DSAC Agenda 09/30/202214.A
09/30/2022
COLLIER COUNTY
Advisory Boards
Item Number: 14.A
Item Summary: Development Services Advisory Committee September 7, 2022
Meeting Date: 09/30/2022
Prepared by:
Title: — Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management
Name: Patricia Mill
09/12/2022 6:55 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Operations Support — Growth Management Operations & Regulatory
Management
Name: Kenneth Kovensky
09/12/2022 6:55 AM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Kenneth Kovensky
Growth Management Department James C French Additional Reviewer
Advisory Boards Michael Cox Meeting Pending
Communications, Government, and Public Affairs Michael Brownlee
Division Director Completed
Completed 09/20/2022 9:48 PM
09/30/2022 12:00 AM
PAM Review Pending
Packet Pg. 238
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
August 31, 2022
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Notice of Public Meeting
Development Services Advisory Committee
Collier County, Florida
Wednesday September 7, 2022
3:00 pm
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee will meet on
Wednesday, September 7, 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. colliercopDtyfl. gov/govemment/growth-management/divisions/operations-regulatory-
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.Millgcolliercount�fl.gov.
Packet Pg. 239
14.A.2
Co ler County
Growth Management Department
Development Services Advisory
Committee
Meeting
Wednesday, September 7, 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. 240
14.A.2
Cofer C014"t
y
Growth Management Department
Development Services Advisory Committee
Agenda
Wednesday, September 7, 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 —August 3, 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— [Shay 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]
6. New Business
For more information, please contact Trish Mill at (239) 252-8214 or Patricia.Mill@colliercount o... ket Pg 24
raa.nca ry. c•r
14.A.2
a. LDC Landscape Code Amendments [Jeff Curl]
b. Building Recertification Inspection Program [Rich Long]
c. Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) potential improvements [Mike Bosi]
d. PL20200002482 - Eliminate $25k Mininum Value of the TDR Base Credit in RFMUD [Michele
Mosca]
7. Old Business
a. LDR-Subcommittee's recommendation and report back to DSAC on CBIA's request to increase
automobile parking within front yards on pie -shaped lots for Single -Family Dwelling units [Rich
Henderlong]
8. Committee Member Comments
9. Adjourn
FUTURE MEETING DATES:
October 5, 2022 — 3:00 pm
November 2, 2022 — 3:00 pm
December 7, 2022 — 3:00 pm
J
Q
Z
LL
N
v
M
a
M
c
a�
a�
Q
N
N
ti
6D
U
a
U)
0
E
a
For more information, please contact Trish Mill at (239) 252-8214 or Patricia.Mill@colliercount o... ket Pg 24
raa.nca ry. c•rc
14.A.2
Development Services Advisory Committee
Attendance Roster — Date: September 7, 2022
DSAC Members
**Must have (8) members for a quorum**
James Boughton-
Norman Gentry:
EXCUSED
Clay Brook
JeffreyCurl:
R,qean:
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn:
Bert Mulhere:
EXCUSED
David Dunna�
Jer y Sterk:
i
Joh ngli
Ma io Valle:
'ti" i T. Adid
Ma o Esp' a:
William Varian -
Blair F
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
7 a
z
�Zlic�iae8 daaaua '
1 a
N
N
v
Q
o
w
Me" 66at E
t
;Vatuua i1" Q
Packet Pg. 243
14.A.2
Sign -in Sheet (Public)
September 7, 2022 DSAC Meeting
Please Print
Packet Pg. 244
N
Q
a�
E
0 E
u 0
3
cr
W
a �
� L
Q�
u �t
N a
0�
E S
a a
0
0
In
epuafd ZZ-1-6 ovsa :ivauayc)e}}d
0
C
au
E
.°
w
a
0
v
aU
c
aj
aj
❑
(U
t v1
� C
Q �
a
:3 Q)
o
L
,g o
0 (U
+-+
E ❑
o 'T
V1
ui
Ln
W
Q
.�
W
V)
LJ
CC
CL
!L!
J
Z
0
a
u
LLI
a
0
W
a
0
a
Ln
z
w
0
cc
D
0
0
V]
w
H
7
_z
m
0
W
H_-
J
11J
m
J_
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida, August 3, 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
Norman Gentry (excused)
Marco Espinar
Laura Spurgeon-DeJohn
Jeremy Sterk
Jeff Curl
John English
Mark McLean
ALSO PRESENT: Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review
Chris Ambach, District Supervisor, Code Enforcement
Mike Bosi, Director, Planning & Zoning
Matt McLean, Director, Public Utilities Division
Rich Long, Director, Building Department
Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager
Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner
Cormac Giblin, Planning Manager, Development Review
Patricia Mill, Operations Analyst/Staff Liaison
Packet Pg. 246
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
1. Call to Order - Chairman
Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3 p.m. A quorum consisting of 12 members was
convened; two arrived later.
He noted there were many people in the audience and advised them they would have just three minutes
to speak.
2. Approval of Agenda
Vice Chairman Foley asked if agenda item 6.c could be moved to 6.a, so it could be heard first.
Mr. Brooker said he would move his item, 6.a. to help and it would become 6.c.
Chairman Varian noted a large number of people in the audience are attending for the medical
marijuana dispensary item and asked if they should hear 6.c first. He asked should we hear from the
public before the item or during public speaking at the beginning of the agenda, which is normal or
discuss the item and have staff s presentation followed by public speaking.
Mr. Mulhere said they should hear the DSAC-LDR subcommittee report on the medical marijuana
dispensary item before that.
Chairman Varian told the audience they'd hear the subcommittee report first for item 6.c. 1, which
became 6.a. 1, then they'd allow the public to speak about medical marijuana dispensaries followed by
the committee's discussions.
Mr. Curl moved to approve the agenda, as amended. It was seconded by Mr. Mulhere. The motion
was carried unanimously, 12-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
DSAC Meeting — June 1, 2022
Mr. Brooker made a motion to approve the June 1, 2022, meeting minutes. It was seconded by Mr.
Valle. The motion was carried unanimously, 12-0.
DSAC-LDR Meeting — May 25, 2022
Mr. Curl made a motion to approve the May 25, 2022, meeting minutes. It was seconded by Vice
Chairman Foley. The motion was carried unanimously, 12-0.
[Mr. English arrived at 3:03 p.m.]
4. Public Speakers
(None, except for agenda item 6.a.1
5. Staff Announcements/Updates
a. Development Review Division — [Jaime Cook, Director]
Ms. Cook reported that:
• The biggest change is that we are implementing video inspection availability for the 814, the silt -
fence inspection.
• The first step in the process, like other video inspections, will be to complete the Qualifier
Compliance Affidavit.
2
Packet Pg. 247
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
• The 814 form will be e-mailed to Joe Bianchi, our site inspection supervisor, who is in charge of
800 inspections.
• Once Joe Bianchi receives the form, he will give our staff, Danny Condomina and Dianna
Perryman, your information to allow you to have access to the Box to upload the videos, like the
other 800 inspections.
• We have developed a checklist to go along with the 814 Inspection that will need to be completed
and submitted with each video.
• The checklist contains different things we're asking for, compared to the other video inspections.
For example, with some of the others, the AC change outs, the water -heater change -outs, at the
beginning you show the house address, but most of these houses have not been built yet, so that's
not an option. So we're asking you to show the permit card and the permit board as a way to verify
they're actually at the correct location.
• They'll be submitted the same as other video inspections and an accompanying e-mail will be sent
to the recorded inspections e-mail box.
• She and Joe Bianchi have access to the email box, so if you don't receive a response, please let one
of us know.
• You will not need to call in the 814 Inspection like you normally do. We'll handle it all through the
video inspection process.
Chairman Varian asked what the review turnaround time is once it gets in.
Ms. Cook said a day or two, but none have come through yet. It is available at this point.
Chairman Varian asked if that releases the inspection hold.
Ms. Cook said it did.
b. Code Enforcement Division — [Chris Ambach, District Supervisor]
Mr. Ambach provided monthly statistics from June 22-July 21 and reported that:
• 529 new cases were opened.
• 247 cases, about half that, were closed due to voluntary compliance.
• 1,229 property inspections were conducted.
• 956 lien searches were conducted.
• We're up on most, with the exception of property inspections.
• We are short-staffed, but working on new employees coming in now; two just started out in the
field in North Naples, and we have at least another four who still have to go through the hiring
process, which is about two months from hiring to training them to get them in the field to learn
the areas.
• For Immokalee, the primary focus was blight due to homes that have been sitting vacant — drug
houses, prostitution, etc. — for years.
• Demolition numbers were around 60 but in the last four years, we removed all those houses,
most due to voluntary compliance and by working with owners to remove homes that have been
sitting vacant and falling apart for the last 20 years.
• In Golden Gate Estates, the primary concern is that people are using their properties as a rental
for RVs, pulling RVs from everywhere and hooking them up in their backyards, from one or
two to 20. Most of his Estates cases now deal with that. People say that rent is too high and they
can't afford it. We have property owners that are taking advantage and charging people by the
head, anywhere from $500 to $1,800 a month, and they'll put from one to 20 RVs down
anywhere.
a
Packet Pg. 248
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
• A few of those cases are going to a hearing this Friday.
c. Public Utilities Department [Matt McLean, Director]
Mr. McClean reported that:
• We've been able to backfill all the utility planning positions within Public Utilities. Anthony
Stoltz and Drew Cody are two members of that team. Anthony is the lead and principal
project manager and Drew is a senior project manager. We also have Steven Sarabia. All are
seasoned County employees who will be spending face time with you, and the emails and
correspondence through our Utility Planning email address will be going through them.
• We have been actively working on our annual update and inventory report, the initiative with
Growth Management. He's continued to stay in front of the County growth patterns in the
development community and we've got projected plant expansions, etc., that will be
happening during our 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to stay ahead of that growth.
• We've been able to catch up now that we're staffed appropriately with letters of availability
that FDEP terminates and deviations.
• We are still having some supplemental staffing with the Utility Planning team as they get up
to speed on all the initiatives we do on behalf of that. We're still bridging that gap through
the training and onboarding process.
• Deviations and the request on deviations that have been coming through: We've gone back
this summer and reviewed a lot of the deviation applications that have come in to Public
Utilities and have a new set of directors on the wastewater side, the division he leads with
engineering and project management.
• A lot of questions of becoming internal by those who are the ultimate operators of the
system, staff in water and wastewater on the deviations that are being submitted by the
development community.
• If you are requesting a deviation, it should include the section of code that you're asking the
deviation for. Most do not, so it's important to understand the rules and regulations we're
working under.
• A deviation is not a variance and not a "get -out -of -jail -free" card. It's meant to be something
that you have specific field conditions for or a particular site constraint that you have and
your engineers can come up with an alternative that meets or exceeds the current code. Those
are appropriate deviation requests.
• A lot of deviation requests have come in that say they don't want to do this. Expect to see a
little more pushback from staff reviewing these deviations, asking for more information and
clarity. In some cases, they may not support the deviation because it isn't a true deviation
request with a respective alternative that makes sense for the utility.
• The utility is going to own and operate a lot of these things and we want to make sure we're
getting good quality infrastructure that we can continue to provide to our water and service
district customers for many years in the future.
d. Growth Management Dept. Transportation Engineering Division — [Jay Ahmad, Director]
(None)
e. Collier County Fire Review — [Shar Beddow, Deputy Fire Marshal]
(None)
f. North Collier Fire Review — [Daniel Zunzunegui, Deputy Director]
Mr. Zunzunegui detailed June and July Fire Review Statistics and provided updates:
There was a four -day turnaround time for building review.
J
Q
z
m
a
c
(D
Q
N
N
ti
a)
0
Q
c
c
a�
E
z
U
c�
r
Q
El
Packet Pg. 249
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
• There was a three-day turnaround time for planning reviews.
• There were 903 reviews in June and 673 in July.
• 315 permits are active in the queue and we're getting them out as quickly as possible.
• The code on grab bars being rescinded was outlined at the last meeting. We're going back to the
Building Code enforcing grab bars under the ADA. With the fire -alarm system project
legislation it made it into the Florida Statutes 553.7932 (b) and took effect July 1st. That
involves small remodels, existing alarm systems with 20 devices or less, or monitoring change -
outs on existing systems.
• We've already seen contractors taking advantage of the new self -issuing permit process to
qualify. The County did a great job as the permit authority and getting that into the portal in
time.
• The portal query ensures that applicants are eligible and are meeting the criteria for what's
defined as a fire -alarm system price.
• There were 30 permits that were self -issued countywide; eight were in our district and they look
good.
g. Operations & Regulatory Management Division — [Rich Long, Director, Building Division]
Mr. Long outlined the July monthly activity report and provided updates:
• 1,300 people go through the lobby and the front desk, which processed over 1,100 spot surveys
this month.
• Commercial reviews take about 14 days after they get to us. It's taking about four days to get to
us.
• Commercial takes 45 days, so we're within the State Statute.
• Residential is about 10 days and review times take about 10 days after they get to us, which is
two days. We're still hitting 30 days, 15 days shy of when it needs to be out.
• We changed the way our portal reads, so you're seeing the 30 days every time it reloads to 30
days. That upset some people because they don't understand what we're doing, but we're
working on a way of presenting it differently or providing information that will help calm that
down.
• Tomorrow is Jonathan's last day, so in the interim, Fred Clum will be our Acting Building
Official. The job was posted for a month, closes tonight and then HR will review the candidates
and send them to us to start the interview process.
• We're doing 1,100 inspections a day.
• We're still up to 4,500-plus permits a month.
Mr. Mulhere said his experience with Jonathan was fantastic and he will be hard to replace.
Chairman Varian agreed, saying he was good to have.
h. Zoning Division — [Mike Bosi, Director]
• Mr. Bosi provided a report on staffing and other issues:
• We're bringing over Jake LaRow to fill the position of Housing and Economic Development
Director and he's bringing some staff over. The implementation piece of the grant writing in the
other programs, from a financial standpoint, will stay with Kristi Sonntag. The policy piece —
the affordable housing, how it relates to additional density, bonus and things like that — will
move here. That's going to bring the Economic Development team that used to be headed by
Jace Kentner back over here.
• We have a posting for our Community Planning Resiliency Director to focus on long-range
community planning efforts, AUIR CAs will be shifted there, as well as the requirement that we
recently adopted within our CCME related to addressing low-lying coastal areas, resiliency
J
Q
z
a
c
d
Q
N
N
ti
CD
c�
Q
co
0
c
as
E
U
M
r
Q
Packet Pg. 250
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
6.
planning, sea -level rise, the effects of climate change, things that we know are necessary to put
in place to have better structures and better resiliency to deal with some of those issues.
• From a land -use standpoint, it could be a busy fall. There are several controversial petitions.
Two of the most controversial are associated with the Fiddler's Creek development.
• Isles of Capri will go before the Board of County Commissioners on September 1 st and October
1 lth. That has a tremendous number of eyeballs on it, as well as the Marco Shores Fiddlers
Creek affordable housing program. There's a lot of community opposition to that.
• Bright Shore Village is getting ready for a hearing, as well as the town of Big Cypress.
• He was at the County Manager's Office today, reviewing transportation, stormwater, and coastal
zone resiliency or coastal zones AUIR. At the end of this month, we'll have a county manager
briefing to review the infrastructure and projects in developments being proposed.
• The Planning Commission hearing will be in October and the BCC will hear the AUIR in
November.
• Within the AUIR, we are obligated to get our population from the University of Florida, Bureau
of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). For the past 10 years, they've had an allocation of
an annual growth rate for the County of about 1.97% to 1.85%. Within the last 12 years, we've
been in the 1.97% to 1.85% range. The population we're dealing with this year has been
influenced by the 2020 Census, about 5,000-6,000 people less than what we expected last year.
At the end of the five-year period, it's about 10,000 people less. It's 1.54%, the lowest he's ever
seen for overall growth.
• County staff would think that percentage is wrong. It was probably influenced by the Census
and it's uncertain how the in-migration/out-migration related to COVID has influenced
projections. There will probably be some modifications adjustment. We do it every year, but it is
unusual. We'll be talking to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
about that because, in terms of the number of COs that we've been issued, we've been pretty
constant and consistent in that we don't have a lot of empty vacancies. The supply and demand
and the pricing of housing shows there's still a hefty supply -and -demand imbalance related to
more of a demand than supply.
• There are some anomalies associated with the AUIR, but we're going to have that in place to
ensure that when you pull a building permit, there won't be problems associated with
infrastructure and infrastructure capacity.
New Business
a. LDC Amendment — PL20220004273 — Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Chairman Varian noted that Mr. Valle had recused himself. He'll come back after it's done.
Mr. Curl said he will recuse himself from the vote, but wasn't aware he had to leave the room.
Chairman Varian said Mr. Valle had to leave the discussion for certain reasons. They will go to staff
first and then hear from the subcommittee.
[Mr. Valle left the meeting at 3: 24 p.m.]
Mr. Henderlong said the BCC directed staff to advertise and bring back the Land Development Code
amendment for medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted land use in the same district as
pharmacies and drugstores. The BCC gave further direction to contact and look at dispensaries in Bonita
Springs, in particular four or five located on Bonita Beach Road.
J
z
a
c
d
Q
N
N
ti
CD
c�
a
c
c
a�
E
z
U
a
r
a
n
Packet Pg. 251
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
The packet received on Monday includes documentation that staff undertook, in cooperation with the
Collier County Sheriff's Office, was to identify and obtain incidents and requests for calls for services.
We're not able to identify or say what the specific report would be as it relates to whether it is an
assault, a felony, or trespassing without having to go through a more extensive, comprehensive public
records request that would take some time and require redacting names and other items. We are
presenting a tabulation of the reports received from law enforcement officers.
There are 29 dispensaries, with 28 in Lee County, one in Collier County on Marco Island and 10 are in
the City of Bonita Springs. Our focus was to look at the Bonita Springs dispensaries.
[Mr. Henderlong started a PowerPoint presentation and would then summarize the subcommittee's
recommendations after the PP presentation]
• The BCC unanimously voted to report back on law enforcement issues, as well as to allow
medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted use in the same zoning districts as pharmacies.
• The State statutes involving dispensary sites require it to have an indoor waiting area, at least
one private consultation area, isolated from the dispensing and waiting areas, and sufficient
outdoor lighting from dawn to dusk.
• Signage: A sign must be affixed outside or hanging in a window of the premises that identifies
the dispensary by the business name, trade or an approved Florida Department of Health logo.
• The trade name and logo cannot contain wording or images commonly associated with
marketing targeted toward children and cannot promote recreational use of marijuana.
• Security measures under the Statute: Each dispensary must maintain an operational security
alarm system, a video surveillance system and marijuana transportation manifest for at least
three years from seed to point -of -sale tracking system. That tracks it all the way from the
cultivation, processing, up to the point -of -sale.
• The main security measure is that they cannot dispense from the premises onsite. The marijuana
delivery dispensation cannot occur between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. It is dispensed only once the
patient or the caregiver comes inside the facility to get the specified script, which is not a script,
but a qualified doctor's directions for the quantities and the type of medication they're seeking.
• The text is structure around new definitions. The primary definition of what is a medical
marijuana dispensary and all definitions are from Florida Statute 381.986.
• Where are medical marijuana dispensaries allowed? They're allowed in C-2, C-3, C-4 and C-5
districts, research business park PUDs, pharmacies and drugstores, the Santa Barbara
Commercial Overlay and the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay. These are local zoning districts.
• For previous approved PUDS, they were a permitted use when SIC Code 591 was adopted, a
drugstore was adopted, or a pharmacy or the other zoning districts, as stated as an allowable use
in the PUD.
• The County conducted a study in 2017 that showed within 46 PUDs one of those three
classifications was a permitted use. So medical marijuana dispensaries in this LDC amendment
also would be allowed in accordance with this criteria.
[Mr. Henderlong showed slides of photographs taken of dispensaries in Clearwater, Orlando and Lee
County in 2017, as well as four existing Bonita Springs dispensaries, including two on Bonita Beach
Road]
• County security measures will require a photometric -compliant outdoor lighting system design,
with light fixtures that are full cutoff of flat lens.
Q
7
Packet Pg. 252
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
• The transportation delivery vehicle must be parked in an enclosed structure when it's not in use
for delivery.
• No drive -through curbside pickup, takeout windows or similar outdoor transactions that display
the marijuana product or marijuana device are allowed in the waiting area. That's a state
mandate.
• Dispensing hours are state -mandated.
• The dispensary cannot be located within 500 feet of a public or private elementary, middle, or
secondary school.
[The PowerPoint presentation concluded.]
The DSAC-LDR subcommittee voted not to approve the LDC amendment. But they made a second
motion to say that in the event the BCC allowed dispensaries as a use, the subcommittee wanted to
make some changes to the LDC as follows:
To change in 5.05.16 D.1, the words "Dark Sky compliant outdoor" to read "photometric -
compliant outdoor lighting" and seek professional consult for lighting designs to existing
lighting and shopping centers, strip centers or multi -tenant buildings.
Delete subparagraph B.2 in its entirety because the proposed text didn't exist elsewhere within
the PUD where a separation of distance for a new school to be built at a later date after an
existing medical marijuana facility was built. We're trying to clarify there would be a legal
nonconforming use. Since that time, he sent an e-mail to subcommittee members that rather than
delete that language provided, revised text to address what we were concerned about.
Mr. Mulhere said he addressed this because there are other uses that have a separation requirement in
the County Land Development Code. Businesses generate revenue primarily from the sale of alcoholic
beverages and have separation from gas stations. It seemed inappropriate to single out this use as being
made legal nonconforming if they existed prior to a school or elementary school. We don't treat
anybody else that way. It didn't seem appropriate and there are potential negative implications for a
legal nonconforming use, including the inability to expand, or limited expansion.
In some cases, it may be difficult to get insurance because if it's destroyed for any reason, it couldn't be
rebuilt. There are negative implications associated with that and staff addressed his concerns.
Mr. Henderlong said the language you have before you is the language we're asking the full DSAC to
agree to, rather than delete subparagraph 5.05.16 B.2 in its entirety, replace it with what you have in
front of you today. On the document handed out, the language is at the top of page1, in blue highlight.
It reads:
"The establishment of any public or private elementary school, middle school or secondary school
subsequent to the establishment of an approved medical marijuana dispensary shall not cause such
medical marijuana dispensary to be considered a legal nonconforming -use pursuant to LDC Section
9.03.02."
Mr. Brooker said this came before us several years ago and the County Commission did not
approve it.
Mr. Henderlong said it was vetted at the first public hearing, when it was decided the Board would
consider whether to proceed with a second public hearing. At that meeting, they decided they did not get
a supermajority vote. It was a 3-2 vote not to proceed with the amendment. In a technical sense, it is not
Q
Packet Pg. 253
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
an official banning, it's an acknowledgement that under the LDC, because the use is not there, it is
recognized as a prohibited use.
Mr. Brooker asked if this 5-0 vote was the BCC's direction to reconsider. Do you know why?
Mr. Henderlong said the BCC has been getting emails and information from the community at large
about whether Collier County would proceed to go ahead with the amendment. The only direction we
have is in the executive report. Because the BCC did not ban it, they left the door open at that time for
future reconsideration. Therefore, the Commission has finally deemed it an appropriate and proper time
to reconsider it.
Mr. McLean said one of the things the subcommittee discussed is that hindsight is always 20-20. He
summarized the subcommittee's thinking:
• We made a recommendation to the DSAC and BCC that they do not adopt medical marijuana. ,
But knowing the BCC can do what it wants despite that recommendation, the subcommittee
wanted them to adopt this code. The subcommittee had a opportunity to tighten some of the
restricts and got side tracked on whether to approve or disapprove the code.
• The code could have been written in a more restrictive way. So if we don't want this, there are
segments in the code with restrictive designs and limited square footage, so a big box store
could not come in with a 10,000 sq. ft. dispensary.
• The subcommittee wasn't able to give the same scrutiny in four meetings it gave the Golden
Gate Overlay District because the County is allowing this within a zoning district already
established for pharmacies, but we were going to tighten restrictions_
• The subcommittee doesn't like to impose restrictions that create higher hazards or obstacles
going forward.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• The state statute provides two choices, ban it or allow it where pharmacies are allowed.
�;
• The County can put restrictions on that.
v
• If the BCC approves it, there are no limits on the number allowed under the state statute and the
Q
locations are consistent in all zoning districts, excluding C-1.
• The subcommittee gained insight from public speakers that included law enforcement, doctors,
health care and concerned residents.
• The subcommittee brought forth two recommendations, no medical dispensaries in the County
a
and the other to comment on the code and put additional protections in such as dark sky lighting,
�
protection and location of vehicles, and in strip malls safer protection.
• This is being brought up in the middle of summer and not in the season. Why is it important
Q
now?
N
N
• What about the vetting that was done in 2017?
ti
• Does the community really understand what the State statute's restrictions are?
CD
a
This will go before the Planning Commission for a night-time advertised hearing on Sept. 1 and before
the BCC for daytime hearings on Oct. 11 and Oct. 25. The Board is being asked to waive a nighttime
a
hearing in lieu of the Planning Commission holding a nighttime hearing.
E
cc
Mr. Mitchell said it seems it was important to protect schools and charter schools can override zoning
laws and go in wherever there is space. Is there any protection on the zoning application/verification on
locating a charter school to an existing dispensary in a strip mall that it would not be approved? What is
I
Packet Pg. 254
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
the reason for the "vehicle secure", is it we don't what to see it or a safety issue? Does it create off -site
parking that is more restrictive than on other businesses?
Mr. Henderlong said a charter school would not be allowed to be placed closer than 500 feet to an
existing dispensary. After touring sites in 2017, Mr. Johnson, the County Attorney and staff saw an
element of exposure when delivery trucks come afterhours and park outside. Two people have to
occupy the delivery truck and delivery trucks should go in an enclosed structure afterhours as a
deterrent to potential theft or crime. The vehicle can be onsite or offsite.
Chairman Varian asked if the subcommittee was comfortable with the summary of its vote, then told
the audience they'd have three minutes to speak under Robert's Rules of Order.
Ms. Mills told the speakers who signed up to say their name and to speak clearly. Do not address
questions to the committee and they can have more than three minutes if someone ceded time to them.
Veora Little has been ceded time by Dr. John Little and Randy Harris, for a total of nine minutes.
Veora Little, a certified nurse anesthetist by profession, said she lives in Moorings Park Grande Lake
and has been a county resident for the last 32 years. She was shocked in 2006 when she read six 10-
year-old students at Cypress Palm Elementary overdosed on drugs when a child took his grandparent's
medication to school and passed it out to friends. These were drugs she'd used for her entire career. It
was the beginning of Florida being named a pill mill state. This is why they started Operation Medicine
Cabinet, a pharmaceutical take back program that the Sheriff's Office runs. She has grave concerns and
the mission today is to simply say no. We do not want dispensaries in Collier County. Changing the
LDC to allow dispensaries would change the beautiful atmosphere unique to Collier County, be contrary
to the interests of public health, safety and welfare of the County. Medical marijuana can be delivered
anywhere. We need to keep the County beautiful and it away from children. This change has the
potential to bring petty thief, accidents, unrulily behavior and additional emergencies to the community.
Statistics were passed out on Bonita Springs and Cape Coral. On calls for service in Cape Coral, from
v
2020 to 2022, they had 550 calls to addresses for dispensaries. In Ft. Myers/Lee County there were 647.
Q
Her husband, a neurosurgeon, had a pain clinic and they never had a call for service. She quoted the
z
County's Medical Examiner, who is present today, as saying, "no one has ever come into this facility
with a drug overdose that does not have a history with marijuana, 99.9%. She said it starts there and
it's the responsibility of the BCC to provide services for the health, safety and welfare, along with the
quality of life, for its citizens. "For the commission to allow dispensaries without the ability for the
a
county to determine for itself what kind of restrictions would be appropriate to the City" would be
irresponsible. If counties cannot determine for themselves what and where dispensaries are, there
a,
should be no dispensaries at all.
Q
N
N
Marijuana can have high THC levels. It's not an exit drug but a gateway drug. If it was an exit drug,
Pr
CD
why would opioid overdoses be surging in Florida?
t�
Marijuana is a harmful additive drug and illegal at the federal level and can damage a child's developing
c
brain and create a generation of individuals who contribute less to society. THC concentrations are not
limited in Florida. The Health Department is the agency that controls marijuana. ATF and DOH don't
check on whether an 18-year-old has a medical marijuana card. As there are not enough people within
E
the DOH.
r
a
Lastly, she explained the difference between marijuana and medicine. "The use of the word medical
marijuana is a misnomer. There is marijuana use for medicine, but it is a plant. Medicine is a compound
extracted from a source, prepared, dosed, purified and approved by the FDA. Marijuana remains a
10
Packet Pg. 255
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
federally illegal scheduled one drug because of its high potential for abuse with no currently accepted
medical issue or use. There are several drugs already from the marijuana plant that have been FDA
approved, such as Marinol that is the synthetic version of THC for nausea and vomiting from
chemotherapy for patients. There is Syndros, which is an oral THC solution to treat anorexia. There is
Epidiolex, the newest one, used for Tourette's syndrome and seizures for young children. They have
had a potential to be useful.". She seeks only the control of dispensaries within the community.
Further, she said there is another difference between a physician's recommendation and a prescription.
"A recommendation is filled out by a physician. There are only 12% of physicians in State of Florida
that will write these recommendations because they get paid $199 per person per every six to seven
months to keep up the card. A recommendation is the doctor saying that he has done a physical on you
and these physicians don't do any physicals. They take the money and give a medical marijuana card.
They charge $77 a year from the state to register the card.
"A prescription is not only FDA approved but better legal. That is why the normal physician can write a
prescription but they cannot write a recommendation because it is illegal. The difference between a
marijuana dispensary and true pharmacy, is that a dispensary is a place where one gets marijuana
products and you can choose your own." A medical marijuana doctor gives a card but doesn't say you
need 6 milligrams of this or 10 milligrams of that or a patch or cigarettes. "They just say here is your
card, the girls at the front desk can handle the rest." At a dispensary, a bud tender gives you your
options. They start at $11/hour without training and need no certification, just a background check to
ensure they aren't felons. A dispensary is nothing like a pharmacy, which requires schooling and a
trained pharmacist.
[Ms. Mills introduced speaker John Maines, saying he was ceded time by Larry Fieldhouse.]
John Maines, a retired City of Naples police officer (21 years), passed out news articles about
billionaire George Soros and Florida attorney John Morgan funding grassroots initiatives to push for the
legalization of marijuana. Having done investigative internal affairs for six years, he thanked Mr. Curl
for recusing himself from the vote last week and former Sheriff Hunter for attending the meeting.
He's been a resident for 33 years and has worked as a Lieutenant in law enforcement and as a Realtor.
He's here to offer a personal and law enforcement perspective. He grew up in a small town, called
Sayner, population 400, in Wisconsin in the 1980s, with three older siblings and the town had 43 kids
whom he knew. Kids started attending beer parties by age 14-15, which was the culture in northern
Wisconsin. He witnessed a lot of pot smoked at these parties, but he didn't smoke because he wanted to
be a professional football player. In the last five years, six men from his age group died of drug
overdoses or drug use. He recognized not all marijuana users become hardcore drug users, but every
hardcore drug user he ever met in the City of Naples, all started with marijuana. There are negative
societal impacts: car crashes, burglaries, car thieves, robberies, and sex trafficking that tax community
resources. From a real estate perspective, buyers won't purchase a home if they get the impression
there's a drug, alcohol, homelessness or crime problem.
He noted in 2014, John Morgan and the article he passed out on George Soros aren't pushing marijuana
for goodness of health, but for money. They financed 80% of that for Florida. He gave a map of Seattle,
Washington dispensaries. Seattle and Portland dispensaries started with medical marijuana and
transitioned to recreational marijuana stores, bringing in crime and homelessness. Right now, it's not if,
it's when Florida is going to pass recreational -use marijuana. A Marco Island ordinance says if that
passes, the shop there can automatically reverts to full use of recreational marijuana. They're setting up
the medical marijuana infrastructure here for recreational use. It sounds good to get tax revenues, but
J
Q
z
(L
R
c
m
a�
Q
N
N
ti
a)
0
¢
CO
c
c
as
E
U
c�
r
Q
11
Packet Pg. 256
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
the reality is the money they spent on different services will outweigh the tax benefit and devalue
properties.
[Ms. Mills introduced Cathy Lowers, saying she was ceded time by another speaker.]
Cathy Lowers, of 42nd Street SE, said she's been in Collier County for 15 years after living in
California. She has six children and four are teens and two are in their 20s. She saw what happened in
California when an unlimited number of dispensaries were approved in her neighborhood. California
was the first to legalize marijuana as medicine in 1996. Please don't do that here. The names, such as
Miracle Leaf, Cure -A -Leaf and Wellness Center, are misleading and convey it is not dangerous. In the
past few years, there's been a dramatic increase in teens vaping high THC.
At age 18 and 19, she had worked on two farms growing marijuana and what was grown was about 2%.
Baby boomers had viewed 1 to 3 percent THC as the hallucinogenic part of the plant. The other part of
the plant is CBD, which is non hallucinogenic and where most of the medical promise is.
The high THC levels have now been increased synthetically to be almost 100%. With dispensaries
coming out with higher THC levels, most of the research has been done on low -dose THC levels, which
research shows causes low IQs and brain damage. Studies show kids believe cigarettes and alcohol are
dangerous but marijuana is harmless. People can use it as an alternative by 24-7 statewide delivery to
the home and no one is being denied use. No one will be deterred from moving here if you don't allow
dispensaries. Without dispensaries there isn't an influence on the youth. Don't make our kids guinea
pigs because THC at high levels is experimental without research to back it up. What is found in the
dispensaries used to be on the street and defined as hardcore drugs: drabs, crumble, shatter, which are
sold in the dispensaries. She called the Muv dispensary on Marco and was transferred to a sales person
in Tampa, who tried to sale her 80% vape and never asked her medical condition. She has called many
pot shops and none have asked for her medical condition. A medical card is issued and you choose
whatever you want. It is basically recreational use. Representatives, like Spencer Roach, in the last
couple of months, have introduced legislation to bring it back to medical. She questioned, why is it
happening now when the State hasn't fixed it. The state has allowed local communities to prohibit it to
see how it panned out. The industry is careful and has fought all curbs to warning labels for pregnant
women, THC caps and oversight. The industry should not here until the industry agrees to bring it back
to medical, which is what the voters wanted.
The legal marijuana industry in California is in total collapse and 80 to 90% is now being controlled by
drug cartels on the black market. Investors are leaving and coming here. Governor Newsome slashed
taxes for legal marijuana industry because they cannot survive. They thought medical marijuana would
end the black market and that never happened. Collier County is a family friendly place, keep it that
way, wholesome with low crime.
Catalina Lowers, age 19, of 42nd Street SE, said she worked throughout high school for a juvenile
diversion program called "Teen Court" as a volunteer attorney. Volunteers, such as herself, handled real
cases from misdemeanors to 3rd degree felonies committed by youth in Collier County. For the sake of
her generation, put the brakes on physical dispensaries until more peer review long term youth studies
are done of the effects of high THC marijuana on the youth brain and the effects of onsite advertising
for pot. While working in teen court, more and more teen defendants confessed they got marijuana from
someone else's medical marijuana and, when questioned, knew nothing about potential health
ramifications for its use. Allowing pot shops will make things much worse and allow teen access to
medical marijuana that has as much THC as pot from a back -alley drug deal.
J
Q
z
a
c
d
Q
N
N
ti
CD
c�
a
CO
c
c
as
E
U
M
r
a
12
Packet Pg. 257
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
Before the pandemic, her generation had high suicide and depression rates and now the marijuana
industry promotes pot as a cure-all for depression. "Multiple studies show direct association between
frequent use of high THC pot and the development, not cure, of mental health issues, like depression,
psychosis and suicidality." They're relentlessly targeting teens through online advertising. "This is my
generation's Big Tobacco being bombarded with promises of health and happiness by the marijuana
industry. Like cigarettes in the past, there hasn't been enough time to study and educate the public on its
long-term health effects." She implores the committee, to wait until the state legislature eliminates
loopholes on dispensaries that give out limitless amount of high THC pot without consequence. No one
gets hurt by waiting. Her generation is being hurt by the industry to get everyone hooked on high THC
marijuana to ensure a new generation of captive customers."
[Ms. Mills said Ms. Van Parys was ceded time by Marta Coburn.]
Diane Van Parys, of Tarpon Bay Drive, said she's been doing a lot of research on medical marijuana
dispensaries and Google on her server pops up with KushCon, a multibillion -dollar company that has
moved its headquarters from Seattle to Tampa. In Florida, the medical marijuana industry is estimated
at 1.3 to 1.5 billion dollars per year compared to the recent County's school board approved budget of
1.44 billion dollars. The budget for medical marijuana here is the same as the school district's budget.
The majority of drug problems now are due to vaping. Kids are getting them, despite having to be 21.
When they're caught, they're sent to the Phoenix alternative school program in Immokalee and Naples
for vaping and disciplinary problems, which had a 75% increase, year -over -year, from 107 to 187
students in Naples and in Immokalee 92%, from 59 to 113. This is affecting the youth. Medical
marijuana is available to 54 doctors in the County that will issue a card, not a prescription. Within 24
hours it can be delivered to your home. It's available to everyone who needs to use it.
About 7,500 people will be attending the KushCon convention in Tampa and there are hundreds of
exhibitors. Exhibitor companies include Kush and Crime a true crime podcast Nude LLC., Hemp
For Water, the Green Goat, Florida Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, and High -Life. Nikki Fried is the
keynote speaker at the two-day seminar. Five of 20 seminars are dedicated to how to get around the
Florida statute. Let's keep the business out of Collier County. There's no reason to approve it and let's
keep Collier County paradise.
Dr. Lenard Rutkowski, a retired neurosurgeon who lives in Quail Creek, said he's not averse to CBD,
which he considers medical marijuana. He understands pain, has prescribed medical marijuana and has
an active DEA license. He has researched the newly medical marijuana phenomenon, THC and CBD.
He has lectured law students at a local law school. The societal issues involved are the potential effects
on population, law enforcement resources, medical community and long-term effect on youth of this
County and country. Secondly, are political issues. here's a concerted campaign to market it backed by
big money from people who gain more if there are more traffic accidents, such as Florida attorney, John
Morgan, who is promoting it under the guise of compassion. Being compassionate is more enticing and
gratifying.
The long-term effects on society can have indirect harmful consequences. Colorado statistics show more
car crashes had occurred, related to marijuana. There is no test to quantify the legal limit of marijuana,
as is the case with alcohol. There's no quick turnaround test. "With the high prices of state -sanctioned
marijuana, unregulated entrepreneurs have entered the marketplace with higher potency marijuana that
is more dangerous relative to addictions and side effects." Thirdly, are factual medical issues, that "may
increase depression, cause paranoia, affect motor skills, one in 10 become addicted, potential lung
injuries, asthma, potentiates alcohol and stresses medical facilities." With problems already existing
with alcohol, fentanyl, heroine, and increased childhood mental problems, violence, and lawlessness,
why add another potential problem to the list? Why not be a beacon of reason?
a
13
Packet Pg. 258
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
[He reached the end of three minutes, but Robert Coburn ceded his three minutes to him.]
"The reality is we cannot control illegal use that is sure to follow." That's what will be approved once
this measure passes. Do not be influenced by marketing propaganda and miracle cures under the guise
of false compassion. Medical marijuana can be mailed and it doesn't need to be dispensed at a
dispensary. We need Collier County to show good judgment for others to emulate.
Former Sheriff Don Hunter, a 62-year County resident, said he continues to be opposed to
Amendment 2 and remains opposed to the decriminalization and legalization of drugs. Oregon has
agreed to allow any drug in any quantities for personal use, to decriminalize them. You suffer a fine.
He's not sure what quantity of Fentanyl is okay, but apparently, Oregon has figured that out. If you read
the statute 391, there's a proviso that edibles may be allowed at 200 mg, with a 15% variance. "Here's
the problem, as a law enforcement officer of 35 years, SWAT Commander for 8, Narcotics and Vice -
Commander for 8, we are unable to tell today what level of THC Delta 9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
represents impairment. If we make a traffic stop, there is no scientific application to determine that the
person is impaired, only that they have consumed, they have ingested it."
"Yet, the statue suggests the legislature was in its effort trying to limit the harm and risk in the
consumption of marijuana, which according to the FDA has yet to determine a medial application for
marijuana/cannabis, other than cannabinol. There are 500 compounds in marijuana and those states,
especially California and Oregon, that have approved recreational use have already suffered from their
poor legislative performance and didn't think it all the way through. It's an experiment."
[Three minutes were up, but he was ceded time by Ana DiMercurio]
My first few years on SWAT, those incidents that were encountered were barricaded, suicidal persons
suffering from what was called "amotivational syndrome," which is cannabis -abuse syndrome. Many
were prescribed other medications to counter the effect of marijuana. That was in the 1980s, when
marijuana and its derivatives were only 15% or less Tetrahydrocannabinol. Today, edibles are at 90%
THC. Persons responsible for enforcing this statute are attempting to determine whether dispensaries,
along with the Departments of Professional Regulations and Agricultural Consumer Services, are not
above the levels authorized by statute. The Collier County Sheriff Office is understaffed and is always
understaffed in Narcotics enforcement. These state departments, including Investigative Services are
understaffed. Enforcement is a mandated, he judges it to be inadequate staffing -wise. If dispensaries are
authorized, the signal it sends to the young people and those predisposed to abuse is that it must be
okay.
"We have the ears of the cartels. The Rocky Mountain High -Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
has issued numerous annual reports of the problems they are encountering with the cartels and people
who are using the recreational drug. If you think it's not possible in the County, we have very creative
entrepreneurs here. If you approve a dispensary, it will be on the web the next day by those who support
the decriminalization of and legalization of drugs. That sends the wrong message."
Mr. Brooker asked what is the category called "area check" in the police reports they reviewed.
Former Sheriff Hunter said it basically means an extra patrol. He noted he was involved in the largest
capture of marijuana here, along with one other deputy patrol officer and a Customs officer, of 51 tons
in Everglades City. He also rappelled into numerous marijuana fields being cultivated on Federal and
State lands, because drug dealers are trying to avoid loss of real property. "The problem here is Cuban
J
Q
z
a
c
(D
Q
N
N
ti
a)
c�
Q
c
c
as
E
U
a
r
Q
14
Packet Pg. 259
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
nationals who flee here have to pay traffickers and smugglers 10,000 to 20,000 of dollars in theory to be
smuggled here. If they arrive here and are not able to pay that, under the Cuban Adjustment Act, which
provides 10,000 dollars or more in fundable benefits to the smuggled person, we have it documented in
my records that the drug smugglers, distributors, organized crime and cartels will set those Cuban
nationals up in a growhouse to allow them to cultivate and package the product and then turn it over to
the organized criminal organization. After a period of years, if they're successful at doing what they are
told, they will own that house and that's how they pay off the organized criminal operations that bring
them to the United States. There are so many bundled issues in the dispensary idea. The
experimentation with public and officer safety that it needs to be thought through. We're backing into
the issue because of Amendment 2.
Chairman Varian asked if there were comments or whether the subcommittee had anything more to
add.
Mr. McLean said he'd like staff to evaluate what the schedule for this amendment is, moving forward.
It's a lot of information. Unlike this committee, DSAC-LDR had a time constraint and we were one
hour, 50 minutes into a discussion. That's why they put forward the recommendations they did. Will
there be an option to bring it back to the subcommittee and do they have time for that?
Mr. Henderlong said that would be a first and to his knowledge, it's never been done before. The
County Manager and County Attorney said it must be vetted back through DSAC before it comes before
the Planning Commission and BCC. The LDC requires two public hearings before the Board, October
11 and October 25 and one of them to be a nighttime hearing unless the Board waives the night-time
hearing. There is an upcoming request to the Board to waive the nighttime hearing because the Planning
Commission on September 1st is holding a nighttime hearing.
Mr. Brooker said he doesn't think anything prevents it from bringing it back to the subcommittee if we
want the Planning Commission to have the full DSAC-LDR recommendation.
Chairman Varian noted that the Planning Commission meeting time is before DSAC meets the Q
following week. z
Mr. Henderlong said it could go to the Planning Commission and be continued.
Mr. Brooker said he's been on the committee for 17 years and there are instances where DSAC's vote
a
is not before the Planning Commission but does get entered into the record for BCC consideration. It's
not a conditional precedent to the Planning Commission hearing it on September 1st
Q
Mr. Mitchell asked what is the purpose of sending it back to the subcommittee?
N
ti
Mr. McLean said that when they wrote the Golden Gate Overlay District, they looked at it line -by-line,
CD
a
page -by -page, comment -by -comment on a 200-page code and critiqued every word in it. He agrees with
o
the motion not to support the amendment. However, if the BCC does not go along with their
recommendation, they need a deeper chance to look at the code they would send along.
a
E
Mr. Mulhere said he doubted anything would change, although one more DSAC-LDR member might
show up. They did what they were entrusted to do in terms of a recommendation. The full DSAC should
a
move forward and vote on it.
An unidentified speaker asked for staff s direction/recommendation.
15
Packet Pg. 260
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
Mr. Henderlong said it was made very clear by the Board that staff was not to take a position on the
amendment.
Mr. Mitchell said he did not think there was any timing issue but curious this was being considered at a
time when many seasonal residents aren't here. He agreed with Mr. Mulhere to not approve, which
sends a better message than to provide any caveats if it is approved.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• If the BCC does approve it, the LDC needs to be amended.
• If DSAC went ahead with the vote not to approve, it could request the BCC to bring it back to
DSAC for their review.
• The BCC is the final decision -maker and will take the heat when DSAC makes their
recommendation.
In the past, where they have voted not to approve, they had said if it is to be approved, that
document would be better when X,Y, and Z are done. They would like to have another shot at
the amendment if it is going forward.
Two motions were being discussed. They recalled the subcommittee had voted 2-1 on the first
motion and on 3-1 on the second motion.
Ms. Spurgeon-DeJohn said there is brewing consensus on strategy to not adopt and it is very confusing
because, if the Board adopts the LDC amendment, there is a caveat to send it back to DSAC.
Mr. Booker said bringing it back to the subcommittee would be unprecedented and wouldn't happen,
even if the request was made.
Mr. Mitchell said the DSAC committee can deny it and say go back to the subcommittee and the Board
could say approve it anyway. The motion is asking the committee to amend the LDC by an ordinance.
Mr. Foley said he could make a motion to duplicate the DSAC-LDR motions to not approve the Q
amendment, and a second motion would be that if the Board decides to approve, there would be some
Z
limited protections, as stated earlier. The first motion was restated to ban medical marijuana
dispensaries.
Mr. McLean seconded it.
a
c
A discussion ensued over the wording of the motion and what would occur.
Q
Mr. Brooker noted that 70% of Florida residents voted to decriminalize marijuana, while 64% of
N
ti
Collier County residents supported Amendment 2. Marijuana can be delivered to homes now within 24
0D
hours. For the 10 Bonita Springs locations over eight years, that's just under 30,000 location days, with
a
548 incidents, with half being area checks. That's one incident every three months for all locations
c
combined. Based on that — and he might be incorrectly interpreting that — he's not in favor of the
motion.
Ms. Spurgeon-DeJohn had a question on the motion. The phrasing of the motion is different from what
they're being asked to do, to give a recommendation on PL20220004273, a land development code
amendment. She asked Mr. Foley to consider making the motion to recommend denial of the LDC
a
amendment. Banning a certain type of use is not what we're being asked.
16
Packet Pg. 261
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
Mr. McLean said that leads directly to the second motion we haven't entertained. We did not have
enough time and literally had 10 minutes to vet this LDC.
Ms. Spurgeon-DeJohn noted there are a lot of opinions resolved on this. The motion we should be
making is not to ban something, but on the item on the agenda.
Vice Chairman Foley said he wasn't willing to change his motion, although he understands what she's
saying. It is not a good idea to give a different message to the Board. We can address it with a second
motion, if and when that occurs.
Vice Chairman Foley made a motion to ban medical marijuana dispensaries. Mr. McLean seconded
it. The motion failed 5-6, Chairman Varian, Mr. Mulhere, Mr. Brooker, Mr. Dunnavant, Vice
Chairman Foley and Ms. Spurgeon-DeJohn voted nay; Mr. Curl abstained and Mr. Valle recused
himself.
Mr. McLean made a motion, noting that DSAC-LDR was constricted by time last week and they
recommend not allowing medical marijuana dispensaries and to allow DSAC-LDR to have more
time to review the LDC. [There was no second and the motion failed.]
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• DSAC-LDR was asked to approve or not approve the language in this amendment.
• DSAC-LDR subcommttee had voted 2-1 last week to recommend banning medical
marijuana dispensaries — and held a second vote of 3-0 to revise the LDC with two
recommendations, if the BCC recommended approval; Mr. Curl abstained on both votes.
Mr. Brooker asked why not make the second motion that was adopted unanimously by the
subcommittee here and see how it carries? Committee members can by themselves continue to
review the language and at the next DSAC meeting with a subcommittee meeting in between tweak
the language and make a modified recom m aidation, which the Planning will not see because of
timing, but the BCC will.
Mr. English agreed with Dave and Laura, noting the way it was put forward, they were asked to
consider the amendment on its merits, as it was presented. He doesn't have a problem with denying
that, but wouldn't support a vote to ban. If you want to go to the BCC to talk about it, that's your
right.
Mr. McLean made a motion for PL20220004273 to be sent back to the LDR subcommittee.
[There was no second and the motion failed.]
Ms. Spurgeon DeJohn made a motion that DSAC recommend denial of PL20220004273. Mr.
English seconded it. The motion passed 10-2; Mr. Brooker, and Mr. Sterk voted nay; Mr. Curl
abstained and Mr. Valle recused himself and was not present.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the subcommittee wanted to meet to continue revising the LDC for the BCC
meeting.
Mr. Brooker asked why. You recommnded denial.
[Mr. Valle returned to the meeting after the vote, at 4: SS p.m.]
17
Packet Pg. 262
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
b. LDC Amendment — PL20220004350 — Golden Gate Estates Chairman Variance Distance
Notification
Mr. Johnson said this is a proposed Land Development Code Amendment. It was directed by the Board of
County Commissioners earlier this year to amend the Land Development Code with respect to the mailed
public notice requirement for variance applications. If you're a property owner in the Golden Gate Estates
Area Master Plan, either the rural or the urban sub -elements, your mail notification requirement would be
reduced from one mile to 1,000 feet for variances only.
Mr. Mitchell asked what drove this amendment.
Mr. Johnson said it was directed by the Board of County Commissioners because one mile was too far. A
variance application is local in nature and shouldn't be as far reaching as a rezoning or a GMP amendment.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• It never should have been a mile.
• This is a BandAid amendment.
• DSAC-LDR discussed and approved this.
Mr. Brooker made a motion to approve LDC Amendment PL20220004350 — Golden Gate Estates
Chairman Variance Distance Notification. Mr. Mulhere seconded it. The motion passed 13-0.
c. Existing Building Recertification Program [Rich Long, Director, Building Plan Review &
Inspection]
Mr. Long said we need to move forward with the existing building recertification program that the
State adopted. All the building officials are looking into what Miami -Dade has put into place and has
been actively utilizing for 20 years. We're going to have to put an ordinance together to capture
timeframes, fees and figure out if we're going to need more staff to be able to do this. We're already
doing research on the three miles from the shoreline, what properties are identified in those addresses
and what buildings will be involved. We're going to have to mail and notify all these buildings when
their milestone inspection is due, and then they're going to have to get a Phase 1 Inspection and report
back to us within a certain time frame. You have to build the enforcement issues into the ordinance, so
it's moving. We've talked to Heidi and Derek, our attorneys, and they're looking at what's in place for
Miami -Dade and there's one already for Boca Raton.
Mr. Boughton asked if Miami -Dade does homes and buildings. What heights are they looking at?
Mr. Long said they're just looking at high rises, above three stories.
Mr. Dunnavant asked what the enforcement action was if they don't comply.
Mr. Long said that's what they're looking at. It could be fines. That's the big piece and why they're doing
the ordinance. We're relying on what's already been proven and what's working in those areas. It's
maintenance, structural and they're looking at electrical. It's defined in State statutes. It was after the
collapse of the building that they started looking at it. They had put in some language, but then it died and
then all of a sudden, in four days, they came up with something and approved it. Now it's law for three
stories of residential occupancy and up.
Mr. Boughton asked if it was certain heights.
IN
Packet Pg. 263
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
Mr. Long said it was three stories of a certain occupancy.
Mr. Mulhere said he may have answered his question, but is this like a forensic inspection?
Mr. Long said it's broken into two phases. Phase one is that they do a quick visual of all the specific
structural elements, whatever they can see. And if they don't see any of it, it has to be signed and sealed by
an architect or an engineer.
Mr. Mulhere said there's more liability there.
Mr. Long said that report has to be given to the homeowners' association and the homeowners' association
has to give it to all of the owners and the building official, so we're going to have records retention.
Mr. Where said in the engineer's opinion, there may need to be more of a forensic analysis because some
problems are not immediately visible. There had to be some excavation to look at, filings, for example. This
is probably very necessary given what happened and what could happen again. There are a lot of tall
buildings over 50 years old, maybe not here, but some are here. Nobody would be willing to sign and seal it
without a very large paycheck.
Mr. Valle said some of the condos we're dealing with on the beach and on Gulfshore Boulevard and in
Pelican Bay have already started to do engineering assessments. Some of the older buildings built in the late
80s and early 90s didn't account for stone floors and granite tops, so they're looking at their weight loads.
When they're looking at remodels, they're saying no more stone. If you're going to put in tile, we're going
to need to know the weight. The Gulfshore Condominium Owners Association held a 45-minute Zoom
meeting about the ordinance. In addition to the language that Rich is talking about, there are also reserve
requirements and the insurance companies are now coming back and saying if you're building non-
sprinklered, we're not going to give you coverage.
Mr. McLean said we get calls every week that the insurance companies are mandating these inspections Q
and we defer them all to structural engineers. z
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
0
• The statute is a far cry from a certification. An assessment is not putting your license on the line,
saying it's going to stand another 50 years.
a
• It's a 30-year milestone unless you're within three miles of the water line/the coast, and then it's 25
years, and then after that, it's every 10 years.
a,
• That's Pelican Bay and Gulfshore Boulevard, mostly high rises.
N
• Initially, there were about 987 buildings that are three stories and over.
`�
ti
• There are some very old buildings.
CD
• Three-story buildings include a garage underground, with two floors above.
v
Q
c
Mr. Long said we're going to try to take an executive summary to the BCC in September, just to advertise,
and then probably take it to the BCC in October.
Chairman Varian said Clay wants to bring up a NIM item.
Q
Mr. Brooker said the BCC is considering modifications through the Neighborhood Information meeting
process. The NIM is required in virtually all Land -Use Petitions before you get to the public hearing phase
19
Packet Pg. 264
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
of the land -use or zoning request. This stemmed from some reports or complaints about behavior at the
NIMs. In my personal experience, in the last few years, people are getting more aggressive, rude and
disrespectful. He doesn't know why they feel emboldened to lose all reason and sense of decorum. You all
probably saw in the newspaper that within the past few months, there was a NIM where violence broke out,
so the County is on actual notice of violence at NIMs. This is a County -required process.
What the BCC is doing is taking a look, in summary fashion, at perhaps establishing or drafting a set of
rules of decorum that would be applied both at BCC public hearings and at NIMs, and requiring the land -
use applicant to pay for a security detail at the NIM. He has an issue with that and that's the reason he put
this on the agenda, to get a consensus from DSAC. For whatever reason, this was not brought to us,
although an administrative code revision will probably be involved. In June or July, the BCC continued
their discussion on it. They're still working on language for the rules and it will probably be heard again in
September.
If it's the consensus or will of DSAC, he'd like to suggest things for consideration. If this is your will, this
can be reduced to a motion, but he doesn't want to do that until DSAC determines whether it wants to go
down this road. We could avoid all the time and expense and any exposure to problems by making NIMs
virtual. No in -person NIMs. That way, there's a wall. People can still chime in, you can type your
comments and so forth.
Alternative B, if the BCC wants them in person, have the County pay for security detail if they're going to
require it; have the rules of decorum read by a County planner assigned to the application; and the planner
would stand next to the applicant. Those are my thoughts. That would be my request. It's up to DSAC to
entertain a motion.
A discussion ensued.
Mr. Brooker made a motion making all NIMs virtual, and if the BCC is not amenable, the County would
M
fund a security detail for in -person NIMs, and the rules of decorum would be read by a County planner who
v
would stand next to the applicant during the NIM presentation.
Q
z
Mr. McLean said he'd second the motion.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
as
• Some of the NIMs have been out of control and involved fights.
a
• Mr. Mulhere provides a slide about decorum at his NIMs and hires a technical firm to handle it.
C9
• If a virtual NIM has a technical failure or cancelation, the public should be told the contractor won't
Q
be responsible because a virtual NIM is a courtesy to those unable/unwilling to attend.
N
• It should be held in a County facility.
ti
• Mr. McLean attended a NIM in Greenville, S.C., which was held by planning staff who controlled
CD
the decorum, muted mics, controlled who spoke. It was very formal and everyone got to weigh in. It
a
was 100% virtual,
c
• Allow speakers inside one at a time and provide audio of the NIM to a crowd outside.
• We need staff s input.
• Contractors have held NIMs and hired deputies for crowd control.
• If you violate the rules of decorum, you waive the right to speak at the NIM and someone must
a
enforce that.
• There is time for the DSAC to weigh in before the BCC meeting in September, whether in writing
or orally.
20
Packet Pg. 265
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
• They can deny the motion, so it can move forward with staff input.
Mr. Brooker made a motion making all NIMs virtual, and if the BCC is not amenable, the County would
fund a security detail for in person NIMs, and the rules of decorum would be read by a County planner
who would stand next to the applicant during the NIMpresentation. Mr. McLean seconded the motion.
The motion failed, 2-12.
Ms. Cook said Mike Bosi and Jamie French will be at the next meeting and will provide suggestions.
Mr. Johnson reminded subcommittee members that they will be meeting on Aug. 24.
Mr. Mulhere said it could start at the DSAC-LDR and others could attend to comment.
Ms. Cook said she'd written down their suggestions.
7. Old Business
a. Discussion of the Tree Removal Process for More Than 10 Trees
Mr. Curl said that at the last subcommittee meeting, we talked about creating stipulations. There's no need
for an LDC cycle amendment to both SDPIs and ICPs. The only thing he's unclear on is an inspection that
to is still warranted. Other than that, let this die.
Mr. Mulhere said it's part of the ICP if they need it.
Mr. Curl said they should be certifying, like an STP.
Mr. Mitchell said no insubstantial changes. Whether it's an SIPI or SDPI or even a PPL insubstantial
change, there are no inspections, with the exception of if there is an 800 Series Inspection associated with
the building or any other improvement. But there is no certification or turnover process and we need to keep
it that way.
Mr. Curl said this is just specific to trees, nothing else.
Mr. Mitchell said they could look at vegetation removal permits and the archaic way they have to
prove that something didn't happen. But we won't solve that problem here.
Mr. Giblin said the LDR subcommittee's action or motion involved a memo issued in 2008 by Bill
Lorenz that formally advised there would be a two-year time period on STPIs. Since then, the LDC has
changed and now SDPs are good for two years, instead of three years, so the motion by the
subcommittee was to instruct the development review and zoning directors to reissue that memo and
have it apply to both SDPIs and SDPs to provide a time frame for three years to be consistent and
provide a stipulation that the time period from when the trees are cut down to when they're replaced be
included as a stipulation.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• The stipulation could leave it up in the air about determining the time period when trees must be
replaced.
• If relying on a staff stipulation, that could become an issue.
• At Marbella on Livingston, many trees were removed and replaced in phases under a PUD
amendment.
21
Packet Pg. 266
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
• At Saturnia Lakes, they did the same thing as Marbella, with an amendment to the PPL that
came through as an ICP.
• The concern is that once trees are cut down, they won't be put back in.
• This often becomes a Code Enforcement issue, but is often dropped when a permit is issued.
• Communication hasn't always been good so there was no ability to discuss the stipulation.
• A time period for replacement must be specified, such as six months or 18 months.
• There was an active SDPI at Pine Ridge Crossing, yet Code Enforcement was still called.
• A reasonable time frame for replacement can be specified and then it can be changed later at a
higher level.
• Worst -case scenario is three years and that can be changed to one year. If there's a problem, go
to a higher level.
• You're always going to have people asking for forgiveness.
[Mr. Mulhere left at 5:30 p.m.]
8. Committee Member Comments
Mr. McLean said DSAC-LDR only had 10 minutes to discuss the medical marijuana dispensary
amendment. There are already restrictions. Many bend the facts to support their position. Not one
person in this room at either meeting supported it. People don't realize the repercussions of bending the
statistics to support their stance. They made a reference to a Cape Coral address where there were 500
incidents. That was in a shopping mall with 54 tenants at the biggest intersection and there were people
running red lights who were stopped at that location.
Mr. Curl agreed this wasn't a good litmus test.
A discussion ensued and members agreed not a lot of people knew about the DSAC hearings,
although they were public meetings. It was advertised, but many don't read those.
Mr. McLean noted it was a public meeting under the Sunshine Law. Did we have an opportunity to
kill the amendment at the subcommittee meeting and not bring it here? We got limited direction as to
what to do, so how do we avoid what we had today? We saw it for the first time last week.
Vice Chairman Foley noted that it's a lot of hard work for the subcommittee, reading and preparation.
We often get items that are the will of the BCC and we have to react and push it through. There are
times when we have time. Maybe it's time for a Sunshine Law refresher.
Chairman Varian said he was planning to put that on the agenda for September.
Mr. Johnson said they do try to get the information out to DSAC. Staff is here to support you and
clarify.
Mr. Curl said DSAC's direction is to let 7.a die and change the 2008 memo's direction to three years.
9. Adjourn
Future Meeting Dates:
Sept. 7, 2022, 3 p.m.
Oct. 5, 2022, 3 p.m.
Nov. 2, 2022,3 p.m.
22
Packet Pg. 267
14.A.2
August 3, 2022
Vice Chairman Foley made a motion to adjourn the meeting It was seconded by Mr. Valle. The
motion was passed unanimously, 11-0.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the
order of the chairman at 5:40 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
_ l _
Chairma William Chairman Varian
These minutes were roved by the Committee/Chairman on G , as presented
(choose one) , or as amended
Packet Pg. 268
14.A.2
July 22, 2021 — August 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category
Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report
July 22, 2022 — August 21, 2022 Highlights
• Cases opened: 669
• Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 289
• Property inspections: 2334
• Lien searches requested: 903
Trends
Cases Opened Per Month
700 632 644 652 665 642 628 622 669
604
600 545 529
500 435
400
300
200
100
0
Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22
J
Q
Z
Code
Inspections Per
Month
3000 2635 2649
2566
2508 2516
2594
2500
2352
2274
2264 2334
a.
C
2000
1747
Q
N
1500
1229
N
ti
c)
1000
UQ
U)
500
a
c
0
E
Aug-21 Sep-21
Oct-21 Nov-21
Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22
v
r
Q
This report reflects monthly data from July 22, 2022 —August 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 269
July 22, 2021— August 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
ID Total 0oened Cases to
Date (Report initiated
September 2018)
J
Q
Z
LL
N
v
M
IL
c
W
a�
Q
N
N
ti
6)
U
a
U)
0
E
a
This report reflects monthly data from July 22, 2022 —August 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 270
July 22, 2021— August 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category
14.A.2
Short-term Rentals Animals
3% � 1% Accessory Use
Vegetation Requirements 2%
4%
Vehicles
11%
Site Development
14%
mww�ww
Signs
3%
Right of Way
3%
Land Use
8%
Property Maintenances _�-
10% Parking Enforcement- Occupational Licensing
2% 2%
Case Type Common Issues Associated with Case Type
Noise
2%
Nuisance Abatemen
35%
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
This report reflects monthly data from July 22, 2022 —August 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 271
June 22, 2022—July 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category
14.A.2
Site De
Signs
1%
Right c
Pro
Animals
Vegetation Reouirements Accessory Use
2% 1%
Case Type Common Issues Associated with Case Type'
:e Abatement
36%
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, 2021— May 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 272
May 22, 2021—June 21, 2022 Code Cases by Category
14.A.2
Site C
Sii
Vegetation Requirements
�. Arr_PSSnru l IqP
14% 2%
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.
se
0
i ate me nt
This report reflects monthly data from July 22, 2022 —August 21, 2022
Packet Pg. 273
AJOSIApy saoweS;uewdolanaa : 96££Z) TdNI=l - 4843ed epua6y ZZ-L-6 OVSa :;uawy3e44V
N o
O
T
O
N
O
W O ID � O� m O O O
sAed ssaulsn8
Aaoslnpd saoln.aaS;uawdolana(3 : gb££Z) lVNI=l -;a1oed epuaBV ZZ-L-6 OVSa 4uawLIOBllV
v
Ln
s;sanbaa
o � o
N c-I rl Lfl
V m N c O
N
N
C
N
T
(6
2
sAe4 ssaulsn8
AJOslnpy saoweS;uewdOlOAOa : 96££Z) TdNI= - 4843ed epua6y ZZ-L-6 OVSa :;uawyoe;;d
N o rr
CDN
iA
a
a�
Y
U
l0
a
o ■
r
v
E
F
O
Q
Q
Q
O
V
v
N 'T
E
3
v
v
C
O
I
N
N
O
Q Qj
H
3
v
v
m
C
I
O Ln O in O Ln O Ln O
V (n M N N
sAea ssauisne
14.A.2
C.010iWer County
AUgUSt 2022
.Monthcy stat�st�cs
280
COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
8/2022 Growth Management Department Packet Pg. 277
Building Plan Review Statistics
All
Permits Applied by
Month
N
N
N
ti
7,000
L
6,000
as
U)
5,000
.E
4,000
c
3,000
c
w
2,000
-
a
1,000
'
m
0)
O O O O O r
N N N N N N N N N
� � 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 E
a > c c
a oz �
, °
c aa > c
U) O z
c c
�m a
apa
a
0
T"
Top
15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied
T"
M
N
J
/
'Electrical,
Roof, 400
Z
428
Plumbing,
338
Shutters/Doors/
Gas, 259
a
Windows, 555
Solar, 194
Well Permits,
Fence, 188
c
�
93
Idg Add/Alt,
\Pool, 186
Q
294
N
Mechanical, 847
ROW
Q
Bldg
New 1
Commercial, 94
p
& 2
Res, 295
m
E
ROW Residential, 148 Aluminum Structure,
Q
263
Packet Pg. 278
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
14,
O O N N N
N N N N N N N N N
0) > -0 >+ M > -0 >+ 0)
Q z LL 2 Q z LL 2 Q
1 &2 Family
Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
N
N
O
Monthly Multi -family & Commercial Total N
ti
Construction Value by Applied Date
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
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 NCN N N N
0) 0-> U C �, C Q > U C -0� � �, C
Q U) O Z o - LL Q :E� Q U) O z o � LL 2i Q �
♦ 1 &2 Family Multi -family Commercial
' m
Cn
W- a
O O N N N O
d
N N N N N N N N N '
Q Z Li 2i Q Z LL 2i Q
to
Multi -family Commercial
M
N
J
Q
z
aD
M
a
M
c
m
a
N
N
ti
O
c)
a
W
0
w
d
E
t
c.i
R
Q
Growth Management Department t - .
14.A.2
Building Plan Review Statistics
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
N
N
New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month N
ti
— L
E
as
a
as
W
m
as
E
E
0
U
0
O
O
O
O
O
r
r
r
N
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
cm
a
y i
i
0
C
M
L
L
i1
C=
0
CL
y i
i
0
C
M
L
L
>%
i
-3
1 a
C)
C)0
m
M
a)M
0
�
0
0
M
0
M
Q
M
N
O
z
o
n
U_
a
Cn
O
z
o—)
U_
a
N
Q
Q
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
21
Jan-
22
Feb
22
Mar
22
Apr-
22
May-
22
Jun-
22
Jul-
22
■Commercial
6
3
3
3
6
7
5
11
8
12
9
6
13
13
3
4
8
5
7
4
4
4
7
4
■ Multi family
10
11
1
7
7
11
19
11
6
6
17
11
15
5
6
12
9
10
12
15
3
1
8
2
■ 1&2Family
296
248
352
244
314
357
195
386
412
460
445
374
403
218
330
286
295
346
217
333
255
284
316
248
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
,
0
N
t=
d
E
Q
O
d
New Multi-familyBuilding '
g New Commercial Building o
Permits Issued by Month Permits Issued by Month
T
M
— 18
— N
J
16
Q
z
14
as
O O O N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 LL
Q ❑ LL Q � Q
12
10 —
8
6
4
2
n
E
O O O N N N (�
N N N N N N N N N N N N
i - 0 i
Q U 0)U (D 0- �
❑ LL Q 0 Q
Q ❑ LL Q �
Packet Pg. 280
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Well,
110
Building Inspections Statisti 14.A.Z
N
N
Building Inspections N
ti
L
E
as
a
as
m
as
E
E
0
0
a
m
CO
O O O O O r N 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�
� m > U C � L L i, C C� CD- �' % U C � L L i, C C
O NU O O m 0 m Q- O CU U Q
O 5 O 0 m N m Cz �i -
Q (n Z 0 � � Q Q w O Z 0 � � Q 4 0
d
d
Types of Building Inspections
T
M
M
N
J
Q
Z
LL
a
m
a
m
c
m
a
N
N
RC c)
4( Q
Cn
w
c
allu' E
:ont
Q
Packet Pg. 281
Land Development Services
14.A.2
250
200
150
100
50
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Statistics
N
N
All Land Development Applications Applied by Month N
ti
L
E
Q
W
wr
.E
E
0
U
q
0
a
m
9
O
O
O
O
O
r
T
r
r
r
T
r
T
r
T
r
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a)
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
Q
"-'
>
V
c
M
i
L
>,
C
al
Q—
>
U
C
M
i
L
>,
C
E
0
0
M
Q
R
0
0
M
Q
�
Q
3
a
0
Ch
O
0
z
0�
ca
d
u_
a
�
�
3
a
0
C6
O
0
z
in
ca
-0)
d
u_
a
�
'
0
5
0
T
Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied N
within the Last 6 Months
950 a
z
a
M
a
1
c
m
459 a
N
N
ti
c)
a
W
154
112 100
ff I
Short -Term Vacation Garage Sale Permit Zoning Verification Site Development Plan Vegetation Removal
Rental Registration Letter Insubstantial Change Permit a
Packet Pg. 282
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 N
ti
L
E
as
a
as
m
as
.E
E
0
U
q
m
Cn
O
N
O O O O T T
N N N N N N
r T r T
N N N N
T T T r T r N N N
N N N N N N N N N
N N N N C, Q
N N N N c�
CA
Q
Q "r > 0 c .0L
0 V O a) IC a)
W 0 z o� U_
L A c
cu CL cC
a
CA Q— > 0 C .0 L
a)V O 0 a) M
Q 0 z o� U_
L >1 c C Q
Q M — O
a
Front Zoning
Counter
Permits Applied by
Month
T
M
— M
N
J
Q
z
v:
a
M
a
M
•
..
c
m
Cn
a
••
•
N
N
ti
••
a
W
O
N
O O O O T T
N N N N N N
N N N N I E
N N N N 1
r T T T
N N N N
T r T T T T N N N
N N N N N N N N N
Q
Q V O (D W a)
N 0 z 0 U_
ca = M
a
>
Q V O O c0 a)
Q N 0 z o n LL.
R z C
a y
Temporary Use
Commercial Certificates
Q
1FEW-
Growth Management'••
Packet Pg. 283
Land Development Services
14.A.2
8 r
7
6
N
C
_o
�'^ 5
N4
0
L 3
m
E
0 2
z
Statistics
Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month
5
O O O O O 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 N
a% Q.
aW > V a M aC M Q- > V a-0 L L >1 C
0-)� 0- 0-)LLU)oz0 2aU)oz0Ma2 a:
a
Plat Pages Recorded per Month
60 59
54
50
40
a
0 30
28
a�
E
21
20
z 20
17
1415
11
11
12
10
8 9 9 10 7
9
9 10 9
5
1
3
0
E
E
EIO
O O O O r
N N N N N N N N N N N N
r N N N
N N N N N N N N
N N N N N
N N N N N
ai Q r > U C.0 L L >> C 5
G� V Q M �
0 2
0 Q� > L) C. L
� N V 0 W M G) M
0 2
L >> C a:
Q M �
Q cn z 0-) LL Q E
Q cn z 0-) LL
Q E Q
N
N
O
N
ti
L
E
Q
d
Yearly Tota
E
2020 - 25
0
2021- 33
2022 - 20
N
a
m
m
U)
as
E
Q
0
m
m
0
_W
M
M
N
J
Q
z
a
Yearly Tota
a
2020 - 152
�
2021- 188
2022 - 119
Q
N
N
ti
c)
a
0
c
m
E
t
c.i
M
a
Packet Pg. 284
Land Development Services
14.A.2
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Statistics
N
Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications N
(PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month L
E
as
a
as
m
as
.E
0
- - a
rn
CO
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 N E
�f Q > U C M Q >, a a] Q > U O � Q >, C 07 O
a O zCL
o o�� a a O zo o U- a 4 n a
0
Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections
(PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month M
N
J
Q
Z
a
M
a
M
c
m
a
N
N
ti
O
c�
a
w
c
d
E
O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N 1 V
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 R
N V O d d d v O N c3 d 3 a
a w O z o no U- a a 0 O z o�� a n
Packet Pg. 285
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 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 N
> c.,i
N V O N M 0 0 M � � � d V O 0 M d 0 R
Q cn 0 z o-) LL 2 a 2 Q cn 0 z o-) LL 2 a 2 Q
Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections
(SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month
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 N
M Q +' > V C .0 L L >% C a: Q *' > u C .0 L L >% C LTI
Q fn 0 z 0 n LL 2 Q E Q fn 0 z 0-) LL 2 Q g Q
N
N
0
N
ti
L
E
Q
W
m
as
.E
E
O
U
O
N
a
m
CO
a�
E
Q
O
(D
_O
M
M
N
J
a
z
as
M
a
M
C
m
a
N
N
ti
O
U
a
W
w
c
m
E
t
0
R
a
Packet Pg. 286
Reviews for Land Development 14.A.2
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Service
Number of Land Development Reviews
O O O O O 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 N
> 0 a .0 L i >1 C -) a)O a— > 0 a M L i >% c a%
d v O N M W 0 a R = = 0 O N M W a R
a U) O z o-) LL 2 a 2 n a U) O z o nLL a 2 a
Percentage Ontime for the Month
■ Ontime ■ Late
N
N
O
N
ti
L
E
as
a
as
m
as
E
0
U
O
W
a
m
m
CO
a�
E
a
0
m
m
_O
M
M
N_
J
Q
Z
LL
Y
Ca
M
a
M
c
m
a
N
N
ti
O
c.i
a
0
w
E
0
M
a
Packet Pg. 287
Land Development Services I 14.A.2
Statistics
N
N
O
Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate ti
$30,000,000 L
as
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
80
70
60
0 50
E
a 40
CA
0 30
Q 20
C
10
0
O
N
a
E
as
a
as
M
m
as
.E
E
0
U
0
rn
a
rn
m
O O O O O r r r
N N N N N N N N
r r r
N N N
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
0
�+
a w o 0 n �
a
a 0 o 0 n � a 4
a
E
z0
z0
CL
■ Construction Estimate
Utility Estimate
0
m
m
Site &
Utility Inspections
M
N
i
J
Q
Z_
LL
I
1
�
Y
I a
i
m
N
N
ti
V
N
O O O O i--1 --1 1-1 ri
rV N N N N N N N
c-1 r-I
N N N
1-1 c-I ci rl ci N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N
N N
N N
Q
N 0 z° o LL 2 a'
a Ln 0 z° o `� LL 2 a
a
w
■ Final Subdivision Inspection
■ Final Utility Inspection
E
Preliminary Subdivision Inspection
Preliminary Utility Inspection
U
■ Tie In Inspection
Q
Fire Review Statistics I 14.A.2
Building Fire Review Average Number of Days
N
N
ti
10
4)
9
E
8
as
Q
7
N
in
M
5
4
E
E
3
0
U
2
�%
1
0
0
>
O
N
O O O O -I —I r-I r-I -1 -1 -1 -1 -I -I -I -I 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
tLD
7
Q }' > U C -0 L L >� C — to Q a--' > U C -0 L L
v U O 4) r0 41 C6 Q- (6 7 7 N U O a) r6 a Q-
0 0
1
>, C -502
(6 7 7
N
V
a
L, z o I- 2 a a L, z o LL a
g a.
Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month
N
Fire District
Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar-
Apr- May- Jun- Ju
d 3-
20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22
22 22 22 2,
E
0 North Collier
564 558 588 429 586 427 482 630 706 741 1044 687 775 608 654 504 449 470 503 671
646 777 855 63
C
Collier County (Greater Naples) 409 400 439 403 446 460 475 451 473 456 586 401 480 382 411 409 393 323 503 613
538 576 623 38
1
d
Planning Fire Review Average Number of Days
to
10
M
9
J
Q
8
Z
7
LL
6
Y
5
0
a
C 4
c
3 -
d
2
N
N
1
ti
0
�
O O
N rV
O O O r-I -I r-I -I r-I r-I r-I .--I r-I r-I r-I -i 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 f
rV N N r
dA Q
� N
+' > U C L L > C dA Q 41U > U C L L
� O N l6 v � Q � � � � v O N ro v (13 Q
o o
ro C t
ro
Q V)
z oL.L 2 a- a LA z o LL 2 a-
Total Number of Planning Fire Reviews by Month
Fire District
Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- A
E
V g-
20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22
22 22 22 2
R 2
■North Collier
33 47 44 37 32 25 33 37 39 39 55 32 43 23 48 41 49 29 31 29
49 43 48 3
1
Q
Collier County(Greater
Naples) 61 59 62 61 51 44 53 71 72 60 74 61 39 53 80 70 68 56 56 62
69 59 56 6
3
Packet Pg. 289
6.a - LDC Landscape Code Amend er4t�.A.2
4.06.03 - Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and
Rights -of -Way
A. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all new off-street parking or
other vehicular use areas. Existing landscaping which does not comply with the provisions of this
Code shall be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible when: the vehicular use
area is altered or expanded except for restriping of lots/drives, the building square footage is
changed, or the structure has been vacant for a period of 1 year or more and a request for an
occupational license to resume business is made. These provisions shall apply to
all developments with the exception of single-family, two-family, mobile home dwelling unit,
public utility ancillary system, and dwellings on individually platted lots. Any appeal from an
administrative determination relating to these regulations shall be to the board of zoning appeals
or equivalent. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for new construction, implementation and
completion of landscaping requirements in off-street vehicular facilities shall be required. Where a
conflict exists between the strict application on this division and the requirements for the number of
off-street parking spaces or area of off-street loading facilities(GGPOD seems to override certain
protections (i.e., type `f' on roadway) — seems in conflict, potentially with other MP's, such as
Bayshore overlay, and may require clarification — what does this mean?), the requirements of this
section shall apply.
B. Standards for landscaping in Vehicular Use Areas. For projects subject to architectural design
standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 F. for related provisions.
1. Landscaping required in interior of vehicular use areas. At least ten percent of the amount
of vehicular use area onsite shall be devoted to interior landscaping areas. The width of all
curbing shall be excluded from the required landscaped areas. All interior landscaped areas not
dedicated to trees or to preservation of existing vegetation shall be landscaped with grass, ground
cover, shrubs or other landscape treatment. One tree shall be provided for every 250 square feet
of required interior landscaped area. Interior landscaped areas shall be a minimum of five feet in
width and 150 square feet in area. The amount of required interior landscape area provided shall
be shown on all preliminary (when is a prelim plan permitted for construction? Needed?) and final
landscape plans.
3. All rows of parking spaces shall be bordered on each end by curbed landscape islands as
shown in Figure 4.06.03 B - Terminal Landscape Islands. Each terminal island shall measure
inside the curb not less than eight feet in width and extend the entire length of the single or double
row of parking spaces bordered by the island. Type D or Type F (mountable provide protection of
landscape?) curb per current FDOT Design Standards is required around all landscape islands. A
terminal island for a single row of parking spaces shall be landscaped with at least one canopy
tree. A terminal island for a double row of parking spaces shall contain not less than two canopy
trees. The remainder of the terminal island shall be landscaped with sod, ground covers or shrubs
or a combination of any of the above.
5. Required landscape islands and perimeter planting beds shall be graded to provide positive
drainage. Curbing around landscape areas shall include curb cuts where necessary so as not to
inhibit positive drainage.(this abates any use of bioswales in Collier County — i.e., parking areas at
Naples Botanical Garden provide detention / potential stormwater filtration / BMP's)
8. Green space required in shopping centers and freestanding retail establishments with a floor
area greater than 40,000 square feet. An area that is at least seven percent of the size of
the vehicular use areas must be developed as green space within the front yard(s) or courtyards
Packet Pg. 290
14.A.2
of shopping centers and retail establishments and must be in addition to the building perimeter
planting area requirements. The courtyards must only be located in areas that are likely to be used
by pedestrians visiting the shopping center and retail establishment. The seven percent green
space area must be in addition to other landscaping requirements of this division, may be used to
meet the open space requirements (section 4.02.01), and must be labeled "Green Space" on
all subdivision and site plans. (Refer to section 5.05.08, Architectural and Site Design Standards
and Guidelines for Commercial buildings and Projects.) The interior landscape requirements of
these projects must be reduced to an amount equal to five percent of the vehicular use area on
site. (Define "these projects" / interior / 5% of VUA?)Green space must be considered areas
designed for environmental, scenic or noncommercial recreation purposes and must be
pedestrian -friendly and aesthetically appealing. Green space may only (is "only" needed in light of
"similar items" usage?) include the following: lawns, mulch, decorative plantings, nonprohibited
exotic trees, walkways ("exclusively for green space usage" vs existing text explanation,
following?) within the interior of the green space area not used for shopping, fountains, manmade
watercourses (but not water retention areas), wooded areas, park benches, site lighting,
sculptures, gazebos, and any other similar items that the planning service director deems
appropriate. Green space must include: walkways (clarified usage above — required to be stated
again? Bench linear footage part of Architectural Code as a design element — is this in addition
Wo?)within the interior of the green space area not used for shopping, a minimum of one foot of
park bench per 1,000 square feet of building area. The green space area must use existing trees
where possible and landscaping credits will be allowed as governed by table 4.06.04 D. The green
space areas must be located in areas that are in close proximity (doesn't location in front yard
determine proximity?) to the retail shopping area. (Why are benches described here as part of
green space? Remove, as it's part of Architectural code elements .... )Benches may also be
located in interior landscaped areas and 75 percent of the benches may be located adjacent to
the building envelope along paths, walkways and within arcades or malls.
4.06.05 - General Landscaping Requirements
A. Landscaping requirements for residential development.
Landscaping for all new development, including single-family, two-family, multifamily and mobile
home dwelling unit, shall include, at a minimum, the number of trees set forth below. Areas
dedicated as preserves and conservation areas shall not be counted to meet the requirements of
this section. Existing trees and other minimum code required landscaping may be credited to meet
these requirements pursuant to section 4.06.05 E.1. Trees shall meet the requirements of section
4.06.05 C.2. Existing residential development that does not meet the minimum landscaping
requirements of this Code shall be required to install the required landscaping before a certificate
of occupancy is granted for any improvements to the property.
1. Residential developments. One canopy tree per 3,000 square feet of pervious open
space per lot. Lakes and wet detention areas shall not be counted towards this requirement. The
maximum number required: 15 trees per lot.
a. Where a single-family development has a street tree program and lots of less than 3,000
square feet of pervious open space, street trees located directly in front of the lot may be
substituted to meet these requirements. A Street Tree Plan shall be submitted to the County
Manager or his designee for review and approval and Right -of -Way permits, if required shall be
obtained from the County Manager or his designee.
Packet Pg. 291
14.A.2
2. Multifamily developments. One canopy tree per 2,000 square feet of pervious site area
excluding preserves. This is in addition to other requirements.
• 4.06.06 - Special Buffer Requirements For The TTRVC Zoning District
A. Required buffers. Visual screens are required in the following areas:
1. TTRVC parks fronting on a highway shall provide and maintain a clear area not less than 20
feet in width alongside and parallel to the highway. There shall be an additional landscaped area
of five feet inside the entire length of the clear area. The landscape plan for this area will be
determined at time of submission of a site development plan pursuant to Chapter 10. The entire
clear area and landscape area may be combined to achieve a visual screen between the public
road and the TTRVC park.
2. TTRVC parks abutting lands zoned other than for such parks shall be screened from such
land by a buffer strip at least 15 feet wide, in which ornamental screening composed of structural
or plant material shall be placed. Such screen shall be maintained at all times and constructed in
accordance with the landscape provisions of section 4.06.00.
Per sec. 4.06.00:
Type D buffer
requirements.(TTRVC IS NOT
MENTIONED ["depending
upon ROW width" —and/or-
TTRVC??)
Figure 4.06.02 C-1.
Table 2.4 Table
of Buffer Requirements by
Land Use Classifications
TYPE5 OF BUFFERS
CODE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS LDC 4.06.02.C.1.-4.
30' O.C.
TYPE 'A' BUFFER
#10 SHRUBS, 4' O.L. 60' HIGH ATPLANTINB
25, O.C.
TYPE ' B' BUFFER DOUBLE ROW OF STAGGERED TREES
#10 SHRU85, 4' O.C. 60" HIGH AT PLANTING
30' O.L.
+ 20'
TYPE 'C' BUFFER
/ DOUBLE - STAGGERED HEDGEROW, 93 SHRUBS
30' O.L. 24' HIGH AT PLANTING A MAINTAINED AT 36-
TYPE ' D' BUFFER 101 EN.
VARIES-'"
VARIES
lO'-17'-20'
NOTE: FLEXIBILITY IN BUFFER PLANTING IS ENCOURAGED. DEPENDING ON
TREES 6 SHRUBS MAY OCCUR ANY WHERE WITHIN BUFFER ROW WIDTH
AS LONG AS ON CENTER REQUIREMENT IS MET.
• BUFFER MAY MEANDER AS LONG AS
SPECIFIED WIDTH IS MAINTAINED.
Packet Pg. 292
14.A.2
Adjacent Properties Zoning District and/or Property Use
Subject Property's District/Use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1. Agriculture (A -)
-
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
D
A
-
2. Residential (E, RSF) single-family
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
B*
D
B
-
3. Residential (RMF-6, RMF-12, RMF-16)
multifamily
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B*
D
B
-
4. Residential tourist (RT)
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
*
D
B
-
5. Village residential (VR)
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B*
D
B
-
6. Mobile home (MH)
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
*
D
B
B
7. Commercial I(C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5);
Business Park (BP)
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A*
D
B
B
8. Industrial 2(I)
A
C
B
B
B
B
A
A 2
A*
D
B
B
9. Public use (P), community facility (CF),
Golf Course Clubhouse, Amenity Center
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A*
D
B
-
10. Planned unit development (PUD)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
D
11. Vehicular rights -of -way
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
-
B
-
12. Golf course maintenance building
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
13. Golf course
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
B
-
14. Automobile service station 4
A
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
ICC
D
C
C
Table 2.4 information: The letter listed under "Adjacent Properties Zoning District and/or Property
Use" shall be the landscape buffer and screening alternative required. Where a conflict exists
between the buffer required by zoning district or property use, the more stringent buffer shall be
required. The "-" symbol shall represent that no buffer is required. The PUD district buffer, due to a
variety of differing land uses, is indicated by the "*" symbol, and shall be based on the landscape
buffer and screening of the district or property use with the most similar types, densities and
intensities of use. Where a conflict exists between the buffering requirements and the yard
J
Q
Z
as
M
a
c�
c
as
a�
Q
N
N
ti
6D
U
a
0
c
a�
E
z
r
Q
Packet Pg. 293
14.A.2
requirements of this Code, the yard requirements of the subject zoning district shall apply.(No
TTRVC, above — what defines the landscape area, 5' of the 20' width?)
Packet Pg. 294
6.b - Building Recertification Inspectio PrPr
DRAFT 8-25-22
ORDINANCE NO. 2022 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING A COLLIER COUNTY
MANDATORY INSPECTION OF AGING CONDOMINIUM AND
COOPERATIVE BUILDINGS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR TITLE,
APPLICABILITY AND DEFINTIONS; PROVIDING FOR MILESTONE
INSPECTIONS, REPORTING AND REPAIRS; PROVIDING FOR
ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes establishes the right and power of counties to
provide for the health, safety and general welfare of existing and future residents by enacting and
enforcing regulations necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature in Section 553.899 Florida Statutes imposed a statewide
structural inspection program for aging condominium and cooperative buildings to ensure that
such buildings are safe for continued use;
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to implement the local
inspection program for aging condominium and cooperative buildings through this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: TITLE.
This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Collier County Mandatory
Inspection of Aging Condominium and Cooperative Buildings Ordinance."
SECTION TWO: APPLICABILITY.
This ordinance shall apply in all unincorporated areas of Collier County.
SECTION THREE: DEFINITIONS.
When used in this Code, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
Page 1 of 6
8/25/22
Packet Pg. 295
14.A.2
DRAFT 8-25-22
a. "Building Official" means the individual charged with the responsibility to administrate,
supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of construction,
alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the installation of building
systems to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code. This term is synonymous
with "building official" as used in the Florida Building Code.
b. "Milestone Inspection" means a structural inspection of a building, including an
inspection of load -bearing walls and the primary structural members and primary
structural systems as those terms are defined in s. 627.706, Florida Statutes by a licensed
architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state for the purposes of attesting to the
life safety and adequacy of the structural components of the building and, to the extent
reasonably possible, determining the general structural condition of the building as it
affects the safety of such building, including a determination of any necessary
maintenance, repair, or replacement of any structural component of the building. The
purpose of such inspection is not to determine if the condition of an existing building is
in compliance with the Florida Building Code or the firesafety code.
c. "Substantial Structural Deterioration" means substantial structural distress that
negatively affects a building's general structural condition and integrity. The term does
not include surface imperfections such as cracks, distortion, sagging, deflections,
misalignment, signs of leakage, or peeling of finishes unless the licensed engineer or
architect performing the phase one or phase two inspection determines that such surface
imperfections are a sign of substantial structural deterioration.
SECTION FOUR: INSPECTION, REPORTING AND REPAIRS.
A. Milestone Inspection Required
A condominium association under chapter 718, Florida Statutes and a cooperative
association under chapter 719, Florida Statutes must have a Milestone Inspection performed for
each building that is three stories or more in height by December 31 of the year in which the
building reaches 30 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building
was issued, and every 10 years thereafter. If the building is located within 3 miles of a coastline
as defined in section 376.031, Florida Statutes, the condominium association or cooperative
association must have a Milestone Inspection performed by December 31 of the year in which
the building reaches 25 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the
building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter. The condominium association or cooperative
association must arrange for the Milestone Inspection to be performed and is responsible for
ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance. The condominium association or
cooperative association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection. This subsection
does not apply to a single-family, two-family, or three-family dwelling with three or fewer
habitable stories above ground.
Page 2 of 6
8/25/22
Packet Pg. 296
14.A.2
DRAFT 8-25-22
1. However, for all condominium and cooperative buildings that received a certificate of
occupancy on or before July 1, 1992, the building's initial Milestone Inspection must
be performed before December 31, 2024. If the date of issuance for the certificate of
occupancy is not available, the date of issuance of the building's certificate of
occupancy shall be the date of occupancy evidenced in any record of the Building
Official.
B. Notice from Building Official
The Building Official shall provide the condominium association or cooperative
association written notice of the requirement for a Milestone Inspection by certified mail, return -
receipt requested once the Building Official has determined that a Milestone Inspection is required.
C. Milestone Inspection
A Milestone Inspection consists of two phases:
I. For phase one of the Milestone Inspection, a licensed architect or engineer authorized
to practice in this state shall perform a visual examination of habitable and nonhabitable
areas of a building, including the major structural components of a building, and
provide a qualitative assessment of the structural conditions of the building. If the
architect or engineer finds no signs of Substantial Structural Deterioration to any
building components under visual examination, phase two of the inspection, as
provided in paragraph C.2, is not required. An architect or engineer who completes a
phase one Milestone Inspection shall prepare and submit an inspection report pursuant
to paragraph D.
2. A phase two of the Milestone Inspection must be performed if any Substantial
Structural Deterioration is identified during phase one. A phase two inspection may
involve destructive or nondestructive testing at the inspector's direction. The
inspection may be as extensive or as limited as necessary to fully assess areas of
structural distress in order to confirm that the building is structurally sound and safe
for its intended use and to recommend a program for fully assessing and repairing
distressed and damaged portions of the building. When determining testing locations,
the inspector must give preference to locations that are the least disruptive and most
easily repairable while still being representative of the structure. An inspector who
completes a phase two Milestone Inspection shall prepare and submit an inspection
report pursuant to paragraph D.
D. Owner's Report
Upon completion of a phase one or phase two Milestone Inspection, the architect or a
engineer who performed the inspection must submit a sealed copy of the inspection report with a
separate summary of, at minimum, the material findings and recommendations in the inspection
report to the condominium association or cooperative association, and to the Building Official of a
the local government which has jurisdiction, subject to the following requirements.
Page 3 of 6
8/25/22
Packet Pg. 297
14.A.2
DRAFT 8-25-22
1. Such report must meet the following criteria:
(a) Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed
engineer or architect who performed the inspection.
(b) Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the
inspection report.
(c) Identify any Substantial Structural Deterioration, within a reasonable
professional probability based on the scope of the inspection, describe the extent
of such deterioration, and identify any recommended repairs for such
deterioration.
(d) State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in
the Florida Building Code, were observed.
(e) Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are
damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration.
(f) Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.
2. The phase one report must be submitted to the Building Official within 180 days of
receipt of the notice from the Building Official in paragraph B. The phase two report,
if required, must be submitted to the Building Official within 90 days of submittal of
the phase one report. All reports must be submitted by the licensed engineer or architect
who performed the inspection by e-mail, United States Postal Service, or commercial
delivery service.
3. The Building Official may issue an extension of not more than 60 days to submit the
phase two Milestone Inspection report upon a written extension request from an
engineer or architect. Such request must contain a signed and sealed statement from the
engineer or architect that the building may continue to be occupied while undergoing
inspection.
E. Repairs and Modifications
1. In the event that repairs or modifications are necessary as specified in the phase two
Milestone Inspection, the condominium or cooperative association shall have a total of
150 days from the date of submittal of the phase two inspection report to the Building
Official to obtain the necessary permits and complete indicated repairs or
modifications. All repairs or modifications requiring permits shall be performed in
conformance with the Florida Building Code as adopted by County Ordinance and shall
follow the timeline provided in the applicable active permit.
2. When any structural repairs or modifications are required, the responsible engineer or
architect who has performed the Milestone Inspection shall provide the Building
Official with a letter indicating whether the building or structure may continue to be
safely occupied while the building or structure is undergoing repairs. Such letter shall
be valid for no more than 180 days, and a new letter shall be issued if repairs or
modifications remain ongoing.
Page 4 of 6
8/25/22
Packet Pg. 298
14.A.2
DRAFT 8-25-22
3. Once all applicable repairs are completed, the engineer(s) or architect(s) providing the
Milestone Inspection report must provide an amended report indicating that the
building or structure is safe for continued use under the present occupancy.
4. All repairs for Substantial Structural Deterioration must be commenced within 365
days of receipt by the Building Official of the phase two Milestone Inspection report.
5. The Building Official may issue an extension of not more than 60 days to obtain any
necessary permits upon a written extension request from an engineer or architect. Such
request must contain a signed and sealed statement from the engineer or architect that
the building may continue to be occupied while undergoing recertification.
F. Failure to Perform Repairs and Modifications
If a condominium association or cooperative association fails to submit proof to the
Building Official that repairs have been scheduled or have commenced for Substantial Structural
Deterioration identified in a phase two inspection report within the required timeframe in
paragraph E, the Building Official must review and determine if the building is unsafe for human
occupancy.
SECTION FIVE: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
If any person, firm or corporation, whether public or private, or other entity fails or refuses
to obey or comply with or violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance, such person, firm,
corporation or other entity, upon conviction of such offense, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or by
imprisonment not to exceed Sixty (60) days in the County Jail, or both, in the discretion of the
Court. Each violation or non-compliance shall be considered a separate and distinct offense.
Further, each day of continued violation or non-compliance shall be considered as a separate
offense.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent or restrict the County from taking such other lawful
action in any court of competent jurisdiction as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation
or non-compliance. Such other lawful actions shall include, but shall not be limited to, an
equitable action for injunctive relief or an action at law for damages. Further, nothing in this
Section shall be construed to prohibit the County from prosecuting any violation of this
Ordinance by means of a Code Enforcement Board or Special Magistrate established pursuant to
the authority of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.
All remedies and penalties provided for in this Section shall be cumulative and
independently available to the County and the County shall be authorized to pursue any and all
remedies set forth in this Section to the full extent allowed by law.
Page 5 of 6
8/25/22
Packet Pg. 299
DRAFT 8-25-22
14.A.2
SECTION SIX: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY
In the event that this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or
other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is
held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portion.
SECTION SEVEN: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re -
lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or
any other appropriate word.
SECTION EIGHT: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED upon majority vote by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of
ATTEST:
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
2022.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
William J. McDaniel, Jr., Chairman
Page 6 of 6
8/25/22
Packet Pg. 300
6.c - Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) potential improve
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 recenty discussed concerns for
public saftey and decorum at County required Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM)s.
CONSIDERATIONS: At both the June 14' and the 28t1i, 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, threating statements and refused to allow the rest of the attendees to hear
the proj ect'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 Frist 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 recenty discussed concerns for
public saftey and decorum at County required Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM)s.
Prepared by: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
Packet Pg. 301
6.d - PL20200002482 - Eliminate $25k Mininum Value of the TDR Base Credit in RFMUD
14.A.2
Co ier C;014nty
Growth Management
Community Development Department
Zoning Division
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION
PL20200002482
ORIGIN
Growth Management
Community Development
Department (GMCDD)
HEARING DATES
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
An amendment to LDC section 2.03.07 for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District to eliminate the $25,000 minimum value of the TDR Base Credit.
LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED
BCC TBD 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts
CCPC TBD
DSAC 09/07/2022
DSAC-LDR 12/15/2020
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR
Approval with condition
DSAC
TBD
CCPC
TBD
BACKGROUND
In June 1999, the State of Florida issued a Final Order, Case ACC-99-002, determining the County's Evaluation
and Appraisal Report -based amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP) were not in compliance with
State law based upon finding that included that the amendments did not provide adequate protection for listed
species and their habitat, did not prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses, and did not
adequately curtail urban sprawl. The Final Order pertained primarily to lands designated Agricultural/Rural on
the Future Land Use Map of the GMP.
To address the Final Order for the Agricultural/Rural Lands, generally located east of Collier Boulevard and west
of Golden Gate Estates, the County developed the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD), adopted in 2002.
The RFMUD Program directs development away from environmentally sensitive lands (Sending Lands) to lands
that are more appropriate for development (Receiving Lands). For Sending Lands, numerous land uses were
eliminated, and density reduced. To compensate for presumed reduction in property values caused by the
elimination of uses and reduction in density, a voluntary transfer of development rights (TDR) program was
established to allow owners of Sending Lands to sever residential development rights which could then be sold
and transferred to Receiving Lands. There are four types of TDR credits, a base credit and three bonus credits
(each at a transfer ratio of 1 credit/5 acres or legal non -conforming parcel). The Board established a minimum
value of $25,000 for the base TDR credit to adequately compensate property owners.
To address the community's general concerns about the effectiveness of the Program, the Board directed the
restudy of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) in 2015. As part of the restudy, staff conducted public
outreach, including six public workshops, a dedicated project web page, and survey, all of which were overseen
by the Growth Management Oversight Committee (members of the public appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners per Resolution No. 15-224). Recommendations from those outreach efforts included the
elimination of the minimum value of the Base TDR Credit. In 2016, staff prepared a white paper detailing the
assessment of the RFMUD and TDR Program, recommendations, and public input. In 2017, staff presented the
white paper to the Board at three public workshops; direction was provided to staff to remove the minimum value
of the TDR Base Credit from the RFMUD provisions. On September 25, 2018, the Board directed staff to prepare
Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code amendments to the RFMUD, including the removal of
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Sept 07\Materials\PL20200002482 RFMUD TDR (08-2
Packet Pg. 302
Co per C;014nty 14.A.2
Growth Management
Community Development Department
Zoning Division
the minimum value of $25,000 for the Base TDR Credit to allow the market to determine the value.
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation:
On December 15, 2020, the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommended approval of this LDCA,
contingent upon staff modifying the narrative to include a reference to the Growth Management
Oversight Committee's (GMOC) participation in the RFMUD Restudy; and, providing confirmation that
the proposed LDCA does not constitute a regulatory taking.
Staff modified the narrative to add the requested reference to the GMOC. As noted in the background
section of this amendment, the RFMUD was adopted by the Board in 2002 with the established minimum
value of $25,000 for the Base TDR Credit. Subsequent to adoption, the RFMUD was amended to provide
Sending Lands owners the opportunity to receive three (3) additional bonus TDR Credits at market rate.
The initial Base TDR Credit was valued at $25,000 to provide compensation for the presumed loss in
value based upon the reduction in density, elimination of numerous land uses and significant increase in
native vegetation retention requirements. The additional bonus TDR Credits added to the TDR Base
Credit (at market rate) provide the potential for a greater compensatory value, depending on property
location, than was intended at the outset of the RFMUD TDR Program.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS GMP CONSISTENCY
There are no fiscal or operational impacts The proposed LDCA is consistent with the Goals, Objective
associated with this amendment. and Policies of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the
Growth Manangement Plan.
EXHIBITS: A) Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Map
2
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Sept 07\Materials\PL20200002482 RFMUD TDR (08-2
Packet Pg. 303
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
DRAFT
Amend the LDC as follows:
2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethre ugh io GUFF8Rt text to be deleted
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. Special Treatment Overlay (ST).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
f. Procedures applicable to the severance and redemption of TDR credits and
the generation of TDR Bonus credits from RFMU sending lands.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
ii. In order to facilitate the County's monitoring and regulation of the
TDR Program, the County shall serve as the central registry for all
TDR severances, transfers (sales) and redemptions, as well as
maintain a public listing of TDR credits available for sale along with
a listing of purchasers seeking TDR credits. No TDR credit
generated from RFMU sending lands may be utilized to increase
density in any area unless the following procedures are complied
with in full.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
a) TDR credits shall not be used to increase density in either
non-RFMU Receiving Areas of RFMU receiving lands until
severed from RFMU sending lands. TDR credits shall be
deemed to be severed from RFMU sending lands at such
time as a TDR credit Certificate is obtained from the County.
TDR credit Certificates shall be issued only by the County
and upon submission of the following:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
V) a state McRt the nrine nr value of ethe
r UR tine paid the �Te��teRC�I�I
rer�,-re��r,;—�,«te�,,�
sending lands from which TDRis
rr—<ttl�C red�rte�- w -vice•r�
gc'�'rreFatedand that thevalue of any BY
remuneration is at least $25 000 per TDR nre4it
unless s,,nh owner retains n,n,nershop of the Tr1R
ariTc.���. a�rrvwrTcrT T-r�r-wvrrcrm
rreditsafter they are severed) , finless the RFIVII I nr
ri r -c �--�rr�--�r .�.�.�-crc� severed,
nen_RFMU FeG ipiinIands � g eR whiGeh the TD—R
G�itc�n�i����nedandtheRFMU
��rnm���R nr��n��r�����rr
are ew Ted h�i�Jame persons er entities nr
affiliated) nersnns or entities• andl
,
v+) a statement attesting that the TDR credits are not
being severed from RFMU sending lands in
violation of subsection 2.03.07 D.4.c.vi.b) of the
Code.
3
a
G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Sept 07\Materials\PL20200002482 RFMUD TDR (08-25-
2022).docx
Packet Pg. 304
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
DRAFT
vl+)
14.A.2
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
documented evidence that, if the property from
which TDRs are being severed is subject to a
mortgage, lien, or any other security interest; the
mortgagee, lien holder, or holder of the security N
interest has consented to the recordation of the N
Limitation of Development Rights Agreement
required for TDR severance; transfer (sale) of TDR
credit; and redemption of TDR credit. E
N
J
Q
Z
U-
N
v
M
a.
c
a�
a�
Q
N
N
ti
6�
U
a
Cn
0
E
a
4
G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Sept 07\Materials\PL20200002482 RFMUD TDR (08-25-
2022).docx
Packet Pg. 305
14.A.2
Exhibit A — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Map
LEE COUNTY
RURAL FRINGE AREAS
J IMMOK EE RD
>
z
0
U
w
w
J
LEE COUNTY
OIL WELL R
IMMOKALEE RD
a
L7
qW
d
O
Gal
�
b.'
A
GOLDEN GATE BLVD
G�7
"Z—
B-DIC RD
TER" ATE
- 75
DAVIS B V
�9
fT
0 1 2 4
6
Miles
Cr
d
Legend
P
RLIRALFRINGE ARFA
Gtj
u RIJRALFRINGE
M
MIXED USE DISTRICT
.i
GROWTH AN GIEMEN IDkPPiNGART SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Q
G:\LDC Amend ments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2022\Sept 07\Materials\PL20200002482 RFMUD TDR (08-25-
2022).docx
Packet Pg. 306
7.a - LDR-Subcommittee's recommendation and report back to DSAC on CBIA's request to increase automobile pa kin n
front yards on pie -shaped lots for Single -Family Dwelling units
The subcommittee met on August 24t", 2022, to review CIBA's request of May 4, 2022 to allow a
designated parking area greater than 40% in front yards and in particular on cul-de-sac or pie shaped
lots. The committee discussed the problem statement, materials presented, staff's LDC back ground
research of the rule since 2002, occasional vocational rental parking in rights -of -ways and found it could
lead to parking over the entirety of a lot, including within side yard setbacks.
After discussing the issue, the Subcommittee voted unanimously (3-0), on August 24th, to recommend
to the full DSAC that they did not find enough of a problem to warrant modifying a change to the
existing regulation.
Packet Pg. 307