Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/06/2006 R April 6, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 6, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney (absent) Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Tor Kolflat Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS f~~RU)~R'I 28, 2006, REGULAR MEETING Nl AR,u-\ 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8081, La Playa Golf Club LLC, represented by Fred Reischl, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03 of the RSF-3 (Residential Single Family) zoning district for a Golf Course Maintenl\nce Facility. This proposed conditional use will permit a reconfiguration of the site and construction of a new maintenance structure. The subject property, consisting of 2.5 acres, is located at 220 Cypress Way East, in Section 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) CONTINUED FROM 3/16/06 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6283, Lely Development Corporation represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., request an amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan to amend Tract "J" from a 1.74 acre utility site to a .73 single-family residential development site and 1.0 I acre mangrove preserve area as well as amend the PUD document to bring it into conformity with County requirements. Lely Barefoot Beach PUD consist of 461.65 acres, Tract J is located at the southwest comer of Barefoot Beach Boulevard and Bayfront Drive, located in Sections 5,6, 7 & 8, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN DA TE/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 April 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Mr. Schmitt, you snuck in. MR. SCHMITT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would everybody rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I'll ask the secretary to do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that they turn on the -- perhaps Mr. Schmitt can put up the volume on here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Page 2 April 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda? (No response) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences? (N 0 response) Item #5 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 16,2006 CCPC REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our next meeting will be April 20th. Everybody that's here intending to be here at that date? That will work. Approval of minutes, February 16th, at the regular meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, second by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? (No response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 3 April 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. BCC report and recaps. Ray. Item #6 BCC REPORTS-RECAPS-MARCH 28~ 2006 REGULAR MEETING MR. BELLOWS: Yes. During the last board meeting, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the variance for V A-05-AR-8693, that's the Thiermann variance. That was approved by a 3-2 vote. Item #8A PETITION CU-2005-AR-8081 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. There's no chairman's report this morning, so we'll go right into the advertised public hearings. The first one is Petition CU-2005-AR-8081, LaPlaya Golf Club LLC. That particular issue has been continued again. It was continued previously from 3-16-06. Ray, do you know, is there a time when it may -- we can at least recommend when it's going to be possibly continued to? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The planner, Carolina Valera, has told me that it's being rescheduled for April 20th. Page 4 April 6, 2006 Item #8B PETITION PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6283 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So right now it's on the agenda for April 20th, for those parties in the room interested. We also have the next petition, PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6283, Lely Development Corporation for Lely Barefoot Beach PUD. In receiving our packages on this particular item, there was a concern that the -- at least by some members of this Planning Commission, myself in particular, that the package was written for a large volume of property, when in essence it was trying to be directed to a very singular parcel. In checking out some of the concerns over that and the way it was advertised and the way the language in the document went forward, I had some discussions with the County Attorney's office and it could have a better attempt at coming back with a more concise package, focused on just the parcel that needs to be changed, if we were to continue this meeting and receive a more -- a newer package, one that has all the documentation directed to what is really at focus here. And I would like the County Attorney to comment on that suggestion. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The County Attorney's office has no problem with your suggestion of continuing it and bringing back a more concise document. And we feel that that would serve to narrow -- appropriately narrow the issues before not only this board but also the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it would be well served to do that. Page 5 April 6, 2006 Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I'd just also like to point out that we're going to hold a meeting next Monday with the County Attorney's office and the Zoning Department staff to hammer out and clarify the criteria of what constitutes a PUD to PUD amendment versus a more standard minor strike-through and underline amendment of the document. It's been altered over the years, and the lines are somewhat blurred of what constitutes a PUD to PUD. And this particular petition fell into that kind of is it a PUD to PUD or is it a minor amendment. And so if we define the criteria a little better, we hope to eliminate this in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that kind of discussion needs to be held, and I would recommend that if it comes back to us in a more concise form, it would serve not only this board better but the Board of County Commissioners, and also not open up a lot discussion with the residents that are unaffected by this in regards to the way it's written right now. Because as it appears right now, it covers the entire acreage of the whole PUD, which is certainly not the intent based on the applicant who doesn't own the whole PUD. So I certainly think that would clarify a lot. Is the applicant here? Before you -- could you swear the applicant in? (Speaker was duly sworn) MR. ANDREA: Good morning. I'm Robert Andrea, Coastal Engineering, representing Lely Development Company. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just have a question for you. MR. ANDREA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection to a continuance on this matter? MR. ANDREA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 6 April 6, 2006 With that in mind, what's the wish of the Planning Commission? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make one comment, too, is the PUD that's in here is not a strike-through version, and that made it very difficult as far as I still don't know what's been changed and what hasn't. Could they support us with that next time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe that's already been related to staff. What happened is there's been a series of staff members, as you know, who have come and gone, and so over the period of time not everything's gotten to us. That all will be corrected with the next around is what I'm hoping. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion to continue PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6283, Lely Barefoot Beach PUD to a date in the future in accommodation of the petitioner and this board. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Murray, second by Commissioner Adelstein. I have one comment, and that is I think more justice is served by delaying this until we have a better document. Although, this is the end of our tourist season. Basically on Easter this coming weekend some people will be leaving. This could be continued for a week or two or even longer, maybe a month, who knows. But just in case there's anybody here who is leaving the area and wants to get on record their comments -- and maybe we won't be able to debate it because they may be irrelevant compared to the document that may come out in a month from now -- but at least if the public is here who cannot be here when this may come back, I think we ought to give them the opportunity before we vote to listen to what they have to say and then go from there for the continuance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I heartily agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you withdraw your motion? Page 7 April 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Need I? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Can you table it? Table it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll table the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the motion to be tabled. Does the second agree to table the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, do we have any registered public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: None registered at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, those members of the public who are here on the Lely Development Barefoot Beach issue, we are going to be voting to continue this so that the document that's being presented could be focused more on just the issue at hand, not the entire PUD. If you have an issue that you'd like to discuss with us today, we would recommend that you do that, if you're not going to be here. But it would be better if you waited and could come back when this is heard again, if you still feel you have an issue at that time. You may realize -- you may find out that the new document that's coming out will not be as effective -- or interact with problems that you have as much. So that's hopefully that will happen the next time it comes around. But we will entertain any discussion, if you feel you have to do it today because you cannot come back. Anybody from the audience need to comment? Yes, sir, if you would come to the mic and state your name. And yeah, the court reporter would have to please swear the gentleman in. MR. SMITH: My name is William S. Smith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, she's got to swear you In. (Speaker was duly sworn) MR. SMITH: I am William S. Smith. I live right across from the J parcel. I also have been past president of Unit 1, which is the Page 8 April 6, 2006 homeowners there. It's one of the four developments there that lives in the area. I have read all the documents, I have met with Melissa Zone, and what my concern is, I mayor may not be here. I am a permanent resident of Collier County; however, since we don't know when it's going to come up again, I want to speak out and tell you. What I read from the documents, there was a letter from the Conservancy to the Collier County. And in that it discussed the parcel J. And there's been some disagreement about what kind of a lawsuit agreement was made in 1985 regarding the settlement of site J. And my concern is it is not the particular one-unit home to be built on the site that I'm concerned with. There was also some language in that proposal about properties M, Nand O. And in that M, Nand 0 property, there was some statement about sites would not be built -- anything would be built within 25 feet of water or the bay. Well, that would be a total different ballgame than just unit J. That would open up construction to those sites that were never intended in the lawsuit of 1985 in the agreement. So I just want to go on record that that's what the ball game is about, and that's our problem. So I speak up to that, in case I'm not here. And that's one of my big concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do thank you, sir, because I think the members of this commission who have contacted staff read a lot of what you just said and questioned how much of it should be in this amendment that was supposed to be focused on one parcel. And that's the reason for the continuance, is so that it can refocus on where it should be and not maybe areas that may not be part of that. MR. SMITH: I think that would be a lot better situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. Is there anybody else that has to speak now? Yes, ma'am. If you -- you need to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speaker was duly sworn) Page 9 April 6, 2006 MS. KELLAM: My name is Magen Kellam. I'm a solo practitioner here in town. I was actually hired by the law firm of Pollack, Slack and Wolff to represent Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association this afternoon. The association just wants to go on record saying that they object to the rezoning of tract J. It was originally zoned as a utility site. They'd like it to remain as such in the event they need it for the future. And I'll be happy to go on record at the next meeting as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MS. KELLAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's no other persons at this time. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move we take the motion from the table and bring it forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You don't have to second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't have to second it? Lindy knows these rules better than anybody. Okay, so the motion was made to continue this discussion. Any further discussion of Planning Commission? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 10 April 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. This matter will be continued upon further notification of county staff. Thank you. With that, this will probably go down as one of the -- I know, the second shortest meeting in the Planning Commission history. Old business. Are there any items of old business? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business? I have one -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I did just want to make a comment, and thank staff for being so helpful on that Lely PUD. I really appreciated the fast action and the responsiveness of staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going, too. Melissa, I know you've not been before this board before, but the interaction that I've had with you in the last few days has been tremendously helpful. Thank you. And also the County Attorney's office for being available and responding to the questions as they have, so it's worked out very well. The other issue of new business I'd like to ask Mr. Schmitt about. Mr. Schmitt, there's -- as customary in some other municipalities, the Planning Commission is able to be the final authority on a series of elements, more than just boat dock extensions. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Things like variances, conditional uses, minor amendments, things like that. Well, I think it's about time this board did more for the Board of County Commissioners. And I think that for the hard work that they do, we should offer to help them out more. If the staff could consider making some recommendations or at Page 11 April 6, 2006 least a request to the board to provide more elements that they feel we could be the final authority on, such as variances and conditional uses and things like that. And I don't know how to format that to go formally to the board as a -- with a request, but is that something staff could put together and bring up at a reporting period, say at the next board meeting? MR. SCHMITT: Y es. Well, let me be more specific or at least provide additional information in regards to what you're asking. The Board of County Commissioners at the last board meeting, after the variance that we presented, the Thiermann variance, in regards to the pool screen, asked -- and it was brought forward to staff and directed to the County Manager to bring back the discussions on a hearing examiner. Also, with that, staff is going to bring back recommendations in regards to what other methods the board may want to use in regards to dealing with some of these, I'll call them -- I don't want to -- it's not being disingenuous, but minor type of land use type issues: Conditional uses and variances, those kind of things that we believe either a local planning authority or a hearing examiner should be able to deal with. So we are going to bring back a menu of items to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and direction. As you well know, the hearing examiner knows -- who are not in Collier County or part of this Commission -- the hearing examiner process, we spent a considerable amount of time putting together the ordinance and bringing that all the way to the final selection. We were within the throws of making the final selection when the board basically directed the staff no longer to go forward with it and basically it was tabled. I think this board has now realized that their schedule is frankly consumed with issues greater than -- again not being disingenuous to that -- but variances and enclosures and type of things that certainly Page 12 April 6, 2006 are emotional but really are not items that have to go to the Board of County Commissioners. So we're going to look at alternatives. As you suggested, we're going to look at what can the Planning Commission do in that regard, and if the board -- if they want to go to a hearing examiner, what a hearing examiner could do and what other counties within the state are doing. So to answer your -- I guess in a long-winded answer, we are going to do that, and we are going to provide a menu of options to the Board of County Commissioners. And one of which will be how do you want to use your local planning authority, your Planning Commission in regards to dealing -- could they be empowered to deal with some of these issues. Legally, and I believe the County Attorney can opine on that, legally you can. You would have to be empowered with some duties that are defined under the Board of Zoning Appeals. So I'll turn to the County Attorney. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. Yes, we think that that could happen with the appropriate delegation documents by the Board of County Commissioners to the Planning Commission. And also, I don't have it before me, but we have a special act where the Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances, and currently the county commission sits as the BZA. And we can look at that, but we think that it's very likely that you all could be designated the BZA for that purpose, rather than trying to amend that special act. It makes more sense to designate you all as the BZA on that. So we'll look at the structure of it. In other jurisdictions, oftentimes the Planning Commission has final order authority with the right of appeal to the Board of County Commissioners and so on, so we can look at what other jurisdiction do and come back with recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You're welcome. Page 13 April 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the record, Mr. Adelstein, weren't you on the prior committee that was involved in researching the applicability of a hearing officer in Collier County? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I was vice-chairman of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell me from your committee what costs would be involved additionally to the taxpayers if such an action were to be taken? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, it would start out at something around $200,000 a year. That was the-- MR. SCHMITT: Don't get excited. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought he was going to say $20,000. He's only an attorney. There's attorneys everywhere. You can buy them -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The problem was, is it would be a constant growth situation. In fact, I came to the board in regards to that and spoke against doing that, even though we found a very competent person. The point was that we're talking about basically in a matter of a year or two a quarter of a million dollars cost because of secretaries, time, the whole bit. MR. SCHMITT: In a nutshell, yes. Between the hearing examiner, a staff person -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- the office space, the other -- it could be 200,000 to a quarter million dollar budget a year for that process. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And to do this when it can be done for free. We have the capacity to get it done, and we have a capacity to get it done without any extra cost to the county. And right now we're talking about money and all of a sudden we're putting up a quarter of a million dollar bill up here and seeing if we can fill it. MR. SCHMITT: I can only recommend maybe as the Planning Commission, staff is going to bring back the options to the board. You may want to direct the Chair to prepare -- sign a letter presenting Page 14 April 6, 2006 your opinions to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to go a little further here today. We now know it's going to be costly to the taxpayers if a hearing officer is brought in addition to a volunteer board that's already here. Just for the record, is anybody on this board being paid to be here? (No response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so. I would like to entertain a recommendation to the BCC that each one of us has volunteered to continue serving on this board in any capacity that they would like to add to this board in regards to the issues we just discussed. The purpose there is to make it clear to the board that we're there to serve them, we're here to serve the public as well. As you can see by the agenda we have today, we have time. We are not sitting in 11 and 12-hour meetings like the board is. We can-- next meeting again is not stacked up. We could easily fit more of these issues into our panel and hear them and help the board out further and at no cost to the taxpayer. So Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Well, in actuality you hear the petitions anyway. You make recommendation to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But, I mean, we don't need to replace ourselves with a hearing officer. We can handle that final level and be done with it. And that's where I'm trying to go. MR. SCHMITT: And again, that will be a decision that the board will have to make. And they'll direct staff to implement -- in regards to that, we will present options to the board. They asked to bring back a hearing examiner, but in doing that, we are going to bring back all the options so the board can debate it and then direct staff where they want to go. Page 15 April 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're here to serve the public and the board, Mr. Schmitt. And I think as long as they realize we're here and we can take on the duties, and as long as legal opinion is sufficient to support that, we certainly can take care of that and try to help out even more. Mr. Murray, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I wanted to make a recommendation to the Chair that the -- that you, on behalf of this board, do communicate to the Board of County Commissioners directly through a letter indicating the willingness of this board, which can be determined -- and I'll make this a motion -- can be determined as I think unanimous in support of this proposed action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded, Mr. Murray made the motion. Any discussion? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just want to clarify. I know you mentioned save the taxpayers, but in most cases like these, those are fees that are paid by the applicant. So it is in essence the taxpayer, but they really are fees for services provided by staff. You would be saving -- actually saving applications and reducing the fees associated with some of these actions, or could possibly be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The overhead, the secretary, the paperwork, the lights, everything. It's a fee base thing. MR. SCHMITT: But all of those are permit -- all of those are land use type permitted activities or land use and permitting activities. Not associated with building permits but with my fund 131, which is really -- all those activities associated with funding, the zoning department and land use petitions are funded through application fees. Page 16 April 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just a little confused there. If fees are paid and we hear it, the fees are retained. If there's a hearing officer and fees are paid, the hearing officer gets part of those fees. MR. SCHMITT: A hearing officer -- if we hire a hearing officer, I just have to then account for that much more in my budget and have to pass that cost off. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's -- the petitioner actually pays more as a result of that. MR. SCHMITT: Could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: People residing in this county in one way or form would have to pay. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, when we were Pledging Allegiance to the flag, we reminded ourselves that we're a republic. A republic is run by the citizens. So I would like to see that be part of the solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I certainly, if I may pipe up, the citizens seeing instead of a single individual, seeing a group of people qualifying the information, working hard to come up with an honest and fair solution, whether against them or not, perceives government to be functioning as a republic and certainly better than the others, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well said, Mr. Murray. Thank you. Anything else? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 1 7 April 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Public comment? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll-- tell me, sir, do we need a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, but no one needs to second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Adelstein to adjourn. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:54 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman Page 18