Backup Documents 06/22/2010 Item #16I1611 1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 22, 2010
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
I) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of April 20, 2010.
2) Black Affairs Advisory Board:
Minutes of January 26, 2009; April 27, 2009; May 18, 2009;
July 27, 2009; September 28, 2009; November 23, 2009;
February 22, 2010.
3) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of March 8, 2010 Wiggins Pass subcommittee;
March 18, 2010 Clam Bay subcommittee;
April 19, 2010 Wiggins Pass subcommittee.
4) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of March 24, 2010; April 1, 2010 regular session;
April 1, 2010 special session.
5) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of April 21, 2010.
6) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 7, 2010.
7) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of March 23, 2010; May 11, 2010.
Minutes of March 9, 2010 no quorum; April 13, 2010 no quorum;
March 23, 2010.
8) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of May 3, 2010.
Minutes of April 5, 2010.
9) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board:
Agenda of May 19, 2010.
Minutes of September 16, 2009: November 18, 2009;
April 21, 2010.
1611 1
10) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 8, 2010.
11) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 12, 2010.
12) Library Advisory Board:
Agenda of May 19, 2010 regular; May 19, 2010 annual meeting.
Minutes of April 20, 2010.
13) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of February 16, 2010; March 8, 2010; April 12, 2010.
14) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Minutes of March 17, 2010.
B. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of April 16, 2010.
2) Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program:
Minutes of April 5, 2010.
RECEIVED
MAY 19 2010
Soaid of County Conynlgsionef$
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta _ ' °
161 1 Al
April 20, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, April 20, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal
Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR
SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN;
VICE CHAIRMAN:
Michele Antonia
Marcia Breithaupt
Dr. Ruth Eisele
Sgt. David Estes
Tom Kepp, Jr.
Dan Martin
Jim Rich
ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Interim, Director, DAS
Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Operations Mgr.
Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator, DAS
Hailey Alonso, Administrative Assistant, DAS
raise, cares:
bats: D!o { 0
HAM t i 1
I.
II.
III.
IV
CI
161 ]. Al
April 20, 2010
Call to Order:
Chairman Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M.
Dan Martin, newly appointed Advisory Board Member was introduced.
Attendance:
Attendance was taken and a quorum established.
In attendance were several members of the public and volunteers in celebration
of Volunteer Day.
Approval of Agenda:
Add: Under New Business item A. Licensing Enforcement Discussion (handout -2)
Sgt. David Estes moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Marcia
Breithaupt. Carried unanimously, 7 -0.
Approval of Minutes: March 16, 2010
Change spelling: Page 2 Item I Call to Order — the word, meetin
Jim Rich moved to approve the minutes of March 16, 2010, as amended
Second by Dr. Ruth Eisele. Carried unanimously, 7 -0.
Old Business
A. Directors Report
Amanda Townsend extended a welcome to Dan Martin and explained that
he was appointed by the BCC following Larry Kenner's hiring to serve as
Animal Control Officer for DAS.
She noted the following activities at DAS:
• Round one of the Budget preparation was under way. She thanked Jim
Rich for his valuable input and cost - savings suggestions in shelter
operations to help meet the 5% budget cut.
• Staff has changed from using mop heads to using towels —more sanitary
and more easily laundered.
• County Manager visited DAS and was provided a familiarization tour of
the facility.
• Preliminary budget had been submitted to Marla Ramsey and the OMB.
Department heads will be meeting with them and the County Manager on
May 21, with presentation to DASAB at their June meeting. The BCC
will give final approval at June 24th and 25th meetings.
• DAS hosted Compassion Fatigue Training. The program helps staff to
deal with their challenging work environment.
• Volunteer Appreciation Day — recognition was given to all those who help
care for the animals and get them ready for adoption.
• Plans for better utilization of Collier TV by partnering with the Humane
Society of the U.S. and the AD Council are underway. Samples of
various animated ads were shown on the overhead projector.
• Postcards and brochures have been sent out for license renewals.
161 1 Al E'4
April 20, 2010
Chairman Michele Antonia suggested showing the clips in school and
condo association presentations.
Amanda also mentioned Senate Bill 2372 had passed out of committee. The
Bill would allow an additional $10 to be collected on any citation ($1 to the
Clerk's office and $9 to fund low cost spy and neuter clinic). Updates on this
legislation, should it pass, will be reported to DASAB.
Nan Gerhardt spoke about the implementation of catch nets. With the
change to individual cages, transporting the cats will be easier and safer by
shuttling injured or agitated cats into the nets to facilitated treating them.
Kathlene Drew reported on the following volunteer activities:
• Towels for Tails, the event at Sun and Fun Park, at which donated towels
were exchanged for half price tickets to the water park, brought in 250
towels. Two dogs were brought to the event; one was adopted, providing
another venue for adoption exposure.
• Disney's Give -a -Day, Get —a -Day program — 456 volunteers participated;
1,662 hours were given at DAS
• Volunteer were recognized for their dedication and number of donated
hours -- 6, 936 hours in 2009 and 5,517 hours already in 2010.
Noted was:
1. The various age spans of the volunteers (from high schoolers to
retirees) who have donated over 500 hours.
2. Those who have worked tirelessly to place 78 animals with other
rescue or shelter groups.
3. Those who devote care in getting animals bathed and dressed up
for the Happy Tails show.
She commented that everyone attending the DASAB meetings had one thing
in common -- a strong love for animals.
B. DAS Second Quarter Statistical Report
Amanda Townsend reviewed the various statistical reports with the DASAB
Members, noting:
• Higher intake from Animal Control Officers (ACO) in the field rather
than those brought in to the shelter.
• The increase in volunteer hours
• An explanation of the number of ACO, their schedules, duties
and staffing issues with two permanently frozen positions
• Greater working relationship with the Sheriff s Office
• Workload of incoming calls greatly increased
• Thank you to Humane Society Naples, who took in 158 animals from
DAS last quarter.
• Medical fostering information upcoming at next meeting.
• Explanation and discussion on drop -off boxes
Lengthy discussion was conducted on various aspects of the quarterly
statistics.
l Al
20, 2010
C. Clarification of Microchip Checking (handout)
Chairman Michele Antonia had requested the clarification. A handout of
the policy on Microchip Research was provided and read from by Amanda.
The policy referred to and addressed Microchip procedures for "reasonable
attempts to re -unite impounded stray animals with their owners ". It did not
refer to surrendered animals.
Amanda Townsend stated, however, DAS would trace chips to known rescue
groups DAS had a relationship with, but not individual owners. The issue was
—legal property ownership. DAS must accept the person who signed the
surrender form as the owner; once surrendered, DAS was the owner.
VI. New Business:
A. License Fee for Non - altered Pets (handout — Letter)
Susan Heckel, who had contacted DAS with a complaint regarding increased
fees for unaltered pets, was not able to be present. An e-mail to Amanda
Townsend was shared with DASAB. Her issue was a pet was too old to be
altered, did not create a nuisance and she just did not choose to own an altered
animal. County policy does not allow exemptions to fee policy.
Discussion followed on the following points:
• Too many laws infringing on pet owners' rights
• Reward those who do the right thing
• Punish those who do not.
• Provide incentives to comply
• Payment plans
Amanda Townsend cited a study that found unaltered pets created the
overpopulation problem in that births of 52% of dogs and 53% cats were
accidental — the owners never intended to have a litter.
B. Protocol for Determining Behavior Problems
Chairman Michele Antonia questioned the high statistic of euthanasia for
behavior problems and what constituted so many of them.
Nan Gerhardt explained determination was based upon both behavior
history and behavior observed. She explained both categories, stating biting
was the most prominent problem. Animals with aggressive behavior, age or
medical issues were un- adoptable. Time and space was another problem cited.
Adoption increase would help decrease euthanasia statistics as well as
enforcement issues, citation collections and spay and neuter.
C. Pet Friendly Condos
Jim Rich read from a "Letter to the Editors" article which promoted changes
to bylaws permitting pet ownership by condo associations. The benefits were:
• More sales as retirees move to condos with their pets, both from
homes and from northern states. 63% of the population own pets.
• Proven health benefits to pet owners
1611 Al
April 20, 2010
He offered to undertake the project by speaking to associations. He asked
for feedback from DAS and the Advisory Board and support from other
organizations such as the Humane Society and the Collier Cat Coalition. It
was deemed a great idea by DASAB and staff. Dr. Ruth Eisele will assist Jim.
Amanda Townsend noted Commissioner Halas holds a monthly meeting
She will bring the article to his attention.
VII. Public Comment
Kelly Fox distributed a list of 11 questions on issues to be put on a future
agenda. A review of the questions by the DASAB determined that all could
be answered by Amanda and would not need DASAB consideration.
She reported the Bed drive resulted in the delivery of 100 kongs, 7 "boom
boxes" and some CDs to provide music for the animals. She commented on
citation fine collections and a media blast for laws going into effect in May.
Stephen Wright commended Jim Rich for his effort to speak to condo
associations as a way to increase adoptions. He offered ideas to draw more
exposure to DAS to encourage adoptions:
• Increase parking. Plan and put in budget next year.
• Solicit donations for gravel and materials
• Have more events at DAS to bring people to the animals
• Outreach/volunteers, ACOs, animals and flyers go to various venues
Kathlene Drew responded that brochures and compliance flyer have been
distributed by volunteers in various locations and private schools.
Amanda Townsend noted the new brochures will have English on one side
and be divided on the other side with Spanish and Creole. She will look into
permitting issues regarding parking expansion.
Terri Licastro spoke regarding enforcement.
• Ways to enforce the laws and how to go about collecting fines need to
be figured out and utilized.
• Laws and enforcement are not strong enough. Follow ups are necessary.
• Tying fines to drivers license or some other means should be pursued
Dr. Ruth Eisele encouraged groups to bring ideas to DASAB for discussion.
Amanda Townsend responded there were three basic issues over and above
questions of an operational nature- how enforcement operations currently work:
From the list ofpriority projects cited for this year two pertain to enforcement.
1. Work to improve licensing enforcement policies
2. Create a new updated policies and procedures manual
3. Identifying new projects for the future, what was not on this year's list
She stated DASAB reviews policies and makes recommendations but does not
make policies.
Gisela Rowley shared a "Good News" story of the little dog, Chappy, who
had been brought to DAS with serious behavioral problems, was rehabilitated,
adopted and now "living in luxury" in Germany.
1611
April 20, 2010
VIII. Advisory Board Members Comments
Jim Rich stated Assisted Living facilities encourage pets. He suggested
residents could plan trips to DAS to visit animals and may adopt one. Also,
field trips for school children could result in adoption.
Dan Martin stated he was interested in researching the citation figures on the
Quarterly Reports. He will research and report to the DASAB.
Marcia Breithaupt requested the corrected press release on the anti - tethering.
She also inquired about information mentioned in Kathlene's newsletter
regarding owner training.
Kathlene Drew responded it was in the process of being approved for
implementation and will include training with each adoption and for volunteers.
The next meeting of the DAS Advisory Board is scheduled for May 18, 2010.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 8:53 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES
C airman, Michel Antonia
These minutes approved by Board/Committee on .0 0 as presented or
as amended
Fiala ✓ r
"!=- CEIVED Halas 1 'A2
Henninger
MAY 2 0 2010 Coyle
Coletta
.:,f ;iunty Commisslonem
Is MINUTES OF THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
January 26, 2009
LOCATION: ]lousing and Human Services
3050 N. Horseshoe Dr. Ste.# 110
Naples, FL 34104
Members Present:
LaVeme Franklin, Chairwoman
Stewart Brown
Fay Ghorayeb
Jon Walker
Keith Upson
Irene Williams
Meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM
iIt. Old Business
None
III. New Business
Staff Present:
Tend Daniels, Mousing & Human Services
Rick Torres, Housing & Human Services
Absent:
Introductions were in order and the committee was informed by Terri Daniels that Rick Torres
would be replacing her as staff.
Dr. Caroline J. Cederquist ( Weight & Nutrition Management) gave a presentation regarding
weight issues. She covered such topics as demographics, teen parents, single parents, media,
and other issues related to obesity. Possible solutions to help the overweight epidemic are
physical fitness at least one hour per day, churches being used as a venue, setting up policies
on advising children and lower prices for healthy foods as an incentive. Jon Walker
mentioned educating children on Medicaid since they tend to be heavier.
Members discussed new committee member applicant status as there are three vacancies. A
motion to approve Linda Sanders was approved (6 -0).
The next board meeting is on February 23, 2009.
IV. Meeting was adjourned at 7:20 PM. Misc. Comes:
Date: 2� 0
tem #:
`� ^HIES le:
LI
Respectfully Submitted
Rick Torres, Human Services
F-I
L--j
LI
Approved by:
Laverne Franklin, Chairwoman
161 1 A2 �',
Fiala ��—
RECEIVED Halas 6 I 1 a2
Henning
MAY 2 0 2010 Coyle _
Colette
,oero of County commissioners
MINUTES OF THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
April 2'7, 2009
LOCATION: Housing and Human Services
3050 N. Horseshoe Dr. Ste.# 110
Naples, FL 34104
Members Present:
LaVeme Franklin, Chairwoman
Linda Sanders
Son Walker
Keith Upson
Irene Williams
Meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM
0. Old Business
Ill.
IV
Staff Present:
hick Torres, Housing & Human Services
Absent:
Stewart Brown
Fay Ghorayeb
Summer Wheeless
Work. Plan: Keith Upton offered to compile al l sources on to one sheet and bring to next
meeting.
New Business
BAAB would like to appear before the BCC at their June 23, 2009 meeting to brief them on
what they are working on. Additionally, BAAB would like to reappear before the BCC on
Nov 10, 2009 to formally present their work plan.
The next board meeting is on May 18, 2009.
Meeting was adjourned at 7: 10 PM.
Respectfully Submitted
Rick Tones, Human Services
Approved by
L,aVerne Franklin, Chairwoman Misc. Comes:
Item
C ^pies to:
Fiala "✓ �A �
(RECEIVED Halas�'''
Henning-- =^�^'"° /'�
MAY 2 0 2010 Coyle
em Coletta '
MINUTrS"i(9`ft 1�E BACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
n
May 18, 2009
LOCATION: Housing and Iluman Services
3050 N. Horseshoe Dr. Ste.# 110
Naples, FL 34104
Members Present:
LaVerne Franklin, Chairwoman
Keith Upson
Irene Williams
Fay Ghorayeb
Public
Lt. Rene' Gonzales
Meeting was called to order at 6:15 I'M
0 1. Old Business
Staff Present:
Rick Torres, Housing 8r Human Services
Absent:
Stewart Brown
Summer Wheeless
Linda Sanders
Jon Walker
- Work Plan is still ongoing and will be discussed at next month's meeting.
- Discussed how the presentation to the BCC on June 23, 2009 will be an opportunity to let the
board know what the BAAB has been working on since their last appearance before the
BCC.
111, New Business
- Discussed the possibility of three vacancies on the board once Stewart Brown vacates his
seat.
- Location for the next BAAB meeting may move to 3301 F.. Tamiami Trail Bldg H. Suite 216
due to the office space at N. Horseshoe being relocated.
The next board meeting is scheduled for June 22, 2009.
IV. Meeting was adjourned at 6:55 PM.
Respectfully Submitted Approved by:
It Rick Torres, Human Services
LaVeme Franklin, ChairAomanM1sc. Correa:
Date:
Item #:
-!Cs to:
Fiala A2
RECEIVED Halas
tl
MAY 2 0 2010 Henning
Boyle
acs o of county conuniss ones; Coletta
i MINUTES OF THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
July 27, 2009
LOCATION: Housing and Human Services
3301 E. Tamiami "Frail Bldg. H. Suite 211
Naples, FL 34112
Members Present:
LaVerne Franklin, Chairwoman
Keith Upson
Irene Williams
Linda Sanders
Jon Walker
Public
Staff Present:
Rick Torres, Housing & Human Services
Absent:
Fay Ghorayeb
Summer Wheeless
Meeting was called to order at 6:40 PM
I. Old Business
- Work Plan: considered adding first page of work plan (summary) to web page and provide
commissioners a copy of work plan for during the presentation to the board.
- Ms. Franklin reviewed the draft presentation to the BAAB members.
- Discussed how the presentation to the BCC on June 23, 2009 will be an opportunity to let the
board know what the BAAB has been working on since their last appearance before the
BCC.
IlL New Business
- Motion to recommend Tonicia D. Morgan to BAAB approved.
- Discussed the reappointment of Fay Ghorayeb. Ms. Ghorayeb requests change in meeting
location and her decision to remain on the board will be based on future meeting locations. A
recommendation on her re- appointment was not made at this time.
- Board decided to leave the number of board members as is with nine members.
- Members discussed looking for alternate locations for future meetings and report back next
meeting.
The next board meeting is scheduled for September 28, 2009.
IV. Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 PM.
Re ctfully Submitted Approved by:
Rick orres, Human Services LaVerne Fra hn, ChairworMw. Corres.
Date:
Item
-
1K
0
RECEIVED
MAY 17 2010
nuns of County Comaissionem
MINUTES OF THE BLACK AFFAIRS
Fiala
Halas
CoyleC
Coyle 1
Col-�ttaa
ADVISORY BOARD 17FTI1GI • Q • ` %
September 28, 2009
LOCATION: Housing and l luman Scry ices
2335 Orange Blossom Dr. Naples, f 1, 34109
Members Present:
Laverne Franklin, Chairwoman
Keith Upson
Irene Williams
Linda Sanders
Jon Walker
Public
Guest Speaker: Stacy Revay of County Health Dept
Staff Present:
Rick Torres, Housing & Iluman Services
Absent:
Summer Wheeless
Meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM
1. Old Business
- Work Plan: discussed including information from newspaper articles dealing with obesity as
part of the upcoming briefing to the BCC.
0
I1. New Business
- Motion approved to research the location of formerly existing black communities within
Collier County in order to place commemorative markers at each location.
- Guest Speaker Stacey Revay, Health Educator from the Collier County Health Department.
Ms. Revay provided health statistics for the local population. She explained how typical
health programs deal with diet and exercise. Ms. Revay also presented the view from the
perspective of urban planning and design of infrastructure that incorporate design elements
that promote healthier communities through active designs. Ms. Revay discussed the Smash
Growth Coalitions efforts in promoting health through responsible growth,
The next board meeting is scheduled for October 26, 2009.
1V. Meeting was adjourned at 720 PM.
Respectfully Submitted Approved by:
Rick Torres, Human Services LaVerne Franklin, Chairwoman
Misc. Cones:
Date:
Item
�jH'Vt�SQF'['HE
MAY 17 2010
Fiala
Halas
Henr ing' -r'
Coyle
BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD0010I"
November 23, 2009
otcounry commissone LOCATION: North Collier Government Center
2335 Orange Blossom Dr. Naples, Fl, 34109
Members Present:
LaVerne Franklin. Chairwoman
Keith Upson
Irene Williams
Linda Sanders
Tonica Morgan
Public
Meeting was called to order at 6:10 PM
Old Business
1611'A2
Staff Present:
Terri Daniels, Housing & Human Services
Absent:
.Ton Walker
Summer Wheeless
Discussion regarding the historical marker and it would be placed. Discussed it being
located near Ditch Bank and McDonald's Quarters. Keith will conduct research regarding
historical sites and criteria for designation as historical sites. LaVerne mentioned a book
regarding African American Historical Sites from the Governor's Office. A member will
need to contact the Naples Daily News to retrieve archives of articles written on Blacks in
Naples in the 1930's. Lindawill contact Vivian Chestnut to gather additional data. BAAB
discussed the plaque for the historical marker and the possibility of a documentary.
II. New Business
- Motion approved to accept minutes of September 2009 as written.
- LaVerne discussed the Diabetes proclamation that was received by the BCC. Everyone
thanked Keith for his research on the proclamation.
- Tonica Morgan was welcomed as the newest member of the BAAB.
- Recommendation to terminate Summer Wheeless from the 13AAB based on lack of
attendance.
Motion approved to make a recommendation to appoint Mr. Wilcoxson to BAAB.
The BAAB`s work plan will now be focused on the historical marker project.
The next board meeting is scheduled for January 25, 2010
IV. Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 PM.
Res ectfirly Submitted Approved tiv: r;
erri ie s, housing and I:aVeme Franklin, Chairwoman Misc. Cones:
Human Services
Date: _
Item #:
capies to:
✓
Fiala —'-
Halas
RE,yCEwED Henning -
MAT �f � 5 OF THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARll(6�T J�
February 22, 2010 Coletta Yi
aoard of county com nt
commissioners LOCATION: Lv ' 1 A N 7: 4
LOCATION: North Collier Government Ceer
2335 Orange Blossom Dr. Naples, 1, 1, 34109
Members Present:
LaVerne Franklin, Chairwoman
Keith Upson
Linda Sanders
Tunica Morgan
Jon Walker
Larry Wilcoxson
Public
Kay Ryon
Meeting was called to order at 5:08 PM
I. Old Business
Staff Present:
Rick Torres, Housing & Human Services
Absent:
Irene Williams
Summer Wheeless
- Recommended amending November 2009 minutes as noted.
- Amended agenda to Welcome Larry Wilcox under old business.
- Keith Upson provided update on historical marker registration processes, designations, and
categories. Naples Historical Society may be a resource, also provided various internet
resources within Florida. Ms. Franklin brief board of her conversation with Elaine Reed;
Executive Director of the Naples Historical Society about providing Ms. Reed a lead for her
next phase in the Naples Daily 'Dews.
II. New Business
- Work Plan. Board will invite Ms. Milred Leola to the next BAAB meeting. Board will
consider conducting a small "fact finding" team visit to gather historical data for Ms. Reed.
- Approved no meeting in March.
- Public Comment: Ms. Kay Ryon discussed that the Naples City Council voted 4 -3 denying an
alcohol license for the Everglades Convenience Store. Ms. Ryon wanted advice on how to
proceed in order to get an alcohol license but admitted that this may not be the right forum.
BAAB did not offer any advice other than she should research the local codes.
f
The next board meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2010
IV. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM.
r
Respectfully Submitted Approved by:
Misc. Comes:
Rick Torres, Housing and LaVerne Franklin, Chairwombjte:___.____--
Human Services
Item tt.
con *Rs to:
Fiala 16 1 � F�
RECEIVED Halas �"
Henning
MAY 2 4 2010 Coyle
Coletta 7e
hoard of County commissioners
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WIGGINS PASS SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, March 8, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee — Wiggins Pass
Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein,
met on this date at 9:00 A.M. at the Risk Management Training Room located at
3301 Tamiami Trail E, Building D, Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
Chairman: Joseph A. Moreland
Robert Raymond
Victor Rios
ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director
Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc. Corres:
Date: Q b I D
Item #:I
A3
16 1� 11A3
I. Call to Order
Chairman Moreland called the meeting to order at 9:07 A.M.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call
A quorum was established.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Victor Rios moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Robert Raymond.
Motion carried unanimously, 3 -0.
V. Public Comments
Dick Lydon asked if the Wiggins Pass Work Team would be held subject to the
Sunshine Laws.
Staff responded everyone on the Committee and all Stakeholders are subject to the
Sunshine Law.
VI. Approval of Minutes — February 8, 2010
Victor Rios moved to approve the February 8, 2010 Minutes as submitted
Second by Robert Raymond. Motion carried unanimously, 3 -0.
VII. Staff Reports
1. Permit Application Status Wiggins Pass Dredge /Navigational Improvement
Gary McAlpin reported the Permit Application and the DEP has 30 days in which
to respond back to CAC. DEP will request an extension, if required, or request
additional information.
He suggested Robert Steiger, Park Manager for Delnor /Wiggins Pass State Park
relay any problems that may arise with the permit application on the State level to
assist in expediting the process.
Chairman Moreland directed a formal request to Robert Steiger to help relay any
problems or requests by the State to the Committee and comply with guidelines set
by State.
Robert Steiger, Park Manager responded he could not speak for the State.
It was noted Gary McAlpin has a scheduled meeting, March I Oth with Bob Brantley
regarding Clam and Wiggins Pass.
Gary McAlpin reviewed letters sent to the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
in Tallahassee as follows. (See attached)
161 1A A3
➢ Addressed to Paden Woodruff, Environmental Administrator to request
funding support for the preparation and implementation of an Inlet
Management Plan for Wiggins Pass.
➢ Addressed to Martin Seeling, Environmental Administrator to submit
Permit Application.
➢ Addressed to Robert Brantley, Program Administrator to request to
designate Barefoot Beach as Critically Eroded.
Speakers
Tom Crowe, Representative of the Friends of Barefoot Beach stated he had not seen
data on the Barefoot Beach Erosion issue previously.
Staff responded the data was incorporated in the original first package. The Barefoot
Beach as Critically Eroded was removed from the Permit Application Package and
presented as an individual request.
2. Barefoot Beach Critical Erosion Presentation — Addressed under F11. 1.
VIII. New Business
1. Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Stakeholder Work Team
Gary McAlpin suggested the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee of the Coastal Advisory
Committee approve the list of recommended stakeholders to serve on a work team.
(See attached) The Work Team would work on the development of the Updated
Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan. The Work Team would report to the CAC
and serve approximately 1 year while the plan was being developed concurrent with
the permit application. Staff indicated the Inlet Management Plan costs would fall
between $100,000 and $250,000.
Staff recommended the following Stakeholders —
• Joe Moreland — Chairman of Wiggins Pass Subcommittee and CC
representative on the CAC
• Victor Rios — Marco Island representative on the CAC
• Bob Raymond — Naples representative on the CAC
• Nicole Ryan — Representative of the Conservancy of SW Florida
• Dick Lydon — Representative of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association
• Jim Fox — Representative of the Boating Community
• Tom Crowe — Representative of the Friends of Barefoot Beach
• Jeff Raley — Representative of the Florida Park Service
• Jack Kinvasser— Representative of the ECA
It was noted the Coastal Advisory Committee and Board of County Commissioners
approval would be required once the Work Team Stakeholders were chosen. All
Stakeholders received notification of their pending nomination on the Work Team
and voiced willingness to serve with the exception of Jim Fox. He has not
acknowledged the notice or interest to serve.
16 114A3
It was noted Jack last name is spelled Kindsvater and Robert's last name is Steiger.
Dick Lydon requested his representation should be reflected as Friends of
Vanderbilt Beach.
There was discussion on Staff recommending the Stakeholders and the need to give
serious consideration on selection of the Work Team. It was determined that other
individuals interested in the Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan have attended.
It was also suggested Robert Steiger, Park Manager— Delnor /Wiggins Pass State be
added to the Work Team.
Staff recommended an odd number of members on the Work Team.
Chairman Moreland stated 2 Committee Members from the same organization
would be an imbalance to the Committee. He also recommended the Committee
reconsider Jim Fox as he has not shown interest nor attended any meetings.
Gary McAlpin suggested contacting Frank Donohue for a representative from the
north end of the Boating Community.
Mac Hatcher, CC Environmental Services, an expert in water quality, was
recommended by staff to be used as Technical Support on the Work Team.
Discussion ensued on the costs budgeted and determined the Plan is not budgeted.
Staff has requested the State and TDC to share costs with CAC not to exceed
$250,000.
The BCC will give direction if an application is required. Stakeholders will receive
notification after they have been approved by the BCC.
Tom Crowe, Friends of Barefoot Beach asked if a Stakeholder was unable to
attend a meeting would the Stakeholder be allowed to send a substitute.
Chairman Moreland stated the public is welcome to attend meetings and once the
Work Team is in place, and approved by the BCC, they may invite expert speakers
to give presentations. Only the Committee will be allowed to vote.
Nicole Ryan stated it will be beneficial for a Committee Member to speak with
Technical Support people on a one -on -one basis for a better understanding of issues.
It was noted the Committee recommendations for the Work Team will go before
CAC and the BCC for review and approval in April.
Review by Gary McAlpin from the previous discussions —
• Committee formed a consensus on Work Team to be I -year.
• Dick Lydon will be a representative of Vanderbilt Beach.
• Remove Jim Fox from the recommended Stakeholders list
• Seek a recommendation from Frank Donohue for a representative of the
Boating Community as on the north end.
16 ( I "A 3
• Committee votes to endorse whomever Frank Donohue recommends.
Victor Rios moved to approve (Staff) Stakeholder recommendations to serve on
the Work Team (Inlet Management Plan) with the exception of the `Boating
Community" which is to be determined as recommended by Frank Donahue,
Representing the Marine Industry, to remove Jim Fox (from Stakeholder list) and
to change Dick Lydon to reflect he is a representative of Vanderbilt Beach.
Second by Robert Raymond. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
Gary McAlpin volunteered to contact Frank Donahue for a recommendation for a
representative from the boating community.
IX. Old Business —None.
X. Announcements — None.
XI. Committee Member Discussion —None.
XII. Next Meeting Date
The next meeting of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee will be held on Monday, April 19
at 9:00 AM.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chair at 10:11 am.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee —
Wiggins Pass Subcommit,tee____
Aoseph A. Moreland, Chairman
i
These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on
as presented ✓ or as amended
�i
RECEIVED
MAY 2 4 2010
Hoard of County CommlesWOM
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
';oletta TC,
May 20, 2010 -Clam Bay Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes
1 of 10 �S 6 I i A 3
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE — CLAM BAY
SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, March 18, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee — Clam Bay Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier,
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. at the North
Collier Regional Park Administration Building, 15000 Livingston Road,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN
Anthony Pires
Jim Burke
John Arceri
ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management
Gail Hambright, Accountant
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
Mist. Cares:
Dab:
Item M:
t
May 20, 2010 - Clam Bay Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes
2 of 10
1611#3 A
I. Call to Order
Chairman Pires called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Chairman Pires requested the following changes to the Agenda:
• Addition of Item IV.a— Sunshine Law Requirements
• Item VIILS to become Item VIII.I — Remaining items to be renumbered
accordingly
Mr. Arceri recommended:
• Addition of item VIIL9 — Pelican Bay /CAC Workshop Update
• Deletion of Item VIIL4 — Wanless Report - Reason: The previous Clam Bay
Advisory Group, the Coastal Advisory Committee and Board of County
Commissioners have acted on the recommendations provided in the PBS &J
Water Quality Study for Clam Bay. Mr. Burke agreed.
Chairman Pires objected and stated, at the Chairman's prerogative, an item may be
added or deleted to an agenda without full consent of the Committee.
Mr. Areeri disagreed and stated agenda approvals require consent of a Committee.
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted she would have to research the
issue and provide an opinion if the Chairman or the full Committee is empowered to
make changes to an agenda.
Mr. Areeri moved to table the item VII1.4 — Wanless Report until the next meeting
pending a decision on procedure. Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 2 yes —1
no. Chairman Pires voted "no."
Mr. Arceri moved to approve the Agenda subject to the items recommended being
added above. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 3 -0.
a. Sunshine Law Requirements — Colleen Greene
Chairman Pires stated members of the public have asserted today's meeting is a
violation of the Sunshine Law, and should not be held. The assertions are based
on the premise the complete agenda and related backup materials for the meeting
were not available to the public 48 hours in advance. He noted the Public Notice
for the meeting was issued on February 1, 2010.
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney presented a memo to Chairman
Pires dated March 18, 2010, "Re: Sunshine Law and Agenda questions" which
confirmed the Sunshine Law does not require the agenda to be made available to
May 20, 2010 - Clam Bay Subcommittee
Approval of Min
3 of 10 1 t 6 1 1 A 3
of
the public 48 hours in advance. She noted the Sunshine Law does require a
Notice of Public Hearing 48 hours in advance of a meeting, the meeting be open
to the public and minutes be recorded. Proceeding with the meeting does not
constitute a violation of the Sunshine Law
Chairman Pires noted a Committee cannot mandate materials submitted by the
public be provided 48 hours in advance of a meeting, or the number of copies
submitted.
For more efficient meeting discussion, he requested the individuals strive to meet
his previous request for ample copies being provided to subcommittee members,
staff and the recorder. The County is attempting to provide meeting materials 48
hours in advance, if possible.
V. Public Comments
Sneakers
David Roellig, requested clarification if County representatives have traveled to
Washington to seek FEMA funding for the Clam Bay Water Quality Studies.
Chairman Pires requested it be addressed under Staff Reports.
Linda Roth, noted the Wanless Report was never discussed by any Committees. She
requested the meeting be postponed as the Agenda and related materials were not
posted at least 48 hours in advance. She noted only 3 copies of information should be
required for submittal by the public; 1 copy for staff, the recorder and subcommittee.
Chairman Pires noted it is advantageous for each subcommittee member, staff
liaison and County Attorney be provided a copy of any information submitted and
requested the public to attempt to meet the request.
VI. Approval of Minutes
1. February 1, 2010 meeting
Mr. Burke moved to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2010 meeting.
Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 3 -0.
VII. Staff Reports
Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management reported:
• The County is seeking Federal funding in the amount of $250,000 to
assist in Engineering/Water Quality Studies in the Clam Bay Estuary
System (CBES). The requests are being directed through the areas
Legislative Delegation. Pelican Bay Foundation has requested some
wording changes as presented in the written request. He will forward the
BCC minutes to the Subcommittee regarding the issue.
• The "Letter of Consent' application for the proposed Aids to Navigation
in Clam Bay has been submitted to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP).
VIII. New Business
May 20, 2010 - Clam Bay Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes •
4 o 10 i� A
BVO Process — Update
Gary McAlpin reported the County Clerk is investigating whether the BVO (Best
Value Offer) program is a legal process. He has ceased payments on contracts
involved in the BVO process. Any consultants affected have been issued a `Stop
Work Order." The "Stop Order" directly affects the work being conducted on the
Clam Bay Management Plan and County's physical monitoring of beaches. He
provided a copy of a memo to Dwight Brock, Clerk of Courts from Jeff Klatzkow,
County Attorney dated March 10, 2010, "Re: Competitive Consultants
Negotiations Act" outlining the Counties position why the BVO process is lawful.
The issue may be resolved via an Attorney General's Opinion, legal action or
mediation.
The County will continue to conduct the business as required by attempting to re-
align any related contracts, etc.
Speakers
Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group supports Mr. Brock's decision as he
is responsible to ensure contracts are conducted in a legal manner. In the past, the
County award contracts to firms on a rotating basis. She sought a public request
for the awarding of the PBS &J contract for the work in Clam Pass, but was told
no public records exist.
2. Clam Bay Biological Study — Discussion
Gary McAlpin presented the document "Upper, Inner and Lower Clam Bay
Biological Study" dated January 19, 2010 prepared by PBS &J for review.
Speakers
Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group supports the Biological Study and
the Mangrove Action Group and Pelican Bay Foundation contracted the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida for a comprehensive study on the state of the
benthic community in the CBES.
Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted she sent an email with
comments on the proposed Clam Bay Biological Study (March 16, 2010 3:2I PM
to Gary McAlpin, Subject Thar CAC CB Subcommittee Meeting Subject:
Biological Monitoring). She can provide the methodology to be utilized for the
study being conducted by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Mr. Arceri recommended the questions posed in her email be answered.
Chairman Pires recommended representatives from PBS &J present at the next
meeting to answer any questions.
Mr. Arceri recommended the Subcommittee review the above document today
and provide input for the final document.
May 20, 2010 - Clam Bay Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes
5of10 161 + A3
Gary McAlpin noted the document outlines how the study should be completed,
with PBS &J preparing the report by outsourcing components and having them
submitted back for final review.
The Subcommittee reviewed the document and provided preliminary comments
for consideration
Task 1.0 Review of Existing Biological Data
Clarify the various Agencies identified in the list (i.e. change "The Nature
Conservancy" to the "Conservancy of Southwest Florida," which Chapter of the
Audubon Society will be utilized, etc.)
Task 2.0 Mangrove Health Assessment
Clarify how the Scope of Work will be completed with PBS &J reviewing all the
existing documentation and supplementing it with additional studies as necessary.
Task 3.0 Wading Bird Survey
No comments
Task 4.0 Fish Survey
To be conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Service, standard methodology.
Background information to be provided to Kathy Worley
Task 5.0 Benthic Collection and Analysis
It was noted the Conservancy of Southwest Florida is completing a
comprehensive study. Staff to receive the "scope of the study" and if consistent
with the purpose of the overall study, the work will not be duplicated.
Task 6.0 Submerged Resource Survey
No comments
Task 7.0 Biological Assessment Report and Public Presentation
No comments
Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident agreed the work being completed by the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida for Task 5.0 should not be duplicated if
necessary.
Gary McAlpin noted he met with Andrew McElwaine, Executive Director of the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida on performing the study; however he indicated
he did not have the Staff Resources to complete the task.
It was noted the study will be a baseline measure of the biological state of the
CBES and used for formulating recommendations in a Final Management Plan.
Staff will submit a revised documentfor review at the next meeting.
May 20, 2010 -Clam Bay Subcommittee
Approval of M
6 of 1 ir `6 1:... A 3
6 of 10 �
3. Peer Review Scope of Work
Gary McAlpin presented the document "Peer Review Scope of Work" dated
March 15, 2010 for review. The Peer Review will be for the scope of work
completed by PBS &J including the Modeling Study. He recommends the
following organizations /persons be considered for conducting the Peer Review:
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program run by Dr. Jay Leverone; Tampa Bay
Estuary Program Run by Ed Sherwood and Dr. Loren Coen, the Executive
Director of Sanibel - Captiva Conservation Foundation.
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program run by Judy Ott was identified as a
possible candidate, but he has concerns due to their historic relationship with
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and the Conservancy will be conducting work
in the CBES.
Speakers
Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted she was at the PBSD meeting
when the request was announced by Neil Dorrill for PBSD to participate in
funding the Peer Review. She expressed concern staff is proposing pre - selected
candidates without input from the Division. She requested clarification if any of
the organizations /individuals have a relationship with, or were recommended by
PBS &J.
The Subcommittee reviewed the document recommending the following changes:
• Clarify the language the recommendation of the Subcommittee to utilize a
stand alone person /organization of academia (as opposed to consultants).
• Provide clarification if the Peer Reviewer has relationships with any of
the Consultants /Organizations who have conducted work within the
CBES.
Gary McAlpin noted the document is in preliminary stages, provided for
informational purposes and will be modified.
Jerry Moffat, Pelican Bay Services Division noted the item has not been
addressed by the Division. They were told the normal Request for Proposal will
be utilized in selecting the reviewer. The document is a good baseline for the
PBSD (and Staff) to formulate an avenue for the review.
Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the Conservancy
completes objective environmental studies without bias and has relationships with
all persons /organizations identified as candidates for the Peer Review.
Chairman Pires agreed and recommended Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program be included in the list of acceptable candidates.
4. Modeling Program Scope of Work
Gary McAlpin presented the document "Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study —
Phase 1: - Numerical Modeling of Hydrodynamics, Sediment Transport and
Flushing Analysis Using Delft3d Collier County, Florida' prepared by PBS &J for
May 20, 2010 -Clam Bay Subcommittee
VI-1 Approval of Minutes 1 6 111 3
7of 10
review. He noted the item is for informational purposes and requested written
comments be submitted to Staff by any interested parties. The item will be
addressed at next month's meeting.
Speakers
Rick Dykman, Seagate Homeowners Assoc. noted the Association is interested
in the overall health of the CBES as historically the water quality has deteriorated.
They support the studies proposed by Staff. He requested clarification on who
speaks for the Pelican Bay Foundation as their input is critical.
Chairman Pires noted the PBF is actively involved as he has received numerous
communications from Steve Feldhaus, Agent for the Foundation.
Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group requested clarification on the
County requirement of utilizing the DELFT313 software for the modeling.
Gary McAlpin noted the County requires the software as it was utilized in the
Wiggins Pass Study and the County is familiar with the system. The County may
need to integrate individual modeling studies in the future and it is the premier
modeling software available.
The subcommittee recommended the following preliminary changes to the
document:
• Page 2 — Ensuring the definition of the Clam Bay Estuary System (CBES)
is consistent throughout the document (and other documents)
• Page 2, #3, paragraph to — from "Up to 6 conceptual modifications..." to
not specifying a finite number.
• Page 3, # 7 — reference the Peer Review to be conducted.
5. WanlessReport — Discussion
Postponed until next meeting.
6. RAI Comments Clam Pass Permit Application — Discussion
Gary McAlpin noted the PBS &J response to the FDEP Request for Additional
Information for the Joint Coastal Permit application has been posted online. He
provided a copy of a letter from Robert Diffenderfer of Longman and Walker, PA
to Lanie Edwards of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection "Re:
DEP File no. 0296087- 001 -JC- Collier County Clam Pass Maintenance
Dredging" dated March 1 1, 2010 for review.
Chairman Pires noted he requested the item be placed on the agenda for
informational purposes as he had received the copy of the communication from
Steve Feldhaus, Agent for the PBF.
Speakers
Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted the JCP is the same
application as the 2006 permit application. The intent of the application is not as
represented which cites the "dredge template" as being the same as the previous
May 20, 2010 - Clam Bay Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes `
8 of 10 161 + A
permit issued to the County. PBS&J never answered the FDEP question, "is the
ebb shoal intended to be dredged."
Chairman Pires noted a PBS &J cover letter submitted with the response to the
RA states "the application is notfor dredging different than the past."
Discussion occurred on the new PBF position of opposing any dredging within
the CBES, and the potential negative impacts on the overall health of the CBES
by lack of dredging for flushing purposes.
J.G. McAlpin March 10, 2008 Memo to Colleen Green
Gary McAlpin provided an email from himself to Colleen Green, Collier County
Assistant County Attorney dated March 10, 2008, Re: "Request for Legal
Opinion — Dredging of Clam Bay for Navigation" for review.
He noted the email was a request for clarifications on the status of the restrictive
covenants on the property deeded to the County.
8. Clam Pass Park Conceptual Plan
Gary McAlpin noted Chairman Pires requested a presentation, for informational
purposes, on the proposed improvements at Clam Pass Park as the Mission
Statement incorporates issues within the whole Clam Bay Estuary System. The
proposed improvements include boardwalk, shade facilities, restrooms, etc. The
project requires approval of the Pelican Bay Foundation. The item is under the
purview of the Parks and Recreation Department (and the BCC.)
Speakers
Annice Gregerson had several detailed questions on the design of the project and
related uses, noting the plan as presented is difficult to view.
Chairman Pires requested staff provide a clear drawing "on line" for public
viewing and any persons with specific questions on the project submit them in
writing to Staff.
Linda Roth noted the document was only available yesterday, and was not posted
on the website.
Chairman Pires re- iterated the item was added to the agenda this week for
informational purposes to inform the Subcommittee and any other individuals on
a proposed project in Clam Bay. It is available in the meeting package posted on
line.
Marcia Cravens expressed concern all the County projects within the CBES are
being completed piecemeal (Clam Pass Park, Clam Pass Navigation, Clam Pass
Modeling, etc.) which does not take account the overall environmental impacts to
the Natural Resource Protection Area. The area is an Undeveloped Coastal
Barrier Resource System. The project is not consistent with the Growth
Management Plan or Land Development Code. The density required is 1 unit per
5 acres in the area and impacts are to be concentrated in previously disturbed area.
May 20, 2010 - Clam Bay Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes
9 of 10
161 1 A3
Sarah Wu requested clarification if the goal is to expand the amount of users or
disperse the existing amount of users within the park.
Gary McAlpin stated the purpose is to meet both goals.
Chairman Pires noted:
• The development permits for different projects are at the jurisdiction of
the individual agencies involved, not a Master Permit.
• Comprehensive Planning Department Staff is responsible for
determinations on a project's consistency with the Growth Management
Plan.
• Allowed uses would be in accordance with the PUD of Pelican Bay.
• Density requirements in the area refer to residential development.
9. CAC Pelican Bay Workshop Update
Gary McAlpin noted he sent a letter to each the PBF and PBSD informing them
the Coastal Advisory Committee recommends a public workshop be held on the
CBES issues. The Pelican Bay Foundation verbally (Marchl5, 2010) indicated
they were not interested in a workshop as proposed.
Chairman Pires noted he received an email from Steve Feldhaus on March 16,
2010 "Re: CAC Clam Bay Subcommittee" requesting the Foundation be
consulted on any activities occurring in Clam Bay and are prepared to work with
the County on the issues. They appreciate the offer for a workshop and would
like to find a way to work together.
The email did not "decline" the opportunity to participate in a "Public Workshop
and Gary McAlpin stated he understood they were interested in a "Private
Workshop."
Chairman Pires noted he will provide another written invitation to Mr. Feldhaus
for a Workshop.
IX. Old Business
None
X. Announcements
None
XI. Committee Member Discussion
Chairman Pires stated he would be utilizing some of the information contained in
the Wanless Report for his comments to be submitted to Staff on the PBS &J Water
Quality Study conducted for Clam Bay.
XII. Next Meeting Date/Location
April 15, 2010; 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Community Development, Conference
Room 609 & 610, Naples
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 3:57 P.M.
May 20, 2010 -Clam Bay Subcommittee
10 Approval of Minutes ' 1 A 3
10 of 70 16
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee —
Clam Bay Suhleammittee
Tony
These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on may Q10 ad/O
as presented or as amended ✓
Fiala 7, 2010 Wiggins Pass Subcommittee A 3
Halal pproval of Minut¢ I
ECEIVED Henning Iof5 1
MAY 2 4 2010 Coyle
Coletta
ncx. n of County commisskmm
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S
WIGGINS PASS SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, April 19, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee —
Wiggins Pass Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. at the Risk Management Training
Room located at 3301 Tamiami Trail E, Building D, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
Chairman: Joseph A. Moreland
Robert Raymond
Victor Rios (Excused)
Inlet Management Work Team:
Jack Kindsvater
Dick Lydon
Nicole Ryan
ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director
Gail Hambright, Accountant
Date:
May 17, 2010 Wiggins Pass Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes
2of5 1611
i
i. Call to Order
Chairman Moreland called the meeting to order at 9:07 AM.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call - A quorum was established.
Also in attendance were members of the Work Team appointed by the BCC.
Jack Kindsvater - Representative of the ECA
Dick Lydon - Representative of Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association
Nicole Ryan - Representative of the Conservancy of SW Florida
The following three members were appointed but absent:
Tom Crowe — Representative of the Friends of Barefoot Beach
Jim Fox — Representative of the Boating Community
Jeff Raley the Representative of the Florida Park Service (Mark Nicoletti took notes for
Jeff Raley)
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Dick Lydon moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Robert Raymond.
Motion carried unanimously 2 -0.
Work Team 3 -0.
V. Public Comments — None.
VI. Approval of Minutes — March 8, 2010
Robert Raymond moved to approve the March 8, 2010 minutes as submitted
Second by Jack Kindsvater. Motion carried unanimously 2 -0.
Work Team 3 -0.
VII. Staff Reports
Gary McAlpin reported receipt of an a -mail stating Jim Fox resigned from his position
on the Work Team and asked for other recommendations from the Committee.
Chairman Joseph Moreland reported Tom Crowe submitted his resignation for
personal reasons and recommended Margaret Winn who would be willing to serve on
the Work Team.
Gary McAlpin volunteered to contact Frank Donohue on a recommendation for a
representative from the boating community.
It was noted the two vacancies on the Work Team would be filled by end of the week.
Recommendations to fill the vacancies on the Work Team will be submitted to the BCC
for approval. The appointee's first meeting will be on May 17.
May 17, 2010 Wiggins Pass Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes
3 of 16 11 A3
VIII. New Business
1. Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Discussion
Gary McAlpin distributed a "Summary of 2000 Inlet Management Plan
Requirements" created by Walton County for Norriego Point as a sample, not yet
been approved. (See attached)
Subcommittee will make their recommendation for a Local Inlet
Management Plan and submit to State.
➢ State will review and make revisions.
➢ The Subcommittee will reconcile the State and Local Plans to ensure the
Local Plan is not in conflict with the State Plan.
i Subcommittee will submit revised plan to BCC for authorization.
The strategy was noted as follows —
Place beach quality maintenance dredged material on adjacent beaches north and
south of Wiggins Pass within areas ofgreatest need, monitoring and analysis of
inlet effects.
Discussion was made on Local and State Inlet Management Plans and if the plan
would be site specific or generic. As part of the REI Process, local management
plan will keep the State informed. Guidelines have not been developed and it was
suggested the plan be inclusive and address major issues on managing the inlet.
Gary McAlpin distributed and reviewed Discussion Points for the Wiggins Pass
Policy and Planning Guidelines. (See attached)
Initial Inlet Manasement Plan Recommendations —
1. Straight alignment through the flood and the ebb tide shoals.
2. Minor cuts to subsurface rock ledge any notching will have no impact on
the positional stability
3. Maintain navigation for 3-foot draft vessels and extend dredging interval
using no structures.
4. Mitigate for inlet impacts by bypassing 2.65 times to North.
5. Establish monitoring program and adjust disposal practices in #4 above
accordingly.
6. Repair beach scarps to the north and south point of Barefoot Beach Park.
Z Use sand dredged from the flood shoal to create new flood shoal flats.
8. Allow moderate design channel migration minus 50' to the north and minus
50' to the south to reduce dredging.
9. Use intermediate dredging to reestablish navigation thru the bar.
10. Summer maintenance dredging to reduce cost and complexity, with offshore
placement.
John Moreland is concerned, from a legal point of view, on the position
concerning the State Park. The County has a lease for Barefoot Park from the State
and asked what responsibilities the State has on the erosion problem.
May 17, 2010 Wiggins Pass Subcommittee
Approval of Minu
4 of 5 v a 1 L 1 1 A3
of
Staff responded the leaseholder has a responsibility to maintain it. The State Park
has the first right of refusal on the sand and the DEP has the responsibility to bring
all parties together in agreement.
Nicole Ryan suggested adding a bullet on Item 43 to Identify Environmental
Benefits.
Gary McAlpin asked Nicole Ryan to brainstorm the environmental benefits
consistent with the Codes and Ordinances. He recommended Item #1 also include
"any additional work must be hydraulically balanced" and Item 42 include "no work
would be done that would hurt the environment."
Dick Lydon suggested the Plan insure positional stability of the rock ledge and state
any additional work would not adversely effect the environment.
Gary McAlpin asked Nicole Ryan to compose her verbiage recommendations on
Item #2 for the Subcommittee's review. He stated Item #4 contained technical data
and he recommended retaining the verbiage.
It was suggested to combine Items 44 and 45.
It was noted the study on the impacts on bypassing figure of 2.65 was made as a part
of the permit application process.
Gary McAlpin opened discussion on Item 410; stating maintenance dredging done
during the summer would reduce costs, which could create a disturbance to the
habitant. All permits say no dredging during turtle- nesting season. Dredging off-
season is cost beneficial at the price of disturbance. In the past, CAC has tried to
avoid re- nourishing the beaches during that time.
Nicole Ryan expressed concern the idea would be considered. The County should
plan to do maintenance during the appropriate season knowing maintaining the pass
is expensive. She indicated work should not be done during the turtle- nesting
season.
Gary McAlpin noted the permit included a technique called "near -shore discharge"
without any equipment on the beach.
Nicole Ryan stated she would research the "near -shore discharge" technique with
turtle experts and she recommended inviting David Addison, a turtle expert to the
next meeting.
Dick Lydon suggested the Plan establish boat navigability of interior channels and
responsibility of the intersections.
Discussion was made on utilizing a backhoe to cut out hot spots and whether there
would be a cost benefit. Staff indicated this was included in the permit application.
Staff stated a Boater of Characterization has been completed for the County.
Gary McAlpin stated he would incorporate revisions made on the Inlet
Management Plan for the next meeting.
May 17, 2010 Wiggins Pass Subcommittee
VI -1 Approval of Minutes
5 of
16! 1 A3
IX. Old Business —None.
X. Announcements — None.
XI. Committee Member Discussion
Dick Lydon recommended the seating arrangement for future Subcommittee meetings
be set up in a hollow square.
Gary McAlpin recommended the Subcommittee brainstorm a strategy to communicate
with key people and key stakeholders to understand the Inlet Management Plan and
gain public support. Will be discussed at a future meeting.
XII. Next Meeting Date
The next meeting of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee will be held on Monday, May 17
at 9:00 AM.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chair at 10:45 a.m.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee —
Wiggins Pass Subcommittee
Moreland,
These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on J ^ 7 L
as presented , or as amended
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
March 24, 2010
ll
v
MarcI14,011 {�
RECEIVED
MAY 12 2010
Board of County Cur:unuvuners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Susan Istenes, LDC Manager
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Page 1
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Donna Reed -Caron
Karen Homiak
Paul Midney (Absent)
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley (Absent)
Fiala
Halas r- .*-/.
Henning
Coyle
Coletta� ----
Misc. Cones:
Date: t� t o
Item #:
161 1 A4
March 24, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone, welcome to the March 24th meeting of the Collier
County Planning Commission. This is a continuation of what we started, seems like a long time ago, I'm not sure how
many months ago, of the LDC amendment cycle for this year.
I'm going to ask you all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, but I'm asking that you remain standing for a few
moments after we get done with the pledge.
Please rise.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you don't mind for just a moment, you'll see a shortage of people up here
today. Tor Kolflat, who was with us at our last meeting last week, has passed away between then and now. He sat all
the way to the end over by Brad. And he was a remarkable man and a very close friend of this commission.
Many of you may not have noticed it, but Tor was going through a lot of challenges with health over the past
few years and they affected a lot of things that he had to do, and even the manner in which he walked to the meeting.
But he struggled and he did it. And he came to these meetings, he came prepared, he read all the data, notjust
executive summaries, and he participated, all for the benefit of this community. And we very much appreciate Tor's
efforts and he was an inspiration to all of us.
And so with that, I'd like to ask for a moment of silence on Tor's behalf.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Nick, you had asked to have a moment after that discussion?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I'd just like to get a couple of nods from the Planning Commission, sir. I
think's it's appropriate that staff prepares a resolution for the BCC in honoring Mr. Kolflat's work on the Planning
Commission, if I can get you guys, folks to support that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm in.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- t think coming from the Planning Commission. We'll prepare it and draft it for
the County Manager to review with the Chair and we can bring something forward to the BCC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I see is absolute positive nods of heads. I think that would be very appropriate,
and I'm very pleased that staff would make such a recommendation. Thank you very much. And I'm sure the board
will follow through with it. Thank you, Nick.
And with that, we'll ask for our roll call by our secretary.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Cotmmissioner Schiffer'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent.
Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY:
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI
And Conunissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK:
Commissioner Vighotti is here.
Here.
Commissioner Wolfley is absent.
Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission absences. Our regular meeting is April 1 st. It's -- I
think we have three things on the agenda. Probably be at least the morning and maybe part of the afternoon.
Everybody here planning on making it? Okay.
There are two changes to our agenda today. Item 2.0. 3.07.E is a private petition for the Vanderbilt Beach
overlay. That will not be heard. That's been removed from this cycle andjust going to be forwarded to a new cycle.
So we will not be discussing that today.
The other item is, and it's not on the copy of the agenda that I have but I know it was supposed to be added.
That is the shoreline calculation and preserves item. That item is going to be continued to a date certain, which is
April I st, at the end of this meeting, assuming that motion is made and accepted. And we'll try to give an
Page 2
16 P 1AA4
March 24, 2010
approximate not to start before time on that date. There are people that are interested in attending that meeting, and
adding it to today we would never have known if we were even going to get to it today.
So those are the two changes to today's agenda. Is there any other changes that anybody knows of?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Susan.
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes for the record.
I had a late request for a petitioner to continue the first item on your agenda, 2.03.03.E.1. I actually think that
likely will be withdrawn. But we just need a little bit more time to work through that.
That's a private petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. So we're continuing the C -5 commercial surgical manufacturing
petition?
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: And that would be till April I st as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it is continued, it will be April 1 st --
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but if it's not, you'll let us know and it will be dropped.
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll move into the first item on the agenda then, which will be
2.03.04.A.1.A, the industrial zoning districts. Mr. Pires is bringing that forward. It's a private petition. And it is on
Page 7 of the most recent packet that we all received.
MR. PIKES: For the record, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Tony Pires with the law
firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo.
The revised language that you see has been discussed and revised and agreed to, I believe, by myself and by
the staff, and we would request that you make a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to
adopt it as it exists in today's agenda packet.
And if you have any questions, I'm available for any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- who drafted the language?
MR. PIRES: It was an effort between the County Attorney's Office and Susan Istenes and myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My only question is the reference to the -- operating the business
conspicuously. Do we know how that's defined? Or does it need to be or is that going to be a problem trying to
determine what --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's my language. I put that in because we've already gone around and we know
who's out there. And if somebody's hiding, we don't know who's out there, you know, they won't fall into this. So if
somebody purposely has a storefront that's (sic) doesn't adequately reflect what they're actually doing, they still might
fall under this.
So as long as you're operating your business in an open way, okay, you're fine. If you're concealing what
you're doing, you're not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's -- you feel it's adequate, defensible and all that. Otherwise you
wouldn't have drafted it probably, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: I like the word. It's a good scrabble word.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any time we get an arbitrary thought, it just worries me. But that's fine, Jeff, if you
come up with it I'm sure we'll be able to defend it.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question.
It says here that in the event of destruction or damage, we're going to put these legally nonconforming
businesses right back into business as legally nonconforming businesses.
When we have a natural disaster, aren't we -- isn't that the time we're supposed to be getting things back into
conformance and moving these things along into a more appropriate place, or -- anybody --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's going to be a policy decision. We had a lot of discussion, everybody, on that
language, and it's — we're okay with it. But at end of the day, that really is a policy decision.
Page 3
March I, 20101 144
COMMISSIONER CARON: But --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just if it helps, Donna, the way I was looking at it, the businesses that we're
talking about are in areas that we've already recognized as being operable for the use that they've been operating in for
quite a long time. And I don't know why they couldn't continue if they had to be rebuilt. I don't know what the value
would be not to letting it. It would encourage and help our economy.
And as far as industrial needs go, we have so much out in other areas that is going to be available, especially
in Immokalee, that I don't think the coastal area is going to be a prime industrial manufacturing area of Collier County
eventually in the future anyway.
MR. PIRES: And I think one other aspect, if I may, was that staff wanted to limit the natural disaster and not
any other kind of destruction, say by fire or some other manmade event. And we have no difficulty with that. We
think that's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One small question.
.CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What other uses do you know of? We obviously are focused on one. Is
there any others that you can think of?
MR. PIRES: I think someone raised last time with regards to an art gallery or some other uses such as that
that might be out there.
And back in December of 2006 when this issue came before the Board of County Commissioners, the staff
was directed by the board and earlier, and the staff came back to the board with a report indicating they'd visited I
forget how many hundreds of businesses and found five percent apparently approximately of the businesses in this
industrial area alone were engaged in retail uses, basically.
And so that's why we think there are a number of others out there that may still be operating. We picked the
date, once again, January 1 st, 2009, because it's a few months ahead of the application date, which was in May, and
thought that was an appropriate time frame.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this particular item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we certainly would entertain a motion for recommendation of approval and
consistency with the GMP, if there's anyone so inclined.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vighotti made such a motion.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron.
That's for LDC creation of 2.03.04.A. 1.A.54. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next one is the density standard and housing types, 2.05.01
one relating to timeshares.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair?
Page 4
It's on Page 39 of the same packet. This is the
161 1 1A4
March 24, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You had asked me the question whether there was a conflict with the pulk in the
state definition and the lock -off units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. ASI ITON- CICKO: And as a result of looking into that and meeting with Susan and Rich, we came up
with some proposed changes which didn't make it into your book. And I can put it in the overhead, if you would like
to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful. And I do have one other legal question concerning this issue
that we might as well get up out front that came in the second reading of it, or third or fourth or fifth, whatever
number readings we had of this frog.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's only been two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For you --
MR. YOVANOVICH: But it feels like three.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I read them a lot at home, so I've had a lot more readings of it than two. Trying
to understand it, especially the part written by the attorney for this group, but --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: One of the questions that you all had raised was whether or not this statute should
be referenced as opposed to the provision of the text. And we looked into that and are recommending that the state
statute be recited as to the definition of timeshare estate and timeshare units.
Mr. Yovanovich had provided a definition of timeshare property, which is a state definition. And I don't
recommend that you put that in at this time. I don't think you need to because it's not really cited throughout the code.
The only time it's cited now is in your definition of, I think it's the timeshare estate. One of the two has that word in it.
So I don't think you need to provide a definition in your LDC of timeshare property.
Rich, do you want to continue on or do you want me to comment?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Heidi, before you go too far, there were only three definitions proposed:
Timeshare estate, timeshare estate facility and timeshare unit. Where was the property one?
It may have come out of this version.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, actually, I wasn't looking at this version, I was looking at the former version.
And the proposal that Mr. Yovanovich had was the definition of timeshare property.
I apologize, because I've been mostly working off of book number three, and your language here in this book
is a little bit different.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Book number three took those three definitions out and put the new definitions in.
And this version in here apparently has the old definitions, so I can't really attest to that. I can -- other than Mr.
Yovanovich and I worked out the language before staff distributed the book.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, it was about the same time as when they were distributing the book that we
were working out the language. So they distributed -- I'm not really sure, they'll have to explain why they put what
they put in here.
But if you want to continue it for a new staff report, we can do that. But otherwise, I can just read through
what it should read.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what I'm trying to get to, Heidi, is we have a book four in front of us.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the definitions that are included in our book four the ones that you're
recommending we use or are they not?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, they're not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The definitions that you're recommending we use, one of which is up here
called timeshare unit?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, timeshare estate is the first one. The second one is timeshare unit. And
working off of book number three, you had a definition proposed by Mr. Yovanovich of timeshare property, which I
don't think needs to be included. Once --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we will need to have this unfortunately come back again, because I
Page 5
161 1 �4
March 24, 2010
think we need to know what we're voting on, and the last book was the one that most of us probably reviewed.
If you're going to make changes to it, that's fine. We're going to be back on the Ist, we can hear it again. But
then let's get a concise, complete document.
But that doesn't mean we don't have other questions today, so let's go through the rest of them.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, the other change was to add at the end of footnote two, which was the -- to
add to the end of footnote two, which is the definition of density on your Page 42, would have the language which is
on the overhead. But I'll read it for the record.
As to the calculation of density for hotels and motels, including timeshare units that meet the floor area
requirement for hotels and motels, any hotel and motel unit, including timeshare units, that meet the floor area
requirements for hotels and motels in which a door or doors connecting two or more separate rooms are capable of
being locked to create two or more private dwelling units shall constitute two or more timeshare units or two or more
hotel units, each private dwelling shall constitute one timeshare unit or hotel unit.
And that's where your conflict was in your prior draft where the lock -off unit created two units and the
definition created one unit. So you had a conflict. But by placing this in under the density section, that does rectify
that. It actually makes it better for the other sections where you're defining units as to -- you're talking about
something other than possibly a dwelling unit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I think all this needs to be put back in its proper format and be brought
back to us. But there are other questions, and I'm going to take a moment to head one off right from the get -go,
because it may impact other comments from this commission as well as the public.
In reading the reasoning behind how a timeshare unit has to be handled and how it's considered, I looked at
the applicant's analysis on Page 45, the very last paragraph. And it says, a timeshare plan is a form of ownership and
is not a land use. Collier County is prohibited from applying different standards to a land use based upon a form of
ownership.
Then if you skip down a little bit it says, it shall have the same intensity as far as number of hotel -motel units
as any other form of ownership for hotel -motel units.
Now, I see where we were consistent with that in most of the areas in the check -off chart that we have, but
under the Vanderbilt Beach overlay, I notice we put an exception to it.
I'm not against the exception, but I'm concerned that if we put that exception there and it's not legally
defensible, what are we really doing, are we misleading people into believing they have a condition that doesn't apply
to them when in reality the analysis that was part of our packet seems to indicate it can't be done that way, it has to be
done the same for all units?
Has the County Attorney's Office taken a look at that at all?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, not that particular issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, l think that's an important factor, because if a timeshare has got to be the same
because of the way it's approached by Florida Statute and it's the same in Collier County, why wouldn't it be the same
in Vanderbilt Beach? And if it is, that may raise other concerns that we need to address. So I think that needs to be
resolved.
And that really is a result of the applicant's analysis on Page 45 that I think the County Attorney's Office may
want to look at to understand my question better.
Richard, did you have any thoughts on that? I know you've probably got a lot of thoughts, but —
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, I feel like this issue we take three steps forward and then we take four steps
backwards.
The whole purpose of this amendment was for RT zoning in Port of the Islands where the law says that you
can't treat timeshare ownership different than other types of ownership. And we're just simply trying to move forward
to be able to do a timeshare hotel in Port of the Islands. That was the purpose of the amendment. I've said that from
the get -go that that's what we're trying to do.
I have always said that we're getting into a lot of other issues in this discussion regarding the operation of
hotels versus the operation of multi - family. And then the people from Vanderbilt Beach said, well, wait a minute,
what's going on with this change? And the simplest mechanism to address that was to create an exception for them in
Vanderbilt so that we'll deal with that issue later.
It's my belief under the law today you can have a hotel at 26 units per acre and operate it as a timeshare.
Page 6
161i 1 'A4
March 24, 2010
However, the code mistakenly treats timeshare as a form of use. And we were trying to get that glitch out of the code.
I would like to find a way to keep [his on track with that concept that timeshare is a form of ownership, just
like a condominium is a form of ownership. You don't distinguish between a mixed use -- I'm sorry, ulti- family
product that is, if you have 16 units per acre in this particular case, where I may develop it and own 1 ercent of
those 16 units or I may sell those units individually as condominiums, ha iums you don't distinguish between as a form of
multi - family use.
You need to apply that same concept to hotels and motels if you -- one person may own all of the units in the
hotel. Look, Ritz - Carlton, they own all the units. When The Registry was first developed, it was developed as a
condominium form of ownership. It was still a hotel, but the individual rooms were purchased. Same concept applies
when you do a timeshare for a hotel - motel.
I'm just trying to get the defm -- to have people recognize that timeshare is a form of ownership, it's not a type
of use. Let my client develop 26 unit per acre timeshare -owned hotel in Port of the Islands. That's the whole purpose
of this amendment.
I thought we were clear on that and we were moving forward. There's some confusion and concern regarding
how this would apply on Vanderbilt Beach, so staff created an exception so that people on Vanderbilt Beach could
address that later on. And I hope we can keep moving forward with that concept so that this amendment doesn't slow
down and we can keep moving forward for my client in Port of the Islands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish my question first, Mr. Murray.
Richard, I understand your argument about the use, I'm not objecting to that. But the way that you've
approached this, instead of a fix for Port of the Islands, where you could have came in with an amendment to their
PUD or whatever other process --
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not PUD, they're straight zoning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, maybe you could have come in for an application to amend their straight
zoning. No, you couldn't have done that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I didn't have- -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- conditional use or something.
But this process you've chosen has some unintended consequences. A timeshare can either be residential or
hotel - motel. Because it can be either one, one is a commercial operation and the other isn't. A hotel -motel can't
necessarily be a residential operation. A hotel -motel is a commercial.
Well, because of the — some of the other uses that are involved with hotel - motels that are commercial, to let
those happen uncontrolled in timeshare could be a problem, such as the jet ski incident that's going on right now in
Vanderbilt Beach.
And I don't think anybody intended a residential facility to be opened up to a commercial operation. So --
MR. YOVANOVICH: This change has absolutely nothing to do with the operation of what happens on that
piece of property. This change simply says you can own a hotel or motel in the timeshare form of ownership. And
you can only do the accessory uses allowed in a hotel and motel under that form of ownership. If you decide to
timeshare a multi - family project, you can only do the accessory uses allowed in a multi - family project.
This change has absolutely nothing to do with the operational characteristics of what happens on that piece of
property. It only deals with the form of ownerslp of that type of use. It has nothing to do with the operational.
I understand the concern, you have -- there apparently is a multi - family project on Vanderbilt Beach that
happens to be owned as a timeshare doing things that you would typically find in a hotel. The question is can they as a
multi - family timeshare do those uses?
This amendment doesn't change anything. You'll still have that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just for clarification, in every case of ownership for timeshares is
there a deed involved?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, any other questions? I started out because I wanted to get what I thought was
one of the bigger issues on the table to open up any other discussion there might be.
Ms. Caron?
Page 7
Marl 6, 2LL A4
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, let's get acknowledgment from staff and from the County
Attorney's Office that they see it the same way Mr. Yovanovich sees it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So who's the committed party on staff? Or the County Attorney's Office?
Somebody want to make a statement that we can -- right now you have an issue with a timeshare having been issued
apparently a business occupational license for a commercial operation, because Parks and Rec somehow got into that
picture, which is still absurd, for a zoning issue.
I'm not sure how all that came down, but I think that's the crux of where the concerns are now. We want to
make sure we don't open the door for more problems like that. We should be shutting the doors, not opening them.
MR. KLATZKOW: I hate amending the code when I'm only dealing with one property, that's the concern.
You're right, the easiest way to handle this is through a PUD or conditional use. I understand this is straight zoning,
but I hate amending the whole code because there's one property that wants to get developed in a particular way.
There are unintended consequences.
And I'll talk with Richard afterwards and see if we just can't get this done for this particular property and just
be done with the issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan or Ray, is there any other way that he could apply to make this fit for the
property that he's concerned about?
A deviation to our code for that property?
MR. KLATZKOW: He's not asking for a deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. 1 mean, but could he apply through another method to get there other than
changing everything in the county?
MS. ISTENES: You're RT, right, Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm RT.
MR. KLATZKOW: He could get a zoning interpretation telling him exactly what it is that they can do to
develop there specific to that one property. That's one approach.
Richard, if you're saying it's just the one property you're concerned about.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You know what, Jeff, here's what it is. I want to -- on this piece of property that
is zoned RT, I want to develop a hotel and motel. That's all I want to do.
I could do that. But you also put in that same section the word timeshare and defined it as a use. So I can't
own that hotel and motel as a timeshare. "Chat's my problem, is you're regulating an ownership as a use. It's like if
you'd have put condominium in there and said well, you can have a condominium in RT zoning but you can't have a
condominium and straight multi - family. That doesn't make any sense.
So I'm stuck. I'm stuck. I can't do what I want to do, and the statute says you can't stop me from doing it
because I choose the ownership format as timeshare. So l don't know what to do. I can't do a PUD; there's too many
parties out there to do a PUD now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make a suggestion. If we were to clarify the language that's being brought
forward to indicate that timeshares functioning as hotel - motels have the right to accessory uses typical to hotel - motels
but timeshare functioning as residential uses don't, they only have the accessory uses typical to that particular use —
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm at peace with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that may solve the whole problem. Because somehow, somehow a commercial
concessionaire got permission in a residential use to operate. And we know how that happened, it didn't go through
the normal review process to get there.
So I think with that clarification it may help get you through or where we need to be.
Susan?
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I think we talked about this last time, and in a sense we're trying to put a round peg in
a square hole. And we agreed that timeshare wasn't the best way to regulate. I mean, we understood the state statute
and what it said and we understood it just wasn't the best way, but our code is kind of intertwined that way and you've
got development that's already occurred using that.
From a zoning perspective, we look at it from the use perspective. So if you're operating as a hotel - motel --
and in this case -- I'm willing to bet 99 percent of the timeshares in this county operate on a week turnover basis. I
don't see that any different than a hotel or motel.
And so that's what zoning is concerned about is the impacts of the use, not necessarily what it's called.
Page 8
161 1 A4
March 24, 2010
I just think it's gotten intertwined in the code and it's not an easy fix. And so yes, I'm willing to consider that,
because that's the way we look at it, essentially. So it's not anything real different. We could just clarify it though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the 90 percent of the timeshares that you speak of that operate on a less than a
weekly basis, so in essence they operate as a hotel -motel --
MS. ISTENES: Weekly, yeah, weekly turnover.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Do they have the same development -- do they have the development standards that meet the hotel -motel
category?
MS. ISTENES: No. I mean, if they're being approved as a timeshare, then they have -- they don't have --
they are limited in density.
And so what Rich is trying to do is trying to get the same density with the hotel -motel standards. So they
would have larger units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then if you have timeshare --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We would have smaller units --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have a timeshare that's operating as a hotel -motel but its standards are not
consistent with the hotel -motel standards of our code, then they should not be allowed to operate the commercial part
of that because they're more residential than they are hotel - motel.
MS. ISTENES: All I'm saying is in the planner's perspectives, a unit that is turning over on a weekly basis
that has a different family or a different person in it every week is not functioning like residential in a planner's
opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. I mean, I think we're all there. I think we don't want this to get
into a situation that can't be controlled. And I think just some further clarification on how the use applies to the
different levels between commercial and residential would help us get past the threshold that we need to be.
Are the rest of you thinking the same thing?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, do you think that's something we can get to?
MR. KLATZKOW: I still say if this is a site - specific thing, just to sit down and just hammer out a zoning
letter what he can do and what he can't do on this site. And if it doesn't meet Mr. Yovanovich's needs at that point in
time, change the code.
I hate changing the code, because four years from now somebody's going to have a different interpretation of
the dam thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is one benefit of carrying on, and that is to clarify the fact that if it has
to be a motel -hotel type to get the commercial uses and we're bringing that into --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I think there's two issues to be looked at. One is there could be a site- specific instance, but there is also need
to fix the LDC in that regard_ And I think the language that the Chair proposed is a good fix in regards to limiting
accessory uses to hotel -motel -- legitimate hotel -motel timeshares and restricting those things to residential condo type
timeshares.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got two possible solutions: You've got the County Attorney's Office
suggesting we look at a zoning letter that can be explored before we come back again, and the language, if that isn't
available, can be revised to tighten it up. And either solution will get this to an end at our next meeting.
Is that someplace you all agree to go?
MR. BELLOWS: I agree with Jeff, if you're dealing with a specific site - related issue, we could handle it
through normal zoning means. But I still think the LDC has some issues with the definition that the applicant is still
trying to fix. It may serve his benefit, but it also serves to fix the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the LDC ultimately got fixed, why don't we make that the fix and not issue
another zoning letter. But if the zoning letter can take care of it and we can't do the LDC this time, then that could be
an alternative as well.
I would suggest that you all get your heads together and come back next meeting with a solution to this that
kind of tightens it up enough so that we can feel more comfortable with it.
Page 9
161
March 24, 2010
MS. ISTENES: May I put two things on the record, please.
There's no guarantee a zoning letter is going to fix Mr. Yovanovich's problem. I'm not sure I really know
what his problem is in detail.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I could tell you.
MS. ISTENES: But that's okay. That's the one thing I want to put on the record.
1 A4
And the second thing I want to put on the record is we strive to get the books out to you in a timely manner,
so we would need things worked out, and this is just for staff between us on time so that we can print the books with
the updated information on time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: April 1 st is the next scheduled meeting. My guess is you're not going to get
everything worked out by April I st in order for you all to get the books in time. Is there another meeting after April
1st?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the 18th.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, Ijust think, frankly, that's probably --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 14th, I'm sorry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's probably more realistic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. Whatever day in the
future. We can continue the cycle until you can get back to us is what --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think we're suggesting.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure, Mr. Strain, that we -- you know we're not going to meet
the printing for that.
Here's the - -just so everybody's clear on the issue that I'm stuck with. On the list of allowed uses in RT
zoning you have hotel - motel, you have multi - family, you have some other uses, and then you have timeshare, okay.
Those are the list of uses. I think there's five, I don't have it right in front of me. But it's timeshares specifically listed
as a use.
And it says that your density for timeshare is 16 units per acre. Your density for a hotel -motel is 26 units per
acre. So I'tn stuck that timeshare's shown as a use and its density is capped at 16 units per acre.
So if I wanted to do a timeshare that has the smaller units that are required of a hotel - motel, the three to 500
square foot, I'm capped at 16 units per acre because you list timeshare as a use with a density associated with it of 16.
So what I'm trying to do is strike the word timeshare as a use and then go back to how you operate. And I
know that it's confusing because timeshare has so -- it's been always referred to kind of as a use. So we're having to
change our thought process on what it really is.
And there are people who are using -- who are doing some accessory uses that you would not -- that are
typically commercial associated with a hotel in a residential use. And 1 understand that. In my opinion that's always
been wrong. I'm not changing anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, whether it was right or wrong from the beginning, it is what it is, and we
are very intertwined at this point and we ought to find a solution.
I think that perhaps the Chairman's solution works. I'd certainly like to, you know, think about that language.
I'd certainly like to have conversations with everybody about this, because it is a real issue up where you and I live, so
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think the fix -- I don't think a zoning letter's going to help me, only because
timeshare is listed as a use in the RT zoning district and I don't know how you get around it.
So I think the fix is get rid of timeshare and add the language that it seems that the Chair and the rest of the
Planning Commission would like to add is, what are proper accessory uses that go with a hotel and what are proper
accessory uses that go with multi- family.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Richard, if the zoning district already allows motel -hotel is one, multi - family is
another and then timeshare is a third, but the statute already makes timeshare a form of ownership, not a use, why
Page 10
16I 144
March 24, 2010
couldn't you call your facility a hotel -motel and sell it as a timeshare but keep the standards of a hotel - motel? At such
time that you move into the standards of a multi - family and you sell it as a timeshare, then you keep the standards of a
multi - family. Why are we even here?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're here because the minute I add the word timeshare to how I sell it, I'm not
consistent with the density allowed in your code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if it's a motel - hotel, your density is 26, you'rejust selling it as a timeshare.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You made my point exactly. You don't need timeshare as a use in t ategory
because it's a form of ownership.
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why, by a zoning letter, if what you're doing is identical to a lio 1 we can say
in your zoning letter you get the 26 units per acre. If your timeshare is more akin to residential, that's when the 16 per
acre goes in --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Youjust ignore the use portion --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not ignoring, it's an interpretation based on a Florida statute.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm a practical guy. Ijust want to get this project built for my client --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and I want a bulletproof zoning letter that I don't want to have to worry about in the
future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think as a user of the code I would personally rather see it in the code, not
a zoning letter. That's kind of the stealth code. And unless somebody is really aware of that, they're going to miss it.
Are we going to discuss this at all, Mark, any of these other sections, or are we going to ignore it and see
what they come back with?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're going to discuss the whole thing. I thought we'd get all our discussion on
the table and try to come back with a final resolution to this whole thing next time they come back in. So I'm
encouraging everybody to ask any questions they have now.
And Brad, if you've got more, why don't you go right into them.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I kind of do. On 26, which is footnote three and footnote four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, it's on Page 42. Should we go page by page, would you rather?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's only five pages. Let's just take the whole thing at once. So let'sjust --
Page 42 is where you're at?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, footnote three, footnote four. This has been revised.
And one thing I think that was a little confusing, when you -- in the format we have here, the shaded was
actually what was done in three, there were revisions in this packet four that were hard to differentiate from the other.
So I think if there's a packet five, shade the new stuff in five so that we -- you know, and it's leapfrogging shading.
Richard, what you're saying there is that if you have 51 percent of your units in a building or a project, then
you -- and it's hotel, then you could start using the accessory that go with a hotel for the whole thing; is that right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this also saying that you have to have 51 percent of your units? I think
it's also saying that, too; isn't it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think if you want to have the uses that we were talking about, let's just use the
jet ski as an example. If you want to havejet ski as a concessionnaire in a project that has both timeshares and multi
-- it has both hotel units and multi- family units in it, you have to have at least 51 percent of that project be hotel - motel.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because sometimes I read it and it looked like you had to have 51
percent.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, you can have the differences, but if you want to have those amenities -- if you
want to have 49 percent motel -hotel and 51 percent multi - family, you don't get to use the same type of
concessionnaires.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so is it the majority of the units?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
Page 11
16 1 1 A4
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because remember, we have two different ratios --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's units. It's units. So you can't -- if you have 80 units, that would be what, 41 -39
would be the split.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But because the one has more density than the other, essentially the
mass of the building -- it will work fine with what you're doing.
Ray, is the staff comfortable on how to calculate the density when you're mixing two uses that have two
different densities?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you would do the ratio one over the other plus one over the other
less than equal to one, right?
MR. BELLOWS: It would have to be clearly spelled out in the site development plan what units are what,
but yeah, that shouldn't be a problem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't have to spell it out here. Okay.
And again, that only applies to the RT districts, that does not apply to Vanderbilt footnote three or four,
correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on the entire section involving the timeshares. Does anybody else have
any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the only thing that I guess we'll leave, I think the direction's been fairly clear,
we want some tightening up of the definition.
And Heidi, from my understanding it's important that that last paragraph be understood in how it applies to
the fact that we've got different density standards for one section of the county than another, while that same section
of the county has the same standards the other section has for hotel - motel. So based on the analysis on Page 45, I'm
not sure how we can separate that out, if the analysis is right.
So if you could take a look at that before it comes back.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody in the public that would like to speak on this item?
MR. BELLOWS: We have one speaker, Bruce Burkhard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come on up, Bruce. We're not as formal with those slips. Ray likes those.
MR. BURKHARD: Thank you. Good attemoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce
Burkhard with the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
And I actually wrote up some things that have already been discussed, but let me read it anyways, and maybe
it will reemphasize and underline some of the things that we've been talking about this afternoon, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. BURKHARD: Well, what I see as a problem is that this amendment appears to be an LDC change,
that's designed to benefit, as we've said, one specific project written by a planner and lawyer who are working for one
specific developer.
The language is really mind numbing, and it's not clear to me how it benefits the county and its citizens and
why the current code language is not sufficient.
By meeting floor area requirements, a timeshare appears to be made the equivalent of a hotel. And they
shouldn't be confused or mixed. And in my mind that's what I'm seeing. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm
reading out of this.
From the material that I have and what you probably have also, there's no staff analysis of this, no staff
recommendations, no indication that the staff has looked for the ripple effect problems throughout the LDC that this
change could result in. Staff has not weighed in, at least in writing, on exactly why they feel that the change is
necessary and how it applies to the entire county's LDC.
Then going on, an additional problem is, as has been discussed with the Vanderbilt Beach residential tourist
overlay language, our planners and our attorneys, when we drafted that overlay specifically separated hotels and
motels from timeshares, which were considered primarily residential. Our neighborhood right now is primarily
Page 12
1611IA4
March 24, 2010
residential with a slight mix of some commercial, but not very much.
And our aim was, in the whole process of writing the overlay, to prevent Vanderbleach from becoming
another Fort Myers Beach or a Cony Island.
We specifically didn't want timeshare condominiums to become commercial hotels and motels, kind of like
businesses, in other words, commercial. We didn't want jet ski operation vendors, we didn't want people selling crab
claws out on the beach and who knows what other kind of commercial operations might pop up. Those are two
examples of what's happening right now in front of that condominium.
So if this goes as planned, if we end up mixing motels and hotels with timeshares, it's going to change the
whole character and ambience of the beach as we know it today. And we think we need to maintain the language that
we put in the RTO. And I read this amendment as losing some of the protections that we wrote into the overlay.
In the overlay we -- as I said, we deliberately separated hotels and motels. The permitted uses in the overlay
are hotels, motels, multi - family dwellings, family care facilities, nursing homes, and timeshare facilities. Each one is
different, each one is separate. And it's important that we maintain that separation. Otherwise, if it goes as being
proposed, I'm afraid that, as Susan is saying, timeshares are the same as hotels and motels.
And I disagree with that. I think a hotel rents rooms on a daily basis, not on a weekly, bimonthly or monthly
basis. So there is a difference between a motel and a hotel versus a timeshare condominium. Timeshares are much
longer rental periods.
So I think we need to capture that. I think we need to go forward and, as you indicated, we do need a lot
more discussion, a lot more study, and we need to get the protections locked in that prevent this commercial jet ski
kind of operation from proliferating down the beach.
Pm talking to one guy that's ajet ski operator. He's a commercial guy that works legally in front of LaPlaya
and also in front of -- which is not in the overlay, but in front of the Ritz. And he's saying that in order for him to
protect his business, if this jet ski operation continues, he's got letters from several other condominiums and
timeshares on the beach that he's going to be wanting to do the exact same thing. He's going to start putting more jet
ski operations up and down the beach. And that's not what Vanderbilt Beach is supposed to be.
So I hope that we can resolve this somehow, protect what we have, protect the family ambience, and yet
maybe let Rich get his specific development built down in the Isles of Capri or wherever it is that really doesn't
concern our area, or the rest of the county for that matter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce.
Part of the issue that you brought up, that jet ski issue and the other commercial uses in primarily residential, I
hope that your organization pursues that and follows it to the end because --
MR. BURKHARD: We absolutely intend to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as you know, we were given the -- I guess it was the Code of Laws in which it
was allowed, and to let the Parks and Rec Department control zoning is absurd.
MR. BURKHARD: It is, I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would think that hopefully your commissioner and others can get involved to
put a stop to it and put it where it belongs with the Zoning Department, and then maybe things like this wouldn't be
happening.
MR. BURKHARD: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, I read that, and Susan actually sent us the laws, and I read it. But
there was one thing in there that seemed strange. It said that to do this operation you had to have an office, essentially
a commercial use in that building. And I think that's where the failure was. There is no commercial use. In other
words, I couldn't move my architectural practice to the ground floor of a timeshare condo.
So in other words, is that a good interpretation out there, or what did happen? Because the thing where I think
it would fall is there is no office, there is no commercial office in that building.
I think when they refer to office they don't mean four walls and you have a key, you're a tenant. So I'm
concerned as how that even happened, based on what we read.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, most every plan for a condominium -- in the bigger condominiums especially
Page 13
Z6 1 1 A4
March 24, 2010
along the beach, their ground floors or some of their floors have a manager's office. I believe that's how it got
construed. And I certainly would love see it fettered (sic) and found out as to how this happened and get it corrected,
because it could be a real bad sign for spreading throughout Collier County if it's not fixed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So my curiosity, you know, continues on again through that word office.
But the impression in the recreation is that it had to be -- they had to have an office. So that isn't even the
condo's office. And I don't think a condominium on the beach in residential zoning can have commercial offices to
outsiders in that building. So I think the failure is there, unless staffs not enjoying us like we would like, but the
failure is -- maybe that's why we have these problems.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We have problems --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick's listening and Nick is the big kahuna, so maybe he'll get the point we're
trying to make, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is let's not stop like we pretend we know the answer. I would
like to have them, somebody get back to me as to why they would consider that a legitimate office, thus allowing the
guy to run commercial operations out of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray and Susan, these issues that we're talking about are important to the
community. I know you want to have sidebars. And David, you all can have your sidebars, but when we're speaking
you need to pay attention to what we're saying.
Okay, anybody else have any issues on the particular timeshare'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move on. This will come back to us as soon as you all can resolve it.
Okay, next item up is 2.03.07.G, the Immokalee overlay deviation process, their interim. Mr. Mulhere, and
Bob, I want to thank you and the efforts you and the CRA have gone to to resolve the differences, because I
understand from a meeting I attended in Immokaleejust last week that everything is looking pretty good. And if it
stays that way through your discussion, it will be nice.
MR. MULHERF.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 appreciate you coming out, too, to the CRA meeting in
Immokalee. And Susan as well. Susan Istenes also attended.
And Susan and I have met I think probably three times leading up to today. So we've resolved all the issues.
Although I have one more change that Susan is unaware of. I'm sure she won't object to it because it's an elimination
of one of the deviations that we requested, which I'll get to in just a minute.
Just in summary, and I'm sure you all read the executive summary portion of this, but the idea of this interim
set of amendments is to allow for deviations under very specific conditions from various code provisions, LDC code
provisions in Immokalee, in the urban area of Immokalee for a limited period of time, maximum of 24 months, while
we get the Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted and then create a separate -- or go in and basically rewrite the
Immokalee overlay.
We're already working on those LDC amendments, but we hesitate to put too much time and effort until we
know exactly where the Comprehensive Plan stands. There could be things that could change, even in an ORC, so we
don't want to spend too much time. But we are working on those that we're fairly comfortable will remain in place.
So again, there's - -just in sununary there's two separate types of deviations and there's a very specific list of
deviations with sections, and that was Mr. Strain's recommendation, I don't know, several months ago, that we be very
specific, that we list each section very specifically. And we did go through that and do that.
And you can have a administrative, which is a de minimis threshold of deviation. If you go beyond that then
you have to come to the Planning Commission. And although it's not a variance it's a formal process, there's an
application and there would be criteria and staff would review it and write a staff report.
If it falls under the de minions threshold in association with an SDP or an SIP or a plat or in the case of signs
with a building permit, then it would just get approved as part of that process. Staff would review it, presumably
approve it, and then would prepare some sort of a written approval of it that could be recorded in the public records.
And I think that's really it. There were a couple of changes I did want to bring to your attention. I have
copies of them. They're relatively minor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take this page at a time, so when we get to that page it might --
MR. MULHERE: Okay, that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- be easier just to wait until we get there --
Page 14
1611 p4
March 24, 2010
MR. MULHERE: Okay, that's good. That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we start, I want to make sure, Susan, you are in agreement on most of this
now; is that true?
MS. ISTENES: Bob said he had one more. I haven't seen it. But yes, to the changes he'll give to you today
and the content of this book.
I haven't seen those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Because you guys getting together and doing it this way saves us from
going through 44 pages one at a time, so -- with that in mind, let's start with the first couple of Pages 9, 10 and 11.
Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions on Pages 9, 10, 11?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 12 and 13 are graphics. Then we get to Pages 14 and 15. Are there any questions on
Pages 14 and 15?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Maybe it's Susan. Under TA, and it would be line 16, it talks
about fees associated with the dimensional variance, Section 9.04.00. I didn't find the fees referenced in that section.
I think you might have meant 10.09.00.
Did you -- do you know offhand if that -- if you had -- because I didn't see the fees listed there.
MS. ISTENES: Well, they wouldn't be. But the intent was to reference the dimensional variance process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, which I have printed --
MS. ISTENES: Is that a wrong citation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- it says for the fees. And I couldn't figure out where the fees were
referenced in the dimensional process. If it's the process and not the fees --
MR. MULHERE: Let me make a suggestion. I think Susan, probably originally it was going to be that way,
but we've agreed upon the fees, and they're specifically written here, this $1,000 for the de minimis and then 5,000 I
think for the variance -- for the larger one, the more substantive deviation.
So I guess my question would be do we even need -- maybe we just want to say processing procedures here,
which are spelled out in 9.04.04.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was thinking, and take out the reference to the fees.
MR. MULHERE: And the reason I say that is because I think somewhere in this document there was --
maybe it isn't specified in here. I guess it's not. It was in the executive summary portion where it was specified.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, the fees are adopted in a separate fee resolution, so that -- yeah, obviously the intent
wasn't to use that Section 9.04.04 as a reference to fees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: We have dimensional variances and we have administrative variances, and I was trying to
distinguish between the two so that there was an understanding that processes and fees were different, depending on
which type of deviation you were requesting.
But I can take a look at that and clean that up a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under C, insubstantial deviations, is there a maximum limitation there like you have
in 9.04.04?
For example, 9.04.04.A, five percent of the required yard not to exceed a maximum of six inches. Ten
percent of the required yard with a maximum of two feet. Improved encroachments up to 25 percent of the required
yard. Is --
MR. MULHERE: The only one that we put a maximum on was the parking, because the other ones we
limited to 10 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in essence that's your maximum.
MR. MULHERE: So that's the maximum, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on 14 and 15?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you removed some of the previous sections that you had cited when you get
into the listing of the sections of the code. That was intentional, I take it?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Page 15
Marl 2624 0 1. l A4
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just do want to -- because that was the question that I had on this 10 percent.
You are comfortable with that, Susan, that there are no maximums, that it's just an overall 10 percent of --
MR. MULHERE: That is the maximum.
MS. ISTENES: Yes. It was 20 percent. He reduced it to 10 percent. And if I recall, we also had some
limitations for height. So it doesn't include height.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
MS. ISTENES: So yes, I am comfortable with that, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next pages would be 16 and 17.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me weigh --
MR. MULHERE: Hold on one second. On Page 15, let me -- David and I -- and this is -- I misspoke, there's
two actual changes.
There was a staff recommendation to limit the potential deviation set forth on the bottom of Page 15 in
Paragraph B, where it says Table 2. And the staff recommendation was to add the following language to that: Except
commercial projects located in the neighborhood center subdistrict of the IAMP shall provide a minimum of 50 -foot
setback when abutting residentially zoned properties and a 10 -foot wide landscape strip between the abutting
right -of -way and the off - street parking area.
We didn't exactly put that language in there but I think we addressed it. Because what we did put in there, if
you look at paragraph B, it says note about one, two, line -- well, that's why I put numbers on them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 45 and 46.
MR. MULHERE: 45, right. It says no deviation shall be granted for new development from the required
50 -foot building setback when abutting residentially zoned properties or from the 10 -foot wide landscape strip.
But where we differed, and I think staff agrees with this, is we are allowing for a deviation under a
redevelopment scenario where structures are intended to remain in place and already don't meet that setback. So
you're going to be renovating those structures, but they already don't meet the setback.
And so what David wants me to get on the record is that we need to add that to two other sections, that exact
same language or that exact same limitation. And that would be to paragraph x -- xi on the bottom of page -- or the
third from the bottom on Page 16, which is --
COMMISSIONER CARON: 43.
MR. MULHERE: 4.06.02.C, buffer requirements. We need to add that language there.
And also paragraph four a little higher up there, 4.02.03.A, which is for accessory structures. But they would
still also be subject to that limitation.
Yeah, and then the other change back to Page 15, and these are the only two changes I had. Under E little i or
1, 3.05.07.B.I is a -- allows a deviation from the preservation standards consistent with Policy 6.1.1.
Staff has an amendment that 1 think you're maybe considering later today that more than adequately addresses
what our desire was for this. So we already have a proposed amendment, assuming that gets approved. We really
wouldn't need this here. So I would withdraw that one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Assuming the other one passes.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And we'll know by the end of the day, I guess, maybe?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who knows.
MR. MULHERE: Those were really the only two changes. I apologize, I didn't realize we were already
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, do you have any problems with either of those?
MS. ISTENES: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I'm just going to ask again, in the case of redevelopment, shouldn't we
be correcting these issues? Now -- or are we just -- it'sjust for if they want to leave a structure?
MR. MULHF,RE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But everything else is going to have to come up to current standard, correct?
Page 16
16i1A4
March 24, 2010
I mean, this becomes very, I would think, problematic.
MS. ISTENES: It is. It's very, very tricky when you're talking about redevelopment, beta ou're talking
about property rights, you're talking about structures that were built under old codes that are no longer ractical or
viable. And yeah, there's no easy fix for it. So it is going to be tricky.
But the intent is to at least try to get some redevelopment going on in that area --
MR. MULFIERF.: Right.
MS. ISTENES: -- and this would help with that.
MR. MULHERE: I think that there's -- we've seen examples of decisions or many examples, and Penny or
Fred can get up and testify to that effect, where people have not gone forward because the limitations we have in
place. And this community would rather have something versus nothing.
I think if you're going to take the building down, there's probably no reason why you can't meet the setback.
But I think if you're going to renovate an existing building and make it better than what it is, we need to meet people
halfway, and that's what the intent of this is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any there any other questions from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any public speakers?
Fred, did you have something you want to say?
MR. THOMAS: I wanted to make a short comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then go right ahead.
MR. THOMAS: My name is Fred Thomas, and for some of you that don't know, in 2002 1 completed 40
years of experience in housing and redevelopment.
In the old days when you wanted to redevelop an area, we create a new community someplace else, pay the
relocation costs for the commercial and the residential, tear down everything that was in the old area and start from
scratch. We haven't got the money to do that anymore, so we've got to sometimes work with the existing structures
and the existing things that we're working with. And that's what he was trying to tell you a minute ago.
So we got to work with what we have, and then as we begin to develop we can make things better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're all there, Fred.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chair, 1 forgot the two changes that I did have before I walked in the door. They're
relatively minor. Can I hand them out to you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. These are in addition to the changes you made on record.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. They're good.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTT: Are these changes to your changes?
MS. ISTENES: And for the record, I have reviewed these changes that Bob's handing out and I don't have
any issues with them.
MR. MULHERE: At least the colors are good.
Mr. Chair, you'll recall we had this discussion at the CRA meeting and advisory board meeting. And so there
were -- one of staffs concerns, when I originally wrote this, I said that you could ask for a deviation as a separate
administrative, a minor deviation as a separate process.
Staff said, you know, we really don't want to create a new process.
Okay, well, they're probably going to be associated with an SDP, an SIP or a plat. So we said, that's good.
We forgot about signs. And there were 80 signs red - tagged that had been in existence for years out there that
need to go through this process, probably. They don't go through that process, so that's why we added the permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, when these signs have to go through this process, sir, how
much are they going to be charged?
MR. MULHERE: It's $1,000 for an administrative deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? These signs have been existing all this time and --
MR. MULHERE: You know, I -- staff has to -- you know, the problem we have here is the signs got
red - tagged, maybe there's no evidence of a permit, maybe they could -- I mean, who's got the burden of proof? I
mean, this is not part of my job, but we could have a sign that was out there 30, 40 years, there's no record of a permit,
doesn't mean there wasn't one, but anyway, code enforcement red - tagged them.
Page 17
16 A4
March 2I , 2 0
But planning staff will now be having to carry the burden of legitimizing those, so they will put time into the
review, and they --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not my point. Who complained about the signs'? If no one complained,
why are we red - tagging them, why are they coming in to be charged a $1,000 fee when no one has a problem?
Penny?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I think those problems have been predominantly resolved. There were 80 signs who
received notice that they either needed to come down or they needed to go and get a permit and put them up correctly.
And we did lose a couple of 50- year -old signs that were landmarks, but the people immediately took them down. We
brought it to the Board of County Commissioners and we went through those one by one with code enforcement staff.
And so you'll see businesses al I over Immokalee with no sign up at all. And that's why. And I'm assuming at
some point there was a fire among county records, so what the Board of County Commissioners resolved was if we
don't have a record that you never bought a permit, we're going to work with you to go forward.
So those 80 have already been resolved. What this one will do will work toward the future of -- and current
things that may get cited in the interim that didn't get caught in that net.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Penny, is there some control over how people get cited for these signs? I mean,
if no one's making a complaint, why are they being cited? Do we know'?
I mean, did someone in Inunokalee run through the town and start complaining about all the signs?
MS. PHILLIPPL No, no, no, it's their job. That's what they do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But who's -- if it's not boring anybody for all these years, who cares?
MR. THOMAS: Sir, in the downturn of the economy, we got the police stopping us more often, we got code
enforcement going out and doing their due diligence to bring money back into the county, that's what it boils down to.
It's those kinds of issues that we've been dealing with because of the downturn in the economy.
I'm just telling you what I know to be true.
We have a lot of situations for another situation that we have where people have been -- had a house -- when I
came here'86, there was a house with an out - structure, garage, and another structure that has a big doghouse with a
pen on it. But when they go back and look at the old aerials, they don't see it.
And because we made a new transition in '86 to a whole new Growth Management Plan with a separate -- got
rid of the separate Planning Commission for Immokalee area, they couldn't find the records, so they started shooting
out these citations on all these people because they couldn't find any proof that they had proof to put these other
structures in that have been there since I came here in '85, '86.
That's how we got to this point, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the 80 signs, I understand that are resolved; is that what --
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
MR. THOMAS: We're worried about future signs.
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to have to leave that up to somebody else to resolve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just didn't want to see 80 people having to come in here and spend $1,000 a
pop just to --
MR. MULHERE: I'm glad, I didn't understand that, but that's good that Penny was able to clear that up. So
that's good.
The other change is, is -- so you may be familiar with, for example, Lake Placid, where they have a lot of
murals in their downtown, and it's kind of an attraction, people come to look at the murals.
In Immokalee -- that's one example, there are others. Immokalee is also fostering a mural program, and so
we wanted to be sure that we had language in there under the architectural standards that would be very clear that
murals were permitted. We do want to have some level of review, so we suggested at least the CRA staff be able to
look what is going to go up.
And the purpose is not for the mural to be a commercial sign. So, while you might be able to put God Bless
America and an American flag on there, those are words, those should be permitted, but you might not want to say
open from 9:00 to 5:00. So we addressed that as well -- or check cashing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, you have a -- you know, when we were reviewing the sign ordinance,
Page IS
1611 A4
March 24, 2010
the people from sign were discussing essentially artwork as signs. So you think you might want to add something in
the next section to note that murals are governed by this section --
MR. MULHERE,: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- just to make sure that -- because if you're not doing anything in the sign --
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to step on your words. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you're doing anything in the sign ordinance, you're doin t in the
architectural.
MR. MULHERE: There's a reason for that. The suggestion was we should stay away from the sign
ordinance and regulating any kind of content in signs because of the court case that the county just went through. So
this would be under the architectural standards and avoid signs at all.
We may look at it as part of this next coming LDC more comprehensive process and maybe create a section
if we want to sort of direct things a little bit towards the murals and what we want them to look like and what content
we might want. But we wouldn't want to call them signs.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is the sign folks, not the architectural folks, the sign folks might
go through there and start considering these signs --
MR. MULHERE: No, they won't --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- like they have through other areas.
MR. MULHERE: They won't. The code enforcement investigator for Immokalee is actually a -- he's on the
CRA advisory board and he's at their meetings.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Just warning you that it happens down here, so it could happen up
there.
MR. MULHERE: I know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bob?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
MR. MULHERE: And there was a typo in there. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's a tiny thing. But a mural, I've had occasion, I'm sure others have
had occasion to go places, I know Miami has it, where you see a building with, you know, huge painting of whales. It
know that's in Hawaii.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the mic., Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm song. Nevertheless, the -- I consider those to be murals, perhaps they're
not. Would that fall under your --
MR. MULHERE: I think that would.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a mural?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Surely that wouldn't be construed as a sign, would it?
MR. MULHERE: Well, it would be if that same mural -- it could be, I shouldn't say would be. It could be if
that same morel was on the wall of the store, I forget the artist, is it Wyatt? What's the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wyland.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wyland.
MR. MULHERE: Right, Wyland. If it was on the store of a Wyland retail shop and it said, you know, For
Sale or something, then it could be considered --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm talking about artwork --
MR. MULHERE: No, it's not --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- which is what I understand in a mural. I mean, if you want to carry that to
its illogical conclusion, you could have a picture of an American flag and everybody could think it's Perkins.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just have a question here, the murals are to be reviewed and approved
by the Immokalee CRA staff. I mean, what --
MR. MULHERE: Criteria --
Page 19
161 1 "A4
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- actual authority do they have`? I mean --
MR. MULHERE: They're reviewing all kinds of things right now, right? It's probably -- it probably needs to
be addressed in a more detailed way in the upcoming set of amendments.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Bob -- I'm not done with Bob yet.
MR. THOMAS: I'm going to answer your question for you, ma'am. The idea is that we're trying to develop
a downtown realm that's a tourist development area. So we want to have some control over what kind of murals that
are like Central American kinds of thing, as opposed to somebody coming there and putting up library books and
stuff, you know.
MR. MULHERE: But I think the question is a good one, because there's no criteria, there's really no basis to
say it's approved or not approved. Maybe that's the wrong word, maybe approved is not the right word. But maybe
we just say reviewed. Then they can have some influence on what it is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And maybe part of that will get addressed in your GMP.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. But I think that's a very good point. And I felt the same thing when I was writing it.
I think if we take out the word approved and just say shall be reviewed, then the CRA staff could have some
influence over what the content of the mural was and focus on it that way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, suggested word, maybe accepted, that the CRA staff has to accept the
sign.
MR MULHERE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other discussion from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else from the public want to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think there needs to be some minor tweaking of this, but I believe it's in
good enough shape to recommend approval subject to that tweaking that you'll take care of afterwards. I think it's
clear what needs to be done.
Is everybody in agreement? If so, is there a motion?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
Growth Management Plan and reconnnend approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
I believe that we find this to be consistent with the
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. The section is 2.03.07.G, the hnmokalee
overlay deviation process, interim.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIO "ITI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Thank you, sir.
We will take a 15- minute break so Cherie can rest her fingers, and we'll be back here at 2:30.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray.
Welcome back from break. We'll move right into the rest of the agenda.
The next one up, though, I've been informed during break has had another rewrite, so we're going to put that
Page 20
161 1 IA4
March 24, 2010
one off until whenever the next time is it can come back to us with a rewritten language. That's one 1.08.02
definitions, lot corner interior.
So Heidi, are you aware of the rewrite? And I know Susan is because she pointed it o me.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I've been working with Susan and Stan Chrzanowski. The new definition,
though, will not address cul -de -sacs or curbed roads, just as a heads -up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever it does or does not do, we'll need time to read it, so let's just not even
get into it today. And I don't care what date you all bring it, as long as we get it ahead enough so we can read it.
We'll go into 4.05.02, it's typical off - street parking design, Exhibit A. That's in Book 4, which is the latest
book, Page 87.
Susan, I know a lot of those these are coming back. As a means of introducing it, would you kind of remind
us what it is we -- what it's coming back for so we can expedite the review.
MS. ISTENES: Sure. Actually, I'll have Ray put the Page 89 up on the visualizer. And my recollection is
the last time we talked about this there was some confusion about what was being added.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think the point that was made was there's more -- there's not just items
being added, there's items being physically changed. And I can't remember the outcome of the discussion with Stan,
so you're going to have to help me with that.
MS. ISTENES: Stan is on his way, so he may pop in here while we're talking about this. And if there's a
question I can't answer we could always come back to it later.
But -- let me steal your pen. Thanks.
The last time I recall the document that you had in the first packet was showing some changes. And so I've
been assured by Stan and I've reviewed it myself that this document should not be showing any changes to the code.
In other words, what's showing on this document is also listed as code requirements.
What he added was this section right up here which is circled, and this shows the wheel stop detail. Because
I guess a lot of people were getting confused and putting the wheel stops a little too far back and they weren't
stabilized. So there's a two -inch, you'll see a two -inch gap here before -- when you're abutting a grassed area, and then
the wheel stop and then the asphalt paving.
And the other thing that was added was the parallel parking detail. He told me that was adopted in 1991.
And then he just went ahead and added that to this detail to show the requirements for parallel parking, depending on
the type of parallel parking you are developing. We don't get a lot in the county, but for those areas we do, those are
the graphic requirements for that as well.
That, to the best of my knowledge, was the issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I had brought up and maybe it was clarified then, I don't remember it
now, the old plans showed the striping to be four inches wide and the new one shows six inches wide. And I don't
remember the explanation for that or even if one was provided.
But without Stan here, I guess we can't reiterate it then.
MS. ISTENES: We can certainly pause and go on to something else for now if you still want to get that
answered.
And that would be the striping for the handicapped, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If it's a change in a standard, I'd want to make sure we're consistent in the
language in the code as well. And if it's a change, did we have to notify it any differently than what this one was
notified, which was only clarity.
Because it says that it's only replacing current graphic exhibit with one containing greater detail, when in
actuality we're widening the striping that's being used in this example.
MS. ISTENES: I'll reaffirm with Stan. But I know engineering is also watching from home or from the
office, and so they may be e- mailing me as well.
So if you just want to go ahead and move on we'll get the answer to that. I apologize. 1 didn't realize that was
still --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody want to comment on this right now or you just want to wait till Stan gets
here?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have comments, but let's wait for Stan.
Page 21
ml11 11h
h�, J019� '
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Stan's got his name on the next one. And then let'sjust pick one that his
name isn't on. That is 4.05.04.17, parking space requirements. That's Susan. It would be in our Packet 2, Page 69.
MS. ISTENES: This one, if I recall -- and I'm flipping to it now, there was some question, and I think the
discussion we had with you was to check as to the reason as to whether or not it is necessary. And we went back in
because what we're asking here to do is essentially readopt something that was in the old code. We do not believe it
was purposely omitted.
And John and Ray and I met and discussed this a little bit and decided that we as staff would rather have it in
for clarification purposes, because we do often get change of use and we do often get asked about parking
requirements and where in the code does it specifically say if I have a change in use I have to meet parking
requirements.
We figured basically our thing is it doesn't hurt to be more clear. And --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's on Page 69. It goes 70, 71. Does anybody have any questions on the
Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --just the reason --I mean, Susan, I think the reason it was taken out is they
tried to weed out unnecessary wording in the code. When somebody does change the use, they're going through an
awful lot of other reviews too, 1 mean, not just the parking. So doesn't this really go without saying?
MS. ISTENES: It should. I agree with you, it should. I mean, I -- my position initially was it goes without
saying, just as you suggest.
But John had researched a little bit and found a couple instances where we had been, I don't want to say
challenged in a negative way, it was just brought up as a question and request to basically prove it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't have somewhere in the code that any new use is treated as a
new use and has to meet requirements for a new use, like all the building codes and everything else do? I guess we
don't, so --
MS. ISTENES: Not to the extent that it's clear. I mean, to be honest with you, I didn't spend days on this. I
just figured it's one of those things that might be a little extra language, but we had had a couple of incidences where it
came in handy.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not a battle to choose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have a motion with a finding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. I move that we find this to be consistent with the
Growth Management Plan and recommend forwarding to the Commission with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. And it is for LDC Section 5.04.04.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTfI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Let's move on to a non -Stan item. It would be 2.03.08.A.4, aquaculture in the RMFU sending. And that
would be on Page 19 of Packet 4.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
Page 22
161 1 A4
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you go back to Page 69, 1 may be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, could you pull your mic., I can't even --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I apologize. If you would go back to Page 69, 1 may -- probably
I'm in error, but I'm looking at the LDC section that you cited is not the same one that's listed on Page 69. It's
3.05.07.H.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're looking the book -- you've got to look in Book 2, Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the current one that we worked on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Book 2.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. It's not the one we're --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Quite a bit of the items on the agenda aren't from the current book, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no problem. But you may want to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought this was the most recent --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's probably why it's going to be confusing.
So we're on 2.03.08.A.4, it's on Page 19 of Book 4.
This is aquaculture. And Jeff, you did a good job on your new language.
MR. WRIGHT: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Jeff Wright.
Ijust wanted to point out a couple things. As I mentioned last time, this language appears twice in your
packet. In today's Packet it's on Pages 20 and 22.
As I was preparing this for this afternoon's hearing, I came up with a suggestion or two. First of all, there's
language before you that says unless an applicant can demonstrate. And it occurred to me that there's really no
application and therefore no applicant.
So I would suggest -- and I've put it on -- I'll put it on the overhead here -- removing the words an applicant
can demonstrate that. So it would read unless such removal is authorized under state or Federal law. Again, that's
because there's no applicant and there's no application. These are permitted uses.
But that's one change that I had in addition to changes that you see in the packet.
The other change, and you'll notice that this Page 20 deals with where the development rights have not been
severed. Page 22 deals with where the development rights have been severed.
And the way that that regulation on 22 operates is that when the development rights are severed, you're frozen
in time as of the severance date.
So on this overhead, I have made a change, because if you're frozen in time, you're not going to have any new
aquaculture, you're just going to have what's there as of the date of the transfer of development rights. So new
aquaculture is not going to be happening where the development rights have been severed. So that's just a small
change that I made that the provisions don't read identically, but they do capture the same concept.
And what I tried to do between the last meeting and now was capture the main concepts. First of all, making
it simple. Fill removal is prohibited.
Also capturing the concept that if you have a state right to remove the fill and you can make that argument,
then you'll have an exception to this rule.
So I tried to capture all your concerns, and I am available for any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take the whole section at one time. It's through Page 25.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The last comment that you made, so do I understand then that there may be
or there is a state law that may or does permit the removal of material?
MR. WRIGHT: There's no state law that expressly allows for removal of dirt. In fact, yesterday I talked to
Cal Knickerbocker, who's an aquaculture expert with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and he
said this question comes up all the time, and they don't touch the issue of excavation of fill removal.
I'm not sure if that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yes. And the other side of that would be a prohibition. We've
Page 23
1B,11,44 q
attempted, for reasons that we perceive perhaps that sometimes it's a mining operation in disguise, that may or may
not be true, but that was, I think, a genesis of one of the points that we were attempting to seek a limiting or a
prohibition so that we couldn't have that kind of stealth operation.
So I'm just -- what you're leaving it open for, should there become a law, I guess then we're out of it, that
subordinates us; is that right, that's the way you're writing it?
MR. WRIGHT: That's right. And there's one other phrase that we could add to this, and that is at the end of
each of these sections that I'm proposing here, we would add the clause: Or necessary for exercise of a state or federal
right.
Now, that's something I don't have before you, but it's something on the way down, I actually bumped into
Rich and he mentioned some of his concerns with it. I don't want to speak for Rich. But there's always the possibility
that somebody, for example, could say, hey, I have a state right to dig a pit in this configuration and you're telling me
that I can't remove the fill. The result of you telling me I can't -- that prohibition on removing fill is I have to have a
smaller operation. I can't -- in other words --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can't get full use of your property.
MR. WRIGHT: Exactly. It will atfect my pocketbook.
So by adding that clause that if removal is necessary for exercise of a state or federal right, then we could at
least, it's not necessarily airtight, but at least have a defense for that argument.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't be unhappy with it, per se.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, if you were to insert that phraseology, you basically are putting on an invitation
to challenge the position that we don't want these excavations to be made for fill taken off -site.
I would rather let them put that argument forward and not entice them to do such. I'd rather make it proactive
on their part instead of ours. So if we don't need the language and there's nothing here against it, I'd just as soon we
didn't add it. I only think it's going to invite problems, not defer problems.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, does it get into the question of rights under the Act that we always cite
about full use of one's property? And if we're mindful of that, shouldn't we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want full use of your property and you're buying a property that's too small
and you think you can use trickery through state statute to get full use because of a clause we have here, I think that's
erroneous. 1 think you need to buy more property and limit the property use to what you can keep on -site, and let
them prove otherwise.
I don't think we want to make the invite to let them think that they have that right to begin with. 1 would
suggest not to go there and let them -- put the burden of proof on them.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay, I will agree to disagree in that regard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on Pages 19 through 25?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation from the board?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward this amendment as being consistent with the
Growth Management Plan and with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to the changes recommended by the county attorney in the -- that are on the
board in front of us?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOI -TC I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vighotti.
Is there discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is for Section 2.03.08 in our code.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 24
161 144
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 -1.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is 2.01.00. This is the parking use of recreational vehicles. That
would be on Page 85 of Packet 1.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, when that was originally heard you had some questions as to whether the
section had been moved in its entirety to the Code of Laws.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I did verify that the entire section was not moved. And we're still proposing that the
LDC language be stricken but that it be placed in a new proposed ordinance that would be heard by the Board of
County Commissioners at the same time that these LDC amendments would be heard.
So I have distributed the proposed ordinance by e -mail earlier this week. Now, if you desire, we can continue
this till April 1 st.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only issue was whether or not all the language was intended to be moved
or just parts of it. 1 haven't had time to read your distribution. Did you include now all the language orjust parts of it?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I included all of the language. And the document that I e- mailed to you had the
LDC language -- there's no strike - throughs or underlines, but as to the portion that came from the ordinance 08 -64.
So the new portion that was in an 08 -64 ordinance that has been adopted by the board, I depicted in underline,
just so you could follow what was different from the LDC. And in brackets I noted where there appears to be some
discrepancy as to whether a few of the sections apply to the Estates or they don't.
And this draft ordinance is going to the Golden Gate Estates task force that works with code enforcement
today for their input. So I don't have the benefit of their input at this time. But there were --the two parts that I noted
does not apply to the Estates I wanted to bring to your attention in case you had a recommendation on that issue that
you wanted to forward to the board.
But again at this point we don't have any recommendations or input from the task force.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we're going to wait regardless til the task force comes back with a ree --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right, and so we could continue that to April 1 st, which would give you more time
to review it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any objections to moving it to April I st or whatever date you're able
to fit it in?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While I was looking at that issue in the Code of Laws, I was looking for a couple of
things, I found something else that was -- actually it was Municode that I thought to be interesting.
Ray, I need you to put this on the overhead.
If this comm ssion recalls, we discussed an item that moved a lot of the formation rules for the various
committees in the county and commissions such as ours, attempted to move them to the Code of Laws. Well, they are
in the Land Development Code.
I went in to check on the one from the Planning Commission and I found this on Muni.Code. What does it
mean?
I know what it says, but we were discussing I thought this issue at our last meeting and we said no, we don't
think the Planning Commission should be moved from the Land Development Code because of its nature and it's
quasi-judicial. But I went onto Municode and this is the note I got. Does this mean it got moved to another section of
the LDC on Municode or it got moved out of Municode LDC and put into the Code of Laws, which I thought was
interesting, because we haven't even heard it?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: This section relating to the Planning Commission will be added back in through
Municode, based on the direction that you gave at the last LDC hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did it get taken out without us knowing about it?
Page 25
161 1JA4
March 24, 2010
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There was an ordinance that was done previously that moved the language to the
Code of Laws. So in anticipation of the LDC amendment being approved Municode took that section out, and they're
working with the County Attorney's Office. So we will put that back in. But that has not been taken out. So there is
a glitch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's interesting. Thank you.
Let's move on to the next item. And still no Stan. What did he take, one of the C.A.T. transit systems to get
here?
MS. ISTENES: He is on his way, I did get confirmation of that. We're okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we have a pile of sections that are in our new book on Page 27. They're a
series of scrivener's errors, multiple strike -outs and items like that. So let's go to that one next.
MS. ISTENES: I believe, and I'm looking through my packet too for the notes, but -- and John, maybe you
canjust give me a nod from back there. John, was this the one where you re -did the citations or the references?
In other words -- because my notes didn't say anything. But I know you had wanted us to go back and double
check and make sure this was accurate.
Yes. And that's what John did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes from Page 27 to Page 38. Anybody have any questions on Pages 27 to 38?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And this language was done exactly, the exact LDC language was transferred
to Ordinance 08 -11, dash 11? For all of these?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, yes, that's what we double checked.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And with a great deal of trust. I find that these to be -- these amendments to
be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and forward to the Commission with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. The sections involved are 2.01.00. 2.04.01, 2.04.02,
2.04.03, 4.02.02 and 4.02.29.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
The next one up is the PUD procedures on Section 10.02.13. It's in your packet number two, Page 11.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, I'm recommending that this one be pulled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We determined that it's not needed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Withdrawn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, withdrawn. Any objections from anybody on that?
(No response.)
Page 26
16 I aA4
March 24, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up is 10.03.05.B, and I can't read the rest of it. Notice
requirements for public hearings. It's in Book 4. It says 15 on our sheet, but I believe it's Page 144.
MS. ISTENES: Yes, correct. Thank you. This was -- excuse me --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually, I'm --
MS. ISTENES: There was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, you're going to pull this one too?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I'm sorry, I pulled the 10.02.13 but I do recall that there was some language that
zoning wanted, so we do need to go back to that. The entire amendment isn't being pulled. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We'll proceed and then we'll go back to it, if that works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine. I'm sorry Susan.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 149.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. Let me get my head back here.
This item -- and I don't know how to explain it without putting both things on the visualizer, and I may have
to do that. The previous version of this item contained a notification date change. Originally your amendment said it
was 21 days and we were changing it back to 15.
We've since discovered that it is 15 already in Municode, so it does not need to be changed. It was changed
previously. So the top part of this amendment has been removed.
The bottom part here though still does need to be added back in. And I believe this meets with your last
discussion on this item. You'll see that in paragraph two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 149. You referred to a top part. Which is the top part?
MS. ISTENES: Well, it's gone now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's kind of hard to find if it's gone.
MS. ISTENES: That's why I said I'll probably need to put it on the visualizer for you. And I just will need to
kind of find it real quick. But if you all want to look at the second paragraph, I'll do that.
And if you have any questions, I can do two things at once, usually.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see any problem with the second paragraph. If that's the only change, I
mean, if the first paragraph wasn't needed, I don't know if we need to review it.
MS. ISTENES: I honestly don't think you do. It was something you all asked us to look at again. And what
happened was, when I did that, I found that there was a discrepancy on folio views of Municode versus the straight
Municode site.
And what had happened was the staff member who had recommended the change was looking through folio
views. And so we confirmed with the County Attorney's Office that the correct documents to look at are the actual
Municode website, that they're actually going to be doing away with folio views. I don't use folio views so I didn't
even consider that. But apparently some people still are. So that -- and that's why --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let'sjust focus on the one paragraph you want to keep.
Anybody have any concerns or questions? If not, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vighotti. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
The section is 10.03.05.
Is there any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 27
Marek11
hl
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -1 -- or 6 -0.
The next one we're going to go back to 10.02.13, it's on Page I I of Book 2. It's a PUD procedures item.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's correct, Mr. Chair. The -- on Page 12, F.4 is the change that I was requesting
withdrawal. So that change doesn't need to be made. But on Page 12, line 14 inserts the words sunset in place of the
word approval for the extension.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 understand we're going to unstrike lines 26 and 27.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's where I was going next.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then leave the rest of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So line 26 and 27 is actually in, not out.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Uh -huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, so if it's back in, what is the recourse to the original owner if they're
basically complete on a development?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: 1 think in practicality, the way it would work is that whoever is currently the owner
of the property would be responsible. But it doesn't relieve the prior owner of the obligation, so that you could still
request the prior owner to help try to get you the information, if he can.
I don't think that the county would go after the prior owner, but it just doesn't relieve him of the obligation to
the extent he has any control.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do you -- so a prior owner then can never relieve himself of control of a
process?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think he does it in a sentence starting on line 28. Transferring
responsibility for the filing of annual monitoring report to an entity other than the original owner may be
demonstrated in the form of an executed agreement between the original owner and a new entities.
So when PUDs are all built out, everything gets assigned over to a foundation or an association or whatever,
and you just have to -- it's one more piece of paper you have to get signed off on at the time that it gets turned over to
the association. I think it's pretty clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think it just keeps another check in balance in favor of the county.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Heirs, successors and assigns, I mean, what I'm thinking of is somebody gets
rid of their property, they sell it, they cease to have any ownership. How can you compel them to perform? Suppose
in the case of bankruptcy even, how can you compel them to perform?
On what basis of law would you do that?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think that that will be analyzed at the time the issue comes up and
determined who are the appropriate people to go after for the report. But this just keeps some responsibility on the
person who creates the development to begin with, as opposed to someone who passes it on and doesn't have any
responsibility, therefore they may be less careful in how they pass it on.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 applaud your effort to try to achieve that, but I will tell you as a person
very deeply involved in an argument of that sort between a developer who went bankrupt, I think even intentionally,
leaving us holding the beloved bag, we couldn't even get him to perform any of the basic things, let alone that. So I
can't imagine, would the county then expend sums of money in an effort to chase a party who ultimately I think you
can't compel?
Page 28
16111 A4
March 24, 2010
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we take a very practical approach to that. I mean, quite frankly, you can't get blood
out of a stone. IT somebody is no longer in business, we understand that. But that -- so it will be on a case -by -case
basis.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're a practical man. Why would we put something in there we kwav is
not going to probably -- I mean, it's nice to have the statement in there, but it's not enforceable. That's what T Jq
gathering.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I favor the wording. It does make the owner take care and be
responsible to transfer that so he doesn't have this problem. So if we take it out, the owner can be sloppy and we may
have the problems that Mr. Murray has.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This may not resolve the problem, but it does give the county an edge if they want
to try to make it resolvable. So it's better than nothing.
Okay, are there any other discussions? We're on Page 11 and 12.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we keep line 26 and 27 on Page 12 and then find this
to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, then recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made, seconded by Ms. Caron.
Discussion? It's item LDC Section 10.02.13. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTIT Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Okay, I notice there's members of the public here, and I don't know which ones you guys are in here for, but I
will try to accommodate if we know.
Richard, you're the least expensive person here today, so what items are you waiting for?
If you don't mind coming up and telling us, we'll try to move on to those.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe it is on Page 69, the recreational uses in the preserves, as well as Page 81,
the stormwater uses in the preserves.
There was language in there, grandfathering language that I worked out with staff and the County Attorney's
Office. Those are the only -- I'm here just to make sure that that language is approved and acceptable to the Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What we'll do is -- and I didn't see that fellow hiding behind you below the
deck of that podium that you're standing in front of.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know he makes more than I do, so if you want to take him first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's clean his couple issues up first, then well go right into yours as long as Steve
has no objection to it, and then we'll move forward from there.
Hi, Stan.
MR. CHRZANOWSKC Good afternoon, Commissioners. And I'm in no hurry, I work for the government.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember, we pay him, so let's get him out of here.
Page 29
M1h24, 011 A4,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start then. We'll go right into your -- you have three items, Stan, and we'll start
out 1.08.02. It's the defin -- oh, no, that one's been continued, so we'll go to the second one, 4.05.02, typical off - street
parking design, Exhibit A. It's on Page 87 of the new packet, Book 4.
And Stan, when we discussed it earlier, I had a lingering question that was about the change in the striping
width. You may have answered it before but we've had so much happen --
MR. CHRZNANOWSKI: That was a change that Florida DOT made many years ago, that they want --
because of the age of drivers in the State of Florida, they thought the four inches was not sufficient for us elderly
people.
And I'm in my sixties, usually I'm the youngest person when I go to a restaurant. So they're making an
accommodation to those of us that have a little more trouble seeing as we get older. It's just a wider striping. If you
look on the way home, you look at the road striping, you'll see it's all six -inch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're enforcing that regardless of the graphic that used to be in the code that
said four -inch.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. That graphic, by way of explanation, if you look at the bottom right hand of
this graphic, if you can read that, it says it was prepared in 1999. And then if you look at the other date on the
left -hand comer, it says'96. What does it say,'96?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thereabouts, or '98, something like that. It's old.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's an old graphic. And it's 10 years old. And that's what it was. The only thing --
if you look at that graphic, the only thing we've added is -- that even had the parallel parking on it. The only thing
we've added is in the upper right -hand comer, that wheel stop dimension that Susan mentioned earlier.
What happened was that Municode used to have a lot of problem with our exhibits. And this exhibit never, it
was looked at years ago. It just never made it into the ordinance properly. And we should have straightened it out a
long time ago. But the exhibit that's in there is kind of correct. It just looks bad and it misses a few things, so this is
basically housekeeping.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, one thing, the handicap ramp detail, where it is, you know, where you
have the access drive. That's not really a recommended detail anymore. And you can see if you're coming straight
ahead, all of a sudden this curve and the drop and everything.
What most people are doing is bringing the ramp down, having a flat area. It will be a five -foot area just like
the width because of the ramp, and then ramping it straight back up rather than going around.
But could this give the impression that you have to do it this way?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It could, 1 suppose, yeah. You want that changed?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think that's a good idea, do you?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, this way is legal.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is the other.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But you're right. There's -- we could simply make a reference to State DOT -- must
conform to State DOT handicap code and do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 mean, I think it's difficult to get it redrawn but it's probably easy to add a
note. So maybe if you added a note that, you know, that gives the impression that this is one method, all complying
methods are available or something.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's not difficult to get it redrawn, it's on the computer. How do you want it drawn,
the — both sides coming down to the middle?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you know what I mean, don't you --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the sidewalk, it will slope gently, be level, slope gently. Because this one
here, the reason people don't like it is that it does put the curve and people walking have trouble with this one.
And then my other question is you have the sign in the five -foot setback, which I don't think is exactly right
either. The concern there is you're not allowed to narrow that sidewalk.
You see what I mean? Look in front of the handicap space, you have a post with the sign. You cull it out --
MR. CIiRZANOWSKI: Right, we can put the sign behind the sidewalk.
Page 30
161 1 JA4
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because you wouldn't want somebody to say it's allowed there.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is over there there's this note. We talked about it
last time. It says 10 -foot, 15 -foot and 20 -foot landscape buffers allow vehicle overhang into the buff. And then
there's parentheses, two -foot setback behind curb does not apply to 10, 15 and 20 -foot buffers.
What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that you're not allowed to add that two feet to he buffer?
MR. CHRZANOW SKI: Yes. It means that the two -foot overhang into the 20 -foot buffer is permissible.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but isn't it the same when is says does not apply to the buffer? So
let's say I have a 10 -foot buffer. Am I allowed to have essentially eight foot of buffer plus two feet of overhang to get
my 10?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. You want that reworded somehow to make that clearer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, because I don't think it is. If somebody else reads it and thinks it is,
I'll bow to that. But it seems --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read it like you did, I thought they need 10 plus two with that diagram.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, do they?
MS. ISTENES: That's my understanding, yeah. I'm going to -- I will confirm that, but yeah.
Yeah, you have to have the whole 10 foot in buffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then maybe what we could do is, see that -- the picture of that condition is
straight above. Maybe you could draw an arrow somewhere in there that stops at that two feet and call that the buffer
width or something.
MR. CHRZANOWSKL Okay, because if you look at the note, it says the edge of the required landscape
buffer, that's for a five -foot buffer only. We figured if it were 10, 15, or 20 that the two -foot wouldn't encroach in that
much into it. But for a five -foot it would.
So I guess if you guys want -- I'm sorry, if the council wants us to make it so that the two -foot is in addition
to all buffers, I'll word it that way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd rather not. But what is the requirement, Susan?
MS. ISTENES: I believe it's in addition to, and I will double check that for sure, just in case I'm wrong.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you need to do is comeback with whatever standard has been applied,
so we don't have a lot of nonconforming buffers out there. And let's just see what that is and make sure this reads the
same way in which we've applied it.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll be there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this one's going to come back for a revisit again. Anything else on this one
while we're at it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to 4.06.01 and 6.06.05. It's on Page 73 of Packet 2. And this is
the site triangle one.
MR. CIIRZANOWSKI: In this case we had two different references. One called for a 25 -foot site triangle,
the other called for a 30, and we're just simply going to the larger of the two to make them consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, did anybody ever respond about that wall on Mission Hills Drive and 951?
The one that you're familiar with too.
MS. ISTENES: No. But I've been checking it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious, because the liability for -- I believe now in checking -- it's a county
facility and I'm just wondering why we'd want that kind of liability in violation of our own code.
MS. ISTENES: Well, the last time I went by there it looked like the facility it was protecting, or whatever the
wall was intended to do because it's kind of a strange wall, isn't even there any more. So my next question was why is
the wall still there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I would wonder if we need to follow it upjust from a point of liability.
Page 31
161 1_1 A4
March 24, 2010
I think I have a -- actually took a picture of it. Here, it might be interesting for the overhead.
MS. ISTENES: I'll send an e -mail right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That orange spot there, you can't see it from the overhead. That's the actual -- that's
where the wall -- that's the shadow from the wall. 'The wall is on the left side of that orange spot, which is right along
the edge of the sidewalk. And it might be a problem. The building behind it, I don't even know what that is.
But -- so anyway, if it's a problem it meeds to be fixed. If it isn't, then I'm leave it up to staff to figure that
out. I just was curious now that the issue came up.
Anybody else have any questions on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a recommendation for this section?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we find this amendment to be consistent with the
Growth Management Plan and forward with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTC Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. V ighotti, made by Mr. Schiffer.
Discussion? It's for Sections 4.06.01, Figure D and 6.06.05, figure E.
Anybody, anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTC Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
We're weeding our way through them.
Now, Stan, thank you for coming over.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm done'? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're done. Thank you, sir.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sorry about being late, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Susan was taking care of things for you.
And I guess we'll be moving into the native -- and the preservation standards. And Steven, if we can take up
the first two that Richard's here for so that his clients don't have to have him sitting here paying his bill.
The first one would be in Packet 4 on Page 69. And this one is the recreational uses in preserves, Section
3.05.07.H.1.h.i.
Okay, anything you want to start with?
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Steven Lenberger, Department of Engineering, Environmental,
Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Services.
I can go through the changes you wanted. They're pretty quick. First --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just start with the pages and maybe we'll ask our questions as you go
through the changes you have to each page.
How does that sound?
MR. LENBERGER: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's assume that the staff write -up isn't in question at this point, so let's take us
through Page 76. Does anybody have any questions through Page 76?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any changes from you, Steve, through Page 76?
MR. LENBERGER: The first change would be on Page 76, at the last sentence was added to Section H, little
Page 32
Urch 1 ' `h
H. You wanted determinations to be clarified as far as harm to listed species. And I added the language there,
determinations of harm to listed species shall be made by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission or
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and pathways and structures or improvements within preserves containing listed
spaces shall, and the word be was omitted, so we have to insert that, be in accordance with permits or authorizations
from these agencies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's through Page 76. And Brad, we're on Packet 4. We started on Page 69.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The very last sentence on that page starts on number 50, line 50. It says the
recommended widths for pedestrian pathways is five feet but shall be kept to a maximum width of eight feet.
Now, I read the word shall, and I remember from past experience shall is pretty mandatory. But then the next
sentence says widths greater than eight feet may be allowed in high use areas or where pathways serve as fire breaks.
So I guess the shall isn't mandatory in regards to the maximum width of eight feet, because you can go greater than
eight feet by someone's determination that it's a high -- that it potentially is a high use area.
And I'm just wondering if it's shall and it's supposed to be eight feet how we have a deviance to it and how
that is decided upon. Who makes the decision that the use potential in the future for this path is a high use area?
MR. LENBERGER: That would be made -- well, we'd have to see what the applicant was proposing. It
would be made by the county. I have talked to transportation staff and they would look at the volume of traffic and
whether it would be a footpath or shared use path and make a determination if one is -- one a little wider than what is
indicated here would be necessary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- from the County Attorney's Office, is there a problem in contradiction
where it says in one sentence it shall be kept eight feet and in the next it says it may be made wider based on certain
conditions?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think the language could be clarified. It says a maximum and then it goes on to
allow above the maximum, and is a little confusing the way it's written. So we can work with Mr. Lenberger to
clarify that language, unless you want to do it right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In item ii on Page 77, it's a continuation of the same section, it talks about with golf
carts, trams and bicycles, and there it's 10 feet. The last sentence, golf cart paths for golf carts use shall be designed
for golf course access only.
What are you trying to restrict there?
MR. LENBERGER: As I did explain in a narrative, a couple controversial issues that came up with regards
to stakeholders, there were a certain amount of stakeholders that didn't want any golf cart paths in preserves, but there
were others from the development community that felt that reasonable use of the preserve for access to the golf course
should be made.
So we added language to say that yes, they are allowed for golf course access, and that's why we added that
language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The way I read that I was concerned you're trying to limit the path for the
golf course uses, but people could walk, you could have a shared use path. As long as it was to access the golf course
it still would function that way.
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, the use of the path, and I did mention in the narrative that some golf courses do
allow early morning or late afternoon use. That would be up to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's take through Page 77. Are there any questions, or Steve, do you
have any more clarifications?
MR. LENBERGER: No more. Only on 78 we added language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On 77, B, it talks about shelters without walls. So basically a shelter is just a roofed
structure; is that right?
MR. LENBERGER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 78, what are your corrections, sir?
MR. LENBERGER: We added the vesting language. Rich and Heidi from the County Attorney's Office
worked with this. And it's letter H, which is line, 1 believe, 18 starts the vesting language, and we worked that out
with the Attorney's Office and Rich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
Page 33
1611 U
March 24, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 79, any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No more questions. If anybody wants to speak on that item, Richard, you're the
only one left -- well, there's a young lady back there, too. Just come on up if you have anything.
Other than that, we'll assume that that part of it's okay. I don't think it needs to come back for the
clarification. If there's a way to clarify it, make it a little bit better, fine, I think the intent's clear.
So is there a motion on this one from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. This is for Section 3.05.07.H.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONERVIGLIO'1IE Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Next one is Page 81, same packet, Packet 4. Okay, Steve, do we have anything here you want -- this is the
same --
MR. LENBERGER: Two things, where I added on Page 84, we added the additional criteria, I believe it's
line 7 where it says or, the paragraph that starts with or. That's where you have the existing data. If you remember
from the last meeting the stakeholders wanted to add that extra ability or extra criteria to allow for modeling.
And the other change was vesting language, the very last paragraph on Page 85, which is J. And that's
language again that was worked out between Rich Yovanovich and Heidi.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions through Page 85?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steven, under F, the last line, these facilities may be placed in a drainage easement.
I had made a note there; some drainage easements may not allow those. But I guess the assumption is assuming the
drainage easement allows them. It goes without saying, I guess.
Okay, never mind, I'll pull that question back.
Anybody else have anything through Page 85?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a recommendation on this one?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have one question before we go on. In every instance this criteria is
supposed to be for when treated stormwater is allowed in preserves, but treated has been taken out in a lot of areas,
and so it just says stormwater may be discharged into preserves. It shouldn't say treated stormwaters?
MR. LENBERGER: We could have said that in every paragraph where it might come up. But we added it in
B, it talks about on Page 82, A and B. Talks about nothing in this section shall exempt any system from complying
with the stormwater management design standards as set forth by the South Florida Water Management District.
And B, below that, it says preserve areas shall not be used to meet water quality requirements as set forth in
Section 52 L A of the basis of review.
Page 34
161 1 IA4
March 24, 2010
And it says permit applications for the South Florida Water Management District are the water management
regulations of 3.07.00. So that's stating that has to be treated before discharge to preserves.
We didn't want to include treated in every sentence, because if you accidentally omitted it in another area,
that's implying that it doesn't have to be treated if you missed it somewhere, so —
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation on this one?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. This is for Section 3.05.07 LDC.
Are there any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Okay, Cherie', are you doing okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to the top of that section of review. It's Section 3.05.07, A through B.
It's on Page 143 of the very, very first packet, going back months. Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: There were no changes to the amendment. What you asked for is clarification of the
intent of the right -of -way acquisitions portion from the GMP, which is on Page 144, line 33.
And it says right -of -way acquisitions by any governmental entity for all purposes necessary for roadway
construction, including ancillary drainage facilities and including utilities within the right -of -way acquisition area
shall be exempt from mitigation requirements.
And we had met with Nick regarding this to find out the intent. And basically it's -- we do not permit
roadway projects. It's not considered a development that we review. So it was to exempt from permitting through our
department. So that's why we added to the exception section on page 149, because it will be exempt. It's not
permitted by our department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sometimes we will have well -field sites that the public utilities group or
division chooses to have in their property. You don't approve those either, but they are part of the submission. Why
would we take an exemption here?
Do you understand my question?
MR. LENBERGER: No, I understand the question.
It was put in the Growth Management Plan. We don't normally permit activities in the right -of -way. We
haven't. And this is just to clarify that it is exempt. It was put in the Comp. Plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was more than exemption, I thought it was that there is no
mitigation.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, the intent -- we did speak to Nick about this, he says they were exempt from
permitting by our department. They still have to go through permitting obviously through the state and federal
government, if necessary but they do not come to our department for permitting.
Page 35
16 111 A4 .
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they would be --within the county there would be no mitigation
requirement of them because you're saying they would have to go to the state or the federal government.
MR. LENBERGER: There would be no county requirements for review from our department, and therefore
no mitigation which our department may have, and that including preserve requirements would not apply to roadway
projects.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I can understand with lengths, miles and miles of property, it could be
significant mitigation. On the other hand, we try very hard I think to do the right thing.
So you're saying that, for instance in a roadway, let's say typical, what is it, I guess, 200 feet, maybe you don't
know that, maybe I don't even know that, but let's say for the sake of argument 200 feet, whatever they need,
whatever is left over on the side, that would be for utilities, that would be for whatever, and there would be no
mitigation associated with it.
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I understand at least.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, were still on the -- well, Page 143.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm down the road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Page 143, the whole section, Brad, all the way to its end, which is --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On 148, number 10, it's line 14. And it's -- you're allowing fire and fuel
breaks within the preserve and you can count that area. If I'm on the edge of the preserve, I'm trying to get fire -wise
rating, which is 30 feet, I have a 20 -foot setback, so I want to dig 10 feet into the preserve, am I allowed to do that?
MR. LENBERGER: We also review in the preserve management plan section. If you have a preserve
management plan that specifies you're going to have clearing a certain amount of width in accordance with Division
of Forestry for fire safety, yes, the cleared area would be, in your example, 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I can do that on the perimeter, just ayes or no, or is it --
MR. LENBERGER: It could be the perimeter of a property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this entire section all the way through Page
149?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steven, the question that Mr. Murray was working on there as well. If the
transportation department wants to put a road through a cypress head, they would go to DEP, South Florida, Corps of
Engineers, whoever else was involved in permitting that access way through the cypress head.
The exactions made by those agencies for mitigation they'd still have to meet.
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mitigation that the county would require, if it's above and beyond the mitigation
of those other agencies, would now not come into play because of this language; is that right?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the county have a higher standard for those kind of mitigation issues
than the other agencies?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, there's different types of mitigation. In the context of this amendment it's talking
about a preserve requirement to preserve a certain amount of vegetation on -site.
There's also mitigation -- and what you're referring to is wetland mitigation, for example. We accept agency
mitigation for property in the urban area. There are a little bit more stringent requirements in the rural fringe mixed
use district in the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would this kind of a policy exempt the transportation department from adhering to
those more stricter rules in the rural fringe?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then for all the road systems needed for the RLSA and all that, this paragraph
basically gives them a free ticket in regards to county requirements, but they still adhere to state and federal
requirements.
Page 36
16 f 1 A4
March 24, 2010
MR. LENBERGER: It exempts the public -- the right -of -way acquisitions by governmental entities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, from the county requirements only in the RLSA; is that right?
MR. LENBERGER: It would exempt them from any requirements in the right -of -way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From county requirements.
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: This is referring to the mitigation preserve requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And do you know how our requirements differ from the federal or state
requirements for those areas, so we know how much of an impact this is having on what we would expect to be
preserved in areas like the RLSA or the rural fringe?
MR. LENBERGER: I would have to look. I can pull out a copy of the Growth Management Plan and take a
look for you. There are a few examples in there, talks about high quality wetlands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if we find something that's a high quality wetland, with this paragraph,
transportation really could utilize that if they wanted to for a road, assuming they got through state and federal levels
where they may not get through such a road in a local level, or they have to mitigate it.
MR. LENBERGER: I'd have to look at the requirements as far as the local of it. You have to remember, we
don't permit any projects in the right -of -way. We haven't, and this is clarifying that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering where the incentive is now for our local transportation
department to avoid impacts to more pristine areas.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, the mitigation -- well, first of all, to answer that question, the mitigation would be
obviously higher for high quality wetlands in accordance with state and federal permitting. So yeah, they would be
higher mitigation standards and it would cost more to mitigate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, on Page 148.13, the first sentence just kind of hangs out there in
nothingness. Specific standards applicable outside the RMF -- RFMU and the RLSA districts.
So are those the development standards that are below?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh -huh.
MR. LENBERGER: That chart there is for preservation requirements in the urban area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. LENBERGER: There are more stringent requirements for the rural fringe mixed use district.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, then what does that first sentence mean? It doesn't say anything.
MR. LENBERGER: Specific standards applicable outside the rural fringe and rural land stewardship areas.
It's basically applying this criteria to the urban areas.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So are as follows.
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it should just say that. Or it should be the headline — you, know, or it
should be bolded as a headline to the paragraph.
Do you see what I'm saying? Right now it's just son of a sentence that doesn't really connect. So either B is
in -- and it's sort of the paragraph header that should be separated from the paragraph that explains the header. These
are the specific standards outside the RFMU and the RLSA.
Then with the word outside, just start a new paragraph under there so that it becomes --
MR. BELLOWS: I believe I understand what you're saying and I think are as follows after District would
work.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yeah, or say are as follows.
MR. BELLOWS: That's what I would prefer, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Whatever you want to do. It's just not reading.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
MR. LENBERGER: No, but --
MR. BELLOWS: I'll work with Steve on it. I know what you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Steve, just following upon that mitigation question, do you know whether
or not the state, if they put a road in, whether they have mitigation exemption?
Page 37
161 1 14
March 24, 2010
MR. LENBERGER: Specifically for roads, I do not know if the state permits the roads. Generally when a
project is permitted by, for example, Water Management District, or it's a Water Management District project, a
number of those are looked at by the DER They have certain authority and delegations. But I don't know how it
works, particularly for road projects.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not giving you a task, but it would be interesting to find out, I think,
because if we're depending upon the state, and they have exceptions, I think it all tends to go away for our purposes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve, did this particular element go through the stakeholders groups
discussions?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions, comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to recommend --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course.
Plan.
out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- approval? Okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOT`IT Second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second it. Also --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti already beat you to it.
Now it was discussion --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to note that it was consistent with the Growth Management
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- agree that it's consistent with the -- okay.
And Mr. Vighotti, did you agree?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Most certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we are talking about Section 1.08.02, 3.05.07.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only caveat is you and Ray will clarify that one sentence Ms. Caron pointed
With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Let's take a -- Cherie', we'll take another ten minute break and come back at 3:50. And then we'll finish up
for the last hour. Okay?
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from break. We have about an hour to finish up.
Don't know if we have that much to fill an hour but we'll try our best.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can do it. Don't worry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try real hard.
The next item up, and we're still on the preservation standards, is 3.05.07.H.I I.E. It's on Page 47 of the last
packet, Packet 4.
Page 38
161 1 'A4
March 24, 2010
And Steve, I'm sure you probably heard me ask Susan to help refresh our memories if you recall what is it we
sent it back for and why it's back to us rather than have to let us discover it, that would help.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay, I will do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 47. Okay, sir.
MR. LENBERGER: First thing you asked me was a question, and that was on Page 48, line 8.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's the same one we just got done talking about.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, a little bit. This is under GMP Policy 6.1.1 (1 0) of the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element. It talks about the off -site criteria, and the criteria will be based upon the following provisions,
and they start on Page 48 and line 1.
And you'll notice that the right -of -way acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway construction
including ancillary drainage facilities and including utilities within the right -of -way acquisition area are included in
the criteria for off -site mitigation.
So we did speak with Nick as you asked us to. And I had clarified it in the amendment, and I --just let me
turn to the page. It's on Page 59, little J, which I believe is line 10.
And what Nick told us is that during the last time the GMP was amended was that other language was
included, right -of -way acquisitions by governmental entities. The private sector wanted to be able to mitigate their
portion if they bought and developed right -of -way, public right -of -way, to be allowed to mitigate it off -site, not to
have that preserve requirement on -site.
And that's what Nick told us, so we added that. We clarified the language in little j to say right -of -way
acquisitions by non- governmental entities for all purposes necessary for roadway construction including ancillary
drainage facilities and including utilities within the right -of -way acquisition area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When a developer, and I'm assuming you were talking developers in this
case. Developer wants to develop the property and wants to put in a road. I've heard Mr. Feder indicate very clearly
several times that even though a road may be offered to the county, it may be dedicated to the county, if it isn't
accepted by the county, if it isn't taken in by the county, it's not a public road.
So when they're creating that road, it's not a public road. So how do we -- your statement was about public
roads, right? I heard that, that's why 1 reacted to it.
MR. LENBERGER: If they're going to dedicate that to the county, I would assume the county accepts it.
We don't do dedication acceptance, transportation department is. But we were told that we were to allow them to
mitigate, and that's why we included it in here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not questioning -- I'm not really questioning the ultimate purpose, which
is if you're going to let the county not mitigate or mitigate, whichever in this case happens to apply, what I guess I'm
concerned about is that it gives somebody an opportunity to mitigate. But if the county were doing it, it wouldn't
mitigate. Am I correct in that?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It seems to be out of kilter to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems out of
kilter. I don't know if that's a cool deal for them. I'm assuming there's a good deal of -- if they get the opportunity to
mitigate, is that a penalty for them in this case or is that a benefit?
MR. LENBERGER: The development community went to Nick when Nick was proposing the Growth
Management Plan changes that they wanted the ability to mitigate it off -site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Maybe I can make myself a little clearer. If the land is flat and
nothing is happening to it, it's just growing foliage, that's fine, it has a certain value. When you start digging it up and
putting appurtenances in and on, and doing all those things, the value of the land changes.
So let's say that the value of the land, just for purposes of example, the value of the land was a nickel a square
foot, and by the time they did their mitigation it had a value of 73 cents a square foot. Are they getting a deal out of
that or what? If my proposition is correct the way I phrased it.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, there's a couple of ways you're looking at this is if the developer wants to
dedicate that to the county and assuming the county will accept it and have a public road, and they mitigate the
preserve requirement that would have been required for that acreage for the road off -site, and they're building a public
Page 39
1 �arlh 120k A4
road, one would assume that there's some benefit of producing that road for development in the future. So yes, there
would be a benefit there, if that's what you're asking.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's a little bit more complex then that, and I appreciate your inability
to answer because you don't have all the facts that relate to this. And I don't mean to insult you in any way.
But in truth -- well, I'm not going to pursue this any further because it's not fair to you, but it's just a thought.
I like the idea that mitigation occurs. I don't really have a problem with that. But Ijust see it as being out of kilter.
And if you get back to the value of it. If some developer puts a road through, not only have they benefited the
county if the county accepted the road, but in truth, Steve, the value of the land that they're developing has also
increased in value, and so they achieve a certain result with it.
I'm not sure that this is a meaningful discussion with you, but I wanted to explore that, if it has any value.
Thank you for your answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Steve, did you have any other changes or comments on --
MR. LENBERGER: Not on 48, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move through the document then like we have in the past and take it through
up to page -- well, the document itself starts on Page 52. So let's take the two pages up to 53.
Are there any questions from the Planning Comnussion or any other changes, Steve, from your side?
MR. LENBERGER: No other changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next two pages, 54 and 55, anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 56 and 579
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 58 and 59?
(No response.)
MR. LENBERGER: We did make some changes in response to your comments. Affordable housing on
Page 58, little e under F, off-site vegetation retention, applicability. And we clarified it, the affordable housing: The
maximum percent of native vegetation retention allowed off -site shall be equal to the percent of affordable housing
units without limitation as to the size of the preserve.
That was to address the -- all the affordable housing units that you talked about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: And there is also on 59, under II, little b, 1 believe it's line 31 or 32, I can't tell exactly.
And you had a question about flowways. Preserve shall remain on -site if located contiguous to, and it lists different
things. And we had natural flowways, and we added the language natural flowways required to be retained per the
requirements of the South Florida Water Management District.
You also asked that we speak to Robert Wiley or Mac Hatcher regarding the new FEMA maps. The new
FEMA maps won't affect this, but we did talk about the watershed management plans. And I said, your concerns,
what -- will they wind up designating the whole county as a flowway. That was a question.
And what they did tell me is, well, no, but they will identify channels that convey water. That's what they
related to me.
So that's why we thought about it, I discussed it with my supervisors, and that's why added natural flowways
required to be retained per the requirements of the District. So that way it's not just any flowway, but if the District
feels it's necessary to retain that flowway, the natural flowway, then that would be left there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Heidi, you had something you wanted to mention?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, just on Page 59, line 10 through 14, which Mr. Murray was discussing with
Steve, that doesn't refer to property that becomes public roads. So we would need to clarify that language, if that's the
intent.
Because as it reads right now, it deals with private road acquisition. So if it's acquisitions that are later
conveyed to the county for public roads, that needs to be clarified.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay. That's what Nick relayed to me, so we would have to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so item J is going to be clarified for right -of -ways to be conveyed to the
county, right?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
Page 40
161 1 1 A4
March 24, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that, item J, and actually, items -- all the items A through K of
subsection little I are subject to the conditions of subsection double ii; is that correct?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps.
Page 60 to 61. Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I have one, and that's on line 8 and 9, applicant shall make monetary payment
to Collier County to be administrated by the Conservation Collier program.
Why do we need that language? Why don't we just say applicant shall make monetary payment to Collier
County for the purchase and management of off-site conservation lands. How it's administrated, we're creating a
whole'nother bureaucratic agency in this Conservation Collier program, and I honestly don't think that was the intent
of the taxpayers. At least as one voter, I wasn't aware of that.
If the BCC wants to continue that, then that should be their option, but 1 don't know why we need to have it
written in our code.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. Doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the county receives the money, how they administrate it is up to them, right?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, Conservation Collier is the program which purchases land and manages it
off -site. The county, other than that, as part of my knowledge, would only purchase land for mitigation, like for road
impacts, state and federal mitigation requirements, things of that nature. Conservation Collier is the program by
which the county buys lands for conservation purposes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did we do before they were created? I mean, they haven't been around that
long.
MR. LENBERGER: We didn't have a programjust to buy lands for conservation purposes. There obviously
were programs to buy parks, you know, and there also programs to buy mitigation lands for projects, which the
county does, but not to just buy lands for preserves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we never bought any conservations lands prior to Conservation Collier being put
into play?
MR. LENBERGER: To my knowledge, we buy -- as I thought I said, we buy lands for mitigation and lands
for parks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: I'm not aware of any preserves that we purchased. I know the Freedom Park was, I
guess, somehow involved with mitigation that the county bought it, but also Conservation Collier money, so I know it
was kind of a hybrid there, I'm not really sure of all the details.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a recollection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was a parcel of property, relatively narrow, not far from Naples Lakes
Country Club that was being acquired. It was going to be operated by the Parks and Recreation Department and
Collier, the organization we're referring to here, the -- what's the name of the organization.
MR. LENBERGER: Conservation Collier.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, I couldn't get it.
This land was wetland and going to put in a nice sort of circular, sort of, elongated pathway for people to go
through and do their nature study. That would be an example of one where there is a cross, okay?
Parks and Rec was going to do -- they were going to have their ranger come every night and shut the gate and
do the thing. So I don't know, does that present the problem in terms of this?
MR. LENBERGER: As far as management of the land, I don't see a problem there. I know lands that
Conservation Collier purchases are limited in what they can do with those lands as far as development.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I was trying to stress was that the property, we didn't know
what to call it, whether it was a park or a preservation. And so, you know, that's the reason I give you an example.
You didn't have one. That one comes to mind because it was such a weird one.
So I don't know, we don't want to pick fly specks out of the pepper, so we'll let that one go for the moment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, on that same paragraph, it says the monetary payment will be based on price,
Page 41
F
161 1 A4
March 24, 2010
the average cost of land in the urban designated area or 125 percent of the average cost of all other designations. Why
don't wejust use the -- like you get two appraisals and the average of two appraisals? Why are we doing this little
game?
Because I've watched Parks and Rec do that with their land purchases in the AUIR, and they never lower
them because they use a wide range of purchases from prior years that were always high, so they can keep impact fees
high. I don't know why we're using a number created like this. Why don't wejust take the appraised value?
MR. LENBERGER: Of the average of all land purchased by Conservation Collier; is that what you're
saying?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, why don't we take the appraised value of the land in question and then it's 125
percent of that?
Aren't we talking about off -site conservation lands within the county? The applicants will make a monetary
payment to Collier County. What are they making it for, the land that they're donating; is that correct? Or in lieu of
donation? Or by land -- it says or monetary payment or by land donation.
So what land are we talking about that they're going to get a value based upon? If you look at Conservation
Collier's land purchases, their biggest one is the Pepper Ranch. And another one is off of Industrial Boulevard up
there off by the railroad tracks, they overpaid tremendously for those programs.
So now someone's going to be saddled with that as an average that they've got to weigh their maintenance
costs or their monetary payments against?
MR. LENBERGER: The structure of this was done in response to stakeholders. They felt that if they started
to have to do an appraisal of land, the cost would go up. And this is in response to them that they wouldjust use the
average value of the land that Conservation Collier purchased, and they would use it in two categories within the
urban area and outside the urban area. They didn't want to have to do the appraisal. Things got complicated the last
time we did this and they felt it was too cumbersome, that developers would not use this alternative if we did that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: I do have that old amendment here, and I can open it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Steve, that's -- the B is written in the same way. We've got the county accepting
a donated land but admiiustrated by a program, Conservation Collier program.
And again, I don't care what the county does with the land and how they administrate it, but I don't see why
we have to keep referring to the Conservation Collier program. It's building up another bureaucracy. Ijust don't see
why we need it.
So I'm going to have a standing argument against that. I'm not going to be redundant any further with that.
But it will continue through the next two pages until it gets to the last paragraph on Page 61. There you talk about
PUD zoning and when a PUD master plan and PUD amendment is not required.
There is a threshold for changing master plans. I believe it's --I think if you just refer to, in the last line,
unless the option to use the off -site native retention alternative is included in the PUD. Not the last line, I'm sorry.
There's a line in here that refers to the master plan. Middle line. Preserves or portion of preserves identified
on a PUD master plan shall require an amendment to the PUD master plan to use the native vegetation retention
alternative.
But that really should be subject to Section 10.02.13.E, which allows the five percent or five -acre maximum
before it triggers a need to come in and change your PUD master plan. That's the only thing I'm suggesting.
We don't want it for any small change. I think we can stay with the triggers in the PUD section of the code
that refers to the threshold of changes.
MR. LENBERGER: That was 10.02.13.E, is that what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if you and Susan could check that for applicability. In there it talks
about a preservation can be decreased up to five percent of the total acreage previously designated as such or five
acres in area, and still wouldn't reach the threshold of a substantial change. And I just want to make sure we don't
cause any undue hardship in that regard. If we've already got a threshold like that, why don't we keep it in play.
MR. LENBERGER: Just add subject to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.02.13.E. But check it out, and if you feel that works, then that's what I'm
suggesting.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay, I'll have to rely on zoning for input on that, but I will.
Page 42
1611 "A4
March 24, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions through Page 61?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
MR. LENBERGER: I just have one more question on that, if you don't mind. I'm still going to keep the rest
in there, the words unless the option to use the off -site alternative is included in the PUD. We still want to be able to
have applicants present that up front, don't we?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I wasn't suggesting taking that out.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: To your issue about inserting Conservation Collier everywhere and in
everything, I think that you have a valid point, it was the same one that I made when we were doing the GMP for
Immokalee when they wanted to reference agencies that may or may not be with us in the future, or could or could
not be with us in the future for whatever reason. That the more general county is probably a smarter way to go for
Land Development Code amendments and for GMP amendments on these things, because things can change.
What if the entity, you know, a year from now isn't Conservation Collier. What if, you know, the BCC has
decided on something else, you know? I think it just -- it's extraneous information.
Right now the people who manage it and take care of everything and make the purchases happen to be
Conservation Collier. But those things could change in the future, and so to be the broader county is probably the
way to go on things like this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see by dropping that language what it's hurting.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It doesn't change the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes to Collier County and Collier County can defer it anywhere they want. So
why wouldn't we want to leave that flexibility in for the BCC.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIO'ITI: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got three. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fine with what you just said.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan's running up.
MS. MASON: Good afternoon. For the record, Susan Mason with the Environmental Services section.
The other option could possibly be to say Conservation Collier program or successor body. I know that's
used in some other languages. That way we could make sure that the money is spent for conservation. And say parks
wants to come in and create a bal I field or something like that with that money, they have a designated separate
budget that they use for conservation lands.
And that would help in case the board does change who administers those programs. That might help give
some assurance to people who want to make sure the land stays in conservation and not used for some other general
budget.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says that. For the purchase and management of off -site conservation lands
within the county, so --
MS. MASON: It was just a suggestion, if -- depending on what your concern was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's valid. But I do think it is covered in the beginning. And if that's
not strong enough, you guys, when you bring it back can say you don't think that's strong enough.
Because I would agree with you, Susan, we don't want to be collecting money to help with conservation and
then have it go to roads or whatever, parks, or whatever else might crop up who happens to need money at the time.
Should be for what it's supposed to be for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I think there's been several changes, then. I think the inclusion of that PUD
reference in the last paragraph may help. You had other changes that you referred to earlier in the document. I think
they're already made.
And then our suggestion, I think it's as a basic consensus from this group that the reference to Conservation
Collier doesn't need to be kept in, just to Collier County. And it states for the purpose of off -site construction lands
and how the County BCC decides to use that, that gives them some latitude.
I'm not sure it needs to come back to have that done. What do you all feel is the level of comfort? Do you
want it to come back or you want to --
Page 43
16114 A4
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I'd make a motion to approve it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would there be a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a motion is made -- oh, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There would just be two portions, two references to Conservation Collier where you
would need to keep it in, or 1'd recommend you keep it in. And that would be on line -- it's either 18 or 19, where it
says defined by the FLUE, purchased by Collier County through the Conservation Collier program.
And the reason you need to keep it in is that the land values are based on the values of the Conservation
Collier program. So that's why you would need that in there, 125 percent. And those are of the values of the
purchases through Conservation Collier, unless you decide to totally change the purchase language.
And then the other part would be, I think that's line 32 and 33, or any other land designated by Conservation
Collier donation acceptance procedures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I went through and did a strike- through of the offending statements, and I agree
with you, those are the two I did not strike through. So I think that's right.
Steve, do you follow that?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, I did. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's been a motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by
Commissioner V ighotti, subject to the changes that we discussed, which are the Conservation Collier changes in
addition to the PUD zoning language, if needed, after review by staff.
And it's found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, correct, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Yes.
CH STRAIN: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOYIT Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Okay, we're on to Page 63 of the same packet, 3.05.07.H. 1.G.
Okay, Steve, you want to tell us what the change was in this one?
MR. LENBERGER: On Page 67, we changed the last sentence on the first paragraph to read, fire
management plans shall be consistent with wildlife habitat management plans approved by Collier County, as
recommended by you.
And on line 10 we added, and fire -wise safety plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else through Page 68, Steve?
MR. LENBERGER: I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions concerning
these?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I have a question on Page 68, last paragraph. It talks about the preserve site
plan.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's suggested -- it's telling things that have to be on the plan: The location of
pathways and other approved uses within the preserve must be included in the preserve site plan.
Page 44
161 1 1A4
March 24, 2010
This is for only going forward; is that correct? It's not used to go retroactive for existing facilities? It goes
back to that existing language that Richard was talking about in the prior ones. I'm sure it was meant to be applied in
this one too.
MR. LENBERGER: Preserve management plans, if they are amended, would have this. It doesn't tell you
you have to do one, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if any existing plans are okay, they're --
MR. LENBERGER: They're okay, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that need to be said or does that go without saying?
MR. LENBERGER: The only time preserve management plans have been required, some very old projects
that don't have any preserve management plans or they're so skimpy and they have major issues. Totally overgrown
vegetation, exotics, extreme fire hazards, the residents are concerned, then those usually prepare a management plan
with the current code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you remember I was helping some homeowners groups with one particular
management plan. And in that one it was an old plan, they don't have all of their pathways located on their plan. To
do so would have required extensive surveying and items like that. So again, would that form of plan be subject to
this new language or is it independent of this new language?
MR. LENBERGER: I think I know the project you're talking about. I wasn't involved in all the details,
you'll have to excuse me. But if it came in for a preserve management plan to address issues, they would write it in
accordance with this criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They came in for fire -wise approval, that's the problem. They came in because their
homes were threatened from fire, the fire marshals went out there and said absolutely, the overgrowth has got to be
cut back. It took a bit of time to get it done but it was successfully completed.
And I just want to make sure that had they come in for the same reason after this is passed, they would now
have to go back and survey for a series of car paths and other things to be accurately reflect those on any kind of
amendment to their plan. It wouldn't seem to be fair, but is that what this is --
MR. LENBERGER: Well, preserve management, when you do a preserve management plan you'd have to
identify on an aerial or however you want to do it the habitats on -site, because you're managing for fire. And there's
no requirement here to survey for those, it's just approximate, you just draw them in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. If you're not going to require a surveyed location, then I don't have a
problem with it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, last time we saw this under 2, it would be H.1.G.2, there was a
paragraph about a structural berm which you took out. It didn't show up anyplace else, right?
MR. LENBERGER: Right. We deleted that, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's dead totally, okay.
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there any -- is there a motion?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I move that we find this amendment consistent with the Growth
Management Plan and with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yup.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vighotti seconded it.
Discussion? This is for Section 3.05.07.H.I.G.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 45
161 1 1 A4
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTC Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Okay, the last one of this group is on Page 129 of Packet 4. Steve, you need to refresh our memory on this, at
least mine.
MR. LENBERGER: I sure can. It's a long one. There's a lot of strike - through. And 1 did add some
narrative, Page 131, starting on line 37, excuse me. And it includes the GMP policy for sea level rise. And you were
asking about how to do this and how would we model for this. So we had technical staff look at it.
They provided analysis, basically three paragraphs and that additional language I've added, that where staff is
going to recommend that that be removed, that requirement, to provide an analysis. And the explanation is provided
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does your new language reflect that removal'?
MR. LENBERGER: The new language is left as is in the Comp. Plan. Comp. Plan would have to be
amended to remove it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're not going to implement it by this language here?
MR. LENBERGER: We are going to accept, as we have in the past, a statement from a design professional
that it will be fully functional.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were there any issues or any changes, Steve? And this takes us through Page 147?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, they were some more. We made changes on 143, under D, little i, I believe that's
line 14.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. LENBERGER: Provide results of any environmental assessment and/or audit to the property. And then
we have along with a narrative are the measures needed to, and we added remediate if required by DEP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember that.
MR. LENBERGER: Further down on the next paragraph on line, I believe it's 41, starts on 40, it says include
in, and then we wrote or with, the environmental site assessment.
And then we added the last sentence, w1rch starts on line 46. And we wrote there -- and we did remove one
sentence, I'd have to look back and find it -- but we wrote the county shall coordinate with the FDEP where
contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on -site or where an environmental audit or an
environmental assessment has been submitted.
The language we removed -- and I can look up real quick for you if you'd like -- we removed the language
that said for sites where contamination is found, provide an analysis of the measures needed to clean up the site or
encapsulate the contamination to meet FDEP standards. And we've replaced it with the language I just read to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right.
MR. LENBERGER: 'There is another change on 144. 1 just -- on little f, additional data, I read into the
record.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Steve, before you go on, what does it mean for you to coordinate with those
agencies?
MR. LENBERGER: We will bring it to their attention when contaminations are exceeding those levels. The
Comp. Plan speaks in several locations about coordination with other agencies. And if they feel remediation is
needed, then it will be up to the DEP, it is their authority to do so.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So we are just going to turn over that authority to them and not have any
potentially stricter requirements here?
MR. LENBERGER: We will base our decisions on what the DEP says. Obviously some types of
Page 46
161 March 4
contamination can be remediated, others might put restrictions on property. We did talk about maybe t being able
to dig a well in a certain location, a lake. If the DEP says that to us, then obviously the developer's not oing to be
able to do that, the DEP's not going to let them.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But if we think the -- what if the DEP says it's okay to drill a well here and we
as the county think it's not?
MR. LENBERGER: I don't know where we would. We would rely on the DEP.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So there would never be an instance where we night want to have something
stricter than the DEP?
MR. LENBERGER: If you wish to propose some, you know, but we're not proposing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: The other change on additional data, 144, little f I read into the record where some of
the sentence was accidentally deleted, so I just added that there, the county manager or designee may require
additional data, and then it goes on, or information. The last copy you had did not have the whole sentence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: And then we changed 145 at your request again, we looked into the single - family
exemption, on line 16, little B, under live, exemptions. And you had concern about the duplex and how that would
affect the cluster development. So Ray was nice enough to help me. I went through the section of the code with Ray
and we looked it over and we included language right from this section.
And that's all the changes that I see.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there -- this is through Page 147. Are there any questions from the
Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a clarification on Page 145, reference that lower case B, and on line 19
where it speaks developed on fee simple lots. Are there any occasions, and maybe Brad knows more than I do, or
certainly knows more than I do on this, whether it's not restricted to fee simple but could be warranty deeds?
In other words, you're looking it into fee simple lots. And maybe 1 should be talking to Bad in this in
colloquy.
MR. LENBERGER: This was taken from the section, I guess, excepting single - family from Site
Development Plan submittal, if I'm not mistaken. Ray can help me here.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the important thing with the fee simple lot is that to define a
townhouse, that's part of the definition, that it essentially owns the land beneath the townhouse and it goes to the sky.
So in other words, it's not units above units, which would disqualify them. And that's why that's put in.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there would never be warranty deed or -- could be a quitclaim, but that
would be an aberration.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've never heard anybody discussing that. But fee simple meant that the
person who lives there owns the lot underneath it or the owner does.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just questioned because that's what came to my mind, I wondered. 1 know
that when we do, I know this is restricted townhouses here. I know when they do condos, they do warranty deeds. So
just a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation from the board?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we find this consistent with the Growth Management
Plan and recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen.
Discussion? This is for Section 10.02.02.A. Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 47
161 1 A4
March 24, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 -0.
Ms. Caron temporarily is out of her chair.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, bang on the wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Steve. I think that wraps it up, and appreciate it. Got through it. Yours
was absolutely the -- probably the most complex to have to get through. So your stakeholders groups turned out to be
very productive. Thank you.
MR. LENBF,RGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move into the next -- we've got 20 minutes left before we continue to
another day and time. The next one up is 1.08.02, definitions, dwelling, multi - family. It's in Packet 4 on Page 1.
Susan?
MS. ISTENES: Before I get started, I might suggest you look on the second page under Item D where it talks
about timeshare estate facilities. And if we are coming back to discuss timeshares, we may want to hold off on this
one.
(Ms. Caron returned to the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we have another issue we've got to bring up too. The definition that
you have on the very first page after the italicized section is not the complete definition from the old code. If you
could put it in and then strike it out if it's no longer needed, that would probably be better.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the definition in A, why are we getting into the ownership issues with
that? In other words, a dwelling multi- fanuly, why does it matter how they're owned or if they're owned or one
owner? Central management, central ownership, management, cooperative. Why do you do that?
Because it really is just a form of housing, it's really -- doesn't have anything to do with the ownership, does
it?
MS. ISTENES: No. And the word may is used there. I think it's reallyjust used more as descriptive text,
where you might come upon a situation, you know, like an apartment complex or what have you, and trying to figure
out if it falls within a multi - family definition or not.
1 agree with you in keeping kind of what we talked about before, it doesn't really follow along those same
lines. This is again intended -- and I think we're intending to put back the old, but we've modified it as well during
our subsequent meeting, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the thing we m sled is describing that it's a building with multiple
units. We call it a multiple family dwelling. And 1 guess maybe that kind of does it. But it really is units. I mean, I
could theoretically design one big house that could have multiple families dwell in it.
So anyway, that's - -just seems odd that we're not -- and you know, why don't we look -- you really do want
to just bring in the old definition or do you want to fix this definition?
MS. ISTENES: I'd like to get done with the hearings soon, as we're going to the board. In all honesty. I
need to put this back, and I'm not sure it's necessary broken, per se at this point, except for the timeshare estate
facilities, which again may affect this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But for this exercise, and maybe this is how we should look at it, we need to get
something brought back in. If it doesn't hurt to leave some of that language in temporarily and correct it in the future
as we look further into the code, just to get this done, that may be the way to accomplish it, Brad, unless you feel it's
harmful language.
Page 48
161 1 A4
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not -- it's just not defining the building, it's defining the
ownership. But that's -- we can leave it in.
My other question would be on C where we discuss that the dwelling units are available for rental of periods , „r
less than one week. And my thought and concern is that transient is defined as 30 days, or essentially a month. Why
are you saying a week?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, at least -- well, it's certainly in the building code. We deal with this
concern about whether it's, you know, transient housing or not, and it's determined by one month. I don't know what
the state statutes determine. Heidi might know that.
MS. ISTENES: I don't know. I mean, that's -- building and zoning are different. So we may want to have
something different for zoning than the building code. That's not a great answer, but it's -- we don't base our zoning
decisions necessarily on the building code. It's really how we want things to function in our community and what the
community wants their community to be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What this is saying, if you're renting it for a week or less, then you can be a
motel, motor motel and stuff.
MS. ISTENES: Right. Essentially what they're saying is that if -- and think about this a little bit because it
ties into timeshare, because timeshares are generally a week. So this is saying less than a week. And it's saying
basically you're considered a motel or hotel and you can only be permitted in districts where those uses are allowed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the thing. I'm not sure we want to take any multi - family dwelling.
So essentially a condo is a multi- family dwelling, big units, right? And then we're telling them that if they're available
for rental of less than a week they can be considered all these other options, which, you know, we discussed earlier we
don't want.
In other words, I don't want somebody to take a condo or buy a condo, start renting it out and then -- and
remember the paragraph that I was concerned with before, he will fit in there, he will be a central manager, central
ownership and then now that condo is considered a hotel or motel.
MS. ISTENES: I think what it's stating is basically you're going to have multi - family dwelling units for
multi - family uses, meaning for all intents and purpose, permanent residents, not transient. I guess I'll define it that
way.
And so it's -- it is essentially putting a limit on the amount of time you can rent a multi - family dwelling unit
and not be in a commercial zoning district or a -- for a hotel - motel.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is that here I am happily looking for am I a multi - family.
I'm going to be a condo building, I'm going to buy out all the owners, I'm going to start renting this thing for, in your
case less than a week. And now -- which fits in A. And then now you've essentially said no, you're really not a
multi - family, you're a hotel, and therefore --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, isn't that the purpose of the definition? So that if you try to do something
outside this definition, then you have to meet the standards to be a hotel -motel and thus you couldn't fit the definition
MR. BELLOWS: Correct. That's the intent of the language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the whole purpose, I think. I think youjust hit the nail on the head, really.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I wouldn't -- in other words, that would keep me from allowing to do it
because my zoning is for only multi - family, not hotel.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Ijust had one question. In B above it talks about guesthouses and
employee quarters that can be in addition to these multi - family dwellings. It says, and shall be limited to one per unit.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, the last time we met on this, you all -- my notes say you all wanted me to put in a
limitation. There was a concern over how many of these servants'-- or employees' quarters could you have per unit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because the way it's worded, if you had a 300 -unit condo, I guess you
could have 300 guesthouses, and they wouldn't get counted toward density. I realize that's absurd, but really, it could
be quite excessive. And it wouldn't -- or employee quarters, you know, it could be.
Page 49
16 11r A4
March 24, 2010
And/or my other thing was did -- it doesn't mean you could have only one, period. Meaning you could only
have either one guesthouse or one employee quarter?
MS. ISTENES: One per dwelling unit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So I just wasn't really sure what the intent was.
MR. BELLOWS: Good question. I think clarifying it to state one per dwelling unit. And I think that's
similar to the concept of a guesthouse for the single - family lots where it's one -- you have one guesthouse.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I think maybe carryover language from something like that. But when
you come to multi, and so you have a 300 -unit building, you don't want 300 guesthouses and 300 employee units.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it would certainly take away their ability to have sellable units if they try to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 understand the absurdity. But you have to understand how it could go the
other way. And really, you know --
MS. ISTENES: I guess the alternative is to not allow any.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 don't think that's the point. I mean, I don't think that's the point. I'm not
trying to say we shouldn't have these things.
MR. BELLOWS: Unfortunately there's no criteria or calculation we can apply to what's a reasonable amount
for multi- family development. The only think I can think of is a factor that would prohibit something like that is that's
taking away from the developer's ability to sell units as individual units. These are basically non- rentable space, or
supposedly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, don't we have a limitation on this, though. Guesthouses -- or is it just in the
Estates, where they're limited to 20 percent of the main house?
MR. BELLOWS: Of the floor area, yeah, air conditioned floor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If someone wanted to build a guesthouse per unit or per dwelling unit, they
could do that, but their guesthouses still wouldn't exceed 20 percent of the main unit that they're part of, is that
correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I don't know if this language applies to that. I mean, that language -- we'd have to
put --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we find out. Because if there's such a limitation on the size of
guesthouses and employees' quarters, it will restrict then the --
MR. BELLOWS: My recollection of---
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- way they are approached from a dwelling viewpoint --
MR. BELLOWS: -- the guesthouse provisions of the LDC, it really pertains to single - family lots, an acre or
more in size, so that could be RSF -1 and Estates lots.
And I don't think there's any provision in the code dealing with multi - family guesthouses in regards to
limitation of size. We would have to come up with something to that nature, or just limit it to one per dwelling unit
like here, and knowing that that's taking away the amount or ability to sell those units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, it's not. If I can sell -- design a nice unit that has a
servants' quarters, that's an asset.
And I think I've seen, you look at some of these units in the paper and you see like two means of egress and a
back door, and it looks like they can shut off the back, the small part of it and actually make it a guesthouse. Guests
could come and go, a maid could come and go. So 1 think that's a pretty desirable thing to have.
But I think it's - -1 mean, there's a limit here. It's clear that you don't count them. If you want to do it, you
can't do more than one per unit, and it's a start.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to bring this back anyway, right, Susan?
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd suggest if you look at a better way to word this, and you find one, that
would be helpful too.
Let's move on to the next one then, 4.06.05.D.4. Page 91 of the packet that we're on.
MS. ISTENES: Okay, that one is actually --
CHAIRMAN S "TRAIN: That's live words. Does anybody on the panel have any concerns over the five
words?
Page 50
161 1 ,A4
March 24, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a recommendation?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we find this to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan
and recommend the -- forward recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. Discussion? It's for Item 4.06.05.D.4.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Next one is 5.03.02 and it's on Page 93 of the same packet.
MS. ISTENES: And the actual amendment itself begins on 98. And I believe I've highlighted everything
that was changed. My notes say you had wanted to add the words or wall in certain places that they were missing.
And I -- hopefully I covered all that. It was to read a fence or wall in many places.
Under C on Page 98 you had wanted to add the word required under A and B, and that has been added.
On Page 99, write out the word one on D.2. That's line 20.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that, though. Should you then remove the parentheses one, or
-- anyway, that's what I thought when we did it.
I have another 99 question, is that you see in E which -- look at line 27, you know, the agricultural shall
exempt from height and type of construction, and then you say requirements. Can we get rid of the word
requirements, because it is going to have to meet requirements on how its built.
Your point is you're not going to tell anybody what type of from construction it is. That's your real --
MS. ISTENES: Correct. Yes, I can take that out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're not concerned about that type of construction's requirements, just
MS. ISTENES: Correct. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take it up to Page 99 for anyone. Anybody else have any questions through
that page?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, 1 got a couple. In the prior document that was crossed out, for example,
Page 96.C, under residential zoning districts, the strike- through takes out what were defined by this terminology as
residential zoning districts.
And likewise over on Page 97, item D, takes out what's defined as an agricultural district. In your new
language you don't include that. What was the thought as to why you didn't tell people what you were referring to
when you said residential and agricultural in the new language?
MS. ISTENES: The -- actually what I did was I lumped them all to -- first of all, the code already defines
what residential and agricultural and commercial is in a different area.
In this case they also had other zoning categories lumped in with them. So if you like see on Page 98.0 it
says residential and TTRVC. And then on Page 99.1), commercial and industrial excluding TTRVC, that's how I'd
lump them together.
So what you would --
Page 51
arch 24, 10
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's the Estates? Where would someone know how to put the Estates? They'd
have to go to another section of the code and look up on the Estates section to see if it's considered residential, which
residential is allowed but --
MS. ISTENES: That would be agricultural.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But for someone perusing through the code to understand how the fences
applied to them, they wouldn't know where they'd be looking.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- didn't know the downside to — I don't know why we would want to take
out those ref -- I understand why you --
MS. ISTENES: It's just a duplication. But I understand your point, I mean, I can put it back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might help for some categories is what I'm suggesting.
Okay, let's go on to the next pages then. Susan, you want to continue? Let's go just to 100 to 101.
MS. ISTENES: One 100, on page -- line 9, 8 and 9, there was a discussion about concrete and concrete
masonry. 1 also added composite fencing, because that's becoming a pretty popular material.
And then hopefully I captured what you were looking for as far as precast concrete and concrete --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm happy.
MS. ISTENES: -- masonry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on the
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
100 to 101. Anybody else have any issues?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, I just think it's interesting, the safe distance site triangle. We have this in the
other section of the code. If you want redundancy we don't need it here again, do we?
MS. ISTENES: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 mean, I don't know why it pops up right here, but I understand --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It pops up in a lot of places in the code. So I'll -- do you want to leave it
here or not?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't it make it easier?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it does. I'm saying that, that's fine. I'm not objecting to it, I just was noticing
based on a prior statement.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, definitely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, want to look at -- are we done with -- through 101?
102, 103.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's really in H.1, there's a couple of places in there, B has it, C has it,
where you use the word opposite for residentially -zoned district. And doesn't our word adjacent mean that?
In other words, the property across the street is residential. If you're on a property you would be adjacent to
the residential property rather than the word opposite.
I guess you'd have to -- somebody would have to look in the definitions, but --
MS. ISTENES: Are you suggesting that opposite should be replaced --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Replaced by adjacent. Because a while back we went through that
definition and --
MS. ISTENES: I read them as different, though.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what do you think adjacent means?
MS. ISTENES: Next to, like contiguous in A above.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was our adjoining. And then we had adjacent, to be adjacent it could
be across the street. I mean, you can just look in the definitions in the LDC and you can see. So just, if you could --
MS. ISTENES: Look at that and make sure it's consistent?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you think it means what you want this to mean, I think I'd rather use
a defined term than --
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? And we're page through -- what are we on, 1029 103.
Page 52
161 11 A4
March 24, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, on Page 102.H, this starts out in line 13, wall requirement between
residential and non - residential development. But not in all cases do we require a wall between residential and
non - residential development. It depends on the type of buffer, doesn't it?
I mean, if you have a C buffer, you're required to have a wall. But if you have a B buffer it's optional. If you
look at the buffer requirement, land use classifications, Table 2.4, you don't have a C buffer in every case where you
have a residential and non - residential use between one another.
So maybe where wall -- wall where required between residential and non - residential development?
MS. ISTENES: Just change the title, you're saying?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MS. ISTENES: So what did you suggest?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hadn't really thought of what the suggestion is, I just popped one off. It says — I
mean, instead of wall requirement, where a wall is required between residential and non - residential development.
And then you go into that section. Then that kind of will help with that Table 2.4 for landscape buffers.
MS. ISTENES: Okay, that works.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a 103 question in the sound walls. Do we have any control
whatsoever, approval of these sound walls? I mean, is this just part of a blank check for sound walls?
And I think there's nothing more that deteriorates. After having driven through Miami on Sunday once again,
these things are horrible. So why are we so kind to them?
MS. ISTENES: Well, my understanding is that they are erected as part of -- and I may not be saying this
completely. In other words, there may be other situations where they may be erected, but when you're widening road
right -of -ways, I guess this tends to be part of the negotiation with acquiring property for right -of -way expansion with
adjoining property owners because, of course as we know, many of them are already developed.
And so my understanding is that transportation department is involved with noise studies and the evaluation
of the increase in noise due to expansion of right -of -way, and depending on whether or not a noise wall is warranted,
makes it either appear or not and at a certain height, depending on the noise generated.
So to answer your question, I'm not sure there is a lot of control over them. I believe they're being put in
right -of -way easement or some type of easement on private property. And maybe Heidi has a little more information
than I do. And then I think they're being just dedicated back or -- for maintenance purposes back to the home owners.
So it may even be considered to be in county right-of-way. I'm not entirely sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of time here, folks, we were supposed to stop at 4:50. And Kady is going
to be pulling her hair out in a minute if we don't wrap this up. So somehow let's get to a quick resolution on the sound
walls.
Brad, are you suggesting that be removed, the whole --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the reason we're putting it in -- it's not in there now, this is new,
correct?
MS. ISTENES: Yes, this is new.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is us opening a door. That's why --
MS. ISTENES: It's already opened.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think it's a good door to open. I would think sound wall, especially along 1 -75,
certainly make your developments more compatible. So I'd rather see them rather than not. I know --
MS. ISTENES: Well, these exist already. So for example, along Vanderbilt Beach Road and Santa Barbara
they were erected as part of that road widening project.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it's more than a two minute discussion, because at least for county noise
abatement walls, some are in the right -of -way, some are currently, if it's associated with the road right -of -way, then I
believe it's subject to an administrative variance as to height. And I believe that's how most of them are currently
processed now?
MS. ISTENES: No.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, I thought they were --
MS. ISTENES: No --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, I misunderstood the process.
Page 53
161104
March 24, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we want to continue this discussion, Brad, I'll leave it up to you. We'll just
continue the whole item until the I st --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'll pass here. But remember when you -- in 10, 20 years when you
drive down this place and say hey, this looks like Miami, look at all these walls, send me a note and say hi.
MS. ISTENES: If we're going to have the walls, it would be really nice to be able to have landscaping in
front of them. That really -- if you look at the ones in front of, for example - name just went out of my head.
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go any further, Susan, we're wrapping it up. Let's go ahead and leave
this one open for now. I don't see us needing to end this discussion today on this. We can continue it to the next
meeting and bring up specifically the sound walls and the possibility of landscaping requirements, or something else.
I think it's a good idea. So let's not rush into that one just to finish up.
But I know we've got to be done, so here's where we're at. On the 1 st of April we have our regular meeting.
We have three items on that meeting. Looking at them, I think we can finish them up in the morning and move on tc
these LDC amendments for part of the day.
The LDC amendment I'd like us to continue to start with no earlier than say 10:00, just in case something
changes on our agenda, would be the shoreline calculations on April I st, and then any others that staff want to bring
forward by that day.
And if I can have a motion for continuation of this meeting subject to that criteria, I think we're good to go.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to continue, seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOYI'I: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
We are continued to a time certain no sooner than 10:00 on April I st. And we'll start with the shoreline
calculations at that time. Thank you. We're adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:59
p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
CkkA-
MARK . STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on `J L is , as presented_ or as
corrected
Page 54
TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Naples, Florida
April 1, 2010
16 I 1 AC
April 1, 2010
RECEIVED
MAY 12 2010
Board of County ComNsalonam
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building °F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Chairman:
Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Susan Istenes, Zoning Directors
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Page 1
Mark Strain
Donna Reed -Caron
Karen Homiak
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vighotti
David J. Wolfley
Fiala
HenHen
Coyle S.J�
Colette
Miss. ,,,,r es:
Date:
Item*
rt to
1614, � 2 10 10
4
p
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 1 st meeting, continuation of
the Land Development Code Amendments.
For today's meeting we will need a -- you'll have to call roll again, Mr. V igliotti, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTE Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONERVIGLIO'1 "IE CommissionerMidney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vighotti is present.
Commissioner Murray'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOVIT Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Conunissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we had a time certain starting point for this meeting to be 10:00, most
particularly because of the shoreline calculation issue. We will not discuss that prior to 10:00. We'll take a break at
9:45 and be back at 10:00 to start that discussion.
There are two other items on that agenda for today that we scan discuss now but we can't vote on until after
the 10:00 meeting starts.
So with that in mind, I'd like to go right into the two other items and see if we can get those out of the way
and where our concerns are.
The first one would be in the book four packet. And it's number -- it's on Page 93. That was the last large
packet we received. And this is the item on fences and walls.
Now, Ray, I'm going to kind of put you on the spot without Susan here. Are you aware of what we sent this
back for last time so you can kind of brief us on it and we can go from there, or not?
MR. BELLOWS: I have some of that information. And John's here. I believe we are ready.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Seluffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wasn't it we started reviewing that and didn't we get hung up on the -- right
at the end on the sound walls for the roadways? I mean, we went through everything but that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I want to make sure, because the new version that was sent to us
had a bunch of highlights on it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've been through it. I don't have any problems with the highlights. They make
corrections on section references. And I know we talked about things like blight and crossing that out, and all that's
been done.
I want to make sure that the commission has a handle on everything they asked to be changed. And besides
what I knew about. And then well get into your sound walls, I guess.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I don't think -- I didn't review the new version. I'm still on -- they
sent us that it's a packet for Page 93, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's what?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the agenda that they sent out yesterday said that it's -- or the day
before, packet four, 93, so that's essentially the old one. So I guess there was a new one that was supposed to be the
same as this; is that right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the new one's got a series of highlighted areas that have changes on them.
I can let you see mine real quick. I don't have any notes on mine, so it --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John might have some back there.
Page 2
41,
16 I Aril 1, 20A 4
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
They sent it out by e -mail, I believe, rather late. So that may be why you didn't get a copy.
John, are you looking for the fences and walls completed new version?
MR. KELLER: You should have it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to come up to the mic if you're going -- Mr. S$Ier, doesn't --
Brad, let me give you mine, you can --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I read through the one that was on the Internet, so I'm not worried
about that. But John was going to bring down copies today, that's like maybe what I'm --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: if he didn't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well wait and see if he did.
Did you -- by the way, Brad, did you get the rewrite of the temporary use section?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I got that. I reviewed that too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that one -- well, then --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a quick one. Why don't we go to that one?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to say, let's just move to that one and we'll go back to this one.
Just thumb on a few pages past where we started with the last one to Page 105. That will be on your packet
for -- that's the rewrite of the temporary use section. Again, there's some changes in there, mostly to references. That
seemed to be the problem last time, some of the citations didn't seem to be consistent with what it should be.
I've been through it myself, and the issues I had are corrected. Does anybody have any other issues in the
temporary events?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only question I had was -- and it's on Page 111 of the packet — or I'm
sorry, starts on 111, but it's packet four. And it's on Page 12. And that's whether these signs are per tenant or per --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold offjust a second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- per shopping center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to go down and have a half hour break for coffee, the way it looks.
We're not going to accomplish anything right now, apparently.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have the old one and the new one on the temporary use. And if you want to
reference --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure everybody else has.
John, can you come to the mic. forjust a minute so we can ask you something.
Do you have hard copies of the completed packages for both fences and walls in the temporary use section?
MR. KELLY: I do. You should already have copies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have some with you?
MR. KELLY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we take a break, you can distribute those to everybody so we're
working from the same pages then? John?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, we'll do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll tell you what, let's take a half hour break, we'll resume at 10:00. We'll
start with shorelines. And in the meantime, during the break, please get documents that you don't have from John and
read them during the break. And we'll kick in at 10:00.
So with that, we're off for half an hour.
(Recess ?)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. We're back again from our rather long break to
make sure Cherie' was raring to go when we got back so she could type fast.
We will continue with our hearing on the Land Development Code Cycle 1. We have a 10:00 time certain
for an item that's been called the shoreline calculations item. And we'll move right into that.
Anybody that's here that wants to speak, we'll start with the speaker slips, but I will ask afterwards if anybody
hasn't signed a slip they're still going to be able to speak. So if you forgot, don't worry about it, we'll still get to you.
And Steve, I guess it's your presentation to start off.
MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lenberger, Engineering Environmental
Page 3
16A� 112010"'4
Comprehensive Planning and Lor ng Services Department.
The amendment from before you is to clarify in the code how the county will treat shoreline within
conservation easements when calculating the number of wet slips, according to the Manatee Protection Plan.
I guess the best way to start would be on the visualizer I put on an exhibit, and it basically shows two types of
scenarios: The one on top being a shoreline which is within a conservation easement, on the edge of it, and part of the
shoreline not within a conservation easement.
The second example below it, the shoreline which I highlighted in yellow so you can see it easier, is outside
the conservation area, and so is where the docking facility is.
In the case on the lower one, all the shoreline is not within a conservation easement. And therefore the total
length of shoreline would be used in calculating the number of wet slips.
This issue is to clarify that if a shoreline, and in respect to the upper diagram, is within a conservation
easement, if that portion should be excluded from the calculations in calculating the number of wet slips according to
the Manatee Protection Plan.
These are just two examples. If it were used and excluded, we provided some calculations here, that the total
length of shoreline is 1,000 feet, 600 on the vertical and 400 on the roughly horizontal.
If we assumed a moderate rating according to these examples, the number of wet slips, if the conservation
easement was excluded for the example on top, would be 40 wet slips. If the area was outside the conservation
easement or if the conservation easement shoreline could be used in the calculation, then the number of wet slips
would be 100 wet slips.
I could give you a little bit of a history of this, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I think it would be important to discuss both of the versions of this shoreline
calculation. There was one in 2007, it's going to come up for question, we might as well talk about it, and there's one
currently that differs from that previous one. I'd like to understand why the first one was provided, what we've been
historically doing, and how that one got generated, and then how the second one got generated as a result of the first
one, if they are connected.
MR. LENBERGER: Be glad to do that.
The issue -- this particular amendment was directed by the Board of County Commissioners for staff to
address this in the code and how we will treat the length of shoreline within a conservation easement.
Our previous supervisor has told several applicants that they cannot use shoreline within a conservation
easement when calculating the number of wet slips.
We have not seen any examples, and we know of no examples where that's actually be applied. Okay, it's not
been applied. But it's been told to a number of applicants.
So staff consulted with the County Attorney's Office and they also sought the guidance of the Florida Fish &
Wildlife Conservation Commission. And the first amendment was to exclude the length of shoreline within a
conservation easement in calculating the number of wet slips.
The amendment was denied by the Board of County Corrurussioners, and a month later it was rescinded and
the Board of County Conunissioners directed staff to bring back the amendment.
They also directed staff to meet with stakeholders to discuss the issue, see if the issue could be resolved.
Stakeholders were at odds and apart on the -- in different opinions on the topic. And they had -- we had two
stakeholder meetings. And 1 wasn't involved at that particular point.
So in order to attempt to resolve the issue, the staff Look the issue to the Environmental Advisory Council and
that was -- I'd have to check the date. That was on July 2nd, 2008. The EAC heard both sides of the issue and they
voted to include the length of shoreline within conservation easements in calculating the number of wet slips.
So what staff is did is we held a stakeholders meeting -- 1 held a stakeholders meeting, along with my other
stakeholders meetings this past year -- and basically presented an amendment consistent with the EAC's
recommendation. And that is the recommendation we have before you today. There was a little bit of language
change by the Development Services Advisory Committee. I can point it to you, if you'd like. But basically the
language says that you can use the shoreline within a conservation easement.
We did -- back in May I did receive correspondence from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Corunission, and they had no comment with regards to the amendment the way we proposed it this year. So there
was no objection on their part.
Page 4
161 All I'M I
The way the conservation -- the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission determines what's
densities is they include shoreline within a conservation easement in calculating the num r of wet slips if the
shoreline -- if the conservation easement is for vegetation management, basically a pres.
If the conservation easement would allow boat docks and be detrimental to wildlife, allow ditching and
diking, then they would exclude the length of shoreline in calculating the number of wet slips.
So the amendment before you today excludes -- includes -- you can use the length of shoreline within a
conservation easement in calculating the number of wet slips. The previous amendment did not.
The previous amendment, which was e- mailed to you, also had other issues with regards to public facilities,
and the County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow had produced a memorandum to the County Commissioners back when that
item was heard, explaining that the issue of public access could be pursued by the board if they wished to.
That's basically the chronology and the history.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Steve, two words that I'm trying to remember, diking and docking (sic).
What -- you use those with the Florida Fish & Wildlife people. They reserve that. Apparently they say if these things
exist you cannot count the shoreline.
I didn't get a chance to really go through this new document. Does that now -- do we include that as well as a
condition in the plan?
MR. LENBERGER: Unless the conservation easement explicitly prohibits using the shoreline in making the
calculations, we allow them to do that. That's consistent with how the state's looking at it. And I can read here how
the state reviews that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe I didn't understand you then. Because I thought you -- what you did
is you indicated that the state says it's okay to do this as long as it's not for what, I forgot the tern you used, the
shoreline grasses or whatever -- could be mangrove for all I know.
But what I'm driving at is that it seems that there was a means that the state could use to say you might have
qualified but you don't in this particular case. Am I correct in my interpretation of what you said?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, what the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commissioner says, and I'll read
it to you --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. LENBERGER: It says, where the conservation easement prohibits in -water structures, the length of
shoreline within the conservation easement is excluded from the calculations and thus the number of allowable wet
slips are reduced in proportion to the length of excluded shoreline.
State's def. indicate that in -water structures can be characterized as construction and operation of future
docks. Wet or dry slips, piers, launclnng facilities or structures other than existing on the property or activities
detrimental to the drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation or Fish & Wildlife
habitat preservation, but not limited to ditching, diking, dredging --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ditching and diking, yeah. So we follow that then is what you're saying.
We're controlled by that; am I right?
MR. LENBERGER: If that were the case, then the conservation easement would be excluded.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it will become a case -by -case basis almost every time, correct, on the
evaluation of the property?
MR. LENBERGER: For the county, we would look at the conservation easement being counted towards the
allowable number of wet slips, unless the conservation easement explicitly says it couldn't be.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wanted to have clear in my mind. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hi, Steve. Couple of questions. We're talking about going on G, is that
right, Mark, on the page by page, or should I wait for that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, the only changes are on the last paragraph, are on G, so I figure we'll
just go straight to that and that's where the discussion is. Unless you have other questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, that's where I am.
Page 5
16 1 11 A4
April 1, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all we're -- I wasn't going to go page by page.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In G, why did we choose the interface of land in the mean high
water where everything else in the manatee is low water? Was there an advantage or disadvantage?
MR. LENBERGER: The mean low water is usually how the shoreline is calculated. We went through this
with our surveyor in trying to determine how to define shoreline.
The mean low water is for adequate water depth, not for shoreline calculation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in this -- so we want to use high water. Does that give us more or less
shoreline, do you think?
MR. LENBERGER: That I don't know. I guess it would depend on the contour of the shoreline.
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: The other thing is, is the standard survey techniques, how would -- a lot of
these shorelines are going to be in mangrove, aren't they? 1 mean, so like you draw nice and right at the edge of the
CON district, but it's probably going to be within it somewhere, right? How do they determine the shoreline?
MR. LENBERGER: I didn't ask the specifies. We worked with our surveyor in preparing the language, and
that was the language they created.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so we don't. Or was there somebody here going to testify to that, or
— how you would determine a shoreline inside a mangrove.
MR. LENBERGER: I'm not a surveyor, I can't answer that question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
The other thing, in wording this, you word it where that you can use it; unless you explicitly say you can't,
you exclude it. Why don't we have it where you can use it if we say you can have docks or use it? In other words,
why do we choose the default option that it has to be expressed that you can't use the shoreline versus it has to be
expressed that you can use the shoreline?
MR. LENBERGER: I had spoke to a few consultants about that. You don't normally draft a conservation
easement saying you can count the shoreline towards wet slip densities. That's not a standard practice. I know that
was in the previous amendment that had gone in 2008, but the way the -- the way it's written is only if it's specifically
excluded. So that means the issue is addressed upfront that it wouldn't be allowed to count.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, do we have agreements where we have excluded it, or we have
allowed it? I mean, up until this point it's probably been silent, hasn't it?
MR. LENBERGER: I believe so. 1 haven't seen any.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So would silent -- so this clause is going to be important for the
grandfathering of rights.
So if somebody had an easement placed and had no intention to use that or had no intention for docks or
anything, we're giving them that right when wouldn't it be best if we went back and looked at the hearings and looked
to see if people had wanted to use this area for docks for calculation?
And you're saying you have no recollection either way, so it wouldn't hurt us to flip that to make it where
they're -- if they expressed that they want to use the shoreline. So that when we're in the hearings, we're discussing
the use of that shoreline. And the applicant would want to discuss that. If we're silent, we -- that right is still there,
unless we bring it up ourselves to not use the calculation.
MR. LENBERGER: The Manatee Protection Plan doesn't address when you have to construct your boat
slips. You know, A development can go in for multi - family, for example, and not build any boat slips. Be required to
put a conservation easement over preferred habitat, which very well would be mangroves on a natural shoreline, but it
doesn't preclude them from coming in later to address wet slips according to the criteria in the Manatee Protection
Plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up until now, you know. But with this definition it will become part of the
conversation whether we're going to calculate it or not. You can't build docks in the conservation easement, can you?
MR. LENBERGER: Not within the preserve, that's correct. They would be located outside of the preserve.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, I mean, it's not like somebody would want that shoreline
dimension to build a dock in a conservation easement.
So I would assume sitting here in prior applications that if they have a conservation easement that they
weren't intending to use that for building docks. And to all of a sudden now give them by default the ability to
calculate that versus have them during that hearing discuss the fact that I'd like to build docks in the future and thus
Page 6
16 I, 1
Ap 2010
would be using this calculation, wouldn't it be better that way?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, like I said, the Manatee Protection Plan doesn't say when you have to address the
issue. I mean, you as a board, when you hear these projects, could address the issue upfront.
What we're saying is projects out there which would like to have boat docks which already have conservation
easements, we're saying that yes, it could be addressed, it could build boat docks in accordance with the criteria of the
Manatee Protection Plan, and it wouldn't exclude them.
I think the issue should be addressed — whenever it is addressed, that's when you would determine if future
docks beyond that point could be used from the conservation easement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think from this point on it will be addressed. But my question is the
way it's worded now the default is that if it was silent through the hearing, you could use a shoreline calculation.
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where 1'd rather have it -- it would have to be brought up in the hearing to
use that calculation. In other words, that -- if a developer does intend to do that, it's not like he goes through the
hearing quiet. He has to, you know, request that as part of the hearing so that we know that that's what they want.
And it's just the - -just wording what you have here the opposite. We don't need to belabor that.
The shoreline doesn't necessarily have to be on the edge of the easement, correct? Odds are it won't be if it's
a mangrove or something. I'm not sure still how you're going to find the shoreline on the mangrove.
But this last statement that says excluding the use of the easement shoreline. Do you think that should be
rewritten to be shorelines within the easement? Your drawing gives that lower example; essentially that shoreline is
outside the easement.
But do you think practically the shoreline is going to be -- also share the perimeter of the easement? We can
-- I'll wait till I see some people that will probably testify that could answer that better.
I think --let me just took at my notes. Yeah, I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I haven't had occasion here to see where in some instances there were, shall
we say, a boardwalk was traversing or boring, if you will, boring through mangrove to reach a point where docks
could be operated. If we were to use your example right there where -- would we consider going through the manatee
protection, that easement area that's the first one on your sheet? If we were to have a boardwalk going through there
out past the manatee protection area, would that be legitimate under this scenario?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it would. The boardwalk transversing a preserve to the water is an allowed use in
the preserve.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is an allowed use.
So if the situation were correct, it is possible to -- then you would then count that shoreline for the purpose of
counting additional boat dock or slips; would I be correct in that?
MR. LENBERGER: I'm not sure I understand your question. The boardwalk providing access to the water
or maybe to docks would have no effect with this amendment as far as calculating wet slips, so --
MS. MURRAY: I was just trying to figure anyway that the best intent could be defeated. We want to be
sure we try to qualify everything. And it won't be the first time I poked into an area that turned out to be a dead end.
But I'm trying to figure ways that while your language intends to control everything that we don't have a problem.
I was just focusing on the idea that in that first illustration, if you put the docks -- if you were to put the docks
outside of that easement area but you could traverse it, there was -- the key question for me was you would then be
open to counting the shoreline for a number of slips; am I correct on that?
MR. LENBERGER: If the shoreline as we have defined here would be where the mangroves are, an
example brought up --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. LENBERGER: -- if that conservation easement went to that shoreline, then it would be within the
conservation easement.
The amendment here, we're letting them count that towards calculating the number of wet slips. Unless the
conservation easement specifically says they can't.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I just want to be absolutely sure that we don't have away around it,
and this would be the time to try to find that. I accept your statement, thank you.
Page 7
161 LPI11, �0f
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Steve, Bill Lorenz, who heads the environmental department, or at least
has for a number of years, wrote an c -mail to me and -- because I had asked him a question about this very issue.
And his response to me was, and I'm going to quote, once we receive an application, we will review the
information and make the determination of the site reading based on the applicable data. We will also determine the
length of shoreline not within a conservation easement to then determine the maximum allowable number of wet
slips.
So earlier you said that this had never been applied. Well, I think if I read what Mr. Lorenz said, it apparently
has been applied.
MR. LENBERGER: We have no projects that we have seen or know of where it has been applied.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So this was something that had always obviously been the intent,
because it was the intent of the director, but no -- it just never came up as an issue; is that what you're telling me?
Nobody ever came forward and said now we want to use all our conservation?
MR. LENBERGER: Like I said, we have not seen any projects, we are not aware of any, and former
supervisor was advising applicants that it would not count. When that occurred, when she started telling people that, I
don't know exactly.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, not she, it was Bill Lorenz.
MR. LENBERGER: I understand. And Bill was working with --
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's who was making that statement.
So according to the language that you have here right now, it says expressly and specifically excludes. Where
do you do that on your conservation easement form?
MR. LENBERGER: Conservation easements take different appearances. There is a standard conservation
easement produced by the County Attorney's Office to assist us, but that's really a legal question. And where it would
placed in the conservation easement, I would have to defer to the County Attorney's staff.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Would you repeat your question'?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, now what Mr. Lenberger's department would like is for all the
conservation easements to expressly and specifically exclude. And I'm asking where on the conservation easement
form you do that. There's nothing specific.
MS. ASIITON- CICKO: Right. If the conservation easement didn't provide for it, which our current form
does not, then no, it would not be included.
Now, if I may just provide you a little bit of information that you might not have already heard. My
understanding from the March 24th, 2007 agenda item that went to the board is that since May of 1995, staff has
applied the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan to exclude the amount of the shoreline when calculating the
CE's.
I know that some issues have arisen in the past couple of years, and I can tell you that this particular issue has
gone to the board six times from March of 2007 to April of 2008, and they've changed their position each time. The
stakeholders don't have a unanimous position on that.
Our office, the County Attorney's Office, recommends that we continue with the current procedure, which is
to exclude it unless it's specifically reserved. We are not a proponent to doing an LDC amendment to specify either
way.
I think it provides a little bit more control for government if the conservation easement excluded the
calculation -- or if it was silent and an owner wanted to add slips, they could request an amendment to the
conservation easement. You also have to keep in mind that you've got conservation easements that are both the state
and the county. So how the state calculates their portion, the county doesn't necessarily have to follow that procedure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, we can do something different from the state as long as it's stricter than
what the state -- we can't do anything less than what's required by the state.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As long as the state doesn't assert exclusive jurisdiction --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- then yes, we can do something different than the state.
COMMISSIONER CARON: These conservation easements, they're pretty easy to change, aren't they?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, currently there's a standard form that's used for conservation easements that
Page 8
161 1 IAInA,, 2010
does not address the shoreline. And that does not go to the Board of County Commissioners since it's a standard
form.
In the future, if you start getting into the calculations of shorelines that may, you know, require some board
input if it's not addressed earlier in the zoning or permitting process then, you know, it might have to go to the Board
of County Commissioners for consideration.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The current form that everybody uses says after the wheres and wherefores,
number two says that no building, structures or impediment of any nature may be constructed, placed or permitted on,
over or across an easement property. No dikes or fencing detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation,
erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat.
I mean, I think we've always been pretty consistent in this county of the fact that a conservation easement
should bejust that, it should be there for conservation and not for building purposes. Once people grant conservation
easements, for the most part they've already been given other things in exchange for that. They've been given density
in exchange for that, they've been given whatever else might come up.
So it would seem to me that also allowing this -- the way it's written here, you know, allows for some pretty
serious double dipping.
I think the language that was presented last time, and believe me, it was not my favorite language, is certainly
better than what's presented here. I also think again we're not reading our code correctly if we -- you know, the way
this is worded versus the way it was worded before, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question.
If our legal staff is advising us to exclude conservation easements, then why is staff not going with what the
legal staff is recommending'?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, initially we went with the recommendation of the EAC. But this is the first time
I've heard the County Attorney's position on it and I had asked them before verbally.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The last direction of the board was to come with a proposal like this, so I think staff
is following through on that procedure.
COMMISSIONER MIDNF..Y: But I would just think that, you know, if it was me I would follow what my
legal advisers recommend.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Steve, in your presentation you talked about the fact this has never been
applied, and what has been applied I think we found conflicting discussion on that. I think you said it was attempted
-- two people had asked and they were told it didn't count, but the County Attorney's Office has told us basically we
have applied it through the Manatee Protection Plan for some time and it's been excluded. Are you aware of that?
MR. LENBERGER: No, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said the EAC voted to include the length of shoreline. What was the
vote on the EAC, was it unanimous?
MR. LENBERGER: That was 6 -1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The Fish and Game Commission, you said there was no objection to this
language, but they rely on the explicit language of each particular easement on a case -by -case basis; is that true?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The previous amendment to the Land Development Code that went to the BCC that
did not succeed, did that go through this panel? I'm sure it did, I just -- and what was the -- did it get there with our
recommendation of approval? I can't remember back that far.
MR. LENBERGER: I don't remember either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
As far as the shoreline calculation of mangroves, wouldn't that be set by the mean high water mark?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, the language here is whatever we included in the amendment as the mean high
water.
Page 9
161 11 A4
April 1, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there is a way to determine where the line falls in the mangroves. And if
they're going to have a conservation easement, is it drawn around a solid line or is it drawn around a reference to the
mean high watermark, do you know, for shoreline?
MR. LENBERGER: I have seen conservation easements. Most of them follow the shoreline that I have
seen, but there may have been others. But now that 1 think about it, all the ones that I have seen personally have
followed the shoreline.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you haven't had occasion to look at one where they followed the mangrove line
in any particular way?
MR. LENBERGER: What was the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the shoreline. Is that a visual shoreline versus aline within the
mangroves?
MR. LENBERGER: We did not address specifics as to how that was drawn in the past, at least that I have
known. This amendment here is to try to establish how that shoreline is to be determined.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this amendment here is to determine how the shoreline measurement impacts
the quantity of docks. I don't -- where does it address how the shoreline itself is physically determined?
MR. LENBERGER: I have not -- I personally have not questioned the survey lines. When I get conservation
easements they naturally follow the shoreline.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think we're going to go around in circles on that one, but I understand.
The conservation easement, if someone puts one against a piece of property and they want to amend it in the
future, what's the process?
MR. LENBERGER: County Attorney's Office should answer that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It wouldn't go through the ODES department for amending a conservation
easement?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it would. And we would send it to the County Attorney's Office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you know what --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If they're not using a standard form, then it would go to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So every conservation casement out there that would want to amend it if
they're not comfortable with their language today would have to go through a public process, whether it be a summary
or consent if it's pulled, to get that amendment.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it just the Board of County Cormrussioners or does it go through any lower
boards?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It might have to go through the EAC. I don't know that it would come through the
Planning Commission. If it has environmental impacts, Steve, would you take that to the EAC? I'm not familiar
enough with the --
MR. LENBERGER: That's a good question. I would have to defer to my supervisors for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything going forward after this amendment is accepted or not accepted,
depending on whatever it comes out as, people writing these easements in the future can write in any language they
want or not want, depending on how much they want to weight their contribution as an easement against their rights
that they're asking for, or against their I guess uses they're asking for on their property; is that presumably what will
happen?
MR. LENBERGER: Could you repeat that, please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If someone comes in and wants 1,000 units in their uplands property and
they've got a bunch of natural mangrove shorelines, and they want to give a conservation easement up that they would
happen to have out into the mangroves in the water, in order to get the benefits of that upland development and they
were going to put a conservation easement in at that time, they would know by the outcome of this Land
Development Code amendment whether or not they need to specifically include language in their conservation
easement to address the location or the ability to calculate docks from that future shoreline -- from that conservation
easement shoreline.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, this amendment says unless it specifically prohibits it they could count it.
Page 10
16 11 A dPril 1, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the point of my discussion was going forward after today,
everybody's going to know what that do in regards to conservation easements. In the past those that have ones that
they're -- that are problematic to them, they have the ability to change them by going to the Belled of County
Commissioners, if they need to, depending on the outcome of today's hearing.
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a carrying capacity analysis done on boat docks in Collier
County?
MR. LENBERGER: Carrying capacity?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's like Nick, when he does his roadways system, he calculates so many cars
per dwelling unit and that's based on a zoning calculation of how many the maximum you can have in the county.
I'm wondering, do we know how many boats any particular waterway or estuary can cant' as a maximum
level of service for that estuary?
MR. LENBERGER: I do not know that. I do know this, that the state recently amended their Manatee
Protection Management Plan, and as a result of that they will be looking to the counties and particularly Collier
County to amend ours. And we will have to see what the state wants us to do regarding amending our plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only way we can regulate the quantity of boats going through any particular
waterway right now is through the Manatee Protection Plan and/or the ability to enforce conservation easements,
depending on what they say.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, they are -- well, not all docks are reviewed by the Manatee Protection Plan, so
docks which fall below the 10 slip threshold and also single - family, they would also be allowed to have boat docks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Steve, I appreciate the background information.
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess we'll go to public speakers. And if everybody on -- whoever's on the
speakers list, please come up to one of the mics and -- go ahead.
MR. LENBERGER: I alsojust received an e -mail, it was late yesterday, I only got it this morning, from
Katie Tripp from the Save the Manatee Club, and she wanted me to read it into the record, so I will do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might as well do it before we start public speakers. Go right ahead.
MR. LENBERGER: It says: Thank you for the additional information. I had corresponded with her the last
couple of days here.
I do have a couple of outstanding concerns that I would like you to share with Chairman Strain and the rest of
the Planning Commission prior to their meeting tomorrow morning.
I was unable to locate the e -mail for the chairman, she says.
We do not believe that land in a conservation easement should count towards the calculation of shoreline
footage for obtaining slips under the Manatee Protection Plan.
Also, the shoreline definition should include an effective date, counting all existing shoreline as of that date
as part of the county's shoreline, but not allowing for the creation of new shoreline.
Or the definition could simply state that no new shoreline is to be created in the county for the purposes of
obtaining more slips under the Manatee Protection Plan.
Next paragraph.
In the event that a parcel gets split oft, there should be a conservation easement over that parcel to preclude
using it against -- using it again in the calculation of shoreline to obtain more slips. This should be part of the Site
Development Plan Amendment.
Earlier I had stated -- I indicated to her that if a parcel was split and it had slips, the conservation easement
issues, it would be evaluated during the Site Development Plan Amendment process.
She continues to say: The same length of shoreline should not be able to be used more than once for slip
calculations.
While I understand that this has not happened to date in the county, it is something that could occur unless the
shoreline definition expressly prohibits it. And I believe the county should prohibit it. Thank you for hearing my
concerns and sharing it with the Planning Commission. Katie Tripp.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Page 11
A 4
Im
161 1 ' April 2010
Okay, we'll call the speakers. Cane up and use either microphone, please say your name for the record. And
then when we finish, for those people that have not registered, I'm still going to ask if anybody wants to speak and
you'll have the same opportunity as whether you registered or not.
So Ray, you'll start the speakers.
MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Lew Schmidt, to be followed by Bill Eline.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Lew Schmidt. I live in the Vanderbilt Beach area,
and I'm a member of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
I have talked about what I would talk to you about with some of those board members, although I do not have
specific direction from the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
I have a couple of concerns about the entire LDC, but I understand that we're looking at specifically
paragraph G inclusions or exclusions of shorelines.
But the problem -- to see what the problem is with paragraph G, you have to look at the specifics of the
amendment -- or of the LDC.
There are two points that bother me in the LDC. One has to do with density allowances and one has to do
with depth.
If you look at the density allowances in this document, for preferred areas it allows 18 boats, up to 1 S boats or
boat slips per 100 feet. That's a width of five and a half feet per vessel. That does not allow for separation pilings, it
does not allow for maneuvering and tendering, and it does not allow for access, walkways. If you made those
allowances, it would take three feet away per boat. You would have rowboats. Now, that's unrealistic, but that's what
this document offers.
If you go to the moderate, they give you some -- and they give you some reduction to 10 versus 18. But if
you go to 10 and you reduce that for the required fendering access and what have you, the boat widths is seven feet.
Pontoon boats, modest pontoon boats, are nine feet wide. Those numbers are unrealistic.
Similarly there's a problem with draft. It has two drafts: Four feet or more, less than four feet. Less than four
feet can be inches. And in our waterways we do have bodies of water and shorelines that are in inches. We have
estuaries, we have lagoons and we have bays. And the shorelines along that define those estuaries, lagoons and bays
are the shorelines in question. And the waterways that are defined by those shorelines will have a draft or depth of
two feet or less.
So I would suggest that paragraph G needs to include an exclusion for shorelines that defy estuaries, lagoons
and bays that have an average draft of two feet or less. You exclude those, it's realistic. Because larger boats could
not access those areas anyway. The boats that can access it are canoes, kayaks and row boats. I would suggest that as
an alternative or an addition to paragraph G.
I thank you, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please?
MR. BELLOWS: Bill Eline.
MR. ELINE: Coming. At one time I was much quicker.
I'd like to say good morning to all of you. I keep coming to see you. My name is Bill Eline. I've lived in the
Vanderbilt Beach area since 1987, and I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
I have a simple appeal to you. When you get a conservation area, I think in this county for the good of the
county and the good of the neighborhoods, it should be a conservation area and not be able to be used for any other
purpose.
We've had cases where conservation areas have been used to get density, and you're now talking about
additional boat slips. So I'd really like to see the county stiffen up and say we are going to protect manatees, we're
going to protect our wildlife and we're going to protect the serenity of where we live. So that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Linda Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Hi. This is an unplanned experience, so -- I live in Gulf Breeze, which is closest to the
docks, directly across the channel where it's planned. And I'm a Florida native. I've watched the process the
Page 12
161 ' 1 A April 1, 2010
developers use over the years to keep coming back and coming back through each level of government and attempt to
manipulate the facts to get their way, and I think I would like to see the board have a little bit of backbone in regard to
the conservation easement and help make it as restrictive as possible to the number of boat slips.
There is an incredible amount of wildlife that lives and uses that estuary around the mangroves. I'm a little bit
confused, listening to the shoreline here, because it's a mangrove and I know that in the past there's a community
called Bay Forest that put a boardwalk some years ago through a long stretch of similar type mangrove, and it does
have a very deleterious effect on the wildlife.
It is also a channel that is heavily used already, and to add more boat traffic in there would be very
disadvantage (sic) to the wildlife, in addition to just the sheer safety of the numbers of watercraft that go through
there.
I think I speak on behalf of many members of the Connor Peninsula, that we're quite dismayed with the
number of boat docks that have been suggested. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please?
MR. BELLOWS: Susan Leach Snyder.
MS. SNYDER: For the record, my name is Susan Snyder. I'm a biologist, educator and author of 150 of
your science textbooks.
I came with a different speech than what I'm ending up with, because I didn't realize that the verbiage had
been changed so much since the last amendment. So I'm going to dispense with all of that andjust talk about the new.
Conservation easement lands are set aside by developers as a type of mitigation. They are native areas that
are supposed to be preserved. According to Florida Statutes, Title 7, Chapter 704, a conservation easement means a
right or interest in real property which is appropriate to retaining land or water areas predominantly in their natural
scenic open agricultural or wooded condition, retaining such areas as suitable habitat for fish, plants or wildlife.
And it prohibits or limits any of eight things. And one of these eight things, which is letter F in the document,
quotes activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion, soil conservation or fish and
wildlife habitat preservation.
Of course the greater the number of wet slips permitted adjacent to a conservation easement, the greater the
amount of erosion, soil loss and loss of fish and wildlife habitat, including habitat for manatees.
As you know, there's been a lot of pressure put on the county concerning shoreline calculations,
predominantly by the developer we've all been talking about here, the one that would like to put in a huge marina in
the Vanderbilt channel: Vanderbilt Partners, a/k/a Signature Communities.
In the past meetings that we've come to, speakers representing that group have included their attorneys, their
marine and environmental consulting firm, and self- proclaimed authorities and pseudo - scientists, including the owner
of the Vanderbilt Marina. All of these people have personal financial reasons for not wanting an amendment that
would limit the creation of a 49 dock marina to only 28 docks.
Please consider carefully how your decision will impact our environment, including the Vanderbilt Channel,
the Cocohatchee River where Signature will build its marina. We know it will be there, we just don't know how many
boats you'll permit.
In the age of entitlements, I believe the residents and visitors to Collier County are entitled to enjoy the
remaining unspoiled natural resources that have not been over compromised by development. Conservation
easements should never be used in shoreline calculations for wet slips.
Thank you very much for permitting me to speak to you today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: David N. Galloway.
MR. GALLOWAY: Hi. Thank you. Pleasure to be here today. David Galloway. I'm a member of the
Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. However, I'm actually here as a concerned rear - around resident of Collier
County.
I live a pretty good distance from this area they're talking about in question, so it doesn't affect me as far as
using these areas, but it's an issue of safety and conservation of a very pristine ecological area. It's very unique over
there.
Page 13
1
161 AprIlk4010
As you may know, as of today's date, there have been documented hundreds of manatee deaths during this
past season, which could possibly be even many more than what's ever been in any recorded season.
We need to encourage keeping our already conserved conservation areas that have been designated by the
county. And if we lose these areas, which we're losing them across the State of Florida every single day, we're not
going to have that -- we won't have these areas anymore. Once they're given up, they're gone. We need to preserve
this for everyone in the County of Collier County. Not just for the folks that live in this area, but for everyone.
Because these areas belong to everyone in the Collier County area. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, I can only afford you one minute today.
MS. RYAN: I can talk really, really fast.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's April 1 st. Go ahead.
MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And as you've been discussing today, there are really two iterations of this LDC language that are being
discussed and bounced back and forth. That that you saw in 2007, the County Commissioners certainly saw that in
April of 2008, and what staff is proposing today.
The Conservancy is very concerned about the language that staff is proposing for you today. This language
would allow shorelines within conservation easements to be included in the maximum wet slip calculation, unless the
easement specifically and expressly excludes the use of the easements for such shoreline calculation.
Essentially this language assumes that each and every conservation easement is going to anticipate all
prohibited uses in the future, such as utilizing shorelines for wet slip calculation, and expressly and specifically lists
those as prohibited. And it further assumes that as such uses are not specifically prohibited, then they should be
allowed.
This is not how conservation easements are interpreted. Conservation easements clearly state what is allowed
and if something isn't stated as allowed, it is assumed to not be allowed. And this is the opinion not only of The
Conservancy, but as you've heard from Heidi, the County Attorney's Office agrees with that.
In an e -mail from Jeff Klatzkow, and I want to read into the record what he said as to interpretation of
conservation easements, and I will pass out that e-mail for your records, he states, quote, it is my opinion that where
there is a conservation easement involving shoreline, there is no reservation of right in the easement -- if there is no
reservation of right in the easement, number one, there can be no shoreline development, including boat slips. And
number two, there are no development rights that can be transferred to a different property.
If a property owner wishes to retain such rights, they must do so by an expressed reservation in the easement
deed. Unless the record indicates a contrary intent, this applies to all existing shoreline conservation easements.
And how has this been interpreted in the past'? Well, you've heard from the County Attorney's Office on that.
And also Commissioner Caron referenced a 2007 e -mail from Bill Lorenz, which I will also distribute to you. And in
that, as Commissioner Caron stated, Mr. Lorenz indicated, quote, we will also determine the length of shoreline not
within a conservation easement, to then determine the maximum allowable number of wet slips.
So we have the County Attorney's Office stating that unless the use is allowed in the easement it's assumed to
be prohibited, and we have county staff indicating that this is how staff has applied that standard in the past.
So how can you remedy the LDC language before you today? It's pretty simple. You go back to that 2007
language that you reviewed and what went to the County Commission in 2008. And that language, just the sentence
determining how the conservation easements would be interpreted, stated shoreline within county required preserves
or within state and federal conservation easements which do not specifically permit boat docks shall not be used in
calculating the maximum allowable number of wet slips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan.
This is the language that The Conservancy supports. We believe that it should be applicable to conservation
easements already in place based on staff and County Attorney's Office interpretation on that. It moves the county
away from what we think is really dangerous language, assuming that conservation easements need to prohibit all
uses that we don't want in them. So we see this as proactive, as fair, and we ask that you move forward with that
language. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Page 14
That's the last registered speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
April 1, 2010
1611A4
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else like to speak?
Well, the closest one to the podium is Mr. Yovanovich, which -- so we'll let him go first and then we'll start
working our way through the rest, everybody else.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich.
I need to address a couple of different statements that have been made by Planning Commissioners, staff and
speakers.
First of all, it wasn't until 2007 that this issue was actually discussed whether you include the conservation
area for the purpose of calculating I'll call it boat density versus residential density. Prior to that it wasn't on
anybody's radar screen as to what you do when you bring a PUD through the process.
We all know when you bring a PUD through the process that the conservation area is used for purposes of
calculating residential density, but you don't actually build the residential units in the conservation area. That had
been the way boat docks had been done in the past. You count the shoreline in the conservation area for purposes of
boat dock density, you just don't build the boat docks in the conservation area.
In 2007 this issue came to a head. And it's because of a project brought up by one of the speakers, and thus
there was a dispute as to what the law is or what the law isn't.
I will point out that the PUD that's applicable was adopted prior to 2007. So whoever represented that client
at the time -- and it was not me, fortunately for me, because I probably wouldn't have addressed it in the discussions,
because I wouldn't have known any better to discuss that issue do I specifically include in the PUD document a
reference to calculation of boat docks. It wasn't an issue that anybody was concerned about at the time and it has now
come to a head.
So we need to deal with these issues perspectively because you can't deal with them retroactively, because
people didn't know it was an issue that needed to be addressed.
When you convey property by -- well, you don't convey the property by an easement. What you do is you
impose restrictions on a piece of property by an easement. If I convey an easement to the county, I still own that
property and all rights on that property that are not inconsistent with the purposes of the easement.
So if I convey a conservation easement to the county, I can still use that conservation property for whatever
purposes, as long as it doesn't interfere with those conservation uses on the property.
So the calculation of shoreline, using the shoreline for purposes of calculating the boat docks, as long as I
don't put those boat docks on the property is not an inconsistent use with that previous conservation easement.
So I would submit to you that the law has always been I get to count the shoreline, I just can't build in that
shoreline. And it wasn't even an issue until 2007.
I would point out too that if you look at the conservation easements that are the standard form conservation
easement, it doesn't say that you can use that area for purposes of calculating residential density. You find that in
other areas of the LDC and through custom and approach. Because you're trying -- the reason that you give a
conservation area is not to get the right to develop your property. Let's not forget that the law says a property owner
has the right to use their property, subject to reasonable regulations that the government imposes on that property
owner. So what government does is impose restrictions on a property owner, it takes rights away. The compensation
for taking away the right to develop that conservation area was move the density somewhere else. The compensation
for not being able to use the shoreline for boat docks is take that density, place it someplace else.
That's what your Manatee Protection Plan does. You have a plan in process, you need to honor that process
and not take away rights. If you want to put the world on notice that from this point forward you need to retain the
right to use a shoreline in your conservation area for purposes of density, I can address that, I know to look at that, I
know to address that in a PUD, I know to address that in the conservation easement. And you need to let me modify
the form to include the retention of that right. Because you told me I need to do that to protect myself. You need to
modify your form to allow me to do that.
And we can all deal with things perspectively, we can't go back and read the minds of everybody else in the
past. So any regulation you adopt, we like the language that's there. But if you want to go to the language that says
you must specifically retain it in the conservation easement, that needs to be our perspective application, not a
retroactive application. Because then we can deal with it, we're all on notice.
Page 15
1 6 1 1 IA 4010
And with that, I'll answer any questions you have may regarding my clients.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who are you representing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Signature Communities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the particular project is probably the Dunes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're -- it could be any project in which they have shoreline.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have they submitted their conservation easement, as example, for The Dunes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know that there's an easement out there relating to the water management, but I
don't know specifically --
Cf[AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as of yesterday, staff told me they hadn't.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Had not?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if they hadn't formatted their language or their conservation easement, the
outcome of today's discussion is almost moot.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The important thing is, Commissioner, you have a form, okay? And if you're going
to say from this point forward you need to reserve it, you need to allow me to reserve it in the form. You can't give
me something, tell me what to do and then say well, that's against our form and we're not going to allow you to
modify the form without going through a public hearing process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ijust don't believe you've submitted your language yet, and I think that's
subject to modification as it goes forward. And this is a whole nother debate that we're not into the -- we're not
specifically into that project or that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. These are general comments about how it should be applied and you
should respect the rights of the property owner that you're taking away by imposing a conservation easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. anybody else would like to speak? First, sir, in the blue shirt come on
up and then Bruce in the back.
MR. THOMPSON: [ was going to speak for Bruce too.
My name is Jay Thompson --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll speak for you, you speak for him. Mightjust kind of switch out there.
MR. TI OMPSON: My name's Jay Thompson. You know, the area that we're talking about is 100 percent
mangroved area. And a couple of years ago, Bruce and myself and our spouses did a public records search through
the South Florida Water Management District in regard to this whole issue. And there were five pieces of
documentation that were redacted that we could not look at. Three of those dealt with conservation easements.
I think what has happened, and my best guess off of this, is that the conservation easement was given to the
South Florida Water District. There was one that was given to the state and one to Collier County.
So my question is how many times can you use the same conservation easement to get what you want as a
developer? I think it raises some very interesting questions that need to be addressed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'Thank you.
Bruce?
MR. BURKHARD: Good morning, Conmussioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard and I'm a member of the
Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
And I'd like to point out, it's very seldom that a group of citizens gets excited enough to take their time and
follow a proposed LDC amendment and actually come out and get up here and talk about it, so I commend all of my
fellow citizens for coming out.
The entire world is finally waking up to the fact that overdevelopment, especially in sensitive areas, has been
causing great damage to the environment that we all are charged with protecting.
Both the county and the state have recognized this and have attempted to mitigate some of the destruction that
development inevitably causes. The concept of conservation easements was developed I think for just this purpose.
Typically developers have agreed to set aside land, often wetlands, with little or no value to them, in order to
be granted development rights or greater density for their upland projects. Essentially a contract is made and the
populous would expect that its terms be followed.
What this amendment should do is protect the environment from large scale developers who want to bulldoze
through promised conservation easements and use other easements to more densely pack their development with
unforeseen, private and exclusive marinas, which contribute nothing to the public at large.
Page 16
16 1 1 1 Ark 201 9
If we count conservation easement shoreline for development, what it's really about is helping developers
have their cake and eat it too. The amendment really should be about preserving and protecting the relatively few
underdeveloped areas that are left, areas that we naively perhaps thought were set aside and protected.
I know staff has spent a lot of time on this, and we do appreciate that. However, we think the direction that
they've taken is taking us the wrong way. CE shoreline, conservation easement shoreline, has already been given up.
It amounts to double dipping then to use it again. The language needs to be changed to recognize this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce.
Does anybody else -- sir, come on up.
MR. LINNERUD: My name is Hal Linnerud. I live at 17 Blue Bill Avenue. My windows look right out on
Turkey Bay, adjacent to the property in question right here.
I'd like to point out -- or ask a question, why did Signature give up this easement? I think the nail was hit on
the head over here, that property there is absolutely undevelopable. It's wet, it's mangroves. Signature would have had
a devil of a time trying to develop that property anyway. They never would have gotten permits to do that, to tear out
those mangroves and fill it in.
As far as boat slips are concerned, at low tide I look out onto Turkey Bay and probably well over half of
Turkey Bay at dead low tide is bare. It's dry. To develop boat slips in that piece of property would take a massive
dredgingjob.
So basically they can't even use that property for boat docks if they wanted to. And now they're asking us to
give them credit for not using it when they probably can't use it anyway and double dip and go down further south. I
don't think it's fair. That's it.
THE COURT REPORTER: May l have the spelling of your name.
MR. LINNERUD: L- I- N- N- E- R -U -D.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else like to speak?
Tim?
MR. HALL: I wasn't sure what the agenda title was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the --
MR. HALL: For the record, Tim Hall, with Turrell, Hall and Associates. We're a marina and environmental
consulting firm, based here in Naples.
I guess -- I was taking some notes. First off, I can maybe answer a couple of questions. Mr. Schiffer was
asking about how you determine the shoreline.
DEP has a set of benchmarks or collection stations all around the state that measure high and low tides. And
based over certain timeframes they establish an actual elevation that is the mean high or average high tide mark.
When the surveyors get that information from DEP, they're able to go out into the field and then physically
locate that contour line based on that elevation. And that's how the shoreline would be determined.
And then whether or not an easement, a conservation easement would follow the shoreline or not has a lot to
do with whether or not the property is based on or adjacent to privately owned bottom lands or privately owned
waters or state owned waters.
If it's state owned waters, then the easement line has to follow the mean high water line, because everything
below that belongs to the state. If it's adjacent to private property, privately owned bottom lands, than the easement
can go wherever over that privately owned bottom lands, because it's the actual owners' property that's being put into
the easement. So it depends on the type of area that it's adjacent to and who owns it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So how do you measure -- you're given the elevation, you're given a
mangrove forest. How do you find that? What do you do?
MR. HALL: The surveyors hate when we ask them to do it because they basically have to go out there and
walk through the mangrove forest and find that contour line and then they connect the dots.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, because they build prisons and people looking for freedom
can't get through it, I don't know how -- so you do actually go through it and you wander around in there with mud
everywhere and --
MR. HALL: Absolutely, yes, sir. You can ask people that see me when I come out of one of my surveys,
Page 17
16 I 1 q ; 2010
they a lot of times wonder if I have escaped from some prison.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other question is, they're kind of mostly within that; in
other words, since you are within the mangrove forest and there is low water and high water, you -- so this line will
not be as pretty on the perimeter as that one shows.
MR. HALL: No, it would be a very convoluted line. Unless the -- the only case where you would get a line
like that is if you're adjacent to a created waterway. A lot of the canals have a standard slope and mangroves or
something -- you know, or other vegetation has grown on that slope, so there is a relatively consistent line there. It
still may not be perfectly straight but, you know, in all intents and purposes, it is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you for that.
MR. HALL.: I guess a couple of things. I've been a resident here in Collier County my whole life. I've been
working in my field since 1997. 1 came back from Africa and started. And we do marine environmental consulting.
And in no case, as Steve said, do I know of this application being applied and where conservation easement has been
excluded. None of the projects that we've worked on has that been the case.
From when it came up in 2007 through to I believe it was March of 2008, I had asked the county for
examples of projects where they had applied it. I was finally given four projects of which three of them I had worked
on. And I know that in the course of my work that this issue never came up.
So I -- I don't understand some of the back and forth that has gone, you know, with staff. And I know some
of the staff that was making the interpretations is no longer here so we can't ask them. But I just know from a
practical standpoint, a professional standpoint on work we've done, it has not been applied on any project that I'm
aware of
And we have permitted projects that have had conservation easements and the shoreline was counted towards
the allowable slip matrix, and so -- you know, as far as the application of the project.
I will say that the other thing that's coneenung about this is that there are a lot of projects. The county didn't
require easements to be written to the county until, I'm not sure, was it 2002, Heidi, or --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I really don't know.
MR. HALL: Yeah, I don't know. There are a lot of easements out there on properties that don't belong to the
county that actually belong to DEP or to the Water Management District.
And the way that we originally interpreted this language is that it applied to any easement, whether it was
written to the county, to the Corps of Engineers, to a homeowners association, whatever, if there was any easement on
the property, you could not count it.
Now, the state has three different easements that they use on properties when they're asking for protection
measures. They have a standard conservation easement which generally prohibits any activities within the easement
area; they have a passive use easement which allows for passive uses not inconsistent with the intent of the easement,
the conservation intent of the easement; and the passive uses. What usually gets put on an area where you're planning
to have boat docks or you need a walkway going through the easement to access your docks that are on the outside of
it would be a passive use.
And then the state has a third easement which is called a proprietary easement. Now, when the state wants to
limits the amount of boat slips that can be used or that can be pennitted on a project, they require a proprietary
easement to be placed along a shoreline. And usually tlus goes from the mean high water line in anywhere from one
to five feet. And what that does is give the state a proprietary interest in the shoreline so that they have the ability to
say okay, we permitted you 40 docks, that's all the docks that you can have there forever, even though your shoreline
might allow you more under your Manatee Protection Plan. They use a proprietary easement to actually limit or
prohibit docks on areas.
So those are the three easements that the state uses and the -- you know, kind of the methodology or the
criteria associated with them.
Pm here you know, tonight -- when this first came before the Planning Commission back in 2007, there was a
lot of concern from the Marine Industries Association. I mean, Collier County as well as from a lot of our clients how
this would affect them.
And there are no provisions in here for grandfathering, there's no provisions in terns of whether it applies to
only county easements or to other easements, and there's no provisions in terms of what happens, the what if scenario
was if a storm -- if there's an easement, a current easement in place on a property that has boat docks and we get a
Page 18
161 '1A411, °0
catastrophic storm that comes through and it removes those boat docks, according to -- you'd have to submit a new
building permit and all to rebuild your docks. And the way that the county has interpreted things is that -- in the past
is that you have to become current, concurrent with the -- you have to be compliant with the current LDC for your
new construction. And if this code applies and says well, because that easement's there, they're no longer allowed
docks, then they have lost all the rights that they had previously associated with that.
And that's my last comment is that when you own property adjacent to waterways, you have riparian rights.
You have the right to access your property from the water.
And if this provision is changed -- the way it reads now, if it excludes the use to calculate wet slips, then
everybody is well aware of that. In the past, as Rich said, it hasn't been an issue. It's been assumed that the easement
does not eliminate, you know, those rights unless it's specifically put in there. And as I said, we normally have done
that with proprietary easements.
So the issue is that I believe that putting this on there where you're excluding uses that are believed to be or,
you know, in my opinion are connected to the property, you would really constitute a taking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are you done?
MR. HALL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What percentage of the conservation easements are those quote, unquote,
proprietary easements that would prohibit the slips' calculation to be used?
MR. HALL: I know that there is -- if we talk about projects that we're discussing now, there is -- there's one
on The Dunes property that says 49 slips is all you can have.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I mean --
MR. HALL: In terms of how many -- how many in the county? I know of -- there was one here. There was
one placed at Regatta to limit those. There was one placed on the county, the Goodland boat ramp, the Goodland boat
park property. I don't know whether that one is still in place, because when the county purchased the property there
was some amendments and some changes made. But there had been one placed out there.
You know, in terms of what I work on, maybe one in 20 has a proprietary easement associated with it.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My concern is just that there's going to be hundreds of boat slips that are
probably going to be grandfathered in if we do what the county's staff is suggesting.
MR. HALL: Well, I mean, the Manatee Protection Plan -- Mr. Strain I think asked the question about
carrying capacity associated with boats in the county.
When the Manatee Protection Plan was put in place, that's kind of what that document was attempting to do
was to say look, if you've got these criteria, you meet these criteria, this is how many boats you can support.
That document -- part of that document was to look at the county, see where boats should or should not go
and limit them where they shouldn't and allow them where they should.
And questions came out about the width of the docks that you would be allowed there and all, but you have to
keep in mind that in a lot of cases there are a lot of marinas the boats aren't all put right up against the shoreline.
You're allowed T -docks and other stuff. So you may only take up 100 feet of shoreline, but you could have 20 or 30
boats because they extend out in a T -dock fashion. You know, so there are other ways that that was addressed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that all?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one thing before you get going, and it's actually for the County Attorney's
Office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a question of Tire, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I don't want him to go, I want him to be here when I ask this.
One of Mr. Hall's concerns is that if he has docks that are permitted right now and they get blown away by a
hurricane and there's a conservation easement, they're not going to be able to rebuild. But that's not how our
build -back policy is. Is that correct?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They would just have to -- and when they talk about coming up to code, it
would mean that if we have new standards for building docks or if we have -- or if they had a crumbling seawall or
something, they would have to replace to current standards, not that the right to have those docks would go away; is
Page 19
1 6 I i i I, 201"
P
that correct?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it depends on how much it's destructed and the degree of nonconformity
with our code. But I think that it could be remedied if this particular dock facility is affected by amending the
easement or coming back to the board. 1 don't think the intent is to, you know, cut back on the number of docks.
MR. HALL: I agree, I don't think that's the intent. But when we were looking at that, I think that that could
be the result.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you said something I wanted to just make sure I understand. You said The
Dunes has submitted their conservation easement?
MR. HALL: The Dunes has conservation easements to the Water Management District --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the one --
MR. HALL: --in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for the county has not been submitted yet.
MR. HALL: I don't know. if you say so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, Pm was just reflecting what staff had indicated to me. I wasn't sure if you
had any better knowledge than that.
MR. HALL: I know that the ones for the South Florida Water Management District have been submitted and
recorded.
CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Okay. And 1 heard a gentleman said that they were redacted. It's a public
document. How do you redact something that's a public document? Do you know?
MR. HALL: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The monitoring stations that you indicated are around to measure the tide levels and
through that they set the shoreline levels, if Al Gore was here, or others, he might tell you that our water levels are
going to change.
Let's assume that's true. If it changes one inch on a very slightly sloped area, that one inch goes back any
great number of feet. Since those tide stations aren't monitored, that must mean there are changes anticipated. Do
you know of any changes in our mean water levels?
MR. HALL: Not yet. That hasn't come about. But I guess it's hard because we're -- usually it's an
interpolation between two stations. So depending on where you are, how close you are to each station. And it's not
something that my office does, that comes out of a surveyor's office. I just kind of know the procedure for it.
But, you know, it is possible that gradually if we have sea level rise that shorelines will change. The county
code actually has a provision for coastal projects to -- in the EAC -- or in the EIS we're supposed to address what the
potential effect on a project would be if there was a six -inch rise in sea level.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. And so if there was even a one -inch rise in sea level, if your conservation
easements are based on hard survey lines and not on a meandering shoreline as it would modify or change over time,
basically the shoreline would move further inland then.
MR. HALL: It could, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting.
Okay, the last question, 1 can't tell by your conversation here whether you're for or against the language being
proposed.
MR. HALL: I guess I forgot that part.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm just curious, since you area professional in the field, I just want to know what
you think of it.
MR. HALL: Well, I was part of the stakeholders meetings with the Development Environmental Services
staff, Marine Industries Association was present at some of those. I believe The Conservancy was present at some of
those.
This was the language that we thought was the most fair. It gives notice that -- you know, and it gives the
county a way through their development process, if they want to at the PUD, time of PUD or any approval, to limit
slips or eliminate slips, they can do that through this conservation easement where the slips are excluded.
And then the people that haven't addressed that in the past are not penalized for it. You know, people coming
in for new dock projects, if they have conservation easements on there are still going to go through some kind of
county review. And this -- you know, the item as to whether or not there's going to be any exclusion of slips should
Page 20
16 I `1` A 1, o
be done at that review period and them not be penalized for trying to have the forethought to deal with an issue that
they weren't aware was going to become an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you for or against this language?
MR. HALL: I am for the language as it's written. I think that the easements should -- the only shoreline that
should be excluded is the ones where the easement states that that's the case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Are there anybody else -- anybody else like to speak?
Yes, sir, come on up.
MR. SAWYER: My name's Kit Sawyer. I have Sawyer's Outboard on Bayshore Drive. And I guess I'm
glad to hear that Tim likes this. I'm just --I don't know all the legalities here.
I just -- I have a marina. I've been here all my life, my family's been here, Sawyer's. I'm doing -- my dream
is my building and my marina. I finally did get dock permit --or ramp permit. I wanted a lot more docks than I did
get. I actually -- because the fire department wants me to put water on all my docks because I wanted service docks, I
don't have enough parking to do a whole bunch of docks anyways. But I wanted more docks for people to bring their
boats, drop them off so I can do service.
I didn't get that, so I have now just a ramp and just a pier to unload and load boats, which is not what I
wanted, but some day I guess, if I keep going forward, is I would like to add on, put more docks in. If it's go up over
my service yard and put parking up there or something, then I would like to know that I can still put docks in. That is
my dream.
So I guess my question is to Tim that this doesn't affect me and other people like me that would like to do
this. I understand stopping a development from developing stuff, but I've been here all my life and before all you
people were there and where you're at, that wasn't there. And I don't know that we can keep telling people we can't
build. 82 percent of the land in Collier County is non - developable land now. Isn't that enough? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to go on with this one for a while yet and we've got two short
ones to finish after that. I would suggest to the Planning Commission, we probably don't need to take a lunch today.
But knowing that, I think we ought to give Cherie' a break and come back and resume after a 15- minute break. So
why don't we break right now, we'll come back at 11:45, make it even.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. We're going to finish up shoreline.
We have two other small ones after that and then that'll call it a day.
So we had finished public testimony before the break, and basically we need to know if there's any other
questions of the Planning Commission of anyone before we go into discussion.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, and it's kind of a combination question of both Steve and the County
Attorney.
We're here today because someone asked a question, and it's been going on for a few years. We're attempting
to change the code to fit the circumstance that may not be that frequent. It centers around conservation easements,
both prior and going forward.
I think it's clear as a result of today's discussion and the history going forward anybody knows, including this
board and the others, that if they want something in the conservation easement, they better think carefully how they
do the language of that easement.
In going in the past, I think we heard from the County Attorney's Office that someone could modify a
conservation easement. I know that can be done on a project I'm familiar with with the Golden Gate Fire Department.
My point is that maybe instead of doing anything today in regards to this language we do nothing and we
provide the suggestion that if someone wants to come in and challenge a shoreline calculation through a conservation
easement and it's one existing, they can go through a process with staff as a recommendation or non - recommendation,
can go back through the County Attorney's Office and be scheduled for a public hearing in front of the Board of
County Commissioners for approval of that conservation easement_
Page 21
161 1
A l 42 O10
Going forward, I don't see the problem occurring, because any language that's a modification of the current
standard would have to go to the board for approval. So either way, the conservation easements happen in front of the
board, which is a public process and people can participate on whether or not it is a good or a bad idea for that
particular conservation easement on a case -by -case basis.
And I think what we avoid doing then is opening a Pandora's box of pros and cons on an issue that could
either unleash an unknown amount of boat docks and quantities that we don't have a handle on or we have the threat
of someone's property rights being taken away because it wasn't properly addressed in the manner it is now.
So to me that might be a solution we should consider. And I'm kind of looking for reactions from staff and
county attorney as to what they think about that kind of a process.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think what you're proposing is consistent with what Jeffs opinion is, is it
should be handled how it already is handled outside of the Land Development Code. And if you put language in
either way, you're going to put the language -- whether it's what's currently proposed or an exclusionary language, you
will continue to have problems with the language.
And you do have an opportunity later on as part of the permitting of 10 or more boat slips where this will be
heard again. So I recommend what you're proposing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, any comments?
MR. LENBERGER: No comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we'll go back -- anybody else? This is basically a discussion point
before we have a vote on the issue. Anybody else have any comments, discussion?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, clarification. So what you're saying is we have this proposal G.
You're saying don't do anything; don't adopt it, don't deny it, don't modify it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to do -- we would have to do something. But I'm saying not
recommend approval on it which means we don't do anything as far as changing the code and we rely on the system
we currently have in place. And if those rare occasions come up where someone has an issue, let them challenge the
process through trying to initiate a change to an existing conservation easement or rewriting a new one and let the
process be vetted through the public at a public meeting like it would be under that condition. So that's what I'm
suggesting.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But what I'm understanding the people who are in favor of this thing is that if
it's not specifically excluded then it means it's included. So if we do nothing, isn't that accepting, I don't know, that
point of view?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we do nothing, from Steve's testimony, where's -- if we do nothing, would
-- how would staff approach? Let's say -- let's not use The Duties, because they're -- who knows where they're at with
things. Let's just take a typical project with a conservation easement, how would you approach it?
MR. LENBERGER: Staff would seek direction from the board on this on how they want to handle it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well --
MR. LENBERGER: At this point, because we've been requested to bring the amendment forward, so we
would have to seek direction from the board. And I imagine the County Attorney's Office will probably weigh in, so
it might be appropriate to ask them.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You'd continue to first look at the conservation easement to see whether or not it's
addressed. And if it's not addressed, then I think you'd evaluate the shoreline and what would be permissible under
either scenario and come up with a recommendation and get input from the state as to the appropriate number of boat
slips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the applicant wanted more than what that recommendation standardly would
provide, would we advise the applicant they have the option of changing the language in the conservation easement?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That would be one way that they can handle it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then if that happens, that goes to the Board of County Commissioners; is that --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, question 1 have is if we do go that way, what happens to this? Will
this be brought before the County Commission? Will they be given an option of either of two ways? Because if we
Page 22
16 1 1 1 4 4ril 1, 2010
do let this thing go forward, I think we should amend it and then maybe yours as an alternate solution.
But if we have the ability to totally kill the proposed amendment, then that might work. But if we vote not to
make a recommendation and then this goes forward, I wouldn't be comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I was suggesting we make a recommendation but it's to deny, because the
change wouldn't -- I don't see where the change is warranted for the site specific purpose that it seems to evolved
under.
For the limited amount of times this would come up, I think the other avenues through the changes or
modifications that a rewriting of a conservation easement is a better way to go and it affords the public an opportunity
at every event if they want to to intercede. So that's where I was thinking.
Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me keep going.
And then I guess the real question is how many different sites have this kind of problem. So you have these
small sites, I mean, the fellow with the repair shop, does he have a small conservation easement and this will hurt
him? Or I mean, what kind of projects are going to have this? We obviously know of big projects that have
conservation easements on the water line, but --
MR. LFNBERGER: Well, it could potentially be all size projects. It would be anything -- any project where
the Manatee Protection Plan applies, which is all manna facilities and multi - family projects with 10 slips or more.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And are you familiar with those projects enough to know how many of
those have conservation easements with the project?
MR. LFNBERGER: No, I'm not familiar with the quantity. I've not done any surveys.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the reason I'm saying that, because I don't want to hurt some
small guys. You know, if you give them direction in the LDC, then everybody knows what to do and it's inexpensive.
If they have to go through hearing processes for even smaller shops and stuff, that doesn't make sense to me. But
thanks.
MR. LENBERGER: You're saying for smaller projects they could count the shoreline?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not saying which way to go, I'm just saying that one of the advantages
for smaller people is that if you can read it in the code and you know what it is, you don't have to go through the
expense of a hearing. That's all. If it's only large projects that have this concern, that's a different story.
But thanks, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What I would like to see us do is to adopt G but just to delete the last line and
the second to the last line starting from the word "where." So the last sentence would be, all the shoreline will be used
for calculating the maximum number of wet slips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan except for shoreline within
conservation easements, and just put a period and stop there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I would love your language to carry the day. I think it's the appropriate
language to carry the day.
In answer to Mr. Schiffer, apparently according to testimony that we've heard today, this has not been a
problem, so 1 don't think you have to worry about the little guy, he's not been ever affected. So -- and I doubt he's
suddenly going to crop up out of nowhere. So I don't -- you know, I don't really think that's an issue.
I will support Mr. Strain's idea. I think it gets us as close as we're probably going to get to what Mr. Midney
and I would like. And it will keep it in the public hearing. You will be able to go before the Board of County
Commissioners and express your opinions one way or the other on these issues.
Again, I go back to what I heard from Mr. Lorenz and Mr. Midney's comments, it should just end at the word
conservation easements and we shouldn't be having this discussion. But we are, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: My thought, I had everything clear in my mind until I heard the comparison
to transfer development rights and the same things we're trying to accomplish in the RLSA. And if we do that, if we
take this last part off, then what's good for the east is not good for the west of the county. So I mean, this is what I'm
struggling with. In other words, transferring rights of non - development to development of more slips. That's what I'm
struggling with right now. So that's why -- gosh, we vote right away to eliminate where the conservation easement all
Page 23
161 1 Atril,l`40
the way to wet slips on those two lines out, it's going to take me more than a couple of seconds here to decide on a
vote. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, if you were to drop the language as suggested, and Mr. Midney,
I'm not saying it's wrong, but I want to provide a cautionary statement. The old language that occurred in 2007
basically got where you're trying to go. But with it there were some exceptions that were rather important. One was
that government owned boat facilities would not -- would be exempt from that provision. And that's important for the
property the county has acquired for the minimum amount of slips they have.
And the other provision was that marina facilities that were 100 percent open to the public would be exempt.
And that would then discourage private slips and allow more public access to the shoreline.
We're but we're not discussing that 2007 language. So [ think just cutting the sentence off will lead to some
unintended concerns that may hurt that language from passing with just that cut -off point. Because that's one reason
why the other language was added in 2007 is to make it solve more problems than it might create.
I don't know what motion's going to be made and I have a statement at the point of the motion, so I'll wait and
see who wants to make a motion. So anybody?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: [just wanted to ask a question about what you just said.
So there is an exclusion now for county owned facilities and facilities that are open to the public.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: There's an allowance that the conservation easement land would count
towards the wet slips on that property?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, in 2007, in the language that this board and then the Board of County -- I think
we recommended approval and it was denied or [ guess not pursued by the Board of County Commissioners. In that
language they had actually three exceptions. And one was for creative shorelines, which is not an issue here. But the
other one was for the government owned waterways, and the third one was for 100 percent publicly owned marinas.
There were exceptions to the language there.
There's nothing like that being offered today. And if you were to take a sentence that's being offered today
and cut it back, as you indicated, it would be more in line with what was in 2007, but the exceptions don't apply. That
may make it concerning to public officials who have gotten us boat docks to the best they can and certainly would like
to get us more, and those people that want to see more public marinas. Because basically it would apply to everything.
And it may be more prohibitive than other people might feel need to vote on, so that may be a problem.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, why can't we have this brought back and maybe they could --the
direction could be to bring some of it -- obviously the vested rights is discussed on the old one.
I think -- I kind of favor what Paul and Donna favor. I would also add, though, that if we did -- in the public
hearing process it was allowed in the conservation easement to use the shoreline, I would like that to be put in,
essentially the reserve of what's here. But why don't they try again with the wording and maybe pick up some of the
older wording?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know, [ think that the Board of County Commissioners turned down
the older wording and gave direction to create the new wording and that's why we're here today. And if we turn
around and tell them to go back to some of the old wording, ['m not sure we're going to be getting anywhere but
spinning our wheels.
So, I mean, it's up to this board. My position is I'm fine moving forward with some suggestions of my own
today. And I'm assuming each of us may have our own too, and that's why I'm trying to seek a motion, so we can
start the discussion.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one thing we would do if we did adopt something would be that we
would give everybody from this point forward notice on how to deal with this. And obviously if they're going back
and forth, they don't have clear direction.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's not clear here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'll make a motion if you want, just to start it off.
Page 24
16 V 1 t, 201
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see what Ms. Caron had to say.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, what I was going to say is I think that you actually started a
motion, so why don't you finish the motion that you started?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't mind going forward. I usually defer to others, because as chairman I
don't like to take the initiative, because I can -- I don't have to look to myself to say okay, Mark, you can talk.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll give you that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, Mark, you can talk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to make a motion to recommend denial for the change of the language, with
the suggestion that the Board of County Commissioners look to an alternate process of seeking a case -by -case
analysis of the conservation easements in the manner which we discussed. Now that -- so that's my motion.
Mr. Vighotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Now discussion. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But which means -- and this is to Ray.
Ray, this language will not go forward to the commission with that recommendation. So what happens?
Because here's the problem: I think if we do that and it goes -- this language goes before the commission with the fact
that the Planning Commission recommended denial, they're still looking at this language.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'd much rather work on this language also. Can we do that also,
Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I was going to add during discussion some reasoning to go with it. But I
didn't want to make that a part of the motion. That was going to be part of the discussion. You know how we
normally discuss why we're going to vote and the board asks what was the reasoning sometimes behind our vote?
Well, I was going to provide that for my perspective.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That might clear it up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so then what do we do, your motion first and then go back and clear
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my motion has been made and seconded. Now we're open for discussion on
the motion.
The motion was for denial, suggesting an alternate plan and looking at a case -by -case basis at the
conservation easements, both retroactive and perspective in the manner which we discussed earlier with staff and the
county attorney.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think maybe if we're going to suggest an alternate process, we need to
work on that alternate process language so that we give something at least thought out to the BCC. And then it's not
just wide open you'll get everything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. And 1 was wondering, can staff do that? See, there's --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we may all want to think about this for a while, too. I mean, it may
bring it back closer to 2007 and maybe we just rework some of the processes and that language. You know, and
actually resubmit some --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine. If staff has a latitude to take a direction, let's say we turn the motion
into just a direction right now and we bring this back but that direction is for staff to come back with an alternative
tailored around the discussion we've had, can you do that based on the fact the board tells you to come back with the
language that you're in front of us with today?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, yes, we can come back to you. The BCC did not direct this language, they
directed us to meet with stakeholders. This particular language was what the EAC recommended. So staff could
work with the County Attorney's Office and we can draft some language and come back with you later on, if you
wish.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if that can be done, I think that's a much preferred route.
Page 25
161 1 AA A010
And thank you, Ms. Caron, for suggesting that, it's a good idea. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think that the County Attorney's position on this whole issue needs to
play a major role in what that process is, so thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, from a perspective of staff, do you see this as something realistic to get back
with us in this cycle?
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes for the record.
Our deadline is -- oh, am I looking at April? Because it's the I st today. Our deadline is the close of business
on the 5th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of what, April?
MS. ISTENES: April, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean your deadline to have Cycle 1 wrapped up?
MS. ISTENES: To put something in writing, print it and send it to you for your consideration for April 15th,
we have to wrap up by the 5th. And then we are -- our next meeting with the board I believe is -- I'm going to look to
John and maybe he could look it up if he doesn't know off the top of his head. I'm thinking it's around mid May. So
yes, I am running out of time.
However, we could bring this one back to them at a later meeting, assuming we could do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- I mean, if you can do that, that might be the solution, if it needs to be. I
don't think you and the County Attorney's Office can get together by the 5th, which is what, Monday, and have this
resolved, especially with the weekend.
MS. ISTENES: May 17th is the first board meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But this one is such a highlighted issue, I would imagine the board's going to
probably do a time certain, and they could even put this on a special date like we have, isolate it out.
MS. ISTENES: There's some flexibility. I would recommend just --because I know this was vetted through
stakeholders groups, that if you do opt to suggest some different language, that staff really ought to be informing the
board of the input. And if the stakeholders had supported this language, we ought to be also explaining to them that
this was the stakeholders' approved language and that you all had wanted some modifications to that, so that they
understand that there's two different recommendations. Otherwise it kind of discounts the stakeholders' input.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're not trying to do that --
MS. ISTENES: I didn't think so.
MR. LENBERGER: The stakeholders were not uniform --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I wasjust going to ask you.
MR. LENBERGER: They were not in agreement with the language. There's all different sides.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, if you could devise something along the context of which wejust
discussed and it was done in the manner where the stakeholders could take a look at it and it was a compromise that
all the parties would buy into, we could then go to the board with something that is now not as controversial.
So maybe that is an opportunity that we need to really look after. So I like the suggestion, Ms. Caron, to
untable the -- I mean take off the table the recommendation for denial, but change it to a recommendation for staff
direction on the matters that wejust -- as wejust discussed? Assuming the second would accept that, Mr. Vighotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's proceed under that basis for discussion. This would be a direction to
staff to pursue the avenue of looking at the easement language and the process of the easement as a solution to this
whole thing.
Does anybody have any discussion on that as a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we most --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd still like to hear some of -- you were going to provide some backup, some
information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I mean, on the original language, I'd be glad to tell you what I was —
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it would be -- I think it would serve us and serve everybody here at
least what the rationales were.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we have a limited ability to control quantities of boats, we don't
Page 26
161 1 1 I1'['4 1, 2010
have a level of service standard like we do on our roads, like we do for density, we don't have a carrying capacity
analysis on the estuaries. Each estuary can take a certain amount of boat traffic. And the north end of the county it's
all funneled through Wiggins Pass. In the south end of the county there's a myriad of exits to the gulf. So each area is
going to have a different ability to accommodate more boating. That was one of my reasons why I didn't think
arbitrarily allow the shoreline calculation to go across the board was a good thing.
The second one was that there were no exceptions in this language. I think I already voiced that concern to
Mr. Midney.
I don't believe that the easement's ability to follow the shoreline and where the shoreline is is articulated
correctly in the code, so that could pose a problem in the future as the shoreline moved.
All the -- and part of my argument against the current language was that we can deal retroactively with any
easement, as the county attorney said. It can be modified. And I know for a fact that you can modify those, because 1
was involved in one for a public agency.
If we allow this language to go forward, it sets a new level of interpretation from stating what is allowed by --
as a rule, to versus now suggesting that any silence of a use means it is allowed. That's a radical change to the way we
look at the Land Development Code.
Right now every zoning district, we spell out what's allowed. The way this is saying is if you don't spell it
out, it is allowed. That's a little concerning.
So basically from a commonsense viewpoint, if an area within a conservation easement cannot be used for
docks when it is -- why would it be practical to allow it to be counted then for docks? The intent would not seem to
be consistent with the Land Development Code.
And the code has always been a protective code, not one that says if we didn't say it you can automatically do
it. I think it's been more the opposite direction.
So that's my leanings against the language that was being proposed today. And I would have voted for
denial, regardless of the motion made. I'm now trying to figure out a compromise.
I think with Ms. Caron's help, we've got a suggestion to staff that might come back with a compromise to
solve the problem for a lot of the parties. And hopefully we can get there through the public process as well. I think
we'd be way ahead of the game.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we're making progress by going this way. Definitely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anyway, we have a motion. I think we're finished with discussion.
All those in favor of the direction to the staff, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. And I'll wait for staff to reschedule this with us and when it
comes back we'll deal with it.
I wish to thank everybody from the public for attending today.
Okay, we have two items left. We're going to go back and try to attempt the fences and walls one again.
That was on book four, Page 93.
MS. ISTENES: You all actually had gotten through the amendment and I had written on Page 103 that we
ended right before -- you had started discussion on sound walls and I think you were asking questions about it. And
that is actually the end of the amendment, so that's what my notes say anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're right. Brad started to say that. You weren't here. He had not seen a
copy of the changes. So now that I think he had gotten a copy of that, you're here, I can certainly ask the Commission
if they have discussion on the entire text of the entire proposal.
Page 27
1 b 1 1April 1,410
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what we were talking about sound walls, is this is just giving carte
blanche to sound walls and I'm not sure we wanted to do that.
Susan, we were going to maybe put landscape or something else? Or why do we have to have that in there at
this time?
MS. ISTENES: Why do we have to have sound walls in there at this time?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know because --
MS. ISTENES: Because they exist.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They wont meet the defini -- the criteria that we have for the walls.
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what do we want to do? 1 mean, I really think a lot of communities are
coming apart with people putting sound walls all over the place. 1 mean, and it's not just urban communities that are
starting to stick sound walls all over the place, so --
MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure -- I mean, my perspective is I'm not sure that you're going to get away from
people not wanting sound walls. In fact, I'm understanding there's people that want sound walls that don't exist
because of expansion of I -75 and other rights -of -way.
I think -- I guess the question is are there any set of standards that you want to apply to them, or do you want
to mitigate them in some form or fashion? And that's where landscaping was a suggestion. But there may be others,
like, I don't know, maybe design standards or something.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The ones that you're referring to here are only those, you know, from a
government entity. So nobody could interpret that to put up their own private sound wall on their property line,
correct?
MS. ISTENES: Correct. They certainly could erect a wall, they could -- but it would have to be in
accordance with the height and the locational and the landscaping requirements.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they couldn't take advantage of this clause. So maybe it isn't that big a
deal.
Do we have control over the government at that point in time anyway? Could a community establish what
they want for sound walls?
MS. ISTENES: Sure. I'm sure negotiations with the county, they could establish what they want.
My understanding is most of them are retaining the ownership of the walls, if you will, and the requirements
to maintain them after the county has erected them. And I believe they're being placed in easements across their
property. Not all of them, but 1 believe a great majority of them are. So in a sense they're being turned over to the
community is my understanding.
I think the concern would be -- and I can't speak for transportation, they're obviously not here, but I'm sure the
concern would be the cost if you were to impose additional requirements on them, either that be through design
standards or landscaping requirements or what have you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what you're saying though is that the county, which is the
government entity in this clause, is actually building these sound walls on private property?
MS. ISTENES: That's my understanding, that seems to be the pattern recently, because it's less expensive
than trying to acquire the additional right -of -way simply to put the wall up and then they've got the maintenance and
ownership issue and cost associated with that as well, so --
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFFR: Who reviews those? Does anybody review those designs, or what --how
does that come about? They do look different, so some people are thinking differently.
MS. ISTENES: My understanding is the transportation department does. We do not. I'm not aware of any
that we've reviewed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I guess we have to have something, so maybe we let it go.
But maybe it's something -- I mean, to say -- to study what to do. the staff has no time to study anything at this point,
right?
MS. ISTENES: Well, I guess it's being put here. If you have any thoughts or suggestions or things to look at
for the future, I'd welcome them at this point. It's up to you.
They're here. You see them. If you have any recommendations about them in their current form; otherwise,
Page 28
16 I i l R T April 1, 2010
this is just meant to I would say legitimize what's there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think we should do that. But I don't know how you would go about
requesting, you know, do the architectural standards start to include them and maybe people convene and develop
what standards they should have? I mean, something has to be studied. You can't just --
MS. ISTENES: I could certainly carry forward this board's recommendation, if you want to do something
like that other than, you know, a specific standard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I think. Anyway, just to keep moving on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Susan, I really believe that there have to be standards. The federal
government, for all -- along many interstate corridors has included it in its construction activity or reconstruction
activity. And I can't imagine them, especially the federal government, not having a requirement for standards. And
so I would think -- I don't know how difficult that would be to obtain that information, but I would imagine
transportation people would have the access. And if there are such standards, if they comport with the needs of the
county, then perhaps we can not adopt them or accept them as the base. Does that sound reasonable?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. I'm sure there's standards. The intent is to attenuate sound. I know they are basing their
height and location, I believe, on sound studies.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MS. ISTENES: I could certainly reference that or check with transportation and see if there would be an
issue with referencing that. I'm not sure how that would really change anything here, though.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it might get you closer to some information that you might feel we're
missing right now, or we might feel is missing right now.
Because if the interstates are being done by the fed and they have a set of standards based on criteria that are
already established and we can apply that in some form to the collector arterial, why wouldn't we want to? That
would be my view, and I would think that that's worth at least taking a shot at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think it's not so much standard as for erecting the walls that Mr.
Schiffer was talking about. I think he was looking at more things to soften the effect of these walls in terms of
architectural design esthetically, not construction -wise, and for landscaping to make our community look better. And
I think that might be worthy of looking into.
I don't know, I think, Susan, you're probably right, the big issue is going to be cost when you finally talk to
anybody about it. But I'm not so sure that's not a good thing for us to look at, just sort of the same way we looked at
median plantings and things. They give our community a different look, a better look, and helps raise all boats here in
terms of values. So --
MS. ISTENES: Well, certainly. I mean, whe --
COMMISSIONER CARON: --maybe just looking at it. You know, I'm not recommending that we do
anything in this cycle.
MS. ISTENES: I mean, if you -- certainlyjust as the median landscaping provides a statement about our
community, so do the walls. And so maybe the contemplation is, is this making the statement that we want it to make
now that we're seeing them? And maybe it's just a contemplation at this point, an observation.
I don't care. I personally -- or professionally I think if you're spending all the money on landscaping medians
and then erecting barriers on both sides of them, it really negates the impact. And -- but, you know, again, I think it's
more of a budgetary concern than anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I may be able to respond to some of your questions.
Currently I think what Susan is proposing is a codification of what currently exists. Right now 1 don't believe
the sound walls are regulated in any fashion as they're constructed in road right -of -way.
I know that the transportation department does have standards on the erection of sound walls and prototypes
of what certain walls they'll accept. Some of them are built by the county and some of them are built by the
homeowners association. There's so many different arrangements out there, I can't give you an example of how they
handle it in every situation. Some of them probably involve landscaping and some of them don't. And then as you
know, we have a median beautification, or had one in better days, program that also involves beautification along the
Page 29
1611IA4
April 1, 2010
sides where the walls are constructed. And there's a Warren Study that the transportation department does when the
roads come through to determine whether they should build walls and to what height they should build it, and that's all
based on the studies that they do. And some of it is also the result of negotiations with the associations. So it really
varies in every circumstance.
I don't think the transportation department would want to put regulations in the LDC, because they look to the
Federal Department of Transportation standards and they have certain prototypes, but that could change. And I think
they're always looking for a better product and a cost efficient product but yet still trying to maintain aesthetics in
something that's acceptable to the public.
If you have any other questions, I can try to answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, do you get summer intems or anything like that at the planning
department? Because what I was thinking, see if somebody could maybe look up, pull from APA files a book or
something, something on sound walls, so we just start to think about it.
The thing that scared me is a while back we did a development up the northern part of 75 where they really
wanted to get close to the road and the sound wall was part of their application. And we kind of thought that was
okay for some horrible reason that -- in other words, like 1 can get the house really close if I put this 20 -foot sound
wall.
So I mean, essentially we should be doing better planning where maybe that's where the preserve should have
been instead of the sound wall. So it would be good that we do have to focus, and maybe we do set some standards
and maybe they're palatable even.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And for the record, we do look at design standards for sound walls in certain
instances. I recall a couple projects that I worked on along I -75 where the sound walls were part of the project design.
And you're right, it allows them to move the buildings a little closer to the interstate while still maintaining
some sound deadening abilities with the larger wall that was approved as part of the PUD.
Where I see the big problem is, and as Susan eluded to, is these after - the -fact projects where the Type D
buffer has been installed, it's a nice visual design for both the property owner and for the traveling motorists, and then
when the sound wall goes in, it's usually in front of the Type D buffer and then you've got a stark wall.
And the standards should be -- you know, one thing is you have to make sure that there's adequate buffering
on the outside of the wall once the sound wall goes in. But that's sometimes predicated on the amount of right -of -way
that's left or room that's left. So there's going to be a lot of safety issues involved when the after - the -fact sound wall
goes in. And it's not going to be easy to have set standards that apply universally for each right -of -way. So it's going
to take some thought.
And I'd be happy to have some of our staff look at some development standards that other communities have,
or the state standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Heidi, I have - -1 need clarity on something. You've indicated that
associations -- I don't know if you went any further than that by intimation, but at least associations who are not a
governmental agency necessarily in the same context we're talking about here and may want a sound attenuating wall,
if they're not at the direction of the County Commission, they may be restricted to height, based on this paragraph.
Because this is very clear it says erected by or at the direction of. Now, I don't know if those associations have the
right to just pull a permit and build a wall, but now they're restricted to a given height.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that's a good point, because I do have an ongoing project right now where the
road is going to be constructed very, very close to -- I can't get into the details, but it's a development, and they will
need to put in a sound wall, but it will not be on county road right -of -way. It would probably be the result of a
settlement and whether they craft the settlement to say it's at the direction of the county. I guess if they didn't craft the
settlement to say it's at the direction of the county, it was just a settlement agreement, then it probably would not fall
under here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, because prior it was said that they -- nobody can other than the
government initiate such a thing, and you brought that into it. So I do think that has to be qualified now.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think the best thing to do is first of all, I think the suggestion is there's not
Page 30
1611 A April l,201
enough regulation in this reference to a sound wall. Actually, it seems to remove more regulation than provide. I
think we need regulation for sound walls; that seems the consensus.
So I would suggest we have a motion to recommend approval on the fences and walls and drop the -- with a
recommendation to drop the reference to sound walls for another cycle to come back when we have more adequate
time to research the issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And go forward with something in the future.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been -- motion's been accepted by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Discussion?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, doesn't that leave us in the position where we don't have --nobody
can build sound walls higher than our wall and fence ordinance?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're doing it now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't?
MR. BELLOWS: Not in the right -of -way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're doing it now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the right -of -way. Okay. But I thought you said -- well, okay. So
nobody's going to do it on private property. That's good.
MS.ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think also it also provides the opportunity for transportation to get with the
code writing to make sure that if there are federal guidelines for certain types of roads, they're incorporated, and if
there are state guidelines, they're incorporated, and if there are beautification guidelines, architectural criteria that we
want to include, they can be incorporated.
So I think moving that one into a more definitive cycle in the future to come back in a more thorough
thought -out way would be better than just putting a sentence through today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIO'FTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
The last one we have today is the rewrite of the temporary use section. That's on Page 105.
And Susan, maybe you can enlighten us. I think it was section references and things like that were checked
and possibly corrected. There's a few other highlighted areas. Do you want to --
MS. ISTENES: Yes, certainly. This isn't anything new. I mean, you did see this change when the sign
ordinance changes went through.
This is essentially finishing up the sign ordinance changes. John did go through and clean up some
references I think just really providing direction to where things went, because there were some errors there.
And then he did -- I did e -mail you a clean copy that he put together so you all could see how it would read
without the underlines and strikeouts.
But essentially it's moving the topic of temporary signs from the sign code into the temporary uses and
structures section of the Land Development Code.
Page 31
161 1
A4 4
April 1, 2010
We did reorganize it a little bit better to read a little bit better and a little cleaner. And that's really about it,
unless you have specific questions that I can attempt to answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since we've already had the package before, I'll just -- we'll take the document in a
whole because we're looking at refinements from prior meetings.
Does anybody have any questions of anything?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, on page -- starts on 1 11 but it goes to 112. The temporary signs, is
that per tenant or is that for the mall or the site in general? And how would somebody know that?
MS. ISTENES: It could be per tenant. It's not for the mall, per se. I mean, it's per business, really.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So a strip little center with 10 tenants, they could all decide that they want
to have a temporary sign for a special weekend and there be -- and they all could have them?
MS. ISTENES: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a question, and I couldn't find it in here. And I have passed quite a
few places where somebody will park let's say a truck and a trailer on a very busy road, maybe even laid a pad of
concrete there so they could park it right on the road and so they have a sign for their business. Is that addressed? Is
that considered temporary? Because this has been, oh, two, three years sitting there.
MS. ISTENES: Are you talking about perhaps a truck that they drive in the daily operation of their business
or --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sometimes, yeah. Well, there's not much business so it sits there a lot. But
yes. But yes, it is a vehicle and a trailer that's used. Is that permissible?
MS. ISTENES: It gets into a grey area of the code that I think is a little bit hard to enforce, because if the
vehicle is being parked in a parking lot of their business and --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Their home.
MS. ISTENES: Oh, their home? There's really not a restriction on the sign on the vehicle.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 1 didn't have a problem. I wasjust wondering if --
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I know what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- the problem was addressed, because we have restricted similar things
before. Thank you.
MS. ISTENES: I mean, if it's a licensed operable vehicle and it just happens to have a sign on it that talks
about a business and they are using, you know, the vehicle, it can be driven, then it's allowed.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Very good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion on the rewrite of the temporary use section?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I move that we find this to be compliant with the Growth
Management Plan and forward with a recommendation of approval with the -- that's it, no with the.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Vighotti.
And I failed to do this the prior time. But that's for Sections 5.04.01, 5.04.05, 5.04.06, 5.04.07, 5.04.08,
10.02.06.G and appendix G.
And 1 assume that the motion maker and seconded find them consistent with the Growth Management Plan?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 stated that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, did you? Okay, fine.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 32
16 1'1' 1 AAil 1, 2011
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0.
And for the record, the fences and walls subsection was 5.03.02. I did not read that in last time around.
So with that, that takes us to the end of our agenda. I think we're continuing because of the shoreline thing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or others. Yeah, there's some others out there. So -- but do we know when we're
continuing to?
MS. ISfENES: For the shoreline, it doesn't sound --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but --
MS. ISTENES: -- like it. But April 15th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to continue this meeting to April 15th, whenever we get to
it that day?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Motion carries. Were adjourned -- or continued. Thank you.
� * +rr
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 12:33 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
I�,' 0, -k LA�c -�
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on `7 (> Zoto as presented
corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 33
or as
16 I 1 A44il I, zo>
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE T� V E
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
April 1, 2010
MAY 12 2010
8oerd of County Commissioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Mark Strain
Donna Reed -Caron
Karen Homiak
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vighotti
David J. Wolfley
Fiala
ALSO PRESENT:
Halas
<• , ,_
Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
en lflj�
Nick Casalanguida, CDES Interim- Director
Coyl e
Coyle
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Coletta
1
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item #:
�7ics Po:
Page 1
161 1 -&
pnl 1, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now that Cherie's here and came a little late (sic), we're good to go.
Rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, welcome to the Apri l I st meeting of the Collier County Planning
Commission.
And if you haven't gone to Google yet this morning, do it, and read what the name change they have. They
changed their name to Topeka. It was pretty interesting. It took a while to figure out it was an April Fools Day spoof.
But they wrote it up pretty well. It's pretty neat of them.
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that little bit of trivia, can we have the roll call, Mr. Secretary?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTri.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTIT
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY:
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTFI:
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY:
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOYIT
Chairman Strain?
Commissioner Vigliotti is present.
Here.
Commissioner Woltley?
Here.
And Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. We have two items involving the same area, Port of
the Islands, on the agenda today.
After this meeting is over, we will adjourn and then reopen a continued meeting for the Land Development
Code amendments that were continued from March 24th.
And we're going to go over three specific amendments today on the Land Development Code. The first one
will be the shoreline conservation issue, for those people that will be showing up or may be here. But that starts at
10:00.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Ray, do we have any meetings between now and
our next regular CCPC meeting? I can't recall.
COMMISSIONEk SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't look like it.
So it will be the 15th of April is our next meeting.
Page 2
16 I 1 °1 Al 1, 2
MR. BELLOWS: That's what I show on my calendar.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, me too.
Does anybody know if they're not going to make it for the April 15th --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Wolfley, you won't be here?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll be out of town.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I wanted tojust mention, I had --
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Murray, I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need the mic.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm song, I apologize.
I had a note the 9th was going to be a possible meeting. And I just saw Commissioner Caron nodding, so she
knows it too
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had it too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Me neither.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't know of any meeting on the 9th. There may have been one at one
time, but it probably got dropped.
Is that your understanding, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we have a meeting every week. I don't know what it's going to be -- we're
going to go through withdrawals here. We meet more often than other boards do in this county.
Okay, so it's the 15th. And only -- Mr. Wolfley is the only one that probably won't make it to that meeting.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 21 & SEPTEMBER 23, 2009, AUIR PLANNING
COMMISSION/PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING; FEBRUARY 26, 2010, LDC; AND
MARCH 4, 2010. LDC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's go into the approval of the minutes.
The first one is September 21 st for the AUIR planning meeting. Those were sent to us electronically. Is
there a motion to recommend approval?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Vighotti, seconded by Commissioner
Homiak.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Page 3
1 6 1 1 "1'2010
September 23rd, 2009 AUIR Planning Commission meeting.
Anybody? Same motion, different motion, any kind of motion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIO 'fTC So moved to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. V ighotti same motion.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak seconded.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTC Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
We have a series of -- we have two more to go through. March -- three more, actually. February 26th, 2010,
an LDC meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye,
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was not there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't one of the choices.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was the last one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean you're abstaining'?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm abstaining.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley will be abstaining.
March 4th, 2010, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 4
Ark.. 2010 ti
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
By the way, all the motions are unanimous, unless I say otherwise for you. It's simpler that way.
March 10th, 2010.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries.
Item #6
BCC REPORT — RECAPS — MARCH 23, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, BCC report and recaps. Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners last Tuesday heard the conditional use for the
Collier Transit Facility. That was the bus transfer facility. That was approved 5 -0, subject to the CCPC conditions of
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT _
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, chairman's report. Nothing new. We've been meeting so often I think we're
all pretty much aware of everything going on.
Item #8
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent agenda. We don't have any today.
Item #9A
PETITION: RZ- PL2009 -910, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Page 5
161 1 " APA 410
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, we'll move directly in the public meeting.
First of all, disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? 1 -- Mr. Woltley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I spoke with someone out at Tlie Conservancy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I spoke with Mr. Duane about the project. We didn't really have a lot to say
because it was short notice. But I mentioned to him I had some issues involving a couple of the interpretations from
the agreement, settlement agreement for that area which we will be discussing today. And I relayed that information
to staff and Ms. Ashton, who will be prepared to discuss it as well.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be swom in
by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Duane, it's yours.
MR. COX: Good morning, Commission. My name is Dan Cox. I'm the attorney for the Port of the Islands
Community Improvement District.
I have with me today Dr. Benson. Dr. Benson is the district's engineer. Mr. Duane is our planning
consultant. Mr. Dale Lambert is the chairman of the board of supervisors of the district. And Mr. Richard Ziko is
another member of the board of supervisors.
The district is a community development district, established pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. It
provides the utility services for the Port of the Islands community, which I'm sure you're familiar with, located east of
town, bisected by -- just drew a blank on the road -- 41.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: U.S. 41.
MR. COX: Yeah, Tamiami Trail. I live on 98 up in northern Florida, and I always want to call 41 98.
Bisected by 41 and the Fakiunion Canal.
The particular property that we're talking about today is located in the northwest quadrant of the project. It is
a --it's been a utility facility for quite some time. We have an existing water treatment plant there. The plant is under
consent order with DEP. We have to build anew plant by July of next year. We intend to --this is what has triggered
the need to come before you today to have some changes in the development approvals for the property.
We have historically operated under a conditional use approval that allowed the construction of these public
facilities in the RT zoned district and on portions of the property that are zoned conservation. Although zoned
conservation, it's been severely impacted. There are no native vegetations or any sensitive communities in that area
that is within this parcel.
We've also added 1.16 acres to our old utility facility plant. We want to incorporate that into the plan and
hope to at some time in the future build a community center on the property. And that in essence is what we're asking
you for the zoning approvals for and the variances that are before you.
We would like to just turn it over to staff at this point and then we'll be available to answer any questions, or
if you'd like me to field any questions before we get started, that would be fine too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, usually we ask questions of the applicant first, so we'll go through our
questions of you and go from there.
MR. COX: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission. Anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The location of Union Road right now runs through your property? And --
MR. COX: Union Road traditionally went right through our property up to the northern boundary. There's a
cell tower up there that provides communication services for the area.
At about a year and a half ago there was a person who had a contract to purchase all of the land that's west of
our property, and they were going to develop it as a high end RV park. That was about the time that the economy
Page 6
161 DA, 1, 2010'
turned a little south on us, and that deal never went through.
But while he was in his due diligence phase, he built a replacement road through Union Road so that it would
make access to a separate parcel that's up here where they operate a shooting range. Then his development was going
to be to the west and south of that access road.
So there is a reconfiguration of the road that goes to the Gun Club, but Union Road does still bisect up
through here.
This is actually not part of the platted Union Road, but rather it's an access easement that allowed people that
used to own property north of us to get to their property. The state now owns all of that property and restricts access
to that area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you will -- in other words, the Union Road right -of -way is not on your
property, it is to the west of it, correct?
MR. COX: It is actually on the eastern edge of our property, just inside of our property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the western edge of the right -of -way would be your boundary
line, your property line?
MR. COX: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you say -- if you go up north of that, when you look on aerials, it looks
like there's a bunch of residences and stuff, but that's been bought by the state?
MR. COX: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, good morning.
You talk about a community center, and yet I note that one of the prohibitions would be for libraries. I know
the closest library would be at Everglades City, which is just a real -- I mean, it's a nice- looking room and it's got a lot
of publications in it for its size, but the only other library is up in South Regional Library, which is a haul. Why
would you not want to have a library opportunity in such a place?
MR. COX: Essentially all we want is to operate our water /sewer irrigation reuse and potentially the
community facility. We could add that back in as a possible use, if -- I would see no objection to that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not trying to force anybody to do anything, but it just seemed the
people there to my knowledge don't have a library at this time. They have to go down to Everglades City or they have
to go up to the South Regional and that's a haul. And Ijust thought if you're going to put a community center you
might be able to allocate some space for that. And if you have no objection, maybe that's something we could talk
about.
That's fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a few.
Are you familiar with the development agreement between your CID and the BP H Enterprises?
MR. COX: I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you redact out items B and C?
MR. COX: The purpose for putting that agreement into the record was to show that we had a contractual
interest to the 1.16 acres of land that we were including in the development plan. And these assertions as to this third
party that we spoke about that was going to develop the property, we just didn't see that as being something that was
relevant to the purpose of the agreement being in the record and potentially at that time embarrassing to that third
party.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do realize that your CDD is a public body and all your records are open to
public disclosure.
MR. COX: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The two items that you redacted out had to do with some work that was done
on the property. That is what you're asking for today. So apparently the work you're asking for today, some of which
has already been done; is that true?
MR. COX: That is true.
Page 7
161
rill , 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the redaction was done not only to cross out the references to a third party
but it also eliminated any I guess knowledge put on record that anything was completed prior to the application here
today in front of us that is supposed to be for the items that some of which have already been corrected -- or created,
I'm sorry, constructed.
MR. COX: Somebody might construe it that way, but it was not our intention.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you let staff know in your pre- application meeting that you had already
constructed the road that you're now asking for permission to construct?
MR. COX: Mr. Duane attended the pre - application meeting. Could we address that question for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. DUANE: I don't believe we discussed that issue other than to tell them that the road was going to be
relocated as part of this application.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I printed this last night. It's not redacted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. It's not -- the one in your document is redacted. When I saw it I realized
they can't redact something that's a public record, so I requested the version that isn't redacted. And that's what led me
to the conclusion, going back and looking at aerial photos all the way back to 1975 as to the progress on that site.
Now, I don't have anything wrong with what you're -- problematic with what you're asking for. I think if you
guys want to improve your water treatment plant, put a conin unity center in and all that, that's great. But it bothers
me that this wasn't disclosed in the process. I don't think it would have made a difference, but I don't know why you
wouldn't have been forthright enough to disclose it as you went forward both in -- with staff and the fact that your
water management system was damaged and still to this day may not be working properly because of that let's say
illegally placed road.
Again, people make tr stakes. Those things happen. A road being there isn't a problem. But why -- I don't
understand why you guys approached it this way.
MR. COX: Well, please understand, Commissioner, that the road was put in without the permission of the
Community Improvement District. We had actually proceeded to the point of giving demands to the third party to
restore that land back to its pre- disturbed condition. They filed bankruptcy and essentially left us in a position where
we've got to deal with what happened, even though it was done without our permission by those persons. Just
basically told us if we didn't get out of the way the bulldozer driver was going to run over us.
And going forward from there, again, there was no intention of misleading anyone. I apologize if there's any
perception that we were trying to rrdshad someone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I went back, and when I did check the aerials, one thing it did show, is what
you're asking for is in an area that was already pretty much filled and destroyed anyway. Even though it had
vegetation in the year from -- some vegetation grew back in the late '90's, early 2000's. And you've now -- recently
it's been taken off in the last couple of years. But that was vegetation that grew back in an area that had previously
been cleared and filled anyway.
So none of what you're doing really poses a problem. It's just I don't think the CDD board would have
appreciated not being told something in their district if an applicant came forward. And I think this board and the
BCC would have expected the same, is that you just be as forthright as possible when you come into these meetings.
We're not here to penalize, we're here to make sure things happen. And I would have preferred that methodology. I
wanted to make sure you understood that so maybe in the future things don't necessarily have to be done this way.
I also noticed that -- are you familiar with the settlement agreement that CDD has, or Port of the Islands has
with DCA?
MR. COX: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do you know there's a paragraph in that settlement agreement that requires --
I'll read it to you. The developer agrees to call to the attention of Collier County the fact that this property is located
within the Big Cypress area of critical state concern and to provide the county at the time of any application for
zoning or other development approvals with a copy of this agreement.
Now, staff checked and didn't find one supplied to them with the agreement -- with the application. And
there certainly wasn't one in our packages. Having lived in the county a long time, I have that information, so I was
able to get a copy.
But again, we should be getting copies of this stuff. It you've read the agreement, you know the rules.
Page 8
16 I 1 April 1, A 20 10
Especially being an attorney. You should have submitted it with the package.
So I'd like to make sure the record's clear, we didn't get it with the package. I don't know if the rest of you
have seen that agreement or not. I intend to ask some questions from it, just for clarification at this point.
And also in the letter that was written by Mr. Duane to the county staff at the intake, the agreement very
clearly has a concern over intensity of uses in any of the zoning districts or zoning areas at the time the settlement
agreement was put in place. And that was back in the Eighties.
At that time this was an RO, which is comparable to the CON district today. CON district is conservation.
That's the north side where the water treatment plant is. The south side where the septic treatment is is in the RT
zone.
But when your letter of the issued to the county, you carefully crafted it possibly not to even mention the
intrusion into the CON. You simply said that you were -- for example, the acres of the RT zone land on the subject
property, up to 16 dwelling units per acre, are allowed. Based on three employees per shift -- and it goes on and on
about how much you're going to use that RT zone. Similar measures of development intensity in the rezoning of the P
district will result in reduction in development intensity.
I agree, it does in the RT zone. But it's not so clear, and the analysis was not prepared in the CON zone,
which is half of what you're doing in the conservation area to the north.
MR. DUANE: I'll answer the question. The -- Robert Duane for the record.
As part of my cover letter, I did note that we were -- the property's approximately 4.8 acres. I noted that three
acres from the RT district were being removed on Page 3 of my cover letter dated December 31 st, 2009, and that had
the effect of removing 48 multi - family units from the property and 78 motel units.
Because the portion of the property that is zoned CON already had a water plant on it, I didn't think that was
really germane to the intensity of use analysis, since that conditional use was approved in an application that I filed
and was approved by this Planning Commission in 1992, 1 believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're expanding that water treatment plant area.
MR. DUANE: No, we are not increasing the capacity of the plant. We were under a consent order from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection to upgrade the facilities to bring the technology up to the present
state standards. So that is principally the reason that we're before you is to comply with requirements that the State of
Florida has imposed on us for upgrading the treatment plant, which do not increase the capacity of the plants.
I might also note for the record that the CON district, while we were a nonconforming use because that
district no longer allows sewer and water plants -- which was one of the other reasons that we converted CON to the P
district, in addition to the fact that our plan was changing and we're adding the space for the community meeting
room.
But in terms of development intensity, the plant only uses approximately three employees per shift, and we
take the community meeting room or some similar use, we thought that was demonstratively less intensive than 48
dwelling units or 78 motel units on the RT zoned portion of the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're increasing the area in which the plant is going to consume, are you not?
MR. COX: The square footage footprint. And I was going ask for clarification on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to get clarification, whether you ask for it or not. Because I don't
like the little games we're playing with words.
You didn't increase maybe the use capacity of the plant, but you're spreading it out on more land that was
once utilized as CON. That's the whole thing boiling down to a nut in a shell. That's it. So you are using more of a
conservation district property. You are not simply limiting it to the expansion of the existing plant, you're asking for
seven different new uses -- and Mr. Murray's trying to throw in one more -- that would give you more intensity than
what's there now.
So it's not what you're possibly doing now. And like I said, I've got no objection it. It's what you could do.
And if you're intending to do that, be forthright and tell us.
MR. COX: What we intend to do is to operate a water plant, a sewer plant that has reuse irrigation capability,
and potentially build a community center in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The manner in which you guys approach this is making it a lot harder than if you
had just come right up out of the shoot and said what you were going to do.
Anybody have any other questions while I -- Ms. Caron?
Page 9
1 161 Ail 1, 2� �b
COMMISSIONER CARON: What -- your water and sewer plant, how many units is it equipped to serve?
MR. COX: The plants are sized for 1,032 equivalent residential connections.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have some other questions, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I didn't know if you were done.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. In the ordinance 92 -59 there were some agreements made. I'm
wondering if 1 and J have both been met.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dr. Benson, since you're in charge of the water and sewer plant down there, you
would know that answer. One is the retiling of monitoring reports on a quarterly basis. I know your firm does that,
knows how to do those things, so I'm assuming that your department might have been doing that for the applicant.
MR. BENSON: 1 need to see what specifically I and J are.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I is for tiling quarterly reports and J is landscape buffering, on the south and
the west.
MR. COX: Specific to the landscape buffering, when the third party took everything else into their own
hands, they also took our landscape buffer out, which was I believe some of the vegetation you may have seen from
the aerial photos in the late '90's, early 2000.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So the landscaping was there --
MR. COX: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as it was required --
MR. COX: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: — prior to that road issue?
MR. COX: And we planted an extensive landscape buttering between the road and the plants so that they
would be shielded also from the south and the west.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We can talk about that.
MR. COX: And the plant itself is going to have architectural relief, so it's not going to just look like a box
stuck out there. It will have a facade and be in character with the architecture of the community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we go to -- oh,
Doctor?
MR. BENSON: With regard to 1, the Port of the Islands subm is all their reports to the DER I do not know
if the operator is also copying Collier County Pollution Control on those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you're still going to be continuing monitoring that facility for the applicant? Is
that your firm going to be --
MR. BENSON: No, we're the engineer. There's an operator, and the operator is the individual that's required
by Florida law to sign those applica -- or monitoring reports and submit those to the state.
I do not know if they've been submitted in addition to Collier County Pollution Control.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe staff does.
"Thank you, I appreciate it, sir.
Anything else before we go to staff report?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to go back to that development agreement for a minute. Number
two of that development agreed says that the 1.1 acres is -- the site is to replace the previously permitted and
constructed stormwater management system.
Now you're doing stormwater management, I think, and also this community center?
MR. COX: The stormwater management system used to be through here that took care of the stormwater
from our property. When they put the road in, they took it out. We're going to have stonnwater management
facilities here, here and here and here to serve all of the runoff from the property. It's not taking it from any other
property, it's to meet our obligations to attenuate the stormwater generated from our facilities.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But my question relates to the agreement, and the agreement with respect to
that one -acre parcel. The one -acre parcel, according to this agreement, is for stormwater. Now you're making it
stormwater and community center. I don't know if that affects your agreement or not or it's no big deal and nobody
cares.
MR. COX: I don't think that this was intended to limit it solely to stormwater. It was just to acknowledge
Page 10
161 1 A 4 Ap il, 2010
that that was -- part of the consideration for him giving us that was because the contract vendee that he had the
relationship with had taken this action without our permission.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And now I'm going to ask a stupid question for my own knowledge
here.
The last line in that paragraph says parcel A will have six ERC's allocated to it. I don't know what an ERC is.
MR. COX: They're equivalent residential connections. As indicated, the plants are sized for 1,032 ERC's,
equivalent residential connections. The property that is located to the west of us has approximately 180 something
ERC's -- 181 ERC's. It's completely undeveloped land right now. Each of those ERC's is assessed about $1,500 a
year, so the carrying cost for that property is fairly extreme.
He felt like that as a percentage this was 1.16 acres zoned RT, and we took a proportion of the ERC's
equivalent to the proportion of the land that's zoned RT that we're getting. We'll be putting it kind of in the bank,
because what we have is two properties down there that do not have enough ERC's to construct all of the buildings
that they have Collier County approval for.
In those circumstances what we do, we give our letter of utilities availability that states in it that they can --
they have enough capacity in our systems to build "X" number of units. If the county approves more than that, they
have to obtain ERC's from another property like this one to the west of us that has underutilized capacity that they
could transfer. We have a mechanism for doing that through our rules of the district.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Yeah, that was --
MR. COX: That may have been more information than what you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, actually, it's very good information. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, well get to the staff report. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. Happy April
Fools Day.
You have before you staff reports for both petitions, a variance petition and a rezone petition. Both are -- the
variance petition is last revised 3/15, the rezone petition is last revised 3/4.
The applicant has already gone into most of the information regarding the first several pages about the action
and the location, the description of what we're talking about, the aerial photograph.
On the staff report on Page 3 you have the growth management analysis. Staff is recommending that this
project be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
On Page 4 it begins the analysis of various staff members, including environmental, stormwater management,
transportation review, affordable housing and zoning.
On Page 5 you'll find the beginning of the rezone findings that support staffs contention that this is consistent
with the Growth Management Plan and in compliance with the Land Development Code. Those continue through.
And on Page 10 you have staffs recommendation of approval of the petition for rezoning, noting at that time
the condition that we were proposing, that the collection and transfer site for resource recovery use was not to be an
allowable use based on the applicant's voluntary exclusion of that use.
You have before you in the presentation by the applicant a revised list of uses that he wants to clarify for the
site, and staff has no objection to that revised list.
In the variance application, again you have Page I that goes into the actual variance request. And then the
general location, purpose and description.
This project -- although the variance petitions aren't normally addressed through the Growth Management
Plan, we carried over what was in the staff report for the rezoning, finding that it is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
Beginning on Page 3 is the analysis, providing the findings for you in support of staffs recommendation that
the variance be approved.
And on Page 6 you have staffs recommendation. The only condition that goes with the variance petition is
that which identifies the site plan. And you have the site plan that shows where the variances are to be applicable.
With that, I'll let that —
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
Page l l
I b 1 1! 4kpiil A.10
2dla
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And this is not an April Fools question, although it might be.
If this were modified to be zoning and if there were a community room or building, and if it were large
enough to have a space to have some books and magazines and so forth that might be checked out, would that be
considered a library? Those books and articles and whatever, would that be considered a library?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you answer, Bob, I might offer a solution to your -- because your idea is a
good one. But the RT zoning, which is the south part where that center is, if they were to use their uses one through
six in the CON, one through seven plus libraries in the RT, then they've gotten everything they want and you don't
have to worry about it, whether it's a library or a community center with books.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to find out if there was going to be some prohibition. Thank you
for that thought, but I didn't know that they were going to be able to build in both locations.
CHAIRMAN S`T'RAIN: Well, the way they're asking, they want to expand the water treatment plant into the
CON in the north and they want to expand the wastewater treatment plant into the RT in the south.
If the uses applied as they're suggesting, one through seven would apply equally to the north and the south.
But the north being a more sensitive zoning, my suggestion -- and I like your idea, the library is good, and Port of the
Islands could probably benefit from it if they ever wanted to do it. And if they were to put it in the RT zoning in the
south, it would clearly then be less intense than the existing zoning, so there it would make sense.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's leave it at that. Because I'm glad that you do agree that there's
something useful there. It is important for people to be able to avoid having to get in their car and go all the way --
thank you, that's good enough. Got it.
MS. DESELEM: That was easy. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we do a lot of that here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Kay, just to go over these uses, I assume that this would be a
replacement for Exhibit B in the resolution, correct?
MS. DESELEM: Let me verify that and look at Exhibit B to see, verify what it is. Excuse mejust a moment.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, while she's do doing that, in the last conversation you had with Bob
you were mentioning in the different districts. But aren't we wiping those districts off and making this just P, the
whole thing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what 1 thought.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we are making it -- we're turning the CON in the north to a P and a conditional
use to a P, and we're turning the RT and conditional use in the south to a P. The P can have whatever uses would be
coming out of this meeting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seeing as how the facility and each one that was supposed to be weighed on
increased intensity by -- based on that settlement agreement.
And so what they're trying to do is have the least increase intensities in zoning districts that where they were
more sensitive. And the CON is probably the more sensitive in comparing it to an RT.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll limit that to some other description?
But anyway, will that be the new Exhibit B?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, that would be the new Exhibit B.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the description one through seven up at the top, the permitted uses, the
community building, is it clear that that would be allowed in those uses? I mean, would you consider -- is it
administrative services? I'm not sure.
MS. DESELEM: It's kind of a call. But 1 would think that that would fall under the guidelines of
administrative facilities. We didn't actually go into it. If not --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why don't we put parenthesis community services, building, you
know, or something. Just to make sure. Because 1 can read this thing and it doesn't took like you'd be allowed to do
Page 12
16` I , 1A14 April 1,2010
what I would do in a community service building.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you, I think that's a good solution.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Down below at the bottom it says, child care, not for profit. Does that mean
you could run one for profit?
MS. DESELEM: It assumes so.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't we --
MS. DESELEM: But that's the only way it's listed in the LDC. It's silent on whether you could do it for
profit or not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what if we just said you're not allowed to have child care, wouldn't
that kill both?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They're prohibited.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But what it says, Donna, is child care, not for profit. Essentially I
could run one for profit and it would be allowed, so --
MS. DESELEM: I see your distinction. Just say no.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So let's just let's wipe out not for profit so no child care is allowed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But that isn't the way we read our code, Brad. What is allowed is what is up
above, and nothing else is allowed. So they couldn't do child care for profit or not for profit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think if we isolate one, we open up the door for the other, I think. I
mean, then why are we doing the bottom thing at all?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, obviously the intention was they wanted to relieve everybody's fear
that this would be a collection of transfer stations. That was a concern. Then it's grown now to be the thing we're
dealing with here.
But anyway, I think just if you're going to mention child care with one specific use, that would give the
impression the other's allowed, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I see what you're saying. But again, if we go back to the way we're
supposed to read our code, that shouldn't be an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we -- see, the problem's going to be is if you leave the permitted uses up on top,
the one that's titled essential public service facilities is going to be a conglomerate of whatever the department wants
to claim as their public service facility. And that could bring in a lot of the issues that are down below.
So based on that, it's kind of like passive recreation, no one really knows what it is. And if you don't exclude
things, you could include too much. So that may be the reason why we ought to clean up and at least leave those in.
And I think Donna's argument is correct, and that takes precedent, but I think the clarification doesn't hurt.
Doesn't hinder, it --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I think it hurts.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I could -- theoretically somebody could run for profit a child care for
the workers of the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we're all in agreement with you're drop -- drop the last three words not
for profit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's it.
But this will be the new Exhibit B, and that's the important thing. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Where on this site would you put a communication tower?
MS. DESELEM: That is not shown on the site. Right now there's a communication tower slightly north of
this site.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not on this property.
MS. DESELEM: But it's not -- on this site it's not shown. Where it might be, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Page 13
16 11 it 1, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, public speakers. Anybody in the public wish to speak on this matter? We're
pretty informal, so just come on up and talk.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any last comments from the applicant?
MR. COX: The only communications towers that we might consider putting on the property would be
related with the SCADA systems that are, you know, communications for the water and sewer plant.
The other thing I think we might could do to address this library being -- where they would be located.
Where we have the building labeled as the community center on the site plan community center /library. And then I
believe the site plan is incorporated in one of the resolutions that would be approved by the board, so that would take
care of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, does that work for staff? Or does that limit it for staff? This is a straight
zoning, so I'm not sure how effective a site plan is.
MS. DESELEM: I'm not exactly certain what that comment -- right now the library is excluded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I think the best solution, and it works probably even better for you, is if
we take a look at the CON district, the area that was formerly CON, north of that CON line, and we limit the uses
there one through six. And then the area south of that line, which is the RT district, which is going to go to P, we limit
that to one through seven plus libraries, six from down below.
1 think that gets you where you want. It doesn't limit you to just that building. And you're anything south of
that dividing line between CON and RT.
Does that work for you?
MR. COX: That works for us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that work for everybody on the board?
MS. DESELEM: If I may --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay?
MS. DESELEM: -- clarify. You said one through six? You did not include seven?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, seven is a catchall. I'd rather not see a catchall applied to a conservation area,
especially if they're indicating they really don't need it, they've got the ability to do what they want to do all to the
south, why don't we leave it to the south? And if that catchall's in the south any more intense district, I think it doesn't
hurt anything.
MS. DESELEM: So RT would include one through seven as well as --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And six from down below. So you'd have to revise Exhibit B for the consent
agenda. And probablyjust show it two different ways.
MS. DESELEM: I understand, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think you should note that as the old RT and the old CON, just to not
confuse the issue that we're changing those zonings. You know what I mean? In other words, on the old CON site the
following uses are allowed.
MS. DESELEM: Oh, I see what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Formerly CON.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or formerly CON. But don't use the CON word, because that will confuse
what we're up to.
MS. DESELEM: I think --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
MS. DESELEM: -- I understand what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust had a question about the buffer variances. Nowhere in the staff report is
that addressed, it's just sort of there. They applied for it? You're not saying one --
MS. DESELEM: We did recommend approval, understanding the rationals that they provided, that it was
appropriate. We didn't go into a great deal of detail.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Then I'll talk to Mr. Cox about that issue.
Page 14
16 1 1 A4 April I� 2010
I just want you to address the buffering issues and why you think it's appropriate to exclude those buffers.
MS. COX: The -- we do have a 15 -foot -- 10 -foot wide buffer through here, 15 -foot through here all through
the south, located on the east and north of the road rather than on our property line, because the road was built on our
property line.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of anybody before we close the public hearing
and entertain a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will close the public hearing on both items and we'll entertain two
separate motions. The first one would be Petition RZPL 2009 -910, and that's the one for the actual P district uses.
And the second one we'll get to is for the variances.
Is there a motion from the Planning Commission?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've made that motion based on your statement. Or I'll read it again.
I recommend approval of RZPL- 2009 -910, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, that it be
forwarded to the Collier County Board of Commissioners for approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you accept the staffs recommendations?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I do. And the modifications that were made.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be subject to the modifications of Exhibit B that we discussed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL I'll so move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vighotti seconded.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We want to run through this list one more time and make sure, Exhibit B, or
wait till the consent?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we can do it right now. It's the best time to get it -- make sure it's clear. And if
the applicant has any objections, let us know during this discussion.
Go ahead, Brad. Or you want me to do it or you want to do it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, you go ahead and do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Exhibit B will be revised to reflect two formats for the principal uses to be
used on this property.
And then the prohibitive uses. The first one will be for the old formerly (sic) CON district. It will contain
items one through six that are currently listed as principal pemritted uses on the handout that we received.
The second listing of permitted uses will be for the old RT district. It will be items one through seven of the
principal permitted uses, and we'll move one of the prohibited uses, which is libraries, up to the permitted uses
category for the old RT.
Both the CON and the RT will retain the list of prohibitive uses that are listed. In the old CON it will be all
but libraries. In the -- no, I'm sorry, in the CON will be all of them, one through seven. In the RT it will be all but
libraries. I think I got there.
And then there's some clarification to the language for child care. We'll strike the words not for profit. And
for where it's listed as administrative service facilities, we'll put in parentheses, i.e. community services.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since the way you're breaking it up, I think why don't we just do this is add
community building in the old Rr site. And then that way it's clear.
In other words, we don't really want a community building on the upper one anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, when you added libraries to the RT, also add community
building there and that would be clear what the intent is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work, Kay?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
Page 15
16 I 1 4pril 1410
For clarification, thinking down the road when those of us who are here now might not be here or remember
what we did, I was thinking perhaps it might be a good idea to make some kind of exhibit similar to what's shown and
attach that to this so that somebody else say will look at this and say well, I don't know what was CON, all I see is P.
So is that acceptable? I didn't want to add something in without your --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a good -- any clarification for the future is a good idea. Absolutely.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, one final thing. Since we are separating out, I think you can put
administrative service facilities and community buildings in the former RT portion, because that's where they're going
to be located, that's where they want them to be located. You don't want it to be anywhere on T- and certainly not in
the CON portion of it, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem is there might be needed offices and facilities in fact for that
water treatment plant.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, I agree.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They've got them in their buildings.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but there might be a small -- you wouldn't want them, if they wanted to
build an office up in the upper part.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it hurts.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it hurts anything to leave it up there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You'd probably want to have an office away from the location anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Kay, are you clear on the discussion we've had on how to lay out these (sic)
Exhibit B?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, 1 believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the board satisfied with the discussion? Then we'll call for the vote.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0.
Thank you all. That's the first one. We need to finish up with the second one. That's a separate variance
request.
Item #913
PETITION: VA- PL2009 -1077, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's Petition VAPL- 2009 -1077. A discussion of that occurred
simultaneously with the other one. Staff is recommending approval with a condition.
Is there a motion from this board?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion then too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to recommend approval. With staff stipulations?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
Page 16
161 1 p it 112410
� 4;
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a second. Is there a discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you all for your time this morning.
Now, it's 9:20, we're ahead of schedule.
Nick, you had something?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, we drafted a proclamation for Tor to be heard. We're shooting for I guess
the 13th, board meeting. We want to make sure that's okay with his family, and we'd like to maybe have the Planning
Commissioners attend, if that's possible, in the morning.
I'm going to get confirmation from the County Manager and I will follow up and let you know by e-mail.
But I'd reserve that date, if possible. It's a brief moment around 9:00 in the morning, if you could attend. I think that
his family would appreciate that. And I'll let you know if that date changes to the 27th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know whether they've gone back to the practice of reading them.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Thank you. That was going to be my comment. They need to read
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll look forward to it.
And I want to thank staff again for suggesting the idea. It was a nice gesture on your part and I think it would
be very nice for his family, so -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: What's the tentative date again?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The 13th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 13th.
Okay, we're done with the meeting and we might as well adjourn.
What I'd like to do -- ask Heidi, though, before we do. Heidi, I'd like to reopen our continued LDC meeting
for a discussion on the other two items that are not shoreline related. Not to vote on them, just to discuss them. Then
we'll vote on them after we hear the shoreline issue later on, if that works.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, that's acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
And then the other thing. Nick and Ray, does Susan need to be here for the discussion of the other two?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like her to be here. I mean, I think we can proceed for discussion, and if we
need to follow up when she gets back, she's going to be running a little bit late, we can do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd ratherjust not waste 40 minutes if we don't have to.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so first let's adjourn this meeting.
Is there a motion to adjourn?
Page 17
161 14
April I, 2010
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIO'I'TI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vighotti.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
"There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 9:22 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
LkIllI�
" v
MARK, STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on _ �__ �� 10 as presented or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham_
Page 18
RECEIVED
MAY 19 2010
1 6 1 1 , 5Aptl, 2010
ma« of county conrrussioTRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
OF COLLIER COUNTY J
Fiala —�-
Naples, Florida Halas
April 21 2010 'Henning
p Coyle
coletta
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractors' Licensing
Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN
Thomas Lykos
Richard Joslin
Michael Boyd
Lee Horn
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Robert Meister
Patrick White
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board
Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney M&. CW"
Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor. 0 1 p
Page 1 llynol �
V
16 1 41015 21, 2010
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm going to call to order the meeting of
the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board Meeting on
Wednesday, April 21st, 2010. Time is 9:18.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will
need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made.
Unfortunately we do not have a court reporter here at the time
that we started this meeting. So if you need a copy of -- a verbatim
copy of the hearings, then you can request a copy of a video of the
recording of this hearing, or you can request that your hearing be
postponed until next month and then you can bring your own court
reporter so that your court reporter can record the hearing.
I want to remind everybody to speak one at a time and to speak
into the microphone.
Roll call, starting on my right.
MR. NEALE: Just one more thing, Mr. Lykos. What I would
recommend, because we don't have a court reporter, is that anyone
who makes a motion or seconds a motion, make sure that they state
clearly their name on the record, you know, Mr. Lantz makes the
motion, Mr. White seconds the motion, so that that's clearly on the
record as to who's making and seconding motions.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
MR. NEALE: And then when a vote is taken, that you as Chair
announce the results of the vote, and if it's a close vote, probably have
a roll call taken.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you.
Okay, roll call, starting on my right.
MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle.
MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
MR. LANTZ: Kyle Lantz.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Tom Lykos.
MR. WHITE: Patrick White.
Page 2
1611 A5 A
April 21, 2010
MR. HORN: Lee Horn.
MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd.
MR. MEISTER: Rob Meister.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you.
Any additions or deletions to the agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: There being none, I need a motion to
approve the agenda.
MR. JERULLE: So moved, Jerulle.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0. Did I do my math
right? Okay, thank you.
I need approval of the minutes from the March meeting.
MR. LANTZ: So moved, Lantz.
MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
Page 3
16 Ik 1 ` 5 '
April 21, 2010
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you.
Discussion. End of the month report.
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor.
This is the end of the month report for March. I have nothing to
add, other than that we've issued I think about 80 citations this month
in March. So we're out there.
I also wanted to note that one of our long -time investigators,
Alan Kennette, who does the City of Naples, is retiring at the end of
the month. And Ian Jackson will be taken off Marco Island and is
going to be into the City of Naples, so -- and then we're going to hire
someone within.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: Who's going to do the City of Marco then?
Someone new?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Ganguli.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Are there any other questions or
comments about the month end report?
(No response.)
MR. OSSORIO: I know that Patrick White had a question about
maybe Jamie French coming back in April. But the budget has not
been finalized. I know they're going through the budget this week.
And I'm sure that either my boss, Ken Kovensky or Jamie will be
speaking to the board next month.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you.
Any other questions or comments?
Page 4
161 1 A5
April 21, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Michael, I do have some notes. We've
asked previously to have our budget alongside the actual numbers for
the month -end report. So we're asking again. Okay`?
MR. OSSORIO: I understand. Unfortunately I'm trying to work
out what the budget is. And so we can codify that with what you're
requesting, so --
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, we approved a budget last year.
As part of the license fee increases, we approved a budget.
MR. OSSORIO: Through PMG, you're absolutely right, you did
look at the numbers and you looked at our calculations and the board
approved a budget. But there is a -- I won't speak, I'll let Jamie speak
to you next month about what budgeting -- what guidance that the
Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager has
requested of our office through the 113 Fund.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: We're going to work on it.
MR. JOSLIN: This is something that was (sic) going to be on the
agenda for next month then, I assume, Mr. Chairman?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, I will have either Ken Kovensky, the
operational manager, or Jamie here to talk about the upcoming budget
and how this board wants to see on a monthly basis relating to
contractor licensing issues.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: That make sense?
MR. JOSLIN: Yeah.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Ossorio, please relay to whoever it is
that has the ability to provide the budget documents that I know for
sure the chairman of the licensing board is getting frustrated with this
process. I know that government works different than private
industry, but we approved fee increases based on a specific budget,
Page 5
1611 A5
April 21, 2010
based on a specific number of inspectors in the field, and all that we're
asking for is that documentation be provided with the actual
information that we're given on a monthly basis. There was a lot of
effort put into creating that budget, and a lot of supporting
documentation that we listened to on why the fee increases were
required to maintain the level of service that we had. And there was
commitments made to providing extra investigators in the field. And
for the last at least three months we've been asking for supporting
documentation on the budget that we approved to go along with the
actual numbers that we've been given, and it gets a little frustrating
when every month we get excuses about why it's not done yet.
Okay, Michael, I know you have some staff changes coming up.
Is Alan Kennette the only staff change that you have coming up?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: Has there been anybody added yet --
MR. OSSORIO: No.
MR. JOSLIN: -- any other investigators? No.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Michael, we talked the last couple of
months about having a workshop, and I noticed in our -- either my
notes or in the minutes there was a conversation about having a
workshop in May. How are we progressing on that?
MR. OSSORIO: We had our first meeting with the County
Attorney and Patrick Neale. We went over the ordinance my
concerns. We wrote those down. You have a copy of it. I know some
of the board members requested to have it 30 days ahead of time so
they can review it.
I anticipate having a workshop next month, which is May, where
you have my concerns about the new ordinance in front of you. It's a
draft.
What I recommend is that each individual member go through it
this month, make some changes if you'd like to make any kind of
Page 6
16 1 ]A 5 r
April 21, 2010
change you feel -- see fit that you think should be in the ordinance or
taken out of the ordinance or taken to the CBIA, whatever it is, have a
workshop with them or whoever you wish to, e -mail those
individually, or you can stop by individually into my office and give
me your notes and your concerns, and then we're going to talk about
those on a collective level on the next agenda meeting.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: That's how I foresee going forward.
MR. WHITE: As part of that process, Mr. Chairman, would it be
possible to obtain an electronic copy, either Word or some format?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, I'll send it to you.
MR. WHITE: Yeah, I think for all of us it's easier to delineate it
that way.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. If you can send that to
everybody, Michael, that would be great.
Do you have everybody's e -mail address?
MR. OSSORIO: I do.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Now, I'm going to be sending the draft as we
know it today.
MR. JOSLIN: So what I'm gathering out of this is that we're
going to have the actual workshop is going to be this coming May
meeting where all the board members are going to be able to analyze
what's on the paperwork (sic)?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: And make changes or recommendations?
MR. OSSORIO: Both. That's how I foresee it going forward.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: This month I know the board -- some of the
board members requested that they want us to make our changes or
what I felt was required by statute and what we needed to do. And
then give it to the board, let the board have it for a month, which
Page 7
16 1 1 A5
April 21, 2010
would be this month, and then we'll have a workshop following the
regular agenda. So hopefully May agenda won't be that large, because
we're going to try to keep it very small, and then so that we can do the
workshop after the agenda. We'll just add it to the agenda as a work
item.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
Mr. Neale, I have a note from previous meetings that you were
going to try to put together for us some standards for the requests for
qualifying a second entity.
MR. NEALE: Right. And I've been working on those. What I
would propose is that when we're looking at the ordinance next month,
we'll also bring those forward so we can sort of do everything in a
package at one workshop. It may make it for a little bit longer
workshop, but I think it may be more efficient use of time, as we'll get
those out --
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If we can do that kind of business, we'll
do it all at once.
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, any other issues for discussion?
(No response.)
MR. OSSORIO: I do have one. I want to introduce Connie
Thomas. She's our new office manager. She's here present. She's
going to run the office. She's also going to be running the vehicle for
hire for me. And she's been a long -time county employee and she's
here today.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Welcome, Connie.
MR. JOSLIN: Welcome.
Are we losing someone or just --
MR. OSSORIO: No, we're trying to -- like the budget issue,
we're trying to revamp things. We're adding staff. So there's going --
there's some changes so it takes a little longer. The Contractor
'.:-
161 1
Apri 2010
Licensing Department's going to get bigger and, you know, we're
going to be cross - training some people. So you'll see hopefully a new
face to licensing in several months for the better. And with that, one
face is Connie. She's been a long -time government worker, and she's
come with some great credentials and we're happy to have her here.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Michael, I had a brief conversation with
Jamie French, I think it was Monday night at CBIA at our candidate
forum. And I know that he's got some things he's working on for your
department. Maybe it would be a good idea to have Jamie come in
next month no matter what and just give is kind of what his vision is
for your department, what he's working on short-term and long -term,
so that all the board members understand what's going on with the
changeover. Okay?
MR. OSSORIO: That's fine. I had planned to have Jamie at the
next board meeting. I believe that, you know, Community
Development is currently changing. And hopefully we're going to get
that finalized by the end of this month with transportation and CDES
or how that's going to -- the new administrator, whatever that might
be. So we're in flux, and hopefully by the end of the month we'll be
where we need to be.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. I know they're doing good
things down there. I think this would be good for our board to have an
understanding of what Jamie's vision is moving forward.
Okay, on the agenda, Michael, you've got a brief overview of the
ordinance. We've talked about it a little bit. Is there any other points
you wanted to make with regard to the ordinance?
MR. OSSORIO: No, I just want to make sure that each board
member doesn't really want to communicate with another board
member about the ordinance. If you want to talk about the ordinance,
we can do it individually in my office or you can do it by e -mail. But
when you e -mail me, just make sure you e -mail me by itself. All
right? And I look forward to seeing all your comments in the next
f ! 1 A5
April 21, 2010
couple of weeks.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Does everybody understand that? So we
can't discuss the ordinance amongst ourselves. We can discuss it with
you individually, but not amongst ourselves; is that correct?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WHITE: And if I understand correctly, Mike, there are no
separate comments you have, it's just essentially this draft reflects
your vision and belief of what needs to be changed about the code.
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, you'll actually see the draft in front of you,
those little marks to the left. It's a little line. And those are the things
-- those are the changes I've made.
MR. WHITE: Right.
MR. OSSORIO: But I will make sure that at the end of the day,
end of the business day, that each individual board member gets
electronically through the e -mail.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's great.
Any other questions or comments on the ordinance or under
discussion?
(At which time, the court reporter enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good morning.
MR. JOSLIN: Where's breakfast?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, you want to give the court
reporter a few minutes to --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm ready.
MR. OSSORIO: All set?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do you have a copy of the agenda?
THE COURT REPORTER: I do.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We've finished -- we've gone all the way
through discussion, and we're getting ready to start new business.
Okay.
So under new business, the first item I have is orders of the
Page 10
16 I 1 A5
April 21, 2010
board. Ian, why don't you just remind the board real quick what these
are.
MR. JACKSON: These orders are put in a motion by the board,
and if approved it continues the process in collection of citations that
have not been paid. Potentially placing liens on property, in a nutshell.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. So I need a motion to
approve the orders of the board with my signature.
MR. JOSLIN: So move that.
MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0.
And Ian, I'll sign these after the board meeting today, okay?
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: I just have one quick question on that. Is this
something that is new in the point of order as far as for having a
motion to approve these orders? When the motion is made and when
the actual case is heard or these citations are issued and the board
makes the verdict whether guilty or not guilty, isn't that set in stone
anyway as far as your actions and how you act on them?
MR. JACKSON: These citations have not come in front of the
board. These are citations that have not been contested nor paid.
MR. JOSLIN: Oh, okay. Now I understand.
Page 11
161 1 A5 ''i
April 21, 2010
MR. NEALE: These are -- what the Chair and I sign and Mr.
Ossorio signs are essentially documents that can be recorded in the
public records and can constitute a lien on the person's property. And
these are people that just simply decided not to contest and also
decided not to pay.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. NEALE: So it gives the county more teeth in being able to
collect the money.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Makes sense.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you.
Okay, is Ralph R. Partington, Jr. here?
MR. PARTINGTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Please come up. And Mr. Partington,
we'll swear you in when you get to the podium.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, Mr. Partington, you're here
because you want to qualify a second entity?
MR. PARTINGTON: Part yes, sir. Yes, Melvin Henderson.
And he's been an associate. He used to work for me, now he's been in
business for himself. And so he can do aluminum, metal work and
stuff. He needs to qualify.
And I'm retired. And it's a chance for me to make some more
money.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Partington, would you please do me
a favor, make sure you speak a little closer to the microphone.
MR. PARTINGTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, sir.
MR. PARTINGTON: So it might give an opportunity to make
some more money, and that's why I'm doing it.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to give a quick overview
about Mr. Partington. Ralph R. Partington, Jr., he qualifies Ralph
Page 12
1611 A5 � -j
April 21, 2010
Partington, Incorporated. He's the aluminum with concrete, one of the
older licenses we have. He's been here for a while. And he wishes to
qualify Henderson Screening, Incorporated.
And Mr. Henderson is here; am I correct?
MR. PARTINGTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Should we have Mr. Henderson sworn
in? Should we do that?
MR. OSSORIO: (Nods head affirmatively.)
Mr. Henderson, would you please come up and get sworn in,
please.
MR. PARTINGTON: Do I need to stay here?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, thank you.
(Mr. Henderson was duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your full name, please.
MR. HENDERSON: Melvin Harvey Henderson.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Partington, you can stay right up
here to the podium as well. Thank you.
MR. PARTINGTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All right, questions from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, maybe before we do that, Mr.
Neale, will you remind us of what documentation that we are ordered
to consider in considering Mr. Partington's request to qualify a second
entity.
MR. NEALE: Essentially what you look at is the credit report
for the business -- for his business that he's currently qualifying,
because he's been in business for a long time, apparently, so you look
at that and make sure that the credit report is clear.
And then effectively look at the credit report of the business that
he's seeking to qualify. And the credit -- if it's been in business for
less than a year, look at the credit report of the person who is the
owner of that business, even though it's really not terribly relevant,
Page 13
161 1 A5P 2110
because really the person you're looking to is the qualifier on both
businesses. And so really you look to see if Mr. Partington is
qualifying it.
And if there's no major objection to it, then typically a second
entity should be qualified. Because you know it is permitted under
both Florida Statutes and Collier County code.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you.
Any questions from the board?
MR. JOSLIN: I only have one. For Henderson Screening, Inc.,
it's showing the company was reinstated. Mr. Ossorio, is that correct,
is this Henderson Screening Inc. a reinstated company now?
MR. OSSORIO: There is no license for Henderson Screening.
MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman? I believe the question is
in regard to the Division of Corporations pages; is that right.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, you are correct, I'm sorry.
MR. WHITE: And it's the filing information. It's the last event
reinstatement.
Typically what I see when that happens is that the corporation
was late in filing its annual report, and they're administratively kind of
dissolved but then reinstated once the report is fled.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, you are right.
MR. WHITE: Interestingly, the last annual report that appears to
been filed is from 2007.
MR. NEALE: Actually, there's an '09 one.
MR. WHITE: There's one.
MR. NEALE: It's on the next page.
MR. OSSORIO: It's on the next page.
MR. WHITE: Got it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Michael, what's the recommendation?
MR. OSSORIO: We looked at it and we recommend for
approval.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Are there any other questions from the
Page 14
4
1611 Aril 21, 2010
board members?
(No response.)
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we approve this
application for second entity for Henderson Screening.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second.
All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0.
Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Partington, just to make sure, if you
wouldn't mind stopping in tomorrow and we'll have your packet ready
so you can do the process.
MR. PARTINGTON: Down at the other place, on Horseshoe?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, down on Horseshoe.
MR. PARTINGTON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Is a Mr. Brian T. Ohlis here,
please?
Mr. Ohlis, if you please would come up and be sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Ohlis, please make sure you speak in
the microphone.
And you are here contesting a citation?
Page 15
1611 A5
April 21, 2010
MR. OHLIS: Uh -huh, yes.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You want to tell us exactly the
circumstances, why you're here.
MR. OHLIS: I'm here, I got a call from Ian about a month,
month and a half ago to -- just to come in and talk to him. I came in
and he was busy, so I -- another gentleman came up and took me into
a room and just told me that I had signs on my trailer that were for
landscaping.
I don't do landscaping, it's just I have the signs on the trailer. I
have a consc -- or a private lawn maintenance company in Port Royal.
I just have 20 houses.
He didn't -- there was no warning, nothing. I mean, it just kind of
felt like it was just wrong how they handled the whole thing, just
coming up and giving me a $300 fine for the letters on there, not
catching me do any of the landscaping.
I don't do landscaping. I refer all my landscaping and my tree
service and my pest control out to the other companies.
I'm a realtor in Naples, and I just use it as a private company just
to get referrals for my lawn maintenance for my Port Royal clients
down in Port Royal. I have 20 houses down there.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. According to the citation,
the citation was for advertising yourself as for doing work outside of
your license, which is why you were issued the citation. It wasn't for
being caught in the act of doing the work, it was for advertising that
you were available to do the work.
MR. OHLIS: I've -- you guys are the occu -- the Collier County
Licensing Department has given me a license for the last three years
under Ohlis Landscape. So if it's Ohlis Landscape, why did they give
me a lawn service maintenance license under Ohlis Landscape, if
they're saying that I'm falsely advertising? Because that is saying that
I'm a landscaper, it's not -- I am not a landscaper, it's landscape
maintenance. It's not -- it is -- lawn maintenance and landscape
Page 16
161-1 A5
April 21, 2010
maintenance is basically the same. I'm taking care of the landscaping.
I just -- you guys can word it any way you want, but it's landscape
maintenance.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, your truck says that you do design,
installation, renovation and maintenance.
MR. OHLIS: Right. I know I --
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Jackson, based on the license that
Mr. Ohlis does hold, is he licensed to do design, installation, and
renovation?
MR. JACKSON: I'll be sworn in first?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry.
(Mr. Jackson was duly sworn.)
MR. JACKSON: The license that Mr. Ohlis is referring to is the
business tax receipt issued by the tax collector. As the name suggests,
it's more of a tax to have a business in the county, rather than an actual
license.
The business that Mr. Ohlis has with this advertisement would
not allow for installation of landscaping products pursuant to the
ordinance, which is attached in your packet under the landscaping
definition.
Based on the ad alone for installation, that's the reason that the
citation was issued.
MR. NEALE: And I'd just like to bring to the board's attention in
the contractor licensing ordinance, specifically a landscaping
contractor requires 12 months experience and a passing grade in a
business and law test. It means any person who's qualified to install
and/or remove trees, shrubs, sod, decorative stone and/or rocks, timber
and plant materials and concrete paving units for sidewalks, patios and
decks only. Whether or not incidental to landscaping. Prepackaged
fountains or waterfalls, provided same does not include connection to
a sanitary sewer system.
And then now all new applicants applying for landscaping
Page 17
161 1"A5 il 21, 2010
licenses are required to obtain a passing grade and an approved exam
pertaining to pruning and safety, in addition to the business and law
exam.
And it appears the picture that's in the packet, that installation is
featured on there.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's the way I read it too.
MR. OHLIS: I understand. I can't refer -- even if I have that, I
can't refer it as -- I can't refer the work? I just can't have it on the
trailer at all? Even if I --
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's correct, you can only advertise for
what you have a license to do, and you actually don't have a license to
do anything.
MR. OHLIS: Lawn maintenance.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, there is no license for lawn
maintenance, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. OHLIS: I have an occupational license for lawn --
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It's not an occupational license, it's a
business tax.
MR. OHLIS: Okay. So I guess my question is, is can I -- I was
going to apply for the landscape license, even though I don't do it.
Can I apply for it and use the $300 towards the -- there's 130 for two
of the -- to get sponsored and then go take the test and give me some
time to take the test, even though I don't need it, but I will do it
anyway?
MR. JOSLIN: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I don't
think that's something that we can decide here. I think the only thing
that we're acting on is the fact of if he's guilty of the citation or not
guilty of the citation. Is that correct, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: We can't make the decision at this time as far as
what you want to do.
161 `'' 5 1 2010
April
MR. OHLIS: I just saw on the last -- I read all the meetings from
last meeting -- or the minutes from the last meeting and it said that
everything's a case -by -case, and there was things that the people were
saying that they take care of things that they would look or go -- they
would change. I just thought that if you would give me some time --
MR. JOSLIN: One other question I will ask you, though, now
that we're on the subject of -- you said you just do lawns only; is that
correct?
MR. OHLIS: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Do you -- in your lawn business, do you have
more than yourself goes out and mows lawns?
MR. OHLIS: Just my -- just two other people.
MR. JOSLIN: Two other people.
MR. OHLIS: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, on your license it clearly states that you're
the only owner and there's no other employees.
MR. OHLIS: I was for the first year --
MR. JOSLIN: Do you have insurance to cover those people --
MR. OHLIS: Yes, I do.
MR. JOSLIN: -- or lawn mowers?
MR. OHLIS: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Is that verified through the county, staff? Does he
have a Workmen's Comp. policy or payroll company that takes care of
this?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Joslin, when you talk about lawn
maintenance and you talk about cutting grass, that's considered
nonconstruction. In the state under 440 it considers that
nonconstruction, so therefore it would only be -- you could have up to
three employees with no insurance.
So he could have it, he might not have it, I'm not sure, but he's
not under our ordinance, that would be something that deals with 440.
Page 19
161 1 A5
April 21, 2010
But if he has two employees and he's cutting grass, then he's in
compliance with the statute.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Neale, if I remember correctly -- and
I'm asking because I don't trust my memory as much as I used to -- the
board does have the right to waive a citation if the infraction has been
corrected at the time that the request to challenge the citation has
occurred.
MR. NEALE: Right.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And my understanding, Mr. Ohlis, is that
you've not corrected the cause of the citation.
MR. OHLIS: I didn't do it because I was going to ask you if I
could -- if I took the landscape -- I was just trying to avoid the fine. I
will remove -- but there was no if you remove the signs you won't
have to pay the $300. You're going to pay the $300 and you're going
to remove the signs.
So I thought -- you know, that's why I came here, to either A,
take the landscape license and apply the 300 -- or, you know, waive
the $300 and apply it actually to take the landscaping licensee (sic), or
just to remove it and not -- and be waived for the $300. I mean, I
didn't get a warning or anything. And I've been in business since 1986
and had the same lettering and never ever got -- nothing's ever
happened. I didn't know anything about this before.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. Consider yourself lucky
that you've been doing this since 1986 and haven't gotten caught.
Are there any other questions or comments from the board?
MR. WHITE: Just that the only way I'd see that if there were a
desire to do so, that we would continue this request for 30 or 60 days,
whatever it would take for him to get the license, and then come back
and reconsider it if he were approved. That's the only procedural way
it would be even possible to do it.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, if there's no other discussion, then
I need a motion.
Page 20
161 1A5
April 21, 2010
MR. JOSLIN: I'm going to have to maybe disagree with Mr.
White, only for the fact of saying that if we do extend this or move
this to -- for 30 or 60 days down the road, we're going to open a lot of
doors for other people that come in here when Mr. Jackson comes in
here and cites someone for doing something that clearly is a clear -cut
wrongdoing in what the business that they're advertising. Then we're
going to open a door to have more people come in and do the same
thing.
I think that the board should be voting right now on the fact that
if he did the offense then the fine is due and justable (sic) paid or not.
MR. WHITE: I did not make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand.
MR. JOSLIN: No, I'm just trying to clear it before someone else
did, that's all.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you.
Any other comments?
MR. BOYD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Boyd.
MR. BOYD: I'm having -- I have a problem with the fact that he
didn't -- he wasn't caught doing anything illegal other than having a
sign on his trailer that I guess is outside the scope of his work. And I
think under the present conditions of economics that everybody's
going through, I have a hard time vot -- I'm going to have a hard time
voting for a $300 fine without at least giving the guy a warning, tell
him to remove it and giving him a chance.
If he was out caught doing landscaping then, you know, I would
vote for it. But just having some lettering on his trailer, I have a hard
time supporting that.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, to reflect the county's position
is, is that we try to be very consistent. Landscaping, electricians,
plumbers, you advertise it's a $300 fine. I know if he was advertising
Page 21
161 1 A5 1 1
April 21, 2010
and the state got ahold of him for illegal advertising, it wouldn't be a
$300 fine. I think it's a $1,500 fine through the state. So a $300 fine
for advertising in the scheme of things is minor compared to what the
state charges. If you advertise as a 489 state contractor, electrician,
plumber, mechanical contractor. And we try to be consistent when we
issue citations for advertising.
MR. WHITE: Just so I understand the facts here, the gentleman
was apprised that he could cover up the lettering before he came here
today, that that would abate the violation?
MR. JACKSON: Cover it?
MR. WHITE: Yes, the words that are not within --
MR. JACKSON: Covering the violation on the trailer would
have abated the violation.
MR. WHITE: Okay. And you were aware that that would --
MR. OHLIS: Yeah, but I still would have had to pay the fine,
and I felt like I didn't do the work --
MR. WHITE: No, the point here is if you had taken the action to
abate the violation by the time you appeared here today to contest it
would have been within our ability to waive the fine.
MR. OHLIS: Well, that's the reason why is I told -- as I was
telling you, that I was hoping that if you didn't waive the fine I didn't
know if you were going to either -- I was either asking to waive the
fine or if I could take the test and apply the $300 or not -- or waive the
$300 and apply it towards the $230 application fees that I went in
yesterday to talk to him about.
MR. WHITE: Let me break it down for you.
MR. OHLIS: Instead of taking all the lettering off my trailer that
it cost me, you know, six, $800.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White, continue.
MR. WHITE: If you had covered it, let's say for example, with I
don't know, whatever may have been --
MR. OHLIS: White tape.
Page 22
16 11 April 21, 2010
MR. WHITE: -- acceptable to the county.
MR.OHLIS: Right.
MR. WHITE: With the understanding that either A, you were
going to come here having abated the violation, looking to have the
citation contested and potentially the fine waived, or B, the same
circumstances and you were telling us that you were going to go ahead
and get the landscaping license, you may have been able to get the
kind of relief that you're asking for.
MR. OHLIS: I guess my point is, I was planning on removing it,
because that's what they said, I had to remove it. I didn't think I could
just cover it up and then I could take whatever was on there, take it
off. I wasn't thinking that way.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Lantz, do you have a comment?
MR. LANTZ: Well, if he had covered it up or applied for the
license, we wouldn't be required to --
MR. WHITE: Understood.
MR. LANTZ: -- get rid of the fine, we just would have been
allowed to.
MR. WHITE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's correct.
MR. LANTZ: I move we uphold the citation.
MR. JOSLIN: Is that a motion?
Second, Joslin.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS:
All those in favor?
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS:
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
I have a motion, I have a second.
Aye.
Page 23
161 1 A5
April 21, 2010
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 7 -1.
Mr. Ohlis, you should do something, either remove the signs or
get the license.
MR. OHLIS: I will.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay? Thank you.
Mr. Nicholas James, please come up and be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, while we're just -- while you're
looking at this affidavit here, this is something new. We haven't had
this in the 15 years I've been here.
Mr. Nicholas James is a -- took the journeyman test, let the
journeyman lapse. And now he's been in the business -- he's
continued in the business but he hasn't renewed it. So within three
years you have to retest. And I would think that him retesting for the
journeyman test would be something that is not required.
To have a journeyman license you're not a certificate holder,
you're not a contractor, it's just a journeyman. And he has the
knowledge and has the experience. And I recommend that if he wants
his journeyman license back, pay back fees and have his journeyman
license back.
So my recommendation is, is to reinstate without taking the exam
the journeyman test.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you, Michael.
Mr. James?
MR. JAMES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You want to add to that?
MR. JAMES: I guess long story short, I've been in the field, had
the license. And excuses don't really matter, but just bad chain of
events, married and divorced. And I'm on pass and I basically
dropped the ball. Honestly didn't feel I needed it because I -- there
Page 24
161 1 A5 A
April 21, 2010
was a lot of work. But due to the times -- it doesn't mean much, but it
-- you know, it gives you a leg up on some people out there. And out
looking for work as is, and there's a couple pretty good leads. And,
you know, it definitely helps to have a journeyman card.
Fully willing to pay the back monies, just like I tried to put some
verbiage down there. And I can certainly stay in the business without
it. Just think it'd be a lot better if I could, you know, pay the back
fees, acquire it and then of course do the CEU's and the monies and
such just to have it, kind of like a backup or something that you can
show to the other people. Even though if you have eight or 10 years
experience, plenty of guys out there that never went to any schooling,
Vo- Tech's like that, it's all hands on. If that makes any sense.
MR. JOSLIN: How many hours of CEU's would he be behind?
The license was --
MR. OSSORIO: Actually, when you're a journeyman, the way it
works is, is that you go to a journeyman apprenticeship program at the
Vo -Tech for four years. After you do your four years, you come and
you apply for a journeyman license.
You take the exam, you pass the exam, you carry your
journeyman card for two years. Once you're a journeyman for two
years, you may sit for the master, so a total of six years.
I mean, this gentleman went through Vo -Tech, took the
journeyman test, got the journeyman card, practiced his apprenticeship
for many years, let the license lapse, his certificate for a journeyman
card, and he wishes to have it back.
Is it required? No. But I commend him, he wants to have a
journeyman card. So when he goes to a job site or if he goes to a
perspective, you know, new job site or whatever it might be, he says
I'm a journeyman.
MR. JOSLIN: Gotcha.
MR. OSSORIO: Not a canceled journeyman but a journeyman.
MR. JOSLIN: So there is no per se continuing education courses
Page 25
+151 1 A5
April 21, 2010
that he is required to have?
MR. OSSORIO: No, when you --
MR. JAMES: It's basically a fee --
MR. JOSLIN: A fee.
MR. JAMES: -- like he said, every two years, pay Collier
County.
MR. OSSORIO: Well, it's every year you pay your journeyman.
MR. JAMES: Is it every year?
MR. OSSORIO: And we expect a journeyman to work under a
master electrician and learn his trade through the apprenticeship
program, and be a journeyman.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we approve Mr. Nicholas,
to waive the examination.
MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second.
All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0.
Good luck, Mr. James.
MR. JAMES: Thank you, I appreciate it.
Just real quick, Mike, so basically pay the 540 here or back at
Horseshoe, or what did you want me to do with that?
Page 26
161 1 1 A5 'A
April 21, 2010
MR. OSSORIO: Since the board has technically approved you,
you're more than welcome to go back to our office and you can
communicate with Maggie or Joanne or Jennifer and they can go
ahead and process it.
MR. JAMES: Is that okay to do now since we got --
MR. OSSORIO: That's okay.
MR. JAMES: -- the day off?
MR. OSSORIO: Fine.
MR. JAMES: Okay, thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: Good luck.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, moving on. Any old business?
MR. WHITE: One item, Mr. Chairman.
Just following up on the public reprimand of our case last month
for Maharay Borrego, was that public reprimand issued, and do we
have a copy?
MR. LANTZ: It was in all the newspapers.
MR. WHITE: I don't get the paper, I guess --
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. What we did was is once the
chairman signed the order, we contacted our liaison through the Board
of County Commissioners, John Torre, who's the director of
communications. He wrote up a press release. Press release was
good, right to the point.
And it went to the newspapers, they picked it up. It went on -- I
think it went on TV, it went on news and it went to the general public.
So I consider that a public reprimand.
MR. WHITE: Thank you for the update and the opportunity to
put it in the public eye again today.
MR. OSSORIO: And the homeowner is getting reimbursed.
MR. WHITE: Well that's great.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's very good. So the system worked.
MR. JACKSON: So far.
Page 27
1611 A5
April 21, 2010
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So far. Thank you.
All right. Is a Mr. Henderson here?
Okay, we have one public hearing. I'm going to go through the
hearing procedures so everybody understands the procedure.
Public hearing procedures are conducted pursuant to the
procedures set out in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended,
and Florida Statutes Chapter 489. These hearings are quasi judicial in
nature. Formal Rules of Evidence shall not apply, but fundamental
fairness and due process shall be observed and shall govern the
proceedings.
Irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative evidence shall be excluded,
but all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably
prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible,
whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the
courts of the State of Florida.
Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing
or explaining any evidence, but shall not be sufficient by itself to
support a finding unless such hearsay would be admissible over
objection in civil actions in court.
The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that
they are now or hereafter may be recognized in civil actions.
Any member of the Contractors Licensing Board may question
any witness before the board. Each party to the proceedings shall
have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to
cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness, regardless of which
part y called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented
against the party.
The chair person or in his absence the vice chair person shall
have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the hearing in
a full, fair and impartial manner and to preserve order and decorum.
The general process of the hearing is for the county to present an
opening statement where it sets out the charges and in general terms
16 I 1 ��
April 21, 2010
how it intends to prove them.
The respondent then makes his or her opening statement, setting
out in general terms the defenses to the charges.
The county then presents its case in chief, calling witnesses and
presenting evidence.
The respondent may cross - examine these witnesses.
Once the county has closed its case in chief, then the respondent
puts on his or her defense. They may call witnesses and do all the
things described earlier; that is, call and exam witnesses, to introduce
exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness,
regardless of which parry called the witness to testify, and to rebut any
evidence presented against the party.
After the respondent puts on his or her case, the county gets to
present a rebuttal to the respondent's presentation.
When the rebuttal is concluded, then each party gets to present
closing statements, with the county getting a second chance to rebut
after the respondent's closing argument.
The board then closes the public hearing and begins
deliberations.
Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will
give them a charge, much like a charge to a jury, setting out the
parameters on which they base their decision.
During deliberations the board can ask for additional information
and clarification from the parties.
The board will then decide two different issues: First, whether the
respondent is guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative
Complaint. A vote will be taken on this matter.
If the respondent is found guilty, then the board must decide the
sanctions to be imposed.
The board attorney at this point will advise the board of the
sanctions which may be imposed and the factors to consider. The
board will discuss sanctions and take a vote on those.
16 I 1 iA 5 'A
April 21, 2010
After the two matters are decided, the chair or in his absence the
vice chair will read a summary of the order to be issued by the board.
This summary will set out the basic outline of the order but will not be
exactly the same language as the final order. The final order will
include the full details required under state of law and procedure.
So we said Mr. Henderson is here. If you would please swear in
Mr. Henderson.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, we are hearing Case No. 2010 -02,
the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida,
Contractors Licensing Board as petitioner, versus Gregory Henderson,
d/b /a Henderson Painting, Incorporated. License No. 17303.
And the administrative complaint, the Contractors Licensing
Board of Collier County, Florida, files this administrative complaint
against Gregory Henderson, d/b /a Henderson Painting, Inc., License
No. 170303 and says: Count 1, disregards or violates in the
performance of his contracting business in Collier County any of the
building, safety, health, insurance or workers compensation laws of
the State of Florida or ordinances of this county.
It is determined that the above stated charges are grounds for
disciplinary action under Ordinance 90 -105 of Collier County, Florida
as amended.
So we'll start with opening statement by the county.
MR. JACKSON: For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor
Licensing for Collier County.
First the county would request that the evidence packet be
entered into evidence.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Need a motion.
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
Page 30
161 1 A5
April 21, 2010
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
This case evolved from an anonymous complaint regarding the
painting taking place at 356 Water Leaf Court on Marco Island.
Ultimately it was discovered that there was a worker where Mr.
Henderson had failed to gain workers' comp. coverage for him.
In a meeting with Mr. Henderson this morning, Mr. Henderson
and I'm sure he will confirm -- is choosing to not contest the charge
brought before him today.
In a nutshell, Mr. Henderson utilizes Labor Finders to provide
workers' comp. coverage for his employee or employees, and this
particular time period there was a failure for him to do so.
And that will conclude my opening, and I'll turn it over to Mr.
Henderson for his.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, Mr. Henderson, opening
statement, please.
MR. HENDERSON: It's pretty simple, really. I run these guys
through Labor Finders. They are their employees. And I had
neglected to pick up the job ticket for that week. And that's when Ian
came to the job.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you.
Okay, Ian, we're ready for you to present your case.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The week within the date of March
Page 31
161 1A5
April 21, 2010
10th you will find in your Exhibit E -5 and E -6 a statement from Labor
Finders, showing the customers of theirs who were utilizing the
organization to provide workers' comp., which does not include Mr.
Henderson.
And I would ask a question of Mr. Henderson, if I may.
On March 10th, was there workers' comp. coverage for your
employee, Juan Aguirre, while I was there?
MR. HENDERSON: Apparently not. The ticket has to be
picked up before the coverage is in place, which I really wasn't clear
on when I made my deal with Labor Finders.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
And with that, the county will rest and answer any questions of
the board.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, are there any questions of Ian?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Mr. Henderson, do you have any
evidence to present?
MR. HENDERSON: Only other job tickets.
I just want the board to realize that I wasn't just -- I didn't just
have these guys out there working with no insurance at all. I had
neglected to pick up the ticket for the week. I do have tickets for the
previous and following weeks.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do you want to present those into
evidence?
MR. HENDERSON: Sure. I suppose.
To you?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We need to have copies made and then
have those entered.
MR. NEALE: Let the clerk have them.
And they also need to be marked as an exhibit. Mark them as a
collective exhibit.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
Page 32
1611) 1 21 2010
MR. JACKSON: I'll have copies made.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. And then I need a motion to
accept those into evidence.
MR. LANTZ: So moved, Lantz.
MR. WHITE: Second, White. With a stipulation to be able to
see them before you --
CHAIRMAN LYKOS:
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
All those in favor?
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you.
MR. WHITE: May I inquire, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Please.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Henderson, you've provided us with these job
tickets for the week apparently before and the week after. Can you
testify as to what other weeks you may have, when you had
employees working with you, also obtained the job tickets and used
Labor Finders?
MR. HENDERSON: Those are the tickets that I've had since I've
used Labor Finders. That's --
MR. WHITE: So there were only those three weeks that -- the
week before, the week of for the violation --
MR. HENDERSON: That's correct.
MR. WHITE: -- and the week after. There's no --
Page 33
161 1 A5
April 21, 2010
MR. HENDERSON: Well, no, there's some back to December
there.
MR. WHITE: Okay.
MR. HENDERSON: They're intermittent.
MR. WHITE: Okay. So your routine practice is to use Labor
Finders.
MR. HENDERSON: That's right. I don't do enough business to
carry a full -time policy.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Henderson, the week that's in
question, the week of March 10th, how many employees did you have
working.
MR. HENDERSON: Just the one.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: (Nods head affirmatively.)
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Henderson, have you ever been issued a
stop work order for workers comp. violation through this office?
MR. HENDERSON: Yeah, one time before, several years ago.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What were the circumstances
surrounding that?
MR. HENDERSON: I had hired a guy just as a -- to help us
carry doors. And it was a job that there was a permit problem, and Ian
came to the job, and he then gave me a citation.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What was the permit problem?
MR. HENDERSON: It had nothing to do with me, there was a
general contractor who I don't even remember, several years ago, that
they had failed to pull a permit. But it was for that reason that Ian was
there.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So you were issued a citation for having
an employee on -site without workers' comp.?
MR. HENDERSON: Correct.
Page 34
1611 A5
April 21, 2010
MR. JOSLIN: Were you using Labor Finders at that time also?
MR. HENDERSON: No, I was not.
MR. JOSLIN: No.
MR. HORN: Mr. Henderson, quick question about these tickets,
since I'm not familiar. If I'm reading it correctly, you fill these out and
then you hand it to the worker after the job's done?
MR. HENDERSON: No. Those go back to Labor Finders on a
weekly basis. The checks are then issued by them to the workers.
MR. HORN: Okay.
MR. HENDERSON: They're to be picked up at the beginning of
the workweek and then faxed to them at the end of the week.
MR. HORN: I see.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So all the board members may have a
better understanding, Mr. Henderson, you call Labor Finders, you tell
them you need X number of employees for a certain time frame at a
certain location. And how do the employees end up on the job site?
How do you document their hours? If you could explain to the board
better how that works.
MR. HENDERSON: It doesn't work that way. You -- I find the
employee, I send them to Labor Finders and they do their application
process with Labor Finders. So they're actually their employee.
And then as you put the guys on the job, you pick up the tickets.
And that's what I had neglected to do for that week.
MR. NEALE: It appears to be a short-term employee leasing
kind of situation.
MR. HENDERSON: Yeah, it's employee leasing.
MR. NEALE: Employee renting as opposed to employee
leasing, I guess.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, I want to make sure everybody
understands, Mr. Henderson's testified that he failed to pick up a
ticket. I think we need to understand exactly how the process works
so we know if this is matter of just failing to go pick up a ticket, or if
Page 35
161 1 A5'
April 21, 2010
the gentleman was not working through Labor Finders it would
certainly make the labor cost less expensive.
So I want the board members to have a better understanding of
exactly how this works. Is this a simple oversight or was this an effort
to avoid paying the fees you pay through a Labor Finders type of a
business?
MR. HENDERSON: It was an oversight.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. But that's why I wanted
you to explain better how the process works.
MR. HENDERSON: I believe I did. That is how it works. You
send the employee up there, he makes his deal with Labor Finders.
Then he can either pick up the ticket, or in my case I was supposed to
pick it up. I was busy with other things and I neglected to do it.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So the workman comes to the job site,
you go to Labor Finders and you get a ticket from Labor Finders?
MR. HENDERSON: You should have it before, yeah.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And on that ticket is what information?
MR. HENDERSON: I believe you have them there. All that
ticket says is that he is an employee there.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So it has the employee's name.
MR. HENDERSON: Correct. My -- Henderson Painting and his
name and our shop address.
And then at the end of the week you have the total number of
hours and you sign for that.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: Was this just a clerical error where you used the
man on the job but you just neglected to go pick up a ticket and you
actually did have to pay Labor Finders for that man's labor for the day,
kind of a --
MR. HENDERSON: No, no.
MR. JOSLIN: -- or did you not have this man approve --
MR. HENDERSON: I want to clarify that. I'm not trying to
Page 36
161 1 A5 S
April 21,_2Q10
worm out of anything here. I neglected to pick it up, so Labor Finders
would not have charged me for that day.
MR. LANTZ: So how did he get paid for the day?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, excuse me, that's not exactly true.
He -- I got the ticket later in the week, the following day, of course,
and he would have got paid then.
But the question is the insurance. And without the ticket in hand,
apparently the comp. is not on the job.
MR. JERULLE: I have a question, sir.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Jerulle.
MR. JERULLE: The statement, Ian, was that Juan Aguirre had
worked for three or four months?
MR. HENDERSON: Intermittently.
MR. JERULLE: Who said intermittently?
MR. HENDERSON: I did.
MR. JERULLE: Okay. That's not the statement in the summary.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Aguirre, when asked by myself how long
have you worked for Mr. Henderson, his answer was three or four
months. Now, he didn't specify whether that was intermittent or
regular. It's just a general question that I ask when I'm on a job site,
just to gather information.
MR. JERULLE: Because I see four tickets presented into
evidence, and I have a summary that says three or four months. I'm
just trying to figure out if there's a -- if it is intermittent or if it is
somebody just trying to every now and then provide Workmen's
Comp.
MR. JACKSON: If it helps clarify, Labor Finders, in my
communication with him, they were familiar with Mr. Henderson.
They had to search their records to find whether there was coverage
for that day or whether there was a record of Mr. Aguirre being
covered for that day.
Page 37
161 1AA15 "
1, 2
It was apparent that Mr. Henderson does utilize the organization,
but I think as we've arrived at, there was an issue with coverage for
that individual day.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I haven't seen the receipts yet. Do we
have a receipt from that week?
MR. JOSLIN: No; not that I can find anyway. Unless we're
missing any. But there's no coverage for that particular week, no. I'm
showing one for 3/15.
MR. HENDERSON: There should be.
MR. WHITE: There's one for 3/11.
MR. HENDERSON: There it is.
MR. JOSLIN: One for 11/30.
MR. HENDERSON: 3/11.
MR. JOSLIN: One for 12/05. And that's all that's here. Unless I
missed it somewhere.
I'm sorry, there is one for 3/11. You say the incident happened
on the 3rd, though, correct?
MR. WHITE: 10th.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: 10th.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry, on the 10th.
MR. JERULLE: Well, and that was another question. Ian, you
were called on the 3rd?
MR. JACKSON: The complaint came to our office on the 3rd. I
made a site visit on the 3rd where there was no work. I made another
site visit on the 10th where I met Mr. Aguirre, and the chain of events
started from the 10th.
MR. JERULLE: There was no work going on at the time. Was
there -- had there been any painting done previous to you showing up?
MR. JACKSON: Not before -- not to my knowledge before the
10th. It was interior. I didn't have access to the interior so I wouldn't
be able to answer that.
1 A5
16 1 1 April 21, 2010
MR. HENDERSON: It would have been myself as far as the
work.
MR. JERULLE: Meaning you would have performed --
MR. HENDERSON: I was there working, yeah.
MR. HORN: Mr. Chair, question for you for just --
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir.
MR. HORN: -- my piece of mind and for the general public's.
As a consumer, if I heard a painter and let's say they were
utilizing a day laborer, if they didn't use a service such as this to cover
Workmen's Comp. and all that, wouldn't there be a substantial
difference in what they were paying out of pocket, their expenses and
costs, let's say, versus someone,who was? Therefore, would they be
able to underbid another contractor going by those rules?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, that's correct.
MR. HORN: Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood it
correctly.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm trying to find out the date of the invoice there
from Labor Finders. It lists 3/11. The citation actually occurred on
3/10. So which day was it?
MR. LANTZ: I Ith is a Thursday.
MR. JERULLE: There's a calendar on the bottom.
MR. JOSLIN: On the -- if you look on the sheet though on 3/11,
even though that's the date of the invoice, it shows a Thursday as
being a paid day, I believe. Which is a Thursday, right?
MR. LANTZ: Correct. I think the next day he went and got it
straightened out, if I'm not mistaken right?
MR. HENDERSON: Correct. It was that day, actually, but they
couldn't issue a ticket on the 10th.
MR. WHITE: Because you hadn't picked it up.
MR. HENDERSON: Correct.
MR. LANTZ: They can't give you workers' comp. coverage --
MR. HORN: After the fact?
Page 39
161 1 A5
April 21, 2010
MR. LANTZ: -- after the fact. I've made that mistake. Not me,
but --
MR. JOSLIN: Well then -- okay, if that's the case then, if you
look on the 3/11 invoice there, why would --
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Joslin, please speak into the
microphone.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry.
If that's the case, then if you look on the 3/11 invoice, does it
show a Thursday there?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It shows seven hours on Thursday, seven
hours on Friday.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. And you just said the 10th was a
Thursday, correct?
MR. LANTZ: The 11th was a Thursday.
MR. JOSLIN: The 11th was a Thursday. So the 10th was a
Wednesday, okay, so there was no coverage then. All right, that's what
I wanted to see.
MR. LANTZ: So you just wrote down Friday, even though he
didn't work Friday, to cover for Wednesday?
MR. HENDERSON: No, he worked Thursday and Friday.
MR. LANTZ: So how did he get paid --
MR. HENDERSON: Oh, excus -- no, you're right, you're right,
you're right.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: How did he get paid for Wednesday?
MR. HENDERSON: No, it was -- he did not work Friday, it was
Wednesday and Thursday. Just so the check would be correct for the
two days.
MR. JERULLE: So not that I want to summarize, but just in my
own mind a summary would be that you're admitting that on the 10th
you did not have Workmen's Compensation for that laborer.
MR. HENDERSON: As it turns out. Without a ticket, the policy
is not in place, that's --
Page 40
tA-
161 1Ail21
April 2010
MR. JERULLE: And your charge is that he did not have it on
the 10th?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. NEALE: I think, you know, just for summary purposes that
Mr. Henderson's effectively stipulated to the fact that he was in
violation as charged, so I think he would -- you know, the board could
act upon that, as they have in the past, that when someone stipulates to
a charge that you can find them in violation of the charge and then
review the rest of the circumstances as to the penalty side of it.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Under normal circumstances I would
agree with you. However, some of us have experience in this type of
transaction, and I think we do need to do a little bit more research
here.
In looking at the ticket from 3/11 which says that Mr. Aguirre
worked on Thursday and Friday, we've concluded that it was actually
Wednesday and Thursday, that Friday was added so that the check
was correct.
And then next week, when which is 3/15, Mr. Aguirre also
worked on the same job site Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday. So this was an ongoing project. So even though there's only
one day in question, it looks like this job went Wednesday and
Thursday. I don't know that he didn't work on Friday, because this
ticket says he did work on Friday. And then it says he didn't work on
Monday but then he worked the next four days of that week.
So this was an ongoing project. And even though Wednesday is
the exact day that we can know for sure that there was no coverage,
because this was an ongoing project, I know my decision about any
disciplinary action is going to take into consideration how long this
may have been going on.
We don't have a ticket for the week before, if I'm correct. So we
know that by the respondent's admission, there were two days worked,
Wednesday and Thursday. It was recorded as Thursday and Friday.
Page 41
1611 A1512 0
P
The week after there was four days worked, which means no -- we're
supposed to believe that there was no work that occurred on the Friday
after and no work occurred on the Monday of the following week, that
there was two days worked the week of March 10th and the
Wednesday was the only day that wasn't covered, and nobody worked
at all on Friday. And then the next week nobody worked at all on
Monday, but Mr. Aguirre did work Tuesday through Friday.
And we don't know what happened the week after that because
there's no ticket for it. So Mr. Aguirre may not have been working, or
he may have and there's just no ticket for it. I don't know. Or --
MR. MEISTER: Is there any reason why the work was done so
sporadically? In most cases you want to go and get it done?
MR. HENDERSON: No, he's just part-time with me. The work
wasn't necessarily sporadically. I was there working. But Juan has a
night job and he only works for me part-time. I get him when I can
get him.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, he worked seven hours a day for
six days, just not six days in a row.
MR. HENDERSON: On that job, yeah.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Did he work on the job from the
beginning of the job to the end of the job?
MR. HENDERSON: No.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Did he work on the job the week of
March 22nd?
MR. HENDERSON: I don't recall. Whatever days that he
worked on that job I had the ticket for. I mean, once I got the ticket
straightened out, he was covered for all the time he was there from
that day on until I was done with him on the job.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand.
MR. WHITE: Were there any days prior to the 10th that he
wasn't covered that he did work?
MR. HENDERSON: No, he wasn't there.
Page 42
16I1A5
April 21, 2010
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So at this point, as Mr. Neale stated
earlier, you are stipulating to the fact that you did not have coverage
for Mr. Aguirre on the day in question?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. So the first part of our process is
pretty straightforward. The real question's going to come in with
regard to disciplinary action.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. Well, and the point that's important for the
board to remember and that, you know, we bring up every time is that
the only evidence the board can consider is evidence presented at this
hearing. You can't speculate, you can't make things up, you can't pull
-- say what if, may be. The only evidence you can consider is
evidence that's actually presented. So speculation is all well and good,
but it's not evidence.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good point. Thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: Closing statements probably?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes.
Any rebuttal to Mr. Henderson's case?
MR. JACKSON: No.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Closing statements?
MR. JACKSON: County has no closing statement, considering
Mr. Henderson's stipulation.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Henderson, any closing statement?
MR. HENDERSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, then I need a motion to close the
public hearing.
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor?
Page 43
16 a 1 A5
April 21, 2010
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0.
Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: In this case, since it is somewhat simpler than
most in that we do have a stipulation in place by the respondent as to
the violation as charged for the time as charged, what the board now
needs to do is review -- is to vote on whether to essentially accept the
stipulation and find him in violation.
Once the board has done that, then the board will consider the
sanctions so we can -- once the board's done that, then I can put forth
what the things are to consider when imposing sanctions.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, so the public hearing is closed,
we're in deliberation.
The first question we have to answer is whether or not Mr.
Henderson is guilty of the violation.
MR. WHITE: Make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we find the
respondent, Gregory Henderson, license number 17303, to have been
guilty according to Count I for not having workers' compensation
insurance as required by the state and county regulations on March
10th, 2010.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second.
All those in favor?
161 1 April 21, 2010
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries.
Okay, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: All right. You now have found the respondent in
violation, and you have to decide on the sanctions to be imposed,
which are set out in the codified ordinance in Section 22- 203.13.1, and
in the revised ordinance in Section 4.3.5.
The sanctions which may be imposed include revocation of the
Certificate of Competency, suspension of the Certificate of
Competency, denial of issuance or renewal of the Certificate of
Competency, probation of a reasonable length not to exceed two
years, restitution, a fine not to exceed $10,000, a public reprimand, a
reexamination requirement, denial of the issuance of permits or
requiring issuance of permits with conditions, and reasonable legal
and investigative costs.
In imposing these sanctions, the board shall consider the
evidence presented here as to the gravity of the violation, the impact
of the violation, actions taken by the violator to correct the violation,
any previous violations committed, and any other evidence presented
at this hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction that is
appropriate for the case, given the nature of this circumstance.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you.
Okay, comments?
Page 45
'.61 1 A5
April 21, 2010
MR. WHITE: Question, if I may, of the county as to what their
costs were, prosecutorial.
MR. JACKSON: Cost was 500.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We have a recommendation?
MR. JACKSON: The county's recommendation is a fine of
$1,500, cost of $500, paid within 30 days, and Mr. Henderson attends
a workers' comp. course given by the Division of Financial Services of
the State of Florida within 90 days. And a probationary period of one
year.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other comments?
Mr. Horn?
MR. HORN: Mr. Chair, just a suggestion, if we're going to do
probation, that we also require the defendant to call in all his jobs for
the next year to the county so that if the county chooses to check on
those jobs, they can do so at their decision, to make sure that he is
following the workmen's comp. laws in the future.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Any other comment?
MR. JERULLE: Excuse me. Ian, you stated that the county had
fined for workmen's comp. prior?
MR. JACKSON: That is correct.
MR. JERULLE: Was there a date; do you recall?
MR. JACKSON: October, 2008.
MR. JOSLIN: Was it the same kind of instance where it was
Labor Finders or another company used for workmen's comp., or --
MR. JACKSON: I'm going by memory with this, but I don't
believe at the time Mr. Henderson was utilizing a day labor
organization. I think after he and I met at that date -- and Mr.
Henderson may be able to confirm or not this -- I made that suggestion
to him, and that's what prompted him to start using that day labor
organization.
MR. JOSLIN: So he was fined a citation for that?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
.,_.,e
Ai
1611 April 21, 2010
MR. JOSLIN: Not brought before the board at that time?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. JOSLIN: So in your opinion, he was well notified that he
needed to have workman's comp. on all his employees every time they
went to the job, any job?
MR. JACKSON: I would imagine. I can't speak for Mr.
Henderson and his recognition of that.
MR. OSSORIO: Typically once an individual gets notified the
first time that he or she needs to have coverage pursuant to 440, we do
sit down with them at length and discuss all the options: Leasing,
payroll service, day laborers, a blanket policy. So we go through
extensive one -on -one with the qualifier about workers' comp. or
insurance.
When we find a violation, we issue a stop work order pursuant to
the code.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm personally a little conflicted on this
one. As my company was growing we took advantage of the
companies like Labor Finders, because it was hard to know your flow
of work and your workload, and it was an easy way to react quickly to
a jump in your workload. So I know that my company took advantage
of groups like Labor Finders.
And in remembering back I don't know how diligent we were
about getting the tickets and making sure they were on -site and those
kinds of things. So I have an understanding of how this kind of
oversight could occur.
That being said, and with deference to Mr. Neale's comments
about speculation, there's a three -month window where there are no
labor force tickets. And, you know, Mr. Boyd made a comment
earlier about how the economy puts a strain on businesses, and it
certainly would be tempting to get some inexpensive labor by not
having to go through a labor force or not having to worry about
workers' compensation and those kinds of things.
Page 47
1611A5
April 21, 2010
And I know it's speculation, but it's that window of three months
in between. And the tickets only start after Ian Jackson was on -site
and discovered that there was a workmen's comp. violation.
So I might be speculating, against Mr. Neale's recommendations,
but it does give me pause over how innocent this may be.
MR. NEALE: Except for the fact that those were just the tickets
he presented to you.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand.
MR. NEALE: There is no evidence in the record to say those
were the only tickets ever issued.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand.
MR. LANTZ: Did he testify that those were the only ones ever
issued?
MR. HENDERSON: No. No, I sure didn't. I was trying to show
around the time of the violation --
MR. NEALE: All he testified --
MR. HENDERSON: -- that I wasn't just out there with nothing.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, I believe all he testified to was that he had
the ticket in there for the week before and the week after, and a
representative segments of other tickets.
MR. WHITE: He also testified that this was an exception
essentially to his routine practice.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: There is no ticket for the week before.
MR. JOSLIN: Which could really be the fact of him maybe not
being as busy at what like you mentioned where the jobs are sporadic
in a sense.
I don't think -- in my opinion I don't think it was clear -cut blatant
that he did it, even though there was a paper in sight (sic) mistake,
because he has used the Labor Finders in the past.
Now, again, not speculating, we could also I guess analyze it a
different way and say maybe he has been doing this all along trying to
discure (sic) the fact, but I don't think that we can really act on that, on
16 I' A51
pril 21, 2010
what we speculate on.
So I'm ready to make a motion, if we're not --
MR. JERULLE: The facts are the facts, correct? He's admitted
guilt. The county has made a recommendation. I say we move
forward.
MR. LANTZ: I agree with the county's recommendation also.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, then I need a motion.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that Gregory Henderson, d/b /a
Henderson Painting in Case No. 2010 -02, License No. 17303, be fined
-- I'm sorry, be required to pay investigative costs of $500; be required
to pay a $1,500 fine, and both of those to be paid within 30 days; to be
able to take or to take a workmen's comp. accredited course within a
90 -day period; and be placed on probation for one year in which the
county will monitor the jobs that he has ongoing for that amount of
time.
MR. WHITE: Second by White, with a stipulation that he'd have
to actually pass workers' comp. --
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, yes.
MR. WHITE: -- within 90 days.
MR. JERULLE: Good point.
MR. JOSLIN: Well, I don't believe workmen's comp. is a test,
it's just a course you go through.
MR. WHITE: Demonstrate proof of attendance.
MR. JOSLIN: Sure, yeah.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any
other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
WIM
A5
Aril 21, 2010
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries 8 -0.
Ian, this is the evidence.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
Mr. Henderson, if you want to give me a call, I can give you
information on the workers' comp. course. There's one coming up very
shortly.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, with regard to Case No. 2010 -02,
this cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors Licensing
Board on April 21 st, 2010, for consideration of the Administrative
Complaint filed against Gregory Henderson d /b /a Henderson Painting,
Incorporated.
Service of the complaint was made in accordance with Collier
County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended.
The board, having at this hearing heard testimony under oath
received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate
matters thereupon issues its findings of fact, conclusions of law and
order of the board as follows: Gregory Henderson, d/b /a Henderson
Painting, Incorporated, is the holder of record of License No. 17030;
that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida is
the complainant in this matter; that the board has jurisdiction of the
person of the respondent; and that Gregory Henderson was present at
the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the hearing
on April 21st, 2010.
All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -105, as
amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered.
The respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier
Page 50
{
1 1 "` A
April 21, 2010
County ordinances and is the one who committed the act. That the
allegations of fact as set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to
Count I, 4.1.6, disregards or violates in the performance of his
contracting business in Collier County any of the building, safety,
health, insurance or workers' compensation laws of the State of
Florida or ordinances of this county, is found to be supported by the
evidence presented at the hearing.
The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the
Administrative Complaint as to Count I, 4.1.6, disregards or violates
in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County any
of the building, safety, health, insurance or workers' compensation
laws of the State of Florida or ordinances of this county are approved,
adopted and incorporated herein.
To wit: The respondent violated the Section 4.1.6, as amended,
in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by
acting in violation of the section set out in the Administrative
Complaint with particularity.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and
Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of eight
in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members
presents, the respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of eight in favor and zero
opposed, a majority vote of the members present, that the following
disciplinary sanctions and related order are hereby imposed upon the
holder of Contractor's Certificate of Competency No. 17303.
That the respondent pay fines of $1,500 and investigative costs of
$500, due within 30 days.
That the respondent take a workers' compensation course within
90 days and proof of attendance -- provide proof of attendance.
That the respondent receive probation for one year and provide
information to the office with regards to his job so that the county
Page 51
1611 A5
April 21, 2010
licensing department can check in on those jobs as they see fit.
And that's it.
MR. NEALE: So ordered.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So ordered.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, our next meeting is going to be
Wednesday, May 19th, here in this building.
And just a quick reminder, I'll drop the packets off. We'll pick
those up. And make sure we keep -- you'll keep the draft of the
ordinance. And I will send them electronically sometime today.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Any other comments?
MR. WHITE: Just about the workshop portion for the ordinance.
Is that also going to be on the 19th?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. It's going to be part of the agenda. It's
going to be a line item on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Is that going to be catered? We're going
to be here awhile.
MR. OSSORIO: What we'll probably end up doing is we might
have the -- you know, since there might be some people here who
wish to speak on the ordinance, we'll probably have the workshop up
front on the agenda so it's timed at 9:00. And then we'll follow
through with the regular agenda. Hopefully the agenda's going to be
shorter. So we'll probably get done at the same time.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Any other questions or
comments?
MR. JOSLIN: Could I just make one real quick comment as far
as for the ordinance goes? Maybe the county attorneys might want to
do this before we get to the board meeting.
On the composition of the part three of the Contractor Licensing
Board, who qualifies to be on the board, there are a couple of us I
believe on the board that do not fall under any of these categories.
Now, if I recall, years ago there was a specialty contractor listed as
one of those. It's not in this one. You might want to just check and
Page 52
A5
April 21, 2010
maybe it's just an omitted error.
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: Several of us fall under that category where not
any of the items that are on here.
MR. NEALE: Right, because there used to be the specialty
contracting.
MR. JOSLIN: Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was. Anyway, it's not
now.
MR. OSSORIO: Well, Mr. Joslin, I recommend that you make
your notes and then we'll talk about them on the 19th.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes. It was just one real quick because, you
know, I want to make sure we're compliant.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, any other questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I need a motion to adjourn.
MR. WHITE: So moved, White.
MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS:
Opposed.
Motion carries. Thank you.
Page 53
i6l115
pril 21, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:45 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR
LI NSING
OMAS LY
These minutes approved by the board on q to as
presented or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,
Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 54
Fiala
tialas
Coyle
Coletta
16 11 A6
April 7, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RECEWDELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MAY 0 6 2010
r of c,,u„N commisswnam Naples, Florida, April 7, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe
Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian
Vice Chair: David Dunnavant
Ray Allain
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn
Dalas Disney
Marco Espinar
Blair Foley
Regan Henry
George Hermanson (Excused)
David Hurst
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator, CDES
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES — Staff Liaison
Bob Dunn, Director, Building Review & Permitting
Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities
Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review Manager
Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning
Misc. Cones: A
Amy Patterson, Impact Fee & EDC Manager
S
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist'
tbm k•I i Q
Cq).,es V
I/1
161 1A6
April 7, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 PM by Chairman William Varian who read
the procedures to be followed during the Meeting.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Dalas Disney.
Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —March 3, 2010 Meeting:
Blair Foley moved to approve the Minutes of the March 3, 2010 meeting as submitted
Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
(Robert Where arrived at 3:08 PM)
IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS:
(Will be heard when Item is presented)
V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES:
A. Public Utilities Division Update — Phil Gramatges, Interim Director
• No new items to report
• No questions from the Committee
B. Fire Review Update — Ed Riley, Fire Code Official
• Monthly Report was submitted in the Committee's information packet
(James Boughton arrived at 3:09 PM.)
C. Transportation/Planning Update — Michael Greene, Transportation Planning
Manager
• I- 75 /hnmokalee Interchange
• DOT's projected completion is May, 2010
• The Level of Service will be calculated in May and the project will
probably be an enhanced six -lane roadway
• US 41 /County 951 and the "3 -R" Project
o Design meetings were held at the end of March and both are active
• Oilwell Road
• The eastern and western segments are being constructed concurrently
• DOT's estimated completion date is March 15, 2012
• Davis Blvd. (Radio Road to 951)
o Bids will not be accepted until July due to an issue concerning the final
right -of -way
16I1A6 ;I
April 7, 2010
Vanderbilt Drive Pathway
• Initially delayed - it was issued under the BVO Process
• Drafting a new "Scope of Service" is in process for the balance of the
work with a new Purchase Order and Work Order (as directed by the
Clerk's Office)
Executed BVO Contracts
• There was a legal challenge to the BVO Contract Process
• The Clerk's Office has not paid for work completed under the original
contract
(Laura DeJohn arrived at 3:11 PM)
D. ODES Update - Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator
• A new brochure entitled "The Art of Customer Service" was distributed to the
members
• In April, all Business Center & Intake personnel will undergo
mandatory customer service training
• A Customer Service Protocol is in development
• Internet training (how to answer emails)
• Public will be asked to access service
• Update on Kaizen Event
• Business Center will be established and staffed (10 stations)
• There will be a designated Team Leader, a Planning Reviewer, and
Planning Technicians
• Submittal requirements will be reduced when ever possible
- first submittal - face to face meeting with Staff
- second submittal - at Business Center
- third submittal - face to face meeting with owner, development
professional (applicant), and Staff
A suggestion was made to hold third submittal meeting via Web portal since many
owners are not local.
(Mario Valle arrived at 3:15 PM)
• Newest version CityView will come online - October/November, 2010
• Master Card and Discover Card will be accepted
• Electronic submittal and review
• Proposed reduction of PUD Closeout fees
• Draft of Executive Summary was distributed to DSAC for review
• Proposed fee: $1,250
• DSAC to review PUDs at regular meetings (up to 5)
It was noted VISA cards are not currently accepted by Collier County.
Mr. Casalanguida stated there was an internal processing problem with VISA and
how VISA fees were charged. He will research the issue and report at a future
meeting.
1611 A6
April 7, 2010
Another suggestion was made to remove "options" regarding submittal of plans
and require the same number for all applications to maintain consistency, i.e., a
specific Level of Service with a specific turn- around time.
A question was asked concerning the organizational re- structuring at CDES.
Nick Casalanguida reports to Norman Feder as a Deputy Administrator.
There will be four divisions, instead of five, but the change will not affect Industry.
VI. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Fire Lines Meters /revised Utilities Ordinance — Melissa Ahern, Public Speaker,
representing CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association ")
• CBIA requested DSAC send a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners to table the section of the revised Utilities Ordinance
referencing Fire Line Meters until the subject has been vetted by DSAC
• The revisions to the Ordinance were submitted to the BCC as a "Consent
Agenda" before it was reviewed by Industry — there was no public forum
• There are costs issues to be clarified — no cost analysis was completed,
the only cost cited was the cost of the meters
• The County Manager could enact an Administrative Stay
• The BCC has the option to reconsider /amend the Ordinance
A Committee member stated the revised Ordinance, presented at the March meeting
by Paul Mattausch, Director of the County's Water Department, did not make sense
and the presentation was an after - the -fact informational review. It was noted the
Committee's questions were not satisfactorily answered.
[From the March meeting:
A question was asked if the operations cost to monitor meters exceeded the
amount of revenue captured.
The answer was "No, but it is cost effective to track unbilled water usage. "J
It was pointed out Mr. Mattausch stated the revisions were required by The Florida
Administrative Code. A member stated The Florida Administrative Code requires
the use of one of five different retention methods for Public Utility systems. The cost
to the Industry will be very expensive and the metering does not accomplish the
County's stated objectives.
The Ordinance affects the Industry and should have been presented to DSAC first for
review.
A suggestion was made to send a letter to the BCC, copying the County Manger,
requesting the Utilities Ordinance be placed on a future agenda to allow DSAC to
make a presentation of its position at that time.
David Dunnavant moved to recommend DSAC send a letter, signed by the DSAC
Chairman, to each member of the Board of County Commissioners, with a copy to
1611 A6
April 7, 2010
the County Manager, requesting to place the issue of the Utilities Ordinance on the
next BCC Agenda. DSAC will review the impact of the Ordinance on the Industry
and will present its position concerning the Ordinance at the next BCC meeting.
Second by David Hurst Carried unanimously, 14 -0.
VII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Building Permit Applications: Proposed Survey Requirements — Stan Chrzanowski,
Engineering Review Manager, and Steve Higgins, County Surveyor
Mr. Chrzanowski stated approximately one year ago, Mr. Higgins reviewed a
number of surveys submitted for inclusion in various applications and pointed out the
documents did not conform to minimum technical standards. He further stated the
County will adopt a Standard for Surveys based upon the requirements of the Board
of Professional Surveyors and Map Readers (`BSM ").
Mr. Higgins stated surveys are being prepared. The issue is the documents are not
being submitted in a timely manner.
• The surveys can be 3 to 5 years old before submission
• If a Title Report was not reviewed, easements may not be shown on the
survey
• An example cited: the new Lowe's (US 41/95 1) — easements under
the building pad were not identified — the use of a current survey
would have prevented the problem
• Another example: Naples Mazda - existing easements were to have
been vacated before the building permit was issued but were not
because old information was used
• Florida Statutes requires surveys to meet minimum standards
• If a developer hires a surveyor who does not work within the standards, the
process will be delayed since the survey will need to be revised
• 95% of surveys submitted contain a note: "Abstract not reviewed"
• If a lot is platted, lack of review is usually not an issue
• Large commercial /industrial projects must identify all easements -
especially those not included in the Deed
• Surveys are required for a plat or lot split and Title Reports must be reviewed
• Another issue: a Surveyor is required to show only the easements provided by
the client - if an Abstract of Title is not provided, the Surveyor is not
responsible to show the easements on the document
Nick Casalanguida questioned why surveys were not submitted with building permit
applications in Collier County.
A Committee member gave a brief history: Cost was an issue due to the County's
original requirement for submission of "pre" and "post" surveys — "pre" to show
where the building was to be built, and "post" showing where it actually was
constructed. The Industry's solution was after -the -fact "spot surveys" — if a
building's footprint was incorrectly located, the developer was liable and required to
correct the situation by either obtaining a variance, or demolishing the building and
constructing it again.
1611 A6
April 7, 2010
The Committee member noted the Land Development Code ( "LDC ") contains few
requirements regarding submission of a boundary survey.
Suggestion: A developer obtains a survey when a project is proposed and it should be
updated at the time of application for the building permit.
Suggestion: Schedule a joint Workshop with surveyors, DSAC, and Staff.
Nick Casalanguida will research the issue and report to DSAC.
B. Proposed Decrease: PUD Close -Out Application Fees — Nick Casalanguida
(Discussed in Item V under "D")
C. Impact Fee Program: Commercial Re- Development — Amy Patterson, Impact
Fee & EDC Manager
• The BCC directed DSAC to suggest potential improvements to the existing
"Change of Use Program"
• Program has been in place for one year
• Provides an exemption from payment of additional Impact Fees for
buildings five years or older when an action (to rent, lease or sell)
triggers the assessment of an Impact Fee
• Examples: medical buildings - change of tenants; gymnastic, karate or
dance studios relocating into industrial parks; doctors moving into
office buildings
• Issues for consideration:
• Change the requirement regarding the length/time a building has a
Certificate of Occupancy to qualify for the program
• Any other changes to address potential inequities — such as an
incentive program that targets one group of people
• Options suggested by Staff:
• For buildings 5+ years — allow an aging provision by eliminating the
phrase "prior to the commencement of the Program"
• Expand the Program to allow any building with a C/O issued for at
least three years
• The BCC was concerned that it was not seeing applications on a case -
by -case basis. Staff suggested establishing a threshold (3,000 sq. ft.)
for administrative approval -- large build -outs would be presented to
the BCC for review and approval -- the EDC ( "Economic Development
Council ") suggested expanding the threshold to 5,000 square feet
• Eliminate the Impact Fee Review for Changes of Use in order to
obtain a Zoning Certificate or Business Tax Receipt — the specific
reviews are over -the- counter — if eliminated, the only reviews to be
conduced would be for tenant build -out
• Eliminate the "Medical Office Land Use" category and collapse it into
the general category of "Office"
Bob Mulhere recommended supporting the changes identified by Staff.
1611 A6
April 7, 2010
Jim Boughton stated he paid a Medical Impact Fee to give his building a
competitive edge. He objected to the Program stating it would allow his medical
tenants to move anywhere.
Dalas Disney stated the advantage (paying a specific Impact Fee) allowed owners
to capture the market for a number of years and they are not entitled to a rebate
from the County. He supported combining "Medical" into the "General Office"
category as well as the 5,000 square foot threshold.
There was a discussion of whether or not personal property rights were being
denied by the Program. It was noted Impact Fees in Collier County are too high
in general, and if a use was changed to a less intensive use, no rebate has been
offered.
Suggestion: Match the Medical Impact Fee rate to the "General Office" category
rate rather than completely eliminate the Impact Fee.
Nick Casalanguida stated there is a gap between a medical professional who sees
one or two patients per hour versus a medical clinic which generates a great deal
of traffic.
Bob MuWere stated he has suggested enacting a separate "Specialty or Small
Medical Offices" Impact Fee for several years.
Amy Patterson stated the County Attorney is proposing a change to the
Ordinance concerning Developer Contribution Agreements. Currently, when a
developer donates land or cash, he receives Impact Fee credits that must be used
within five to seven years. The change will allow the credits to run with the land
in perpetuity rather than having a sunset date.
Robert Where moved to approve sending a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners.
• to reduce the requirement from S to 3 years or older, with an aging
provision;
• to eliminate Impact Fee reviews for Changes of Use to obtain a Zoning
Certificate or Business Tax Receipt;
• To explore alternative Impact Fees for medical offices, i.e., a sub-
category for Specialty Medical Offices or other medical types
Second by Dalas Disney. Motion carried, 12 — "Yes " /] — "No. " James
Boughton was opposed
Robert Mulhere moved to approve sending a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners supporting the County Attorney's proposed change to
the Ordinance regarding Developer Contribution Agreements by permitting
Impact Fee Credits to remain in perpetuity with the property.
Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 14 - 0.
D. Right -of -Way Permitting Process — Nick Casalanguida and Michael Greene
Reed Jarvi noted when a Site Development Plan is completed it is reviewed by the
Transportation viewpoint concerning the turn lanes, location, size, etc.
161 1 Ab
April 7, 2010
When a Right -of -Way Permit application is made, turn lanes are reviewed for
location, size, etc., which is a duplication of effort. He asked why two reviews were
necessary to obtain the same answer.
Nick Casalanguida stated the levels of function reviewed are different for each
process and the amount of detail required is different. He suggested scheduling a
Workshop between Staff and Industry to discuss options
E. Vanderbilt Drive Pathway Project — Michael Greene
(Discussed in Item V under "C')
F. SDP Process — Automatic Submittals to Fire & Zoning — Bill Lorenz
Reed Jarvi referenced a recent project which required a third submittal — there were
only architectural questions concerning facades and the review was completed in one
day. However, it took 13 calendar days to go through Fire & Planning review even
though fire or zoning issues were not cited. He was informed submittals are
automatically sent for Fire and Planning review and he questioned the need if there
were no specific Fire or Planning issues.
Bill Lorenz stated submittals are automatically sent to an assigned Planner to ensure
if a change is made and approved by one section that the change does not trigger
another review. It is a quality control check. He had no response as to the length of
time. He stated the process is being examined and the types and numbers of review
are being targeted to achieve better coordination between sections.
G. LDC Amendment — Shoreline Calculations /Permitted Wet Slips — Stephen
Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Clay Brooker stated the Planning Commission did not approve the suggested
language approved by DSAC (unanimous vote) and the EAC (4 to 1 vote). He
referenced the Manatee Protection Plan, enacted in 1995, which does not prohibit a
shoreline, encumbered by a Conservation Easement, from being counted to determine
the number of wet slips to be permitted on a property. The Planning Commission's
position was the shoreline should not be counted. The compromise agreed to in the
LDC Amendment was if a Conservation Easement expressly prohibited counting a
shoreline, the shoreline would not be counted. The Planning Commission did not
approve the compromise language and insisted other Committees conduct additional
hearings to consider new criteria - also not prohibited by the Manatee Protection Plan
— while determining whether or not a shoreline should be counted.
The Planning Commission directed the County Attorney's Office and Staff to develop
a policy for submitting recommendations directly to the BCC, rather than through an
LDC Amendment. On April 22, 2008, the BCC recommended another option, which
was to exclude shorelines which were part of County preserve areas and State/Federal
Conservation Areas. The BCC stated additional boat slips could be added if a
Conditional Use Permit was obtained and access was provided to the public. Staff
will research whether or not the issue has been addressed at the Zoning level or in the
State/Federal Conservation Easement. The County Attorney's position is the
County's Conversation Easement should be excluded in the calculation of the
shoreline. The County's Conservation Easement does not address the issue at all.
16 11 A6
April 7, 2010
Mr. Brooker noted Stakeholders meetings and two public hearings on this issue were
held. He requested, if a Policy or LDC Amendment is drafted, that the new document
be presented to DSAC before any public hearing is scheduled.
It was noted the Planning Commission could make a different recommendation and
both would be brought before the BCC for a determination.
Mr. Brooker noted any change to an LDC Amendment would generate a Public
Hearing and DSAC's review, as well as review by the EAC, is part of the public
process.
Bob Mulhere stated the Manatee Protection Plan is a County Ordinance and there is
no State regulation which is why the LDC Amendment was presented.
Steve Lenberger stated if a State Conservation Easement prohibits in -water
structures, the shoreline is not counted.
Marco Espinar noted, over the past two -year period, workshops were held with
Stakeholders and the Environmental Community. Both the EAC and DSAC have
voted in favor of the Amendment. There has been consensus. The Planning
Commission is undermining the consensus at the last minute.
Clay Brooker moved to bring to the attention of the Collier County Planning
Commission that DSAC is requesting to review any change(s) to the language of
the proposed LDCAmendment prior to any vote by the CCPC and that any change
is to go through the public hearing process. Second by Marco Espinar.
It was noted there is an LDC Amendment Cycle. The Planning Commission is not
bound by any recommendation made by DSAC and can bring it to the BCC without
sending it to DSAC first.
Clay Brooker stated the public process should not be circumvented by any
Committee.
Carried unanimously.
VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS:
(None)
Next Meetina Dates:
May 5, 2010 — 3:00 PM
June 2, 2010 — 3:00 PM
July 7, 2010 — 3:00 PM
August 4, 2010 — 3:00 PM
161 1 A6
April 7, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chairman at 5:02 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William Varian, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/ mmittee on J i,5 I
as presented , or as amended
m
GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
March 23, 2010
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
Ill. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes- February 9, 2010
V. Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget - Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
C. FY -2011 Budget
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula
VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates
A. Hunter & Coronado
B. West Entry Sign
IX. Old Business
X. New Business
161 1 X17
REICEiVc�
MAY 17 2010
Board of county Commissioners
A. FPL Vertical Light Poles
Fiala t�7_
XI. Public Comments Halas
Henning
XII. Adjournment Coyle ,
Coletta - - -=f—
The next meeting is scheduled for April 13, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.
At Golden Gate Community Center- Naples,ftes:
Dates�
Item #: �M-
1
16 11 A7 P1
RE c F I VED
MAY 17 2010
%ald Of COUnly Commi..,,,,,
.—' 0 T-
. , lyj
%, - {W
ME'
A 2
§
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Fl. 34104
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
Ill. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes- April 13, 2010
V. Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget — Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula
VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates
A. Hunter & Coronado
VIII. Old Business
IX. New Business
A. FPL Vertical Light Poles
16 AZ;
GOLDEN GAT6E`M.S,.'TAJ',, ADVISORY
E.Y . . . b. T TI E I.:
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Fl 34104
MINUTES
I. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 4:20 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims.
No quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Michael McElroy (Excused), Peggy Harris (Excused), Barbara
Segura (Excused), Richard Sims, Pat Spencer
County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich, Landscape
Operations Manager, Caroline Soto — Management Budget Analyst, Tessie
Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator
Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, James Stephens - Hannula,
Sue Flynn — Kelly Services
Darryl Richard distributed the GG MSTU FY -2011 Budget. (See attached)
He recommended the Committee have a Special Meeting to approval budget
before April 1. He suggested the Committee review the work sheet prior to the
Special Meeting. He reviewed the following —
Y Staff hours are hours served.
Time reported on Projects.
➢ Revenue stream — Once a year an adjustment is made on property
values.
i Millage was capped at 0.5074 FY 2010.
Discussion was made on landscape maintenance, trimming Juniper and
removing grasses and Ixoras, instead of replacing them. It was suggested to do
top - pruning on Juniper more often. Staff stated yellow Crown of Thorns in
stock and could be used on Tropicana.
16 r 1 !A%
Darryl Richard stated the Committee had already approved $12,000 for
replacement of Ixoras on Tropicana.
Richard Sims asked why JRL Design, Landscape Architect was not at today's
meeting. Architect was chosen through the Collier County BVO Process.
Darryl Richard reported the "BVO Process" is being challenged in court. The
County has placed a Stop Work Order on all BVO chosen vendors.
Darryl Richard reported Stormwater has plans to install culvers and piping.
The installation will tear up the road. The road will require some replacement
and patching of the road. Staff stated they have not reviewed the plans at this
time.
It was noted Brandy Otero, Project Manager would speak regarding the plans at
the Golden Gate Civic Association and at a future GG MSTU Beautification
Advisory Committee meeting.
A Special Meeting to approve the Budget FY -2011 was scheduled for March
23 at 4:00 P.M. at 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, Florida.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:55 P.M.
The next meeting is scheduled for March 23, 2010
4:00 PM at 2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Fl.
GOLDEN a ffi s,,,, ADVISORY
O M `v
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
MINUTES
I. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 4:25 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims.
No quorum was established.
ll. Attendance
Members: Michael McElroy (Absent), Peggy Harris (Excused), Barbara Segura
(Excused), Richard Sims, Pat Spencer
County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich, Landscape
Operations Manager, Caroline Soto — Management Budget Analyst, Tessie
Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator
Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, James Stephens - Hannula,
Sue Flynn — Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda —None.
IV. Approval of Minutes — None.
V. Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget
Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the GG MSTU Fund 153 Monthly
Report. (See attached)
• Available Investment Interest - $1,756.14
• Revenue Structure short - $72,321.99
• Available Operating Expense - $51,017.43
• Available Improvement General - $1,354,320.00
• Purchase Orders to be Paid - $154,585.67
• Purchase Orders Paid - $154,955.40
16PIV
Staff stated they check with Marc Issacson on the Carry Forward
General adjustment and when it will be reflected.
B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed
the Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report. (See attached)
Y G -31 — Hunter & Coronado Design
McGee and Associate's 90% submittal is under Staff review.
Darryl Richard reported Stormwater has plans to install culvers and
piping. The installation will tear up the road but not the medians.
The road will require some replacement and patching. Staff
suggested asphalting both Hunter and Coronado with a combination
of funding from CC, the MSTU and Stormwater.
r G -25 — Golden Gate Master Plan Revision
Final submittal is under Staff review.
)% G -26 — Maintenance Contract
Staff will do a re -bid for the Maintenance Contract upon receipt of
100% Hunter and Coronado Plans. Staff received a proposal from
JRL Landscape Architecture.
G -29 — Maintenance Consulting Contract
Staff received 2- proposals from Hannula Landscaping Inc for the
Committee to review at the next meeting.
Pam Lulich and Darryl Richard met with Ilannula Landscaping
regarding Tropicana, Sunshine and Green Boulevards medians and they
decided to revise a previous proposal already approved by the
Committee.
VL Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula
James Stephen reported the Parkway is showing improvements.
VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates
It was noted FPI. straighten one light pole.
Mike McGee stated the plans show some poles will be moved based on
curbing and all poles will be straightened.
Pat Spencer expressed concern the lighting is insufficient causing possible
safety and crime issues for pedestrians. She asked the quality of lighting be
improved by using larger watt bulbs.
Rick Johnson suggested calling Rich Hampton at the Sheriff's Department
regarding safety concerns.
V111. Old Business — None.
IX. New Business
Rick Johnson stated he spoke with Mike Ramsey from the South Florida Water
Symposium who landscapes medians with Grant Funds using a Florida
friendly principal.
Pam Lulich stated the County requested plans from the South Florida Water
Symposium, non -profit organization. County has not yet received plans.
2
x.61 1 A7
Discussion was made on CC already being "green" for years and concern was
expressed on what the group's philosophy, policies and who they are and if the
Committee should pursue for Golden Gate.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
The next meeting is scheduled for May 11, 2010
4:00 PM at 2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL
e
% a r
n _ g
e �
w 8 m
s
0
3
3
C D v m m n m o S c m N m o� O z z C
0 90, M�x>,z x z r.TC mNxz -OO D
O z z y m- ImDZ -1y00Zp O- �mvATZ I'
y y 0,3! y A m A D m
Z" cNi i Z p n n n m m 7
-f my O_ O 2 O m N OG T D O> mm n 0 m O m O N v e
N -Ci z m m O m mS m Z 2 m WO x yyy m ton O 0 7
D z 5 m m m 5= 3 O m� - z c n A A m A
O m m m m v MOO Ln
AO z mf/i OON Zz D 3 NDZK N
O C 0 zz> r
Y N c
m
u
m
°o
°o
w
N N N N + +
0 0 m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in in o> o
00000000000000NOOo
000000000000 000
0 °0000000000000000 °00000000 °000
to wtn ..........
m A O O m V m O A m O
OD a o 0 o m °o m a m
O+ O• N J N O•
O m O O m+ O 1D W O O
0 0 0 0 10 O O
oo� am00000vo0l.00mooa
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o m
otoNV3333��AH¢mxm�oo -^-nO
m o m m m O m
>
m y0w ww a�'O0 A°� X03
d =:
N ry o 0 o
w w g
A a A A a a a a A A A A A A A AAA T
N (T lT m m (T m m m Vi (n N N m O m IT m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
N O m O O Omi N W N O N� n m N V� ImJ m A V�
rC -i m r r NNNr j O�ZIV mo 0 2 N ]!
yam$ m m n 6
m �'z
a rt m m m
mI�° �Dmmm>m
m
m ..
m
m
w �
0 0 0 T o o m 0 0 0 0 0
mmm m m m o m m m m m
� �•
O +
O
wwwmuen m.n enwwwu,w <n .n ... en .»m
A
m
� � O
a m m
Zn()-y1- �]IZZTOn
Qwx pD <mmmfmA
a p-z Z mmNf O o
N N 2
mppmmmNim ><
00
m y y o P c x 0 m A
m
<vocmoOm�33
oOy�cFm� y
, x , X m m � %
mzO'mi-Nim
n 0 m N
-i
W O1
161 1 A7
D
D m
O T m
_.0 W
Z m
w o r>
N N �
o � T
o 0
D
H
O
Z
3
N
c
C
G!
D �
y a
t
�n0
u m
N (T m
o -Ni
C
H
m O
N O
q � N
R 9 r
C_
C IL
C Q
Q
O
161 1 A7
o
O
N
o
O
0
b
0
O
0
O
o
b
m
N1
o
m
n
ID
o
b
M
of
�
o
O
0
O
0
N
m
4
O
N
m
!!
m
G
G
OD
iV
fG
N
N
f
O
A
b
m
O
b
0
1'f
P
Ol
N
m
m
m
T
O�
N
H
M
N
N
H
N
H
N
H
H
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
N
N
O
}
LL
1
W
O
}
LL
Q
O
Y
LL
3
l
O
Y
LL
C
l
O
Y
LL
A
f
o
vM
o
o
0
r
o
n
N
M
O
N
A
^
N
0
Q
N
N
w
H
H
H
H
N
w
N
H
H
N
H
N
LL
O
(O
Of
N
r
O
N
b
tO
f0
V
N
m
O
H
A
N
m
Ol
H
H
H
H
N
N
H
H
H
H
H
w
N
H
H
H
H
N
H
H
w
N
O
N
<
O
O
In
N
Cn
}
LL
M
m
M
N
N
V
(O
�
O�
W
(O_
N
P
y
LL
H
N
N
N
N
H
H
N
N
H
H
w
N
N
H
H
H
w
H
w
Hl
I
w
o
N
O
N
O
IR
N
O
M
M
O
O
N
O
N
O
O
N
b
b
O
N
C4
N
O
O
M
m
V
y
N
t�
N
O
H
N
N
H
w
N
N
N
H
N
(fl
fA
H
H
H
H
fA
N
H
w
H
N
O
m
N
O
O
r
O
M
LL
h
W�
N
O
M
M
In
h
N
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
N
H
w
w
H
H
H
H
H
H
N
H
H
N
LL
N
M
O
O
N
N
A
O
O
M
ii
N
h
W
O
H
N
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
N
N
w
H
w
w
H
N
H
H
H
H
w
O
N
CO
N
N
r
O
IT
Ln
O
N
co
O
(3)
O
OD
O
O
M
V
M
(O
N
m
N
v�
N
CO
O,
(O
@�Nm
�O
ON
CO
0 L
0
U
via
vv
U
U
r
n�0)nt-vLOm"
o
m
0
0
0.
0°0
o
o
CD
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
Lo
u')
Ln
o
U')
O
(n
LO
Lo
in
)n
to
O
(n
O
0
to
0
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
vvv
It
v
IT
v
m
m
C0
C-
00000
O
N
to
C
N
C
N
NO
:�
C
Q
Q
Q
(A
E
i
�
(9
m
(o
U
U
'y
E
0
NS
00
��`
0"
"O
Y
N
l0
Q
F
co
coo
N
(U
N
m
U
'i
m
J
C
C
C
C
C
C
4
.-
7
J
.y
—
C
C9
C9
C9
)
N
C
C
j
UO
O
a
T
T
T
C
-�.
V
S
5
5
5
O
l!)
ln)
(A
�
161 1 A7
ib4A7
GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.UL, ADVISORY
%'
" "'
IV�P - .. c Cii pmt.
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
r p ...
MINUTES
I. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Pat Spencer, Vice Chairman.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Michael
McElroy (Excused)
County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich, Landscape
Operations Manager, Caroline Soto — Management Budget Analyst, Tessie
Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator
Others: Michael McGee— McGee & Associates, James Stephens - Hannula,
Sue Flynn — Kelly Services
III. Approval of Agenda
Pat Spencer moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Barbara
Segura. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
IV. Approval of Minutes —February 9, 2010
Pat Spencer moved to approve the February 9, 2010 Minutes as submitted.
Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
V. Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget — Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate
Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated March 23, 2010. (See
attached)
161 11Ai
• Available Investment Interest - $1,756.14
• Available Operating Expense - $53,545.21
• Available Improvements General - $1,354,320.00
• Purchase Orders to be Paid - $185,022.42
• Purchase Orders Paid - $121,991.10
B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the
Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report.
y G30 New Sign at Median 91 Golden Gate Parkway (at Santa
Barbara) — Sign Installation completed.
S 031 Hunter & Coronado Design; Curbing, Landscape, and
Irrigation — 90% Plans under Staff review and after comments
are received, Staff will move to Bid.
Richard Sims Arrived at 4:15 pm
Darryl Richard stated the Stormwater Department is adding details for an
"Alternate" into the Hunter & Coronado Project which will provide for
installation of new culverts along Hunter &Coronado. Staff does not
foresee a delay in this Project.
Y 25 Golden Gate Master Plan — Revision — Final Submittal
under review by Staff.
G29 Maintenance Consulting Contract — Staff reported all
contracts awarded under the BVO Process was placed under a
"Stop" Work Order.
C. FY -2011 Budget
Darryl Richard distributed the GG MSTU FY -2011 Budget. (See attached)
He stated the 2010 Forecast Budget dollar figures are highlighted in orange;
the 2011 Requested Budget figures are highlighted in gray and Cost
Reimbursement (other than Collier County and Department Costs) are
highlighted in green.
Darryl Richard reviewed each line item with the Committee, discussion
was made on the following line items and adjustments are notated below.
• Landscape Incidentals — FY 2011 increased to $25,000.
• Sprinkler System Maintenance — FY 2011 increased to $2,500.
• Lighting Maintenance — FY 2010 increased to $11,000.
• Other Miscellaneous Services — FY 2010 increased to $8,000.
• Fertilizer, Herbicides & Chemicals — FY 2010 increased to $6,000.
• Other Operating Supplies — FY 2010 increased to $500.
Staff stated the Budget Office will review the Request FY 2011 Budget and
make adjustments according to Cost Centers and place 5% of remaining
161' 1 'A
Improvements Capital into Reserves. New Budget year commences
October 2010.
Richard Sims moved to approve the Budget as amended and direct Staff to
take 5% of the remaining Improvements Capital Funds and put into
Reserves. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
It was noted bids have been coming in lower than previously expected.
Discussion was made on saving MSTU funds by not making paper copies of
documents distributed to the Committee members, Staff and Vendors and at
each meeting. It was suggested the Staff use a computer or overhead
projection equipment to display documents.
Barbara Segura moved the GG MSTUfind as many options to use as little
paper as necessary to save funds during the current economic crisis and
these economic times. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried
unanimously 4 -0.
The Committee directed Staff they longer need a copy of the minutes and
agenda mailed to their home addresses prior to each meeting. They prefer
to receive the previous meeting minutes and next meeting agenda via email.
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report
James Stephens stated there are no major issues to report. Hannula crews are
currently trimming.
VII. Landscape Architects Report — JRL Design — None.
VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates
A. Hunter & Coronado — None.
B. West Entry Sign — None.
IX. Old Business — None.
X. New Business
A. FPL Vertical Light Poles - None
XI. Public Comments — None.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee
Richard Sims, Chairm
These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on
as presented X' or amended__
16 11' A7
The next meeting is scheduled for April 13, 2010
4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center -
Naples, FL
8
i
88
ff
8g
iFuuuuuuuuu
08
0
88
888888$888 m
�°
.ee e 9
2 92
8M
m88kPPP,,,
be448
20002ee90
DDD DD fnS
NN
FD.mt
N
DDfi
B
g
$$ 2122222222
O
2
228
2 2
iF °xnX�2snn82�a�aa
8'°
2 °B
OMyormg�3b
AAa.y
8
P8m'PP P$ggfi g�
88
OM
�o0
5gHQ
8
oog8$o 8,388 HU
8'62
. $$o'
X99 90099 9e
9os
�gmmnv yai
��
'"
9
8
03
388 &'088 "'888 8
W Y
r
Q
-
�p 32 v
a --
_ 88
0 ME
00 o 200 00000000000
_ 8
$m
�2 �_ 90 000000
�e .e s� °o oeoovaeoeom
0 °2 �00000e a�9
m8
i
8a
aaa as X��
sannans
n�a
w wd�wd�Ww�W
.ee e 9
2 92
9000000
008
be448
20002ee90
DDD DD fnS
NN
FD.mt
N
DDfi
m
C
F
S
L
G
8
F
9
A
P
� 8
30
3e 9e 290 �
30 90 02o eo m
90 0 A. 9
a U !
ao so _ A
$yyy:
8
8y4",y'
a€
�20s0o000vBm90o 602 m8 2
$8
AA . . o o me9 A §ixv yg g8
�2022220029220�: �8' 280$
9e2299ee2222o 92N 9929
-mn
sit
��080o000M o00 oat 8000 6
'e3!
a b'a'3o2oao`v$'b ' oae �o'd: a88a
92999222999. 929 999.
_g
�92�9� 22. HE § @2§ nA
a
wl
1 A7
w wd�wd�Ww�W
8 .oe
oe
dww�ww�ww�wd
wwd
20002ee90
o`8d
$gw
g oes
B
g
$$ 2122222222
O
2
228
2 2
iF °xnX�2snn82�a�aa
8'°
2 °B
� 2288
8
P8m'PP P$ggfi g�
88
00
9 888
8
8
oog8$o 8,388 HU
8'62
. $$o'
X99 90099 9e
9os
e 0
��
'"
9
8
mom
388 &'088 "'888 8
W Y
r
-
-- - - -- - - - - -
a --
--
mNO
c-.
oP o
o
Apia_` e's
ova 8
"a_ma
dim
y
mz�n5
ION
�By � �
c�
o
o
'-'
m
m �,.
-m �' °c
m
°a
n41
:5y
=K
x;
N
m
_
a
m
C
F
S
L
G
8
F
9
A
P
� 8
30
3e 9e 290 �
30 90 02o eo m
90 0 A. 9
a U !
ao so _ A
$yyy:
8
8y4",y'
a€
�20s0o000vBm90o 602 m8 2
$8
AA . . o o me9 A §ixv yg g8
�2022220029220�: �8' 280$
9e2299ee2222o 92N 9929
-mn
sit
��080o000M o00 oat 8000 6
'e3!
a b'a'3o2oao`v$'b ' oae �o'd: a88a
92999222999. 929 999.
_g
�92�9� 22. HE § @2§ nA
a
9
8 .oe
oe
1e
e2o
20002ee90
9
e
��o
�
a his
iF °xnX�2snn82�a�aa
°a s�
2 °B
a
288
9e
A.
. $$o'
X99 90099 9e
9os
e 0
��
'"
9
8
mom
388 &'088 "'888 8
W Y
r
9
(
4
|
|
�
�
161 I A 7,!„
| | | | ||
\ /j(
Z,|
(())
< �§;§
E� \
��2 I
/> }
�)t
f :l
§| .
/ �
)
„
gig
i
( §(|
`
�j)\
(
E� \
��2 I
8 b�
b
37�
e 8 8
fit
ggi
3
a
e
O a CS V W N a Y M+ O W P Y W p► W N+ O m m v w m A w w
�SmT2 S Z r �C mwSZ �04)y �4)TSDD R5m1mm -Tip c
S p N Z Z n J{ D p a p n n T m T e K< T T C T N y O b
0rh Dp m4)L�D mn<�Tp1y Np Twoomm Iny pD y
Nnmmi
y o
� N
CN
L
� LL W
a g
0
C7
p
r
t0
r
r
p
O
O
r
O
W
�D
r
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
p
N
1A G
r
O h
N
O OD
N
O N
N
0OD )
O
O
O O
OH )
M
O M
N
OO f
0
N
V
N
O
r
0
M
tO o
r r
O
O
O
N
O
M
1�
N
00
OD
co
O!
0)
O
N
It
N
O
N
M
a
C
N
M
V
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
r
Y
LL
d
N
O
r
Y
LL
7
Q
O
Y
LL
2
7
O
r
Y
LL
C
O
r
}
LL
O
r
}
LL
CL
Q
O
O
r
O
O
O
O
OO
co
LL
to
O
CD
co
m
N
r
f0
m
co
v
of
V3
V3
N
V3
N
V3
N
N
N
N
V3
N
N
63
63
V3
N
V3
V3
V3
N
in
r
O
Ln
N
N
O)
M
N
O
LL
M
co
N
0!
C
co-
OJ
N
r
d
0
co
V
co
V3
N
V3
63
N
N
6131.
V3
V3
6%
V3
V3
N
N
di
Vi
N
N
N
di
r
N
0
O
o
0
0
0
co
o
U�
w
O
U
o
eo
T
L
in
M
M
LL
m
07
N
O
OD
M
C
O
N
cl
OD
W
r
V3
N
N
N
V3
N
N
N
V3
V3
V3
N
N
N
03
V3
N
N
N
m
N
to
O
P�
O
Ln
O
O
N
N
N
O
OD
O
N
O
OD
y
N
N
Ld
ci
O
M
N
d3
N
w.
f9
N
N
N
(A
M
to
N
H3
E9
V3
f9
N
d!
f9
N
rn
Go
o0
00
�
°o
n
�
1
M
in
A
LL
Ln
OD
in
u0')
O
M
N
th
N
0
co
N
M
0
Z
Vi
N
V3
V3
N
M
V3
6'3
6%
69
V3
N
V3
V3
V3
V3
N
N
N
M
N
U
o
o
I
N
O
N
Ci
LL
Cl)
co
t0
M
Q
r
r
to
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
N
di
V3
V3
V)
V3
V)
N
N
V3
V3
6-3
V)
603
N
ON(O
NNI�
-
(O
00
00
M
0
M
COLo
M
'T
M(O
NN
I-N(OO�-�-
r--
mI-
LO
O
N
0
N
W
-
0
LO
0
W
U
�CL
IT
d
V
U
-
MNOLAh
V
LO
MN
�-
r
.-.
�-
r•
r
r•
0
0
0
�-
(7
r•
r-
r•
U
r•
'-
.-
(7
(7
r•
r•
�-
r•
e-
.-
r•
.-
.-
000
0
0
0
0
--
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
`—
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
to
Q
LO
LO
to
to
to
to
to
V)
V)
V)
0
Ln
LO
V
RI,IT
W*lqT
IT
qT
ca
c
C
U
U
U
CM
C
0-�
O
(/)
w
w
w
N
C
�
aaa°F-
Im
o�
=
in
E
`
U
E
OAS
«s
«s
�
2
`
O
co
co
m
C
N
N
N
N
m
4
N
N
..
c
c
c
N
o"
0~
V
N
N
N
7
V
Y
rn
y
c
'O
U
V
U
U
O
O
p
a
f6
m
C
y
N
2
._
._
Mn
O
c�1i1iLL
l�xxx55-
>1����aAMcn
Fiala
Halas
Coyle
Coletta
I.
I I.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII
161 1 A8
COLLIER COUNTY DIVISION OF PUBIC SERVICES
Parks and Recreation Department
15000 Livingston Road - Naples, Florida 34109 - Phone (239) 252 -4000 - Fax (239) 514 -8657
Website: colliergevnet
RECEIVED
LDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER MAY 0 0 2010
ADVISORY BOARD
Board of County m
Comissioners
AGENDA Board
May 3, 2010
Call to Order
Attendance - Establish a Quorum
Approval of Agenda
Approval of Minutes - April 5, 2010
Public Comments
Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights - Vickie Wilson
New Business
A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez
VIII. Member Comments
IX. Adjournment
The next meeting will be on June 7, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Collier County Golden Gate Community Center
4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C"
Naples, Florida
17 c ,
Misc. Correa:
Delis:
U
Ibrn M:�
Ccpies ?0:
161 1 A8
April 5, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, April 5, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier,
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a
REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate
Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Jim Klug
VICE CHAIR: Bill Arthur
Darrin Brooks
Peggy Harris (Excused)
Kaydee Tuff
ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager /Region III
Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor
I
16 I 1 A8
April 5, 2010
I. Call to Order
'The meeting was called to order at 5:55 PM by Chairman, Jim Klug 111.
11. Attendance — Establish a Quorum
A quorum was established.
111. Approval of Agenda
Bill Arthur moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Kaydee Tuff.
Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
Jim King requested "Public Comments" be moved to Agenda Item V. on future
meetings.
IV. Approval of March 1, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Darrin Brooks moved to approve the March 1, 2010 Minutes as submitted
Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
V. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights
Vickie Wilson reported March and April weekend activities —
Y March 13 — Yard Sale was held with 41 participants. Attendance was
good.
Y March 20 - Summer Expo was held at North Collier Regional Park.
Collier County invited 31 vendors outside of the County to feature
information on their Summer Camps. Attendance was over 600
people. GGCC Summer Camp received 10 registrations at the event.
March 25 -29 - Frontier Days was held and it was well attended.
Y April 9 - Family Fun Test is scheduled for this weekend and will
include Bounce off, a Big screen TV for movies, Pony Rides and
Karaoke. Knights of Columbus planned to make hamburgers and hot
dogs. Snow cones, popcorn and cotton candy will also be available
for purchase. Entrance fee will be a $1.00.
A meeting is scheduled for April 26 for committee members from
different events held at GGCC will meet at 6:00 pm to discuss and exchange
ideas on how to improve different events.
Vickie Wilson reported the following
12 oak trees have been planted around the field.
y A Purchase Order has been cut for the new gym floor - $21,000.
The gym Floor is scheduled to be completed the 1" week of May.
➢ The gym floor will be striped for volleyball, basketball and indoor
soccer.
Black bleachers have been ordered - $26.000.
1611 A8
April 5, 2010
➢ Gym Floor and Bleachers costs are $50,000 less then the original
budget amount.
Discussion was made on the new floor and bleachers and how to incorporate
with a "Kick Off' Event. Several ideas were exchanged by the Committee
and Staff. It was noted Greg Torres will start his new position as a Program
Leader. He will be in charge of the gym. When renovations are completed
the Staff will discuss a "Kick Off' Event.
.Jim King recognized Larry Wilcoxson.
Speaker
Larry Wilcoxson, Sr. introduced himself as a person that would like to serve
the people of Florida and he is a candidate to run for District 101 House of
Representative. He was born and raised in Immokalee. A graduate from
Immokalee High School in 1996, then he went to Tallahassee Community
College where he earned an Associate of Science degree in 2001; he finished
his Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice with a minor in Education
Magna Cum Laude in 2007 from Marin University in Indianapolis, Ind. After
working as a substitute teacher in the inner city of Indianapolis he attended
graduate school and completed his Master of Arts degree in Divinity and was
accepted at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston, Texas. His
financial circumstances did not allow him to finish. He has returned to
Immokalee to make a difference. (See attached)
Vickie Wilson reported a "Farmers Market" will be held on Fridays from
3:00 to 7:00 pm for the next 14 weeks. The first Market was held on April
2 and was well attended. 5 vendors sold fruits and vegetables. The vendor
number is expected to increase to 10 -12.
"'Tropical Fest — Taste of Golden Gate" is scheduled to be held on April 24
from 6 -10 PM. There will be a $2 entry fee. Currently there are 3 -4 Vendors
signed up and additional vendors are needed to make this event a success.
The Fest will feature Gospel Rhythms, Steel Drum Band and a Reggae Band.
Face Painting and Pony Rides (for a donation.)
B. Band Stand Lighting — Annie Alvarez reported the sound system in front of
the Amphitheatre was in need of repair. The Lighting bid has been awarded.
The vendor will include the repair pricing in the Project. Project is scheduled
for completion within 60 -90 days.
VI. New Business
A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the Monthly 130
Fund Report. (See attached) She reported the following:
• There will be a 5% budget cut on all Funds for the new budget year.
• Both Staff and Advisory Board will work on the new budget in Mayor
June.
1611 A8
April 5, 2010
• 306 Funds will be used on projects and unused 306 Funds go back to
Operating Capital Funds.
■ Next year Projects will need to be prioritized.
Discussion was made on resurfacing the playground; or possible removal of
the current surface and to replace with mulch. No decision was made. Staff
stated it was too early to apply for a Shade Structure Grant and stated it would
be better to wait until the playground plans were completed.
Staff recommended applying for a Shade Structure Grant in April 2011.
It was noted one of the Grant requirements, was to have a Safety Program in
place for a minimum of! year. The County has a Safety Program enforce for
the Staff.
Annie Alvarez will research if the County's Safety Program will meet the
Grant requirement.
Vickie Wilson reported purchasing the following budget items; a pressure
cleaner, mower and blower. The equipment will save time and energy.
Jim King commended the Staff on the excellent job they did on Frontier
Days.
VII. Member Comments
Darrin Brooks asked if the GGCC would hold a Candidate's Forum.
Kaydee Tuff stated the Civic Association generally hosts that type of event.
Vickie Wilson passed around a flyer from Aacer Flooring showing color choices
for the gym floors for the Committee's review and comments.
VIII. Public Comments
Larry Wilcoxson commented he enjoyed the short meeting.
Annie Alvarez stated as soon as Greg Torres is officially signed, the Staff will
post his current Recreation Assistant position.
Vickie Wilson reported the need to replace the cement border around the
playground with a black plastic border will cost approximately $2,000. Greg
Torres estimated it would take $20,000 minimum to have playground equipment
in working condition.
Larry Wilcoxson asked at the State Level, how they could help the GGCC
MSTU.
Kaydee Tuff responded since the MSTU are taxpayers who taxed themselves,
in addition to regular taxation, to help provide additional programs and assist in
4
April 5, 2010
the maintenance of the GGCC, the GGCC MSTU should not be subject to State
Level Tax Cuts.
Jim King responded the Committee prefers "Local Control" over spending not
Mandates per the State.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was moved
and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:50 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
T1 A !l
16 11 Ar d
April 5, 2010
the maintenance of the GGCC, the GGCC MSTU should not be subject to State
Level Tax Cuts.
Jim Klug responded the Committee prefers "Local Control' over spending not
Mandates per the State.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was moved
and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:50 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
BOARD
i
ames Klug III, Cl irman
These Min tes were approved by the Committee /Board on as
presented or as amended
O
r-I
O N
N co
Ln O
O O O
\ --(D
C'NM
"O -1
C.'
NNU1
4-3 - ri
M • rl rl
AHU
4J
1.1
O
N
a
V
ri
r-I
U N
•� A
r-I-I co
W M
.0
41 W
O •rl
0 N
ON
0 R
NU
.rl
r-I
r-1 fo
O :j
U 4-)
04
O
N
ON
Ir.
H
4
OI
U)
U
W
H
z
U
O
U
W
H
C7
z
W
Ca
O
0
H
z
U
51
O
U
W
p
C7
z
W
Ca
a
0
C7
O 00
4-) 4-) 4-3
In
r-I
Ix �
w +�
Z EO+
UA
$4 >icn
+► z H N
UUrD>~
rlxx a)
V X X 04
000 X
HUUW
r-I W W TS
bPP rl
U r\C FC N
4UU N
wzz �l
- r1 W W C-,
+JC)2 N
coax >
41000
W001:4
M
r1
O O C4
O r-
,--i CD (D hX
O MLO�D
N -I -I co
+-) N
N N H H
cd (D +-) O
>i 4J N W
r-I'd U 4J W'd
WHOO Mr.
rlv�j �jON�j
CziNls NU044
NNOl 61 ri Ln-1c 1r -NNOI- .--IM MI-nrir -IM h NC' O O -10N CD-1 Ln O Ln C' Ln Ln C• Q0 CD CD
N N I'D -1O OD MN NIn Ln N C'-10 10 C' NC'C'C'I- M C T Ln In Ln16 on �mm NC'C'C' CD Ln
1 r -8
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
10 -1OM MI- MWOOOO 00 (D CO I -NWM0M MN CD 31 C) - 100610000Ln M00 31O000 OIO i- 10M00 M0 O
016161M M OD -4100 C'O -ICDW 000h -1000 h N O h100101fl 61-100001 000 1000000 h Ln Cl) Ln O OD O O
`�61 C61�61- C C lOO CI 6N �n00 1000LnOOMNh0 O 1.0 ID M N O
C' TLn Ln M 016 M 161- 16000) c --I I-CO NOO r-I C' 1000 Ln OJ Ln w CO Ln -ICO O NI-00 0I O O Cl O 000 w Ln In M 610 Ln
h[�1�hO1M ONOLn(l)NN O-1O C'Ln 61NN Ln C'Ln1OC'Ln N610 Lnm -I HOLn M Cy r- IC'I - r-i a) Ln O C' C1
oD co Ln Lnh OOD Ln 611 --i-I OJco H v0lh (Y) Ln OLn NMN 61 wLn C' Ln r-I M M w 10M co
MMI -1-10 - - C ri-1h C r r H C O1 M -I
M c-i
I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
In Ln hhM00N0 OOONO N I NMONH NO'3'061 0-100 CD LO M(D 000 O '3'0101161 -O IV CD
MLn0( DCDMMC 'O1fl0000M0061N- IO-1ONhOh100 Co-100 Or- MO 00 O NC'hC'N-IOLnCD
-I r-iNNOMInO 1 M M C; 01 N OD 00 MhC'Cl�r -Icy 16 Ln r-I 10" "O"g610 061(V000
OOC'C'16 O m MNMm 61 r-i-I (\j H N O C' OD Ln M co Ln M Ln 61 Ln c-I c) w vc) 00 h 11 M C' C' Ln O Ln m Ln
ODCUMMODM wNhr-Ohh 6100 C'r-I OOC'h LnH MMLnN O 00 C'M N NO (D 00M U-) M C'
H rA r-lr -1 r-I NN-1OOLO N Nh hMOLn Mr- HC•MN 61 100 hO N 4 C' M
MMm61O -i HM NMN N r-1 -I C• co --I hN M
MMM C'N -i -i
I I I 11 1 I 1 1 I I I I I
ooOOO o0000000 0o OoOOo
OoOOO o0000000 0o OOOOO
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
r- Ir- Ir -I -IN -IL- Ln 00 M C'00 C) Ln ONODhO
LO Lnh10) NO-1CD NN C' r-I 10 L9 NONr -I
10 I'D 1O-1610 c- I -1-INN N00 MLnO
u) Ln Ln Ln M r-1 Ln M
r-I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
00000 000000OO CD CD OOOOO
O O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O
OOOOO o0000000 00 00000
.- I -I-I -I OD -Ih In 00 (Y) V'00 CD Ln ONOOhO
Ln Lnh h01 NO- IONNC' -%3 16NONr_z
1010 I'D -16-16 r- 1 -1-INN NN MLnCD
LOLnLnInM -1LnM
'A
O000 000
O000 000
OC'C'O "*000
NLnNC6 Mco0
-1O Ln O C' 0610
N O 1 M C co
h r-i N M 00 -1
O O O O O O O
OOOO oOo
OC'C'O NOOo
(\j Ln Nco MOOo
10 Ln CD C' 0') CD
N O 1 M v O
-I
00000000OOOOOOOOOOO
00000000OOOOOOOOOOo
000000000OOOOOOOOOo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0161- IC'-IO Ln 1O C'r-IL co C14 C) Ln C) -1 C'61
OD Ln C'h Ln r-1 M Ln N10 -ilO N 10
C' r1 1 C' lfl c-i r-I
C'
O O o o O o O O O O O O O O O O o o O
O000000CD 00000000000
0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
6161 -I c1' -I O Ln-10 C'-I1 co N CD In C) -A C' O1
CO Ln C'1 Ln ri M Ln Nlfl -IlO N10
C•
E+ �J lgGU' 9H U) WHE-I u] aMW W UWx OHUW WU) a $ l
z cr�HWOUzW Uzwz� Z � �C I H �pGp;q� as �xUn m051- l4 1>4H CAW w
U U0O>i C4 01 OP+�z�O FG 7Ln `� a O 0� 0Hf� WU)x>-i U] WU Ln r� OH NI UHr-lw 0q Hi7UHU c4 OLaH OP aH
z N O W HIZ,U H H w L NWZ(� z Ua �Z ZxH C4,O pi H P H,'7w
H >�o UH 0 >A>AHH� oN -1om > HM Nf- 14HHOHz ao zWC�U SOU
-A F, U HH FAWHHUU)�q: -�.7 ;rWwC4 �H zwuu) rIUUHOW N OIZH O(7
O � q HHa UItaNH � H riL� h Wq OL W xH(Y I wtaW � uo i xf4PG W
HU+ �r�X� WWH U] Iai�P4m0. -,,�LO f�i I��H �[_]UHt1CYU� FC (1;�lL HxlY W
U 0011 O L�GSUUH HHHwHC),' 7�1'LlLawR+HHO W O�,Hm"W`,.I,HW�O�7WHUU1WHU1
AWE pn+ FA x0W114 ' UUUnHzl -r = -,O aQM"UHa�w ax�w pxUU)a�HaaU)r4 Z9
UEi C) fl Q ` F9ZZ0 WF=1P�W HUa0Wr1WH0 GaH HOWH 0WWOr7 0'4 f�W�
fP�,� I un NK U) E-INNI-- jHU,10 WUHOJU) xi -7',3 0HH04NxHxUHNWH;3: 4H
NCB
0 o-10 0 0 o0MLnCO -i000O 0 o 000000o0 000— 'o'AornLnwoO000000oo00
-{-) OOOOOOOOOLnl0O0- -HHt-0110100o- 1ooLn000ON0
O �lriN V'NNNC'016161616161M01 ii ?��. -i lOh 00- IN' -i-I CA ri ri riN= NNO)610101NM C'h6101 r-iM C'1D 1D-I
H(D i-i ri h hhhhhhhhh- 110: -N NNN(- )ODHNNMM'Z h�;C C C'- 0)0)000 r-i r-1 -1 MMM C'C'Ln
--: ��'"- 1'- ir- I�- i'- I�- iNNNNNNN�-:' MMMMMMC 'V`C'C"ct'd'V'�f'�f'd'd'c"
'd1�[ =1MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM " -; toLnlninlnlnLnLnlnLflLnLnLn=' lOIOIOIOIO <D101fllfllfllfl1014101D-100010
g1Wa: O
C.9 ri a
rn rn
m
61
10
10
O 10
Ln
o
m
o rn
Ln LO
Ln
1
m
O
Ln o
Ln Ln
In
N
O1
r-I
r1 C+
'T
O1 6
6l
9
N
I I I 11 1 I 1 1 I I I I I
ooOOO o0000000 0o OoOOo
OoOOO o0000000 0o OOOOO
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
r- Ir- Ir -I -IN -IL- Ln 00 M C'00 C) Ln ONODhO
LO Lnh10) NO-1CD NN C' r-I 10 L9 NONr -I
10 I'D 1O-1610 c- I -1-INN N00 MLnO
u) Ln Ln Ln M r-1 Ln M
r-I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
00000 000000OO CD CD OOOOO
O O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O
OOOOO o0000000 00 00000
.- I -I-I -I OD -Ih In 00 (Y) V'00 CD Ln ONOOhO
Ln Lnh h01 NO- IONNC' -%3 16NONr_z
1010 I'D -16-16 r- 1 -1-INN NN MLnCD
LOLnLnInM -1LnM
'A
O000 000
O000 000
OC'C'O "*000
NLnNC6 Mco0
-1O Ln O C' 0610
N O 1 M C co
h r-i N M 00 -1
O O O O O O O
OOOO oOo
OC'C'O NOOo
(\j Ln Nco MOOo
10 Ln CD C' 0') CD
N O 1 M v O
-I
00000000OOOOOOOOOOO
00000000OOOOOOOOOOo
000000000OOOOOOOOOo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0161- IC'-IO Ln 1O C'r-IL co C14 C) Ln C) -1 C'61
OD Ln C'h Ln r-1 M Ln N10 -ilO N 10
C' r1 1 C' lfl c-i r-I
C'
O O o o O o O O O O O O O O O O o o O
O000000CD 00000000000
0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
6161 -I c1' -I O Ln-10 C'-I1 co N CD In C) -A C' O1
CO Ln C'1 Ln ri M Ln Nlfl -IlO N10
C•
E+ �J lgGU' 9H U) WHE-I u] aMW W UWx OHUW WU) a $ l
z cr�HWOUzW Uzwz� Z � �C I H �pGp;q� as �xUn m051- l4 1>4H CAW w
U U0O>i C4 01 OP+�z�O FG 7Ln `� a O 0� 0Hf� WU)x>-i U] WU Ln r� OH NI UHr-lw 0q Hi7UHU c4 OLaH OP aH
z N O W HIZ,U H H w L NWZ(� z Ua �Z ZxH C4,O pi H P H,'7w
H >�o UH 0 >A>AHH� oN -1om > HM Nf- 14HHOHz ao zWC�U SOU
-A F, U HH FAWHHUU)�q: -�.7 ;rWwC4 �H zwuu) rIUUHOW N OIZH O(7
O � q HHa UItaNH � H riL� h Wq OL W xH(Y I wtaW � uo i xf4PG W
HU+ �r�X� WWH U] Iai�P4m0. -,,�LO f�i I��H �[_]UHt1CYU� FC (1;�lL HxlY W
U 0011 O L�GSUUH HHHwHC),' 7�1'LlLawR+HHO W O�,Hm"W`,.I,HW�O�7WHUU1WHU1
AWE pn+ FA x0W114 ' UUUnHzl -r = -,O aQM"UHa�w ax�w pxUU)a�HaaU)r4 Z9
UEi C) fl Q ` F9ZZ0 WF=1P�W HUa0Wr1WH0 GaH HOWH 0WWOr7 0'4 f�W�
fP�,� I un NK U) E-INNI-- jHU,10 WUHOJU) xi -7',3 0HH04NxHxUHNWH;3: 4H
NCB
0 o-10 0 0 o0MLnCO -i000O 0 o 000000o0 000— 'o'AornLnwoO000000oo00
-{-) OOOOOOOOOLnl0O0- -HHt-0110100o- 1ooLn000ON0
O �lriN V'NNNC'016161616161M01 ii ?��. -i lOh 00- IN' -i-I CA ri ri riN= NNO)610101NM C'h6101 r-iM C'1D 1D-I
H(D i-i ri h hhhhhhhhh- 110: -N NNN(- )ODHNNMM'Z h�;C C C'- 0)0)000 r-i r-1 -1 MMM C'C'Ln
--: ��'"- 1'- ir- I�- i'- I�- iNNNNNNN�-:' MMMMMMC 'V`C'C"ct'd'V'�f'�f'd'd'c"
'd1�[ =1MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM " -; toLnlninlnlnLnLnlnLflLnLnLn=' lOIOIOIOIO <D101fllfllfllfl1014101D-100010
g1Wa: O
C.9 ri a
N10 L- d°-1 r-
lO NO lfl N10 Mm O IlM LflC
'zzr r-i HM M ML.O Ln l0
M
OOO M(D O ri O IOO
X6161
N
M61 ri MIVcli M coN N1O
lO r- ri Ln NM Lfl
N
61
A
OV'O(M M
N
O
O Ln
rl
I I
0000000000010 Ln 00
I I I
O M O CO 00610000000 Ln N Oct' O
I I
ri M O 000000 a' O L� O O I-- CD
L- N
. .
61
.
O O M O O O O O O O O N N O O
OI -M 0001000000001 -rI0 NO
. . . . .
O N 06100000 M 000000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. .
. . . C. C. C. . . . C. C. . . C. .
OOL: 00000000 d' 1000
. C. . . . . . . . . . . C. C.
CO O 1fl OO Ol000 N0000 In Ln O M O
C.
Ifl H O Ln 00000 Ln ri L� OO LSO
.0 a'
10 O
00610 Ln 00000010 Ln 00
OF) N L- V' O M ri Ln 0000x' O N --I O W Ln
N Ln O M O O O O M O W H 610 N0
O
Ln
ri a'IO O N O O O O O Ln L- Ln (N
oo Ln Ol r-i NN00061 Ln 00Ln OOL -CO
�, H Ln lfl Ln Ln O'i' 1fl 00 0007 O r10
C7
1 -CO
OMV'r -IM a'N d'N Ln r-I
r-i [� NLn a+N r-I r-I MNN
ri lO�a'N N.-i ri riO Ln [��
d'OOIO O
M
M
ri
m 07
HC rl vN 0110 O ri
r-I
O
O
010
M
OOO M(D O ri O IOO
10
Lnm
1001
61
00m
OV'O(M M
N
O
O Ln
rl
O ri N O O O cM 0 H Ln
m
.
N 07
. .
L- N
. .
61
.
d' O
. .
Ln M 0 0 O
. . . . .
.
.
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
CV C7 M O O'O M lfl O Ln -
O .
.0 a'
10 O
M
r-I'M- -
- - L� in O1 [�.
O
Ln
Olfl
C
OONCOmmm 1-M
C7
1 -CO
r-i CD
riN
d'OOIO O
M
N
ri
r-i
HC rl vN 0110 O ri
r-I
riri
(D r-
61M
d'0710N N
r-I
ri
'-i Ln ri N ri
ri
C Ln
ri k1 l9
O U) rl
O L- 0
O M 4
O 't' Ln
lfl 61
ri H
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
. C. C. C. C. C. . . . . . C.
O O . O O O O O O O O O O O . O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r-i 000 Lf)O OOOOM ;T O Ln
O Ln Ln rl a'�'NCNLn Nrl
M
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O . . . . . . . . . .
O . O O O O O . O O O O O . O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
x1CD 00 Ln 0000061 d' O Ln
OLnLnr- I�'�°N�'NLn Nr-I
M
ri O �V O �° O r-i
ri O 00 Ln O O I`
rl 61N 61 O H
r-i 10 N 10 L- O 'w
N 10 ri Ln N O O
N r-I ri
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
. . . . . . C. . . C. C. . . . . . .
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ONO N Off' N L9 Ln O Ln Ln N O 0000
MC7O rl M61LnM riri NNC'MN
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . C. . . C. . . . . . C. C. C.
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
ONO N CD 'T N 10 Ln O Ln Ln N O O N d'
MC7C7 rl M61LnM rlrl LnNMN
riNN O 000 O
L -LnO Ln OMO M
CO O7 r-I N O Ln O Ln
V"07 C M N L- ri 10
co Ln Ln 07 Ln N 1O LD
6110 a' CD O r-
N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. C. C. . . . . . . . . C. C.
0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln O O Ln Ln Ln O v 10 MLn Ln 000
r1 lO lO R'NNri NNrILn r-i Ln
1 1-1 1-1 M N W N
ri
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln O O Ln Ln Ln Od° L9 MLn Ln 000
r�1616 a'N Nri NNriLn ri Ln
H r1 r-I MNCON
r-i
>Do"ca H 0E- iHP,0wXH(.)a pi HfiaHU �jH]W;;W u)aaHP4H�oPa .104 W U) �'NiJ:i H H Z+ziW O� WH W Cl� UQL HHF�I- 9PU�H°NNN Wg�U U]W H E-ip H�
z U)OUH H HH OHU)C?L
IY4 WWHH HOUR C7 H u)�UtrG �(p (�U)U)WHW
7iUUWUa liW w000zFC�/zu"u) rs4NzU11-1�WN Zj W WUUt7� (r. U0H
H�,z HWC7 (zFCO�./[{��-�] R!�S�WzHHWW C700zzFCaiW �L?1 O�OHHzpi zH zC =1>
al -iH H Z EiU WHW 04 HE-H U) H Wz HH z0x Ri N-°H O ,�H
Wnq WHHx u)HHULHU 0.°H U)zWHp4UH04C4xx0 W UP4 0.,HHHU) HG4 OE-i O
aLar-1HazUUWgqWW�ixH4Wz wwonWH5-i00HHU)gH1 -4w HouWUUz`.�U)HW��04M H
OHHp4xHza[=7ZjWW Ufs+HxH U xN04ZZ00(ZOl) �;DD nZOz xWWHO Hx�G4C7F[Q
P4�OWH W0.�aa� Crar�Hp' �HHr,oHHaawOW OH H Haa�O�H = +HW,
G4WWu)�C C��HL N114 t On ON ina UOOUxxuuNr.4N xa O�1Wa+a1�1H0\ Ha>~�
OOOH LOWL- MM000NOOOOOOOOM O00000000000000000r- .NO10000-1Or100
O riW riH"ri r-i r-i N M,-,T Ln ri r-i ri L�vA[ -0r-i M M Qt r1 -1 H CO -A M''T 14 - 101- 1 -1 N"C 0)0)M Mr-I ri ri W r, 00 Lfl t.-
N H ri M M M M CO M M V'V'tl' M L� 0) 0) r-i ri0(D 0010) -1 04010) r -I riH NMap LO 1O L- 010101 M M M ri N M M El s-iLn.-IM
Ln 1O CO ko ko w l9 IO W 10 w w W IO IO Ifl Lfl r- co 016101 6101+ -ir-i Hri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N MMv
V^ �l' CT' V' V' d' d' c!' C9'Ci'�V°-�'' T-g14iCi' IV U) LO Ln Ln Ln Ln m Ln Ln Ln m Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln uj mm m Lo m Ln ko k-o w 10
1D 1O lO lD ID W lD 1D 1D 101010101010 W W W IO IO IQ IO wO.o LD lO ko 0 w w w IO ko w l7 lO lD to lO lfl lO 10191D 10 W IO 'L- C --L -L-
Larry Wilcoxson, Sr.
P.O. Box 1127
Immokalee, Florida 34142
305 - 609 -3813 — cell
Iwilcoxson78 @hotmail.com
DOB: 08 -15 -1978
1611 A8
Florida House District 101 needs a change, and I'm here to bring it to you. Impoverished
Immokalee, Florida, was the place the late Dorothy Mae Dove gave birth to me. It was the
worst, yet the best thing that could have happened to me. Growing up not having the choices
and options of the niceties of life provided me the incentive to work harder to achieve the best
things in life.
I graduated from Immokalee High School in 1996, and enrolled in Tallahassee Community
College. While in college, my son, Larry Wilcoxson, Jr. was born a year later. As an eighteen
year old, not only was I struggling to work to put myself through school, but to additionally
provide for an infant. However, it only served to make me work harder. It took me longer than
most to achieve an Associate of Science degree, but I did in May of 2001.
A good friend of mine was in the National Football League. He offered me a job, not only
because we were friends, but because of my work ethic. I worked as the personal assistant to
Edgerrin James. As his assistant, I sat in on numerous meetings, managed multi - million dollar
accounts, assisted in real estate transactions, held numerous charitable events, worked with
nonprofit organizations, tutored prep classes for those seeking their G.E.D., and spoke to inner -
city children about staying out of trouble and getting an education. I saw first hand the impact of
that work.
When Edgerrin left the Indianapolis Colts for the Arizona Cardinals, I finished my Bachelor of
Science degree in Criminal Justice with a minor in Education Magna Cum Laude in 2007, from
Martin University in Indianapolis, Indiana. For two years, I was a substitute teacher in the inner
city of Indianapolis. It is an extremely great experience to know that you've impacted kids' lives.
I attended graduate school, and completed my Master of Arts degree in Divinity in a year with a
3.22 G.P.A. I was accepted at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston, Texas.
Unfortunately, financial circumstances did not allow me to finish. While in Texas, I worked for a
financial firm. I have now returned to my home town of Immokalee, Florida, and would like to
serve the people of Florida House District 101, as their representative in Tallahassee.
Political advertisement paid for and approved by Larry Wilcoxson, Democrat, for State Representative District 101
16 ,A9
RECEIVED
MAY 12 2010
9oeld of County Coffunw1onen;
Fiala Y
Halas
AGENDA Henning-
Coyle
Coleita
COLLIER COUNTY HISTORIC /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOAR
WILL MEET AT 9:15 AM, WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010 AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, CONFERENCE ROOM 609
LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES FLORIDA:
NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS
BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING
THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH
RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
THE APPEAL 1S TO BE BASED.
I I
III
IV
V
1V A
VII.
Vlll.
IX.
X. 7
ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE HAPB WILL
BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE
MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
ROLL CALL /ATTENDANCE
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 21, 2010
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION REPORT:
A. MERGER AND NEW DIVISION NAME
OLD BUSINESS:
A. HISTORIC STRUCTURES BROCHURE
B. THE ARLINGTON OF NAPLES AT LELY RESORT UPDATE
C. CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE UPDATE
NEW BUSINESS:
A. NO NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Misc. Comes:
Date: n
Item #:��Q
^! =s V
[/
COLLIER COUNTY
May 6, 2010
16 11 A 9
Mr. Michael Zimny
Certified Local Government (CLG) Coordinator
Bureau of Historic Preservation
ILA. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250
RE: Collier County Preservation Board Meeting
Dear Mr. ZimnT
Please be advised that a public meeting for the Collier County Historic /Archaeological Preservation
Board has been scheduled for Wednesday, May 19, 2010 and will begin at 9:15 a.m. at the Growth
Management Division, Conference Room 609, located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples,
Florida 34104.
I have enclosed the agenda minutes from the April 21, 2010 meeting for your reference.
If you have any questions concerning this meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me. My phone
number is (239) 252 -2942 or you can e-mail me at AshleyCaserta @colliergov.net
Sincerely,
Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner
Historic Preservation Coordinator
Growth Management Division
cc: Preservation Board Members (7)
Sue Filson
Ron Jamro
Bill Lorenz
Ray Bellows
Steve Williams
Ian Mitchell
galas 16 ' -
Henning Sete er 16, W
Coyle �CEIVED
Coletta X(-
MAYO 5 2J10
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY of CO"
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD
Naples, Florida, September 16, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical
Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Services Division
Conference room #609, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Patricia Huff
Pam Brown - Excused
William Dempsey - Excused
Sharon Kenny
Elizabeth Perdichizzi - Excused
Rich Taylor
Craig Woodward
ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation
Melissa Zone, Principal Planner, Zoning Dept.
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Misc. CO M:
Heather Ramirez, Admin. Secretary, ZoningDgppt.
Vern t
0 con to:
16 I 1 A9
September 16, 2009
_ I. Call to Order:
Chairman Patty Huff called the meeting to order at 9:15 A.M.
Roll Call was taken and a quorum established.
II. Addenda to the Agenda
Add: V. Introduction of Heather Ramsey, Staff
Add. V. C. Pam Brown Update
Add. V1 A. Historic Booklet
III. Approval of the Agenda
Sharon Kenny moved to approve the Addenda as amended. Second by Craig
Woodward. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
IV. Approval of Minutes of June 17, 2009
Craig Woodward moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by
Sharon Kenny. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
V. Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Report
Melissa Zone introduced Heather Ramsey; Planning Tech has replaced Cheri
Rollins and will be the liaison for HAPB. She will e -mail minutes, notices for
meetings and create packages for meetings.
A. Election of Vacancies on the Board (See attached)
i. William Dempsey
ii. Patricia Huff
iii Sharon Kenny
Craig Woodward moved to accept all three candidates (to submit applications
to BCCfor approval). Second by Rich Taylor. Motion carried unanimously
4 -0.
B. Review & Recommendation for the Mar -Good Harbor Resort SDP
Sandra Botteher, Engineer for Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. distributed
and reviewed the Site Development Plan for Mar -Good Harbor Park.
• Will be ready for bid in 3 months.
• Cistern and Mar -Good Store will be retained.
• Phase I and II will take a couple of years to complete.
• No boat launch and no motorized vehicles, only canoe and kayaks
allowed.
Discussion ensued on the condition of buildings on site, possibilities of
restoring, replacing, moving or demolishing them and it was suggested an
assessment be done.
2
1 k1teJer 16, 2A9 009
Melissa Zone recommended the Board approve the SDP as is or make
revisions. She noted after the site has been designated any changes to the Mar -
Good Harbor will need to be submitted and approved by the Board.
Craig Woodward moved to approve the (Mar -Good Harbor Park) SDP with
the stipulation the Staffgets back to the Board with an assessment on and
how to preserve buildings for the Board to consider making a
recommendation to designate as a historical site. Second by Rich Taylor.
Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
C. Pam Brown Update
Melissa Zone reported her communication with Pam Brown regarding
absences.
Ms Brown is interested in serving but has a conflict between HAPB and
Immokalee Master Plan Envision Committee. Her term with Immokalee
Master Plan Envision Committee expires in January and has asked to be
excused from the October and November meetings and will resume Board
responsibilities in January.
A Consensus was to retain Ms Brown as a Board Member. Her reasons for not
attending meetings until January 2010 were acceptable to the members.
VI. Old Business
A. Historic Booklet
Patty Huff distributed a rough draft of the Collier County Historic &
Archeological Booklet for review and input. She suggested they review the
format, placement of map /sites and verify for accuracy. She also suggested
Naples Sites be reviewed by Sharon Kenny, Craig Woodward, Betsy
Perdichizzi and Pam Brown. She recommended the Board make a Historic
Booklet ready for public in 2 months.
Steven Williams, Assistant County Attorney stated if the Board wanted to
include private homes over 50 years old the County Attorney's Office would
provide a release letter for the building owner to execute. It would the private
building to be listed in booklet and the public to view the house from the street.
Discussions ensued on number of pages, number of sites per page, contents,
placement and categories, buildings over 50 years old and was decided the
Board would e -mail Melissa Zone their ideas in Word Document and pictures
in JPeg format. Melissa will then forward to Patty Huff.
It was suggested to make Sub - Sections and include museums, archeology sites
and structures, historical interest and cemeteries. Board would like to complete
the booklet by November.
VII. New Business —None.
6IE1` A9
September 16, 2009
VIII. Public Comments —None.
IX. Board Member Announcements
Sharon Kenny, Board Member and Author of "Where Shall We Eat" will be an
acting bartender at a History Trivia Charity Event hosted by the Naples Backyard
Celebrities. The Event will be held at the Sea Salt Restaurant, Tuesday, September
22nd at 6:00 — 8:00 pm.
Craig Woodward moved the HAPB not hold a meeting in December. Second by
Sharon Kenny. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
The next scheduled meeting will be held on October 21, 2009.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 10:55 A.M.
HISTORICAL /ARCHEOLOGICAL
PRESERVATION BOARD
1 �z
Chairman /Patty Huj
t
These minutes approved by the Board/Comrryttee on
as presented or as amended ✓
Fiala ✓ 16 1'
Henning j�
A g-
H ovember 8,'t kEIVED
Coyle
Coletta ;n MAYO 5 2010
Board Of County Commleslonem
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD
Naples, Florida, November 18, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical/
Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Services Division
Conference room #609, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Patricia Huff
Pam Brown (excused)
William Dempsey (absent)
Sharon Kenny (excused)
Elizabeth Perdichizzi
Rich Taylor
Craig Woodward
ALSO PRESENT: Melissa Zone, Zoning & Land Development
Misc. Cones:
Dale: --
item #�_
16 1 1 A9
November , 2009
I. Roll Call/Attendance:
Chairman Patty Huff called the meeting to order at 9:22A.M.
Roll Call was taken and a quorum established.
II. Addenda to the Agenda:
1. Update on Bula Mission (Copeland)
2. Historic Signs
3. Update on Marco Island Historical Museum
11I. Approval of Agenda
Craig Woodward moved to approve the Agenda and the Addenda to the Agenda.
Second by Betsy Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 4 -0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: September 16, 2009
Correction: Page 3 Item V. C. -2 °d and 3`d sentence - Immokalee Area
Master Plan. Delete the word Envision
Betsy Perdichizzi moved to approve the minutes of September 16, 2009, as
amended. Second by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 4 -0.
V. Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Report:
A. Nothing to Report
VI. Old Business:
A. Election results of vacancies on the Board
Chairman Patty Huff announced the BCC's confirmation letter approving all
three applicants for the vacancies on the Historical/ Archaeological Preservation
Board.
William Dempsey, Sharon Kenny and Patty Huff will serve 3 year terms.
Agenda Item C was discussed prior to Agenda Item B.
C. December Board hearing is cancelled
Melissa Zone reconfirmed the Boards decision to cancel the HAPB meeting
for December, 2009.
Discussion followed regarding calling a meeting only if there is something to
consider.
• Four meetings per year are required. The chair has the right to cancel a
meeting if there are no issues pressing.
• Melissa Zone and the Chairman of HAPB will be notified of items and issues
to be discussed by the 3o`h of the month prior to the meeting month.
• The meeting will then be scheduled and duly noticed along with the agenda.
• The usual protocol (notifying staff of plans to attend) will be retained.
B. Historic Brochure status
Patty Huff distributed an expanded version of the original sample booklet
6 A9
ovem( 1 er TkS, 2009
initiated some time ago. She asked that the discussion be a working committee
meeting, rather than the more formal agenda item discussion. Several
suggestions, changes, deletions and additions to the Historic brochure were
discussed.
• Each page of the booklet and its layout was discussed at length.
• Designations, Historic markers, new sites to include, maps, funding, length,
cover and paper material were discussed.
• Further research, photographs on some sites as well as owner permissions and
printing quotes were some of the tasks divided up amongst the members to
complete prior to the next meeting.
• Deadlines for collecting information were tentatively set for the end of
November with review planned for December. Melissa will pass everything
on to Patty for compilation, with a goal of finalizing the booklet by January.
VII. New Business
A. 5 Year volunteer service award for Elizabeth Perdichizzi
Congratulations were expressed to Betsy Perdichizzi, who wore her 5 -year pin and
showed her Award Certificate and picture with the Commissioners.
Addenda to the Agenda
1. Update on Bula Mission, Copeland
Patty Huff reported in the two years since the Historic Designation the Mission
site has severely deteriorated. Some clean up had begun, but restoration
estimates came in between $50,000 to $60,000. She stated, basically, only the
cypress boards and the pews would be worth saving. She inquired about zoning
requirements and procedures to demolish it and build a replica of the Mission.
Melissa Zone stated the plans for replication would have to come before the
HAPB who could recommend waivers if the rehab plan was deemed appropriate,
as in all renovations to Historically Designated sites.
2. Historic Signs
Off premise signs for historic sites were discussed. HAPB deemed it
important they be part of the process involving Historic Markers and Signs.
Melissa Zone stated the BCC had directed staff to look into Historic
Markers /Signs and the matter has been assigned to the County Attorney's office.
Chairman Patty Huff will check with her Commissioner on ways to ensure
the Ordinance that regulates historic structures provide for fIAPB input.
Supporting letters to the County Manager were suggested.
3. Update of Marco Island Historical Museum
Betsy Perdichizzi and CraigWoodward, who are deeply involved with the
Marco Historical Museum reported on the progress of the construction and
noted it is on schedule. TDC has provided some funding with a $100,000
donation. An early February 2010 opening is planned as well as a tour for
HAPB.
VIII. Public Comments — None
1611A9 -I
November 18, 2009
IX. Board Member Announcements
Craig Woodward commented on the September 22nd Historic Trivia Charity
event which he attended. He informed the Board that it was a wonderful event
and thanked Sharon Kenney for inviting the Board Members.
Conservation Collier Day at the Ranch celebration at Pepper Ranch Preserve on
Saturday, November 21 from 9:00 to 2:00. The program of events will include a
talk on the Lake Trafford canoes which is of great interest to HAPB.
Chairman Patty Huff mentioned the Humanities Counsel had various good
books on the Everglades available.
The next scheduled meeting will be held Wednesday January 20, 2010 at 915 AM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:38 A.M.
COLLIER COUNTY
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PRESERVATION BOARD
Z�ez
Chairma Patty fififf
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on -?/ 12110
as presented or as amended
161 1 A9
April 21, 2010
MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
HISTORIC /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD
Naples, Florida, April 21, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Historic /Archaeological
Preservation Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
9:15 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe
Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Dempsey
Vice Chair: Sharon Kenny (Absent)
Pam Brown (Absent)
Patricia Huff
Elizabeth Perdichicci
Richard Taylor
Craig Woodward
ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning
Glenda Smith, Operations Analyst
Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner — Staff Liaison
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
16 '11 A9
IApi4121, 2010
I. Call to Order
Chairman William Dempsey called the meeting to order at 9:19 AM.
II. Roll Call
The Roll was called and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
The following topics were proposed for addition to the Agenda under Item VII, "New
Business:"
• Patricia Huff — Historic Signs
• Ashley Caserta — Pepper Ranch and Workshop (discussed at the last meeting)
• Ashley Caserta — list of history sites on the Zoning website
• Ray Bellows — Waiver /Cultural Arts Village and Lely Project
Craig Woodward moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Patricia Huff.
Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
IV. Approval of Minutes — February 17, 2010
Patricia Huff moved to approve the Minutes of the February 17, 2010 meeting as
submitted. Second by Elizabeth Perdichicci. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
V. Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning, and Zoning Services
Division Report — Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning
(No Report)
VI. Old Business
A. Historic Brochure — Status Report: Patricia Huff
Chairman Dempsey noted Katie Varano, a design professional, attended the
February meeting. Ms. Varano was to review the brochure and suggest possible
format changes.
Patricia Huff stated Ms. Varano contacted her and requested Ms. Huff email the
final version of the Brochure to her when available. Ms. Varano will review the
document at that time and suggest format revisions.
A copy of the Brochure was distributed to the members.
Assistant County Attorney Williams noted the Land Development Code (under
Section 8.07.01) referred to the name of the Committee as the "Historic /Archaeological
Preservation Board " (with [ /], not [ &]) It was decided all future documents and the
website will conform to the official title.
Ms. Huff noted page numbers will be located at the bottom of the pages.
Chairman Dempsey questioned the reference to the website (colliergov.net/zoning)
at the bottom of the Brochure's cover page, and requested to add the direction "click
on Historic" to provide a direct link to the Brochure.
The following changes were suggested to the Brochure:
16 t 1 A9
April 21, 2010
Page Number
Revision(s)
Cover
• "Background on the Organization" will be moved to
end of the list of bulleted items
Page 2
• Correct misspelling of Keewaydin under "Naples"
There was a discussion of whether or not to include a listing for
the Keeywaydin Club since the building is no longer standing.
• It was suggested the Brochure specify whether a
location denotes an historic site (no structure) or actual
physical structure.
• Richard Taylor will research to determine what, if
anything, is standing at the Keewaydin site and revise
the descriptive paragraph on Page 4.
Index /Map
Numbers assigned to items in Index do not correspond to the
Legend for Map #8
• The Map is incorrect and the County will revise it upon
completion of the Brochure
• Additional sites will be added to the Legend.
Page 4
Ray Bellows noted the Preservation Board previously
recommended designation of a house in Keewaydin to the
Board of County Commissioners, which was approved by the
BCC. He will provide the information for inclusion in the
Brochure under Item # 1.
• The house represents the architectural style of the 50s.
Page 5
Naples Depot Museum ( #4)
• "napping" village will be changed to "quiet" village
• Craig Woodward mentioned a boat was restored by the
Museum and sent to the Keewaydin Club. He will
provide information
• Insert "a" between "recreated" and "Seminole War fort"
Page 6
Nehrling Caribbean Gardens ( #5)
• Insert "to" between "it" and "Naples Zoo, Inc."
Campiello's Restaurant ( #6)
• Richard Taylor will obtain a photograph of the
Restaurant and write a description
• Also known as the "Wind in the Willows" building
Naples Pier ( #7).
• Attorney Williams will provide a photograph of the
Naples Pier and write a description.
16 14 A9
April 21, 2010
Page Number
Revision
Page 7
Margood Park ( #6)
• Elizabeth Perdichicci will research the year when
Collier County obtained the property
Page S
Marco Lodge Restaurant ( #10)
• Elizabeth Perdichicci will provide information and a
photograph.
• Ray Bellows will provide information from County's
files.
The Old Marco Inn ( #11)
• Description of the location will be change to:
"northwest of Palm Street and Bald Eagle Drive"
Page 9
Marco Island Historical Museum ( #12)
• No photograph (no discussion)
Captain John Horr House ( #13)
• Format of descriptive paragraph to be revised from
bulleted to narrative style.
• #1 was objected to as "vague."
• Craig Woodward will revise.
Page 10
Church of God & Pioneer Cemetery ( 414)
• Elizabeth Perdichicci will provide information and a
photograph
Otter Mound ( #15)
• Chairman Dempsey will provide information and a
photograph
Captain Collier House ( #16)
• Elizabeth Perdichicci will provide information and a
photograph
• Will reference Merritt's Restaurant in text
Page 13
Everglades Seafood Depot Restaurant (Old Railroad Depot)
( #22)
• Change caption to Old Railroad Depot (Everglades
Seafood Depot Restaurant)
• Delete names of current owners
• Ashley Caserta suggested reversing position of
members in captions, for example: " #22. Old Railroad
Depot"
16 11 A9
April 21, 2010
Page Number
Revision (s)
Pages 14 & 15
Patricia Huff will provide photographs and narratives for
Everglades City sites.
• Chairman Dempsey will provide a photograph of the
Fakahatchee Island Cemetery ( #26) and a description.
Page 16
JT's Island Store ( #21)
• Delete names of current owners
Page 17
Chokoloskee Cemeteries ( #30)
• Omit last sentence — will be moved to Fakahatchee
Island Cemetery on Page 15
• Patricia Huff will provide a photograph
Bula Baptist Mission & Cemetery ( #31)
• Patricia Huff will provide photograph
• Reference Ms. Frances in descriptive paragmph
Page 18
Dee p Lake
• Patricia Huff will provide photograph and a description
• Chairman Dempsey will also provide a photograph
Page 19
Change title of page to "Immokalee"
Pepper Ranch ( #36)
• Chairman Dempsey will provide a photograph and
description
Immokalee Cemeteries ( #37)
• Staff will contact Pam Brown for information.
Fort ( #38)
• Omit this reference due to difficulty to locate
Page 20
Way Stations ( #39)
• Change to Tamiami Trail Way Stations
• Change order of stations: Monroe Station, Weaver's
Station, and Royal Palm Hammock
• Reduce information on Weaver's Station and note
Fakahatchee Strand is across the road
Assistant County Attorney Williams cautioned against violating the Sunshine Law. He
stated the best and safest policy is for Preservation Board members to send emails to the
Staff Liaison who will distribute the communications to all other members.
• The deadline for submission to changes to the Staff Liaison is May 11, 2010.
• The Staff Liaison will send reminder emails to the members by May 4, 2010.
16 1 1�
April 21, 1
Additional Revisions:
• Add physical addresses to sites wherever possible, i.e., Old Marco Inn — 100 Palm
Street
• Identify sites as "County- designated historic site" when appropriate
• References to property owners will be omitted from descriptive paragraphs unless
ownership was historic
• The last two pages of the Brochure will remain blank for "Notes" — adding lines
was also suggested
• "Mission Statement /Historic Design Process" will be moved to back cover page
Assistant County Attorney Williams clarified that written permission from owners of
properties designated as historic was not necessary.
VII. New Business
A. Status Report: Staff investigation — possible disturbance of Calusa Mounds —
Ray Bellows
(A document entitled, "Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Lely Resort
Property, " was distributed to the Members.)
• DRI ( "Development of Regional Impact ") projects are required to undergo an
archaeological review prior to development
• A total of seven prehistoric archaeological sites were assessed during the survey
• The sites are considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places
Mr. Bellows presented a map to the Members and pointed out the various sites identified.
He stated nothing has been constructed and the process was still under review. The
archeologist's recommendations were outlined on Pages 30 and 31 of the document.
Mr. Bellows reviewed the options available to the Members:
• Accept the recommendations as presented and support implementation;
• Request an updated Survey and Assessment be conducted before final SDP
approval is granted;
• Request the archeologist attend a future meeting to explain his /her findings; or
• Reject the recommendations as presented.
Lengthy discussion ensued including satisfaction of open space requirements, conservation
easements, and the location of the site in relation to a preserve. Options were discussed
and one suggestion was to move the proposed development to another location within
Lely.
Craig Woodward moved to reject the Plan as it relates to Sites 747, 749, and 750 which
are significantly impacted by the design and recommended the developer attend a
future meeting to discuss the Plan with the Board and present redesigned options.
Second by Patricia Huff.
Chairman Dempsey stated there are State - designated sites within the property. If there
were no historic significance to the specific areas cited, it would be difficult to force a
16 1 A9
April 21, 2010
developer to redesign the project. He suggested requesting the property owner or
developer obtain more information by obtaining an updated Survey and Site Assessment
before proceeding further.
Ray Bellows stated the County could furnish the complete Survey and Assessment via
email if desired. Craig Woodward requested same.
Craig Woodward amended his motion as follows: To reject the Plan as presented and
request the developer or property owner attend a future meeting to discuss it. Second
by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
(Added Topics)
B. Historic Signs — Patricia Huff
• In the process of obtaining a sign ( "marker ") for JT's Island Store and other
locations
• Requested assistance from the County Museum, but the Museum budget does
not have funds available
• Ray Bellows noted all County budgets will be further reduced
• Elizabeth Perdichicci suggested contacting Jack Wert of the County's
Tourism Bureau to request a grant to fund the Brochure and to obtain signs for
each historic site
• Patricia Huff will research the cost of obtaining a marker and determine how
many signs will be needed
C. Waiver /Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore — Ray Bellows
(A review packet was distributed to the Members.)
• This is a re -zone of the property
• Either a Survey and Assessment is required or an application for a Waiver
may be submitted
The Waiver application was submitted for the project due to the low potential
for historic /archaeological sites because the property had been significantly
excavated and disturbed
• A map of the area was reviewed and the project was discussed
Chairman Dempsey moved to deny the application for Waiver with the exception of
Tract "C." Second by Craig Woodward.
It was suggested to simply deny the Waiver.
Chairman Dempsey amended the motion to deny the request for a Waiver. Second
by Craig Woodward Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
D. Zoning Website — listing of historic sites — Ashley Caserta
• Eight sites are shown on the website
o JT's, Bula Baptist Mission, and Nehrling Gardens were not included
1611� A9
April 21, 2010
A suggestion was made to notify to various County and community
associations (including Historic Preservation Boards /Archaeological Societies
and Chambers of Commerce on a state -wide basis) upon completion of the
Brochure and uploading it to the website
VIII. Public Comments
None
IX. Committee Member Comments /Announcements
• A request was made to Staff to email the Minutes to the members prior to the next
meeting
• Craig Woodward updated the Committee on the progress of the Marco Island
Historical Museum: the back parking lot has been paved, the exterior is on hold;
the City of Marco Island approved landscaping plan; the interiors of the main
Museum and the Administration Building have been completed. Rose
Auditorium will be completed with the next 30 days.
• Funding for Museum exhibits: $250,000 from the City of Marco Island; $200,000
from the County's reserves, $100,000 from the Tourism Development Board;
$50,000 from Paradise Advertising
• A Traveling Exhibit ( "Florida's Cowboys ") will be brought in prior to the Annual
Cattlemen's Association meeting at the Marco Marriott Hotel and will be on
display from mid -June through the end of August
Next Meeting Date: May 19, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by Order of the Chairman at 11:08 AM.
Historic /Archaeological Preservation
Board
William Dempsey, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on
as presented , or as amended
161111 A9
""Florida
*Master
Sit Survey Survey Log Sheet soya 9772
File alecloolftv"Slo" 1.1110 entry Dena 7/21/2004
IDENTIFICATION AND BIBLI P i nON
SurVqPmjQdI--andP'qKtPhMJ An Axchaeologioal Survey and Assessment of the Lely Resort Property
Calker County, Florida
TitI0InftdV"oaW@PB90l An ArChaeolgical Survey and Assessment of the taly P, sort property Collier
Florida
Publication Data 6-sari 1993_ Total Number of Pope In Report (not Including ob forms) 47
Publication Inf0MWkA tuft 04 dyl, *I Aftnican Ar*Wlly) Archaeological and Historical Co,,,g
warnw. -- >>
Cily
Name
Addreeaftone: 3200 Bailey Ln, Suite 200, Naples, F1 34105
OrpniZation: Other
R$Wrdw Name post narne " HeWker Jeremy DQ91,091311041COMPlefild 7/21/2004
Is We survey or project a continuation of a previous project? wo It yea, list previous survey 011(s)
I MAPPING
PublkaslonDale,-.--» 4bz..
DatesforFleldwork. Start End Total Area Surveyed (fill In one) hectares acres
Number of Distinct Toots or Area Surveyed I
11 Project Is a Corridor, Complete the Following (fill In one for each): corridor Wkkb:_ "Wets fed
Corridor Lergffi:__ kilometers mile,
IATTACH PLOT OF SURVEY AREA ON PHOTOCOPIES OF USGS 1:24,000 MA
Pape fort
Other, Urillskid Survey Types (describe):
161 1 A9
Survey Log Sheet Survey# 9772
RFSEARCH AND FIELD METHODS
>>[Aairiail pbot—casawaW, I
Method Used Proportion
Method Used Proportion
Notes on Field Methods (e.9, scope, intermuty, procedures)
SURVEY RESULTS (cultural resources recofiled)
Site Signilconce Evaluated?. UN3P. PrIAIuIdI Recorded Sites I Newly Recorded Sites 6..
Previously Recorded Sde#swkh Site File Update Forms Wssearowebout-F) 0200726
Newly Recorded Site #3 01take cum all are originals and not updates. Listsdeff'..ithout-91 CROO747-CROO752
Type of Site Form Used.
>> E
Alk0e,40 F USE ONLY eeeeae
FMSF St~, JereE M. Heiker Electronic Form Used: M10
Origin of Survey Report: >>
1 OL,32 Permit #
Other IDDcurnor;l Type: —
Vote: Do NOT pilot docurnerit
— >>IATdWkMI4(d0&I F14114 SUVVW I
inadcad with as
DOCUrnerdDestiniflIOA: Plottableo ecta
Plotabifity(2):
Page 202
��erbrat�•
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Glenda E. Hood
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Mr. Thomas T. Trettis
WilsonMiller, Inc.
Naples / Corporate Office
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200
Naples, Florida 34105
161:1 A9
97)z
March 14, 2004
Re: DHR Project File No. 2004 -2775 (2000 -6099, 1991 -3274, 1991 -3006, 1991 -1591)
Received by DHR: March 29, 2004
An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Lely Resort Property, Collier County,
Florida.
AEC Technical Report #70
Dear Mr. Trettis:
Our office received and reviewed the above referenced survey report in accordance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89 -665), as amended in 1992;
36 C.F.R., Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties- and Chapters 267 and 373, Florida
Statutes, for assessment of possible adverse impact to historic properties listed or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Between July and August 1993, the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (AHC)
conducted an archaeological investigation of the Lely Resort Property in Collier County, Florida.
One previously recorded archaeological site (8CR726) and six previously unrecorded
archaeological sites (8CR747 — 8CR752), all Late Archaic — Glades I period shell middens, were
identified within the project area. It is the opinion of AHC that 8CR748 appears eligible for
listing in the NRHP and that 8CR726, 8CR747, and 8CR749 — 8CR752 are potentially eligible
for listing in the NRHP. ABC recommends avoidance and/or preservation of each archaeological
site.
Based on the information provided, it is the opinion of this office that there is insufficient
information to make determinations of eligibility for listing of 8CR726 and 8CR747 — 8CR752
in the NRHP. If preservation is not feasible, we recommend further investigation of each site to
determine their archaeological significance and research potential.
We note that a Survey Log an Archaeological Site Forms were not submitted with the
referenced survey re ort. Wd e request that a Survey Log be submitted with the subsequent report,
in addition to an updated Archaeological Site Form for 8CR726 and original Archaeological Site
Forms for 8CR747 — 8CR752. These forms may be accessed by your consultant online at
http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/msf/.
500 S. Bronough Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 • hltp : //w .flheritage.com
13 Director's Office O Archaeological Research ® Historic Preservation O Historical Museums
(850) 245 -6300 • FAX 245 -6435 (850) 245-6444 • FAX: 245 -6436 (850) 245 -6333. • FAX: 245 -6437 (850) 245 -6400 • FAX: 245-6433
0 Palm Beach Regional Office ❑ St. Augustine Regional Office ❑ Tampa Regional Office
(561) 279 -1475 • FAX: 279 -1476 (904) 825 -5045 • FAX: 825 -5044 (813) 272 -3843 • FAX: 272 -2340
16 1, l A9
Mr. Trettis
April 14, 2004
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Ariana Slemmens, Historic
Sites Specialist, at abslemmens(a )dos. state. fLus or (850) 245 -6333. Your continued interest in
protecting Florida's historic properties is appreciated.
Sincerely, /
Frederick Gaske, Acting Director, and
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
1611 A9
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND
ASSESSMENT OF THE LELY RESORT PROPERTY
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
by the
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSERVANCY
AHC TECHNICAL REPORT #70
AUGUST, 1993
aft-f a amq-.zja5
?772
An Archaeological Survey and
Assessment of the Lely Resort Property
Collier County, Florida
by
Robert S. Carr
Project Coordinator
and
Willard Steele
Field Director
Summary of
Previous Research
and Cultural Area
by
Dr. David Dickle
Joe Davis
Don Mattucci
Field Technicians
Maps
by
Richard Ferrer
n
977z
1 A9
16 1' A 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Consultant Summary t
Project Setting 2
Summary of Archaeological Area 5
Methods
20
Results
21
Recommendations
30
Conclusions
32
References Cited
33
16 11 A9
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Map of Project Area and Archaeological Sites
2. Archaeological Sites of Henderson Slough, Lely Parcel 29
16 V A9
CONSULTANT SUMMARY
In July through August, 1993 a phase I archaeological and historical assessment was
conducted of the Lely Resort Property Parcel in Collier County, Florida. A total of seven
(7) prehistoric archaeological sites were assessed during this survey. These sites are
regarded as either local or of state wide significance, or are considered eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places. Reviewing agencies generally require avoidance of
impacts and preservation of significant sites, however, if preservation is not feasible, than
agencies require comprehensive archaeological excavations of the site by a professional
archaeologist to act as mitigation for the adverse impact or loss of the site.
161 1 A9
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREA
Southwest Florida has been a focus of archaeological investigations since the 1880's,
although much of the early work was directed toward the recovery of museum quality
artifacts rather than understanding cultural processes. Southwest Florida archaeological sites
have been reported since at least the time of Kenworthy's informal report on shell mounds
and ancient canals (Kenworthy 1883). Griffin (1988:48 -50) discusses some of the very early
references to archaeological sites in south Florida. He notes that these early reports were
mostly causal observations, and few appear to refer to southwest Florida, but rather the
southeast and Key West areas.
At about the same time as Kenworthy's investigations, Simons (1884) gave an narrative
account of some of the very large coastal shell middens, and Douglass (1885) provided
further information about prehistoric canals (although he did not accept that they were
prehistoric); one canal near Gordon's Pass is probably the Naples Canal (8CR59), and the
one further north the Pineland Canal. Griffin (1988:50 -51) indicates that Douglass's diaries
record excavations on Horrs Island, apparently a post - contact era site (8CR41), as Douglass
mentioned European artifacts. Douglass visited Lostman's River and other areas in the Ten
Thousand Island area, and a visit to Horrs Island was briefly narrated in Douglass (1890).
In 1895 Durnford reported cordage and other artifacts recovered from a seasonal muck pond
on Marco Island (site 8CR49). The material was shown to Cushing, who mounted a major
project to recover more material from the site. Cushing (1897) reported wood and other
perishable artifacts recovered from the muck pond on Marco Island, adjacent to a large shell
works and midden village site. This report generated a great deal of interest after publication
of the illustrations of the spectacular finds. Widmer (1983) notes that Cushing also focused
attention on the nonagricultural chiefdom level of social organization supported by the rich
estuary and marine resources, although his anthropological observations have remained over-
shadowed by the wealth of artifacts.
C.B. Moore investigated a number of sites along the Collier County coast, apparently
attempting to find material comparable to Cushing's finds (Moore 1900, 1905, 1907).
Although Moore provided information about site locations and general contents, most of his
work was extremely crude and uncontrolled, even by contemporary archaeological standards,
and certainly by modern.
The first attempts to systematically survey and investigate archaeological sites was initiated
by Hrdlicka, who in 1918 visited a number of sites along the coast and tidal mangrove
estuaries, especially in the Ten Thousand Island region (Hrdlicka 1922). Hrdlicka noted that
southwest Florida was a distinct region within south Florida, and made an attempt to type
sites by function.
5
16 I '1 A9
The modern impact of man on this property has been intensive. The property was heavily
logged previous to 1942, as indicated by the large number of tramways depicted on the
Collier County soil survey map published in that year. Subsequently, a road was built prior
to 1963 from one of the abandoned tramways to a point indicated as a 9 foot elevation near
the center of section 27. This road leaves the tramway from a point in the southeast quarter
of section 28, near the southern boundary of that section and bears to the northeast to the
point of termination near the center of section 27. This road is of particular interest as it is
to some extent constructed of road materials borrowed and redeposited from a shell mound.
Besides marine shell, significant amounts of pottery were seen in the road bed, particularly at
the northern terminus. This shell mound was not located on the project parcel, and may
have had its origins on Addison Key or Marco Key, where commercial mining of shell
mounds was ongoing during that time.
Additional quantities of redeposited shell midden were noted during this study at a point near
a construction entrance to State Road 951. This is located on the southeastern part of the
property in the southern part of section 34. It would appear that this is where the mound fill
was originally stored. Ironically, this is the same area presently being used for the storing of
road materials being used for current construction activities.
In the northeastern part of the property in various hammocks are the remnants of several
historic 20th century camps, possibly from hunters. There are also dumps of household
items and at least three abandoned automobiles. One of these has a 1974 license plate. The
area around these cars, dumps and the camp, has been extensively cleared with piles of
pushed up soil and second growth forest.
The most recent activities to this area is the ongoing development. Houses, schools and golf
courses cover much of the area.
16 V 1 19
PROJECT SETTING
The project area is located on the Lely Resort Development parcel located in Collier County.
The area of study is bounded on the south by U.S. 41; on the east by S. R. 951; on the north
by Lely Cultural Road; and on the west by a cypress wetland that has been set aside as a
conservation area. The project parcel encompasses about 5 square miles and is located two
miles north of Marco Island. This area includes all or most of sections 21, 22, 27, 28, 33,
and 34 of Township 50 south, Range 26 east, and a small part of section 3 of Township 51
south, Range 26 east.
The project property's environmental setting is characterized by a low flatwoods adjacent to
two large cypress sloughs. There is one slough on both the east and west side of the
property, each draining from north to south into Rookery Bay. The eastern slough forms
part of the headwaters of Henderson Creek. The western slough descends from Rattlesnake
Hammock and enters Rookery Bay about two miles to the northwest of the mouth of
Henderson Creek.
Prior to development the project area consisted of low, level sandy soils which drained
poorly and were subject to seasonal inundation. The natural vegetation included pine and
cypress, with much of the cypress logged before 1942. This is evidenced by the remnants of
several abandoned tramways used for the logging trains.
Other vegetation present on the property includes saw palmetto, cabbage palm, rosemary,
wax myrtle, scrub oak, water maple, various short grasses, various orchids and vines.
However, exotic plants such as maleleuca and Brazilian pepper are making major impacts.
Before development, most of this land was low flatwoods transversed by low energy water
ways and cypress sloughs. Only the northern third of the property appears to have any areas
of significant elevation. Here are found the only 10 foot plus elevations on the property.
These are caused by limestone formations close to the surface which are often visible as
exposed rocky knolls. These features are indicated on the USGS topographic map for the
area and are probably the substrate formation for Rattlesnake Hammock, located just north of
the project parcel. A number of these rises extend from Rattlesnake Hammock southward
across the northeast corner of section 21 and east across the northern half of section 22,
continuing across State Road 951, beyond the eastern bound of the project area. In the
southeastern quarter of section 22 are additional limestone rises not indicated on the USGS
topographic map or on either the 1942 or 1990 soil survey maps. These limestone rises
support the only hardwood hammocks found on the property. The vegetation includes live
oak, sabal palm, palmetto, wild grape, and other flora common to subtropical hammocks.
One isolated knoll similar to those described above is at the north end of a cypress slough
located in section 34. This rise is near the middle of the section line dividing sections 27
and 34.
2
161j' A9
The modern impact of man on this property has been intensive. The property was heavily
logged previous to 1942, as indicated by the large number of tramways depicted on the
Collier County soil survey map published in that year. Subsequently, a road was built prior
to 1963 from one of the abandoned tramways to a point indicated as a 9 foot elevation near
the center of section 27. This road leaves the tramway from a point in the southeast quarter
of section 28, near the southern boundary of that section and bears to the northeast to the
point of termination near the center of section 27. This road is of particular interest as it is
to some extent constructed of road materials borrowed and redeposited from a shell mound.
Besides marine shell, significant amounts of pottery were seen in the road bed, particularly at
the northern terminus. This shell mound was not located on the project parcel, and may
have had its origins on Addison Key or Marco Key, where commercial mining of shell
mounds was ongoing during that time.
Additional quantities of redeposited shell midden were noted during this study at a point near
a construction entrance to State Road 951. This is located on the southeastern part of the
property in the southern part of section 34. It would appear that this is where the mound fill
was originally stored. Ironically, this is the same area presently being used for the storing of
road materials being used for current construction activities.
In the northeastern part of the property in various hammocks are the remnants of several
historic 20th century camps, possibly from hunters. There are also dumps of household
items and at least three abandoned automobiles. One of these has a 1974 license plate. The
area around these cars, dumps and the camp, has been extensively cleared with piles of
pushed up soil and second growth forest.
The most recent activities to this area is the ongoing development. Houses, schools and golf
courses cover much of the area.
161 1 ' A9
R.F, '93
a
-
.r
CR 752
.;I
:o f
I
K_
CR 751" -
-
<'? -
CR 7S0
_
-
CR 749'
-
CR 747
CR 726 l o
j
-
I
�
tiFj+lyn �laq` �,.!i+
CR 74}
�34
3s
_
fi
b
Figure 1: MAP OF PROJECT AREA
AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
l��
PROJECT BOUNDARY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
L� REDEPOSITED SITE
Sollars - 11 t r < •use .... �_ ..
R.F, '93
a
161 1 A9
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREA
Southwest Florida has been a focus of archaeological investigations since the 1880's,
although much of the early work was directed toward the recovery of museum quality
artifacts rather than understanding cultural processes. Southwest Florida archaeological sites
have been reported since at least the time of Kenworthy's informal report on shell mounds
and ancient canals (Kenworthy 1883). Griffin (1988:48 -50) discusses some of the very early
references to archaeological sites in south Florida. He notes that these early reports were
mostly causal observations, and few appear to refer to southwest Florida, but rather the
southeast and Key West areas.
At about the same time as Kenworthy's investigations, Simons (1884) gave an narrative
account of some of the very large coastal shell middens, and Douglass (1885) provided
further information about prehistoric canals (although he did not accept that they were
prehistoric); one canal near Gordon's Pass is probably the Naples Canal (8CR59), and the
one further north the Pineland Canal. Griffin (1988:50 -51) indicates that Douglass's diaries
record excavations on Horrs Island, apparently a post - contact era site (8CR41), as Douglass
mentioned European artifacts. Douglass visited Lostman's River and other areas in the Ten
Thousand Island area, and a visit to Horrs Island was briefly narrated in Douglass (1890).
In 1895 Durnford reported cordage and other artifacts recovered from a seasonal muck pond
on Marco Island (site 8CR49). The material was shown to Cushing, who mounted a major
project to recover more material from the site. Cushing (1897) reported wood and other
perishable artifacts recovered from the muck pond on Marco Island, adjacent to a large shell
works and midden village site. This report generated a great deal of interest after publication
of the illustrations of the spectacular finds. Widmer (1983) notes that Cushing also focused
attention on the nonagricultural chiefdom level of social organization supported by the rich
estuary and marine resources, although his anthropological observations have remained over-
shadowed by the wealth of artifacts.
C.B. Moore investigated a number of sites along the Collier County coast, apparently
attempting to find material comparable to Cushing's finds (Moore 1900, 1905, 1907).
Although Moore provided information about site locations and general contents, most of his
work was extremely crude and uncontrolled, even by contemporary archaeological standards,
and certainly by modern.
The first attempts to systematically survey and investigate archaeological sites was initiated
by Hrdlicka, who in 1918 visited a number of sites along the coast and tidal mangrove
estuaries, especially in the Ten Thousand Island region (Hrdlicka 1922). Hrdlicka noted that
southwest Florida was a distinct region within south Florida, and made an attempt to type
sites by function.
161 1 A9
Stirling excavated a burial mound on Horrs Island (1931, 1933), the site was named the Blue
Hill Mound but is not recorded under that name in the FMSF (neither as a primary of
secondary name), so it is unclear exactly which site he excavated though it was probably
8CR41 (McMichaels 1982). The reports by Goggin are preliminary, and apparently neither a
final report nor a skeletal analysis has been published. However, this represents one of the
first controlled excavations of an archaeological site in Collier County (although attempted,
Cushing had little control of stratigraphy in his wet site excavation). Goggin (1936) defined
a south Florida cultural area (Glades Area), and described south Florida ceramics (Glades
ware), establishing a basis for the later work.
Goggin (1939) published an analysis of the ceramic sequence in south Florida. He later
formulated a basic framework of cultural areas and chronologies (1947, 1949b) that is still
current (although certainly modified with additional data, see further discussion below).
Goggin summarized much of this information in an unpublished manuscript (1949c, although
modified later); the most thorough discussion of this manuscript is available in Griffin
(1988).
In passing, one unfortunate aspect of Goggin's work was a dependence on informant
information for location of sites (especially interior sites), and he had a real concern that
existing sites would be looted. This resulted in either deliberately or incidentally vague
locational data for many sites mentioned by Goggin, and some have never been satisfactory
relocated, although a few have undoubtedly been unknowingly recorded by later
investigators. This becomes very frustrating if trying to place sites on a soil, vegetation or
USGS map in order to develop site locational models, as much of south Florida is an mosaic
environment and 'general vicinity' locations can lead to significant misrepresentation of
ecotypes.
For several decades, much of the subsequent archaeological investigations took place north of
Collier County, especially in the Cape Haze, Charlotte Harbor, and Pine Island regions.
In 1956 Sears reported on a large village and mound complex at the mouth of Turner River
on Chokoloskee Bay east of Marco Island, and in 1967 on the results of a survey of the Cape
Coral area. Laxson (1966) reported on excavations at Turner River Jungle Garden site, up
river from the Turner River site, although these have been confused in some recent accounts.
Van Beck and Van Beck (1965) excavated 3 small test pits on Marco island (at the Marco
midden, 8CR48) associated with the Cushing site (8CR49), these are probably a single large
village site despite two separate numbers for the different site areas.
In 1967, 1968, 1969 Marco Island was extensively surveyed and a few sites tested by
excavation by Cockrell, Morrell and others (Morrell 1969). No complete site report was ever
published although an unpublished and incomplete manuscript is available. Some of these
sites were discussed in Cockrell's masters thesis (1970). Widmer performed a survey of Big
Key, John Stevens Creek, Barfield Bay, Blue Hill Bay, and Collier Bay (all close to Marco
11
16 I 1 ' A9
Island) (Widmer 1974). Widmer eventually utilized his southwest coast experience to write a
doctoral dissertation on the Calusa that not only remains the definitive work on that group,
but also explores the relationship between subsistence adaptation and cultural evolution
(Widmer 1983).
McMichaels (1982) produced a master thesis reviewing sites on Horrs Island. Recently,
Marquardt and Russo at the Florida State Museum of Natural History have been investigating
a number of sites on Horrs and Useppa Islands. Although the reports are still being
prepared, a number of the large shell midden village sites appear to be late Archaic, and they
expect to document a more elaborate social organization and larger, sedentary or semi -
sedentary population sizes than previously known for that period (Russo 1990, and personal
communication).
Most of these studies focused on the coastal sites, as have subsequent summaries and
discussions. Recent work on the interior have made significant advances in documenting the
extent and intensity of inland resources, especially in the Big Cypress and Everglades parks
( Ehrenhard, Carr, and Taylor 1978, 1979, Ehrenhard and Taylor 1980, Ehrenhard, Taylor,
and Komara 1980, Taylor and Komara 1983, Taylor 1984, 1985). Synthesis of this data is
available only for the Everglades Park (Griffin 1988) and this is definitely the most important
single publication on south Florida archaeology to date. Athens (1983) summarized some of
the results of the Big Cypress survey, but more analysis of that data resource is needed.
Beriault et al. (1981) reported on salvage excavations at Bay West Nursery (8CR200),
describing a well known but rare and little documented Early and Middle Archaic use of
ponds for cemeteries.
In the last two decades the pressure of development as well as a recognized need for
preservation or mitigation of prehistoric sites has lead to a number of reports by commercial
cultural resource management consultants. While most of these reports are limited in scope
due to restriction to a small tract of land, many have produced useful summaries of Collier
County archaeology, as well as insightful analysis of the relationship between site types and
location and ecotypes. Not all of these surveys located new sites, but any model of
prehistoric use of natural resources has to account for where the sites are not found, as well
as where they are found (Almy and Deming 1982, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1987, Austin 1987,
Carr and Allerton 1988a, 1988b Deming and Almy 1987, 1988, Fay and Carr 1990,
Fuhrmeister et al. 1990, Martinez 1977, Miller and Fryman 1978, Swift and Carr 1989).
John Beriault and the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society (SWFAS) have recorded
and /or investigated a large number of sites, but few reports have been published and
manuscripts are relatively inaccessible (many are on file at AHC or FMSF). None the less,
this avocationist society is one of the strongest voices for the protection of Collier County
archaeological resources, and they have been careful to document and control their
excavations, the majority of which are salvage operations on sites that have been heavily
impacted or threatened by adverse impacts.
16 1 1 A9
Beriault especially has written a number of unpublished documents providing very useful
insights into site location models and functional site types in found in Collier County. One of
the more recent documents ( Beriault 1987) is a thorough review of site types found in Collier
County. The site classification schemes he uses, while valid, are awkward to apply or
interpret as they sometimes are based on temporal period, as well as site function, and site
location ecotype. In many cases, temporal period is unknown (or just roughly as Formative
due to ceramic), site function is sometimes assumed rather than documented, and or site
function is too complex to simply type (e.g., burials, middens, shell mounds, sand mounds,
shell works, canals, and village house pilings may all be found at one site). Although the
report is an extremely useful summary, a model that recognizes 53 site types is difficult to
apply with the documentation available for many sites (perhaps reflected by the few examples
provided for the site types in Beriault's manuscript). None the less, the manuscript is
extremely useful for understanding the diversity of Collier County archaeology.
The Archaeological and Historical Conservancy reviewed a number of Collier County sites,
and provided a preliminary site location model (Carr 1988).
Cultural Areas
Southwest Florida has been one of the least known archaeological areas of Florida despite a
long history of archaeological investigations. This is somewhat curious as the protohistoric
Calusa were recognized from the time of the first European documents to be extremely
important and influential throughout south Florida as far north as central Brevard county.
The comparative lack of archaeological knowledge is due to several factors. One is that the
until the late 1970's most investigations focused on the beach and inner mangrove zone sites.
with little known about the interior. This is because not only were these sites more visible
and spectacular than most interior sites, but they were also more accessible, often utilized by
early settlers for truck farms, fishing stations, logging camps, and they were mined for their
shell content well into the 1960's. Thus many of the major sites, while located and
superficially investigated, were heavily disturbed in the early Anglo- American period of
settlement.
Another reason for lack of archaeological knowledge is that the late prehistoric period
showed superficial uniformity throughout south Florida. This has been misleading, and while
temporal change and diversity is now recognized, it is still poorly understood as a process.
None the less, few excavations have been specifically addressed to that problem, and early
investigations were often directed at the recovery of spectacular artifacts rather than trying to
understand prehistoric cultures and adaptations. Many sites were basically looted, with much
of the 'bread and butter' data of modern archaeology discarded in the search of museum
quality artifacts.
Yet another reason for lack of archaeological understanding of southwest Florida is that
much of the recent work in the area has been directed toward cultural resource management,
and thus survey oriented. While this is very important and has led to a dramatic increase in
161 f A9
the number of identified sites, many of the sites are still superficially known with some basic
parameters unrecorded. In some instances, even the environmental setting beyond broad
ecological zones is undocumented.
While survey and site location is fundamental not only to basic archaeology as well as
preservation in the face of development pressures, there has been little time and less funding
for comprehensive review and synthesis, with a few exceptions such as Beriault and Carr
(1984) and Griffin (1988). The latter is especially an important synthesis and bound to be a
classic study referred to by all serious investigators.
The following section summarizes in broad format current understanding of the prehistoric
sequence in south Florida in general, with specific reference to Collier County and southwest
Florida. Major areas of controversy and disagreement have been discussed, but in some
sections contention and uncertainty has been glossed over: some discussions are probably
more involved than warranted (and certainly more so than initially planned), and the purpose
is to try to provide a general outline that can provide a context for those interested in
pursuing specific questions.
There are three concepts operating in attempts to organize the south Florida archaeological
record, none of which are mutually exclusive (and actually compound the confusion when
focusing on one concept alone). These are the recognition of cultural area (e.g.,
Caloosahatchee, Ten Thousand Islands, Everglades etc.); the concept of adaptation (the
Archaic adaptation, Glades adaptation, etc.); and the recognition of temporal periods (Paleo,
Early, late, and Middle Archaic, Glades 1 -I11, etc.).
Archaeological data from south Florida was systematically organized by Stirling (1936), who
defined a Glades cultural area including all of south Florida. Griffin (1988) points out that
this was not formulated as a strict cultural area, but rather a geographic region with some
common cultural traits. The main features of his definitions involved both material cultural
(e.g. pottery), and subsistence strategy (dependence on hunter - gatherer activities, unlike
agricultural societies to the north). Stirling's Glades area was most appropriate to the late
prehistoric period, and while refined and redefined by subsequent workers, Stirling's pioneer
work not only provided a coherent starting place for further investigations, but also
emphasized the importance and unique aspects of south Florida prehistory.
Kroeber (1939) in a review of North America prehistory followed Stirling's lead (although
with a slightly different term, the "South Florida Area "), and also based his definition on
both environmental and cultural factors.
Soon afterwards, Goggin began to organize south Florida prehistory, culminating in his 1947
monograph. Goggin defined the Glades Area as comprising all of tropical Florida, and as
having three inclusive subareas: the Calusa subarea (southwest Florida), Tekesta subarea
(southeast Florida and the Keys) and the Okeechobee subarea around Lake Okeechobee and
northern Everglades. This subdivision was based on recognition of both environmental and
1611,. A9
cultural diversity, but has been criticized as being most appropriate to late prehistoric tribal
areas, but less useful for older sequences. The naming of the subareas was also criticized as
the relationship of older prehistoric cultures to late protohistoric tribal groups was (and is)
unclear (Sears 1966, Griffin 1974, Carr and Beriault 1984, Griffin 1988). Goggin's
definition of the Calusa subarea was problematic for several other reasons as well, not least
of all being that the Calusa area had few defining ceramics found in the Calusa heartland
north of Naples (Griffin 1988).
Griffin (1988) has reviewed and summarized significant portions of an unpublished Goggin
manuscript (started in 1949, but revised afterwards as well). The Calusa subarea was defined
as being the northern Ten Thousand Islands (Lostman's River to Naples), the southwest sand
keys and coast, and the Big Cypress Swamp. Goggin considered the Everglades to be
basically unoccupied and a restrictive filter to east - west exchange, although utilized for
seasonal extraction of resources. Griffin (1974) made the same observations about the density
of coastal occupations compared to the interior, and this was formalized by Milanich and
Fairbanks (1980) as a Circum- Glades region (somewhat to the dismay of Griffin. 1988).
Based in part on more recent Big Cypress and Everglades surveys, Carr and Beriault (1984)
contested these findings. They noted that several substantial sites were found within the
Everglades. However, it has to be noted that the preponderance of sites located by those
surveys were small, black dirt middens, extraction camps, unlikely to be semi - permanent
villages, and none approach the size of the large coastal sites.
Sears (1967) and Griffin (1974) raised the status of the Okeechobee subarea to that of a
distinct area (renamed Belle Glade area). This was not mere semantics, but rather
recognition that the Okeechobee basin was, for a considerable part of prehistory, significantly
distinct from the surrounding areas, both in terms of material culture and subsistence
strategies.
Corn pollen was recognized at Ft. Center (Sears 1982) and the possibility of corn agricultural
activities in the Okeechobee region has been postulated, although the data at present is a
unique finding. Corn anywhere in south Florida may represent an exotic trade item, and it is
unlikely to have been a significant subsistence item. None the less, many of the interior dirt
mounds in the Lake Okeechobee area initially identified as being ceremonial (another way of
saying unknown function but deliberately made!), have been recently considered to be raised
horticultural platforms. While horticultural activities throughout south Florida may have a
great antiquity (Doran and Dickel 1990), it is unclear how important it was to the subsistence
of prehistoric peoples, especially as there has been no supportive direct evidence to the Ft.
Center finds. Regardless of possible horticultural /agricultural activities, most syntheses
subsequent to Sears (1967) recognize Okeechobee as a distinct cultural area, rather than just
an interior variant of the coastal cultures.
Sears (1967) also defined the northern Calusa subarea of Goggin into the Caloosahatchee area
(from about Key Marco to Charlotte Harbor), thought to roughly correspond to the Calusa
IN
16 1 11, A9
tribal occupation at time of European contact. By raising it to the level of an "area" as
opposed to "subarea ", he recognized a distinct and independent cultural tradition, although of
course influenced by neighboring cultures. The remainder of south Florida retained the
Glades Area name (more or less the Circum- Glades of Milanich and Fairbanks 1980).
Milanich and Fairbanks (1980) also extended the Caloosahatchee Area south to Cape Sable,
an extension questioned by Widmer (1983) who placed the southern extension of the
Caloosahatchee Area at between Cape Haze and Naples. Carr and Beriault (1984) also
vigorously objected to the southward extension of the Caloosahatchee Area, and placed the
southern boundary north of Naples. They defined an Ten Thousand Island cultural area from
just north of Naples to the southern tip of the Florida mainland, and including most of the
interior Big Cypress Swamp. They also subdivided the Circum - Glades into an Everglades
Area (mid - peninsula to East coast south of Palm Beach County), and the East Okeechobee
Area on the east coast north of Broward County. The lake Okeechobee area (= Belle
Glades area) was extended to include a wide band around the lake, as well as including the
Kissimmee River drainage to the north.
Griffin (1974, 1988) has suggested that while the Ten Thousand Island Area is a valid
geographic distinction, there is some question about it being a separate cultural area. Carr
and Beriault (1984) had noted that the distinction of the Ten Thousand Island Area was
clearest prior to 1200 BP (800 AD), after which there was an appearance of uniformity
within the Everglades area. Thus some of the differences in opinions of how and where to
distinguish cultural areas depends in part on stratigraphic data. As noted, the temporal
parameters of cultural areas leads to distortion of any static model.
Griffin (1988) questioned the need to distinguish a separate cultural area based on a ceramics
complex, especially as it appears to be slim evidence of separate tribal group as asserted by
Carr and Beriault. He suggests that the Ten Thousand Island area be considered a separate
'district', indicating some regional differences at various time, but a general cultural
homogeneity in many essential parameters. The issue between Carr and Beriault (1984) and
Griffin (1988) appears in part to be one of trying to determine the significance of regional
and temporal variation, rather than whether these differences are real.
The recent literature can appear somewhat ambiguous about the relationship of the
historic /ethnographic Calusa tribe to archaeological areas (see Carr and Beriault 1984, who
do not address the problem of establishing a Ten Thousand Island area that subdivides the
historic tribal area of the Calusa). Goggin and Sturtevant (1964) show the Caloosahatchee
and Ten Thousand Island cultural areas as historic Calusa. Griffin (1988:136 -137)
emphasizes that while the famous Key Marco site (in the Ten Thousand Island district) is
often identified with either Calusa or "proto Calusa", in fact it was probably not, although he
accepts the possibility of a late prehistoric partial occupation by the expanding Calusa. He
does indicate that Marco Island and the Ten Thousand Island area was politically (and
culturally ?) dominated by the Calusa as a "vassalage ". Elsewhere however, Griffin appears
to accept Goggin and Sturtevant's delineation of Calusa tribal area encompassing the Ten
A9
Thousand Island area (as far south as Cape Sable) (Griffin 1988:144- 146).
In another context, Griffin resolves some of this somewhat confusing relationship between
cultural areas and tribal groups found at the time of contact.
Insofar as the Ten Thousand Island District of the Everglades Archaeological
Area is concerned, it is suggested here that during the early stages of the
Calusa chiefdom the inhabitants of the Ten Thousand Islands were independent
enough of the Caloosahatchee Area that they at least maintained their own
ceramic tradition, which was related to that up through the Shark River Valley
and over onto the east coast. Perhaps they developed into a secondary
chiefdom, and later were incorporated into the Calusa chiefdom. It may also
be that the highest ranking settlement in this area was located at the Key
Marco site. By the time of contact, integration had been long- standing enough
that the villages were considered outright Calusa by observers such as
Fontenada.
(Griffin 1988:309).
By noting the relationship of the earlier Ten Thousand Island culture to the Shark River
Valley and the east Coast, Griffin agrees with Carr and Beriault's (1984) finding of
similarities with the Everglades area, also reflected by his suggesting that the Ten Thousand
Islands be considered a 'district' of the Everglades Area, not the Caloosahatchee Area.
However, it is clear that at some point (circa 800 AD ?), the Ten Thousand Island area
become politically, if not culturally, dominated by the Caloosahatchee area. Griffin
emphasizes that
"While the Ten Thousand Islands... were apparently an actual part of this
Calusa chiefdom at the time of discovery, we do not know when or how this
political dominance came about. We do know that throughout the cultural
sequence... the Ten Thousand Islands did not possess an identical culture to
that of the Caloosahatchee Area
(Griffin 1988:321).
Thus while the Caloosahatchee area is certainly the 'heartland' of the Calusa, the Ten
Thousand area (or district) was probably also Calusa dominated and either occupied or
assimilated in late prehistory, despite retaining a regional distinction that was more
pronounced in earlier times.
Collier County thus appears to contain three distinct cultural areas, The Caloosahatchee (to
the north end of the county), the Ten Thousand Islands area (or district) along much of the
coast, coastal keys, and the interior Big Cypress Swamp, and the Everglades Area
(southeastern edges of the county). Whether or not the Immokalee rise region is considered
part of the Okeechobee cultural area is unclear from Carr and Beriault, who appear to have
12
16 I� f A9
drawn boundaries as rough indicators. Review of the archaeological literature for Collier
County suggests that there may not be enough data to resolve that question, and the Lake
Trafford /Immokalee rise region is poorly understood at this time.
All of these areas show a degree of uniformity (especially in late prehistory), not only of
ceramic traditions, but of equal importance, of (probable) nonagricultural subsistence.
Temporal Periods and Adaptations
The previous discussion has superficially touched on how the element of time is important in
delineating cultural areas of south Florida. Despite regional variation, the distinctions of
temporal periods are often used fairly uniformly throughout the various cultural areas and
subareas. For the purposes of this paper, the sand - tempered ceramic Glades sequence for the
more recent periods is discussed without reference to regional variants. This system
originated with ceramic analyses, and is still strongly based on pottery styles that have
proved useful as temporal markers in ordering the relative age of sites or site components.
The Glades period sequence is regionally specific to south Florida, but the earlier periods are
recognized throughout eastern North America (or even more generally, throughout the New
World), although there is regional variation in both the timing and artifact styles of the pre -
Glades periods.
The following discussion somewhat superficially summarizes the archaeological periods in
south Florida, with the warning that the dates provided are often approximate, and transitions
sometimes gradual. At the same time, the presumed adaptations supporting the prehistoric
communities are discussed. Dates are provided as "BP" or years before present, more
consistent with radiocarbon date terminology than the B.C. /A.D. system.
Palen Period (14,000 - 8,500 BP):
The first inhabitants of North America in general and Florida in specific are termed
Paleoindians, and their cultural /temporal period (the Paleo period) dates from at least at least
14000 BP to about 8500 BP, although evidence for Paleoindian occupation of Florida usually
dates to about 10,000 BP.
There are no known Paleoindian sites in Collier County. Several are documented from
elsewhere in south Florida, including Warm Mineral Springs in Sarasota County (Cockrell
and Murphy, 1978), Harney Flats in Hillsborough County (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987) in
Hillsborough County, and the Cutler Fossil Site in Dade County (Carr 1986).
During this period (terminal Pleistocene Wisconsian ice age) the climate was probably less
extreme, with cooler summers and warmer winters. The climate was also drier, and sea
levels lower (Carbone, 1983, Allerton and Carr 1988a, Griffin 1988).
13
16 I A9
One reason that possible Paleo period sites are unrecognized in Collier County is that the
shoreline may have been as much as 100 miles further west due to a lower sea levels. Drier
conditions may have made the interior very inhospitable, while any shallow estuarine and
littoral sites were Flooded by post -ice age Holocene sea rises.
Any possible interior sites may be unrecognized due to lack of diagnostic artifacts,
subsequent reuse of site areas, reuse of lithic material by later peoples (there are no known
sources of stone suitable for working in Collier County, making any crypto- crystaline stone a
valuable resource), low population density, and few permanent camps (subsurface isolate
artifacts would be nearly impossible to find). All or some of these factors may have be
important to lack of Paleo period sites in Collier County, but it may simply be that the
southwest coast was virtually unpopulated south of Charlotte Harbor due to an inappropriate
environment for an adaptation based on hunting large game.
Archaic Period (8,500 - 2500 BP):
Following the Paleo period, the cultural sequence is termed Archaic (about 8500 BP to about
2500 BP). This reflects a post - Pleistocene shift in adaptation at about 8500 BP, marked by
an increase in the seasonal exploitation of a broad spectrum of food resources, possibly a
more restricted use of territory due to regional specialization, and more semi - sedentary
habitation sites. Like the preceding Paleo period, no ceramics are known until the Late
Archaic.
Either not populated or sparsely populated in the proceeding Paleo period, South Florida may
have been abandoned in the Early Archaic (8500 -7000 BP), as there is evidence of an
environment too and to support scrub oak, and the presence of shifting wind formed dunes
(Watts 1973, Widmer 1983). No early Archaic sites are known from southwest Florida
(Allerton and Carr 1988:14).
By about 6500 BP mesic conditions began to spread, although localized xeric conditions
continued (and still exist in some areas) through south Florida. Middle Archaic sites dating
from this time are rare, although the Bay West Nursery site (8CR200) in Collier County
provides evidence of occupation, as do several sites in southeast Florida (see Allerton and
Carr 1990 for review). The Bay West site is a Middle Archaic cypress pond cemetery,
associated with a lithic and shell midden scatter. Beriault (1973) has also recorded several
aceramic shell scatters in coastal sand hills (paleo-dunes), some of which may date to the
Middle Archaic.
However, Griffin (1988) summarizes evidence indicating that despite the rise in available
surface water, brackish estuaries and other major modern landscape features had not formed,
and population (or repopulation) was still sparse.
During the Archaic period sea levels began to rise at a fairly rapid rate, estimated at 8.3 cm
per 100 years 6000 -3000 BP, and 3.5 cm per 100 years afterwards (Scholl, Craighead, and
14
161 1 A9
Stuiver 1969), although whether sea levels were steadily rising or oscillating is still unclear
(see Griffin 1988, Allerton and Carr 1990 for recent reviews of the literature). Data is
somewhat difficult to sort out as sea level rise was in places accompanied by both shore
regression and transgression. As conditions became wetter (and warmer) in the interior,
cypress swamps and hardwood sub - tropical forests became established by about 5000 BP
(Carbone 1983, Delcourt and Delcourt 1981).
By late Middle or early Late Archaic times (4000 yrs BP) there were significant shell
mounds and middens on Horrs Island, Marco Island, and elsewhere in the coastal regions,
suggesting that the estuary system was established and utilized to provide the subsistence
basis for denser populations and semi - sedentary settlements (Morrell 1969, Cockrell 1970).
At Useppa Island a short distance north of Collier County, excavations have provided
radiocarbon dates from pre- ceramic shell middens ranging between roughly 4900 BP and
5600 BP, suggesting that Middle Archaic as well a Late Archaic periods saw a growing
dependence of shellfish resources (Milanich et al. 1984). There are aceramic coastal sand
hill and interior wetland sites as well, but these have not been demonstrated to be Archaic
despite some investigators equating aceramic with preceramic, and radiocarbon confirmations
are needed.
Allerton and Carr (1988) also note that a number of stratified sites in the wet mangrove and
marsh areas of the Everglades as well as on Horrs Island contain Archaic preceramic
horizons, although it is unclear if aceramic is being equated with preceramic. Additional
supporting evidence of interior use by Archaic peoples will provide a new dimension to
archaeological understanding of Archaic resource utilization. Allerton and Carr point out
that if the wet tree islands were initially used by Archaic people, then at least some of the
hardwood hammocks in swamp environments were raised in elevation (with subsequent
changes in vegetation) due to human activities. Post- Archaic people extensively utilized
these hammocks, and continued to contribute to their development as distinct geomorphic
features. This is obviously an area where additional archaeological investigations have a
potential to contribute to present understanding the interaction of geomorphic and cultural
evolution in southwest Florida.
During the Archaic regional specializations become more marked, not only with material
culture, and but also with increased specialization toward local plant and animal resources.
Toward the end of the Archaic there was the introduction of fiber- tempered pottery into the
archaeological record, and this is often used as a marker of the Orange Phase, commencing
at about 4000 BP, either coincident with or soon after the development of the extensive shell
middens. The Late Archaic Orange Phase subsistence strategy appears to have intensified the
use of shellfish and marine resources as well as being marked by an accelerated trend toward
regional specializations.
A number of the large Shell middens on Marco Island (Cockrell 1970), Horrs Island (Russo
n.d.), Cape Haze (Sullen and Sullen 1956), and elsewhere date from at least this period as
15
1611
they contain fiber- tempered ceramic, although as noted, there are known aceramic
(preceramic ?) levels below the Orange Phase deposits that may date to the Middle Archaic.
These shell middens are usually capped by deposits from later occupations as well.
Formative Stage or Glades Periods (2500 OP- 500 BP):
The Formative or Glades adaptation, similar
Archaic period adaptation, was based on hur
Although from a European ethnocentric vieµ
primitive adaptation (Kroeber 1939:68 said tl
successful, and perhaps more technologically
by the proliferation of specialized tools. By 1
complexity as well as population size parallel
elsewhere, and political complexity, although
law, was certainly not much behind many pa
nation -state level (review of any detailed hisr
that regardless of laws and grade school histc
empowered only by shifting and expedient cc
dukes, etc.), embroiling much of the continet
civil wars.
:o (although perhaps more specialized than) the
ing, fishing, shellfish, and floral gathering.
Joint this may superficially appear to be a
e culture was "low - level "), it was extremely
sophisticated than commonly realized, judging
to prehistoric periods social stratification and
A developments in early agricultural societies
perhaps based on tradition rather than codified
is of Europe which were barely operating on a
ry of Medieval Europe leaves one convinced
y summaries, a paramount chief (king) was
)peration of small tribal subchiefs (barons,
t in an unending series of tribal conflicts and
The Late Archaic late Orange Phase (also known as the transitional phase) is marked by
changes in pottery, and terminated with the relatively rapid replacement of fiber - tempered
pottery with sand tempered, limestone tempered, and chalky `temperless' pottery, as well as
changes and often reduction in size of stone projectile points.
The Formative Stage is divided in south Florida into the Glades periods sequence, and
beginning at about 2500 BP. Subsistence adaptation is marked by a less broad spectrum use
of resources, as well as continued trends toward regional diversity and ecological
specializations, marked in part by the prolife {ation of inland resource extraction
encampments.
Formative period cultural evolution eventually/ led to increased political control, perhaps
initially unassociated with regulation of resource exchange between the coast and inland areas
(Milanich and Fairbanks 1980), but culminating in broad regional political alliances and
exchanges of materials and goods. By protoh storic and contact times the historic Calusa
were central in this role, gaining political in quence and at least partial control over much of
south Florida as far north as central Brevard County. Historically, the main Calusa village
has been located as Calos on Mound Key in stero Bay, although 50 to 70 main villages
were under direct Calusa control by contact times (Griffin 1988).
During the Formative periods, village sites rew to dominate large land areas along the
southwest coast and coastal keys, and includ d complex shell works, temples, burial mounds,
IN
&0
161 1 t A9
canals, etc. Tidal estuary rivers and inland hammocks along deep water sloughs, marshes,
and permanent ponds were seasonally visited for extraction of natural resources, and are now
marked by small to relatively large black dirt middens, some of which may have been semi-
permanent hamlets. The pine flatlands appear to have supported few sites, although areas
around Lake Trafford and other rich interior areas developed substantial sites including sand
mounds, and may be more similar to the Okeechobee cultural area than to the coastal
cultures.
Coastal sites reflect a predominate dependence on fish and shellfish, wild plant foods
(difficult to document as few sites have been examined for floral remains), and larger inland
game. The inland sites show a greater reliance on interior resources including large,
medium, and small mammals, turtle, small freshwater fish, alligator, snake, frogs, and
sometimes freshwater shellfish. Interior and coastal resource exchange can be documented by
the consistent finds of moderate amounts of marine shell in many interior middens, as well as
interior resources in coastal middens.
The Formative has been subdivided into several periods although collectively they are often
termed the Glades cultural tradition. Although an extremely basic and useful model, many
sites can not classified beyond a broad `post- Archaic' to contact times, in part due to
persistence of plainware ceramic. However, the relative frequency of rarer decorated types
has been documented, and pottery is usually utilized as the major temporal markers for
fitting sites into a temporal framework. Changes in pottery do not represent mere changes in
artistic motifs, but reflect inter- and intra- regional trade contacts, outside cultural influences
(possibly through exogamy), and possibly even shifting populations. No complete population
replacement has ever been documented or seriously hypothesized, and the Glades tradition is
continuous from post- Archaic times to contact times.
However exogamy is likely to have been practiced, traders or other specialists may have
moved between major cultural areas in small numbers, and genetic flow probably
accompanied cultural exchange, although perhaps not on the same scale. This may have
increased in later times due to use of traditional obligations of kinship and intermarriage to
stabilize alliances that were not codified into a formal legal system.
The following table has been modified from several sources, but is in large part based on
Milanich and Fairbanks (1980), Griffin (1988), and Allerton and Carr (1990). Dates have
been rounded somewhat and translated to BP (rather than B.C. and A.D.). Rounding seems
to have caused little damage to the data as not all sources agree on the exact timing of the
divisions- there is especially differences of opinions about the timing of the Glades la and lb
division, although this may reflect both a regional and temporal mosaic of transitions rather
than any practical expectation that the pace of change should be the same everywhere.
17
1611 A9
TABLE 1: GLADES CULTURAL SEQUENCE
Glades Is (2500 BP - 1500 BP) First appearance of sand tempered
plain pottery, but little else to
mark a difference between it and the
proceeding Late Archaic. Sand
tempered plain remains a dominate
type throughout the Glades sequence.
Glades lb (1500 BP - 1250 BP) First appearance of decorated sand -
tempered ceramic (Ft. Drum
Incised,Ft. Drum Punctuated, Cane
Patch Incised, Turner River
Punctate), plainware common.
Glades IIa (1250 BP -1100 BP) First appearance of Key Largo
Incised, Sanibel Incised, Miami
Incised, plainware common.
Distinction of east and west south
Florida becomes apparent, Ten
Thousand Island district distinct
from Caloosahatchee. First mound
construction- increased social
stratification ?Population size may
have approximated that at contact
(i.e., carrying capacity within
technological limits reached ?).
Glades IIb (1100 BP -1000 BP) First appearance of Matecumbe
Incised, Key Largo Incised common on
east coast, Gordon's pass incised on
the west, plainware common
throughout. Pottery rim grooving and
incision decorations appear.
Glades Ile (1000 BP - 800 BP) First appearance Plantation Pinched,
but few decorated wares with
preponderance of plainware. Non -local
pottery (e.g. St. Johns chalky ware
plain and check stamped, Belle Glade
plain) appear.
Glades lila (800 BP - 600 BP) First appearance of Surfside Incised,
increased St. Johns pottery
ID
16 1 it A9
(especially on east coast), and Belle
Glades pottery.
Glades Illb (600 BP - 500 BP) Glades Tooled Rim (rare on west
coast), lack of incised designs,
Belle Glade ceramics common on west
coast, St. Johns present but rare on
west coast, common on east coast).
Glades Itic (500 BP - 300 BP) Continuation of Illb ceramics, mound
burial construction less common with
intrusive burials into existing
mounds, appearance of European goods,
plainware common.
By European contact times (first half of the 16th century) the southwest coast of Florida was
maintaining, without an agricultural base, a vigorous, possibly expanding political chiefdom
with a broad network of alliances, as well as a rich and ancient cultural tradition.
Direct conflict with Europeans, and more importantly exposure to European diseases, led to
the rapid decline of the Calusa by the mid 1700s. Remnants may have left for Cuba with the
Spanish, others became cultural undistinguished from Cuban - Spanish fisherman, and others
fused with the Creek derived Seminoles as they became displaced further south into the Big
Cypress and Everglades area. By that time most cultural identity had been lost, although
some of the Calusa subsistence strategies may have been in part adopted by Seminoles. A
number of Seminole period sites have been documented on top of prehistoric Glades middens
(although this may reflect, in part, the paucity of high land in the interior, as most of the
Seminole sites are gardens and citrus /banana/papaya groves, and Seminole period faunal
middens were rarely associated with these sites, unlike middens from prehistoric times)
(Ehrenhard et al. 1978, 1979, 1980, 1980; Taylor et al. 1983, 1984, 1985).
Seminole periods in South Florida were divided into I (1820 - 1860), 11 (1860 -1900) and III
(1900 -1940) (Ehrenhard et al. 1978). Post -1940 Seminole camps are designated "Late
Seminole" in some reports. These reflect the different stages of Seminole migration into
South Florida, their displacement and active conflict with the expanding American culture,
and the eventual refuge of remnants in Big Cypress and Everglades regions.
The present survey did not locate any Seminole period sites, although there are unconfirmed
local rumors that the Seminole War Fort Keais is in nearby Rattlesnake Hammock.
19
16 U pg
METHODS
This project's first task was a literature search and a review of Florida's Division of Historic
Resources site records in Tallahassee. This review indicated one archaeological site,
8CR726, had been previously recorded within the project area. A review of aerial
photographs (provided by the developer) of the project area was also conducted and based on
these aerial photographs a number of targets were selected for field investigation.
The field work was initiated in the northwestern part of the property. Here, along the
interface of the cypress slough and the pinelands, it was anticipated that prehistoric sites
might occur from which a predictive site model for sites in this area could be determined.
The AHC team transversed an eight mile route through this heavily overgrown area on the
first day. Judgmental shovel tests were dug along the margin of the hammocks and cypress,
on rises in the cypress slough and on the rocky rises in the northeastern part of section 21.
In addition, a local informant and avocational archaeologist, John Beriault, took the AHC
team to site 8CR726, which the Southwest Florida Archaeologist Society (SWFAS) had
located within the right -of -way of State Road 951 when it had been cleared for a utility line.
In the areas between the selected targets, our routes were somewhat judgmental, making an
effort to cover as much of the ground as possible. Testing was done for six days. Each
day's route covered approximately eight miles, progressively covering the property from the
northwest to southeast. Shovel tests placement was based on the judgement of the
investigator. All recovered sediments were sifted through a 1/4" screen. Materials from the
positive tests were generally uncollected except in the case of diagnostic materials. Where a
positive test was encountered, other test holes were dug to obtain a general definition of the
site boundaries. These site locations were then recorded both on the aerial photographs and
the USGS Belle Meade topographical survey map.
It was determined that some of these sites had components beginning at 60 cm below the
surface. Because of the site depth there was a concern that material was being missed during
testing so the AHC team switched from shovel testing to a post -hole digger during the last
days of the survey. Negative tests were taken to bedrock, which seldom exceeded 1.4
meters below the surface; positive tests were taken to a sterile levels or one meter,
whichever was deeper.
20
161 J ' a9
RESULTS
A total of seven sites was assessed in the project area. One of these, 8CR726, had been
previously recorded. In addition, six previously unrecorded sites were located during this
survey. These are sites numbered sequentially from 8CR747 through 8CR752. Six of these
sites were clustered around the cypress slough in the southeastern portion of section 22. The
other site is at the northern point of the cypress slough located in section 34.
All sites are relatively high on elevations covered by hardwood hammocks and are located
adjacent to large cypress sloughs. These hammock elevations represent knolls of limestone
bedrock. It is interesting to note that none of these rises are noted on the Collier County soil
survey map. In fact, the most recent soil survey (1/90) ignores the presence of the cypress
swamp in section 22, a swamp clearly indicated on the 1942 soil survey.
All of the sites seem to represent Late Archaic period and early Glades period habitation and
extractive sites. This is indicated by early pottery types which include plain sand tempered
and one sherd of fiber tempered pottery.
Although these sites are on the highest elevations in the area, these knolls are still low
enough to have been inundated during high water periods. This would have precluded their
use during later times, due to the rising water table in the region. In most cases the cultural
horizons were encountered at a depth of 15 cm to 20 em below surface. In one case, midden
material was not encountered until 60 cm depth below the surface. It should be noted that
the sites 8CR749 and 8CR751, both of which had components that started at greater depths,
did not have the organic black hammock top soil often encountered on tree island sites.
Rather, the I.ely sites were characterized by mottled grey sandy soil to a depth of about 25
cm, with a brown sandy soil beneath to 45 cm and as deep as 60 cm, where a grey soil is
encountered. It is this soil type where the archaeological material is located.
Each of the seven sites are described below:
Site Name: Buschelman Site
State Site Number:
Location:
Environmental Setting:
Site Type:
8CR726
T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 22
Hardwood Hammock
Prehistoric Midden
21
16 1 1 A9
Site Function: Habitation
Description: The site is at the headwaters of Henderson Creek which
empties into Rookery Bay. This site is one of a group of
sites situated around a large untamed cypress slough.
These sites lie on limestone knolls covered by dense
hammock vegetation which border the slough. The
Buschelman site is the largest of these sites. At the north
end of the site the slough swings to the east where it
crosses State Road 951. The site parallels the eastern
boundary of the slough but the site's exact eastern
boundary is unclear. Vegetation there includes live oaks,
scrub oak, palmetto, sabal palm, wild grape and fern.
Its highest point is about 35 centimeters above the
wetlands to the west.
This site was initially located by the Southwest Florida
Archaeological Society (SWFAS) in April /May of 1991
and recorded by Dr. David Dickel during his Collier
County archaeological survey during the same year. The
site was reassessed during this project which revealed
several discrepancies with the previously recorded data.
The typed form prepared by Dr. Dicke] for the Florida
Site File indicated that he did not visit this site but rather
used the information provided to him by SWFAS. That
information was incorrect in several aspects. For
example, the site is to the west, not the east of SR 951,
as indicated in the form. The site form indicates it is at
the intersection of Sabal Palm Road and SR 951, but in
fact, it is at least 1000 feet north of that point. The
other discrepancy is the estimate of site size (which is
understandable considering their access was limited to the
road right -of -way). The original site size estimate is 20
by 25 meters and limited to within or close to the SR 951
right -of -way. This study indicates the site is about 300
meters (1100 feet),north to south with its western
boundaries paralleling the edge of a cypress slough. The
site is about 30 - 40 meters wide, obviously favoring the
area closest to the slough. Our testing did not encounter
midden materials until 30 cm below the surface, with
cultural material continuing to a depth of 60 em. This
varied, but generally the midden was not on.or -near the
surface except in an area of disturbance within the road
right -of -way. Plain sand tempered pottery sherds were
22
16 11 A9
the only ceramic type encountered. There was also
extensive faunal bones, such as snake turtle, fish, deer,
bird, as well as a small amount of marine shell.
Chronolgy: Prehistoric: Glades I
Collections: Sand tempered plain pottery
Previous Research: Southwest Florida Archaeological Society (1991), Dickle
1991
Preservation Quality: Good
Site Name: Lely #1
State Site Number: 8CR747
Location: T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 22
Environmental Setting: Hardwood Hammock
Site Type: Prehistoric Midden
Site Function: Habitation
Description: This site is part of a complex of Late Archaic to early
Glades period sites which surround a cypress slough.
These sites are located on limestone rises which suround
this slough and tend to concentrate along the upland
interface of the slough. The slough is east of this site.
The north end of the site terminates in a rocky knoll
which extends westward about 75 meters. The midden
follows the slough edge westward. Tests here indicated
that the midden contains sand tempered plain ceramics
and dense faunal bone. The midden extends west at this
point, following the rock rise. At the south end of the
island, where the island is lower, the midden is limited
to the island's edge, possibly extending no more than 15
meters west from the interface of the island and the
slough. This site is the second largest of the sites
located around the cypress slough. Its elevation may
23
1611
have made it habitable into times more recent than the
Glades I period.
Chronology: Late Archaic Period, Glades I
Collections: Sand tempered plain ceramics; Faunal bone, (i.e.
manatee, shark (vertebrate and teeth), oyster, conch,
turtle, fish, snake, deer); marine shell refuse.
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: Excellent
Site Name: L.ely #2
State Site Number: 8CR748
Location: T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 34
Environmental Setting: Hardwood Hammock
Site Type:
Madden
Site Function:
Habitation
Description:
This site is located at the north end of a cypress slough.
The site is within a hardwood hammock island that is
about 40 cm above the surrounding wetlands. It is now
bordered on the north by a man made lake. Spoil from
the lake construction covers part of the north edge of the
site and thus,the exact site boundaries are unknown. The
[Hidden is concentrated on the western half of the island.
The western portion of the island has live oak and
palmetto with rocky limestone exposed on the surface.
The eastern side of the island is lower and has some pine
which apparently reflects this lower elevation.
Chronology:
Late Archaic, Glades I
Collections:
Sand tempered plain ceramics; Faunal bone (ie. small
amount of turtle, fish and snake bone)
24
X
Site Name:
State Site Number:
Location:
Lely k4
8CR751
T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 22
E
16 1 A9
Previous Research:
None
Preservation Quality:
Good
Site Name:
Lely ✓t3
State Site Number:
8CR749
Location:
T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 22
Environmental Setting:
Hardwood Hammock
Site Type:
Midden
Site Function:
Habitation
Description:
This site is located on a low sandy island. The island
rises only about 30 cm above the slough to the east. The
site is roughly circular in shape being about 100 feet in
diameter and supports sabal palm and oaks. Soil is a
medium grey to medium dark sand on the surface. The
midden horizon was encountered at a depth of 45 em and
continues to a depth of 80 em in a medium grey soil.
Site 8CR747, located just to the south, reflects
considerable activity during the Glades I period and this
activity may have "spilled over" onto this site.
Chronology:
Late Archaic, Glades I
Collections:
Faunal bone (i.e. turtle, fish, snake)
Previous Research:
None
Preservation Quality:
Excellent
Site Name:
State Site Number:
Location:
Lely k4
8CR751
T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 22
E
Site Name: Lely M5
State Site Name: 8CR750
Location: T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 22
Environmental Setting: Hardwood Hammock
Site Type: Midden
Site Function: Habitation
Description: This is low sandy rise with a limestone subtrate. The
eastern part of this island is sharply bounded by the
26
16 I f A9
Environmental Setting:
Hardwood Hammock
Site Type:
Midden
Site Function:
Habitation
Description:
This site is on a low rise on the north side of a cypress
slough. The elevation here is low, as is at sites 8CR749
and 8CR750. The site is about 300 feet in length. The
midden begins at varing depths of 45 to 60 cm and
continues to a depth of one meter. It is associated with
the lower medium brown or tan sandy soils and at some
points it is also found above this in the medium grey
soil, starting at about 45 cm. The bone which includes
snake, turtle and fish recovered is highly mineralized.
No ceramics or marine shell were discovered. The
vegetation is live oak, palmetto, and fern. There is a
dump or an old hunting camp, ca. 1950 -1973, at the west
end of the hammock.
Chronology:
Late Archaic
Collections:
Faunal bone (ie. snake, turtle, fish)
Previous Research:
None
Preservation Quality:
Good
Site Name: Lely M5
State Site Name: 8CR750
Location: T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 22
Environmental Setting: Hardwood Hammock
Site Type: Midden
Site Function: Habitation
Description: This is low sandy rise with a limestone subtrate. The
eastern part of this island is sharply bounded by the
26
161 1.
slough. The western portion of the site slopes gradually
imperceptibly in a pine and cypress flatwoods. The
site's vegetation is scrub and live oak, sabal palm,
palmetto, wild grape and fern. The soil is generally very
sandy. At the extreme east edge, along the slough, is a
darker organic soil which is the densest part of the
midden, although a thin scatter of cultural material
continues along the eastern and northern edge of the
island. A fiber - tempered ceramic sherd was recovered
from one of the test holes. No other pottery was found.
Chronology: Late Archaic Period (ca. 1000 -1500 B.C.)
Collections: (1) sherd of fiber- tempered ceramic; faunal bone
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: Excellent
Site Name: Lely N 6
State Site Number: 8CR752
Location:
T. 50S, R. 26E, Section 22
Environmental Setting:
Hardwood Hammock
Site Type:
Midden
Site Function:
Habitation
Description:
Of the six sites known to be in association with the
cypress slough in section 22, this is the third highest
elevation. Located on a rocky substrate, the island has
about 40 cm of soil above the bedrock. The island is
roughly circular and is about 100 feet in diameter.
There are sabal palm, live oak mixed with palmetto, wild
grape and fern. The vegetation is somewhat open at its
center. Cultural material includes plain sherds of sand
tempered ceramics, faunal material is typical, such as
snake, fish, turtle.
27
161 1 A9
Chronology: late Archaic Period
Collections: None
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: Excellent
28
TRACT [6
(T
0
9CLL[ N t[tT
16
LELY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
LQi tU TV6Al Rows
M 761
CA 747
OR 726
TRACT 20
TRACT 30 jf -.. ^ it TRACT 2A
Figure 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SITES OF HENDERSON SLOUGH,
LELY PARCEL.
KEY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
D CYPRESS SLOUGH
Q GOLF COURSE
29
HAMMOCK WOE
..o,... ROAD
- -- TRACT OR SUB-
DIVISION BOUNDARY
1611 A9
RECOMMENDATIONS
Seven prehistoric archaeological sites were assessed on the project property (Figure 1). All
of these are regarded as being of either local and /or state wide significance and six of these
(Figure 2) would be regarded as potentially eligible for listing on National Register of
Historic Places; either as individual sites or as a thematic archaeological district
encompassing the six sites. The seventh site, 8CR748, is regarded as being of local
significance, and may be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
The State of Florida's guidelines for the protection of significant archaeological sites provide
that such sites be avoided by development and set aside as green space preservation areas.
However, if preservation of all or parts of these sites is demonstrated by the developer as not
being feasible, than the State could allow for the mitigation of any site loss by requiring that
professional archaeological excavations, analysis, and a report be conducted to provide a
record of the site.
If development or clearing is contemplated for an area directly adjacent to a site, than an
additional archaeological assessment might be required to determine exact site boundaries and
then placing stakes in the ground along these site boundaries as visible references for
surveyors or clearing crews, so that the site can be avoided during these activities.
The three redeposited areas of shell midden found on the project parcel (Figure I) represent
borrowed fill from coastal shell mounds (possibly from Key Marco). The material was
moved onto the property prior to the 1960's to use as road 611 and elevated pads for
structures. The fill is characterized by extensive marine shell and some pottery sherds. This
material is of little or no scientific value, and will pose no restrictions or constraints on
proposed development.
The following section represents specific recommendations and comments for each of the
seven assessed sites.
Site 8CR726, Buschelntan Site
This is the largest of all of the sites assessed. Preservation of all or part of this site would
be considered desirable. if any part of the site is subject to clearing or development then
comprehensive archaeological investigations will need to be conducted.
Site 8CR747, Lely N1
This site is located on the west side of the cypress slough. Its exact boundaries are uncertain
because of the thick vegetation prevented extensive subsurface testing. Preservation of all or
part of this site may be preferable to reviewing agencies with particular emphasis on
30
16I l A9 �a
preserving the areas of densest concentration nearest the slough. If preservation is not
feasible for all or part of this site, than archaeological excavations will be required.
Site 8CR748, Lely #2
This site is directly adjacent to a lake and is small enough that its preservation as part of the
small hardwood hammock located there may be easily facilitated. If preservation is not
feasible than mitigative archaeological excavations will be required.
Site 8CR749, Lely p3
This site is also on the west side of the large cypress slough. Reviewing agencies will
probably prefer preservation of this site, and it may be small enough to be part of a set back
green space adjacent to any proposed development. If preservation of this site is not
feasible, then mitigative archaeological investigations will be required.
Site 8CR750, Lely #5
This site is also relatively small and it may be possible to incorporate the site as part of a
green space buffer. If preservation is not feasible than archaeological investigations will be
required.
Site 8CR751, Lely N4
This site is on the north side of the slough. if preservation is not feasible than archaeological
investigations will need to be conducted.
Site 8CR752, Lely N6
This site is within the wetland setback, and its preservation is compatible with the current
project plan. If preservation is not feasible, than archaeological investigations will need to
be conducted.
31
161 1 A9
CONCLUSIONS
The locations for the sites on the Lely parcel appear to have been chosen by their inhabitants
as a result of two factors - their high elevation and their relative proximity to waterways,
now existing in remnant form as cypress sloughs or swamps. Prior to drainage activities
these wetlands connected to Rookery Bay and would have allowed direct canoe travel from
the coast to the interior. The recovery of marine shell, such as oyster and conch, as well as
shark vertebrate and teeth indicate the exchange and movement of coastal resources into the
interior.
It is worth noting two of these sites were encountered at a considerable depth and these
factors should not be overlooked by future investigators. Although these factors make these
sites somewhat elusive, it should be further noted that they are still conspicuous because of
their association with an elevated rise and hammock vegetation such as oak, palmetto and
cabbage palm.
32
161'1 A9
CITED
Allerton, David and Robert S. Carr
1988 An archaeological survey of the Shell Big Cypress seismic project (DNR permit G81-
86). Manuscript on file, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami,
Florida.
Almy, Marion M. and Joan G. Deming
1982 Cultural resources survey of the Emerald Lakes tract in northwest, Collier County,
Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota. FMSF # 902.
1986a Archaeological assessment survey of Twelve Lakes, Collier County, Florida.
Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota.
1986b Archaeological assessment of Bretonne Park, Collier County, Florida. Archaeological
Consultants Inc., Sarasota.
1986c Archaeological assessment of City Gate Commercial Park, Collier County, Florida.
Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota.
1987 Archaeological assessment survey of designated portions of the woodlands in Collier
County, Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota.
Athens, W. P.
1983 The Spatial Distribution of Glades Period Sites Within the Big Cypress National
Preserve, Florida. Masters thesis on file, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Austin, R.J.
1987 Cultural resource assessment of a proposed thirty acre Seminole housing project in
Collier County, Florida. Piper Archaeological Research Inc., St. Petersburg,
Florida.
Beriault, John G.
1973 A preliminary report on the area known as Collier -Coral ridge tract, southwest
Florida. Unpublished Ms, on file at FMSF, Tallahassee and AHC, Miami.
1987 Suggestions for a Collier County site model, a report submitted to the Archeological
and Historical Conservancy, December 15th, 1987. Ms on file, AHC.
Beriault, John G., Robert S. Carr, John Stipp, R. Johnson and J. Meeder
1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 34:39 -58.
33
161 1 A9
Beriault, John G. and Charles Strader
1984 A preliminary report on stratigraphic excavation on Chokoloskee Island, Florida.
Southwest Florida Archaeological Society, MS on file, AHC.
Bullen, R. P. and A.K. Bullen
1956 Excavation on Cape Haze peninsula, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State
Museum. Social Sciences 1, Gainesville, Florida.
Carbone, Victor A.
1983 Late Quaternary environments in Florida and the southeast. The Florida
Anthropologist 36:3 -17.
Carr, Robert S.
1986 Preliminary Report of on excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site (8DA2001) in southern
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 39:231 -232.
1989 An archaeological and historical survey of part of the Williamson property, Collier
County, Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. FMSF
2458
Carr, Robert S. and David Allerton
1988a An archaeological survey of North Keywadin Island, Collier County, Florida,
Report on file at AHC, Miami, Florida.
1988b An archaeological and historical assessment of the Goodland Marina project tract,
Collier County, Florida. Ms on file, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy,
Miami, Florida.
Carr, Robert S. and John G. Beriault
1984 Prehistoric man in south Florida, in Environments of South Florida: Present and Past
11 pp 1 -14. PJ Gleason editor, Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables.
Cockrell, Wilburn A.
1970 Glades I and Pre - Glades Settlement and Subsistence Pattern on Marco Island (Collier
County, Florida). M.A. thesis on file, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
Cockrell, Wilburn A. and L. Murphy
1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America Vol 6. Eastern
States Archaeological Federation, Newark, Delaware.
Craighead, Frank C.
1971 The Trees of South Florida, Vol. 1. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
34
161 "1 A9
Cumba, S. L.
1971 A Comparison of Animal Bone From Six Indian Sites on Marco Island, Florida.
Unpublished Ms, FMSF 2485
Cushing, F.H.
1897 Exploration of Ancient Key - Dwellers' Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia 35 (153):1- 329 -448.
Daniel, R.I. and M. Wisenbaker
1987 Harney Flats. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, New York.
Davis, J. H.
1943 The natural features of southern Florida. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 25,
Delcourt, P.A. and H.R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation maps for eastern North America: 40,000 years B.P. to present, in
Geobotany 11. RC Romans editor, Olenum Publishing Press, New York, New York.
Deming, Joan G. and Marion Almy
1987 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Audobon Country Club Tract in
Northwest Collier County, Florida Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota,
Florida. (FMSF 1487)
1988 Mitigative excavation at selected portions of site complex 8CR680 in northwest
Collier County, Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc, Sarasota, Florida. (FMSF
1813)
Dickle, David and Robert S. Carr
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Collier County Phase I, Florida. Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy Technical Report 1138, Miami, Florida.
Doran, Glenn H., David N. Dickel and L.A. Newsom
1990 A 7,290 year old bottle gourd from the Windover site, Florida. American Antiquity
55(2):354 -360.
Douglass, A. E.
1885 Ancient Canals on the south -west coast of Florida. American Antiquarian 7:227 -285
1890 Mounds in Florida. American Antiquarian 12:105 -107
Durnford, C. D.
1895 The discovery of aboriginal rope and wood implements in the mud of west Florida.
American Naturalist 29:1032-1039
35
1611 A9
Ehrenhard, J.E., Robert S. Carr, and Robert C. Taylor
1978 The Archaeological Survey of Big Cypress National Preserve: Phase L National Park
Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee Florida.
1979 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archaeological Survey Season 2. National Park
Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee Florida.
Ehrenhard,J.E. and R. C. Taylor
1980 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archaeological Survey Season 3. National Park
Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee Florida.
Ehrethard, J.E., R. C. Taylor, and G. Komara
1980 Big Cypress National Preserve Cultural Resource Inventory Season 4. National Park
Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee Florida.
Estabrook, R.W.
1989 Cultural resource assessment survey of the Pelican Bay development site, Collier
County, Florida. Piper Archaeological Research Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida.
FMSF MS# 1862
Fay, Patricia and Robert S. Carr
1990 An archaeological review of select sites of impact in the National Panther Refuge,
Collier County, Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Technical
Report 22, Miami, Florida.
Werni, Phillip and Gladys Cook
1986 Historical /Architectural Survey of Collier County, Florida. Florida Preservation
Services, Tallahassee, Florida.
Fuhrmeister, C., R.J. Austin, and H. Hansen
1990 Cultural resource assessment survey of the Collier tract 22 development site, Collier
County, Florida. Piper Archaeological Research Inc. St. Petersburg, Florida.
FMSF 2423
Goggin, John M.
1939 A ceramic sequence in south Florida. New Mexico Anthropologist 3:36 -40.
1947 A preliminary definition of archaeological areas and periods in Florida. American
Antiquity 13:114 -127.
1949a Cultural Occupation at Goodland Point, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 2 (3 -4):
65 -91
36
4611 � A9
1949b The archaeology of the Glades area. Unpublished Ms on file, SE Archaeological
Research Center, NPS, Tallahassee, FL.
1949c Cultural traditions in Florida prehistory. In The Florida Indians and His Neighbors,
JW Griffin, Editor, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida.
1964 Indian and Spanish Selected Writings. Coral Gables, University of Miami Press.
Goggin, John M. and William C. Sturtevant
1964 The Calusa: a stratified, nonagricultural society (with notes on sibling marriage). PP
179 -291 In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology Essays in Honor of George Peter
Murdock, Whodenough, editor, McGraw Hill, New York, New York.
Griffin, John W.
1949 Notes on the archaeology of Useppa Island. The Florida Anthropologist 2:92.
1965 Archaeological survey Everglades National Park, January 1964. Unpublished Ms on
file, FMSF II 904.
1974 Archaeology and environment in south Florida. pp 342 -346 in Environments in South
Florida: Present and Past 11. PJ Gleason, editor, Miami Geological Society, Miami,
Florida.
1988 The Archaeology of Everglades National Park: a Synthesis. National Park Service,
Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.
Harry, C. and G. Audry
1977 Investigation on the Pumpkin River. Unpublished Ms on file, AHC.
Hela, 1.
1952 Remarks on the climate of southern Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf
and Caribbean 2: 438 -447,
Hrdlicka, A.
1922 The Anthropology of Florida. Publications of the Florida State Historical Society 1.
Deland, Florida.
Kenworthy, CA.
1883 Ancient canals in Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1881: 105 -109.
Kroeber, A.L.
1939 Cultural and Natural Areas in Native North America. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
37
16 11, A9
Laxson, D.D.
1966 The Turner River Jungle Gardens Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 19:125 -140.
Martinez, C.
1977 Archaeological and historical survey and assessment of the proposed Collier county
201 waste water management facilities, Collier county, Florida. Russell & Axon Inc.
AND Smally, Wellford, & Nalven Inc. FMSF manuscript # 257.
McMichaels, A.
1982 A Cultural Resource Assessment of Hurts Island, Collier County, Florida. MA thesis,
Department of Anthropology University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Milanich, J.T., J. Chapman, A. S. Cordell, Stephen Hale, and Rochelle Marrinan
1984 Prehistoric development of Calusa society in southwest Florida: excavation on Useppa
Island. pp 258 -314 in Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory. DD Davis editor,
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Milanich, J.T. and C. H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, New York.
Moore, C. B.
1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural
Science, Philadelphia 11:369 -394.
1905 Miscellaneous Investigations in Florida. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia 13:299 -325
1907 Notes on the Ten Thousand Islands. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia 13:458 -470.
Morrell, R.L.
1969 Fiber- tempered pottery from southwestern Florida. Abstract of presented paper,
American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, on file at
AHC.
Miller, J.J. and M.L. Fryman
1978 An archaeological and historical survey of the Collier Bay tract, Marco Island.
Cultural Resource Managment Inc, Tallahassee, Fl. FMSF manuscript # 3124
Russo, M.
1990 Report I on Archaeological Investigations by the Florida Museum of Natural History
at Horr's island, Collier County, Florida. FMSF 2353
38
161 1 A9
Scholl, D.W., F.C. Craighead, and M. Stuvier
1969 Florida submergence curve revisited: its relation to coastal sedimentation rates.
Science 163:562 -564.
Sears, William H.
1956 The Turner River Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 9(2):47-
60.
1966 Everglades National Park Archaeological Base Mapping Part I. Unpublished, FMSF
MS# 1009
1967 Archaeological survey of the Cape Coral area at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee
River. The Florida Anthropologist 20: 93 -102.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Simons, M.H.
1884 Shell heaps in Charlotte harbor, Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for
1882: 794 -796.
Smith, B.
1944 Memoir of Do. d'Escalante Fontaneda Respecting Florida, Written in Spain About the
Year 1575. (English translation by Smith, edited by David True). University
of Miami and Historical Association of South Florida.
Stirling, M.W.
1931 Mounds of the vanished Calusa Indians of Florida. Smithsonian Institution
Explorations and Field Work for 1930: 167 -172.
1933 Report of the chief. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 48:3 -21
1936 Florida cultural affiliations in relation to adjacent areas. In Essays in Anthropology in
Honor of Alfred Louis Kroeber, pp 351 -357. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Swift, Ashley and Robert S. Carr
1989 An archaeological survey of Caxambas Estates, Collier County, Florida.
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Technical Report #13, Miami,
Florida.
Taylor, Robert C.
1984 Everglades National Park Archaeological Inventory and Assessment Season 2: Interim
Report. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee,
39
161 1 A9
Florida.
1985 Everglades National Park Archaeological Inventory and Assessment Season 3: Interim
Report, National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Taylor, R.C. and G. Komara
1983 Big Cypress National Preserve Archaeological Survey: Season 5. National Park
Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.
Thomas, T. M.
1974 A detailed analysis of climatological and hydrological records of south Florida with
reference to man's influence on the ecosystem evolution. pp 82 -122 in
Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, PC Gleason editor. Miami
Geological Society, Coral Gables.
USDA
1954 Soil Survey, Detailed Reconnaissance, Collier County, Florida. USDA Soil
Conservation Service.
Van Beck, J.C. and L. M. Van Beck
1965 The Marco Midden, Marco Island, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 1:1 -20
Watts, W. A.
1975 A late Quaternary record of vegetation from Lake Annie, south central Florida.
Geology 3:344 -346
Widmer, R.J.
1974 A survey and assessment of archaeological resources on Marco Island, Collier
County, Florida. Ms on file, FMSF N 265.
1983 The Evolution of The Calusa, a Non - agricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida
Coast. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University, distributed by University
Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
40
` 1611 A9
Figure 1: MAP OF PROJECT AREA
AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES r�� PROJECT BOUNDARY
• ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
O REDEPOSITED SITE
R.E. '93
-
- Ya�.npfy
Z
Ilk -
r
�
f
CR 757
q
-
CR 7SI '•
' --
CR 7306
_
-
I C 749•
R
CR 747410:
ai
-
Cit
ii'hjl(Y �iyQ4�. /.fib
�
if
jI
h� h
CR 148
31
Is
� !
r
�t
..
.
iaa weo xv.
ax mm rn-n
_
roro nrr _.
`.
h
Figure 1: MAP OF PROJECT AREA
AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES r�� PROJECT BOUNDARY
• ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
O REDEPOSITED SITE
R.E. '93
X.
04
TRACT 20
LELY ELENENTAPY SCH00t
LELY CVIYUPAL DPV!
}• CA ]51
V uT
CA TSD i
(, CR 152
CA ]49
161 s A9
0
CA ]4]
CR 726
TRACT 25
TRACT 09 _ ✓ if TRACT 24
Figure 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SITES OF HENDERSON SLOUGH,
LELY PARCEL.
KEY
MM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE HAMMOCK EDGE
n goo ]oo ADD Aoo
L-7 CYPRESS SLOUGH ROAD
SCALE IN [((]
h GOLF COURSE TRACT OR SUE -
t DIVISION BOUNDARY
16 I 1 REAEi 0 ✓
ED
MAY 12 2010
6oara of county Commis&onery
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES t/
APR. 89 2010 Fiala
Halas
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION Henning
Coyle
Coletta�°-
ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief
Donna Fiala. BCC Commissioner
Kirk Colvin, Chairman
Kevin Walsh, Advisory Board Member
Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member
Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member
Joe Langkawel, Board Member
Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer
I. CALL TO ORDER
Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Chiefs Report.
B. March 2010 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes.
1. Copy of Minutes distributed.
2. Motion to approve March 2010 Minutes by Joe Langkawel.
a. Motion seconded by Jim Gault.
b. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Colvin.
C. ICFD Dock Project.
1. Army Corps of Engineers has approved the project.
2. FWC has approved the project pending DEP approval.
3. A Collier County Permit is the final permit to be obtained.
Misc. Cones
Date: �� D
111. NEW BUSINESS item#:1"_�
A. Discussion of FYI I IT Charges of $18,900. ^ 'nies to
1. IT charges have risen 661% in 5 yrs. from $2,482 in 2007.
16 1 1 A10
2. IT charges include $2,068 per computer and $527 per FTE.
3. ICFD has no dispute with $200 per computer IT Capital Allocation.
4. ICFD has no dispute with per radio charges of $105.
5. IT charges increased in FYI I despite BCC direction for depts. to cut 5 %.
6. On Apr. 6, Director Barry Axelrod discussed IT charges with ICFD.
a. Chief Rodriguez, Kirk Colvin & Barbara Shea attended the meeting.
b. Mr. Axelrod stated IT charges will rise again in FY 2012.
c. In FYI 2, IT Capital Allocation will rise to $500 per computer.
d. IT has not analyzed who the users are for each IT product/service.
7. For cost savings, ICFD could remove 2 or 3 computers from the IT server.
a. ICFD would achieve cost savings of $2,268 per computer.
b. ICFD is investigating the removal of the CAD computer from 1T.
c. Mr. Axelrod is not opposed to the removal of computers from IT.
8. Board members discussed whether the county explored outsourcing IT.
9. A large portion of IT expense is for public access to County information.
a. The General Fund should fund this expense.
b. Currently all county departments are paying for this public access.
B. Discussion of how to cut expenses on IT by ICFD.
L Comm. Fiala suggests a letter be written by ICFD Advisory Board.
a. Letter to Dan Summers outlining our request.
b. Copies to Leo Ochs, Barry Axelrod, and Commissioner Fiala.
2. Request assistance in removing 2 or 3 computers from IT prior to May 1.
3. Cost savings will offset declining property tax revenues.
4. ICFD revenues are strictly from ad valorem taxes.
5. ICFD will retain possession of all of our five computers.
6. Letter to be completed, signed and sent by April 12.
C. The Canoe Races will be held on Saturday, May 8.
1. EMS, Ochopee & N.Naples rescue boats will assist Boat 90.
2. MedFlight will be stationed on the ICFD helipad ready for transport.
3. Emergency Management Command Bus will assist.
D. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be held May. 6, 2010.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Kirk Colvin at 7:40 p.m.
1. Motion seconded by Ted Decker.
2. Motion carried unanimously.
Approved:� —
Date: 5201 0- - - - - --
RECEIVED
MAy 1 1 2010
Board of county commiswner6
Fiala
Halas 1611 All
Doyle
Caletta
April 12, 2010
%,JlN`[ Tl:,,S OF THL MEETING OF'111E CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISOR' COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, April 12, y 0
')-0
LB `C I'1 BE RFMINBERLI), that the Conservation Collier Land
Acyoisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County ofCollier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in RFGULAR
SESSION at Administrative Buildim, -v" 3' Floor, Collier County
Gm ernment Complex Naples, hlorida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN
VICI3 CHAIRMAN
Bill Poteet
Michael lVate
Fonv Pires
Jeffrey Curl
kremv Sterk
I*homas Sobczak
Annisa Karim
Clarence fears (Absent)
Lauren Barber
At SO PRI SI <N I': Alexandra Solecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator
Jenniter White, Assistant County Attorney
Cindv Erb, Real Property Managcrncnl
Melissa Hcnnig. Prin'L nyirOnmental Spec. - Program Man.
Misc. Cc:
Date b
1611811
April 12, 2010
1. Roll Call
Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:03AM. Roll call was taken and a
quorum was established.
11. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Sterk moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Me, Delate. Carried
unanimously 8 -0.
111. Approval of March 8, 2010 Minutes
Ms. Karim moved to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2010 meeting. Second by
Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 8 -0.
IV. Old Business
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management provided the following updates:
A. Real Property Management Update — A -list properties
Devisse — closed on March 21, 2010
Kirby — scheduled to close on May 17, 2010.
Winchester Head — A local landowner in Winchester Ilead has contacted Staff
regarding the possibility of selling their parcel to Conservation Collier. She
requested Committee direction on the issue. The current appraisal values would
be utilized in tcnderine an off r.
Mr. Pires maned for Staff to communicate an offer to the landowner in
Winchester Head. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 8 -0.
1. Contracts - Murphy
Cindy Erb presented the Executive "Approve anAg eement for Sale and
Purchase far i 0 acre under the Conservation Collier Lard Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed 334,1 ?? (blmphv)" dated April 12, 2010 and attached
agreement for Agreement for Sale and purchase For approval.
Mr. Pires moved to recanrnend to the Board of County Commissioners,
approval of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase for the Murphy parcel as
presented. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 8 - 0.
The Committee requested Staff to provide dates of the appraisals jor the
parcels considered for acquisition.
M Cosentino — Discussion regarding CCLAAC recommendatinn
Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist, Program Manager,
reported the concept of providing an allowance to Mr. Cosentino for "clean up" of
his property is not prohihited, however would besetting a prcecdent.
Mr. Delate noted the concept was based on the fact Mr. Cosentioo's property was
part of-the original Rivers Road applications and placed on the 13-list. Since that
time, the property value has decreased substantially {compared to the other
acquisitions in the area ofthe Rivers Road project) making an allowance a
reasonable request.
1611
April 12, 2010
Speaker
eaker
Paul Cosentino, landowner requested clarification if the allowance was fx
$15,000 or "up to 515,000." It was his understanding, based on the previous
meeting and discussions, it is "for SI5,000.-
7fie ( orwniIlee clarified the alloys °once it far "clean up' oftne property `up fo"
S15.000.
V. Budget Recommendations— Theresestanley, Sr. Budget Analyst will attend to respond
to questions
I lie Committee reviewed a handout `{ onse- I'volforr t'vllier Lun A4arrver+arc e 1•invcl (l74)
Pry /acted Expenses OMd Revenues h Y'004 1,l '020,"
Therese Stanley J.,cussed that taxable values are decreasing and that interest rates may be
lower than ori'linalh Inojected, which mill aftect progran; finances.
VL Gordon River Greenway Project
A. General Update — Jeff Curl
Barry Williams, Director Marls & Recreation Department and
"Tony Ruberto, Project Manager, Parks & Recreation Department will attend
to respond to questions
Alex Sulecki provided it copy of the Overall Project Site Plan titled `Gordon
River Greernrav Park'' prepared by Kimberly -1 lore and Assoc., dated March 5,
2010 for review_
Barry Williams addressed the Committee noting the prof €ct was originally under
the auspices of the Transportation Department, but ro- directed to the Parks and
Recivation Department, He asked ifthc Committee has any questions regarding
the project and the following was noted:
A parking area µas rc- located to the northeast corner of the project due to
Gopher'Forioise habitat concerns.
• A walkway over Golden Gate Parkway connecting Freedom Park to the
Project is under consideration.
Mr. Delate, Chairman of the Lands Evaluation and Management
Subcommittee noted the Subcommittee has discussed the requirements of the
width ollhc BoardsvalklPathvva�c'Bridge on the Conservation Collier properties,
'They are considering reconnncnding a 5 toot wide pathway and boardwalk due to
budget concerns, and to ensure consistent standards are provided for Preserves
within the Proe am.
Chairman Poteet noted it is critical to ensure all Stakeholders have the necessary
input in developing the overall Plan and recommended communications continue
to improve the overall end result ofthe project.
Speakers
Ellie Krier, Lsxecuiive Director Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust
noted the proposed plan is 30% complete" and continues to be a fluid document,
The overpass over Golden Gate Parkway may be accommodated at Freedom Park,
1611 All
April 12, 2,010
however this would be the last phase of any construction. The project will create
more public use and exposure for ti Conservation Collier property. For Federal
Grant funding, a 10 foot minimum width (12 Foot width is recommended) for
path wayiboardwalk are required. Proposing 5 foot wide pathways could
negatively impact this funding
Alan Ryker, :Naples Pathway Coalitimh expressed concern over a 5 foot wide
path w ay/boa rdwalk due to Federal funding concerns. .also, narrower widths may
cause a safety concern given the large amount of traffic the area will endure.
'red Soliday, Executive. Director, Naples Airport Authority noted the
Authority is in supportive of the project and supports wider width pathways,
They are interested in partnering with Conservation Collier on the project,
including removal of vegetation on the properties interfering with Airport
operations.
Paul Cosentino, requested the Committee revisit item V ht forfurther clarification
on the allowannce for the SI5, 000 to "cleat up" his property and the status of the
Phase I and Phase 11 Environntenutl Assessment
Alex Sulecki stated the approved minutes do not reflect the motion was for "up to
$15060.,,
Chairman Poteet noted, and the Committee agreed, the allowance is "up to
SI5, 000 for cleanup. " The County will he responsible for the costs associated
with the Phase 1 Assessment, and V required, the landowner will be responsible
for the costs associated with a Phase Il Assessment. Mr. Cosentino will be
required to submit invoices for the work and the County will reimburse the costs
associated with the "clean up" expendinoev (up to SIS, 000).
Committee discussion occurred on the required width of the pathways on
Conservation Collier properties and the related ramifications (5 vs. 10 foot
widths), including the parcel will be a thruway with connection to other parcels in
the Greenway, public it on the site will be greater than other Preserves,
hording considerations, etc,
Chairman Poteet requested the Committee formulate a motion to provide
direction to those developing the overall site plan.
tYlr. Curl moved in reference to the Conservation Collier properties in the
Gordon River Greenway, the following be recommended to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding the trail system:
1. A 12 foot width for multi - purpose pathways.
2. A 10 foot width for the Boardwalk and the Bridge.
3. The materials utilized for cortstruclion of Pathways within Conservation
properties may differ front those tailived far pathway construction in the
remaining areas of the Gordon River C >reemvuy Project.
April 12, 2010
4. The cost associated with the construction of the Conservation Cotner
Pathwr>_vs he identified in the Conservation Cotner Master Budget.
Second by Chairman Poteet.
Discussion occurred with some members noting, at this point. it is premature to
discuss the materials and costs associated with the pathways and mould prefer
specifying only the widths.
Motion failed 7 "no" -- I "yes ". Chairman Poteet, dlr. Delate, Mr. Pires, Ms.
Karim, Ms. Barher, 11r. Sterk mud .11r. Sobczak voted "no."
Mr. Sterk moved in reference to the Conservation Collier properties in the
Gordon River Greenway, the following he recommended to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding the traits .system:
1. A l 2 fool width for multi- purpose path ways.
a A 10 foot width for the Boardwalk and the Bridge
Second by Mr. Sobczak. Motion carried 7 "t-es ° - 1 "no. " Mr, Delate voted
,,/?a."
Ms. Karim asked hose much can he spent prior to developing an approved
management plan.
Melissa Hennig advised she is working on the Final Management Plan f'or the
Gordon River Greemti ay Presen"c.
V11. New Business
A. [.ago proposal
Alex Solecki provided a copy of the proposed Conservation Collier I ogo
"t onset "ation Colier - 1,`or Preset# and Fniure Gcrreraiions" for review by the
Committee.
It was noted the design is a concept and may be slightly modified in the final
design.
Mr. Pires moved to approve the concept of the Conservation Collier Logo as
presented. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 8 -0.
B. Geo- eaching — GIS Activities Authorization Form
Alex Sulecki presented the FXMItke Sunun try'Y.er, -r .hirrgRulcs and
Authorization Form "dated April 12. 2010.
The Committee mcornmencled the following revisions to the Form:
• Second bullet point an paee2 of3 - from "...are limited to I cubic foot...
to "._are Ignited io a marinuan of I cubic fioot..."
• The applicant pro %-ides an email address_
Remove the 3" bullet point on page 2 of 3.
1611 All
April 12, 2010
• fennifer White, Assistant County Attorney to provide adequate
languago /policy for bullet point 44 ofpage 2 of addressing confiscation
and disposal of hazardous or dangerous items.
Mr. Delate noted the form is unnecessary as geo- cachers are no different than any
other public members accessing and utilizing the properly.
Other members noted the form would provide some necessary guidelines, as some
geo cache activities include barging the trvaSUre, etc. In addition, it will provide
notification to Staff on the activity.
Ms, Karim moved to approve the Ceo- caching Rules and Authorization Fornr, as
amended Second by Mr. Pires. Motion carried 7 `yes " — 1 "no." A& Delate
voted "no. „
C. pepper Ranch Preserve Final Management Plan with proposed LEMS
Subcommittee revisions
Melissa Hennig presented the document "Pepper Ranch Preserve Land
Management Plan" (available online) and "Lands EvalualiOn and Management
Subcanunittee Summary o(Reca »mtend[ations,Jor dranges ro the Pepper Ranch Final Management Plan - dated April 12, 2010. She noted the plan is still in draft stages and
requested Committee comments.
Under Committee discussions, the following revisions to the proposed Plan were
recommended:
• Page 54 — Consideration given to modifying the priority of the Goals lie
Developing a plan for public use be ranked higher, consolidating goals 3 and 4)
• Page 55 — Action Item 1.2 — line I - removal of word `future"
Page 55 - Action Item 1.4 - line 2 - removal of word "excessive"
• Page 56 -- .Action Item 1.7 — line 5 - broaden language to include "adjacent and
neighboring properties may have an impact..."
• Page 70 - -Goal 8 -- change "Park" to " Preserve, "discourage any "unauthorized
visitation" and identity the hours of operation.
Melissa Hennig noted w¢h regard to Goal 8 on page 70 Staff is developing a Preserve
Ordinance which may address the issues of types of visitation, hour; of operation, eic.
1). Pepper Ranch Preserve Quality Wildlife Management Hunt Program
Melissa Hennig presented the Executive summary "Pepper Ranch Preserve
Quality Mldltfe Management Hunt Program" dated April 12, 2010.
Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney noted Staff is investigating how the
improper discharge of firearms will be enforced (other than revocation of the hunter's
pemnit -)
The Committee recommended the following amendments to the proposed Plan:
Page 1, °General Regulations ", line 5- 6 —from ``...allowed only during the
State open seasons and Preserve_." to `...allowed onty duringrhe Preserve..."
Gage 3. "Dogs Clarifying dog; are not allowed for hunting purposes-
• Page 3, :F t 7 -- removal of rcferences to "barns"
Page 7, revising the website address.
1611 All
April 12, 2010
P a"'c 1, spedfping die hours far submittal of applications and application fees.
Sneaker
Jim Worther, -eeuested clarification it hunters are allowed to use handguns rovf1he
hun ire.
Melissa Hennig, handguns use is cited in the ordinance.
Ats. A'arim nerved to recommend the Board q1 County Commissioners approve the
Pepper Ranch Preserve Quality Wildlife Marmlgemenl Ifunt Program "subject
to the amendments outlined above by the Committee. Second by Mr. Curl.
Carried unanimously 8 -0.
E. Properly Applications Status
Ales Sulecki submitted the document °Cycle S tpplrrationsjbrAloril2d10"
dated for information purposes.
A Slideshow was presented on the new property applications proposed for
acquisition. For the property to proceed further in the acquisition process, at least
Committee members must vote favorably following the presentation.
1. Frazier Application
• 1he property is 4.82 acres in size and located within the Picayune Strand
Stage Forest.
• The Conservation Collier Ordinance does address an acquisition of a
parcel within another Agency's acquisition boundary and it is permitted
under certain conditions.
• Staff Contacted the Division of Forestry and they are interested in
acquiring the parcel and Florida Forever Grant funds may he available.
+ Conservation Colter could partner with Florida Forever az well, however
Florida Forever % vould retain title of the property.
Mr. Pires moved for the Committee not to consider acquisition of the
parcel. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimon.slp 8 -0.
2. Paskanik Application
• It is located ofi'62 Ave North East within tire I lorsepen Strand Slough
and 2. 73 acres in size.
• The parcel is separated from Panther Walk Preserve bv a parcel mNned by
Rank of America.
• [lank of America is interested in selling their property to Conservation
Collier which 4rould create contiguous parcels ryith Panther Walk
• I he Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System ranks the parcel a
priority 6 of 10.
Mr. Delatermoved to for the Committee ro not Consider acquAitiotr ()J the
parcel. Second by Mr. Curl,
1611 A1l
April t3, 2010
Mr. Delate expressed concern acquiring the parcel would initiate a multi parcel
acquisition process.
Others noted it would be favorable to acquire the parcel, especially with the Bank
of America parcel as the parcek will be contiguous to Panther walk Preserve and
provide further educational opportunities for the school located across the street.
Some recommended postponing a decision until StatTreceives more information
on the Bank of America parcel.
Chairman Poteet noted the action at this point would be for the Committee to
consider acquisition of the parcel, allow Staff to proceed with the process, but not
formally provide a recommendation to the BCC to acquire the parcel.
Motion. %ailed 6 "no "— 2 `yes." Chairman Poteet, Mr. Pires, Mr. Sobezak, Mr.
Sterk, Ms. Barber and Ms. Karim voted "no. "
Mr. Pires moved to recommend the Connnittee consider acquisition of the
parcel Second by Mr. Sohczak. Motion carried 6 "yes "— 2 "no. " Mr. Delate
andMr. Curl voted "no."
F. Initial Criteria Screening Reports - Staff Presentation
Alex Sulecki presented the following ICSR Reports for review by the
Committee:
1. CDC Land Investments, Inc.
• The property is 7.51 acres in size and abuts the south side of
Conservation Collier properties in the Gordon River Greenway project.
• 1 he Naples Airport Authority is interested in partnering with
Conservation Collier for the acquisition.
• It has a base zoning of residential -1 -75, with a conceptual development
plan for 21 single family homes.
• The estimated market value is ,$472,000.
• The City of Naples has approved jurisdictional approval for the
acquisition.
• Total Secondary Screening Criteria score 234 of 400.
Speaker
Ellie Krier, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust
noted acquisition of the parcel should be a high priority and may be utilized for
parking and access to the Conservation Collier properties located within the
Gordon River Greenways Project,
2. Gateway Shoppes 11, L I-C.
• The property is 13 acres in size, located in the Mcllvane Marsh area.
• It is the remainder of an 8 3 acres parcel, of which 70 acres was donated to
Rookery flay Rcwrva i'cr wetland mitigation_
16 ! 1 All
April 12, 2010
• It is adjacent to the 369 acres in the Marsh currently held by Conservation
Collier.
• It has an estimated market value is $45,000 which reflects mitigation
values.
• Total Secondary Screening Criteria score 173 of 400
VTR. Outstanding Committee Member Nominations
None
IX. Coordinator Communications
Alex Sulecki reported:
• The Land Development Code Amendment for the County accepting funds in
lieu of a Preserve land dedication for urban area preserves has been approved
by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC ). The CCPC removed a
specific reference to Conservation Collier. The removal does not preclude
Conservation Collier from accepting funds.
• Fhe Conservation Collier website has been updated to provide information on
individual Preserves.
• Limpkin Marsh and Alligator Flag' Preserve are now open to the public
bringing the total number of Preserves open to 7.
X. Sub- Committee Meeting Reports
A. Outreach — Tony Pires, Chair
None
B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Mike Delate, Chair
The Subcommittee met on March 29, 2010 and discussed the Pepper Ranch
Management Plan and the Gordon River Greenway Project.
C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim, Chair
None
Xf. Chair Committee Member Comments
Mr. Delate recommended Sit ffconicrct Mi. Cosentino and provide a detailed recap of
items discussed and schedule of events for acquisition of his properiv
IX. Public General Comments
None
X. Staff Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 12:01 P.M.
161 1 A1l"
April 12, 2010
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee
�r
f
Bill Poteet,
Chairma
These minutes appr¢ved by the Board ;'Committee on `✓ - !t7
- -- —
as presented f' or as amended r',
10
RECRECEIVED
iaia
MAY 2 4 2010
Halal
enning
H L
Board of County Gomm�ssloners
Coyle v
COUNTY
LIBIlIM AA RD
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
Headquarters
Library
AGENDA
Call to order
Approval of Minutes
Literacy Program Report
Report of Officers
Communications
a - Written
b - Personal
Unfinished Business
1. Employee of the Month — May
2. Employee of the Month Revitilization
3. Self check -outs and floating collections
4. Florida Legislature Update
5. Library Marketing Efforts
6. Budget
New Business
General Considerations
Director's Report
Report of the Friends
Adjournment
11Al2
Misc. Corres:
Item #: b 6 � f
n�tPC "ii,
161 1 A 12
COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
ANNUAL MEETING
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
May 19, 2010
Call to Order
Nominations and Election of Officers
Other Business
Adjournment
1611Al2"`
Naples, Florida, April 20, 2010
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m.
in the Main Library with the following members present:
CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis
VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray
Connie Bettinger - Hennink
Carla Grieve
Rochelle Lieb
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director
Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of March 17, 2010. Mrs. Grieve pointed
out that under 'Report of the Friends', she was not the one spearheading a mural project at the Golden
Gate Library, as reported. It was Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink, instead. Mrs. Grieve moved, seconded by
Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as corrected.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT —None
REPORT OF OFFICERS
Mrs. Lewis thanked Mrs. Matthes for following up on a letter and gift card for Roberta Stone at the
Everglades Library, in appreciation for her services.
COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Grieve stated that she had been asked by the Friends to make a presentation to the Pelican Bay
Rotary Association. At that meeting, she spoke about the history of the Library and asked for support of,
not only the Friends, but the Library in general.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mrs. Matthes reported that Mr. Bill Rose had passed away and that there would be a service at the
Presbyterian Church at 11:00 a.m. on 4/22/10, with a reception to be held at the Rose Hall following the
service.
As for the RFID's and 'self check- out service' being considered, Mrs. Matthes explained that it would be
very costly to implement this service and also the Library does not have funds for it at the moment. As
for the 'floating collection' service, Mrs. Matthes explained that the cost to implement this system
would be less, at about $10,000. She also explained the pros and cons of this service. She said that
while attending a conference in Portland, Oregon, she had visited a couple of libraries who used the
service and it seemed to be working out well for them. Mrs. Matthes asked the LAB members for a
motion to have the Library try this system. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and
1611 b12
carried unanimously, that the Library try the 'floating collection' with audio visual and book materials
first at the Directors discretion.
As for the Library Legislature Update, Mrs. Matthes reported that the Senate Committee had approved
21.2 million for State Aid and 1.2 million for Library Co -Ops. The House has yet to approve it.
As for the Library Marketing Efforts, Mrs. Matthes stated that the County has been sending more press
releases, which are usually published as written, due to lack of reporters in the local newspaper.
As for the 2011 County Budget, the Library's budget will need to be reduced by 5 %. Two staff members
will be leaving soon. One is taking the early retirement incentive and the other one is retiring after 35
years with the Library. Mrs. Matthes will be requesting temporary employees for the season. She's also
requesting seasonal employees for children's summer reading programs at Golden Gate and the Estates
branches and an extra winter season employee for the Marco Island Branch.
In reference to the Florida Virtual School, Mrs. Matthes explained that she had been contacted by a
member of this group to ask if students who are registered with them could use the Library facility to
use laptop computers provided by the Virtual School, for their studies. Mrs. Matthes asked for a
motion. Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink and carried unanimously, to endorse the
use of laptop computers by students of the Virtual School Program at the Library.
The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month.
Mrs. Grieve moved, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously, to select Margaret Norona, Library
Assistant at the Naples Regional Library, as EOM for April 2010.
The Board discussed the EOM nomination process. Some suggested that it be printed in the local
newspaper. Mrs. Lieb suggested that the program be revitalized and be added to the agenda for
discussion at the next meeting.
NEW BUSINESS —None
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink mentioned having attended one of the 'Volunteer Appreciation Day's reception
recently held at one of the branches.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Besides the issues reported above, Mrs. Matthes stated that some libraries are allowing their patrons to
use their'IPod Touch' to scan their library cards. She's considering the availability of this service at the
Library. She also gave examples of the types of complaints that have been received lately. A Marco
Island patron had complained about the Library at Marco not being open on Saturdays. Another patron
complained about the non - resident fees being too high and another one had complained about not
knowing the exact day when her reserved books would be available.
1.611,112
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Mrs. Grieve reported that the next Board meeting would be coming up soon and that the last meeting
for the season would be held in May. The Board will be off for the summer and will resume meetings in
October. She also stated that the Friends had purchased lunch for all library staff on 'National Library
Day' with funds requested by Mrs. Matthes from the Library's budget with the Friends, in appreciation
for their hard work. Mrs. Matthes added that members of the Friends have been visiting the library
branches wanting to find out how they can help.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Grieve moved,
seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:25 a.m.
Approved by:
;1
Doris J. Lewis
Chair, Library Advisory Board
Biala
FHa-as I 1 A Z
Fie ining J
!Coyle
Coietta
RECEIVED THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
MAY 18 2010 ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
Board of County Cormnssroners HELD ON FEBRUARY 16, 2010
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Copeland
John Pennell, Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member
James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
Todd Johnson, Everglades City, Advisory Board Member
The meeting was called to order at 6:04PM.
A motion was made by James Simmons to accept the December 7, 2009 minutes as read it was
seconded by John Pennell and passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Chief McLaughlin — James Simmons brought a petition to discuss. He said they certainly need
to educate to tax payers and let them know what is going on, rendering services to the State
without compensation.
James Simmons — We get a pile of them and give them to the politicians to get their attention.
He said the petition is available at Port of the Islands it is on the internet they can print it out.
So the petition is circulating. He wanted to know how they could get the petitions into the
hand of the constituents in this area. There have been two articles in the Port of the Islands
news letter about it. The articles can be viewed at the Port of the Islands Realty web site.
Jean Kungle is heading this up.
John Pennell — He suggested having a meeting with the representative in Everglades City to
meet the people.
Chief McLaughlin — We could ask the representative to come. We could put It on the agenda
for Everglades City Hall or w could have the representative come to our next board meeting we
could meet next door where we would have more room or we could have it at the Port.
The petitions could be done via e -mail but another way to get them out would be to create a
data base through the County of all the tax payers in this District generate that data base and
mail a copy to them. That might be a little expensive but we may be able to find some funding
in our reserves to do that.
Page 1
Mac. comf e�s:
Deb: 0 U 0
Ibm 11
jLjL� �I
Gies to:
161 1 A13
Chief McLaughlin — We'll just make copies and generate a mailing list for everybody. Have
them send it back or drop it off at the Fire Department or send it to your representative
directly.
Mitchell Roberts — We also need to let them know that the overall purpose with those funds
coming in is to reduce the millage rate a little bit if we get a fair share of 1 -75.
Chief McLaughlin — Funding for I -75 is going to fund a station which isn't going to change our
current millage rate at all. It's going to allow us to keep the resources you are paying for here it
will increase the service level because it will keep everything here in the District he does not see
it as a millage rate reducer. it could reduce it a .3 of a mil because of fuel and maintenance on
the vehicles could drop. Those big cost dollars for equipment and personnel aren't going to be
affected.
Mitchell Roberts —The manning would be the same without any additional personnel.
Chief McLaughlin — We are already short on manning for the District because we are already
going out there. We are three people short right now from what statistically should be and
nationally we are six people short but we could never fund that. There needs to be a station out
there stand alone by itself with no less than three people or a minimum of two. That cost to
operate that station with an apparatus out there on a ten year cost fuel that would be $900,000
a year to fund it. It would provide a service for out there it also provides a service to the County
of a Fire Medic from EMS, our Firefighters, cost of apparatus, cost of fuel, cost of the facility
and the cost to support the facility. It also involves the cost of fuel and maintenance for
Medflight which flies out there on a regular basis. We are not the only ones impacted the
Collier County taxpayers in general are also paying for Medflight to fly to the alley. So they
need to be reimbursed as well. The Chief assisted by Dan Summers and Jeff Page came up with
the $900,000 to fund a facility on 1 -75 so that it would stand alone and the tax dollars would
service the people here, There are two fire trucks in this District when one of them goes to the
Alley the protection is now reduced 50% that leaves two people which is way below the
national average.
James Simmons — We lose the Engine at Port of the Islands when they have to move up here.
Chief McLaughlin — He is losing his fire protection to the citizens on car accidents that no one is
paying for and the citizens are losing that protection. It is a safety issue no one from East
Naples is driving out here for move up on a daily basis. They have to conserve fuel costs and
mutual aid does not involve that. The effect is a loss of service you are paying for. We don't
need a reimbursement for going out there they need to fund a facility out there.
James Simmons — He agrees with him 100%
']
161 1 A 13''
Alan McLaughlin — They need to build a station on 1 -75 just like Broward county that just
services that road. We need to do the same. If the State is funding it we would only send other
personnel if there was a major event. It's not just a cost it is a loss of service,
Mitchell Roberts — He understands that. He looks at it from the stand point of the average
person.
Todd Johnson the new member frorn Everglades City just arrived and Chairman Mitchell
Roberts briefed him on the current discussion.
Mitchell Roberts — In order to get everyone to sign the petition they need to feel they are
getting something. Just to tell the average person every time they go up there you are losing
service they don't see that. To get people to rally at a meeting or to add it to an agenda on a
Council Meeting there has to be a way that we can make it look economically enticing. If that
means that there is hope even if it is a .3 that is almost a Y2 mil. It's at 4 mils if you could drop it
to 3.5 mils that is a savings.
Chief McLaughlin - That would depend on what is happening with the current budget and if
thing keep going down that isn't going to happen. Even at 4 mils it isn't looking pretty for next
year either this is the reality of it. Things could switch around and come back. We had some
foreclosures that were bought at the Port which is great but we still have a lot of people that
have not paid their taxes. We are not as bad as some of the Districts if you look at Cork Screw
29 %.
James Simmons — He wants to get organized and mail out the petitions.
Chief McLaughlin — We need to make the tax payers aware of what they are paying for.
Mitchell Roberts — The mailing is not a bad idea but it is almost like you need an ad campaign to
educate some people so when they open it up they don't throw it away. We need to let people
know that it is coming and what it is for. We need a reason for people to buy into this idea.
James Simmons - He said when he spread the word around that it would not cost any money
but it might save you some money people were immediately interested.
Chief McLaughlin — It may reduce tax dollars in the future but I wouldn't say how much.
James Simmons — It is going to increase our protection.
Chief McLaughlin — It will increase our protection because the truck is going to stay here.
Page 3
1611 X413
James Simmons — He told everyone at the Port that it won't cost any money and it will increase
your protection they were ready to sign the petition.
Mitchell Roberts — He wants the Chief to put a proposal together that goes to a major budget
change on your end could be we go to the Board of County Commissioners and request a
millage increase of 1.5% within the District to adequately cover the alley and outlying areas
with man power and additional engines.
Chief McLaughlin —Then people will scream we would be at G mills.
Mitchell Roberts—Then people will scream and that would be one way to do it.
Chief McLaughlin —To supply the man power back into the District which would be six people
we would have to go up 1.5 making that 5.5 mils that would get their attention. If you put a
proposal together that the Advisory Board is going to recommend raising the millage rate to 5.5
in order to maintain the fire protection levels because we have to service 1 -75 so much unless
the State funds it.
John Pennell — He recommended contacting the new NBC Investigator.
Chief McLaughlin — 99% of the general public does not understand how Fire Departments
operate. They understand how the police operate but they do not understand how the Fire
Departments operate. How the funding mechanism works, how the fire protection system
works, how all the intricacies are tied into that including tax dollars federal levels, federal levels
state requirements and ISO requirements.
James Simmons — He asked if they wanted to make any changes in the petition.
Chief McLaughlin — He has to take it to his administrator he is going to let him look it over and
see if he has any suggestions.
Mitchell Roberts — Somewhere in the heading add for services provided for Alligator Alley a toll
road. In the statement below add we feel it is unfair to expect the taxpayers to fund fuel,
maintenance, labor, and replacement of equipment for these services when no toll revenues
are received.
Chief McLaughlin — He suggested they put in the petition the impact of losing service in the
District 42% of the time by servicing 1.75.
Mitchell Roberts — He added to the petition that the District is losing fire protection 42% of the
time by servicing a toll road.
1611A13
John Pennell — He thought someone was going to look at the letter and add some information.
Chief McLaughlin — He is going to let Dan Summers take a look at the petition he is very familiar
with writing to the State about this issue.
Mitchell Roberts — Check with other people maybe rewrite this a little bit wait another month if
we can come up with a better product and a way of marketing that product whether through
the realty web site or some other web site. Can we as members of the District request that the
County put the petition on their web site what are the legalities.
Chief McLaughlin — We would have to go through John Torre and ask if the Board could put it
on the web site.
Mitchell Roberts — You could go on the community channel and advertise the web site on the
cable network.
James Simmons —You have to get this to them in their hands.
Chief McLaughlin — You have to get it to them and the easier you make it getting them back
the better. Send them out self addressed stamped envelope please read and sign then send it
back, if we could get at least 90% of the tax payers in the District. We're not getting funding for
the Federal lands wider the Flit funds we lost that funding the County no longer gives it to us.
It was $250,000 but we still protect government property in our District with no representation
from them. We cover state land Collier Seminole and the back half of Picayune which we do
get District I money for. But any of those other state lands like the Fakahatchee we do not
receive any state funding for that land.
Mitchell Roberts — He would not have an issue with 1 -75 if it wasn't a toll road because then it
would be just a road that goes through your District but it's a toll road and they are collecting
funds. For20 cents on the toll we could fund a station on 1 -75.
Mitchell Roberts suggested that they allow the new member Tod Johnson to introduce himself.
He asked him if Friends of the Museum or Friends of Fakahatchee show up at the City Council
Meetings from time to time.
Tod Johnson — They could put something like this on the agenda.
Mitchell Roberts — We could get with Fran Tifft the Friends of the Museum people and Friends
of the Fakahatchee people. Maybe have a meeting with the heads of all the subgroups in the
area.
It was mentioned that Jim Colletta usually attends the Council Meetings,
Page 5
16I1A13
Mitchell Roberts — He suggested we get on the City Council's agenda and invite all the local
representation there to push the petition. At least you could get in touch with the people that
run everything else. Fran does the local news paper we could make the last page of the Mullet
Rapper the petition.
Tod Johnson — You could put it in as an insert.
Mitchell Roberts — He asked if Fran Tifft attends the City Council Meetings.
Tod Johnson — He said yes.
Mitchell Roberts — We should just ask her the best way to get the message out to the people.
He is going to contact Fran Tifft and Patty Huff to let them know what they are doing so they
can get ready for it.
Chief McLaughlin — He will contact Abe Skinner's office so they can give LIS a list of tax payers in
our District. We could do a bulk mailing on it both ways.
OLD BUSINESS:
Chief McLaughlin — Financial report for the budget is; Current Advalorem is $1,677,600, our
Reserves are $396,000 currently and our operating is $151,696. We are holding really well. We
are a little over on our salaries but that is normal for the first quarter because of all our holiday
pay. We have a lot of holidays in the first quarter, We have a brand new budget director the
old director left for the Peace Corps she is in Albania. The DOF Grant was approved by the BCC
and it has been sent to Matt Weinell at Forestry they should sign off on it that is a 50/50 grant
of $9,000 we are going to pay 50% of it. The grant will purchase radios and pagers for the
personnel living in Everglades City so they can respond off dirty. When personnel are out of
the Station they are going to call local personnel off duty to man the station. He cannot leave
the station unmanned anymore they were out on a call the other day for four hours. We are
also purchasing chest harnesses, five new mobile radios for the brush trucks we are working on
and class A foam. He is still working on the Departments policy and procedures. We are still
working on putting up bars in the windows and doors at station 66 so that no one can break in.
We did get a reimbursement of $4,084 for the theft out there.
John Pennell — He asked him if he put any motion lights out there.
Chief McLaughlin — Lights and motion detectors were put in at Station 66. An alarm systern was
put in the building; we are putting bars in the windows and doors. On 10 -13 -09 a permit was
submitted to Everglades City requesting a right of way for a power pole for the boat dock. He
has made 14 requests to City Hall since regarding the permit and has received no response.
Page 6
1611A13
Chief McLaughlin — It has been four months and no response from City Hall. He needs a right of
way to put a power pole up for power to the boat. The generators have been taken off of the
vehicles to provide for rescue equipment. So now they have to pert the generator on the pick -
up truck take it down to the dock so that they can activate the lift to put the boat in the water.
If there were an incident it could take a lot longer.
James Simmons — You need the generator to run the lift.
Chief McLaughlin — Yes, he has been trying to get power down there since 10- 13 -09. LCEC
already has the whole design for it Harts Electric is set to do the electrical work on the dock. He
has a letter from DEP which exonerated the City of Everglades for this dock allowing us to put
power on it for the boat lift. All he needed was someone to say he could put a power pole up.
LCEC won't do it until we get a letter from the City it is there right of way. If he can't get the
City to allow us to use their right of way then he is going to go through the Rod and Gun Club.
Mitchell Roberts — We have nothing in writing in regards to the usage of the dock. If we don't
have permission to be there then we shouldn't be there.
Chief McLaughlin — We have verbal permission from the mayor as of three years ago.
Mitchell Roberts — Can we get a written agreement.
Chief McLaughlin — Putting it on the trailer is not an option.
Mitchell Roberts — With the winch system that is there if you have to get over to the island in
the event of an emergency is there a ratchet system that will drop it down.
Chief McLaughlin — No we need electric to drop the boat in the water.
Mitchell Roberts — it has to be electrically operated to drop it down.
Chief McLaughlin — Harts was going to put a quick connect in with a switch on it so if the power
were off we could still use the generator to put the boat in.
Mitchell Roberts — He asked if there was piece for that winch assembly that could be added a
clutch so that it can be dropped.
Chief McLaughlin — No, they do make a gear reduction system for the motor that will lower the
boat faster.
Mitchell Roberts — He brought up the fact that a representative of the City was present.
Page 7
1611 'A 13.1
Chief McLaughlin — Ken Babkey has had the permit from Harts Electric for the head pole for a
couple of weeks. John Hart is trying to at least get the head pole up for the quick connect.
Hose testing is going to start next month. Completing training on our air bag system and water
walk way sleds which EMS purchased for us. They are 15 foot inflatable walk ways that you put
out on the water. They come in 15 foot sections EMS purchased two so we have the
capabilities to cover 30 feet of water way. The side scan sonar we developed with humming
bird has been used twice and performed well. Because of this performance we are doing a
national article on the device we will be the first in the nation to do it.
James Simmons — What were the calls for.
Chief McLaughlin — Submerged vehicles that could not be found. it eliminates blind diving the
device can be placed in the water and the GPS will tell you right where the vehicle is. They have
tested the device as well it is extremely accurate. One brush fire truck is done it will probably
be painted this week. At a very small cost the trucks we put together it costs approximately
$10,000 to put both trucks together and the vehicles we given to us free. We have two vehicles
that will last us several years' multi fuel automatics.
James Simmons — The fire service keeps ownership of them?
Chief McLaughlin — We have ownership of them but they are on loan from Forestry forever. Big
Bertha was here since 1976 it had the State record and it had been on over 3,000 brush fires.
The museum was trying to acquire it from Forestry but instead it was put up for bid they didn't
buy it, it was sold and then chopped up for parts. They tried to get the vehicle donated back
but the purchaser didn't want to do that. February, March and April are historically busier
months for calls. We are starting our budget meetings with the County in the next couple of
weeks. We still have not received direction from the County as to what they want. We have
caught up on all our projects. We just finished up grading our fire reporting system, On the
10`h of March we are going to take our Fire ARMS system to mobile data to interface with the
Collier County 911 CAD. That will allow us to have a fully integrated tracking and loss fire
command reporting system nationally. We actually have every address of every building in the
County but because we are with the County we have that access. When our personnel arrive
on scene they will be able to immediately input the data and send it on to the State. We are
splitting the cost with Isles of Capri and we are trying to get EMS involved then they would pay
into the system as well bringing down the cost even more.
James Simmons — What buildings will it cover, commercial?
Chief McLaughlin — No, residential as well, every address every building.
Special needs residents would be in the CAD system as well.
James Simmons — Who is installing this system the County or you.
Z
161 1 A13 1
Chief McLaughlin — Each District will be responsible, the interface cost is shared, when the
system is up and running we will all be responsible for buying the mobile data software and
terminals which are the remotes. There is a cost to that but the big cost is shared.
Mitchell Roberts — In reference to Alligator Alley could the data collected there be used to
generate information regarding public expenses to service that area.
Chief McLaughlin -- No expenses involved it is just a reporting system.
Mitchell Roberts — Does it have time frame information.
Chief McLaughlin — Yes, we can get that information now. We can go back and gather that
information now manually CAD does not collect that data. We still have not heard back from
FEMA regarding the $230,000 grant for the Tanker which is good sign because that grant is
usually over in April so we are on the 14`h or 15th draw. From his past experience notification of
grant approval usually occurs in February or March. Last year when we were denied the grant
notification took place in October. So the longer we last the better chance we have to obtain
the grant. We have not heard back yet either regarding the grant for the Port of the Islands'
Station and they just did a draw in January this would be the same the longer you last the
better your chances of obtaining the grant. Of the two the Station renovation is the more
important of the grants. We need to refurbish the station so our personnel can move out of
the hotel. The Station Grant and the FEMA Grant for the apparatus are a 95/5 split this means
we will have to fund 5% of the grants. The funding would come out of Reserves.
Mitchell Roberts — The funds the District put into the Marina purchase does that give you a
percentage ownership on paper that you could sell or barter for something else in the future.
Chief McLaughlin — Absolutely Ochopee Fire Control District owns the whole back side of the
main building. It is a County building. The County bought the ramp and the building. Even
though we are run by the County and it is a County building we are an MSTU under the County
but we are independent of that we don't go into general fund. We look like an independent
fire district even though we are run by the County but we collect our own taxation so that
money belongs to the District to the people. So anytime we sell a vehicle at auction I have to
go down and raise holy heck because that money goes into general fund it can't that money
came from the people in the District it has to go back to Ochopee. He is still fighting over the
brush truck $4,000. It comes back to the District not general fund you cannot mix the two it is
against the law. There is another way to sell vehicles other than auction and then this way the
check goes right back to us because it has happened twice to us.
Page 9
1611 A13'
James Simmons— The firefighters that are stationed there do they have to buy their own meal.
Chief McLaughlin — They have to bring their own food or pay for their meals.
James Simmons — He asked because they are eating in the restaurant there.
Mitchell Roberts made a motion to end the meeting it was seconded by John Pennell. The
motion was passed and the meeting ended at 7:21PM,
r d /
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control district
Page 10
Fiala
Halas
Coyle —
RECENED Coletta -
MAY 8 2010 THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
board of C,U,, CWVn"WerS HELD ON MARCH 8, 2010
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman, Copeland
John Pennell, Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member
James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board member
Tod Johnson, Everglades City, Advisory Board Member
The meeting was called to order at 6:03PM.
OLD BUSINESS:
Chief McLaughlin — The issue we had with the right away regarding the power pole has been
resolved. We are going to use the right of way from the Rod and Gun Club. They gave us a
letter of intent that we can put a power pole on their property.
James Simmons — He asked for suggestions regarding the petition which he passed out.
(A sample copy of the petition is attached)
Chief McLaughlin — He approved of the petition and is going to take a copy to Dan Summers.
Mitchell Roberts — If we are going to do this petition are we going to try and do this as a printed
out copy or scan it and e-mail it to a link.
James Simmons — He thinks it should be e- mailed.
Mitchell Roberts — Does anyone know how to borrow some ones web page so they can respond
type in their name and address.
John Pennell —There should be someone in town.
Chief McLaughlin — David Landrum does the wireless internet for this area he might know
someone.
Mitchell Roberts — Can you find out if we are authorized to use the Districts Web site.
Page 1
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item 0:
Cepies to:
A1�
1611 A13
Chief McLaughlin — No, I don't think they will allow that. He needs to confirm with the County
Attorney's Office.
Mitchell Roberts — Checking with Patty who done the Mullet Rapper on line news letter that
maybe we could put a link on there.
Chief McLaughlin — We are going to get a copy of a list of the taxpayers in our District.
James Simmons — Port of the Islands Realty will put it on their web site should he pursue that?
Chief McLaughlin — That is your decision as a board.
Mitchell Roberts — We need a link where they can type in their name and address then just hit
send to try and make most of this paperless. You send it to myfloridahouse.com or collier
county it falls under public record then they can't delete all the e- mails. He sees nothing wrong
with getting things rolling at the Port as fast as you can. He feels to start shooting from the hip
and get things rolling.
Chief McLaughlin — We have the Everglades Paper here. He thinks there are 104,000 tax payers
on the account it will take them some time to pull up the information.
Mitchell Roberts — We have 3900 tax payers in this District we need to get at least 1500 to 2000
people to do this. He will pursue on the Patty Huff end to get something locally whether it is in
the paper or some notice here in Everglades.
John Pennell — He recommended putting it on the community channel.
Mitchell Roberts — That is a good idea.
Chief McLaughlin — Asked them to make those corrections he requested on the petition. He
asked lames Simmons to e -mail to him the corrected version so he can send it on.
Mitchell Roberts — He is going to talk to the community channel people regarding this matter.
We want to make it as easy for people as possible. He heard the long petitions signed by
everyone does not have the same impact. The individual petitions have more impact.
James Simmons — Do we need additional pages?
Chief McLaughlin — No this form is fine there are usually only one to two taxpayers per
household.
Page 2
16 I 1 A 13
Mitchell Roberts — He gave his e -mail address to James Simmons so that the corrected petition
could be sent to him, The selling feature is you lose 50% of your protection when a vehicle
responds to 1 -75.
NEW BUSINESS:
Chief McLaughlin — We are starting up on the Budget our Gov Max starts up on the 12 "'.
Linda and I spent a day determining where we are at so he went down to the budget office to
discuss the budget with them as well. He went over some information in the budget
instructions pertaining to MSTUs with them. We are at millage neutral because we are maxed
out at our cap. The direction from the budget management's office is 10% cut of revenues that
are based on the state's assessment across the state from the panhandle across. That is out of
our revenue not our operating the key is finding out who determines what the property value is
in actually for a particular place in the County is impossible. Somebody out there makes a
guess as to what the property value in your area is going to be that's what it comes down to.
John Pennell — He thought they based it on the sales in your area.
Chief McLaughlin —Yes they do but that is only a piece. The state has a 10% the County follows
that in their general budget we being a MSTU are going to follow the 10% Out of our revenue
that would be a $260,000 loss. We have to show a reduction of $166,000 in our budget, But it
is projected that this year we are going to carry forward $110,000 that means we only have to
make up $52,000, Ile has $405,000 in reserves to carry forward so this comes out of Reserves
and it doesn't affect the Advalorem budget so we don't lose anything in operating. So we are
going to carry the same budget we submitted last year as our operating budget and payroll
budget because we have done well with those numbers. The Capital we are going to carry it
across we have no payroll increases there is no cost of living increases. We did have
adjustments in our fuel, in our IT costs, but our rates for the shop when down in some areas so
we balanced these things out in the budget we moved some things around to get back to that
same number we might even be $1,000 less than last year's budget. But we are not going to
lose people we are going to be able to take that out of are carry forward. So basically if we
carry forward more than $100,000 that would affect our reserves even less. Now there are
only so many years you can do that without affecting your reserves that's why we need to be
frugal so we can carry forward as much as possible.
Mitchell Roberts —You are very fortunate that you can carry forward.
Page 3
161 VA 13
Chief McLaughlin — That's what it looks like this year. He is going to have a meeting with
Mr. Isackson, who is the new budget director, in reference to the Pilt funds. He knows the
County's position and the County Manager's position but by direction of my board we have
taxable properties that were taken from us via the government land purchase. We still provide
a service as a MSTU to all the Federal buildings and properties and we are not getting anything
in return. They have no structural protection in the Big Cypress they only do brush work,
therefore, everything that belongs to them out there we are protecting them and we respond
to emergencies as well in the National Park. Whether it's $50,000, $70,000 or $200,000 one
year we actually got $380,000 a piece of that should be coming back to this District we are
providing the coverage we are entitled to it. His question is who sets that schedule who sets
that rate if Collier County is supposed to be dispersing the federal funds to other agencies then
who makes that determination? The last thing that was told to him by Mike Smykowski was
you have enough money you don't need this. Who made that determination and by what
schedule. He doesn't know if the County Manager told him no more or whatever. He wants
someone of a litter higher official capacity to say how it was determined so I can bring it back to
you and the tax payers because they are asking me why.
John Pennell — Does it show what amount we received and where the money went to.
Chief McLaughlin — He said two years ago is was $748,000 and change came in for Pilt funds we
didn't get any of it. I am not sure what it is this year. So what's happened to it where it goes
but at least I would like to have a definitive answer as to how it is determined why we're not
other than we've got enough money but we still provide the services if we're doing that who
makes the determination of who gets what. If that money had still been there that building that
we are trying to renovate would be done our other station for the Port of the Islands people
would be finished.
John Pennell — When he first got on the board the Pilt money was always there and it was a
good amount of money then all of a sudden a few years ago it was gone.
Chief McLaughlin — We were still getting a little bit of it but not as much something happened
under Chief Wilson when Diane Flagg was in charge. Previous to that time we have a 20 year
history of receiving those funds. I would have thought there would have been a schedule rate
that you have this much area you provide this much service this is your chunk whether it is 10%
or 20% like with District I whatever the amount that comes in you get your percentage
obviously that has never been done.
Mitchell Roberts proposed a motion for the Chief to obtain a written response as to why we are
no longer receiving Pilt funds and put the percentage as to whether it is state and federal or is it
just Federal and the amount of area and property we cover. The motion was presented and
passed for the Chief to obtain in writing why the District no longer receives Pilt funds.
Page 4
16 1 1 A 13 1
Mitchell Roberts — At least to get an answer maybe we do get enough money but we have the
largest amount of Federal Lands in our District than anyone else so square mileage wise we are
probably covering 90% more than any other District in Collier County. So if we don't need it
then maybe later we will make a motion to make up a letter to send to the Department of the
Interior that they are over paying because we don't get any of the money.
James Simmons — How are we going to direct the petitions once they are signed.
Chief McLaughlin — It should be on the petition send this form or copy and paste or e -mail.
James Simmons — We could collect them at some central point or a couple of central points and
then send them in.
Mitchell Roberts — If individuals do not want to send them in then he is willing to stamp and
send them in along with the rest of the board members.
Chief McLaughlin — You could put a couple of collection points on here or you can mail them to
a designated address. You may want to only mail the out of town petitions. He asked if the
Port of the Islands condo association when they send out mail to the out of town owners would
they include a copy of the petition?
James Simmons — Yes they will.
Mitchell Roberts — That would be a great asset you actually have the best distribution at the
Port than anywhere.
Chief McLaughlin — All of the petitions handed in we do not have to mail he can take them
directly in to the representative. Suggested putting on the petition where they can be dropped
off and mailed to address.
James Simmons — He asked if one of the drop off points could be the Fire Department in the
Chief's Office.
Chief McLaughlin — He said yes between RAM to SPM.
Mitchell Roberts — So that could be one drop off point another could be Port of the Islands.
Chief McLaughlin — He asked where at the Port. Where at the Port would you have the
collection at the motel in a box or maybe the Realty out front they could drop them off there.
James Simmons —Yes, the Realty Office.
Page 5
At
6 A
Chief McLaughlin — There are a lot of renters there most of the owners are out of town your
mailing list may be a lot smaller than you think.
Mitchell Roberts — Any of the petitions that we collect should we start marking them down so
we know who we got them from.
John Pennell — We could check them off.
Chief McLaughlin — If we get a copy of the tax roll all we have to do is check them off which is
one of the phone calls he is going to make tomorrow.
Mitchell Roberts — Especially if we have to beat the bushes because we can't use the funds for
the mass mailing but the condo association can do mail outs. If there are any people that Patty
Huff mails the paper to they could insert the petition. I don't think we want to all chip in for
mailing and return postage for 3,000 petitions.
James Simmons — He said local is no problem.
Mitchell Roberts — That would be $1320 in postage .44 x 3,000 to do a mass mailing.
Chief McLaughlin — if you mailed to everybody but I think you could reduce the list regarding
those that live locally just target the out of town addresses.
Mitchell Roberts — I guess we'll start beating the bushes and come up with some numbers
maybe by the next meeting we could have 75 to 100 of them out. When you e -mail the petition
to me will it be in an e -mail or can you just send the petition.
James Simmons — It will be sent as a word attachment.
Mitchell Roberts — He will make copies of the petition and start handing them out.
John Pennell made a motion to adjourn the meeting it was seconded by Mitchell Roberts
and the motion was passed to end the meeting.
Mitchell Ro 6erts, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
- .
RECEIVED
MAY 18 2010
guard of Comm commlssivs
Fiala
Halas
(�Ioyle
('oletta
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HELD ON APRIL 12, 2010
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief
Caleb Morris, Captain
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman, Copeland
James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
Todd Johnson, Everglades City, Advisory Board Member
Jean Kungle, Port of the Islands Realty
The meeting was called to order at 6:05PM.
V
1611A13
James Simmons recommended that the minutes for January 11, 2010 be approved as read the
motion was seconded by Mitchell Roberts and passed.
OLD BUSINESS:
Chief McLaughlin — Brush 61 has been completed we are still waiting on our VHF radios
to be purchased under the DOE Grant has been approved and the monies. The new chest packs
for the Firefighters, pagers for the personnel that live in the Everglades City area to respond on
calls and VHF mobile radios are being purchased at this time. Brush 61 will be assigned at Port
of the Islands to assist in the Everglades off US 41 in that area and on the North side up by the
gum range all in that area. The second truck brush 60 is at the shop now for new tires and to be
painted then it will retun to the Station. Our 6x6 brush trucks are also our high water trucks in
the event of a storm those are the only trucks that will get us into most places they sit much
higher than most of the vehicles. They are projecting a storm year like 2005 we'll see if that
happens. An executive summary was done in regards to the auctions monies regarding the sale
of the SCBA Gear it is on the BCC agenda for 4- 13 -10. There were some questions about this
today but as of 4PM it is still on the agenda for tomorrow. The purpose of the executive
summary if the sale of the SCBA happens at our reserve price that money has to go back into
the general fund by the way the County is set up but because we are an MSTU we have to get
the money back into our budget so we can purchase them that Could take five to six weeks.
Because we would have to go back before the board executive summary budget amendment
two weeks to go before the board then when you get it approved then you could go out to
purchase which would be 30 days we are trying to compress that time frame as a pre - emptive
event if the SCBA sold and the monies came in the budget office would already have prior
approval then they can move it over into our fund so we don't have to go through this lengthy
process.
Page 1 Misc. WOR060M.
Date:
Item #:
we- h)
1611 A13
NEW BUSINESS:
IT COSTS:
Chief McLaughlin — So that at the time of the sale I can pick up the phone and order the air
packs so we're looking at 25 to 30 days instead of two months. We are borrowing SCBA while
we are in the process of purchasing the new gear. Our IT costs have skyrocketed it went from
$8,800 to $11,500, to $15,500 to $21,500 this year so in four years we have had almost a 600%
Increase Isles of Capri had the same thing, Last Thursday the Isles of Capri Advisory Board meet
with Commissioner Dona Fiala and they expressed their concern about the extremely high IT
cost for the same amount of computers and why they are running so high. Up until last year
the IT Department was in general fund they have been taken out of general fund and were
made a Revenue Department so now they have to create their own money so they have a
whole list of allocated costs they have created based on how many computers and how many
full time employees. It's $525 per employee, its $2,000 per computer, and $152 per 800 MHZ
radio, you start adding these costs up and that's how they reach their schedule. The head of
the IT Department Barry Axelrod said this is the first year they are trying to do this they don't
have it figure out they've never been a revenue. Barry Axelrod feels it will take them about
three years to figure this out. Chief McLaughlin and Isles of Capri feel they can drop some of
their computers from the system in order to save money. Chief McLaughlin feels if he drops
three computers that would be $6,000 and drop 13 radios that would be another $1500 making
that a savings of $7500. One problem is we keep our fire reporting on a share server at EMS
and we log in separately from each station. He would have to do one of two things either bring
it back to a standalone system right here dedicated for that with an external hard drive or buy a
server for $1200 and share it with Isles of Capri including the cost and put the fire reporting
system on that sharing it with a static IP address. So we would just log in our fire reports and
log out. He was told due to the past problems with a former Chief they had some problems
with some server applications. This would be a dedicated server with just reporting on it he
was not happy with not being able to set up a standalone system for fire reporting. He has the
potential to save $7,000 yearly and is only going to spend $600 to correct the problem but the
County will not allow the Department to do this not with a standalone system. We already
have that money in the budget for next year. If we remove the three computers from the
system we still need to have the ability somehow to have that server accessible for fire
reporting other than that all of our employees only use the system to obtain their e -mail and
they don't have to be connected to do that. So the three computers out their do not have to be
on a County system. We own those computers because we bought them with MSTU money
that was a shock to the IT Department that we were not giving them back because we bought
them. They do not go into general fund until we turn them into surplus. When we originally
obtained those computers we had to purchase them out of our fund they did not give them to
US.
Page 2
1611 A13
Chief McLaughlin — By the first of May he needs to make a decision, the radios are easy we
already know which ones we are not going to use but the computers are a little different. We
could go a year and see what happens next year then make this decision or send a letter to
Commissioner Fiala in regards to this matter. Fie would rather spend that money on gear,
clothing or on man power instead of IT costs he really doesn't need.
Mitchell Roberts — He is assuming that cost covers any problems with your electronics here
there is no additional charge for fixing it.
Chief McLaughlin — Oh no we get charged by the hour. There is an hourly charge depending
what the problem is.
Mitchell Roberts— That shouldn't be the case so what are we paying for
Chief McLaughlin — We have a limited support service for applications. Some applications there
is a $75 an hour charge if it is not an IT call if they have to trouble shoot for us. That is part of
our dilemma he feels all service should be included in the price. They have limited hours they
have lost personnel they have reduced their personnel by 1/3. The County is looking at another
26 million dollar loss this year it is causing them to really tighten up. The IT Department runs a
5.2 million dollar budget for the County that is not the Sheriff's IT or the Clerk's IT either.
Mitchell Roberts — You need at least three computer for at least strictly business work. Don't
YOU have a recreational computer for staff to check their personal e -mails while they are here?
Chief McLaughlin — No, the IT Department strictly regulates web sites as to who can go where
and the use of the computers with web sense there is a County CMA on computer use. The
union has a computer that is their after hour's computer. We only need two computers to be
able to access the County Intra net for payroll and NR services. Everybody else can be to the
outside world the problem would be the security. The County IT Department's philosophy is if
you own the computer and it's not on our system you're responsible for it. If you have people
doing something on it they shouldn't then it's your problem. We will accept that we can put
our own securities on it and monitor it. I would leave the computers in the station I just would
not have them on the County's Intranet.
Mitchell Roberts — With his part time military job they are getting computers designated as
personal use that's why he figured they would have one here.
Chief McLaughlin —They do through the union computer.
Mitchell Roberts — If they are increasing that item in your budget each year then is that
appropriated in a budget increase or now do other things have to go down to allow for it.
Page 3
161 1 A13
Chief McLaughlin — Here's what happens with next year's budget we were told to take a 10%
decrease in the budget next year which comes to a $163,000 decrease but because we are an
MSTU we operate different than general fund. The budget manager Randy Greenwald said just
take it out of the revenue so they looked at our Reserves and our projected Reserve Carry
Forward keep the same budget as this year. What we did was keep the same budget as last
year so our hit came out of Reserves instead of Payroll and Operating Expenses. They forgot to
put in the $143,000 that we receive in District I funds so that just about carried our decrease.
It looks like we are only going to drop about $52,000 out of Reserves this year we were carrying
almost $511,000 forward.
PILT and the $250,000:
Chief McLaughlin — He had a long talk with Mark Isackson at their direction in regards to the Pilt
funds, He said he world look into it. The next day the budget office requested maps of our
District, Big Cypress and what our tax rate was. He told Mr. Isackson that the Port of the Islands
board member commented that if the Pilt funds had continue they could have finished the
Station at Port of the Islands because it would have been at least $250,000 per year.
Mr. Isackson is still looking into it. On Tuesday morning at 4PM $250,000 showed up in our
budget in a building Capital Outlay Fund that the budget Director put in himself for the Port of
the Islands Fire Station construction. We would have to fund $150,000 out of reserves to
obtain our $400,000 to cover the Fire Station construction. We have already applied for the
STPA it is in for the first review the second review should be by the middle of the summer. We
should be able to pull the permits in August and hopefully by October or November we will
start construction.
Mitchell Roberts — You started asking questions and then $250,000 showed up so there are
funds available you just need to remind then).
Chief McLaughlin — The funds were transferred as a loan transferred out of fund 351 it is a road
and bridge assessment fund. The same amount has been deposited in that fund for the last
four years so that's all we know about where it came from. I am sure that is good news for
people at Port of the Islands to know we are moving forward with that project and for our
people because they are tired of staying in a motel room.
Mitchell Roberts — That is a good start at least something is happening.
James Simmons — We have enough in Reserves to supply that?
Chief McLaughlin — Yes, our budget is looking good. It will still bounce around till probably the
first week in May it will adjust. There are several things we are looking to do next year in our
budget and it's looking good.
Page 4
1611 A13
Chief McLaughlin — When it is all said and done we should still carry forward a little over three
hundred thousand dollars that is after the project and everything has gone forward. Within the
budget next year we are going to outfit the personnel with bunker gear we're upgrading a few
things. He talked about some of the projects for next year such as re- placing the cabinets in
Station 60 and installing a water system. Another project is head sets for the trucks he
explained how they work on the apparatus. Fie commented that the new budget manager
Randy Greenwald has worked out well and assisted greatly with the budget.
Mitchell Roberts — if you found a way to obtain an outside contract for IT service at $5,000 a
year then your budget would be cut $6,000 a year because you won't need all that expenditure.
You are better off keeping the cost down in house.
Chief McLaughlin — Fie discussed this with Dan Summers and decided to stay as we are for now
to see where this goes with IT. He is going to pull some of the radios off that should reduce it
by $1,000. If next budget year they have not been able to adjust their costs or fix it then at that
time we will pull some of the computers off line and possible go to an independent server.
James Simmons — He asked if you had an independent server with Isles of Capri how CIO you
communicate with that server?
Chief McLaughlin — Through the internet and then he explained how it would work. The server
would just be an access to a reporting system. He informed the board that there is a weather
bug station at the Everglades City Fire Station and that they can check it out at
weatherbug.com.
James Simmons — He said there was an article about Isles of Capri getting on last week.
(OLD BUSINESS) PETITION:
Mitchell Roberts — He referenced an e -mail forwarded to him by Chief McLaughlin in reference
to the petition. Per the e -mail officially for any us board members or employees of the
Department we cannot pursue this as of right now. However, this petition was started by the
residents at Port of the Islands.
Jean Kungle — She feels we need to put a package together before we submit the petition to
anyone. She feels the packet should contain some history regarding the subject and some
budget information as well. Have you been working on this?
Page 5
611 A13
Mitchell Roberts— Well as of right now we as a board cannot work on this until we get direction
from the Board of County Commissioners. But as a civilian or a citizen she can request any
information that she wants as long as it is public record and if you have these in your
procession right now even these would be good as long as there is a line through deliver to
Ochopee Fire District Office and James Simmons Rettfty -Offi-
� ,
Chief McLaughlin — The petition would have to go through a citizen action group.
Mitchell Roberts — Whatever petitions you have as a citizen's group feel free to pursue it
because we cannot at this time.
James Simmons —You should have a place here in Everglades City,
Jean Kungle — Maybe we could set something up with the Everglades City people.
Chief McLaughlin — Someone you know here in Everglades like Bob Wells maybe could get
involved.
Mitchell Roberts — You could ask the City Council if they want to get involved in the petition
drive that is being done by citizens that we cannot do. We just have to stay out of it until we
are told we can pursue it.
Jean Kungle — Wanted to know if they could share information.
Mitchell Roberts — Any information that you were talking about like call figures the Chief can
release anything that is legal under the sunshine law.
Chief McLaughlin — We have statistics and we do have some of those from the past.
Mitchell Roberts — Said feel free to send what you have, maybe photo copy and then when you
get another packet together send it on.
Jean Kungle — The package needs to be sent to all the law makers in the State during the
summer before they go back into session asking them to support the bill that is if we can get it
into a bill.
Chief McLaughlin — We planned last year to go up in September to make a presentation to the
State Congress but it never manifested.
Jean Kungle — She thinks it is better to go through a representative get him to right up the bill.
Page 6
1611 1A13
Mitchell Roberts — He feels with the political influence of Port of the Islands would be a lot
stronger than this little vicinity here. Just let the Chief know what you need and we need to
find out what we have to do to be able to join in.
Chief McLaughlin — We get our final numbers for the budget in June then we will know exactly
what we'll have until then everything is speculation.
Mitchell Roberts — We already sent two letters to Transportation in Tallahassee regarding this
SO I guess we will cease all of that until we get permission. He feels it is a great idea and as long
as there are residents there it should be pursued.
NEW BUSINESS:
Chief McLaughlin — All six Reservist positions are filled and there are ten waiting. We have
completed our review of our Department Policy Internal Procedures Rules and Regulations. We
try to do it yearly but this has been a two year process this time. We had our biannual
Department Meeting last Wednesday that included everybody even the Reserves. It was a
good meeting and he had positive feedback out of it. We have not been fully staffed with
Reserves in years since the qualifications change till now. There are a lot of people out there
unemployed and are looking to keep up their certificate. We did change our policy that we will
only take six that we will fund there is a reason behind it. We do not have a lot of spare gear
we just had to get rid of 12 sets because it was too old to use so due to liability it had to be
disposed of. He is going to purchase new gear for all the paid personnel and theirs will be used
for the Reserve personnel. Bunker gear is $1500 just for pants and jackets, boots $250, helmet
$270, gloves $60. So to outfit a Firefighter you are now looking at $2,000 in clothing just to
outfit them. We need to have reserve gear for paid personnel as well in case they need to
replace any of their gear. NFPA recommends two sets of gear for each Firefighter well that's ok
if you have a large budget. So we have found a way to do that by splitting the old gear with the
Reserves and save part of it for the paid personnel. Anyone above the six reservists that is
willing to pay for his bunker gear, which has to be to the Department's standards, can also
come aboard we will pay for their physical which costs $250 and the background check. We
have had a lot of applicants from the east coast but we have established that the Reservist have
to be from Collier County.
Mitchell Roberts — If they come in with their own gear does that obligate you to inspection
criteria or to make sure their gear is standard.
Chief McLaughlin — Yes it has to meet our current criteria and standard.
Jean Kungie —Have they been Firefighters before.
Page 7
1.6 11113
Chief McLaughlin —They are certified Firefighters, there are no new jobs and they have cut back
in some areas. However the fire school keeps pumping out 50 firefighters a year or more for
the last three years so you have all those Firefighters out there. They can only be unemployed
for a certain amount of time before they will lose their certification unless they are an active
volunteer. They are Reservists because Volunteers usually set up as an organization with bank
accounts and activities it has been a problem in the past so to keep this from developing they
are considered Reservists and adjunct to the District. They have to serve 24 hours a month and
10 hours of training a month. We changed our Reserve Firefighter program two months ago
we had some issues with it. New hires, Job Bankers and Reserve Firefighter all go through the
same 40 hour indoctrination program. They go through five days of every shift we have it all
laid out in a program. We found it works a lot better this way they all get the same information
the same training right up front. There is a County policy that internal applicants get job
preference and Job Bankers are considered internal employees. Therefore, if we have a
qualified job banker or two it's just an internal interview and one of them gets the job then we
don't have to go through all of the process of outside advertising it makes it easier for hiring
purposes, Plus the job bankers already know the other personnel, the system and our
operations it works out really well.
Mitchell Roberts made a motion to adjourn it was seconded and passed the meeting adjourned.
�Mitc ell R erts, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
in
coyie
Colettz
A 1 A RECEIVED'
1 1 MAY 0 5 2010
March t `, i "&ounty Commissioners
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, March 17, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at North Collier Regional Park Exhibit Hall,
15000 Livingston Road, Naples Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes
VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky
Barbara Buehler (Excused)
Phillip Brougham
Kerry Geroy
David Saletko
William Shafer
ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation
Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager
Kerry Runyon, Regional Manager
Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist
Tona Nelson, Administrative Assistant
Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator misc.
Deb:
i IMm A: .l—1 j
Copies to:
161 1 A14
March 17, 2010
I. Call to Order
Chairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:OOpm and a quorum was established.
II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following addition:
Second by Ms. Geray. Carried unanimously 5 -0.
IV. Approval of January February 18, 2010 minutes
Mr. Olesky moved to approve the minutes ofihe February 18, 2010 meeting. Second by
Mr. Brougham. Carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mr. Shafer arrived al 2: 051)m
V. New Business
a) Presentation on the Proposed Eagle Lakes Community Park Community Center—
Barry Williams
Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation addressed the Board noting a
presentation was requested on the concept for an alternative use of funds allocated for
the construction of Manatee Park. The funds could be re- directed to the construction of
a Community, Fitness and Aquatic Center at Eagle Lakes Community Park. He
highlighted the following:
• The total costs to construct Manatee Park are approximately $15M, with
approximately $1.9M — $2.4M available for the project at this time.
• Due to a down turn in the economy and the related projected impact fee
revenue, it is estimated Manatee Park may not be constructed for 5- 10
years.
• The re- direction of funds provide the persons in the East Naples Community
access to increased recreational facilities sooner than the anticipated opening
of Manatee Park.
• Revenue projections indicate funds are available, however, if the funds are
utilized for the construction of the project it is anticipated the Department
will be "in the red" in the year 2013 -2014 for its required debt service
payments.
Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management (the Department charged with
the Manatee Park project) noted there has been approximately $100,000 spent to date
for design and permitting of Manatee Park with an additional $150,000 held in reserve
to complete the design and permitting. He recommended the project be move forward
and obtain its permits to protect. At that point, the construction of the project may be
delayed as necessary. If Staff is directed to cease the Manatee Park project, the
$150,000 in reserve for design and permitting of the Park may be redirected to the
Eagle Lakes project.
1611 A1#
March 17, 2010
Tony Roberto, Sr. Project Manager provided an overview of the proposed facilities
for Eagle Lake Community Park highlighting:
• The Park is already permitted for a future Library and Community Center.
• The Site Development Plan would be amended to provide for a Community,
Fitness and Aquatic Center to be located in the southwest corner of the Park
adjacent to US41.
• The preliminary construction costs are estimated a $25M for the entire
project.
• If Staff moves forward with the concept, the project would take
approximately 21 —24 months to complete (from the design /permitting
stage to opening of the facility.)
Chairman Ribes read e -mails from the following individuals into the record:
Linda Lohnes to Commissioner Donna Fiala —dated March 4, 2010 indicating her
strong opposition to the re- direction of the funds.
.lean Kungle to Commissioner Donna Fiala —dated March 17, 2010 indicating her
support for re- direction of the funds.
Speakers
Commissioner Donna Fiala addressed the Board noting Eagles Lake Community Park
is the only Community Park without a Community Center. There is no fitness center,
swimming pools, Summer Programs or After School Programs available at the Park.
There are approximately 92,000 persons residing in the East Naples area and many
children are in need ofthese facilities. She has received feedback from the public with
the overwhelming majority in favor of the concept of re- directing the funds, as long as
Manatee Park is kept as a high priority for construction when funds become available.
Lely High School's swim team is also interested in the concept as the team is currently
bussed to the YMCA for training. She recommended a traffic light be installed at the
intersection of US41 and the entrance to the Park if the project is constructed.
Jennifer Tanner, Property Manager, Lely Golf Estates agreed with Commissioner
Fiala's comments and noted the is in favor ol'the concept.
Chairman Ribes noted the Board's responsibility is to recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners their position on the use of the available funds.
He identified 3 options available for consideration:
a. Re- direct the funds to Eagle Lakes Community Park for construction of
facilities as outlined in the Staff presentation.
b. Allow the funds to remain allocated to Manatee Park.
c. Use the funds to pay the upcoming debt service requirements.
Barry Williams noted Staff may investigate a partnership with the School District if
there is interest in developing an aquatic center that may be utilized as a training facility
for swim teams.
•A 14
March 17, 2010
Mr. Brougham moved to approving the preliminary plan and for Staff to move
forward to the next step of redirecting funds in the amount of approximately $1.9 —
2.4 million dollars toward the design permitting and construction of a Fitness,
Community and Aquatic Center at Eagle Lakes Community Park subject to the
stipulation Manatee Park remain the highest priority for Park Construction when
revenue becomes available. Second by Mr. Olesky.
Barry Williams noted the other Park Facility on the horizon is Corkscrew Island which
is slated for completion 2018, but could not guarantee how future funds allocated to
Park construction would be prioritized.
Mr. Brougham amended the motion to approve the preliminary plan and for Staff to
move forward to the next step in redirecting funds in the amount of approximately
$1.9 — 2.4 million dollars available for Manatee Park toward the design permitting
and construction of 'a Fitness, Community and Aquatic Center at Eagle Lakes
Community Park. Second by Mr. Olesky.
Ms. Geroy expressed concern if the funds are expended on the improvements in 2011,
the Department will be "in the red" for its debt service payments (which have a 20 year
maturation date from now) by the year 2012 — 2014. If the County is unable to meet its
debt obligations, this may have a negative affect on the County's Bond Rating. In
addition, the figures do not provide any analysis for ongoing staffing and maintenance
of the proposed facility. She is not in favor or redirecting the funds for construction of
new facilities at this time.
Barry Williams noted if the funds are not available for debt service payments, the
Department may be required to utilize its allocated ad valorem tax revenue for the
payments. If the ad valorem tax revenue is diverted to debt service payments, the
Department may be forced to reduce its level of service (reduction of hours of
operations, Staff layoffs, etc.)
To staffand maintain a facility of this type, the cost is approximately $800,000 to $IM
annually.
Mr. Brougham noted the funds have already been targeted to the East Naples area, and
in fairness to the residents of the region, the funds should be expended in the area and
not re- directed to other uses.
Chairman Ribes expressed concern on the financial status of the Department and
noted construction of additional facilities may "over extend" the Department. An
alternative is to complete the design and permitting phase of the Eagle Lakes proposal,
and reserve the decision on construction of a facility for a later date (9 -12 months).
Mr. Shafer recognized the need for the facility in the area and was in favor of the
project moving forward in steps.
Motion carried 4 "yes" — 2 "no." Chairman Ribes and Ms. Geroy voted "no."
'
1 1
A14
March 17.
2010
Barry Williams noted he will prepare an Fxecutive Summary for the Board of County
Commissioners which will include the Boards recommendation in the motion and to
continue permitting of Manatee Park.
b) Presentation on a BBQ Pit at Freedom Park — Naples on the Gulf Kiwanis Club
Ray Martyniuk, Tom McDonald and Robin McDonald addressed the Board on the
concept of constructing a Barbeque Pit at Freedom Park. The pit would be composed
of 3 levels of concrete block with steel grates for use by the Club and any other
individuals interested in holding barbeques. The Club currently conducts a similar
activity at a temporary site and removes the pit when the function is over. They are
looking for a permanent facility for the 10 foot by 40 foot structure. Many of the
fundraisers are conducted on patriotic holidays and Freedom Park provides the
atmosphere that would suit the events. The structure would be built and maintained at
no cost to the County.
Barry Williams noted Staff has concerns regarding parking for events as Freedom
Park has 40 parking spaces and may become overwhelmed by an event of this nature.
In addition, there have been facilities built by volunteer organizations intended to be
maintained by them and the organizations have had difficulty performing the
maintenance. Staff is not opposed to the concept, but could work with the Club in an
attempt to find a more suitable park facility for the operation.
Mr. Olesky recommended the Club consider constructing the structure on a trailer, so it
is mobile and easily moved off and on sites as required.
The Board reached consensus on the concept of Staff working with the Club in an
attempt to idenlzfy a suitable location for the structure.
c) National Softball Association Facility of the Year for North Collier Regional Park
— Kerry Runyon
Ed Torrini of the Parks and Recreation Department received a National Softball
Association 2009 Outstanding Park for North Collier Regional Park based on its
provision of customer service and facilities maintenance.
d) Collier County Sherriff Department Youth Summer Nights — Kerry Runyon
Hot Summer Nights, a partnership event with the Collier County Sherriff s Department
will be held this summer on two occasions. The events include utilization of Fun n Sun
Lagoon, Max Hasse Park, Immokalee Sports Complex, etc.
VI. Old Business
None
VII. Marketing Highlights — "Got Camp"
Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist provided an overview of the marketing efforts being
undertaken to promote summer camps. The efforts include placement of magnetic signs on
1611 A14
March 17, 2010
County Vehicles, Banners, donated advertising by Comcast and radio station 104.7 and
Chick -Fil -A distributing information at their local facilities.
VIII. Recreation Highlights — International Festival — Michael Toolan
The International Festival, a Saint Peters the Apostle Church event was held at Sudgeon
Park on February 17 -18, 2010. The event included food and music from 10 different
nations, children's games, craft sales and other activities to educate the public on different
cultures within the world. The event was successful and the organizers plan to apply for
permission to hold the event at the same venue next year.
IX. Adopt a Park— David Saletko
A written report was submitted on Clam Pass Fark. The major area of concern is the
boardwalk where the heads of the plank fastening screws are exposed causing injuries to
persons and flat tires to vehicles.
Tony Roberto noted Staff is aware of the problem and is in the process of addressing the
issue.
X. Director Highlights — Barry Williams
• The Parks and Recreation Department participated in the Naples Saint Patrick's
Day Parade.
• Moraya Bay has reversed their decision to prohibit public access on the beach
frontage under their control.
• Staff is investigating the concept of a Tram System from Conner Park to access
points of Vanderbilt Beach.
• A plaque recognizing the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Board of
County Commissioners will be placed on the new sailing and water ski building at
Sudgen Park.
• Staff is investigating signage on prohibited activities at the Parks and installing
protective matting in batting cages. Both in an effort to protect the existing fencing
at facilities.
XI. Informational Items
Submitted
XII. Public Comments /Board Member Comments
Mr. Brougham noted an email from a citizen indicating support for the County's proposal
to construct the restroom and concession facilities as currently designed (to be located at
the end of Vanderbilt Beach Road.)
Barry Williams noted the concept requires approval of the Pelican Bay Foundation. He
will notify Board members on the date, time and location of the meeting.
Chairman Ribes requested Staff:
• Provide a presentalion on the existing and proposed park.facilities within the
County.
• Provide a presentation on the Powers and Duties of the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board.
1611 A14
March 17, 2010
Meeting Attendance
Mr. Shafer was Late.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chair at 3:55 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY
These Minutes approved by the Board /Committee on
as presented or as amended
Fiala —�
Halas
RECEIVED Henning
Coyle
MAY 1 1 2010 Coletta X
pparo of CounH Con nLs,oners MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
Naples, Florida, April 16, 2010
1 9 pril 110
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION
in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex,
Naples, Florida, with the following persons present:
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson
ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secretarymisc. corres:
Date: bjTlt - 10
Item #:
16 Ill B1
April 16, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at
9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath.
A. Special Magistrate Garretson dispensed with the reading of the Rules, citing only
Code Enforcement Supervisors and Investigators were present and they were
familiar with the regulations.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes:
(a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings, " the case number for Agenda 91 was corrected to
PR 043719 — CEEX 20100002933 — BCC vs. Stephen Pino
(b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED at the
request of the Park Ranger:
• Agenda #2, Case #PR 042891 — CEEX20100003829 — BCC vs. Bryan &
Suzanne Stanley
(c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the
County:
• Agenda 93, Case #PR 042172 — CEEX20100004140 — BCC vs. Diana
Harter
• Agenda #4, Case #CEROW 20090015230 — BCC vs. Alan Montgomery
c/o Wendy Ennis- Volcy, Attorney at Law
• Agenda #6, Case #CEPM 20090013174 — BCC vs. Jose & Raquel Nunez
• Agenda #7, Case #CEV 20100002967 — BCC vs. Christopher Szczepkowski
• Agenda #14, Case #CEPM 20090014601 — BCC vs. Clifford C. Neuse
(d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was
WITHDRAWN by the County:
• Agenda #2, Case #CEPM 20090016303 — BCC vs. Marcella Robles
The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made
during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 2, 2010
The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on April 2, 2010 were
reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted
IV. MOTIONS
A. Motion for Extension of Time: None
1611 91
April 16, 2010
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stipulations: None
B. Hearings:
1 Case #PR 043719 — CEEX 20100002933 —BCC vs. Stephen Pino
The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present.
Collier County Park Ranger Cinde Kalan was present.
Violations: Code of Laws & Ord., Sec. 130 -66
Failure to properly affix beach sticker
Violation address: Marco South Access
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010 and notification
was left by the U.S. Postal Service on April 8, 2010.
The Park Ranger said the permit on the Respondent's vehicle was held in place by
tape and had also expired. She explained the Beach Parking Permit must be
permanently adhered to the bottom of the driver's side front windshield driver's side.
She introduced four photographs of the vehicle which were marked as County's
Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence.
The Special Magistrate stated the parking permit was not properly affixed to the
vehicle in violation of the Ordinance.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and was ordered to pay a fine of $30.00, and an
administrative fee of $5.00.
The Respondent was also ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on
or before May 16, 2010.
Total Amount Due: $85.00
5. Case #CENA 20090016574 — BCC vs. Jeffrey Macasevich
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Reggie
Smith who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54 Environment, Article VI,
Weeds, Litter and Exotics, Section 54 -181
Litter /debris in the form of, but not limited to, glass sliding doors, french
doors, aluminum pieces, wood, tarp, paint containers, metal pipe, ladder
Folio No: 53751280003
Violation address: 4469 Lakewood Blvd
1611 ti
April 16, 2010
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010 and notification
was left by the U.S. Postal Service on April 8, 2010. The property and the Court
house were posted on April 1, 2010.
Supervisor Waldron stated Code Enforcement received a letter on April 13, 2010
from the attorney representing the Respondent requesting a Continuance of 30 to 45
days because his client was convalescing and undergoing rehabilitative therapy. The
letter was not timely received.
The Special Magistrate asked if any Health, Safety, or Welfare issues were involved
in the case.
Investigator Smith stated there was none.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for a CONTINUANCE
and Code Enforcement would add the case to the appropriate June docket.
8 Case #CEPM 20090015776 — BCC vs. Alexander & Joanka Diaz Dominguez
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan
Musse who was present.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI,
Section 22- 231(15) and 22- 231(12)(L)
Pool area in disrepair. Also green water and items in water
Folio No: 62635080006
Violation address: 669 99th Avenue N.
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010. The U.S. Postal
Service notified Code Enforcement the letter was "undeliverable" on April 8, 2010.
The property and the Courthouse were posted on April 1, 2010.
Investigator Musse introduced two photographs taken on February 22, 2010 which
were marked as County's Exhibit "A" and `B" and admitted into evidence.
He stated the violations have not been abated.
The Special Magistrate examined the photographs and noted the case included
Health, Safety, and Welfare issues.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either clean and treat the pool
water to remove the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool
water, or to chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool pursuant to HUD
standards on or before April 26, 2010 or a ftne of $250.00 per day will be imposed
for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent
Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
1611 B1
April 16, 2010
The Respondents were further ordered to repair /replace the ripped or missing
screens from the windows and the pool enclosure, on or before April 26, 2010,
or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains
thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special
Magistrate.
If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized
to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.64 on
or before May 16, 2010.
The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.64
9 Case #CEPM 20100003246 — BCC vs. Raul & Martha Reyes
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas
Keegan who was present.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Code of Law & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sections 22- 231(15)
and 22- 231(12)(L)
Vacant home with pool water in green, stagnant condition as well as torn
screening on pool cage
Folio No: 79904127023
Violation address: 7893 Umberto Court
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010 and notification
was left by the U.S. Postal Service on April 10, 2010. The property and the Court
house were posted on April 1, 2010.
Investigator Keegan introduced two photographs of the pool on March 12, 2010
which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and `B." The Notice of Violation was
faxed to the Respondents. He stated the violations have not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either clean and treat the pool
water to remove the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool
water, or to chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool pursuant to HUD
standards on or before April 26, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed
for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent
Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
161 1 B1
April 16, 2010
The Respondents were further ordered to repair or replace torn screening from the
pool enclosure on or before April 26, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be
imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a
subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized
to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.91 on
or before May 16, 2010.
The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.91
10 Case NCEV20090015983 — BCC vs. Timothy Nelson
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure
Sorrels who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended,
Section 2.01.00(A)
Unlicensed boat trailer stored in rear of property
Folio No.: 22623200003
Violation Address: 3461 Verity Lane
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010 and was
forwarded by the U.S. Postal Service on April 8, 2010. The property was posted on
April 2, 2010 and the Courthouse were posted on April 5, 2010.
Investigator Sorrels introduced one photograph of the trailer which was marked as
County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The photograph was taken by the
Foreclosure Team on October 6, 2009 as part of Code Enforcement's case file.
She stated the violation has not been abated..
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to attach a current, valid tag for the
trailer, or store it in a completely enclosed structure, or remove it from the
premises, on or before April 23, 2010 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed
for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent
Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent
161 1 91 1
April 16, 2010
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the terms of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.56 on
or before May 16, 2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.56
11 Case #CENA 20090015974 — BCC vs. Timothy Nelson
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure
Sorrels who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI,
Section(s) 54 -179 & 54 -181
Litter on property consisting of but not limited to; propane tank, gas
cans, chemical containers, paint buckets, spray cans, tabletop, plastic
tarp, cooler, stacks of flooring tile, broom, clothing, grill, patio chairs,
general trash scattered throughout
Folio No: 22623200003
Violation address: 3461 Verity Lane
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010 and was
forwarded by the U.S. Postal Service on April 8, 2010. The property was posted on
April 2, 2010 and the Courthouse were posted on April 5, 2010.
Investigator Sorrels introduced ten photographs of the premises which were marked
as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The photographs
were taken by the Foreclosure Team on October 6, 2009 as part of Code
Enforcement's case file.
She stated the property is in Lis Pendens and a Certificate of Title has not been issued
to the Bank. The violations have not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either remove all litter to an
appropriate waste disposal facility, or store desired items in a completely enclosed
structure, on or before April 23, 2010, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed
for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent
Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the terms of the Order.
16 I 'B1
April 16, 2010
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.64 on
or before May 16, 2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.64
12 Case #CEPM 20090015979 — BCC vs. Timothy Nelson
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure
Sorrels who was present.
"The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI,
Sections 22- 231(12)(C), 22- 231(12)(1), and 22 -243
Deteriorated fascia, unfinished roofing work, unsecured side door and
broken windows on vacant home
Folio No: 22623200003
Violation address: 3461 Verity Lane
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010 and was
forwarded by the U.S. Postal Service on April 8, 2010. The property was posted on
April 2, 2010 and the Courthouse were posted on April 5, 2010.
Investigator Sorrels introduced seven photographs of the premises which were
marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The
photographs were taken by the Foreclosure Team on October 6, 2009 as part of Code
Enforcement's case file. The property is in foreclosure and the Bank has not received
a Certificate of Title. The violations have not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain either a Collier County
Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections,
and a Certificate of Occupancy /Completion, on or before Tune 16, 2010, or a fine
of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
The Respondent was further ordered to either secure all doors /windows and obtain
a Code Enforcement Boarding Certificate, or replace the locking mechanisms on
the doors and replace the broken windows on or before April 23, 2010 or a fine of
$250 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless
altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Offrce
to enforce the terms of the Order.
161 1 B1
April 16, 2010
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.82 on
or before May 16, 2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.82
13. Case #CESD 20090015977 — BCC vs. Timothy Nelson
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure
Sorrels who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended,
Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) and Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition,
Chapter 1, Section 105.1
Un- permitted screen porch and un- permitted shed on property
Folio No: 22623200003
Violation address: 3461 Verity Lane
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010 and was
forwarded by the U.S. Postal Service on April 8, 2010. The property was posted on
April 2, 2010 and the Courthouse were posted on April 5, 2010.
Investigator Sorrels introduced four photographs of the premises which were marked
as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The photographs
were taken by the Foreclosure Team on October 6, 2009 as part of Code
Enforcement's case file. The property is in foreclosure and the Bank has not received
a Certificate of Title.
She noted the screen enclosure was originally permitted as a carport and the shed was
not permitted. The violations have not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain either a Collier County
Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections,
and a Certificate of Occupancy /Completion on or before June 16, 2010 or a fine of
$100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the terms of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.64 on
or before May 16, 2010.
1611 El
April 16, 2010
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.64
C. Emergency Cases:
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
1 Case #CEPM 20090010630 — BCC vs. James & Stacey Lyle
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff
Letourneau on behalf of investigator Carmelo Gomez.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 — Buildings and
Building Regulations, Article VI — Property Maintenance Code,
Section 22- 231(15)
Pool stagnant and not properly maintained
Folio No: 23945052608
Violation address: 20 Newbury Place
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on
April 1, 2010.
Supervisor Letoumeau stated the violation was abated on March 3, 2010.
Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from March 2, 2010
through March 3, 2010 (2 days) for a total fine amount of $500.00.
Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.82 have not been paid.
The total amount due to date is $612.82.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $612.82.
3. Case #CEPM 20090001763 — BCC vs. Robert Custer
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 — Buildings and
Building Regulations, Article II — Property Maintenance Code,
Section 22- 231(19)
An infestation of bees located underneath the rear of mobile home
10
1611 B1 `1
April 16, 2010
Folio No: 68891160007
Violation address: 29 Covey Lane, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on April 5, 2010 and notification
was left by the U.S. Postal Service on April 8, 2010. The property was posted on
April 2, 2010 and the Courthouse were posted on April 5, 2010.
Investigator Sorrels stated the County abated the violation on November 18, 2009.
Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from October 22,
2009 through November 18, 2009 (28 days) for a total fine amount of $7,000.00.
Previously assessed Operational Costs of $118.05 have not been paid.
Abatement costs in the amount of $270.00 have not been paid.
The total amount due to date is $7,388.05.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $7,388.05.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
None
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the
submitted Executive Summary.
None
B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases
referenced in the submitted Executive Summary.
The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and
GRANTED the County's Request.
IX. REPORTS:
None
X. NEXT HEARING DATE: May 7, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County
Government Center, Administrative Building "F, " 3rd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami
Trail, Naples, Florida.
16 11 g 1'
April 16, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was
adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 9:52 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
HEARING
\�
nda Garretson, Special Magistrate
The Minutes we approved by the Special Magistrate on Mekt 1 Qv��
as presented /, or as amended
12
RECEIVE 6 16
MAY 0 4 2010
board of County Commissioners
11 92
April 5, 2010
MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM Fiala 1—
Naples, Florida, April 5, 2010
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta l�
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection
Safety Program, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3`a Floor, Collier County
Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following persons present:
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson
ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Sgt. Chris Gonzalez, Collier County Deputy Sheriff
Cpl. Mike Peabody, Collier County Dept cSfhen f
Date: d l/
Item #:
161 1 B2
rl
April 5, 2010•
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Hearing was called to order at 9:02 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate
Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath.
A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson.
Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the
Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating
Officer(s) and view the video recording; the goal is to obtain compliance without
being punitive.
RECESS: 9:11 AM
RECONVENED: 9:41 AM
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes:
(a) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the
County:
• Agenda #1, Notice #1361000006457—BCC vs. Barbara H. Adony &
Yeshay Abu
• Agenda #5, Notice #1361000018403 — BCC vs. Rosalee Bryant
• Agenda #6, Notice #1360900180081 — BCC vs. Frances E. Chevalier
• Agenda #9,
Notice #1361000024419 — BCC vs. Douglas N. Higgins, Inc.
• Agenda #10,
Notice #1361000024963 — BCC vs. Arthur R. & Grayce L.
Duffy
• Agenda #13,
Notice #1361000004841— BCC vs. Sharon Dill King
• Agenda 414,
Notice #1361000012943 — BCC vs. Patrick Anthony Leoni
• Agenda #15,
Notice 41361000031679 — BCC vs. Kenneth Winfred Lewis
• Agenda 916,
Notice #1360900187771 — BCC vs. Mansour Lotfi
• Agenda 918,
Notice 91361000012430 — BCC vs. Jason S. Mastrofrancesco
• Agenda #27,
Notice #1361000013081— BCC vs. Isadora Oboto or James
P. Ballam
• Agenda #28,
Notice 41360900121564 — BCC vs. Richard Joseph O'Brien
• Agenda #29,
Notice #1361000022207 — BCC vs. Deborah J. Olsen
• Agenda #30,
Notice #1361000023189 — BCC vs. Mary V. Phelan
• Agenda #32,
Notice #1361000006762 — BCC vs. Terryl A. Robinson
• Agenda #33,
Notice #1361000013768 — BCC vs. Dermot Francis Rowland
• Agenda #34,
Notice #1361000028600 — BCC vs. Russell B. Howard
• Agenda #35,
Notice 41361000005764 — BCC vs. Keary A. and Brigitta A.
Schwingendorf
• Agenda #37,
Notice #1360900186237 — BCC vs. John B. Shesler
• Agenda #38,
Notice #1360900179976 — BCC vs. George Vega
• Agenda #39,
Notice #1361000016126 — BCC vs. W.W. Enterprises of SW
Florida, Inc.
161 1 B2
April 5, 2010—
(b) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the
County:
• Agenda 917, Notice 91361000020185 — BCC vs. Eileen E. Marshall
The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made
during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 1, 2010:
The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on March 1, 2010
were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearings:
7. Notice #1361000023296 — BCC vs. Thomas A. & Diane Kaiser Conner
The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were present.
The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondents reside at 1940 Curling Avenue, Naples, FL 34109, and verified they
are the registered owners of the vehicle.
Date of Violation: January 19, 2010
Time: 12:12 PM
Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road
Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate.
Respondent, Thomas Conner, stated he stopped behind another car and was by a stop
sign which was labeled "Stop Here" with an arrow pointing down. He claimed the
placement of the sign was confusing. He further stated he measured the sign which was
located 25 feet from the intersection and if he wasn't suppose to stop at that spot, the
sign should have been located closer to the intersection.
Sgt. Gonzalez noted the County erected the sign in an effort to inform drivers to stop at
the line. He admitted the placement was difficult, but contended the car did not come
to a full stop prior to entering the intersection.
The Special Magistrate concurred the County's sign did give a direction but the purpose
was to clarify, not confuse. She stated the intersection is problematic and ruled the
Respondents were not in violation.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation.
161'1 BZ
April 5, 2010
21. Notice #1360900178374 — BCC vs. Clifford Bruce Meert
The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present.
The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondent stated he resides at 340 Sherwood Drive, Naples, Florida 34110, and
verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle.
Date of Violation: December 22, 2009
Time: 5:05 PM
Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road
Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate.
The Respondent stated he flew to Long Island with his family on December 21, 2009.
His son and daughter -in -law arrived from Seattle on December 22nd to visit her family
and may have used his vehicle. He was not in possession of the vehicle at the time of
the incident.
The Special Magistrate asked the Respondent if he gave his son permission to use his
vehicle. The Respondent confirmed the car keys were available. She further stated the
visitors to Naples are required to follow local laws as are Naples residents and the laws
are applied uniformly to residents and visitors.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of
the Order to make payment.
Total Amount Due: $112.50
24 Notice #1361000023056 — BCC vs. Harvey Michael Moil or Barbara Gershkoff
Levine
The Hearing was requested by the Respondents. Respondent, H. Michael Mogil, was
present and represented his wife, Barbara Gershkoff Levine.
The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondents reside at 1104 5 I Street South, Naples, Florida 34102, and Mr. Mogil
confirmed he and his wife are the registered owners of the vehicle.
Date of Violation: January 19, 2010
Time: 7:33 AM
Location: Intersection of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Parkway
Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the
light was red for .05 seconds and vehicle drove through the intersection at a speed of
161 AprilS�
approximately 51 miles per hour. The yellow light should remain on for approximately
4.5 seconds at the intersection.
Mr. Mogil stated he is a math tutor and runs the "MathWorks Tutoring Center." He
investigated the light to determine if it was "quick- timed," or running at less than one
second for every 10 miles per hour. The ITE Standard is 4.5 seconds in a 45 mph zone.
He conducted a timing study of approximately 150 intersections and introduced an
Excel spread sheet containing his data which was marked as Respondent's Exhibit "1"
and admitted into evidence.
Some of the results presented are:
• Various intersections in Naples at 45 miles per hour
• Range of times for amber lights ran from 2.9 to 5.07 seconds
• 58 of the 65 samples taken at the intersections were below the ITE ( "Institute
for Traffic Engineers ") Standard
• He tested four "Red Light"
• He took four samples at each intersection and the average for the amber light
was 4.6 seconds
• After taking fifteen samples, he found the timing northbound lane of Collier and
Golden Gate was 3.83 seconds
• The eastbound lane at the same light (which is a 35 mph speed limit) met the
standard
• Conclusion: both the northbound and southbound traffic signals are improperly
set for traffic at 35 miles per hour and his wife did not violate the Ordinance
because the signal was improperly timed
o If the signal had been properly timed, his wife's vehicle would have
been well into, or past, the intersection when the light changed
Sgt. Gonzalez asked Eugene Calvert from Collier County Traffic Operations to respond
and there would have been enough time to stop if the Respondent's wife had been
driving at the speed limit of 45 mph.
The Special Magistrate asked if the "required time" of 4.5 seconds was a Statutory
requirement, an Administrative requirement, or a hoped -for average.
Mr. Calvert stated the timing for yellow lights is set to the Industry standard developed
by ITE ( "Institute for Traffic Engineers ") and is based on the speed limit for the area.
The standard timing throughout Collier County is approximately 4.3 for 45 mph speed
limit. The reason is to allow a driver enough reaction time to recognize the change in
signal and safely bring the vehicle to a stop. He was unable to testify concerning the
exact timing of the light at the intersection in question without checking the County's
records.
Mr. Mogil reiterated the speed limit for the east bound lane feeding into the intersection
is 35 miles per hour while the north and southbound lanes are 45 miles per hour. He
maintained the light was out of timing.
161 1 B2
April 5, 2010
Mr. Mogil referred to information posted on the FAQ page on the County's website:
"Our minimum amber times are four seconds on the thru lanes. "
Cpt. Gonzalez noted the human factor of operating a stop watch versus the pressure
hose used to highways to capture time. The human reaction time can be delayed.
The Special Magistrate adjourned the case to allow the County's records to be
reviewed and the information will be presented later in the proceedings.
31. Notice #1361000010541— BCC vs. Art S. and Jasmin Ramos
The Hearing was requested by Respondent, Art S. Ramos, who was present.
The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez
Mr. Ramos resides at 557 Wedgewood Way, Naples, Florida 34119.
He stated he is divorced. His former wife is not aware of the Hearing. The vehicle is
leased in both names but will be turned in within the next two months. He stated he was
driving the vehicle.
Date of Violation: January 8, 2010
Time: 8:50 AM
Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road
Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated the
light was red as the vehicle approached and remained red as it proceeded through the
intersection.
The Respondent introduced the following exhibits which were marked and admitted
into evidence:
• Respondent's Composite "1" —nine photographs of various intersections
A photograph of the corner of Livingston and Pine Ridge Road was viewed and noted
a sign, "Right Turn on Red after Stop, " was mounted at the intersection. He stated
there were no signs at eye level. He stated he had not noticed the sign prior to the day
of the incident even though he drives through the intersection on a daily basis. He
stated the print on the sign was very small and difficult to read. He stated there was a
warning sign approximately one -half mile before the intersection alerting drivers that a
camera had been installed. He contended the signs governing whether or not a turn is
allowed should also be posted at eye level.
The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance did not specify signs should be posted at
eye level. The law is to stop at the stop bar before proceeding into an intersection.
She also stated whether or not a sign is present, the law remains the same and, until
rescinded, the law will be applied to each case.
161 1 B2
April 5, 2010
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of
the Order to make payment.
Total Amount Due: $112.50
36. Notice 41361000033618 — BCC vs. Ersin and Pinar N. Sevindik
The Hearing was requested by the Respondents. Respondent, Pinar N. Sevindik was
present and also represented her husband.
The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondents reside at 5778 Cove Circle, Naples, Florida 34119. Mrs. Sevindik
verified that she and her husband are the registered owners of the vehicle.
Date of Violation: January 31, 2010
Time: 9:51 PM
Location: Intersection of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Parkway
Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the
traffic signal was red as the Respondent's vehicle proceeded through the intersection.
The Respondent stated the roadway was damp and the canal was next to the road. She
further stated when the light changed, it went from yellow to red within four seconds,
and she did not want to risk stopping because of the possibility of skidding. She had
spun out once before on a wet road and she was afraid and did not feel it was safe to
stop.
The Special Magistrate stated the photograph did not indicate that the car's brake light
was on and there was nothing to indicate she was slowing down. The Respondent
exceeded the speed limit which was not safe on a damp roadway.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of
the Order to make payment
Total Amount Due: $112.50
RECESS: 11 :17 AM
RECONVENED: 11:33 AM
24 Notice #1361000023056 — BCC vs. Harvey Michael Mosil or Barbara Gershkoff
Levine
(Continuation of earlier Hearing)
16 ! 1prilT, ?0
Date of Violation: January 19, 2010
Time: 7:33 AM
Location: Intersection of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Parkway
Mr. Mogil stated he did not have objections to the County presenting its information.
Gene Calvert stated the County's Database could be printed.
The Special Magistrate asked him to do so and the document will be made part of the
record.
The intersection in question has only three approaches ( "lanes "). Mr. Calvert
referenced the numbers contained in Phase I and Phase VI. He stated those phases will
run during the northbound approach to the intersection. The amber timing for through
movement is 4.0 seconds and the southbound is 4.0. The timing has been set for
several years.
The Respondent stated the 4.0 seconds interval used by the County is below the ITE
Standard used by the Industry.
Mr. Calvert agreed.
The Special Magistrate asked if the County was required by law to adhere to the ITE
Standards.
Mr. Calvert said the Standards were guidelines but were adhered to around the County
and Collier County tried to maintain the same standards.
The Special Magistrate stated her decision was not made based upon the information
provided by the Respondent. She considered the location, the speed of the vehicle, and
the fact that the Respondent's wife made a decision to get through the intersection
because she thought it was a safety hazard to stop in the intersection and block traffic.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
NOT GUILTY.
V. OLD BUSINESS:
B. Motion for Re- Hearing:
1. Notice 91360900184513 — BCC vs. Joseph E. Harrineton
The Re- Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present.
The County was represented by Cpt. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondent stated he resides at 5021 Catalina Cove, Naples, Florida 34112.
The Special Magistrate stated she read the Respondent's letter dated March 9, 2010 and
will make it part of the record.
16 I 1 B2 Apr�i15, 2010
The Respondent stated he was not the operator of the vehicle because he was in
Massachusetts at the time and did not authorize anyone to use it.
The Special Magistrate asked where the keys to the vehicle were located.
The Respondent stated only he and his wife had keys to the vehicle which was parked
in the driveway. He noticed damage to the side panel when he returned and thought the
vehicle was parked within a foot of the same location where he parked it.
A neighbor and two good friends have a key to his house and check the house. The keys
were in the house. The neighbor had also told him she noticed pry marks on the molding
of the door to his house.
The Respondent objected to the Citation stating the photographs did not show who was
driving the vehicle when it was cited. He further stated he purchased the vehicle from
the County and alluded that other people could still have keys.
The Special Magistrate addressed the Motion for a Re- Hearing which was based upon
the Respondent's claim that he did not receive the initial Notice of Hearing because he
was out of State. The County could not produce documentation to refute him.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for Re- Hearing
The Special Magistrate reviewed the video and asked the Respondent if the vehicle in
the video was his vehicle.
The Respondent stated he thought it was, but would be more positive if there were a
side view due to a shattered window which he had repaired.
The Special Magistrate summarized the scenarios presented by the Respondent:
• An unknown person came into the Respondent's driveway who may have had a
key and knew the vehicle had been sold to him by the County who then drove
the vehicle around and brought it back, OR
• Someone who came into the house by prying open the door, took the key, drove
the vehicle and brought it back, OR
• Someone known to the neighbor who watches the house took the key from her
without her knowledge, then drove the vehicle and brought it back.
The Respondent stated he wasn't in Naples and didn't know what happened.
The Special Magistrate stated the responsibility resides with the owner of the vehicle,
not the driver. An exception allowed by the Ordinance is if a vehicle had been reported
stolen, which the Respondent's car was not.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of
the Order to make payment.
Total Amount Due: $112.50
1b I 1 BZ
April 5, 2010
The Respondent's Massachusetts address is 201 Thicket St., S. Weymouth, MA 02190.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearings:
2. Notice #1360900177624 — BCC vs. Dennis M. Berg
The County was represented by Cpl. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondent was not present.
Date of Violation: December 22, 2009
Time: 11:15 AM
Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport- Pulling Road
Cpl. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the
vehicle did not stop at the red light.
The Special Magistrate stated the Respondents were found to be in violation.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondents are allowed 21 days from receipt of
the Order to make payment.
TotalAmountDue: $112.50
Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWNthe following cases:
• Agenda #3, Notice #1361000003058—BCC vs. Ernest Blougouras
• Agenda #4, Notice #1361000007208 — BCC vs. Ernest Blougouras
• Agenda #8, Notice #1361000022330 — BCC vs. Jennifer Rebecca Craig
11. Notice #1360900180206 — BCC vs. Frank J. Fittante
The County was represented by Cpt. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondent was not present.
Date of Violation: December 23, 2009
Time: 5:48 PM
Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road
Cpl. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the
vehicle approached the intersection under a red light and did not stop.
The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of
the Order to make payment.
TotalAmountDue: $112.50
10
1 6 1 1 April 5, 2010
Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWNthe following case:
• Agenda #12, Notice #1361000024070 — BCC vs. Sandra Gorsuch
19 Notice 0361000016845 — BCC vs. Tina Marie May
The County was represented by Cpl. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondent was not present.
Date of Violation: January 13, 2010
Time: 11:49 AM
Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road
Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the
vehicle did not stop at the red light.
The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation had
occurred. This was a second offense and the fine is $75.00.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $75.00 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the
Order to make payment.
Total Amount Due: $125.00
Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWN the following cases:
• Agenda 920, Notice #1361000020367 — BCC vs. Robert J. & Patricia A.
McGuire
• Agenda #22, Notice #1361000016282 — BCC vs. Carmen Rosario & Roman
Mesa
• Agenda #23, Notice #1361000005095 — BCC vs. Victor R. Meskin
25. Notice #1360900071561— BCC vs. Luis R. Nunez
The County was represented by Cpl. Chris Gonzalez.
The Respondent was not present.
Date of Violation: October 9, 2009
Time: 10:37 PM
Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road
Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the
vehicle did not stop at the light which had been red for 15 seconds.
The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred.
1 PrZ, 2010
Supervisor Waldron noted the violation occurred under the initial Ordinance, before the
fines were reduced. The amount of the fine assessed is $125.00.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $125.00 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the
Order to make payment.
Total Amount Due: $175.00
Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWN the following case:
• Agenda #26, Notice #1360900072858 — BCC vs. Luis R. Nunez
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Motion to Rescind Previously- Issued Order: None
VI. NEXT HEARING DATE: May 3, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County
Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3`d Floor, Naples, Florida
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned
by order of the Special Magistrate at 12 :20 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
Crenda Garre Special Magistrate
The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on
as presented ✓, or as amended
12