BCC Minutes 09/10/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners
in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of
Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:06 in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J.
Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission
meeting to order on this 10th day of September 1996. Mr. Dotrill,
if
you could lead us in an invocation and a pledge to the flag,
please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this
morning. We give thanks for the opportunities that we have as
public
servants to be able to make a positive difference in Collier County
and for its people. Lord, we thank you for the wonderful quality
of
life and the high quality of government that is enjoyed in this
community. We thank you for the opportunities that are created for
us
each and every week as we sit here and strive to do the very best
that
we can. Father, it's our prayer this morning, as always, that you
would guide the deliberations of this board as they collectively
make
the important business decisions that affect this community and, as
always, that you would bless our time here together. And we pray
these things in your son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I believe we have a couple of changes
to our agenda this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,
good morning. We have several changes this morning. The first is
__
I have two add-on items. The first is ll(A). It will be under
other
constitutional officers, which is a request to pursue a Justice
Department arson prevention grant. It was backed up material that
was
distributed with your change list on that from the sheriff.
The next one is a request to approve a budget amendment
for one of the judges' offices, and the copy that I received did
not
indicate whether or not it had been reviewed by the budget office,
but
I'll confirm that before we get to that item, ll(B), other
constitutional officers.
I have one item that I would like to withdraw this
morning. It will be rescheduled only if necessary. It's Item
13(A)(1) under other advertised public hearings. It was a
reconsideration of an appeal concerning a boat dock extension in
Bonita Shores. That's at the petitioner's request.
Then I have three items that are on your consent agenda
we'd like to move to the regular agenda for presentation this
morning. The first one is -- 16(B)(2) under public works is moving
and will become 8(B)(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The purpose for that move? Is it
just a particular detail or --
MR. CONRECODE: The purpose of that -- for the record,
Tom Conrecode, public works -- is to clarify one legal point. It's
very brief.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: And that is a construction contract
96-2515 between the Board of County Commissioners and Mitchell and
Stark for the associated Naples Park drainage improvements.
The next item is also under public works. It's 16(B)(5)
and will move and become 8(B)(2).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 16(B)(6) it says on our material.
MR. DORRILL: It does and that was a typo,
Mr. Chairman. 16(B)(5) is moving and will become 8(B)(2), which is
a
recommendation to accept and approve a control survey for purposes
of
establishing the historical access between U.S. 41 and Miller
Boulevard Extension in the southern Golden Gate Estates. That was
based on prior board direction, I'll say a month and a half ago.
The final item is to move from 16(C)(1), and it will
become 8(C)(2) under public services, which is the final limited
use
and license agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and
the International Fireworks Management Group for the associated use
of
Lake Avalon and the international fireworks show that is scheduled
for
November. And Mr. Chairman, that's all that I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we need a motion, please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for the
agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 16-20, 1996, AS INDUSTRY
APPRECIATION WEEK - ADOPTED
We don't have any minutes today, so we're ready to go
straight to the proclamations, and I just happen to have one here.
Gary Davis. Is Gary Davis around today? There he is. Would you
Come
up and stand up here and face the camera so that all those people
watching at home will be able to see you, Mr. Davis.
The proclamation reads,
Whereas, industry in Collier County is vital to the
community's economic health; and
Whereas, Collier County's existing industries are also
the key to a prosperous future; and
Whereas, the expansion of those industries accounts for
the majority of new jobs created; and
Whereas, Collier County's industries help sustain our
quality of life; and
Whereas, public knowledge of the contributions made by
industry is essential to maintenance of good community-industry
relationships.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
September
16th to 20th of 1996, be designated as Industry Appreciation Week
and
urge all residents to salute our industries and their employees for
their contribution to our community.
Done and ordered this 10th day of September 1996 by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And I'd like to make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Davis.
(Applause)
(Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.)
MR. DAVIS: My name is Gary Davis, Chairman of Industry
Appreciation. I'd like to thank the commission and everyone here
for
allowing us to -- to show up and accept this proclamation.
Hopefully
you'll continue to support economic growth in this county, which is
so
important to the expansion of a diverse economic base and full-time
jobs year-round. So thank you very much, and have a good one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We have a couple of
service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie, would you like to do those
for
us, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would. It's always a pleasure
to get to thank our employees for their service to this community,
and
the first one we have today is Mr. Fabian Gutierrez, who served for
10
years in the road and bridge department.
(Applause)
Item #5C
EMPLOYEE SAFE DRIVERS' AWARDS - PRESENTED
(Commissioner Matthews entered the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And next for 15 years in parks
and recreation, we have Patrick Merritt.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a good start, 15.
MR. MERRITT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they included Cushman driving,
he'd also be on our safe driving awards today too.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This must have been your first
job.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure
this morning to present the safe drivers' awards, and the county is
pleased to acknowledge all of their employees who have exercised
safety and professionalism while performing their duties. And in
many
cases these duties include an excessive amount of driving to the
tune
of hundreds of thousands of miles. By performing these duties
without
causing an accident or being involved in accidents, these employees
benefit the county by reducing the cost brought on by personal
injury
and lost work time. These outstanding employees set the example
for
all to follow.
And what I'm going to ask is -- we have -- I'm glad to
say -- see we have several today, and I'm going to ask as I call
your
name if you would just please come forward and stand here to my
left,
and we'd like to recognize all of you at -- when I -- when I've
reached the bottom of the lengthy list.
The first on the list is Glen C. Alderfer. Glen is a
lieutenant/paramedic with the -- with EMS and has driven over
137,000
miles beginning October 7, 1983.
Gregorio G. Flores. Mr. Flores is a meter reader
technician II for the department of revenue. He has driven over
144,000 miles beginning September 10, 1990. I feel like this is
the
Miss USA Pageant here.
Robert Kohl, meter reader technician II. Mr. Kohl hails
from the department of revenue and has driven over 158,000 miles
since
February 21, 1989.
Wendy Martin, park ranger. Miss Martin has driven over
142,000 miles beginning October 5, 1988.
Helen Ortega. Miss Ortega is a captain and senior medic
with the Emergency Medical Services and has driven over 147,000
miles
beginning December 6, 1982. Has that been in a helicopter or an
ambulance?
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say is that air
miles or ground miles.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Carmen Richards, engineering
inspector with planning services and engineering review services.
Carmen has driven over 160,000 miles since July 10, 1989.
Richard Roll. Mr. Roll, an engineering inspector with
planning services and engineering review services, has driven over
140,000 miles beginning October 29, 1990.
James Schultz, who is out driving this morning.
MS. FILSON: No. He had surgery so he couldn't be here
today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry?
MS. FILSON: He's having surgery so he couldn't be here
today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Code enforcement
investigator has driven over 154,000 miles beginning -- or since
November 19, 1990.
Robert Stringer, well inspector with planning services
and engineering review services has driven over 148,000 miles
beginning January 8, 1990.
And John Ure or is it Uray (phonetic)? I got a 50/50
shot on that one, didn't I?
MR. DORRILL: Scotty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Scotty? That'll work just fine.
Heating ventilation and air-conditioning craftsman for facilities
management has driven over 143,000 miles. Are we including golf
cart
time on that?
MR. URE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Okay. So that's just in --
in combustion engines since October 1, 1990.
Folks, these people have saved us a lot of money by
exercising diligence in the -- in performing their duties. I, for
one, and the board would like to say thank you, and we have a
certificate for each of you, but unfortunately you're not standing
in
alphabetical order, so this is going to be tough for me. So if
you'll
help me out as you come through, but thank you.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we'll make sure Mr. Schultz
gets this one.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, just to digress for -- for a
second. This has really been a good program, I think, for the
board
this year. Just this year alone you have recognized employees that
have driven in excess of 3 million miles without a single accident
or
__
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Where did they go?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Around and around.
MR. DORRILL: It's a big county.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a big county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They made a trip up to Venus
and --
MR. DORRILL: And I -- we could probably poll the board
and Mr. Weigel and I and see how many of us have ever gone without
a
moving violation or a -- a small accident.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we do that a month at a time?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's not do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have one board member. Okay.
Well, we do appreciate all that good, conscientious work by those
people.
Item #SA1
CONSIDERATION REGARDING CONSTRUCTING AN OSPREY POLE ON COUNTY
PROPERTY
LOCATED IN LELY BAREFOOT BEACH - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED AND
COHMUNITY ENCOURAGED TO SEEK OTHER LOCATIONS
We'll move on to our regular agenda now. It's 8(A) --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask a quick question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I -- I missed the consent
agenda, and I apologize for that. 16(H)(1) was a transfer of
assets
to the sheriff's department. Among those transfers were -- and
they're all things he had picked up intentionally anyway, but it's
a
technical transfer. Among those is about eighteen thousand
dollars'
worth of video equipment, editing equipment, and so on. I know we
had
explored using some of that type thing for our own Channel 54 uses
and
all ourselves. And I wonder if it might not make sense, since
someone
in the Collier County government is going to have all that, rather
than ever exploring purchasing that again, if we might just not
double
up with the sheriff and use -- utilize -- I don't know where
they're
going to have that stuff kept, but I just took note of that as I
was
reading through the consent agenda, and I thought in the future
that
might save us some money and be good for us to use that equipment.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I'll be more than happy to
follow up on that. We've also just -- a similar vein, Ms. Herrit
and
her staff have just completed a memorandum of understanding with
the
school board to expand the county commission's prime time usage of
Channel 54, and so they are aggressively doing some things down
there,
and we'll see if we can't -- that includes the sheriff. The
sheriff
has -- has really benefited by doing some programs, and we'll
pursue
that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can ask -- obviously, there's
not -- there's no need to pull the item off the consent agenda, but
if
we could just ask for a -- a public update on that next week, I'd
like
to hear what the response is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And moving right along to
8(A)(1), reconsideration of citizen request to construct an osprey
pole.
MR. HENDRICKS: Good morning. I'm Kevin Hendricks, the
review appraiser who prepared this item. Who would have presumed
this
would become such a media event? I'm here to answer any questions
you
might have about it and provide you with any documents that you
might
need to execute whatever you agree to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I have to say that -- and I
feel like the Muskogee duck issue on this one a little bit.
Obviously, we would have liked to have had this discussion at the
first approval when I understand some people were out of town and
so
forth. But it seems to me to do something that is environmentally
sound or a good idea that has some animosity in the immediate area
is
probably not a proper course of action. Rather than making this
Some
long, drawn-out hearing, can we just simply ask the parties that
are
involved if they have talked to each other and found a common site
that is agreeable to everyone? That makes the most sense to me.
So
we have folks that are interested in erecting this, and we have
folks
that object to it, and I'd just like to know if you've talked to
each
other and found a common location, because that makes the most
sense
to me personally.
MR. HENDRICKS: Well --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My comment on this is I'm just not --
I'm not sure why the Board of County Commissioners is in the
position
of -- of referee in a condo squabble, which is all this is. I
don't
know why we're in the middle of this thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my gut reaction is why
would we want -- why would we go ahead and put it up if people
object
to it. That doesn't make a lot of sense if there are other
suitable
locations.
MR. HENDRICKS: We have an alternate location down in
the park preserve area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does anyone object to that one?
MR. HENDRICKS: No, not that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I guess if --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are speakers, obviously.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Let's go to the speakers and
just let them have their -- let them have their fun, and we'll go
on.
MR. DORRILL: We've spent five thousand dollars' worth
of staff time on a seven hundred dollar telephone pole. Miss
Timbers,
if you would, please, ma'am. Dr. Eisenbud, we'd like to have you
stand by, please, sir. You'll follow this lady. Good morning.
MS. TIMBERS: My name is Carol Timbers. I live in Lely
Beach, Barefoot Beach. I am coming here today to ask you, again,
for
a permit to place a -- an osprey nesting pole on property owned by
the
county adjacent to our condominium. Now, this project was started
two
years ago, and I got the idea because there was another osprey pole
in
the neighborhood, and I saw how well that was working. It was
attracting the birds. I saw that people were enjoying it, and I
thought it was a great idea to put another one up because I saw the
birds trying to nest on top of cranes when they were building
buildings. I saw them trying to nest on top of chimneys. There
just,
obviously, are not enough places left for them to nest. And I feel
that somewhere along the line, we people are responsible and need
to
help them by putting up nests.
I got this project started and then a man came to me
with his son. He had heard about this and he said his son was
working
on his Eagle Scout badge and his son wanted to take on this
project,
which had been approved and would qualify him for the Eagle Scout
Award. They started. I said this was great, I would let them do
this, I would help them, anything I could do. They started out by
getting a permit from the State Department, which was obviously the
wrong thing to do, and they didn't realize it, and I thought they
had
everything under control.
They went ahead. The boy raised some money and built
the platform and, really, all that was left to do was to put the
pole
in the ground. That seemed to be a problem. The boy was very busy
in
school, after-school activities, he was always on vacation or Boy
Scout adventures. And finally a year later, I called the father,
and
I asked him if he was still interested in this project. He said he
was. Because I said if not, I would go ahead, and I would do it
myself. He said he was. And then nothing happened, and I finally
called him back about six months ago, and he said that they'd had a
tragedy; his son had passed away. And he said he had talked to the
people that were in charge of the Eagle Scout Award and the head of
the Boy Scout Council, and they said that if his troop went ahead
and
finished this project, that he would be awarded this Eagle Scout
Award
posthumously, which I thought was very nice, and I thought it was a
worthwhile project.
Now we've come to the point where there's been a
complaint made by the Rosenbergs (sic) to the Boy Scout Council
telling them that they object to this, and there have been other
objections along the way by them. And they say that it's
unsightly,
that we don't need any more birds there, that they don't want them
flying around. They don't want to have to watch them. The Boy
Scouts
decided they did not want to be part of this controversy, and I
don't
blame them. And with my blessings I told them that we would take
this
project and put it down at the preserve.
But I still would like to erect this pole on this
property for my project, and I have taken a survey of the people in
the building, and the majority of the people would like to see this
go
through. I have a few ballots here from some people, and I'd just
like to read some of the things that they have said. One is, this
location is ideal and private for the ospreys to raise their young
and
for our children and grandchildren to enjoy the wonders of nature.
Anyone not wanting to watch this natural wonder can look the other
way. We all should be grateful for the opportunity to live amidst
the
natural setting we have.
Another one, some people oppose everything. I cannot
believe someone would be so small in their thinking to oppose this
project.
Another one, can't imagine not wanting the osprey
nesting pole near our building. What a wonderful thing to watch
and
enjoy. Good luck.
And another one, it says, Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberger do
not speak for us. We believe the osprey nest will enhance the
beauty
of this Barefoot Beach area. We will enjoy watching the osprey and
her young.
And yet another one, enclosed is the ballot you
requested. We are fully in favor of the osprey nest. I'm sure you
know we live on the third floor at the end of the building nearest
the
nest. I think the nest will be located even to our apartment.
This
means we will be the closest to the nest based on the height of our
apartment. I wish you would inform --
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. TIMBERS: -- the board that I want the nest
constructed. It would surely create a pleasant view from my home.
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Miss Timbers.
MS. TIMBERS: Wishing you good luck --
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Time's up, please.
MS. TIMBERS: -- in your project. And then the only
thing I want to say --
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Miss Timbers, the time's up, please.
MS. TIMBERS: Pardon?
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Your time has expired.
MS. TIMBERS: Time has expired?
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. TIMBERS: Okay. Well, if you have any questions, I
would be happy to answer them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have one question. What
was the question or what was the wording on the, quote, ballot,
that
you sent out?
MS. TIMBERS: What was the wording? It was either we
approve of the osprey nesting pole in Lely Barefoot Beach next to
Building IV, or we do not approve of the osprey nesting pole in
Lely
Beach next to Building IV. Then it was comments -- I will give you
these so you can --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was there a summary provided
on that, and how was it distributed?
MS. TIMBERS: Oh, they've -- they've already had a
summary previously. There's been another time when a -- a ballot
survey was taken, and that was also a majority vote. And I was
turned
down by a vote at a meeting by the board, three members of the
board,
so I decided to take it further after that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick question, Mr. Hendricks, if
I may. Have we ever put up a pole in a community where there was
a~
objection to it?
MR. HENDRICKS: I don't think we've ever put a pole up.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That pretty much answered
that question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is our first?
MR. HENDRICKS: We're not putting it up. We -- we're
trying --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm sorry. I meant, have
we ever permitted one where there's been objection? Because I know
Bear's Paw did one, I think, when they were -- maybe they did it
after
they -- they became a part of that other -- other -- what is it?
The
City of Naples? Is that it?
MR. HENDRICKS: But we never -- we've never granted an
easement for such a thing in the nine years I've been with the
department.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. No history. Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Eisenbud. And then, Mr. Rosenberger,
you'll follow Dr. Eisenbud.
MR. EISENBUD: My name is Leon Eisenbud. I'm here in
two capacities: First as a resident directly adjacent to the
projected spot for the platform, and I wanted you to know that
Mrs. Eisenbud and I can't wait to see that pole in place so that we
can enjoy the beauty of the birds and -- and get to understand even
more than we do now the complex and interesting lifestyle of the
ospreys. We want them as neighbors.
I'm also here today representing the board of the
directors of the Friends of Barefoot Beach Preserve, which has now,
I'm happy to say, over three hundred members, dues-paying members.
The board of friends at its July meeting encouraged Mrs. Timbers to
proceed with this project, because we have been studying the osprey
problem ever since we were organized five years ago, six years ago.
There's a terrible shortage of habitat for ospreys. We intend to
put
-- we were asked whether there's an alternate spot. Yes. There
are
several alternate spots which we would like to put platforms up
for,
but you can't put enough up, because we've removed half of Barefoot
Beach as habitat. It's a -- the three miles or two and a half
miles
that Barefoot Beach represents has been destroyed 50 percent by
construction, and there just isn't enough habitat for the ospreys
to
find nesting sites. So it isn't a matter of an alternate site;
it's a
matter of making up for the deficiencies.
Finally, we have had experience with this.
Mrs. Schoedinger and Mrs. Hickman, two residents, have themselves
put
osprey nests up in Barefoot Beach next to their buildings, and
there
is a third next to Building VII. I've forgotten the name of the
person who did that. And the entire community has just been
cheered
by what we have seen. It's been so interesting to watch them.
We've
had two successive years when they've raised families, and we've
virtually had a celebration when those birds finally fledged.
So for the community it's educational, it's
recreational, it is not noisy, it's nothing compared to the mowers
and
the construction vehicles and the -- the blowers that we have to
put
up with. There is a little noise for about a month when the babies
start screaming for food, but I find that noise like the kids in
the
pools. That doesn't bother me. That's good background noise. And
they're not dirty as -- they are dirty directly under the nest, but
these nests are a distance from the building, a couple hundred
feet,
so there's no question about dirt. So on behalf of friends, for my
own sake, I say let's put this nest up.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rosenberger is your only other
speaker.
MR. ROSENBERGER: Why, I'm a president of our
association, and I -- this came to my attention in March when the -
_
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Identify yourself for the record,
please.
MR. ROSENBERGER: Oh, Victor A. Rosenberger, a resident
of Barefoot Beach. And this came to my attention in March when Mr.
and Mrs. Timbers came over -- Mr. Timbers came over at a board
meeting
and told me that if I didn't agree to put it up across from our
building on our property, that he would put it in this location
where
they're requesting now. Our board had, like, a informational
survey,
and I think it was 12 were for it and 10 opposed. But we included
the
buildings that could view it, which were other buildings also.
And our board felt that everybody was happy with the
situation. We loved our surroundings and everything and that we
would
end up having half the people against it and half of the people for
it. Some people love it; others don't. And therefore, we tabled
the
motion and just decided we weren't going to go forward with it
because
-- because of that fact. But everybody was happy, and now we're
going to get involved in some turmoil.
So then later on I found out when I came back from my
vacation, that this had been before this board at the location next
to
us, and I noticed that this was in cooperation with the Boy Scouts,
so
I thought I'd go down and talk to the Boy Scouts and find out if
they
were cooperating. And they -- I talked to Mr. John Ackerman, who
is
the director of the Southwest Florida Boy Scout Council, and he
said
that -- that they were aware of it two years before that -- this
Mr. Held was involved and that Dick Timbers and Ed Smith had called
them and said that nobody objected to it. But they didn't --
weren't
aware of it since that period of time. Later on I received a phone
call from Mr. Dick Klein, and he said that he was the Chairman of
the
Community Service Projects and that they like to do things in the
community, but whenever there was opposition to something, they
didn't
consider it a community service project, so they had withdrawn
their
backing for the project and said they would seek projects
elsewhere.
Now, Mr. -- when I talked to Mr. Ackerman, he was of the
opinion that why don't they put it down in the Barefoot Beach
Preserve, then nobody would be objecting to it except maybe the
county. So I had spoken with Mr. Kevin Hendricks too, and he -- he
said he wasn't aware that there was opposition to it at the time
that
he approved it, and he also thought the preserve would be a -- a
perfect place for it.
I'd like to point out that Mr. -- Dr. Eisenbud is not in
our building and was not affected -- would not be affected by this
and
that we already have two poles, one at the beginning of our project
and one at the end of our project, so we sort of gave at the office
and gave at home also, at least the people that are opposed.
Now, I, too, have letters. I'm not going to read them,
but I've got people that wrote me from out of town, and they wrote
letters, and they're just as concerned that it -- that it not be
there. At present, we only have three people in the building: A
new
woman who moved in, and the Timbers, and myself. So I'm the only
one
here to defend the -- the aginners (phonetic), so to speak.
But I'd like to read from the Lee County brochure on
ospreys. It says if you are interested in establishing a nest
platform for ospreys on your property, you must ask yourself -- on
your property -- you must ask yourself an important question. Am I
willing to live with a large bird that makes noise, eats and
discards
fish that will mess from its nest on a nearby perch. And then they
say --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Time's up.
MR. ROSENBERGER: -- please question your neighbors if
you are willing to do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's unfortunate that in a
community where Dr. Eisenbud and the Friends of Barefoot Beach have
done a tremendous amount of work on the south end down there that
it's
still characterized by a gatehouse issue or by issues such as this.
But anyone that's every used that facility or seen what the
Eisenbuds
and the folks down there have done, is -- is in a tremendous, you
know, environmental plus.
The problem I have with this is if we were to go into a
community and an individual requested something and the association
said we don't want it, we probably wouldn't do it. And as silly as
this argument sounds, the truth is if we're going to put something
in
for the environmental benefit, it ought to at least be welcomed.
And
whether you agree or disagree with the Rosenbergers or the people
that
are against this, I think we could find a location that everyone
can
agree upon that the birds benefit, because once you put these
things
up, you can't take them down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I was in the Coast Guard, we
had to plant markers right next to existing ones because ospreys
began
nesting on them because you cannot touch them if they're active
nests. You simply can't. So there's no such thing as putting it
up
and after two years deciding it's too noisy and taking it down.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your suggested motion would
be?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- to not place it here. To
find -- I don't want to just say send it away, but let's find a
better
location.
MR. HENDRICKS: Well, I -- I've prepared, if you would
approve them, a notice of termination of the previously granted
revocable easement and a new revocable easement for placing it down
in
the preserve area at the -- at a location which must be approved by
a
state parks and recreation director.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask a question. Is this going
to -- if we decide to place it at an alternate location, is this
going
to cost us any more of the staff time? Because as Mr. Dotrill
pointed
out, we spent maybe five thousand dollars' worth of staff time, and
I'm just not interested in spending any more staff time on this
subject.
MR. HENDRICKS: Aside from the few minutes I think that
Mr. Brinkman would have to spend approving a location, I'm through.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only question is as presently
permitted does it meet the code? Mr. Cautero says yes. So I don't
see why -- it's a simple question. I mean, we do it every week or,
frankly, we don't have to do it. If it's something that complies
with
code, it's allowed; end of discussion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We just -- no. We don't just
allow everything; if the code says it, then off you go. It -- this
isn't something -- you know, we're talk -- we're not talking water
and
sewer here, folks. It's something that if people don't want it
there,
its value is diminished.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, some people do; some
don't. I don't --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'm not going to argue about
this. That's been done enough already. My motion is to approve
staff
recommendation that we eliminate the existing easement and -- and
initiate the -- the second proposal in here so that this thing gets
done and -- and done properly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'd like to ask the motion
maker to include in his motion that the people who are complaining
and/or proponents of this pole, that they really do find other
sites,
because Mrs. Timbers is absolutely right that we, through allowing
these buildings to be built -- and certainly people need places to
live, but we've deprived the osprey of a place to live also. And I
I'd like to see the community come together and find other sites as
well. Not just this one, but I think it's an important endeavor,
and
I think it's something that can bring -- bring this group together
if
they search for ways.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I believe Dr. Eisenbud has
that information already, and he knows full well where -- within
the
preserve where are good locations and not, so we won't have to
travel
far to get that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we can mandate
a private organization to look for additional sites anyway, so I'll
second the motion. I think it's a great suggestion, but hopefully
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would just like to include in
the motion that -- that they do this and try to -- try to work
together on these things.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I -- we have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
Okay. Thank you.
Item #8A2
ERRONEOUS REZONING FROM C-2 TO PUD RESIDENTIAL WITH REGARDS TO THE
GADALETA PUD - STAFF DIRECTED TO INCLUDE C-2 ZONING AND AMEND SAME
AS
SCRIVENER'S ERROR
Next item, 8(A)(2), request for board direction for
purposes of determining the validity of petitioners/staff position
that certain land in the Gadaleta PUD was erroneously rezoned from
C-2
to PUD.
MR. NINO: For the record my name is Ron Nino of your
planning services section. The Gadaleta PUD has been around for
Some
time and has been amended on several occasions. The last occasion,
as
the executive summary describes, resulted in a PUD document being
prepared that changed the description from the previous amendment
and
contained two acre -- two additional acres, which two acres of land
were zoned C-2 at the time. As the executive summary advises, even
though that PUD document changed the description and expanded upon
the
area of what was described as the Gadaleta PUD and presented a
master
plan that is similarly a mirror image of the enlarged area;
nevertheless, no advertising documents that we were able to uncover
advised that the petition amendment -- the then amendment to the
Gadaleta PUD was -- was rezoning a C-2 parcel of land to PUD.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, it appears that the
-- without that background, those two acres should have been left
C-2.
MR. NINO: Exactly. It should not have been included --
it was not -- it was not the intent of Mr. Gadaleta to include --
in
the last amendment to include two acres of land that was zoned C-2,
and -- and he feels that that action was erroneous and ought to be
corrected.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if
we have any public speakers, but after reading the executive
summary,
I'm prepared to make a motion to do exactly that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does -- Mr. Nino, has the statute of
limitations run out on this or anything? I mean, it's been seven
years. Why hasn't this point been brought up in the past?
MR. NINO: The amendment -- I don't know if there's any
statute of limitations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The five year -- the five-year
teevaluation; isn't that what we talked about?
MR. NINO: That's another matter. We will be revisiting
the Gadaleta PUD under the sunsetting provision.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So basically, when it comes up
later this year, if it doesn't comply --
MR. NINO: However, you're taking the C-2 out of that --
out of the Gadaleta PUD, so it won't be the subject of the
sunsetting
discussion.
MS. STUDENT: For -- for the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. There is no statute of limitations as
such
for something like this, and I think the board direction should be
that this be brought back as a scrivener's error to correct the
problem in the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That would be the procedure, Miss
Student, rather than to make a PUD amendment?
MS. STUDENT: It would be -- it would be like a PUD
amendment, but it would be a scrivener's error that would -- where
you
could take that paragraph containing the legal description and
inserting the correct legal description therein.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let me ask another
question, though. This -- when this was rezoned erroneously as
alleged to residential, how many additional units were brought into
the PUD because of that?
MR. NINO: There were no additional units brought into
it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No residential units were brought in
MR. NINO: No, there weren't.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- even though it was zoned
residential?
MR. NINO: Exactly. It was a temporary driving range.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So we don't have to take those
back out?
MR. NINO: That's not an issue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. NINO: However, I'm reminded that your action should
very well include a direction that the C-2 be included in the PUD
master plan so that it falls within your sunsetting jurisdiction at
a
later date.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to amend my motion
to reflect the scrivener's-error suggestion from the assistant
county
attorney and Mr. Arnold's suggestion that we include the C-2 within
the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, any speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have only Dr. Spagna, and Mr. and
Mrs. Gadaleta, and I presume they're in support of your motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you want to talk us out of
it, you're welcome to come up.
MR. SPAGNA: No, I don't believe so. Thanks. I'm
satisfied with what I hear.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question for
Mr. Nino. This sunsetting provision that is coming to us this
October, I -- I think I just heard you say something that
disappoints
me a little bit in that this provision of this PUD will not be the
subject of the sunsetting provision.
MR. NINO: If it's withdrawn from the PUD and left as a
freestanding island of C-2.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My motion includes including
it as part of the PUD, so it will.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'm just trying to clarify
that when the -- when the sunsetted PUDs come back to us that, in
my
estimation or at least what I understand, is the entire PUD is open
for change.
MR. NINO: Correct. Correct, it is. But you have two
ac -- you have two alternatives -- two actions you can take here.
One
is to acknowledge that the C-2 was never intended to be included in
the PUD, was an independent piece of property owned by Mr.
Gadaleta,
and should be pulled back out of the PUD and restored to its C-2
zoning. Or you can take the position that after all a master plan
was
presented, then show the two acres, then show a temporary driving
range and ought to be included within the PUD as a C-2 parcel of
land. That action -- and, of course, the entire Gadaleta PUD will
come before you shortly for review under the sunsetting provisions,
and if you take that alternative, then you would be dealing with --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I just wanted to -- to
clarify that when we do the sunsetting on these PUDs, that part of
our
discussion is going to be bringing the PUDs up to current
architectural standards, whatever it is that we've decided as a
board
and for the county's sake that we would like to see. MR. NINO: Very definitely.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I just thought I heard
other than that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So as I understand what -- the
discussion that just took place that this is being retained within
the
PUD.
MR. NINO: We're amending the PUD document to recognize
that as a C-2 parcel of property within the Gadaleta PUD.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second,
then, to do that. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nino.
Item #8A3
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET FOR OCTOBER 22, 1996, FOR PETITION DOA-96-
REGENCY VILLAGE OF NAPLES DRI - APPROVED
Next item, 8(A)(3), community development and
environmental services division requesting the Board of County
Commissioners to set a public hearing date for Petition DOA 96-2.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is just asking us to set a
hearing date, so I don't see any reason why not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the planning commission recommendation that a public hearing be
scheduled for October 22, 1996.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #8A4
DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR STORAGE OF BOATS ON THE BEACH AT PELICAN
BAY
(CLAM BAY CONSERVATION AREA) - APPROVED
Next item, 8(A)(4), approval for designating areas for
storage of boats on the beach at Pelican Bay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the manner of expediting
mindless issues, are there any letters of -- of objection to this?
MR. LORENZ: Not that I'm aware of.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Has anything changed
materially since the last discussion we had on this in public
petition? There are no public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have no speakers, but this is a good
example of your staff telling you how you can do something that you
appear to want to do rather than thinking up a half a dozen reasons
why we couldn't do what's feasible.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I -- and I do want to pass on
that the folks that have been involved in this have been very
complimentary of your department's work, and I want to thank you
for
that on their behalf. I make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
8(A)(5).
MR. DORRILL: I'd like to remind staff to state your
name for the record this morning. The recorder does not know all
the
staff names. And if you all would do that, I'd appreciate it.
Item #8A5
LEGAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BCC AND DAVID E. BRYANT, FOR
COUNSEL TO CONTINUE AS THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD ON BEHALF OF COLLIER
COUNTY FOR THE LELY BAREFOOT BEACH CASES - DENIED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(A)(5), Legal Service Agreement
between the Board of County Commissioners and David E. Bryant.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, environmental -- community
development and environmental services administrator. Good
morning.
The purpose of the agreement was to utilize Mr. Bryant's services
for
the continuation of the Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse issue as
well
as the circuit court case. Mr. Bryant and I have had discussions
on
it, and that led to discussions with the code enforcement directors
as
well as discussions I've had with Mr. Dotrill and Mr. Weigel on it.
It's my understanding that if you sign the agreement,
you would be waiving the competitive process, but I want to point
out
to you that it is not our intention to hire outside counsel just
for
the sake of doing so. It's to use Mr. Bryant, who has been working
on
this case since its inception. The Code Enforcement Board case has
begun. A whole day of testimony has been taken, questions and
answers, for approximately six hours, and the case will proceed in
October with the Code Enforcement Board's intention to utilizing
through the continuation of this case.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize Mr. Bryant's worked
a great deal of background on this, and I realize the Lely
guardhouse
issue seems to go on and on, and we certainly don't want to extend
it
any; however, Mr. Weigel, I'm curious as to whether or not we could
do
this -- in your opinion, whether or not this could be done with
in-house staff just because one of the criticisms we've heard this
past year is I know a year ago the outside legal budget was -- was
high, and I'm wondering is it necessary to spend eight to twelve
thousand bucks on this particular case?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- can I add to that for
his consideration in an answer to that question that I -- my
position's been pretty clear on this because I put it in writing
that
I've been -- well, disgusted is the right word, with the lack of
prosecutorial vigor in this case, and I wonder why we would
continue
with the same attorney who has, in my judgment, not pursued this at
the rate I'd like to. Why am I going to pay more for what I've
already been dissatisfied with?
MR. WEIGEL: Question for me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, as you, I think, are aware
from my August 13th memo -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, could you pull
the microphone down a little closer, please.
MR. WEIGEL: A month ago I'd written a memo to
Mr. Cautero where we had been discussing the Lely guardhouse
matters,
both the civil litigation in court and the matter that's before the
Code Enforcement Board. In my memo I'd indicated that I felt that
this was a matter that could be handled internally, and from a
fiscal
and management standpoint, it was not my suggestion or idea that it
be
handled outside -- outside of the county. But in talking with
Vince
and Linda Sullivan, it -- it became apparent that a contractual
relationship was being requested for Mr. Bryant due to the
convoluted
nature of the case and their understandings and workings with --
with
Mr. Bryant and within the proceedings of both of the forum.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, who do you have on
staff who's also worked on this case? Who else is familiar with
it?
Is there -- is it possible to pick this up without a lag if we --
if
we didn't --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I'm saying is that my opinion of
a month ago is tempered somewhat in the sense that a month has
passed
in preparation time toward with the hearing time that's coming up.
But Mr. Bryant had -- in development of the case, has an outside
expert that he's bringing in which other staff of the county
attorney
office obviously has -- has no connection with at this point and no
relationship in the development of the case along that line. Could
we
do it? Yes. Would we be impacted significantly? Probably so.
You know, we're down an attorney now and interviewing
for an attorney replacement. We have reallocated the litigation
cases
within -- within our office, and your specific answer is probably
Ramiro Manalich would be the attorney that would pick it up. I
know
the history of this probably better than anyone else within the
office
presently because I go back to when the original agreement started
coming on line with previous boards and things of that nature. But
it
would probably be Ramiro Manalich, the chief assistant, that would
go
forward, and he is the attorney that handles matters before the
Code
Enforcement Board at the present time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What kind of a lag time -- I'm
sorry, Commissioner Constantine. I didn't mean to interrupt your
time. But what kind of a lag time might we anticipate if Mr.
Manalich
took over, because I couldn't be more pleased with the work that I
saw
him do in the Seminole Indian case?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're not talking lag time. We
always keep in mind the October 30th, 31st hearing date before the
Code Enforcement Board and in no way would look to continue that to
another date beyond that, but it -- it impacts the other work
allocations in our office. If you choose to have us go forward
with
this -- with this legal obligation, we -- we'll probably be
impacted
in some of the other work, and we'd appreciate your understanding
in
that regard.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the simple question
is can this case -- and I think what I hear you say is yes, but can
this case be tried successfully utilizing our own staff, saving
eight
to twelve thousand dollars?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the -- there's a -- there's always a
concurrent expense of human resource within the office, so that
there
will be a lag or something else as far as that goes. It's not that
it's free if we do it. We don't -- we have to manage internally.
Can
we handle it successfully? Well, to the extent that the case will
be
successful in the eyes of us as beholder --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize you can't guarantee
success. I guess I'm looking for -- we're not handicapping
ourselves
here.
MR. WEIGEL: We will be cramming for this thing to -- I
can -- I can assure you that, to prepare for this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may weigh in. Briefly, the
problem I find is that right now we are not paying Mr. Bryant's
salary
or what would have been his salary to anyone else, are we? MR. WEIGEL: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That position has not been
filled?
MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Bryant is clearly the
most familiar -- the last thing I want to do after all the time
that
this has consumed -- and Commissioner Hac'Kie, in fairness to
Mr. Bryant, part of that delay was because I thought there may be a
solution out there, and my actions served to delay this process,
and
I'm very aware of that; but I thought I needed to try and find a
solution before spending tax dollars in court as we're about to do
one
way or another, but Mr. Bryant is most familiar.
The county attorney's office is not overflowing with
people. There aren't a lot of people twiddling their thumbs over
there spending 30 hours a week on cases and trying to find work.
I'm
just not so sure that whether we can do it in the county attorney's
office is the best question, but what will allow the county
attorney's
office to operate at a -- an acceptable level is probably a more
appropriate question, and I'm afraid Mr. Hanalich is one of the
busier
people in that office. So we're not paying a salary, salary that
was
allocated to Bryant, right now. It's probably not a net loss to us
dollarwise but may provide the most consistent and effective
representation for the county in this case.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess I've got to say
a couple things in response to that. One is, eight to twelve
thousand
bucks for roughly a month's work is probably not what we were
paying
Mr. Bryant when he was on staff.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it was, we needed to review
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And secondly, I got to
agree. On this particular case -- and on a lot of them Mr. Bryant
has
done a wonderful job, but on this particular case, I've got to
agree
with Commissioner Mac'Kie. I haven't been completely happy with
the
pace in which it has progressed or the -- what was the term?
Prosecutorial vigor?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Vigor, yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like that word too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just lacking a little --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Word of the day.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- prosecutorial vigor. So
those are -- both of those are my concern. I appreciate what --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Will someone make a motion then?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion that
we pursue this case with in-house staff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and two seconds to
deny the request for outside counsel. All those in favor signify
by
saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That is denied 4 to 1.
Item #8B1
CONTRACT NO. 96-2515 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS - AWARDED TO MITCHELL AND STARK CONSTRUCTION CO.
The next item is 8(B)(1), which is the former 16(B)(2).
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo
Gonzalez with your office of capital projects management. At the
request of the county attorney's office, we've been asked to just
point out to you that we're recommending that you issue the
contract
with a restricted notice to proceed. The reason for the
restriction
is in two days from today, the water management district should be
approving our permit modification. We also need to get some
additional construction easements, drainage easements, north of
lllth
Avenue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that notice I'll make a
motion that we proceed accepting or at least recognizing staff's
comments with a conditional notice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the Naples Park
drainage issue?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it would be, so you will be
voting against this one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You will be voting no.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That passes 4 to 1.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a very consistent vote.
Item #882
RESOLUTION 96-417 REGARDING OPTION TWO FOR MILLER BLVD. EXTENSION
BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND MILLER BLVD. IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED.
CONTROL SURVEY ACCEPTED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARED TWO STAGE
PLAN
APPLICATION
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is 8(B)(2), which is the
former 16 (B) (5) .
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. For the
record my name is George Archibald. I represent the county
services
department, transportation services department. Agenda Item
8 (B) (2)
was 16(B)(5). It involves Hiller Boulevard Extension, a roadway
that's about a mile and a quarter long that connects U.S. 41 with
Miller Boulevard in the Golden Gate Estates. The agenda item
that's
been presented to you is information and survey data that confirms
that the roadway has been in use for more than 20 years in its
current
location. Accordingly, the agenda item sets forth the background
and
the ability of the board to consider one of three basic options.
The first option as recommended by staff is just to go
ahead and recognize the historic information that has been
assembled
and to direct staff to assist property owners in creating any kind
of
prescriptive right that they may need to continue to use that road.
Another option that the board may consider, a more
aggressive option, would be to go ahead and consider recording a
right-of-way map and then participating in acquiring the right-of-
way
and then, obviously, following through with the construction and
maintenance of a county public roadway.
The third option would be a passive approach of going
ahead and simply identifying the 18 parcels of right-of-way that is
needed to go ahead, and as staff has time, attempt to contact each
and
every owner and try and obtain the right-of-way documents that
would
allow the board to create a public thoroughfare at least cost.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, if these efforts were
successful, would this include a renaming of that to Perkin's
Parkway?
MR. ARCHIBALD: It could, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question, under Option No. 1,
what -- Chief Doerr out there has been tremendously concerned about
the ability to get fire equipment through that road to affected
properties and, really, that was the impetus for my asking for some
work being done on this particular road to allow that or allow for
that to be requested. Under No. 1 are we making a significant step
in
that direction to allow for that type of minimum leveling and
grading,
or is that No. 37
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It sounded more like No. 2 to me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, 2 went a little further
than I want, because it -- this road doesn't go from one road to
another. It goes from one road as an access point to individual
properties. In essence, it is operated as a private road. 1-75
has
severed this road, and it does not have a northern connection --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure it does.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- except for -- there's an
east-west -- there's an east-west to come out but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a -- there is a
north-south.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There is a north-south,
certainly. Everglades Boulevard north-south right over --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, that's right. You go over to
the east and pick up Everglades Boulevard and go north.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You just go a couple blocks to
the east.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I really do like Option No. 2
for that reason. I think for emergency first and foremost, but I
think it's not simply those property owners that need a way
through.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are we being asked to select the
option today?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is that we -- you
know, I understand a need for the road, but we are, in essence,
providing a higher benefit to the property owners adjacent to and
served by that without any level of HSTU, and -- and I would just
like
to know if in the past we have done that type of thing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same question, Mr. Dorrill. Do
you know with this, if we chose the second option, would that be
outside the standard procedure of how we do these projects in other
parts of the county?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just as a part of your
question, I think, Commissioner Hancock, is providing a regular
state
roadway a higher level of service than we provide to most areas?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, formerly private roadways.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just because right now -- and
what we're being told here with the 20-year history, it's not
necessarily a private roadway. And I was just going to say with
the
history of lack of service there, I think a minimal level road in
there is --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We owe them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not excessive.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not -- I'm just -- again, I
just want to make sure we are not making an exception for this
roadway
as opposed to what we have done elsewhere in the county if there
have
been similar circumstances. That's the basis for my question.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I think the board needs to recognize
that Option 2 carries a great deal of risk -- risks in the cost of
acquiring the right-of-way. Even though we can create a public
thoroughfare, we're encumbering private property, specifically 18
parcels of land out there. Those 18 parcels of land represent
owners
that may, in fact, be entitled to some level of compensation,
although
we feel that's very, very small. That is one of the cost items. We
still have to contact each and every one and get some legal
commitment
from them in addition to filing the right-of-way map itself.
The other risk is, of course, going ahead and attempting
to override cease and desist action by both South Florida, by the
DEP,
by the corps in doing any work on this corridor at all. So we need
to
recognize the permitting efforts that would be involved, and that
permitting effort to overcome everything from cease and desist
orders
to threatened lawsuits would also represent a cost.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not as concerned about the
second part of that, because just to get Chief Doerr's equipment
back
in there, we're going to have to fight that battle, because some
improvements have to be made. The first part of it I'm very aware
of,
because my guess is we have 17 willing property owners and one
unwilling, because the Florida Wildlife Federation owns a piece of
property there, and it's fought this every step of the way. So
when
we go through for right-of-way acquisition, there's going to be at
least one property owner that's probably just not going to say,
"Sure,
it's yours. Have a nice day," and maybe more, so --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Repeat that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Wildlife Federation owns a
parcel out there, and they were opposed to this.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, there's -- there's
some other stuff going on too at the -- at the same time. We're --
we're also currently entertaining Tamiami Trail in that area being
designated a scenic byway, and at the -- at the same time -- I
mean,
I've been out and driven through the Picayune Forest, and let me
tell
you, if the State's intention is to turn that into a forest, even
though it doesn't eliminate people's right to live in it, they're
going to need a better access than Everglades Boulevard to access
it
and, frankly, this is a excellent access for it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that maybe I'm not
eager -- maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think the majority of
those owners will clearly benefit and will say, here's this
property;
go ahead and improve it. I don't think they'll be holding out for
a
great sum of money, and I'm sure someone in there -- particularly
Florida Wildlife Federation -- but I'm sure someone in there will
argue the -- the cause. But I'm going to guess the overall value
of
the property is minimal anyway, and if we can get most of that for
little or nothing, then it's -- it's a job well done.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I also want -- want to
comment that in my search of -- of the records in the clerk's
office
in the last several months of the -- of the deeds that Florida
Wildlife has picked up, a great many of those deeds are transferred
to
the DEP in a relatively short time for a nominal amount of money,
really. And, frankly, if the DEP has those and the DEP is
designated
as Picayune Forest and the DEP wants a better access into the
forest
for the people to enjoy, as I said before, this is a great access.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By the way, back to my question.
Is this -- is this any different than what we've done in the past?
Are we making a special exception for this roadway? If not, then I
I can count to three, I think is the word.
MR. DORRILL: I -- I can tell you that this is a little
different from the past, if for no other reason than the historical
response from the state -- and I can assure you that it will be
immediate and extreme. If for no other reason than several years
ago
while we attempted to make what I would call just some remedial-
level
improvements to run a grader and do some stabilization at
elevations
less than 6 inches of lime rock material, the executive office of
the
governor became involved in their efforts to block us through the
DEP,
as I recall, for putting maybe a half a dozen loads of lime rock
near
the southern terminus.
So if we're going to proceed, you need to proceed
knowing full well they don't see this having anything at all to do
with safety. They see this as a -- and have said clearly -- a
back-door effort to artificially increase values in the southern
blocks, and that will be their position exactly. And it will go
all
the way to the governor's office, and I can't remember the
gentleman's
name, Ustes (phonetic) something-or-other who is the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Estes (phonetic) Whitfield.
MR. DORRILL: -- who is the chief environmental aide to
the past three governors.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The idea that the state's trying
to hold us hostage again on an issue has just solidified my
support.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, how long ago was
that -- was the last time?
MR. DORRILL: I'll say probably four to five years.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four to five years ago? That's
what I -- and I think a lot of things have changed in that four to
five years, not only this board's willingness not to -- not to
kowtow
to the DEP or the DCA but to try to work out sensible, realistic
solutions so -- we just got his support. Let's go.
MR. DORRILL: Two speakers. Mr. Perkins. Then, Miss
Payton, you'll follow Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Perkins,
Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights.
You've heard it over and over and over again. One thing that was
left
out of this conversation is the amount of people who have been
killed
out there and the lack of the ambulances and services to get in to
save their lives. We have lost people out there who were out there
having fun in what is now called the state park, which is a very
beautiful place, if you've never been.
The point that I want to make, we have the option here
to take and ask these people if they would donate their land so
that
we can take and -- we'd be able to take and provide evacuation
routes
but farm-to-market travel and at the same time personnel back and
forth for the farmers. At the same time, too, ingress and regress
(sic) from Marco Island and Goodland and East Naples for some fun
and
some games. It's beautiful.
The average person here that lives in this community
doesn't even know anything about it. They think that I -- when I
walk
around out there that I'm up to my rear end in alligators and
snakes
and water. Well, the place catches on fire too often for that.
Point
being we have a natural preserve out there, which every one of the
environmentalists will tell you about this. The zoning is such
that
the green space is already in place, over seventeen or eighteen
thousand acres, people. So we don't need the green space, but as
we
do need ingress and regress (sic) for fire engines, ambulances,
forestry, drug deals (sic), sheriffs, the whole five yards.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You did mean egress, not
regress; right?
MR. PERKINS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. PERKINS: But you've got to get in and be able to
get out, you know what I mean? But the people -- anybody down in
the
southern part of the estates, if there's a fire down through there,
they get pretty much trapped in the whole thing. The fire -- the
Wildlife Federation, which usually is getting grants -- moneys and
is
also an employee of the State of Florida, the DEP, and check the
records. This is taxpayers' money. This is our money being spent
to
use against us. So needless to say, I hope that you move forward
this thing of putting those roads in place. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Payton and then Miss Leinwebber.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton, and
I am representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and I need to
clarify a few points. First of all, yes, indeed, we are a property
owner of which Miller Boulevard Extension does run through our
property. I also need to clarify that we are not opposed to a
minimal
upgrading of that road for forestry, for emergency purposes, and
for
safety reasons. So I want very much to have that clarified to the
commissioners.
We've had discussions with Mr. Archibald. He has come
to our building and we have sat down and talked about this. We
have
had discussions with forestry. We are not opposed -- and I say it
again -- to an upgrading, a minimal upgrading, of the road for
emergency purposes. And we'd be happy to discuss it, and we'd be
happy to be an intervenor or a facilitator for other property
owners,
which one of them happens to be the Department of Environmental
Protection, along that right-of-way.
I also need to qualify that the Florida Wildlife
Federation nor any of the employees, myself or any other person,
are
employees of FDEP, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. We receive no money from them. We do receive private
grants, which I assume you all would be quite supportive of, to
facilitate DEP's purchase of property in CARL projects in -- in
southwest Florida. So we are providing a service to the community
at
no charge. We are not taking any taxpayer dollars.
We'd be happy to work with the commissioners. We'd be
happy to work with Mr. Archibald, forestry, emergency vehicles.
We've
also had discussions with Ken Pineau clarifying the issue of
emergency
vehicles versus -- we have questions about hurricane evacuation
route
and whether this is appropriate, but we are open to discussion and,
therefore, Mr. Hancock, we -- we do acknowledge that there is some
need.
We also acknowledge that Miller Boulevard Extension
seems an ideal entryway off scenic 41 to Picayune Strand State
Forest;
and, therefore, we understand that eventually that road, indeed, is
going to be an entry road and a road that's going to be used
frequently and a road that has significant value in the future.
We're
not sure at this point that it needs to be a thoroughfare, but we
do
acknowledge that it does need to be upgraded for emergency
purposes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Miss Payton, could you clarify
for me, when you say "upgraded" or "minimal upgrading," by that do
you
mean upgraded to all-weather standards so that we can use it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a good start.
MS. PAYTON: Our concern is pavement, and we -- we would
raise questions about actually paving the road.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why?
MS. PAYTON: At this time --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, why.
MS. PAYTON: At this time we think it's inappropriate.
Eventually when Picayune Strand is moving along and you want more
access in there, then we would not oppose pavement. But at this
time
we do not want to see that type of traffic up in there, and I think
one the reasons is development --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But at this point --
MS. PAYTON: -- quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to improve the road to a
level of being an all-weather service road where it would no longer
continue to degrade the way it does, would be the suitable --
MS. PAYTON: For emergency purpose, for forestry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a second. I'm not sure
I follow the logic there. If you pave it, who's going to develop
it?
Your concern as you just stated is if it's paved and easy access,
that
there'll be development there. Who would develop it?
MS. PAYTON: There's -- there still is property that's
-- that's in private hands there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, so the private owners
would use their own property. That's your concern.
MS. PAYTON: I'm just -- I'm just telling you our
position.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So Florida Wildlife
Federation's position is that private property owners might go
ahead
and use their own property if they had better access to it, and you
object to that.
MS. PAYTON: Our goal is to see --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I asked -- I asked a
question.
MS. PAYTON: I'm going to answer your question. Our
goal -- and we're supportive of the state effort to purchase that
property and to restore it into Picayune Strand State Forest and a
natural area and, therefore, we are not supportive of activities
that
will facilitate just the opposite.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're not supportive of
private property owners using their own property?
MS. PAYTON: Oh, we have private property there and,
therefore --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've asked the question twice
now, and you haven't answered it either time· so if you're not
going
to give me an answer· that's fine· but if you'd at least say that I
don't feel comfortable answering that· or please answer the
question.
MS. PAYTON: We are supportive of the state's effort to
purchase the property there· and our actions are taken based upon
actions that are going to facilitate the purchase of that land by
the
state.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even if that deprives the
private property owners of using their own property?
MS. PAYTON: They have use of that property.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, how long has the
Wildlife Federation owned that parcel out there? MS. PAYTON: I think it is two years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you weren't -- so you
didn't own it when the state came in and -- and slapped the wrist
of
the county for trying to fill in holes in the road out there? MS. PAYTON: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason I have a -- a
concern· Nancy· is not -- the paving isn't so much the issue for
me ·
it is that when -- when we talked to the state about putting a road
in
out there· they required cross culverts so frequently that to put
those in without paving would cause them to erode as quickly as we
could put them in. And the only thing to stabilize them is to put
something on the top that keeps that lime rock bed from washing
away
adjacent to these culverts.
So it's not a question of can we just put some more lime
rock down and level it, because if we go in and try to do that· the
state's requiring us to put cross strains in. We can't put cross
strains in and stabilize it without it becoming unstable in the
first
rain. So unfortunately· it's not an either-or; it's a situation of
throwing a few hundred thousand dollars down the tubes if we can't
put
pavement on it and stabilize it. And I think if I'm misspeaking,
Mr. Archibald will probably tell me that· but when you put those
cross
strains in under a lime rock bed with nothing to stabilize it on
the
top, you're going to lose your lime rock bed at the first rain.
MS. PAYTON: So what we're talking about here with the
county going ahead· the goal is -- is to pave that road.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have an option· because
we can't meet the state's requirement for putting cross strains in
for
just leveling it. They won't let us just level it. We have to put
cross strains in was what stopped us last time· if I remember
correctly.
MS. PAYTON: So the goal of this road is not necessarily
emergency vehicles --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it is.
HS. PAYTON: -- or forestry, it is a thoroughfare.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, you're wrong. The goal is
emergency access, but the state will not let us just level the road
is
what I'm telling you. It is the DEP that is forcing us to the
paving
issue, because they are requiring cross strains, and we can't just
put
them in in a lime rock bed. We'll lose them.
MS. PAYTON: I think that there are points of discussion
here, and we're happy to sit down and discuss this with them try
and
resolve it, because maybe there is a way that we both can be
satisfied
and be comfortable with what is done.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Perhaps just pave over the cross
strains and leave the interim space '-
MS. PAYTON: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- for lime rock.
MS. PAYTON: But we won't know unless we sit around a
table and discuss it. And I must say we were the ones that
initiated
the discussion with Mr. Archibald when this issue came up, and he's
shaking his head.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just trying to draw for you
the distinction. It's not a desire to pave, but it may be a
necessary
evil of getting the minimum done is -- was my point.
MS. PAYTON: But I must tell you that's where we're
coming from. We are not comfortable with paving, but we're willing
to
sit down and discuss it with parties and see if there isn't
something
that can be resolved. That's the best I can offer you, and I think
that's a reasonable response on my part to your question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Leinwebber.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Leinwebber, this will be strictly
on Miller Boulevard, won't it?
MS. LEINWEBBER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. LEINWEBBER: I'm Judy Leinwebber. First off -- my
first question is would the Wildlife Federation like to donate the
right-of-way for Miller Boulevard. That would be a good start.
Second of all, we heard from Gail Brett and the DEP about the price
of
the land out there for the landowners being inflated. I think the
first injustice was the DEP deflated the value of the property out
there, which I think was a great injustice to the landowners. They
bought that property in good faith. They spent thousands of
dollars
per acre. I was personally in the deeds office and checked out
what
these homeowners paid for the property out there, which the -- the
minimum -- the minimum was probably $2,300 an acre 20 years ago.
Now
they're giving $500 an acre. When I saw the price difference and
the
deflation in value of their land that they bought in good faith
made
me pretty livid with rage at what the State of Florida has done to
these private homeowners.
And they don't have roads out there for emergency
vehicles. They can't make improvements on their land, because
they're
being fought every inch of the way. They are talking about
inflating
the prices; how about just the original prices of the land they
paid
for? They're not getting that, and they've been paying taxes all
these years on this land, and they can't use it. And now the DEP
is
making them -- or is actually forcing them to sell their land for
peanuts. It's about time the homeowner be addressed, be given
their
rights back, be given fair compensation for their land, and get
emergency roads out there. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we have a motion, please.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Members of the attorney's office have
asked that if, in fact, the board consider Option 2 that the board
also consider a resolution that may address a number of factors,
and
may I just address those very quickly if I can for the record. One
is
that the attorney's office and the transportation office would
recommend authorization to prepare a resolution to be approved and
executed by the chairman where, in fact, we can identify the
findings
and the determination of the public interest where we can define
the
-- recording the right-of-way map.
There's some other issues in regards to authorizing
budget amendments and the allocation of funds to carry out the
board's
directive. We also need to include in the resolution the
recognition
of the prior objections of state agencies and also be in a position
to
defend the county. And there may be some other conditions that the
attorney's office would need to include in a resolution.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
make a motion we go ahead with the aggressive approach of Option 2
and
that the county attorney's office assemble a resolution reflecting
Mr. Archibald's comments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is very
straightforward. Where's Option 27 COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a list of options in
my packet, and I know that you stated them. Were we provided them
in
writing at all?
MR. ARCHIBALD: No. The only option that was in the
agenda item was the passive one of just accepting the survey data
as
assembled.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'll amend my motion to
reflect Option 2 as described earlier in this item by Mr.
Archibald.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then my concern for Option 2 is
that my vote was to obtain a minimum access standard out there that
allowed, you know, emergency vehicles and folks who are out there
to
get to and from their homes without, you know, driving through 3
feet
of water after a 2-inch rain. Option 2 goes well beyond that, and
I'm
not -- I'm not sure we need to go that far just yet. My
understanding
of Option 2 is to pursue making this a public right-of-way and
having
as a paved road all the way up, and that's much more aggressive
than
what I initially thought we were going to try and accomplish out
there. So I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm just saying it's --
it's just several steps ahead of where I -- I thought we were
heading
with this.
So I -- I'm a little uncomfortable with it simply
because, one, I don't know the cost of all that right now. If
you're
directing staff to produce a timeline and a cost and so forth so we
can look at it, that's one thing. But to just pursue it blindly
without knowing the -- the potential cost I -- I'm a little
uncomfortable with.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, since we have a
motion and a second for Option 2, I'd like Mr. Archibald to read
into
the record, once again, so we're very clear exactly what Option 2
is,
since it's not in the package here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, if you would.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Option 2 was, one, recording a
right-of-way map and authorizing the staff to pursue the legal
documents with the 18 private property owners that the road lies
on;
two, to go through the permitting to obtain the right to improve
the
roadway; and third, to undertake interim improvements.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: To -- to undertake interim
improvements. Would you describe those further.
MR. ARCHIBALD: In the permitting phase of this, which
is not going to be inexpensive, and the permitting phase will
probably
determine that a roadway that may meet minimal or local road
standards
may be all that can be permitted at this time. And that roadway
cross
section would be, in essence, a 12-inch subgrade, a 6-inch base,
and
really just a 1-inch surface to maintain the roadway and, of
course,
the appropriate drainage structures. So that's the roadway that I
would define as minimal.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. I'd like to ask the
motion maker and the second to include in their motion a timeline -
_
that Mr. Archibald bring back to this board within 90 days a
timeline
for completion and estimated cost for the project.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that timeline okay with
you, Mr. Archibald?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will include that as part
of the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, you want to jump in here?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thanks. Just -- just a comment to
advise you for the record, and that is that the laws of legal
physics
obviously apply to Miller Boulevard Extension -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Legal physics?
MR. WEIGEL: -- in a sense that for an action there will
be a reaction. In this case if the board, through staff, chooses
to
opt toward opportunities and rights within this road area, will
come
some responsibilities and liabilities. As it more becomes a public
thoroughfare recognized as such, the county will have, you know,
the
maintenance responsibilities in the future of whatever type is
permitted if it, in fact, postures -- if the county postures itself
as
maintaining for the public a public right-of-way.
Secondly, there's always the liabilities that occur with
a roadway that's managed by the county be it signage or potholes
that
are breaking axles and things of that nature. So we're -- we're
getting into that, and the county attorney's office is working very
carefully and cautiously with -- with George in that regard, but I
just wanted you to be aware of that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that. I think
considering the property owners out there, I think it's the
absolute
minimal that we can and should do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, it's
occurring to me that we may end up throwing the baby out with the
bath
water here. If we go for the whole nut and the state puts all
their
forces behind it, then we end up in a protracted battle and nothing
may be done in the interim. Would you be willing to amend your
motion
to include staff presenting to us a two-phased approach? One being
what does it take to put the roads in minimum standards in the
short
term knowing that this permitting may take a longer period of time
so
that we can at least get emergency access. And if we lose the war
but
win the battle, at least people can get fire engines and EMS to
their
home and back. I don't want to jeopardize the overall approach
that
you've stated but, again, if we go for that -- that one issue and
fail, we then have to go back and fight the battle again to try and
get minimum standard improvement out there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will entertain as a second
and separate motion that we go ahead and do that. I'd just like to
keep this one clear and concise --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Keep this one clean.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and that's what I will --
but I will -- I'll support that as a second motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion on the floor with a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Now, do we have a new motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you like me to state that,
if I may. In addition to Commissioner Constantine's motion, I will
move that staff prepare plans in a two-phased manner. The first is
to
achieve minimum access standards on the roadway, and the second is
to
comply with Commissioner Constantine's initial motion based on
Recommendation No. 2 and that those plans be a part of our
application
so that we may try and obtain minimum standards out there as soon
as
possible.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A very wordy, unnecessary --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you restate the motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, I won't.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second for the motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second because we need to
get this underway right away.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That motion carries.
We'll take a very short break and be right back.
(Applause)
(A short break was held.)
Item #8C1
RENEWAL OF A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE - APPROVED
WITH
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting and we're ready for Item 8(C)(1). Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff
your public services administrator. The county in nineteen --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ninety-three. I was the lawyer.
MR. OLLIFF: Ninety-three. You were the lawyer.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was the lawyer for
St. Matthew's House in 1993 when they originally brought this up.
I
don't have a conflict, do I?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll be excusing yourself?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I'm asking Mr. Weigel.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this a meeting or a
confession?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A proud moment.
MR. OLLIFF: In 1993 the county executed a parking
agreement with St. Matthew's House, and that parking agreement was
designed to allow what is the -- the homeless shelter at that
point, a
homeless shelter and a soup kitchen-type operation to function.
The
facility, as you know, is the old East Naples Fire Station and only
has two and maybe three spots that could be considered as -- as
on-site parking. As a result, in order to meet the county's code
for
the operation that they had, they needed a written parking
agreement
that was part of the file. The parking agreement that was executed
at
the county expires in September -- at the end of September of this
year.
The question for the board today is simply one of
whether we're going to extend or execute a new parking agreement
with
St. Matthew's House, and it is -- the portion of St. Matthew's
House
is in the old East Naples Fire Station. The new facility further
to
the north on Airport Road meets all of its own parking requirements
and is a stand-alone facility.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me make a -- a couple of
comments before we go any further into the discussion. There's a
proposal currently working its way through the approval process
that
will, in all likelihood, make this particular facility a moot point
in
the future. In the interim, though, this is the only way they have
to
continue that portion of their operation is through this facility.
And at the same time, in order that the county have at least some
control over their activities, I think it's important that we maybe
perhaps look at this lease on a shorter basis for renewal, such as
six
months. That gives us the opportunity if St. Hatthew's for some
reason decides not to live up to their commitments in the future
that
we would be at the maximum six months away from relieving them of
that
facility. So with those thoughts in mind, if there's any board
members that have any other --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I recall, Mr. Olliff, the
parking requirement at the time -- that the facility could exist as
a
soup kitchen without the extra parking -- without the least parking
spaces. It was -- its use as a homeless shelter -- I remember that
the parking was calculated based on the number of beds. So I'm
wondering if as a soup kitchen, it's necessary for them to have
this
parking agreement.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, I think we've faced this issue
before. There's nothing in our code from what I understand of the
zoning ordinance if it strictly calls itself a soup kitchen-type
operation, so the staff is forced to try and find what is the next
closest type use that we have.
The 20 spaces that I'm showing you in the executive
summary that is a requirement is based on the staff's best and
closest
find that it is -- it is more a restaurant-type operation. It is a
feeding -- food operation, and based on that it is at 20. I will
tell
you outright that that's probably a negotiable-type number, and the
number could -- could come down significantly based on
circumstances
they might be able to provide or argue. The old use, you are
correct,
was based on the number of beds and the type of use that it had at
that point. Because the use is strictly a soup kitchen now,
they've
looked for the best thing within the code that they could find to
match that, and they came up with that number of 20.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Have you discussed a shorter term
with any of the St. Hatthew's reps? MR. OLLIFF: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the work that's going on
between Commissioner Norris and Sheriff Hunter, I think the request
is
reasonable, and I'll move that this item come back to the board on
a
six-month interval as a consent agenda item for the remainder of
the
agreement period, which shall remain open ended. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: I need to make one other change in the
agreement. Because of staff's interpretation, the agreement that
you
actually have in your package is a renewal of the old
eight-parking-space agreement, and I'd ask that we amend that to
the
20 as is currently required.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion maker amends.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #8C2
LIMITED USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BCC AND THE NAPLES INTERNATIONAL
FIREWORKS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
Next item is 8(C)(2), which was the former 16(C)(1).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel? Mr. Weigel, can
you come here for a minute, please.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you want to tell me why we
shouldn't do this?
MR. OLLIFF: The only reason this was removed from the
consent agenda is I just needed to clarify three very quick and
small,
brief issues if I can.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: There is a listing of streets that the
organization is going to be required to actually provide security
at
each of those street ends to ensure that the neighborhoods that
surround the park and the lake do not end up being a parking lot
for
the event, and I simply need -- in that list, it's on page 2, the
second paragraph -- I'm sorry, the third paragraph, I need to
include
Alladin Lane. It was one of the roads that was simply left out,
and
just for the record I need to state that Alladin Lane will be
included
in that paragraph.
In addition, the attachment to the agreement is actually
the logistical plan that was prepared by the fireworks organization
and the -- the plan calls for the county to provide some sod and
landscaping, and I just need to, for the record, indicate that in
meetings with the organization, it was clearly understood that the
county wasn't going to do those two things simply because providing
sod prior to a hundred-thousand-person event is simply just --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stupid.
MR. OLLIFF: -- a long ways off. And lastly, I need to
just indicate for the record, too, that while this agreement
doesn't
recognize this, that both parties do agree that there is already an
existing lessee on this site in the way of the Gulf Coast Skimmers
and
that the events overlap what are current use schedules and that we
will do what we need to do between the three parties to work out
those
-- those arrangements and those schedules so that the events all
Can
take place at the same site.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has Mr. Gutsoy listed any
objections?
MR. OLLIFF: None.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: In fact, I think he's participating as part
of the show.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the staff changes and
amendments -- and I understand there are no public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the staff changes and
amendments, I'll make a motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- including those changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #11A
CHURCH ARSON PREVENTION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION - APPROVED
We'll move on to ll(A), which is the arson grant.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this preventative? I mean, we
-- I have heard no reports of this problem in Collier County. Am
I
uninformed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question I have on
this is, is this something that a year from now we're going to be
told, "Gosh, we've got to continue doing this program, and we need
an
extra 5,000 bucks a year to do it."
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same question I have.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which we've had several --
happen several times with the sheriff's office.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I need to know that it's a
necessary position and if it's anticipated to be included in future
funding, and I see absolutely no one here to answer either of those
questions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe we could put this off to
the end of the agenda and ask someone from the sheriff's office --
MR. DORRILL: We'd indicated when it was asked to be
added this morning, we needed somebody here to -- to explain it,
because it's a little -- but we'll make another call if you want to
do
it at the end.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But actually, the -- the
application may answer that for us. This money is being sought to
support training materials.
BAILIFF: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're not talking about
additional personnel or patrol time but merely training materials?
BAILIFF: Right. I sent a letter to Mr. --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If that's the extent of
it, then I -- I don't see any reason why we need to hear it later.
It's not additional personnel or something that needs to be
continued
by this board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. It's just if -- if we
have training materials, someone has to do something with those
materials, you know, get them, put them in a closet. Somebody has
to
spend time doing it, which I don't have any objection to, but I
just
don't want to be asked next year for extra funding so we can
continue
doing this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With -- with that on the -- on
the record, I'd just like to move approval of the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Stipulating, of course, that this
is a onetime --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- acceptance and will not be
continued as a funding item in future years?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #lib
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROVAL REQUEST BY JUDGE BAKER - APPROVED
Next item is Judge Baker's budget amendment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What does he need?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Judge Baker.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know but what are we doing to
Judge Baker?
MR. DORRILL: He's asking to adjust some internal funds
in order to buy or replace an existing computer, PC computer, and
they're proposing to take money out of the travel budget.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hove approval.
MR. DORRILL: And the cost of the computer and the
associated equipment is $2,345.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion for approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have two motions for approval and
one second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second either one of the
two.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just trying to make up for
the slam.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're not going to be specific in
which motion you're seconding?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're the same.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record reflect the
pretentious debate over Judge Baker's money.
PUBLIC COHMENT - AL PERKINS REGARDING EXPANDING CHANNEL 54
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Since there is no public comment,
we'll move --
MR. DORRILL: There is. Mr. Perkins is --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Al's here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there's A1, there's public
comment.
MR. PERKINS: I could be smart -- good morning. A1
Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property
Rights. I could be smart and say, well, I finally got you guys
trained. When I show up you're going to hear it.
One of the -- couple of things this morning that I was
glad to hear is the -- about the -- the TV systems, the equipment
and
what have you to expand our TV system to get the information out to
all of the people of this community. Anytime you spend money they
need to know where their tax dollar is going. The Big Cypress
Basin
Board are the -- needs to be monitored and also needs to have that
information gotten out to the people also. The establishment of
the
rest of the TV system needs to be put in place when our franchises
come up in approximately -- what, about six months or so?
MR. DORRILL: Longer than that. I think it's the end of
next year.
MR. PERKINS: Next year? Okay. With that, enough said
on that, but we still need to take and get the message out and
videotape is the way to do it.
Now, change the subject. The water board between this
five or six counties needs to be put in place. This needs to be
continued. It needs to have -- be supportive, because anytime that
you have excess amount of water, and we have a hurricane moving in
right now, you're going to end up flooding a lot of people and most
likely creating a storm surge in either one direction or the other.
I've been in touch with Doug St. Cerny up in Lee County, his
office,
to try to get in touch to see whether or not he would surface to
help
out, because Lee County directly affects Collier County, because
their
water gets dumped on to us.
Needless to say, the five or six counties involved in
this thing need to take and participate and talk to one another.
Collier money needs to stay in Collier, Lee needs to stay in Lee,
and
the rest of the counties, they need to support their own water
boards. At the present time this money is being diverted over to
West
Palm Beach, and they do as they see fit with it. Please
participate
and support this water board and do not let the -- the whole thing
die. I sure am not going to. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That concludes our morning agenda.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-52 RE PETITION R-96-8, MR. TOM DONEGAN OF THE OFFICE
OF
CAPITAL PROJECTS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT 3.00 ACRE SITE
(TRACT
"D") FROM "RSF-4/RP" TO "P" PUBLIC USE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WHITEHART COURT AND SOUTH HEATHWOOD DIRVE -
ADOPTED
We'll break into the afternoon agenda now with 12(B)(1),
Petition R-96-8. Mr. Bellows, let me just ask you if we are
rezoning
this. I'm surprised to find that it was RSF-4 to begin with.
We've
owned this property forever.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is for our library expansion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since they're not building
commissioner housing.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. As you can see Tract D is just north
of the current library, which had provisional use back in the '80s,
and it's only going to be a landscaped park and parking for 25
cars,
and it is zoned RSF-4.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only question I have is --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have some questions?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got no questions. I just
wanted to move approval on it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one question.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's got to be more parking.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've been hearing the different
-- it's my recollection this board approved the funds for
construction of the -- the full project down there, the large --
the
larger library. The regional approach is that -- I've just been
hearing some discussion about there are some holdups regarding size
and should we build it smaller now. And wasn't there a regional
size
approved by this board?
MR. OLLIFF: Not -- not as yet. We had some discussions
about regional libraries as far as budget workshops --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- and issues, but the Library Advisory
Board is going to bring to you their long-range plan, which will
include a little more discussion about regional libraries. This
particular branch expansion, we've been relooking at the actual
construction estimates to make sure that we can grind them away,
frankly, and get them as small as we can get them before we bring
them
to you. But that item ought to be on your agenda probably within
the
next 30 days or so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to see those two in
concert, because obviously if we're going to make a policy decision
regarding regional libraries, it affects the construction of the
Marco
Bridge. Those two need to happen together.
MR. OLLIFF: We -- we can do that. It was actually the
chairman of the Library Advisory Board's recommendation that they
split them, because they felt like they were two separate types of
issues. This is a long-standing branch expansion and has been
planned
for probably eight years now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just don't want to go
back and reconstruct --
MR. OLLIFF: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in two years. That's my only
concern.
MR. OLLIFF: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion, and do we
have a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One -- one question, I'm sorry.
This is -- this is a three-acre site, and we're only going to get
25
cars on it?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The rest will be a passive park, a
landscaped park.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There's none.
Item #1282
PETITION PUD-96-3, DAVID S. WILKISON AND WILKISON & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
REPRESENTING SAL ANGILERI, REQUESTING A REZONING OF CERTAIN DEFINED
PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE
PINE
RIDGE ROAD AND 1-75 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER - CONTINUED TO
9/24/96
12(B)(2), Petition PUD 96-3.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When this was left off, I think
there was a motion to table. Do we need a motion to untable a
motion
for denial? Is that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, hang on just a second.
I have a -- I pulled the minutes out, and where we left off is very
important, because Commissioner Hancock made the motion. We did
table
it prior to continuing it; you're right. But your motion reads --
and
there's a couple of comments leading up to this which I can go back
to, but I want to read your motion just to refresh the board's
memory. I'm going to make a motion -- this is Commissioner
Hancock.
I'm going to make a motion to continue the item with the
understanding
that at such time that the item should return for board
consideration,
that the gas station and convenience store combination not be an
element of the application and that all other elements agreed upon
here today be incorporated.
And so the continuation was contingent upon removal of
those, and I -- and so as we pull it off the table, I just want to
put
it in context and get an answer. I know on the previous page you
had
asked Mr. Anderson if he was willing to do that, and he wanted some
time to talk to his client, and that was -- I think the genesis of
your motion was you didn't want it in there, but he didn't have an
opportunity right then and there to answer that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I remember correctly, there
was no answer -- they couldn't give an answer of either a yes or a
no
whether they would withdraw the gas station, and yet the board had
__
had said, well, we'd like to see that and asked to continue it and
get
an answer to that. So by untabling it, I believe, the focus is to
get
an answer to that question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we remove the
item from the table.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
untable. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
I will withdraw my second on the motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you why?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because there's been some recent
developments. Some of the people that were objecting are no longer
objecting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I also -- because, like you, I
went back into the record to look at it, because my concern was I
wanted to first understand all of the stipulations I'd put out
there,
because there were a tremendous number. I wanted to review those
and
see if this met them. But I noted that I made a statement that,
you
know, there were two votes against because Commissioner Norris had
made a second. When I read the minutes, his second said I'll
second
for the purpose of discussion, I think it was, or to get it on the
floor. I did not hear that part of the second. I assumed that --
that Commissioner Norris was opposed and began trying to, you know,
negotiate what is acceptable and what is not based on the fact that
there were two objections.
So I think -- you know, again, there's a motion to
deny. I was not ready to -- to deny the petition at that point,
because I was not convinced that with the intervening property
between
the gas station and the residential that the -- the compatible-use
argument was -- was solid. And, again, I always run -- we always
run
the risk with these items of turning them down because of
neighborhood
objection and then getting overturned. Now, there's not a great
history of that happening, but at that time I was uncomfortable
that
the compatible-use argument, which was the hinge, which was --
everything was weighing on, had been met. So that -- that's
really,
you know --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: ANd I understand your concern
that you don't want to run the risk of being overturned in court.
The
concern I have is that we not base our decisions on the infamous
APAC
decision. That was -- Commissioner Saunders' argument at the time
was, well, we've run these concessions out of them. If we go to
court
and lose, they don't necessarily have to live up to those
concessions. We still shot it down, and it was upheld in court,
and I
realize you run the risk any time, but I think -- and if we are
going
to go back through it I will -- not right now, but before we finish
the item, I'll go back through. I had a number of reasons that
weren't just -- you said you don't want to turn it down just
because
the neighborhood objection.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, there's a legal --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got about two pages'
worth of -- of reasons why that had far more substance than simply
neighborhood objection, and if we can get back into that -- I guess
I'm a little disappointed, and obviously the board will do what the
board wants to do, but the continuance was based on either gas
station
was in or the gas station was out. And I'm a little frustrated now
that we're waiving that aside and saying, well, maybe we'll change
that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not sure that that's an accurate
portrayal of what we're doing here. It's my understanding that
legally we -- we don't really have the right to prohibit somebody
from
asking us for whatever they want to ask for. We have a --
certainly
have the right to make our decision on whether we grant what
they're
asking for, but to restrict them from even asking it, I think, is
probably an infringement on their rights as citizens to petition
the
board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we could -- but on July
16th our discussion was that we could have called the question that
day, and it did not appear promising for the petitioner that day,
and
as a courtesy to the petitioner, I went ahead and seconded the
motion. And I said I'll second the motion, and I'll tell you why.
Because I think if we can get quality commercial development on the
property with the architectural standards and all the agreements
we've
made in a less intense manner than you -- meaning Bruce --
initially
requested, it's good not only for that parcel but for the whole
area.
And that was the direction we were headed at the conclusion of
that.
We were asking them to remove the gas and convenience. We were
saying, gosh, if you can do that, we'll go ahead and continue the
item, and we'll bring it back. We realize you can't do that spur
of
the moment. We'll give you an opportunity to go do some planning
that and bring it back. And I seconded the motion with that in
mind
and not to just say, well, bring it back with whatever you want,
and
that was very clear.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we need to hear from the
petitioner why it's back with the gas station in it. And now the
problem is we have a motion on the floor without a second. Do we
need
to reopen the public hearing or --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. We're in the public hearing, and
the motion has died for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The public hearing has been
closed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've opened a new public hearing here
today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, procedurally, in
order to receive additional information from the petitioner, what
does
the board need to do?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there -- there was a continuance from
the previous hearing time, so I think that appropriately the public
hearing may be reopened.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
reopen the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
reopen the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question quite simply is why
is this back in front of us with a gas station included.
MR. ANDERSON: Because of the contractual commitments
that were in existence back at that time and remain in effect
today.
What we heard -- we heard a lot of things, but one -- one matter
that
all the board members and all of the residents all agreed on was
that
you were concerned about architectural controls, especially for a
service station. We heard those concerns, and we're ready to
respond
and make commitments today.
I'd like to introduce into the record Exhibit 11, which
is consisting of two pages, which are graphic depictions of what
the
service station will look like.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you not hear the concerns
about the service station itself?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. But I said unanimous. Everybody
was in agreement that there were concerns about architectural
controls. There was not that same agreement on -- on --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the specific question
-- and I'll go back and read it word for word if you want. But
the
specific question to you was from Commissioner Hancock, are you
willing to take the filling station and the convenience store out.
And you stumbled and stammered and couldn't answer, and as a
courtesy
to you and your client, Commissioner Hancock said maybe we should
continue this, because you didn't want to lose all the
architectural
standards and everything else that you'd gotten out of the
petitioner. And now I hear more about architectural standards.
But
his question then and again now was, why is the filling station
back,
not what are the architectural standards. We addressed that last
time
to some extent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it seems like we have our
answer to is the gas station in or out. Apparently, the gas
station
is in. That was the answer we did not receive and apparently
Mr. Anderson couldn't provide several weeks ago. So what I hear
him
coming back and saying today is, if this petition moves forward in
any
way, shape, or form, the filling station is in; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So now we have -- we have the
answer to that question. So we either need to proceed on the
merits
of the petition or -- or not, and since it's an open public
hearing,
I'm not -- again, I haven't gone through something that's been
reheard
like this, so I have to rely on the experiences of the other board
members. Do we receive a presentation on the changes, alterations,
or
ways in which things were met? Is that -- is that the normal
course
on these petitions if there have been material changes?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think we've done this
very much ourselves.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You certainly can because the
public hearing is open again. I just -- I -- I kind of feel like
I've
been bamboozled here, but I -- I would think there is some
professional courtesy here. But the specifics of this thing -- and
I'm going to read all three of them now because I -- before I was
ignored.
Commissioner Hancock says, I guess my question is then,
what I'd like to ask, is the petitioner willing to revise their
PUD,
either today or in the interim, to eliminate the gas station and
convenience store and pursue the other elements of the PUD? If so
__
if so I would like to move for continuance, because I don't want to
lose a lot of the gateway things -- and I think I agree with that -
_
that have been agreed upon here and things that would, in fact,
ensure
a quality development adjacent to Livingston Woods. Right after
that
Commissioner Norris points out the public hearing is still closed,
and
we go on.
Chairman asks, Mr. Anderson, if I reopen the public
hearing, are you ready to make a commitment. We didn't do that,
but
Commissioner Hancock asks again, are you willing to remove from the
PUD the gas station and convenience store use and maintain the
balance
of the commitments. Mr. Anderson -- I would -- I'd like to have
Some
time -- more time -- I'd have to contemplate that and discuss that
we could -- stops and starts. I won't go through it all, but you
didn't have an answer.
Commissioner Hancock: So I'd be willing to make a
motion based on the fact that it does not return with the gas
station-convenience store joint use and the other commitments. I
would be willing to make that motion. And then we have further
discussion, and then Commissioner Hancock does, indeed, make that
motion. I'm going to make a motion to continue the item with the
understanding that at such time that the item should return -- that
would be today -- that the gas station and convenience store
combination not be an element of the application and that all other
elements agreed upon today be incorporated.
That's not what happened. We continued it with that --
with that agreement, and so I guess I feel kind of bamboozled now
if
we say, well, he came back; he said, no, he didn't want to do that;
but we're going to bring it back anyway, because that's not what
the
motion was. That's not how the continuance was worded.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, other than telling
Mr. Anderson he's been a bad boy, we don't have a process that
says,
sir, you can't be heard; sit down.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not asking Mr. Anderson
to sit down. I'm asking the board to keep its word from two months
ago. July 16th we said that was how we were going to reconsider
it,
if those were taken out. And now that's all being brushed aside,
and
I just -- I feel like I've been kind of mislead here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, since you're the only one
that's interpreting it in that manner, maybe you haven't been
mislead. The question was asked, are you willing to remove the gas
station. Find anywhere in there that there's an answer. There is
not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It wasn't a simple question,
Commissioner Hancock, and perhaps you don't have any trouble not
keeping your word, but it says with the understanding that at such
a
time that the item should return for board consideration, the gas
station and convenience store not be an element of the application.
That was your motion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you just hear me ask the
applicant why it has returned with a gas station in it? If you
want
to get into an arguing contest, we can go back in the hallway and
do
it. But here's not the place, and insults are not appropriate.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just asking you to do
exactly what your motion was, and you're not willing to do that.
I'm
not insulting you; I'm asking you to do exactly what you said.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The petitioner is the one who is
requesting the gas station, not Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we move forward on this?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Ask a question.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'd like to introduce into the
record Exhibits 11 and 12. Number 11 are the graphic depictions up
there on the board. Number 12 is a list of 10 stipulations that
were
requested by various members of the board at the prior hearing that
were agreed to. I've also distributed copies of these for you,
Commissioners.
For the record my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of
the petitioner. The residents can claim victory. We literally and
figuratively went back to the drawing board for what a Racetrac
store
looks like. Racetrac commits here today that the building it plans
to
build in this PUD will be as depicted in this rendering and will be
attached as an exhibit to the PUD. It will be a stucco building
painted in cream color and peaked green metal roofs on both the
building and the canopy. That same what-you-see-is-what-you-get
commitment also applies to the rendering of the 8-foot wall to be
constructed on the north property line. It will be the prettiest
and
the most expensive service station in all of Collier County. This
area in particular and all other areas of the county are going to
benefit if these types of architectural standards are imposed on
other
similar establishments.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will the sidewalk be included
as part of that?
MR. ANDERSON: There are sidewalks internal to the
project. These are grassed areas, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm looking on the -- the
item to the right. That looks like that's on the outside of the
wall.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sidewalks will be included as
part of that?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Microphone, please.
MR. ANDERSON: Are you talking about this area, sir?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: No, that's green if you check the
rendering.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a typical architect thing.
They have to stick people in the drawings. I asked the same
question. Because you might be surprised, but I've actually met
with
the petitioner and with some residents in the interim, and there
have
been some changes since then that might cause me to consider
things.
That may come as a surprise to you, but that's been the case. And
in
that process that was one of the questions that I asked, because
there
was a concern about exterior sidewalks, because the folks that are
back there saw this and thought there's going to be a sidewalk
outside
that wall. And what I hear you saying is that that is not the
case.
MR. ANDERSON: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's going to be what? Green
space? Grass?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Grass?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The -- the landscaping that appears
on there is drawn to scale as per the PUD commitments.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I would be surprised
since our decision is supposed to be based solely on what goes on
at
the public hearing, but for me -- and you're a planner, so you
understand that stuff. I don't understand that. The green things
look like shadows to me, not grass. I did assume that was a
sidewalk. Thank you for clarifying that.
MR. ANDERSON: In addition to the renderings and the
stricter-than-code requirements originally volunteered in our PUD,
we
have committed to those additional 10 stipulations. For the
members
of the public that don't have the benefit of a copy of it, those
stipulations regulate hotel and wall heights, roofs, signs,
dumpster
enclosures, lighting, restaurant liquor service, replacement of
original landscaping, color of buildings, and number of buildings.
Everybody agrees that this will be developed
commercially, and on this five-acre piece -- less-than-five-acre
piece, you have set exacting and rigorous standards never before
applied to any commercial development. In more than 15 different
ways, in excess of the numerous and normal code requirements that
already apply, you have painstakingly, especially to us, addressed
in
very great detail the -- the concerns expressed by the residents,
both
nearby and a mile or more away, who appeared at the hearing. I'll
be
glad to answer any other questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you refresh me on what the
underlying zoning is for that.
MR. ANDERSON: It is E, estates.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, I do. Mr. Evans. Mr. Beyrent,
if you'd stand by, you'll follow Mr. Evans.
MR. EVANS: My name is Duval Evans, and I'm the owner of
the Pine Ridge Chevron out on Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill
Lane.
I was -- like Mr. Constantine I thought that the -- that the board
had
decided not to let the -- the gas and convenience store go in.
That's
the way I left this meeting at -- on this subject the last time.
Now
I find that they're going to go ahead and they have come back to
propose to put a -- a service station or a gasoline and -- and
convenience store, which I don't think that's right.
We're going to have Vanderbilt Road that's going to be
opening pretty soon. That's going to take a lot of traffic off of
this road. We've got these stations that's already out there and
convenience stores that can hardly make a living now. I know I'm
not
making a profit, and we're all going to have problems. We want to
keep our place nice and clean, and if we can't make money, it's
going
to -- the shrubbery's going to go down, the painting, and
everything
else is.
Why these people want to go ahead and put a gas station
in there, I don't know. It's not going to be profitable for them
any of us around here. And I have asked the commissioners through
letters to please take this thing at heart and let's try to get it
to
where we can all make a living out there. We have a lot of money
involved, and these people have got a chain that they could go
ahead
and -- with motels that we don't have. And I'm hoping that you
people
will deny this like you did the first meeting. Thank you, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Beyrent.
MR. BEYRENT: I'll waive my right to speak.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Riley. Miss Rudnicki, you'll follow
this gentleman. If I could have you stand by, please, ma'am.
MR. RILEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bob
Riley. I'm a Livingston Woods resident. In contradiction to
Mr. Anderson and what he was saying about having unanimous
approval,
homeowners have fought this from the beginning. And for all the
concerns that Mr. Constantine says that he has on the paper --
we're
not going to go through them, but at the last meeting the
homeowners
felt very comfortable that the commissioners understood the
Concerns
that we had, just not about walls or sidewalks or plants or trees.
It
just totally was not wanted. And after that meeting they did feel
very good that it was understood, and your word is your bond. But
I
know no decision was made, and it had to come back as a motion. We
all kind of feared this, but the fact that now it's a public
hearing
and everybody understood that it was going to be a closed hearing,
it's a good way to keep people at bay and out of the commission
room,
and I don't think that's right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, this is not a closed
hearing.
MR. RILEY: No. As we understand -- there are three of
us from the whole subdivision, because we all understood it was a
closed hearing --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From who?
MR. RILEY: -- and nothing was going to be able to be
said from the public.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I have to know.
Where did you get that understanding? Because this was advertised
publicly like all public hearings are.
MR. RILEY: Understood. But it was -- it was just voted
on. It was -- when we've come before, we have never had it -- had
to
be voted on. It now became a open hearing where before it was a
closed hearing. I hadn't heard that before.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the assumption was
because we closed the public hearing last time.
MR. RILEY: That's right. And that's why you don't see
a room full of residents, which is understandable. It's -- it's a
tactic, but there are as many concerned citizens in our area that
are
not very pleased. But we are not in agreement with what Mr.
Anderson
is saying, and I just wanted to make note of that, and I feel bad
for
the gentleman with the Chevron station that his livelihood is now
going to be adversely affected if you so approve this. We'd like
to
see something a little bit better. Now, I teach children for a
living, and with some of the things that I am witnessing, I'm not
very
happy. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I've got a
question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it the gas station that you
object to or the commercial development of the property that you
object to?
MR. RILEY: The commercial development of the property
we have no problem with. We'd like to see something go in to dress
up
our corridor of Naples, but we just don't think that a convenience
store and a gas station is going to benefit our neighborhood. No
matter how high you make the wall, it's still going to bring the
traffic in the area. But as Mr. Evans with the Chevron station
that
-- he said it in the last meeting. His experts told him he was
going
to pump X number hundred thousands of gallons, and he's only
pumping
half of that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me respond to that. It's
not anywhere remotely construed as the purview of the county
commission to base our decision on economic matters. I mean --
MR. RILEY: Understood.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- that's none of our business.
MR. RILEY: Understood.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And if -- if they want to put a
thousand gas stations out there --
MR. RILEY: They're welcome to do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and they all go broke, that's not
our concern.
MR. RILEY: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay?
MR. RILEY: But then we have a whole string of buildings
that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not our concern, sir.
MR. RILEY: I know. But to be concerned about our town
of Naples, the corridor -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can't base our decision on economic
matters.
MR. RILEY: I know, but we take many things into
consideration in making our decision -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. No.
MR. RILEY: -- and the beauty of Naples should be
considered.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir, we shouldn't do that. I'm
telling you we can't do that.
MR. RILEY: Okay. Well, like I said I was -- I was very
much taken aback when hearing the reversal, and as many other
citizens
will soon contact you and let you know they feel the same way, and
it's very unfortunate. But I thank you for the time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question,
Mr. Riley.
MR. RILEY: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I haven't been privy to the
-- to the meetings that the Livingston Woods homeowners have --
have
attended. Can you give me some idea of -- of what it -- what it is
that you envision this area as -- as including?
MR. RILEY: The area being our subdivision or what's out
on the road?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The area -- the area along Pine
Ridge Road that's adjacent or abuts Livingston Woods. Actually,
it's
part of --
MR. RILEY: Office buildings, medical buildings. There
was a gentleman in Marco that had talked to my wife about possibly
coming up and seeing what interest he could have in the property
for
putting something completely different.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you recall, the discussion
last time was not that it shouldn't be developed as commercial,
just
that you had a very intense commercial use on the south side of
Pine
Ridge; that you had very, very light housing in Livingston Woods;
and
that there should be some transition in between, not intense,
intense,
and then very, very light.
MR. RILEY: And our area is unprecedented for putting a
gas station backed right up to a community, and Mr. and Mrs. Falls
were very adamant against this. They're the ones that called the
meetings to their house and wanting to know why they have reversed
their decision. We've got our spin on why they've been -- they've
changed their mind, but they're the ones that are the closest to
this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why -- what's your spin on why
they've changed their mind?
MR. RILEY: Well, those are my private concerns, and I
will keep them private, because I don't know for a fact, and I'd
only
like to speak to facts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. RILEY: But there's many times that I heard them
speak. Why should two people rule what's going to go on in the
rest
of the subdivision? They can pack up and leave tomorrow. Adios.
And
they're going to give you a piece of paper to give you permission
to
go ahead with this when the rest of us are just as adamantly
against
it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, they're -- it's fair to say
that they're not the only people in your neighborhood that do not
object to this project --
MR. RILEY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so to place the entire burden
on them would imply that they're the only people that have said
we're
okay with it --
MR. RILEY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- which, at least from my
experience, is not the case.
MR. RILEY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But before you take the -- the
rhetoric of reversal much further, the concept is you and your
neighbors brought forth many concerns.
MR. RILEY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aesthetics, gateway concerns. I
remember the term "gasoline alley." From that, in a careful review
of
the record, there are two issues that were not addressed to the
extent
that they need to be addressed, and one is the location of the gas
station, and is there a significant or substantial transitional use
from that to the residential. That's what needs to be answered
further today. And the second is the gasoline-alley comment.
What's
to keep people from coming in -- if we allow this, are we opening
Pandora's Box and allowing more gas stations right next to it?
Those two items are the outstanding issues as I reviewed
the record. Everything else, the aesthetics, the gateway, the
landscaping, the buffers, the distances, all of those things, in my
singular opinion, have been answered more effectively on this site
than I have seen at least in the last two years on this board.
So the two outstanding issues for me are compatibility,
which means the location of this gas station in reference to the
residential zoning of the estates; and the second issue is one of
how
do we avoid a proliferation of this if this were to happen. So
before
you -- you set your heels in reversal, understand that those are
the
two issues that need to be answered today before this petition is
either approved or denied. And that -- that's really what I am
basing
it on is the two unanswered questions.
MR. RILEY: Oh, understood. Because we thought a lot of
those things were addressed at the last hearing when they said it
could not come back as a gas station or convenience store. And now
there's this whole understanding, well, there's a possibility that
it
can come back.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've been known to ask for
things that we may not really be entitled to before up here, and so
that's a decision we have to make individually and collectively.
But,
like I said, those two still need further discussion and look at
today.
MR. RILEY: Understood. ANd I appreciate the decisions
you have to make; I know it's not easy. But we appreciate having
you
hear from us that we are not collectively, totally, a large
percentage
of the people, for this. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Rudnicki and then Miss Madigan.
MS. RUDNICKI: Commissioners, my name is Barbara
Rudnicki. I live on Bottlebrush Lane, one street away from the
proposed gas station, and I personally feel bamboozled myself. It
was
my understanding that the answer to the question of what is the
plan
for the PUD now going to look like minus the gas station and
convenience store is the thing that was going to be addressed
today.
Therefore, the homeowners are, A, not here because this was a
closed
hearing; that was our understanding; and B, we were not prepared to
discuss a gas station on the site, because the plan at the end of
the
July 16th meeting was for them to come back minus the gas station
and
the convenience store.
Reopening the public hearing was not only a bit of a
surprise to us, but fortunately there are three of us here and not
none of us here. We were told that we would not have an
opportunity
to speak.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: By whom?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MS. RUDNICKI: By Kena Yoke, who is the contact with
Commissioner Constantine and the person that we look to as kind of
our, quote, unquote, leader in our effort and in our organization.
She is the person that has spearheaded most of the effort through -
_
through all of this, and she was -- she told us that as a result of
the -- the hearing being closed at the -- on July 16th, that we
would
not have an opportunity to speak.
The major concern, I believe, with the question that
came up when Mr. Riley was speaking of what kind of businesses we
would like to see, the answer to that question is non-24-hour
businesses. That relates specifically to the issues that as far as
I'm concerned have not been addressed. To me groundwater safety
has
not been addressed. We still have the statistic of 249 out of 500
gas
-- gas stations in Naples having groundwater leakage problems --
I'm
sorry -- gasoline leakage problems. That has not been addressed.
That is my personal biggest concern. We are on wells. No one has
ever addressed if there is a leakage of gasoline under the ground
and
the water that I drink and I use is contaminated, what are my
repercussions. Who gets me an alternative water source, who pays
for
it, and what do I do in the meantime? That to me is the biggest
concern.
Also the detrimental effect to our property values based
on what is happening on Pine Ridge Road has never been addressed.
Health and safety issues for neighborhood children has not been
addressed. Decline in property values has not been addressed.
Transient problems as the result of 24-hour convenience store and
gas
station issues have not been addressed, and the transient problems
continue to increase in Livingston Woods.
Total architectural design of the corridor on Pine Ridge
Road has not been addressed. Yeah, it looks pretty. It does. It
looks very nice for that PUD, but what about the rest? Since day
one
we have been asking for some architectural standard for the entire
corridor. Now only on the north side is what we can expect.
That's
what we're asking for.
I would like to add one personal comment, since I have
the microphone and the floor, and that is, the Falls, I know, have
removed their objection to what is going on here. It is my
understanding based on my conversations with people that have --
have
been talking to the Falls as well as I have, that they -- they feel
__
not that it's true. How they feel is reality to them -- that they
were threatened. If you don't approve this, you're not even going
to
get anywhere close to it, and the threat was suit. So they rolled
over and played dead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ma'am, please don't disparage the
Falls. I spoke to Don just a couple days ago, and he never
mentioned
the word "threatened." He worked with my wife at Barton Collier,
and
I know the Falls. So please don't -- don't put words in their
mouths. He never mentioned that to me, so I just don't want to see
those two folks disparaged here in any kind of --
MS. RUDNICKI: Oh, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't think it's fair.
MS. RUDNICKI: I understand. But they -- they do feel
as though if they do not approve this, that this is the absolute
best
that they're ever going to get. And if they don't approve this,
that
it could get a lot worse.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That may be. But I just -- I
just wanted to make sure that they weren't getting attacked here.
MS. RUDNICKI: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: And Miss Madigan.
MS. MADIGAN: Thank you. Also I -- I guess I'm going to
join the group of the bamboozles, because I had -- didn't have a
chance to really organize my thoughts other than the last five
minutes
knowing this was a public hearing. To go back to the public
hearing
issue, it seemed reasonable once a -- a motion is made, that the
public hearing is closed. Is that not the normal procedure? So
our
assumption as Livingston Woods residents that this wasn't going to
be
a public hearing today I think was a fair assumption.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May -- may I just ask the -- the
county attorney a question.
MS. MADIGAN: I thought that came from the back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's confusing the way these
speakers are. I'm beginning to be concerned about -- you know,
everybody's talking lawsuits, but the ability of the neighbor --
association to bring some kind of an action against the county if
this
were approved today for -- for their inability to participate. Was
this advertised as a public hearing? Are we legally safe that if -
_
if there was a misunderstanding are we, nevertheless, legally in a
public hearing at this point?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're in a public hearing. This
agenda item, it appears under the public hearing items. It was
continued on the record. Notwithstanding that the public hearing
had
been closed at that particular session, the board retains the
prerogative to reopen a public hearing; and notwithstanding this
particular item of interest and concern, this agenda item, I'd be
very
concerned to tell you that you cannot reopen a -- an item that's in
the public hearing agenda, quite frankly.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize it may meet the
legal requirement. My concern is people's confidence in government
is
low enough as it is, and -- and when we have something that says
with
the understanding that when it returns, certain parts won't be
included, I'm going to guess the majority of the neighborhood took
this board at its word for that and today assumed that we were
going
to maintain what we said in July. And so I -- I'm concerned that
then
they stay home, they don't come here, they're not part of the
process,
and their confidence in government sinks lower.
Well, we can do a couple things. I just -- it would --
you know, I have some discomfort with it anyway, but if -- if it at
least makes the public part of the process, perhaps we continue the
item and -- so that they are able to participate. Because I don't
think most of them were aware that, A, it was going to be opened
again
today; and, B, that we would stray from the direction of the motion
we
made on July 16th.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, I came into this not
surprised today that we were looking at a -- a gas station, because
my
recollection was --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's the only contract they had.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, right. -- that we would --
that we asked them to go away and come back and tell us what of the
__
what of the conditions they could live with. However, Mr.
Constantine
was reading from the verbatim minutes, and I'm -- I'm having
trouble
-- I'm concerned that I may be participating in misleading these
members of the public even though I don't think -- with all due
respect to the people who live in the neighborhood, I want to tell
you
that my vote on this issue is not going to be based, you know, on
public opinion. It's going to be based on legally what is
permitted
in this -- in this district. And I think this gas station is
permitted, whether I like it or not, and I -- and I don't. But I -
- I
think that legally it's permitted, and that causes me to -- to cast
my
vote based on what the regulations are. But I am concerned based
Commissioner Constantine's reading of the record that we may have
unintentionally mislead people into thinking they didn't have a
right
to be heard today, or they didn't have anything to worry about with
regard to a gas station today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that -- that flies into the
face of exactly what I told Hiss Yoke after the hearing. And I'll
be
flat-out honest with you. The reason I put all these standards in
there was because I felt that the petitioner with the comments --
and
then with all deference to the lady that has already spoke -- they
did
cover ground seepage --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- well water, drinking water.
That was all covered in the last hearing substantially. I did feel
that with the intervening use between the gas station and the
estates
zoning that, in my opinion, they had met the transitional use from
a
-- a highly commercial intensive use to a residential use and was
putting these stipulations in there to try and protect the
community
from what I felt was an argument that had been made relatively
successfully.
So as those of us that are familiar with this process
should be, I told Miss Yoke that she needs to be on her watch,
because
this could come back with a gas station in it even though we've
asked
that it not be. The question was can you do this project without a
gas station, and we'd like to see that. Now, that's -- that's not
what has come back today, but my direct communications with the
handful of residents standing right over here after that hearing
was
not go home, go to bed, take it easy; it was keep your eye on this.
I even asked the petitioner to contact Miss Yoke and
inform her -- when I saw that this was coming back with a gas
station
-- that it was coming back with a gas station included. And
unless
that wasn't done -- I'm just saying that, you know, I understand
the
position, but maybe it's that those of us who deal with this on a
regular basis understood it and didn't do a good job of explaining
it.
MS. MADIGAN: Well, perhaps there has been a
misunderstanding. In fact, I know we just came today just to be --
I
-- I really don't know why we're here to tell you the truth,
because
we said we can't say anything. And we talked to a couple other
neighbors, and they said, "Well, I'm not going to get a baby-
sitter,"
or "I'm going to go play golf, because I can't say anything, and I
ca~
watch it on TV," and we -- and so I feel like we've been
undermined.
I really do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: By whom?
MS. MADIGAN: By communication, shall I say, because we
thought that it was don't come back with a gas station --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you suggesting --
MS. MADIGAN: -- now they did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you suggesting that the Board of
County Commissioners has undermined you or bamboozled you?
MS. MADIGAN: I've been mislead. Now, you put whatever
label you want on it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Specifically answer my --
MS. MADIGAN: -- or maybe my --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Specifically answer my question, and
my question is do you feel that it's the Board of County
Commissioners
who has unfairly treated you.
MS. MADIGAN: Well, all right. Let me ask you this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. Just answer my question --
MS. MADIGAN: I'm going to answer --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- first, please.
MS. MADIGAN: Okay. I'm going to answer your question
with a question. Mr. Hancock said he got together with these
people
and some of the -- some of the residents. Do you know when I'm
sitting in the back how that appeared to me? When I didn't even
know
there was a public hearing today, do you -- would you feel
trustworthy?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. That's open
disclosure. We're required to disclose at a public hearing all
meetings we've had with both members of the public and the
petitioner.
MS. MADIGAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And nothing of that is illegal.
MS. MADIGAN: And you said you changed your mind because
of that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am --
MS. MADIGAN: You said you were withdrawing --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I did not.
MS. MADIGAN: Yes, you did. You said new information
has come to light --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. That was me.
MS. MADIGAN: -- and the result of that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I just -- I need to get an answer to
my question.
MS. MADIGAN: Well --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you accusing the county
commissioners of bamboozling you?
(Laughter)
MS. MADIGAN: No, I'm not accusing you of -- I am just
saying I think this has, as I said in the back -- well, I won't say
that. I was going to say I'm waiting for the whistle to blow,
because
I -- the train came through, and I never heard it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's -- that's fine. If --
if you didn't --
MS. MADIGAN: But I would like to say --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris --
MS. MADIGAN: -- one other thing --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- let me try and answer her
question for her because it's -- it's, as Commissioner Hancock
said, I
mean, we do this every week, and Mr. Weigel said, you know, we have
the legal right to reopen public hearings and so on. But if you're
a
member of the public who comes and sits at public hearings, you do
this once a year or once in a lifetime and the motion reads that
those
things not be an element when it returns, I can see where they
would
make the assumption -- and we may disagree on where we end up with
the
issue, but I can see where the public would assume that's the
motion,
so it'll return and those won't be part of the elements --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so I don't --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- let me finish with --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- with my line here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think anybody is
saying the board --
MS. HADIGAN: Can I say --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is purposefully misleading
them.
MS. HADIGAN: -- just a few things.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the contrary.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On the contrary, I think they are, and
that's -- that's my problem. You know, I just would like to give
you
one little piece of advice: If you're going to come here and ask
for
our help, it's not very smart to insult us.
MS. HADIGAN: I didn't insult you. I'm sorry. I did
not say --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I take it as a personal affront.
MS. HADIGAN: I felt bamboozled. I -- I used a term
that was used by other people here. I wasn't making it personal.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Weigel a question.
Mr. Weigel, did we ever have the legal right to prohibit the
petitioner from asking for a gas station?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely not did you say?
MR. WEIGEL: Not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. We've got several
considerations here in addition to that. If -- you know, it's
funny
that you said people don't trust government when the -- the polls
show
that the approval rating of the Collier County Commission is at an
all-time high. But '-
MS. HADIGAN: And I agree.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- at the same time it is because we
try to deal very fairly with the public, and that's why I take it
as a
personal affront that you're --
MS. HADIGAN: I -- I'm sorry if I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- accusatory in your comment.
MS. HADIGAN: -- did insult -- if you took it
personally.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You don't mind if I finish, do you?
MS. HADIGAN: Well, I didn't get my chance to finish,
but go ahead.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll give you your chance if you
still want to speak. But personally I -- I -- if the people
misunderstood that they were not going to be able to participate in
a
public hearing today, even though it's advertised as a public
hearing,
I'm not comfortable making a final decision today. I would prefer
to
continue and --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to go one more week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- advertise the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to go one more week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd like to --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If someone wants to come up here and
put their two cents' worth in, that's fine. I think they should be
given the opportunity rather than feel that we are bamboozling or
doing something else underhanded to them. But I would also like to
ask you one more question.
MS. MADIGAN: I don't like the term "underhanded." I
didn't -- I didn't say that to you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. MADIGAN: I -- I just felt I had been mislead; let's
put it that way, and not -- not that it was --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Semantics aside, it's the same thing.
MS. MADIGAN: I guess so.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me point out one other
thing to you. When you come back, if it's next week or soon,
whenever
it will be if we go that way, if you -- if you residents are -- are
so
firm in your conviction that you need to control the use of someone
else's property, perhaps you should consider buying it.
MS. MADIGAN: Well, I'm -- that's one person's property,
and I think there's a hundred of us in Livingston Woods.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. But we're talking about their
property, not yours --
MS. MADIGAN: Okay. I agree.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and their legal right to use their
property. That's what we're discussing.
MS. MADIGAN: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I make a suggestion?
MS. MADIGAN: There is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've been unfairly --
MS. MADIGAN: There are legal uses.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, you've been --
MS. MADIGAN: I don't want -- there are legal uses for
the property. I -- we're not against that. I think Mr. Riley
addressed that very well. And we are looking at a gas station,
what,
three tracts down that is already approved for the gateway. So now
we
are looking at two gas stations on this side of the road, and when
you
say look down the road for aesthetically presentable on the north
side
of Pine Ridge, we're just asking -- we're already facing two gas
stations. Now, when you say -- we have a right as citizens to
sleep.
We don't want to listen to loud noises, microphones. We hear the
one
across the street now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that's been addressed.
MS. MADIGAN: I live two roads away.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- but the point I'm making
is that --
MS. MADIGAN: You're saying I'm taking their rights to
use their property, but I am already at my property.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ma'am, you -- in fairness, you
have kind of become a little bit of a target here, and for that I
apologize because that's not intended. The issues you're bringing
up
are issues that either have been addressed -- and you mentioned the
corridor. We can't make an adjacent property owner do something
because this person comes in, but I'm in the process right now of a
commercial architectural control standard to be implemented in our
Land Development Code later this year. So are we addressing that?
MS. MADIGAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Are we addressing a
plethora of --
MS. MADIGAN: And I applaud you for that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. But are we addressing
a plethora of gas stations? Not yet, but it's sitting right here
in
front of me that we need to address in our Growth Management Plan
the
number of fueling stations that can be located in interchange
activity
centers to make sure that if this one goes in, you don't get six;
you
don't get five, that we --
MS. MADIGAN: But we'll have four potentially there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. But there are four
corners to an interchange activity center, so there has to be a
reasonable level.
MS. MADIGAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, again, those things either
have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed and
that's why -- and it's -- and it was aimed at Commissioner
Constantine
because that was the source. The fact that I stood over here and
told
residents of your neighborhood that even though this was put off
and
this was continued, that it could come back with a gas station --
and
I don't know the names of everyone that was there; I know two of
them
-- to me it's going beyond just sitting up here and stating an
edict
and then saying, well, I hope they figure it out. So I personally
at
least went that extra step to try and make sure that folks, the
leadership of your group, understood what that continuance meant,
and
it included the fact that this could come back with that.
that's
where I do take --
MS. HADIGAN: Well, I guess I just mis -- I wasn't a
part of that group, but I would like to say, yes, a gas station is
a
use, and that's why we come to you and ask you. There's a lot of
uses
for this property, and we come to you and ask you is it a
compatible
use for what is -- is there. I mean, we can have a restaurant. I
guess it could be a disco. We could have many things. Those are
allowable uses. We're asking you to make the judgment if it's
compatible with our neighborhood.
And so, you know -- yes, legally they could put it in
there. I suppose you could put a slaughterhouse in our area; we're
agriculturally zoned. I mean, why not? But we're asking you to
use
the judgment.
(Laughter)
That's funny? I don't find it funny if they did put a
slaughterhouse. We're asking, you know -- yes, the use is there.
That's why they've asked you to consider it. We're asking you --
we're using ours as residential. We can't do anything more.
Please -- you know, we don't want lights, we don't want noise,
that's
why. But something that isn't 24 hours, I'll welcome them. And I
thank you, and I -- if I insulted any of you, I apologize because
that
I did not mean to do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question for
Mr. Weigel. How much time is left on the -- on the publication for
this particular --
MR. MILK: Five weeks.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I checked with Bryan.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Five more weeks?
MR. WEIGEL: It's been readvertised to make it properly
MR. MILK: It was continued and -- for the record, Bryan
Milk. This agenda item was continued. It was readvertised for
today's date, so we have five weeks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With that I've got a couple more
questions, Mr. Anderson. On this Exhibit 12 that you've
distributed
-- and I'm sure Commissioner Hancock has some more also. My notes
indicate from whenever it was that we first discussed this, Item 9
on
your Exhibit 12 says in Area B no pole lighting and only low-
lighting
area (sic). Area B is the area under consideration for the gas
station?
MR. ANDERSON: No. No. That is the area that is in the
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Behind it for the hotel --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and the restaurant? Okay.
My notes indicate, though -- and, you know, they're just a short
little list, but it says no pole lighting at all -- or it says no
pole
lighting. Now, I presume -- that, to me, would mean at all. But I
admit there was a lot of stuff being discussed that day, and maybe
I
missed something.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was a litany of things.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, you know, things were flying fast
and furious that day.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand.
MR. ANDERSON: And my -- my recollection -- I hadn't
gone through the transcript when I made up this list, and it was my
recollection that it was -- the restriction was placed on Area B
because it was the closest to the residential area. My planner
here
tells me, you know, you dumb lawyer. You should have refined this
a
little bit. You place a height limit on the -- on the -- on the
lights, not just a blanket prohibition, so maybe that is --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three feet.
MR. ANDERSON: But that -- there needs to be some --
some lighting for security purposes alone.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I can read you verbatim
what was said at the last meeting. This is Commissioner Hancock's
going through, you had a list of items you wanted agreed to. 3.3,
Item D, sub 3, why are loudspeakers required at all? You know,
unless
it's an alarm, I don't see why loudspeakers should be required.
Maintenance of landscaping and replacement of original landscaping
should be required within 90 days. Low-level lighting shall be
used
in Area B only. No pole lighting, and I would like to see test
wells. So I can see where that confusion would come in. It
doesn't
specify Area B only. It -- your comment says no pole lighting, but
I
don't know if you're referring --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know. I just -- like I
say, I just have a quick list that I put with the original.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was thinking about the property
owners behind it being -- having lights shining in their eyes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask the board if -- if we're
going to continue this, isn't this sort of discussion something
that
we would want to get into at the continuance?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I think we should do it --
do it with that, true. But I think we should also give Mr.
Anderson
any -- any problems that we're having with this list so that he --
he
can go back over the list that was proposed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's confine it then to what
the problem is that you have with the current list.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My problem is pole lighting as
compared to what was -- was stated at the first meeting, and I also
have two items on this list where based on your drawings I've got
additional questions. In Item No. 4 you're saying that trash
dumpsters will be shielded in a -- in an opaque enclosure. I think
the residents have a right to know what that opaque enclosure is
going
to be. Is it going to be a woven wooden thing or, you know, how
opaque? I know opaque is opaque, but -- and the other thing is
this
8-foot wall on the north property line, but your drawing shows that
line -- that that wall continues on the west side, and I'd like to
know how far down the west side.
MR. ANDERSON: Twelve feet.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twelve feet. Okay. That
answers that question.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, down the west side. You mean where
it makes the jog?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON: That would be to the south.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, moving to the south on the
western property line.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Twelve feet.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twelve feet on the west side
moving toward the south?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That answers that
question. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've -- the items I wanted to
address that were not finalized are hours of operation and type of
operation and what's allowed at what times of the day so we can
determine external impacts. And some of the other things your
architectural stuff has -- has answered for me. Off the top of my
head, that's -- that's the one that's out there, but let's see.
We've
already run so many tangents, it's easy to lose some.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anyone else?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion to continue
the item for three weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing. And
you'd like to make a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To continue the item for
three weeks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why for three weeks? Just a
good number?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have five to work with.
Seven may -- I mean, two may be fine. I'm just thinking seven days
may not be enough to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is our normal public hearing --
next public hearing date?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two weeks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two weeks?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me alter my motion to say
two weeks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to continue for two
weeks. Everybody understand? So we will have a public hearing,
and
you'll be able to speak, okay? All right? We're not bamboozling
you,
okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All issues are on the table. We
may or may not be talking about a gas station but, you know, don't
think that we're not going to discuss a gas station in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And with that, all those in
favor of the continuance please say aye.
Opposed?
None. That will be continued for two weeks.
Lunch.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd rather work through.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You'd rather work through?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my vote.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, perhaps we'll just work on
through.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-53 AMENDING ORDINANCE 93-82 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILIITES ORDINANCE - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATION
Okay. Next item is 12(C)(1), an ordinance amending our
adequate public facilities ordinance.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger of the planning
department. This is a matter -- housekeeping matter --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Stan. Can I ask the
petitioners to have their meeting outside? Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: This is a matter -- housekeeping matter
to reflect some changes in organizational dynamics in the division
relative to authorities under your adequate public facilities
ordinance. It does not change any of the operations or regulatory
framework.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Litsinger, we're changing
terms to update them without having a substantial change to the
operation or the ordinance?
MR. LITSINGER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cleanup.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
MR. LITSINGER: Would you please include in your motion
direction to record this ordinance in the public records through
the
clerk's office.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why do you do that?
MR. LITSINGER: I don't know. I was told to do it.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know, but I see some ordinances
recorded in the land records and some not.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. To the best of my knowledge and
remembrance, it was recorded in there because of certificates of
public adequate facility and that whole process to put people on
further notice.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Staff's recommendation of
recordation is included in the motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd love to talk to you about
that some time.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 96-54 AMENDING THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX ORDINANCE
WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM -
ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 12(C)(2), recommendation
that we adopt an amendment to the TDC ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Doing what we've already said
we're going to do on this one?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct. Do we have any public
speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we -- is there anything we
need to get on the record, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: There's only one item to be considered, and
the executive summary actually indicates that what was approved in
the
way of the ordinance amendment is actually what was approved as
part
of the budget. For consideration here, the museum last year went
and
had a special seasonal exhibit. The budget did not include
anything
for a seasonal exhibit for this year. What's being proposed is
that
the ordinance amendment still retain the 7 percent that was
originally
considered but that for an additional $5,000 in general fund
moneys,
the museum could have an annual seasonal exhibit. It would set up
a
sinking fund then so that any revenues realized could be used to
provide for a seasonal exhibit the following year, so this is a
onetime appropriation of $5,000 out of the ad valorem funds in
order
to have this year's seasonal event sometime in January. What's
proposed is a -- what's called Spanish treasure ships of the gulf,
sunken treasures down along the gulf coast, and it is available.
And
that's the only change recommended.
I do need to make one other verbiage change. If the
board would consider -- the way the language is currently written,
should the board desire to amend the museum budget at any time
during
the year, it wouldn't have the ability to do that within the
tourist
tax funds. So what's being recommended is the addition of one
paragraph, and I will read this into the record. It simply says,
this
amount may be amended upwardly or downwardly perspectively from the
date of the budget approval provided that the amount of the budget
amendment does not exceed the 7 percent of the net revenue.
that
gives the board flexibility should it decide to amend the budget
either up or down that it can still do that within the tourist tax
funds. With those two changes I'd recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hove approval.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Four to one.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I -- I had thought
we had asked our staff to -- and the TDC -- or we're going to ask
the
TDC to reexamine all of the Category C --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I believe --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- guidelines.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- that's upcoming.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I believe that's upcoming in --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, but we've just precluded
them in this ordinance from being able to do exactly that, and --
and
I -- I voted against it because I -- I think it's really premature
in
not having a recommendation from the TDC.
Item #13A2
PETITION A-96-3, PATRICK H. NEALE, ESQUIRE, REPRESENTING WILLIAM T.
ROBERTS, II AND DEBORAH D. ROBERTS, REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE
COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PETITION BD-96-8 ON JUNE
20,
1996, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 14, BLOCK 414, MARCO BEACH, UNIT
13 -
APPEAL APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. The next item is 13A(2),
Petition A-96-3.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services. This is a request for an appeal of a
Planning Commission decision on a boat dock on Caxambas Court in
Marco
Island. The plan for the dock that was approved by the Planning
Commission, as you can see on the diagram, is colored in yellow.
The
request was for a 45-foot boat dock extension from the required 20
feet, and 45 feet goes out to the mooring pilings, which are
colored
in yellow, so this would be the farthest extent at this point. The
dock falls within the setbacks and -- including the setbacks
extending
out at the riparian lines. The appeal is by the property owner to
the
west, Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, who are contending that the -- their
view
is going to be blocked by the mooring of the 55-foot vessel and the
45-foot dock extension.
Staff has looked at -- view is one of the considerations
that staff and the Planning Commission has to consider, and both
staff
and the Planning Commission by a 5 to 1 vote decided that the
configuration of the dock as presented for Mr. Brauburger, the
property owner, would allow him to moor his boat on one of the few
lots on Marco Island that could have a larger boat like this and
still
allow most of the view of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, the adjacent
property
owner to the west.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is a single-family lot?
MR. REISCHL: Both of these are single-family lots. The
Brauburgers' lot is a hundred and twenty-five feet -- as you can
see
better on this diagram, the Brauburgers are a hundred and twenty-
five
feet. The Roberts have 50 feet of water frontage, and then most of
the other adjacent lots have at least a hundred foot -- feet of
water
frontage. The Roberts' lot is one of the few that has much less in
this case.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which -- from the outset there
has to be some level of recognition that their view is far more
restricted than their neighbors'
MR. REISCHL: That's what staff took into consideration.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The question is how much
restriction is reasonable.
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And would we also factor in that
-- I'm assuming that since there's so much less water frontage,
they
paid less for the lot because they bought less view.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, possibly.
MR. REISCHL: I don't know.
MR. NEALE: If I may, I'm Patrick Neale, and I represent
the petitioners or the appellants in this matter. And I think that
looking at this based on the criteria involved in the -- in the
petition itself and our Land Development Code and the underlying
Florida law as it regards variances and exceptions from normal
land-use parameters, is that the extension that was granted was
wrongly granted for a variety of reasons. I think first -- a
little
review of where we stand here is that in order for a variance of
any
type to be granted, even in this case when it's characterized as a
boat dock extension, a number of tests must be met, either set in
an
ordinance or under general Florida State law.
In Florida, really, a variance or an exten -- exception
such as this can only be granted when the petitioner has shown that
the criteria set out in the ordinance have been fulfilled. And the
criteria set out in this ordinance are fairly clear or at least --
they're not terribly clear, but there are a number of them that
have
to be considered. Aside from the view, they also have to consider
the
effect the dock facility will have on the safety of the users of
the
navigable channels and adjacent waters; length -- the location,
length, and protrusion and design of dock facilities on adjacent
properties; the impact the extension will have upon the view of the
waterway by the adjacent property owners; and the size of the
vessel
to be moored. Nowhere does it say that just because you don't have
much waterfront, you get to have your waterfront cut down more than
anybody else.
The ordinance, as I read it, is designed to protect
adjacent property owners, not to help adjacent property owners
build
as big a dock as they want. Because this is an exception, just as
a
variance is an exception to our ordinance, it's not a matter of
right
this person is coming in for; it's a matter of exception to our
code.
And it's been my sense of this board that this board typically
grants
exceptions and variances cautiously, and I think that's an
appropriate
thing to do.
In this particular instance our own Marco Island Civic
Association has filed a letter of objection to this in that they
don't
feel it's compatible with the Marco Island deed restrictions and
with
the county code. And I have a copy of that for the record, which
I'll
-- I'll be putting onto the record as Exhibit 1.
By way of demonstration, I'd like to just show you some
pictures here and such. We -- my clients didn't want -- didn't
spend
the money for a professional photographer, so we're -- we're going
to
have to go along a little bit here. Let me just show you a little
bit
of the -- the orientation of the properties. This is the property
on
which the variance was granted, Lot 14 (indicating). This is my
clients' property, Lot 15 (indicating). This is the other adjacent
property, Lot 16 (indicating). And what we've tried to iljustrate
on
here is, this is this property here (indicating) on which they're
asking for a variance of twice the -- over twice the amount of dock
they would normally be allowed. Under the code the amount of dock
you're permitted is 20 feet, boat and dock included. That's all.
They're asking for 45 feet.
They're also pushing it right to the very edge of their
setback for my clients' riparian line, so that's what causes this
angle (indicating) on the end. So what you're seeing here is
they're
building something that is not only going to be really a hinderance
to
my clients' view -- and we'll see some more of that on the -- on
the
pictures -- but also potentially prevents -- presents a
navigational
hazard, because what if this fellow here on Lot 15 -- or 13 decides
down the road to build a dock to his furthest extent, build it to
15
feet setback? This one's going to be trying to pull a 55-foot boat
in
when, potentially, this guy could be allowed to put a 55-foot boat
in,
and this guy could be allowed -- 15 feet away. Well, I've been a
boater most of my life and have handled boats, but -- I'm not
considering myself an expert, but I'd have a -- real trouble
putting a
55-foot boat in a 30-foot hole. It just doesn't seem like that
would
work.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It can be done.
MR. NEALE: It -- it can be done. But you got to bring
it in this way (indicating) and turn it, you know, and it's not an
easy task. You've handled a lot of boats and, you know -- but you
also know the average quality of a recreational boat too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why I say it can be done.
MR. NEALE: The other thing is -- and what I've just
iljustrated by this little L-shaped device over here (indicating)
on
Lot 16 is -- you know, we all talk about precedent and what -- what
would be set by the commission and what if we do something and
what's
the future effect and things like that. Well, in this instance
what
I've iljustrated here is how far this adjacent lot owner could
build
out a dock with a similar variance on this property. So what you
have
is instead of just this little line (indicating) being cut off,
then
this line (indicating) is cut off, and all of sudden my client has
sort of this tunnel effect down between the two docks. And the
ordinance itself says that the commission is to address the various
factors including effect on adjacent dock design and so forth.
Well, since there's no docks, you can't address that
now, but it's the role and this commission has always taken the
responsibility, I think, of looking to the future and trying to
make
sure that we're looking out for not just what happens on this piece
of
property today, but what could happen tomorrow.
This -- as I say, a few of the -- the pictures that we
took here. This is a view from, essentially, the center of my
clients' lot looking straight out at his current view off of the
property. All of these pictures are part of the record from the
Planning Commission, so they've already got them in the record.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Neale, your client has not
yet built on his lot?
MR. NEALE: He has not yet built on his lot. He has
currently got a house on Marco Island. This is probably a lot that
he
would potentially build on later on, or he may sell it, but it's
certainly -- you know, he's looking to protect his rights, and one
thing that is part of Florida law is that someone is -- got a
reasonable expectation of being able to rely on the zoning as it's
set
out next door unless the next-door neighbor, the adjacent property
owner, can show some special reason why they should have that
changed
or why they should have the conditions changed. You know, if you
buy
next to commercial, you know it's commercial. He bought next to a
property where the code clearly says the guy can have a 20-foot
dock,
and he's got to go through some hoops to prove if he wants
something
bigger. It's just not an automatic matter of right for him to get
more than 20 feet.
This is the current dock that's there. It's set in from
the seawall; it's 20-feet wide; it meets the criteria, no objection
to
that dock. However, one thing that was brought up to the Planning
Commission, which I think may have mislead them a little bit, was
that
he could dock a boat on the outside of this without having to get a
variance. That's not the case under our code. He could not dock a
boat on the outside without a variance. He is only permitted to
dock
a boat inside this dock, 20 feet boat-and-dock combination. That's
all you're allowed.
This is just a view of where the new dock would be
coming in. The new dock would start approximately here
(indicating)
on this picture and come out from there. This is taken from my
clients' seawall. This is the corner over here (indicating); you
ca~
see where it runs into the corner.
Here's another view taken from the seawall looking out.
What we tried to iljustrate with this, and probably did an
incredibly
incompetent job of doing so, is the new dock would be far closer,
would come out further, and then would have a 55-foot boat sticking
out along the side of it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we're -- maybe we're
wasting Mr. Neale's time here. Is your argument simply -- if this
were Lot 13 where the lots on either side of it their views are
perpendicular to their property line --
MR. NEALE: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you wouldn't be making this
argument?
MR. NEALE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the fact that the adjacent
parcel's only water view is at an angle and that this will encroach
upon it to some 20 feet, apparently, is the basis for your
argument?
MR. NEALE: That's one of the bases for the argument.
The other -- you know, there's several others. I feel that it
doesn't
really meet any of the -- the tests that are required under the
code
so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without -- and maybe we can save
Mr. Neale some time. Without going any further, I think a
substantial
case has been made that -- that, you know, elements needed to be
considered that weren't. I don't find this to be a minor variance
to
accomplish something. This is, in fact, a change in character
because
of the angle of the view adjacent to it so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make a comment as well. If the
board remembers just, really, fairly shortly ago, maybe a few
months
ago, we instituted this appeal process and this, I think, is a
perfect
example of why we wanted to have an appeal process in place over
the
Planning Commission, which up to that point had blanket-approval
authority so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there are --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We probably have someone else that
wants to speak, don't we, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I don't have any --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have Miss Student who wants
to speak.
MS. STUDENT: I -- I need to remind the board, if I may,
of a couple of things. First of all, we're not talking about
variance
here. That misnomer has been bandied about, and there are
different
criteria for a variance, and what we're looking at is the criteria
for
a boat dock extension and whether or not there was competent
substantial evidence to support the Planning Commission's decision
as
it considered those elements; and secondly, whether the decision is
consistent in this case with the Land Development Code, and then
that
would get you back to the criteria for a boat dock extension. And
that's all we consider in --
MR. NEALE: As the commissioners know that's what I
precisely addressed is the criteria under our ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since one of the elements that is
required for our consideration is, in fact, protection of -- of an
existing view and the fact that we have a unique situation here
that
the lots are not, you know, along a straight line, I'm going to
make a
motion --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a motion that we deny Petition
BD --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, we approve the appeal.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. We approve the appeal
of Petition --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: BD-96 --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: BD-96-8. Miss Student, are we
required to place findings on the record with that in addition to
what
has already been stated?
MS. STUDENT: I think the appropriate way is to state
your reason --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- on how the Planning Commission may have
failed to be consistent with the land code on the record, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, it does appear that
there is somebody unfamiliar with the process of registering to
speak
who wanted to speak on this subject.
MR. FURFEY: I represent the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You don't represent the petitioner.
MR. FURFEY: The -- the original petitioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Dotrill, we asked if there
was any other public speakers. You have none registered; right?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you registered to speak, sir?
MR. FURFEY: No, I'm not. I came in waiting for
Mr. Neale to finish. I represent Mr. Brauburger.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reopen the public hearing.
MR. FURFEY: I didn't think I was a public speaker. I
thought I was part of it. Excuse me for that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, okay. That's fine. Go ahead.
MR. FURFEY: Commissioners, I -- I'm Wayne Furfay from
Custom Dock. I represent Mr. Brauburger. This was heard, as we
all
know, and you just heard what Mr. Neale had to say. I have got a
drawing here that I'd like to show to the commissioners and -- and
give you a little better light on the exact angle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Any -- any verbal comment
has to be on the microphone, please.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll go ahead and pass those
out, and then you'll need to make your comments on the microphone.
MR. FURFEY: The drawing that I gave you is the actual
plot plan of that end of the street showing exactly where the
lot lines are and all. I had the architectural firm of J. D. Allen
&
Associates draw a footprint of the house -- of an exist -- of a
house
that would be put on that property. If you look at it, you can see
where the view area is. You'll notice that Mr. Brauburger's lot is
off to the right hand, and Mr. Roberts' view is not obstructed in
any
way, shape, or form by the mooring of this boat. You'll also
notice
that the stern end of the boat is 40 foot in from the property
line,
so there is -- there is no obstruction at all for Mr. Roberts' lot
as
far as view goes.
Okay. And when we talked about a dock, Mr. Neale also
brought up the point that it was going to be a very large dock. In
actuality, the dock isn't going to go out hardly any further than
it
is right now existing. In fact, most of it's being cut back in.
The
max extension of the dock itself, I think, is -- the corner is only
22
feet. The only thing that's going to go out farther than that is
going to be the mooring pilings.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that counts, though.
MR. FURFEY: Well, I realize that counts. It's for the
extension.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A vessel impedes view a heck of a
lot more than a dock does. So -- so that's actually a converse
argument.
MR. FURFEY: Well, yes. But also the vessel is parked
right in the middle of his lot. It's not parked to the left side
at
all. And in reality, if -- if there were sufficient water depth
there
for Mr. Brauburger to put in a small, marginal dock along his
property
and park his boat in front of the dock -- which is what he could do
legally because that would stay within the 20 feet -- that alone
would
obstruct Mr. Roberts' view far more than the design that you see
there
that I've presented.
What I did is I took it into consideration to move
everything over as far as we could so that we wouldn't obstruct any
of
Mr. Roberts' view. What I'm saying right now, we could put a
little,
marginal dock in there, and he could park the boat right in front
of
it, and it's totally legal.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I've lost my planning
skills, but I disagree with you, because I could design it to be a
lot less impacting than it is now. But as you've sited, the water
depth isn't sufficient for a 55-foot vessel, which -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And maybe therein lies the heart of
this matter.
MR. FURFEY: Well, this is Caxambas Island, which I'm
sure you're all familiar with. It's the estate area of Marco
Island,
and a 55-foot vessel is not an unusual vessel out there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When the lots are along the same
line. Again, it's not -- it's not just this lot here.
MR. FURFEY: Yeah, but you can't penalize Mr. Branburger
for something that Mr. Roberts bought. You know, when he bought
this
lot, he was well aware of the fact that it had only 50 foot of
water
(sic).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our code does recognize the fact
that you have to take your neighbors' view into consideration,
particularly when you're asking for something that is not allowed
by
code that is in addition to what is -- is allowed by the code, and
that's where the catch is here.
MR. FURFEY: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have anything else, sir?
MR. FURFEY: Nothing else. Obviously it doesn't count.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure it counts.
MR. NEALE: If anybody has any other questions, I'd be
happy to respond.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. We have a
motion on the floor with a second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I get the motion just for
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The motion is -- is to --
to uphold the appeal -- I've got three people telling me what my
motion is -- is to uphold the appeal of BD-96-8. And the reason
is,
quite simply, that what is being proposed will unnecessarily impede
a
reasonable view of an adjacent property which, under our Land
Development Code, is a necessary consideration of these
applications.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So approval of this motion
will disapprove the Planning Commission's approval. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whatever you say.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right. Motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There's none.
MR. NEALE: Thank you, Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could we -- could we as a board
also give direction to our staff, since we've just granted -- or
just
allowed for this appeal process just a few short months ago and
here
in the last six weeks we've now listened to two of them, that
perhaps
we need to revisit the land code and what the -- the criteria that
the
Planning Commission is using for the granting of these?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the Planning Commission
needs to know that we've overturned the last two.
MR. REISCHL: We'll report that in the BCC report
sometime in the future.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And could -- could we see some
proposal for changing of the land code that would more expressly
show
the Planning Commission what it is that this board and the citizens
of
Collier County would like to see?
MR. REISCHL: Okay. Did you want that from staff or --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you want the five of us to
submit pictures or --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. No. I -- I think we've had
two appeals now that we've granted and -- and -- clearly showing
that
there are limitations on what it is that we would like to see, and
yet
the Planning Commission is granting these extensions based on what
the
land code is saying, and I -- I think what we would like to see is
the
staff to give us suggestions on what the land code should say so
that
the Planning Commission can adequately handle these without
creating
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you clear on that, Mr. Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: I've got that direction.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 96-418 RE PETITION V-96-14, GRETA M. VINCENT, REQUESTING
A
1.95 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT SIDE
YARD
SETBACK TO 5.55 FEET AND 1.7 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO 8.3 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next one is 13(A)(3),
Petition No. V-96-14, an after-the-fact variance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just to make
sure I understand this before we get into a deep thing, the total
of
the two after-the-fact variances is about 3 feet 9 inches,
something
like that, and this has -- has been in violation since 19797
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: However, nobody realized it
until --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- this year, 19967
MR. BELLOWS: That's right. The property owner is going
to sell, and they conducted a spot survey.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems like a -- basically what
we would consider a real after-the-fact variance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A real, real after --
MR. BELLOWS: Extremely after the fact.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Long after the fact. Close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hove approval to grant the
variance.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval of this after-the-fact variance.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: After, after.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Seventeen years later.
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 96-419 REGARDING PETITION V-96-16, PETER L. ROSENBERG
REPRESENTING THOMAS VALESKY REQUESTING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF
0.2
FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 24.8 FEET,
0.71
FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO 24.29 FEET AND A 1.7
FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5 FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5.8 FEET FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 204 2ND STREET, LITTLE HICKORY SHORES IN BONITA
BEACH - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next item is 13(A)(4), Petition
V-96-16 --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- another after-the-fact variance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who messed up?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The surveyor messed up, and we have
already taken action against the surveyor.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm reading -- a spot survey
as required by the code revealed the encroachments.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The -- my name is Chahram Badamtchian
from planning services staff. This is V-96-16. Originally they
hired
the surveyor to survey the land and show the corners of the house.
That surveyor made a mistake in doing that, and the spot survey was
done by another surveyor, which showed the encroachment.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which company did it right, and
which company did it wrong?
MR. ROSENBERG: I'm Peter Rosenberg, Monopoly Builders.
The owner originally had the lot surveyed by Finstad Surveyors when
he
purchased the property.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They are the ones who made the
mistake?
MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. ROSENBERG: And when we built -- we had the
lot resurveyed the night before we dug the footer, because some of
the
survey stakes were missing, done by the seawall company. So
Finstad
came out and resurveyed the lot again, set the corner stakes for
us.
Unfortunately, one of their corner stakes was a little off, which
caused the house to be built slightly askew. When I had the slab
survey done, it showed this encroachment. I had it resurveyed by
another survey, which verified the encroachment. I brought it to
the
attention of the building department and the zoning commission and
brought to their attention that we were off by a matter of inches
only
and proceeded with the variance request.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is the current status of the --
of your construction?
MR. ROSENBERG: I had the slab poured. That's when we
got -- had to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all you have is a slab?
MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, sir, but I'm a small builder, and
to rip it down and redo it would financially kill me so --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's 2 1/2 inches in one
place and 9 inches in another and 21 inches on the third; is that
right?
MR. ROSENBERG: Nineteen inches, I believe.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Point two feet, two point four
inches on one side.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The amount of the variance -- I'm
sorry. The amount of the variance is minimal. You made a comment
that the original surveyors made the mistake, that we have --
'cause
in the past we have given direction to issue letters to -- whether
it's the Department of Professional Regulation or whoever's
appropriate indicating the error that was made and by whom.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Surveyors, yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that's been done?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think it's unnecessary
to penalize the builder or the homeowner in this case.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a -- let me ask you, do
you have a heavy-duty concrete saw?
MR. ROSENBERG: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A heavy-duty concrete saw. Do you
have one?
MR. ROSENBERG: Yeah. There's a little bit more to it
than that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we close the public hearing,
I'll make a motion.
MR. ROSENBERG: We're also sitting on a six -- it's an
eight-course foundation, so there's a little more to it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Any other public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of the variance.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second for approval. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Thank you, sir.
MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you very much.
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 96-420 RE PETITION V-96-13 LAURA REDONDO RYAN
REPRESENTING
BARNETT BANK REQUESTING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FEET
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 20 FEET, A 100 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 20
FEET LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG US-41 TO 10 FEET FOR A DISTANCE OF 130
FEET
AND A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED DISTANCE OF 160 FEET ALONG
THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY ON US-41 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3285
EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 13(A) (5), Petition V-96-13.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: V-96-13.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a before-the-fact
variance?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a before-the-fact --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't look like a Laura.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This variance was caused by the taking
-- by the U.S. 41 widening.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is the Barnett Bank right across
the street?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Barnett Bank right across the street.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And it's because of the state's taking
of right-of-way?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right. They have to reconfigure their
parking lot, and they cannot do it without this variance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Just this gentleman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you want to talk us out of this?
MR. BASINAIT: I'm only here to answer questions if you
have any. My name is Charles Basinait for the record.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
MR. BASINAIT: Mr. Chairman, if I -- if I may ask one
question. There was -- in the resolution there was a term
"redevelopment" that was in that resolution. In other words, these
variances would be effective but for redevelopment of the site. My
understanding of that term is that if we demolish the building,
that's
construed to be redevelopment, and we will then have to comply with
the code.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct.
MR. BASINAIT: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 13(B) (1).
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 96-421 RE PETITION CU-95-4 FOR THE 1ST EXTENSION OF A
CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH (I.E. NAPLES BIBLE CHURCH) LOCATED ON
THE
WEST SIDE OF C.R. 951 APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET NORTH OF VANDERBILT
BEACH
ROAD - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this is just
the extension of a conditional use already existing on a church.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Where is -- where's Mr. Spagna?
MR. HULHERE: He was here. I don't know where he went,
but he was here waiting for this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #14(2)
MEDIAN RE N. CARICA ROAD - DISCUSSED
Commissioner Matthews, do you have anything?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. I -- in
my mail last week as I was reading it, I'm seeing some letters
regarding a median on Goodlette Road.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A nubian (phonetic)?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Median. Nubian? Median at
Goodlette Road at North Carica that our -- our planning staff has -
_
has apparently developed some plans to put it in, and I've got a
couple of letters of complaint about it, and I'm not too sure that
planning staff's reasoning for wanting to do that is not a bad
idea.
I mean, it's going to help -- help change the traffic patterns and
so
forth, but I -- I think I'd like to see staff do some additional
work
with the residents in the area to let them know this is going to
happen, because it seems to just now come out, and there's some
people
opposed to it that need it explained to them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, can you handle that?
MR. DORRILL: I'm -- I'm not aware of the planning
staff's involvement. I saw some correspondence --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not planning staff. I'm
sorry. It's traffic; it's not planning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you --
MR. DORRILL: I'm on top of that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you research that and get back
with us.
MR. DORRILL: There are a few issues there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And before we start scaring the
folks in Pine Ridge, the exact configuration being proposed was
passed
through the folks in Pine Ridge before that intersection of
Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Goodlette was -- was proposed, and I -- you know, if
there's going to be any material change to what's proposed, I would
__
I would like to see that as a public hearing item, because those --
those folks have been promised something by our staff in
association
with that roadway that is consistent with what's done elsewhere in
the
county, and I -- if there's going to be an exception made to that,
I'd
like to see it as a public hearing item.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing.
Item #14(3)
EMPLOYEE OUTING - (COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE) - DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one item. Just that I would
hope that we could get some kind of a consensus or information for
the
board that -- you probably heard talk about it -- that the staff is
proposing some kind of a picnic, a -- a party, a staff party, and
what
I have heard is some talk about the possibility of sending out
invitations; dear staff, we want to tell you how much we appreciate
you. Please bring $10, you know, to pay for your own soda, and
we'll
give you a party. And I'm hoping that that's not how we tell our
staff that we appreciate them and that this board could give some
direction to Mr. Dotrill --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Five dollars.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that -- that we would like for
them not to have to pay to come to their own appreciation party,
within reasonable limits that would come back on a consent agenda,
I'm
sure, but just some indication to staff that they don't have to pay
for their own sodas.
MR. DORRILL: I can tell you what has been contemplated
is that we would pick a Sunday afternoon, I think, in October or
November at the Golden Gate Community Park and that there will be
Some
softball. The pool would be open for employees who want to bring
their children and whatnot. There would be hot dogs and a sheet
cake
and some Cokes. And I think their total budget -- but their --
they
were contemplating charging in order to recover the cost for the
employee picnic.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's please not make them pay to
be appreciated.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I happen to be someone who
thinks you take care of your employees and keep them happy;
however, I
guarantee you we will get criticized by someone for spending
taxpayer
money on such a frivolous expenditure. I think it's fine, but I
guarantee you we will get criticized.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm willing to be so
criticized, because I think it's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did you say hot dogs and sodas?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hot dogs and a cake.
MR. DORRILL: It's a sheet cake.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And a sheet cake? Well, maybe
-- maybe our staff even would like to broaden that a little bit
and
bring a potluck dish of a salad or something to enhance it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but let's not make them
pay for their hot dog.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I don't want to.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think you made that clear.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I want everybody to nod so
they know that there's a consensus on the board of not having to
pay
for their hot dogs.
MR. DORRILL: And I think it's this week the board is
paying the cost to underwrite the appreciation luncheon for your
recap
employees; and then we do underwrite the cost to recognize, at a
luncheon annually, your volunteer employees. And I think it -- I
don't know what the budget is. If you want me to find out -- I --
I
would think it's less than $2,000 for the entire afternoon for up
to
1,100 employees and their -- and their families, but if you want
Some
information, I'd be happy to give it to you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sure Commissioner Constantine will
just fund that out of his -- of his walk-around money. Do you have
anything?
Item #14(1)
HIGH WATER USAGE - 6774 BUCKINGHAM COURT - (COMMISSIONER
CONSTANTINE) -
DISCUSSED
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The gentleman who was at our
budget hearing last night was convinced we were all millionaires so
__
I had one item and -- and there's nobody -- they're not here for
it.
You all got a memo from me in reference to a gentleman who had high
water usage. It appeared that a neighboring construction project
had
tapped into his water. He's not here. There's nobody representing
him here, so I'll assume that at this point he doesn't want to
pursue
it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: We do -- we do think that they -- and your
policy says if you think that someone has stolen water from you
after
it passes through the public meter and onto your property, this
lady
or gentleman have done the right thing; they've contacted the
sheriff's department.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a theft.
MR. DORRILL: But it's a theft from them; it's not a
theft from the county, and that's your basic policy.
Item #15(1)
LEE COUNTY JOINT MEETING - TO BE HELD WHEN THERE IS A NEED AND A
SUFFICIENT AGENDA
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have anything, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Just to advise you that in -- in
conversation with Mr. Stilwell last week as a result of him
discussing
with his commissioners and reading some stories that were in the
newspaper, both the Daily News and the News Press, and he suggested
and I concurred that with any joint --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the county manager read
the newspapers?
MR. DORRILL: It's my understanding that he does.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: That the joint workshop scheduled for the
12th should perhaps await a little broader agenda, because as they
shook the tree, the only thing they could come up with was a
discussion by Commissioner Judah concerning the Florida Cities
Water
Company. I didn't know that Florida Cities had a utility in Lee
County, but he suggested that maybe we defer that until later in
the
fall, and I told him that that sounded all right to me but that I
would bring it up today under communications.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The date on that is?
MR. DORRILL: There is no date yet. We wait and try and
develop a little broader agenda and then reschedule a meeting in
the
fall.
Item #15(2)
DEP INQUIRY REGARDING OFF-SHORE TESTING - DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I received yesterday a correspondence from
DEP, I believe, concerning some ship -- some ship magnetometer-type
testing for potential offshore coastal drilling that's going to run
from far north clear down to Naples, well offshore. The question
to
us as a legal response was does this run afoul of the comprehensive
plan. It may not. We're doing the research and should have it
finished today, but I'd like --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, it must. Surely it does.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you see, it's so far off the coast --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's amend our comp plan.
MR. WEIGEL: But I wanted -- I'm going to provide a copy
of our internal legal response to you, as commissioners, in case
you
have anything further to do with it or create an agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've jumped into enough
legal battles. We should let others fight some of them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, do you have anything
further?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing further.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hac'Kie,
and carried 3/0, (Commissioner Constantine and Hatthews out)
that the following items under the consent agenda be
approved
and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
APPROVAL TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLAGE WALK PHASE FIVE" -
WITH
LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16B1
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION IN PREPARATION FOR THE
GORDON
RIVER EXTENSION BASIN STUDY
See Pages
Item #1682 - Moved to Item #SB1
Item #1683
WORK ORDER TO REPLACE GOLDEN GATE WELL NO. 11 AND NO. 16
See Pages
Item #1684 - This item has been deleted
Item #1685 - Moved to Item #882
Item #1686
RECOHMENDATION TO AWARD BID #96-2544 FOR THE PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC
WATER
METERS - TO ABB-KENT IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $156,000
Item #1687
RESOLUTION 96-408 ACCEPTANCE OF A LAND TRANSFER FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, TO CONVEY LAND TO THE ADJACENT
PROPERTY
OWNERS, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE LAND INTEREST UPON WHICH
IHMOKALEE
ROAD IS BUILT IN T47/R30/Sl-6
See Pages
Item #16C1 - Moved to Item #8C2
Item #16D1
APPROVAL OF THE NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
See Pages
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 96-409 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 96-410 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 96-411 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 96-412 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 96-413 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 96-414 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 96-415 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D9
RESOLUTION 96-416 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D10
CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COHMISSIONERS AND DAVID E. BRYANT, ATTORNEY AT LAW
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-569, 96-578 AND 96-579
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
1995-73/76 7/22 - 8/27/96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of
County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments
as
indicated:
Item #16H1
TRANSFER OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY PURCHASED BY FUND 301 DURING
FYE
9/30/95 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SHERIFF TO THE SHERIFF'S CUSTODY
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara Drescher