DSAC Agenda 08/31/202214.A
08/31/2022
COLLIER COUNTY
Advisory Boards
Item Number: 14.A
Item Summary: Development Services Advisory Committee August 3, 2022
Meeting Date: 08/31/2022
Prepared by:
Title: — Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management
Name: Patricia Mill
08/26/2022 4:03 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Operations Support — Growth Management Operations & Regulatory
Management
Name: Kenneth Kovensky
08/26/2022 4:03 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Kenneth Kovensky
Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Additional Reviewer
Advisory Boards Michael Cox Meeting Pending
Communications, Government, and Public Affairs Michael Brownlee
Division Director Completed
Completed 09/01/2022 7:14 PM
08/31/2022 12:00 AM
PAM Review Pending
Packet Pg. 42
14.A.1
Collier County Government
Communications, Government & Public Affairs colliercountyfl.gov
3299 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 102 twitter.com/CollierPIO
Naples, Florida 34112-5746 facebook.com/CollierGov
youtube.com/CollierGov
July 27, 2022
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Notice of Public Meeting
Development Services Advisory Committee
Collier County, Florida
Wednesday August 3, 2022
3:00 pm
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee will meet on
Wednesday, August 3, at 3:00 p.m. at the Growth Management Department in conference room 609/610, at
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, 34104.
The agenda is available on the Collier County Government website at
https://www. colliercountyfl. gov/government/growth-management/divisions/operations-regulator
management/development-services-advisory-committee-dsac
Two or more members of the Board of County Commissioners may be present and may participate at the
meeting. The subject matter of this meeting may be an item for discussion and action at a future Board of
County Commissioners meeting or Development Services Advisory Committee meeting
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak. All registered public speakers will be
limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying
activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board
or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department.
Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or other reasonable
accommodations to participate in this proceeding, should contact the Collier County Facilities Management
Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 101, Naples, Florida 34112, or (239) 252-8380, as soon as
possible, but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event. Such reasonable accommodations will be
provided at no cost to the individual.
For more information, call Trish Mill at (239) 252-8214 or email at Patricia.Mill(a�,colliercounVfl.gov.
E' UM
a)
0
z
0
IL
N
N
O
N
M
00
c.�
a
c
N
O
O
O
i
c
m
E
Packet Pg. 43
14.A.2
Co ler County
Growth Management Department
Development Services Advisory
Committee
Meeting
Wednesday, August 3, 2022
3:00 pm
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
Growth Management Department
Conference Room 609/610
If you have any questions or wish to meet with
staff, please contact
Trish Mill at 252-8214
Packet Pg. 44
14.A.2
Cofer C014"t
y
Growth Management Department
Development Services Advisory Committee
Agenda
Wednesday, August 3, 2022
3:00 pm
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104
Growth Management Building, Conference Rooms 609/610
NOTICE:
Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the
time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Registration Form", list the topic they wish to address and hand it
to the Staff member before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a
microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may
direct questions to the speaker.
Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to
conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order
and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing
Reporter can record all statements being made.
1. Call to order - Chairman
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes:
a. DSAC Meeting —June 1, 2022
b. DSAC LDR Meeting— May 25, 2022
4. Public Speakers
5. Staff Announcements/Updates
a. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook]
b. Code Enforcement Division — [Mike Ossorio]
c. Public Utilities Department— [Matt McLean]
d. Growth Management Dept. Transportation Engineering Division — [Jay Ahmad or designee]
e. Collier County Fire Review— [Shar Beddow or Shawn Hanson, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal]
f. North Collier Fire Review — [Chief Sean Lintz or Deputy Director Daniel Zunzunegui]
g. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division — [Ken Kovensky]
h. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi]
For more information, please contact Trish Mill at (239) 252-8214 or Patricia.Mill@colliercount o,,cket oa „5
raa.nca ry. Y.r
14.A.2
6. New Business
a. NIM process modifications [Requested by Clay Brooker]
b. SB 4D — Existing building recertification [Rich Long]
c. Land Development Code Amendments
i. PL20220004273 —Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
ii. PL20220004350 — Golden Gate Estates Variance Distance Notification
7. Old Business
a. Discussion of the Tree Removal Process for More than 10 Trees
8. Committee Member Comments
9. Adjourn
FUTURE MEETING DATES:
September 7, 2022 — 3:00 pm
October 5, 2022 — 3:00 pm
November 2, 2022 — 3:00 pm
For more information, please contact Trish Mill at (239) 252-8214 or Patricia.Mill@colliercount o,,cket oa „6
raa.nca ry. Yv
14.A.2
Development Services Advisory Committee
Attendance Roster — Date: August 3, 2022
DSAC Members
**Must have (8) members for a quorum**
J a es Boughton:
es Boughton:
Norman Gentry:
jf
7-- Y1312.2 (�T.
EXCUSED
Clay Brooker-
Mark M Le n:
i
JeffreyCurl-
C s
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn: `�
bent Mulhere:
&SEA)T - T : Mi [L Jqh/22
David Dunnavant:
Je my Sterk:
John gl
MIrio Vall/e-/,
j,
1
Marc Espi r
Willia Vari
Blair Foley:
oQe9Ajr - �l�lA;? Lr )
Staff Members
James French
Deputy Department Head, GMD
Michael Ossorio
Director, Code Enforcement
Jay Ahmad
Director, Transportation Engineering
Matt McLean or designee
Director, Public Utilities
Ken Kovensky
Director, Operations & Regulatory Management
Jaime Cook
Director, Development Review
Michael Bosi
Director, Planning & Zoning
Patricia Mill, Operations Analyst
Staff Liaison, Operations & Regulatory Management
Wt"4 e 0j&W'ia
X& iy4�Ze"
�eK awe
P44W eoo(¢
X:clsaeP 66ai
Patniu4 IW
Packet Pg. 47
14.A.2
Sign -in Sheet (Public)
August 3, 2022 DSAC Meeting
Please Print
NAME
REPRESENTING
PHONE NO.
a
AID)
ckT I�Qllt
CO GJ 0 r'B %t
C', 5tC4
PAY s r F
2-31 `7`2`7 M2 j
fttto Low
Q_ 3 Q -- 6,Yz— 713y
CkIz
Co i LA t-
5" p
5773 alO'70�y )
ru C-Ctradije-
�- f
Mt,
W i\ C Lur ju
im Set239
-T ZS -0
I'l
a�n ,e
��4ie
S aI
N
Packet Pg. 48
epuafV ZZOZ-£-8 OVSO :IU8W143L'PV
L
Cr
CL
46
IJ
!3
C
41
O
�t
CL
4-1
G"r
.r
Q
0
FE
CL
O
10
E
V'1
L
J
J
z
w
CL
Lk!
Ln
J
C6
0
z
E
T:
LA J
Q
z
4
z
z
LW
un
W
cc
CL
LU
cc
m
It
Ch
a
m
c�
a
ui
iI3
LU
`�a/
■4
0
z
ex
L
uj
u
w
M
0
CC
0
16n
uj
1..
D
z
2
r"+
em
r.r
0
LU
LU
cc
J
J
epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :IU8W143L'PV
N
fw
0
E-
a
a�
v
a
ws
a--r
0
CL
43
0!
34
G3
d3
a+ C
.ft
a-+ co
a E
a
c L
0
0
L
j
r� 6m
uj
J
u
z
CL
LU
Ln
LU
EL
c
z
a�
r
O
LO
6
a
a�
ca
a
u
LU
W
L
0
ui
0
2
d
P
U.1
u
cr
D
0
U.
#n
LU
z
w
H
Lu
-£-8 ovsa :}uauayae;;v
N
Q
T
a,
a�
a
u
a
Lo
ul
u
m
4n
c
a�
a
0
m
a�
�t
0
LL
Cr
0
a
w
CL
in
a
Qu
0
a�
0
ti
0
a
01.
n
e
as
�r
�. C7
cu
O -0
cc L;
a
W
o �
a�
a,
tn
a
w
z
LU
LOW
LU
-j
i
m
w
T
LO
a
a
u
r
w
01
LU
ix
13
LU
0
r
z
w
0
0
U.
V)
uj
w-
rn
0
C�
uj
L5
w
m
epue6v ZZOZ-£-8 ovsa :ivauayaeuv
N
Q
r
.E
E E
+J !3
LL
• cr
Q 0
m
0 CL
LA
Oi
E 7
CL a
v
a�
a�
J
LLJ
J
u
z
R
CL
LU
4!'1
LU
J
CL
V
0
z
E
In
6
E
Q)
C42
C
Q
LLJ �
C5
+z Q
CL
W
Lc
N
Ln
6
a
d
Y
V
a
s
c�
LLJ
s
W
Q
O
Lu
Q
0
Z
Q
z
LLI
v
0
O
LL
66P
2
m
0
LLL
W
J
.J
M
0
-£-8 ovsa wawyaeuv
N
Q
T
r
0
.E
E E
o
rr
< V
ti
4�
* ea
y 1� 0
T J +OL
../
4 + '
+
E
C
cu
0
v
0
o
a
0
Zs
CL
cu
LU
iS
�f
krn
YJL
4;
V
� y�44
a
60
cu
CU
E
Y
(r
02y
M
ro
v R
LU
vi
M
LO
a1
a
a
LU
Qn
w
ce
cr
D
0
z
uj
Lo
JYI
Q
W-
z
f
em
Q
`U
N
Q
W
Qi
Q E
� O
cu
Q cc
S►1 �
.2 �
LL �
C
CL a.
O
�{7
-£-8 ovsa :}uauayaeuv
LU
J
u
C
CL
w
J
CL
0
z
E
cl j
4—
W
A�
V
(U
L.I.J
u1
O�w
fu
z
<
t
IRT
LO
4.0
d
v
d
Z
U
LU
Z
H
V'1
1u
D
F
Q
Z
Q
L/1
LU
0
V
LU
p.-
D
ti..r
0
sm
J
LtJ
J
epue6v ZZOZ-£-8 ovsa :ivauayaeuv
N LO
a LO
a
a�
a Y
a +'. LU
LM
� o
4.1
a
4
0
u
i ttuu
CL -0
LU y
CL
v
0 -
a
m
o'
� a
uj
F-
C
En
aElf
-£-8 ovsa :}uewLi3euv
N
Q
a�
E
c E
u r°
Cr
46.
E
sL a
a
w
0
o �—I
ao
D
z
E
E
LU
cr.
m
20
CC
lu
CU
E
L
=
-D
k
W,
c
z
LU
�-n
LU
w
LO
a
a�
a
uu
ui
0
LU
0
x
a
tn
w
z
uj
LU
no
N
Q
T
Ci
E
� Q
iIk �
s Cr
Q �
id7 �
Qt C
V! CL
4-0
c Le
E S
CL CL
}
epuoBv ZZOZ-£-8 ovsa :iuewLi3Luv
i
a-+
D
C
qj
b.1
c
cn
W
Q
4a
u
i
'C]
IDS
4�
dA
C
y..r
G.�
6M
a-+ C:
0
a.r �
Q �
t �
LMCC
L1
J
u
R
CL
LU
L)
4
Lsl
ICL
uj
EO
lit
VII
LU
4c
Ld.l
J
Lid
1I7
S/1
LU
LU
D
Q
z
W
0
0
LU
F--
0
Lad
H
Lid
J
J
-£-8 ovsa :ivauayaeuv
N 00
Q LO
r �+ a
a
� C
-� yJ
5 V)
` D tA
uA
1
Q
uj
# C
.E
0
E E 31-
u 0 X; Cj
z
cv rucn
or z
71
i
_z
. to
0
cu M En
tn
L Q
CL a V) O
4u LL
Z
> *' c
a E 0
' ci m
+'
V
60
= �;
N
Q
a�
o
o
cx
7
C. CL
0
w
0
epuoBv ZZOZ-£-8 ovsa :}uauay:)euv
a
0
a
CL
S
ro
G�
J�
0
2
cu
0
0 E
-0 Q�
W
m v
0 cu
E °
u
a`c
ck.
6n
l<
uj
0
z
E
9
E
�
LU
z
CL
<
z
0
or.
LLF
LLJ
Q
D
0
0
u
0
GC
0
LL
LA
L"
F-
1-1
_z
r-.
w
0
LLJ
en
-£-8 ovsa :}uauayoeuv
N
Q
T
.E
E
0
u
0
Q
N
CL
}
�W
W
YI
L
0
r.+
CL
E
O
t
M
c
m
f
00
f
v
LA
0
CL
0 4E
J
u
z
R
CL
W
Wl
Q
Lu
J
C6
W
LL-i �r
C
E
Q d
■ii
Lij
Ln
LLA
w
O
a
a
V
W
iY1 l'
W
`0
r
LN
Q
0
D
d
2
LU
0
cc
D
O
0
Lj-
tn
M
U.t
W
N
Q
T
v
cu
E E-
is 1..
L
cr
CL
CA
m
E
CL C6
0
as
w
epue6v ZZOZ-£-8 Ovsa :IuauaL13el}d
r
LU
z
CL
w
c�.
c
LU
&i
Ln
W
(D
E--
LU
L-n
4.0
G.
LLJ
u
w
ua
cc
0
w
ra
uj
D
0
9x
0
LL
z
C+�7
0
0
LU
J
l;J
epueBv ZZOZ-£-8 OVS0 :}uauayoelly
a
a�
c E
to o
4
m
w
a
E 3
CL a-
Q
a�
a
a
v
E
12
as
w
aL
E
a
u
o�
.E
a
0
d Ci
i+
1�
V7 L�
cc
u
z
M
a
u
w
a
rtE
W
W
00
z
0
Ix
u
r
UJ
v
LA
U&
0
a�
O
0
Ln
w
H
z
0
.,J
LIJ
0
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida, June 1, 2022
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on
this date at 3 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management
Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: William J. Varian
Vice Chairman: Blair Foley
David Dunnavant
James E. Boughton
Clay Brooker
Chris Mitchell
Robert Mulhere
Mario Valle (excused)
Norman Gentry
Marco Espinar
Laura Spurgeon-DeJohn (excused)
Jeremy Sterk
Jeff Curl
John English
Mark McLean
ALSO PRESENT: Lorraine Lantz, Deputy Department Head, Transportation Planning
Ken Kovensky, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management
Mike Bosi, Director, Planning & Zoning
Matt McLean, Director, Public Utilities Division
Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager
Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner
Mark Templeton, Principal Planner, Planning Review
Patricia Mill, Operations Analyst/Staff Liaison
Packet Pg. 63
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
1. Call to Order - Chairman
Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3 p.m. A quorum consisting of 11 members was
convened; one member arrived later.
2. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Espinar moved to approve the agenda. It was seconded by Mr. Curl. The motion was carried
unanimously, 11-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
DSAC Meeting — May 4, 2022
Mr. Dunnavant made a motion to approve the May 4, 2022, meeting minutes. It was seconded by
Mr. McLean. The motion was carried unanimously, 11-0.
4. Public Speakers
(None)
5. Staff Announcements/Updates
a. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook ]
(None)
b. Code Enforcement Division — [Mike Ossorio, Director]
Mr. Ossorio reported that:
• They have a retention issue and lost a supervisor and an investigator this week.
• The numbers are down to 545, the lowest in years.
• We hope to hire three people next week, do more interviews and get to the base level.
• We're compressed from four areas to three to better understand the quality of service to
the community.
[Mr. Sterkjoined the meeting at 3:03 p.m.]
There is new Special Magistrate this month, Patrick Neal; Brenda Garretson retired.
Lien searches are above reproach.
c. Public Utilities Department [Matt McLean, Director]
Mr. McLean provided updates on the website, staffing and other issues. He reported that:
• The National Association of Countries recognized a joint effort by GMD and Public
Utilities for doing the utility conveyance, moving it down to one step. That was thanks
to DSAC, DSAC-LDR and the County Attorney's Office.
• We've caught up with the level of service, deviations and utility permits; service
timeframes on those numbers have gone down significantly because we've used
outsourcing.
We've been hiring and filled a field senior project manager position in the Utility Planning
Team; Drew Cody will be starting Monday. He's an internal candidate from Public Utilities,
with a strong background in analytics, analysis and intelligence, so he's a good fit to help
out with the updating standards initiatives we've had to put on the back burner.
We backfilled a tech -support specialist.
2
Packet Pg. 64
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
• We hired an operations coordinator who is going to start on June 20 and will get
involved with DSAC for utility coordination efforts in development.
• We had nine openings, filled four and need five more.
• We want to ultimately eliminate outsourcing as a means of maintaining level of service.
• We have a lot of backlog on Utility Standard Manual updates relative to product approvals
and are waiting until we fill all positions on the Utility Planning Team.
• We have a couple more to go, a principal project manager position, and will then be full
again.
• We're doing our best to keep up.
d. Growth Management Dept. Transportation Engineering Division — [Lorraine Lantz,
Deputy Department Head]
Ms. Lantz provided an update on the Collier Boulevard widening project bridge location
study:
• We're going to the Board of County Commissioners on June 28, with a recommendation to
put the bridge at 27th.
• Right now, there's a bridge at 25th, going from Collier Blvd to 39th, and that bridge will
become obsolete after the widening.
• We did a study to determine where a location would be. Access management -wise, we could
not have it at 27 or 25th anymore, so it became Golden Gate Parkway and 27th or 29th.
• We had a public involvement meeting with about 100 people, who gave comments.
• An overwhelming number wanted it where there's a signal, so a lot wanted it at Golden Gate
Parkway because of the signal.
• We did a warrant study for a traffic signal and 27th warrants a signal, so the bridge will be
located at 27th with the signal.
Mr. Mulhere asked how far that was from Golden Gate.
Ms. Lantz said she didn't have the exact number, but it's about 40 feet short of being exactly
where the access management code is, so it was within the area.
e. Collier County Fire Review — [Shar Beddow, Deputy Fire Marshal]
(None)
f. North Collier Fire Review — [Daniel Zunzunegui, Deputy Director]
Mr. Zunzunegui outlined the May monthly Fire Review Statistics and provided updates:
• There was a four -day turnaround time for both planning and building review.
• 820 reviews were conducted last month, with 777 in Building Permits and 43 in
Development Review.
• There are 206 active permits in the queue. Although it keeps filling up, staff is doing a
tremendous job getting everything out in time.
• A new code cycle took effect, with a grab -bar requirement that was tied into means of
egress. The State Fire Marshal rescinded those requirements effective April 26.
• There were a few apartment multifamily complexes where it was no longer enforced
and we reached out others and the CBIA to say it's no longer a requirement.
• Senate Bill 1140 passed and takes effect July 1. That involves fire -alarm system
projects, small projects like monitoring permits or an existing system renovation with
Packet Pg. 65
June 1, 2022
14.A.2
20 devices/appliances or less. If it meets that definition, there's a simplified permitting
process, so it's almost over-the-counter or self -issuing and we would provide an onsite
inspection.
We've been working closely with GMD staff to do portal upgrades for that permit.
If we go onsite and find more work was done, they'd fail inspection and would have to
reapply for a conventional alarm permit.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• The new law involves horn strobes, heats, etc.
• If the panel is being replaced, this doesn't apply if it's a self -communicator, monitoring
takeover, initiating device or notification appliance.
• We worked with GMD to come up with what information will be provided during the onsite
inspection.
• There will be no plan review for those permits; the goal is to make them self -issuing.
• It's a PRFR, a fire permit; it doesn't come in as a PRBD.
• You must be a licensed contractor, an independent third party who handles it.
• Another new requirement, a Mass -Notification Risk Analysis, exceeds fire concerns and
involves public safety with a high occupancy load; it's typically a quality assessment added
into the engineering review, if it's required.
• The Mass Notification Risk Analysis is more holistic and involves a public safety emergency;
they need to ensure it's submitted, conducted credibly by someone qualified and put into the
public record.
g. Operations & Regulatory Management Division — [Ken Kovensky, Director]
Mr. Kovensky outlined the May monthly activity report and provided updates:
• Over 5,300 permits were processed.
• Staff came in over the holiday weekend to work on the backlog and got it down to 200-
plus in the queue.
• We're currently working on last Friday, so we are pretty caught up.
• The Business Center manager, Kirsten, is doing a great job managing staff here and in
four satellite offices by setting up a rotation schedule to enable staff to get acclimated to
satellite offices.
• We're also cross -training for in -person permits and EPR permits, as well as routing.
• We've worked through the backlog in our zoning front desk and cleared all the
inventory for anyone who wants callbacks.
• Callbacks were in the 200-call range and we're down to cleaning it out almost daily, so
we're caught up.
• Calls coming into the Building Department were a little lower the past month or two,
but still around 6,500.
• Abandoned calls dropped to a little over 200.
• We're still losing staff, but keep hiring.
• We lost another Contractor Licensing Code Enforcement Investigator, who is taking a
job with the City of Naples for more money; he's replacing somebody who also used to
work here.
• We're down to two out of the five full-time Contractor Licensing Investigators and
have one KeyStaff temporary investigator, so we've got that position posted.
El
Packet Pg. 66
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
• The finance staff also has been depleted. We have four budget analysts. Two have been
on FMLA or out of the office sick, and a third just resigned to take a promotion in
another department.
• We're still down a couple of IT positions, an applications analyst and a GIS tech. We
lost a long-standing employee of 15-plus years in operations. We're interviewing this
week.
• CityView: We're looking at some of our internal processing and trying to streamline a
few things, especially in the routing area where we're trying to automate items so we
don't look at the same permit more than we need to and doing double reviews. We're
trying to eliminate that.
Mr. Mulhere said the County website has improved since we last talked about the conversion.
It's easier now to get to the zoning maps. But a measuring tool disappeared. He used it daily
and asked if it could be reinstalled.
Mr. Kovensky said he'd look into it.
Mr. Boughton asked where he thinks we'll be in a year on construction level and workloads,
whether they'll level off. The market is crazy with subcontractors and pricing. There's no
guarantee that your current project, assuming you don't have any change orders, is going to
end up where it is. That, plus inflation and interest rates, he doesn't believe it can continue this
way. We're in for an adjustment in a year regarding demand for construction.
Mr. Kovensky said it's been pretty steady over the last several months, but has dropped off
from the same period last year, which was explosive. The general consensus is they expect it to
level off in six to nine months.
Mr. Boughton said he's seen things he's never seen in the 40 years he's been in construction,
such as a subcontractor hands him a change order and tells him to take it or leave it, although
there's no more scope.
Chairman Varian said we're all seeing it.
Mr. Boughton said we can't go on like that. It's uncharted waters.
Chairman Varian said fixed -price contracts, unless it's going to be done within the next 30 days
and then 30 days after that, you can't get one.
Mr, Boughton said trusses are now nine months out.
Chairman Varian said longer, a year.
Mr. Kovensky said the County is seeing the same thing with County building projects, delays
and backordered materials.
Chairman Varian asked about contractor licensing renewals. He has still not heard about his
uploaded information. This is the certified renewal year. He uploaded his state certification
information two months ago and there's been no movement.
Packet Pg. 67
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
Mr. Kovensky said the process is that we're about to mail out notices in July, so you're ahead
of the game. He will check to see if staff knows it's there. It's not on their radar right now.
h. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi, Director]
Mr. Bosi provided a report on staffing and other issues:
• One vacancy hasn't been filled, a senior planner at a level where we normally
have better success in terms of being able to bring someone into GMD.
• In the past three months, we've filled principal planner and other positions.
• There's a steady request for pre -application meetings for rezones and GMP
amendments.
• We expect a reshuffling in terms of the amount of business activity, which
probably can't be sustained moving forward.
• The last of the housing amendments requested by the Board of County
Commissioners will go before them on June 26.
• June will be a very busy month, with two Growth Management Plan petitions and
rezone requests sponsored by Mr. Mulhere and his team.
• Agents are seeing a big push now to get some projects done before the election
due to the known versus the unknown, so after the break, we expect to have a
busy fall.
• Town of Big Cypress and another SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area),
Brightwater, will be coming up for the Planning Commission and BCC.
• More entitlements continue to roll through relating to SDPs and plats, which will
eventually get to your level.
• Pricing seems disconnected from reality. The market ebb and flow affects
purchasing power and the willingness to execute second -home purchases and the
demographics we service.
• The supply and demand imbalance here is solid, whether it's additional
multifamily or single-family units, and we haven't caught up with the continued
demand placed on this County due to the migration here.
• We're starting to see pricing start to adjust at the lower end of the market.
• When we do see a reshuffling or a downturn, it probably won't last long because
there's a lot of product that didn't come out of the ground. We started to catch up
and now we've got supply -chain issues of not being able to get construction
materials.
• The rebound will probably be quick, but hopefully steady.
6. New Business
a. LDC Amendment — PL20210000766 Off -site Boat Storage in C-4
[PowerPoint presentation by Ellen Summers, Senior Planner, Hole Montes]
Mr. Johnson said this is a privately initiated LDC amendment that went before the subcommittee
last week and recommended approval based on several conditions of approval, some of which have
been incorporated into the document you received by email. There's a staff presentation and the
petitioner would like to make a presentation.
There are two voting conflicts. Mr. Mulhere and Mr. McLean will be abstaining.
n
Packet Pg. 68
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
Ms. Summers said they're proposing an off -site boat storage amendment to the Land Development
Code in Section 50502, supplemental standards for marinas, and due to the last DSAC-LDR
subcommittee meeting, also updating LDC Section 20303, Commercial Zoning Districts. She
reported that:
• The client has a property on Newport Drive and Tamiami Trail in the Port of the Islands.
• In 2017, we requested a Zoning Verification Letter seeking clarification on whether this use
is consistent with the C-4 District.
• We were instructed to move forward with a Comparable -Use Determination.
• Based on an interpretation at that time, which has since changed, we were deemed
inconsistent and could not have offsite boat storage due to the Manatee Protection Plan.
• Now, years later, because it's not on water frontage, it's not deemed a marina and the
Manatee Protection Plan doesn't apply.
• We initially applied for this privately initiated LDC amendment in 2021 and have met with
staff several times and gone through many iterations of this LDC amendment.
• The subject site is directly adjacent to and about 360 feet away from an existing public
boat -ramp facility; there's also a marina there.
• The idea is to allow for additional off -site boat storage at the subject site that would utilize
the public boat -ramp facility; rhere are few conditions that would allow this.
• The red area is commercial C-4 zoning, the blue is Residential Districts and the green is
Agricultural/Conservation Districts.
• This site is about 450 feet away RMF 12 Zoning District.
• Because we are proposing to allow this use within the C-4 District, we had to amend the C-
4 Zoning District to identify this as a Conditional Use limited to the Port of the Islands.
• We have added our amendment to the supplemental standards for marinas and are now
adding this title to off -site boatyards. A-H lists the additional standards for marinas, as well
as the Manatee Protection Plan and we are adding a new subsection specifically for this
use, which would be related to off -site boatyards, the storage of boats, boat trailers, trailer
vessels and other related vehicles.
• It must be in connection with a marina or a public boat -ramp facility.
• This use will be permitted on a non-contiguous lot from such marina or public boat ramp
facility.
• It will be required to adhere to Site Development Plan requirements and has an additional
list of standards.
• The off -site boatyard must be within the C-4 Zoning District and will be required to go
through a Conditional -Use Process and to the Board of Zoning Appeals, not a hearing
examiner.
• A Neighborhood Information Meeting is required, with mailed notices and newspaper
advertisements for the Conditional -Use Process.
• In addition to the existing mail notice requirements for the NIM, staff requires notices to be
sent out within 1,000 feet of this non-contiguous boat storage lot.
• They must be sent out to all residential units relying on the roadway that separates the boat
storage lot and marina and/or the public boat -ramp facility.
• The NIM will only be held between November and April, ensuring seasonal residents can
attend.
7
Packet Pg. 69
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
• We are required to notify the County Manager or designee that we are having a NIM for a
use that will be reliant on the public boat ramp facility.
• This off -site boat storage lot can be located no farther than 660 feet, measured from
property line to property line, from the marina or public boat ramp; the SDP will identify
that distance during a review.
• The off -site boat storage lot shall be located no closer than 100 feet from a residentially
zoned parcel, excluding the Residential Tourist District, which allows marinas as a
conditional use.
• If there is a residential PUD that has a residential tract, that would be excluded. That off -
site light lot would not be allowed to be within 100 feet.
• For the offsite boat storage lot, if it is separated by a roadway, that roadway cannot be a
collector, an arterial roadway or any other roadway classification greater than that; those
are roadways identified in the traffic circulation element of the GMP.
• There is a much smaller zoned building height requirement for these structures associated
with this specific use that was recommended by the DSAC-LDR.
• That ensures that the maximum zoned height of 35 feet will be included for those principal
and accessory structures related to the off -site boat storage use.
• There is a minimum setback of 20 feet, and 25 feet from a public roadway.
• There are additional screening and landscape buffering requirements. If this site has any
outdoor storage, it shall be screened by an opaque wall or fence, not to exceed 8 feet in
height, except for where the necessary ingress and egress is located.
• That wall shall be located between the storage location and the required landscape buffers.
• In addition to the landscaping and buffer requirements of LDC Section 40600, we are
increasing the required height for trees at time of installation. They are typically 10 feet and
will now be 16 feet.
• The tree height shall be installed at 25 feet on center.
• A required hedge must be 60 inches at time of installation.
• Another DSAC-LDR recommendation was to address lighting. All exterior light shall be
shielded so it won't spill upon adjoining properties or beyond the property lines.
• This provision is to ensure this is not construed as any type of salvage, junkyard or any
other type of facility where it would be more unsightly.
Mr. Curl said we heard last week that this may apply to this site and two or three others. Is that
correct?
Ms. Summers said previously, yes, but with the changes since we last met, staff requested that this be
applicable only to Port of the Islands.
Mr. Curl asked why they were going through a code amendment instead of a PUD.
Mr. Mulhere said he was recusing himself but wanted to explain that this was too small for a PUD
This is the direction we received and may seem like overkill.
Mr. Curl agreed.
Mr. Mulhere said the BCC is very concerned with changing land use without proper notification and
in an LDC amendment there is no property owner notification, except in certain circumstances. There
Packet Pg. 70
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
was a recent highly public issue involving a food truck park on Isles of Capri. Property owners felt they
weren't properly notified. That's because it was done through a zoning verification or comparable -use
process. There are a few other recent examples of cases where people didn't feel they were
notified. Staff said that was a deal breaker and were concerned. So instead of making it an allowable
use, we suggested a conditional use. Then we'd have to notify people and hold a NIM, which we held
three years ago.
This property is zoned C-4 and it's highly unlikely you're going to get typical C-4 uses at Port of the
Islands because the population doesn't warrant supporting that. There are a lot of boaters, boating
demand and a boat ramp there. Most people who would use this are trailering vessels down U.S. 41, so
there's a benefit. The County's Comp Plan says the County should maximize the opportunity for the
public to access navigable waters, the Gulf of Mexico. This does that.
We have a lot of restrictions that we might not otherwise have had in terms of notification. My client
doesn't have a problem doing that notification. We committed to that. We also committed to the
landscape buffer when we held a NIM and they asked for an enhanced buffer. It wasn't quite as
enhanced as this buffer, but we already had committed to that.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• Staff didn't agree with DSAC-LDR's recommendation on height.
• DSAC-LDR's idea was if you were going to have a 35-foot rack, measure from the ground to 35
feet. Now if you put a boat on the rack with Garmins, antennas, etc., it exceeds that height and
enforcement would be ridiculous.
• This is for a specific site, for surface storage.
• DSAC-LDR didn't support the language after "inclusive of the boats, boat trailers, vessels ..."
• DSAC-LDR supported a sentence that said, "the zoned building height of all principal and
accessory structures associated with the use ..."
Vice Chairman Foley noted that the subcommittee discussed this for a long time and asked Mr.
Johnson to go over the subcommittee's recommendations versus staff s changes to provide the rationale
behind them.
Mr. Johnson said we determined that it would affect two different properties, one owned by the
petitioner and the one to the south, which is owned by Collier County. He noted that:
• This property has been zoned C-4 since 1982 and the petitioner's property is slightly over 2 acres.
• The County owns the public boat ramp that this amendment is being connected to; we didn't want
to muddy the waters and call it a boat -launching facility.
• When staff analyzed this amendment, one of the first things they did was to look at the purpose and
intent of the C-4 Zoning District because, as a privately -initiated amendment, we have to ultimately
give a recommendation.
• If the recommendation is contrary to that of the petitioner, we can agree to disagree and move on.
• Staff s analysis first started with investigating the purpose and intent (highlighted text).
• The C-4 zoning district accepts automobile sales, marine vessels and the renting or leasing of
equipment.
• A chart shows several boating -related uses, with boatyards highlighted, and you can see it's
permitted by right in the C-5 and Industrial Zoning District, and conditionally in the VR Zoning
District.
I
Packet Pg. 71
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
• Marinas, including boatyards, are listed as "permitted by right" in the C-3, C-4 and C-5 Zoning
Districts and conditionally in the RT, the VR and the CF. That's important to know because we
want to base an evaluation and, ultimately, a recommendation on the uses.
• It's a recent change to code and as proposed, the petitioner is amending Chapter 20303, Section D,
adding a conditional use; it's important to recognize how that fits in from a zoning perspective with
respect to principal uses.
• The parcel owned by the petitioner has a self-imposed 35-foot building height maximum, which
differentiates it between the C-3 and the C-2 Zoning Districts.
• Marinas are allowed as permitted -by -right into C-3, and that allows a height up to 50 feet, so this is
lower than the C-3 Zoning District.
• Table 3 shows how the LDC amendment compares with respect to the setbacks and the C-4 Zoning
District.
• The minimum front yard setback is 25 feet and the LDC amendment proposes 25 feet, so that's the
same.
• The side and rear setbacks are 20 feet, which is greater than 15 feet; staff thinks that's a great idea.
• Privately initiated LDC amendments don't require mail notification to affected property owners.
• The last time staff brought privately -initiated amendments through the public hearing process, the
Planning Commission asked that in both applications, the Land Development Code amendment be
processed at the same time as the Conditional -Use Application.
• Staff agreed with the petitioner that it would have changed from a permitted -by -right use to a
conditional use. Conditional uses normally require a 500-foot mail notification area for a NIM.
Staff and the petitioner collaborated and determined that 1,000 feet is a good idea. That switch is
the same for intent to convert golf courses, a 1,000-foot mail notification area for the NIM,
including all residential units relying on the amendment, the homes on Newport Drive.
• There's a total of about 318 residential properties along Newport Drive and 56% of are not
homesteaded, which means they're rented out or seasonal. Unless they're on our stakeholder list,
they have no idea about this amendment.
• Having this kind of knowledge helps staff make better and more informed decisions.
• The applicant agreed to have the NIM for the CU during the time when seasonal residents are here.
• Staff has to look out and protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and affected property
owners, so a NIM from November through April 1 was a good idea; that was in conflict with the
DSAC-LDR recommendation.
• DSAC-LDR struck out three of staff s recommendations/conditions of approval. Those were
highlighted in a memo you received Friday.
• The petitioner and staff agreed to enhance landscaping and taller trees.
• The subcommittee voted to remove the requirement for the second row of trees, so we wanted to
make sure there was adequate buffering for the structures, boats and items stored onsite, etc., so we
brought it back to the petitioner at 16 feet and they agreed.
• There is a 7-8-foot wall where there's storage and above that would be the canopy of a shade tree.
• Shade trees would not be centered 30 feet on center, but 25 feet on center, so the narrower tree
spacing helps the buffer.
• The concern about the 35-foot zone height for everything that was inclusive was to basically screen
out boats being stored onsite where they aren't allowed there today; the petitioner agreed.
• Residents live in this community and this is the first sight they'll see when they enter the
community and the last thing they'd see as they exit; petitioner agrees with that.
10
Packet Pg. 72
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
Mr. Mulhere said they didn't agree with the height language, 35 feet for the boat and everything
on the boat, but agreed to other conditions.
Mr. French said we're talking about a boat -storage area where boats are on trailers. There is no
passage of ingress or egress, nor is there a facility available to offload and load boats without a trailer
involved here, so you don't have rocket launchers, Garmins, etc., on a boat. It's a storage facility that's
allowing for marine storage on trailers, so we're not going to have forklifts on County roads, nor do we
have a facility. They're utilizing a County park to do this, and they're still going to have to go through
an agreement with County park officials to get boats licensed to be able to utilize this facility. This is a
neighborhood park that offers boat launches.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• This conditional use must go through a public hearing, with an opportunity to add restrictions.
• If it exceeds 35 feet, it would require a separate Conditional -Use Application.
• This must go through the Planning Commission and BCC and ensures neighbors and Parks & Rec
get a say.
• If it were to be 75-feet tall, enclosed and air conditioned, it's allowed in the C-4 Zoning District,
which allows the use as a Conditional -Use, motor freight, transportation and warehousing; SIC
4225 is air conditioned and mini- and self -storage warehousing only; it requires Conditional -Use
approval and would have to be classified under that use.
Mr. Johnson said we recommend that DSAC approve this with the NIM occurring between November
1 and April 1; the mailed notice would be 1,000 feet; applications relying on a public boat ramp shall
notify the County manager of the application and the NIM with a mailed letter of intent.
[Mr. Dunnavant left the meeting at 4: 05 p.m.]
Mr. Johnson listed the DSAC-LDR recommendations and details about this site:
• Eliminate the proposed term "boat launching facilities" from the title of LDC Section 50502 and
replace it with either "off -site boatyards" or "marinas and off -site boatyards." Staff did that.
• Eliminate the "inclusive of boats" text in LDC section 50502 G-5; staff is not in agreement.
• Clarify LDC Section 50502 G-7. The subcommittee asked that the wall/fence be located on the
inside of the required vegetation — landward, not the street side; that was our attempt to meet that
condition.
• Rewrite LDC Section 50502 G-8. The subcommittee recommended eliminating the requirement for
a double row of trees in favor of a single row, 25 feet on center instead of 30 feet on center.
• The subcommittee recommended including a 60-inch-high hedge outside the fencing and the hedge
shall be 10 to 15 gallons, depending on the Type-B Buffer requirements in the LDC.
• This site would require a Type-D Buffer along its north property line, a Type-D Buffer along its
east property line, a Type -A Buffer along the west and a Type -A on the south.
• When the subcommittee recommended eliminating the second row of trees, we reasoned that we
still want to ensure there's adequate buffering, so we requested that it be increased from 14 feet to
16 feet.
• Space is reduced from 30 feet on center to 25 feet on center and any hedges that are required would
be installed at 60 inches.
• The wall or fence shall be located between the outdoor storage and the landscaping required within
the buffers.
11
Packet Pg. 73
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
Lighting on the premises shall be shielded so as to not spill upon adjoining properties or beyond
property lines; staff agreed.
Everything else in the LDC amendment shall remain as proposed by the applicant and exclude all
three of staff s recommendations about the NIM dates, one -mile notification area and Letter of No
Objection.
Mr. Boughton asked if the 660 feet was greater than current code or does it not exist?
Mr. Johnson said there's no code requirement for it right now, so to draw a connection between the
off -site boat storage and public boat ramp or marina with a boat ramp, there had to be a number.
Mr. Bosi said the reality is that he couldn't develop this outdoor boat storage facility as the code exists.
That's why he's proposing this. He has a property that's within 660 feet, so that's why staff arrived
upon that number, to activate the allowance of an outdoor boat storage facility on this parcel.
Mr. Mulhere said 660 feet is a reasonable number.
Mr. Brooker said he wanted to reiterate the subcommittee's concern that it would be easier to enforce
if it's 35 feet; they thought the one -mile notice was overkill; and requiring the NIM to occur between
November and April opens the door to applying that to other applications and would cause delays.
Mr. Sterk asked what could be built there now.
Mr. Mulhere said retail, boat sails, boat storage.
Mr. Brooker recommend approval with the following changes: 35 feet to the top of the structure; a
1,000 foot notice requirement, no limitations on the date for the NIM. It was seconded by Vice
Chairman Foley. It passed unanimously, 10-0; Mr. McLean and Mr. Mulhere abstained.
Mr. McLean said as a point of clarification for the future, when we recuse ourselves from voting on
projects, we should completely recuse. If you abstain and participate, that's a no vote. The reason he
recused is because he has 55 condos going in next door and we will be objecting to it.
Mr. Mulhere said he believed he could participate in the discussion and then abstain from the vote.
Mr. Brooker said Mr. McLean is quoting Robert's Rules of Order, which is not state law.
Mr. McLean said he opted to completely abstain from the discussion and vote.
Mr. Espinar said he's been on this Committee for 25 years and we've always been able to participate
and then abstain from the vote.
Mr. McLean said he was concerned, especially at the subcommittee level, of swaying the vote. He
could have participated and voted no but left during the subcommittee discussion.
Mr. Mulhere said the County could impose more stringent rules about conflict of interest, if they
wanted to.
12
Packet Pg. 74
14.A.2
June 1, 2022
Chairman Varian said they've allowed members to participate in discussions so the committee could
have the benefit of their expertise.
Mr. Mulhere said we've agreed to all the staff conditions, so he wasn't influencing anyone
Mr. McLean said he just wanted to ensure he wasn't influencing the vote.
Chairman Varian said we could ask the County Attorney's Office to provide an opinion on that.
Mr. French said he and Bob have been working on this for a while. This is a unique property and he
appreciates Bob's involvement in the discussion here because he and Bob have put a lot of thought into
this. We know the hurdles that are going to be crossed for the property owner and think it's a very
active property owner who really does see the benefit. He resides in the area and he's invested in the
area. He owns the commercial marina in the area.
The population is not going to sustain a grocery store or gas station, so we don't necessarily know the
highest and best use for this, but don't think this is a bad thing to ask for. Bob was able to show there is
a spirit of cooperation here between the landowner and staff. It's not that we were overreaching here,
it's based on what we were seeing with the activity of the Board, so we don't want to add to an already
tough job. We've had numerous hours of conversation with Tanya Williams from Public Services to
discuss how this could work and how they could be good neighbors. This is unique.
7. Old Business
Mr. French said the Committee asked great questions today. We don't know what the market is
going to bear. He's watching like everyone else and would like to say nine months or 18 months.
During the first recession we went through, where was Lorenzo Walker? What did they do? They
cut off all the training, other than what Theo Exel at Conditioned Air, continued to fund for AC
repair and AC training. Concrete masonry and others all went away because there was no demand.
Everyone was shifting careers, so we're fighting for staff between industry and government and
also between governments for this licensed staff that we desperately need in order to build these
structures, in order to develop. There's a reduction in workforce that's inherent, that's been built in
that now we saw a peak 10 years later.
Commodities are going to catch up, and when they do, the demand is going to drop because
interest rates are far too high for anyone to invest in. Affordable housing is always going to be
something we're going to be speaking about and he encourages the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee to start participating in these meetings, to show up and have conversations with DSAC
because without DSAC at the table, it doesn't get built.
That differentiation of opinion shouldn't divide you because your industry is employed by that
mission, and in order to do it, you must make the numbers right. There are some changes coming
We're hoping to see the BCC select a County Manager, so things settle down. There's a plan in
motion to bring back the Conference of Planning and Affordable Housing policy and Economic
Development back in this building, where they used to be and belonged, but were taken out by a
former administration. We're encouraged by this because it ties right into your industry. We're
hoping to bring that to you within the next six to eight months or a year.
13
Packet Pg. 75
June 1, 2022
14.A.2
$. Committee Member Comments
DSAC members agreed to skip the July meeting for summer break.
9. Adjourn
Future Meeting Dates:
Aug. 3, 2022, 3 p.m.
Sept. 7, 2022, 3 p.m.
Oct. 5, 2022, 3 p.m.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
the order of the chairman at 4:35 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman, William Varian
These minutes were roved by the Committee/Chairman on Z Z- , as presented
(choose one) , or as amended
14
Packet Pg. 76
May 25, 2022
14.A.2
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida, May 25, 2022
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory
Committee-LDR Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in SPECIAL SESSION at the Collier
County Growth Management Department Building, Conference Room #609/610,
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Clay Brooker
Robert Mulhere
Mark McLean
Jeff Curl
Blair Foley
ALSO PRESENT: Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner
Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager
Sean Kingston, Senior Planner
Zachary Karto, Principal Planner
Ellen Summers, Hole Montes Inc.
Packet Pg. 77
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of'the audio
recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department.
1. Call to Order - Chairman
Chairman Brooker called the special meeting to order at 1 p.m. A quorum consisting of five
members was convened.
2. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Curl made a motion to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously,
5-0.
3. Old Business
Mr. Foley said he wanted to talk about the landscape issue and SDPI they talked about at the full
DSAC meeting earlier this month, when they agreed it would come back:
• He spoke with Mark Templeton on some issues, such as the length of the SDPI.
• There was some discussion that the length of the SDPI was three years and was an
extension of what SDP lengths are, or SDPAs.
• There's been thought that there is no expiration to an SDPI because nothing is written on
the document or evident in the Land Development Code.
• When there are landscape issues, how do we handle those?
• Is there a timeframe?
• A DSAC discussion suggested it might be beneficial to have a separate process. We have
too many processes and don't need to promulgate more rules or LDC amendments.
• It's the right mechanism to review landscaping because SDPIs are an extension of SDPs
or SDPAs, so they require landscape plans.
• He has an issue with arbitrarily selecting how long it should take, so we could consider
putting stipulations in SDPI letters; they're common in SDP and SDPA letters.
• Is the conservation easement recorded before the CO or before the pre -construction
meeting?
• Stipulations are usually driven by staff only, without any input from applicants, which is
a concern because landscape improvements could be minor or take much longer.
• This subcommittee needs to come up with recommendations.
Mr. Johnson said the reason we didn't put it on this meeting's agenda is because staff wanted to look
into it more and provide some more backup material. He left a detailed voicemail for Jeff today,
indicating that staff is going to meet, collaborate and possibly schedule this for the June 15th meeting.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• This occurs a lot and it's going to happen more often.
• Oak trees that were planted in late 1999 and 2000-2005, are now destroying curbing and
sidewalks because they were planted up against houses, literally within five feet of a garage.
• This can be discussed at the next meeting and staff can provide options.
• Staff will meet with Code Enforcement and Zoning staff to come up with more information in
order to have a more intelligent future discussion.
Mr. McLean said he has a conflict of interest and can't vote on 4.a.i., Offsite Boat Storage, and
also has to leave at 1:30 pm. He asked to hear the second item first.
2
Packet Pg. 78
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
Mr. Johnson said his fear is that they won't have a quorum later in this meeting and won't have
a quorum for item No. 1 if they switch.
Mr. Mulhere noted that No. 1 had been around for a long time and they could continue it to the
June 15 meeting.
Mr. Foley said they should stick with the agenda order the way it was approved.
4. New Business
a. LDC Amendments
i. PL20210000766 — Off -Site Boat Storage in C-4
[Ellen Summers, Senior Planner, Hole Montes)
Mr. Johnson said a two -page document in the agenda packet details this privately initiated
amendment and the petitioner is here to give a presentation.
Mr. Mulhere said he submitted a recusal form at the prior meeting and is re -submitting it now. He
asked Ms. Summers from his office to go through a brief PowerPoint presentation. He has at least one
comment on the staff version in front of DSAC-LDR.
Ms. Summers said this privately initiated Land Development Code amendment is related to offsite
boat storage and to amend LDC section 5.05.02, supplemental standards for specific uses:
• We're ultimately seeking to permit offsite boatyards and storage of boats, boat trailers, and
other vessels in relation to or in conjunction with a marina or a public boat -ramp facility.
• They would only be permitted if certain conditions are met.
• Her client has a C-4 property and has been working to get this use developed for five or six
years.
• In 2017, they submitted for a Zoning Verification Letter and the ZVL said they need to go
through a Comparable -Use Determination.
• The next year, they applied for the Comparable -Use Determination and because marinas are
subject to Manatee Protection Plans, they were informed new marinas would not be permitted
due to MPP and siting requirements at this location.
• This current request was submitted around this time last year, after they were asked to add
outdoor storage yards to C-4 Zoning Districts, limiting them to boats, boat trailers and trailer
vessels. The amendment request has evolved after working with stall and their client.
Mr. Foley stated that the Manatee Protection Plan in 2018 said this wouldn't be allowed and asked,
How do you sit with the requirement today?
Ms. Summers said it's been determined for this type of use, it would not be required as it's not a
marina, located on the water. We can't really require adjustments and a Manatee -Protection Plan for a
site that's not on the water.
Mr. Mulhere said C-5 allows it, but C-4 does not and the Manatee Protection Plan doesn't apply to
boat storage yards, just sites with direct water access. It doesn't even apply to a boat ramp for people
coming to a park and removing a boat from a trailer.
Mr. Johnson said staff determined it's not subject to the Manatee Protection Plan.
Packet Pg. 79
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
Ms. Summers said the Land Development Code is set up for a list of permitted uses. Marinas are
identified with an SIC code under the list of permitted uses, which also lists boatyards, boat storage,
and those types of uses within the SIC code website. The Land Development Code defines marinas as
subject to the Manatee Protection Plan, which caused the complication.
Mr. Johnson said to clarify, the public boat ramp is a different property than the one Mr. Mulhere is
representing. The offsite storage of boats on the subject site does not trigger MPP requirements.
Mr. Mulhere said there are limitations on that marina that are imposed by the Manatee Protection Plan
that do not apply to a boat ramp because they can't control how many boats people drop off at a boat
ramp. They apply to wet slips and dry slips at a marina and are the limitations of the Manatee
Protection Plan. When there's a boat ramp, you can have high demand or low demand. The one on 951
has very high demand. We had Tim Hall prepare an analysis and staff agreed.
Mr. Foley said the point of bringing it up was to put it on the record. The points were clear. It looked
like you had a problem in 2018, but you don't have it now.
Mr. Mulhere said the mistake we made that we should do a Comparable -Use Application, comparing
the use to a marina because it's similar to a marina, but it's not a marina because it's not on the water.
We were I1/2 years to two years into the process when it was decided that the MPP would apply and
that no more impacts under the MPP could occur in this location. They have a limit on wet and dry
slips. That's what the LDC amendment said.
Mr. Johnson read 3.2 of the Marina Siting of the Manatee Protection Plan, second paragraph: "For the
purposes of this plan, marina facilities include wet -slip marinas, boatyards with water access and multi -
slip residential facilities. Dry -storage facilities are only considered in this plan if they have water
frontage and the capability of launching vessels into those waters."
Ms. Summers said at the subject site, at Port of The Islands, which is far down on the East Trail, it is
within C-4 zoning, and noted the following zoning on their slide:
• Blue areas are Residential Districts.
• The property east of the subject site is zoned Residential -Tourist.
• Marinas are a conditional use within that zoning district.
• To the South, about 450 feet from the subject site, is RMF-12 Zoning District.
• The green area is Agriculturally Zoned lands.
• The LDC amendment proposes 660 feet from the corner of the subject site's property line to the
corner of the property line where the public boat ramp is located.
Mr. Mulhere said half of the middle piece closest to the RMF-12 District, a piece below the subject
site, is owned by the County and zoned C-4.
Ms. Summers said they're amending the marina section of the code to establish:
• It's basically a parking lot area.
• It's re -titled to Marinas and Boat -Launching Facilities, so it won't strictly be related to marinas.
• A new section to allow offsite boatyards, storage of boats, boat trailers and other types of related
vehicles or vessels, but only in connection with a marina or an existing public boat -ramp facility.
• It allows the parking area/storage area to be off -site.
El
Packet Pg. 80
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
• A required Site Development Plan to show what marina or public boat ramp this new construction
relates to.
• It is not subject to Manatee Protection Plan requirements.
• It is only related to the non-contiguous lot for which the use is being developed on.
• Use of this boat yard is limited to the C-4 Zoning District and will require Conditional -Use
Approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals.
• Additionally, to increase the mail -notice requirements were proposed by staff for this type of
conditional use. Typically, mail -notice requirements for Conditional Use are 500 feet within an urban area
(that may have gone up to a mile in the Estates and 1,000 feet for all others).
• Many of these standards will get reviewed at the Conditional -Use time.
• The non-contiguous lot cannot be located farther than 660 feet from a marina or boat -
launching facility as measured from property line to property line and demonstrated on the
SDP.
• In consideration of the other residentially zoned districts, this lot shall be no closer than 100 feet
from a residentially zoned parcel, excluding the Residential -Tourist District, which permits marinas as a
conditional use.
Ms. Summers continued, stating the following:
• This non-contiguous lot has a roadway separating off -site storage from the marina/boat ramp.
• This is only permitted if the roadway is a local and not a collector or arterial roadway that separates
the off -site lot with a marina or public boat ramp.
• The zoned building height for principal and accessory structures will have a maximum -height of 35
feet, which is more restrictive than the 75-foot for the C-4 District requirement.
• The 35-foot height is also related to vessels that are onsite for storage and goes beyond structures.
• The minimum setback requirement is 20 feet from property lines, with a 25-foot setback from the
public street.
• An additional screening provision requires an opaque wall or fence, 8 feet in height or less, with an
exception for necessary ingress and egress.
• There will be a second row of trees staggered with the existing first row required by the
Landscaping Code section.
• Tree heights have a minimum height of 14 feet, which is above the code requirement of 10 feet at
time of installation and spacing requirements are no more than 30 feet on center
Ms. Summers said the last provision is to ensure it is not construed to be any type of junk or
scrap yard or salvage operation, and the amendment is intended for boat trailers and vessels in
active use and not in disrepair.
Mr. Mulhere said he spoke to Eric about the height restriction on the storage of vessel structures. We
have no problem limiting that to 35 feet. But the way this is written means my client, with a C-4
property, can't build any of the other permitted uses that aren't restricted above 35 feet, which doesn't
make sense. The height and zoning district for any permitted use is 75 feet. If you want to restrict this
new use, we don't have an objection. We have an objection to anything that could be construed to
restrict the height of any currently permitted use. This is all under the Conditional -Use for boat
storage. It should read: "Zoning for a building associated with the storage of boat trailers, trailer
vessels or other related vehicles on the non-contiguous lot shall not exceed 35 feet."
Mr. Curl said absolutely.
Packet Pg. 81
May 25, 2022
14.A.2
Mr. Johnson said he has no problem with that language.
Mr. Brooker said inclusive of the boat, so if you have a boat rack and put a 34-foot Contender on the
top of the rack, that's a 12-foot structure of a boat.
Mr. Mulhere said his client only intends surface storage that might affect someone else.
Mr. Curl said he agreed with Clay. How do you measure the boat? Do we count the GPS and
antennas?
Mr. Brooker said the structure of the rack itself should be no higher than 35 feet and you can put a
boat on top of that.
Mr. McLean asked what if you built a 75-foot structure to store boats?
Mr. Mulhere said you can't. You're limited to 35 feet.
Mr. McLean said you could still do a three-story boat storage and stack boats.
Mr. Mulhere said it says structures, so we just strike through "inclusive of the boats, boat trailers,
trailer vessels or other related vehicles," and if you say, "associated with the storage of boats, boat
trailers, trailer vessels and other related vehicles," that's fine and limits it to 35 feet. Those are the uses
allowed under this Conditional -Use process. The other issue that was raised was the 1,000-foot public
notice requirement. Someone suggested we should notify everybody in the developments on that side
of the street. There aren't many on the other side, but there are a lot of condos, single-family homes,
and residents at the end.
He doesn't object to that and gave a resident his word that they'd notify everybody. Eric proposed a
revised notice requirement of one mile. There is really no one within a mile, other than residents living
there. We did research on the number of C-4 parcels in Collier County adjacent to a marina or a boat
ramp that could take advantage of this.
Mr. Johnson said the way it's worded, this parcel and the one to the south are the only affected
parcels.
Mr. Mulhere said it's overkill. We excluded the City of Marco and the City of Naples. We looked at
unincorporated Collier County, including Goodland. There may have been a potential lot there.
Mr. Johnson said there is a lot in Chokoloskee. You've included the Residential -Tourist District and
that closed the loop on that one.
Mr. Mulhere said there are not a lot of uses that are going to occur on a C-4 Zoned piece of property at
Port of the Islands. When we met with the residents two or three years ago, many asked to let them
know when it's coming because they want to put their boats there. This is going to reduce the volume
of traffic trailering vessels on U.S. 41 to get to this boat ramp. Some people will store their boats there.
n
Packet Pg. 82
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
The County has a Comprehensive Plan policy that says the County will maximize the opportunities for
the public to access navigable waters. This furthers that it is an appropriate use in this location and has
many restrictions placed on it.
Mr. Johnson said that because this is a privately initiated amendment, staff would have to make a
recommendation. It's not one that's directed by the Board.
Mr. Curl said the double -row tree landscape buffer basically puts trees 15 feet on center. It's too
dense.
Mr. Mulhere said that occurred because neighbors were concerned with the two sides they see as they
drive by, on the east and north along 41, and the entry road. They wanted an enhanced buffer. There is
no reason to put an enhanced buffer between C-4 and C-4, or against agricultural land to the west.
Mr. Curl said it seems like overkill. He worked with a former client on that, but he doesn't own it
anymore. He questioned the double row of trees, noting that when trees are overplanted, we have to
come back in with tree -removal permits 20 years later. It's unsustainable.
Mr. Mulhere said there isn't room for a hedge in a typical Type-D buffer.
Mr. Curl said there is enough room on a Type-D buffer, but that the hedge requirement is 36 inches
tall.
Mr. Mulhere said what if we did a Type-B hedge, 60-inch, which would provide more screening?
Mr. Curl said in a Type B-buffer, trees are spaced 25 feet, versus 30 feet on a Type-D buffer, so
maybe it's a Type D modified. A double row of trees is not going to work for a period of over five
years.
Mr. Mulhere said he'll take his advice on that and hopefully staff will. Instead of a double row of
trees, we can go with a 60-inch row of hedges at the time of planting.
Mr. Curl said a Type B Buffer is a good model.
Mr. Johnson asked if he's proposing a 60-inch hedge.
Mr. Curl said a D Buffer is one tree every 30 feet. A 2-foot hedge at the time of planting needs to be
36 inches. He also suggests that same row of trees, potentially at 25 feet on center, like a Type B
Buffer, with a 60-inch hedge, as in a Type-B buffer. That 60-inch hedge would be 4 feet on center.
Mr. Johnson confirmed that they wanted a 60-inch hedge, as well as trees that are 14-feet tall at
installation, 25 feet on center.
Mr. Mulhere said it needs to say, "Where a Type B Buffer is required." That's any yard that's adjacent
to a right-of-way. The buffer shall include 14-foot trees spaced 25 feet on center and a minimum 10-
gallon, 60-inch-tall hedge at time of planting.
7
Packet Pg. 83
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
Mr. Curl disapproved of the requirement. If it's 35 feet tall, people will want security lighting. It
should be full cut-off, so it shines down, not out. No flood packs on the side shining toward residential
units immediately to the south.
Mr. Mulhere said Norm provided Dark Sky Compliant language, fully shielded, and he can adhere to
that.
Ms. Summers said they're going through a Conditional -Use process and there are other standards
Mr. McLean advised against using the term, "Dark Sky Compliant." From an architectural standpoint,
it only allows for a handful of light fixtures.
Mr. Johnson asked about wall packs.
Mr. Curl said that's because they shine horizontally.
Mr. McLean said there is other verbiage they could use.
Mr. Mulhere said onsite lighting should be shielded and directed so it won't have spillage on adjacent
properties.
Mr. Curl said if neighbors are going to get involved, he understands the double row of trees might
come back and he'd yield to that.
Mr. McLean said he must abstain or vote no, and it would be a conflict for him to vote no, so he will
abstain.
[Mr. McLean left the meeting at 1: 39 p.m.]
A discussion ensued about the prior condition requiring an opaque fence or a wall:
• Within a certain distance of a right-of-way, it needs to be screened.
• The LDC requires at least a 7-foot-tall fence or wall.
• This is a commercially zoned property, so the maximum height of a fence is 8 feet.
• The intent is to screen the chain -link fence from the public's view and to place landscaping on
the outside so the fence/wall is obscured from motorists.
• That's also under Type-B Buffer language.
A discussion ensued about the one -mile public notice requirement versus 1,000 or 500 feet:
• The public notification area for these properties would normally be 500 feet.
• This amendment only deals with two properties, but doesn't preclude others from rezoning a
property to C-4 to receive this benefit.
• The one -mile public notification requirement will capture all properties on Newport Drive.
• The distance from the subject parcel to the bottom of the entire developed area is more than
1,000 feet and more than one -quarter mile, about 3,000 feet; a mile is 5,280 feet. A mile public
notification requirement is used elsewhere in the LDC.
• Mr. Mulhere already committed to notifying all the area residents.
• This applies to other potential properties, one of which the County owns.
Packet Pg. 84
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
• The one -mile notification ensures they reach all the people affected because this isn't as
populated as other urban areas.
• If there is an HOA, the HOA would notify condo owners.
• Developers are required to notify everyone within a PUD depending on whether you're
amending the PUD and the scope of that amendment.
• If you're an adjacent C-4 property near a PUD you're only required to notify the people within
the prescribed distance.
Mr. Johnson said they came up with one mile as the requirement, because they needed to come up
with a definitive number, something that was more objective and not "at the discretion of the County
manager or designee," because that would have raised legal concerns. One mile captures all properties
at the south end of this development.
Mr. Brooker recalled a previous DSAC meeting about whether the County needs to expand the public
notification distance for properties in the Estates, and he expressed a concern about the future of public
noticing to other types of applications.
Mr. Johnson: Staff recommends that the DSAC subcommittee recommend approval of the petition,
subject to changing that one item from 1,000 feet to one mile; that the Neighborhood Information
Meeting that is associated with the Conditional -Use Application shall occur between November 1 st and
April 1st; and that a Letter of No -Objection from the Public Services Department shall be required as
part of the Conditional -Use Process, not as part of the Land Development Code process, to ensure that
associated impacts will not cause the public boat ramp to fall below an acceptable level of service.
Mr. Curl said he's against all of that, calling it onerous.
Mr. Mulhere said it's overkill. Why would they be treated any differently? He'll agree, but you cannot
say you have to get a Letter of No Objection. You can notify them, and they can show up and say they
don't support it. But if they're to be part of the review process for Conditional Use, send them the
application. He could then talk to them. If their objection makes no sense, wouldn't he get the right to
argue against it?
Mr. Foley said he's also against all three. We already have a commitment from the applicant that he's
going to notify everyone. As an engineer with Site Development Plans, we often have to obtain Letters
of No Objection. He advises clients to avoid any impact that would require getting a Notice of No
Objection because we can't get one. If we do, we don't know what it's based on. It is onerous. If you
want it in the review process, it's easy to include them.
Mr. Brooker asked Mr. Johnson to explain the third bullet point from staff s perspective.
Mr. Johnson said the petitioner is getting a use that would not ordinarily be allowed on the subject site,
C-4, which does not allow for boatyards. He noted that:
• It allows for an indoor storage facility.
If the petitioner wanted to have air-conditioned indoor storage of boats, they would go through a
Conditional -Use process.
Within a certain distance from the subject site, there is a County facility, a public boat ramp,
and this property owner is getting a benefit from such facility.
6
Packet Pg. 85
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
• Staff wants to ensure that the public boat ramp could accommodate any additional boats that
may be using the facility.
• A Letter of No Objection is another way of saying that the Public Services Department, which
oversees the Parks & Recreation Department, is OK with the Land Development Code
amendment and, subsequently, the conditional use.
• If there is an objection from the Public Services Department, they can communicate with us,
and they also want a petitioner to communicate with them.
Mr. Brooker asked if staff would be amenable to simply notifying the Public Services Department of a
conditional use application under this particular provision, so that they can be given the opportunity to
comment.
Mr. Johnson confirmed it would be acceptable.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• A Letter of No Objection wields a lot of power.
• The Public Services Department could be notified about Conditional -Use Applications under this
provision so it can comment. Requiring a Letter of No Objection is a problem. Mr. Mulhere met
with the Public Services administrator, who did not have an objection. It was revealed to Mr.
Mulhere that the current boat ramp may require repairs at some point. Mr. Mulhere opined that
repair to the boat ramp should be paid for by taxes, and he suggested that the amendment, as
proposed, gives the County the leverage to ask a petitioner to make repairs to the boat ramp. Mr.
Mulhere opined that the vast majority of boat traffic using the boat ramp is already using the boat
ramp.
• These standards are not applicable to and do not restrict public boat ramps (Collier County assets).
• There is no definition in the LDC related to "boat launching facility."
• LDC amendments do not require public notification to specific segments of the population and cited
the LDC amendment that was applicable to Goodland as an example of one such LDC amendment
that garnered much public interest. Mr. Mulhere reminded the Subcommittee that he is proposing
the boat storage as a conditional use. Mr. Brooker responded by saying that the LDC amendment
involving Goodland was also proposed as a conditional use. Mr. Henderlong clarified that the LDC
amendment for Goodland was proposed for an Overlay and not specific to a subject property. He
said the Board of County Commissioners requested the Conditional Use to come back (as a
companion to LDC amendment) in order to get the additional public notice. Mr. Brooker
acknowledged that the subject LDC amendment before the Subcommittee could potentially be
applicable countywide and drew a definite distinction between the shellfish amendment and this
proposed LDC amendment. Mr. Brooker rhetorically asked whether the public on the Port of the
Islands would be interested in this LDC amendment if they were notified about it.
• The intent of the subject LDC amendment is to prohibit a non-contiguous C-4 zoned lot from
developing into a boat storage if such site is located within 100 feet from a residentially zoned
parcel, including residential parcels in PUDs. The only zoning district excluded from the
"residentially zoned parcel" is the RT. Mr. Brooker was in favor of including language in the LDC
amendment to help clarify the 100-foot separation from any parcel in a PUD upon which residential
development can occur (excluding RT).
• Mr. Brooker commented about the applicant's justification (Exhibit B) regarding the Manatee
Protection Plan, specifically the statement of not increasing usage of the boat ramp.
10
Packet Pg. 86
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
• This client intends to use the site for surface boat storage. Mr. Johnson commented about including
the vessels in the height measurement (as it relates to maximum height) to minimize visual impacts.
Mr. Brooker felt that boat lifts will not lift large boats due to the possibility of both falling over and
that that including the vessels in the maximum height limitation in the LDC amendment could
create Code Enforcement issues. Ms. Summers questioned if there is such a height limitation
applicable to boat sales, which are also conditional uses in the C-4.
• If boats are stored within an air-conditioned building, then the use would qualify as a conditional
use in the C-4 and be eligible for a 75-foot-tall building. Mr. Mulhere suggested changing it so that
any multi -tiered storage shall be within a full enclosed structure. Mr. Johnson clarified that boat
storage can occur inside a 75-foot-tall building in the C-4 as a conditional use and commented
about no public notice requirements for privately -initiated LDC amendment, except through the
stakeholder email distribution list.
Mr. Brooker made a motion to recommend approval of the LDC amendment with the following
revisions:
1) Eliminate "boat launching facilities" as a term, maybe just call it "marinas and off -site boat
yards'
2) Clarify LDC section 5.05.02 A., where it states, "These standards are not applicable to public
boat ramps, "so we understand exactly what is meant by it,
3) Indicate under LDC section 5.05.02 G.5., the zoned building height of all principal and
accessory structures associated with the off -site boat storage shall be limited to 35 feet. Eliminate
the "inclusive of boats" language;
4) Clarify under LDC section 5.05.02 G. 7 that the screening, either the wall or fence goes on the
inside (or landwarddot line side vs. streetside) of the required vegetation;
5) Under LDC section 5.05.02 G.8., eliminate the double row of trees in favor of a single row, all
of which 25 feet on center, and hedges to be 60 inches in height (10- to 15 gallon containers,
depending on what the `B"Buffer requirements says) on the outside of the fencing here
6) Any lighting on the premises shall be shielded so as not spill upon adjoining properties or
beyond the property lines; and
7) Everything else in the LDC amendment as proposed by the applicant remains and the three
bullet point recommendations by staff are not recommended in my motion.
Mr. Foley seconded it. The motion passed 3-0, Mr. Mulhere abstained.
Mr. Johnson said this item is scheduled for the June 1 DSAC meeting and they will have to
incorporate those changes at that time.
[Mr. Where and Mr. Foley left the meeting at 2:17 p.m., leaving no quorum.]
ii. Discussion of Automobile Parking for Single -Family Dwelling Units
This item was moved to the June 15 meeting due to lack of a quorum.
Mr. Johnson introduced Zach Karto, who took over Mr. Johnson's former position as principal
planner.
5. Public Comments
None
Packet Pg. 87
14.A.2
May 25, 2022
ti. Adjourn
Next meeting dates:
September 21, 2022
December 14, 2022
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
the order of the chair at 2:21 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
Chairman:, Clay Brooker
These minutes were approved by the subcommittee/chairman on fay x = 2azZ , {check one} as
presented , or as amended
12
Packet Pg. 88
Presented during item 5.a
CiOY County
Growth Management
Community Development Department
Development Review Division
814 Erosion/Silt Fence Video Inspection
Permit #
Address:
INTRODUCTION:
All 814 Video Inspections must begin with the Following:
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive C
Naples, FL 34104
239-252-2400
www.colliercountyfl.gov
❑ State your name, company, the date and time of the recording.
❑ Provide a close-up of address numbers (if available for accessory structures) or the inspection board.
❑ Inspection Board must contain address and permit number of the project.
❑ Provide close-up of Permit Card inside the inspection board.
EROSION/ SILT FENCE:
Video must include:
❑ Walk the perimeter of the construction area.
❑ Provide overview of silt fence, showing the entire construction area has been fenced.
❑ Silt fence must be installed around disturbed construction area only, not the entire lot.
❑ Provide close-up of silt fence, showing the silt fence has been buried according to FDEP Silt and
Erosion BMPs and LDC 6.01.05.
❑ Pull on several areas of the silt fence to show it has been backfilled properly.
Prior to Uploading:
❑ Follow File naming convention (Permit number).(Inspection Code).(Date). For example,
P RS F2022000.814.6-29-22.
❑ Verify permit status is"Issued"or"Inspections Commenced"
(printed name of authorized submitter) as an authorized person
to upload video inspection files in accordance with Collier County Virtual Inspection procedures. I have
reviewed the video and have checked off all applicable boxes above prior to uploading to BOX, as
required by Collier County requirements.
Signature:
Date:
Disclaimer: Any video that does not follow the above procedure will be subject to a "Failed" inspection, including reinspection fees. Inspectors reserve
the right to visit any site to verify the silt fence is in place and properly installed. Inspectors have the authority to convert a Recorded Inspection to an in -
person inspection at their discretion. At no time may silt fencing be in the Right -of -Way or swales blocked.
Presented during item 5.a
2800 N. Horsesh
GO�ier County Naples, FL 34104
239-252-2400
Growth Management Department www.colliercountvfl.gov
REMOTE INSPECTION BY VIDEO
PROGRAM REGISTRATION
QUALIFIER COMPLIANCE AFFIDAVIT
Name
Company Name
Qualifier Name
as an owner of or qualifier for
License #
Qualifier Name License #
certify that I have reviewed the requirements for participation in the program and agree to comply. I
have selected the individuals listed below for training as my authorized video reviewers and submitters.
I further certify that the video files my employees upload are true and accurate representations of the work
completed by my company in accordance with submitted plans and specifications and meeting all
requirements of the Florida Building Code for the requested inspection.
I acknowledge that participation in this program is at the discretion of the Building Official. Failure to
maintain a valid license, code violations and excessive expired permits may be factors considered for
continued participation
Signature/Date
Authorized Submitters:
Name Phone Number Email
Send completed form to Building Chief Inspector for your primary trade (please email only one Chief):
Structural —
Myron.Jacobs@colliercountyfl.gov
Mechanical —
Wayne.Hendrickx@colliercountyfl.gov
Plumbing —
Robert.Cornetta@colliercountyfl.gov
Electrical —
Fred.Clum@colliercountyfl.gov
Erosion/Silt—
Joe.Bianchi@colliercountyfl.gov
Company Information Verified By:
Chief's Signature Date
7/8/2022 Version 2.3
Packet Pg. 90
14.A.2
Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report
June 22, 2022 — July 21, 2022 Highlights
• Cases opened: 529
• Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 247
• Property inspections: 1229
• Lien searches requested: 956
Trends
Cases Opened Per Month
800 702
700 632 644 652 665 642 628 622
604
600 545 529
500 435
400
300
200
100
a
Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22
Code Inspections Per Month
2873
3000
2635 2649
2566 2508 2516 2594
2500 2352 2274
2264
2000 1747
1500 1229
1000
500
0
Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22
This report reflects monthly data from June 22, 2022 —July 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 91
June 22, 2022 —July 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category
14.A.2
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2021 2022
Bayshore Immokalee
Origin of Case
■ Code Div. Initiated Cases
■ Complaint Initiated Cases
CRA
Case Opened
Monthly
Monthly Open Cases
Total Opened Cases to
Date (Report initiated
September 2018)
N
N
O
N
M
N
O
a�
O
Q
d
m
E
E
O
U
0
Q
d
U
L
Cn
W
_
c�
E
Q
O
d
0
ti
00
M
J
Q
Z
m
U
M
a
M
_
m
Im
Q
N
N
O
N
C?
CO
U
Q
a�
E
t
c�
Q
This report reflects monthly data from June 22, 2022 — July 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 92
June 22, 2022 — July 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category
14.A.2
Site De
Signs
1%
Right c
Sc.
Pr(
Animals
VPFPtafinn Aanuiramantc Grr.—nni l Ica
2% 1%
Case Type Common Issues Associated with Case Type
Accessory Use — Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc.
Animals — Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc.
Commercial - Shopping carts
Land Use — Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc.
Noise Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc.
Nuisance Abatement —Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc.
Occupational Licensing — Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc.
Parking Enforcement Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc.
Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc.
Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc.
Right of Way Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc.
Signs No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc.
Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc.
Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc.
Vegetation Requirements — Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc
Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc
nce Abater
36%
This report reflects monthly data from June 22, 2022 —July 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 93
14.A.2
May 22, 2022 — June 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category
Site Development
Signs
1%
Vehicles
Property Maintenance
14%
Vegetation Requirements
3% :accessory Use
Case Type Common Issues Associated with Case Type'
Parking Enforcement
2%
Land Use
10?1-
Noi:-
41 -,
Nuisance Abatemen
26%
Accessory Use — Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc.
Animals — Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc.
Commercial - Shopping carts
Land Use — Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc.
Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc.
Nuisance Abatement — Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc.
Occupational Licensing — Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc.
Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc.
Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc.
Protected Species - Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc.
Right of Way Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way,tc.
Signs No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc.
Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc.
Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc.
Vegetation Requirements — Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc.
Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc.
This report reflects monthly data from May 22, 2022 —June 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 94
14.A.2
April 22, 2021— May 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category
Animals
Vegetation Requirements 1%
Accessory Use
Vehicles 4% 2% Land Use
13%_\ 10%
Site Development itl
ance Abatement
21%
icensing
F l UpCILy MdHlLt'iidi1lC -- raMing tnrorcemens
15% 5%
Case Type Common Issues Associated with Case Type
Accessory Use — Fence permits, fence maintenance, canopies, shades, guesthouse renting etc.
Animals — Prohibited animals, too many animals, etc.
Commercial - Shopping carts
Land Use — Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage, synthetic drugs, zoning issues, etc.
Noise - Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc.
Nuisance Abatement — Litter, grass overgrowth, waste container pits, exotics, etc.
Occupational Licensing — Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling. etc.
Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking, etc.
Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools, structure in disrepair, etc.
Protected Species Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc.
Right of Way Construction in the public right-of-way, damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way,tc.
Signs No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc.
Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc.
Temporary Land Use - Special events, garage sales, promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc.
Vegetation Requirements — Tree maintenance, sight distance triangle, tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc.
Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles, grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc.
This report reflects monthly data from April 22, 2022 — May 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 95
saoiA.ieS;uawdolanaa : L86£Z) l`dNl=l -;a)loed epuaBV ZZOZ-£-8 OVSO :;uawyoeRV
a
v
cu
u
N
K
N
O
N
K
W O ID � O� m O O O
sAed ssauisn8
SOOlnaas }uawdOlanaa : L86£Z) l`dNld - Wi3ed epue6d ZZOZ-£-8 ovsa :4u9wgoe44v
o
N N
W u) V
s}sanbaa
L o
c-I rl
1 N c O
N
N
C
7
N
N
C
sAea ssaulsn8
saoiAiag;uawdolanaa : MEZ) l`dNl=l -;a4oed epue6y ZZOZ-£-8 ovsa :;uawyoeuv
N
N
5
N
N
n
a
.B
N
cu
U
N
N
3
6
N
N
E
F
f0
O
Q
fl_
a
O
u
v
0
I
cu
E
3
v
Qj
v
c
O
.cu
I
c
I
N
_N
O_
E
O
U
N
4-4
4/
3
6
N
I
co
a
a�
Y
C.1
IL
O in O Ln O in O Ln O
V M M N N c-I a -I
sAea ssauisne
14.A.2
Amk
C,.010iWeer County
jUcyl 2oZ2
Monty Statistics
---------280
COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
00
M
N
-- J
Q
z
aD
c�
a
ca
c
m
N
N
O
N
M
CO
co
C
d
E
t
Q
7/2022 Growth Management Department Packet Pg. 99
Building Plan Review Statistics
All Permits Applied by Month
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000 •
2,000 -
1,000
O O O O O O r' � � r. � � r. � � r. � r N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Q v) 0 z 0-) u_ Q Q cn 0 z u_ Q c
Top 15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied
Bldg New 1 & 2
----------
Res, 202 Electrical
ROW
Commercial,
49
ROW
Residential,
98
Roof, 392
Bldg Add/Alt,
Shutters/Do%235
Windows,
\ ,
378 Plumbing,
328 ,
Pool, 187
Fen 1ec 4
Mechanical, 676
Aluminum
Structure,
275
Well Permits,
109
Solar, 144
ti
co
M
N
J
Q
z
m
�a
(L
M
_
a)
a�
Q
N
N
O
N
c?
co
U
Q
0
m
1=
r
Q
Packet Pg. 100
Building Plan Review StatistiLS14,A,2
Monthly 1 & 2 Family Total
Construction Value by Applied Date
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
O O N N N
N N N N N N N N N
U M Q U M Q
O -) Q O -, Q
1 &2 Family
Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
O O O O O O N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0) 0- > U C >, C 0) fl_ > 0 C -0 � � >, C
-aj 0 O O O O M N O_ M 7 7 N U O N M N O- M 0
Q U) Z ❑ - LL Q :E � Q (n O Z ❑ LL Q 2
♦ 1 &2 Family - Multi -family Commercial
Monthly Multi -family & Commercial Total
Construction Value by Applied Date
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
E
O O N N N
d
N N N N N N N N N
O Q O Q 00
T
M
Multi -family Commercial
J
Q
Z
LL
aD
ca
IL
�a
c
m
a
N
N
O
N
M
00
c�
a
0
E
t
M
Q
Growth Management Department t - . 101
I
Building Plan Review Statistics
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month
O O O O O O r T— r r, r r � N N N N N N C
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C
ai O d M a) IC ai L) O d is d M Q M _
a Cn O z o n� a a W O z 0 n LL 2 a M
Jul-
20
Aug-
20
Sep-
20
Oct-
20
Nov-
20
Dec-
20
Jan
21
Feb
21
Mar-
21
Apr
21
May
21
Jun-
21
Jul-
21
Aug-
21
Sep-
21
Oct
21
Nov-
21
Dec- Jan-
21 22
Feb
22
Mar-
22
r-
Apay
22
M
1 22
Jun-
1 22
■Commercial
5
6
3
3
3
6
7
5
11
8
12
9
6
13
13
3
4
8
5
7
4
4
4
7
■ Multi family
10
10
11
1
7
7
11
19
11
6
6
17
11
15
5
6
12
9
10
12
15
3
1
8
0 1&2Family
234
296
1 248
352
244
314
357
195
386
412
460
1 445
374
403
218
330
286
295
346
217
1 333
255
284
316
New Multi -family Building
Permits Issued by Month
20
11111111111111111111M
ii
„zozz
G,o.«ManaE
New Commercial Building
00
Permits Issued by Month N
18 —
..
16 — LL
14
—
Y
ca
12
—
a
�a
c
10
-
CD
a
0
8
N
6
`?
ao
4
7N
�
2
0
s
O
N
O
N
Q
vJ
O
N
i
O
z
N
C
c�
N N
i,
S� cB
L
r
N
N
Q
�/N�
VJ
N
i
O
z
N
N
N
N
L
N
N
V
Packet Pg. 102
i
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Septic
149
Pollutic
Control
Building Inspections Statisti 14.A.Z
Building Inspections
O O O O O O � � � � N N N N N N C"
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CN
� TiS i � i � i /�fib
yi i1
a U) o z o� LL Q 2� a w O z o-, LL 2 Q g
Types of Building Inspections
ROW, 349
00
T
M
N
LL
a
Y
C�
a
m
c
m
as
a
N
N
O
N
M
00
c.i
a
U)
Wei o
Packet Pg. 103
Land Development Services
14.A.2
250
200
150
100
50
1
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Statistics
All Land Development Applications Applied by Month
O O O O O O T T T T T T T T T r T r N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i
> U a M > U C -0
d v 0 N a) cC d v 0 N 14 d cv
a cn 0 z o� LL a a cn 0 z o� LL a
00
T
M
Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied "
J
within the Last 6 Months z
1146
Short -Term Vacation
Rental Registration
a
ca
(L
�a
c
m
0)
a
N
533
0
N
M
00
c�
a
0
165
107
105
s
�a
Garage Sale Permit Zoning Verification
Vegetation Removal
Site Development Plar
Q
Letter
Permit
Insubstantial Change
11
Packet Pg. 104
Land Development Services
14.A.2
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
120
100
80
60
40
20
Statistics
Pre -application Meetings by Month
O O O O O O T T � � � r N N N N N N 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C�
!Z "� > V > V C M L L >% C
N V O a) R d 14 N v O d ca a) M ClM
Q cn 0 z o� LL a Q cn 0 z o� LL 2 Q 2
Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month M
N
J
Q
Z
LL
a
Y
C�
a
M
c
m
as
a
N
N
O
N
M
10
c.i
a
0
O O O O O O r r , T- , , , , , v- N N N N N N 1 E
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I t
0 Q I'll i U M L L >, M a-— i
3 N v O 0 Ma: M Q M N v ai M 0
Q cA Z o LL Q Q cA 0 Z LL Q Q
Temporary Use Commercial Certificates
1Growth Management'•• Packet Pg. 105
Land Development Services
14.A.2
8 r
6
N
C
_o
�'^ 5
�a
4
N
0
m
3
E
0 2
z
60
50
d 40
E
z 20
10
0
Statistics
Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month
5
O O O O O O r, � r. � � r. � � � � � N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
2-
Q> ci C L L �, C �1 Q>
d v O 00 00 � �> 7 � 3 d v 0 0
Q W O z 0-) LL Q 2 � Q cn O z 0-) LL Q
Plat Pages Recorded per Month
59
28
21
20
54
1415 17
9 9 10 11 9 11 9 10 12
8 7
5 3
0 11 M 'I E E,
O O O O O O r r r N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Q i U C M L L>, C Q— i U C.0 L L A C
Q to O z o n LL 2 Q E Q 0 O z o n LL 2 Q E
Yearly Tota
2020 - 25
2021- 33
2022 - 19
CO
T
M
N
y
a
Y
C�
ca
IL
Yearly Tota
2020 - 152
2021- 188
Q
2022 - 110
N
O
N
CO
a
N
a
Packet Pg. 106
Land Development Services
14.A.2
Statistics
Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications
(PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
i L) C L L �, C �1 a �-' i (i C .0 L i >% C
d V 0 0 R 0 0 10 0 0 a M
Q N 0 z o� LL Q Q 0 z o� LL 2 Q 2
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
CO
Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections N
(PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month J
a
z
a
Y
C�
la
a
�a
c
m
as
a
N
N
O
N
M
O
c�
c
0
E
s
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 ++
CM a "'' > 0 C M M a "'' > 0 a M
0 U 0 0 is W M a M � � M d � 0 0 R a% M a-
m ca �
Q 0 z 0 —0)LL Q Q cn 0 z 0 —) LL Q
1Growth Management'•• Packet Pg. 107
Land Development Services
14.A.2
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Statistics
Monthly Total of Site Plan Applications
(SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month
O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
al a "-' > 0 C M L L >, C M a "-' > u C M i L >, C
d V O d m d a M = -) 3 N V O d M d a M z
Q Ch O z o n LL a 2 n Q cn O z o-) LL a 2
Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections
(SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month
O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 a — > V C -0 L L >, C 0 a- > u i .0 L i >, C
m u o W ca m 0 a Q u o w N m M D-
U) Q O z o LL 2 Q Q cn O z o-) LL E a
O
r
M
N
J
a
Z
a
Y
C�
a
cc
M
c
m
as
a
N
N
O
N
M
O
c.i
a
c
m
E
s
0
M
a
Packet Pg. 108
Reviews for Land Development 14.A.2
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Service
Number of Land Development Reviews
O O O O O O T r T T T r T T T T T T N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a� a > ci c L L �, c a� a > c
d V O d d l4 d V O d d M Q (4
a W O z o nLL a a C5 O z o n LL 2 a 2
Percentage Ontime for the Month
■ Ontime ■ Late
CO
T
M
N
J
z
Y
C�
a
cc
c
m
as
a
N
N
O
N
M
O
c.i
a
0
s
�a
Q
Packet Pg. 109
Land Development Services I 14.A.2
Statistics
Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15 000 000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
O O O (D O (D r r r N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0) a > L) C.0 i i >, 01 Q > () C.0 i i >% C
0 v O 01 IC d M G) v O a) 15 (5 r3
Q U)0 Z 0 n LL Q Q fn 0 Z 0 n LL Q
■ Construction Estimate Utility Estimate
c
O
E
v
n
Ln
c
0
U
Ln
a
c
80
70
60
50
r �
40
30
20
10
0
O
N
7
Site & Utility Inspections
O O O O O -1 —1 -1 r-i
N N N N N N N N N
qA Q +:' > U C -0 i L
7 N U O v M v ro Q
Q v) O z L.L Q
■ Final Subdivision Inspection
Preliminary Subdivision Inspection
■ Tie In Inspection
c-I r-I c-I ci rl ri rH 1H fV N N N rq N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
c6 7 N U O QJ f6 v (a Q
� Q cn O z 0 LL Q �
■ Final Utility Inspection
Preliminary Utility Inspection
ti
00
M
N
J
Q
Z
d
Y
v
a
r R
r-
d
Q
N
N
0
N
M
00
U
Q
N fn
N 0
� yr
c
d
t
Q
Packet Pg. 110
Fire Review Statistics I 14.A.2
Building Fire Review Average Number of Days
N
N
10
M
N
9
a�
8
Q
7
Q
in
M
o
5
E
0
4
U
3
�+
2
fl
to
I
1
0
N
O
N
O O O O O -I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r -I r -I N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N "-4N N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N Q�
N 2
bn Q }' > U C -0 i i >� C — W Q �' > U C -0 i
7 a) U O a) ro a) O O 7 a) U O W ro W
o o
i
Q
>'
ro
C
O
i>
a N z o L a a N z o U
a
0
Cn
Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month
Q
Fire District
Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb-
Mar-
Apr-
May-
JuI -
20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22
22
22
22
2, O
0 North Collier
645 564 558 588 429 586 427 482 630 706 741 1044 687 775 608 654 504 449 470 503
671
646
777
85 7
Collier County (Greater Naples) 418 409 400 439 403 446 460 475 451 473 456 586 401 480 382 411 409 393 323 503
613
538
576
62 3
CO
Planning Fire Review Average Number of Days
Ir-
10
J
9
Z
8
,
7
d
Y
6
v
0
a
,n 5
t4
C 4
d
Of
3
Q
2
N
0
N
1
,
M
,
0
00
U
O O
N N
O O O O —1 ri r-I r-I c-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I —1 c-I N N N
rV N N N N N N N N N N N rV N N N N N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
r Q
r
CA
3
Q +1 > U C _0 � � >` C CA Q � > () � � L
U O
� 7 Q
- LL 2 Q OU z Q -
2
L
Q
>`
C
�
A ) In LLB
�
�
Total Number of Planning Fire Reviews by Month
Fire District
Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar-
Apr-
May-
Ju V I-
20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22
22
22
22
2 Z
■North Collier
42 33 47 44 37 32 25 33 37 39 39 55 32 43 23 48 41 49 29 31
29
49
43
4 Q 3
Collier County(Greater Naples) 52 61 59 62 61 51 44 53 71 72 60 74 61 39 53 80 70 68 56 56 62 69 59 5 3
Packet Pg. 111
07/12/2022
Recommendation to direct staff to bring back an amendment to Ordinance 2013-57, the
Administrative Code for Land Development to address an expressed concern for public safety
regarding meeting decorum, location, and virtual options for Neighborhood Information Meetings.
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) direct staff to bring back a formal
amendment to the Administrative Code for Land Development to address recently discussed concerns for
public safety and decorum at County required Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM)s.
CONSIDERATIONS: At both the June 14t' and the 28', 2022 Board of County Commissioners Public
Hearings, the Board discussed the need to provide further regulatory oversight regarding Neighborhood
Information Meetings. The County requires a mandatory NIM for most land use petitions (Rezones,
Conditional Uses, PUD and PUDA Rezones, Stewardship Receiving Areas, etc..) to be held at a
minimum of 15 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.
The Board discussion centered on a NIM for a current PUD Rezone petition at Collier Boulevard and
Vanderbilt Beach Road that was abruptly ended due to a minority percentage of attendees who were
disruptive with abusive language, threatening statements and refused to allow the rest of the attendees to
hear the project's details. This created a situation where the crowd began to argue internally, and fearing
further escalation into physical confrontation, the meeting was terminated.
To address this reality, the Board directed staff to consider modifications to the NIM requirements and
guidance to curtail such situations from transpiring at future NIMs. This executive summary is requesting
the Board to direct Staff to initiate the process for updating the Administrative Code to include the
following modifications:
1. Allow an applicant the option to hold two NIMs, with the First virtual and the Second available
for in -person and a virtual option;
2. To require standard language for rules of decorum within the public notice and advertising for
NIMs;
3. Extend rules of decorum for advisory board and BCC public meetings to NIM's.
4. Require security detail paid by applicant at all NIMs;
5. Require all speakers to state their name and address.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Neighborhood Information Meetings, though required by the County are
conducted entirely at the applicant's expense, as such there is no anticipated fiscal impact to the County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Growth Management Plan does not address NIMs, other
than promoting public participation with the rezoning process. Modifications to requirements for NIM
will not impact the GMP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an
affirmative vote of three for Board approval. (JAK)
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to bring back a formal
amendment to the Administrative Code for Land Development to address recently discussed concerns for
public safety and decorum at County required Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM)s.
Prepared by: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
Packet Pg. 112
Co ler County 14.A.2
Growth Management
Community Development Department
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
PL20220004273
This Land Development Code (LDC) amendment shall allow medical
marijuana dispensaries to become a new permitted land use in the same
zoning districts where pharmacies and drug stores are permitted.
ORIGIN
BCC
HEARING DATES
LDC SECTION(S):
BCC TBD
1.08.02 Definitions
CCPC TBD
2.03.03 Commercial Zoning Districts
DSAC 08/03/22
2.03.04 Industrial Zoning Districts
DSAC-LDR 07/27/22
2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts
2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts
5.05.16 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (New Section)
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR
DSAC CCPC
Not Approve
TBD TBD
BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2022, the Board directed staff to advertise and bring back for consideration a Land Development
Code Amendment (LDCA) to allow medical marijuana/cannabis dispensaries in the same zoning districts as
pharmacies and report back on any law enforcement issues related to existing dispensaries, specifically those
located in Bonita Springs and three or four on Bonita Beach Road. An update to 2021 F.S. 381.986 regulatory
framework for medical marijuana dispensing facilities, as distinguished from the cultivation and processing and
the delivery of medical marijuana was performed. The yellow highlighted textual changes represent the statutory
changes adopted since the previous LDC amendment was publicly voted on May 10,2018. Staff recently contacted
various law enforcement agencies to obtain a law enforcement report on any issues related to existing Medical
Marijuana Treatment Centers' dispensaries within Lee and Collier Counties. The law enforcement report,
regulatory framework, and specific amendment changes are presented below.
Applicable Statutory Dispensing Facilities Regulatory Framework:
On June 9, 2017, the Florida legislature enacted Senate Bill 8-A to allow the medical use of marijuana to be
dispensed through a state approved Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (MMTC). Only a MMTC is licensed to
cultivate, process, transport and dispense medical cannabis. Section 381.986 (11) F.S., states "Regulation of
cultivation, processing, and delivery of marijuana by medical marijuana treatment centers is preempted to the
state..." The proposed LDCA does not address the cultivation and processing of medical marijuana use. Per
section 381.986 (8.j) F.S., "Medical marijuana treatment centers are the sole source from which a qualified patient
may legally obtain marijuana." Section 381.986 (1 l.b.l) F.S. states, "A county or municipality that does not ban
dispensing facilities under this subparagraph may not place specific limits, by ordinance, on the number of
dispensing facilities that may locate within that county or municipality." There are no limits to the number of
dispensaries with this LDCA.
Section 381.986 (l 1.b.2) F.S. states, "A county may determine by ordinance the criteria for the location of, and
other permitting requirements that do not conflict with state law or department rule for, all such dispensing
1
JALD me dm ts\Advisory Boards a d Public Hearings\DSA \20 2\Aug 03\Me ting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical Marijuana
Dispe saries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 113
Co ler County 14.A.2
Growth Management
Community Development Department
facilities located within the unincorporated areas of that county." Additionally, the county `...may not enact
ordinances for permitting or for determining the locations of dispensing facilities which are more restrictive than
its ordinances for permitting or determining the locations for pharmacies licensed under F.S. 465." The proposed
amendment's land use location for dispensing facilities is consistent with the county's criteria for pharmacies and
drug stores.
Section 318.986 (1 l.c) F.S. states, "A medical marijuana treatment dispensing facility may not be located within
500 feet of the real property that comprises a public or private elementary school, middle school, or secondary
school unless the county or municipality determines that the location promotes the public health, safety, and
general welfare of the community." This provision has been included in the amendment's new LDC section
5.05.16 B-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Number of Licensed MMTCs, Dispensing Facilities, and Law Enforcement Issues to Existing MMTCs;
The Florida Department of Health's latest weekly update report, June 03, 2022, published by the "Office of
Medical Use of Marijuana" confirms a total of 436 dispensing locations for twenty two MMTCs, and 726,390
qualified patients with active identification cards have been authorized. Currently, there are eleven existing
MMTCs operating twenty eight dispensaries located in Bonita Springs (10), Ft. Myers (9), Cape Coral (7), Lehigh
Acres (1) and Marco Island (1). See Exhibit A for the list of existing MMTC's dispensing facilities operating
within Lee and Collier County and the law enforcement issue report.
The LDC proposed textual changes are summarized in Exhibit B.
DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: On July 27, 2022, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee,
after hearing public comments, reviewed the amendment and voted to recommend the Board ban medical
marijuana dispensaries as a permitted land use. Further, should the Board decide to allow medical marijuana
dispensaries as a permitted use, then DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommends the following LDC amendment
changes:
• In LDC section 5.05.16 D. La, change the words from "dark sky compliant outdoor lighting" to read
"photometric compliant outdoor lighting", and seek professional counsel on lighting designs to existing
lighting in shopping centers, strip centers or multi -tenant buildings.
• In LDC section 5.05.16, delete subsection B.2 in its entirety because as the proposed text doesn't exist
anywhere else in the LDC where there is a distance separation requirement.
The recommended changes have been incorporated.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
There are no anticipated fiscal or operational
impacts to the County.
GMP CONSISTENCY
To be provided by Comprehensive Planning Staff.
EXHIBITS: A) Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers -Dispensaries; B) Summary of LDC Changes
2
JALD me dm ts\Advisory Boards a d Public Hearings\DSA \20 2\Aug 03\Me ting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical Marijuana
Dispe saries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 114
14.A.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DRAFT
Amend the LDC as follows:
1.08.02 Definitions
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
Low-THC cannabis: Has the same meaning as in F.S. 381.986: a plant of the genus
Cannabis, the dried flowers of which contain 0.8 percent or less of tetrahydrocannabinol and more
than 10 percent of cannabidiol weight for weight; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any
part of such plant; or any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such
plant or its seeds or resin that is dispensed from a medical marijuana dispensary.
Marijuana: Has the same meaning as in F.S. 381.986; all parts of any plant of the genus
Cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the
plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or
its seeds or resin, including low-THC cannabis, which are dispensed from a medical marijuana
dispensary for medical use, as defined by F.S., by a qualified patient.
Medical mariivana dispensary: A dispensing facility of a medical marijuana treatment
center, which is licensed in accordance with F.S. 381.986.
Medical use: Has the same meaning as in F.S. 381.986; the acquisition, possession, use,
delivery, transfer, or administration of marijuana authorized by a physician certification. The term
does not include:
1. Possession, use, or administration of marijuana that was not purchased or
acquired from a medical marijuana dispensary_
2. Possession, use, or administration of marijuana OR a form f.,r s,,,^I,;,,^, in the form
of commercially produced food items other than edibles, or of marijuana seeds er
Iewer, eXGeIgt f^r fiewer i^ a sealed tamper_Igreef re Geigta G!e for var)i ran
3. Use or administration of any form or amount of marijuana in a manner that is
inconsistent with the aualified Dhvsician's directions or Dhvsician certification.
4. Transfer of marijuana to a person other than the qualified patient for whom it was
authorized or the qualified patient's caregiver on behalf of the qualified patient.
5. Use or administration of marijuana in the following locations:
a. On any form of public transportation, except for Low-THC cannabis not in
the form for smoking.
b. In any public place, except for Low-THC cannabis not in a form for smoking_
3
JALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 115
14.A.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
C. In a qualified patient's place of employment, except when permitted by his
or her employer.
d. In a state correctional institution, as defined in F.S. 944.02 or a correctional
institution. as defined in F.S. 944.241.
e. On the grounds of a preschool, primary school, or secondary school,
except as provided in F.S. 1006.062.
f. In a school bus, a vehicle, an aircraft, or a motorboat, except for Low-THC
cannabis not in a form for smoking.
6. The smoking of marijuana in an enclosed indoor workplace as defined in F.S.
386.203(5).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
2.03.03 Commercial Zoning Districts
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. Commercial Convenience District (C-2).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are
permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the C-2 commercial
convenience district.
a. Permitted uses.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
46. Medical marijuana dispensary with 1,800 square feet or less gross
floor area in the principal structure and subject to LDC section
5.05.16.
**Renumber remaining uses**
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. Commercial Intermediate District (C-3).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are
permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial
intermediate district (C-3).
a. Permitted uses.
4
JALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
RAFT
14.A.2
Tex un erline is new text to be ad ed
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
57. Medical marii ana dispensa v, subject o L C section 5.05.16.
**Renumber remaining uses**
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. General Commercial Dis rict (C-4).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. The following uses, as efined with a numbe from he Stan a d Indus ial
Classification Manual (1987), or as othe wise provi e fo wi hin this section are
permissible by right, or as accesso y or condi ional uses within the general
commercial district (C-4).
a. Permitted uses.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
86. Medical marij ana dispensa V, subject o L C section 5.05.16.
**renumber remaining uses**
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
E. Heavy Commercial District (C-5).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. The following uses, as i entified with a number from he Stan and Indus ial
Classification Manual (1987), or as othe wise provi e fo wi hin this section are
permissible by ight, or as accessory o con itional ses within he heavy
commercial district (C-5).
a. Permitted uses.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
106. Medical marij ana dispensa y, subject o L C section 5.05.16.
**renumber remaining uses**
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
2.03.04 Industrial Zoning Districts
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. Business Park istrict (BP).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. The following uses, as i entified within the latest edition of the Standard Indus ial
Classification Manual, o as othe wise provided fo within this section, are
5
J:\LDC Amen ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
RAFT
Tex un erline is new text to be ad ed
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
permi to as of right, or as uses accessory to permitted primary or secon ary uses,
o are con itional uses wi hin the business pa k distric .
b. Pe mitted secondary uses accesso y o the business pa k dis is .
Development is limited to a ma imum of 30 pe cent of he total acreage of
the business pa k istrict for the following ses:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. r g stores (5912, limited to d g sores and pharmacies) in
conjunction with health se vices group and medical
labora ories/research/rehabilita ive groups-; an me ical ma iivana
ispensaries, subject to L C section 5.05.16.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. The followina a e Dermissible uses in the Research and Technoloav Park PU
I entified Use
Special Notes
RTPPUD
Or Regula ion
Accessory ses and st uctu es
4.07.02 and
P
5.03.00
cco nting 8721, 7521,7231,7241
NT
Administrative offices
P 2
Aircraft & Par s 3721-3728
T
viation/Ae os ace Industries
TM automa is teller machine
P
Automobile service sta ion
5.05.05
NT
Banks and financial es ablishments
NT
Gro p 1 6011-6062
NT
Gro p 116081-6173
Bar or cock ail lounge
-
Barber Shops 7241
NT
Beau y Shops 7231
NT
Boats:
Boa ramps an dockage (not marinas)
NT
Boa rental
5.03.06
-NT
Boa repai and service
Boa sales
Broa cast stu io, commercial radio an elevision
T
Business services 7311-7352, 7359-7389
NT
Cable and other pay television services 4841
T
Call Center and Cus ome Support Ac ivities
T
Car wash
I
NT
6
J:\LDC Amen ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 118
14.A.2
RAFT
Tex un erline is new text to be ad ed
Text str'Lethre nh 'c currono text to he deleted
CD-ROM development
T
Clothing stores, general
NT
Communication groups 4812-4841
T
Communication owers:
75 feet or less in height
More than 75 feet in height
5.05.09
P
CU
Compute and data processing services, Computer relate services,
not elsewhere classifie
T
Cons mption on p emises
NT
Convenience food and beverage store
NT
Day care center, adult an child services
P/NT
Data and Info mption p ocessing
T
Development testing and rela e manufact ring
T
Drive -through facility for any Pe mit ed use
P
Drugs, Medicine 2833-2836
T
Drugstore, pharmacy 5912
NT
Dwelling nit:
Single-family, duplex
Two-family attache
Townho se, m Itiple-family building
P
P
P
Educational, scien ific an research organizations
T
Engineering 0781, 8711-8713, 8748
NT
Expo t based labo a ory research o testing activities
T
Fences, walls
5.03.02
P
Food and beverage se vice, limited
NT
Food stores 5411-5499
NT
Gasoline dispensing system, special
NT
General Merchandise 5331-5399
NT
General Cont actors 1521-1542
NT
Gift and souveni shop
NT
Hardware s o e 5251
NT
Health care facilities:
8011-8049
8051-8099
NT
NT
Health Technologies
T
Heliport or helis op
P
Hobby, toy and game shops
NT
Hotel/motel: 7011, 7021, 7041
NT
Housing units fo employees only
5.05.03
P
Insurance companies 6311-63997 6411
NT
Information Technologies
T
Labo atories 5047, 5048, 5049, 8071, 8731, 8734
T
Laun ry or ry cleaning
NT
Legal Offices 8111
NT
MANUFACTURING OF:
1. Electronics 3612-3699
T
2. Measu ing, analyzing and Cont olling instrumen s, 3812-3873
T
3. Novelties, jewel y, toys and signs
NT
7
J:\LDC Amen ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 119
14.A.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DRAFT
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh 'c currono text to he deleted
Management 8741-8743, 8748
NT
Medical Laboratory 8071, 8072, 8092, 8093
T
Medical marijuana dispensarydispppsary
5.05.16
NT
Membership Organization 8611-8699
NT
Motion picture production studio 7812-7819
NT
Multimedia activities
T
Parks
P
Parking lot:
Accessory
Garage, public parkin
P
P
Personal services 7211-7299
NT
Pharmacy
NT
Photo finishing laboratory
T
Photographic Studios 7221
NT
Physical Fitness 7991
NT
Play Ground
P
Printing and publishing 2752
T
Production facilities and operations/technologyoperations/technology based
T
Professional Office
NT
Research, development laboratories & and Technology Parks: 8071,
8731, 8734
See Note (3)
P
II others
P
Residential Development including care units, family care facilities
and group care facilities
P
Residential accessory uses
NT
Restaurant, fast food
NT
Restaurants 5812-5813
NT
Schools:
Commercial 8243-8299
NT
Security & and Commodity Brokers 6211-6289
NT
Self-service fuel pumps
NT
Signs in accordance with 5.06.00
§ 5.06.00
P
Storage:
Indoor onlyP
Studios
NT
Telephone communications 4813
T
Travel Agency 4724
NT
Legend: (-) not permitted, (P) permitted, (CU) conditional use (T) target industry
[RTPPUD only], (NT) non -target industry [RTPPUD only]
Notes:
(1) Subject to limitations for commercial uses set forth in LDC subsection 2.03.03 C.
of thi�G.
(2) Accessory uses only.
(3) Subject to ordinance 02-24 (GMP amendment).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
8
JALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 120
14.A.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh 'c current text to he deleted
I. A Medical marijuana dispensary is a permitted use, subject to LDC section 5.05.16,
within PUDs approved prior to [effective date of the ordinance], only when the PUD's
list of permitted uses includes SIC Gede 5912, drug store, pharmacy, or any of the
following zoning districts listed in the PUD: C-2 with 1,800 square feet or less gross
floor area, C-3, CA C-5, BP, or RTPPUD.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
H. Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District (SBCO). Special conditions for properties
abutting the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard and the west side of 55th Terrace S.W.,
as referenced in the Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Map (Map 7) of the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan. This is referenced as figure 2.03.07 H. below.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
6. The following uses, as identified within the latest edition of the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual, or as otherwise provided for within this section, are
permitted as of right, or as uses accessory to permitted primary or secondary uses,
or are conditional uses within the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District.
a. Permitted uses.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
51. Medical marijuana dispensary, subject to LDC section 5.05.16.
**Renumber remaining uses**
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
5.05.16 - Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
A. Purpose and Intent. The Durpose of this section is to Drovide for the comDatibility of
medical marijuana dispensaries with surrounding uses and to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of the general public by adherence to Section 381.986 F.S.
B. Separation Distances.
1. A medical marijuana dispensary shall not be located within 500 feet of the real
property that comprises a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary
school. The distance of 500 feet shall be measured as the shortest distance
between the lot on which the school is located and the lot on which the medical
marijuana dispensary is located, except that medical marijuana dispensaries
located in shopping centers shall be measured from the outer wall of the
establishment.
9
JALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 121
14.A.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
DRAFT
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
C. Signage. Signage shall be limited to one wall sign or hanging sign in the window of the
premises that identify the medical marijuana dispensary by business name, the state
Department of Health (DOH) approved trade name, or the DOH approved logo and meet
the requirements of LDC section 5.06.00. A medical marijuana dispensary's trade name
and logo may not contain wording or images commonly associated with marketing
targeted toward children or which promote recreational use of marijuana.
D. Security Measures and Design.
1. Medical marijuana dispensaries shall be designed and equipped with the following:
a. A da*,&k-Y photometric compliant outdoor lighting system that is intended
to clearly identify persons and vehicles on premise, oriented downward and
shielded to minimize light trespass and glare. The design shall reduce
excessive glare, light trespass, and sky glow with light fixtures that are full
cutoff with flat lenses.
The indoor premises will include a waiting area with adequate seating for
qualified patients and caregivers and at least one private consultation area
that is isolated from the waiting area and the area where dispensing occurs-
C
. The medical marijuana transport delivery vehicle shall be parked in a
garage or fully enclosed structure, when not in use for delivery.
2. The following are prohibited;
a. Drive -through, drive-ins, curbside pickup, take-out windows or similar
outdoor transaction facilities and all outdoor transactions.
b. The display of products, marijuana, or marijuana delivery devices in the
waiting area.
C. Dispensing from the premises marijuana or a marijuana delivery device
between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
10
JALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 122
14.A.2
Exhibit A -Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers -Dispensaries
Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers
Lee and Collier Counter
.Source: FlorNa Department of Health -
Office of Medical Marijuana Use (OhriMU) May06, 2022 Regi}ti-y
Company -Location
Bonita
Springs
Ft.
buyers
Cape
Coral
Marco
Island
Lehigh
Acres
Cannabist
X
—
Curaleaf
X
X
Fluent
X
GTI (Dispensaries)
X
GrowHealthy
X
Liberty Health
Sciences
X
X
muV
X
2
X
Sunnyside
X
Sarterra Wellness
X
X
Trulieve
X
3
X
X
VidaCann
X
X
Total (28)
10
9
1
1
11
JALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 123
14.A.2
Exhibit A -Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers -Dispensaries
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
CONTACT
LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE REPORT
AGENCY
Report Date
Any increase in crime associated
Captain Rich
/Period
with existing MMTCs?
Marco Island Police
Stoltenborg
One existing MMTC, opened within
Department
6-2-22
the last two to three weeks. None.
Captain Scott
Forth,
Homeland
Security:
Collier County Sheriff's
Lieutenant
5-31-22
None.
Office
Gary
Gambino,
Vice and
Narcotics
Bureau
Sergeant
"Nothing higher than normal
Lee County Sheriff's
Adam Winton,
6-3-22/
prevalence." Two incidents, "assault
Office
School Threat
1-1-21 to 6-1-22
and aggravated assault at Tralieve
Enforcement
sites" which "do not appear to cause
Team
issues for law enforcement....".
N
N
O
N
cl
a�
i
c
as
E
a
0
m
d
0
a
12
J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 124
14.A.2
xhibit B-S mm y of LDC Changes
Changes to LDC Section 1.08.02.
The definitions for this amendment consist of the following: Low-THC Cannabis, Marijuana, Medical marijuana
dispensary, and Medical Use. These definitions have the same meaning as provided for in F.S. 381.986 (1). They
are included to establish a consistent relationship with statutory law and describe a new land use facility.
Changes to LDC Section 2.03.03.
For the Commercial Districts: C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-5, a medical marijuana dispensary is treated the same as a
pharmacy subject to the new LDC section 5.05.16 standards and for the C-2 zoning district, 1,800 square feet or
less in area.
Changes to LDC Section 2.03.04.
For the Business Park District (BP), a medical marijuana dispensary is one of several secondary uses that are
allowed but subject to a maximum of 30 percent of the total district's acreage. This is the same limitation for a
pharmacy or drug store.
Changes to LDC Section 2.03.06.
For the Research and Technology Park PUDs (RTPPUD), a pharmacy is one of several businesses that are non -
targeted industries serving as commercial support services to light industrial uses. The development of these uses,
including a medical marijuana dispensary, are limited up to 20 percent of the total research and technology park's
acreage.
A new LDC section 2.03.06 I, is added to allow a medical marijuana dispensary within a previously approved
PUD, when such PUD includes SIC 5912, drug store, pharmacy, or such listing as a permitted use in any of the
following zoning districts: C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, BP, or RTPPUD
Changes to LDC Section 2.03.07.
Medical marijuana dispensaries are added to Overlay Zoning Districts where a drug store is specifically listed as
a permitted use. They are the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay (SBCO) District and in C-2, C-3, C-4, or C-5
zoning districts of the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD).
New LDC section 5.05.16.
All medical marijuana dispensaries shall be subject to the provisions and standards of this new LDC section which
consists of the following:
A Purpose and Intent section. This section establishes that the change will provide consistency and
compatibility with the need for medical use of marijuana at a medical marijuana dispensary.
A Separation Distances section. The amendment proposes a minimum separation of 500 feet between a
MMTC dispensary and a school, consistent with section 381.986 (1 Lc) F.S.. It describes how the distance
shall be measured, consistent with LDC section 5.05.01-Businesses Serving Alcoholic Beverages. A
clause is provided to clarify_the construction of a school after the issuance of a development order for a
medical marijuana dispensary would not cause the medical marijuana dispensary to become non-
conforming.
A Signage section. Per section 381.986 (81) F.S. there are certain limitations to advertising and signage
such as:
" A medical marijuana treatment center may not engage in advertising that is visible to members of
the public from any street, sidewalk, park, or other public place, except:
13
J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 125
14.A.2
Exhibit B-Summary of LDC Changes
1. The dispensing location of a medical marijuana treatment center may have a sign that is
affixed to the outside or hanging in the window of the premises which identifies the dispensary
by the licensee's business name, a department -approved trade name, or a department -approved
logo. A medical marijuana treatment center's trade name and logo may not contain wording or
images commonly associated with marketing targeted toward children or which promote
recreational use of marijuana. " This specific provision has been included in the amendment.
• A Security Measures and Design section. When dispensing marijuana or a marijuana delivery device,
there are various operational security and safety requirements mandated in section 381.986 (8.f) F.S. that
apply to a medical marijuana dispensary. Staff integrated some of the requirements related to indoor
design and security measures, outdoor lighting, and the handling or dispensing of medical marijuana and
a delivery device.
In general, the applicable statutory requirements relative to this section, are:
"To ensure the safety and security of premises where the cultivation, processing, storing, or
dispensing of marijuana occurs, and to maintain adequate controls against the diversion, theft, and
loss of marijuana or marijuana delivery devices, a medical marijuana treatment center shall:...
2. Ensure that the medical marijuana treatment center's outdoorpremises have sufficient lighting
from dusk until dawn.
3. Ensure that the indoor premises where dispensing occurs includes a waiting area with
sufficient space and seating to accommodate qualified patients and caregivers and at least one
private consultation area that is isolated from the waiting area and area where dispensing occurs.
A medical marijuana treatment center may not display products or dispense marijuana or
marijuana delivery devices in the waiting area.
4. Not dispense from its premises maryuana or a marijuana delivery device between the hours
of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., but may perform all other operations and deliver marijuana to qualified
patients 24 hours a day. "...
Each dispensing facility and its location must be authorized by the Florida Department of Health. The
retail sale activity at the dispensary is limited to qualified patients or authorized caregivers. The sale
transaction can only occur within the indoor designated area that is separate from the waiting area or
outside of the building.
The sufficiency of lighting during night time operations is an objective of the county's outdoor lighting
standard to reduce light pollution and maintain adequate visibility of persons and vehicles. By requiring
the outdoor lighting system to be directed downward and shielded to minimize light trespass and glare,
the provision would ensure no light pollution. A similar provision is located in LDC section 5.05.15 H.
lighting design standard for golf course conversions. This provision is intended to address implementation
of the lighting standard in section 381.986 (812) F.S.
Another security measure, as suggested by the cultivation manager at Growth Healthy Medical Marijuana
Treatment Center, is the dispensary's transport delivery vehicle be located within a garage or enclosed
structure when not in use for delivery. This provision would restrict the potential for night time criminal
activity.
14
J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 126
14.A.2
xhibit B-S mm y of LDC Changes
• There are three prohibitions that serve to deter crime, limit the potential for the illicit sale of marijuana,
and reduce the potential risk of driver intoxication. They are:
o The dispensing of marijuana by pick-up at curbside, take-out by window, drive-in or drive -
through facility, or other similar outdoor transaction facilities. This provision follows other
Florida communities such as Sarasota County, Town of Palm Beach, Maitland, Mount Dora,
Altamonte Springs, Ocala, Plantation, and Ft. Lauderdale.
o The display of medical marijuana products or marijuana delivery devices within the waiting and
entry area. This provision incorporates section 381.986 (8.£3) F.S. excerpted above.
o The dispensing of marijuana or marijuana delivery device shall be prohibited between 9:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. This provision incorporates section 381.986 (81.3) F.S. excerpted above.
15
J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004273 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries\PL 20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 8-03-22 DSAC.docx
Packet Pg. 127
14.A.2
PL20220004273 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Documents Submitted
During 7-24-2022 DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting
1) Lee County Sheriff Office Law Enforcement Incident Checklist and Calls for
Service at Ten Bonita Springs Medical Marijuana Treatment
Centers/Dispensaries.
2) Collier County Sheriff Office Incident Report and Calls for Service at Seven
Collier County Qualified Physician Certification Locations.
3) Public Record of Calls for Service at Eight Cape Coral Marijuana
Dispensaries.
4) Local Medical Marijuana Mailer Advertisement From Local Certified
Marijuana Doctors' Offices.
5) Florida Department of Health, Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Weekly
Update for 7- 22-2022 on access to low THC-cannabis and medical
marijuana.
6) State of Florida Auditor General, Operational Audit Report No. 2022-006,
Dated August 2021 on the Department Of Health, Office of Medical
Marijuana Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring, and Selected Administrative
Activities.
Packet Pg. 128
- aa}}lu WOW A.wslnpd seoimeS;uawdolanaa : MEZ) lVNl=l -1a3i3ad epua6v ZZOZ-£-8 3VSa :}uOwt43B};d
O
4A
qu
L
iA
r.
9
CL
Ft
a
c
SIG
E
L
i7
ILJ
�1
qj
LA
V
40
u
IA
dw
C
Q
�1
C
iJ
C
0
CD
CD
r'4
42
0
eu
-
�
t-i
rD
Y5
C-)
r_a
n
'fib
r-~
*-1
m
�
,-i
�
'�,
.�
r r,
Lrl coo
I
1-4
lei- �
Ch
Ln
Ln
i
! M
m
m
n,
�*
LL
LL
CY':
�- •
�
LL
LL
15
j
LL
J
x�
by
I.f. [_
M
J
�
uy
u'i
G'I
Z
� j LL
vi 4G
LL
,�
C
-`
C
`
G1
�+flj6.
1.6J
r-I
C
r
Q
m
IYf
R7 _
< ,CL
ate.
�
Z: r
�
.�
Id-
p L
Ll 1
"42
M
(
m
47
'41
�,
cu
4-
0CL
L.cu
C.LJ
�+
L_I
n
•1.
D
4l1
~
�A
LL
{
f{
1�1
LA
LA
�}
c
ja
Niz
I.,^, r W
"
fYl
Ln
L r l
t+
',r-I
Lrl
W )
'
{""iA
� r1�
el",
SIG
t-I
.n
�
'V
IN
cc rq
+-I
r-I
N
rI
*.I
'r-q
r-I
4-4! r4
+-4
4-1
�}
T1CU
C
ru
L
MVl~
In
J �
i
i
7 of 591
a)
N
d
d
Y
u
m
d
- aa;;lu WOE AJOSIAPV SaOIAJOS;uawdOlanaQ : L8�£Z) -lVNI=l -;aVed epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :4ueWL4Oejjv
0 I NH
MI� N N i-I N 'i ,1 M N e`i., M N N 1l1 I a 00 ei N I N E a -I N m
C
C NE
O
n N
14
f0 e-I fp
'E
eMi
O
HLm
m r
,A N
N
l0
N
l0
M
O
j N m
a+
v
M C U W
•` O O N
'I N
\ N
01
u'1
�-i
N
cn
00
ci
N
N
c-i
M
E
is
m m
\
\ ^
M
co
00
f0 N h0
+O' N
N
Ln N a
it C 00 O O
00 N
NIt
•-i
ci
N
N
00
' N m U m
\
13 �j
l\O
l0
Ol y
"a O b0
0
rq \
0
O
Ln c' n >
\ m
H
m
m
00
E
C 00 O ^
7 N m O` m
M N
N
LnU
\
01
l0
Ln E _
e�-4 N
N '£
, \
co
m
N
-i
dt
1-1
1-1
m
N
H
_
A t y In00
O
L
.-i
�O
N
m d l0 E
2 Ln N m~
N O
N\
LAm
T
± V1 H
+ N
2 00 E
tD
N
c-I
N
Ln
00
ci
Ln
1-1
Ql
M
E
_
Ln
O
00 O
n
N
M
V
E
m
00
C7 �
� N
N
N
\
a-4
0000
O
M
N I—
O
N
�- -p
c-I f0 0:
Y I
V N
0
N
i° � U H
rl
rl m y
N
00
\ `�
ri
N
1 OJ
YO N
O C
C 00 " V
R* \
\ I�
N
�-I
c-I
N
00
C 00 �
c0
Ln N
U
N
V1
=
4
O)
_^ O
0)
u O1
u
C
O
v a
L ,y
L
v
v
U
c
s
a
C
°
^
N
.�
n
O)
(0
u
¢
c
C
u
`1
C
4-
0�0
C
O
N
C
O
¢'
�-+
01
H
Q
CCL
y
Y
u
01
t
>
N
01
>
O
3
7
�+
-O
u
U
L
u
2
C
u
C
C
O
0A
c
`1
N
a+
O
Q
¢
O
C a t N
ro
:O
E
—
ra
r
0
�a
c
o
u
o
U
c
'c
O
u
C
m
v
>
c
`o
Ql
E
a+
a+
o
in
Q
V1
v
d
i
C
o
an
n
a
'�
m°
of
a
++
O
C
v O of
n, l0
u\
C 01
E
'C
v
m
U
p
`0
U
d
O
c
'C
O
Y
:°
C
@
=—
'6
—
O
Y
7
U
u
O
O-
N
-O
F
co
C
'C \ a *' I�
m i of 3
c
¢¢
u
v
c
u
m
i-
a
U
u-
•�
c
c
o
CJ
2
C£
C
a
>
n
T
o
o
o
v
v
z
.o
.Q
co
E
n
u
H-0
c
N
ar ra
ar v
¢
�
w
,0
o
Q
c
x
3_
c
v
w
a;
r0
y
p
c ,= U
E H
a
`o
u
n
o
E
o
c�
v
o
c4
c
C
o
Y
z
D
vi
.�
a
F-
m
c
>
c
a v m
y I
i w
¢
N
c
m
>
o
x
_
o
v
m
0 Ln
¢
J
u
O m
L
W U
3
3
0
V1
J
18 of 59
N
d
- aa;;lu WOE AJOSIAPV SaOIAJOS;uawdOlanaQ : L8�£Z) -lVNI=l -;aVed epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :4ueWL4Oejjv
0 ININIr-IINIOI`�IMI^INI�INIMI`�I`�I`1IMIOI`ilri
LM L
L l"'� 0;
3 41
00 N
m e�-I +�+
Z
C1
N
N
d'
C a
C
N V1
Q
M
U>
O
O
m
00
0
C t0
M
c-I
N
(n
N
c-I
c--I
N
N
N
r-I
-1
00
-1
N
N
en
O Ln i
M O
(n
m
U V1 M
rq
a+
�
m L
Q Z
O
�L U a
+0 N
01 N
M
c-I
i-I
i-I
00
N
L
CU f50 O
U
�
L
T-i
r^-I
Z
00
io r u
O
4J 'L (p l0 C Y
F- (7 i
LL
v W i--I £ 2
co
O
p 00
',
vi
4-1++
_
4
Ln
Ln
0
J = ULn
m ~
N 01
,
N
~
n
m
C i
a0
N
Q 3 0 H "a
U
00 N
r-I
c-I
N
M
c-I
fY)
i-I
l9
Lnd'
N
O
Z O
LA
Ln
m
O
aC d OJ
p GJ Ln L GJ
4� N
00 N
i t C a
� O
d'
M
c-I
c�
N
c-I
r-I
c-I
d'
N
c-1
00
M
cp
G
LL
C7 J
rq
as
N
(U
N
s
u
+�
�
c
O
O
?
u
Ln
>^
`~
O
_v
c
m
L O)
•OJ
L
O
4
V
4•
NE
0J
O
a
c
c
c
en
v
L
co
Q-
U
roM
W
a
lA 0 �.
U
a1
z
-a
C
v
'�
Q
'O
7
.�
O
O
-W C N
d
O
U,
O
C
Q
O
Q
u
v
•0
�
U
d
f0 3 I�
c� v
CL
U
ra
Q
a
O
co
7—-
w
U
^
n
Q
!?
J V^
�
N
.�
Q
?
Q
O
t L
0)
EQ
U
0
3
J_6
u
O
o
w
V)�i-;
a
Q
O
z
d
O
Z)
U
LL
•
U
i OJ
V 3
O
19 of 59
14.A.2
Heather Scott -
From: veora little <veoralittle@gmail.com> _
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 9:08 AM.
To: Heather Scott; Veora Little
Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Public records for call to service at marijuana dispensaries
Caution — This email originated from outside of our organization. Please do not open any attachments or click on any
links from unknown sources or unexpected email.
Good Morning Heather,
I would like to request a call to service report for years 2020, 2021 and
2022 at marijuana dispensaries in Cape Coral. What was the specific
police response.
0- -�-i- L�- -
here are the locations
,
2126 Del Prado Blvd S -i
2323 Del Prado Blvd So #9
2517 Santa Barbara Blvd d PPc t-
103 SW 3rd Place IPA — �J �� Ce
2616 Santa Barbara Blvd, Suite 6 P7
1321 SE 47th Terrace 'p �%
./
<y l v� � c��s- � v 2 2-
1411 Cape Coral Parkway E /p,j
Thank you for your attention.
Veora Little, CRNA, Volunteer Coordinator, Operation Medicine Cabinet,
Drug Free Collier.
239-450-2883
With regards, Veora
veoralittle(aDgmaiL com
1 Packet Pg. 132
N
d
- aa;;lu WOE AJOSIAPV SaOIAJOS;uawdOlanaQ : L8�£Z) -lVNI=l -;aVed epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :4ueWL4Oejjv
TM
to
14
11
1-1
M
LnM
ti
10
to
a
a
a
ei
�
N
an
�
H
ei
M
.-1
-I
�
.ti
ei
'i
N
N
c d
0
N
U U 3
O
'6 ti U m
06
N
m
Y
> c
'O
N
fV
G1 to
H .Q >
•�
O
N .-1
.-1
M
N
�--I
N
M
N
ci
N
lO
Ln
oo
N
a^i M m
M
M m
N
N (p Y
O N
c-I
Ln
MIn
3 N m
00 N
'i N
_>
a-1
N
w N
L
Gl f0 y � i
O) tJ LN w
J = .L
N 4
O N
tD
Q)
�
N
T yj
Y N O
i0+
C C1
O N
m Y
N
c
m
y
N
Ln
M
N
N
N
M
ci
H
i
CY
m
11
ci
11
00
-
�
3 rmn C to
N
tD
O N
C7 a
v
m
o �
a
Y
c
o nNi
N O
N
N
N
Ln
ci
ci
NH
NH
N
M r-
3 m
a N
l/1
N
_
O H
O
N V f�6 N m
Ems°`
LLJ N
m
v Y -O
NO. to
:6 c N
O N
Ln
,
E mN
U t0 c0
n O
to
N
U U- -4
N
N
�
O N
L N
u
O
u
u
•> o a'
L c N
a`J
C.
rco
c
u
c
v
u
u
LA C. t0
t''
7
c
-0
c
L VI
O N
LL
E
O
(U
a!
in
0
o
'o
C
.�
N
-o
7
v}i
N
`-'
Y
U
Y
N
4J
7
v
U
w
.v
s
N
U
O
N
c0
a
v
7
'�
c
C
v
u
00
c
v
7
�,
N
,i_n
E
2
7
C
N
bn
co
.c
tin
N
u
m
c W
ac
Y
�
v
a.,
c
c
o
a
u
v
y
o
t
v
c
o
Q
v
f0
v=
+�
c
u
c
7
o
a
c
a
'^
O
i
O
a
E
v
o
a
7
'c
>
O
J
r-
O
,-
v
m 3 v
c
7
0
:L,
o-C
v¢>
u
m
> a
0
2>
aJ
c
3
o
7
a
L
a
a
E
v=
o
o
o
H
v
U +�+
-CL
-.00
'C
u=
Y—
V
f0
Y
N
f0
OJ
Cl
D
>
Y
C
co
N
7
N
O
OCo
—
C
N
N
0
O
>T
N
u
w
Y
—_
(p
>
Y
L J
U
—
U
C
f0
lA
f0
tlA
C
Y
U
N
N
C
co
U
7
ut
N
C
LL
ll
-
'N
v1
OA
N
QJ
U
7
U
_
C
O
O
OJ
C-
N
Y
V
O
a
OJ
y
N
y
4!
V
4)
L
a)
'3
m
m
7
L
u
u
p
N
L—-0
N
vt
>
7
d
N
O
N
O_'
7
Q
�'
In
f9 N
C
U
Q
`
m
u
CJ
C
C
N
O
2
K
u O�
v
al
¢
>
t°
Y
v
U N
.-
u
m
>
O Gl `
a
C
u
Q
u
Q
m
7
3
U O
H
U
21 of 59
- aa;;lu WOE AJOSIAPV SaOIAJOS;uawdOlanaQ : L8�£Z) -lVNI=l -;aVed epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :4ueWL4Oejjv
N
d
0o
ao
a
�n
�n
N
can
v
0
0
E
0005
0
E
N
O
0
E
N
0
O
m
E
N
N
d'
N
Ln
N
01
i-I
rl
rn
Ln
ui
O
E
N
O
0
-
E
N
O
'i
N
O
0
O
ti
m
m
E
�t
N
f0
Y
�
i
O
Y
C
�
L
O
C
C
Ln
C
N
v
m
}
O
i
U
L
bA
Q
-O
V
N
41
a
N
N
C
O
vY
(9
`J
Q
a
.5
U
L
Q
•�
u
u
C
.a
to
.a
to
O
'U
o
In
Ln
•a
V)
c
22 of 59
- aa;;lu WOE AJOSIAPV SaOIAJOS;uawdOlanaQ : L8�£Z) -lVNI= -;aVed epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :4ueWL4oejjv
N LO
M
d
a
m
a
0 I n I M I a I N1-4
C aJ
C M
O
N
L) U i 3
N
O
E
M f9
C L
!i
0
0
f0
N m >
\
m
m
.--I
)-I
)--I
rl
c-I
N
Lf)
ci
c-I
E
m
N m
N
00
N
N u1
O
11 m N
N
vi
N
\
ti
N
O
E
3 h m '
--
n
N
y
co
rq
N
> t mot, u
)
O) fC N i
N
ri
N
c-I
c-1
rl
N
rl
E
C= L N F-
00N
.�
c-I
ar
�
m
V)
r
O
N O
N
p > O
cu
O
o
M Co a)
N
m
.�
Ol
3 M O
a
N
O N
\
N
L �
� a
u
M
of
a
o
0
c C
N
00
m
,-i
N
m
E
N
N
ff
3
N
ti
Li
0000
N
H
�
O
o
v cn
o
E
wo a>
N
N
N
\
N
m
N
R f0
01
aL vi
o
0
N 0 '0M
N
N
c-I
c-I
c-1
.4
c l
c i
01
m
UtD CO
\
O
O )y C-4
N
U N
(N
E
>
U
C
L
C7
Iu
Q
v
E V7 a
i+ Gl V1
y'C y p
m
'a
C
>>
Q.
N
U
C
v
v
C
-O
L f0 L
VI (1
� N
0) C
K
°
E
p
w
a+
U
O
N
)n
f0
v
ao
UO
N
.�
°
"
u
C a Q O N
L
Ln
c
m
o
O
a
CU
o
C
a
N
.�
N
a
c
•�
c
Y
N
m
•>
V
O
j=
o
a
oz
t
f9 to O. N
a3+
f0 U
-Op
=
LL
N
Q
L
.v
U
s>
cOi
c
n.
N
m
ro
a
0
O
`p
i
-O
y0
N
N
p
0O
p i f0 lD
Z (.1
N
•�
2
i�
Y
fa
N
Q1
C
�^
N
Q
U
E
�O
d
T
't'
N
w
U
U
a
F
C
c C
u
Q
C
N
m
O>
-o
C
N
N
C
G
_
7
C
0
O
m
O
U
v
Ul
Y
o
O
N
41
C
)n
.0
i
Gl d U
r
U
7
±2
h
"Oj
C
UJ
vOi
O
N
O
C
O
U
4=
H
F-
H
41
CL
u
m
v
o
o.L
c
a
r
u 0 U m
u
u
=
.E
E
a
U U
C
v
O
m
(U y
c
s
V
0
V
7
O
`
W
9
U
3
m
v
0-
0
a
7
V)
J
V)
of
<-i
N
m
•m
c
—
L
Cd
C
�
Oo
(L)
L
-O
N
N U
Z3
a
E E
u
4 l.
°
O
C.
Gl
ro
t
O
vY
—
N —
E
O
T C
lD
aj
I
L O
O
U
� c
0
N
v
O
N c
s a
O
a
O +
C
:n
a a
= �
C
N Utlo
N 7
2
C
u
2 v
O a` 10
23 of 59
- aa;;lu WO:D AJOSIAPV SaalnaaS;uawdolanaQ : L8�£Z) -lVNI= -;awed epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :4ueWL4Oejjv
N �
Cl)
d
a
m
a
G n M a N N �-i J c� ri ei ei 00 t-I N eiH-H-H-H-1
N
F
C
C
N
v
m m
u 3
p
O
E
N
j a
0
L
> C m0
0
al M A C
- C>
N
\
m
m
-
v
N
n
E
m
F- N m
00
Ln
O
L al
C Ln
\
.G tD
fa
N
Ln fL0 "8
C
G Co
ei
N
M t al
Q1
ci
ui
L Ln N
al Ia al d
c
N
ci
ci
r
N
c
_ > CA F-
m
m
v
a
Y y
O
cn
O
al
= M m a1
N
\
N
c-I
M
ri
61
E
3 M N
N
i
O N m
LO
0 C`
ar
o
CD
0
� a
o
0
c a
N
oo
m
N
N
N
E
ar m`
N
3
N
N
a7
O
al of
O
N
O
0
y a m N M
\
O
E
E O.
N
N
cn
W N
N
m
Ln
L Y �
M vi
p
N
0
E
Q al
E m
\
c-i
ci
`-1
s-i
a1
c-I
01
3 m
N
J N
O
V LL H
N
C
a
U
Y
>
t
C
O
N
>
cu
E
Y
O'
vl
U
\
Q)
m
v1
a)
N
c
u
p
O
E
a
>
O
h
H
O
O
tCD
t
al N
Q
t%f
O
O
o
v
L
c
v
v
u
OC
v
E
O
O
E
S
O
.N
@
c
cC4 N. d N
M u
a!
N_
u.
N
Q
L
.0
„
O
L>
C
CL
cya
m
n.
D
O
0
L
-a
n
O
C
3
aJ
a1
`
'r p2
to ` U O^
Y N
y
u
Q
N
v
U
N
m
C
_°
C
p
c
m
v
C
t
CL
w
O
'^
`
.0
u
L
t
7_
_
N
Q
_
v
u
aa)
mo
o"
Fes`
`�
v
i'
C Q a7
m
=
!]D
(_7
C
vYi
C
CC
v
o
N
Lf9ar U raj ,
u u
ti
Q
u
tin
E
o
f
d
"-
m
o
u
o
u
w
m
u
3
O
f6
Q
7
H
J
1n
a
N c,4
D
m
p N
Ln N
N
Ia
R1
:D
�
C
m
�o
al
G
Y
0
�
U
cu
h
L
m u
3
CL
E
u
O
C
N _
a
°ciLa
_
S
-n
O
c
N
v
N
a
�
c
V) o
O
u
o c
0
W c
o
s Q
O
'
CjIuu
a`
L 2i
of 59
N
d
- aa;;lu WOE AJOSIAPV SaOIAJOS;uawdOlanaQ : L8�£Z) -lVNI=l -;aVed epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :4ueWL4oejjv
F
j
Ln
M
tD
ei
W
e-I
M
M
N
l0
C7
d'
C
i-I
tl'
N
e�•i
e-I
ri
M
e-I
N
C
ei
e-I
-I
N
N
ei
N
C
M
C N
O Q m
+O+ N
N
U U 3
f9 ei
'M
D U
00
N
o,
r-I 0.
v a
a0 N
Ln
N N
H
ct
Ln M
N
c-I
N
M
N
c-I
N
lD
u'7
c-I
c-i
ci
c-I
c-I
ci
co
N
t (9 m
M
� � m
Ln
ti tp
N
N Ill
V)
O
N
N
C tD
O N
N M
c-I
u'I
> m "
C0 N
c-I
�--�
0]
ei
N
L N L G1
N N
mLLI
J S 'i N F
Ln
O1
~
y
Y a)13
M
N
3 m m
w N
N
ci
m
ci
1
N
Vl
M
N
N
N
M
1
i
0
H
00
N
tD
O N M
N
l7 a`
u
u
O
1 -O
N O
M e i
N
Cl
N
u}
rl
IH
N
c-I
N
ci
Cl
3
O N
LL
a
d
_
o
OJ d to N M
E a
uj N
CC
` 4 O
M
O
m m O. N
:6 41
O N
N
�
C
i
n O
Ln
IT
7 u LD m
N O
J N
U LL ei
cI
N
N N
y N
O
U N
m
0
u
.` C
N
a'
u
C
U
u
v d
Vi Q t0
t
y
-Q
7
m
-Q
N
c
m
Ln
LL •0 'a�
6J
❑
❑�
y
N
N
7
vyi
E
U
(U9
y
v
U
O
U
N
`�"
c
N
u
t o
c
7
.'�
y
h
O
i
O
c
O`
u
to C W
\
v
C
fCa
SZ
N
❑
N
c
6
4=
y
'^
_C
N
O
fn
N
U
U
O_
O
E
O`
❑
.h
d
O
•c
.;
O
f9 f0 y
U
C
y
c
N
-0
=
2
U
_c
O
7
O
v
Q>
U
m
U
�
U
>
K
L=
'-'
3
O
i
a
X'
w
a
n.
E
v
❑❑
,�
F
v
-O •�.
C
U
h
(0
N
❑.
u
v
C
rco
Y
'D
O
d-
cn
c
v
O
C
t-'
N
y
•m
y
.J
u Cc
C
L
Q
C
v
v
Q
vi
vi
!9
m
Lp
7
tip
,c
U
v
N
.n
t9
_
7
y
�n
C
O
.0
v�
m
bD
N
U
O
U
•�
Q
O
'O
N
1
O
Q
v
y
v
U
N
G
3
,a
'�
Q
LO
m
7
m
L
U
U
0
❑❑
ucn
,�
vOi
>
IL
>
N
a
o
N
RO'
E-
N
io OOi
y
V
Q
°�
v
U
❑❑
a
c
c
0
a
d
Li
-J r L
D-
U
Q
U
Q
m
'7
7
v �
U
25
of
9
14.A.2
Office of MEDICAL
MARIJUANA Use
Florida's Official Source for Responsible Use.
July 22, 2022
•
We are pleased to provide this weekly update on the Department of Health, Office of Medical Marijuana
Use's (OMMU) diligent work implementing the many requirements in Amendment 2 and those set by
the Florida Legislature in section 381.986, F.S. The Florida Department of Health (Department) continues
to focus on the health and safety of Florida's families and is dedicated to ensuring patients have safe
access to low-THC cannabis and medical marijuana.
Patients
Qualified Patients (Active ID Card): 738,908 ■ Check your application status:
https:HM M U Registry. FLHea Ith.gov
Processing Time for Complete Application*: 5 business days
Processing Time for ID Card Printing: 5 business days ■ Questions about your application:
Phone: 1-800-808-95 80
*Applications are not deemed to be complete until all required
information is received and payment has successfully cleared.
■ Consumer comments, and concerns:
Email: MedicaIMari*uanaUse@FLHealth.gov
Physicians
Qualified Physicians: 2,367
A physician must have an active, unrestricted license as a
physician under Chapter 458, F.S., or osteopathic physician
under Chapter 459, F.S., and complete a 2-hour course and
exam before being qualified to order medical marijuana and
low-THC cannabis for qualified patients.
Learn more here: https:HKnowTheFactsMMJ.com/Physicians
Weekly Highlights
■ Find a qualified physician:
https://KnowTheFactsMMJ.com/PhVsicians/Lisi
■ Verify your qualified physician:
http://www.FLHealthSource.gov
■ Health care complaint portal:
https://www.FLHealthComplaint.gov
During the week of July 18 — 22, no new dispensing locations were approved by the Department.
Packet Pg. 138
14.A.2
Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers
The department is charged with the licensing and regulation of medical marijuana treatment centers (MMTCs).
MMTCs are vertically integrated businesses, and are the only businesses authorized to cultivate, process and
dispense low-THC cannabis and medical marijuana.
MMTC Authorization
After initial licensure, each MMTC must receive authorization at three stages prior to dispensing low-THC
cannabis or medical marijuana: (1) cultivation authorization, (2) processing authorization and (3) dispensing
authorization.
Low-THC Cannabis & Medical Mariivana DisDensations
MMTCs dispense low-THC cannabis and medical marijuana to qualified patients and caregivers as
recommended by their qualified ordering physician at approved dispensing locations and via delivery. Medical
marijuana is dispensed in milligrams of active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and low-THC cannabis is
dispensed in milligrams of active ingredient cannabidiol (CBD).
For MMTC contact information and dispensing location addresses, visit https:HKnowTheFactsMMJ.com/MMTC.
MMTC Dispensations for July 15 — 21, 2022:
MMTC Name
Dispensing
Locations
Medical Marijuana
(m s THC)
Low-THC Cannabis
(mgs CBD)
Marijuana in a Form
for Smoking (oz)
Trulieve
118
88,663,087
1,015,112
36,333.600
M u V
52
23, 297, 948
118,167
5,434.248
Curaleaf
50
36,147,151
339,623
11,537.791
Liberty Health Sciences
47
29,060,377
15,795
5,251.118
Surterra Wellness
45
22,032,758
1,071,047
5,108.464
Fluent
27
10,711,203
8,813
3,116.120
VidaCann
25
4,561,087
107,224
1,302.074
GrowHealthy
18
7,140,956
42,836
4,015.090
SunnVsidle-
16
2,937,069
25,034
2,312.604
Cannabist
14
4,479,144
16,023
1,570.237
Sanctuary Cannabis
10
467,404
10,049
557.340
Green Dragon
9
0
0
156.472
GTI (Rise Dispensaries)
7
1,219,366
11,084
1,193.031
MedMen
7
733,129
5,450
377.032
HT Medical Cannabis
3
911,242
1,45)
271.745
Jungle Boys
1
223,854
0
138.042
Insa — Cannabis for Real Life
0
0
0
0
Revolution Florida
0
0
0
0
The Flowery
0
575,122
0
73.006
Gold Leaf
0
0
0
0
Cookies Florida, Inc.
0
0
0
0
Planet 13 Florida, Inc.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total 449 233,160,897 2,777,709 78,748.014
Packet Pg. 139
14.A.2
General Background Information
Medical Marijuana ID Card Application Process: Once a patient has been diagnosed by a qualified physician anc
entered into the Medical Marijuana Use Registry, they can immediately begin the identification card applicatior
process. The department encourages applicants to complete the process online for fastest service. Patients
receive an email from the OMMU once their email address is added to the registry by their qualified physician,
which directs them to the application. Once an application is approved, patients instantly receive an approval
email which can be used to fill an order at an approved MMTC while the physical card is printed and mailed.
Learn more here: https:HKnowTheFactsMMJ.com/Patients/Cards.
Medical Marijuana Use Registry: All orders for medical marijuana are recorded and dispensed via the Medical
Marijuana Use Registry. The Medical Marijuana Use Registry is accessible online, with real time information to
ordering physicians, law enforcement and medical marijuana treatment center staff. Patients and caregivers
may also access the Medical Marijuana Use Registry to submit a Medical Marijuana Use Registry Identification
Card application, check the status of their application and review orders and dispensations. Learn more here:
https://KnowTheFactsMMJ.com/Registry.
For more information visit www.KnowTheFactsMMJ.com.
,o.
Packet Pg. 140
N
d
- aa;;lu WO:D AJOSIAPV SaalnaaS;uawdolanaQ : LS�£Z) -lVNI=wl - IaVed epua6V ZZOZ-£-8 OVSa :4ueWL4oejjv
A - LID �
p
x
d o
ar CID°
a
lid Z
I L
LLI
CD
a
3wo� - ..
cL a..
Jam _ •
�i
—a
aka>�-
,
V LL ui
O
� U
14.A.2
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Office of Medical Marijuana Use,
Prescription Drug Monitoring,
and Selected Administrative Activities
G OF V
Sherrill F. Norman, CPA
Auditor General
Packet Pg. 142
14.A.2
State Surgeon General and State Health Officer
The Department of Health is established by Section 20.43, Florida Statutes. The head of the
Department is the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer who is appointed by the Governor
and subject to confirmation by the Senate. During the period of our audit, the following individuals
served as the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer:
Dr. Scott Rivkees from June 20, 2019
Dr. Celeste Phillip through January 8, 2019
The team leader was Aaron Franz, CPA, and the audit was supervised by Lisa Norman, CPA.
Please address inquiries regarding this report to Lisa Norman, CPA, Audit Manager, by e-mail at
lisanorman(a)aud.state.fl.us or by telephone at (850) 412-2831.
This report and other reports prepared by the Auditor General are available at:
FLAuditor.gov
Printed copies of our reports may be requested by contacting us at:
State of Florida Auditor General
Claude Pepper Building, Suite G74 - 111 West Madison Street - Tallahassee, FL 32399-1450 • (850) 412-2722
Packet Pg. 143
14.A.2
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring,
and Selected Administrative Activities
SUMMARY
This operational audit of the Department of Health focused on the Office of Medical Marijuana Use
(Office). The audit also included a follow-up on the findings noted in our report Nos. 2018-213 and
2017-075. Our audit disclosed the following:
Office of Medical Marijuana Use
Finding 1: Application records did not always evidence that caregivers satisfied statutory requirements
to receive a Medical Marijuana Use Registry (MMUR) identification card or that parental or guardian
consent was obtained for a minor to receive a MMUR identification card.
Finding 2: Contrary to State law, the Office did not immediately suspend medical marijuana
registrations for individuals charged with violations of State drug abuse prevention and control laws.
Finding 3: Office controls for inspecting medical marijuana treatment centers need enhancement to
ensure that inspections are appropriately documented, reviewed, and any noted deficiencies are
appropriately resolved.
Finding 4: Office contract payment controls need enhancement to ensure that payments to the MMUR
vendor are made only upon receipt and satisfaction of all deliverables and performance measures.
Additionally, the Office did not assess penalties when the vendor did not satisfy established performance
measures.
Finding 5: The Office did not take steps to reasonably ensure that service organization controls relevant
to the processing of MMUR identification card applications were suitably designed and operating
effectively. Additionally, the Office did not evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of controls
established by the subservice organization responsible for hosting MMUR data.
Finding 6: Office information technology (IT) security administration policies and procedures for the
MMUR did not encompass access by Department employees and vendors.
Finding 7: IT security controls for the MMUR need improvement to ensure that MMUR system
administrator access privileges are appropriately restricted, all system administrators undergo required
background screenings, periodic reviews of user access privileges are performed, and user access
privileges are promptly removed upon a user's separation from Department employment.
Prescription Drug Monitoring
Finding 8: Department efforts to effectively assess whether pharmacies, pharmacists, and dispensing
practitioners report controlled substance dispensing information to the Department within the time frame
prescribed by State law continue to need enhancement.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 1
Packet Pg. 144
14.A.2
Selected Administrative Activities
Finding 9: As similarly noted in prior audit reports, most recently in our report No. 2018-213, the
Department did not always timely cancel purchasing cards upon a cardholder's separation from
Department employment.
Finding 10: Department controls over employee access to the Florida Accounting Information Resource
Subsystem (FLAIR) continue to need improvement to help prevent any improper or unauthorized use of
FLAIR access privileges.
BACKGROUND
State law' specifies that the Department of Health (Department) is to protect and promote the health of
all residents and visitors in the State. The Department operates through a State health office in
Tallahassee, 67 county health departments, 22 Children's Medical Services area offices, 12 Medical
Quality Assurance regional offices, 9 Disability Determinations regional offices, and 3 public health
laboratories. The Department has eight divisions and seven offices that report to one of four Deputy
Secretaries for Health or the Department Chief of Staff. The Office of Medical Marijuana Use reports to
the Deputy Secretary for Health and the Division of Medical Quality Assurance (MQA), responsible for
the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, reports to the Deputy Secretary for Operations.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OFFICE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE
Article X, Section 29(a) of the State Constitution, adopted in 2016, provides that the medical use of
marijuana by a qualifying patient or caregiver is not subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under
State law. The State Constitution also specifies that physicians and Medical Marijuana Treatment
Centers (MMTCs) operating in compliance with the State Constitution and Department regulations are
not subject to criminal or civil liability.
State lawn establishes requirements for the regulation and oversight of medical marijuana use, authorizes
the Department to adopt administrative rules to implement medical use of marijuana in the State, and
specifies various Department responsibilities. Department responsibilities include:
• Creating and maintaining a secure, electronic, and online Statewide medical marijuana use
registry (MMUR) for physicians, patients, and caregivers;
• Qualifying physicians and monitoring physician registration in the MMUR;
• Determining whether an individual is a resident of Florida for the purpose of registering qualified
patients and caregivers;
• Issuing MMUR identification cards (MMUR cards);
• Suspending or revoking registrations when individuals are no longer a qualified patient;
1 Section 20.43(1), Florida Statutes.
2 Section 381.986, Florida Statutes.
Report No. 2022-006
Page 2 August 2021
Packet Pg. 145
14.A.2
• Licensing MMTCs;
• Conducting announced and unannounced inspections of MMTCs; and
• Imposing fines on MMTCs for violations of applicable laws and rules.
The Department, Office of Medical Marijuana Use (Office), developed and implemented Department
medical marijuana use rules and the MMUR. As directed by State law the Department contracted with
a third -party vendor to receive, review, and approve applications for MMUR cards, create and issue
MMUR cards to patients and caregivers, and operate a call center for answering questions related to
medical marijuana use. The MMUR is a secure, electronic, and online database for the registration of
ordering physicians and qualified patients. The MMUR is used by physicians, patients, caregivers, law
enforcement, Department management and staff, MMTCs, the MMUR card vendor, and the Department's
MMUR hosting and maintenance contractor.
As of March 26, 2021, the Department had qualified 515,676 patients and registered 2,533 physicians.
Office expenditures totaled approximately $52 million during the period July 2018 through March 2021.
As of April 2021, the Department had licensed 22 MMTCs, 8 of which were granted licenses during the
period July 2018 through January 2020.
Finding 1: Caregiver Qualifications
State law4 specifies that the Department is to issue MMUR cards to qualified caregivers. Caregivers are
individuals who have agreed to assist with a qualified patient's use of medical marijuana. Requirements'
to qualify as a caregiver include:
• Be at least 21 years of age or older and a resident of Florida;
• Agree in writing to assist with the qualified patient's medical use of marijuana;
• Successfully complete a biennial caregiver certification course; and
• Pass a background screening unless the caregiver is a close relative of the patient.6
State law' also requires the Department to receive written consent from a qualified patient's parent or
legal guardian prior to issuing a MMUR card to a minor.
During the period July 2018 through January 2020, the Department's third -party vendor processed
9,367 applications for caregiver MMUR cards. To determine whether the Department's third -party vendor
appropriately qualified or denied a caregiver applicant, we examined documentation supporting
40 caregiver applications (30 approved and 10 denied). Our examination disclosed instances where
application files did not evidence that the 30 approved caregiver applicants qualified for a MMUR card.
Specifically, we noted that:
• The Office's caregiver application did not require applicants to agree in writing to assist with a
qualified patient's medical use of marijuana and, consequently, neither the applications nor the
3 Section 381.986(7)(d), Florida Statutes.
4 Section 381.986(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
a Sections 381.986(6)(b), Florida Statutes.
e Section 381.986(1)(c), Florida Statutes, defines a close relative as a spouse, parent, sibling, grandparent, child, or grandchild,
whether related by whole or half blood, by marriage, or by adoption.
Section 381.986(7)(b), Florida Statutes.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 146
14.A.2
supporting records associated with the 30 approved caregiver applications evidenced that the
applicants agreed in writing to assist with the patient's use of medical marijuana.
The supporting records for the 30 approved caregiver applications did not evidence the
relationship of the caregiver to the patient, including 18 approved caregiver applications where
the caregivers did not share a last name with the patient. Therefore, the records did not evidence
whether the applicants were required to have a background screening and none of the approved
applications were supported by evidence that a background screening was performed. Although
we requested, Office management was unable to provide an explanation for why such
documentation was not available.
• 3 of the approved caregiver applications were not supported by birth certificates or
government -issued identification cards demonstrating that the applicants were at least 21 years
of age. Although we requested, Office management was unable to provide an explanation for
why such documentation was not available.
• 3 of the approved caregiver applications were not supported by records evidencing that the
caregiver had completed the caregiver certification course. According to Office management, the
absence of supporting records was due to an issue with the MMUR where a caregiver's status
was automatically updated to active (i.e., no longer in a status indicating that training was pending)
when a user account password reset occurred.
• 8 of the approved caregiver applications were not supported by records demonstrating that the
caregiver's training occurred prior to approval of their application, as the MMUR only maintained
the date of the last training attended.
• The records for 8 caregiver applications approved to provide care for a minor patient did not
include written consent from the patient's parent or legal guardian. In response to our audit
inquiry, Office management indicated that the Department relied on the certifying physicians to
obtain the consent forms.
As further discussed in Finding 5, the Office had not made or obtained independent and periodic
assessments of the effectiveness of the third -party vendor's relevant internal controls. Effective controls
over the caregiver application process, including controls requiring documentation be obtained to support
that caregivers satisfy legal requirements prior to receiving MMUR cards, would help ensure and
demonstrate that only qualified individuals receive MMUR cards and may assist with a qualified patient's
use of medical marijuana.
Recommendation: We recommend that Office management enhance oversight controls to
ensure that caregiver applications include all required information and are supported by
appropriate documentation. Additionally, Office management should ensure that the third -party
vendor obtains all required documentation prior to issuing a MMUR card.
Finding 2: Timeliness of Patient Registry Suspensions
State law$ requires the Department to immediately suspend the registration of any qualified medical
marijuana patient charged with a violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes,9 until final disposition of any
alleged offense. To fulfill this requirement, the Office established an e-mail account to receive
notifications from law enforcement agencies whenever a patient was charged with an applicable violation
s Section 381.986(5)(d) and 381.986(e), Florida Statutes.
s Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, relates to Drug Abuse Prevention and Control.
Report No. 2022-006
Page 4 August 2021
Packet Pg. 147
14.A.2
of law. Upon receipt of an e-mail notification, Office staff were to draft a suspension letter and forward it
to the Office's attorney for review and approval or denial of the suspension.
During the period July 2018 through January 2020, the Office received 108 law enforcement notifications.
We examined documentation for 20 of the notifications to determine whether the Office immediately
suspended applicable patient registrations upon notification by law enforcement. Our examination
disclosed that the Office determined that 13 of the 20 patient registrations should be suspended; however
the Office did not suspend the 13 patient registrations until 5 to 107 business days (an average of
38 business days) after being notified by law enforcement that the patient was charged with an applicable
violation of State law. In response to our audit inquiry, Office management indicated that they could not
determine the reason for the delays.
Prompt suspension of a patient's registration upon notification by law enforcement that the patient was
charged with an applicable violation of State law helps prevent the use of the patient's registration card
to illicitly obtain medical marijuana.
Recommendation: We recommend that Office management enhance controls to ensure that
medical marijuana patient registrations are immediately suspended upon notification by law
enforcement of a patient being charged with an applicable violation of State drug abuse
prevention and control laws.
Finding 3: MMTC Inspections
State 1aw10 specifies that the Department is to conduct announced or unannounced inspections of
MMTCs to determine compliance with applicable laws and Department rules. The Office conducts
inspections upon initial licensure of an MMTC and biennially thereafter, when MMTCs open additional
cultivating, processing, or dispensing facilities; when an MMTC requests a variance to existing facilities;
and upon receipt of a complaint or learning of an incident involving an MMTC's operations. The Office
developed checklists to document the compliance items to be reviewed during an inspection and staff
assigned to inspections were to complete the applicable checklists, assemble the inspection file, and
provide the completed inspection file to the Inspections Manager and Licensing Manager for review. If
an issue was identified during an inspection, the Office was to request from the MMTC evidence that
corrective action had been taken or a corrective action plan. Depending on the severity of the issue, the
Department may impose a fine. During the period July 2018 through January 2020, the Office completed
339 MMTC inspections.
As part of our audit, we performed inquiries of Office personnel, evaluated Office MMTC inspection
procedures, and examined documentation for five inspections related to new facilities or requests for
variances to existing facilities and three inspections related to an incident or complaint and noted that
Office inspection procedures need enhancement. Specifically, we found that:
• While the Office had developed checklists to document the compliance items to be reviewed
during an inspection, the Office had not established written policies and procedures for
inspections. The absence of established policies and procedures may have contributed to the
issues noted on audit.
10 Section 381.986(10)(a), Florida Statutes.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 148
14.A.2
• For one inspection related to a variance request, items on the checklist related to MMTC security
plans were incomplete.
• The checklists or other inspection documentation for the five inspections related to a new facility
or variance request were missing either the Inspection Manager or Licensing Manager's signature
documenting review.
• For one new facility and two complaint or incident -related inspections with noted issues, the
inspection files did not evidence that the Office ensured that the MMTCs corrected the issues.
The issues noted included, for example, advertising and selling products not approved by the
Department and deficiencies in MMTC dispensing policy.
According to Office management, the missing signatures were the result of workload issues but, although
we requested, Office management could not provide an explanation for why inspection checklists were
incomplete or documentation evidencing corrective actions was missing.
Written inspection policies and procedures, complete and adequate inspection documentation, and
appropriate management review would increase the Office's assurance that the MMTCs complied with
applicable laws and Department rules, appropriate corrective actions were completed by the MMTCs,
and that inspections were conducted in accordance with management's expectations.
Recommendation: We recommend that Office management establish written policies and
procedures for MMTC inspections and ensure that Office records include complete and adequate
documentation of inspections performed, management review, and follow-up on issues noted on
inspection.
Finding 4: Contract Payments
To receive reimbursement for services provided, the Department's contract with the MMUR vendor
required the vendor to prepare and submit to the Department monthly invoices and a Monthly Activity
Report (MAR). At a minimum, the MAR was to include a Monthly Call Report that detailed the number
of calls received and answered during operating hours, the number of calls answered within 30 seconds
and calls serviced through the Interactive Voice Response, the number of abandoned and outbound calls,
and the average duration of all calls. Additionally, the MAR was to include an Application Processing
Volume Report providing the monthly number of MMUR card applications received, reviewed, and
approved, and the number of MMUR cards printed and mailed.
The Department's contract with the MMUR vendor included terms for compensation and established
deliverables and related performance measures. The MMUR vendor was to receive a fixed monthly fee
of $99,266.40 for the period November 2017 through October 2018, $96,259.83 for the period
November 2018 through October 2019, and $93,646.23 for the period November 2019 through
October 2020. The MMUR vendor was also to be paid $4.19 for each MMUR card produced, up to
199,999 MMUR cards, and $4.01 for each MMUR card thereafter, each year of the contract. Payment
was dependent on meeting established deliverables and, if those deliverables were not met in
accordance with established performance measures, the vendor was subject to a reduction in payment,
up to 5 percent of the monthly invoice total. The contract deliverables and related performance measures
included:
• Staffing a call center a minimum of 10 hours a day, Monday through Friday.
Report No. 2022-006
Page 6 August 2021
Packet Pg. 149
14.A.2
• Answering all calls within 30 seconds of receipt.
• Ensuring a call abandonment rate of less than 5 percent each month.
• Reviewing and approving all completed applications within 5 business days of receipt.
• Printing and mailing all MMUR cards to the approved patient or caregiver within 5 business days
of application approval.
• Documenting and processing all returned MMUR cards within 2 business days of receipt.
• Preparing and submitting a MAR to the contract manager within 15 days following the end of each
month.
Beginning in August 2019, as part of the invoice review process, the Office prepared a Performance
Analysis based on the MAR to identify and document whether the contractor had met performance
measures.
During the period July 2018 through January 2020, the Department made 20 payments totaling
$4,876,698 to the MMUR vendor. As part of our audit, we examined documentation for 8 of those
payments, totaling $1,958,444, to determine whether the payments were appropriately authorized,
supported, and reviewed, and made after the receipt of contract deliverables. Our examination disclosed
that Office controls need improvement to ensure that the MMUR vendor provides contract deliverables,
meets established performance measures, and contract payments are made in accordance with contract
terms. Specifically, we found that:
• For 2 payments totaling $416,155, the Office did not obtain from the MMUR vendor MARs
detailing call center and application and card processing activities by the vendor.
• Office records did not evidence for 6 payments, totaling $1,542,289, an evaluation of whether the
MMUR vendor satisfied the established performance measures. For the 2 payments where the
Office completed a Performance Analysis, the analysis did not adequately evidence the Office's
review of the MMUR vendor's performance and whether the vendor satisfied performance
measures or was subject to a penalty for underperformance. For example, sections of the
Performance Analysis intended to cross-reference a performance measure in the contract to
supporting monthly invoice documentation did not adequately identify the performance measure
reviewed or correctly cross-reference to supporting documentation in the monthly invoice
package.
Our examination also found that, for all 8 payments, documentation provided by the vendor was,
at times, insufficient to determine whether some performance measures were met and instances
where required vendor performance was not always met. For example, the vendor's MAR
excluded counts of returned MMUR cards and the average number of days to process the
returned MMUR cards and, therefore, did not demonstrate that the vendor processed returned
MMUR cards within 2 days. Similarly, while the MAR provided the number of applications
received, reviewed, and approved, the MAR did not include the average number of days to
process the applications, which was necessary to demonstrate that the vendor satisfied the 5-day
processing time requirement. Although the MMUR did not include all required information, our
examination identified instances of noncompliance, with potential penalties totaling $97,922, for
which the Department did not assess payment penalties.
• For a $240,035 payment, the Department paid the MMUR vendor based on an incorrect monthly
fee, resulting in a $3,007 overpayment. Because of this error, we expanded our testing and
analyzed all 29 payments, totaling $8,083,598, made by the Department to the vendor during the
period April 2018 through August 2020 to determine whether the correct contract rates were paid.
Our analysis found that, for 6 payments totaling $2,173,415, the Department applied the rate
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 150
14.A.2
charged per MMUR card based on a 12-month period of April through March instead of the
contract period November through October, resulting in overpayments totaling approximately
$5,700.
• As part of the application process, the MMUR vendor received $75 per application and, according
to the terms of the contract with the Department, was to transfer all confirmed payment
transactions into the Department's account each day. During the period July 2018 through
January 2020, the Department received approximately $34.7 million in application fees. Our
evaluation of the Office's invoice review process disclosed that the Office did not reconcile
revenues remitted by the vendor to applications processed and, therefore, did not verify that all
revenues due the Department were received.
According to Office management, during the first several months of the contract, the Office accepted
documentation such as weekly reports and a project management plan to confirm that deliverables were
met. Office management also indicated that the required documentation was not always provided by the
vendor to the Office due to insufficient training and turnover in key positions at the vendor and the Office.
Office management posited that, since card printing did not begin until April 2018, the Department and
vendor agreed to use an April through March billing cycle instead of the annual contract period of
November through October. However, Department records did not include a contract amendment to
support the change in billing cycle.
Absent effective contract payment controls, the risk is increased that payments will be made in the wrong
amount or without deliverables being received or performance measures met.
Recommendation: We recommend that Office management enhance controls to ensure that the
MMUR vendor provides contract deliverables, meets established performance measures, and
contract payments are made in accordance with contract terms.
Finding 5: Evaluation of Service and Subservice Organization Controls
As previously mentioned, pursuant to State law," the Department executed a contract with a third -party
vendor to receive, review, and approve applications for MMUR cards, create and issue MMUR cards to
patients and caregivers, and operate a call center for answering questions related to medical marijuana
use. The Department executed the contract in November 2017 with a contract amount of $7.9 million.
The specific contract duties of the MMUR vendor included:
• Processing applications for MMUR cards, including the collection and remittance of application
fees to the Department.
• Scanning and storing application documentation in a shared location.
• Maintaining a subcontract with an approved vendor that meets the statutory requirements set
forth in Section 381.986(7), Florida Statutes, for the printing of the MMUR cards.
• Conducting a quality check on a minimum of 5 percent of printed MMUR cards at the time of
production to ensure a maximum error rate of 2 percent.
• Documenting and processing all returned MMUR cards within 2 business days of receipt.
11 Section 381.986(7)(d), Florida Statutes.
Report No. 2022-006
Page 8 August 2021
Packet Pg. 151
14.A.2
• Complying with all Department data security and confidentiality procedures, including providing a
service auditor's report12 to the Office upon request.
The Department contracted with another third -party vendor to provide maintenance and hosting services
for the MMUR. The services to be provided by the MMUR hosting vendor included: hosting the MMUR
on the vendor's servers; maintaining the availability of the MMUR 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except
on limited occasions; updating the MMUR as needed and upon Office request; exporting data from the
MMUR upon Office request; and providing technical support. The MMUR hosting vendor subcontracted
these services to another entity.
As the Office relies on a vendor (service organ ization'3), and the sensitive and confidential information
collected and maintained, to determine eligibility for MMUR cards, it is incumbent upon the Office to take
steps to reasonably ensure that relevant service organization controls are suitably designed and
operating effectively. Such steps may include requiring the service organization to provide service
auditor's reports on the effectiveness of the controls established by the organization or, alternatively,
Office monitoring of the effectiveness of relevant service organization controls. Additionally, when a
service organization such as the MMUR hosting vendor utilizes a subservice organization14 to perform
services for the Office, it is necessary for the Office to obtain assurances regarding the controls at the
subservice organization relevant to those services.
As part of our audit, we interviewed Office management and examined selected Office records to
determine whether the Office took steps to reasonably ensure that controls at the service organization
responsible for the processing of MMUR applications and at the subservice organization responsible for
hosting MMUR data were suitably designed and operating effectively. We found that the Office had not
designated an employee responsible for monitoring either the relevant service organization's or
subservice organization's controls. Additionally, the Office had not requested or received service
auditors' reports on the effectiveness of the controls of the service organization or subservice
organization. Although we requested, Office management could not provide an explanation for why
relevant service and subservice organization controls were not evaluated.
Absent an evaluation of relevant service organization and subservice organization internal controls,
Office management has reduced assurance that controls relevant to security, availability, processing
integrity, and confidentiality are in place and functioning effectively.
Recommendation: To promote the appropriate processing of MMUR card applications and
ensure the security, availability, and confidentiality of MMUR data, we recommend that Office
12 A service auditor's report, as described by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, AT-C Section 320, Reporting
on an Examination of Controls at a Service Organization Relevant to User Entities' Internal Control Over Financial Reporting,
provides information and auditor conclusions related to a service organization's controls. Service organizations make service
auditor reports available to user organizations to provide assurances related to the effectiveness of the service organization's
relevant internal controls. AT-C Section 320.04 states that the guidance provided in AT-C Section 320 may be helpful in reporting
on controls at a service organization other than those that are likely to be relevant to user entities' internal control over financial
reporting.
13 Service organizations provide services to user entities, some of which may be relevant to the user entities' internal control
over financial reporting.
14 A subservice organization is a service organization used by a service organization to perform some of the services provided
to user entities, some of which are likely to be relevant to those user entities' internal control over financial reporting.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 152
14.A.2
management make or obtain independent and periodic assessments of the effectiveness of
service organization and subservice organization relevant internal controls.
Finding 6: Security Administration Policies and Procedures
Department policies and procedures15 required each Department program office or division to establish
written information security and privacy procedures to ensure the security of information and to protect
the confidentiality of information, data integrity, and access to information. Such procedures were to
conform to Department Information Security and Privacy Program requirements and be reviewed
annually and updated when appropriate.
Security control policies should address the purpose and scope of the policy, roles and responsibilities
in security administration, management commitment, coordination among Department staff, and
compliance with policy requirements. Such policies should include documented procedures to facilitate
the implementation of the security control policy and associated security controls, including access
control procedures such as:
• Identifying authorized users of the system.
• Requiring appropriate approvals for requests to establish system accounts.
• Establishing, activating, modifying, disabling, and removing system accounts.
• Deactivating accounts of terminated or transferred users.
• Granting access to the system based on valid access authorization, intended system usage, and
other attributes as required by the organization or associated business functions.
As part of our audit, we evaluated Office security administration policies and procedures for the MMUR
and noted that, while the Office had established security administration policies and procedures for
patients, law enforcement, and physicians, the policies and procedures did not address users of the
MMUR employed by the Department or Department vendors. As of January 31, 2020, there were
22 Department and 52 vendor MMUR user accounts. In response to our audit inquiry, Office
management indicated that staff resource constraints contributed to the incomplete policies and
procedures.
Absent comprehensive security administration policies and procedures for the MMUR that encompass
Department and Department vendor MMUR users increases the risk of unauthorized users having access
to the MMUR. As noted in Finding 7, the lack of comprehensive security policies and procedures likely
contributed to the assignment of inappropriate MMUR access privileges and untimely removal of MMUR
access.
Recommendation: We recommend that Office management enhance security administration
policies and procedures for the MMUR to include security requirements for Department and
Department vendor MMUR users.
15 Department Policy and Procedure DOHP-50-10-16, Information Security and Privacy Policy.
Report No. 2022-006
Page 10 August 2021
Packet Pg. 153
14.A.2
Finding 7: MMUR Security Controls
Department of Management Services (DMS) rules16 require State agencies to ensure that users are
granted access to agency information technology (IT) resources based on the principles of least privilege
and a need to know determination and ensure that IT access privileges are removed when access to an
IT resource is no longer required. DMS rules17 also require State agencies to periodically review user
access privileges for appropriateness and to perform background investigations on all individuals hired
as IT workers who have administrative capabilities for systems or applications with a moderate impact or
higher.18 Effective access controls also include measures that restrict user access privileges to data and
IT resources to only those functions that promote an appropriate separation of duties and are necessary
for the user's assigned job duties.
As part of our audit, we evaluated MMUR access controls and related documentation to determine
whether MMUR access privileges were appropriately granted and periodically reviewed and access was
timely removed upon a user's separation from Department employment. Our audit procedures found that
MMUR access controls need improvement to ensure that access privileges are appropriate and timely
removed upon a user's separation from Department employment. Specifically, we found that:
• 8 of 16 Office employees assigned as a system administrator19 as of April 21, 2020, did not appear
to require system administrator access. For example, 5 employees assigned as system
administrators were executive administrative assistants or call support analysts and, subsequent
to our audit inquiry, on May 29, 2020, the Office removed system administrator access for the
5 employees.
Additionally, our examination of MMUR records indicated that, as of January 2020, 11 employees
of the vendor responsible for patient and caregiver application and MMUR card processing had
system administrator access. According to Office management, the 11 employees required the
system administrator access when the vendor's system was being integrated with the MMUR;
however, the integration was completed in March 2018. Subsequent to our audit inquiry, in
July 2020, the employees' access was changed to a different role with limited administrative rights
over the vendor employees' MMUR access.
Department records did not evidence that 1 of 7 Office employees included in audit testing
underwent the required background screening as a system administrator.
• Office management did not perform periodic reviews of MMUR user access privileges during the
period July 2018 through January 2020.
• MMUR access privileges were not always timely removed upon a user's separation from
Department employment. Our comparison of MMUR access records to People First20 records
disclosed that MMUR access privileges for 10 of 15 users who separated from Department
employment during the period July 2018 through January 2020 were removed 29 to 129 business
days (an average of 76 business days) after employment separation. Additionally, we noted that
16 DMS Rule 60GG-2.003(l)(a)8. and (d), Florida Administrative Code.
17 DMS Rules 60GG-2.002(l)(f)9. and 6000-2.003(l)(a)6., Florida Administrative Code.
18 DMS Rule 60GG-2.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, defines a moderate to high -impact system as one where unauthorized
disclosure, modification, or destruction of information or the disruption of access to or use of information or the information
system would have a serious to catastrophic adverse effect on operations, organizational assets, or individuals.
19 A system administrator is an individual appointed to grant, modify, and remove access to the application based on authorized
requests from a user's supervisor.
21 People First is the State's human resource information system.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 11
Packet Pg. 154
14.A.2
the read-only account for one of these employees was accessed 11 days after the employee's
separation from Department employment. Although we requested, Office management was
unable to provide an explanation for why the account access occurred.
As noted in Finding 6, comprehensive Office IT security policies and procedures are critical to ensuring
that access to the MMUR is appropriate and timely removed.
The existence of inappropriate and unnecessary system administrator access privileges to the MMUR
increases the risk that accidental or malicious modification, destruction, or disclosure of Department data
and IT resources may occur. Additionally, conducting appropriate background investigations on system
administrators provides Department management assurance that system administrator backgrounds are
commensurate with the position and performing periodic reviews of MMUR user access privileges and
promptly removing user access privileges upon a user's separation from Department employment provide
management assurance that user access privileges are authorized and remain appropriate.
Recommendation: We recommend that Office management enhance controls to ensure that
MMUR system administrator access privileges are appropriately restricted and that all system
administrators undergo a background investigation in accordance with applicable rules. We also
recommend that Office management conduct and document in Office records periodic reviews of
MMUR user access privileges and ensure that MMUR user access privileges are promptly
removed upon a user's separation from Department employment.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING
In 2009, the Legislature established the State's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (Program) in State
1aw21 and specified that, by December 1, 2010, the Department was to design and establish a
comprehensive electronic database system to collect controlled substance22 prescription information from
pharmacies and dispensing health care practitioners and provide prescription information to pharmacies,
health care practitioners, certain law enforcement and regulatory agencies, and others as authorized by
State law. Pursuant to State law,23 the Department contracted with a service organization to implement
the Electronic -Florida Online Reporting of Controlled Substance Evaluation Program (E-FORCSE°)
system. The E-FORCSE° system captures information specific to each prescribed controlled substance
dispensing transaction, such as the name, date of birth, and address of the individual who received the
dispensed drug; the name and address of the prescriber and dispenser; the prescription date and
dispensing date; and the drug name, quantity dispensed, days of supply, and authorized number of refills.
Finding 8: Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Reporting
State Iaw24 requires that, each time a controlled substance is dispensed25 to an individual, the pharmacy,
pharmacist, or dispensing health care practitioner is to report the event in the E-FORCSE° system as
21 Chapter 2009-198, Laws of Florida, enacted as Section 893.055, Florida Statutes.
22 Pursuant to Section 893.055(1)(c), Florida Statutes, controlled substances include the controlled substances listed in
Schedules II, III, IV, or V outlined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, or Title 21, Section 812, United States Code.
21 Section 893.055(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
24 Section 893.055(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
21 Section 893.055(1)(d), Florida Statutes, defines "dispense" as the transfer of possession of one or more doses of a controlled
substance by a dispenser to the ultimate consumer or to his or her agent.
Report No. 2022-006
Page 12 August 2021
Packet Pg. 155
14.A.2
soon as possible, but no later than the close of the next business day after the day the controlled
substance is dispensed, unless an extension or exemption is approved by the Department. Compliance
with the statutory reporting requirement is critical to the Department's ability to effectively administer the
Program and further the Program's goal of providing timely information to pharmacies, pharmacists,
health care practitioners, and other E FORCSE° system information users.26
When pharmacies, pharmacists, and dispensing practitioners electronically report to the E-FORCSE°
system, the system captures information such as the dispenser name and the number of dispensing
transactions included in the uploaded file. Dispensing information for multiple pharmacies that are within
the same state may be uploaded in the same file. For example, chains or vendors with multiple stores
may set up one account to upload a file for all locations within the state. If the pharmacy, pharmacist, or
dispensing practitioner did not have any dispensing transactions to report, the Department required the
pharmacy, pharmacist, or health care practitioner to report zero activity in the E-FORCSE® system.
In our report No. 2017-075 (Finding 2), we noted that the E-FORCSE® system did not capture the date
uploaded for each dispensing transaction in a manner that would permit a reliable assessment of the
number of days that elapsed between the date a controlled substance was dispensed and the date the
dispensing information was reported to the E-FORCSE® system. As part of our follow-up audit
procedures, we performed inquiries of Department management and analyzed E-FORCSE® system data
for the period July 2018 through January 2020 to determine whether the Department took actions to
facilitate the reliable determination of whether pharmacies, pharmacists, and dispensing practitioners
reported dispensing transaction information to the E-FORCSE® system within the time frame prescribed
by State law. Our audit procedures disclosed that, while the E-FORCSEO system was enhanced to
require the date each dispensed prescription was uploaded into the system, the Department did not utilize
this information to effectively evaluate dispenser compliance with statutory reporting requirements.
Specifically, we found that, during the period July 2018 through January 2020, the Department used
Monthly Monitoring Compliance Reports generated from their Compliance Dashboard (Dashboard) to
monitor reporting compliance. However, the Department evaluated reporting compliance by determining
whether pharmacies, pharmacists, and dispensing practitioners were submitting dispensing transaction
information daily to the E-FORCSE® system rather than determining if prescriptions were uploaded by
the end of the next business day after they were dispensed.
To determine whether dispensing transaction information was timely reported to the E-FORCSE® system,
we compared the dates dispensing transaction data was uploaded to the E-FORCSE® system to the
dates prescriptions were dispensed for 4 selected weeks during the period July 2018 through
January 2020. Our comparison found that 838,720 of 2,120,488 prescriptions (40 percent) reported for
those weeks were uploaded 2 to 2,303 business days (approximately 6 years) after the reported
dispensed date.
In response to our audit inquiry, Department management indicated that the Dashboard was not fully
functional until March 2020 and, until then, the Dashboard did not include the details, such as the dates
26 Section 893.055(5), Florida Statutes, specifies that certain users, such as a law enforcement agency during an active
investigation regarding potential criminal activity, fraud, or theft regarding prescribed controlled substances, are not permitted
direct access to the E-FORCSE° system, but may request through the Department information from the E-FORCSE® system.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 13
Packet Pg. 156
14.A.2
prescriptions were dispensed, necessary to appropriately analyze reporting compliance. As of
September 2020, the Department added the dates prescriptions were dispensed and reported to the
Dashboard to enhance the Department's ability to monitor reporting compliance.
Appropriately utilizing the information available in the E- FORCSE° system would allow the Department
to assess pharmacy, pharmacist, and dispensing health care practitioner compliance with statutory
reporting requirements and to investigate instances of noncompliance.
Recommendation: We recommend that Department management continue to enhance
procedures to capture, analyze, and monitor controlled substance dispensing data to ensure that
pharmacies, pharmacists, and health care practitioners comply with statutory reporting
requirements.
SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
As part of our audit, we evaluated selected Department administrative activities and controls, including
those related to purchasing cards and Florida Accounting Information Resource System (FLAIR) access
privileges.
Finding 9: Purchasing Card Controls
As a participant in the State's purchasing card program, the Department is responsible for implementing
key controls, including procedures for timely canceling purchasing cards upon a cardholder's separation
from Department employment. Department policies and procedures27 specified that, when possible,
purchasing cardholders were to discontinue purchasing card use 2 weeks prior to employment separation
or termination. Additionally, the cardholder's supervisor was responsible for collecting the purchasing
card from the employee when notified of the employee's separation from Department employment and
notifying the Department Purchasing Card Administration (PCA) Office within 5 business days of the
employee's separation to cancel the employee's purchasing card.28
In prior audit reports, most recently in our report No. 2018-213 (Finding 3), we noted that the Department
did not always timely cancel purchasing cards upon a cardholder's separation from Department
employment. Our follow-up audit procedures included comparing Department employee separation
dates recorded in People First to purchasing card cancellation dates recorded in Works29 for the period
November 2018 through January 2020 to determine whether purchasing cards were timely canceled.
We identified 169 employees whose purchasing card cancellation date appeared to be more than
1 business day after their People First separation date or whose purchasing card appeared to still be
active as of January 31, 2020. Further examination of Department records for 36 of the 169 cardholders
found that 35 of the 36 employees' purchasing cards were canceled 2 to 189 business days (an average
of 40 business days) after the employees' separation dates. In one instance, autopay charges totaling
$197 were incurred subsequent to the employee's separation date and prior to cancellation of the
27 Department Policy and Procedure DOHP 56-44-18, Purchasing Card Guidelines.
28 Effective February 25, 2020, and subsequent to the period of our audit, Department Purchasing Card Guidelines were updated
in DOHP 56-44-20 to specify that notifications of employment separations to the PCA Office were to occur on the date of
employment separation, rather than within 5 business days.
29 Works is the State's purchasing card system.
Report No. 2022-006
Page 14 August 2021
Packet Pg. 157
14.A.2
purchasing card. The Department subsequently obtained a credit for those charges. In response to our
audit inquiry, Department management indicated that the delays in canceling purchasing cards were due
to supervisors not timely notifying the PCA Office when employees separated from Department
employment. Additionally, the Department's procedures in effect during the period subject to our audit,
which allowed supervisors 5 business days to notify the PCA Office of employment separations, may
have contributed to the issues noted on audit.
Prompt cancellation of purchasing cards upon a cardholder's separation from Department employment
reduces the risk that unauthorized charges will occur.
Recommendation: We again recommend that Department management promptly cancel
purchasing cards upon a cardholder's separation from Department employment.
Finding 10: FLAIR Access Controls
DMS rules30 require State agencies to ensure that users are granted access to agency IT resources
based on the principles of least privilege and a need to know determination and ensure that IT access
privileges are removed when access to an IT resource is no longer required. Effective access controls
also include measures that restrict user access privileges to data and IT resources to only those functions
that promote an appropriate separation of duties and are necessary for the user's assigned job duties.
The Department utilizes FLAIR to authorize payment of Department obligations and to record and report
financial transactions. Department policies and procedures31 specified that supervisors were responsible
for terminating all employee access privileges, including access to FLAIR. To terminate access to FLAIR,
the supervisor was to submit a FLAIR End -User Access Request form to an access control custodian
requesting that access be deactivated. Additionally, Department policies and procedures32 required the
Department, Bureau of General Services, Administrative and Finance Application Management section,
to perform a monthly comparison of FLAIR users to a list of Department employees and take appropriate
action to delete or revoke the access privileges of employees who had separated from Department
employment.
In prior reports, most recently in our report No. 2018-213 (Finding 2), we noted that Department controls
were not always effective to ensure that FLAIR access privileges were timely deactivated. As part of our
follow-up audit procedures, we evaluated Department FLAIR access controls and noted that Department
controls were not always effective to ensure that FLAIR user access privileges were timely deactivated
or appropriate. Specifically, we noted that:
FLAIR user access privileges were not always timely deactivated upon a user's separation from
Department employment. Our comparison of FLAIR access records to People First records found
that 53 of the 72 user accounts deactivated during the period February 2019 through
January 2020 appeared to have been deactivated more than 1 business day after the employee's
separation from Department employment. Our further review of 15 of the 53 user accounts found
that the users' access privileges remained active 2 to 58 business days (an average of
26 business days) after the users' employment separation dates. According to Department
30 DMS Rule 60GG-2.003(l)(a)8. and (d), Florida Administrative Code.
31 Department Policy and Procedure DOHP 60-2-16, Personnel and Human Resource Management - Employee Separations.
32 Department Policy and Procedure DOHP 56-10-19, FLAIR and RACF Access and Control.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 15
Packet Pg. 158
14.A.2
management, supervisors rarely informed the applicable access control custodian of employee
separations from Department employment. Consequently, the monthly comparison was
necessary to identify employee separations. Notwithstanding the untimely deactivation of access
privileges, our audit tests disclosed that none of the user accounts were used to access FLAIR
after the employees' separation from Department employment.
• The user access privileges assigned to 3 of the 6 employees who, during the period
February 2019 through January 2020, transferred to a position no longer requiring access to
FLAIR or requiring different user account privileges were not timely deactivated or updated to be
compatible with the employees' new job responsibilities and to remove unnecessary access
privileges. Subsequent to our audit inquiry, and 91 to 290 business days (an average of
219 business days) after the employees' transfer dates, the employees' unnecessary or
incompatible access privileges were deactivated.
The prompt deactivation of user access privileges upon an employee's separation from Department
employment or when access privileges are no longer required reduces the risk of unauthorized
disclosure, modification, and destruction of Department data.
Recommendation: We again recommend that Department management ensure that FLAIR
access privileges are promptly deactivated when an employee separates from Department
employment or when an employee no longer requires the access privileges previously granted.
PRIOR AUDIT FOLLOW-UP
Except as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Department had taken corrective actions for the
findings included in our report Nos. 2018-213 and 2017-075.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The Auditor General conducts operational audits of governmental entities to provide the Legislature,
Florida's citizens, public entity management, and other stakeholders unbiased, timely, and relevant
information for use in promoting government accountability and stewardship and improving government
operations.
We conducted this operational audit from February 2020 through March 2021 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
This operational audit of the Department of Health (Department) focused on the Office of Medical
Marijuana Use (Office). For those areas, the objectives of the audit were to:
• Evaluate management's performance in establishing and maintaining internal controls, including
controls designed to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, and in administering
responsibilities in accordance with applicable laws, administrative rules, contracts, grant
agreements, and other guidelines.
• Examine internal controls designed and placed into operation to promote and encourage the
achievement of management's control objectives in the categories of compliance, economic and
Report No. 2022-006
Page 16 August 2021
Packet Pg. 159
14.A.2
efficient operations, the reliability of records and reports, and the safeguarding of assets, and
identify weaknesses in those internal controls.
• Identify statutory and fiscal changes that may be recommended to the Legislature pursuant to
Section 11.45(7)(h), Florida Statutes.
Our audit also included steps to determine whether management had corrected, or was in the process of
correcting, all deficiencies noted in our report Nos. 2018-213 and 2017-075.
This audit was designed to identify, for those programs, activities, or functions included within the scope
of the audit, deficiencies in internal controls significant to our audit objectives; instances of noncompliance
with applicable governing laws, rules, or contracts; and instances of inefficient or ineffective operational
policies, procedures, or practices. The focus of this audit was to identify problems so that they may be
corrected in such a way as to improve government accountability and efficiency and the stewardship of
management. Professional judgment has been used in determining significance and audit risk and in
selecting the particular transactions, legal compliance matters, records, and controls considered.
As described in more detail below, for those programs, activities, and functions included within the scope
of our audit, our audit work included, but was not limited to, communicating to management and those
charged with governance the scope, objectives, timing, overall methodology, and reporting of our audit;
obtaining an understanding of the program, activity, or function; identifying and evaluating internal
controls significant to our audit objectives; exercising professional judgment in considering significance
and audit risk in the design and execution of the research, interviews, tests, analyses, and other
procedures included in the audit methodology; obtaining reasonable assurance of the overall sufficiency
and appropriateness of the evidence gathered in support of our audit's findings and conclusions; and
reporting on the results of the audit as required by governing laws and auditing standards.
Our audit included the selection and examination of transactions and records. Unless otherwise indicated
in this report, these transactions and records were not selected with the intent of statistically projecting
the results, although we have presented for perspective, where practicable, information concerning
relevant population value or size and quantifications relative to the items selected for examination.
An audit by its nature, does not include a review of all records and actions of agency management, staff,
and vendors, and as a consequence, cannot be relied upon to identify all instances of noncompliance,
fraud, abuse, or inefficiency.
In conducting our audit, we:
• Reviewed applicable laws, rules, Department policies and procedures, and other guidelines, and
interviewed Department personnel to obtain an understanding of the regulation and oversight of
medical marijuana use.
• Obtained an understanding of selected Department information technology (IT) controls,
assessed the risks related to those controls, evaluated whether selected general and application
IT controls for the Medical Marijuana Use Registry (MMUR) were in place, and tested the
effectiveness of the selected controls.
• From the population of the 538,172 medical marijuana patient applications processed during the
period July 2018 through January 2020, examined 40 selected applications to determine whether
the Department's third -party vendor appropriately qualified or denied patient applicants.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 17
Packet Pg. 160
14.A.2
• From the population of the 9,367 medical marijuana caregiver applications processed during the
period July 2018 through January 2020, examined 40 selected applications to determine whether
the Department's third -party vendor appropriately qualified or denied caregiver applicants.
• Examined records for 20 notifications selected from the population of 108 law enforcement
notifications to the Office of medical marijuana patients charged with a violation of Chapter
893 Florida Statutes, during the period July 2018 through January 2020, to determine whether
the Office timely and appropriately suspended and reinstated patient registrations.
• Examined Department records to determine whether, during the period July 2018 through
January 2020, the Department adequately monitored the activities of the third -party vendor
responsible for processing medical marijuana patient and caregiver applications, issuing registry
identification cards, and remitting application fees in accordance with contract terms and
conditions.
• Examined records for 8 payments, totaling $1,958,444, selected from the population of
20 payments, totaling $4,876,698, made by the Department to the medical marijuana application
processing vendor during the period July 2018 through January 2020, to determine whether the
payments were appropriately authorized, supported, and reviewed; made after the receipt of
contract deliverables; and correctly recorded in the State's accounting records.
• Examined licensing documentation for four medical marijuana treatment centers selected from
the population of the eight treatment centers licensed during the period July 2018 through
January 2020, to determine whether the treatment centers were properly and timely licensed in
accordance with applicable laws and Department rules.
• Examined records for three selected medical marijuana treatment center license renewal
applications, from the population of the seven license renewal applications received during the
period July 2018 through February 2020, to determine whether the licenses were properly and
timely renewed in accordance with applicable laws and Department rules.
• Examined records for 20 variance requests selected from the population of 389 medical marijuana
treatment center variance requests submitted to and closed by the Office during the period
July 2018 through January 2020, to determine whether the requests were properly and timely
reviewed and approved or denied in accordance with applicable laws, Department rules, and
Office procedures.
• From the population of the 339 medical marijuana treatment center inspections completed during
the period July 2018 through January 2020, examined records for 8 selected inspections,
including 3 where corrective actions were necessary or fines resulted, to determine whether the
inspections were performed and fines were assessed and collected in accordance with applicable
laws and Department rules.
• Compared application fees reported as collected by the medical marijuana application processing
vendor for the period July 2018 through January 2020 to Department accounting records to
determine whether the Department received all the application fees due.
• Analyzed Department records to determine whether the number of authorized medical marijuana
treatment center dispensing facilities as of May 2020 did not exceed the maximum number
authorized by Section 381.986(8)(a)5., Florida Statutes.
• Compared the Department's list of licensed physicians to the list of registered physicians in the
MMUR as of February 2020 to determine whether only licensed physicians had active medical
marijuana registrations.
• Examined records of the Office's comparison of patient and caregiver accounts in the MMUR to
the Department's January 2019 Vital Statistics data to determine whether the Office timely
removed registrations for deceased patients and caregivers.
Page 18
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
Packet Pg. 161
14.A.2
• Analyzed data from the MMUR for the period July 2018 through January 2020 to determine
whether any physician certifications exceeded 210 days or orders were issued without a related
certification, contrary to Section 381.986(4)f., Florida Statutes.
• Analyzed certification data from'the MMUR for the period July 2018 through January 2020 to
determine whether patients had overlapping certifications issued by multiple physicians.
• Evaluated Department actions to correct the findings noted in our report No. 2017-075.
Specifically, we:
Performed inquiries of Department management and examined contracts between the
Department and the Electronic -Florida Online Reporting of Controlled Substance Evaluation
Program (E-FORCSE°) system service organization for the period July 2018 through
January 2020 to determine whether the Department had obtained and reviewed a service
auditor's report on the effectiveness of the controls established by the organization for the
E-FORCSE® system.
From the population of 51,010,084 records uploaded to the E-FORCSE° system during the
period July 2018 through January 2020, analyzed 2,120,488 records uploaded to the
E-FORCSE° system for 4 selected weeks during the period July 2018 through January 2020
to determine whether pharmacies, pharmacists, and dispensing practitioners reported
controlled substance prescriptions in a timely manner as required by Section 893.055, Florida
Statutes.
• Evaluated Department actions to correct the findings noted in our report No. 2018-213.
Specifically, we:
o Examined Department records for 7 grants, totaling $5,420,083, selected from the population
of 35 Biomedical Research Program grants, totaling $19,351,500, executed during the period
July 10, 2018, through January 31, 2020, to determine whether the Department timely notified
the grant recipients regarding the requirement to comply with Department policies and
procedures.
o Examined Florida Accounting and Information Resource Subsystem (FLAIR) access
privileges and People First records for 15 of 53 user accounts assigned to 52 employees who
separated from Department employment during the period February 2019 through
January 2020 to determine whether the Department timely deactivated user access privileges
upon the employees' separation from Department employment.
o Examined documentation supporting the FLAIR access privileges for the 6 Department
employees who transferred to another position during the period February 2019 through
January 2020 to determine whether the access privileges were timely and appropriately
updated or deactivated.
o Examined FLAIR access records for 9 of 48 FLAIR user accounts (assigned to 48 Department
employees) with update privileges as of January 2020 to determine whether the user accounts
had update access privileges to incompatible functions in FLAIR.
o For the period November 2018 through January 2020, compared Department employee
separation dates recorded in People First to purchasing card cancellation dates recorded in
FLAIR purchasing card records and identified 169 of 506 cardholders whose purchasing card
cancellation dates were subsequent to their recorded People First separation dates. For 36 of
the 169 cardholders, we examined Department records to determine whether the Department
timely canceled the purchasing cards upon the cardholder's separation from Department
employment and whether any charges were incurred subsequent to the employees'
separation dates.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 19
Packet Pg. 162
14.A.2
• Reviewed applicable laws, rules, and other State guidelines to obtain an understanding of the
legal framework governing Department operations.
• Observed, documented, and evaluated the effectiveness of selected Department processes and
procedures for:
o The administration of tangible personal property in accordance with applicable guidelines. As
of December 31, 2019, the Department was responsible for tangible personal property with
related acquisition costs totaling $73,198,815.
o The assignment and use of motor vehicles. As of December 31, 2019, the Department was
responsible for 221 motor vehicles with related acquisition costs totaling $4,365,690.
o The assignment and use of mobile devices with related costs totaling $3,486,485 during the
period July 2018 through January 2020.
Communicated on an interim basis with applicable officials to ensure the timely resolution of
issues involving controls and noncompliance.
• Performed various other auditing procedures, including analytical procedures, as necessary, to
accomplish the objectives of the audit.
• Prepared and submitted for management response the findings and recommendations that are
included in this report and which describe the matters requiring corrective actions. Management's
response is included in this report under the heading MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE.
AUTHORITY
Section 11.45, Florida Statutes, requires that the Auditor General conduct an operational audit of each
State agency on a periodic basis. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11.45, Florida Statutes, I have
directed that this report be prepared to present the results of our operational audit.
Sherrill F. Norman, CPA
Auditor General
Page 20
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
Packet Pg. 163
14.A.2
MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE
Ran DeSantls
Mission:
Governor
To protect, promote & Improve the health
of all people in Florida through Integrated C O�,'
state, county & community efforts. r Scott A. Rlvkees, MD
HEALTH
1 TH Stale Surgeon General
Vision: To be the Healthiest Stite In the Nation
July 30, 2021
Ms. Sherrill F. Norman, CPA
Auditor General
Suite G74, Claude Pepper Building
111 West Madison Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1450
Dear Ms. Norman:
We are pleased to respond to the preliminary and tentative audit findings and recommendations made
during the Office of the Auditor General's audit of the Department of Health, Once of Medical Marijuana
Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring, and Selected Administrative Activities. Our response to the findings,
as required by section 11.45(4)(d), Florida Statutes, is enclosed.
We appreciate the efforts of you and your staff in assisting to improve our operations. Please contact
Michael J. Bennett, CIA, CGAP, CIG, Inspector General, by calling 850-245-4141, should you have any
questions.
Sincer
-tQ�4—
�
Scott A. Rivkees, MD
State Surgeon General
SAR/akm
Enclosure
cc: Cassandra Pasley, BSN, JD, Interim Chief of Staff
Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel
Michele Tallent, Deputy Secretary for Operations
Antonio Dawkins, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Operations
Shamarial Roberson, DrPH, MPH, Deputy Secretary for Health
Mike Mason, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Health
Christopher Ferguson, Director, Office of Medical Marijuana Use
Michael J. Bennett, CIA, CGAP, CIG, Inspector General
Florida Department of Health
Office of the State Surgeon General
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 • Tallahassee, FL 32399-1701
PHONE: 850l245-4210 - FAX: 8501922-9453
FloridaHemith.gov
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
EAccredited Health Department
Public Health Accreditation Board
Page 21
Packet Pg. 164
14.A.2
Status of Corrective Action Plans
Report Number: To be determined
Report Title: Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring, and Selected
Administrative Activities
Report Date: To be determined
No. Finding Recommendation Management Response Corrective Action Plan
Office of Medical Marijuana Use
Application records did not
(1.1) We recommend that the (1.1) We concur.
(1.1) In progress.
always evidence that caregivers
Office of Medical Marijuana Use
satisfied statutory requirements
(Office) management enhance
The Office is currently drafting and implementing rules that will help
to receive a Medical Marijuana
oversight controls to ensure that
facilitate any caregiver not considered to be a close relative to a
Use Registry (MMUR)
caregiver applications include all
qualified patient, to obtain a background screening pursuant to
identification card or that
required information and are
section 381.986(6)(b)6., Florida Statutes. To support the
parental or guardian consent
supported by appropriate
Implementation of the process, the Office Is making technical
was obtained for a minor to
documentation.
changes to the M MUR, to store certain background screening
receive a MMUR identification
information for caregivers. In addition, to work on a new background
card.
screening process, the Office is adding an attestation section for a
caregiver's agreement, to assist with a qualified patient's medical use
of marijuana. Finally, to ensure that no caregivers are under the age
of 21, the Office will add functionality to the MMUR to allow staff to
review all driver licenses submitted with caregiver applications.
Anticipated Completion Date: November 30, 2021
(1.2) Additionally, Office (1.2) We concur.
(1.2) In progress.
management should ensure that
the third -party vendor obtains all
The Office made multiple updates to MMUR for caregivers in
required documentation prior to
May 2020. The updates included correcting an issue that allows
issuing a MMUR card.
caregivers to become active when their password is reset. The
update also included creating a new process for caregivers to
complete their caregiver training prior to receiving approval of their
application.
The Office will implement a process to request consent forms for
minor patients from the minor patient's parent or legal guardian, as
well as adjust the system to allow caregivers to upload the consent
forms to MMUR.
Anticipated Completion Date: November 30, 2021
Page 1 of 6
Page 22
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
Packet Pg. 165
14.A.2
Preliminary and Tentative Findings - Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring, and Selected Administrative Activities
No. Finding
2 Contrary to State law, the Office
did not immediately suspend
medical marijuana registrations
for individuals charged with
violations of State drug abuse
prevention and control laws.
3 Office controls for inspecting
medical marijuana treatment
centers need enhancement to
ensure that inspections are
appropriately documented,
reviewed, and any noted
deficiencies are appropriately
resolved.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
Recommendation Management Response Corrective Action Plan
We recommend that Office We concur.
management enhance controls to
ensure that medical marijuana
patient registrations are
immediately suspended upon
notification by law enforcement of
a patient being charged with an
applicable violation of State drug
abuse prevention and control
laws.
We recommend that Office We concur.
management establish written
policies and procedures for
Medical Marijuana Treatment
Center inspections and ensure
that Office records include
complete and adequate
documentation of inspections
performed, management review,
and follow-up on issues noted on
inspection.
Page 2of6
Completed.
The Office reviewed the existing process for suspension of medical
marijuana registrations for individuals, including caregivers, charged
with violations of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The Office trained
additional staff members In April 2021 on the process for valid
suspensions for the medical marijuana registrations that required a
suspension. There is now a larger team receiving and monitoring the
submissions sent by law enforcement organizations. They utilize a
shared tracker that has been modified to add additional tracking
fields. The manager over the team has also implemented an internal
audit he conducts weekly, for updates and to facilitate timely
suspensions.
Completed.
The Office implemented written policies and procedures in
December 2020 for the proper handling of all inspections, to ensure
that inspections are appropriately documented and reviewed. The
Office implemented the Compliance, Licensing, Enforcement and
Regulatory (CLEAR) online database in July 2020. CLEAR requires
that all inspections be reviewed and signed off by management
before the inspection is approved and closed.
The Office created a compliance section in January 2021 to handle
matters related to compliance and complaint inspections. This section
sends out a Notice of Violation (NOV) for deficiencies observed
during each inspection. The compliance section also reviews each
corrective action plan to resolve the identified deficiencies in the
NOV. Written policies and procedures were implemented for the
compliance section. The policies and procedures are reviewed on a
routine basis to reflect any changes made to the inspection process.
Page 23
Packet Pg. 166
14.A.2
Preliminary and Tentative Findings — Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring, and Selected Administrative Activities
No. Finding
Office contract payment controls
need enhancement to ensure
that payments to the MMUR
vendor are made only upon
receipt and satisfaction of all
deliverables and performance
measures. Additionally, the
Office did not assess penalties
when the vendor did not satisfy
established performance
measures.
The Office did not take steps to
reasonably ensure that service
organization controls relevant to
the processing of MMUR
identification card applications
were suitably designed and
operating effectively.
Additionally, the Office did not
evaluate the adequacy and
effectiveness of controls
established by the subservice
organization responsible for
hosting MMUR data.
6 Office information technology
(IT) security administration
policies and procedures for the
MMUR did not encompass
access by Department
employees and vendors.
Page 24
Recommendation Management Response Corrective Action Plan
We recommend that Office We concur.
management enhance controls to
ensure that the MMUR vendor
provides contract deliverables,
meets established performance
measures, and contract
payments are made in
accordance with contract terms.
To promote the appropriate We concur
processing of MMUR card
applications and ensure the
security, availability, and
confidentiality of MMUR data, we
recommend that Office
management make or obtain
independent and periodic
assessments of the effectiveness
of service organization and
subservice organization relevant
internal controls.
We recommend that Office We concur.
management enhance security
administration policies and
procedures for the MMUR to
include security requirements for
Department and Department
vendor MMUR users.
Page 3 of 6
Completed.
The Office implemented a robust tracking system in March 2021 to
ensure payments are made only when vendors have satisfied the
established performance measures. The tracking system includes
detailed trackers, multi -level reviews and manager level approval
prior to payments being made. There are also monthly meetings for
team calibrations of all invoices paid to vendors. Additionally, the
Office has established controls, including budgeting review and
revenue reconciliation, to ensure no overpayments to vendors. The
controls also ensure that all revenue owed to vendors are released.
Completed.
We have begun receiving service organization controls reports and
have assigned staff to review.
In progress
Due to some vendors unwillingness to sign Form DH 1120,
Acceptable Use and Confidentiality, the Departments Office of
Information Technology is in the process of updating the form to
accommodate vendor concerns. As soon as the form is approved, the
Office will require all employees and vendors to sign the form before
access is granted to the MMUR. In the meantime, an attestation
outlining security and confidentiality requirements will be created for
vendor's staff to sign requesting access to the MMUR and
acknowledging requirements.
Anticipated Completion Date: October 1, 2021
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
Packet Pg. 167
14.A.2
Preliminary and Tentative Findings — Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring, and Selected Administrative Activities
No. Finding
Recommendation
Management Response Corrective Action Plan
7 IT security controls for the
(7.1) We recommend that Office
(7.1) We concur. (7.1) In progress.
MMUR need improvement to
management enhance controls to
ensure that MMUR system
ensure that MMUR system
The Office is implementing a User Security policy and ticketing
administrator access privileges
administrator access privileges
system for request to Office systems. Supervisors will be required to
are appropriately restricted, all
are appropriately restricted and
submit a ticket for all new Department employees. The tickets will be
system administrators undergo
that all system administrators
evaluated and approved before the user is added to the MMUR. The
required background screenings,
undergo a background
User Security policy will instruct all supervisors to submit a ticket for
periodic reviews of user access
investigation in accordance with
separated employees. A question was added about terminating
privileges are performed, and
applicable rules.
access to systems on the Separation Checklist for all separated
user access privileges are
employees. In addition, the policy will ensure quarterly review of user
promptly removed upon a users
access to ensure employees have appropriate access.
separation from Department
employment.
Anticipated Completion Date: November 30, 2021
(7.2) We also recommend that
(7.2) We concur. (7.2) In progress,
Office management conduct and
document in Office records
The Office is implementing a User Security for processes and
periodic reviews of MMUR user
procedures. Supervisors will be required to submit a ticket for all new
access privileges and ensure that
Department employees. The tickets will be evaluated and approved
MMUR user access privileges are
before the user is added to the MMUR. The User Security policy will
promptly removed upon a users
instruct all supervisors to submit a ticket for separated employees. A
separation from Department
question was added about terminating access to systems on the
employment.
Separation Checklist for all separated employees. In addition, the
policy will ensure quarterly review of user access to ensure
employees have appropriate access.
Anticipated Completion Date: November 30, 2021
Page 4 of 6
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021 Page 25
Packet Pg. 168
14.A.2
Preliminary and Tentative Findings — Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring, and Selected Administrative Activities
Prescription Drug Monitoring
8 Department efforts to effectively
assess whether pharmacies,
pharmacists, and dispensing
practitioners report controlled
substance dispensing
information to the Department
within the time frame prescribed
by State law continue to need
enhancement.
Page 26
We recommend that Department We concur
management continue to
enhance procedures to capture,
analyze, and monitor controlled
substance dispensing data to
ensure that pharmacies,
pharmacists, and health care
practitioners comply vdth
statutory reporting requirements.
Page 5 of 6
in progress.
1. Sent the following message through electronic mail to dispensers
July 1, 2021:7ransactions that do not contain the American
Society for Automation in Pharmacy (ASAP) version 4, release 2A
fields will be flagged as errors, and the prescription record will not
be imported into the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
(PDMP) database."
2. Office of the General Counsel is to publish notice of rule
development to amend Florida Administrative Code rule
64K-1.002, American Society for Automation in Pharmacy
Standards and Formats, revising the format and reporting
requirements for dispensing of controlled substances to ASAP
version 4 release 2B. Dispensers will be given six months from the
effective date to comply.
3. Management is to review, revise, and enhance
non-compliance auditing procedures.
4. The contract manager is to amend the vendor's scope of work to
include the following PDMP database enhancements:
• Create an online waiver application process to identify
dispensers that are exempt from reporting according to
section 893.055(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
• Enhance communication of non -compliant entities within the
PDMP database.
• Enhance Rx Management screen in Appriss' PMP AWARxE
proprietary software to add "created date" to the prescription
record.
• Request contractor to create a compliance discrepancy report
containing the following fields: 1) file name; 2) dispenser's
Drug Enforcement Administration registration number,
National Provider identifier number, and permit number; 3)
prescription number; 4) date prescription was written, filled,
and sold; 5) date prescription record was created for
submission to the PDMP database; 6) "create date"
compared to "date sold value"; and 7) telephone number of
dispenser.
Anticipated Completion Date: October 31, 2021
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
Packet Pg. 169
14.A.2
Preliminary and Tentative Findings — Office of Medical Marijuana Use, Prescription Drug Monitoring, and Selected Administrative Activities
Selected Administrative Activities
9 As similarly noted in prior audit
reports, most recently in our
report No. 2018-213, the
Department did not always
timely cancel purchasing cards
upon a cardholder's separation
from Department employment.
10 Department controls over
employee access to the Florida
Accounting Information
Resource Subsystem (FLAIR)
continue to need improvement to
help prevent any improper or
unauthorized use of FLAIR
access privileges.
Report No. 2022-006
August 2021
We again recommend that We concur
Department management
promptly cancel purchasing cards
upon a cardholder's separation
from Department employment.
We again recommend that We concur
Department management ensure
that FLAIR access privileges are
promptly deactivated when an
employee separates from
Department employment or when
an employee no longer requires
the access privileges previously
granted.
Page 6 of 6
Completed
A People First Separation Report is generated every business day to
identify employee separations. An email is sent to the employee's
supervisor to make sure the employee has left the Department and
notjust changed positions within the agency. Once confirmation of
separation has been received, the Purchasing Card Administration
staff cancel the purchasing card within one business day. The
FLHealthDesk-HR system and the Purchasing Card Change
Champion emails are used as a secondary source of separations that
will be verified via emailing the supervisor, if not on the official People
First Separation Report.
Completed
A People First Separation Report is generated every business day to
identify employee separations. It is emailed to the Administration and
Finance Application (AFAM) team to determine if any separated
employees have FLAIR access which should be terminated. This task
is completed every business day by the AFAM team.
Page 27
Packet Pg. 170
14.A.2
N
N
O
N
M
r
y
7
C]
3
a
E
E
0
U
L
0
a
:.i
L
v!
Q
_0
00
r
M
N
J
a
z
m
�v
a
c
a�
Q
N
N
O
N
M
Co
U
Q
U)
c
E
t
c�
co
r
Q
Packet Pg. 171
U
a
CD
a
m
a
L J
O
L J
N
Ln
^W
.N
Eg
c�
u
R
O
4J
u
.4�
V J
N
N
N
0
a
u
u
N
Q
T
seoimeS;uawdolanad : L86£Z) IVNI=l -;a3lo8d BpuaBV ZZOZ-£-8 OVSd :;uauayOLMV
M
�V
V
L
a4-J
V
0'c
o
•X N
v
O
.�
` V
Q
J
'^
L J
N
L
N
o 4
v�
N
O
v
ai o
N
° �
^M
�
� C
V
O
U �
cutn
�
�
J �E
N
UA
�
f�
O N
L
on Q
N
O
N
°
`� m
^'
•�
N
4
O
>
U
V
Q�
vi
on a,
o
>`
^
L.L
u � • V
a--+
U
v U
^,
v fa
a
C°
M
O
m
N
seoimeS;uawdolanad : L86£Z) IVNI=l -;a3lo8d BpuaBV ZZOZ-£-8 OVSd :;uauayOLMV
W
N
n
W
m
N
w
M,
Q)
a--J
fa
0
N
Q)
L
fa O
*'
O �
fo fo
-�-j-0
0 E
C O
O L
U `--
0 on
a--J
fa a••J
>i
on -0
C C
Z fa
Ln
3(U
O
a 3
a)
cn
on
ME
cv
u
O �
•L
O E
E O
O N
N �
on fa
m O
•L �
o v
on u
C Q)
L
3 0
E
• L
4-J a
c
O U
U
L
4-1 3
� L
O
fa
E
on
O 'p
O
L
U
� L
fa �
0 3
E O
ca
+J
c �
on
a-J
N a-J
on
L �
N a J
C
Q L
N �
� 3
rpm
I
C)
0
OO
a-.+ U
0
•
r
U N
a •,
D� =
O
.�Ln3
V
Q �^
aJ
U
a u
a �
ono
o\
O
o
Eon
4-J
o�
oMo
N
•s
�4-JN
C:
L.`
•^
c
3
a- J
00
a
ki
^
Qj
X
O�
0
Q
O
3
M
O
u
seoimeS;uawdolanad : L86£Z) IVNI=l -;a3lo8d BpuaBV ZZOZ-£-8 OVSd :;uauayOLMV
Q�
C:
U
V
ul
V
+(Z-+
J
N
.�
J
N
O
of
3Q,
M
O
O
Ln
Ln
Q
..
v
>,
u
cL
3
-J
4�
o
p
o
°-
(U
on
o
.C:
N
C7
QJ
N
F—
L
N
O
N
u�
J
3
'�
cn
N
J
O
4
M
O
Ul
0
a0-
f�
CL
v
Q
N
f�
N
4-J
a)
>
C3•�
Ln
_
CO
' ULn
L
U
N
E
U
N
L
V
U
.�
Q�
,
>
M
U
Q
f�
Q
U
m
�
Ln
M
f
e
V)
r
C)
N
M
Ln
J
w
'
LD
�
�
C3,1
a"
c
a
r-,
L
Q
0
• r1
L
5�
L
V
5W
L
on
.r-
4-J
LU
I
F-
1
O
H
116
V
mo
4)
►J
Lea
c
.r�
a- J
cn
X
W
O
l-
O
u
cn
an
L
cry
a- J
O
m
ti
IL
m
Y
V
R
IL
N
Q
T
seoimeS;uawdolanad : L86£Z) IVNI= -403138d BpuaBV ZZOZ-£-8 OVSd :;uauayOLMV
c
co
a
a
Y
U
lE
a
-
4-J
u
U
on
�
�
N
N
E
3
a�
on
u
o
•C:
4--J
�
O
v
>
•!
N
"O
:3
>
v
Q
'O
O
O
(U
N
°
Q
u
on
u
E
>
o
o
v
°
•i
(U
O
-p
-p
.�
3
c
o
v
°
a
Ln
L
cD
o
+�
N
a-J
. .
O%
Ln
V
O
C
•3 a-J
O�
o
N
(10
00
O �
U_
•°'
ru
E
cn
•E
U
ou
��
>�
U
E42
> o
E
°-a
OU Q)
O
V�
O
O
a- J
4 c�
0
O
i J
p
•�
c�i� N
L
E 4-j
,�
N 4-j
• ^�
4-J
>`
C
i 00
V
N
O O
O i
O
�
..
N
j ,N
•i
�.—.
cn
v
�
O-x
+J
a� °
O
-v
cn 0
v
cn
v
a -a
N
a
3
�-
O U
O �,
O
��
o
z4-
z�
z
E
M*
A
A
A
A
Z
N
LU
S
Z
o`
O
cn
V
w
V
�
C
J
m
M
r
seoimeS;uawdolanad : L86£Z) IVNI=l -;a3lo8d BpuaBV ZZOZ-£-8 OVSd :;uauayOLMV M
Handout distributed during meeting
by registered public speaker and
allowed by the Chair.
Billionaire George Soros
behind major push for T
N
marijuana legalization
J
2olif
a
z
Hungarian -American billionaire and philanthropist George Soros is no
stranger when it comes to throwing around money, but the former hedge fund
�
manager is making headlines over some major donations he's rnade to help
M
legalize marijuana.
C�
M
On the heels of the approval of two of the United States' first recreational laws
a
in Colorado and Washington, other locale-s across the country are considering
M
implementing policy changes that could decriminalize pot, ease penalties for
13
users or eliminate weed laws altogether. Advocacy groups are leading the
4)
campaign to crush marijuana prohibition from coast -to -coast, and 83-year-old
a
Soros is helping line the pockets of those. making that push.
N
N
On Wednesday this week, Kelly Riddell at T- -• pulled back
O
the curtain to reveal details about some of the roles that Soros has played in
N
the pro -weed debate, and helped explain how the billionaire's many
I
foundations are fighting the war against pot prohibition.
00
"Through a network of nonprofit groups, Ivfr. Soros has spent at least $80
V
a
million on the legalization effort since 19914, when he diverted a portion of his
foundation's funds to organizations exploring alternative drug policies,
0
according to tax filings," Riddell wrote.
. .
The Soros -affiliated Foundation to Promote an Open Society donates roughly
a
$4 million annually to the Drug Policy Alliance, Riddell added, a nonprofit
M
E
group that describes itself as the nation's leading organization promoting drug
policies that are grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.
v
Soros is among the group of board members who help steer policy reform
M
efforts undertaken by that organization, which has contributed to the
a
successful attempts in both Colorado and Washington state to legalize
recreational marijuana, as well as in Uruguay where last year the South
Packet Pg. 183
Handout distributed during meeting
by registered public speaker and
allowed by the Chair.
American country became the first in the world to allow for the regulation,
distribution and sale of weed to legal adults.
Records obtained by the Times also reveal that Soros cuts other substantial
1`
checks annually to the American Civil Liberties Union, "which in turn funds
00
marijuana legalization efforts," Riddell wrote, as well as the Marijuana Policy
M
Project which funds state ballet measures. in 2013, the MPP ranked Soros as
�
the ninth most influential marijuana user in the US, behind President Barack
J
Obama, television host Oprah Winfrey and a handful of other politicians and
a
celebrities.
Z_
The co -director and spokesperson for that group, Mason Tvert, told the Times
LL
that MPP and the Drug Policy Alliance are planning to support full legalization
'
measures in the near future in the states of Arizona, California,
Massachusetts, Maine, Montana and Nevada, and Soros himself has
C�
advocated on behalf of previous attempts to abolish pot prohibition in at least
M
one of those locales.
a
M
Ahead of an attempt in November 201 ❑ to legalize weed in California through
the failed Proposition 19, Soros wrote an op-ed for the ; , _. .,:t ,_'�a_u_, na in
4)
which he called the since -failed initiative "a major step forward."
a
"In many respects, of course, Proposition 19 already is a winner no matter
what happens on Election Day," Soros wrote then. "The mere fact of its being
N
on the ballot has elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana
N
and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago."
Soros declined to be interviewed for the Times' article published this week,
00
but he's more than likely enthused about the approval of pro -weed laws in
Colorado and Washington carried out after Prop 19 was defeated in the polls.
a
And with regards to initiatives up for vote during the 2014 election, RiddellCO
wrote that Soros is once again playing a substantial role.
o
4-0
"In Florida, Mr. Soros has teamed up with multimillionaire and Democratic a
fundraiser John Morgan to donate more than 80 percent of the money to get
medical marijuana legalization on the ballot through its initiative `United for E
s
Care, People United for Medical Marijuana,"' Riddell wrote, and the MPP is v
"focusing a lot of time and resources passing bills" in Delaware, Hawaii, 40
Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, according to her a
report.
Packet Pg. 184 J
Handout distributed during meeting
by registered public speaker and
allowed by the Chair.
"It's only a matter of time before marijuana is legalized under federal law,"
Tom Angell, founder and chairman of the Marijuana Majority advocacy group,
told the Times. "We now have 20 states plus the District of Columbia . .
considering legalization efforts, two states have already legalized it for all 1`
adults over the age of 21 --- politicians will have to follow the will of the people 0000
on this." M
As R' previously, the results of a Pew Research Center poll N
released last year found that 52 percent of Americans support the legalization J
of marijuana. Despite recently approved laws in Washington and Colorado, Q
marijuana remains an illegal narcotic under federal law. Z
LL
V
M
M
Q
N
N
O
N
M
GO
U
Q
U)
a
Packet Pg. 185
Ready
change
Seattle
cwrw
with
Zoning
medical marijuana map of seattle
Needham Medical Marijuana Zoning Map Needham Needha.„
MA A�s�chcrsssAt-
Handout distributed during
meeting by registered public
speaker and allowed by the
Chair.
4+
U)
Reedy for medk* madjuene changes
ai
Seatda mates more room for pot .,
V
s Capfd M Seart4 erog
CD
Ysh she Pages Image suns
V+
}r
A�
W
Related content E
__x-- Q
W .ai O
-- Z
LL
t
4 /���
`v
`v
Related seaf&
�
N
O
N
�---
M
O
'
U
Q
U)
L
I
ti ..
aExplore the world one photo at a time with the Bing Wallpaper app
Packet Pg. 186
14.A.2
Roar: Lenard Mftowisld, MD napkm*PgmW.=n
Sub;ect: Committee presentation
Deft: August 2, 2022 at 12:49 PM
To: Veora Little veoraGttle®gmail.com
Hello committee members: I am Lenard Ru& wski [a retired neurosurgeon] here on and off since 1991 and full time since refire
since 2015, Before this body that are not only administrative but socleta], poliiibical and medical issues in this case before you. To
the record, I am not adverse to CEPD ]medical form of marijuana].
As a phys clan, I have pr+eerxibed multiple narcotics for pain rebel and have a currently active DEA license. I know pain and sulk
and have treated it to my best e�ity. I have also research the fanny new marijuana phenomenon [ both THC and CBD types]. I h
lectured law stltdents abort the marjuana iMaae and their implications.
The societal issues involved are Vie potential effects on Uwe population. The effects have to be considered on law enforcement
resources, the medical community resources, and the long term effect on the youth of the country.
Seaondy, the poitical issues. Thor* I am not saying that politics is directly involved, It has fallen prey as has society to a cons
marketing campaign bade by fig money {John Morgan as a prime example]. Think who gains by more traffic accidents and injuri
under the guise of compassion. Being compassionate is hard to resist and to be termed compassionate Is even more enticing ar
gratifying. Sounds good irilially but going term its effects on sou ety can have indirect harmful consequences. In Colorado statist
show more car accidents related to marijuana. Keep in mind there is no test l knout about that quantifies what is a so-called legs
for rnanjuana as is the case for alcohol- The test to check for marijuana doss not have a quick turn around time. With the high pi
state sanctioned marihuana, unregulated entepceneurs have entered the market with higher potency marl}crana that is more
dangerous relative to addiction and side effects. You carMot beat cheaper in the market as we cans with the Chlnese.
Thirdly, the tactual medical issues: 1. May increase depression 2.Msy cause paranoia &Effects molor skills 4. 1 in 10 become
addicted 5. Potential lung injuries- asthma 13_Polan6ales alcohol 7. Stresses medical farlbes
With problems already emsttng with alcohol, fenrtanyi, herdn. Increased ctdclhood mental problems, increased violence and
lawlessness, why add another polsntial problem only the fist here in Collier County? Can we be a beacon of reason and forwarc
thinking for everyone to admire
The reality is we cannot carttid illegal ues that is stye rp blow and that is undeniable. This Is want you world inadvertently app
with allowing this meamm to pass.
I could go on but I have tine constraints. In conclusion— Do not be irrftx=ed by markebrrg propaganda about miracle cures e
issue of false compassion because the long term Is harrrihnl. These products when in some cases necessary can be mailed then
there is no need for a box sore. Finally, Vere have beer+ statistics shown here last meeting about the number of police calls nee
from surrounding comma, . We need Cofer Canty to strew good long term ]crdgemerrt for others to Wndato.
For your review, Len Rutkowski
i On Aug 1 2022, at 3:41 RA.11cor2 Little c!eoralitUe@gmaii.coma rrrote:-
Yes brill meet you in the lobby -
Veora Little
J
a
Z
LL
Packet Pg. 187
14.A.2
CO lel' C;0-14 Ity
Growth Management
Community Development Department
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
PL20220004350
ORIGIN
Board of County
Commission (Board)
HEARING DATES
BCC TBD
CCPC TBD
For variance applications proposed on properties located within the Rural
and Urban Golden Gate Estates designated areas of the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan (GGAMP), this amendment will change the mailed written
public notification distance to property owners from 1 mile to 1,000 feet.
Also, this Land Development Code (LDC) amendment requires a
companion amendment to the Collier County Administrative Code for
Land Development, regarding public notice procedures for land use
petitions.
DSAC 08/03/2022 LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED
DSAC-LDR 07/27/2022 10.03.05 Reauired Methods of Providing Public Notice
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC
Approval TBD TBD
BACKGROUND
Prior to 2021, the distance for required mailed notice was 500 feet of a subject property for properties located in
the urban designated area of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). For all other
areas, the mailed notices were sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the subject
property. However, the mailed notice requirements changed once Ordinance 2021-25 was adopted on July 13,
2021. The new ordinance increased the mailed notice distance from 1,000 feet to 1 mile, for properties located
within the boundaries of the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the GGAMP and in the Urban Golden
Gate Estates Sub -Element of the GGAMP.
On June 14, 2022, the Board unanimously directed staff to bring back a LDC amendment specific to variance
petitions, to reinstate the mailed notification distance of 1,000 feet for properties located in the boundaries of the
Urban and Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Elements of the GGAMP. With respect to variances, LDC section
9.04.02 states as follows:
A variance is authorized for any dimensional development standard, including the following: height, area, and
size of structure; height of fence; size of yards and open spaces; dimensional aspects of landscaping
and buffering requirements; size, height, maximum number of, and minimum setback for signs; and minimum
requirements for off-street parking facilities." Unlike other land use petitions, a request for variance is specific to
the location of a subject property and "... has no adverse effect on the community at large or neighboring property
owners.
This LDC amendment implements the Board's direction to change the written notification distance from 1 mile
to 1,000 feet for variance petitions involving properties located with the Urban and Rural Golden Gate Estates
Sub -Elements of the GGAMP.
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee (Subcommittee) Recommendation:
The Subcommittee recommended approval; however, prior to when the motion was made, the Subcommittee
requested that staff clarify the Background portion to ensure greater accuracy. Staff updated the Background,
Summary, and GMP Consistency portions of this staff report for accuracy purposes.
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004350 GGE Variance
Notification (07-28-2022).docx
Packet Pg. 188
14.A.2
CO lel' C;0-14 Ity
Growth Management
Community Development Department
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS GMP CONSISTENCY
There is no fiscal impact to the County. Costs The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by
associated with mailed notices are the Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed
responsibility of the petitioner. consistent with the GMP.
EXHIBITS: A) Administrative Code Amendment
2
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004350 GGE Variance
Notification (07-28-2022).docx
Packet Pg. 189
14.A.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DRAFT
Amend the LDC as follows:
10.03.05 — Required Methods of Providing Public Notice
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
This section shall establish the required methods of providing public notice. Chapter 8 of the
Administrative Code shall establish the public notice procedures for land use petitions.
A. Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM). Neighborhood Information Meetings, where
required, shall be held prior to the first public hearing and noticed as follows:
Mailed Notice shall be sent prior to the NIM and shall be pursuant to LDC section
10.03.05 B.
2. Newspaper Advertisement prior to the NIM.
B. Mailed Notice.
1. Where required, Mailed Notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification
area as follows:
a. For areas in the urban designated area of the future land use element of
the Growth Management Plan notices shall be sent to all property owners
within 500 feet of the property lines of the subject property.
b. For all other areas, except areas designated in the Rural Golden Gate
Estates Sub -Element or Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub -Elements of the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan, notices shall be sent to all property owners
within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the subject property.
C. For areas designated within the Rural and Urban Golden Gate Estates
Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, notices shall be sent
to all property owners within one mile of the subject property lines e, xcept
for variance applications, which shall be 1,000 feet of the subject property
lines.
d. Notices shall also be sent to property owners and condominium and civic
associations whose members may be impacted by the proposed land use
changes and who have formally requested the county to be notified. A list
of such organizations must be provided and maintained by the county, but
the applicant must bear the responsibility of insuring that all parties are
notified.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004350 GGE Variance
Notification (07-28-2022).docx
Packet Pg. 190
14.A.2
Exhibit A- Administrative Code
DRAFTText underlined is new text to be added
Collier County Land Development Code I Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 8 l Public Notice
C. Mailed Notice
Applicability For applicable land use petitions, a mailed notice shall be as follows.
Notice Mailed written notices shall be sent by regular mail to property owners in the notification
Requirements area listed below. Names and addresses of property owners shall be those listed on the
latest ad valorem tax rolls of the County. The Geunty must r^^' mailed notice must be
sent out at least 15 days before the hearing for all applications, except as identified
otherwise in the Administrative Code.
The applicant must provide a copy of the list of all parties noticed by the required
notification deadline to the °tea Zoning DepaFtment Division staff.
The written notice must include:
• a. Date, time, and location of the NIM meeting or public hearing;
• b. Description of the proposed land uses; and
0 c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
For a conditional use, rezoning, PUD, PUD extension, or variance, the notice must also
include:
• a. A clear description of the proposed land uses;
• b. A clear description of the applicable development standards;
0 c. Intensity or density in terms of total floor area of commercial or
industrial space and dwelling units per acre for residential projects;
• d. A clear description of the institutional or recreational uses when part of
the development strategy; and
• e. The substance of the proposed ordinance or resolution (rezoning only).
For a site plan with deviations for redevelopment projects, the notice must also include-.
0 the type of deviation sought.
The c-Clerk to the BCC will make a copy of all notices available for public inspection during
the regular business hours.
Recipients of Property owners in the notification area are described below and shall be based on the
Mailed Written latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have formally
Notice requested notification from the County:
4 Urban The notification area includes:
designated area
of the future land 1. All property owners within 500 feet of the property lines of the
use element of subject property or mile of the property knee of the subj +
the growth preperty if located within the areas designated in the I Fban
management G-eld-en Gat Estat^rs c„h_Eleir,^ + of the c i,- r, Gate Master
plan Wae.
4
G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004350 GGE Variance
Notification (07-28-2022).docx
Packet Pg. 191
Exhibit A- Administrative Code
14.A.2
DRAFT
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikPthreugh is eRt text tO_ he rlele4e.l
2. If any of the land in the area listed in paragraph 1 is owned by
the same person or entity who owns the subject property, the
500-foot or one distance is measured from the boundaries
of the entire ownership or PUD.
3. The maximum notification area is % mile (2,640 feet) from the
subject property except for areas designated in the Urban and
Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area
Estates Master Plan.
4 All other areas The notification area includes:
1. All property owners within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the
subject property. However, forerareas designated in the Urban
and Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan, the notices shall be sent to all property owners
within one mile of the property lines of the subject property,
except for variance applications, which shall remain at 1,000 feet
of the subject property.
2. If any of the land in the area listed in paragraph 1 is owned by
the same person or entity who owns the subject property, the
1,000-foot or one mile distance is measured from the boundaries
of the entire ownership or PUD.
3. The maximum notification area is % mile (2,640 feet) from the
subject property, except for areas designated in the Urban and
Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub -Element of the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan.
4Associations Notification shall also be sent to property owners and condominium
and civic associations whose members are impacted by the proposed
land use changes and who have formally requested the County to be
notified. A list of such organizations shall be provided and maintained
by the County, but the applicant must bear the responsibility of
+Rensuring all parties are notified.
5
G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Aug 03\Meeting Materials\PL20220004350 GGE Variance
Notification (07-28-2022).docx
Packet Pg. 192