Agenda 12/13/2011 Item #16A19Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
December 13, 2011
MOVE ITEM #16A19 TO ITEM #10L: RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACCEPT A PROCESS TO REVIEW PAST
STAFF CLARIFICATIONS AND OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CODES AND TO ACCEPT THE
SPECIFIC STAFF CLARIFICATIONS AND OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. (OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS ARE
QUASI- JUDICIAL) (COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST)
Continue Item 91( to the January 10 2012 BCC Meeting: This item continued from the November 8, 2011 BCC
Meeting. Recommendation to approve a Resolution acknowledging the Board of County Commissioners
support of Senate Bill 192 pertaining to amending the procedures for merger and dissolution of two or more
independent special districts. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Move Item 16A4 to item 10P: Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Arthrex Commerce
Park, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of
the performance security. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A16 to Item 100• Recommendation to approve release of lien in the Code Enforcement Action
entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Jack and Emma Mae Barrs, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
2002- .008, relating to property at 2990 Sunset Boulevard,. Collier County. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A21 to Item ION: Recommendation to approve the issuance of a building permit prior to the
approval of a Planned Unit Development Rezone and Site Development Plan Amendment, for a twenty five
thousand square -foot classroom and office addition to the existing Community School of Naples, not to exceed
the same existing upper school building height of thirty two feet. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A24 to Item 10M• Recommendation to direct the County Manager, or his designee, to suspend
the collection of Affordable Housing Contributions, pending the Board's decision on a Land Development Code
(LDC) Amendment to remove Affordable Housing Contribution commitments (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Continue Item 16A26 to the January 24, 2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve the third
amendment to the cooperative agreement with the South Florida Water Management District, Agreement No.
C- 11759, regarding operation and maintenance of designated primary watercourses in Collier County,
modifying the agreement terms and extending the term until September 30, 2024. (Staff request to address
concerns with property owners along affected canals that are subjects of the agreement.)
Move Item 16132 to Item 13133: Recommendation to approve a Resolution certifying statutory dedication and
acceptance of portions of South First Street through South Ninth Street, South Sixth Court, Boston, Colorado,
Delaware and West Eustis Avenues, all located in Immokalee, Florida, also being a part of Section 4, Township
47 South, Range 2 9 East, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, by virtue of the County's continuous
and uninterrupted maintenance of the roadway in excess of seven years and authorize the filing of a Right-of-
Way map being more specifically shown in Exhibit "A" (Fiscal Impact: $53.50). (Commissioner Hiller's
request)
Delete Item 16C13: Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Adam J. Piskadlo and Barbara K.
Piskadlo for the purchase of property for the relocation of sub - master pumping station 300.06 at a cost not to
exceed $78,000, Project Number 70046. (Staffs request due to reconsideration of sale by property owner)
Continue Indefinitely Item 16D12: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
"Certification for Implementation of Regulatory Reform Activities Required by S.H.I.P" and reports for fiscal
years 2006/07, 2007 /08, and 2008/09 and authorize submission to Florida Housing Finance Corporation to
ensure compliance with program requirements. (Staffs request. Allow additional time to collaborate with the
Florida Housing Coalition (FHC), the County's SHIP technical advisor, on report contents.)
Move Item 16GZ to Item 13A3: Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs authoAzation, unauthorized
approval of Change Order #1 for a time extension to Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA (Work Order
#4500116917 ) and make a finding of quantum meruit in order to process invoices for Phase 2 permitting
work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Commissioner Hiller's request to move item /language revised at
County Attorney's request)
Move Item 16G3 to Item 3A4: Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs allthOFization .unauthorized
approval of Change Order #2 to Passarella and Associates, Inc. (Work Order #4500116918) for a time
extension and make a finding of quantum meruit in order to process invoices for Phase II environmental
permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Commissioner Hiller's request to move item /language
revised at County Attorney's request)
Move Item 17A to Item 8C: Recommendation to approve a resolution allowing the Collier County Water -Sewer
District to expand the water and wastewater service district boundaries to include portions of the
development known as Hacienda Lakes, and surrounding areas, that are currently outside the existing
boundaries. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Items 13A3 and 13A4: Requested to be heard prior to Item 13A1. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Item 16A6 requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held
on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. (County Attorney's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9M to be heard at 5 :00 p.m.
Item 9L to be heard at 5:15 p.m.
Item 10B to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 10H to be heard at 1:00 p.m., followed by Items 10L,101 and 8A
Item 11A to be heard at 4:30 p.m.
Item 12A to be heard at 4 :00 p.m.
/2/1312011 Item 16.A.19.
EXECUTIVE SU11Y
Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to accept a process to
review past Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations of the Land Development and
Building Codes and to accept speck Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations
attached to this Executive Summary. (Official Interpretations are quasi- judicial.)
00 To have the Board of County Commissioners accept a schedule to review past
Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations of the Land Development and Building -Codes
and to accept selected Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations.
CONSIDER&_ NS: On October 25, 2011, the Board directed the County Manager to bring
to the Board written staff clarifications and interpretations to the Land Development Code (LDC)
and Building Code. Staff Clarifications (SC) are those reports that have been written to provide
guidance to staff when there are questions about the application of an LDC provision and date
back to 1997. The SCs have been displayed on Zoning's website for several years. Official
Interpretations (01) of the LDC are governed by Section 10.02.02.F of the LDC which provides a
process for submitting the request, processing the request, rendering an interpretation, providing
for public notice of the interpretation, ;and providing an appeals process.
Pursuant to Board direction, staff will evaluate past SCs and OIs to determine which ones have
n not been superseded by subsequent code amendments and will bring to the Board for Board
review all current SCs and Ols. Staff will review the SCs and Ols for applicability and will
place them on the Board's consent agenda. Staff has identified 45 SCs and more than 60 OIs
that must be analyzed and brought before the Board.' Staff recommends that approximately 10
items be' brought to the Board on a quarterly basis. This effort will therefore take up to 24
months to complete. Staff will also report to the Board those items that have been superseded
by.subsequent code amendments and are no longer applicable.
Unless otherwise directed by the Board, staff will place these items on the consent agenda. Staff
understands that for SCs the Board may desire to move future Executive Summaries to the
regular agenda to discuss a particular staff clarification. If the Board desires to discuss a
particular SC, staff understands that the Board may direct the County Manager or designee to
change the SC or to submit a Land Development Code (LDC) amendment that will address the
intent of the SC pursuant to Board direction. For OIs, which are governed by LDC Section
10.02.02.F, staff understands that if the Board desires a change to the OI's impact, the Board
may direct the County Manager or designee to pursue an LDC amendment pursuant to the
Board's direction.
Staff is requesting Board review and acceptance of the following SCs and OIs:
1. Window Signs, SC- 2011 -01 (Attachment 1),
2. Non - conforming Mobile Home Parks, SC- 2011 -02 (Attachment 2), and
3. Official Interpretation PL20090000083, Northbrooke Plaza PUD (Attachment 3).
Packet Page -1587-
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
n FISCAL IMPACT: There is no Fiscal Impact associated with the recommendations of this
Executive Summary. Fees for the processing of Official Interpretations are specified by the
applicable Fee Resolution adopted by the Board and have already been collected. There are no
fees associated with staff clarifications.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT• There is no GMP impact for this
item.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is ready for Board consideration. If a vote is taken, a
majority vote is required. - -HFAC
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for the Board to:
1. Approve the process for reviewing staff clarifications and official interpretations as presented
above.
2. Accept the following SCs and OI:
a. SC- 2011 -01, Window Signs (Attachment 1),
b. SC- 2011 -02, Non - conforming Mobile Home Parks (Attachment 2)
c. Official Interpretation PL20090000083, Northbrooke Plaza PUD (Attachment 3). Official
Interpretations are a quasi-judicial item.
PREPARED BY: William D. Lorenz, P.E., Director, Land Development Services Department,
Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
Attachments: 1) SC- 2011 -01, Window Signs; 2) SC- 2011 -02, Non - conforming Mobile Home
Parks; 3) Official Interpretation PL20090000083, Northbrooke Plaza PUD
Packet Page -1588-
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.A.19.
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to accept a process to review
past Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations of the Land Development and Building
Codes and to accept specific Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations attached to this
Executive Summary. (Official Interpretations are quasi - judicial.)
Meeting Date: 12/13/2011
Prepared By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, CDES
11/17/2011 1:37:41 PM
Submitted by
Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive
Name: LorenzWilliam
11/17/2011 1:37:43 PM
Approved By
Name: LorenzWilliam
Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive
Date: 11/17/20112:54:16 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, CDES
Date: 11/17/2011 3:02:09 PM
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 11/17/20114:44:34 PM
Packet Page -1589-
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor
Date: 11/18/20118:34:03 AM
Name: FederNorman
Title: Administrator - Growth Management Div,Transportati
Date: 11/18/2011 3:13:34 PM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title: Deputy Administrator - GMD,Business Management & Budget Office
Date: 11/21/2011 10:08:58 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 11/23/2011 11:47:17 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 11/23/20112:25:39 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 11/23/20113:15:53 PM
Packet Page -1590-
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
Co e-r County
KM y
Department of Land Development Services
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
STAFF CLARIFICATION: SC- 2011 -1
DATE: April 20,.2011
LDC SECTIONS: 5.06.04.F.4.e.i
SUBJECT: A clarification on the method of measuring the window area for the purpose of
enforcing the above referenced LDC provision that limits non - illuminated signs that are located
in a window not to exceed 25 percent of each window area.
INITIATED BY: Code Enforcement
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: Due to the various types of window styles and because the
n
LDC doesn't define what constitutes the "window area ", the Code Enforcement staff has
experienced problems enforcing this provision for those unique or unusual window designs.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): Since the LDC doesn't provide a method to calculate the
window area, this calculation should be based upon the applicable standard procedures and
policies established by the Sign Permit and Plan Review staff within the Building Department.
For the purpose of determining compliance with LDC Section 5.06.04.F.4.e.i, the window area is
measured for each window pane of storefront glass. The window pane includes the glass area
between the vertical sash divider that outlines the window frame between each storefront
window. If the window contains a thin horizontal sash divider forming a small attached
window, that additional glass area is typically considered part of the same window area.
Therefore, when calculating the window area, the smaller window area is included in the
calculation as if the horizontal sash was not there. (See Photo #1) Conversely, if the horizontal
and vertical sash dividers are the same or similar size, each glass area is typically considered a
separate window for the purpose of calculating the window area. (See Photo #2) In a mullion
window, all the small panes of glass are measured as a whole window area unless divided by a
large vertical sash. (See Photo #3) In addition, any non - illuminated sign located in a window
shall not exceed 25 percent of each window area. No building permit required.
1
Packet Page -1591-
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
A**-*N Signs located in windows shall not be illuminated in any manner with the following exception:
a) One sign per business establishment that is located in a window may have 2.25 square
feet of illuminated signage.
Photo #1
Photo #3
Photo #2
AUTHOR: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Department of Land Development Services
cc: Zoning Services Section Staff
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
William Lorenz, P.E., Land Development Services Director
Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Diana Compagnone, Building Review and Permitting
Zoning Clarification File
Packet Page -1592-
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
Co er County
Department of Land Development Services
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
STAFF CLARIFICATION: SC- 2011 -02
DATE: August 18, 2011 (Revised: 12 -5 -11)
LDC SECTIONS: 2.03.07.G.6, 4.02.33, and 10.02.051. Nonconforming Mobile Home Parks
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATION: The above referenced LDC sections deal with nonconforming mobile
home parks located within the Nonconforming Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistict in the Immokalee
Overlay. The applicablility and processing of mobile home parks within the overlay is not clear within the
various sections of these LDC provisions. Staff has been requested to clarify the applicability and correct
processing of existing mobile home parks wishing to utilize these LDC provisions.
Note that the County Attorney has determined that the date to submit an SIP by Code Board Order has lapsed
and that the only vehicle to apply Sections 2.03.07.G.6, 10.02.051 and 4.02.33 is by settlement agreement
approved by the BCC.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION):
Unless the BCC directs otherwise, staff has determined the following:
Non - Conforming Use: These code provisions are applicable for all mobile home parks that are located in
zoning districts that previously allowed mobile homes as a permitted principal use at the time the park was
established but do not currently allow mobile homes as a permitted use if an SIP was submitted in accordance
with Section 2.03.07.G.6 (SIP before 1/9/03 or by date in Code Board Order or by settlement agreement with
BCC). Mobile home parks that meet these standards shall comply with the applicable SIP application process
outlined in LDC Section 10.02.051. The number of allowable mobile home units for each development that is
reviewed under the applicable SIP provisions shall be the same number of units that existed on -site before
November 13, 1991 as provided for in Section 2.03.07.G.6.b. of the LDC.
If the mobile home park property is located in a zoning district that does not currently permit mobile homes as a
permitted principal use, and the property was never zoned to allow mobile homes as a permitted principal use,
then these LDC provisions do not apply.
If the existing mobile home park is in a district that allows mobile home parks, then the mobile home park may
use the SIP application process in Section 10.02.03.B.2, if applicable, and apply the standards of the underlying
zoning district.
Non - Conforming Structures: These code provisions are applicable for all mobile home parks that are located
in zoning districts that presently allow mobile homes as a permitted principal use but which park does not meet
development standards of the present zoning district if an SIP was submitted in accordance with Section
Page 1
Revised 12 -5 -11
Packet Page -1593-
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
2.03.07.G.6 (SIP before 1/9/03 or by date in Code Board Order or by settlement agreement with BCC). Mobile
home parks that meet these standards shall comply with the applicable SIP application process outlined in LDC
Section 10.02.051. and may apply the development standards of 4.02.33.
If the existing mobile home property is in a district that allows mobile home parks, and the property owner does
not qualify under Section 2.03.07.G.6, then the mobile home park may use the SIP application process under
the 10.02.03.B.2, if applicable, and apply the standards of the underlying zoning district.
Permitted Density for New Mobile Homes and Existing Mobile Homes:
For Multi- Family Units: based on criteria of applicable zoning district and definition of multi - family.
For Lots with separate single family buildings: based on criteria including lot width and minimum lot size of
applicable zoning district.
AUTHOR: Raymond Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
Department of Land Development Services
cc: Zoning Services Section Staff
William Lorenz, P.E., Land Development Services Director
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Mike Sawyer, Project Manager, Zoning Services Section
Zoning Clarification File
Revised 12 -5 -11 Page 2
Packet Page -1594-
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
Co �eY County
Community Development &
Environmental Services Division
Zoning & Land Development Review
June 30, 2009
Mr. Tim Hancock, AICP, Director of Planning
Davidson Engineering
3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301
Naples, FL 34105
Reference: INTP- PL2009 -083, Request for official interpretation of Northbrooke Plaza PUD,
Ordinance No. 98 -59.
Dear Mr. Hancock:
Pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.021, you have asked the Zoning and
Land Development Review Director to render an official interpretation for the use of an existing
building within the Northbrooke Plaza PUD (Ordinance No. 98 -59) for educational purposes by
Hodges University. Specifically you ask whether classrooms, offices and necessary support facilities
for colleges and universities are permitted within a building located at 2647 Professional Way, which
is located in Tract A of the PUD.
Section 2.03.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides rules for
interpretation of uses. In any zoning district, where the list of permitted and conditional uses contains
the phrase or similar phrase "any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and
is consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district" then the
determination of whether or not that use is permitted in the district shall be made through the process
outlined in Section 1.06.00, Interpretations, of the LDC. In this case, the Tract A development
standards of the PUD, which is the subject of your request, contain the notation "any other use
comparable in nature ...." which requires me to consider your request under the above referenced
section of the Land Development Code. After researching the history of the Northbrooke Plaza PUD
and analyzing the provisions of the Northbrooke Plaza PUD it is my opinion that the use of the
building located at 2647 Professional Way for office and classroom uses associated with the main
college campus which comprises the existing Hodges University, on Tract B, is comparable and
compatible with the uses allowed by right in Tract A.
The original Northbrook Plaza PUD Ordinance was established in 1991 (Ordinance No. 91 -67) and
was later amended in 1998 (Ordinance No. 98 -59). Tract A, in which building 2647 is located,
allows a variety of commercial uses including those usually found at interstate exchanges such as
automobile related uses, restaurants and hotels. Tract A also allows medical offices, clinics,
laboratories and hospitals and also contains a provision for civic, cultural, religious and public
service uses and facilities. As noted above, the list of permitted uses for Tract A also provides the
ability for the Zoning Director to determine if land uses, not specifically listed, would be permissible
2800 North Horsehoe Drive - Naples, Florida 34104.239- 252 -2400 • Fax 239 - 643-6968 • www.colliergov.net
Packet Page -1595-
Mr. Tim Hancock, AICP, Director of Planning
June 30, 2009
Page 2 of 3
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
provided the Director determined the uses to be comparable in nature with the allowable uses and
compatible and appropriate. The uses that currently exist in Tract A are largely comprised of high
intensity commercial land uses typically found at an interstate interchange. Also present in Tract A
are commercial uses of amore moderate intensity including medical and professional offices. The
proposal is to use this building for classrooms and offices associated with the university. The
university does not house students on campus and conducts both daytime and nighttime classes. The
subject property is located at the eastern edge of the PUD, north of the intersection of Immokalee
Road and Northbrooke Drive. The university has a significant amount of nighttime activity which is
different then typical daytime activity of all but the most intense commercial uses which are located
abutting Immokalee Road (convenience store and restaurant). Regardless of those facts, the activity
associated with the university occurs mainly indoors at controlled times and traffic associated with
the arrival and departure of students usually occurs during blocks of specific times rather than as a
high level of constant traffic flow and activity on the proposed site. As to the relationship of the
proposed uses to the list of permitted uses, it is my opinion that the present use is commercial in
nature and currently functions similar to a commercial /office use of moderate intensity, therefore in
my opinion it is comparable and compatible to the uses currently allowed in Tract A, which includes
the subject building.
In researching the history of this PUD and the development of Hodges University (formerly
International College), records shows that International College received Site Development Plan
approval in September, 1999 for its present location on Tract B. When the PUD was amended in
1998, the former Tract C was eliminated and the master plan was revised. The provisions for the
then Tract B were removed and the provisions for Tract C became the provisions for Tract B. Also,
this transfer largely allowed for residential land uses although most of Tract B today has been
developed with the university uses. There is little evidence as to the specific basis for a
determination that must have been made to allow the original university in Tract B, especially since
the site development plan for the university was approved approximately one year after the
amendment to the PUD zoning district was approved (assumedly one would amend the PUD to
specify the College or Education use in anticipation of its impending development). Nevertheless, at
this point I can only speculate that it appears that a previous determination may have been made to
allow the university development in Tract B under the uses "Civic, cultural, religious, and public
service uses and facilities," which are permitted by right under Ordinance No. 98 -59. The remaining
Iist of permitted uses in Tract B only allow for residential type of development, consequently this
provision is the only provision which allows land uses other than residential land uses.
In examining the development patterns within the PUD, I note that the entire Northbrook Plaza PUD
property is surrounded on two sides by major roadways (Interstate 75 to the west and Immokalee
Road to the south) and on two sides by multi- family residential development (to the north and east).
The subject office building is located on the western edge of Northbrooke Drive (fronts on
Northbrooke Drive) across the street from existing multi - family development. The development
pattern that has taken place thus far has the most intense commercial developments fronting
Immokalee Road and I -75 in a step down pattern eastward from I -75 towards Northbrooke Drive,
with the least intense development fronting Northbrooke Drive. The present site of the university
abuts I -75 to the west and an existing multi family development to the north with significant native
vegetation and PUD preserve areas east and northeast with a wall separating the multi - development
to the north from the campus. As noted above, the university functions largely as an educational
Packet Page -1596-
12/13/2011 Item 16.A.19.
Mr. Tim Hancock, AICP, Director of Planning
June 30, 2009
Page 3 of 3
facility that attracts working students, consequently classes are held at nighttime as well as during the
day. Although the use of the subject site for university uses would mean the building would now also
be operating in the evening, given the existing landscape buffering between the property to the east
and the subject site, which includes a concrete wall buffering the residential properties to the east, I
am of the opinion that the buffering between the two properties is sufficient to mitigate the impacts
of the nighttime use on the residential properties to the east of the subject site.
In summary, it is my opinion that the use of the building located at 2647 Professional Way for office
and classroom use associated with the main university campus which comprises the existing Hodges
University, on Tract B, is comparable and compatible with the uses allowed by right in the Tract A.
Furthermore, given the existing landscape buffering between the property to the east and the subject
site, which includes a concrete wall buffering the residential properties to the east, I am of the
opinion that the buffering between the two properties is sufficient to mitigate the impacts of the
proposed university use on the residential properties to the east of the subject site. Should the
university plan to expand to other areas within the PUD, it will be necessary for the PUD to be
amended to reflect the university use and the appropriate master plan of development to ensure
further compatibility between the university uses and development in an around the Northbrooke
Plaza PUD.
Pursuant to Division 10.02.021. of the LDC, this interpretation has been sent to you via certified
mail, return receipt requested. As this is a site - specific interpretation, all property owners within 300
feet of the subject property will receive mail notice and a copy of this interpretation and appeal time
frames will be placed in the Naples Daily News. Within 30 days of receipt of this letter, or within 30
days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or aggrieved or adversely
affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).
A request for an appeal must be filed in writing and must state the basis for the appeal and include
any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back -up information in support of the appeal. The
appeal must be accompanied by a $1,000.00 application and processing fee. If payment is in the
form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners. An appeal
can be hand delivered or mailed to my attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to
contact me should you have any further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director .
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Collier County Planning Commission
James V. Mudd, County Manager
Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Comm. Development & Env. Srv. Div.
Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney
Ray V. Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department of Zoning & Land Dev. Rev.
Packet Page -1597-