Immokalee EZDA Backup Documents 04/20/2011
APRIL 20,.2011
Name
~'/'I("I~:' L(~ { Ct'v<-u
Publio
E-mail! Affiliation
"-:-i~LOe1 i x f)..t5'bt..
Phone #
277.. S. j,'- <Jlt (
r\ 7 (J '1 ~'j .. ' r:~ I f
!,:Yo;) r":;/<.7-I'-(.),'j ~>~
?/S-/ ootiD
~s~( r-JOd(J:R ....Se-:>/6C,tot
f(;1/VtJ?V (JOl1l/"!;'"' .P/lt/.e<vN... . ,
(~L~-() tt 1, /~-'~"ovt'\4 5 cl.J-!'j./YY\b ~12-~
~
<'~'t.""& . ~\ \ - -h,'il.A \\"i0 ~ !\\~e;~ 1) 7A 1\ 'v
-r;-v y ({}\~&E
~t~
~ \\ e..,\ hI I
;:Ji JlI) (:> 0 {IT;'f 'j-()
. . l cJ IQ-t>./-&"-.
~
It r II
1~~t'I,t S N. N c, .r~s 'l/M~
1& q ,{" A
""f({.'C<l1.. 0~ "" '<<.
I tp,/v /0 1,,;>7
'vJ:J '2 " lj &' 2 s:---
~I '(;" :1-:;":5, r-?
.J) 9 - )- t> 7.- o)'-7'd
l(
I (
~' A..,.-./'
M./' '/" 1/!/1
-~/
J1!:.-:- wg~
\,--- ;1 '-v
L'->f I '^" l,,,) I.XC) c: \.: {c:. ~.{
----.
([),~ ~ .,,, N o~ V.<- ~I
(?;~iuef, uj.~.eG
\J rr \k:~' B \L-t",
\/ \ t \:O{X (A C;\f'(Y\(Al ~g
-:!Jl! it. v / AI {l/J q /( '7 d /:J // 7"
~1f;J11 it; Af.~?Z tp"
T +JO~'>
C~ .'- ,
.. () llM:'2.- tp ~''l,MA S <;. ~.
'l?/, -q'~I..\ J.\oll cJ
() '2 C-( ~' -<;>. --70';;> 0-
L_.c) ~ -;'\0 Y" ,~.:>I
:< ~~ fA ,,<P)2 / ..1 t?c/ Y
'7 r;:>11"2L,:~t~ f .
APIHL 20, 2011
Public
~
1Y\.() ( I 'C:. (O-<O()L\.
)
E~nialll Affiliation
phOi1.e #
~~ ~-.,). - ~'l S' ~-
r
<:...u \..::)
">FD
:2 .c.s -{J J. 4 L
"'
<:>/'8 ,. --.5(,5,,'7 V'
{('y-:>
;).?/j.- Cj);J~' f 7 7 .6
.2 C:;2/ . ~:>< c.' r.:)~
.21') v (, '57.- 21 (I
I~S-7' ((VLj
APRIL 20, 2011
Public .,eW.,-i
j/c> If f). Q -t-(" ~V~ iJNJ..t./
~UvVv~ jV\ c\Q ~e >(
~Ph (jY, e .:/A
~-
a ?)O :) '7- 0 r7.')' ',).
. C Or>....., J _ c:...
'-
l~ '/ G'~1~)9 @ <;" .! .
c.._. " y c }4;.?,,-,'?~ . r ".., ,,~~<
("
Iwrm~flwmD
f p, .fi 'j ~t 'i.' "
V'I\ , , ' L U I I
April 20, 2011
BY: .......................
Ladies and Gentlemen of the CRA Board~
As members of the Collier County Community~ we have the right and expectation to be
treated equally by all levels of our government, but it is my belief that Jerry Blocker's
property rights have been violated. In 2002, Mr. Blocker entered into an agreement with
Mr. & Mrs. Collins to purchase ShelPs Trailer Park in Immokalee. At which time he did
his due diligence and meant with Michelle Arnold, the head of code enforcement, to
discuss the industrial zoning of this property. At which time, Mrs. Arnold explained that
the property fit into the grandfather provision of the law but with the understanding that
the mobile home park could remain as is but when anyone of the mobile homes was
destroyed beyond 50% by fire, hurricane, 01' accident it could not be replaced, nor could
the park ever be expanded. Mr. Blocker accepted these terms and finalized the purchase
of the property. Keep in mind that this mobile home park has been in the same location
.since the 1950's~ before zoning classification was even initiated.
In 2006, Mr. Blocker was issued a new citation for the same issue he discussed with Mrs.
Arnold and he was given only one option to correct: demolition of the trailers. At which
time, Mr. Blocker was infonned of a 2001 citation for the same infraction concerning the
industrial zoning of the park against the former property owners. They were given the
option to correct the violation by obtaining a Site Improvement Plan and repairing,
removing, and replacing units not meeting inspection requirements. As of this month the
first citation is still active and therefore Mr. Blocker should have had the same option to
correct the violation that was given to Mr. and Mrs. Collins in 2001. In addition, Mr.
Blocker would have corrected the problem when he purchased the property if he had not
been told by county staff that his property was grandfathered in and could remain as is
without changes being made. Please review both citations.
With denial of the SIP option on several occasions by county staff, Mr. Blocker has been
forced to take legal action in an attempt to receive equal property rights. The courts have
declared his property a non-conforming rental property, which by definition makes his
property perfect for the SIP program. Please see the SIP Program for details.
In addition, the current Land Development Code, as it is written today, allows existing
mobile home parks to use the SIP to become compliant if you are classified as either an
illegal or legal non-conforming mobile home park and the county once even offered a
monetary grant to assist in compliance; therefore, Mr. Blocker should have had the right
to participate in the SIP program all these years regardless of the master plan for
Immokalee. In agreement with court documentation, Bob Mulhire has offered a
professional opinion supporting the classification of this property as non-conforming with
inherited land rights.
We are also concerned that having a code enforcement officer on the current CRA board
contaminates this particular issue because he has personally recommended removal of
certain wording in the master plan to prevent Mr. Blocker from becoming compliant.
Therefore, we ask you to carefully examine the relevant issues at hand and keep section
6.1.7 in the master plan but remove the reference to "residential development" in
paragraphs B and C. By doing so, you will give all mobile home parks the same property
rights. Immokalee is a working class community and Mr. Blocker provides housing for
many farm workers. This property has been certified by the State of Florida and Collier
County as a Migrant Camp and has Inspections every 6 weeks to ensure that safety
guidelines are meant. Demolition of the mobile homes will put dozens of individuals and
families on the streets. So long as Mr. Blocker provides adequate accommodations for
his tenants and follows all guidelines set forth by the state, he should be given the
opportunity to make his property compliant through the SIP program. Certain county
staff and planning commissioners support this change and it is our hope that you will as
well.
In closing, Mr. Blocker's citation was never given a county staff recommendation, but
was moved directly to the code enforcement board where they started fining him $450.00
per day. The penalty now exceeds $300,000.00 and the county has started foreclosure
proceedings. Regardless of how anyone feels about the Blocker family, it is important to
keep a clear mind when examining the facts of this case. This is about a man who bought
a property that was grandfathered in as a mobile home park in an industrial zone, but then
was told years later that he was in violation of county codes and that his only option was
the demolition of all buildings. Demolition is not a viable option because other mobile
home parks/units and the previous property owners were given 3 options: obtain a Site
Improvement plan and pass inspections, rezone the property, or use it for industrial
purposes only. Since 2006, Mr. Blocker has tried to utilize the SIP option, but has been
denied again and again. So we turn to you, an advisory council to the Board of County
Commissioners, to right this wrong. If you have any questions regarding the truth of the
facts presented, we have minutes of meetings and video of all declarations made today.
So please recommend the change to 6.1.7 Band C, as opposed to the entire removal of
section 6.1.7, so that we can see the master plan continue to move forward rather than be
shelved and prove that this government agency is focused on protecting the rights of
property owners and ensuring equality to all.
Sincerely,
Randy Johns
/
l' "
; COLLIER COUNTY, FL01UnA .
~OTlCE OF ORl1INANCE 'VIOLA'l'ION AND ORnER TO CORRECT
TO: Larr~ L. & Wanda Collins Sr.
101 Hi~hview Ave.
Lehigh A<:res, FL. 33936
LOCATION OF VIOLATION (LEGAL AND ADDRESS)
WITJITN COlLIER COUNTY ZOl'{lNG DIST.
INDUSTRIAL
-
SEC. 34 TW.46 RNG. 29 SOOD. New Market
BLK.#48 LOTIt.8 PARCEUI OF COlLIER COUNTY
'V ~-
COUNTY RECORD. PROPERTY mil 63864720000
J?UDt# ,TRACTI# , UNlT# I SOP/I,
OR898 PAGE 414 OR PAGE
A.K.A.(Addt";s) 1123 AIachua St.
.
Innnokaloo, FL
-.... ~""--
Unincorporated Colller COlmty
NOTICE
PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY CODE
BNFORCEMENT BOARD (C;E.B.) ORD 1192M80 lIud 97~35,
AS AMBNDED, yOU ARE NOTIFffiD THAT A
VIOLATION(S} OF TOO FOLLOWING. COLLIE~
COUNTY ORD.(S) AND/OR P.U.D. REGULATION(S)
EXISTS AT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LOCATION.
OnD(S) 91~ 102 Sec. 1.5.6., 2.2.16.1., 2.2.16.2:. 2.2.16,2.1,
ORD(S) 89-06 Sec. 5
.?RD(S) 95M19 Plumbing Code
ORD(S) 98-77 Electrical Code
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS CONS'flTU'l'ING
THE'VIOLA'I'ION(S).
DID WITNESS ON FOLLOWING DATE: 00t,22,2001
Site built structures are in need of repah' as pCi' nuaobed C.C.
BuildJng Inspection Report. Mob1le homes illegally situated
.on land desl~nl\ted for Iudustrlal use. ....... .
INQUlRIBS AND COMMBNTS SHOUID DBDIRBCl'BD TO cODn
BNFORCBMBNTlNVIlSTIGATOR: BVl,llyn Claudio
106 S. 111 St. Immokaloo, FI.34142-3900
(941)657-2'525 PAX: (941) 657-3837
In"'.....,. m"';"ro{(J;Q.f.(lQ.. - --
VIOLATION S1'ATUSl;
-L):Nl'rIAL _lmCURRING _REPE!T
-.....
ORDER TO CORRECT"'ylO~ATION~~...i.
YOU ARE DIRECTED BY THIS NOTICE TO TAKE THE
FOLLOWING CORRECTIVE ACTION(S)
1. Obtain a Site Improvement Plan as part or the UHP and
repair, remove, or replac~ tho units Recording to inspection
rep'orts (only as pnrt.of the ImP/SIP Program). All units
below stand/lrds should be vacated.
2. OR Rezono propel'ty and rel>alr, replace, o~ ~'emove
sl1bstnndnl'd units.
3. OR Use 'property accordblg to present zoning whieh is
Industrial.
I' "I ~
ON OR BEFORE: 11.6-2001
~y
PENAIi'fIES .MA Y BE IMPOSED: Falluro to correct *0
violations on or before the date specIfied above will result in,
1) the fiUng of an affidavit of violation wIth thl) Collier COWlty
Code Enforcement Board, "C.E.B!', charghlg you with thb
violation(s) as described on this form. You wllUhave
recelve(d) notification that a l1earJng will'be held which you
.
audlor a legal representative may ~ttelld. Failure to appear
. may result in tIle Board proceeding and making a
determination in your absence. If the Code Enforcement
'Borird finds ~iolatiol1 exists, a maxImum fine of $250.00 per
day in fhe cllse of a first,vlolation, a ~mwn fine of $500.00
per day for a repeat violation and a maximum fine of $5000.00
per violation in the event the "C.E.B." finds tho vIolation to be
o~ !IJl.irreparable or irreversible nature. Fines may be imposed
OJi a:" per day basis for each day eacll violation exists. Costs of
prosecution and/or repairs may also be assessed against you
for any vIolation, or, 2) the issuance of a Notice to Appear
'oefore tIte CoUler County COlI1't where penalties of up to $500
+ cosls may be Imposed, or, 3) the issuanco of a citatlon which
you may payor contest in the Collier County Court where
penalties of. up to $500 + costs may be imposed.
SBRVED BY:---YOSTED~PERSONAL SERVICE
_ CERT MAIL
CERT. MAIL RECEIPT /I
I ,HBllliBY acknowledge I
have received, read, and understand this notice of vIol at lon.
~~.,.
Signature and 'I'ino of Recipient .
wAAld/l. . e~(I/~s
Print .
'DA'rBDTmS02~ DAYOF /t) ,2001
REF: CASENO 2001100933 ; ':.>..OODDlOS'S5"'
-
'---"
'-,j
I
.
COLLmR COUNTYt FLORIDA
NOTICE OF VlOLATION AND OJIDER TO CORRECT
:to .lERRYB. BLOCKER nnd KlMBElU.EA L.
BLOCKER (OWNERS) '.
1830 1~. STItEETNE: .
'.
NAPLES. FLA. 34120
LOCATION OF VIOLATION (LEGAL AND ADDRBS"S)
WITHIN COLLlBlt COUNTY ZONING DIS'l'. "I"
SBC.34. TW. 46, RNG.2.9. SOOD. NnW MARKBT
LOTS 9 and 10, 'BLOCK 43, ID1# 63864160002 of Collier
Co. record, OR 31'1(), PAGE lS41
AKA. 1101 ALACHO'A ST. IMMOKALBB, FLA.
Previously known ns "Shells Tn\llet Park"
NOTIcm .'
PURSUANT '1'0 'COllIllR COUNTY COPB nNfORCBMENT
IlOAlu> . . .. . .
(C B B ) ORD f 05-55 nnd 97.:35, AS AMBNDBD,YOU ARB
NQTlFIBDTHATTltBl1OU,OWING VIOLATIONS masr.
'OCt.. 1970 ZonInlt~egulatIonslbmnoS;pt~ nrea
Attfcle IV. SHe. 4.1 "usn" , SUe. 4.2 ''BUlIDlNOS'', BBd: 4.3
<lUffS" md SP.C. 4.4 "YARDSI'ACB"
Articlo VlI, Sac. 7.1 ''IN'T'BN'r' and sse. 7.9 ''I1lRMINA'I10N'
REQlJIRBMBNTS" . .
AJtfc~ XI. Sac. 10.11 ''Y..c-3/ co~a1. -llglit Indu.rt. blst." par.
tn
OlU>, 04-41,119 ~ed .
([.DC) SEC.l:04.00 (Al'PUCABJLri'Y). SOO SHC'S
1.04.01 '(GBNBRAL) , pats. A, B. '8I\d C and 1.04.05
~'nONSH1P:ro GJ.tOW1HMGMT. J.>I,AN) .
sac. 1.05.00 (FlNbtNGS. PUlU'OSB lllId INl1lN1) . SOB SBC.
1.05.01, ptll'.-P
BEe. 2.02.00 (,ESTABUSHMBNT Oil ZONING DlSTS.) . SUB
SSC'S' 2.02.01, par. -D. and 2.02.03, (pR08JB11'BI;> USB).
Sse. 2.03.00, (ZONING DlWs.)
SUB SBC'S. 2.03.03, par. ~A
SEe. 2.04.00 (P)3RMISSlBIJl USBS) SOB Soc.z.04.03. pg.
''LDC2:1l3'' .
Sac. 2.OS.00 (DBNsrrt S1'ANDAtU>S) SUB see. 2.05.01. par.-
A
Sse. 8.OS.CO (CODB ENFORCBMBNTJ30ARP) . par't. D and D
sac 9m.CO (NONOONFORMI11BS) . . .
SUB SHe. 9.03.01 (()B$RAL) ,par.-n
DBSCRIP'I'lON OF CON1>rnONS CONS11I'UTlNG TOO
VIOLATION ($).
Unlawful and ina.P'proprla~ Mobile HoDII' improvCblenIJ lO
Industtiol zoned. property in Collier ColUlly Imown as 1101
Alachua Sf. lmmoblC6. FJll1a.k.a. .Jots 9 ud 10. block.
48,Ncwnu:atot. SuM, )DI# 63864760002 of Collier Co.
record.. AU same lndustda1 ~ned property baYIng had D.
provious "1-0-3" ~n1ng desl8nation, wblch alS<J prohibited
placeroent ofMobll~ HOlllesror dwelling uso.
(RBF: lMMOKAI:BJJ AlmA ZONlNG DlS'f. rom'S.
DA'lBD ocr. 1970) Jill slUnO dovctollroel\t and
improvements having takel1lltaco In dUect oontrast to Collier
Co. land d&Ye1opment J:Clqulrements and without prior CoIUec
Co. Zonlng and Planning rovkw and approval.
lNQUlRlBS AND'COMMBm'S SHOUlD >>8 DlRBC'l'1ID
TO CODB BNro1l.CBMBNT JNVBST1GA'I'OR Dennls
MazzOno 2800 :ko. Uorsoshoc Dr. Naples, me. 34104 (239)
'403-2.447 FAX (239) 40~3
Inveslitator's Sl~toio~~ \Y1~~ '
~OLATIONsrA'1US :~~
O~Elt TO CBvrOLAT19NW\ '
"OU A:RE D D nv TH1S NOTICE TO TAKE
THE HOLLOWING COlUUl:CTIVE ACTlON(S)
Must obtain n tolt\plllte and sunleient Collier County
Demolition Petmil to\' th& removal ot uU mohU& honw .
dWIllllngs/sfructnres CUJnl1tly located on llldl19Mal zonW.
property ill CoBie!: Co. known 1'I81ofs 9 rmd 10, block 48,
ID 63864160002 of CoUlmc Co. reeol'd, no IattJ: than gO
days after reeetpi of thts notice,
Upon hn~g oh1uined It demoUtiQn ponnll, rom then
exectl(o sain6 by removing all notI-pUowed, non-approved
l11obilo homes, related bnpl:Ol'enulUis, use und X1l:IroIttng
debris In ft coDallOrated effort with all local utUlUes, so lIS
to c:onqlly wlth all CoDiel' Co. codes, ordinances and ~
use regulations and requirent~f$ no lafer thon 1.20 dlt)'s'
after h/lving obfained n demoDUon petmit.
PENALTlES MAY BE ~MPOBED: Failwc to e'on:ecf the
violationS OD or bofote the 1M" specified above willl'eBult in',
1) the fili.ng of lID affidavit of vioJafilm with tIlO Collier Coullty
Code Enforcement Board. ''C:a.B.'', or Special MlISwr 8.M:
~liarging you wilh tho violation(s) as described on this fotn1.
. YOll wilJIbave recelve(d) noliftOllllon. that a hearing will be
held whioh )'01.1. and/or II. 10881 repte.OOntatlve may aUend.
Fail\llC} to lIpp~ may result In the :Soard/S, M. proceeding
and making a dtfennlnation in your absence. If the Code
BnfolWmcut Board 01' Special Mastel: findss a violation eJds\$,
a'tJ18Xlmum fino of $1000.00 per day In the ~ of a first
"ioIatioD, a JJUIlCIMum fine> of $5000.00 pel" da~ for II repeat
violation and a rnaximtlDl fine of $15,000.00 per violation in
the event there .Ill a fiuding that rh~ violation is of an
irreparable or Jttevmible nature. F'JJle$ may ba imposed on a
PCI' day basis {or eaob day eaclt violation exists. Costs of
prosecution andlt>r xepatrs may atso:2U sed llgamst you
for any "lolatlQn.. .
SERVED BY:-~'l'. MA .PJ3RSO~AL
.". .
CBR.'f, MAIL RBCBIPl' NOif . ~
Wrt"N~.. .. U11'1""..m~
COLLlER COUNTY HOUSING AND URBAN JM.1?ROVEMBNTDEPARTMENT
Site lnlprovenu:~nt Plan Assista~lce Pragran1
A~
"nie t.:oJJ1er Count)' .H6using ~Ild Urban Iiilprovement Depal'tment wm want up to,
$200 per unit to ElllSlst In'1I'nokal(:$c mobile home park operators in complering a Sire
Improvement Plan. ThiS prow-am will provide park owners l\IitJ/or operators with. a
grl\n~ for approximately two lhirds of the cost assessed by engineering firms for
preparlnlJ suoh plons. The CoBler COUllty l?lanlliug Department wUi require all
existing mobilo home parks in the County to fill;} n Sit!) Improvement Plnn,
Question l~ How do 1 qualifY for this graIlt r Orants are available to owners and/or
operators of mobile home rental parks in the IMtYlokBlee area.
Question 2; ]fOIV doc" a mobile llome park qualify for tlds fJ1'ant? The 8ubJecr
mobi1~ home park muSl bQ ap exis~i~g i~!\l or legal non-COnf0n11ing rental park.
................ ---.-.....,. ~
-.--.-...-.- ~
Questton 3: Are tlwfc (lIZ.V re$lrlctiQlls as to where the property lllay bp lQc(lted?
The 01'11)' criteria i~ that the property nIl,lst be located wittlin Immokalee Area.
Quc8tion 4; How much money can I gel? Applicants wIll receive approximately
two thirds of lh~ cost of the Sitl) Xmprovement Plan or $200 p~l' ~J'lit (whit>hev6r is
less). Payment wUl be mado directly tQ the fiI1l'1lhat completes the S.lI?
Questlon Sl So WI111t'N tho allteM The ontQh 11;1 that owners with densities in exoess
of what 1~ legally penuitted may be granted inoreased denllity if they fQllow through
with the Site Improvement Plnn nnd begil\ the required changes within G months of
acceptance.
Question 6: Who do I call if I litH'C mora fJuostlom ~bout this program?
Collier C01mty Conununity Development Immokalee Office
HOJ.lsing and Urban Improvement Department
106 S. 1st Street
Immokaleet FL 34142
Phone (941) 657~2525 Fax (941) 657-3837
\
\
EXISTING COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 2.03.07 G
6. Nonconforming Mobile Home Parl( Overlay Subdistrict. Establishment of special conditions
for these properties which by virtue of actions preceding the adoption of Ordinance No. 91-
102, on October 30,1991, were deemed to be nonconforming as a result of Inconsistencies
with the land development code, and are located within the Immokalee Urban Boundary as
depleted on the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
a. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these provisions is to recognize that there are
nonconforming mobile home parks In the Immokalee Urban Area, to provIde
Incentives to upgrade these parks while requiring the elimination of substandard units,
and to allow park owners to take advantage of alternative development standards in
order to cause some upgrading of conditions that would normally be required of
conforming mobile home parks. Travel trailers, regardless of the square footage, are
not permitted as a permanent habitable structure.
b. Required site improvement plan application. The property owners of all nonconforming
mobile home developments/parks that were In existence before November 13, 1991,
Le., that predate Ordinance No. 91-102, the land development code, shall be required to
submit a site improvement plan (SIP) meeting the standards set forth below by January
9, 2003 or thereafter within the time frame set forth In an order of the Code Enforcement
Board finding a violation of this section, or by the date set forth in a Compliance or
Settlement Agreement entered into between Collier County and a property owner
acknowledging such a violation and also establishing the date by which such violation
will be cured through the SIP submittal process set forth below.
c. The site improvement plan (SIP) master plan shalllllustrate the way existing buildings
are laid out and the infrastructure (I.e. utilities, streets, drainage, landscaping, parking
and the like) to selVe those buildings. The number and location of buildings shall be
reviewed for consistency with Code requirements (I.e. setbacks, space between
buildings, density, and the like). Similarly, the SIP shall serve to provide a basis for
obtaining approval of required Infrastructure Improvements such as those referenced
herein. The approved SIP showing all of the above shall become the official record
acknowledging the legal use of the property. Failure to initiate this process within the
time frames set forth above, will result in a Code violation in which the property owner
will be required to immediately remove all mobile homes which have not received a
building permit and all mobile homes deemed to be unsafe and unfit for human
habitation, and otherwise contrary to the county's housing code unless otherwise
prohibited by state law.
d. For the specific requirements concerning the SIP submission referenced in b. and c.
above, see Section 10.02.05 F. ofthis Code.
August 21, 2007
Jim Coletta
Chairman
Collier County Board of Commissioners
Naples, Florida
Dear Chairman Coletta,
RE: J. & K. Blocker Mobile Home Park In Immokalee
On behalf of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, I am forwarding to
you by this letter the results of a recent consideration of the referenced matter. As
background, you may be aware that the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee (IMPVC) Is continuing in Its efforts to finalize the Master Plan. As part of that
process, finding fair ways to transition from existing uses to those proposed for long term
development In a manner consistent with the proposed Master Plan is a key part of the
Immokalee community's support for these efforts.
A recent case brings this point Into focus. That case involves Mr.& Mrs. Jerry Blocker's
property on Alachua Street that has been used as a mobile home park since the early
1960's. As you may also be aware. we have been Informed that the Blockers are simply
seeking to Implement a settlement/compliance agreement to resolve a pending lawsuit
and code enforcement matter that would rely on the Immokalee Initiative's Site
Improvement Plan {SIP} process to resolve those matters.
With that as background, on August 15. 2007, after a brief presentation by their attorney,
Mr. Patrick White, the IMPVC voted to find that there was no Inconsistency between
such a solution relying on the SIP prooess and the terms of the ex]stlng or presently
proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan. According to staff, when we get to the code
portion of our master plan we will be able develop a much better solutlon the
grandfathering concerns.
Please let me know If anything further may be required with respect to this matter.
D'11 ArNe.
CONSULTlNG
A ~ V VA. A
.PJ~nning 'VlsuallzaUon
. Civil Engineering 'SUlVcying &Mapplng
PROFESSIONAL PLANNING OPINION
Purpose;
The purpose of this Professional Planning Opinion is to review the .
historio and ongoing uses of the subject property and to provide an
expert plamrlng opinion as to the consistency and compliance of
those uses with the Collier County Growth Management. Plan
(GMP), Land Development Code (LDC), and any other applicable
County ordinances, both histol'ically and at present.
Prepared by: Robert J. Mulhere, AICP
Vice President Planning
RWA, Inc.
Date: March 6, 2007
A. Bncltgl'onnd
The subject property is located at 1101 Alachua Street, Immokalee Florida. The
folio numbers for t~e subject property are 63864680001 (Lots 6 & 7), .
63864720000 (Lot 8), and 63864760002 (Lots 9 & 10) and is more palticularly
described as Block 48, Newmarket Subdivision, as l'ecorded in Plat Book 1, Pages
104 and 105, Publio Records of Collier County Florida. The subject propelty is
alkla "SheWs Trailer Park." To the west, the site is bounded by a platted public
l'ight-of"way (ROW)~ an extension ofBroward Street. Across'this public ROW to
the west there is a Junk Yard and/ol' vehicle sa1~age opel'ation. Aerial photos and
actual site visits reveal that there are a number of junk/salvage vehicles and other
items stored in this public ROW, presumably in conjunction. with the junk
yard/salvage business. This issue was raised at the Code Enforoement Board
Hearing, in relation to the inappropriateness of the residential use adjacent to the
juuk yard/salvage operation. In reality, this )Yould appear to be a code violation on
the part of the adjacent business/land OWI)er, and removal of these vehicles from
the public ROW, or vaoation of this unusfd and unnecessary portion of Broward
Street would create sufficient separation between the subject residential use and
the adjacent commercial use. Moreover, this condition has in no way been crated
by owners of the subject property~ but l'ather by the business/land owner.
Q:\2006\OlioWl~f.:\rt~~!#A~I~~d.~~If(~r.lI!WM,~mi~1~S~tl~~~M~iR1i1'bPINrOi't 03.06.07.doo
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6,2007
Page 2 of2l
. The subject site contains a variety of residential dwelling units, both mobile
homes and conventional "stick-built" units.
It is alleged that the present use of the property is in violation of various Sections
of Ordnance 04-41, the Collier County LDC as well as prior existing zoning
regulations. These specifics of the alleged violations are discussed ih detail
throughout the balance of this report. In summary, the violations allege unlawful
and inappropriate development and residential use of' Industrial zoned propelty
without prior Collier County zoning and Building Pe~'mit, and purportedly
perpetuating a use that is inconsistent with the County's OMP.
B. Histol'ical Pel'spective
1. Factual Information from Pronertv AUU1'alsel"s records and Aerial
Photos
. The Property Appraiser's records only date baok to 1960. HUl1'ioane
Donna destroyed all records prior to that time.
. The Property Appraiser's Property History Cards for the subject parcels
state that the property has been considered and appraised/taxed at a
residential rate by the Property Appraiser's Office' as far back as the
existing records indicate. (Available Property History Card Copies are
attached hereto),
. Two ofthe non~mobile home/trailer residential struotures on Lot 8 are
shown as built in 1946; aelial photograplls cannot confirm that in 1953 the
property was occupied due to tree covel', In 1963 the aerial photograph
shows th.ere were already a significant number of structures on Lots 6, 7
and 8 with lot 9 and 10 left undetelmined due to tree cover.
. Property HistOlY Cards indicate that improvements to Lots 6 and 7 began
being assessed for ad valorem taxes in 1966; Lot 8 began being assessed
for improvements i111966; the History Card for Lots 9 & 10 is incomplete
and does not list when improvements began being assessed. Additional
information fi'om the Property History Cards indicate the following
designations, structure types, years built and various permits that were
issued: .
Follo 63864680001 (Lots 6 & 7)
. R-3 (Residential) - Built 1940 +/-
. R~2 (Residential) - Built 1948 +/-
Blocker - Professional Planning Opi~ion
March 6, 2007
Page 3 of2l
II CG (Gat'age)- Bui1t1964
R R"l (Residential) - Built 1950
. CPC (carport) - Built 1968
Property History Card indicates the following permits issu~d for
this parcel.
.:. 1963 Per. 4086 - 4/4/63
+:. 1963 Per. 4087 - 4/4/63
+:+ 1965 Perm. #5045
+:+ 1966 Per. #65" 177
+:. 1968 Pel'. # 67-759 500 3/4/68
+:+ 1985 Per 1-85-3637 817/85
Folio 63864720000 (Lot 8)
D (Residential) Built 1946
. CG (Garage) 1961
II CG (Garage) 1961 (Removed fwm tax roll)
II R--1 (Residential) Built 1946
. Trailer - Built 1956
. Trailer - Built 1952
. R"1+ (Residential) Built 1963
. ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) - Built 1985
II . Trailer - Built 1950
. Trailer - Built 1948
JI Trailer-Built 1956
II Trailer - Built 1955
Property History Card indicates the following permits issued for
this parcel.
+:. 1965 Perm. # 5045
.:. 1985 Per - 1-85-362 8"7"85
Folio 63864760002 (Lots 9 & 10)
II MIl (Mobile Home) - Built 1111970 +/-
.. A W (Cabana) - Built 1970 +/-
.. ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) Built 1984+/"
II MH (Mobil Home) - Built 1975+/-
. Expansion (addition to mobile home) - Built 1975+/"
D ALPC (Aluminum Car Port) - Built 1970 +/-
Blocker - Professional Phuming Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 4 of21
. * ALPC (Aluminum Car Port) - Built 1970 +/-
. *MH (Mobil Home) - Built 1980 +/-
. * ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) - Built 1987 +/.
. *MH (Mobil Home) - Built 1980 +/-
. * ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) - Built 1987 +/-
. 1984 - Per. 184-0098 2/2/84
. 1991 - Pel', 90-9126 (ADD)
* Added to appraisal card in 1992
2. Clel'I{ of COlll'ts & Community Dcveloument & Envh'onmental
Services HistOl'ic Zoniue: Mans.
The Cled<: of Court~s historic zoning maps for the subject property do not date
back further than 2-3-70, and indicate that at that time the property was zoned 1M ,
IND (Industrial). This is corroborated by two historic zoning maps stored in the
Community Development & Environmental Services Department (CDES), which
also date back to 2-3-70 and 12-4-72 and indicate that the subject site's zoning
was then I(Industrial) and I-C-3 (Commercial and Light Industrial) respectively.
An additional zoning map was discovered in CDES records which indicates a date
of 1952, and depicts C-3 (Commercial and Light Industrial) zoning on the subject
parcels, but the official adoption of this map cannot be velified, and the date may
reflect the date oflast revision of the underlying map as no known zoning
regulation was in effect in Collier County prior to 1959.
3. Histol'ic Zouiue: Ordinances
Copies ofthe Collier County Zoning Regulations booklets dated 1959, 1961, and
1965 are attached. Additionally the Irnmokalee Area Zoning District Zoning
Regulations dated 1970 and relevant portions of the Immokalee Area Zoning
Distdct Zoning Regulations 1973 are attached,
I C. Analysis
The subject property has contained residential stmctures (mobile homes and
several traditional (stick~bui1t 01' concrete block) dwellings) for more than fOity
years. The earliest zoning ordinance in County records dates to 19.59. From 1959
through the present day, the residential uses where either expressly permitted, 01'
permitted as legal non-conforming uses~ including alterations and repairs, as welf
as replacement structures and new mobile homes, Most, if not all, of Collier
County's records for the year's prior to 1960 were destroyed (during and after
Hun'ieane Donna); however, aerial photographs, reconsh'Ucted records, and
anecdotal evidence support the existence of residential structures on the property
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 5 of21
as far back as 1946. A 1953 aerial appears to show the site was relatively
undeveloped or vacant, but this is difficult to verify from the aerial to the tree
canopy. The 1963 aerial shows many stmctures present on the site. Collier
County's first comprehensive zoning ordinance was not adopted until 1959,.
although one map that was found in' CDES was dated 1952 and indicates the
subject property was zoned Cw3 (Commercial-Light industrial) may haye been
slloh at that time. Clearly, based upon aerial photographs, the use of the property
for residential purposes was established prior to the adoption of that 1959
ordinance. The residential use was established lawfhlly prior to the zoning
changes that prohibit that use (thus the stmctl.lres are lawfully pre~existing). .
Moreovel~ since the use of this property for residential purposes, including mobile
home lmUs, was a legal conforming use for many years, said use and all lawfully
pre-existing stmctures are, at present, legally nonconforming as defined in the
Collier County LDC. As such, all existing structures may remain in place and in
use (and may be repaired and maintained) subject to the provisions set fo11h in
Section 9.03.02 oftlle LDC. This being the case, there is no legal basis for any of
the alleged Code Enforcement violations.
This position is further supported by the fact that, although the use has been
ongoing since nt least 1963 and there is evidence in the form of historic zoning
maps that the property has been zoned Industrial or Light Industl'ial since at least
1970, no violation was alleged and no "Notice of Violation" issued (related to the
use of the property) priolo to 2001 (with no actual enforcement action taken) and
again in 2006. How is it that permits for repairs, maintenance and replacement
units were regularly approved by Collier County in the intervening decades? The
only logical conclusion is that it was consistently determined that such permits
could, in fact, be issued, based upon the undisputed fact that the l'esidential use
was originally lawfully pre--existing 01' legalnonconfonning in that it predated the
present Tndustdal zoning designatio~, and was in fact an expressly permitted use
under that df;lSignation and previous zoning designations from at least 1959
through 1976.
It is important to consider the historic zoning ahd allowable uses on the subject
property. It is also important to note that available historic zoning maps from the
Collier County Clerk of Couds office date back only to 1970, although as
previously stated, the residential use (both mobile homes and traditional stick
built) have been verified as early as 1963. and before. I have reviewed the
following historic zoning ordinances (which are attached):
. 1959 First Collier County Zoning Ordinances (Countywide, effective
Feblllat'y 1959)
. 1961 Countywide Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1961)
. 1970 Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance (effeotive October 1970)
Blocker - Professional Platuling Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 6 of21
. 1973 Relevant pages Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance (Amending 1970
lnunokalee Area Zoning Ordinance effective May 1973)
The fact is that there are no "official" .pubic records that indicate what the subject
pl"Opelty was zoned prior to 1970, and thus it cannot be factually ascel'tained what
the zoning was on the subject parcels, and thus what regulations applied and what
uses were permitted (or prohibited).
Nevertheless, reviewing the historic zoning ordinances that applied to the subject
property reveals that in each of the above, the more permissive zoning districts .
allowed, as permitted uses, all of the uses pennitted in the less permissive
districts. This is a then popular hierarchical structure, still in use throughout the
United States, and known as Euclidean Zoning, in reference'to 1926 Supreme
Court case, City of Euclid v. Ambler Realty. In other words, if we assume that the
subject propeliy was zoned Industrial (1) at the time of the adoption of the
County's first zoning ordinance in 1959; the I disMct expressly permitted any
uses permitted in the C-3 commercial district, and the C-3 district expressly
permitted any uses in the C-2 district, th~ C-2 district expressly permitted any
\lSeS permitted in the C-! district, and the C-l district expressly permitted any use
permitted in the R-3 district. The R-3 district expressly pellnitted any use
permitted in the R-2 district, and the R-2 district expressly permitted any use
permitted in the R-l district. Therefore, all uses permitted by right in R-1 through
R-3 were also permitted by right in C-l, all uses permitted by right in R-I through
R-3 and C-! were also permitted by right in C-2, all uses permitted by right in R-l
through R-3, c-t, and C-2 were also permitted by right in C-3, and so on. In this
way the I district was the most permissive district allowing all e~pl'essly permitted
uses in the I dishict as well as permitted uses in the R-l through R-3 and C-l
through C-3 distl'icts.
The R-l district, in the 1959 code, allowed single family dwellings as a permitted
use and expressly prohibited the use of tents for living quarters. It should be
noted that the R-2A district expressly prohibited both tents and "trailers" fl:om
being used as Hving quat'ters. If this prohibition/was also desired in the R-l, R-2
or R-3 districts, the code would have expressly stated that. Therefore, residential
uses, including stick built single and multifamily, and mobile homes were
permitted on the subject property, whether it was zoned residential eR-l through
R-3), commercial (C-1 through C-3), 01' Industrial (I). ThllS, as to the subject
lands the now existing \lSeS were then lawfully permitted.
The 1961 code, as amended in October of 1962, established an R~4 zoning
distdct, which expressly allowed mobile home andlor "Trailer Homesu for
residential use. In this code, the above noted procedure continues, allowing the
permitted uses from less permissive districts to also be permitted in the more
permissive districts, except that the allowance is not extend to the R-4 disMct.
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 7 of21
Nevel'theless, in both the 1959 and 1961 (as amended in 1962) the codes
expressly permit in the C-1 district, under permitted use Number 6, Trailer Camps
or Courts. Therefore, regardless of any restriction expressly stated or implied (by
the addition of the R-4 district) that the 1961 code (as amended in 1962) placed
upon the use of mobile homes, the use was still allowed in the C-l distdct and the
I distl'ict allowed all permitted uses in R-l through R"3 and C-l through C-3.
Thus, as to the subject lands the now existing uses wer<:, then permitted.
Additionally, the C-1 district, under permitted use Number 2, listed a number of
expressly prohibited uses in the 1959 and 1961 codes. hl 1965 the list of'
prohibited uses is carded over but now includes a previously nonexistent
prohibition on "the use of house cars or mobile homes for living quarters. 11
Generally however, the 1965 County-wide zoning ordinance follows a similar
procedure as previous ordinances in that the I disttict allows all permitted uses in
the C-3 district, and the C-3 district allows all permitted uses in the C-2 district,
C-2 allows all permitted uses in C-l, c.l allows all permitted uses in R-3, and so
on. Even if it is assumed that the R-1 tlrrough R-3 districts did not allow mobile
homes in the case of the 1965 code, and the C-l district prohibited the mobile
home use individually 01' generally (under permitted use Number 2), the use is
still permitted in the form of a Trailer Camp (permitted use Number 6) pUl'suant to
operation \mdel' regulations of the State Board of Health, which has been the case
for the subject mobile homes since at least 1986.
Finally, all of these zoning codes (1959, 1961 (as amended) and 1965 (as
amended) under the I zoning district pellnitted use Number 2, t~nv lawful use
that is /tot obnoxious or offensive by reason of the emission of odors, fumes, dust,
smoke, noise, vibration, radioactive waves, or substances, 01' possesses an
abnormal explosion hazard." Thus, as to the subject lands, the now existing uses
were then lawfully pelmitted before January 1970, when the Jmmokalee zoning
ordinances and regulations became effective.
As stated, in January of 1970, a zoning ordinance was adopted covering the
lmmokalee Area (with a separate ordinance covering the coastal area). This
ordinance, to some degree, followed the same hiemrchical structure as the
previous County-wide codes in that the most permissive distdcts allowed
permitted uses from the less permissive districts, but only in the case of the I and
C-l tlrrough C-3 districts. That is, the I district allowed permitted uses from the C-
1 through C-3 districts. The C-3 district allowed permitted uses fl:om the C-1 and
C-2 distl'icts, and so on. Reviewing the histol'i.c zoning maps, it is not until 1970
that we can fil'st determine and verify how the subject property was actually
zoned.
It appears the subject property was zoned I under the then newly adopted
regulation. In 1972, the County changed the zoning to I-C-3. Thus, it is not until
Blocker - Professional PlaMing Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 8 of21
the 1970 hnmokalee Area zoning ordinance (and subsequent 1972 amended
ordinance) that we first find that the ah'cady existing and permissible residential
use of the subject property is not a permitted use. Likewise, this is the first point
in time that the residential use became legally nonconforming.
The currently effective LDC (Section 9.03.02), allows legal non~conforming uses
to remain in place and use until they are voluntarily removed or destroyed by any
cause, 01' the use is discontinued (as set forth under the applicable provision of
Section 9.03.02.). Additionally, and at the discretion of the property owner, the
LDC provides for a prooess to allow the nonconforming residential st11lctures to .
be altered, expanded, or replaced. In similar fashion, pI'eviously applicable
historio zoning ordinances also allowed legallynon~conforming uses.to remain in
place and ill use, or altered, expanded, or replaced, under the same 01' similar
conditions. A detailed analysis of the l1on-confol'ming provisions of the ourrent
and historic zoning codes is provided in Section D ofthis report.
Thus, it is clear that the LDC provides for a reasonable and legal remedy to
address the alleged violation, This remedy is wholly different from the l'emedy
that was set forth in the respective OI'ders of the Board, for eBB Case Numbers
2006-16, 2006-17 and 2006-18. These Orders, in sununary, provided two options,
the first being to l'ezone the property to a current zoning district that allows the
residential uses, or alternatively, to remove the violation(s). Since it is not
possible under the current GMP provisions to rezone the property to make the
residential use conforming, the eBB Order, in reality left only one option, to
remove aU of the residential stl1lctures, This is obviously an unreasonable
requirement, with no basis in law since, as previously stated, due to its legal .
nonconforming status, the residential use of the subject propelty may continue
subject to the limitations of Soot10119.03.02.
I D. Nonconfol'JUities
Applicable portions ofthe current LDC read as fullows [double-underline and
highlighting added fOl' emphasis]:
Section 9.03.01
A. Intent. Within the zoning districts established by the LDC 01'
amendments that may later be adopted, there may exist lots, structures.
uses of land. water and structures, and characteristics of use which wel'~
lawful before the LDC was adonted or amended, but which would be
prohibited, regulated, 01' restricted under the telms of LDC or future
amendments. It is the intent of this section to nennit these
nonconformities to continne until they are volun.tadlv renovated or
~'emoved as reauired bv the LDC. but not to enCOlU'aae their survival1 It is
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 9 of21
furthel' the intent of the LDC that the nonconfolmities shall not be
enlarged upon, expanded, intensified, or extended, nor be used as grounds
for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same
district.
B. Declaration. Nonconfolming uses are declared by this section to be
incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. A
llonconfonning use of a stl'ucture, a nonconforming use of land or water,
or a nonconforming use of structure, land or water in combination shall
not be extended or enlarged after the effective date of the LDC or relevant
amendment thereto by attaclunent on a stmcture 01' premises of additional .
signs intended to be seen from off the premises, or by the addition of other
uses of a nature whioh would be prohibited generally in the district
involved, except as provided for within section 9,03.03 B.4.
C. Vested projects. To avoid undue hardship, nothing in the LDC shall be
deemed to require a change in the plans, construction, 01' designated use of
a building 01' property on which a building permit had been applied for
priOlo to the effective date of adoption ofl'elevant amendment of the LDC.
In addition, nothing in the LDC shall be deemed to requu'e a change in the
plans, construction, or designated use of any property for which a
development plan was lawfully required and approved prior to the
effective date of adoption of relevant amendment of the LDC, provided
that suoh plan shall expire two (2) years from the date of said approval, or
one (1) year from the date of adoption of the LDC, whichever shall fIrst
occur, if no actual construction has been commenced; and thereafter, all
development shall be in accordance with the zoning regulations then in
effect. Any such approved plat or pla~ may be amended by approval ofthe
BCC, provided the degree of nonconformity with the LDC shall not be
increased.
D. Casual, temporary, 01' illegal use. The casual, tempomry, or illegal use of
land 01' structures, or land and structures in combination, shall not be
sufficient to establish the existence of a nOllconfonning use or to create
l'jgl1tS in the continuance of such use.
F. Change to conforming use requires future c01iformity with district
regulations. Where a structure, or structure and premises in combination,
in 01' on which a nonconforming use is replaced by a permitted use shall
thereafter confonn to the regulations for the district in which the st11lcture
is located, and [sic] the nonconfonning use shall not thereafter be
resumed nor shall any other nonconforming use be permitt~d.
G, NOIlCOl1formities 1I0t involving the use of a principal structure.
Nonconformities not involving the use of a principal structure ;
including, but not limited to, open storage, building supplies, vehicles,
mobile homes, trailers, equipment and machinery storage, junkyard,
commercial animal yards and the like, shall be discontulUed within one
Blocker ~ Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 10 of21
(1) year of the effective date of the LDC 01' relevant amendment of the
LDC.
H. Safety oflloncoliformittes.
1. If a nonconforming structure or portion of a stmcture, 01' any
structure containing a nonconforming use becomes physically
unsafe 01' unlawful due to lack of repairs Ol' maintenance, and is
declared by the duly authorized official of Collier County to be
unsafe or unlawful by reason of physical condition, it shall not
thereafter be restored, repaired, 01' rebuilt except in confol1nity
with the regulations of the distdct in which it is located.
2. If a nonconforming stl'llcture or p0l1ion of a stll1cture, 01' any
structure containing a nonconforming use, becomes physically
unsafe or unlawful for reasons other this lack of repairs 01'
maintenance, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prevent
the strengthening 01' restoring to a safe condition of such building
01' palt thereof declared to .be unsafe by the authorized official of
Collier County charged with the public safety; provided, however,
that where such unsafeness 01' unlawfulness is the result of damage
from destmction, the percentage of damage limitations set out in
section 9.03.02 F.3., as the case may be, shalt apply.
Section 9.03.02 Requirements for Continuation ofNollC01{formities. Where. at the
effective date of adoRtion or relevant amendment oftha LDC, lawfi.11 use of lands
or waters exists which would not be nermitted under the LDC, the 11se may be
continued, so long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided:
A. Enlargement, increase, intensification, alteration. No such
nonconforming: use shall be enlareed. intensified. increased. 01' extended
to occupy a greater at'ea of land, structure, or water than was occupied at
the effective date of adoption or relevant amendment of the LDC, excent a
sinl!le-familv. dunlex . or mobile home use as nrovided for within section
~.03.03 B.4.
C. Change in tenancy 01' ownership. There mav be a chanlle in tenaucv,
ownershin. 01' mana~ement of a nonconforming: use nrovided there is no
chanee in the nature or character of such nonconformine use.
G. Repairs alld maintenance. On any nonconforming stl'ucture or portion
of a structUl'e and on any shucture containing a nonconfOlming use,
work may be done in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months on
ordinary repairs, or 011 repair 01' replacement of non bearing 'walls, fixtures,
wiring, or plumbing to an extent not exceeding twenty (20) percent of the
current assessed valuation of the stlucture (01' of the nonconfOlming
portion of the st.mcture if a nonconforming portion of a st111ctu1'e is
involved), provided that the cubio content of the structure existing at the
Blocker - Professional Planning Qpinion
March 6, 2007
Page 11 of21
date it becomes nonconforming shall not be increased except subject
further to the exception pl'Ovided at section 9.03.03 B., herein.
H. Subdivision or structural additions. No land in nonconforming use shall
be subdivided, nor shall any structures be added on such land except for
the purposes and in a manner conforming to the regulations for the district
in which such land is located; provided, however, that subdivision may be
made which does not increase the degree ofnonconfol'mity of the use.
9.03.03 Types ofNo1tconformities .
B. Nonconforming structures. Where a structure lawfully exists at the.
effective date of the adoption of this ordinance or relevant amendment that
could not be built under the LDC by xeasotr of restrictions on 10t area, lot
coverage , height, yards , location on the lot , or requirements other
than use concerning the structure , suoh structure may be continued so
long as it remains otherwise lawftll, subject to the following provisions:
1. }'fa such nonconfol'min~ shl1cture maY be enlarl!ed 01' altered in
~ way which increases its nonconformitv. but any structure or
1)ortlon thereof maY be altered to decrease its nonconfol'mitv~
provided. however. that the alteration. exoansion. or reolacement
of nonconfol'minr! sing:1e-fflIllilv dwellings. du~lexes 01' mobile
l10mes shall be nel'mitted in accordance with section 9.03.03 BA.
2. Should suoh nonconforming structure 01' nonconforming portion of
a structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than
fifty (50) percent of its actual replacement cost at time of
destruction, as determined by a cost estimate submitted to the
site development review director, it shall not be reconstructed
except in conformity with provisions of the LDC.
3. Should such stmcture be moved for any reason fOl' any distance
whatever, other than as a result of gove1'1lmental action, it shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is
located aftel' it is moved.
4. Nonconforming residential structures, which for the purpose of this
section shall mean detached single-family dwellings, duplexes or
mobile homes in existence at the effective date of this zoning
Cocte 01' its relevant amendment and in continuous residentiall.1se
thereafter, may be altered, expanded, or replaced upon
recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission and
approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution.
5. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions as to reconsh'Uotion, any
residential stmcture or structures in any residential zone district
may be rebuilt after destruction to the prior extent, height
and density of units per acre regardless of the percentage of
destl'uction, subject to compliance with the
applicable building code requirements in effect at the time of
Blocket' - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 12 of21
redevelopment. In the event of such rebuilding, all setbacks and
other applicable district requirements shall be met unless
a variance therefore is obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
For the purpose of this section, a hotel, motel, 01' boatel shall be
considered to be a residential stoocture. Since the size and nature of
the alteration, expansion 01' replacement of such nonconforming
shllctures may vary widely, a site plan, and if applicable,
preliminary building plans indicating the proposed altexation,
expansion 01' replacement shall be presen~ed with each petition,
PriOl' to granting such alteration, expansion 01' replacement of .
a nonconfonning single-family dwelling, duplex 01' mobile home,
the Planning Commission and the Bee shall consider .and base its
approval on the following standards and criteria:
8. The alteration. exnansion. or reol~cement will not increase
the densitv of the parcel or lot on which the
nonconformin2 single-family dwelling . duolex . or 1
;mobile home is located:
b, The alteration. exnansion. or renlacement will not exceed
the buildhu!: hei2ht reauirements of the distlict most closelv
associated with the subject nonconforming use:
o. The alteration. exnansion. or renlacement will not further
encroach UDOll any nonconf01min2 setback:
d. The alteration. expansion. or renlacement wilt not decrease
or further decrease the existing narking areas for the
sq.ucture:..,
e. The alteration. exnansion. or [enlacement will not damage
the character or Quality ~f the neighborhood in which it is
located 01' hinder the oroner future develonment of the
S\lrrounding nronerties: and
f. Such alteration. exnansion. or replacement will not ~l'esent
a threat to the health. safetv. or welfare of the community
or its residents.
C. Reouirements for imorovyuwnts or additions to nonconf01miq2 mobile
homes.
1. Improvements or additions to nonconforming mobile
homes containing conforming uses, in the A agriculture district
only, shall be permitted if the addition or improvement complies
fully with the setback and other applicable regulatio1)s.
2. Issuance and reissuance ofbuildillg permits when multiple mobile
homes are located on a single parcel of land: Where specific'
zoning districts permit mobile home development and said lands
have been substantially developed prior to the effective date of the
LDC with multiple mobile homes under singulal' ownership
without an approved site development plan, as required by
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 13 of21
3.
Chapter Ten of the LDC, no furthel' building permits for the
placement or replacement of mobile homes may be obtained
except as defined below.
~ri: to issuance of anv buildin~ nermit for renlacement of a
!!lo~]e home. the nronertv owner 01' authorized a~ent shall
~rovid~ ~le Co~ty Manaf!er or deshmee. or his desilmee. with
three 0 ies of a scaled drawing: of the subiect uarcel which
rdicates:
a. Pl'~of of building: 1)ennit issuance for stmcture being:
re91aced.
b, The location of the stl11cture to be reolaced and its
l'elationshio to adiacent mobile homes and narcel
boundaties,
prior to issuance of a building: permit for any additional mobile
~o~e(s). the ao~licant or authorized aRent shall obtain a site
de~e~~~me~t nlan. consistent with Chanter 10 of the LDC, As ol!l:t
of __e J)P aoolication. hui1din~ nermit numbers of all
existing: mobile homes shall be submitted.
In no case shall the issuance or reissl1ance of building: oe11nits
9at;e the densitv or the subieot nareel to exceed thatnrovidedin
. the densitv rating: system of the GMP or the Immokalee future
land ~se maD. exceot as may be orovided in section 9.03.03 EA. of
the LDC.
4.
5.
Finally, as to the allegation that mobile homes were required to have been
removed under the provisions of Section 1.~,3.5 of the LDC in effect pdor to the
current LDC provisions, note that Section then read as follows:
1.8.3,5
Nonconformities 1I0t involving the use of a principal structure.
Nonconformittes not involving the use of a principal structure,
including, but not limited to, open storage, building supplies,
vehicles, mobile homes, trailers, equipment and machinery
storage, junkyard, commercial animals yards and the like, shall be
discontinued within one year of the effective date of this code or
relevant amendment of this code.
This Section is simply not applicable in any way, shape or form to the case at
lland, First, the Section existed under the nonconforming structur~ seotion of the
LDC. It is the use that is alleged to be nonCOl1fOl'ming in the subject case, not the
structures. More importantly) however, the Section is intended to deal with the
removal of nonconforming uses that do not involve p1incipal structures, These
residential units are pdncipal st11lctures. The list of examples provided assumes
the listed nonconfolming structures or uses are not involved in the use of a
principal structure, and therefore, there is no justification for those nonconfOlming
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 14 of21
uses continuing beyond a reasonable period, which the code deems to be one year.
This Section simply does not apply in this case where the alleged nonconforming
use is part and parcel with the principal structure. Finally, construing this section
so as to make it be applicable would have resulted in conflict with other
nonconforming provisions of the then effective code which allows such
nonconforming uses (and in this case the shuctures that house those uses) to
remain in place subject to the then applicable limitations and conditions, including
the following language which is in the present code and was contained in the then
effective code:
Nonconforming residential structures, which for the purpose of
this section shall mean detached single-family. dwellings,
duplexes 01' mobile homes in existence at the effective date of this
zoning Code or its relevant amendment and in continuous
residential use thereafteJ~ may be altered, expanded, or replaced
upon recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission
and approval o/the Board o/Zoning Appeals by resolution.
IE. Specific Analysis ofNotlce of Violation (NOV) code citatiolls
The Notice of Violation (NOV) and Order to Correct issued by Collier County
and dated January 23,2006 indicates the followings:
Specifically the following yiolations al'e alleged:
1. Violation of val'ious sections of thc 1970 Zonh12 Regulations of the
Iuuuokalee Arca
Response: As established herein, the residential use was in fact a lawfully pre-
existing and permitted use for many years under the 1959, 1961,
1970 and 1973 zoning ordinance, which did in fact allow for the
l'esidential use, including the mobi1e home use, Although the use is
not presently permitted in the eel" Industrial district, the existing
use is legal nOll-confol'ming and such structures may remain in
place and be replaced, altered, maintained and repaired, in
accordance with the applicable provisions in the LDC governing
non-collfolmities. Moreover, how can a use be in violation of a
code tllat has been repealed and not in effect at the time of the
issuance of the NOV. The Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance was'
not amended, it was repealed.
2, Violation of Ol'(linance 04-42. as amended (Collier COlllity LDC in
effect aUlme ofissuance of NO V):
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6) 2007
Page 15 of21
1.04.01 Generallv
A. The provisions of this LDC shall apply to aU land, property and
development in the total unincorporated area of Colliel' County ~xcept as
expressly and specifically provided othelwise in this LDC. No
development shall be undertaken without prio~ authorization pursuant to
this LDC. Specifically, no building, structure, land or wate!' shall hereafter
be developed, or occupied, and no building, stl'uctllre, or part thereof shall
be erected, reconstructed, moved, located, 01' sb.l1ctl1l'ally altered except in .
conformity with the regulations set forth herein and for the zoning district
in which it is located. .
B. The regulations established in this LDC and within each zoning distdct
shall be minimum or maximum limitations, as the case may be, and shall
apply uniformly to each class or'kind of struoture, use) land or wateq
except where specific provision is made in tlus LDC.
C. This LDC shall apply to all division of land and aU subdivisions in the
total unincorporated area of Collier County, except to the extent as
expressly provided herein. It shall be l.wlawful for any person to create
a subdivision of, 01' to subdivide, or to otherwise divide, any land in the
total unincorporated area of Collier County, except in stdct conformance
with the provisions of this LDC and any applicable provisions of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Response: The above general provisions are just that, general in nature, and
are only applicable where a violation of some other section of the
LDC has been found to have occmred. It is our position that no
violation of this specific section as alleged has occurred and that
staff did not conduct the necessary evaluation and research to even
determine whether a violation of trle LDC had in fact OCCUlTed.
1.04.05 Relationship to Gl'owth Manae:ement Plan
The adoption of this LDC is consistent with, compatible with and ftuihers the
goals, policies, objectives, land uses, and densities 01' intensities. contained and
required in the GMP, and it implements and directly advances the goals, policies
and objectives of the GMP. The Board of County Commissioners of Colliei
County hereby declares and affirmatively states that in the event that any land
development regulation, this LDC, 01' any provision hereof or amendment hereto
is not consistent with the adopted Collier County GMP, as amended, the
provisions of the Collier County GMP, as amended, shall govern any action taken
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007 .
Page 16 of21
with regard to an application for a development order or other activity.
Furthermol'e, any land development regulation, this LDC, or any provision hereof
or amendment hereto shall be interpreted, construed and implemented in such a
manner which. will make it most consistent with the Collier County GMP, as
amended.
Response:
Again, this is a general provision that peltaills to how the LDC
must be consistent with the GMP. AllY violation of the LDC can be
found not to be consistent with, compatibl~ with or not to fhrther
the goals, policies, objectives, or be consistent with the land uses,
and densities 01' intensities contained and/or required in the GMP,
and thus not to implement or and directly advanct} the goals,
policies and objectives of the GMP, but such a violation of the
GMP must be specifically stated. No such violation of the GMP
has been cited or evidence provided. We do not agree that a
violation oftrus section. or others has OCCUlTed, and thus, the use ,is,
not in violation. If no violation has occurred, and the uses are
consistent with the applicable LDC provisions dealing with non-
confonnities, then the use cannot be in violation of this section.
1.05.01 PUl'Dose and Intent
F. In order to ensure that all development in unincorporated Collier County is
consistent with the Collier County GMP, it is necessary and proper to
establish a. selies of zoning districts to ensure that each permitted,
accessory and conditiona.l use is co~patible with 8m'l'ounding land uses,
served by adequate public facilities, and sensitive to natural and coastal
resources. Bach zoning district has its own purpose and establishes
pel'mitted uses, uses accessOl'y to permitted llSes, conditional uses,.
dimensional standards and other land use, density and intensity regulations
and references, sign regulations, off "street parking and loading
regulations, landscaping regulationst and other regulations that control the
use of land in eaoh zoning district. All development within each zoning
distdct shall be consistent with the purposes and regulations stated for that
zoning distlict in Chapter 2.
Response: Same general response as above, except to add this provision
merely authorized creation of zoning distticts, etc.) and that they
must be internally consistent.
2.02.01 Establishment of Official Zonine Atlas
D. No changes of any nature shall be made in the Official Zoning Atlas or
any matter shown thereon, or in the zoning distriots or regulations
Blocker - Professional Planning Opinion
March 6, 2007
Page 17 of21
contained herein, except in conformity with the procedures established in
this LDC and consistent with the Collier County GMP. Any unauthodzed
change of whatever kind by any pel'son shall be considered a violation of
this LDC.
. Resuonse: Thi~ section deals with the process of changes to the official
Collier County Zoning Atlas. This di4 not oeem', and thus, this
section is not applicable and should not have been cited as a
violation, as no violation of this section has.oec1.U1'ed. Please note,
the requirement of the Order of the Board, (CEB) Item 2. requires'
a re-zoning without affording any opportunity to amend the GMP
to allow such use, .
2.03.03 Industrial ZOlliu2: Distl'icts
A. Industrial District "111. The purpose and intent of the industrial district Ill"
is to provide lands for manufacturing, processing, storage and
warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution. Service and commercial
activities that al'e related to manufacturing, processing, storage and
warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution activities, as well as
commercial uses relating to automotive repair and heavy equipment sales
and repair, are also penn is sible in the I district. The I district corresponds
to and implements the industl'ialland \lse designation on the future land
use map oftlle Collier County GMP.
2.04.03 Table orLand Uses in Each Zoning: District
The following tables identify the uses that are permissible by right in each
zoning district and the uses that are allowable as conditional or accessory
uses.
2.05.01 Densitv Standal'ds and Housine: T~pes'
A. Where residential uses are allowable, the following density standards and
housing type oriteria shall apply.
Response: The above two sections identify permitted uses .and allowable
residential density. In the "1" district, residential use are not
permitted (except for one caretakers' residence), and thus, no
residential density allowance is identified. Again, tllls is accurate,
but does not consider the application ofthe LDC provisions as they
relate to llonconfonnlties.
Blocker - Professional Plamling Opinion
March 6, 2007 -
Page 18 of21
8.08.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
B. Violation, Whenever, by the provisions of this Code, the perf01mance of
any act is required, or the performance of any act is prohibited, or
whenever any regulation or limitation is imposed on the use or
development of any land 01' water, 01' on the erection of a structure, a
failure to comply with such provisions shall constitute a violation of this
Code,
D, Liability. Any owner, tenant, or occupant of any land or structure, or part.
thereof, and any architect, engineer, builder, contractor, or any other agent,
or other person, film, or corporation, either individually oJ.: through its
agents, employees, or independent contraotor, who violates the provisions
of this Code, 01' who participates in, assists, directs, creates, or maintains
any situation that is contmry to the requirements of this Code, shall be
held responsible for the violtJ.tion and be subject to the penalties and
remedies provided herein or as otherwise provided by statute or
ordinance,
RcsnOllse: These sections are applicable if a violation occurs. The analysis
contained herein l'efutes the alleged violation, and thus these
sections would not be applicable. Regardless, they merely state
that the violation of some other section of the LDC constitutes a
violation, and thus, a violation of this section in itself is not
possible.
9.03.01 Genel'ally
D. Casual, temporary, or illegal use. The casual, temporary, or illegal use of
land or structures, or land and structures in combination, shall not be
sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use Ol'to Cl'eate
rights ill the continuance of such use.
Rcsnonse: This section is not properly cited and does not apply. The uses in
question, residential uses, are not casual 01' temporary in nature,
and as we have demonstrated herein, these uses wei'e lawfully pre-
existing and permitted and as such, while no longer permitted in
the current underlying I Industtial zoning on the sl,lbject property,
they are subject to tbe LDC provisions related to non-conformities.
They are not illegal uses as suggested by citation of this sectiori.
without some other section of the LDC being found to exist
demonstrating such illegality.
Blocker - Pl'ofessional Planning Opi~ion
March 6, 2007
Page 19 of21
3. U"deJ' Descl'lvtlolt of COltditlolt Coltstitutiml tlte Violation the NOV
J'eads:
Unlawful and inappropriate Mobile Home improvements to Industrial
zoned property in Collier County known as 1101 Alachua St. Immokalee,
Fla.la.k.a. lot 8, block 48, Newmarket Subd., ID# 63864720000 of Collier
Co!. Record. All same industrial zoned property having had a previous "1-
C_3u zoning designation, which also prohibited placement of Mobile
Homes for dwelling use. (REF: IMMOKALEE AREA ZONING DIST.
REG'S. DATED OCT. 1970,) All same development and improvements'
having taken place in direct contrast to Collier Co. land development
requirements and without prior Collier Co', Zoning and Planning review
and approval.
Response: I have not been provided nOl' am I aware of any professionsl
planning analysis conducted by Colliel' County related to these-
allegations. Conversely, in preparation of tbis 1'ep011, I have
reviewed the following: aerial photographs, Collier County
Property Appraiser, Collier County Clerk of Courts and Collier
County Community Development and Environmental Services
Division public records, including historic and present zoning
ordinances and zoning maps as they then applied 01' are currently
applicable to the subject property, Based upon this research and
analysis, and, particularly based upon the facts and opinions set
forth in this.report, the allegations of violations are unfounded and
not supported by the evidence at hand. The residential use is not
illegal, but rather lawfully pre-existing and "legaP' non~
conforming, As such, the llse was subject to the previous non-
conforming zoning provisions as applicable, and is now subject to
. the current non-conforming provisions of the LDC as applicable,
In addition, in response to the last sentence in the paragraph above,
given the fact that the county records pr10r to 1960 were destroyed,
and that the County's building pelmit records prior to 1985 for
residential uses are incomplete and spotty at best, and given the
fact that the property appraiser's records indicate that numerous
building permits were obtained for the mobile home units and the
improvements thereto, there is no factual evidence that
improvements to the site, including placement, replacement,
maintenance and repair of the mobiles homes, were done without
Collier County review and approval.
I F. Concblsion
Blocker - Professional Planning Qpipion
March 6, 2007
Page 20 oi21
In conolusion, it is clear that the residential use of the subject propelty was the
lawfully pre-existing and is legally nonconforming and as such, the continued llse
is authorized by the LDC, with limitations on maintenance and repairsl and a
prohibition on alteration, expansion 01' replacement, except through the procedure
and conditions outlined in Sections 9.03.03.B.4 and 9.03.03.C.3.
G. Snmmftl'Y of Robcl't J. Mulhel'e's Related Pl'ofessional Experience
Mr. Mulhere received his undergraduate degree in 1977 (BA in Political Science) .
from St. MichaelIs College in Winooski Park, Vermont. He received a master's
degree in 2001 (public Administration) fl.-om Florida Gulf Coast University. He
has been a member of the Amel'icall Institute of Certified Platmers since 1994,
and the American Plamllng Association since 1989.
Mr. Mulhere offers over 18 years .of professional planning experience and
community services throughout Southwest Flol'ida. Mr. }'vIulhere is the former
Planning Director for Collier County Government, located in one of the fastest
growing regions in the country. He is considered a leader in his field, with
particular expeliise in growth management, land plaMing, site development,
l.u1lan design, neighborhood planning, zoning regulations and ordinance wl'iting,
contlict resolution, and public facilitation. During his tenure with Collier County
he was responsible for implementation of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and the Land Development Code, including the pl'OCesS of
amendment and or interpreting these documents.
One very significant task that fell under Mr, Mulhel'e purview was ovel'sight and
management of the COUllty's efforts to address the requirements of a final
llnoncompliance" order fl:om the Governor and Cabinet dealing with future
development in Collier's vast eastel'll lands (broadly referred to as the Eastern
Lands Study). In April of 2001 Mr. Muthere left the employment of Collier
County and began employment with the consul!ing firm of RW A, Inc. Collier
County then hired Mr. Mulhere as its lead planning consultant charged. with
completion the Final Order requirements, including analysis, development of
Growth Management Pan (GMP) Goals Objectives and Policie.s (GOPs), and
development of implementing land development regulations. (LDRs). That
process was bifurcated into two distinct geographic areas, which were eventually
identified as the Rural Fl'inge Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area (RLSA). During the GMP and LDR development period
(between 2000 and 2004) Mr. Mulhere led numerous public meetings and
meetings with County staff and other consultants, culminating in the adoption of
imlOvative and award winning and incentive based strategies.
Blocker - Professional Planning Opi.nion
March 6, 2007
Page 21 of21
Presently, in his capacity as Vice President of Plalmillg Services for RW A, 1nc,
Mr. Mulhel'e provides professional planning consultation services to a variety of
public and private sector clients on a wide vadety ofpl'ojects.
NAPLBS/3201!l6 Y.GI