Aerial photos and
actual site visits reveal that there are a number of junk/salvage vehicles and other
items stored in this public ROW, presumably in conjunction with the junk
yard/salvage business, This issue was raised at the Code Enforcement Board
Hearing, in relation to the inappropriateness of the residential use adjacent to the
junk yard/salvage operation. In reality, this ~ould appear to be a code violation on
the part of the adjacent businesslIand owner, and removal of these vehicles from
the public ROW, or vacation of this unused and unnecessary portion of Broward
Street would create sufficient separation between the subject residential use and
the adjacent commercial use. Moreover, this condition has in no way been crated
by owners of the subject property, but rather by the businesslIand owner.
~12_Pfl.~~fiy"'Mm'mfu~l~km~~PINloNo''-'7.doc
'uL,lu
_,,'__u_m_'__._
".' <~._~------,
~_._4 -..-.-..-
.. lSP"' t"I'J
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 2 of2I
The subject site contains a variety of residential dwelling units, both mobile
homes and conventional "stick-built" units.
It is alleged that the present use of the property is in violation of various Sections
of Ordnance 04-41, the Collier County LDC as well as prior existing zoning
regulations. These specifics of the alleged violations are discussed in detail
throughout the balance of this report, In summary, the violations allege unlawful
and inappropriate development and residential use of Industrial zoned property
without prior Collier County zoning and Building Pennit, and purportedly
perpetuating a use that is inconsistent with the County's GMP.
I B. Historical Penpectlve I
1. Factual Iuformatlou from ProDertv ADDraiser's records aud Aerial
Pbotos
. The Properly Appraiser's records only date back to 1960. Hurricane
Donna destroyed all records prior to that time.
. The Property Appraiser's Property History Cards for the subject parcels
state that the property has been considered and appraised/taxed at a
residential rate by the Property Appraiser's Office as far back as the
existing records indicate. (Available Property History Card Copies are
attached hereto).
. Two of the non-mobile home/trailer residential structures on Lot 8 are
shown as built in 1946; aerial photographs cannot confmn that in 1953 the
property was occupied due to tree cover, In 1963 the aerial photograph
shows there were already a significant number of Structures on Lots 6,7
and 8 with lot 9 and 10 left undetermined due to tree cover.
. Property History Cards indicate that improvements to Lots 6 and 7 began
being assessed for ad valorem taxes in 1966; Lot 8 began being assessed
for improvements in 1966; the History Card for Lots 9 & 10 is incomplete
and does not list when improvements began being assessed. Additional
information from the Property History Cards indicate the following
designations, structure types, years built and various permits that were
issued:
Folio 63864680001 (Lots 6 & 7)
. R-3 (Residential) - Built 1940 +/_
. R-2 (Residential) - Built 1948 +/_
-"'~,. .~.,~"----",.
-'-'-- -'-'-~,"-
-""'-"'" '--'""''''-', .--.--...,.-.
15 "
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 3 of2l
. CG (Garage)- Built 1964
3 . R-I (Residential) - Built 1950
. CPC (car port) - Built 1968
Property History Card indicates the following permits issued for
this parcel.
+ 1963 Per, 4086 - 4/4/63
+ 1963 Per. 4087 - 4/4/63
.) 1965 Perm. #5045
.) 1966 Per. #65-177
+ 1968 Per, # 67-759 500 3/4/68
.) 1985 Per 1-85-3631 8/7/85
Folio 63864720000 (Lot 8)
. (Residential) Built 1946
. CG (Garage) 1961
. CG (Garage) 1961 (Removed from tax roll)
. R- I (Residential) Built 1946
. Trailer - Built 1956
q . Trailer - Built 1952
. R- I + (Residential) Built 1963
. ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) - Built 1985
. Trailer - Built 1950
. Trailer - Built 1948
. Trailer-Built 1956
. Trailer - Built 1955
Property History Card indicates the following permits issued for
this parcel.
.) 1965 Perm. # 5045
+ 1985 Per - 1-85-362 8-7-85
Folio 63864760002 (Lots 9 & 10)
. MH (Mobile Home) - Built in 1970 +/_
. A W (Cabana) - Built 1970 +/_
. ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) Built 1984+/-
. MH (Mobil Home) - Built 1975+/-
. Expansion (addition to mobile home) - Built 1975+/-
. ALPC (Aluminum Car Port) - Built 1970 +/_
" .~._"---,-~...-,.
.......'~-"... ."_~.m'_.._~~__.,_,"
_~.~_ _~.~__r___w"__ '''--'-'
15" t'H
j,
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion )
March 6, 2007
Page 40f21
. "ALPC (Aluminum Car Port) - Built 1970 +/_
. "MH (Mobil Home) - Built 1980 +/_
. "ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) - Built 1987 +/_
. "MH (Mobil Home) - Built 1980 +/_
. "ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) - Built 1987 +/_
. 1984 - Per, 184-0098 2/2/84
. 1991-Per.90-9126(ADD)
" Added to appraisal card in 1992
2. Clerk of Courts Ii: Community DeveloDment Ii: Environmental
Services Historic Zonlnl! MaDs.
The Clerk of Court's historic zoninl! ml\Ps for the subject property do not date
back further than 2-3-70, and indicate that at that time the property was zoned I-
IND (Industrial). This is corroborated by two historic zoning maps stored in the
Community Development &: Enviromnentai Services Department (CDES), which
also date back to 2-3-70 and 12-4-72 and indicate that the subject site's zoning
was then I(lndustrial) and I-C-3 (Commercial and Light Industrial) respectively,
An additional zoning map was discovered in CDES records which indicates a date
of 1952, and depicts C-3 (Commercial and Light Industrial) zoning on the subject
parcels, but the official adoption of this map cannot be verified, and the date may
reflect the date oflast revision of the underlying map as no known zoning
regulation was in effect in Collier County prior to 1959.
3. Historic Zonlol! Ordl.aances
Copies of the Collier County Zoning Regulations booklets dated 1959, 1961, and
1965 are attached. Additionally the Immokalee Area Zoning District Zoning
Regulations dated 1970 and relevant portions of the Immokalee Area Zoning
District Zoning Regulations 1973 are attached.
Ic. Analysis I
The subject property has contained residential structures (mobile homes and
several traditional (stick-built or concrete block) dwellings) for more than forty
years. The earliest zoning ordinance in County records dates to 1959, From 1959
through the present day, the residential uses where either expressly permitted, or
permitted as legal non-conforming uses, including alterations and repairs, as well
as replacement structures and new mobile homes. Most, if not all, of Collier
County's recorda for the year's prior to 1960 were destroyed (during and after
Hurricane Donna); however, aerial photographs, reconstructed records, and
anecdotal evidence support the existence of residential structures on the property
i
".~~___,~,_M
_ __' "m.~'..<< --.,....
.,._---_._-,--,.~--_..- --_._~
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion 1511 t"!\
March 6, 2007
Page 5 of21
.'
as far back as 1946. A 1953 aerial appears to show the site was relatively
undeveloped or vacant, but this is difficult to verify from the aerial to the tree
canopy, The 1963 aerial shows many structures present on the site. Collier
County's first comprehensive zoning ordinance was not adopted until 1959,_
although one map that was found in CDES was dated 1952 and indicates the
subject property was zoned C-3 (Commercial-Light industrial) may have been
such at that time. Clearly, based upon aerial photographs, the use of the property
for residential purposes was established prior to the adoption of that 1959
ordinance, The residential use was established lawfully prior to the zoning
changes that prohibit that use (thus the structures are lawfully pre-existing).
Moreover, since the use of this property for residential purposes, including mobile
home units, was a legal conforming use for many years, said use and all lawfully
pre-existing structures are, at present, legally nonconforming as defined in the
Collier County LDC. As such, all existing structures may remain in place and in
use (and may be repaired and maintained) subject to the provisions set forth in
Section 9.03,02 of the LDC. This being the case, there is no legal basis for any of
the alleged Code Enforcement violations.
This position is further supported by the fact that, although the use has been
ongoing since at least 1963 and there is evidence in the form of historic zoning
maps that the property has been zoned Industrial or Light Industrial since at least
1970, no violation was alleged and no "Notice of Violation" issued (related to the
use of the property) prior to 2001 (with no actual enforcement action taken) and
again in 2006. How is it that permits for repairs, maintenance and replacement
units were regularly approved by Collier County in the intervening decades? The
only logical conclusion is that it was consistently determined that such permits
could, in fact, be issued, based upon the undisputed fact that the residential use
was originally lawfully pre-existing or legal nonconforming in that it predated the
present Industrial zoning designation, and was in fact an expressly permitted use
under that designation and previous zoning designations from at least 1959
through 1976.
It is important to consider the historic zoning ahd allowable uses on the subject
property. It is also important to note that available historic zoning maps from the
Collier County Clerk of Courts office date back only to 1970, although as
previously stated, the residential use (both mobile homes and traditional stick
built) have been verified as early as 1963, and before. I have reviewed the
following historic zoning ordinances (which are attached):
. 1959 First Collier County Zoning Ordinances (Countywide, effective
February 1959)
. 1961 Countywide Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1961)
. 1970 Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance (effective October 1970)
,'-. ~ .._._---_._~^
---------
.'-_. -,--.,-...--......,--.....-. .._-~ -'_..--_.
. Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion 15 · '"~
March 6, 2007
Page 6 of21
. 1973 Relevant pages Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance (Amending 1970
ImmokaIee Area Zoning Ordinance effective May 1973)
The fact is that there are no "official" pubic records that indicate what the subject
property was zoned prior to 1970, and thus it cannot be factually ascertained what
the zoning was on the subject parcels, and thus what regulations applied and what
uses were permitted (or prohibited).
Nevertheless, reviewing the historic zoning ordinances that applied to the subject
property reveals that in each of the above, the more permissive zoning districts
allowed, as permitted uses, all of the uses permitted in the less permissive
districts. This is a then popular hierarchical structure, still in use throughout the
United States, and known as Euclidean Zoning, in reference to 1926 Supreme
Court case, City of Euclid v, Ambler Realty, In other words, if we assume that the
subject property was zoned Industrial (I) at the time of the adoption of the
County's first zoning ordinance in 1959, the I district expressly permitted any
uses permitted in the C-3 commercial district, and the C-3 district expressly
permitted any uses in the C-2 district, the C-2 district expressly permitted any
uses permitted in the C- I district, and the C- I district expressly permitted any use
permitted in the R-3 district. The R-3 district expressly permitted any use
permitted in the R-2 district, and the R-2 district expressly permitted any use
permitted in the R- I district. Therefore, all uses permitted by right in R- I through
R-3 were also permitted by right in C-l, all uses permitted by right in R-I through
R-3 and C- I were also permitted by right in C-2, all uses permitted by right in R- I
through R-3, C-l, and C-2 were also permitted by right in C-3, and so on. In this
way the I district was the most permissive district allowing all expressly permitted
uses in the I district as well as permitted uses in the R- I through R-3 and C- I
through C-3 districts.
The R-l district, in the 1959 code, allowed single family dwellings as a permitted
use and expressly prohibited the use of tents for living quarters. It should be
noted that the R-2A district expressly prohibited both tents and "trailers" from
being used as living quarters, If this prohibition 'was also desired in the R-I, R-2
or R-3 districts, the code would have expressly stated that. Therefore, residential
uses, including stick built single and multifamily, and mobile homes were
permitted on the subject property, whether it was zoned residential (R-I through
R-3), commercial (C- I through C-3), or Industrial (I), Thus, as to the subject
lands the now existing uses were then lawfully permitted.
The 1961 code, as amended in October of 1962, established an R-4 zoning
district, which expressly allowed mobile home and/or "Trailer Homes" for
residential use. In this code, the above noted procedure continues, allowing the
permitted uses from less permissive districts to also be permitted in the more
permissive districts, except that the allowance is not extend to the R-4 district.
--'---'-'
~-"'-'-'~----^"'-~' .
._......d_.-~___. _ .--"-,~._-,-'~
1~5 /
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 70f21
Nevertheless, in both the 1959 and 1961 (as amended in 1962) the codes
expressly permit in the C-I district, under permitted use Number 6, Trailer Camps
or Courts. Therefore, regardless of any restriction expressly stated or implied (by
the addition of the R-4 district) that the 1961 code (as amended in 1962) placed
upon the use of mobile homes, the use was still allowed in the C-I district and the
I district allowed all permitted uses in R-I through R-3 and C-I through C-3,
Thus, as to the subject lands the now existing uses were then permitted.
Additionally, the C-I district, under permitted use Number 2, listed a number of
expressly prohibited uses in the 1959 and 1961 codes. In 1965 the list of
prohibited uses is carried over but now includes a previously nonexistent
prohibition on "the use of house cars or mobile homes for living quarters. "
Generally however, the 1965 County-wide zoning ordinance follows a similar
procedure as previous ordinances in that the I district allows all permitted uses in
the C-3 district, and the C-3 district allows all permitted uses in the C-2 district,
C-2 allows all permitted uses in C-I, C-I allows all permitted uses in R-3, and so
on. Even ifit is assumed that the R-I through R-3 districts did not allow mobile
homes in the case of the 1965 code, and the C-I district prohibited the mobile
home use individually or generally (under permitted use Number 2), the use is
still permitted in the form of a Trailer Camp (permitted use Number 6) pursuant to
operation under regulations of the State Board of Health, which has been the case
for the subject mobile homes since at least 1986.
Finally, all of these zoning codes (1959, 1961 (as amended) and 1965 (as
amended) under the I zoning district permitted use Number 2, "Anv lawful use
that is not obnoxious or offensive by reason of the emission of odors, fumes, dust,
smoke, noise, vibration, radioactive waves, or substances, or possesses an
abnormal explosion hazard, .. Thus, as to the subject lands, the now existing uses
were then lawfully permitted before January 1970, when the Irmnokalee zoning
ordinances and regulations became effective.
As stated, in January of 1970, a zoning ordinance was adopted covering the
Irmnokalee Area (with a separate ordinance I!overing the coastal area). This
ordinance, to some degree, followed the same hierarchical structure as the
previous County-wide codes in that the most permissive districts allowed
permitted uses from the less permissive districts, but only in the case of the I and
C-I through C-3 districts. That is, the I district allowed permitted uses from the C-
I through C-3 districts. The C-3 district allowed permitted uses from the C- I and
C-2 districts, and so on. Reviewing the historic zoning maps, it is not until 1970
that we can first determine and verifY how the subject property was actually
zoned.
It appears the subject property was zoned I under the then newly adopted
regulation. In 1972, the County changed the zoning to I-C-3, Thus, it is not until
._._-,,--
~.".-.. -~.,,---_._-----.- . --'''_.",''---~'-- .
.,. . -'..---'--~. --'-~-_...-
'.
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion IS"" I-
March 6, 2007
Page 80f21
the 1970 Irnmokalee Area zoning ordinance (and subsequent 1972 amended
ordinance) that we first find that the already existing and permissible residential
use of the subject property is not a permitted use, Likewise, this is the first point
in time that the residential use became legally nonconfonning.
The currently effective LDC (Section 9,03,02), allows legal non-conforming uses
to remain in place and use until they are voluntarily removed or destroyed by any
cause, or the use is discontinued (as set forth under the applicable provision of
Section 9.03,02.). Additionally, and at the discretion of the property owner, the
LDC provides for a process to allow the nonconfonning residential structures to
be altered, expanded, or replaced. In similar fashion, previously applicable
historic zoning ordinances also allowed legally non-confonning uses to remain in
place and in use, or altered, expanded, or replaced, under the Same or similar
conditions. A detailed analysis of the non-confonning provisions of the current
and historic zoning codes is provided in Section D of this report,
Thus, it is clear that the LDC provides for a reasonable and legal remedy to
address the alleged violation, This remedy is wholly different from the remedy
that was set forth in the respective Orders of the Board, for CEB Case Numbers
2006-16, 2006- 17 and 2006- I 8, These Orders, in summary, provided two options,
the first being to rezone the property to a current zoning district that allows the
residential uses, or alternatively, to remove the violation(s). Since it is not
possible under the current GMP provisions to rezone the property to make the
residential use confonning, the CEB Order, in reality left only one option, to
remove all of the residential structures. This is obviously an unreasonable
requirement, with no basis in law since, as previously stated, due to its legal
nonconforming status, the residential use of the subject property may continue
subject to the limitations of Section 9,03.02.
ID. Noaconformitfes I
Applicable portions of the current LDC read as tallows [double-underline and
highlighting added for emphasis]:
Section 9.03,01
A, Intent, Within the zoning districts established by the WC or
amendments that may later be adopted, there may exist lots, structures
uSes of land, water and structures, and characteristics of use which were
lawful before the LDC was adonted or am,,"d~. but which would be
prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the tenns of LDC or future
amendments. It is the intent of this section to nennit ~e:
nonconfonnities .to continue until thev are v~~ariI:. ~~:~ '
removed as reoulred bv the LDC. but nQt to enc~ If s It 18
." ~-'----'-~--'- _.".-
_.".,~~ .-.".,,,,,,.
._ __~'_"~O ._~,____..'~___,,_ - -~"
15 ·
. Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion . ..
March 6, 2007
Page 9 of2I
further the intent of the LOC that the nonconformities shall not be
enlarged upon, expanded, intensified, or extended, nor be used as grounds
for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same
district.
B. Declaration. Nonconforming uses are declared by this section to be
incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved, A
nonconforming use of a structure, a nonconforming use of land or water,
or a nonconforming use of structure, land or water in combination shall
not be extended or enlarged after the effective date of the LOC or relevant
amendment thereto by attachment on a structure or premises of additional
signs intended to be seen from off the premises, or by the addition of other
uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district
involved, except as provided for within section 9.03,03 B.4,
C. Vested projects. To avoid undue hardship, nothing in the LOC shall be
deemed to require a change in the plans, construction, or designated use of
a building or property on which a building permit had been applied for
prior to the effective date of adoption of relevant amendment of the LOC,
In addition, nothing in the LOC shall be deemed to require a change in the
plans, construction, or designated use of any property for which a
development plan was lawfully required and approved prior to the
effective date of adoption of relevant amendment of the LOC, provided
that such plan shall expire two (2) years from the date of said approval, or
one (I) year from the date of adoption of the LOC, whichever shall first
occur, if no actual construction has been commenced; and thereafter, all
development shall be in accordance with the zoning regulations then in
effect. Any such approved plat or plan may be amended by approval of the
BCC, provided the degree of nonconformity with the LDC shall not be
increased.
D. Casual, temporary, or illegal use. The casual, temporary, or illegal use of
land or structures, or land and structures in combination, shall not be
sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use or to create
rights in the continuance of such use,
F, Change to conforming use requires future conformity with district
regulations, Where a structure, or structure and premises in combination,
in or on which a nonconforming use is replaced by a permitted use shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which the structure
is located, and [sic J the nonconforming use shall not thereafter be
resumed nor shall any other nonconforming use be permitted,
G, Nonconformities not involving the use of a principal structure.
Nonconfonnities not involving the use of a principal structure ,
including, but not limited to, open storage, building supplies, vehicles,
mobile homes, trailers, equipment and machinery storage, junkyard,
commercial animal yards and the like, shall be discontinued within one
,_c____~._._
, .,-_.---,'"'~.,-
.....~_.~- ..'._._--_. -,_...~"'
1~5 !
. Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 10 of21
(I) year of the effective date of the LOC or relevant amendment of the
LOC.
H. Safety of nonconformities.
1. If a nonconfonning structure or portion of a structure, or any
structure containing a nonconforming use becomes physically
unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs or maintenance, and is
declared by the duly authorized official of Collier County to be
unsafe or unlawful by reason of physical condition, it shall not
thereafter be restored, repaired, or rebuilt except in confonnity
with the regulations ofthe district in which it is located.
2. If a nonconfonning structure or portion of a structure, or any
structure containing a nonconfonning use, becomes physically
unsafe or unlawful for reasons other this lack of repairs or
maintenance, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prevent
the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of such building
or part thereof declared to be unsafe by the authorized official of
Collier County charged with the public safety; provided, however,
that where such unsafeness or unlawfulness is the result of damage
from destruction, the percentage of damage limitations set out in
section 9.03.02 F,3., as the case may be, shall apply.
Section 9,03,02 Reauirements for Continuation of Nonconformities. Where. at th~
effective date of adontiog or relevant amendment of the LOC, lawful use of lands
or waters exists which would not be oermitted under the LOC, the use mav b~
continued.. so long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided:
A, Enlargement, increase, intensification, alteration. :0 ;~
nonconfnnninQ use shaII be enlar2ed inten!itified. increaAP.rl ext
to occupy a greater area of land, structure, or water than was occupied at
the effective date of adoption or relevant amendment of the LOC, e:e;:~ a
sinille-famiJv. dun lex . or mobile home use as nmvided for within . Q
9.03.03 B.4.
C. Change .in tenancy or ownership. There m~v be a::: :=:::
OwnershlD. or mana2ement of a nonconfonnlnQ' use n _
chanlle in the nature or character of such nnnconf~~i~~ ~.
G. Repairs and maintenance, On any nonconfonning structure or portion
of a structure and on any structure containing a nonconforming use,
work may be done in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months on
ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures,
wiring, or plwnbing to an extent not exceeding twenty (20) percent of the
current assessed valuation of the structure (or of the nonconfonning
portion of the structure if a nonconforming portion of a structure is
involved), provided that the cubic content of the structure existing at the
._._--~-~..
-,,-....-.... --
.-".--'-' ..--
15 --
' ....
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 11 of21
date it becomes nonconforming shall not be increased except subject
further to the exception provided at section 9.03,03 B., herein,
H, Subdivision or structural additions, No land in nonconforming use shall
be subdivided, nor shall any structures be added on such land except for
the purposes and in a manner conforming to the regulations for the district
in which such land is located; provided, however, that subdivision may be
made which does not increase the degree of nonconformity of the use,
9.03,03 TVDe8 ofNonconformities
B. Nonconforming Structures. Where a Structure lawfully exists at the
effective date of the adoption of this ordinance or relevant amendment that
could not be built under the LDC by reason of restrictions on lot area, lot
coverage , height, yards , location on the lot ,or requirements other
than use concerning the structure ,such structure may be continued so
long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
1. No such nonconformino: structure mav be enJariZed or altered in
a wav which increaqes its nonconformitv. but anv ::.:~E ~
Dortion thereof mav be altered to decrease its :~ -;;:u:;;;;.~.
Drovided. however. that the alteration exnansion .- 1_ hi~
of nonconformimr s~nlrle:familv dwellin~s d~~~:~;; ~4:' k
hom~s shan be nennltted In accordance Wlq,. s~ 0 .03
2, Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of
a structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than
fifty (50) percent of its actual replacement cost at time of
destruction, as determined by a cost estimate submitted to the
site development review director, it shall not be reconstructed
except in conformity with provisions of the LDC,
3. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance
whatever, other than as a result of governmental action, it shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is
located after it is moved.
4. Nonconforming residential structures, which for the purpose oflhis
section shall mean detached single-family dwellings, duplexes or
mobile homes in existence at the effective date of this zoning
Code or its relevant amendment and in continuous residential use
thereafter, may be altered, expanded, or replaced upon
recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission and
approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution.
5. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions as to reconstruction, any
residential structure or structures in any residential zone district
may be rebuilt after destruction to the prior extent, height
and density of units per acre regardless of the percentage of
destruction, subject to compliance with the
applicable building code requirements in effect at the time of
~-_,,-*",_-'~-'-
_.__.,.".~.-.....-._._-_....,.-_.-
-"-"---.-.~------- ".'--.-,
IS.'.
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 12 of2I
redevelopment. In the event of such rebuilding, all setbacks and
other applicable district requirements shall be met unless
a variance therefore is obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
For the purpose of this section, a hotel, motel, or boatel shall be
considered to be a residential structure. Since the size and nature of
the alteration, expansion or replacement of such nonconforming
structures may vary widely, a site plan, and if applicable,
preliminary building plans indicating the proposed alteration,
expansion or replacement shall be presented with each petition,
Prior to granting such alteration, expansion or replacement of
a nonconforming single-family dwelling, duplex or mobile home,
the Planning Commission and the BCC shaH consider and base its
approval on the following standards and criteria:
a. The alteration ~Dan8ion_ or renlacement will not increase
the dengitv of the Darcel or lot on which tqe
nonconfonnin2 ainSlle-familv dwellinlZ . dun lex _ or,
mobile home is located:
b. The alteration exnansion or renlacement will not exceed
the buiJdinil heillht roouirements of the district most closelv
associated with the subiect nonconfonninlZ use:
c. The alteration. exn8llsion. or renlacement will not further
encroach unon any nonconfonnin2 setback;
d The alteration. exnaJ1.sion or renlacement will not decrea..c;e
or further decrease the existinlZ D~inll areas for the(
struGture:
e. The alteration. exnanRion or renlacement will not dama2e
the character or auality of the neillhbnrhood in which it is
located or hinder the Droner future develQoment of tJIQ
surroundin2 omnerties: and
f. Such alteration. exnansion. or reolacement will not nresent
a threat to the health. safety. or welfare of the communi~
or its residents.
c. Reauirements for imomvements Qr additions to nonconforminll mobile
homes.
1. Improvements or additions to nonconforming mobile
homes containing conforming uses, in the A agriculture district
only, shall be permitted if the addition or improvement complies
fully with the setback and other applicable regulations.
2. Issuance and reissuance of building permits when multiple mobile
homes are located on a single parcel of land: Where specific
zoning districts permit mobile home development and said lands
have been substantially developed prior to the effective date of the
LDC with multiple mobile homes under singular ownership
without an approved site development plan, as required by
"""---''''<'' .'<.--.
-. --.-.---. - . .,----'~---~_._,-"._"'
15 "l~
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 13 of2l
Chapter Ten of the LDC, no further building permits for the
placement or replacement of mobile homes may be obtained
except as defined below.
3. Prior to issuance of any buildinil oenni! for renlacement of a
mobile home. the omoertv owner or authorized ailent shall
orovide the County pytanaller or desilmee. or pis desi2l1.ee. with
three conies DC a scaI~~ drawinll of the subiect oarcel wbiGP
indicates:
a. Proof of blJiJdinll Dennit issuance for structure beinil
renlaced.
b. The location of the structure to be reolaced and its
relationshin to adiacent mobile homes and Darcel
boundaries.
4, Prior to issuance of a buildinll Denni! for any additional mobile
hornets). the anolicant or authorized 8flentshall obtain a site
develonment olan. consistent with Chanter 10 of the LDC. As Dart
of the SDP anolication. buildinll oennit numbers of all
existinfil mobile homes shall be submitted.
5. In no case shall the issuance or reissuance of buildinll oennits
cause the density of the subject Darcel to exceed that orovided in
the density ratinfil System. of the GMP or the Immok;alee future
land use man. excent as may be omvided in section 9.03.03 B.4. of
the LDC.
Finally, as to the allegation that mobile homes were required to have been
removed under the provisions of Section 1,8,3.5 of the LDC in effect prior to the
current LDC provisions, note that Section then read as follows:
1.8.3.5 Nonconformities not involving the use of a principal structure,
Nonconformities not involving the use of a principal structure,
including, but not limited to, open storage, building supplies,
vehicles, mobile homes, trailers, equipment and machinery
storage, junkyard, commercial animals yards and the like, shall be
discontinued within one year of the effective date of this code or
relevant amendment of this code.
This Section is simply not applicable in any way, shape or form to the case at
hand. First, the Section existed under the nonconforming structures section of the
LDC. It is the use that is alleged to be nonconforming in the subject case, not the
structures. More importantly, however, the Section is intended to deal with the
removal of nonconforming uses that do not involve principal structures. These
residential units are principal structures, The list of examples provided assumes
the listed nonconforming structures or uses are not involved in the use of a
principal structure, and therefore, there is no justification for those nonconforming
-"~"-'-'--'-"."-.~--~---- - -..-.-----,-'..' ...-...-----.', "".".--
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion 1:5'.... "',;r~
March 6, 2007
Page 14 of21
uses continuing beyond a reasonable period, which the code deems to be one year,
This Section simply does not apply in this case where the alleged nonconfonning
use is part and parcel with the principal structure. Finally, construing this section
so as to make it be applicable would have resulted in conflict with other
nonconfonning provisions of the then effective code which allows such
nonconfonning uses (and in this case the structures that house those uses) to
remain in place subject to the then applicable limitations and conditions, including
the following language which is in the present code and was contained in the then
effective code:
Nonconforming residential structures, which for the purpose of
this section shall mean detached single-family dwellings,
duplexes or mobile homes in existence at the effective date of this
zoning Code or its relevant amendment and in continuous
residential use thereafter, may be altered, expanded, or replaced
upon recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission
and approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution.
E. Specific Analysis of Notice of Violation (NOV) code citations
The Notice of Violation (NOV) and Order to Correct issued by Collier County
and dated January 23, 2006 indicates the followings:
Specifically the following violations are alleged:
1. VlolatioD of varloussectiODs of the 1970 Zonlnl! Rel!ulations of the
Immokalee Area
ReaDonse: As established herein, the residential use was in fact a lawfully pre-
existing and pennilted use for many years IUlder the 1959, 1961,
1970 and 1973 zoning ordinance, which did in fact allow for the
residential use, including the mobi1e home use. Although the use is
not presently pennilted in the "I" Industrial district, the existing
use is legal non-confonning and such Structures may remain in
place and be replaced, altered, maintained and repaired, in
accordance with the applicable provisions in the LDC governing
non-conformities. Moreover, how can a use be in violation of a
code that has been repealed and not in effect at the time of the
issuance of the NOV. The Imrnokalee Area Zoning Ordinance was
not amended, it was repealed,
2. VIoIatiol of OrdlnaDce 04-42. as ameDded (ColUer CODDtv LDC iD
effect at time of IssuaDce of NOY):
..~---.~.__.- -~_._---_..
- '- - '- "__'-'"_"""~~"-'-'----"-" -- .._,_.__..,,,~"~._-
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion 5 '",' ...
t .
. .
March 6, 2007
Page 15 of21
1.04.01 Generallv
A. The provisions of this LDC shall apply to all land, property and
development in the total unincorporated area of Collier County except as
expressly and specifically provided otherwise in this LDC, No
development shall be undertaken without prior authorization pursuant to
this LOC. Specifically, no building, structure, land or water shall hereafter
be developed, or occupied, and no building, structure, or part thereof shall
be erected, reconstructed, moved, located, or structurally altered except in
conformity with the regulations set forth herein and for the zoning district
in which it is located.
B. The regulations established in this LDC and within each zoning district
shall be minimum or maximum limitations, as the case may be, and shall
apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure, use, land or water;
except where specific provision is made in this LDC,
C. This LDC shall apply to all division of land and all subdivisions in the
total unincorporated area of Collier County, except to the extent as
expressly provided herein. It shall be unlawful for any person to create
a subdivision of, or to subdivide, or to otherwise divide, any land in the
total unincorporated area of Collier County, except in strict conformance
with the provisions of this LDC and any applicable provisions of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP).
ResDonse: The above general provisions are just that, general in nature, and
are only applicable where a violation of some other section of the
LDC has been found to have occurred. It is our position that no
violation of this specific section as alleged has occurred and that
staff did not conduct the necessary evaluation and research to even
determine whether a violation of the LDC had in fact occurred.
1.04.05 ReladonshlD to Growth Manal!:ement PI~!!
The adoption of this LDC is consistent with, compatible with and furthers the
goals, policies, objectives, land uses, and densities or intensities contained and
required in the GMP, and it implements and directly advances the goals, policies
and objectives of the GMP. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County hereby declares and affirmatively states that in the event that any land
development regulation, this LDC, or any provision hereof or amendment hereto
is not consistent with the adopted Collier County GMP, as amended, the
provisions of the Collier County GMP, as amended, shall govern any action taken
.~,_"",''''~,_._-~~-'. -,~--~--,..
---- --"~-._-,--,-~"---- --~_._._-~.",'-'-'
15 ,
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 16 of21
with regard to an application for a development order or other activity.
Furthennore, any land development regulation, this LOC, or any provision hereof
or amendment hereto shall bc interpreted, construed and implemented in such a
manner which will make it most consistent with the Collier County GMP, as
amended.
Response: Again, this is a gcneral provision that pcrtains to how the LOC
must be consistent with the GMP, Any violation of the LOC can be
found not to bc consistent with, compatible with or not to further
the goals, policies, objectives, or be consistent with the land uses,
and densities or intensities contained and/or required in the GMP,
and thus not to implement or and directly advance the goals,
policies and objectives of the GMP, but such a violation of the
GMP must be specifically stated. No such violation of the GMP
has been cited or evidence provided, We do not agree that a
violation of this section or others has occurred, and thus, thc use is
not in violation. If no violation has occurred, and the uses are
consistent with the applicable LDC provisions dealing with non-
conformities, then the use cannot be in violation of this section.
1.05.01 Paroose and Intent
F. In order to ensure that all development in unincorporated Collier County is
consistent with the Collier County GMP, it is necessary and proper to
establish a series of zoning districts to ensure that each pennitted,
accessory and conditional use is compatiblc with surrounding land uses,
served by adequate public facilities, and sensitivc to natural and coastal
resourccs, Each zoning district has its own purpose and establishes
pennitted uses, uses accessory to permitted uses, conditional uses,
dimensional standards and other land use, density and intensity regulations
and references, sign regulations, off-strcet parlc:ing and loading
regulations, landscaping regulations, and other regulations that control the
use of land in each zoning district. All development within each zoning
district shall be consistent with the purposes and regulations stated for that
zoning district in Chapter 2.
Response: Same general response as above, except to add this provision
merely authorized creation of zoning districts, etc., and that they
must be internally consistent.
2.02.01 Establlsbment or Official Zonlnl! Atlas
0, No changes of any nature shall be made in the Official Zoning Atlas or
any matter shown thereon, or in the zoning districts or regulations
'-"'--'-~" ^ ~-~.~~_.-
>'._"---'-'~'--'.~
15 I
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Pagel70f21
contained herein, except in conformity with the procedures established in
this LDC and consistent with the Collier County GMP, Any unauthorized
change of whatever kind by any person shall be considered a violation of
this IDC.
ResDonse: This section deals with the process of changes to the official
Collier County Zoning Atlas, This did not occur, and thus, this
section is not applicable and should not have been cited as a
violation, as no violation of this section has occurred, Please note,
the requirement of the Order of the Board, (CEB) Item 2. requires
a re-zoning without affording any opportunity to amend the GMP
to allow such use.
2.03.03 Industrial Zonln!! Districts
A, Industrial District "I". The purpose and intent of the industrial district "I"
is to provide lands for manufacturing, processing, storage and
warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution. Service and commercial
activities that are related to manufacturing, processing, storage and
warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution activities, as well as
commercial uses relating to automotive repair and heavy equipment sales
and repair, are also permissible in the I district. The I district corresponds
to and implements the industrial land use designation on the future land
use map of the Collier County GMP.
2.04.03 Table of Land Uses In Each Zonln!! Dlstrlg
The following tables identitY the uses that are permissible by right in each
zoning district and the uses that are allowable as conditional or accessory
uses.
2.05.01 Density Standards and Housln!! TVDes'
A. Where residential uses are allowable, the following density standards and
housing type criteria shall apply,
ResDonse: The above two sections identitY permitted uses and allowable
residential density. In the "r' district, residential use are not
permitted (except for one caretakers' residence), and thus, no
residential density allowance is identified. Again, this is accurate,
but does not consider the application of the LDC provisions as they
relate to nonconformities.
, ._"'.~'-'~'-----"~- ...,,~,___u_
- -. .~, ~,-,,~"
. ts III
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 18 of21
8.08.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
B, Violation. Whenever, by the provisions of this Code, the perfonnance of
any act is required, or the perfonnance of any act is prohibited, or
whenever any regulation or limitation is imposed on the use or
development of any land or water, or on the erection of a structure, a
failure to comply with such provisions shall constitute a violation of this
Code.
D, Liability. Any owner, tenant, or occupant of any land or structure, or part
thereof, and any architect, engineer, builder, contractor, or any other agent,
or other person, firm, or corporation, either individually or through its
agents, employees, or independent contractor, who violates the provisions
of this Code, or who participates in, assists, directs, creates, or maintains
any situation that is contrary to the requirements of this Code, shall be
held responsible for the violation and be subject to the penalties and
remedies provided herein or as otherwise provided by statute or
ordinance.
ResDonse: These sections are applicable if a violation occurs. The analysis
contained herein refutes the alleged violation, and thus these
sections would not be applicable. Regardless, they merely state
that the violation of some other section of the LDC constitutes a
violation, and thus, a violation of this section in itself is not
possible,
9.03.01 Generallv
D, Casual, temporary, or illegal use. The casual, temporary, or illegal use of
land or structures, or land and structures in combination, shall not be
sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use or to create
rlgbts 10 tbe contlnuaDce of sucb use.
,
ResDonse: This section is not properly cited and does not apply. The uses in
question, residential uses, are not casual or temporary in nature,
and as we have demonstrated herein, these uses were lawfully pre-
existing and pennitted and as such, while no longer permitted in
the current underlying I Industrial zoning on the subject property,
they are subject to the LDC provisions related to non-confonnities.
They are not illegal uses as suggested by citation of this section
without some other section of the LDC being found to exist
demonstrating such illegality.
~.._""-,-"""-------_. -,. ..._--,-._~._--,.
---." ~_._-_._,.-
: 15 .-
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 19 of2I
3. Under DescriDtion of Condition ConstitutinJl the Violation the NOV
reads:
Unlawful and inappropriate Mobile Home improvements to Industrial
zoned property in Collier County known as 1101 Alachua SI. hnmokalee,
Fla.la.k,a. lot 8, block 48, Newmarket Subd., ID# 63864720000 of Collier
Col. Record. All same industrial zoned property having had a previous "1-
C-3" zoning designation, which also prohibited placement of Mobile
Homes for dwelling use. (REF: IMMOKALEE AREA ZONING DIST.
REG'S, DATED OCT, 1970.) All same development and improvements
having taken place in direct contrast to Collier Co. land development
requirements and without prior Collier Co. Zoning and Planning review
and approval.
Response: I have not been provided nor am I aware of any professionsI
planning analysis conducted by Collier County related to these
allegations. Conversely, in preparation of this report, I have
reviewed the following: aerial photographs, Collier County
Property Appraiser, Collier County Clerk of Courts and Collier
County Community Development and Environmental Services
Division public records, including historic and presetit zoning
ordinances and zoning maps as they then applied or are currently
applicable to the subject property. Based upon this research and
analysis, and, particularly based upon the facts and opinions set
forth in this report, the allegations of violations are unfounded and
not supported by the evidence at hand. The residential use is not
illegal, but rather lawfully pre-existing and "legal" non-
conforming. As such, the use was subject to the previous non-
conforming zoning provisions as applicable, and is now subject to
the current non-conforming provisions of the LDC as applicable,
In addition, in response to the last sentence in the paragraph above,
given the fact that the county records prior to 1960 were destroyed,
and that the County's building permit records prior to 1985 for
residential uses are incomplete and spotty at best, and given the
fact that the property appraiser's records indicate that numerous
building permits were obtained for the mobile home units and the
improvements thereto, there is no factual evidence that
improvements to the site, including placement, replacement,
maintenance and repair of the mobiles homes, were done without
Collier County review and approval.
IF. Conclusion I
""_.~-"-~.~,--._--"" -.'--<
-- "~'---
, 15 I
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion V
March 6, 2007 71
Page200f21 _____
~
In conclusion, it is clear that the residential use of the subject property was the
lawfully pre-existing and is legally nonconfonning and as such, the continued use
is authorized by the LDC, with limitations on maintenance and repairs, and a 'Jt",-
prohibition on alterstion, expansion or replacement, except through the procedure ~
and conditions outlined in Sections 9.03,03,BA and 9,03.03,C,3.
Summ of Robert J. Mulhere's Related ProfessIonal Ex erlence
---
.~
---._-+--_.._,._---~--- ------
Mr, Mulhere received his undergraduate degree in 1977 (BA in Political Science)
from St. Michael's College in Winooski Park, Vermont. He received a master's
degree in 2001 (public Administration) from Florida Gulf Coast University. He
has been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1994,
and the American Planning Association since 1989,
Mr. Mulhere otTers over 18 years of professional planning experience and
community services throughout Southwest Florida. Mr. Mulhere is the former
Planning Director for Collier County Government, located in one of the fastest
growing regions in the country. He is considered a leader in his field, with
particular expertise in growth management, land planning, site development,
urban design, neighborhood planning, zoning regulations and ordinance writing,
conflict resolution, and public facilitation. During his tenure with Collier County
he was responsible for implementation of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and the Land Development Code, including the process of
amendment and or interpreting these documents.
One very significant task that fell under Mr. Mulhere purview was oversight and
management of the County's etTorts to address the requirements of a final
''noncompliance'' order from the Governor and Cabinet dealing with future
development in Collier's vast eastern lands (broadly referred to as the Eastern
Lands Study). In April of 2001 Mr. Mulhere left the employment of Collier
County and began employment with the consuIpng firm of RW A, Inc. Collier
County then hired Mr. Mulhere as its lead planning consultant charged with
completion the Final Order requirements, including analysis, development of
Growth Management Pan (GMP) Goals Objectives and Policies (GOPs), and
development of implementing land development regulations (LDRs). That
process was bifurcated into two distinct geographic areas, which were eventually
identified as the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area (RLSA). During the GMP and LOR development period
(between 2000 and 2004) Mr. Mulhere led numerous public meetings and
meetings with County statT and other consultants, culminating in the adoption of
innovative and award winning and incentive based strategies.
.__.,."_._.~-~._,,
_._.'._4....~____,,__,
..._~^~-_._..,.-
. 15 . t'jii.4
.. ~. '.
:
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 21 of21
Presently, in his capacity as Vice President of Planning Services for RWA, Inc,
Mr, MuIhere provides professional planning consultation services to a variety of
public and private sector clients on a wide variety of projects.
NAI'UISIJ20IH \",01
~..c_..__",,> ....-..---
.._.._._------~,-~.,
15 t'."u
RaineyJennifer
From: Chris Lascano [CLascano@phoenix-associates.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11 :55 AM
To: HillerGeorgia; RaineyJennifer
Cc: Randy Johns
Subject: Blocker Property
Attachments: 20110408114224635.pdf
Hello Georgia,
Randy Johns from our office asked that I send you the meeting minutes for the Immokalee eRA meeting when the
language to allow the Blockers the SIP option was removed (page 2). He asked if you could call him on his cell phone
(239-451-0040) when you are available.
Thank you,
Chris lascano
Phoenix Associates of South Florida, Inc.
2590 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Suite No. 308
Naples, Florida 34119
Ph. (239) 596-9111 x203 Fax (239) 596-2637
www.Phoenix-Associates.com
Agenda Item # tlClJ5' Meeting Date' f/ II :tI"
Presented by -1J, fl.'
1
,"-'--,- ~------,.,.- . _.._"_.~..~"'o. .. --~"-~~_.~,---
IMMQKALEE eRA IS I
Community Redevelopment Agency
irhe pl'lcetoC'l1l Home!
MINUTES
Inunokalee Local Redevelopmcnt Agency
June 16,2010
A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 8:35 A,M.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Ouorum.
Advisorv Board/EZDA Members Present:
Fred N. Thomas, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Chief Tom
Davis, Robert Halman, Edward "Ski" Olcsky and Jeffery Randall,
Advisory Board/EZDA Members Absent/Excused:
Ana Salazar, James Wall, Julio Estremera and Mike Facundo.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present,
Others Prescnt: Please see the attachcd sign in sheet.
Statf: Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie BctancoUll,
C. Adoption of Agenda,
Ms, Phillippi mlliounccd the additions to the agenda as shown below.
F.d,3 - Community Garden Committee Report
F,d.4 - Green Immokalee Committee Report
G. c, - Christie Betancourt 10 Ycar Service Award
G, d, - Letter of Support for Jackson Labs
G. e. - The Florida Planning and Zoning Association Award
Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, with the additions, Mr. Rice
seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
D. Communications.
E, Consent Agenda,
a. Approval of the Minutes,
i. CRA Meeting May 19,2010
b, Commercial Fayade Improvement Program May Monthly Report
Action: Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Randall seconded and the
Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote.
F, Old Business.
a. Master Plan and Interim LDC Updatc.
i. Master Plan Transmittal/ Adoption Hearing Schedule.
Ms, Phillippi announced that the lAMP will be heard by the BCC on June 23,
2010 at 1:00 P.M. for transmittal to DCA. A responsc from DCA is expected by
September 3, 2010,
ii, Interim LDC RepOll.
Ms, Phillippi announced that thc Interim LDC has been adopted by the BCC and
is now in effect.
Citizen Commcnts:
1. The omission of the intensity and dcnsity blending fi'om the lAMP was qucstioned. Bob
Mulhere (via confcrence call) explained that the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) had removed the language because they felt more data would be required to
justify the policy.
2. The inclusion of line (d) to Policy 6.1.7 was questioned. Bob Mulhere explained that the
line was addcd during the tinal public hearing of the CCPC at the rcqucst of a citizen.
I
~_.^~ .,. -,,~~.~-",--, - .._..~___'M'..~__~
15 ~!:-t t"~
7? S /.leU l'> ThtX L.ODb ".. ".. ;,i.
c"'I..J~~ r"Vl-\:,"'V '\ c:A=-t~
TI1l'\-T t-tn".~ ~~ 5LO 4.<...",,'rL
("(2..0.., l::>~r t-' ~ 1'-<' 0""; J+.1!;- lMM ,1) I
3. Loop Road on page 5 s questioned asking why the lAMP supports the construction of ~-
a road around Immo alee, Mr, Mulhcrc explained that the language was insettcd by the ,.:>\.
Collier County T' sportation Department and the languagc, as written, will all 9L-~ .
greater flexibili or arterial roads to be built to and from Immokalee, ;l LP \ oJ
[--;ction: Mi. Snow ode a motion to send a letter to the BCC requestin at the lAMP be vJ~';
transmitted to the I a Department of Community Affairs without line (d) in Policy 6.1.7. Mr. {..fJ"'>;JJ
Crews seconded the motion and it passed by majority vote (Mr. Thomas voted no, Mr. Randall e---t
abstained saying he did know anything about the issue),
Mr. Thomas stated that he did not believe Advisory Board members know what they are voting '(V\I-. vJ
on and provided an explanation. The Executive Director asked that all members in favor of the ~.,.J 0
motion to raise their hands. Six members raised their hands, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Randall did
oo""'" ilid, hood,. ::J *"
Liction: Mr. Randall made a motion to cut ojjjitrther discussion on the matter, Mr, Snow
seconded the motion and it passed by majority vote.
b. The Stormwater Master Plan.
Ms, Phillippi stated that the Project Manager, Brad Muckel, conducted a "Kick-
off' meeting for the $4 I 3,946 contract to get the Storm water Master Plan "shovel
ready" . Brad Muckel provided an update on the activity with the Stormwater
Master Plan.
c. County Code Enforcement Monthlv Highlights in Immokalee.
Kitchell Snow reported on the upcoming community clean up on July 17,2010 in
the Immokalee Drive area near Esperanza Place. He asked that Advisory Board
members come to the clean up to show support for the program.
d. Misc, Updates.
i. Street Banners Design Results.
Ms. Phillippi announced that the votes from the MSTU and CRA
Advisory Board have been tallied. With the exception of the iTECH and the
vegetables we now have final pictures with which to place an order. Christie
Betancourt reviewed the results.
ll, Immokalee Christmas Decoration Design Review,
The CRA Project Manager reviewed the assembled variety of Christmas
decorations for lmmokalcc. Brad discussed possibilities and cost, seeking
approval to split the costs ofthe dccorations with the MSTU,
Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to authorize the CRA to split the cost of Christmas
decorations with the MSTU up to $20,000 and to create a sub-committee to assist Mr. Muckel
with the product selection. Mr, Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
lll. Community Garden.
The Community Garden Committee under the Chairmanship of Robert
Halman met during the past week and has a rcport, It was agreed that, in
partnership with Code Enforcement, the owners would be permitted to harvest the
crop. He will not be allowed to replant because agriculture is not permitted in
areas zoned residential.
Agenda Item # IS Meeting Date __
Presented by (:I){VtM.f<),'S (0,.) Ert. If'LL6<
-
-"--'~---"~'<._~----"" ~.._~^~,-'- .-.,._~~---
15 ' f -\ '1
.' t;'~,'
. I"~
iv, Green Immokalee Committee.
Brad Muckel made a report for the Green Immokalee Committee reporting
that the committee is concentrating on re-use water and will attempt to
create incentives for construction in upcoming Committee meetings.
G. New Business,
a. CRA Advisory Board Application.
Ms, Phillippi asked the Advisory Board to find Enclosure 5, an application from
Ms, Carrie Williams for a seat on the CRA Advisory Committee, Staff asked for a motion to
accept and rccommend this applicant to the BCC/CRA for approval.
Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend Ms, Williams to the BCC/eRA, Mr.
Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
b. Advisory Committee Service Award Recipients.
Ms. Phillippi announce that at the June 22nd meeting of the BCC, three Advisory
Board members who will receive a Service Award; Fred N. Thomas, Jr. for 15 years Eva Deyo
for 5 years, and ChicI' Tom Davis for 5 years of service on the CRA Advisory Committee.
c, Christie Betancourt Service A ward for 10 years as a County Employee,
d, Letter of Support for Jackson Labs, The Advisory Board exchanged a brief
discussion, as to the type of support to send to the BCC for Jackson Labs.
Action: Mr, Rice made a motion to instruct staff to create a boiler plate leller to provide
to local businesses to ask them to offer their support for Jackson Labs. Mr. Randall seconded
the motion. The item was discussed filrther. The motion was amended to send a leller to the
BCC to notifY the BCC of the CRA AdvisOlY Committee's support of Jackson Labs, Mr, Randall
approved the amendment to his second. The motion passed by majority vote.
e. The Florida Planning and Zoning association Award.
Ms. Phillippi reported that the Immokalee CRA is the recipient of an award from
the Florida Planning and Zoning Association for the Immokalee Public Realm/Town Design and
the Form-Based Guidclines. The Executive Director travelled to Sarasota to collect the award
last Friday.
H. Citizen Comments,
I. Next Meeting July 21, 2010 at 8:30 A.M.
J. Adiournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 A,M.
3
.....~v~.._ . ~,...,'--",._,-_._-_.,',.- .u__._._~."...~._""..__
TO: 12395962637 15 I :tJ~
. .'J
MAR-31-2011 02:54 FROM: P,1'9
l..,v""- - .,
COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AND URBAN IMPROVEMENT DEPARTMENT
Site Improvement Plan Assistance Program
.4
'rne L:<illler county H6using and Urbim Iiilprovement IYepnrtment will grant up to
$200 per unit to assIst Irnmokalee mobile home park operators in completing a Sile
Improvement Plan. This program will provide park owners and/or operators with a
grant for approximately two thirds of the cost assessed by engineering linns for
preparing such plans. the Collier County Planning Department wlll require all
existing mobile home parks in the County to file n Sito Improvement Plan.
uestlon I: How do J qualifY for this grallt? Grants are available to owners and/or
operators of mobile home rental parks in the Immokalec area.
QUllStion 2: How dOlls a mobilo home park qualify for tlds grant? Tho subject
mobile horn.. pllI'k must be all exisl.i~g ilJegal or legal non-conforming rental park.
-' -
- -
Question 3: Are there allY restrict/OilS as to wI/ere the property ma)' b/l located?
The only criteria is that the property must be located within Immokalee Area.
Questlun 4: How much /norrey carr I get? Appllcanls wlll receive approximately
two thirds of the cost of the Site Xmprovemenl Plan or $200 per unit (Whichever is
less), Payment will be made directly to the finn thai completes the S.l,P.
Question 5. So what's the catcll? The catch is thM owners with densIties in excess
or whatls legally permitted may be granted Increased density if they follow lhrough
with the Sile Jrnprovement Plan and begin the required changes within IS months of
acceptance.
.
Question 6: Wl.o do 1 call if 1 have morc ,/uost/OIlS about tills pro(:ram?
Collier County Community Development Immokalee Office
Housing and Urban Improvement Department
106 S, 1 st Street
Immokalee, FL 34142
Phone (941) 657-2525 Fax (941) 657.3837
~
Agenda Item # ..15 Meeting Date ·
Presented by I.J, II~
-..~- ~c - -",-. ._"-""~--~----~_._.-
Collier Counly Communlly Redevelopment Agency 15 t J..~
IMMOKALEE eRA
I The Place 10 Coil flame I
eRA GoVt'l'uilU! )JoArd
COll1ll1issioner June21,2010
DonnA Fiatll
Chair
Commissioner RE: Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (ncc) that the
'J'olllllenniug Immokalee Al'ea Mastel' Plan (lAMP) Compl'chcnsive Plan Amendment
Commissioner be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs without
JnmcsN. Colella Iinc (d) in Policy 6.1. 7.
COllllllissioner
Fred W. Coyle Honorable Commissioncr Coletta:
Commissioner
Frank IlalO1.'l I am writing this letter to inform you of an action taken by the Imlllokalee
eRA Ad,'lso)"\" DOAl'd Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Advisory Board. As you know, the
~ Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will meet on Wednesday, June 23'd at 1 :00
State Entemrlse ZOlle
A2CI1('\' Board P.M, for the Transmitlal Hearing for the lAMP Comprehcnsive Plan Amendment.
.. ..--..,
Fred N. TholllllS, Jr. salient issue t t will no dOl!Qt be discussed is thc trcatment of cxisting and future ~
Chairman
Capl. Tom Da\'is J nes in the Immokalee eommumty as it moves forward toward
Rober' Hnhnan redevelopment. Specifically, Policy 6,1.7: Existing Mobile Homes within the
Ex-officio '- >z
InUl\Okalee Urban Area.
Jcfli-cy Randall ~
Julio Eslremera
Kitchell Snow During the Collier County Planning Commission Meeting on May 20, 2010, a line
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar was added to the lAMP to accommodate an existing mobile home park located at
Richard Rice I IO I and 1123 Alachua Street, in an area zoned industrial (please see attached Policy
Eva Dcyo 6.1.7: Existing Mobile Homes within the Iml110kalee Urban Arca),
eRA Staff At the regular monthly meeting of the lmmokalee CRA Advisory Board on June 17,
Penn)' Phillippi 2010, the Advisory Board voted 6 to 2 to recommend to the CRA Board that the
ExeClIlive Director lAMP Comprehensive Plan Amendment be transmitted to the Florida Depmtment of
239,2522310 Community Affairs without Line (d) in Policy 6.17 (Fred N, Thomas voted "no" and
Urndlcr Muckcl Jeffi'ey Randall abstained).
Project Manager
239.252,5549
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Christie ilctancQurt
Adrninislrnti\'cAssislflnl
239252.2313 SincerelY,
,); ,.
'I 'I
, II "
, . . f. ,/.
" ! ' ! Ill~' 'j ~~<:"
I / '~'O I
Penny I~'nrpPi, / / Agenda Item # .R15 Meeting Date, -thalli
Executl e Director
hmnokalee CRA Presented oy .1-1, II e.r
Collier County COlllmunity Redevelopment Agency
Ill1ll1ol{lllee
310 Alachu" Slreet
Immol<8lee, F"L 34142
'.."..'."..----..-." .,. '-..-----_.,.' , "__'''d'~>._^__..
_..",--_...~"-~~,- .-..
1:5 t. Il,~~
RaineyJennifer
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:45 PM
To: RaineyJennifer
Subject: FW: Tuesday's BCC Meeting
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:09 PM
To: FederNorman
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Bee Meeting
Norm,
That's correct - it wasn't a settlement meeting. It was intended for me to get the history of how this got into the
Immokalee Plan as it did, and to explain my position before Tuesdays meeting.
In fact, yesterday Jeff suggested we have a future settlement discussion with the BCC as a next step option, as
the first of three options he gave.
PS. I only invited Bob Mulhere and Penny. No idea who invited all the others. Any ideas?
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
On Apr 7, 201 I, at 11:46 AM, FederNorman <NOImFeder@colliergov.net> wrote:
Jeff-
Staff was asked to attend a meeting and address issues raised by the Blockers to Comm, Hiller related to an item
on the next BCC Agenda. We understood that we were attending to provide information and respond to questions.
We never assumed we were there to part1cipate in settlement discussions. Staff was surprised to find Blocker's
attorney (Patrick White) in attendance and that is why you were requested to attend the meeting,
Norman
From: OchsLeo
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11 :28 AM
To: FederNorman; CasalanguidaNick
Subject: FW: Tuesday's Bee Meeting
FYI
From: KlatzkowJeff
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:20 AM
To: eoyleFred; eolettaJim; FialaDonna; HenningTom; HillerGeorgia
Cc: OchsLeo Agenda Item #: IIJ,2"' Meeting Date .,/, a.l/l
Subject: Tuesday's Bee Meeting
1 Presented by #.iJ1t.,.
'-",--- .---' -_..._~.,-_.- M_.__,~.__..__ ~-~._"_.._-~--,,- -,-.-----."
15 I ,. ~
l>.
Commissioners:
Yesterday at around noon I was called and asked to attend a meeting that was already in progress in the
Commissioner's conference room. The meeting was being chaired by Commissioner Hiller. Those in attendance
included the Blockers. their counsel Patrick White. Norm Feder. Diane Flagg. Jamie French, Bill Lorenz, Carolina
Valera. Penny Philippe, and Bob Mulhere,
As discussion unfolded, I perceived the meeting to be a settlement conferem:e of the Blocker litigation tied into
the Immokalee Area Master Plan scheduled for the Board on Tuesday. This was the first time my Oftice was aware
that such a meeting was taking place. The meeting lasted until approximately 2:00.
I will be asking for Board direction at Tuesday's meeting during the communications as to
whether in the future this type of settlement discussion requires prior Board approval.
Please note that this document is a public record. It is intended to be a one way
communication. Please do not respond to this e-mail. Should you wish to discuss this issue, it
may be discussed during a publicly noticed Board meeting.
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow
County Attorney
(239) 252-8400
Under r:loridiJ Law. o-rtldil addl";,sses i1W pul;lic racerr"'. If you do nol \v:)n! VOLI! [;-JI\C1!11ddrc,;s rc1eased in re~,p()l1r;01Ij a public rCOJrds
request do nol "end clcclr(llllC rYi.:1I1 to thiS entity_ Irblead, contact !hi~) pfirce bv I(Jcptw,;c ur 111 wriiin\j.
2
.~._'.- -.'.-- "'_~""_~'__"__'_'_____~_"___"_'"_'M"~ -.',_.."-----
Agenda Item #: &J2" Meeting Date ' ~~
Presented by /'/,'//f' 15- I
1<=oI""'"'-...=ar....;:J. ..
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
203.07 A 5. 2 03.07 A.B.
5. Main Stree~ a.'eriey Subdistrict, Special conditions for the properties identified in the (
Immoke.lee Aree Master Plan; referenced on Map 7; and further identified by the designation \
"MSOSD' on Ihe appllcabie official Collier County Zoning Atlas Maps. The purpose of this
designation is to encourage developmeni aiid redevelopmenf6y enhancing and beautifYing
the downtown Main Street area through flexible design and development standaros,
MAIr4 STReeT OV~LA\, SUBDISTRICT
if 1 " L
.....
I : l
I
,
LL
I'
......
L~
......
....~
--
.. .~ .
... - ....:-r......
" '.-
Map 7 Main Street Overlay Sub1:Jlslrtct
6. NonconformIng Mobile Home Park Overiay Subdistrict Establishmant of special conditions
for these propertles which by virtue of actions precadlng the adoption of Ordlnanca No.
91.102, on October 30,1991, were deemed 10 be nonconforming as a result of inconsls-
tencias with the land developmenl code, and are located within the Immokalee Urban
Boundal}' as daplcled on the Immokalee Area Master Plen.
a. Purpose and intern. The purpose of these provisions is 10 recognize thaI there are (
nonconforming mobile home perks in the Immokalee Urban Area, to provide
Incenllves to upgrade these parks while requirtng the ellmlnallon of substandard
units, and to allow parl< owners to take advanlage of altemative development
supp. No.. 1 LDC2:44 II EXHIBIT I
"3"
--'-""~._---'--'----"''''''''- - '.-..~-~..__._".".,~,..,..._,. ._--'-'---~--"-'.'-'" ".--....--..-
15 I~,
. .~
ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES
2.03 07 A,6. 2.03.07 A 6.
standards In order to cause some upgrading of conditions that would normally be
required of conforming mobile home parl(s. Travel trailers, regardless of the square
footage, are not permitted as a permanent habitable structure.
b, Required sl\e Improvement plan application, The property owners of all nonconform-
ing mobile home developments/parks that were tn existence before November 13,
1991, Le., that predate Ordinance I~o. 91-102, lhe land development code, shall be
required to submit a slle Improvement plan (SIP) meeting the standards set forth
below by January 9, 2003 or thereafter wilhln the time frame set forth in an order of
the Code Enforcement Board finding a violation of this section, or by the date set forth
In a Compllance or Settlement Agreement entered Into between Collier County and
a property owner acknowledging such a violation and also establishing the dale by
which such violation will be cured through lhe SIP submittal process set forth below.
c. The slle Improvement plan (StP) master ptan shall illustrate the way existing
buildings are laid out and the Infrastructure (I.e. utilities, streets, drainage, lend-
scaplng, parking and the like) to serve those buildings. The number and locallon of
buildings shell be reviewed for consistency with Code requirements (Le. setbacks,
space between buildings, density, and the like), Similarly. the SIP shall serve to
provIde a basis for obtaining approval of required Infrastructure Improvements such
as those referanced herein. The approved SIP showing all of the above shall become
the ofticlel record acknowledging the legal use of the property. Failure 10 inll/ale Ihls
process within Ihe time frames set forth above, will resuli in a Code violation in which
the property owner will be required to immediately remove all mobile homes which
have not received a building permit and all mobile homes deemed to be unsafe and
unfit for human habitation. and otherwise contrary to the county's housing code
unless otherwise prohibited by stale law.
d. For the specific requirements conceming the SIP submission referenced in band c.
above, see Section 10.02.05 F. of this Code.
Supp. No_ 1 LDC2:44.1
'_~-----'-"-_~- ...._.- ._..~,.~"--_-.-<_.".^..- .._..,--~-,,~-
.... .- ."_._-_._---'"~_..
IS is J,
Agenda Item #' Meeting Date ,~ <
COM MISS' (Dt<JE;.(( /-..,
Presented by l..OYLc
OJ J1U
r\uber' Boyd "q:)':?,. I~J\( : t' r' " Cuur-(\, \'i8c1ICd' Dirt dn!
[)r Douqias L<>; [,/1 C'} Fh/\F:id ' i\':;~ (H.::.i;:d-':- f-}iJiiC''l1 Oir{"r;iUI
April r 2011
Board of Collier C(}unty ('ollllnis:;!{)llCrS
3299 E. Tamiami TruiL Suite 3D]
Naples. 1'1.31112
Dear Commissioners.
Recent Issues within the City l)fNaph:s have uJmpdkd me 11:) cJo;-;.~Jy examine many components ofl11e
Tiered Response Program that E\"lS has been \vorking on 1'01' years III conjunction with [:ire and EMD. ] have
reached the conclusi()j] that cCI1aln compol1l':!1ts of our Ti;:rcd Response Program arc in immediate need for
adjustment 1..11' definitive improvement. Because ortllis. [am temporarily' suspl'nding some components nfthe
ricredResponse---specillcall.y /\LPHA crilcrliJ and running colclu!11il the folJO\ving chnnges can be made that
regains both the public's confidence a:" \\cU as illY u\Vn.
I. Communications betwet.u first response agendes must he standardized. The commoll
LiJmmul1icatioll prolncols and radit) ch;:umels IlHb! he reemphasi/cd and 1110re importantly, strict1)
f(lilowcd hy nil members of' CollilT Coullty E\'vlS and tbe Fire Districts operating under the Officl; or
the Medical DirecLOf \\Ilile engagcd ill .111 kvch (\fEMS rl.:spnnse. patient assessment and treatment.
fhis inclll(k~s rhe f()1!owing:
<l. [VIS 'lAC I is It) be monitored by both Fire and E1\IS t)n all medical calls
b. \Vhomevcr arrin:s nrst on-seem: shall :UHlOlJnCe Ill.: condition of patient on E\'15 rAC 1 as
soon as a brier aSSl'sstncnl is Ill,lde so th.ll tht olher responding agency knmvs whalll1c other
has found.
c. F'adurl: I,) do this annOUllcement \vithin :2 lllillllli:.'S \,,1' arrival should prompt the other dt!cnC)
to utilizc E:\/lSr'i\C 0 I to ask '\\-h<11 has been l~)t!lld.
0 Modes of l't.'sponst' (enroute or responding) must hi' standardized. COlllnWl1 modes-of-travel
k,
protocols to-and-from the location l)t' emergellcy calls must b\:.' iJC111illcU and morc importantly,
slrictl:,-'lidlowed by al1ll1cll1b('fs of Cnllicl' (\'11111)' EMS and il1e Fire [)islriL~ts operating under thc
OfJlcC of Ihe [\.'kdical Dinx.:tuL 'nlCSC proh)cols mu::;1 Lx: specific 10 the level of the tiered response
(HI,S: i.\LS nOll-transport: ALS rmnspo!1; etL) and the acuity k\'eI of the patient (AIVHt\: BRAVO:
ClIARIIE: DElTA: ECIIO and: OMEGA), I he isslle or paliolll acuily "ppears inconsistent and we
have Ion many Glib ended as ALP1IA that turncd (Jut to be Charlics and, shortly therea1h:r Dcltu::;!
J suggest that both Fire ;md r::!'vlS immediatel> be dispatched \\It]\ lights and sirens simullnncol.l:)ly
HbH_HZL: [i\-1D questioning is completed. As additional inhmllation is (l.:.:.quired by ErvID, r:hi.-:; can
he relayed h) re::>ponding agencies ('nnsiskllt ilnd thurnugh r')v1D Quality /-\ssurancc measures
Jlllb[ he practiced \vithin all agt~JJ(ics.
3, Call IH"OCcssing tinh.... musl hc('omc more n:....asonabk. rhe moment a caller initially COl1tacts
an: Dispatch (\.'lltcr in C.)l!icr ('<llUll)' to Ihe poim both Fire nnd [:MS are dispatched to all
-- - .__m -_.._"---_.__.~-_._-_. --~,._------,~-~-
8075 L21v Cu!Lrd' f.i,y\V dr. ':lU!I:; \:,ipic- hHid;! F;\;< <<1\J-2:1 '<];:93
<--->-,---,..,-,~'<-""~.--" ._..,,,..,-, . ----- ----~.~.__....-_.......~^._---~,---~.._".,..._".-'., ..".~ ,~,_.._~--"...._-,----,--_._~".~..^-
IS t . 'lit.
emergency medica] caJ] Sh(Hild be completed within 60 s{'conds, Tit", current disparity between the
City ()f Naples :f5 seconds [jnd Collier Count,\"- i::O secnnds tHust be addressed. l.En as soon as
the dispatcbt't' KllO\YS the addrc::I" of the calL BCYlll FIHJ: <lod [~1\-IS arc lOlled and sent \-vith lights
and srn:"!1s. If the nature or the call is detLTmiiled to he of ~j minur nature, response mode can he
(11.)\\ ngradccllO enroutc rnod\.'.
". Emergency ;Vledical Dispatch (E\iD) protocols and pro('cdurcs must become standardized
and consistent. An) dispariticj tbat C:\.1St bd\V0en the City of Naples and Collier County Dispatch
Centers rnust be addressed with a l!llil~)rJll and cflicicm mClhod adopTed at both Centers. Again. it
should be emphasized thaI the City dispatch ;;y~l('rn gelS r-ire r-:ngiflcs rolling in the city ro\vards the
origin ofJ 911 (all ill nb\)uI4S seconds. EMS needs to bl.:.' rolling ill the salllC Dmount of time, EMD
can then he initiated AITIR 110 I'll SYSTIY1S ARI ROLLlNC TOWARDS THE (ALL ORICIN,
5< Street Hml community tlunmariz~Hion must be impruved by aU rcspoud('rs. -rile (\)ll1c1
Coullty Tiered Re.::;ponsc Workgroup, that COll'IS!S of l1l('mbcr:~ J'n1111 the Fire Districts, I~~rvlS, and
Dispatch Centers should identify and rc,,:onmlcIHI methods 10 dCGccast.' response times and irnpro\'c
street and COmnlUIJlly Caoliliaril,lli\HL \\'hilc [:T'vlS panUllCdil;\ lliltucally' have greater exposure to the
geography of the cntire county, k)cal nrc ilQl'IH:ies ha\\.:.' 1110rL' farnd:arity with their spt;;cific
ndgl1borhrhKI stn:ets plus thc variouei !lOOhS and crannic::, within their district. There arc c('1tainJ)-
kSSl)I\S that (,:an he shared ,Jl1ll111!2- llk' n~cJl\.:i~s
(), Advance Liff Support ALS providl'rs must aggressively ass('ss .and treat patients to the
full ('xtent of their protocol. l'he (,(,11icr ('olllll) Tit:rcd Response \Vorkgroup that consists of
members ll-mn tilL' Fire District:'!.. L\-1S, and Di,spatch ('cntcr~ should idclltify and recommend
lllctlhKlS to ill1pro\c individual practitioner's cUJlfidcllce and aptitude_ Much of Ill.\' ('mplwsis in the
past and prcscl11 iei based \)11 hand:h)n C\fh,::ricn..:c and ride rimc on ambulances to enhnnee clinical
exp,)sure, decision-making and conlidcncC'. \:Ve L'ontiuue to struggle with JC')suring that paramedics in
the fire distric!s n,;C,-'IVl: clinical ()ppnnl!nitie~ Jl1d bands-()ll c:\pcricncc. !vlany appear hesitant to
dcli\'C'"f tile most e~jcntial {l!' ALS skilb relyil11,!- 011 CC'L~;lvlS pannTlcdies to provide such treatment
7. C'()ntron,'I"Sif..~s Surrounding Lights and Sin'ns. fhcn: afC llliJll}' pecr-revlc\vcd artides tj) the
literature suggesting that all cfllcrgCJ1(:: response c\)ldd be rllIl cold with zml} a f~\\ extra minuks, at
most. added to nwst response timcs. Part of In(' supports (his notion: csp...:cially since one of the
leading CtlllSCS (If death (lnd di;:;ahility in eml:rgt'l1c) s(Tviccs is fC'lalcd to vehicle crashes. Both sides
of the coin .:an hI? strongl: argued When and if \\c re-acquire (:ol1fidencc in our coding of calls,
varying apparatus may be able t\) r~\eri to i.;uld rc:;pullsC tu J IlUmbc!' of calls: especially Alpha and
select Bravo calk For the I1h)lllenl jl()\\T'\L'r, ",or first rCSr\OJ1se out or the gate should be prompt.
simultaneous and !Jot unlil we have further in{~)j'mation ahout the nature ,)1' the call and its
seriousness.
---'-'"-~-' --"~,,,--,.'.,-,,~,-----,,"~"._- '''-'''._."..
. 15 '11
in summary, \\-c have unnecessary Jt;]ays in tl1,;; dispatchlllg or umbuhmccs and fire engines depending on the
call type or area vvithin th(' cOLlnty. J.:bis practice IUllst i.'-h,ln~~,,_~!,n!~J_qY_I,;'ryqn9_J}~'_g(j5_J9J_t9 S~I}J simlili~tlJ.~'<}IJ51y:_
\Ve need to IClll]Wrarily selld both agcncies sitnu1tanc()usty with lighb and siren:.> until \ve gather more
infixmatioll about the call. \Ve appear 1(\ have many call" cO(1,;;d mind!' \\11('n they are much more seriolls and
viet.' versa. It is casier (and I hope :-;al(T) to start the calb "'h(J(' and dpwngrade 10 IW lights and sirens if U'v1D
determines \vith confidence that the call is minoL 11 is emphasized that this may take 2-3 additional minutes
and both agencies could be well on their way towards their destinution b~ the time this Information comes in.
It is hoped that SLlch changes could shave 2-3 lninutcs l11lofBLS/ALS arriv::j] resp,Jnse timc~. It is imperative
Ih:1t ALL /\GENClr.:S within the county arc singing to tlK' ,,(1mc hymlJ book and set of ru1cs!()r consistency,
satet)' and effectiveness.
Sincerely,
;ill II! rib /
RobcI1 B. Tober. ['v(,U.. FACTJ'
1\1edicnl Director. Collier Ci.)ll!lt:
cc: LCD Oehs. County fvianagcL (\)lIicr ('uunt;.
Dan SUl11J11Crs. IJircctor. Hllrcau of I::mergenc} Scrvic('s
.klf Page. ChieL Collier County ..\IS
Kevin Rmnbosk. Sherin'. Collier CDumy
_ ,~_u._.____-_~,.,_,"___,," ----._,~-" .->--
Agenda Item # 15 Meeting Date : ~
Presented by (Ii '11" r ~ ~.
t:.("~~5
L OLG'TTA
Collier County Government
Productivity Committee
To: Jim Coletta, Vice Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Copy: Leo E. Ochs, Jr. County Manager
From: Steve Harrison, Chairman, Productivity Committee
Date: February 25, 2011
Subject: Productivity Committee's Proposed 2011 Workplan
The Productivity Committee is in the process of preparing its Workplan for calendar 2011 and is hereby
requesting your input on topics you would like investigated in more detail.
Section 7 of our enabling ordinance (2006-38) describes the possible scope of Productivity Committee
assignments stating"". the Committee may analyze and review existing structures, organizations,
staffing, management, functions, business practices and procedures of any or all departments and
divisions under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners. "and may also conduct budget
reviews, as appropriate, of any county based governmental entity or office for which the budgetary or
other major financial oversight is exercised by the Board of County Commissioners," This broad scope
has led the Board to request our help evaluating special projects, such as Jackson Laboratories,
By this letter we request your direction on your desire for us to gather detailed information and evaluate
the following:
1) The recent report of the Blue Ribbon CommiSSIOn evaluating the possible consolidation of EMS
and the Fire Districts recommended that the Productivity Committee undertake a financial
analysis such a consolidation, Would the Commission like us to perform such an analysis during
2011?
2) Compare employee health insurance expenses and other benefits with those of other public and
local private entities,
3) Review of BCC budgets and internal performance measurement and reporting to insure that
Departments and Divisions appropriately focused on achieving strategic and operational
objectives,
4) Investigate the economic development programs and incentives of competing counties including
identification of their public versus private funding,
5) Review any Collier County Master Plans to determine the extent to which they reflect the current
economic situation and outlook,
6) Review of various county impact fees and their projected funding requirements,
7) Investigate possible saving through specific outsourcing and further possibility of insourcing
services now outsourced,
8) Review the options for renewing the $75 million dollar Waste Management contract due for
negotiation in 2011, and
9) Other topics of special interest to the Commissioners,
We would be happy to discuss any item on which you would like us to focus with you.
" ,.,_.~._.,,~.."-- ,,- --_.~,,_._-_._,-_... "
Agenda Item # J 5 Meeting Date. "+/1 L 15 t
Presented by COLBTTA "-
Outreach Meetings Aimed at Sharing Information about
Growth While Balancing Conservation
Commissioner Jim Coletta, Vice Chair
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Tallahassee
March 23 - 24
Governor Rick Scott
In a discussion on March 23 with Governor Rick Scott at The Capitol in Tallahassee, I
firstly told him I was supportive of his pledge to supply 700,000 new jobs statewide
in the next seven years. I applauded such a progressive vision and commitment to
the citizens of Florida, and agreed to dedicate my efforts to assist him fulfill that
ambitious goal. I assured him my contributions would be aligned and closely
synchronized with his initiatives in Collier County.
We discussed economic development and facilitating business growth and job
creation in Collier County. To that end I have been meeting with key business
constituents in Collier County and do believe we are on track in identifying what
needs to be done and addressing how to get there that will also get our citizens back
to work. Additionally, I told the Governor I have met with local businessman and
Arthrex CEO Reinhold Schmieding, whom he spoke of during our meeting. I have
personally promised that I will do whatever is possible to accommodate Arthrex's
future expansion in Collier County.
Another element for future business expansion in eastern Collier County that we
discussed is the building of the Everglades Boulevard/Interstate 75 Interchange. I
told him that I hope we can find an equitable solution and bring this project to
fruition. The first-time-ever Cumulative Effects Evaluation (CEE), introduced at a
public meeting in September 2010, will evaluate the reasonable foreseeable future
changes in the project study area affecting eight protected species.
I
._.~~",..~m ,
15 ".
Senate President Mike HaridopoIos &
Senate President Pro Tempore Mike Bennett
Ochopee EMS/Fire station on 1-75
My meeting was scheduled on March 23 with Senate President Haridopolos and
Senator Mike Bennett joined us. Mainly the topic was the critical public safety need
for a dedicated EMS/Fire Station on Interstate 75 between Collier and Broward
counties. For the past 20 years the Ochopee Fire Control District, a dependent
district of Collier County covering about 1,100 square miles, including 1-75 from
three miles west of SR 29 to the Broward County line, has responded to a 78-mile
stretch where the Ochopee Fire Control District responds to frequent emergencies
and serious mishaps often resulting in fatalities. They do so from a station some 30
miles away, leaving only 50 percent coverage of their home community. In the event
of a major vehicular accident on 1-75, also known as Alligator Alley, the response
time is often a matter of life and death. Wildfires, smoke, weather-induced fog and
other visibility impacts can also result in unexpected traffic slowdowns and
congestion. Such unanticipated circumstances make the job that much more difficult
and complicate rescues and extrications for emergency and law enforcement
personnel when they arrive on scene to help the injured. In 2009 Ochopee
responded to 281 calls on the Alley, which represents 44 percent of their total load
volume last year. In 2008, there were 297 emergency calls on 1-75. And in 2010,
there were 204 emergencies on 1-75.
The lack of a dedicated EMS/Fire Station poses a public safety need approaching
crisis status on this popular route between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean
to not only residents but visitors, tourists and business travelers. The project
envisions a 3000-square-foot facility with two bays to allow for acceptable response
times for vehicle accidents, brush fires, medical calls, auto fires, and hazardous
materials incidents.
In a discussion with FDOT officials 02.17.11 regarding the demolition of the Mile
Marker 63 rest area and reconstruction of the facility on the south side of 1-75,
Collier County was designated a site for the EMS/Fire Station in the southeast
quadrant of the interchange. The station will be two bays and approximately 2,600
sq. ft. and have five (5) to seven (7) parking spaces. This will be considered Phase I.
FDOT will provide infrastructure for the future station, including water, waste water
and power, which will be developed for a separate meter. Collier County will make
connection in the future. FDOT also has agreed to include the storm water needs for
the station in their permitting for the recreational access areas. A lease agreement
will be required for the station with Collier County. As part of Collier County's
commitment, the county has provided footprints/designs for a station as requested.
Phase II includes identifying funds for future design and construction of the station.
Phase IIA may be a temporary modular building on site; Phase lIB would be
construction of a permanent building.
2
_ ,e __'_...__"M'~~_~"_,__ >_,,_c,._.
15 ~~
The Senators, in conjunction with Senator Garrett Richter of the Collier County
Legislative Delegation, whom I briefed about the interest in the project shown by
the Senate President and Senator Bennett, requested updated budgetary
information re a proposed EMS/Fire facility on 1-75. The response was very positive.
Senator Garrett Richter. Rep. Kathleen Passidomo. Rep. Matt Hudson & Reo.
leanette Nunez
I briefed them on latest about Everglades Boulevard/I-75 Interchange at a social
dinner March 23. The Collier Delegation is supportive of the interchange project.
DeDartment of Community Affairs (DCA) Secretary Billy Buzzett
I first heard the new DCA Secretary at the Florida Association of Counties (F AC)
legislative briefing on March 23. Our one-on-one meeting on March 24 gave me the
opportunity to invite him to Collier County for a visit as he plans to tour different
areas of the state in his new post. His approach is positive and progressive. He
believes in loosening controls on local governments and allowing home rule, local
authority. County governments know their business best. They know what they are
doing. They "get it."
Secretary Buzzett said 90 percent of comp plans that come through DCA are in
compliance. From here on in, DCA won't be in the middle or at the end of the
process. There will be two hearings. He refers to the process as an Alternative
Review Plan.
In addition, he is broadening Optional Sector Plan program and doing away with
requirement for the EAR process. Concurrency - transportation and school - will be
optional for local governments.
I asked the Secretary if there was any movement to get rid of regional planning
councils, and he said the RPC's were still funded at that time on the Senate side.
He also said there is no movement to erode or dilute the RPC's involvement.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Interim Secretarv and Chief of
Staff Francis Gibbs
Interstate 75/Eveq:Iades Boulevard Interchange Study
I met with FDOT Chief of Staff Gibbs on March 24 and we discussed primarily Collier
County's fair share of transportation dollars as well as the Everglades Boulevard/I-
75 Interchange and the Cumulative Effects Evaluation, which he was not familiar
with although he knows the project well from his experience in Washington, D.C.
where he worked for Congressman Connie Mack. The interchange has been the
county's top federal legislative priority for at least five years.
Much of Collier County's future growth is expected in an area known as Golden Gate
,
j
"_ .u~_u'"___,~_~
15 ..
Estates, one of the largest platted subdivisions of its kind in the world, roughly the
size of Washington, D.C. The area is adjacent to the Big Cypress development which
is anticipated to add another 23,000 dwelling units to the area. The only east-west
routes between the eastern Estates and Naples area activity/employment centers
are Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road and while the western portion of
the Estates and Golden Gate City proper have access to interchanges at lmmokalee
Road, Pine Ridge Road, State Road 951 (Collier Boulevard) and Golden Gate
Parkway, residents of the eastern portion of the Estates have no access to Interstate
75.
The lack of access to the Estates creates safety problems in the event that residents
must be evacuated during hurricane or wildfires. In this regard, the interchange is
critically needed to provide access to a route for safe evacuations from storms and
fires as significant growth continues in eastern Collier County.
In accordance with the Collier County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP),
Collier County is developing an IJR, primarily a traffic analysis impact justification
document, to demonstrate the need for a new interchange at 1-75 and Everglades
Boulevard. FOOT is funded and prepared to start the Project Development and
Environmental Study (PD&E) upon successful completion of both the IJR and the
Cumulative Effects Evaluation (CEE) study, the first time ever conducted in Florida.
The FOOT presented its CEE study plans at a public kickoff meeting on September
16, 2010. The CEE study will evaluate the reasonable foreseeable future changes in
the project study area affecting eight protected species.
The project will provide better access for an area that covers more than 100 square
miles while improving interchange operations at three existing overburdened
interchanges.
Additionally, Collier County would like to request interim access, given that ramps
already exist, as studies progress to determine implementation of the new
interchange.
The interchange is located in a tolled section of Alligator Alley, so toll funding may
be available to help pay for right of way and construction if approvals are achieved
for the IJR and PD&E study.
A~ricuIture & Consumer Services Commissioner Adam Putnam
Also on March 24, I met with Commissioner Putnam and discussed agriculture in
Immokalee. He told me he had met with Col. Pantano of the Army Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville, the week prior, to talk about sustainable energy crops.
What was most interesting is the fact that he said the biggest growth in agriculture
today is in small farms.
4
o^'~_.~__..'~""_~"~>.~_<'_ ,--- ...,.- '_'M.'___~__,~__._ .'
15 'I
Collier County & East Coast
The next meetings I scheduled with the intent of fact-finding, information sharing
and education outreach. I also wanted to explain how hard we are working to
balance growth and conservation.
March 30
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Andrew Hill
I attended this meeting with Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Deputy
Administrator, long-range planning and the need for integrated land use planning
with Transportation Planning. We discussed the Master Mobility Plan (MMP) and
how the county was looking at reducing vehicle miles traveled in order to reduce
the need for transportation infrastructure. We discussed the Everglades
BoulevardjI-75 Interchange and the need to work together planning for needed
facilities and mitigating the environmental impacts of new facilities. We discussed
the Cumulative Effects Evaluation (CEE) study and the IJR schedule. The
Conservancy noted that the science from the studies had not been released yet and
they would reevaluate their position after they had a chance to review the
information. We agreed to meet again in September and evaluate what new
information we have received.
March 31
U,S, Fish & Wildlife Service
Paul Souza
We discussed long-range planning and the need for integrated land use planning
with Transportation Planning. We discussed the MMP and how the county was
looking at reducing vehicle miles traveled in order to reduce the need for
transportation infrastructure. We discussed the Everglades BoulevardjI-75
Interchange and the need to work together planning for needed facilities and
mitigating the environmental impacts of new facilities. We discussed the CEE study
and the IJR schedule. We agreed that the agencies need to work together to balance
the demands of growth with the need to protect species. We agreed to work on
language that might set up a boundary defining developable land and preservation
land. They agreed to provide data to support our planning and we exchanged
information and schedules. Project manager Debbie Armstrong is working with
them on the MMP and is continuing to follow up with them on the project. They
expressed their concerns about the interchange but wanted to wait and see how the
CEE study impacted their concerns. They encouraged us to work together with the
non-governmental organizations (NGO's) and their office to reach as much
consensus as possible.
Both meetings were very positive and our goals to provide information and seek
assistance were well received.
5
..' "'".~.._-_."'-~<~'~
15 ~...'.
III .....
.....
III
0
III
::l
III O'\~N~"""~ O\~N~"""~
C
ClI ,.....0 NO 0\0 .......0 NO 0\0
U .......OLn....-tl/lO'l .....Cl\LtlOLtlN
.&-J ...0 ...M ..\0 ~ ... 0\ .........." ... N
l/l :i5VOl'I'\ON IlI~"" 1'l~1Il ClI
\0' . Ltl . ClI'O
U 0 .....-t CO u . . .
=> ft'I 0 ,..... CO III N M ... L. ::l
> ..... > I'l "" I'l ClI-
III .c V
- ~ c
0 III C ::: .-
C ::l=> ... >-
0 O\::RT""'f~CO~ 0\~,-t~CX)~ C III
..... E
III III 01 ,....,OMO..q-O ,..... M 0 'It' 0 ::l
'C ..... C ,o.....ONNO\oo "'01"""tT""tNOO\CO
III l/l'in OCll -0 -00-..... Q) ... 0 ... M .......... III L.
III
0. >-::l --MOO\ONM O'-MLtlO\ON"" Ol-
E V 0 .... a.M .....-t . N . ..-t Q.('t") .,.... .. N . C ::l
c:r: 0::l.....0 I'.....N o::J'I'"'4""" ......,..-iO'J ._ 01
0 NV 0 0\ Ntj \0 Ltl \0 ~~
U III V .....
0. -- 0 0 ~I
::l ClI c.....
V ~ ClI c
V ClI '0 III
0 .~ OO:::R'M:::R'ln::R OO:::R'M::flJl:::R' ._ V
III
c O\01/lOvO O\OlllOVO =... >
=> NOl'OOLtlN NOl'OLtlO
...0 ....0'\ ...0 -0 -0 -0 ClI
iOI'ol'O\O\O iOI'Ol'oO\o III =
... 0\ ....-t ........ . +oJ 0\ ........ .,..... . ::l ..:
0,.....0 tOT""t.....-t 0.......0 0.......0 - III
f- 0 Cl\ f- 000 IlI-
..... ..... ..... ..... C ::l
0 01
'in ClI
L.
III ,
v.....
III V c
'0 0 III
'C L. V
0 o III
u:: ->
'0=
>- -~ .....
ClIN .....
..... .c'O .......
c N
::l L- C .....
0 o III .......
U M::RM:::.e:O::R M~M~O~ ClI - . ""
L- \00 LOO T""IO \00 Lno.......o E ~- III
.!!! Ltl 0..... """" \0 Ltl\O....."" ""Ill ~.....
ow'-
...., ...0 ...0 ...0\ ..... - III - IX) - III .c:r:5
0 C...-io\ocoLn,..... :i5~"\ON:Q"
III "" - - M . iO=>Ol
u V 0 V Ltl u . . .
III 0 ..... 00 III IX) \0 " c~c
> ..... > M M N o ClI'-
III III L. III
~ III ClI ::l
III C ClI .c 0
1Il:::.c
::l=> M::RM~O:::f M:::.e:M:::.e:O:::.e: L- ClI =
..... 01 O!!1 ClI
III ....... 0 00 ,..... 0 ,..... 0 00 ....... 0
..... C '00\000..........0\ '0 0\ MooV..... V ClI III
l/l 'in Q) ....0 ....0\ ..0 OJ ..v ...0 ..."lit C ::l
>-::l O.-NOOvNLtl O.-NNOl'NN 0 ClI_
00.0.......0\ . 00.0 ..... -0\' :p E III
V 0 0::l.....0 0 0\ o:J..-tM M N III C
c:r: NV 0 ..... 00 NV I' \0 I' V 0 0
III V ..... V III .c .-
c." 0 0 >-:G
::l ClI
V ~ = ro u
~::l V
V ClI ..... III 0
0 > \O:::R'CO;:fN::R \O::RCO::RN::R ..?L.
c MO LIlO 000 MOLnOCX)O 1Il- 0
=> LtlOO\NLtlOO LtlOO\OLtlO ClIIlI_
...0 ..M ...\0 -0 -0 -0 '0 ClI III
III iOVO\OI'I'N iO~O\OOl'O ::l > c
::l ...., 'It' ....-t N' ... ........ N .. U IlIg
..... OT""tO """'1'"'100 0,....&0 OT""tO
III f- 0 ..... 00 f- 000 c .c .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .- III
l/l = ~ ClI
>- >-ClIL- III
V.o V 'in
V :i5 E ~
III >-
0. >-,g ,g ,g >-,g ,g ,g V ClI _- III
::l .....0 0 0 .....0 0 0
III E III C
V C C > C <(
V ::l L. ::l L-
0 0 ClI 0 ClI = '0 0
E 0 III ->-
U '0 U '0 III
01 C C V
III III L- .c ClI
c L- L. ClI ClI III c
'in .!!! ClI III .!!! ClI III ..... III III
::l i5. E i5. E ClI ::l L- V
0 15 III ClI 15 III ClI .coo III
:r: u z ex: u z ex: f-.c~ ?
---_._._"..,.-~.,...._..._._.__.__.,....__...,. .~.,' -, .. .. H ~"' ,,~_,__,~'___'._"__""'_ -- -..-----
..~
0"
F
.~
f
'!Ii
ti ~'""
;~ '4.l.
,"
i))
.'"
. . ~,,...,--
. .
,
.
~ "'.'
.
.
- --
-
~ =cs --.1
..- ."
"
.
-
.
,