Backup Documents 01/13/2009 Item #16I
16114
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 13,2009
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
I) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of November 10, 200S;
2) Collier Countv Citizens Corps:
Agenda of October 15, 200S.
Minutes of October 15, 200S.
3) Collier Countv Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of October 31. 200S.
4) Collier Countv Planning Commission:
Agenda of December 4, 200S REVISED II; December IS, 200S.
Minutes of October 7, 200S LDC; October 16, 200S.
5) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 5, 200S.
6) Emergencv Medical Services Advisorv Council:
Minutes of October 17, 200S.
7) Environmental Advisorv Council:
Minutes of November 5, 200S.
S) Golden Gate Communitv Center Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of October 6, 200S/informal, no quorum;
November 3, 200S.
9) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Agenda of July 21, 200S; September 22, 200S.
Minutes of July 21, 200S; September 22, 200S.
10) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of October 29, 200S.
II) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of November 13, 200S.
Minutes of November 13, 200S.
1611
12) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of November 10. 2008.
13) Library Advisory Board:
Agenda of December 9, 2008.
Minutes of October 21, 2008.
14) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 17, 2008.
15) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Agenda of December I, 2008.
16) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of November 10,2008.
B. Other:
I) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of November 7, 2008; November 21,2008.
2) Collier Countv Public Safetv Coordinating Council:
Minutes of September 18, 2008.
Fiala ~~ (ft i/
Halas '~ rJ/L 1 6 I 1 :Yl .
Hen,ning .-r I, N,,~ember 10, 2008 I p...
COYle \/""'" _
Boa.-d of County eorn- Coletta -yz-/
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECEIVED
DEe 0 5 2lII
Naples, Florida, November 10, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Naples City Hall,
Multi-media Conference Room, 2nd floor, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN;
Vice-Chair:
Stephen Hruby
James Warnken
John Cowan
Cormac Giblin (Absent)
Brian Goguen
Christine Jones - Ell e...~~ A-l:,Solh-tQt
Kenneth Kelly - E,1-CUset;( M,~
Sally Masters - ElLcII.Std #Ybtv\t-e"
J ames Pusateri
Bradley Schiffer
Chris Spencer-Alternate - 4bsent
ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services
Frank Ramsey, Housing Manager
MISC. Corres:
DateOt!t%';J
Item# l ~ 1.[ l')A \
,>.r'8S tc
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Hruby at 3:01 PM.
Chairman Hruby read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting.
November 10,2008
16 11 (It) 1
2, Introduction of Committee Members and Staff
Chairman Hruby called the roll and a quorum was established.
3, Approval of Minutes
Vice Chairman James Warnken moved to approve the Minutes of the October 6, 2008
Meeting as submitted. Second by Ken Kelly. Carried unanimously, 10-0,
4. Approval of Agenda
Christine Jones moved to approve the Agenda,
Staff asked to remove Subparagraph "A" from Item 5, "Information Items."
Ms. Jones revised her motion to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Sally
Masters. Carried unanimously, 10-0,
5. Information Items
A, Presentation by the Housing Authority - Angela Edison
(Removed)
B. Sub-Committee on Affordable Workforce Housing - Steve Hruby
. Review ofthe preliminary findings for the 2008 Incentive Review and
Recommendations Report
Chairman Hruby stated the findings for the six coordinated initiatives the Sub-
Committee has been reviewing will be dovetailed into a new tri-annual report to be
submitted to the State. A PowerPoint report will be presented to the Board of County
Commissioners, as well as to the AHAC, in December, 2008.
The State of Florida has requested the inclusion of fifteen incentive-driven items in the
Report:
. Expedited Permitting - is already in place in Collier County
. Impact Fee Waivers and Deferrals
. Density Bonus Program Flexibility
. Reservation of Infrastructure - reserve a proportionate amount of capacity for water,
utilities and concurrency. The Sub-Committee recommended a ten percent reservation
(10%) for affordable housing developments in undeveloped areas.
. Accessory Dwellings - i.e., "mother-in-law suite" - currently prohibited. The Sub-
Committee recommends modifying restrictions to allow for such components in
undeveloped areas and in developed areas where there is capacity.
. Parking and Set-backs - Parking is not an issue in Collier County but set-backs and
easements have become impediments. The Sub-Committee recommended allowing
flexibility for minor deviations not affecting the general character of the development
. Lot Configurations
. Street Requirements (gutters, curbs, sidewalks.
2
1611611-;1-
November 10,2008
. Oversight of Policy and Procedures - proposed changes in policies and procedures will
be reviewed with regard to the impact on affordable housing.
. Land Bank Inventory - identify all land in inventory that is suitable for affordable
housing developments. The Sub-Committee recommends updating the list of inventory
by the County's Real Estate Department on a quarterly basis.
. Encourage proximity to Transit and Employment Centers - transit is not a strong
incentive for location of affordable housing developments in Collier County. The Sub-
Committee recommends greater density in and around employment centers.
Topics covered by the Sub-Committee and included in the Report as "Other Incentives" are:
. Transportation Enhancements
. Infrastructure Investment
. Housing Trusts
. Inclusionary Zoning
When asked to outline the Inclusionary Zoning policy, Chairman Hruby stated if an area
does not have the political and community support for affordable housing, Inclusionary
Zoning will not be effective. The Inclusionary Zoning policy being recommended is
modeled after the standards used in California which is regarded as the best practice in
the country.
C. Sub-Committee on Supply and Demand - Sally Masters
The Sub-Committee discussed the NSP ("Neighborhood Stabilization Program") at its last
meeting.
Frank Ramsey advised scheduling a specific day and time for the monthly meetings
of the Affordable Workforce Housing and the SupplylDemand Sub-Committees. He
used the first Tuesday and Wednesday of each month at 9:00 AM and will send an email
to the Sub-Committee's members with options.
D. NSP Grant Proposal- Marcy Krumbine and Frank Ramsey
Background information:
. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act ("HERA") was signed into law on July 30,
2008, to provide emergency assistance for the re-development of abandoned and
foreclosed homes;
. NSP ("Neighborhood Stabilization Program") is a component of HERA;
. Total Budget - $3.9 ~n; iPllIion
. Considered as a special allocation of CDBG ("Community Development Block Grant")
funds;
. Amounts were determined by HUD after considering a community's risk factors, the
number of foreclosures, the nwnber of sub-prime mortgages;
. Collier County's allocation - $7.3 Million;
. Funds must be used within 18 months of receipt and should be received in February,
2009
. Must be targeted to priority areas with the greatest percentage of foreclosures, the
highest percentage of homes financed by sub-prime mortgages, and the areas
identified as likely to face a rise in foreclosures;
. Funds will be returned if not spent
3
16 , 1 ~vl411~08
There are five eligible uses'
. Establish financing mechanisms for the purchase and re-development of foreclosed
properties in residential developments;
. Purchase and rehabilitation offoreclosed and/or abandoned residential properties for
sale, rental, or redevelopment.
. Establish land banks for homes that have been foreclosed - cannot retain a property
for more than 10 years - other uses may be considered
. Demolish blighted structures
. Acquisition and development ofland obtained from blighted structures
Marcy Krumbine summarized additional Grant requirements:
. "Abandoned and/or foreclosed" - no tenants, squatters, or any signs of habitation -
the properties must have been abandoned or foreclosed upon for a minimum of ninety
days
. Targeted homes - under $100,000
. Targeted areas - East Naples and Golden Gate Estates
. Potential buyers may earn up to 120% of Area Median Income ("bJM") for the
program · A 1-1 I"
. Proceeds from sales during the period from the County's receipt of funds to July,
2013 are retained by the County for re-use as a revolving fund (a certain percentage
will be allowed for administrative costs)
. Rental income is included
. Proceeds from sales occurring after July, 2013 will be sent to HUD
. $1.8 Million (25% of the County's allocation) is dedicated to individuals earning 50%
or less of ~
Itl-ll
Frank Ramsey outlined the affordability requirements:
. Assistance of $15,000 or less - 5 years
. $15,000 to $40,000 -10 years
. Over $40,000 - 15 years
. New construction - 20 years
Proposed budget:
. $3.8 Million - acquisition and rehabilitation of properties for resale to income
qualified buyers; (potential: 40 - 60 households)
. $1.5 Million - affordable rentals for special needs and low income housing
. $400,000 - direct home buyer assistance
. $70,000 - home buyer education (must attend an 8-hour program)
. $200,000 - demolition offoreclosed property (If the cost of repairs to a home
exceeds 50% of the purchase price, the property will be considered for demolition)
. $500,000 - land bank acquisition
. 10% for administrative purposes - hiring of additional stall
Marcy Krumbine stated the Action Plan was written to allow for flexibility since some
activities may be handled by Housing and Human Services as well as contractors and
partners in the community. The County has staff appraisers to assist in identifying
property. The County will not "manage" rental properties.
4
16 , rV~f1),~8
There was further discussion of the program, the qualifications for contractors, sub-
contractors, and non-profit agencies.
A presentation will be made to the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC") on
December 12, 2008.
Ms. Krumbine asked if a letter from the AHAC could be sent to the Board of County
Commissioners supporting the Action Plan for the program.
E. CDBG Funding Cycle and Timeline - Shawn Tan
Date Action/Event
Oct. 16, 2008 Send invitations to non-profit agencies announcing workshops date,
time, and location
Oct 16-31,2008 Staff updates Applications: Applications available online and via
email
Oct 30, 2008 Grant Application Workshop Ial Golden Gate Library
Oct. 31, 2008 Grant Application Workshop Ial Immokalee
Nov. 3 - Dec. 3, 2008 Technical assistance and one-an-one counseling available
November 14, 2008 Application available online and by email
December 12,2008 Deadline to submit Grant Applications (2:00 PM)
December 12,2008 to Preliminary Scoring of Applications: Staff to review and evaluate
January 9, 2009
Jan 12 - 30, 2009 Preliminary Scoring and "Cure" Period
February 2,2009 H&HS funding recommendations to AHAC
February 11,2009 Announce final scoring and ranking of Grant Applications
February 16,2009 Action Plan prepared
March 20, 2009 Action Plan: 30-day Public Comment Period begins
April 3, 2009 Public Meeting
April 6, 2009 Action Plan: AHAC evaluation of comments at I st Public Hearing
April 20, 2009 Action Plan: 30-dav Public Comment Period ENDS
April 28, 2009 Action Plan: presentation to BCC for approval, 2nd Public Hearing
May 15, 20Ql! 'I Annual Action Plan DUE to HUD
July I, 2009 2008 Entitlement Funding becomes available
July, 2009 Agreements presented to BCC for approval
F, Housing Update to the BCC - Marcy KrumbinelFrank Ramsey
A Workshop was conducted in March, 2008, with the Board of County Commissioners.
The Wells Fargo Housing Opportunities Index measures the percentage of individuals in
the County who are earning 80% or more of the ~and can afford to buy housing.
AMI
The following is a comparison of updated figures:
Catel!:orv March, 2007 March, 2008
Potential Buyers/Households: 23.6% 36.4%
5
16 NLtJl~J;-
Cateeory March,2007 March, 2008
Median Listing Price: $419,700 $350,000
Sales Price (09/07 - 09/08): $362,400 $246,400
Single Family Homes listed for 1,500 Units 2,000 Units
sale:
Condos for sale: 3,250 Units 3,083 Units
Bank Owned by Zip Code: 34120 (Estates) - 403
(homes only) 34116 (Golden Gate City) - 377
34112 (East Naples)-298
Closed Sales to Income Qualified: 116 (new construction)
(H&HS clients) 76 (existing properties)
Ofthe 1,688 units sold, 1,612 were
sold to the general public
Rentals $500 - $750 ~ 71 %
$751 - $1,000 =.$.15l ~Li./o
Over $1,001 = 5%
$5,689.00
3:1 ratio (BCC change)
$1,027 - down payment
$3,081
SHIPP:
Client funds:
Assistance:
4% (old program)
Ceiling: $300,000 purchase price
There was a discussion concerning how the figures were broken out, market changes, the
population decrease in Immokalee, rental vacancies, and banking issues.
Public Sneakers:
Carl Kuehner, Immokalee Non-Profit, asked for a definition of "East Naples." He stated
South Immokalee is one of the four risk areas. Since the single-family homes are scattered,
management will be difficult.
John Barlow, HOME, stated there were 814 foreclosures in Collier County in September. He
stated HOME purchased a property for $80,000 that had an appraised value of $90,000 and
required very little rehabilitation. Code violations are substantial in 34116. He recommended
expediting and streamlining the process so as many people as possible can buy homes.
6, Next Meeting - December 1, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Naples City Hall,
6
1611dA;)..
November 1 0, 2008
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order ofthe Chair at 4:55 PM.
Collier County Affordable Housing Commission
s
~~
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on 1r.lJ>'lb..p/ Ii J-oo g ,
as presented , or as amended ..,/'
7
1611 'fA)1.
Here are the corrections to the November 10, 2008 AHAC Meeting Minutes:
3, Approval of Minutes
The following corrections were noted:
. Page 3, under Item "D," $3.9 Million is changed to $3,9 Billion
. Page 4, second paragraph, "AIM" is changed to "AMI" (2 locations)
. Page 5, under Item "E," May 15,2008 is changed to May 15,2009
. Page 5, under Item "F," "AIM" is changed to "AMI"
. Page 5, under "Rentals," the second figure $751 is changed to 24%.
Anne
1611
Collier County Government
Communication &
Customer Relations Department
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
(239) 252-8848
www.collierl!.ov.net
August 7, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008
3 p.m.
The Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, October 15th at 3 p.m. in
the Board of County Commissioners chambers, located on the third floor of the W. Harmon Turner
Building, Building F, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples.
In regard to the public meeting:
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any,
in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will
be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board of County Commissioners or quasi-judicial
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 is to be based.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05, as amended, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in
any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an
advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and
Records Department.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this
proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the
Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL
34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing
impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
For more information, call Joe Frazier at 252-8000.
-End-
1611 (A-)~
Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
Agenda October 15, 2008
3;00
Pledge of Allegiance
-Opening Remarks
-RollCall
Chairman
Sheriff's Office CERV
USCGA Red Cross
Chamber of Commerce
Fire Chiefs CERT CAP
Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army
EMS EM
City of Naples
Cleveland Clinic
Health Dept
Everglades City
NCH
Medical Examiner City of Marco Island
Neighborhood Watch
3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman
3:10 Threat Update Sheriffs Office
3:15 New Business Chairman
. CAP/USCGAux Richard Niess
. Election of Officers Chairman
3:50 Old Business Chairman
. Hurricane Season Jim von Rinteln
. ESC Update Jim von Rinteln
4:00
Next Meeting! Adjourn
(Nov 19, 2008)
Chairman
~i=:=S. 1~~{
Hennmg V
Coyle 6:z.
Coletta /. /
16 I 1 (.A) ~
RE'CEIVED
DEe 1 6 2008
Hoare! of County Con\I1lis.sioners
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners Office
FROM:
Mary Ann Cole M t\ C'.ot"
SUBJECT:
Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
DATE:
December 16,2008
Please be advised that there will be no meeting for December, 2008. The minutes for the
November 19,2008 meeting will be reviewed and approved at the meeting to be held January 21,
2009.
Misc. CoRes:
DaW:: 0\ !l?:,/D9
Item #J 1.0 I ( i)A).-
Bureau of Emergency Services
Copies to:
Collier County
Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
October 15, 2008
16 I 1 (11) 0\ 1
V oting Members Present
Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce
Gerry Sugarman, RSVP
Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire
Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers
Lt. George Welch, Collier County Sheriff's Office
Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross
Voting Members Absent:
(Excused Absence)
Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary
Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team
James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council
Expert Consultants Present
Jim vonRinteln, Collier County Emergency Management
Joe Irene, Neighborhood Watch
Lt. Co!. Dick Niess, Marco Island Civil Air Patrol
Voting Members Absent:
(Non-Excused Absence)
Captain Castillo, Salvation Army
Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol
Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken.
Aooroval of Minutes
Motion to accept the minutes of the September 17, 2008 meeting made by Gerry Sugarman, and seconded by Deborah
Horvath. Approved unanimously.
Threat Uodate
Per Lt. Welch, we are still at the Elevated Threat (Yellow) at the Nationalleve!. For domestic and international travel, it is
at High level (Orange). Recommend everyone remain vigilant.
New Business
Civil Air PatroUUS Coast Guard Auxiliary
Lt. Co!. Dick Niess of the Marco Island Civil Air Patrol presented to the group. When he came here, there was no
coordination between the CAP and US Coast Guard Auxiliary on a localleve!. An effort was initiated at the local level to
coordinate these two organizations. For background information, Co!. Rosenberg worked with the USCG Auxiliary with an
air and sea search and rescue training exercise in 2005. The CG Auxiliary has an Air Wing unit, which consists of personal
planes. There are none currently in Collier County - the bulk of them are in Charlotte County. These are used to ferry parts
from place-to-place and work offshore. There is a joint group memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the CAP, CAP
US Air Force, the Coast Guard and the CG Auxiliary. This MOU states these organizations train together, communicate on
one radio frequency, have point liaison officers, attend meetings, and provide supplemental mission support. This effort is
being encouraged on a Nationalleve!. In 2006 the Marco USCG Auxiliary and CAP developed an operations plan for air
and sea training. The Coast Guard Auxiliary needs assistance finding boats in trouble, and CAP can find them, but can't
rescue. Co!. Rosenberg encouraged the Citizen Corps to suggest this type of cooperation within Naples. When he brought
this up to the upper echelon of the USCG Auxiliary, they did not want to participate. Lee Henderson, Squadron
Commander for Marco Island, said that an exercise is coming up in this area in mid-January with four squadrons. Marco
will be holding an exercise the first week of December. Floyd Chapin asked what authority the Citizen Corps has to help
with this - Co!. Rosenberg said he didn't know, he just wants to expose this problem. It could be an asset to Collier
Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
October 15, 2008
16 , I (A-)~
2
County. Reasons given are they don't want to interfere with Air Wing unit (which is privately owned) - we need proper
communication. Floyd mentioned that the CAP and Coast Guard Auxiliary are on this board - did these gentlemen speak
with either Walt Jaskiewicz or Doug Porter. Per Jim vonRinteln, Walt had recused himself. The CG Auxiliary was to have
3 representatives at this meeting, but they did not show up. CAP and the USCG Auxiliary are aware of this issue. It could
be an asset for this group to attend the Citizen Corps meetings. Floyd asked that the committee go on record with intent to
draft a letter for review at the next meeting - this was seconded by Gerry Sugarman and approved unanimously by the
Committee. Reg Buxton will draft a letter, supporting local coordination and cooperation on this issue for review at the next
meeting. Per Reg, the Citizen Corps can do its part, but cannot insist on cooperation. Jim V. said if there is an emergency,
such as mass migration, CAP, USCG Auxiliary, and the Sheriff's aviation will need to have ironed out any issues pre-
emergency. Debbie Horvath thought it would be helpful to hear the other side of this issue. Joe Irene asked if the Sheriffs
office could help out, as they are active in search and rescue. Per Lt. Welch, the SO has liaisons with CAP for training
within departments and for national defense. Jim V. said this is a good test case to help organize a solution before problems
arise. Jerry Sanford brought up the issue of 9111 where police couldn't talk with firefighters and many lives were lost
because of this.
Post meeting: CAP requested that this issue be tabled to next meeting, which is November 19th
Election of Officers
Per Reg, the group will take nominations at the next meeting (November 19th) for Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary.
Elections will take place in December.
Old Business
Hurricane Season
Jim V. reminded the group that we are still in hurricane season. Hurricane Omar is heading for the northeast at this point.
We have had IS named storms this year - 17 were predicted. Remember, Hurricane Wilma affected us the end of October.
Ese Update
Jim V. reported that the building is on schedule and on budget. We anticipate he ESC to be turned over to the County and
the Certificate of Occupancy should be issued at the end of the year. LT. goes in for the set-up of phones and computers,
which will probably take a few months. We hope to be in there by June I". EMS, Sheriff's substation, and the 911 center
will be going in the building as well. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but everything is going well. The furniture issue is
still up in the air. As soon as the County takes ownership, Jim will have the Advisory Group out for a tour. Will look at
holding the Citizen Corps meetings out there, perhaps every other month.
Other
A reminder that there will be Veteran's Day ceremonies on November 1] th - one at 10 a.m. at Cambier Park in Naples and
another at 5 p.m. at Hodges University.
Debbie reminded folks about the stockings being put together for the military troops.
Several Sunshine Law training DVDs are available. You can also access the training at the County's website
www.colliergov.net under WHAT'S NEW section. There is a button for VIDEO ARCHIVE. Scroll down to September 15.
2008 SUNSHINE LAW TRAINING and click on the VIDEO button. This video is I hour and 38 minutes in length.
Next Meeting/Adiourn
Next meeting will be held on Wednesday, November] 9,2008 at 3:00 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners
chambers. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:35 p.m. made by Floyd Chapin and seconded by Lt. Welch. Approved
unanimously. . (\
Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. Jl, ~
Approved by Chair: 1fy0/
!l
16!6%
ColeMaryAnn
161 l(A-)~
Subject:
ColeMaryAnn
Thursday, October 09,20083:16 PM
BowmanDan; Capt. Alejandro Castillo; CC-Dan Zunzunegui; CC-Debbie Horvath; CC-Gerry
Sugerman (ggerrysugie@aol.com); CC-Jerry Sanford; CC-Jim Elson; CC-Joe Wilkins; CC-
John Brown; CC-Mike Murphy; CC-Nfn11555; CC-Ted Soliday; CC-Waiter Jaskiewicz;
ColeMaryAnn; 'DanAnderson@fdle.state.fl.us'; David Baer; DeArmasMaribel; Doug Porter
(dporter143@comcast.net); foord_m; FrazierJoseph; Kathleen_Marr@doh.state.fl.us; Lt.
George Welch; Maria Bernaldo; Phil Reid; reg buxton; Russ Rainey; Ryan Frost; schapin43
@aol.com; scribnerj; TeachScolt; veitj; vonrintelnj
Sunshine Law Training
From:
Sent:
To:
All,
The Sunshine Law Training was just put on the County's website -
www.collierqov.net
Under the WHAT'S NEW section, there is a button for VIDEO ARCHIVE. Scroll down to September 15, 2008 SUNSHINE
LAW TRAINING and click on the VIDEO button.' This video is 1 hour and 38 minutes in length.
You may prefer to view it this way, as opposed to having the DVD.
Mary Ann
Emergency Management
252-8000
Page 1 of 1
16 11 (If) ~
ColeMaryAnn
From: vonrintelnj
Sent: Monday, October 06,2008 12:42 PM
To: ColeMaryAnn
Subject: FW: Walter Jaskiewicz Oct Citizens Corp
From: CaptWRJ@aol.com [mailto:CaptWRJ@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 10: 14 AM
To: vonrintelnj
Subject: Walter Jaskiewicz Oct Citizens Corp
Jim,
Due to scheduling I will not be able to attend this months Citizen Corp Meeting. I have
arranged for John Tyson Ninth Division Commander 7th District USCGA to attend as my
representative.
vir
Walter R. Jaskiewicz Auxiliary Sector Coordinator USCG Saint Petersburg
7th District Chief of Staff (e)
e-mail captWRJ@aol.com
24 Hr. Cell 239-821-8183
Residence 239-389-0723
If you have received this communication in error, notify sender as this communication may
be subject to privacy laws under the jurisdiction of The Department of Homeland Security
and is not authorized for Public Disclosure.
New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. IryjJ
out!
10/6/2008
ColeMaryAnn
161 1(A-)~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ColeMaryAnn
Friday, September 19, 2008 4:31 PM
FrazierJoseph
FW: Sunshine Law Training
Joe,
See Mike's response below. I'll include this in the minutes, as well as in the body of the email when I send it out to folks.
Mary Ann
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
SheffieldMichael
Friday, September 19, 2008 4:28 PM
ColeMaryAnn
RE: Sunshine Law Training
Hi Mary Ann,
Janet Curran made lots of extra dvd copies of this training, They are being offered free
to advisory committee members and staff. Because the training won't be offered again
until next year, I suggest that you recommend to interested Citizen Corp members that
they obtain/view the dvd.
Hope you have a great weekend.
Mike
From: ColeMaryAnn
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:25 PM
To: Sheffield Michael
Subject: Sunshine Law Training
Mike,
Can you tell me when this training will be held again? I had some folks in the Citizen Corps who were not able to attend
this past Monday and are interested in the next class.
Thanks!
Mary Ann
Mary Ann Cole
Emergency Management
252-8000
www.collierem.oro
"
.
c
:!
3
a
1611(A-)~
Thll Citizlln Corps Dulllltin
Relevant Stories. National Coverage. Ordinary Citizens. Safer Communities.
""",- , , , ' " ~ '~r ,-' "_...
Today, as we remember the events of seven years ago, we pause and reflect on
the heroism shown that day and the unity our nation felt. Today is especially
meaningful for those involved in the Citizen Corps movement who work together to
make our communities and our nation safer, stronger, and better prepared. We
can transcend the tragedy of September 11, 2001 to inspire greater collaboration
and greater resolve to engage everyone in American in personal and community
resilience.
Thank you for your service.
~
Brock D. Bierman
Director, Community Preparedness Division
Small State and Rural Advocate
President Bush: Remarks on Volunteerism
On September 8th 2008, President Bush hosted a White House event highlighting the
accomplishments of USA Freedom Corps, the volunteer initiative launched as part
of a national Call to Service after the attacks of 9/11 to help more Americans
connect with opportunities to serve their neighbors in need. The President honored
the work of America's armies of compassion and reflected upon his first inaugural
address, in which he "challenged all Americans to be citizens, not spectators...
responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character."
The President renewed his challenge at the event, calling upon Americans to devote
4,000 hours - or two years, in service to our country over their lifetimes.
The President spoke on the White House South Lawn to a crowd of 1,800 people that included members of
Congress, three cabinet secretaries, members of the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation and the
Corporation for National and Community Service board, state service commission directors, corporate social
responsibility executives, and leaders and volunteers from Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America,
Citizen Corps, the Peace Corps, and Volunteers for Prosperity. President Bush expressed praise for Citizen Corps
and Volunteers for Prosperity: "Both have been very effective programs. And I really believe Congress needs to
make these good programs permanent." The President also highlighted the A Billion + Change campaign, a
challenge to corporate America to deliver $1 billion in pro bono volunteering support for non profits. The tally for the
initiative recently topped $400 million. The President's remarks can be found at:
http://www.whitehouse.qov/news/releases/2008/09/20080908-6.htm I
_Also on September 8th, USA Freedom Corps issued a report, "Answering the Call to Service". The
report details the USA Freedom Corps initiative which has helped improve communities and change
_lives under the President's leadership. The report highlights the response from the millions of
individuais who have answered the President's Call to Service and used their power and energy to
_ affect communities across America.
Please visit http://www.usafreedomcorps.qov/media/pdf/09 0908 usafc reporLpdf for the full report.
8'''''~
S' .'
~
o
~ . -<__ f
~""-,~....~
,
16 I 1 (1[) ~
. .
MyGoodDeed.org Renews Partnership
with Citizen Corps
.. ,~
q!r!~!!!!~corps
PFUiiPARINO THE NATION
In a signing ceremony on September 9th,2008 the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) formalized the
partnership between the Citizen Corps Program and MyGoodDeed.org to promote
volunteer service and encourage citizens to participate in disaster preparedness, response and recovery
activities. The two organizations will also work together to promote 9/11 as a day of charitable service.
"The tragedies of September 11th affected every American," said
FEMA's Director of Community Preparedness, Brock D. Bierman. "I
am pleased FEMA and MyGoodDeed.org are joining efforts to
promote volunteer community service to help make a difference in
the world. I can't think of a better way to honor the many victims
and survivors of 9/11 tragedy," he said.
The Statement of Affiliation was co-signed in Washington, D.C. by
the Director of FEMA's National
Preparedness Directorate's
Community Preparedness
Division, Srock D. Bierman, LeU to Righi: F....d Dombo. 8rock B1erman, and JeyWillUk
Co-Founder of MyGoodDeed.org, Jay Winuk, and MyGoodDeed.org Board
Member, Fred Dombo.
The mission of MyGoodDeed.org is to transform 9/11 into an annually
recognized national day of voluntary service, connecting people with
LefltoRight: JayWinuk,BrockBierman, 3ndFred Dombo common social interests through its social networking website to encourage
community service on 9/11 and throughout the entire year. Created by families and friends shortly after the
9/11 terrorist attacks, MyGoodDeed.org seeks to honor the thousands who were killed and injured and to pay
tribute to the many people who aided in the rescue and recovery efforts.
ServiceNation Summit 2008
The 2008 Service Nation Summit, which will be held in New York City September 11-12th, will bring together 600
leaders of all ages and from every sector of American life - from universities and foundations, to business and
politics - to celebrate the power and potential of service, and layout a bold policy blueprint for addressing
challenges facing our society through expanded opportunities for volunteer and community national service.
Service Nation is a campaign for a new America. An America where citizens unite and take responsibility for the
nation's future. ServiceNation unites leaders from every sector of American society with hundreds of thousands
of citizens in a national campaign to call on the next President and Congress to enact a new era of voluntary
service and civic engagement in America, an era in which all Americans will work together to try and solve our
greatest and most persistent societal challenges.
On the evening of September 11th, at 7:00PM EST Service Nation will hold a Presidential Forum, which will be
opened by New York Governor David A. Patterson. Following the opening, Presidential Candidates John
McCain and Barack Obama will present their plans for volunteerism and service in a forum moderated by TIME
Managing Editor Richard Stengel and PBS Senior Correspondent Judy Woodruff. The program will be broadcast
at 8:00PM EST on several national television networks and we encourage your communities to watch - please
check your local listings. For more information, visit http://www.bethechanqeinc.orq.
Septern:hotw Is
National Get a
preplU'edness
Month
,
COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEP~~t'fl (If)'~
ADULT FLU & PNEUMONIA VACCINES
2008 COMMUNITY CLINICS
FLU Vaccine....$30 PNEUMONIA Vaccine.....$40
The Flu vaccine is the new formulation to cover the viruses expected to be present for the 2008/
2009 Flu season, Only one dose is required each year,
The current recommendation for pneumonia vaccination is one dose given at age 65. A booster
may be advisable for certain high-risk individuals after five years. Check with your physician!
No prescription is necessary if YOU are aQe 65. and this is your first Pneumonia vaccination. All
other Pneumonia vaccinations reQuire a prescription,
Medicare Part B and Medicare Advantage Plans are accepted. Please bring your card with you.
Sorry, no billing to Medicare HMO's. Adjustment to the fee may be arranged for those needing
assistance.
_____~.__._----------_._-_._.._------- ------.----..'."-------.- ---.....---.....-------- ___om ___
MONDAY
Senior Friendship Center
SAM tu 12 Nuun
811 7" Avenue Suuth, Naples
Octuber 13, 20, 27 November 3. 10. 17
_December I. 8~nuary5____
MONDAY
St. Williams Catholic Church (church hall)
SAM tu 12 Nuun
601 Seagate Drive. Naples
Octuber 6. 13 Nuvember 3. 10, 17,
December I
TUESDAY
East Naples Community Park
S AM tu 12 Nuun
3500 Thumassun Drive. Naples
October 14, 21. 28 Nuvember 4.18
,--..--.-.--------.--.-.---- - -------- .__.__.._,_._--_._._._-_.._....-._----'-~_...._---
WEDNESDAY
Mackie Community Park
930 AM to 1230 PM
1361 Andalusia Cuurt Marcu Island
_ _ ___ _ __ ___. Octo~~rJ~J2,1!_ Nuvember 5. 12~1~_
THURSDAY
Veteran's Community Park
SAM tu 12 Nuun
1895 Veterans Park Drive, Naples
October 16. 23, 3D November 6. 13. 20
THURSDAY
East Naples United Methodist Church
S AM to 12 Noon
2701 Airport Pulling Avenue South, Naples
October 2, S
FRIDAY
Golden Gate Community Center
9 AM to 12 Noon
4701 Golden Gate Parkway. Naples
October 17. 24 November 7. 14, 21
THURSDAY
Prime Dutlet Mall
S AM to 12 Noon
6060 Collier Blvd, Naples
December 4, II. 18
-.--.--....---...-.----".--. ---
16/1 (It) ~
HEALTH
The USF Center for Biological Defense
Presents:
Bioreadiness Training: Fridav, November 7, 2008 - 8:00 - 5:00
And
Emerging Infections Training: Fri., December 12,2008-8:00-12:00
Cosponsored by:
Hendry County Health Department
DA Y I-Fridav, November 7, 2008
Time Tooic
7:45-8:00 Registration
8:00-12:00 Biological Agent Sample Collection, Bloodborne Pathogens and Emerging
Infectious Diseases
12:00-1 :00 LUNCH on vour own
1 :00-2:00 Communicating with the Media During a Disaster
2:00-3:00 Mental Health in the Aftermath of Disaster
3:00-3: 15 BREAK
3:15-4:30 Avian and Pandemic Flu
4:30-5:00 Q&A and Evaluations
DA Y 2, Fridav, December 12, 2008
Time Tooic
7:45-8:00 Registration
8:00-10:00 2-Hour Bioreadiness Training for Healthcare Professionals
10:00-10:15 BREAK
10: 1 5-11 :45 Methicillin-Resistant 5taphyloccus aureus (MRSA)
11 :45-12:00 Q&A and Evaluations
Location: Dallas B Townsend Center (Ag Building) 1085 Pratt Blvd, LaBelle, FL 33975
(Located off of Cowboy Way, across from the Hendry County Health Department)
Pre-Registration is required! There is NO COST to attend this program.
Registration Information
I will attend: _Day lor _Day 2 or _Both Days oETraining
Name:
Company:
City:
Title:
State:_ Zip:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
e-mail:
To return this sheet or for
further information, please contact:
Diana McCluskey, Univ. of South Florida
CBD, 3602 Spectrum Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33612-9401
Phone (813) 974-9732
Fax (813) 974-1479
Email: dmcc1usk@health.usf.edu
/!.'mIllJn()d"ti{}//rjilr J)j'a/Jili/i,-,: f'IWJ< fW/ijy II" Cmler/ar HifJ/ogjmi OifmJ' tI /IIim,lI/lm ~f IN! li'orkill,!!. r/ay. ill ar/lima oj Ihf ",'wI !! a Ira,wl/abl, at{olhll",tlali'Jll jiir r1 rlt:."lnlily i.f J/adul. I ;'nlll., adi"l'ti...; "'1f1 f",ililin 0/ rlJf!
(:lIhenil)' oj SOI(11i F/'I/ida (Iff al't/ihbte lI'itjU)ft/ n:Jlprd 10 f'(l'?, w/"r, ,'ex, lIalilJ/"'; ori)!,i", di.."bil1(l, <<~e, or I /idl'''lIlld,ra/1 Jla/IIJ a. plril'l'derl h)' faJl' allfl ill mamllma 11'1//' Ihf Unil'mily'J I?rfuljor p,,:wnal rlft,"ily. Thr (.~IJlrrfor
Ilio/'Wm! J)rftll.'t III the (:"iiUJif)' "jS"/Jlb /ibm"da men}" Ibf right 10 ,'{lIIallhi. IlclirilyjonlllY muon Id!a/Jon'o:
, I
16 11 (It) ())
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 25, 2008
Ms. Stephanie C. Kopelousos
Secretary of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Mr, Tom Henning
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
RE: Funding Support for Emergency Service Delivery Along Alligator Alley
Dear Secretary Kope10usos and Chairman Henning,
On behalf of the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Board, we offer our strongest
endorsement for the recommendation that if a concessionaire is selected to lease the Alley, said
concessionaire relieve the local burden on the Ochopee Fire District, Emergency Management,
and Emergency Medical Services and enhance the delivery of emergency services to the
proposed tolled section of Alligator Alley, The level of service provided to the citizens that
utilize Alligator Alley has always been of great concern for two primary reasons. The Ochopee
Fire District covers approximately 1,100 square miles of Collier County, with 1-75 coverage
from SR 29 to the Broward County line. Response time to Ochopee's area of responsibility to
the farthest stretch of 1-75 covers approximately 48 miles and could take up to sixty (60)
minutes. In addition to the challenging response times, funding for the Ochopee Fire District is
derived from a municipal service taxing unit (MSTIJ) from a total population of 4,146 citizens
who have taken on the responsibility of helping to ensure the level of service for fire suppression
and pre-hospital care is at its best.
Alligator Alley has always presented great challenges to our emergency manaeement, emergency
services, and law enforcement agencies, and we request your support in enhancing our collective
endeavors. Frequently, the Alley is affected by major automobile accidents and high
impactlhigh velocity roll-overs, necessitating emergent tramna care. Wildfire events along the
Alley and adjacent areas have caused a range of incidents from traffic slow-downs to major
,1
1611 (A-)~
,
Letter to Secretary Stephanie C. Kopelousos and Chairman Tom Henning
September 25, 2008
Page 2
accidents due to smoke management, as well as evening and morning temperature smoke and fog
inversions.
The Alley as a lifeline for commerce also has significant volumes of hazardous materials being
shipped over the roadway. Fuel spills are not uncommon, and emergency responders and
specialty teams are needed to qnickly extingnish and/or mitigate the potential environmental
consequences.
Interstate 75 is also the primary evacuation route for Southwest Florida during most all hurricane
or storm events, frequently in both north and east-bound routes, depending on the hurricanes'
ultimate path. Emergency Management must maintain a close working relationship with the
concessionaire, law enforcement, and emergency services to ensure this vital roadway remains
operational and resourceful during times of emergency. Communications, coordination,
cooperation, and access to traffic flow information will be instrumental in ensuring a safe
evacuation operation.
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and local public sentiment remains solid against
this proposal; however, if such concessionaire efforts are forced by the State, we feel financial
support for the Emergency Services outlined above is critical.
In closing, your support in establishing an Alligator Alley Fire Station start-up and continuation
of funding will greatly relieve the burden on an already fiscally stressed Ochopee department and
most importantly will provide the absolute best level of service to all Florida citizens that utilize
the Alley.
Respectfully,
)(~JJ 17 )~/c:Jf
R'eginali A. Buxton II -
Chair, Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Dehs, Deputy County Manager
Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator
Nick Casalanguida, Transportation/Planning Director
ril
~ ~
.... ...
g,U
-"C
Q) Q)
::=~
::l :::
o ~
:;.... "
....
,::: ...
Q) e
~<
.
~
"
....
...
Q)
8
<
g,
-
Q)
::=
::l
o
:;....
+ American
". . . Red Cross
Collier County Chapter
2610 Northbrooke Plaza Drive
Naptes, FL 34119
=...:=
.... Q) ~
"C Q) " ~
Q,;I ~ ..,~
.... ::: (/) ....
(/) ... (/) ~
Q)"::: 000
"'O"'~
Q);;.Uoo
~~"C'f
'... bJ) Q) ~
~,=~~
~eQ)~
:::O..c~
0"....1:'1
>,Q)'"
......0.8
-
l~j(It)~
;.. ~
U'. .0
'"Cl CJ .:
Q) 5
~~ ':~
Q::So .~ ~
~CJ ~<u
'oJ " ;d
..-4... '-'....
;.. (ll .~
Q).... S!J CI}
s 8 .~
< cJ1
+
Collier's Red Cross. . . Serving our County
c '"
'" C1l
'C "'C
.G 'S;
'c e
'" 0.."
E C
:l '"
.s::
'"
~ "tlE
.~ .~ 0
C1l '"
.... C1l
.J: 0.0 c..
0.0 5 'u ~
~ u 'E ~
..2 (It Co. E
..... .~ ~ Q)
... >
c 0
C1l :E
E '"
'" '"
... " 0
c c ....
C1l :l U
...~"
~ .~ ~ 2
c ... .....
vi 0 "'C tij
Q) U c: c
'u rd 0
c: e. L- '~",-
C1l '" C1l
~ t E
Q} ~ rd Q)
E .s:: u.s:: c:
C1l ...
00
00
o ,:;, .
U"'.1: e
~ .~
"tj ~ ~.~
Q,) ~ t- ~
~ - "'....
Q) .~ t ~
..d (ij ..:! 'c
.... 'f 0 ::J
~(lj>""C
o a.. <If c
E u '"
oo-C ~
Q,)?i-.{g .~
......t ._ c c
.8' leE 1L::J
() '"
= :J "
..... J: 1:
...
~
m.
00 ...
o~
~ ~
U~
-'OQ
~~
~ ::s
~8
~
.,-4 ~
~ ~
Cl);'::
~a
'" 0
0.....
Q;"
.s:: c
o C1l
a.. '"
'"
~
,..
=:
Q)
e
Q) .!a
,.. '"
~ '"
,.. e
r:JJ.U
=:~
o
.... c
(fJ el
r.J'J. 'C
.... C1l
~ E
<(
C1l
.s::
I-
10
.s::
... ~ "
~ C1l la
$ ~ L:'
~ .~ S
.2 "'C Q)
o ....
> _ rd VI
o a.. C1l
>- C1l 0
~ VI 5.."'0
" E
~ .;; ...
u c
'> ~
C1l
....
o a..
...
C1l
a.
o
C1l
a..
'"
:2-5
... .~
c
o
.~
N
'2 _
'" C1l
1>0=
.... C1l
o ....
(/)
....
..c
bJ)
....
-
..c
bJ)
....
::=
...
Q)
....
g,
~
..c
U
~ .= e 3: vi
._ OJ Q) 0 I-
Q)..c '> - Q)
1.......... > ~ ~
..:::L. Q) VI C
I... > I.....:::L. :J
0'- :J g-
3: ~~ _ g
_Vllij 8 '" il
l;-:J Q).......
c 0 ..:::L. ro
I... ~ rtI U
i5~~F:O
U ~ c: L.:-8
I.... rtI ro VI
~ ~.p ~.~
Q'>QJ.....-:S
U :> .... ~.-
VI 0 - 3:
~ Q; L ~ vi .
eS~$o-g
u c \,.... .......u.... '"
:::J Q) C C
-00 c...::!.-o c
~ > Q) 0 Q).-
cO-O>cl~
co 0 C I... Q) 0
.~~ro~-:5-5
.... ~ :>
/1) ~ 1: >.. 0:>"
E.8 ",.0 2
<( ro tij -0 ~ .!!!
0) +-> ~ 0) VI
....c: C Q) ~ VI ~
I--&.E5-g~
::J 'i:j -0 ~ ....c:
~EU) ~ wa;~.
~~ gp ~=G.l5
FQ.l~ ~ ::J 0 !Jl.+:;
'v ~u > ~
5~ ~ ~-8~ 8-
'B~ 3: c'VioO
<~ ~ Eg~~
I....::J B ::J -0 ~
~~ g I~-o~
~-v b e~~:.c
O.!!!N .~VI'S:~-oCij
~ +-> L ._ 0) C
-vell -g@~-oE.g
cJ)c:~ NO"'I....O~~
,nO.!!! '~:g*~+->Z
Q)VI-o -F.=~c-..c::>'....o
~ a; 0 :; a..~ 0 ..^'-
'"'d 0) +-> ~ 0 O"'.~<<I
0)+->-0 coo...........~....c:E
;...58 =a:::c:.~<<I
::doo... ~ Io<uo
p.. > VI .....c: -S V') ....c: +->
Co) ..0 ~ ~ lii .~ 0 3: iV' 0)
..... _....... ell +-> 0 VI....c: E
0.. ~ >- 0... VI r--.. I.... I-- .-
. ~-Slii.2~O)81'~
.-4 ~ ~ o...u VI ~ +-> l;-.-
Q.)....c: r-:: ~ c c 0)
-.l-' <( ~ I.... u....c: ::J ::J....c:
(lJ~o ~ ::Jco~o o~
'" > ~-O 0 - > > U 0
T.
.-
~
........ . ..
;..,
0.8
:;....
""
"
S
r
V
~
"
"f!
~
~
-0
'"
~ m
r-' VI 0)-
-'~ ~cE-5
Q) x: t;::: ~E
cL~, -.:>'_ '-E >
~ ~ E." ~
p.. ce $ '; ~
'/) C) ell - t;:::
;J,) ~ -so.g-....c:
~.-o.!:-s~
..... ce.... ~ E 15
Q) ~]U)M-V
.- '1""1 -0
::JJ~C
~ Q) &.
.........s::: III
o .+-J~
;..,
.~
-
-
C
c...;
..
Q,) '"
.... >
Q. 'C
eeOO'co
..d.~-'-O""'"
U,g~~~
a..""'" 1'-0
~ Q.) rn'-O I
~~:2~~
s:: 0 I.... I Lt)
::s e ~ E ~
o ~ vi''' N
U ~ '" l!!
...oa.o~
Q,)ZzcELJ..
.... 0
--
-",
0..-.
U
1;;
~
~
l>O~
.... U
q E
~ 0
~ u
e@)
u ~
" ~
'" 0
.... ....
i=;'u
C"
:J '"
o ....
u i=;'
.... c
.~ :J
_ 0
o u
u ....
ii
'ra
E
uu
~cV~-t
G.I E ::J 0
-t '+:; ~ 3:
o rtI -v Q.l
;: ~ '" ~
'" '" u
~ ~ Woo-- oj
~ :B ~ ~.~
<l: ;: ~ -0 ~
~VlO)O~1Il
~ I.... C U CD C
< :B 0 u.. Q. .-
UJcojiE~
-::J_c:O>
.xoI....._u0
Q > ~ -g iV']
~ co rtI ......c <u
::) ~ 0... -S I-- ~
~..c.,,:O ~...o
2:--D()1.... :1Jo
"t:l c.!: ~ >-..c
'" "':>. .... ~
c ,-..c: Q)'-
Ht~Co...3:
;.... a U 0) VI I....
~ I.... VI E ~m
o~E.~-o>-
-.j...I o....a E LJ') t:
Q10)E~~
(".)U~O>:..VI
'> 0) e ~ ." e
. ....c: 0'- -0 .-
QI--....c:~I....c:
rJ) 3:1-- ~~
;..-- .......,
~']
:-s ~
~ "
",..c
QJ c.;.
'" c
'" .s
00
: ~?
-.;, ~
.....
-<:::'-: ;....
~u3
"
...::.:
"
<>
-c'
.~
~ ~
tj '6j,
~ ~
tj "
E: 0
~-;
>.U )> '" a. a.
3 aijiilQg--t
(l) (tQ., IX l>> :r
:::::!. QJ 0 3 a. (l)
Q 3 ~. ~ 5 g n
:J II) 3 0. I"t III 0
2' Q.I ClJ ClJ -
K~$[~a'~
n In ~. 3 n
..., (l) ...o(J"'r5
0:< -"'< ..... 0
VI_'n tuifC
VI n ([) :J ::J
I m ::J bl'< )>--<
n" ct::JOQ3n
Q.Oo~oro:r
=- 0 -+, ill < ::! fl,l
ro :J CD VI ([) n""'U
.. ClJ < VI .3 tu CD
()!:!. ro ...... 3 :J .,
g g --< 0 III ~ :::0
:J III 0...-0 ~ 0 a.
-< ~ Q..,......-o
nf1)j;lT~3ron
:r ...... ..., a.: Q.' ii
wOOQro_' Vi
'U 0 oo --t ~
rog-mQ.~::rQ.
~ Vi" Q) CD CD
i~~g:~]
ro^~go..Q.
............ OQ III
QO(ti:Tnc
g.gif~~]
([l.,:-<"I(I) 1Il::J
8~~i'~f:(~~~
iti ,.,(Xl 3 0.-' ~ ~
g: ""I ~. Ki 3 ~ .. "
o VI" .., c d.. ~ n
:1 *,):0 a.:2.,., 9 ~
rt>..:< a:~.:< ~. =)>.
" -. ." ,. CI... m
3- ~'~'~no
~ (Xl ):0 E!::;g
fg a:f;;
. 0
~J1~~g'~~Q
.. ~.;::, ~ c-.... .,., 'D
"l>'< ~ =l>
e.~)> -~. e.:::
a. n c:. 0::: Q. ci" m
(:>> ~ VI ~ -::I 0
5.ci ? ~ v. ~ ~ 0'
:P:S:2.~~9~~
rtI::I~ll.l5'=~~
1: (Xl ~. -. c.. c
"':PCDgoi~!!?
~~ ):. :l
::l .., ~ 01
rn "3 '-' a.
. .\'
:J """"'0 = 0 ;:o~""'C
mifaS.-romo
a. 3 :s.oil a. o.n etOO s. ~
3 0... -. a. oJ
0:::;' _. ~..., rD (I)
~"U&Q o.:J ~ ~:rIll:J
,.,. AI Cl) VI CD 0' III
. "< ..... (l) VI (!) ~ 0 a...
0' ffi~ ~::r.o... iii"
..., :J............. III
30...0 ~ ~ !9-!4
~ ([) ([) VI:( CD (J)
iif fl,l ;;., -. ...,
Ma--<mS.@~....
9- Ca.IIl.'::r
roO'CT33go..(ti
"'< ..., "< m III PJ 2 !!4
o.:Tro
a... -'::J
jticf6 III
~ 0
~ 3 '
~~g.
n" D. ^
:TOOro
C !D.1Il
3 '" "
~5-ffi
$J:~
~~Q.
!-"St-n
-1DJo
ifB-~
g~~~[~tl ~
~ ;r 3 ~ 0 ~ n' \J m ~
~ ~ III '< g.. pj' ~ ~ 9-: =r
., (I) m ill I'"t A.l
<~m<n-' m3@',,<
2........t'D;r:JVl- l'D,-<(l)
c 0 ~ A.l A.l "'0 ::!:l;:; r-t ~
;:;3,,<""02=0 o~
roA.lro@'w-Vlo=;'3M
~g-~'-....~mQ:T
VI _ w .., . m ([l
iilo~&5..g:m-;:;-,.,.
VI -, !!!. VI AI ::r::r)>
"U:::!J([):43-o~ro~3
o 0 r-t VI A.l 0 ::r 3 ""'-l (I)
5. 8- $' ll) ? iJ.g ~. .0 :1.
...... S' """"0 3 ~. woo Q
o()'Q""'"Uj:LlO~:J.o::J
...... - ::r..., a..::J VI.Q 0
::r () m ~ ro . 9:-
([l 0 () -. 0.. A.l r-t 0 VI ;;:0
n = ~ 3 iii' n 0 - & ~
~ ro' :: ~ & a: 3 9: ~
VI ., VI m ...... m A.l VI .,
0' () 0'--< ~ ;:; g- ~ ~. Q
., 0., ~ VI m m ::J 0
& S III ~ ..VI., Q.. e:
!!!...:< ::r 0 ~ ~ ::r @ 5-
~ () g m 1L ~ -tJ S' @
::J::rlllQ.()OlUOO'QlIl
n w m !a 0 VI ., :J :r""O
([l""O ~ In _ cr a.. VI 0 0
. ......,......=::::IoroC:::I
~_([l~~_1Il~~~~
;!~8~~
m3-,c:4-l
O'Q~::J)>$
- -. 0 -<' -.
o~OQ 0..)>
~.a..~.Q83
~ :J" ~ III C ~
Vl ""0 Vl?)"
8 rot ~ Ii m ~
c 2 a. .,
;;:Q...,eC'$'
CDOm~"a..
VI ;;: -0 ~ 3
~ ...... 0 VI Q Q
ro w ::J f"'t ([l 0
j:l.J c a.. QJ I"'t t::
~ ~...... ::r::r
~.-toS'~~
Q: ~ 3 ~ !:!? CT
~ ~11l ~ ~ (I)
oo:a 2:--< ~
Q.. ~ g.~
PA Q'::::r W
III m ~ 0
.'U
~
~
,:
=
Q,.
'1
III
...
00
...
=
IlG
'U
'"
;:i ~ w
15: ~"U
],<CD
oo ro ;;l
" '" 0
!II .' :J
ti
...
00
III
00
....
(!)
'1
rn
(!)
'1
<:
...
~
(!)
00
"
ro
'"
,.,
;r.
--toil
~n
n"
o ;0
='"
~. 5..
~ ~~] C ~
lS -rl""2..!:!", (tl
~()OCD~"1
_.0 " 0 ro ~
6J6J~Clll~
..,..,(;t,.,.~
~ m 0 is:~. o'
iii' 3 ., CD ::J ~
Sw~g..~~
:J ::J 2 (t) <
2~"cQ.-3
<a..~inc,",,::
:5. M- a..' ;; ~
g.. $' Vi' 8 m G.
J:-81-,~
3"" 0 VI ~
c3CDOrlJ'Q
3 ;-'l toJ 0
OJ OQ'." (j) -, W
:::J -, -, ro (tl
;:;'~o3-o~
~o-'S.iiro<:
-, a. tn :J ~.
~;;dR~'a.f6
< ro "0 rL
-.:< iti 0 "
~ fi' CD 2. Cb
. (1) -, O..c
O'~~ffi
-, U) -, U)
""0 rl [t (it
([l 01:01_
o 0 ~. a
~~m3
a.0'~ d
~ -, ~ :=I.......
iir rl lJl -, 'l:;
U) :r. r; 5' ~
0' tn -, ro ~
-, :J ~ a. (1)
1:01 toJ 0 toJ ""'::
36-*6..
-'::J ro W
2. ~ ;;l @ r't
~ a.: 0 ~ <:
3 (1) ~ ~ (S"
o~a.:a.":
-.:< (1) < :r:
S-rroQ.,
iti ([l ~ 3 .=:
(1) toJ 0 rl S
~~om~
m m 3 ;;l ::1
~rl~ (ti ~
. ~~-g~
ro rl :J _
:<~c..F
([l ro 8 ;::
toJ ;..c
rl ~ S-~F
81 -ro
~. 3 Q
"... ro =
~ ro 0'
a. VI -,
o~
e: ~ ~
1!i. g: c..
" 0
,., oo
=:ro
!lJ ;!
(it~
l ~. ::J
:To.c
~~~
~ ro ~
~ ~.
ro ,., '"
~ ~. a.
~~=:
ro ro ,.,
a. M' ~
:Tro~
ro ;;l ro
'" '" a.
rlOO
:To.
oo ~ 3
ro ro ro
~ S. ~
III @ ~
,.,
ro :T
oo ro
;;; '"
VI g:
tJ
~.
T-
n;
, -
o .
::: ::r:
'C
,.
-
-
;:,-
en
"0
~
<'
-
(')
(!)
""f;
~ oo a.
'Uroro
=ciQ'OQ ~
o =r CiJ l:l)
-, g- (I) 5'
~-'o~
=r::r_ ~
([l 0 < ""'::
-,g,g-Q.
9-:. 3 c
~ - oo
e: Q.~ (j)
(j) 0 (1) ~
;-'l ~ rl III
S' 0
"" '"
~
:.c-
J~
'J~
'C
'J;
""f;
~
~
'C
o.ro
iJi 3
OQ' ~
oo""
'" ro
rox
a.",
9-: III (j 0
~ if cOO
rlM'::JI'D
(I) (I).... ""'::
-, VI m ~
!!? - VI 0""
S l:l) 0
~. a. e: ~
:J VI m
.... Q. Vi'
:T ro "
ro =:
o ii5 ~
o -, -.
3 5" S-
3""
c - 3
2. g e:
~ Q. U)
tJ
~.
CIJ
'"
~
rn
"'~
'" (!)
-. -
oo '"'
ro (!)
a.",
3
~
^
III (I) ~
05' '"
,"" -
~ ro..c
a. c
9 ~~
lQ;e:
~ ~ U)
n' - m
~ 0 3~
_~ .., (I)
~ oo
,., oo"
:T
ro ro Q,
~. ~" rl
~iti~
'" ,.,
oo '"
a.,
!'
:l:
~ ~
ro ~
, '"
" oo
0""
o
....
::r'
(!)
'1
~
(!)
Q,.
n
'1
o
00
00
rn
(!)
'1
<:
...
~
(!)
00
~ n~ n~:n3 P;-U)
toJQ.Q.oc<;;:!=3~-l
--, =:-.:J (l)5S-'<::r
e: ~ C III l:l) 0...:< if @' ro
U) n 3 ~ 2- PL-o Y' U) :>
g: g ~~ 3 ~ 3 5' g g
OQ ,;; fR ~ g !!?, 0 @- 3 ~.
o ""< ::r U) U) :::J a. l:l)
cn~n'qS::J5'3rooo
-, ::r::r:::r l:l) ::J ttoa
3toJ(I) ....00 0-;0
_.""0 -, ~ 2.. (I) l:l) ro ro ~
= (j) l:l) 0 ::J 3 Vl
~ -, ~ S. ~ ~ III ro 0 n
~ -8 ~. g- :l ~ &:~ -. a
"0 ([l toJ III :::r ^::J S- ~
~ ~ X :fO'_.m-Q ro-o
o l:l) ro 0' -, III -0 -,
::J:J....-,~-o5.oo~~
:J l:l) 0 3 (I) .., 3 ~
[t ~ 3 ~.~ ~. g ~ (1) ([l
~oQ.=g frg-o C 0.;;'
Q. (I) S - "< a. :::r 2. 6' ~"
S- Q. ~ 3 =-<' ..... ~. Q
--.-, l:l) ri 0
!!!,-_:::'\' 5'0 g..!:!'ro:::r
-,otoJroOCl....._glllc
P1"O~,VI C':::r~ _III toJ 3
30 = iti :J ~ ([l ::J toJ
=.:&:ro-:t'>Q.roo.lIIQ.:J
(ii'm !'l ~ _II! 0 0 ;=;:
!"""O-lrJw~::J""g..~
~ ~ _VI 6.. 5 _~ ~~. ~.
JIll
~ ~,o....j
::r'o=
(!) ,: III
3 g. =
... (!)
:::: ~ =
~ loooIo ;oJ
III .... (Il
'"l ::r' '1
~~1lG
: 0 (!)
. =
,: ~
'""S ~<:
-~
o ~
<: (Il
(!) ~
Q,.=
01lG
= (!)
(!) ....
...... loooIo
= =
>
'1
3
(!)
Q,.
~
o
'1
~
(!)
00
--
rn
>
~
'-'
....
o
rn
(!)
'1
<:
...
~
(!)
II
16 'oJo!ll), ;008
1)1
Board of County Commjsston8fS
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
RECEIVED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Fiala
DEe 0 2 2008 Naples, Florida Hal~
Henning
October 31,2008 Coyle ~
Coletta
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board,
in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein,
met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Collier
County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,
Room 609-610, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre
Larry Dean
Kenneth Kelly
Edward Larsen
Richard Kraenbring (Excused)
Lionel L'Esperance
George Ponte (Excused)
Robert Kaufman
ALSO PRESENT:
Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist
Page 1
Mile. Cons:
0Ile: Dt/l~/o9'
Item~Jla ICl)A3
Copies to:
16 11 (A-) 3
October 31, 2008
CHAIRMAN LEFEB VRE: I'd like to call Code Enforcement
Board of Collier County to order.
Notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per case
presentation unless additional time is granted by the board.
Persons wishing to speak on the agenda item will receive up to
five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman,
All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to
observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the
court reporter can record all statements being made.
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 is to be based,
Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be
responsible for providing this record.
May I please have the roll call.
MS. WALDRON: Good morning.
Mr. Edward Larsen?
MR. LARSEN: Present.
MS.W ALDRON: Mr. George Ponte has an excused absence.
Mr. Gerald Lefebvre?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Present.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly?
MR. KELLY: Here,
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean?
MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Present.
MS, WALDRON: Mr. Richard Kraenbring has an excused
absence.
Mr. Robert Kaufman?
Page 2
--,-,~--,-~,., '.----
1 ~ctlllt )2~08
MR. KAUFMAN: Here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And our alternate, Mr, Kaufman,
will be a full voting member today.
Approval of the agenda.
MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well--
MR. DEAN: Do we have corrections?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- we are going to have corrections
and changes, correct?
MS. WALDRON: We are going to have corrections to the
agenda,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, let's have those, please,
MS, WALDRON: The first -- for the record, Jen Waldron,
Investigative Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement.
We have the following changes to the agenda: Under motion for
extension of time, we'll be adding BCC versus Caribe Investments of
Naples, Inc. CEB Case No. 2007-030-836,
We will be moving Item 4.C.1, BCC versus Milano Recreation
Association, Inc. CEB No. CESD200800 1 0230, under Item 4.A,
motion for continuance,
We'lLbe moving Item 4,C.5, BCC versus Nester De La Paz and
Lourdes Gonzalez Garriga, CEB No. 2007-09-0090 under stipulations,
4.B.1.
And we'll be moving Item 5,A.2, BCC versus Bart and Sandi
Chernoff, CEB No. 2007-105 under motions for extension of time,
which is 4,A, motion for extension of time number two.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, now may I have approval of
the agenda.
MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chairman, can I pull the foreclosure
authorization item number two, Frank Fernandez, please.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need a vote for that?
MR. KELLY: No, I don't believe so, as long as it's approved.
Page 3
- - -_".,_--"-~_"-_""",,,',-<-_._,.-."._.....,.
16dctLg~ ~08
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion -- do I hear a
second?
MR. KELLY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You made the motion.
MR. KELLY: Oh, no, that doesn't need a motion. I want it
pulled. It will just get pulled when everyone approves the actual
agenda.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good.
Do I have approval ofthe agenda?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR, DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR, KAUFMAN: Aye,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved.
Approval of the minutes from September 25th, 2008.
MR. KELLY: Make a motion to approve.
MR. DEAN: Second the motion,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye,
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye,
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye,
Page 4
CHAIRMAN LEFEB VRE: Any nays?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN LEFEB VRE: Motion is approved.
We're going to start off with the public hearings, and the first
one will be a motion for rehearing, And it's Mr. and Mrs. Richard and
Lisa Kames,
MR. KARNES: Yes, sir. Respectfully ask the board for a motion
for rehearing, because we now have representation as of Wednesday
of this week, And we'd like representation to be present because it's an
appeal. And if there's any discussion to be made, our attorney should
be -- I don't know the verbiage used, other than argue the verbiage of
the appeal.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And so you're looking actually for a
continuance then?
MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And when are you looking for a
continuance till?
MR. KARNES: Sir?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When are you looking to continue
till, next meeting?
MR. KARNES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do we have the date for our
next meeting?
MS. WALDRON: This will be a -- just to clarifY, this will be a
continuance of the decision on the rehearing,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, is that your intent, to
continue for the decision to rehear it or to rehear it on the 20th?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, they --
MR. KELLY: It's a motion for a rehearing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion to -- to make a motion on
the rehearing, because his attorney is not here and he probably will
October 31, ,~008
16 11 (fl)3
Page 5
10~t}be~ 3 [1;~~
want to argue why we want to rehear the case,
MS. RAWSON: 1 think he's making a motion to continue his
motion for rehearing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: For rehearing, right.
MS. RAWSON: And the next hearing is November the 20th,
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
Any objection from the county?
MR. MORAD: No, sir.
MR. KELLY: I have just a quick question for -- I guess it would
be for Jean.
We were included in our packet the actual appeal regulations. Is
there any reason why it shouldn't be allowed a rehearing?
MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that we have to wait until his
attorney comes and makes that argument.
He's also, and I don't know if you all have copies of it, filed a
request to continue the hearing, So he's requesting to continue the
hearing on the motion to -- for rehearing, which is part of that appeal
package that you got.
MR. KELLY: Sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We got it this morning.
MS. WALDRON : You should have a packet of the letter from
the attorney in your --
MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, that's correct. My understanding is that
the appeal was approved --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, do I need to swear him
in?
MS. RAWSON: 1 think you do. And he needs to state his name
on the record.
(Speakers were duly sworn,)
THE COURT REPORTER: And if you could please state your
name,
Page 6
1 €bttc1J !f!1ms
MR. KARNES: Richard Kames.
MRS. KARNES: Lisa Kames.
MR. LARSEN: I just have a question, Your attorney IS
Samantha Stephens?
MR. KARNES : Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And she's made application to the board
for an extension of time, because she's got to be in a court in Orlando;
is that correct?
MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, she has to be in Orlando today, yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: All right. I move that we grant the continuance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I --
MR. KELLY: Second,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye,
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye,
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved.
MR. KARNES: Thank you, sir.
MS. WALDRON: And we're continuing that to November 20th?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: November 20th.
MR. LARSEN: And the counsel will be so notified?
MS. WALDRON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, next one will be extension of
time, Caribe Investments of Naples. And we should have a letter.
Are they present?
MS. WALDRON: I don't believe that they are present.
MR. LARSEN: Caribe Investments?
Page 7
(No response,)
MR. LARSEN: Is the code enforcement officer for Caribe
Investments available?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The problem I have, I do not see in
this letter where it states how much more time they're looking for.
MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Supervisor Jeff
Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to have to have you
sworn in also.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. LETOURNEAU: The letter he's referring to is the most
recent one, They're not here today, obviously. They're claiming -- I'll
just read basically what they're -- they're having troubles with their
contractor.
I did check the permit this morning and they did ask for two
inspections today. They have a total of 10 inspections on this permit
and they filed -- they requested two inspections today,
Their letter states that, at the moment it seems we are being held
hostage by the contractor, Jerry Germain of Germain Construction. He
claims that he is waiting for the revised plan to proceed, We have
given him an advance of more than half of the contract price, which is
over $4,000, We would like to ask the Code Enforcement Board for
assistance in order to correct this problem.
Obviously I don't think you guys -- it's in your scope to, you
know, go after a contractor, but I believe he's asking for -- we
appreciate hearing from you as early as possible, If additional
information is required, please do not hesitate to contact this office,
MR. KELLY: Mr. Letourneau?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes.
MR. KELLY: Was this the fire wall issue?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct.
MR. KELL Y: In an unoccupied building,
October 31, 2008
16 , 1 (ft)3
Page 8
1 (9foler e WJ~
MR. LETOURNEAU: It's not occupied at this moment, but they
moved the wall and then they made it two units into one. I've got
pictures right here,
MR. KELLY: I remember this one.
Since it's not occupied, I don't think there's an issue granting the
extension.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, we don't know what time period
they're looking for.
MR. KELLY: I think originally it was 90 days, if I remember
correctly. Maybe another 90.
MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe so, yes, sir. Yeah, it doesn't give
a time period here.
MR. LARSEN: But are they even on the agenda today? What
are they asking an extension of time from and until?
MS. RAWSON: I think they were an addition to the agenda.
MS. WALDRON: They were an addition to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KELLY: And it's standard practice, we tell folks, if you
need more time just let us know ahead of time and we'll see if we can't
grant that for you.
So basically we would be amending our original order, Jean, by
doing this?
MS, RAWSON: Every time you grant an extension of time, it
does. I mean, you can't fine them until the time that is on the order of
extension of time,
MR. LARSEN: Anybody know when the order specifies that
they have until to complete the work?
MS. RAWSON: I don't have a copy of the order.
MS, WALDRON: The last extension was granted on the 25th,
until October 25th. On the 25th of September till October 25th, 2008.
MR. LARSEN: Okay, so we gave them 30 days. And they're
asking for an additional 90 days?
Page 9
16cit~er if~~8
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It doesn't say what--
MR. LETOURNEAU: It doesn't specifY in this letter what
they're asking for. I mean, I wish they would have shown up today, it
would have been a lot easier.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, that's --
MR. KAUFMAN: How many more inspections are there to be --
MR. LETOURNEAU: They have 10 total inspections. They
haven't done any yet. They just called for two to be completed today.
MR, LARSEN: Well, r don't oppose giving them a limited
extension, based upon the letter that they sent to Ms. Waldron. I just
don't know, you know, what length of time is appropriate in light of
the fact that they're not here today to say what they've done and what
they've, you know, tried to -- or attempted to accomplish during the
last 30 days,
MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not really sure what they've tried. I
know obviously they've called in two inspections today, so that's as far
as I know what they've done,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you haven't been in contact
with them since this letter's been sent?
MR. LETOURNEAU: No. I went out there, let me see, Tuesday
and it's not occupied. I looked in there. The situation's the same as it
was. They haven't changed anything yet, so --
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I seem to sense a large
degree of due diligence on the part of the petitioner, and because of
that I move that we give them a 30-day extension of time.
MR. DEAN: Although I'd like to make one comment. I would
think that if somebody needed time for something, they'd certainly
show up here and explain to us why.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree,
MR. DEAN: I mean, this is just floating and we're going to
probably do additional 30 days --
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Very possibly.
Page 10
1 QcJotl~~i088
MR. DEAN: -- but I wouldn't do anything after that.
MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, I'm going to second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye,
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed,
MS. RAWSON: You want that on the November the 20th?
Because that's not quite 30 days, Do you want that on the November
20th docket or -- the next one would be in January,
MR. DEAN: You know, I--
MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's a good point.
MR. DEAN: I think because they didn't show up today -- if they
had showed up then I would go a longer.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do I need to amend my motion to specifY
the next meeting?
MR. KELLY: Normally what happens is staff brings that when
they go to impose. So it's up to staff to decide when they want to bring
it to us.
MS. RAWSON: That's true.
MS. WALDRON: Because the 30 days wouldn't be up--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. WALDRON: -- that you granted until after the November
20th hearing, so --
MR. DEAN: So our next meeting.
MS. WALDRON: It wouldn't be until the January meeting in
that case.
Page 11
~~'--_.''''-'"''''---'-"'~.''_._-'-'-''''----'--~------,_.,.
16 'olo~if t;?2008
MR. KAUFMAN: How about a 60-day extension instead of30,
MR. KELLY: No, sir, the time will still end when it ends, and--
MS. WALDRON: Right.
MR. KELLY: -- it will be up to us if we want to be lenient on
the imposition of fines when that comes up, if it comes up.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Good point.
MS. WALDRON: The respondent would have to ask for another
extension of time, if that's --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. WALDRON: -- what they would need to do.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, the next one for extension of
time will be Chernoff, ifI'm not mistaken. CEB No. 2007-105.
MS. MacALLISTER: Good morning. We are here. We did file a
third motion for extension of time with the board in September. I don't
know how it is that you all don't have your copies of the motion, but I
know that the secretary didn't have it either.
In that motion -- but I'll recap for you what I said in the motion.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, do we need to
swear these folks in?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: The attorney doesn't need to be sworn in,
(Speakers were duly sworn. )
MS. MacALLISTER: After Mr. Chernoff appeared here in June,
along with my letter to the board, we did mediate this matter. This is
the matter of the illegal pole barn and the case proceeding through
litigation,
We did mediate the matter in July. We reached an impasse. We
had a bit of difficulty getting the mediator to transmit the notice of
impasse to the court. The notice of impasse is what triggers the court
then to set the matter on a trial docket.
We ultimately got the impasse filed with the court and we are set
on a trial docket. We are currently set as the backup case for the
Page 12
16 blbC1/ :q008
December 8/9 trial docket. But we will know this morning whether or
not we are going to be a date certain trial on December 3rd and 4th,
One way or the other, we will go to trial in December.
The clerk, Judge Ellis' clerk, has assured me that there are a
number of cases that have appear to be ready to settle and we're ready
to go, So if we don't go on the 3rd and 4th, we will go on the 8th or
9th, in all likelihood, or soon thereafter.
So what we're asking for at this point is a 90-day extension. One
way or the other the matter will be resolved by final judgment.
If you are curious as to what would happen after that, normally
the closer you get to trial, the more likely you are to settle. And after
you have a judgment, you're really likely to try and settle the case. So
we anticipate that 90 days should bring us to resolution of this matter
once and for all.
MR. LARSEN : Well, I move to grant the 90-day extension.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to grant it until the
January meeting?
MR. LARSEN: Is that 90 days?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's right around 90 days.
Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye,
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes,
MS. MacALLISTER: Thank you.
Page 13
1 ~~b1r~\&9~
MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one is a motion for
continuance. And it is Milano Recreation Association, Inc.
MS. WALDRON: Just to advise the board, too, we have three
people that would like to speak on this issue.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, let's see, if we hear the
case, then probably best to let them speak. If we don't and continue the
case, then we could probably --
MS. WALDRON: They -- I have a feeling they may be speaking
in regards --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To continuing the case?
MS. WALDRON: -- to continuing the case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Good morning, Board. Mark Adamczyk,
attorney for the Respondent Milano Recreation Association. Number
of --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One minute, please?
MR. ADAMCZYK: Oh, sure.
(Speakers were duly sworn,)
MR. ADAMCZYK: Board, I would like to start off by noting
there's a substantially lengthy packet on your table this morning which
was delivered five business days in advance containing a
memorandum of opposition of law to the case, and of course with the
motion for continuance on top with the memo being attached.
I would respectfully request that that be considered seriously and
in detail as it contains many arguments on many different legal
subjects.
I believe in recognition of the time needed to do so in
considering the fact I have no witnesses here to put on a meaningful
defense, they could not be here today, and I have no earthly idea what
the county attorney's evidence will be at not having been disclosed
yet, we would move for continuance. And I understand there's no
Page 14
t90tek ,~g;
objection for the county staff on behalf of staff.
I understand the next meeting is the 20th. I have witnesses that
can't even be here for that date. And before we even decide on a
proper date, I would respectfully request that you look at our
memorandum,
The January meeting may be sufficient, but if there's no
objection from Mr. Wright, I would respectfully move at this time,
and I'll reserve comment. To the extent that you may hear comment
from other public speakers, please note that that is coming from the
private complainant. And I'd put an objection on the record that they
have the right to interfere with what is a procedural matter and should
be between Mr. Wright and I.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: What's Mr. Wright have to say?
MR. WRIGHT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney for the
record.
We don't object to the continuance request. And the written
request is for 30 days. That puts us past the November meeting into
the January meeting. So as long as we're on the same page that the
next hearing would be scheduled for January, then we don't object.
MS. RAWSON: That would be January 22nd.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. I think the January 22nd
meeting, if we do have a continuance, that would be ample time to
provide the information needed to get with the county and so forth and
also to make sure that your witnesses are here.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I would agree,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I think three months or nearly
three months is plenty of time.
MR. ADAMCZYK: And there's more reasons than that in our
motion. That's just being one of the key problems,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Anymore from the county or
Milano Associate attorney?
Page 1 5
l&tJbJ3~~~
MR. ADAMCZYK: I don't have anything at this point. I would
reserve the right to respond to anything that the private complainant
has to say today, that's all.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're not going to argue the
case today.
MR. ADAMCZYK: And I agree with that in full.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or right at this point.
Any questions from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you could please stand up.
State your name, please.
MR. DEMPSEY: My name is Will Dempsey, I'm from 1836
Harbor Lane in Naples, and I'm here on behalf of the Imperial Golf
Estates Homeowners Association and a private property owner to the
west of Milano called Marsala (phonetic) Villas, LLC.
We have no comments to provide to the board. If it be the
board's pleasure that this matter be continued to January 22nd, we
would just ask that the matter not extend or not be continued beyond
that date, just for the sake of expediency, That's it. Thanks,
MR. LARSEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Both of you are all set? Okay.
Any discussion from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to extend.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To?
MR. KAUFMAN: Continue.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Till?
MR. KAUFMAN: Till the meeting in January, on the 22nd.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
Page 16
JcQblr 11,&&)J
MR. DEAN: Aye,
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye,
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye,
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. DEAN: I'd like to make one comment. I'd like to pass this
back, this tree I've got in my hands, so we don't reproduce it again.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely,
MR, DEAN: We'll use that one January 22nd.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Thank you for your time,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next we're going to be moving on to
stipulations.
And do we have any other stipulations at this point?
MS. WALDRON: Not that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. It will be Nester De La paz
and Lourdes Gonzales Garriga. I'm not sure if I said that right.
We need to have all the parties sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name.
MR. DE LA P AZ: Yes, I have the permits for the problem --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name,
MR. DE LA PAZ: Oh, my name is Nester De La Paz. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir.
MR. DE LA PAZ: Yes, I have (sic) here for the violation. I have
all new permit, you know, And I sign one paper with him for the
problem, you know.
Sorry for my English, but I try.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's okay,
Page 17
~~Jerl1Ctao)3
Has everyone read the stipulation?
MR. DEAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the county?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I'll have you read it into the
record.
MR. MUSSE: For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse,
Collier County Code Enforcement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you could talk slowly,
MR. MUSSE: Yes. I was just looking at her.
This is in reference to Case No. 2007090090, Board of County
Commissioners versus Nester De La Paz Gonzalez and Lourdes B.
Gonzales Garriga, dealing with the violation of a separated 25 by 25
foot guesthouse, located on the left rear of the property.
Respondent has agreed to enter into a stipulation. Respondent is
to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.46 within 30 days of this
hearing incurred in the prosecution of this case, and obtaining a
Collier County building permit, inspections, certificate of completion
within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be
imposed until the violation is abated,
Or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, inspections
and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine
of $200 per day will be imposed until violation's abated,
If respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate
the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order.
Respondent must notifY code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a
site inspection to confirm compliance,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board?
MR, KAUFMAN: I have one,
Is that enough time for you to get everything done before the
Page 18
1 ~itl3t fa61V 3
fines start to begin?
MR. DE LA PAZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept the stipulated
agreement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye,
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes,
MR. DE LA PAZ: Thank you.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, the next item on the agenda,
Mr. Hargraves, they are working on a stipulation agreement, so if we
could push that --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS, WALDRON: -- back and go to the next hearing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need to amend the agenda at
this point?
MS, RAWSON: Yes.
MR. KELLY: Make a motion to amend the agenda to bring
Hargraves down to number nine under C.
MR. LARSEN: Second the motion,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
Page 19
1 8cloblr ~1~)0~
CHAIRMAN LEFEB VRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye,
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The agenda has been amended.
We're going to move on to Marek Okenka and -- thank you. If
you'd please step forward,
I knew today was going to be a tough day with names.
If you could please swear in both parties,
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No,
CEVR20080003423, BCC versus Marek Okenka and Lenka
Okenkova.
For the record, the respondent and the board was sent a packet of
evidence and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit
A.
MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye,
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. WALDRON: This is violation of Ordinance 04-41, as
amended, Collier County Land Development Code,
Page 20
16dctlbe(?At)@8
Description of violation: Property has been mechanically cleared
in excess of one acre without required permits, and a berm has been
created with the addition of mulch,
Location/address where violation exists: 11141 Trinity Place,
Naples, Florida. Folio No. 760800003.
Names and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Marek Okenka and Lenka Okenkova, 11141 Trinity Place,
Naples, Florida, 34118.
Date violation first observed: 2-5-2008.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: 4-2-2008.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: 4-30-2008.
Date of reinspect ion: 5-20-2008,
And the results of the reinspection is that the violation remains.
At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator
Susan O'Farrell.
MS, O'FARRELL: Good morning, For the record Susan
O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement, Environmental
Specialist.
This is in reference to Case No. CEVR2008000342. It is the
violations of Section 3.05,Ol(B) and Section 4,06.05(1).
The first violation which I spoke of is for vegetation removal
without a permit, and the second violation is for a slope requirement
by the county.
I would like to present Exhibit B and Exhibit C,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept? Have
you seen the --
MR. OKENKA: No.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could please show them to--
MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I showed him out in
the hallway.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: So move to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, let's see ifhe objects to it first.
Page 21
16cloIir € Jt1z)~
Go ahead, Sir, do you object to those?
MR. OKENKA: No.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can just bring the mic,
close to you. I know you're kind of tall, but if you can just stay as
close as possible.
Okay, do I hear a motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the package.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved.
If you could just give us a minute to look at them, please,
MS, O'FARRELL: Sure,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And then you can start talking about
them.
MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry, I did destroy a couple of trees.
MS, RAWSON: Would you tell me which sections again?
MS. O'FARRELL: Section 3.05.01(B), Did 1 say Section
3.05.01(B)?
And Section 4.06.05 -- maybe that's a (1). It's either a (l) or an
(1), Let me look at my ordinances.
That would be an (I), not a (1).
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the board had an opportunity to
review the exhibits?
Page 22
16dt<}e(31.12Y3
MR. LARSEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Okenka's complaint was generated by a
neighbor. He had built a berm around the three perimeters of his
property, only not building it across the front.
He had mulch, I believe, delivered to his property and he had
pushed this up into the berm. So the berm is completely made of
mulch.
He had also removed a substantial amount of trees and
vegetation from his property. That's why we have the vegetation
removal on the case as well,
I have spoken with Mr. Okenka several times. We have talked
about the vegetation removal and the replacement. He does have a
lake on the property, but I believe it was excavated historically.
He wants to keep the vegetation around that, so that was not
declared in the notice of violation. However, he did, as you can see
from the aerials, clear quite a bit of property and have mulch
delivered,
He is using the mulch to create topsoil for his property, and --
yes, that's what I believe, He wants to use his topsoil for landscape
beds around his property,
We discussed the slope requirements of 4.01, which require --
I'm sorry, did I get that right, the slope section?
MR. OKENKA: Yes, you did.
MS, O'FARRELL: Okay, The slope requirement for that berm is
4.1 ratio, and it also has to have trees, shrubs and groundcover.
We discussed negotiating that amount so that he would really
only have to have trees at 25 to 30 feet apart.
My last site visit, the berms -- and he would also remove the
berms or at least set them back to 4,1,
My last site visit before the hearing, the berms had been
removed on one side. There were piles of more topsoil and also piles
Page 23
19t!b! b16~
of new mulch, There had been no trees planted.
That is what I observed and that is my case.
Mr. Okenka has photos to show you. And I have seen the photos.
Do we need to do those as another exhibit?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, that would be Respondent's
Exhibit A, more than likely.
MS. O'FARRELL: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be Respondent's Exhibit
A.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. So we would like to admit
Respondent's --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He would have to ask for that.
MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, I'm sorry,
Mr. Okenka, it's your turn to speak.
MR. OKENKA: All right, thank you,
My name is Marek Okenka. And as you hear why am I here, so I
like to defend myself why I did this --
MS, O'FARRELL: Mr. Okenka, give them the photos and tell
them you would like to show them as Exhibit A.
MR. OKENKA: And I would like to show the pictures why and
of what I did to my property.
MS, O'FARRELL: And if I may speak one more time before he
starts.
He has been at meetings with me. He has said that he would do
these things and I believe that he will. You can make your decision on
how much time he will need,
Okay, Mr. Okenka.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we hear him speak, since
you'd like to enter these as an exhibit, we cannot give you these back.
These will be given to the court reporter as evidence, okay, so we're
not going to be able to, first of all, give you these back.
And second of all, if I can hear a motion that we accept Exhibit
Page 24
16 , <1tbtfetA 1~008
A from the respondent.
MR. DEAN: Motion to accept Exhibit A from the respondent.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye,
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead, sir.
MR. OKENKA: In those pictures, I would like to present the
whole idea why I did what I did and what I'm intending to do,
I purchased the property in 2000 with the knowledge to be
agriculture zoning. And to understand, I have five acres which I can
freely use. And by each time when the rainy season will come, I did
happen to knowledge (sic) all my property as well as neighbors
properties during the rainy seasons all under the water.
So I wanted to somehow cultivated (sic) all my property in order
to not to have a water at my property. So my idea was to bring natural
mulch to my property to raise up the property to the height where I'm
not going to have water anymore.
And that I did and -- and as I was bringing the mulch to my
property trying to spread it around into a certain height on my
property, I realized there might be a problem with my neighbors
surrounding. I'm not going to create a berms (sic) because I did talk to
one of my neighbors, He says you might make a problem with this to
bringing to a certain height. I might get flooded, my property might
get flooded because I'm bringing this mulch to my property.
So I create the berms to -- with the understanding I will
somehow separate both properties from each other, if that case
Page 25
16Jtli1ttl ~8
happens to be true that I'm going to flooded him.
So I create the berms as 1 would explain like a swimming pool
so the water, it fill my property, would not go over the berms, That
was the whole idea of the berms.
To this motion, I would like to explain, None of the neighbors,
the neighbor which is right next to me on the left, the neighbor which
is right next to me on the right, they all agree, and we all agree on
what 1 was doing, It was just one of the neighbor, which was further
from us who was complaining about it.
So I brought the mulch, 1 create those berms, that's true. And as
you see on those pictures -- I have pictures when we happen to have
water on the properties -- and they are the pictures when I bring the
mulch and I solve the problem not to have the water.
And the whole idea of the mulch was to bring the nutrition to my
soil where I can turn this nutrition to the good healthy soil where I can
grow more trees, I can have more animals to raise, and have a usage of
my property, as well, it was understanding from my neighbors. They
liked that idea.
We had several meetings together, we had the -- with the code
enforcement. I was trying to explain why I did this.
They. are the pictures where the -- about the removing the trees.
As you see on that -- on those pictures, those trees happen to die, all
the pine trees. They -- it might be just about one acres, so the pine
trees, they happen to die. And I had the feel or need to remove them
because they were hazards to if I walking underneath or my family
walking or anyone else, the branch might just fell and cause the
troubles.
That was one thing, Another thing was it looks ugly, So I
remove them. In my understanding they are going to be much more
new trees putted in as I wish to plant the trees and have a nursery for
myself to grow the trees.
So I did remove them without the permit. But I thought I got to
Page 26
laJo~lth~8
do it when there's a chance to do it, so I did remove the trees. And I
used that mulch which we shredded from the trees to lay all around
my property, That's not the mulch which you see over there, that was
brought up from another site.
So that was why I did remove those trees, because they were
dead. There was no use for them,
And as for the creating the berms, I have no problem to remove
the berms. I already start, I did it, as well I did it for -- under my
neighbors where I did create a berms.
But I have a difficulties to comply with code ordinance which
they trying to tell me I do have to have a certain slope, which I would
understand as well, the slope, I do.
It's just it's 660 linear feet of one of the berm. The 330, another
660 linear feet, which is quite a big.
To make that slope, no problem. But try to put the sod in 14 feet
in that distance and try to put the certain trees which I've been told to
in certain distance and certain settings, it's quite a financial burden to
me. And I just -- what I want to say, I'm not the developer who's
developing the sites for either public use or for later residential sites. I
felt like this is my property and I'm trying to create a solution for my
property .
And so to removing the berm is no problem, but to maybe
pushing to PUD the sod and put the trees because my trees dead --
they were dead, the pine trees, and replace them with certain height,
12 feet, three-inch diameter trees which are native trees, Which I don't
have a problem, because I'm going to grow a lot of trees, That's why I
have that five acres. But I'm pushed into the comer, you have to do it
now and it has to be this way, and unfortunately it's going to cost this
much, And I just can't in this kind of situation, this economy goes to --
this whole thing, it cost me probably $200,000 to end up as I am when
economy, there wasn't enough jobs,
So right now I just cannot understand, why do I have to comply
Page 27
16clo~r&fl?o8
as a developer to solve this problem?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Part of the discussions you had,
were any discussions regarding installing sod?
MS, O'FARRELL: Of installing sod on the berm?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He mentioned sod, like grass I guess
is what he would mean,
MS. O'FARRELL: The requirement for a slope ratio of
four-to-one is grass, trees, ground covers, ornamental grasses and
shrubs.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Susan, would that be if you were to keep the
berm?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
MR. KELLY: Okay. So he had stated that he would have no
problem removing the berm, so then the berm is not an issue. We can
fine the violation and then give him some time and he'll get it all
grated out. So the sod would then no longer be an issue,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct.
MR. KELLY: So the only issue remaining in my mind is the
removal of vegetation greater than one acre,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, a question in my mind is
what percentage of those trees removed were dead?
MR. KELLY: Furthern10re, if I could add to that, Lionel, the
photos given are great because you can kind of see the progression
from 2005 to 2008.
However, you know, it's interesting because 2005 looks cluttered
and 2006 looks light. However, 2007 looks more cluttered and then
2008 looks light. And without a surveyor without measurements, how
do you know how much an acre of vegetation was cleared or how
much was naturally cleared when he bought the propery versus how
much he actually cleared. Because you're allowed up to an acre. Just
Page 28
b~!etb(A-0~
given the photographs, I'm unable to find a violation exists, because
there's no measurements or areas to speak of.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Okenka, when did you buy the property?
MR. OKENKA: 2000.
MR. LARSEN: Year 2000.
MR. KAUFMAN: Susan, can you seed instead of sod?
MS, O'FARRELL: Well, what I was just looking for was that if
your berm is no steeper than three-to-one, it requires 50 percent
surface coverage at time of installation and 80 percent coverage within
one year and avoid soil erosion.
But a three-to-one is, you know, a lot less of a berm than a
four-to-one,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But I think what we're talking about
right now is if the berm is removed, we're just talking about the trees,
MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Well, the trees were not -- the berm
was not created from the trees that were -- I'm sorry, did I say that
right? The berm was not created by the trees that were removed, it was
by mulch that was delivered.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. But what we're trying to get
at is if the berm is removed, then there would not be any need for
seeding or putting ground cover, correct?
MS, O'FARRELL: Right, as long as the berm is removed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay,
MS, O'FARRELL: The problem, if I may, is that the berm and
the soil and the mulch has changed the hydrology of the entire --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Site.
MS, O'FARRELL: -- area, including his neighbors.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KELLY: Is that a separate violation then?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, I was just adding it in because we're
asking for fill and debris to be removed.
MR. LARSEN: Right. If! understand the respondent's testimony
Page 29
1 ~JoierG&~~
correctly, Mr. Okenka, you never intended to use the mulch as a berm,
you wanted to spread it across your property to develop better soil?
MR. OKENKA: Right, right. That's why I did that.
As you see on those pictures, during the rainy season is all
water. There's no use for that. So yes, that's why I use the mulch and
the berms, to protect the others. The berms are protecting the others. If
there is a case, which would never be, because the mulch acts as a
sponge. It will absorb the water and it will turn to the dirt and it --
those pictures which are be taken from the satellite, they probably
light and dark because this mulch deteriorate itself and it becomes to
be from six feet, in two years three feet, and the next it will be up to
the one feet, because it becomes to be a smaller amount because it was
deteriorating,
MR. LARSEN: Right. But if I understand your testimony
correctly, it wasn't a problem with removing the berms and spreading
the mulch, it was the financial hardship you would endure if you had
to go out and purchase the trees for replacement of what you --
MR. OKENKA: Right.
MR. LARSEN: -- previously removed, correct?
MR. OKENKA: Right.
MR, LARSEN: Okay. And do you have any kind of timetable
that you would like to propose in regard to complying with some of
the county's wishes in regard to rehabilitating the site, putting it back
to somewhat what it was like in regard to trees? How long would it
take you?
MR. OKENKA: My plan was to have probably 1,000 trees right
next to each other. Create nice environment for my kids or for any
others to look.
MR. LARSEN: Right, but the county's asking you to do
something. And do you have any kind of proposal you can make as to
how long it would take you to satisfY the county's requirements?
MR. OKENKA: I will satisfY the county tomorrow to remove
Page 30
1 <ot4hi iiit~j
the berms, to spread them out. But it will be for me very hard to tell
when I can purchase the sod and purchase the trees.
MR. LARSEN: Well, I don't think you're going to need sod if
you remove the berms.
Is that correct, Ms. Farrell (sic)?
MS, O'FARRELL: That's if he removes it to a three-to-one ratio.
MR. LARSEN: Right. So forget the sod, it's really the trees at
that point if he removes the berms, correct?
MS. O'FARRELL: If he removes them to a three-to-one ratio he
doesn't need the sod.
MR. LARSEN: Right. So --
MR. OKENKA: But the trees need to be certain trees. I did not
remove any of those trees. I did remove the trees which were dead, the
pine trees. I'm going to grow the trees, but I'm going to grow the trees
which I wish to grow,
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the question is, is that he has removed
more than one acre of vegetation around his house. So he still needs to
get the mitigation plan in order to determine what plants were
removed and what needs to be replaced,
MR. KELLY: I would say that the board has not voted on
whether or not that violation exists, and I would disagree,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's two issues I have here, The
two issues that I have are one, the berm, which you said you're going
to take care of. But two, the bringing in fill which raises the property.
There's a natural sheet flow that occurs out in the -- anywhere in the
State of Florida, And basically by building a berm it stops the sheet
flow, the natural progression of water going across the land and
eventually out to the Gulf of Mexico.
And too, by raising your property it has the same effect. It's no
longer able to flow off your property, or it blocks the natural flow. So
those are the two issues that I have.
One, by taking the berm and removing it takes care of one of the
Page 31
~oteLG~~
issues. But the other issue is also raIsmg your property and the
removal of trees beyond the one acre,
What I have not heard yet is how much do you feel has been
removed in excess of that one acre?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, that's up to the environmental
specialist. However, I have photos, if we could -- that would be
Exhibit E? I think we're up to E on mine, that I can pass through
where I've made some notes on how much was cleared in excess of
one acre,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That should have been
probably entered a while back,
MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Well, my direction has been to ask for
the board to determine the environmental investigator -- or the
environmental consultant to come out and determine how much has
been cleared in excess of one acre.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept--
MR. KELLY: No. I don't agree. I think it's staffs job to prove to
us that the vegetation was removed in excess of an acre. It's not our
job to make the respondent go out and pay for an expensive
environmental engineer to do that for them.
MS._O'FARRELL: Okay. Well, I estimate that the amount
removed was 25 percent over the one acre.
MR. KELLY: And that's an opinion. And I don't see any
testimony -- I hate to get belligerent about it, but I don't see any
testimony to conglomerate (sic) that.
MS. O'FARRELL: Except for the photos that you see that
wherever the vegetation has been removed.
MR. KELLY: The photos are taken from a satellite. 20 feet is
equal to a half a centimeter. And I actually see more vegetation in
prior -- in future years than J do prior years.
MS, O'FARRELL: The vegetation that you see along the south
side of the photos are shadows from the trees on the other side of the
Page 32
b~.erl {tlr~3
property line,
MR. KELLY: Okay, I do see those, you're right about that. But
if you look at the difference between 2005, 2006 and then 2007, you
actually see more clutter in 2007 than you do in 2006, which would be
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, if you look at 2008, there's a
huge difference between 2008 and 2005, A lot less vegetation in 2008,
MR. KELLY: Agreed. But let's say for instance the property was
purchased -- or the original property looked like it did in 2005, You
have large areas on which would be the west and the south side that
are cleared. Let's say that's the natural condition of the property
originally. Then you go all the way to 2008 where it looks quite a bit
more cleared.
How much of that do we know was cleared and how much of it
is an acre and how much of it is in excess of an acre -- you know what
I mean -- without measurements or --
MS, O'FARRELL: Well, the measurements that I took because
of the direction that I was given came out to more than one acre. If
you include the house, the driveway that goes around, the area right
behind the house, the area right in front of the house and the area
where he has planted a ficus hedge, which is a non-native. So I would
definitely say it's been over one acre. Whether that's an opinion of an
experienced code enforcement investigator, that's what I'm stating,
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I must repeat my question.
How many of these trees removed were dead? Were they all dead that
you removed or did you --
MR. OKENKA: Yes, they were all dead,
MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- remove live trees also?
MR. OKENKA: No, they were all dead.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: All the trees removed by you were dead?
MR. OKENKA: Yes. That's the pictures which I send you.
MS, O'FARRELL: Well, I have a hard time believing that, as I
Page 33
l~tJbl ~i1J~
can see where the property in 2008 actually looks as if it's been
scraped. I mean, every tree was removed.
MR. LARSEN: Based upon the photographs that were
previously admitted in regard to the neighboring property or properties
next to the berm, you can see that there are quite a few live trees, and
seldom do you see a dead tree.
I don't know, I -- if you clear a property to that extent, I'm sure
there are going to be live trees included in that clearing.
MS. O'FARRELL: As well as understory and midstory.
MR. LARSEN: But with regard to the satellite photographs --
MS, O'FARRELL: This one dark section to the south of the
house that you can see in the 2008 is actually one tree. It's one tree
with a large canopy.
MR. OKENKA: If I may, I can exactly point out what my
pictures are showing on that satellite view? And they are there one
year, they are there next year, but they are not showing because they
have no canopies, They are just sticks, And those are my pictures. And
the next year they are not there.
But as I was bringing the mulch, I was spreading the mulch and
that's why the pictures show it clearly. Because I covered the grass, I
covered the spots where they were green. But there was no trees that I
just destroy because I have --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When were these pictures taken?
MR. OKENKA: 2006, I think.
And I did take those pictures, because I wanted to show they are
really dead. And not only me, it might be some type of disease,
because I have neighbors trees are dead as well as that.
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, we have already discussed the pine
bark beetle and the effect that it has on trees.
MR. LARSEN: In your photograph, sir, I see that you have some
photographs of some of the trees and they were taken in 2007 , Was
that before or after you put the mulch on the property?
Page 34
16ctbblLir ~~
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the photos in 2007, if! may, show the
two strips of mulch along the western side of the property in 2007.
MR. OKENKA: They are the berms,
MS. O'FARRELL: And then there's also a berm on the north
side, The long strips are actually piles of mulch that have been spread
out.
MR. OKENKA: Yes.
MS, O'FARRELL: Then in 2008 you can see where they have
been spread out.
Now, I'm not arguing that he cleared the western side of the
property on the other side of the lake, but he did clear around the lake
and he stated to me that he wanted to be able to use the lake.
But what I am arguing is that he cleared around the lake and
from that half of the property all the way to the east.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How much over one acre, not
percentage-wise, but how much over one acre do you feel in your
estimate that he has cleared?
MS. O'FARRELL: While walking --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Acreage-wise.
MS. O'FARRELL: -- the property, I would say he's cleared half
of the property.
MR, LARSEN: Which would be 2.5 acres.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So 1.5 acres over what he should
clear.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right. That's correct.
MR. LARSEN: And your opinion is based upon your education,
experience and training in this --
MS, O'FARRELL: Well, the amount of properties that I've
walked, I know that my stride is two feet per stride.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other discussion from the
board? Questions,
Page 35
lkJer11( ~8?
MR. KELLY: I have a question.
Is there any allowance for dead trees due to, let's say, pme
beetles?
MS, O'FARRELL: Not if you look at the neighbors property
where it obviously hasn't has that affected.
Because they don't -- you know, as I've told you, they don't jump
from a healthy tree to a suffering tree. They attack a suffering tree,
They're opportunistic. They wouldn't kill all the trees on his property
and not when they have the healthy trees on the second property move
on and keep killing,
MR. KELLY: Is there anything in the Land Development Code
that states if the trees were to either die from natural causes or from an
insect, let's say, or a hurricane was to blow them down that it would be
the property owner's responsibility to then mitigate that loss and bring
it back to its natural state?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, that is only vegetation removal. Well,
actually, if they're blown down because of a storm, they've broken,
that would be a litter case and that would be a standalone ordinance,
MR. KELLY: And they would have to revegetate.
MS. O'FARRELL: They would have to remove the litter and
then we would have a vegetation removal case where they would have
to revegetate,
Now, if they can photograph and show us evidence, which is
what I have always asked for, and if they're saying that there's a
hurricane, you know, or a windstorm that's knocked these over, you
know, then we have no case, because they're showing the trees were
knocked over or destroyed by a natural hazard, natural event.
MR. LARSEN: And what about the replacement of that tree that
was knocked over by the storm?
MS, O'FARRELL: Well, the Board of County Commissioners
did pass a standalone amendment. They gave 30 days for people to
replace.
Page 36
1 gJoblJh)2~8
So if we're looking at these pictures, they were not replaced
within 30 days. They did that after Wilma to give people a chance.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. This began with a
complaint from a neighbor.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes,
MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with that neighbor
recently?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I have talked to him. And his major
worry was this berm that was on his property. He had always had
water on his property. He was afraid the berm was going to create
more water.
MR. KAUFMAN: Has that -- has what's been done on the
property now resolved that situation, or does it still exist there?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, actually, the last time I went out it was
dry. Of course we hadn't had rain, and he had told me that it was dry
during a dry period,
Mr. Okenka has produced pictures showing standing water, but
that would be during our rainy season. And that would actually show
what the property is supposed to look like without the hydrology
change.
It is part and close to the Picayune Strand which is, you know,
dependent on that water flow.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions ofthe board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR, LARSEN: I move that a violation does exist.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye,
Page 37
16dclL~~o8
MR. L'ESPERANCE. Aye,
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
MR. KELLY: Nay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay.
And the rest -- okay, the motion passes,
MR. KELLY: What do you suggest? What does the county
suggest?
MS. O'FARRELL: My recommendation is for more time. Do we
have an exhibit to -- didn't I give you that packet. I gave you that
packet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Speak closer into the microphone.
MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry,
Ms. Waldron has the packet. There should be seven.
The recommendation as has been changed according to board's
decision, has been left blank in terms of days to require. And I would
suggest extra time, I would not suggest more than 60 days, however,
because I've been working with Mr. Okenka, working with him, and
have given him a lot of time since the beginning of this case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, the issue we're running into
now is the dry season, and it's not irrigated. So the chance of anything
that's planted at this point surviving is going to be difficult.
MR. LARSEN: Also that basically in this economic
environment, that basically people should be given as much leeway in
regard to trying to accomplish the goals set out by the county and this
board as possible.
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, if you want my suggestion, removing
the berm first would be the highest priority. He's not going to be able
to plant anything on berms and mulch, So that would be my
suggestion is the berm first, the planting later, possibly during the
ramy season,
MR. KELLY: The respondent mentioned something about trees
Page 38
~cqJerli,4'dJ
placed 25 feet apart or something along those lines.
MS. O'FARRELL: That was what I had said, uh-huh.
MR. KELLY: Rather than going through the expense of going
through a full mitigation plan, do you have something that you'd be
satisfied with? Maybe if you gave him, hey, I want 10 trees or
however many trees spaced this many feet apart, this height, this type,
MS. O'FARRELL: If he keeps the berm and he restricts it to the
three-to-one -- four-to-one, then we could do trees. And I've always,
as you know, negotiated the size of trees and the caliper of those trees,
MR. KELLY: What about the portion of removal, vegetation
removal that he now has to mitigate?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, that as well. I mean, I am required by
the LDC to have a mitigation report submitted by an environmental
consultant who has a certain amount of degree, you know, and
experience. But -- and I'm not sure that I can change that.
However, with the mitigation plan that is submitted, I can
negotiate that sizes can get smaller, numbers can get smaller.
Because I've always been in favor of negotiating.
MR. KELLY: r know you have, that's why I'm putting it to you,
And I remember last month we were under a similar situation
where some folks had cleared some of their property and --
MS, O'FARRELL: It was a very similar situation, because they
had put the berm up as well.
MR. KELL Y: Exactly. And under that order we actually
specified the height, the number and the spacing of the trees, And I
was wondering if we could try to work towards something for the
respondent in this case as well, since he's been working with you.
MS. O'FARRELL: r don't remember that we had required a
mitigation plan there, because it was basically involving the berm that
had created the trees from dying, But -- and I'm not sure if the board
can not require the mitigation plan,
MS. RAWSON: You've got to follow the Land Developmenta
Page 39
~C~bt \ 1 ~ft6~
Code.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right, that's what I was thinking.
But as I said, the mitigation plan, you know, could be negotiated
according to his economic ability.
MR. OKENKA: Excuse me. If I may, I'm intending to do the
trees on my property. It's just -- they're going to be there. That's why I
have everything spread out. I'm going to grow trees.
MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask you, how long do you think it
would take you to resolve the berms?
MR. OKENKA: Probably -- oh, the berms. Might be in one
week.
MR. KAUFMAN: So 60 days--
MS. O'FARRELL: See, I've heard that.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- would be fine--
MS. O'FARRELL: I've heard that before, yeah.
MR. OKENKA: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- for the berms.
MR. OKENKA: Yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: And I also would like to say that they need to
be native trees. You know, I've spoken with him, and had a fairly
diverse number and, you know, quality of tree and whether it was
native and non-native.
MR. KELLY: Is there anything that prevents the respondent
from planting his property in a nursery effect in order to grow trees?
And then I'm going to assume sell them.
MS. O'F ARRELL: You mean in straight lines?
MR. KELLY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. O'FARRELL: Our mitigation reports and what I have been
supporting is to have the plants done in clusters. They have a higher
survivability rate. And if we were using a smaller plant, they're
definitely going to survive better. You know, if he's using slash pines
and he's planting them in clusters that are, you know, 15 feet apart,
Page 40
16cte13 t ~8'3
we're going to have more of 100 percent survivability.
MR. OKENKA: I'm intending to plant it from the seeds --
MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, see, that's --
MR. OKENKA: -- from the beginning. I have just about
collected over 2,000 seeds to go already and do it. Not the native trees.
I like to plant the trees which I like. I like to have my properties --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The hearing is closed at this point,
so --
MR. OKENKA: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Okay, I did not know.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions that we ask, you can
respond to.
MR. OKENKA: Okay.
MR. KELLY: So he wouldn't be able to use non-native trees
except maybe up to that one acre.
MS. O'FARRELL: The one and a half acres he would need to
plant according -- with the native trees.
And the ceilings are not going to be part of the mitigation plan.
However, slash pines grouped in -- you know, in clusters would be a
lot more effective and a lot more time effective in terms of solving this
case.
And I've always found slash pines and cabbage palms grow a
whole lot faster and a whole lot better if they're smaller.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ken, looks like you're writing
feverishly. Are you ready to take a stab at it?
MR. KELLY: I'll take a shot.
Do you have op. costs?
MS. O'FARRELL: I don't think I do have the operational costs
on mme.
MS. WALDRON: $86.71.
MR. KELLY: Okay. The respondent is to pay operational costs
of$86.71 within 30 days.
Number two: Remove the berms within 30 days or a fine of
Page 41
ol&eJ 316~) ?;
$100 per day for each day thereafter will be incurred.
Number three: Submit a mitigation plan within 180 days or a
fine of $1 00 per day will accrue.
And number four: Plant vegetation to the specifications
described in the mitigation plan within 360 days or a $100 per day fine
would incur.
And five: NotifY code enforcement within 24 hours when the
violation has been abated.
MS. O'FARRELL: Am I allowed to say anything right now?
MR. KELLY: What do you think about the time, Susan?
MS. OfF ARRELL: 360 days is going to bring us right back into
the time period we are now instead of into the rainy season.
MR. KELLY: She's right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's going to bring us past that,
actually.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 180 days, six months from now, so
we'll give him a year and a half.
MR. KELLY: Well, at the 360 that I had -- I thought it was 360
from today, which Susan is right, it would one year and right back into
the dry season.
MS. O'FARRELL: So either make it less or make it more.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, if we do 180 days to submit
the mitigation plan and then -- how long does it take for a mitigation
plan to be approved?
MS. O'FARRELL: One day.
MR. LARSEN : Yeah, I'm thinking more in line of, you know,
90 days for the mitigation plan and 180 days for completion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ninety days after the 180?
MS. O'FARRELL: Or 90 days from today?
MR. LARSEN: No, 90 days from the date of the hearing to
submit a mitigation plan. And 180 days for the plant materials to be
Page 42
!c~bL Jl~~-'
installed in accordance with the mitigation plan. Or excuse me, from
the date of acceptance of the mitigation plan.
MR. KELLY: Let me amend my motion. Amend number three
to read 90 days from the date of this hearing for the mitigation plan.
And number four: To revegetate to the specifications of the
mitigation plan within 180 days of the mitigation plan approval.
The fines would be the same, $100 per day.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Kelly, is that a motion?
MR. LfESPERANCE: I have a question about your berm.
Do you mean totally remove the berm, or --
MS. O'FARRELL: Remove the berm or create according to
Collier County specifications, which is what I wrote in the NOV,
notice of violation.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
MS. O'FARRELL: So he could go four-to-one, three-to-one,
two-to-one, and then there's one-to-one.
MR. LfESPERANCE: Thank you.
MR. LARSEN: All right, I'm going to second Mr. Kelly's
motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
MS. O'FARRELL: So I just have a question. What did we
decide on the berm, recreation or removal?
MR. KELLY: It's either/or. Either itfs removed or to Collier
County specs.
Page 43
<10Jr ibAJ) S
MS. O'FARRELL: So in what time period?
MR. KELLY: That was 30 days.
MS. O'FARRELL: Thirty days, okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, do you understand what we just
did? You have 30 days to remove the berm, okay? You have 90 days
to get a mitigation plan, or $100 fine.
MR. OKENKA: Which I pay for? What's the mitigation plan?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mitigation plan will tell you what
you need to do on your property, what you need to plant and what size
and everything.
MR. OKENKA: Where do I get this from?
MS. O'FARRELL: The mitigation plan is submitted and created
for you by an environmentalist who has a biology degree or some kind
of scientific degree.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you help him with --
MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, yeah -- well, I'm not actually supposed to
recommend, but I can give him a list of people that he can call.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be greatly appreciated.
MS. Of FARRELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Seems like he would --
MS. O'FARRELL: Usually I speak in code.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. And then you will have
180 days after the mitigation plan has been accepted to go ahead and
plant according to that mitigation plan.
MS. O'FARRELL: And he only needs to plant. He doesnft need
to plant the non-natives that he's been talking about --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. O'FARRELL: -- the 100 trees, just what the mitigation plan
says.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just what the mitigation plan tells
you to plant.
Do you understand that, sir?
Page 44
1 ~jtcl(K1~8
MR. OKENKA: Yes, I do. It all depends what the mitigation
plan is.
MR. KELLY: Right.
MS. OfF ARRELL: Right.
MR. OKENKA: It might be two million dollars.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But I would strongly suggest that
you coordinate with the county to work on this plan, sir.
MS. O'FARRELL: Usually the mitigation plan is based on
adjacent properties -- we've talked about that before -- so it's not going
to cost you a million dollars.
MR. OKENKA: 15,000.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much for your time.
Would you like to take a break?
THE COURT REPORTER: I would, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. We're going to take a
10-minute break. We'll come back at 25 after.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the meeting back to
order, CEB meeting back to order.
And I'd like to amend the agenda once again and move BCC
versus James Hargraves to the next hearing.
Do I hear a motion?
MR. DEAN: Next hearing?
MR. KELLY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To this --
MR. KELLY: Moving it up to now.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Moving it up to now.
MR. DEAN: All right. I was slow.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe I didn't explain it correctly.
MR. LARSEN: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
Page 45
1~Jrt,'~~3
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney.
Therefs been a stipulation reached on the Hargraves matter.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We need the investigator up also.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Sorry?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the investigator here?
MR. FLOOD: He's just finishing typing up the --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, I'd like to swear
everybody in at one time, so that's why --
MR. LARSEN: For the record, this is Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida versus James Hargraves,
Respondent, CEB Case No. 2007110616.
Counsel, can I have your appearance?
MR. FLOOD: Peter Flood, appearing on behalf of the
respondent, James Hargraves.
MR. LARSEN: On behalf of the county?
MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County
Attorney on behalf of the county. Oh, herefs the investigator.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have the parties sworn In,
please.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Investigator.
MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Investigator Ron
Martindale, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is reference Case 200711 0616, James A. Hargraves -- L.
Hargraves, I'm sorry.
Page 46
16c'otlr ~l~fi~
We have reached a stipulation agreement on this gentleman. It's
reference the structures attached to an existing dwelling without
obtaining required permits or certificate of completion.
You should each have a copy of the stipulation at this time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can read the stipulation into
the record.
MR. MARTINDALE: Certainly.
The respondent is ordered to pay operational costs in the amount
of 86.45 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the
hearing.
To abate all violations by applying for a Collier County variance
by November 15th, 2008, and obtaining a Collier County building
permit, all required inspections and certificate of completion within
120 days of variance or application, or $200 a day will be imposed
each day for the violation.
Or number three: He can obtain Collier County demolition
permit with all required inspections, celiificate of completion and
remove all related debris to an area intended for such use within 120
days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed each day
any violation remains.
If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order.
The respondent must notifY the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection and confirm abatement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Hargraves has agreed to this,
correct?
MR. FLOOD: Thatfs correct.
MR. HARGRAVES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board?
MR. KELLY: Just one point I'd like to point out.
Page 47
164ctlb{~}~
Under number two it says that they're granted 120 days from the
variance application. And let's say they go all the way to the deadline,
November 15th. That will give them till March 15th. If there's a
situation where the variance is not approved and you need more time,
let us know.
MR. FLOOD: Right. We talked about that amongst ourselves.
What we'd do is come back in.
But I think based on the way the economy is, they're expediting
that stuff. So we're hoping to get it done.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I add one thing? I just notice on the
stipulation --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you been sworn in?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Earlier I was -- okay.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier
County Code Enforcement Supervisor.
I notice on the stipulation we didn't have the ordinances that
need to be cited on the top there. So I think those need to be
introduced as part of the stipulation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, if you can add those in and
then we can have the respondent initial them. And also, if you want to
read them into the record.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, I'll read them in the record.
The violation of Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, Sections
1O.02.06(B)(1)(a)(e)(i), and Florida Building Code 105.1, 111.1 of the
Code and Laws of Ordinances, Section 22, Article Two. Hold on one
second here.
Florida State Building Code 105.1 and the Code of Laws and
Ordinances, Section 22, Article Two, 104.1.3.5.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And before the respondent
leaves, please make sure that you fill that in and --
Page 48
MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and they sign it, initial off of that.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to
approve the stipulation as submitted by the county and the respondent.
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELL Y: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed.
MR. FLOOD: Thank you.
MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to BCC
versus Frank Paz. Can I have both the respondent and the investigator
step forward.
Is the respondent not here?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, he does not appear to be here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please swear In the
investigator.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No.
2006081159, BCC versus Frank Paz.
F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet
of evidence and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as
Exhibit A.
MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to accept the package Exhibit A
on behalf of the county.
16 11l~)bejl, 2008
Page 49
16ott<}e[3 k)038
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended,
the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.01(B),
vegetation removal, protection and preservation.
Description of violation: Property has been cleared in excess of
one acre without required permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 2864 1 Oth Avenue
Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 4098650006.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Frank Paz, 2864 Tenth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida,
34117.
Date violation first observed: 8-21-06.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: 2-1-07.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: 3-1-07.
Date of reinspect ion: 9-29-08.
Results of reinspection were that the violation remains.
At this time I'd like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Susan
O'Farrell.
MS. OfF ARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier
County Code Enforcement, Environmental Specialist.
I would like to present as evidence B, photos, C, photos and D,
aerials of the property.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept?
Page 50
lchJ,eUL~90~
MR. KELLY: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LARSEN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay, the exhibits -- my assistant may not
have understood what I told him to do, so everything is in packets. I'm
sorry about that, having the packets all together like that.
MR. KELLY: Susan?
MS. OfF ARRELL: Yes.
MR. KELLY: Do you know how large this property is?
MS. O'FARRELL: Let me find that for you. 2.27 acres.
Does_everyone have a packet B, which would show photos, a
packet C, which would show the latest photos, and D, which would
show the aerial photos?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: Rip them apart, Mr. Kelly.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you maybe explain quickly the
time frames that are listed? The date of violation is August 21st, '06.
MS. OfF ARRELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Notice of violation is February 1st,
2007. Violation to be corrected 3-01-07. And then date of reinspect ion
was September 29th, 2008.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, that was on the statement of violation
Page 51
that Jen read.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But can you explain those? I mean,
those are some -- between the date of first observed and when the
violation was given is nearly six months.
MS. OfF ARRELL: Okay. The date of violation and the -- we
would give a certain amount of time for restoration, negotiation with
the property owner. Then there was three months where I went to
engineering and was working as the PUD monitor and then returned.
In that three months that I was gone, there was discussion
between Marlene Serrano, who was my supervisor, and Jennifer
Waldron, who was also a code enforcement investigator.
When I returned from engineering, Jennifer Waldron was still an
investigator and I was given the case a little bit later than that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: Ms. Farrell (sic), there appears to be in packet C
photographs which include dump trucks and other commercial
vehicles. Is this property being used for commercial purposes?
MS. O'FARRELL: This property is being used for storage of
dump trucks; debris that's been incurred because of his property.
In Collier County Estates, they are allowed to store their trucks
as long as they're registered in that person's name. And I believe it.
needs to be behind the house.
MR. LARSEN: Right, but other than storing the trucks on the
property --
MS. OfF ARRELL: They are not allowed to leave all the debris
and the -- you know, the trash and --
MR. LARSEN: Right, but I see mounds of dirt or possibly stone
and things like -- is there any indication that they're actually using the
property for other than residential purposes, besides storing the trucks?
MS. Of FARRELL: Well, only by the evidence of the
photographs.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
1 &fo}erlJr)S
Page 52
l&tJbel~,1~S
MS. O'FARRELL: The evidence of the dumped construction
debris after they've used the property.
MR. KAUFMAN: Was this reported by a neighbor, or how did
this begin?
MS. O'FARRELL: I had a case on the next door neighbor and I
had happened to look over. And they had given me permission to go
on their property. They ultimately decided to fence their property and
put animals in there.
But from their property you could clearly see the violation for
this property. Without peeking over a fence.
MR. KELLY: And the litter portion is not part of this case,
correct?
MS. O'FARRELL: This would have been a different
investigator, as I only do the vegetation removal.
MR. LARSEN: And what is it that you determined is in
violation on this specific property?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the property has been completely
cleared. The front yard is not cleared, which is probably about -- based
on my stride, I would say 60 feet by the width of the property, which I
believe is 330 for the 2.7 acres.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2.25?
MS. O'FARRELL: 1.25?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, you said 2.25 I think is what
you said was the acreage.
MS. Of FARRELL: No, 2.27.
MR. KELLY: That's it, 330.
MS. O'FARRELL: Minus the one -- so they cleared everything
except for the yard in the front, which would contain the septic. So
we're talking about 70 feet by the width of the property, which I
believe is 330 for the two and a half acres.
MR. KAUFMAN: Probably ]80.
MS. O'FARRELL: 180?
Page 53
l<DtJb~ ~11j~
MR. KAUFMAN: Two and a half acres would be 330 by 660.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: Right. And based upon the photographs that
have been marked D-l through D-5, what is your conclusion as to the
difference between 2004 and 2008?
MS. O'FARRELL: 2008 I see as being clearly cleared. 2006 is
when the property -- when the case started, which it is obviously
completely cleared. 2004 has a fairly substantial amount of vegetation
on it. I'm sorry, that was 2005. And 2004 there's even more vegetation.
MR. LARSEN: So the clearing occurred, in your estimation, as
early as when?
MS. O'FARRELL: 2006.
MR. LARSEN: Thank you, I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And how much did you say was
cleared? If it's 2.27 acres.
MS. O'FARRELL: That's requiring me to do some math in my
head. So we're going to take 2.27 acres and subtract by 70 by 180. So
if one acre is 4,350.
MR. DEAN: 43,560.
MS. OfF ARRELL: Okay, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 70 by 180?
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had conversations with the
property owner?
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Paz was in contact with me when I was
doing the case. I explained to him the conditional use of this property
where he could fence it in completely and have a certain number
animals.
He's restricted to, I believe it's eight hoofs per acre, but if he
wanted to have, you know, two goats or eight goats, that's what he
could have.
He worked with Marlene Serrano to get an after-the-fact
Page 54
1 ft!totiffJ~
vegetation removal permit. She visited the property and decided that
wasnft enough animal to be on the property and had required
mitigation.
I guess she had two or three meetings with him, because she
speaks Spanish and he also speaks Spanish. And since those meetings,
I have had no contact with Mr. Paz.
I did post his property with the notice of hearing and did not
have anybody come to the door. But I do believe someone's living at
the house because itfs not in foreclosure and there has been no
foreclosure sale.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The math, 70 times 180 equals
12,600.
MS. OfF ARRELL: So we're talking about with the house he's
cleared a little bit more over one -- he has not cleared a little bit over
than one acre. If it's a 2.27.
MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion a violation exists.
MR. LARSEN: I'second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Do you have a recommendation?
MS. O'FARRELL: Do they have the recommendation in the
packet?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, we don't have recommendations
in our packets.
Page 55
~o~e131[~) 3
MR. LARSEN: Ms. Farrell (sic), what's the cost?
MS. O'FARRELL: $86.43.
MR. DEAN: You know, when you answered that, when you talk
about operational cost, it doesnft include all this paperwork that you
do. In the air pictures and --
MS. OfF ARRELL: I'm going to go out and plant like three trees
in order to -- I'm going to go plant like three trees in order to make up
for the --
MR. DEAN: No, but I mean in operational--
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, if! plant them in certain areas, I don't
need permits.
MS. WALDRON: No, that's not in the operational cost.
MR. DEAN: Okay, thatfs what I want to know. Thanks. It should
be.
MS. WALDRON: Usually we have a visualizer.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any comments from the board? Any
suggestions?
MR. KELLY: How about a suggestion similar to what we voted
on today, 90 days to submit and 180 days from that point to comply.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And $100 fine?
MR. KELLY : Yes, sir.
MS. O'FARRELL: Did you say a daily fine of$150?
MR. KELLY: One hundred is what I said.
MS. O'FARRELL: $100?
MR. KELLY: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
Page 56
1 ~Jtclbtr io~
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion's been approved.
MS. O'FARRELL: Did you give me a -- I've got the mitigation.
MR. LARSEN: Also, in regard to cost --
MS. O'FARRELL: The number of days after the mitigation is
proposed?
MR. KELLY: 180.
MR. DEAN: 180.
MS. O'FARRELL: How many days? 180.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that would include operational
costs of86.43.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
We also have if the respondent fails to abate the violation the
county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the
Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order.
MR. LARSEN: Right, I understood that motion to include all of
the provisions submitted by the county in regard to their
recommendation.
MS. O'FARRELL: The order above.
MR. LARSEN : Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, correct.
MR. LARSEN: Next case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That should be it?
MS. OfF ARRELL: I have proposed my case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're all set, thank you.
The next case will be BCC versus Marvin Ralph Hoeman. If I
can have the investigator and respondent step forward.
And if I can have the investigator sworn in, please.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. PAUL: He doesnft seem to be present today.
Page 57
16 1C!be[ ~ 538
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Depmiment Case No.
CESD20080005124, BCC versus Marvin Ralph Hoeman.
F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet
of evidence, and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as
Exhibit A.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. LARSEN: I move to accept the package into evidence.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: Second.
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance Collier County Code
of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article
Two, Florida Building Code, Section 22 to 26.B, 106.1.2, 104.5.1.4.
Description of violation: Owner did not obtain certificate of
completion for Permit No. 2006071567 for a home that was built.
Location/address where violation exists: 5513 26th Avenue
Southwest, Naples, Florida.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Marvin Ralph Hoeman, 7012 Tanyard Road, Winchester,
Tennessee, 37398.
Date violation first observed: June 3rd, 2008.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 9th,
Page 58
2008.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 3rd, 2008.
Date of reinspect ion: July 4th, 2008.
Results of reinspection: Violation remains.
At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator
Renald Paul.
MR. PAUL: For the record, Investigator Renald Paul, Collier
County Code Enforcement Investigator.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080005124, dealing
with violations of the Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22,
Buildings and Building Regulations, Article Two, Florida Building
Code, Section 22-26.B, 106.1.2, 104.5.1.4.
The owner did not obtain a certificate of completion for Permit
No. 2006071567, which was the permits for the actual home.
They did obtain a permit. There was a permit obtained, but they
had never gone through and got the inspections and stuff to get the
C.O.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I missed it, pardon
me, but have we sworn in the investigator already?
MR. PAUL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: We have? Thank you.
MR. PAUL: Location address is 5513 26th Avenue Southwest,
in Naples, Florida.
The service was gone out, and a green card was returned. On
June 9th the owner did sign for the green card, and it was Mr. Marvin
Hoeman that signed for it.
I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits.
As you'll see in your packet, you have Exhibit Band C-l and C-2.
MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
fgleri t 2k)83
Page 59
MR. LARSEN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. LfESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we donft want to see the
recommendation --
MS. WALDRON: Put that in the back.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Was the house never completed? Is
that what it looks like?
MR. PAUL: It seems that the house was completed, just the
inspections were not done. He has over 18 different inspections that
still need to be done on the home.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I see plywood on one picture
here. I can't -- and then I see a light fixture missing.
MR. PAUL: I don't know that the exterior -- I don't know what
needs to be done with the house.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were these pictures taken on the
same day?
MR. PAUL: The po stings were, but the first picture that you
have was on a different day.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That would make sense,
because one has plywood on --
MR. PAUL: The plywood was later put on the house. The house
was left totally open. The garage was open, the doors were left
unlocked, everything. And somebody went in there and placed
plywood over everything.
1 &ttbt [In-J08
:3
Page 60
16 JcJ.be(:At10~
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there a garage door on?
MR. PAUL: Yeah, the garage door was on, but they just left it
open. Everything was just left open.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any evidence that anybody has ever
lived in this house?
MR. PAUL: Not that I know of. I've never seen anyone go in or
out of this house.
MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know whether or not the electricity
has been turned on in this house?
MR. PAUL: I've never seen any lights on on the property. I don't
know, though.
MR. KAUFMAN: And do you know what inspections were
performed on the building permit?
MR. PAUL: I have it here.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you know if there are any mechanical
liens from subcontractors?
MR. PAUL: Not that I show.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about foreclosures?
MR. PAUL: It's not foreclosed on.
There was a lis pendens that was sent out sometime in I believe
June, but it hasnft been foreclosed on.
There's a number of inspections that were done. I donft know if
you want me to -- there's several inspections that were done. But
there's still a lot that weren't completed, though, so I don't know if you
want me to --
MR. KAUFMAN: On one of the photos it looks like there are
lots of notices that were placed. I don't know if you --
MR. PAUL: That's at the courthouse.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: Investigator, have you been able to contact the
property owner?
MR. PAUL: No, I havenft. My supervisor did get a contact
Page 61
16 I cit~'*'J\3008
number and called the owner, but all he got was fax tones from the
number.
MR. LARSEN: All right. And has the property owner attempted
to contact the County Code Enforcement Board (sic), to your
knowledge?
MS. WALDRON: The respondent did contact Marlene Stewart
and Marlene Stewart did take the phone number that he gave, which is
the one that Supervisor Letourneau tried to call back on.
MR. LARSEN: But to all indications this property looks like it's
abandoned.
MR. PAUL: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: And when was the last time you were out at the
property?
MR. PAUL: On 10-28 I went out to the property. Same
condition, it's all boarded up. They haven't done anything with it.
MR. LARSEN: Well, today is 10-31, so you were out there this
week three days ago, correct?
MR. PAUL: Correct.
MR. LARSEN: And is there any indication that anybody's been
there to remediate or fix any of the problems you've previously
identified in your notice of violation?
MR. PAUL: No.
MR. LARSEN: I've got no further questions.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Are there any other violations as to
vegetation or anything that you --
MR. PAUL: There was a grass violation. That was taken care of.
We contracted somebody to go out there and cut it. So all those weeds
that you see on the first picture aren't there anymore.
There was a humongous mound in front of the property that was
practically covering up the whole house, but that had been flattened
out.
Page 62
lOll
October 31, 2~1) 3
MR. KAUFMAN: For safety purposes, though, it's sealed up so
no kids can --
MR. PAUL: Correct, the whole house has been sealed up.
MR. KELLY: Do you know the date of the last inspection that
was approved?
MR. PAUL: Hold on. 9-28 of'07.
MR. KELLY: There you go.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. LARSEN: I move that a violation does in fact exist.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
We have a recommendation in front of us.
MR. PAUL: The county asks that the owner pay the operational
costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations
by: Respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by
Collier County for the home that was built, or obtain permits for the
removal of this property and obtain all required inspections and
certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or
be fined "X" amount of dollars for each day that the violation remains
unabated.
Page 63
~ ~ 'I ..
t6+rl1,eW, 3
If respondent f~llls to abate the violation, the county may abate
the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order.
The respondent must notifY code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement so that he can go out and perform a site visit.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What are the operational costs?
MR. PAUL: It's $87.57.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you probably want to include to
be paid within 30 days of this hearing.
MR. PAUL: Correct.
MR. KELLY: I'll make a stab at it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the county's
recommendation with the addition of number one, pay operational
costs of$87.57 within 30 days.
Number two then would stay the same. The "X" would be within
90 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day. That's it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was the operational cost once
again?
MR. PAUL: $87.57.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have one point. Why would you make it 90
days? It looks like this thing is going into foreclosure if there's a lis
pendens on it. And maybe this would motivate the bank to do
whatever they're going to do sooner.
MR. KELLY: Perhaps. But there's no foreclosure on it just yet,
so there's a chance that the homeowner might want to try to resurrect
this.
And realistically, if they did come back, re-app. their permits
and then have to hire a contractor to finish the rest of the work that's in
there, it may take as much as 90 days.
There's still 18 inspections left open. That's quite a bit of interior
Page 64
l&t!bl ~ ,ptJo~
work that needs to be done. And some of this is probably going to be
after the fact. So that means either permit by affidavit through an
engineer or walking with the building officials through the site. It
might take a series of meetings. That's why 1 said 90 days. And the
gentleman lives in Tennessee, so it would be doing everything
remotely where hefd have to come down and do it.
MR. LARSEN: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. LfESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Next case is BCC versus Grisel Diaz.
Is the respondent present?
(No response.)
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Senior Investigator
Cristina Perez.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No.
2007040121, BCC versus Grisel Diaz.
For the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet
of evidence and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as
Exhibit A.
MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the exhibit.
MR. LARSEN: Second it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
Page 65
1 <&ttbt 3~, m8 3
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinances 04-41 of the Collier
County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a),
10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i), and Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article Two, Section 104.1.3.5.
Description of violation: Addition improvements constructed to
existing structure without first obtaining a Collier County building
permit and related inspection. Addition is of an open lanai type
structure.
Location/address where violation exists: 1119 Madison Avenue,
Immokalee, Florida, 34142.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Grisel Diaz, 1119 Madison Avenue, Immokalee, Florida,
34142.
Date violation first observed: March 29th, 2007.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March
29th, 2007.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 29th, 2007.
Date of reinspection: October 7th, 2008.
Results of reinspection: Violation remains, no permit has been
applied for.
At this time, I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator
Cristina Perez.
MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Senior Investigator
Cristina Perez.
Page 66
1~t!bl~An;0
This case is in reference to Case No. 2007040121, dealing with
violation of addition/improvements constructed to existing structure
without first obtaining a Collier County building permit and related
inspections. Addition is of an open lanai type structure, located at
1119 Madison Avenue, in Immokalee, Florida, 34142.
The notice of violation was given on March 29th, 2007. Notice
was served to property owner's mother, Grace Molina.
I would like to present case evidence in the following: Exhibit B,
pictures taken on October 14th, 2008. Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3.
MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do 1 hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any anyways?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. PEREZ: This case was initiated as a patrol case on March
29th, 2007 in regards to a lanai addition to the rear of the house.
At that time I was able to make verbal contact with a gentleman
at the home and explained the violation.
I then received a call from the owner's mother, Grace Molina. I
met with her at the location in question, discussed the unpermitted
addition and notice of violation was explained and served to Ms.
Molina, who indicated she was an occupant of the home.
A meeting was then conducted on April 20th, 2007 with Ms.
Molina and staff from the permitting department to explain the -- to
Page 67
16 ~C~b{3ftjO~
explain what direction was needed to come into compliance with a
valid building permit.
I was able to make contact multiple times via telephone with Ms.
Molina. According to her, the property owner, her daughter, was
making attempts to obtain the required documentation, but financially
it was a burden to obtain the blueprints being requested. Yet after
several phone conversations and numerous unreturned calls, no further
action has been taken to come into compliance.
On October 14th, observed the home was vacant and violation
remained when the property was posted for today's hearing.
Court records indicate a lis pendens has been issued. Attempted
to make contact with attorney's office who issued the lis pendens to
advise of violation and proceedings.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: That's the picture, Exhibit B-3, to show it's
vacant?
MS. PEREZ: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: What's Exhibit B-3?
MS. PEREZ: That's of the home that's now -- it's vacant.
MR. LARSEN: Right. But it has no --
MS. PEREZ: No, thatfs just to show that there's no one living at
this location.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion a violation exists.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
Page 68
16cIoJr'11ob~
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. PEREZ: At this time I would like to read the county's
recommendation to the board members.
The county recommends that the CEB order the respondent to
pay all operational costs in the amount of $88.14 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days oftodayfs hearing and abate all
violations by:
One: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building
permit for such improvements, or demolition permit to restore
building to its original permitted state.
All related inspections and C.O. within "X" amount of days of
this hearing or a fine of "X" amount per day will be imposed until
violation has been abated.
If the respondent fails to obtain (sic) the violation, the county
may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier
County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the order.
Also number three, the respondent must notifY code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any suggestions?
MR. KELLY: I happen to have a suggestion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the county's
recommendations; that number of days under number one would be
90, and the amount would be $200 per day. Everything else would
stay the same.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The violation we're talking about is
the addition of that -- appears to be --
MR. DEAN: A makeshift lanai.
Page 69
1 ~~olet!~)~
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- screened in lanai area; is that
correct?
MS. PEREZ: Itfs not screened in, yeah, but itfs like a large
overhang that she described as a lanai.
MR. DEAN: My main concern is the time. I mean, to me it
should be 30 days. And the reason being, sure, itfs vacant now, it could
be rented tomorrow. And I know I see therefs kids toys around the
picture. So what are we letting ourselves in for? It looks like a
makeshift lanai made of wood. Who knows if itfs not ready to fall
down. And we're giving them 90 days, I'd like to shorten that to 30
and get it done.
MR. KELLY: I can amend my motion to 30 days.
MR. LARSEN: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. LfESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. PEREZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be Eleazar Davenport
versus -- BCC versus Eleazar Davenport.
In could have the parties sworn in, please.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No.
2007090117, BCC versus Eleazar Davenport.
For the record, the respondent and the board was sent a packet of
evidence, and we would like to enter to packet of evidence as Exhibit
Page 70
l6cltTe641o~
A.
MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended,
Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a),
1O.02.06(B)(1)( d), and 1O.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i).
Description of violation: Conversion of garage to living space
without Collier County building permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 4584 17th Court
Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Eleazar Davenport, 4584 17th Court Southwest, Naples,
Florida.
Date violation first observed: September 5th, 2007.
Given owner/person in charge given notice of violation:
September 6th, 2007.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 20th,
2007.
Date of reinspection: September 11 th, 2008.
The results of the reinspection is that the violation remains.
At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator
Page 71
t6o!e~LiJo~ 3
Carmelo Gomez.
MR. GOMEZ: Good morning, board members. For the record,
my name is Carmelo Gomez, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. 2007090117, dealing with the
violation of a conversion, garage and screen patio to living space,
which is located at 4584 17th Court, Naples, Florida.
Service was given to Mr. Ferguson (sic) on September 20th,
2007.
I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits of
photos marked B-] through 10 and C-l.
MR. KELLY: Has the respondent seen them?
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, he has.
MR. KELLY: I'd like to make a motion to enter the exhibit.
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. GOMEZ: Excuse me, Mr. Davenport, I'm sorry. Yes, it is
Davenport.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has he been served, Mr. Davenport
himself?
MR. GOMEZ: Well, Mr. Davenport and Mr. Ferguson are
co-owners of the property.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Gomez, are there any permits at all relating to
any of this work?
Page 72
1 ~!olr k 1doJ
MR. GOMEZ: Well, as I was going to put in my narrative, he
did try to take out building permits. They were rejected three times. So
Mr. Davenport decided to cancel the building permits and obtain a
demolition permit instead.
MR. KELLY: I apologize, I didn't want to mess up your --
MR. GOMEZ: That's quite all right, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. GOMEZ: Okay, thank you.
This case started in September 24th of 2007, at which time the
respondent and permitting personnel Carol Stachura and Wanda
Warren met to discuss necessary permits.
On November 24th, 2007, Mr. Davenport hired a permit
consultant, Ms. Maria Cruz, to assist with the permitting.
January 25th, f08, plans were submitted and a permit was issued
in an apply status.
Between February 27th of 2008 and May 15th of 2008, the
application was rejected three times.
And Mr. Davenport decided then to cancel the building permits
and obtain a demo permit instead, which was issued on September 4th
of this year.
MR. KAUFMAN: Can you tell us why they were turned down?
MR. GOMEZ: Apparently -- I believe Mr. Davenport can
explain that better than 1.
MR. KELLY: And Mr. Gomez, is there any -- has there been
any inspections called in on the demo permit?
MR. GOMEZ: No, as of yet there has not.
MR. LARSEN: Investigator, it appears from the notice of
violation that there was a garage converted to living space, correct?
MR. GOMEZ: That's correct.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And is this a residential property?
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, it is.
MR. LARSEN: And it's located at 4584 17th Sourt Southwest,
Page 73
16 J 1 ~ !4:~
Octobel<.31, io~
Naples, .Florida?
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: And to your knowledge, whether or not -- is he
able to convert -- is the respondent able to convert that garage to living
space?
MR. GOMEZ: The garage section could have been done, but the
rest of the additions were not permittable (sic).
MR. LARSEN: What are the rest of the additions?
MR. GOMEZ: I believe that was an open -- first of all, you have
to understand, this was a case that was handed down to me. I did not
do the initial inspections.
But from what I understand was that he enclosed a screen patio
with CBS block and installed a bathroom, full facility bathroom, with
shower and sink, which you'll see in exhibit --
MR. LARSEN: B-6?
MR. GOMEZ: Thatfs correct, sir.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So what is it actually that the Collier
County Code Enforcement is complaining of that this respondent did
wrong?
MR. GOMEZ: Well, sir, according to records, that the additions
were done without sufficient permits or C.O.fS.
MR. KELLY: I believe the reason why Mr. Larsen's asking is
because the NOV is not specific to the area, and the statement of
violation only lists the garage to living space, it doesn't say anything
about a lanai or additional CBS construction.
So it's two separate areas then, correct?
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: All right. And you've got a picture of a garage
door, but it doesn't look like there is any indication that there is actual
living space in the garage.
MR. GOMEZ: Okay, the reason for that, sir -- you're talking
about C- 1 ?
Page 74
16 I :bC(beft), ~08
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
MR. GOMEZ: Would that be photo C-l you're referring to?
MR. LARSEN: Right.
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. I went to Mr. Davenportfs home,
because he claimed to -- he called me and told me that he did start
some of the demolition work. So to show what kind of progress he
made, I went over there and took a picture.
So far what hefs done was remove the closet space, everything
that was included in the garage, and restored it to storage.
As you can see on the right side of the picture are the seams
where he took down the wall that was covering the garage door from
the interior side and put it back to original state.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: What wefre looking at is the progression
of partial demolition?
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: When was the last date you were there?
MR. GOMEZ: That was day before yesterday. Excuse me, it
was actually yesterday, right? Yes, yesterday at 4:00.
MR. LARSEN: Well, it says that the date the violation was first
observed is September 5th, 2007.
MR. OOMEZ: As as I explained before, sir, that was another
investigator. And when we had a complaint from a neighborhood -- I
guess not the respondent but a complainant that we werenft moving
fast enough on the case, the case was given to me and then we just
started.
MR. LARSEN: All right. But in regard to the date of
reinspection, you did the reinspection on September 11 th, 2008.
MR. GOMEZ: That's correct.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And at that point the garage was not
being used for living space?
MR. GOMEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any -- go ahead, sir.
Page 75
16 J 1 bcif~r~, 2008
MR. FERGUSON: First and foremost, thank you for allowing
me to be here. And my --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just state your name.
MR. FERGUSON: -- name is Larry Ferguson.
Should I be reswore in? Because you swore me in as Davenport.
MR. KELLY: It doesn't matter.
MR. FERGUSON: I purchased this property two years ago. And
the purpose of purchasing the property is because the work that was
done in the property -- and I purchased it from a real estate attorney.
Not knowledge (sic) about buying property, I did not know that all this
work was done without a permit. If I'd known that, I would have never
purchased this property.
After purchasing the property, I pretty much went bankrupt with
this house, because I had to do a lot of work as far as putting a new
AC unit in and a lot of stuff that I didnft think that was going to have
to be done.
And then after having it a year, someone called and said that I
converted the garage into living. But it was already like that when I
purchased it. I did not do none of the work, I did not do nothing to the
property. That was the purpose of me buying the property, because it
was set up like that.
I didn't understand it; I was very ignorant to whatever was going
on. And so I tried to get in touch with the previous owner who sold me
the property, trying to find out what was going on. He's not -- hasn't
been found.
I went and talked to a lawyer to see how I can try to fix this, and
I can't fix it.
When it first was brought to my attention, all they was talking
about was the garage. That's when I got in touch with Marie, the
consultant who came and introduced me to an architect. He came out
and he did -- he drew me up plans to get a permit. And that cost me a
couple grand, a couple thousand dollars.
Page 76
16~o'r iI ,&)~
After getting the plans drew up and everything, she submitted it,
charging me a number of hundred of dollars to submit this.
I -- at that time I -- we were just looking at the garage. Then I
was approved. The permit was approved. I was approved.
And then after I got approved then I paid -- after getting all this
stuff approved, then they said that I had to raise the elevation of the
floor in the garage. I had to go back and get another arch -- get the
same architect to come in and draw that up.
I came in, I bought a lot of materials to bring the floor up in the
garage. And then at that time they told me that if I bring the floor up
that everything else that was approved would not pass the permit.
So at that time that's when I was -- I was working with another
code enforcement (sic) at that time, and that's when I think I got
introduced to him. And he came out and we was -- then all of a sudden
the -- the pictures of the back of the lanai, I donft think that's there. It's
a disaster. It is -- when I sit and I think about this, I get emotional,
because therefs no way in the world that I'm going to be able to bring
this house up to code.
The back side of the house that is not here, it's all blocked in. It's
cinder blocks. It's concrete. I mean, it's going to cost -- if I was to try
to bring this up to code, it would probably cost me 100 grand. To tear
it out and put it back to where it -- a closed-in screen enclosure is
going to probably cost probably $50,000 just to put it back to the
original state the way it was.
I honestly don't know how I got here this morning, because I've
tried to do everything that they asked me to do.
l went to -- they asked me to pull a demolition permit. I came in
to pull the demolition permit and the county would not give me the
demo. They gave me two weeks to pull it. I came in to pull it, they
would not give it to me. I came back, and that's when I talked to Ms.
Warren who works over there.
And at that time they looked at the paperwork again and seen
Page 77
1 ~.tolere y4zy~
that I was able to pull the permit, but I pulled the permit one day too
short. It was one day that I didn't pull the demolition permit. And then
that's how we ended up here that I'm here.
I've never fought the system, I've never tried to say I'm not going
to do this, I'm not going to do that.
I have converted the garage back into a garage. I don't know --
like I said, I don't know how I ended up here this morning, but, you
know, I'm going to lose regardless of what you all do to me or what I
do I'm going to lose.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Ferguson, may I ask you a question, please?
MR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Did you convert this garage?
MR. FERGUSON: No, 1 didn't do none of the work.
MR. LARSEN: Are you using this garage as living space today?
MR. FERGUSON: It's a storage.
MR. LARSEN: But you're not using it as living space.
MR. FERGUSON: No, I'm not.
MR. LARSEN: Okay, 1 have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are we just talking about the garage
or are we talking about the lanai also?
MR. LARSEN: Itfs only a violation of the garage. Conversion of
the garage.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good.
Any other questions? Are you done, sir?
MR. FERGUSON: I can be done, but there's another issue that's
going to come and knock at my door again.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're here pertaining--
MR. FERGUSON: About the garage.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to the garage. So let's handle that.
MR. FERGUSON: The garage is back to being a garage. It's not
a -- I mean, he came in the other day and took pictures of the garage.
It's not -- the bathroom is ripped out, the closet is ripped out, the sink
Page 78
C}t&11'~Opt) 3
is ripped out.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you do that without a --
MR. FERGUSON: No, I pulled --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You had the permit.
MR. FERGUSON: I pulled the demolition permit to have that
done.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good, okay.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, one of the problems,
with all due respect to the investigator, is that basically he has no
personal knowledge of what the violation was on September 5th, 2007
when it was first observed. It would be a different story if they had
photographs of the garage as living space which were dated
September 5th, 2007, or could be introduced as business records at
this time to give us an indication that the garage was actually
converted to living space.
Additionally, there's no testimony that there is personal
knowledge or other evidence to indicate that during that period of time
that the violation actually existed, that the garage was living space.
So I find it hard to find that based upon this statement of
violation that the county has submitted sufficient proof to this board to
find that a violation did occur on September 5th, 2007, or when the.
owner was originally given notice on September 6th, 2007, or that
basically the date by which the violation was to be corrected, by
September 20th, 2007.
In regard to the other aspects of the testimony by the county in
regard to other areas, I just note that they are outside the scope of the
violation. And we're restricted by what the violation notice pertains to,
which is conversion of garage to living space.
So I'd find that basically no violation existed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, let me ask: These pictures are
showing the utility room as in B-1, B-2. Is this the garage --
MR. FERGUSON: Yes.
Page 79
16Joir~1m-)83
CHAiRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- do you know?
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That is the garage.
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Is it a separate utility room or is it actually the
garage itself?
MR. GOMEZ: It's the garage itself which he divided.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So these pictures are of the garage
area that's been enclosed?
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: As of yesterday, do you consider a violation
there stilI exists or has gone?
MR. GOMEZ: The way we're reading it, the only way a
violation stilI exists in the garage now is because it has not been
C.O.'d by the county.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So in fact we can find that there was
a violation --
MR. LARSEN: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can find in fact that there was a
violation but it has been corrected and we could have an inspection
done and then he -- that the demolition permit would be a certificate of
completion, I guess.
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: But did I misunderstand your testimony? Did
you take these photographs?
MR. GOMEZ: No, sir, I did not.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And when you went out, did this
condition exist?
MR. GOMEZ: No, sir. When I went out, the condition -- it
would be picture C-l.
MR. LARSEN: But these B photographs were taken back in
September of 2007, correct?
Page 80
~lei;l(L~ 8
MR. GOMEZ: That's corren.
MR. LARSEN: And you didn't take these photographs.
MR. GOMEZ: No, sir.
MR. LARSEN: And you don't know when they were taken and
what they were taken of.
MR. GOMEZ: All I can tell you, that they were taken on the
date signifYing on each photograph.
MR. LARSEN: All right. You have no other knowledge of these
photographs?
MR. GOMEZ: No, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Or the condition of the garage back in
September of 2007.
MR. GOMEZ: No, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But we had the respondent just state
that these pictures are in fact the garage by his own admission. So we
can actually find that in fact there was a violation, but the violation
has been corrected. We've done that before where --
MR. LARSEN: Well, I just disagree.
MR. LfESPERANCE: Is it necessary to rule that there is a
violation? Because when we're presented the case and the evidence we
see today, the most current evidence dated 2008, there's not a
violation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, we have found in prior cases
that respondents have corrected situations before coming in front of
us.
And in doing so, we rule that in fact there has been a violation
found. And then with that violation found, obviously there would be
no fine or anything, but in finding of in fact that therefs been a
violation, if they would come in front of us again, the fines would be
substantially much harsher.
MR. KELLY: Investigator Gomez?
Page 81
f<&,rl1 (209+) j
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir.
MR. KELLY: The demolition permit that has been pulled by the
respondent, does it specifY whether it's the garage or the lanai area?
MR. GOMEZ: Give me one second, please.
MR. KELLY: The reason why I'm asking is because if we find
that a violation did exist and that all that's left is to C.O. this demo
permit, maybe the demo permitfs linked to both issues and that might
be outside of what we can rule on.
MR. GOMEZ: Okay, the permit is marked R addition and
alterations.
MR. LARSEN: R meaning remove?
MR. KAUFMAN: No scope of where?
MR. GOMEZ: No, sir.
MR. KELLY: No diagram to go with it?
MR. GOMEZ: No, sir.
MR. FERGUSON: Can I say something, please?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on a second.
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, according to the CD Plus records, it's to
restore garage and lanai.
MR. LARSEN: It kind of complicates things.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, it does. Because we're only .
here for the garage, not the --
MR. KELLY: If we simply find that a violation does not exist
right now today, the rest of itfs inconsequential.
MR. LARSEN: Because we're not dealing with the lanai.
MR. KELLY: And we have testimony from both that it has been
restored to storage, so it does not exist today.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just don't feel comfortable doing
that, because in most times when we find -- there has been a violation,
in my feeling. And if he were to convert it back to living space again,
the fines would be much more substantial. And I'd rather find in fact
that there is. But if thatfs going to complicate the second half of it --
Page 82
16 Ptobe}t )O~
MR. KELLY: And usually in those cases county comes to us
with that request, that we simply hear this to enter it as a finding of
fact that a violation did exist for those purposes. In this case I didn't
hear anything from staff for that reason.
MR. LARSEN: Right. I also think that there's still a failure of
proof. There was a change of investigator and, you know, usually we
have the initial investigator come and testifY this was what the
condition was when the violation was issued.
MR. KELLY: Not to mention there's going to be a whole nother
case on the lanai.
MR. LARSEN: Right.
MR. KELLY: And we'll have to go through all this again.
MR. LARSEN: And the lanai is the issue. I mean --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other ideas or views from the
board?
MR. LARSEN: Well, I make a motion that a violation does not
exist.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELL Y: Second.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. LfESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
The case has been dismissed.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Gomez, do you know if there's anything else
pending against the property?
MR. GOMEZ: No, at this moment there is not.
Page 83
16Clo!r~1J4-~83
MS. RAWSON: You said al1 in favor, so you should say all
opposed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. RAWSON: Because I'm not sure it was unanimous.
MR. KELLY: Was there anyone opposed to that last vote?
THE COURT REPORTER: Well, he didnft ask, that's why--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were there any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I thought I heard all that were in
favor.
Wefre going to move on to old business. Motion for imposition
of fines and liens. BCC versus Auto Village of Naples.
MS. WALDRON: For the record for this case, this case was
heard by public petition at the BCC on October 28th, and the BCC is
requesting that we push this imposition of fines hearing out six months
to give them more time.
MR. KELLY: I'm not going to argue with the boss.
MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I make a motion that we push this out for
hearing for a period of 180 days.
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
MR. MORAD: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. MORAD: For the record, Senior Investigator Ed Morad.
The order has been satisfied. She's gotten her certificate of
occupancy, inspections and permits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the violation's been taken care
of?
MR. MORAD: Abated, yes, sir.
MR. DEAN: So what had not complied is now complied is what
you just said?
MR. MORAD: Thatfs correct.
Page 84
1 Bclo!r ~IfY~
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we don't need to move this out
for six months; is that correct?
MR. MORAD: I donft --
MR. LARSEN: Ms. Waldron?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean?
MS. FLAGG: It would be better to let the respondent speak.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. HALL: My name is Holly Day Hall. This is my third time
in front of you guys.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, you look familiar.
MS. HALL: So third time is a charm? Because I am not going to
cry today.
Everythingfs good. I went to the commissioners, and they agreed
that some of these things we had to do were ridiculous. So I got our
T.C.O. and the C.O. and we still have the stipulation to do a few small
things that have nothing to do with safety or health.
And 1 donft know what you're going to do about the fines, but we
are completely broke. We used both our IRA's and every bit of our
equity in our home.
And I have some photos, if you're interested in seeing them.
So I request that the fines be abated and I invite all of you to
come out to Auto Village and see the most beautiful salvage yard in
Naples.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion, given the fact that it was an
original stipulated agreement that was voluntarily entered into by the
respondent, that the violations have been abated and that the
operational costs have been paid, that we abate the fine of $114,400.
MR. LARSEN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Page 85
~ct131 CW)3
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No nays. Motion passes.
MS. HALL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have a great day.
MS. HALL: Come see me.
MR. KELLY: Happy halloween.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be BCC versus
Dagoberto and Maria Saldana.
Is the respondent here?
(No response.)
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. KELLY: So this is only for op. costs?
MR. MUSCA: Yes, sir.
MR. KELLY: Seeing that there's no respondent, I make a motion
in CEB Case CESD2008000885 that we impose the lien for $279.33
for unpaid operational costs.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? ..
MR. DEAN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFl\1AN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With no nays, the motion passes.
Page 86
~QoteL't1d00
MR. MUSCA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case, BCC versus John and
Lisa Meszaros.
Is the respondent here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't see anyone in the audience so
he or she is not here.
MR. LARSEN: Ms. Rawson, before we have this witness sworn
in, is it necessary to reswear the investigators each time they come up
to testifY during the same day?
MS. RAWSON: I think it is, because each one of them is a
different case.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. DEAN: I asked that a year and a half ago.
MS. WALDRON: Do you guys want me to read through the
details, or --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't think you have to.
MS. WALDRON: You didnft have it last time, so --
MR. KELLY: Only because I jumped in and read the case
number. But we should at least have the case number entered into the
record.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead and read the --
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Code Enforcement
Case No. 2007110853. And for the record, the respondent is not
present.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: Investigator, when's the last time you were out
there? And do you know if it is in compliance now?
MR. PAUL: It's not in compliance. I was out there about two
weeks ago. They vacated this horme. Theyfre not there anymore. And
any numbers I had from there are all disconnected.
And the property has not been foreclosed on. It's in lis pendens
Page 87
oU.Jht{~ 9
status, so I don't know where they're at.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. LARSEN: I move to impose the lien.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With no nays, motion passes.
MS. WALDRON: Jean, do we have to specifY what the lien
amount is ~-
MS. RAWSON: We do. And--
MS. WALDRON: -- on the record?
MS. RAWSON: -- I think that there's an addition mistake on the
recommendation. 600 and 302.69 is 902.69, I think, not 4,000.
MR. LARSEN: Good thing we didn't specifY it then. Because
I'm going to amend my motion to indicate that the recommendation is
to impose a lien.
The motion is to impose a lien, fines at the rate of $200 per day
for the period between September 20th, 2008 and September 22nd,
total of three days, for a total of $600. Fines continue to accrue
thereafter. And operational costs of $302.69. So I amend my motion
for the imposition ofa lien in the amount of$902.69.
MR. KELLY: I amend my second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a vote?
MR. KELLY: All in favor.
Page 88
l'JJrL~~
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. LfESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved.
MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? When you have to change
the numbers, you have to vote out that first motion, don't you, and
then we vote in a new motion?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Probably not as long as you say this is an
amendment to --
MR. DEAN: As long as we did it real quick it was okay?
MS. RAWSON: Well, you know, the first motion probably was
an incomplete motion because you didnft mention the amount of the
fine and the costs, or the total for the lien. And so it would be hard for
me to write an order unless I had some numbers.
So the second motion -- maybe the first one was just out of
order. The second motion was fine, because at least now I have
numbers that I can put in my order.
MR. DEAN: I agree then. I thought the first time around you had
the -- that's good, thank you.
MS. RAWSON: Yeah. I mean, I know itfs late and we all want
to go trick or treating, but be sure you give me enough stuff on the
record so my orders make sense.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KELLY: If it pleases the board, I had a chance to discuss at
the break with staff about my objection to the consent agenda, and
thatfs been rectified, so I do not need to discuss anything.
Page 89
1 ~JtolrG I!~~
I'd like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve the liens
and the fines to go forward to the county attorney's office for
foreclosure.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved.
MR. DEAN: You're a good PR man, Mr. Kelly.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any new business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any reports, comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting is November 20th,
2008.
MR. KELLY: Is that here or BCC?
MS. WALDRON: It will be here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here again?
MS. WALDRON: Yes.
MR. KELLY: This is our new home?
MR. DEAN: I want to say thank you for the coffee there. That
was very nIce.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I'd like to take a vote to
adjourn, if there's --
MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn.
Page 90
o16r~~2~) 2
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- nothing else.
Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And certainly there's no nays.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :45 a.m.
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherief R. Nottingham.
Page 91
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
16 'No!em{~,l~
y
'J
OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
PMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
t:~ EiVED
DEe ')il 2[108
Naples, Florida, November 5, 2008
;-:(O(-1l(i IA ,',();il:!V <~m-'lrnlssitiners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee in and for the County ofColJier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 3:30 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference
Room #610 in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian
Charles Abbott
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon Dejohn
Dalas Disney
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar
Blair Foley
George Hermanson
Reed Jarvi
Thomas Masters
Robert Mulhere
Reid Schermer
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES
Phil Gramatges, Director, Public Utilities Mise Corres:
Pam Lulich, Landscaping Supervisor 0 l /t'~ IOJ
James French, Operations and Regulatory ~agem~flt ,
Gary Harrison, Deputy Building Official Item' 110 I LI)AS
':opies to
1611lA-) 0
November 5, 2008
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 PM by Chairman William Varian,
A quorum was established.
II. Approval of Agenda
Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda. Second by George Hermanson. Carried
unanimously, 12-0.
III. Approval of Minutes
George Hermanson moved to approve the Minutes of the October 8, 2008 Meeting as
presented. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 12-0.
IV. Welcome to new Board member
Chairman Varian introduced Reid Schermer to the Committee and welcomed his
participation,
V. Staff AnnouncementsfUpdates
C. Public UtilitiesfEngineering Division Update
Phil Gramatges stated:
· The AUIRs for Solid Waste, Wastewater, and Potable Water were approved by
the Board of County Commissioncrs ("BCC")
· An Irrigation Quality Water Master Plan ("I-Q Water") will be presented to the
BCC in December, 2008.
· Revenues for the month are lower than last month
When questioned concerning a new building permit form, he stated he was not aware
of any new form other than the meter sizing form. Blair Foley will provide a copy of
the new form and Me. Gramatges stated he would research it.
B. Transportation Division Update
(No Report)
(James Boughton arrived at 3.43 PM)
A. CDES Update
Joe Schmitt stated:
· A Contractor Licensing position was opened and a candidate was hired. The
position is supported by Fund # 113.
. The Engineering and Zoning staff will be reduced by 5 full-time positions.
. Revenue is down and payroll is met by using reserves.
He discussed the shifting of celiain employees to different departments in order to
relieve the drain on Fund #131. lie asked the County Manager to reduce the
allocations burden (such as custodial services, IT. etc.)
There was a discussion concerning various options, such as reviewing zoning itcms
and reducing some ofthe requirements in the LDC to reduce review times and save
costs. The FAR-based Amendments arc heing reviewed.
2
16 tl(~o~
(Reed Jarvi arrived at 3:48 PM)
· There will be another LDC Cycle in 2009 to address various issues
· The Ft. Myers Beach City Manager was sent a list of fees in response to his
request for assistance from Collier County. He has not responded.
· "City View" is approximately 90 days behind implementation. Harris Software
has taken over the project. Testing of the Planning Module will begin next week
and it may "go live" in April, 2009.
· The BCC was asked to remove some commitments in order to implement the
PUD closeout process. Fifteen have been closed.
D. Fire Review Update
(No presentation. A written report was submitted to Committee members.)
Chairman Varian received an email from Lisa Koehler concerning a Workshop that will
be held on December II th (from I :00 ~ 4:00 PM) to discuss the issue of non-payment of
the second half of the COAs. She asked for volunteers from DSAC to attend and discuss
possible solutions with members of the development community.
Chairman Varian advised Ms. Koehler the Workshop's advertising must include a
disclaimer that states 'DSAC members may attend' to avoid violating the Sunshine Law
rules. He also advised her that all communication from statfto the Committee must be
routed through Judy Puig and not sent directly to the members.
VI. Old Business
A. Landscape/Irrigation Specs. - Alternative Transportation Modes Dept.
Pam Lulich stated she has received and reviewed comments from Committee
Members concerning definitions in the ROW Handbook. The definitions will be
incorporated into Landscaping Standards Handbook. She also stated plant-specific
language must be retained. When a final draft of the Handbook has been completed,
a copy will be emailed to the Members.
Format revisions were suggested for the final draft to identify previous corrections.
Further discussion ensued. A discrepancy was pointed out regarding pressure
cleaning of brick pavers (six or eight times a year)
(Charles Abbott arrived at 4: 15 PM)
B. Fire Rcview Task Force (5) items to discuss:
(1) Plan Tracking Barcode System,
(2) Electronic Plans submission and availability,
(3) Framing inspection sequence coordinated w/fire alarm, sprinkler, & hood
permits,
(4) Site Development I'lans (SDP) modification and how minor items are done
with information on the application to reduce instances of and Site Development
Plan Insubstantial Change (SDPI), and
(5) Six required ways for area calc's established guidelincs
3
~2Jber~, ,~) 5
These items are to be revised or implemented.
Joe Schmitt stated Items (I) and (2) are linked, and the limiting issue was money.
His focus is directed on the implementation of "City View" and once it is operational,
the other initiatives will be reviewed. Plan Tracking Bar Coding will be
integrated into "City View."
Jamie French, Operations and Regulatory Management, stated the bar coding
system is being used in the Records Room for inventory controL
Dalas Disney stated the purpose of bar coding was to eliminate discrepancies
between the submission and transfer of documents between Building and Fire, and to
track documents through the Building and Zoning Departments, and then back
through to Fire.
Joe Schmitt stated "City View" should solve approximately 99% of the problems.
Gary Harrison, Deputy Building Official, addressed Item # 3:
· Fire alarm, sprinkler and hood permits are trade-specific
· Apply and coordinate permit applieations for three trades
· Permits should not be issued before framing inspection and dry wall installation
. Framing inspections should only be called in when all the trades have completed
their work.
· This issue concerns the design and construction sequence involving the General
Contractor
· It was suggested to partially install the framing, i.e., "all areas except..."
· The 'down side' of a partial framing inspection is that a follow-up inspection will
be required betore dry wall and insulation could be completed.
· A "Building Block" will be posted on the website to inform the trades
(Blair Foley left al 4:35 PM)
Dalas Disney retcrred to Item #4 and stated speci fic architectural and engineering
data was requircd to be included on the drawings tor the SOPs. A concern was raised
by both the Task Forcc and the Fire Department regarding square footage changes
which are normal in the course of construction since the initial figures are usually
estimated.
Question: Is there a simpler way to address the issue without necessitating a Site
Development Plan Insubstantial Change ("SDPI")? Can the intormation be included on
the application so it becomes an administrative change rather than an SOPI?
Jim Boughton stated another requirement for the drawings is to incorporate the unit
numbers in shell buildings. Since intormation is lagged to thc SOP, if there is any sort of
change. then an SDPI is required.
4
l6mL!2!{l-) S-
Previously, if changes were insubstantial, a letter was sent outlining the final
changes and included in the file. Some changes should be considered as "field
changes."
There was a discussion concerning what triggers an SOPI, what is considered as an
"amendment," what should be referred to the LOC Subcommittee and, if there are
exceptions or modifications, to provide a process to handle them.
Joe Schmitt stated there will be another LOC Cycle for April through October, 2009
and will submit an Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners.
General consensus: A Subcommittee should be formed and a Chair will be needed,
(Thomas Masters left at 4:42.)
Dalas Disney stated the Task Force identified six different required area calculations
for a project (Item #6) including Building, Fire, Zoning and Impact Fees. All are
used for different purposes, i.e., parking, fire flow, net-to-gross for occupancy loads.
The Task Force suggested the calculations are not being done correctly and are not
submitted in a uniform fashion. Establishing what to do and how to submit in a
Zoning Planning SOP and back through the Building Permit process is a good idea
since the goal is to maintain consistency.
Mr. Disney mentioned that Building and Fire and are now more coordinated and Fire
has abdicated to the Building Code.
It was pointed out there is different terminology which impact different areas of the
Code. There was a discussion concerning the definitions of "under air" and "interior
space" and whether or not to include non-habitable space in a building's square
footage, i.e., in a restaurant.
It was suggested to review Item #6 during the LOC Cycle and to add the information
to the project data cover page.
Chairman Varian moved Item B, under "New Business," to be discussed next since
there are five members whose terms will expire in December 2008.
David Dunnavant stated he intended'to submit his request for rc-appointment and
thought the application could be submittcd at the meeting. Hc stated he hoped he would
still be allowed to apply since he represented developers on the Committee. He has
contacted Sue Filson, Executive Manager of the Board of County Commissioners, to
ascertain his options.
VII. New Business
B. Selection of appointment to serve on the DSAC board (five members will
expire on December 14,2008)
Chairman Varian asked t(lr nominations.
5
l~etlJo{t ) b
Marco Espinar moved to approve the re-appointment of Robert Mulhere to DSAC.
Second by Dalas Disney. Motion carried 12-1, with Mr. Mulhere abstaining.
Marco Espinar moved to approve the re-appointment of George Hermanson to
DSAC. Second by Robert Multure. Motion carried 12-1, with Mr. Hermanson
abstaining.
Robert Mulhere moved to approve the re-appointment of Dalas Disney to DSAC.
Second by Charles Abbott. Motion carried 12-1, with Mr. Disney abstaining.
George Hermanson moved to approve the re-appointment of William Varian to
DSAC. Second by Reed Jarvi. Motion carried 12-1, with Mr. Varian abstaining.
Marco Espinar moved to approve the re-appointment of David Dunnavant for
purposes of discussion. Second by Robert Mulherefor discussion.
Robert Mulhere stated the Committee has two land planners as members and
retaining David was necessary since he represented the development component
He suggested the nomination should include that fact as the basis for accepting
David's application.
Clay Brooker pointed out David Hurst is a civil engineer and Timothy Hancock is a
Land Planner.
Marco Espinar agreed and amended his motion.
Marco Espinar amended his motion to approve the re-appointment of David
Dunnavant to another term as a member of DSAC based on the fact that the
Committee wants to represent each of the disciplines of construction and David
brings the developer aspect to DSAC. Second by Robert Mulhere. Motion carried,
12-1 with Mr. Dunnavant abstaining.
Reed Jarvi suggested a back-up plan in ease the BCC overruled the Committee's
motion concerning re-appointment of David Dunnavant
Dalas Disney moved to approve appointment of David Hurst to DSAC as an
alternate nomination in the event that Mr. Dunnavant is not re-appointed. Second
by Mario Valle.
Charlie Abbott suggested waiting until next month to see what the BCC actually
does rather than appointing an alternate membcr.
Dalas DiHley withdrew his motion.
Judy Puig stated she would send a mcmo to Sue Filson conccrning the Committec's
decisions.
Chairman Varian asked that it include the reason for Mr. Dunnavant's re-appointment.
(All re-appointments are to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.)
I>
1 ~v!mb! 5(~ ) 5
A. Discussion of2008 Impact Fee Indexing
Amy Patterson referred to a memo from Steve Tindale to Nick Casalanguida
concerning the Transportation Impact Fee Study and stated it would not be addressed
at this time.
Six Impact Fees were scheduled to be indexed on January I, 2009: School
(Educational Facilities), EMS, Fire Protection, Government Buildings, Law
Enforcement, and Library.
On October 15,2008, the Productivity Committee recommended delaying the
scheduled indexing to the Board of County Commissioners until the Productivity
Committee conducted a comprehensive review of the indexing methodology in order
to possibly recommend a methodology that would be more sensitive to the current
economic condition. The BCC agreed and accepted the recommendations.
Transportation has a full study which will be presented to DSAC for review. The
Productivity Committee's report will be presented to DSAC before submission
to the BCe.
There was a discussion of the indexing methodology and an explanation of its history.
(Robert Mulhere left at 5:]{) PM)
VIII. Committee Member Comments
A. Number of plan sets for submittal (six or four) - Bill Varian
(Postponed to next month's meeting)
B. Staffing for Contractor Licensing Investigators - Bill Varian
(Postponed to next month's meeting)
C. Water surcharge fees for excessive use (Question asked by Jim Boughton)
Jim Boughton asked for an explanation of how the surcharge was determined.
Phil Gramatges stated due to the water restrictions, an Ordinance was developed and
a surcharge was instituted to encourage water conservation and to restrict the use of
water for irrigation. The surcharge will not affect an average single-family home
until more than 10,000 gallons are used. The average household in Collier County
consumes approximately 8,000 per month. The surcharge is used to pay for capacity
that is not being used. Ad Valorem taxes do not support Utilities.
For commercial buildings, the surchargc goes into effect fi.Jf "Block I" which
depends on the size of the mcter. Discussion ensucd concerning determining a more
convenient and consistcnt mcthod of structuring ratcs for commcrcial buildings,
cspecially older buildings.
Mr. Gramatges will research the available charts and tables and will report at thc
ncxt Committce mccting.
7
16 NL!bLt) 5
George Hermanson suggested scheduling another Cycle prior to April since there is
only one Cycle and some Amendments have a deadline of March, 2009. The issue is
Code procedures.
Chairman Varian suggested members of each discipline compile a list of areas of
concerns to be discussed at a later time.
DSAC Meeting Dates:
. December 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM
. January 7, 2009 at 3:30 PM
. February 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM
. March 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 5:24 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
tAl--
William Varian, Chairman
<C
These Minutes were approved by the B
as presented , or as amende
tee on
I z13mR
f
x
fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
16 II I l A~E<CEfVED
:33-~ DEe 0 9 2008
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUN~
(EMSAC) OfCounty~
v/
Friday, October 17, 2008
COLLIER EMS HEADQUARTERS
Conference Room B
2705 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
District I Commission District - Victoria DiNardo, Vice-Chairman, Present
District 2 Commission District - Dr. Michael Wu, Present
District 3 Commission District - John Valenti, Chairman, Absent
District 4 Commission District - Nancy Lascheid, Present
District 5 Commission District - Terry Heath, Present
At Large - Dr. James Hampton, Present
At Large - Dr. Douglas Lee, Present
Naples Community Hospital- Gail Dolan, Absent
City of Naples Police and Emergency Services - Jim McEvoy, Chief, Present
Collier County Health Department - Kathleen Marr, Present
City of Marco Island Fire/Rescue - Chris Byrne, Deputy Chief, Present
Collier County Fire Chiefs Associations - Robert Metzger, Chief, Present
Physician's Regional Medical Center - Vacant
Collier County Sheriffs Office - Commander Bill Rule, Present
Staff Present:
Jeff Page
Jennifer Florin
Dan Summers
Dan Bowman
Dr. Robert Tober
The regular meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Vicky DiNardo, followed by
the "Pledge of Allegiance".
A quorum was present at this time.
Motion to adopt today's agenda; passed unanimously.
Motion to adopt minutes from September 19th; Discussion: Chief Metzger had a comment
regarding a statement at the top of page 5 of the minutes. He asked if the part that states:
"Chief Page gave an example of Marco. Currently all of their people practicing under
Dr. Tober's license have been tested by Dr. Tober; however in some districts they have
people practicing that have never met Dr. Tober." was an accurate recording of what was
said, and if it is an accurate statement. Jennifer stated that it was in fact an accurate
description of what was said. Dr. Tober added that there are in fact some firefighters that
MISC. Corres:
Date: 0 t /l3/ D9
Item# lloI Ll)A b
16 , llA-) y,
Page 2
he has not met. Chris asked what was meant by "met." Dr. Tober stated that he meant he
hasn't met some of them nor reviewed them. Motion put to vote; passed unanimously.
Vicky welcomed Susan Takacs to the meeting. It was explained that she will be
representing Physicians Regional Medical Center in upcoming meetings. Currently that
position is vacant with the resignation of Dr. Panozzo, and Susan is on the BCC agenda
for Oct. 28th to be officially added to the committee.
OLD BUSINESS:
No old business
NEW BUSINESS:
Medical Director
Dr. Tober was introduced by Vicky. He stated that he didn't have an exact
presentation for the group; however he did have some things that he wanted to review
and wanted to serve as a resource for questions the committee may have. He started by
giving the group a review of the cardiac arrest statistics from the last quarter; which
ended on Sept 30th with a 36% survival and discharge from the hospital rate. He also
added that we have not started the pre-hospital hypothermia as of yet. The goal, if all
goes well is to start at the first of the year. Dr. Tober then handed out a list of
medications that are on the different levels of ALS fire engines and ambulances we have
on the road. He stated that there has been some confusion recently regarding which
medications have been removed from ALS engines, and the reasoning for that. The list
had the removed medications in red. First off, he noted that Thiamine has been removed
from all engines and ambulances. Finally the medications that have been removed from
the ALS engines (in red) are as follows: Adenocard, Haldol, Lasix, Lidocaine IOOmg,
Lidocaine 19m, Mag Sulfate, Sodium Bicarb, and Solu Medrol. He noted that none of the
drugs that were removed have been used by the ALS engines at all in the last 12 months.
There was much discussion of the medications and the reasoning for the removal. Dr.
Tober answered all questions and gave medical reasoning for all medications that have
been removed. Dr. Tober also stated that he has officially designated Dr. Lee as his
Assistant Medical Director, and he will be instrumental in the development of new
protocols, and inservices. Chris added that he attended the inservice this month with Dr.
Lee and it was very enjoyable. He did ask that the information and explanations of the
medications be brought up during the next inservice. He stated that it was very
informative and others would benefit from it as well. Dr. Tober agreed and stated that he
will get the information as best he can while his focus at the moment is the protocol
changes for cardiac arrest and pre-hospital hypothermia.
The other thing Dr. Tober stated he is trying to implement is a rapid response
vehicle with a highly experienced paramedic to be available for the most serious of calls.
Basically he is trying to match the personnel with the severity of the call. In fact he,
along with Dr. Lee and some EMS staff, are traveling to Wake County North Carolina
and Duke University to study a system that has this type of response in place, and is
1611 (,A-)~
Page 3
working welL The other program he is working on for the future is reworking the
Emergency Medical Dispatch and rotating a paramedic in their call center to help
determine call severity. Chief Metzger added that he sees places with communications in
general where there is room for improvement; for example coding calls. Dr. Tober stated
that we probably have a while to go before this can be completed.
Dr. Hampton stated that he compiled a list of questions for Dr. Tober that he
emailed him previously, and he asked if Dr. Tober would go through some of them. Dr.
Tober stated that he wasn't sure he had all the answers, but he would go through it. The
first question asked how many ALS procedures had been done by the fire departments in
the last 12 months; Dr. Tober estimated it to be around 186. The next question was how
many paramedics work for the fire departments; Dr. Tober estimated that to be 102; and
EMS has approx. 120. The next question asked how many doses of medications were
dispensed by the fire departments in the last 12 months; Dr. Tober stated there are only 4
departments that operate in an ALS capability and those four departments administered
15 doses in the last 12 months. Another question Dr. Hampton asked was if there were
any serious mistakes made by the fire departments in the administration of the drugs; Dr.
Tober answered, yes there was one, and he is working with the state on it. The next
question on the list referred to the number of responses by each fire department in the last
year, and the cost per call. Chief Page stated that he could go back and look at the 2006
impact fee study to find the cost per year; he thought North Naples was the highest at
around $3,000 per call. The rest of the departments varied, but the "norm" around the
country is around $2,000 per call. He stated our cost is around $674 per call. Chief
Metzger had a question as to where the numbers came from, and what they included.
Whether it was a base cost, an actual cost per call (which varies by the type of supplies
expended), or a budgetary number from total cost divided by number of calls. Chief Page
stated that he wasn't sure what the methodology was, but it was an accepted method, and
it was included in the impact fee study. The next question on the list was how many
responses did each fire department have in the last year; Dr. Tober estimated it to be
around 7,000 or 8,000; and EMS was around 36,000 calls. The next question from Dr.
Hampton asked if we could have too many or too few paramedics. Dr. Tober stated that
this is another aspect he will be looking at in his trip to North Carolina. His own feeling
is that we can definitely have too many. He gave an example of a hospital that has to
regulate the number of sub-specialists in anyone category based on the number of
clinical exposures they may have. Basically the more staff the fewer encounters each
person has. Dr. Tober stated he shares this belief with Duke University who has done
research to support it. He added that he thinks there needs to be a careful balance
between the supply and the demand for service. There can be too little or too many
"cooks in the kitchen." Dr. Tober then read a letter he received from Joe Ornato, who is
the Medical Director of Richmond Ambulance Authority in Richmond, VA. He is slated
to be the most published medical director in the world. His letter to Dr. Tober outlined
the workings of his EMS and fire system in Richmond. Coincidentally our system is
working almost identically to his, even though this is his first findings of the way they
operate. Chief Metzger brought up the point that there are certain interventions that he
would expect a paramedic to know how to do, even though he or she doesn't get the
ability to perform them all the time, based on their training. Dr. Tober agreed, and he
stated that he doesn't have any problem training anyone on anything, however there are
16 Ilg,( PI )ip
realities that these skills are going to be extremely more difficult on a human than they
are on the mannequin, and the only way to be completely competent is to work on
humans; and the competition is huge for "hands-on" time. The next question Dr.
Hampton asked to be answered was how often the paramedics are recertified in ACLS;
Dr. Tober stated that is recertification required once every two years. Finally, the last
question asked: "What recommendations could be made by EMSAC to the Board of
County Commissioners to save the most number of lives in this community and utilize
our resources most intelligently?"; Dr. Tober stated that he wants the first goal of the
community to be getting someone to a call with BLS skills within 5 minutes of the person
dialing 911. The second thing Dr. Tober said he would do ifhe had a magic wand would
be to restructure dispatch, and help them by rotating paramedics in to help judge call
severity and dispatching the appropriate personnel. He added that EMD sometimes has a
revolving door because people like to use dispatch as a spring board to other parts of the
agency. Commander Rule stated that currently the communications center is completely
staffed, and also people now have to stay in dispatch for 2 years, before they can move on
to be deputies. Dr. Hampton stated that it would be nice if we could educate the public to
do BLS to assist in the first 5 minutes or so before an ambulance or fire truck arrives. He
asked how Seattle accomplished this. Dr. Tober stated that Seattle undertook a huge
public works effort to train as many people as they could to perform CPR, which would
be nice to have here, but it takes a lot of time and money to do that. We have tried in the
past with CPR days and other events, but we haven't gotten the response from the public
as Seattle has. Nancy stated that she feels there is a lack of public interest. Dr. Tober also
mentioned the CPR video we produced that occasionally plays on the Collier County
government channel. The video shows cardiac resuscitation without mouth to mouth.
Dr. Tober stated the public seems to be fine with doing compressions on someone as long
as they don't have to put their mouth on a stranger's mouth. Kathleen stated that she
thought the video was excellent, and they handed out many copies from the Health
Department.
Chief Metzger asked Dr. Tober for copies of the data he uses to conclude that fire
departments don't utilize ALS, or that the ALS training is not necessarily as important for
them because they don't use the skills. Dr. Tober said that he would be happy to provide
him with the spreadsheets.
Dr. Wu asked Dr. Tober about the number of personnel we have that are currently
pediatric advanced life support certified, and if they all are not, do we have plans to have
a specific personnel on duty each day so that if a pediatric call comes through, that team
gets dispatched. Dr. Tober stated that we do a considerable amount of pediatric life
support training; however there is not a specific dedicated team. He did say that he
would love to have Dr. Wu come help train everyone to enhance their skills in pediatric
resuscitation, etc.
Dr. Hampton asked who trained the fire department paramedics, if it was EMS or
their own agency. Dr. Tober stated that there was a plan set up, but. it wasn't well
communicated or agreed to, that we would establish the curriculum and we would train
the trainers here, so the trainers could go back to their respective districts and train their
personnel. However, it did not happen that way and we are in the process of correcting it.
Dr. Hampton had a few questions for Chief Metzger regarding training in his district.
During that discussion Chief Metzger asked Dr. Tober if the CEU hours the paramedics
1611(A-)<p
Page 5
in the fire departments have from the fire department trainers would be accepted by him
for recertification purposes. Dr. Tober stated that he will not deny anyone's pre-
approved CEU's for state recertification at this time. However the other piece is the
county requirement to attain and retain an intermediate or ALS engine status. Those
requirements are being worked on now, and will be done reasonably and clearly so there
is no further confusion. Chris brought up that he felt we were missing the value on
having two apparatus at a scene. He stated that there is a tremendous value to the
community in having multiple paramedics on a critical call, or a multiple patient call. Dr.
Tober stated that he agreed there is a huge value to having the extra hands on scene. He
did add that he needs to have on scene a primary, a secondary, and a tertiary decision
maker. And every time you move up in the ladder your responsibility becomes slightly
greater. He compared it to the fire service, in that he doesn't expect that the fire certified
EMS paramedics are qualified and trained enough to handle all aspects of a fire. They
are there to be more like helpers instead of decision makers. He stated that the door
swings both ways. Chris stated that he agrees, and he added that he wants to afford
every training opportunity, then he will give them their daily assignment. Dr. Tober
stated that he has no problem with the fire medics coming to any training they want to,
however there is a piece of field training that is so time consuming it would be difficult to
get them through it. He stated there are only so many trainers, and so many students they
can take on before the experience becomes diluted to the point that nobody gets proper
exposure. Chief Metzger stated that he agreed, and the fire departments are willing to
help with the training aspect.
Nancy stated that she would like to see this committee move forward on this. She
feels that there are some groups in the community that are simply delaying Dr. Tober's
new ideas by bringing up old stuff She added that we should clear the table and come to
an agreement, and move on. Dr. Tober has some great new ideas and protocol changes
that need to be implemented versus battling over turf Dr. Tober stated that he would also
like to bring this to a close, and he stated that he has no problem including fire
department people in his trainings; he has no problem training trainers from fire
departments so they can train their personnel. From an intellectual standpoint there is no
issue. Dr. Tober added that the classroom training is only a small piece, the real training
happens in the field with a Field Training Officer in a four month internship. Nancy
asked Chief Page if having everyone do a field internship was attainable. Chief Page
said, no, a full four month internship is not; however we can try to accommodate having
an additional fire fighter paramedic ride in the back with an FTO to get that extra clinical
experience. Nancy then asked about the issue of inservice training and EMS being 100%
and the fire departments only being 75%; she wondered how that came about. Chief Page
stated briefly that this goes back to the matrix. When in discussion of the training matrix
EMS recognized that the fire departments could not make 100% of the inservices, so we
agreed to allow them 75% attendance. We thought that this was fully agreed to, but it has
come out recently that it wasn't. We are currently working on new training requirements
with the fire departments. Chris asked Dr. Tober if he could be involved in some of the
formulation of trainings, and if they could start to do QA meetings again. Dr. Tober
stated that he is happy to meet with anyone who wants to discuss educational things, but
he is done discussing political issues.
I~L~(A-)0
Chris asked Dr. Tober one last questions regarding pain medicine for the ALS
engines. He said that about a year ago Dilaudid was discussed, and he wondered if that
was a possibility. Dr. Tober stated that he has two thoughts; one is there is a huge
liability issue with narcotic control; and secondly there have been issues in our own
department in teaching medics to give a small dose and see what happens, then give
another small does if needed. He added that he will be discussing it with Dr. Lee for
consideration. Chris added that if it is under consideration, they are already carrying
medical control for another drug.
STAFF REPORTS:
Chief Page stated that he doesn't have much in the way of a staffreport. We are
meeting with the Planning Commission in the next week on the AUIR. The plan hasn't
changed since the last time the committee saw it, and if that meeting causes any changes
we will let the committee know.
Dan Summers was present and gave a report on the Emergency Services
Complex. He stated that we are ahead of schedule and under budget so far. We don't
have a move in date as of yet. He stated that one of the things he is most excited about is
the training space, and being able to offer it to Edison for weekend fire classes to possibly
double the enrollment.
SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no registered speakers.
BOARD MEMBER DISCUSSION:
Nancy has an item that she wanted to bring up for consideration. She stated that
she reviewed the By-Laws in relationship to the number of meetings. According to the
current by-laws we are required to hold one meeting a month. She stated that it seems it
would be more productive and efficient to have more consolidated times less frequently.
She asked for discussion from the group to ask the Board to change the by-laws to allow
for meetings quarterly. Chief Metzger said that he feels having Dr. Tober present is
important and he can support quarterly meetings if Dr. Tober can try to be present at
them aiL Dr. Tober said that he would be available more consistently ifnot all the time if
the meetings were quarterly. Chief Metzger also added that we should add a provision
that if we needed to meet sooner we could.
Nancy made the motion to revise the by-laws to allow for quarterly meetings and allow
for meetings as needed at the discretion of Chief Page and the chairman; seconded by
Chief Metzger; passed 10-1 with Commander Rule dissenting.
Chief Page stated since there is a proposed amendment to the by-laws, we will run
it by legal, and then add it to the BCC agenda.
161 !ge'~)0
Dr. Hampton had a follow up question for another meeting regarding members
being sued for making a recommendation that had a bad result. Chief Page stated that he
spoke with the Assistant County Attorney, and he does not believe that you could be
sued, and if you were, traditionally they will provide you council. Dr. Hampton asked if
the county had insurance to cover losses in the case of a lawsuit. Chief Page stated that
they county is self insured, but the attorneys don't think you can be sued at all. The
reason is that this group only makes recommendations, and the Board is the ultimate
decision maker. Dr. Hampton also had a question for Dan Bowman regarding a
statement at the last meeting that there may be a possible compliance issue at North
Naples, and he wondered if there was anything further on that. Dan asked Dr. Tober to
address the question. Dr. Tober stated that the reason the City of Naples was picked first
was because they were not fortunate enough to have a paramedic on staff to train, like the
other department have. Because of the discovery of the academic level at the City we
plan to train and test all the other departments. Dr. Hampton asked if any other
department had been tested thus far. Dr. Tober stated that Marco Island has gone through
extensive training, and had all of their people sit before him, and they all did well. East
Naples did a very similar thing, and had all their people sit with him, and they all did
well. This has not been done in North Naples so far. In the near future Dr. Tober stated
everyone will be subjected to the same scrutiny.
Kathleen wanted to thank the EMS staff for the help at the special needs shelter
for Tropical Storm Fay.
Chris had a question regarding the newly created Office of the Medical Director.
Dr. Tober said that currently there is no structure to it, and there is no specific funding.
He stated that he felt the Board put him under them to give him more presence or
authority in lieu of the struggle with certain fire districts. Dan Summers added that he
also felt the Board will be revisiting this in the future, and another reasoning was to allow
them direct communication if they had questions.
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday November 19,2008
Motion to adjourn.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Florin
Dat(doPte~), / ..
'Ill {Ziy{tL :/fc I( (( ~ tit--
Chairman I Council Member Signature
'1
..
to~mLl2't1- ) 1
v/
RECEIVED
DEL D 4 2008
Fiala
Halas
Henning
coyle
Coletta
Hi),',) :); "':)'1111." (j}'111Tli:,;',IO;'€!!'
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, November 5, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the CoJlier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at
BuilaiHg "pH uf Lln;; GUV<;ll11H.mt C~1fPIex, Naples, Florida, with the
C"l).ES. lpFf'/
following members present: ..
CHAIRMAN: William Hughes
VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon
Noah Standridge
David Bishof
Nick Penniman
Michael V. Sorrell (Excused)
Dr. L1ew Williams (Excused)
Paul Lehmann
Quin Kurth
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist
Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist
Chris D' Arco, Principal Environmental Specialist
Misc. CoIJes:
1-
COpi,;'; to
'.
1611 (4-)7
.
. .
. ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 2008
9:00 A.M.
CHANGE OF LOCATION: Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES)
Room 609/610
I.
Call to Order
II.
RollCall
III.
Approval of Agenda
IV.
Approval of the October 1, 2008 meeting minutes
V.
Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
VI.
Land Use Petitions
A. Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ-2005-AR-8674
Hilton Hills RPUD
Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East
VII. New Business
A. Background of RLSA program
VIII. Old Business
B. Update members on projects
IX. Subcommittee Reports
A. Habitat Advisory Committee Update from Chair
X. Staff Comments
A. Update members on RLSA Review Phase II
B. December and January meetings at CDES
XI. Council Member Comments
XII. Public Comments
XIII. Adjournment
..........**.*********************************************-*****W*.
Council Members: Please notify Summer Araaue. Environmental Services Senior Environmental
Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 30. 2008 if vou cannot attend this meetina or if vou
have a conflict and will abstain from votinll on a petition 1252.6290).
General Public: Any person who decides to appeai 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 proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
"~"-
,>,.
\
1611 (A-) I
November 5, 2008
~'....
I.
Call to Order
Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 9:00AM.
II.
RollCall
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
Ill. Approval of Agenda
Dr. Hushon moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried
unanimously 7-0.
IV. Approval of the October 1, 2008 meeting minutes
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the minutes of the October I, 2008 meeting.
Second by Mr. Lehmann. Carried unanimo~sly 7-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
None
Mr. Penniman reported Richard Miller, former Environmental Advisory Council
member passed away.
The Council determined to hear item X - A & B next.
X. Staff Comments
A. Update members on RLSA Review Phase II
Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning provided an overview on the
status of the RLSAC (Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee,) He
noted the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) reviewed the Phase I
Techinical Review prepared by the Review Committee on May 6, 2008. The
Phase II Report is a detailed review of the Plan and Policy of the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area and has not yet been completed and will not be reviewed by
the EAC as scheduled on November 12, 2008. The Review Committee has
decided to present an Executive Summary to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) requesting approval of 3 recommendations contained
in a draft memo he submitted to the Council dated I] -04-08, Re: "Draft
(subject to revisions)" prepared by Thomas Greenwood.
Summer Araque recommended any discussions regarding this decision by
the Review Committee be held under agenda item "New Business."
Chairman Hughes noted he has been informed the Review Committee wants
to move forward (applicable reports, recommendations, etc.) directly to the
BCC without the standard policy of review by the EAC.
B. December and January meetings at CDES
Summer Araque reported the following
. December and January meetings will be held on Horseshoe Drive at
the CDES building,
. Due to budget constraints, Environmental Advisory Council minutes
will now be "abbreviated."
2
'\
161 1 (A--)7
t ,
November 5, 2008
She requested Council members to stay on task and remain focused on the
issues to assist in expediting the meetings,
VI. Land Use Petitions
A. Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ-2005-AR-8674
Hilton Hills RPUD
Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East
The presenters were sworn in.
Kim Schlachta of Boylan Environmental Consultants provided an
overview of the Petition highlighting the following:
. The project is located on the northwest comer of Livingston Road and
the School Access Road (Learning Way.)
. There arc no flow ways located adjacent to or on the property.
. The proposed Preserve would be located on the north side of the site to
allow for potential adjacent off site mitigation.
. The wetlands on-site do not meet the County criteria for wetland
preservation.
. A Bear (Florida Black Bear) and Big Cypress Fox Squirrel
Management Plan will be prepared for the project.
. No listed species were identified on-site.
. All wetland impacts proposed will require approval by the SFWMD,
Discussion ensued regarding whether Learning Way contains culverts to allow
water to discharge under the road alleviating any backup that may occur on
the site which may cause flooding.
Michael Delate, Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. noted the issue will be addressed
by the Stormwater System Design yet to be completed
Discussion ensued regarding the composition of the existing hydric vegetation
on site which indicates it was historically a wetland, Concern that the project
control elevation is 1.5' below grade which may effectively drain the site or
adjacent properties,
Michael Delate noted the control elevations at Royal Palm Academy across
the Livingston Road is 12.7' and for Livingston Road in this area is] 1.25' as
determined by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) several
years ago. The ultimate control elevation for the project will be established by
these pre-determined parameters, The project's control elevations will not be
lower than any surrounding control elevations,
Mr, Bishof noted the Li vingston Road established control elevation is low
and "probably a mistake" and effectively drains the systems in the area.
Michael Delate agreed but noted recently the SFWMD have required
designers to exceed control elevations in projects and the proposed project
will require their review.
3
Noveml~.loJ (A-)1
Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager noted the application is a re-
zone of land and the Consultant is not required to submit detailed stonnwater
designs at this point.
In addition, some of the SFWMD pre-detennined control elevations were
made before more recent data has been made available.
Michael Delate noted the Livingston Road detennination occurred in 1993,
and this detennination may not be the same if made today.
Chris D' Area, Principal Environmental Specialist stated Staff recommends
approval of the Residential Planned Unit Development Rezone No: PUDZ-
2005-AR-8674 "Hilton Hills" with the following conditions:
Stormwater Manal!ement:
1. The applicant must obtain a water management permit from the South
Florida Water Management District prior to the approval of the Site
Development Plan. '
Environmental:
1. A copy of the approved SFWMD jurisdictional determination shall be
submil/ed to the County staff at the next Development Order.
2. Provide Florida Black Bear and Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management
Plans as part of the next Development Order.
Dr. Hushon recommended~;reservation Management Plan incorporattf.d .
monitoring plan to ensure t~~e'quality of the Preserve does degrade, and iM'v~ ~VI1~.. ",:,hr-
reported to the County so ~ necessary action may be taken. ~~~!
Dr. Hushon moved to accept (approve) the Petition (Planned Unit
Development Rezone PUDZ-2005-AR-8674, Hilton Hills RPUD, Section 13,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East) subject to the above Staff
recommendations and the Management Plan for the Preserve provide for
monitoring the health of the flatwoods and if any stress in observed it be
reported to the County Environmental (Staff) so any necessary action may
be taken. Second by Mr. Standridge.
Mr. Penniman and Mr. Bishofnoted this is the only Environmental
Advisory Council (EAC) review required for the proposed project and
expressed concernrthe Petition infonnation is not specific enough regarding
hydrology and wo~ld li~.o.s<;e it return with more infonnation.
i'l\I,;l. LW
Discussion ensued on the monitoring condition contained in the motion.
Chris D' Areo stated the Preserve will be required to be monitored and the
Plan will indicate if any adverse impacts are found the County will address the
Issue.
Stan Chrzanowski read the following statement found on page 4 of the Staff
Report for the project into the record:
4
.
,
. \
...
16 11 ('A- ),
November 5, 2008
Section 8.06.03 0.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code states:
"The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be
reviewed and permitted by the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria
of allowing treated storm water to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in
SectIOn 3.05.07 "
He noted any decision made should not be based on the "Water Management"
aspects of the proposal.
A discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of transportation connections of
the project with adjacent lands.
Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. stated the project has offered
to share the connection of this project with adjacent lands to the west via its
proposed access on Learning Way.
,
Motion carried 5 - 'yes", 2 - "no". Mr. Penniman and Mr. Bishofvoted
no.
Mr. Bishof voted "no" as he is concerned with the off-site affects of the
project in tenus of disturbing the hydrology and resources of adjacent
properties.
Mr. Penniman voted "no" as he is concerned the Preserve is located on the
North side and the elevations of proposed road located in the middle of the
site are not provided. The related stonuwater may drain into the Preserve
which is in the purview of the EAC.
VIl. New Business
A. Background of RLSA program
Dr. Hushon reported she has attended a majority of the Rural Lands
Stewardship Advisory Committee meetings and noted the current proposal is
to not aJ10w the EAC to "initiaJ1y" review the Phase II Report before it is
finalized. She is concerned the EAC review will be reduced to revising
wording in the document as opposed to addressing the concepts proposed.
She introduced a draft memo to the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida from The Environmental Advisory Council - Subject
"Request to Retain the Two-step Review Process of the RLSA Phase II
Report" dated November 5, 2008 for consideration.
A discussion ensued regarding the ramifications of the Review Committee
proposal.
Soeaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Sonthwest Florida addressed the Council
noting the Conservancy supports the concept of the EAC and Collier County
Planning Commission reviewing the initial draft of Phase II of the Report.
5
No!m~J, 2!S ( ~ )r
She submitted a letter supporting this position from Andrew McElwaine,
President and CEO of the Conservancy and herself, (Government Relations
Manager) to Board of County Commissioners Chairman Tom Henning - Re:
"RLSA Review Committee's Submittal of the RLSA Phase Two Report"
dated November 3, 200S.
Dr. Hushon moved to send the proposed memo to the Board of County
Commissioners as the Environmental Advisory Council's opinion and to
include the record of the vote in the memo. Second by Mr. Lehmann.
Carried unanimously 7-0.
It was determined the entire Council present will sign the memo.
VIIl. Old Business
It was noted there was no item "A" on the agenda.
B. Update members on projects
Dr. Hushon requested Staff notify Council members via email when the
Hilton Hills Petition is submitted to South Florida Water Management District
for review.
IX. Subcommittee Reports
A. Habitat Advisory Committee Update from Chair
Dr. Bushon, Chairman of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory
Committee provided an update on the status of the Committee noting the
main purposes of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) would be to allow
Collier County to issue "take permits" locally as opposed to the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She
highlighted the following:
. The Committee has been directed by the Board of County
Commissioners to focus on a HCP for the Red Cockaded
Woodpecker.
. The concept of an HCP including other listed species for the
lmmokalee Urban Area is still being discussed by various
stakeholders.
. The concept would assist in expediting the permit process for
landowners or developers.
X. Staff Comments (continued)
A. Update members on RLSA Review Phase II
Previously heard.
B. December and January meetings at CDES
Previously heard.
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney addressed the Council
reviewing the Sunshine Law and noted the following:
6
-,
'I
.
.
1 t.. I 1 (iA-- ),.
November 5-:L2~ 4
. At a recent Rural Lands Stewardship Advisory Committee meeting, 3
members of the EAC were present and addressed the Committee. That
was not a clear violation of the Sunshine Law; however it could lead to
a violation depending on the nature of discussions which may occur at
the meeting.
He recommended the practice of multiple members of aI/ending these types of
meetings be ceased.
Ifindividual Advisory Board members choose to ignore thIS recommendation.
the County Attorney's Office should be notified so appropriate action may be
taken (proper noticing, etc).
These types of Sunshine Law violations may result in the following:
. Exposing oneself to personalliabilLly or sanction by the State of
Florida.
. Placing the issue discussed in jeopardy.
. Placing the entzre meeting in jeopardy.
He re-addressed some issues from the October EAC meeting Sunshine Law
presentation conducted by County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow.
Further, if the Council so desires, it may consider authorizing one member to
attend a particular meeting to act as a liaison.
In addition, he recommended the Council sign the above memo (Rural Lands
Stewardship Advisory Committee memo to be sent to the Board of County
Commissioners) while the meeting is still convened.
Dr. Hushon and Mr. Standridge stated they plan on attending the next Rural
Lands Stewardship Advisory Committee meeting.
It was noted Staffwill review the status of the Public Notice (i.e., has the
meeting already been noticed, etc.) and take any actions necessary.
Xl. Council Member Comments
Mr. Penniman reported the Board of County Commissioners has agreed to have an
energy audit conducted on County Facilities. The audit is to be funded by the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida and the Audubon Society. It will be completed by
March 31,2009. Skip Camp, (Director of Facilities and Management) will be the
County liaison for this project.
XII. Public Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 11 :25AM.
7
Nol~r~, 18(A-)1
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
These Minutes were approved by the Boardtchairman on
as presented , or as amended V .
)'f"(~ I
,
2 1--)j)
'2 or>::, 2> r
8
Fiala
Halas
Henning J
Coyle
Coletta
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
16 I 1(A\@
.)3
October 6, 2008
Naples, Florida, October 6, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Committee, 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:
VICE CHAIR:
Jim KIug
Ernie Bretzmann (excused)
Bill Arthur
Vicki Clavelo (excused)
Kaydee Tuff (excused)
'.1"
I NOV I 8 2008
'?,(;~ ':;<.,';
ALSO PRESENT:
Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager/R~~b~:
Vickie Wilson, Community Center ~rvisor D L/L6J.D'1
Item # \ ~ I1l'A~
":tc.:tc;
October t 2~81 IlJr)e'
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6: 12 PM by Chairman, Jim Klug.
II. Attendance - No quorum was established. Chairman Klug wanted to continue
with the meeting so he could bring up Item IV C
V. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights
Vickie Wilson reported on the following:
. St!, Grade Dance was held Octobcr 3, 2008 with 250 participants.
. State BMX Qualifier is scheduled for Octobcr II through October 12,
2008.
. Community Yard Sale will be held on October 18,2008.
VI. New Business
A. Monthly Budget
Annie Alvarez reported the following:
. Working with thc "New Year" Budget
. No monies have been spent yet.
. Budget Blanket Purchase Orders have been submitted and have been
approved.
. Working with Vickie to identify the 2010 - 2011 Capital Projects.
. Staff will provide a 2010 Monthly Summarization Report.
B. Budget Questions
Budget questions were asked and will be reported at the next meeting.
Jim Klug statcd he will meet with Commissioner Torn Henning.
C. Advisory Board Transition
Jim Klug noted the importance of the Advisory Board transition and pointed
out 3-Committee member terms will be up for renewal in December.
BiII Arthur previously had requested a copy of the Revised Ordinance and the
Revised Rules & Regulations be provided to the Committee. The Committee
indicated they are trying to stagger the terms.
Annie Alvarez will provide an answer and email Chairman Klug.
VII. Member Comments
BiII Arthur discussed allowing the bushes to grow 5' around the parameters and
eventually fill in deterring people from cntering special events the wrong way.
Christina was very successful in negotiating with Ted Carter Fencing and has
agreed to donatc a 6' Cyclone Fence to be used at Special Events.
The meeting concluded at 6:30 PM.
2
.
"
___ !i! __
.!l
; " ,g
1~!1l1 ~
f-Pr--li~ I~ ~.. -
i "'8 UJ II
I :'g!JSi b I'
i~I.ilI--~ . -i-
Illllm ~ . ,
I r1l 2 -.:t.1 : I I
; ~ ~ I I I I I'
I; ~. I l' I ',I
;; .e ~-: . : ! i !
In ~ I . : i I
!:,~-- +- -~-:-~. :.--r-
8l I II.' 1
o I ! 1 II
---- -'--I-i--It
I ! I I
: : ; I
i
iil
~
.!al I~
$,i-'~ - --
]1 'E
,1!11 ill
~ ~
. ...- - -]1-- ~
~I I ~
~I I~ -e
~ Ie! I~
w ',1' ,~-
(1)1 {\] ~
I~ !E 18
!~i:~ ~
'-'11m I-
~! I~ ~
-g:!ffi ~
':S's~ -',\01'-:5 ~,-
ClI (II ~ lID lD ~
"'''' ~ '~ .. -,
t J ~ I~ ~ ~I
;; n.J~ -g ---<,g~
~ >- 1!'! I~ 2 il,
!; LL g 1-= ~ i~
~ - ! ~ ~
~ II i !
I" hS
1~i81'
.~I-(!;I~
; I,....::~N(!:I"'"
11/11/2008 21:09
18774686770
PROCESSOR
I "1
I --f- I L ,._
, I , I
. -I-~-- _'
, ! i
!
.-/
, II I, ,Ii I 'I I
--li--- 1-_ ,,-,l_'-_'_-~-._. " _--_-I,--_u
I ,-I l--rl-c-" i
, I " " I '
, I I 1 :!i
-.-----" i-r--I~ -.-i~-~~- .2i~ ---r->--'''-''. .---
: ' win I'a tI:I !
i i~l~. ~ i II ~ ~ : I
~i li~! I Iii !H I '" i
--i --'=-~---i---'=-f"- 'fc'!. ---I- Tri-i- I,,' ---I,
I 8:5 I ~Ig I gig g , ii,' , I
I I"-CC .....Ionl ,..'W I,j'1
I ~- g I~,~I I I 'f8:l8 gf ID
: ....._ I I 'N.... I -!
~ I (A- L
, 1- n--r-,-+-t--- ;1-- ____n.__
, ' I' '':;1
I I I '! ! I C I I
'I I ',I' i ~I I
..--- -_.'- '-. -- " I ,J'l' i
,- :- -- -r ,TT--- Ii T-'I~! F T
'~ I' ' , rol ~-g) ,
S EI I I , i I "31 r-- I
~ ~ 'I i ' I I EI..c I
- i: ::---j::-J-- -~~-'- -'it-j--- -+~i--~=--I
~ ~ 11 1l1~H ~ I I ; ~ H II, 11
<:::ll!i i'illll~ I i i<a~'E. ~ '!
HJ;:~I~I~!U ~_ ~",- -:-'UJ~f~ 1~1 i~_ R 12, --1--- --
'" 0> N '81 :ll 0> '" '~ Sl ~ ill :ll "',~ ':;:I'~ ., I~ 1
: ~ I '~' I: L' ~ ~ i'" liH" !'" o>!~ t'.
--1 - -- -1-
; 0 Co 0 0 Ora 0 Co 0 c> ,0 I ,OCo 0 0 S'D' 10 0 0 ,'g woOl
~ ~lrl~ ~I ~~~ ~I ~g~gg~ ~I ~ 110 ~~~
C ;.J;"0'l"~ -;t"' rDMm 10 I ~"<<fmcOM",of 1""11 ....!c" I'--......~
-::t N {l) (Jl I I'- CD -I!; 0 I ~!~ 12 g;s 0
; INN 1 I~! . ,N I 1 I" ~
I' ii' I' I I, ;;j
,- E ; 88'IO~8Ioo;;olo-lii si~-8;;~;;-i;i --I~l+o--i8 -----,-----
. r-- M I"-- '.' ,..... I ~ ~ r-- as, i3S ,~I: ..... ,
.~ ~;!-....- i~: I j;f I ~~aioi ~i ~ :~I t
--I'I-~:'- J~ Tt- :! ~ffl i-.+",'-i-~
, I" ,i 0. 'w ~I" jjj ~";;" 1l !l '"
I ~ I en I m! a. - il~ ;,;; ~ ."" ~ c~ ~ : :J
, ~ ~ I.!; CJ)i~ <t 8..... ...:: Ii.5 ro Q) ~ -::: ..- I ~E ;:: '"
B a5 ,"E:C a...!~ 0.. 0 1ii ~ ~ ~ a; Cf) I,;: I 0 I~
.~ "-"'~;O.l!l""'" e ~ I.... ~ __ ~'" j ~ '"' ',":
<<a x ro OIl;) ..::IN,U IJ... 1-' en 1::" ...... <1l I' l"l rr.
<r. UJ 3&:' J. , . v <;0' ~ 0 ~ ~ g;: ~ i..... ~ I
ih~HiilnHi' ~ l~lfHI~ I~ ~ I'II~
~ g(r~I~:~:~ ~ ~ ~I ~ 11:1: ~ ~ &I::i: I~ ~ Ii.
m~ro
....roo>
........0
~~o
dde..
---~
S
'"'
---"
~-
'"
....
Z
W
'"
~
Z
::>
~
2
o
"'I....
"'w
....Cl
~Ig
.,In
....CD
00
-':<:
gi::
!B
'"
Z
w
~.
w
ro
"
;:: ~
ili,,!
@~lX
~ '" ~
!~ E~Z
i~ ~!=!
1:0 ~!:Ii!i
IflI'>I'"
.~ ~ii
~.~~
01'l1ll~W
a:J1:g ~
8j" >-
N~U.
16 I llft)
PAGE 01
i I I '
, ,
i ,
- f--l--
I
_1-
11/11/2008 21:09
18774686770
16 11 (,k)e.
PROCESSOR
PAGE 02
Collier County Government
Fl"-",cal Ye.u 2009 Propose(l Budget
Public Services Division
Parks & Recreation Department
Golden Gate Community Center (130)
Mission Statement
To benefit the well-baing of the people, community, and environment of Collier County.
FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2009
Program Summary Total FTE Budget Revenues Net C09t
Golden Gate Community Center 9.00 1.114,126 577 .600 536.526
The Goldan Gate Community Center serves as a meeting J;llaoe for oommunlty
groups and provides structured proQTamming for all ages via chilssa~,
activities. and special event!;l end off'el"$ infof'mal gathering opportunities
through open game room and drop.in recreation programs_
Childcal'e/Preschool, After9chool, No School, Vacation Camp 1.50 96,374 12,500 83,874
Strive to meet family needs by providing a safe and supervised envi!'Qnment
for all children to attend throughout the year and during the summer month$,
F'rovide raerMtlCf'\al and emrlchment 9xperlenc:e.s for &alf-esteem, self-reliance,
leamlng, pleasure, health and well being_
Unfilled Positions
ReservesJTransfers
Current Level of Service Budget
Total Proposed Budget
Program Perfonnance Measures
Total Number of After School/Camp Participants
Total Number of After School/Camp Programs
( Total Numb~r of Participants
--..--,rota! Number of Programs
Prog~m el,.ldgetiuy CQst Summary
Person..! Services
Operating Expense
Indirect Cost Reimburr.
Capital Outlay
FY 2007
Actual
584,579
367.746
278.600
65,361
1,296,286
3,B51
6.906
Not Opara.tlng Budget
Tnms to Property Appraiser
Trails to Tax Collector
RI!!IS8r'\IGS For Contingencie9
Resl!lrv8S For Capital
Reserve for Attrition
Tolal Budget
T oml FTE
, ,308,842
12.50
~.
FY 2008
Adopted
529,800
440.500
267,:300
1,237,800
3.400
6,600
61,900
58,700
(10,600)
1,369,600
12.60
FY 200B
Forecast
538,500
352.100
267,300
21,500
1,179~400
3.400
8,400
1,191!200
12.50
Fiscal Year 2009
F'ubUc Service!;l Division
5'
11/11/2008 21:09
18774686770
PROCESSOR
16 I 1 (A-)5
PAGE 03
Collier County Government
FI~c.<;t1 Year 2009 Proposed [3l1c1g~t
Public Services Division
Parks & Recreation Department
~ Golden Gate Community Center (130)
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2009
Program Funding Sourc.es Actual Adopted FoteeEII$t Current Expanded Proposed Cha....gA
Ad Vfllotl!!lm Taxes 441 ,262 429.800 414,200 381,700 381,700 (112%)
Delinquent Ad Valore.m Taxes 20 n.
Charges For Service$ 163.760 1 89,600 158,500 187.400 187,400 (12%)
Miscelliltneous Revenl~e$ 8,658 6.000 6,000 6,000 6,000 0%
Intere!;ilt1MiSC 26,895 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0%
Trans frm Property Appraiser 619 n.
Trans frm Tax Collector 4,350 n.
Trans fm 111 MSTO Gen Fd 670,700 594,300 594,300 625,200 525,200 (11.6%)
C.a~1'Y r:'orwerd 266,3B7 156,900 271,300 268,100 288,100 70.9%
Nega(lva 5% Revenue Reserve (32,000) (28,800) (26,800) (10,0%)
Total Funding 1,682,661 1,369,000 1,459,300 1,354,600 1,354,800 (0.4r,)
( .
~
~~".
Fiscal Year 2009
52
Public SeNIC&$ O"lvision
11/11/2008 21:09
18774686770
PROCESSOR
16 I 1 {It-)g
PAGE 04
Collier County Government
1-15(;01 Yl:,ar 2009 Proposed Budget
Public Services Division
Parks & Recreation Department
Foreca,st FY 07/08. Personal services will be $8,700 over adopted budget. There were four parr.t\me positions frozen during the
year. Two employees took early retirement in April and another long-term employee left mid-year ae well. To emlure continuous
service within out childcare programs, job bank personnel were utilized at a total cost of$33,200. Termination payouts were
$7,500 and the VS1P payment was $18,600. The second retiree electl:Jd to have the medical benefits for three years in lieu of the
cash pay-out.
Operating expense$ will be $88,400 below budget. Of this varrance, $49,500 is $aJvings In contractual services due to some
programs not taking place. Property i'nsurance forecast was reduoed by $22,400 as the premiums were substantially lower than
anticipated and these savings were passed to the appropriate departments. Other small co.st savings were identified, totaling
$16,500,
Capital Outlay is $21 ,500 over adopted budget In the prior year, ttle Community Center needed to replace the kitchen hood
system and the actual purchase did not happen Ur'ltil the end of the year. Accotdingly, the budget and purehase order rolled Il1tO
the FY 07/08 budget.
Revenues are expeeted to fall short of the adopted budget by $46,700. Ad valorem tax dollars were received at $15,600 below the
adopted budget due to di.scounts for ear1y payment. The Community Center is still working to get their athletic and recreation
programs back up to par and is anticipating a $31,100 shortfall in this area,
Current FY 08/09 - Persona] services increased as the department has included $50,000 for job bank. employees to cover the fee
generating programs of the Community Cer'lter The Golden Gate Community Center is funded at 84,0% far personal services.
(
Opefating expenses, inoluding indirect cost, will decrease in the current year by $84.000. Of this, $34,800 was reduced in Other
Conttactual Servloes as staff is planning on running some of the activitIes In lieu of hiring contract personnel. Property insurance ,
allocation was reduced by $17,600. Additional savinga will bo accomplished by reducing other supplies for special events
($4,000); building .upplies ot ($3.000); marketing and promotion ($4,000) due to elimination of the Bike Fest; pressure cleaning
le building is now planned for twir::e a year instead of quarterly ($5,000): and minor operating equipment is ($12,000) less than
----1he prior year as security cameras, fOlding chairs and tables were replaced in FY 08. .
Capita! outlay consists of $2,800 for the purchase of a laptop computer.
Reserve-Capttal 08/09 - The cliiIpitii:l1 reserve of $68,600 includes reserves for the replacement of the air conditioning unit of
$48,100 and two years of reserve for the roof replacement of$20,500_ .
General Notes:
The performance mi;taSUres for Golde" Gate Community Center were decreased in the 200B forecast and FY 200S budget
beoause the Summer Camp Programs were mpved to the MSTD Fund 111 as these programs seNe the Community Parks and
net just the Golden Gate Community Center.
~
FIscal Year 2009
53
PubliC Services Division
ala ~'./
. . cD 16 111ala~ ;;/1. . /f,'/i)/-- .
CC\\}t;.. ~ 1enmng~
~€t;.. nnt\9. . i1-= 0~r3, 2008
~t.C , \) I.IJUV . VI '''!tta .
({lO\co",,~S OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
eo" GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 3, 2008
r'ECE/VED
DEe 1 a 2008
F:l0drd OfCouory c~
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Committee, 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:
VICE CHAIR:
Jim Klug III
Ernie Bretzmann
Vicki Clavelo
Kaydee Tuff
Bill Arthur
ALSO PRESENT:
Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager/Region II
Vickie Wilson, Community Center ~@8Mr
Date'
16111A-}q
N,ovember 3, 2008
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chairman, Jim Klug III.
II. Attendance
A quorum was establishcd.
III. Approval of Agenda
Bill Arthur moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Ernie
Bretzmann. Carried unanimously5-0.
IV. Approval of September 2, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Kaydee Tuff attendance for Scptember 2, 2008 should be "excused absent."
Bill Arthur moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Vicki
Clavelo. Carried unanimously 5-0.
V. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights - Vickie Wilson reported the following:
. BMX Qualifier was held on October 11 & 12,2008
. Attracted over 2,000 people and 187 Riders.
. Revenue raised on this event was $1,500.
. GGCC will be hosting the BMX Qualifier for year 2010.
. Yard Salc held on October 18, 2008 in which 18 vendors participated.
. Over 400 participants attended the Halloween Howl.
Discussion ensued on having another Yard Sale in November and how often
the event could be held and over what period of time. Vickie Wilson will
check the Ordinance and contact the County to clarify address.
VI. New Business
A, Monthly Budget
Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the Budget to Actual Comparison
Report dated November 3, 2008.
The Indirect Cost Reimbursement Account are charges passed on to GGCC by
the County such as; phone lines, facilities management, One Source, costs for
services, legal fees, etc. The Committee requested a breakdown of categories
that would report within the Indirect Cost Rcimbursement account. Annie
will provide a report showing last years charges on this account.
Jim Klug asked the Staff to provide the Gov Max Report every month.
B. Budget Questions
2
1611 LA-)et'
November 3, 2008
.Jim Klug met with Commissioner Torn Henning on the MSTU Funds. He
reviewed the Ordinance regarding the MSTU and would like the Board to
consider funding differently. He asked the Advisory Board Committee to
brainstorm what would truly bcnefit the Community_ This year's budget is in
place and the Committee could look beyond that for possible changes.
Annie Alvarez pointed out Sherry Pryor and Laura Davisson answered
MSTU questions at the meeting held on September 2, 2008
Ernie Bretzmann stated the answers were vague and there is not a specific
formula.
Discussions ensued on the choice between retaining or dissolving the MSTU
and/or funding GGCC with Ad Valorem Taxes. The Committee could then
pick and choose projects to support. A consensus was formed to have further
discussion with thc new Board in the beginning of2009.
C. Advisory Board Transition - Annie Alvarez reported the following Board
Member terms will expirc on December 31. 2008:
. Vicki Clavelo
. Bill Arthur
. Ernie Bretzmann
Annie Alvarez contacted Sue Filson and received the following direction
regarding the transition. Starting in January the 3-terms will be:
. 2 existing tcrms will serve through 2009
. I new term will serve a 2-year term through 2010
. 2 new terms will serve a 3-year term through 2011
. After 2011 all terms will be 3 years
Vickie Wilson distributed copies of the Revised Ordinance dated May 27,
2008. One application was submitted. Retiring Board Members had until
October 31,2008 to reapply.
D. Frontier Days
Vickie Wilson reported the Civic Association suggested adding Thursday to
the Frontier Days event and hold it for four consecutive days_
Discussion ensued on expanding the Frontier Days by adding a fourth day and
it was decided to defer making a decision until more information on
permitting is provided.
Annie Alvarez stated the vendors are required to pay for a 3-day permit and if
an additional day were to be added, the vendor would purchase an additional
3-day permit even for one day. A permit costs $180.
3
Jtv~blr~2(~8ft~Cf
Jim Klug stated if the additional day was added it would be without the
vendors.
Vickie Wilson noted receiving a suggestion from the Sheriff to open the gym
for a Shoot-Out" or a 3-On-3 for girls for 2-3 hours. This would require the
Advisory Board approval to open the Center.
Kaydee Tuff stated the Center had been opened for other events in the past
and the concern was in controlling traffic to other areas in the Center.
VII. Member Comments
Jim Klug suggested contacting the Library and hosting Family Movies and
hosting events utilizing the bandstand.
Annie Alvarez stated concerns regarding the need for better lighting.
Ernie Bretzmann pointed out the Committee had completed rcsearch, a
Community survey and received quotes for lighting earlier this year.
Vickie Wilson noted future events with good revenue sources scheduled are:
. .January - Cool Cruisers
. February - Latin Health Fair
. April- Latin Fair
Jim Klug noted the Board would be cooperative and would like to use some of
the contingency money. The Staff and Board will review the 5 year plan at the
next meeting.
VII. Public Comments
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 7:01 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
These Minutes were approved by the Advisory Board Chair on
as presented ~ or as amended
0../) ) DfI
I I
4
'~ *- ... ... >t- ... ... ,.. ... .~ ... ... ... ... >I- >I- ... ,.. >I- >I- ... >I- >I- ... ... >I- ... ... ... .... ,.. ... * ,.. ... ... ... ... *" ,... * ... ... ... >I- *t e *1* ..
Ii)
~~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm~~~~~~~~~~~~~WWWWWWWWWWWWW~
~~~~~~~~~~~bb~~bbbbbbbWWWW~NNNNNN~~~~~~mmbbbbbbbbb~~~
mmmmmmmmm~~bbwww~~~ooaW~bbO~bWWN~~bWNNNm~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wwwwwww~~N~mmbW~~~~bWN~~~~ON~~~~~~~~~m~~W~WW~~bNNbN~~
N~~~~~~ro~OONooOO~oo~oomm~~ooam~ooaaOOOOONWbOOOOWWbOO
owoo~m~~ooooooooooooooom~woooooooooooooooooooo~wooomoo~
o
r1"
~~~~~~W~~~H~~~~~~~O~~~~~OH~~~~~~ro~ooo~~nHH~~~~W~~XOO~
~~q~~~~qC~ZM~~~~OMMO~H~O~ZM~OHMMOM<~M~MOZZ~~OM~MMMMC~
ZM~ZH~~HHOOO~Z~~Mro~~~~~wO~OOO~~~~~OOOM~~ ~z~ooo ~~MO~~~~I
OMOOZ~H~~~COO8Mwn~M~O<M~~MHMO~M~HHM~M~bC~M~H Hnn~~o 0
00 ~H8MZOO~~~ ~~~ ~c~~> ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~HMHX>~H
O~ Z ~~HH~ ~ ~~~~ ~~O~ ~<I~H~~~<H ~~~HMCH~~~~~~ 00'
~~ Q~H~ZZ~ ~O~~H~O ~ ~OHOO~O~Z ~ ~~~~ ~~~O~~HZ~~ 0 ~
~H ~OM~~~OOC~~OMZ O~ Z~08 M ~H~ro M~O C~~~ 00 H~O<<O
M ~ ~CHOOHHM o~~~~z ~~OCZZM~ Z ~~ H OZH~OM~~
~ $~o ~~H H~ ~0 ~~o~~m~oo~o~m~oo ~ ~H~O~O m<z~~~~
~H HOO~~~ZQ~~~ ~~ro~ ~HO ~O~ ~~C C~ ~ ~O~ZMZ M~ ~ 00
~z z~C~ m~~~~0 ~~~~ ~~m~m ~~z~~~ H~ ~z~~zo zo~~~~
~~ ~M~roHOCZMZ~~ roM~O~ ~n~~~MO ~H~ M~ ~~ ~~M W~~~~~M
M M~~~~C~MZ~M~ C~~Z~C ~~ 80Z~ Q~~ ~~ H 0 ~w ~W~W ~~
~ zro M~~~~~ ~~ ~M~~<~ <C~8ZW oc~~ 0 M OW~ W ~~
H > >X Z~ > ~~O~ W H~M~M~ M~ ~ ~~ ~~~M~~ WH~~~
~ Z Z O~ Q Z~ M O~HH ~ >~~ Z ~~~ M ~ ~~~~
~ 0 o~ M M roM M ~~ H ~~~ 0 HM<OM X MXX
N\'..)WNNN
W
~~roO)
'"
...COH
l-'OI.,D-:J
N I.,DWWI-'I-'~
Ol-'N~OJ::>.~O
W
W
H"',,",
O-..JO
0<00
O-..JO
000
000
I
H co
J::>.OO)J::>.
.. ~ ~ ~
LV
'"
OOooOOU'lOOJ::>.O)
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
oroJ::>.OW~~Wrol..OU'lOONOO
00000U'l000000000
000000000000000
000000000000000
000000000000000
I
I--'l.Dot:>.l..Oot:>.oroo
Oot:>.OUlO'..OOO
0000..10)0'\000
00000000
00000000
LV
NNWNNN U1U1OOO)
'"
"'COH
1-'0l..O~
N '..OWWI--'I-'U1
OI--'N~Oot:>.~O
W
LV
H"'''"'
O-..JO
0<00
O-..JO
H CO
J::>.OO)J::>. W
'"
000000U100J::>.0)
00000000000
00000000000
Oooot:>.OW~~WOO\.OU100NOO
00000U100000000a
000000000000000
l--'\.Oot:>.l..OJ::>.OCOO
OJ::>.0U10\.OOO
0000..10)0)000
00000000000 000000000000000 00000000
00000000000 000000000000000 00000000
I
000
000
I
H
01-' NI--'I--'l--'
NJ::>.ot:>.NN~NN
WOOOJ::>.U'lU'lO'lI--'
000000000
000000000
000000000
000000000
I I I I I 1 III
H
01--' Nl--'I--'I-'
Not:>.J::>.NN~NN
WOOO':::"U1~o)l-'
000000000
000000000
000000000
000000000
t r I I I I I I I
LV '"
'" '" '" HW -..J <>
'" 0 ... OCO H 0 ....
0 0 0 LV,,", <0 ... a>
0 0 0 "'<0 CO W <>
0 0 0 <0<0 H ""' '"
0 0 0 H'" H ... CO
LV a>
COW
H'"
-..J'"
00
00
00
00
I
LV a>
COW
H'"
. .
-..J'"
00
00
00
00
I
H H
H ... '" '"
H H ,,",'" LV'" ... CO ,,",H H '"
1-'':::'' 0..1 CO l..O CO,,", 0'" 0 ""' -..JroH "'CO '" <>
O'lWoot:>.W "'0 H -..JO O)I--'O"\COU1 CO"',,", CO'" ... CO <>
U10I-'OOO ""' COO '" H'" 1--'U10l--'O~I.DOOO) W'" ""' CO,,",W
OOOOW~ H WO 0 "'''"' ~OOOOOI--'O'lOOO "'''' 0 -..JHI-'
I.DOO(]1I..o0 '" ""'a 0 ,,",H OOOOO)ONO)~O LVH CO H"'O
I I I I I I I I I I I
j'1~'
H LV LVW
LV H -..J "'H '" l..OW NI-'l--' J::>. 0 <oH NI--'I--'I-' ro<>
NI-'NN lTlU1COO'\I--'l--'OU1N W '" I--'WJ::>.-.) OI--'NJ::>.OOJ::>.~U1 ...'" U1NWNI--'O)NN HI-'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NOOOOJ::>.U100J::>.O)NWot:>.WOW~~WOO\.OU1000O"\OO 1-'\.0':::"000000\.0 \.01--'\.0 U1I-'OOOI--'O'llTlOI-' O)~
OOOOOOOOOOOOO\.OU1O"\OJ::>.OOOOOO~OOI--'Oot:>.OOOO~OWl-'ot:>.l-'U1 I--'~WOI--'U10U1000l..O~
ooooooooooooorow~owOOOOOON00U1000WJ::>.1-'00OOU10U10~Ol--'J::>.00)J::>.OWOOOW~
. . .. . .. ... .. . . . .. . .. ... .. ..... . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. ..
OOOOOOOOOOOOOl--'U'lWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-.JWOONOOI--'OI-'WI--'OOot:>.OOI.DO~OOW
0000000000000U1000COOOOOOOOOOOOOOJ::>.I.DOONOO~ONJ::>.WOO~I.DONOI--'I-'~
I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
H
H
o
H
'"
o
,,",COO
H
LV HH
NNO'\~
H
0'"
"'0
""'
""'
o
CO-..J
CO
H
""'LV'"
"'...
...
<>
our
6M~"l
" ~.
~oo
~.o
lD.... ....0 I>>
0.r1"0 OO(>H
a lD r1"
"OlD ~ .... :-<
11 ~ rt 0 (1)
o rtlD I>> I
<Q ~ ....
~H
~:;
a
~
III
o
00
IIIl
IS
~
o
I~
o
>'I
~
H
D
0.
**1---'1--' N
lnW 0
--.10 00
-..J '"
H r1"
o 0
H
W
III
"
~
lD
r1"
r1"
0
~
0
<,0
"0
~H
........
~.
OlD
O~
a
'00
~o
~"
~'D
00r1"
0'<
D-
1Il"l
OH
000
~
tJ~.
~o.
~.~
H
H
0.
0
~
D
~
lD
'0
0
~
r1"
000
o 0
3G)~
3~o
1-"r3trl
n-MZ
3
COOG)
"O~
n-3:~
3:M
H
n-OO
COMO
3Z3:
~3:
M
~O
Z
~
r1"
o
r1"
o
G)
o
~
o
M
Z
G)
~
~
M
o
o
3:
3:
o
Z
,.,
>'ItJ
~.~
ar1"
lDlD
"
G)
o
~
o
M
Z
G)
~
~
M
o
o
3:
3:
o
Z
~
C"C"
,,",H
.. "-
WO
HW
.. "-
LV'"
WO
o
co
I
* * * * * ,.. * * * * * * * * * * *" * :+ *" * :+ * * *" * :+ 1* Q; J- *
Ii
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NNNN~~~~~~oo~mmmmmm f
~WN~~~WWWW~~~WWN~~~~~N~~O~~~~~~~~ I
om~~~WWWb~N~w~~~~W~W~~~~~~~~~~~~w
OOOO~N~oaaaoa~aaoaooaooooooaaONaa !
I
ooaro~~~o~~8~~~~~~008~OOO~~~OO~~~~
~~CO~~~~MHMOCOMOM~~HHO~~H~~~~~~~~
8~MOHMM~~ZadMO~O~OOZZ~~~O~H~~O~MM
~M~~ZOOMOOHw~~~aW~~OO~HMM~ZMH~~MM
~ w~~~~~~OM O~~~~HO~ZM~~nH0~~
~ ~ H~~ ~ ~O~OZHH ZM OO~H MZ~
~~Z~ZHHO O~~Z~M~~ZZ000 8MHZM MO~~
o~ad~no~o~ ZOM~~~~~~~ ~H~Z~OM d~~
o~ ro ~~MHMwa ~~~ ~~OdOO ~ dO~ZHH
MH3 ro~~~ro~c ~H ~ro~~HH~~n~ ~HCOOZZ
~ZMWC ~M~~HCOO~~M~OO~~M~~~~HO ~~
WH~C~OOO~ ~~zro~~H~zaMM~~~azo ~~M
HZroro~OCH~H~W ~MZM~ 0H~ 0 ~8WO~H
Z0MW~Z~ZMZH~HW~0~~C~MMM~~ OMM C~W
o ~ H~~0~0~HW K~ZCOOOWZM~~~Z~H~~
M M~~ ~ OO~~ W H~C M~~ ~~~~~
MO W~HW~M C OM ~ZH 00~O~H ~w
Od OMCMO ~ ~O ~ MCH~H~~ M
'-Of''''H
Nl-' I-'~~~mo Nr0
~~ NI-' l-'~w~m~~NI-'NI-'I-'
CO~O"INO~OOOO~~~
0000000000000
0000000000000
~CO~~I-'O~ONWO~NOW~OWN
oooooaoooooooo~oooo
0000000000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
HHH
NI-' I-'N~.t:>.O"IO N~
~~ NI-' I-'~W~CO~.t:>.N~~1-'1-'
CO~O"INO~OOOO~.t:>.~
0000000000000
0000000000000
~CO~~I-'O~ONWO~~oW~OW~
oooooooooooooo~oooo
0000000000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
H
H'" HH W'" OONH
W "'0 '" N~~~W 0'" o~o~
0 --'''' 0 oo~~--.] ow o~o~
0 woo 0 00(J10~ OH ONO,.....
0 "'0 0 001-'00 00 000.t::.
0 0'" 0 00000 00 0000"1
"''''H ... ... N
"'0'" '" N --' NN N
HH'" W W '" 0000 '"
"''''0 ... 0 0 "'0 '"
H"'H --' 0 0 00 ...
,
H
~t--' t--'~~~O"Io I-'NI-'
.t:>. ~I--' I-'~W~ ~W~t--'NI-'l-'
CONO)NO~OCOOI-'~W(J1~
00000000'100"10000
OOOOOOO~OWOOOO
(J1NI-'~0(J10Nt--'O.t::.~01-'~OW~
W(J1000000wo~00~oooo
1--'0000000001--'0000000
00000000000000 .t:>.ooooooooo.t:>.ooooooo
OOOOOOOwo~oooo wooooooooooooooooo
I
N
o
H
ON(JlCO
0000
~O'\ W~~
~(J1 .t::.1-'~CO
00'" N
O'\NI-' 0
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!~
6~t ><
III
n
0. 0. rt.....o 00
m ~. ~.o ~ 1 III
O-g-~ "'....H
n- lei
'Om:> ~. ><
~:>n- 0 ~
o n-m ~ M 8
<Q ~ H ~ 10
~H
~:ti H :>-
:> 0
a 0- 8
~
**1--'1-' N
"'W 0
--'0 00
--' '"
H n-
o 0
H
W
nGlGl
o 0
3 Gl~
3 ~O
f-'.~trl
ctMZ
3
<ll nGl
~ O~
ct3<-3
3M
H
ctnn
<llMO
3Z3
<-33
01
con
Z
<-3
III
~
.fr
m
n-
n-
o
:>-
o
n-O
~o
~,....
,....,....
~.
om
o~
a
'00
~o
~~
~.:>
"'n-
0'<
:>-
III "1
0"'"
000
~
o~.
~O-
~.~
,....
,....
0-
o
~
:>
:>J
m
'0
o
~
n-
n- n-
o 0
Gl
0
t-<
0
01
Z
Gl
~
<-3
M
n
0
8:
3
n
Z
~]
,
l
80
~.~
an-
mm
>-'""
mH
..-...
wo
HW
..-...
WN
WO
o
'"
Gl
o
t-<
o
01
Z
Gl
~
<-3
M
n
o
3
8:
n
Z
<-3
- ,
1ft> II 11 ( A-)q
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-154
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
APPROVING THE REVISED GUIDELINES AND RULES
OF THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2008, the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee voted unanimously to approve revisions to the guidelines and rules of its Board; and
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to those guidelines and rules include changing the
name from the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee to the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board, extending the terms of its membership, and adding an
alternate member position; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners,
paragraphs numbered 2 and 5 of the Section entitled "Advisory Board Appointments, Terms of
Office, Etc." of the Revised Guidelines and Rules of the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Board were revised to remove consideration of an alternate member position to the
Board and to amend to the attendance requirements to conform to Section Eight of Collier
County Ordinance No. 2001-55, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby approves, as
modified, the attached Revised Guidelines and Rules of the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Committee, now known as the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board.
Tbis Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same this 2711>
day of May, 2008.
Am~T2 .
DWl~;;BROCK, Clerk
~.~ f>o~ ~~
:;. At. t Il, to '''''''pity Clerk
-". 'stVll.it!ilf-e'l>>"l. .
A .o~!i4as to fonn
an leg su iency:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COllIERTTy.Fl RIDA.
By: ____
TOM HEN"NING. Chairman
CP;08-BCC-004 .4
16/1CA)1
I
Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board
Revised Guidelines and Rules
May 27, 2008
ODeratioD:
1. The operation of the Center will be under the direct control and responsibility
of the Center's Supervisor. who will be an employee of Collier County and a
resident of the MSTD within six months from the date of hiring and
administratively responsible to the County Manager or his designee, and will
be governed by the Personnel Rules and Policies of Collier County.
2. All rules for the operation and maintenance of the Center shall require the
approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
3. The budget and resulting expenditures of the Center will be established in
accordance with the laws and regulations of the State of Florida and Collier
County and within the confines of the legal millage established for the taxing
district and other revenues of the taxing district derived from the operation of
the Center or other sources.
Advisorv Board:
1. It is the responsibility and obligation of the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Board to serve the interests of the taxpayers and residents of the district
as defined by Ordinance 75-4, as amended. Pursuant thereto, the Advisory Board
shall:
A. Annually review the proposed budget for the coming fiscal year as
prepared by the Center's Supervisor and reviewed by the County
Commissioners within the millage limits established for the district.
B. Make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on
matters relating to proposed budgetary adjustments during the fiscal year.
C. Review unbudgeted expenditures exceeding 51000 and all budget
amendments requiring BCC approval.
D. Recommend changes in the rules governing the use of the building to the
Board of County Commissioners.
E. Recommend the employment of the Center Supervisor as determined by a
selection committee composed of the Advi50ry Board Chairman, a
representati ve from Parks and Recreation and a representative from the
Collier County Human Resources Department. The selection will be
1611 (A)q
presented to the full advisory Board for approval prior to recommendation
to the BCe.
F. The Advisory Board will have the discretion to advise the Director of
Parks and Recreation, in writing, on the contents and proposed changes of
the job descriptions for those Center employees authorized in the district
budget.
G. Receive and review monthly reports (and special reports as requested)
prepared by the Center's Supervisor, on the actual and planned activities
of the Center and its employees, the status of budgeted expendirures and
revenues, the status of special projects and programs, and similar matters
of concern in carrying out the duties of the Advisory Board.
H. The Center Supervisor and staff sbaH schedule building use. Any
organization wishing to reserve a room on a yearly basis must submit an
application. The application wi\l be reviewed by the Advisory Board at
the discretion ofthe Center Supervisor.
2. Regular meetings oftbe Advisory Board shaJl be held monthly and announced in
advance complying with the current County policy.
Special meetings may be called if approved by the majority vote of the Advisory
Board members in attendance at the regular scheduled meeting, and by posting
notice of such called special meeting, identifying such meeting as "Special" with
such posing to be made at least (24) hours prior to the meeting. Emergency
meetings may be called by the chairman or by a majority of the members
provided a (24) hour notice is posted and given as provided above for special
meetings. Official meeting minutes and other necessary records wi\l be kept. All
meetings will be open to the public and will be held in the Community Center
building.
AdvilOTV Board ADDointments. Terms of Office.. ETC:
1. The Advisory Board shall be comprised of three (3) to five (5) members, who will
appoint from within the group, annuaHy, by majority vote, a Chairman and a
Vice-Chairman. Rules governing the responsibilities of the officers of the
Advisory Board may be established by the Advisory Board consistent with these
guidelines, subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The Advisory Board members wi\l be appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners for staggered three (3) year tenns of office to commence on the
1" day of January. See attacbed ordinance 1001-55 as referenced. The Board
of County Commissioners shall make the final decision on appointments taking
into consideration the recommendation from the Advisory Board. See attacbed
resolution 1006-83 as reference.
2
1611 (A-)q
3. A majority of the total membership of the Advisory Board constitutes a quorum.
4. ATTENDANCE REOUIREMENTS: Attendance requirements shall be in
accordance with Section Eight of Ordinance No. 2001-55, as amended.
5. Copies of the minutes will be made available to each member of the Advisory
Board, County Manager or his designee and Board of County Commissioners to
be filed with the Clerk to the BCC and a copy will be available at the Golden Gate
Community Center.
Center SUDcrvisor's Resooosibilities:
1. Responsibilities of the Center Supervisor will be those contained in that position's
job description, in addition to the following:
A. Prepare the annual budget and present same to the Advisory Board for
recommendation to the BCC, according to tbe Collier County Budget
Department Policies and Guidelines.
B. Operate within the annual budget in accordance with the County's
budgetary policies.
C. Provide a written monthly report on the financial and operating status of
the Center to the Advisory Board.
Effective Date:
These guidelines shall supersede all guidelines previously in effect and shall become
effective on the dale they are approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Approved by the Advisory Board
Approved by the Board of County Commissioners
3
RECE'VED
DEe 0 5 2008
fD.u-fDrIM ~ ~~ ~ (ft).,
Monday, July 21, 2008
6:30 p.m.
Fire Station 71 - Golden Gate Boulevard
/
Board of eounty CO"'I11I'-
Committee Members
Chairperson: Karen Acquard
Vice-Chairman: Jeffrey Curl
Member: Stephen Greenberg
Member: Linda Hartman
Member: Vacant
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta tf--
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes
Ill. Approval of Treasurer's Report
IV. Member Vacancy (update)
V. Request for Land transfer from Parks & Recreation Department -- 47+ acre parcel (update)
VI. All Kids Play Foundation -- Boundless Playground (update)
VII. Big Cypress Elementary School -- Playground Request
VIII. Public Comment/Other Discussion
IX. Next Proposed Meeting Date - September 22,2008
X. Adjournment
Mile Corres
Datej)jjDj.ft
e' " lla]:U)~ Cj
~~~uM~~~~l(4--)q /
OMonday, September 22, 2008
RECENE 6:30 p.m.
DEe 0 5 2IOl Fire Station 71 - Golden Gate Boulevard
_rdofCOU"ty~
Committee Members
Chairperson: Karen Acquard
Vice-Chairman: Jeffrey Curl
Member: Stephen Greenberg
Member: Linda Hartman
Member: Vacant
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes
III. Approval of Treasurer's Report
IV. Election of Officers
V. Member Vacancy (update)
VI. Request for Land transfer from Parks & Recreation Department -- 47+ acre parcel (update)
VII. All Kids Play Foundation n Boundless Playground (update)
VIII. Big Cypress Elementary School -- Playground Request
IX. Public Comment/Other Discussion
X. Next Proposed Meeting Date -- November 24, 2008
XI. Adjournment
Misc. Corres
Date:
::er'-O t!
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
1611(A-)9
~~~uM~~~~
c;u.tt Unwtican ewq,1VUIl.Um (G AC)
Monday, July 21, 2008
6:30 p.m.
Golden Gate Estates Fire Station 71
100 13th St. SW
Naples, FL 34120
Golden Gate Estates
~~-~
.N~-~-~
~fff~-~~)
~~-~
~-~
:f.a6o.n 9Jbt.e6 - Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management
g oni .Molt - Property Acquisition & Sales Manager, Real Property Management
Distribution: Minutes - May 27, 2008
Treasurer's Report
Member Application
I. Call to Order - This meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was called to order by
Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:30 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes - The tirst item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the May 27,
2008 GAC Land Trust Committee meeting.
All Committee members have been in receipt of and have reviewed the minutes. Chairperson
Karen Acquard asked for a motion to approve the minutes. A motion was made to approve the
minutes by Linda Hartman. A second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. With no further
discussion, Chairperson Acquard called for approval of the minutes. The minutes were approved
unanimously.
III. Approval of Treasurer's Report - The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's
Report.
The Treasurer's Report was presented to the Committee by Real Property Management staff. The
ending cash balance on the report is $],650,171.74 and the available cash balance is
16 I 1 (A-)q
$1,650,171.74. Chairperson Acquard called for a motion to accept the Treasurer's Report as
presented. A motion to accept the Treasurer's Report was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the
motion was made by Linda Hartman. With no further discussion, Chairperson Acquard called for
approval of the Treasurer's Report. The Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously.
IV. Member Vacancy (update) - Applicant, Mr. Vann Ellison was scheduled to attend tonight's
meeting in order to meet with the Committee. However, Mr. Ellison was not in attendance. Real
Property Management staff will attempt to contact Mr. Ellison tomorrow to determine if he is still
interested in becoming a Committee Member.
V. Request for Land transfer from Parks & Recreation Department - 47+ acre parcel (update)
- There is no update on this item at this time.
VI. All Kids Play Foundation - Boundless Playground (update) - Real Property Management staff
has received an email from Cassy Pangaribaun on July 14. She stated that they did not have
anything new to report for tonight's meeting however, she did advise staff that they are working on
their next big fundraiser.
It was also noted to the Land Trust Committee that Cassy Pangaribaun has been in contact with
Linda Toombs from the Big Cypress Elementary School playground group and she is going to
work with them and help them out any way she can.
VII. Big Cypress Elementary School - Playground Request - Real Property Management staff
received an email from Linda Toombs on Friday, July 18 and she reported that they did not have
an update but she did request to be put on the next agenda for the next meeting in September. I
assured her that she would be on the agenda for the next meeting.
VIII. Public Comment/Other Discussion - Victor Hill from the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue
District was scheduled to make a presentation this evening. However, he had contacted Real
Property Management earlier in the day to advise that he would not be able to make the meeting.
Victor requested to be put on the agenda for the next meeting in September.
IX. Next Proposed Meeting Date - September 22, 2008 - After a brief discussion, it was determined
that the next meeting date will be September 22,2008 @ 6:30 p.m.
X. Adjournment - With no further business to discuss, Chairperson Acquard called for a motion to
adjourn this meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee. A motion for adjournment was made by
Linda Hartman and a second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. This meeting of the GAC Land
Trust Committee was adjourned at 6:37 p.m.
/
//
1611lJt)q
Memorandum
To:
Sue Filson, Executive Manager
Board of County Commissioners
RECEIVED
DEe 0 5 2008
Board of County Commissioners
From: Jason Bires
Property Acquisition Specialist
Date: December 4,2008
Subject: Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee Meeting
Minutes - Signed by Chairperson
Sue, please find attached a copy of the approved GAC Land Trust
Committee Meeting Minutes signed off by Chairperson Karen Acquard.
The minutes and agendas from the following meetings are attached:
July 21, 2008
September 22, 2008
Thank you.
Attachments as stated
Real Property Management Department
16 I 1 ( fr)~
~~~uM~~~~
<Ju.lt <<nwtiron &t.p0JUIti0n, (G AC)
Monday, September 22, 2008
6:30 p.m.
Golden Gate Estates Fire Station 71
100 13th St. SW
Naples, FL 34120
Golden Gate Estates
~~-~
.N~-~-~
~[g~-~
~~-~
~-~
~o.n 9.J~ - Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management
Distribution:
I. Call to Order - This meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was called to order by
Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:30 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes - The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the
previous meeting which was held on Monday, July 21, 2008. A motion to approve the July 21,
2008 minutes as presented was made by Linda Hartman and a second to the motion was made by
Jeff Curl. There was no further discussion and the minutes were approved unanimously.
III. Approval of Treasurer's Report - The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's
Report. The ending balance for the Treasurer's Report is $1,662,541.15 and the available balance
is $1,662,541.15. A motion was made by Stephcn Greenberg to approve the Treasurer's Report as
presented and a second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. Therc was no further discussion and
the Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously.
IV. Election of Officers - The next item is the election of officers for the Committee. A motion was
made by Linda Hartman to keep the same officers which are Karen Acquard - Chairperson and
Jeff Curl Vice-Chairperson. A second to the motion was made by Stephen Greenberg. There was
no further discussion and there was a unanimous approval to keep the same officers.
v:
VI.
VII.
Member Vacancy - The next item on the agenda is the member vl&y tsJ. l~)~st
applicant failed to appear for his interview before the Committee at our last meeting, Real
Property Management attempted to contact him to find out if he was still interested and if he was
not to request that he send us an email stating that he was no longer interested. We were unable to
reach the applicant and he did not respond to messages that were left for him. As a result, the
member vacancy will have to be re-advertised, however, before the vacancy can be re-advertised
the GAC Land Trust Committee must vote to re-advertise the position. If the Committee does
approve a vote to re-advertise then Real Property Management will send a memo to Sue Filson
stating the Committees approval and she will in turn present a request to the Board of County
Commissioners to re-advertise the vacancy. After this was explained to the Committee, a motion
to re-advertise was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the motion was made by Stephen
Greenberg. There was no further discussion and the motion to approve re-advertising was made
unanimously. Real Property Management advised that they will present a memo to Sue Filson
advising of the Committees vote to re-advertise and request that she make the request to the Board
of County Commissioners.
Request for Land transfer from Parks & Recreation Department -- 47 +/- acre parcel
(update) - Real Property Management advised the Committee that there was no update on this
item at this time.
All Kids Play Foundation -- Boundless Playground (update) - Real Property Management
advised the Committee that we have an update on this item. The Agreement has been reviewed
and approved by the County Attorney and a request for a Letter of No Objection was sent to
Avatar Properties Inc. As ofthis meeting, Real Property Management has been advised by Avatar
Properties Inc. that PK Fletcher has authorized and signed off on the Letter of No Objection. A
copy of this letter was sent to Real Property Management via email and fax and the original is
being sent via U.S. Mail.
Real Property Management also received an update from the Boundless Playground
representatives and this update was presented to the Committee. The All Kids Play Foundation is
planning a "Casino Royale" to be held at the Hilton Hotel on November 1,2008 from 6:30 p.m.
until 10:00 p.m. Tickets will be $ I 00 per person and include appetizers, drinks and $500 in
playing chips. They are also working on a Playground Day for the kids to get involved and have
also recently completed Grant applications for "The League Club", "The Reeve Foundation" and
"Regal Theaters".
VIII. Big Cypress Elementary School -- Playground Request (update) - Real Property Management
advised the Committee that we have no update on this item at this time.
IX. Public Comment/Other Discussion - A presentation was made by Victor Hill and Assistant
Chief Nolan who are representing the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. They are
requesting funding in the amount of$47,115 for Fire Shelters and VHF Portable Radios. A packet
was given to the Committee members with detailed information about the equipment being
requested.
Victor explained to the Committee what the fire shelters were and what their purpose was. He
also stated that they currently do have shelters but they are outdated and what they are trying to do
is purchase the latest version of the shelters as well as purchase shelters for all fire fighters as they
currently do not have a sufficient supply for all fire fighters.
The radios that they are requesting are VHF radios. Victor stated that they do not have enough of
the VHF radios at this time and this request will put a radio in all of their apparatus. Victor
explained the benefit of the VHF radio as opposed to a 800 MHz radio. With the VHF they will
be able to communicate with other agencies from other areas of the state and the country.
There were some concerns raised by the Committee members regardin~h~fuLt!n (ft:)o~
this proposed equipment as well as the cost. Victor Hill and Chief Nolan explained the benefits of
the proposed equipment and they answered the questions that the Committee asked.
A motion was made by Linda Hartman to approve the funding request contingent on approval
from the County Attorney stating that the Committee can vote on a funding request made under
Public Comment. A second to the motion was made by Stephen Greenberg. There was no further
discussion and the funding request in the amount of $47,115 to purchase 70 fire shelters, 6
practice fire shelters and 22 VHF radios was approved unanimously.
The committee requested that Victor Hill provide them with a list of the high priority items that
the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District would like to obtain.
X. Next Proposed Meeting Date -- November 24,2008 - The next proposed meeting is scheduled
for November 24, 2008 which is the Monday before the Thanksgiving holiday. It was determined
by the Committee members that this day would not be a good day for the meeting as some of the
Committee members would not be able to attend due to the upcoming holiday.
The Committee determined that either Tuesday, December 2 or Wednesday, December 3 would be
ideal for a rescheduled date. Real Property Management advised that they would get ahold of the
person in charge of scheduling the room to see if either of those dates are available.
Real Property Management will email the Committee members with the rescheduled date when it
is determined.
XI. Adjournment - A motion to adjourn was made by Jet! Curl and a second to the motion was made
by Linda Hartman. With no further business to discuss, the motion was approve unanimously and
this meeting ofthe GAC Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
/
/)
"
,
/
<'>'?lc;?c..---'
K en M. Acquatd,.,K
/
RECEIVED
DEe 0 2 2008
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
.;
October 29. !o~ ' llk)JO
RO<:l1 rj po ~:;OUnlV Comm(5Sioner~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD
Naples, Florida, October 29, 2008
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 and Environmental
Services Division, room 210,2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with
the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Elizabeth Perdichizzi
William Dempsey
Patricia Huff
Sharon Kenny (excused)
Craig Woodward
ALSO PRESENT: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner, Zo~~.
Steve Williams, Assistant County At=ey 0 \ / l"6/ D9
ltem#J~IL~8 t~
Copies to
16111lJt) J 0
October 29,2008
I. Roll CaWAttendance:
Chairman Betsy Perdichizzi called the meeting to order at 9: 15 A.M. Roll Call was
taken and a quorum established.
II. Addenda to the Agenda:
Melissa Zone noted that page 4 of the September 17th minutes stated the October
meeting would be held on the 22nd. However. due to a conflict, that date was
subsequently moved to the 29th and duly posted.
III. Approval of the Agenda
Patty Huff moved to recommend approval of the Agenda. Second by Will Dempsey.
Carried unanimously, 4-0.
IV. Approval ofthe Minutes: September 17, 2008
Craig Woodward moved to recommend approval of the minutes of September 17, 2008.
Second by Will Dempsey. Carried unanimously, 4-0.
V. Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Report:
A. Nothing to report
VI. Old Business:
A. Final copy of the Executive Summary going to the BCC for the Historic
Desiguation of the Naples Zoo, Inc. and results of the BCC's vote.
Melissa Zone announced her success in getting the Historic Designation issue
placed on the BCe's October agenda, as requested by HAPB. She stated the BCC
had voted unanirnously./i,r the Historic Designation ofthc Nehrling Gardens and
gatehouse as presented in the Executive Summary and accompanying
documentations.
B. New advertisement in the Naples Daily News for HAPB Member Applications
Melissa Zone stated the deadline for applications is November 6, 2008.
Patty Huff requested a copy of the newspaper advertisement. She noted there was
interest in the position by people from Immokalee, Marco Island and Everglades
City who may not receive the Naples Daily News.
Discussion followed on:
. possible changes to meeting dates and tirnes
. rneeting room availability
. scheduling conflicts
. expansion of advertising in surrounding areas
Melissa will research alternative dates and times as well as notification possibilities
to the various surrounding communities, and report at the next meeting.
Craig Woodward inquired about an update on the determination of whether the
Naples Depot renovations required action by HAPB.
2
16' Il4 )10
October 29. 2008
Melissa Zone will investigate the permits pulled and the Depot's exact Historic
Designation terms. The item will be put on the November agenda under Old
Business.
Chairman Perdichizzi asked to add to the November Agenda, discussion regarding
her letter to the State Bureau of Archaeological Research and their response
regarding the Indian Canoes found in Lake Trafford. She requested statfto e-mail
copies of that response to each HAPB member prior to the November Meeting.
VII. New Business
A. Mr. Hammond, presentation on the Naples Cultural Landscape Fund
Melissa Zone explained that Mr. Hammond was not able to be present. She gave a
brief summary of the scope of the background of the issue. the Naples Cultural
Landscape Fund and the old fort areas they would like to have recognized for their
historical significance. A historic trail and a greenway belt were also mentioned in
his proposal.
Discussion revolved around the research, processes, permissions, studies. funding
and notitications that would be needed. The State of Florida, businesses and private
owners are involved. A letter of support or endorsement from HAPB was also
discussed.
Mr. Hammond will make his presentation at the November 19th HAPB meeting.
B. Election of new Vice-Chair
Chairman Perdichizi opened the floor for nominations
Will Dempsey nominated Patty Huff with a second by Craig Woodward.
There were no additional nominations. Nominations were closed and Patty Huff
was unanimously elected Vice Chairman.
VIII. Public Comments
None
IX. Committee Announcements
Patly Huff brought up the Brochure and Historic Marker issues discussed at prior
meetings. She requested an update regarding Museum Director Ron Jamro's offer to
check on using tourist tax funds to move forward with the Brochure; and the Museum's
participation in providing Historic Markers.
She also asked about total costs for the Brochure similar to the one used in Bonita
Springs.
Craig Woodward suggested approaching the various Chambers of Comrnerce for
funding assistance.
Melissa Zone will research those costs and contact Ron Jamro.
Patricia Huff requested an update on the inter-local agreernent with Everglades
City, needed to progress with the Historical Designation of Everglades City sites.
Attorney Steve Williams stated a rough draft had been initiated and it would not take
long to put it together once Everglades City decided their needs and degree of
J
16 11 (k)JD
October 29, 2008
assistance they will accept from HAPB.
Craig Woodward suggested presenting a copy of existing in-force inter-local agreements
to the Everglades City mayor. Any adjustrnents for their needs could be incorporated.
He requested a copy of the currently effective inter-local agreements be e-mailed to the
HAPB members.
Melissa Zone will follow up on the items as soon as possible.
The next scheduled meeting: Wednesday November 19, 2008 at 9:15 AM.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 10:02 A.M.
COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PRESERVATION BOARD
i)
c::::-., -+1 I. ( ..
<:. j:' L,- -c\ E. \ ') ~"--~ \ 1.--' \_(~:';~-l L
Chairrnan Elizabeth Perdichizzi ,. ,
These rninutes approved by the Board/Cornmittee on ;./" V /1 , ~I)()()
as presented 1/ or amended
4
~
16Jl(k)11
RECEIVED
DEe 0 8 2008
J
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle ~
Coletta
Board of County Commf6sioners
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES
NOV. 13, 2008
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION
ATTENDEES:
Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief
Kirk Colvin. Chairman
Bill Rafeldt, Advisory Board Member
Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member
Joe Langkawel, Advisory Board Member
Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member
Kevin Walsh, Resident
Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer
I. CALL TO ORDER
Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Chief's Report
B. Oct. 2008 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
I. Copy of Minutes distributed.
2. Minutes approved by all Advisory Board Members.
3. Kirk Colvin approved and signed Oct 2008 Minutes.
C. ICFD Emergency Responses to Marco Island.
1. Compiled number and percentages of Marco Island calls 2004-2008.
a. This high volume goes beyond "mutual aid."
b. BCC & County Mgr. to meet with City of Marco for discussion.
2. ICFD does not charge its own residents for false alarms.
3. Marco has an ordinance to charge fees for false fire alarms.
4. Most Collier fire districts have ordinances for false fire alarm fees.
5. County Attorney is reviewing legality of fire alarm fees for ICFD.
MISC. Corres:
Date: b l/l3/ D9
Item': \~ICl)A11
Copies to:
1611(k)1
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Fire Chiefs' Assoc. letter to N. Naples FD concerning "shell bill."
I. Fire Chiefs' Assoc. has requested N. Naples FD to not move forward.
2. Requesting additional time for the districts to review and discuss.
3. Requesting "shell bill" to be held over until well into next year.
4. Drafting RFP to "put out to bid" an independent study by consultant.
B. ALS Engine Program Workshop on Dec. 8, 2008.
I. Discussion of medical protocols.
2. Chief Rodriguez and Joe Langkawel will attend the workshop.
C. Terms of3 ICFD advisory board members expire on 12/31/08.
I. Joe Langkawel and Ted Decker have reapplied.
2. Bill Rafeldt is not seeking an additional term.
3. Kirk Colvin made a motion to approve reappointment of Joe Langkawel.
a. Bill Rafeldt seconded the motion.
b. Joe Langkawel was unanimously approved for additional term.
4. Kirk Colvin made a motion to approve reappointment of Ted Decker.
a. Bill Rafe1dt seconded the motion.
b. Ted Decker was unanimously approved for additional term.
D. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be Dec. 4.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
~1'2./04 /oB
f {
Date:
..- ~'-._------~-"'-'-"_.~~"..-._-----,
16 11 (It )J
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE I RESCUE
ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA
November 13, 2008
CHIEF'S REPORT
A. OPERA nONS REPORT
B. VOLUNTEER REPORT
C. TRAINING REPORT
D. BUDGET REPORT
OLD BUSINESS
Approve last months min.
NEW BUSINESS
Sunshine Law Training Video
Memo to Mr. Summers re: calls to Marco FD & possible fee
Letter on Shell Bill from Collier Chiefs' Association
Vote on 2 new Board Members
Meeting with the BCC on the ALS Program
16 11 (Ii-), I
CHIEF'S REPORT
November 13, 2008
OPERATIONS REPORT
Isles of Capri Fire I Rescue personnel provide 24 hour emergency services for the Isles of Capri
community with a consistent aver3l!e response time of3 to 4 minutes. From 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
a.m.. a minimum of at least four fully state certified Firefighters are assigned to the fire station.
Additionally, the Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue Department has the only Advanced Life Support
(ALS) equipped boats in Collier County. This means that a medical emergency on the water, be it
a heart attack or traumatic injury, can be handled with the most advanced emergency care possible
in the field.
The Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue Department welcomes citizens to stop by the station for free blood
pressure checks. We also provide home and condo fire prevention inspections, along with CPR
classes.
"'UPDATES'"
Isles of Capri Fire I Rescue is now an Advanced Life Support Provider (partnership with EMS)
C 1I'f
In-Dislrlct Oukf-Dlslrlct I Monthlv Total I YTD
0 1 I 1 I 5
0 1 1 1
0 0 0 12
1 43 I 44 I 404
0 0 0 0
7 0 I 7 I 88
2 0 2 18
0 0 0 1
0 0 I 0 I 9
0 0 0 2
a . vue
Fires:
Structure
Vehicle
Brush
Alarms:
Fire Alarms
Medical Alarms
Medical:
Ambulance Calls
Vehicle Accidents
Medical Assists
Haz-Mat:
Haz-Mat Calls
Power Lines Down
Marine:
Boat Fire 0 0 0 0
EMS via water 0 0 0 21
Dive Rescue 0 0 0 0
Search & Rescue 0 1 1 2
Marine Assist 0 0 0 0
other:
Public Assists 3 0 I 3 I 15
Move-up 0 0 0 15
Tech Rescue 0 0 0 0
I Total II 13 46 I 58 592
Note: In-District includes all Marine calls in District 01 (Collier County Waterways)
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE / RESC~ 11 (A- )
Memorandum
To:
Dan Summers, Director
Bureau of Emergency Services
Chief Rodriguez f?~ .
11/12/08
BCC Requested Information
From:
Date:
Ref:
On November 12, we submitted an RLS tothe County Attorney's Office to
investigate the feasibility of an ordinance which would enable the Isles of Capri
and Ochopee fire districts to charge fees for false fire alarms. Such ordinances
are in place throughout the county by cities and independent fire districts. We
have provided the County Attorney's Office with three of the current
ordinances being utilized by East Naples Fire District, Golden Gate Fire District
and the City of Marco Island Fire District.
As requested by the BCC and County Manager, I am providing the following
five year call volume breakdown.
CALENDAR TOTAL # TOTAL # CALLS MARCO
YEAR OF CALLS TO MARCO ISLAND PERCENT
2004 4(;2 207 45%
2005 379 231 61%
2006 641 447 70%
2007 747 449 60%
2008 YTD 526 292 56%
17!i CAPRIIlLVD . NAPLES, FLORIDA ~111~
OFl.1CE: (2~9) ~91-8770 . FAX: (2:\9) ~94-!i802 . WWW.CAPRIFIHE.NKr
-._---_._--~
_.~..__._---,-~._.-
,CiolUJieJr OJlUllImlL'';1lFnreJ (i]hillrr;fc;'
Big Corkscrew Island Golden Gate
City of Marco Island Immokalee
City of Naples Isles of Capri
East Naples North Naples
i:\~~ ~;)(CD(; lLmitll 01m
Ochopee
Collier E.M
Collier EMS
Florida D.O.F
November 10, 2008
North Naples Board of Fire Commissioners:
At the November 6, 2008 meeting of the Collier County Fire Chiefs' Association, a
discussion was held in relation to the "shell bill" that pertains to voluntary consolidation
and the potential for it to become part of the 2009 Legislative Session.
The agencies in attendance expressed concern about not having input or time to
adequately review and therefore provide input regarding this document, as it will
potentially impact every agency within Collier County. As a result of this discussion, a
motion was made, seconded and passed requesting a letter be sent on behalf ofthe
Chiefs' Association asking that the North Naples Board of Fire Commissioners take into
consideration the option to continue review of this bill and not move it forward for the
2009 Legislative Session.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Thank you,
Rita M. Greenberg, ChiefBCIFR
President Collier County Fire Chiefs Association
Cc: Collier County Fire Chiefs' Association Members
Collier County Board of Commissioners
Donna Fiala
District 1
Frank Halas
District 2
Tom Henning
District 3
Fred W. Coyle
District 4
Jim Coletta
District 5
??Bow,", olYlolliM' Y/5~y Ylomwu;"um.,) 6 /1 (k) II
..~
~
3301 East Tamiami Trail. Naples, Florida 34112 - 4977
(239) 252-8097 . Fax (239) 252-3602
November 6, 2008
Chief Emilio Rodriguez
Isle of Capri Fire District
175 Capri Boulevard
Naples, FL 34113
Dear Chief Rodriguez:
At the BCC meeting of October 28, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners
voted to have a Workshop on the ALS Engine program medical protocols. The
Board's direction to staff was to invite the Chief and the Chairperson (or their
elected official designee) of each of the respective districts who are stakeholders
in the ALS Engine program. The meeting will be publically noticed by the County
to be held in the Board Room for Monday, December 8, 2008 from 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 noon.
Please contact this office whether or not you will be able to attend and who the
elected official will be joining you.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
::2-
Tom Henning, Chairma
Board of County Commissioners
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., Deputy County Manager
Dan Summers, Emergency Management Director
1611l~)
,
Co er County
r;~1 ~ ~ rf' r: ~ r~
Ilii! DEe 11 Z008 i~1
I!LI I.J
By
Memorandum
To:
Sue Filson, Executive Manager, Board of County Commissioners
From:
Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Program Coordinator
Date:
December 10, 2008
Subject:
Transmittal of approved signed Minutes from the November 10, 2008
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Meeting
Please find attached the following:
· Approved, signed Minutes from the November 10, 2008 Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Meeting
Please call me at 252-2961 if you have questions.
Environmental Services Department
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
if
RECEIVED
DEe 1 5 2008
\1lIlli&SiOIltlfS
Go.1ll of County Co
Fiala
Halas
Henning
coyle
Coletta ~
mber 10, 200J 6
, 1~
l1
.
..
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 10,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet
Will Kriz
Marco Espinar
Wayne Jenkins
Michael Delate
Tony Pires
Jeffrey Curl
Mimi Wolok
Jon Staiger
ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management
Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator
Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist
Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Ma~afier
Roosevelt Leonard, Collier County Appraiseisc 0 as:
Anissa Karim, Environmental Specialist Dale: 0 l (\ '2:, I 0 9
Item # llQ t L \)AI J-.
:opies to
4' \
,-; ...
"
16' lC~n
'if
".lIt,' ,
November 10, 2008
I. Roll Call
Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:01AM. Roll call was taken and a
quorum was established.
II. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Delate moved to approve the agenda subject to the following changes:
Items IV. D and E to be heard before IV. B
Second by Mr. Jenkins. Carried unanimously 9-0.
III. Approval of October 13, 2008 Minutes
Mr. Staiger moved to approve the minutes subject to the following corrections:
Page 2, paragraph 6, line 8 from "price is to high." to "price is too high (however the
Committee as a whole did not object.)"
Page 3, paragraph 2 from "Mr. Delate stated he objected to acquiring parcels in this
area." To "Mr. Delate stated he objected to acquiring parcels in this area, (however
the Committee as a whole did not object.)"
Page 10, paragraph 4, line 7 from "individuals when removing types of livestock
referenced...." To "individuals when dispatching of livestock referenced..." Page 4,
paragraph 6, line 1 from "NGGE Unit 52" to "NGGE Unit 53"
Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 9-0.
IV. Old Business:
D. Program Financial Status Update - staff
Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist presented a document
entitled "The Future of Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Fund (172) after
the proposed Pepper Ranch Acquisition Financial Snapshot" dated September 26,
2008. She noted Laura Davisson of the Budget Office (see item IV E. and item
IX) would be available later in the meeting to answer any questions regarding the
financial status of the Program.
E. Real Property Management Update - staff
Roosevelt Leonard, Comer County Appraiser provided an update on current
Real Estate market values noting the following:
. Values of Homes and Condominiums are decreasing
. The Values of Conservation Land and Agricultural Land purchased or
proposed to be purchased by Conservation Collier are decreasing.
. Conservation Collier purchases are incorporated into land sale data.
. The appraisal for Red Maple Swamp was completed in July/August of
2008
. The Pepper Ranch appraisal was completed in March of2008.
. Appraisers use the sales approach in Agriculture and Conservation
Lands to ensure data comparisons are consistent.
. In conclusion, land values continue to decline.
Laura Davisson, Comer County Budget Office was present and noted the
following regarding the document entitled "The Future of Conservation Collier
2
.
,
November 10, 2008
1611
(fr)rv
Land Acquisition Fund (172) after the proposed Pepper Ranch Acquisition
Financial Snapshot" dated September 26,2008:
· The Consultants utilize calendar year data in preparation of the
document (as opposed to Fiscal Year).
· Property values and ad-valorem taxes are the mainstay of
Conservation Collier Funding.
· Debt Service payments are required in January a)ld July.
· The interest amount and estimated debt service shown is a
combination of what the Program is currently paying combined with
an estimate of the requirements following the Pepper Ranch
acquisition.
· Upon acquiring Pepper Ranch, the data will be updated to reflect the
actual debt service requirements.
· Conservation Collier is currently levying the maximum millage
amount allowed by Legislation. A determination if the millage rate
could be increased would require further research.
A discussion ensued regarding the merits of Purchasing Pepper Ranch under the
existing agreement.
Mr. Pires and Mr. Delate expressed concerns the Program may be overpaying
for the Pepper Ranch parcel due to the present market values and suggested
reappraising or re-negotiating with the current owners for values reflecting
today's markets
Mr. Delate suggested suspending the purchase of properties until market values
stabilize.
Other members were not in favor of suspending purchases based on existing
appraisals and expressed concern the integrity of the Program may be
compromised if this was to occur.
Speaker
Amber Crooks of the Conservancy of Sonthwest Florida addressed the
Committee noting the following:
· The Conservancy supports acquisition of the parcel.
· The monies available are from a dedicated taxpayer fund.
· They do not support a "spending freeze" for the Program, especially
with the availability of willing sellers.
· The landowners have negotiated on the completed appraisals and
requesting a new appraisal would not be within the Policy ofthe
Program.
· Request the Committee base recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners on the current data provided.
A. Real Property Management Update - A -list properties
1. Overall Status
3
..
...,
,
~ .\)
16 11 ~A--)11
November 10, 2008
Staff provided the following updates:
Trinh - Closing on December 15, 2008.
River Road - Closings in December.
Winchester Head .-- October 28, 2008 BCC approved 1 agreement - to date 9
property owners accepted, 2 rejected and 2 remain undecided. Some rejected
offers are being reconsidered by the landowners.
Unit S3 - October 28, 2008 BCC approved 15 agreements - to date 25
property owners accepted, 3 rejected and 3 undecided.
Camp Keais - 4 agreements presented today.
Kave Homes - December 1, 2008 closing.
Hamilton - An Executive Summary was presented which provided an
overview of the property. The acquisition is scheduled to be heard by the
Board of County Commissioners on November 18,2008.
Mr. Espinar expressed concem his original vote in favor of acquiring the
property was based on receipt of a $1 M dollar Conservation Fund Grant,
which was not yet been awarded.
Mr. Espinar move to recommend not acquiring the Hamilton parcel.
Second by Mr. Delate.
Mr. Curl noted his original vote was predicated on receiving the $IM Grant.
Chairman Poteet noted the parcel was previously recommended for
acquisition and the owner rejected the original offer. It was subsequently re-
submitted to the Program for acquisition before the Grant was proposed. He
supports acquisition of the parcel.
It was also noted US Fish and Wildlife may be interested in subsequently
purchasing the property from the County and incorporating it into the Ten
Thousand Islands Preserve (Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge).
They have agreed to manage the property for the County until this time.
Speaker
Amber Crooks of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the
Committee stating the Conservancy recommends the acquisition of the parcel
based on its ecological value and urges the Committee to work with the
Conservation Fund in acquiring thc Grant next year.
Motion failed 4 "yes" - 4 "no". Chairman Poteet, Ms. Wolok, Mr. Staiger
and Mr. Kriz voted "no." Mr. Pires abstained.
B. Contracts
1. Pepper Ranch - contract review and property naming
Alex Sulecki presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to
approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Lake Trafford Ranch LLP,
4
.~
16 , 1~)
November 10, 2008
a Florida limited liability limited partnership,for 2,511.90 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$33,328.400, and to name the resulting acquisition Pepper Ranch Preserve"
and attached agreement. She noted the agreement received input from the
Ordinance, Policy and Procedures Subcommittee at a meeting on October 24,
2008 in which numerous stakeholders were in attendance. Also, the Bond
Resolution was submitted to Committee for review; however, it did not
require a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The
proposed acquisition is scheduled for the November 18, 2008 Board of
County Commission meeting. If Conservation Collier members wish to
attend, please notify Staff so necessary public notices may be given.
It was noted James Harcourt, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Bureau of Mining & Mineral Regulations submitted a letter to
Alex Sulecki, Subject: "DEP BMMR Recommendations for groundwater
management at the Corkscrew Oil Field in Collier County" dated October 30,
2008.
Alex Sulecki introduced the following individuals involved in the
Environmental aspects (Cattle Dipping Vat Contamination) of the purchase:
Richard Lewis and Roxanne Guase of HSA Engineers, Consultant for the
landowner provided an overview and proposed remedy for the Cattle Vat
Dipping Station identified on the site. They stated they are confident on the
cost estimate for cleanup of the site, which provides at least a 50 percent
"contingency factor." The chemicals associated with the cleanup are
Toxophine, Arsenic and DDT.
Duane Dungan Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc. Principal
Geologist, stated he was the Consultant retained by Collier County and
reviewed any relative data and Reports as requested.
Rob Ward, Sr. Project Manager, Collier County Pollution Control also
reviewed any applicable Reports on be-half of the County noting the extent of
the contamination is "stable."
Charles Massella of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
noted he reviewed the reports from HSA and agrees with the
recommendations of the Consultants. The area should be excavated and
incorporated into a long term monitoring program. He provided an overview
of the two "clean up" options available to the County in the area of "no further
action/complete cleanup" or "no further action with conditions."
He also reviewed the oil well site and only I of the 3 wells contains
contamination, which consists of chlorides and is not a "major problem."
Mr. Espinar moved to approve the Contract for Pepper Ranch and to keep
the name "Pepper Ranch Preserve" in honor of the family that originally
owned it. Second by Mr. Cllrl
5
, ..
.~ '. ~
,', J . ~ .;
..
161 1 (it-)'L
November 10, 2008
Speaker
Amberrrooks of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the
Committee noting Conservancy supports purchase of the parcel and the
Committee ranked the parcel as an A I + priority for acquisition. She outlined
the numerous positive ecological aspects of the parcel.
Ms. Wolok requested the motion be amended to remove the naming of the
Ranch as the Program is in the process of developing a Preserve Naming
Competition and this would be an ideal opportunity for the students of
Immokalee High School to become involved with Conservation Collier.
It was noted the main request ofthc owners when the property was nominated
for acquisition by the Program was it to be named "Pepper Ranch Preserve."
Alex Sulecki also noted the following:
. The property survey will be updated if it is a necessary requirement
from the Title Company.
. The value of the Panther Habitat Unit credits will be based on the
Starnes agreement but will ultimately be a Board of County
Commissioners decision.
. If necessary, restoration costs will be charged for the Panther Habitat
Units.
. The Executive Summary on Page 2, paragraph 5, line I - the date
will be revised from November 11,2008 to Novernber 10,2008.
. A statement will be added to the Executive Summary, "Growth
Management Impact Section" recognizing the appraisal reflected the
removal of the value of the Steward Sending Area (SSA) credits.
Mr. Pires stated he is in favor of acquiring the parcel; however had issues on
how it is proposed to be purchased (cost of buying public access to the 985
SSA acres). In addition, the parcel should be re-appraised to reflect current
values.
Mr. Delate re-iterated his position on possible disservice to the public by
proceeding with acquisition of the parcel at the current price.
Motion carried 7 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr. Delate voted "no."
2. NGGE Unit 53 - Depestre-Coba, Gonzalez, Mir, Palacios
Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summaries:
"Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for 4.54 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$72,800 (Depestre-Coba)" dated November 11. 2008 and attached agreement
Approve an Agreementfor Sale and Purchase for 4.93 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
(,
c
1611lil
November 10, 2008
- ,"~.
$79.100 (Palacios/Jauregui)" dated November 11, 2008 and attached
agreement.
Approve an Agreementfor Sale and Purchase for 2.S0 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$40,300 (Mir)" dated November 11,2008 and attached agreement.
Approve an Agreementfor Sale and Purchase for 2.S0 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$40.300 (Gonzalez)" dated November 11,2008 and attached agreement.
Mr. Espinar moved to approve all 4 contracts presented (above) in Unit 53.
Second by Mr. Kriz. Carried 7 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr. Delate
voted "no. "
3. Winchester Head - Berman/Celsnak Trust
Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summary "Approve an Agreementfor
Sale and Purchase for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $19,300 (Berman/Celsnak)"
dated November 10, 2008 and attached agreement.
Mr. Jenkins moved to approve the Winchester property (as presented above.
Second by Mr. Kriz. Motion carried 7 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr.
Delate voted "no. "
4. Camp Keais - Bortnick, Darby, Griffin, Schaab
Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summaries:
"Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for 5 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$13,100 (Bortnick)" dated November 1 0, 2008 and attached agreement.
"Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for 5 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$13.1 00 (Griffin)" dated November 10, 2008 and attached agreement.
"Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for 2. S acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$6,900 (Schaab)" dated November 1 0,2008 and attached agreement.
"Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase forS acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program. at a cost not to exceed
$13.100 (Darby Tr.)" dated November 10,2008 and attached agreement.
Mr. Espinar moved to not recommend acquisition of the parcels (presented
above) due the fact the Charter references "public access" and "public use"
and there is none on these parcels and the parcels are better suited for
7
"'-..-----,,<;-........--..." -
.~ ~
.,' '"
#
November 10, 10~ 11 C~I'V
private individuals in the development sector to acquire them for mitigation
purposes. Second by Mr. Jenkins.
Alex Sulecki noted language will be added to the Executive Summary
incorporating the recommendation.
Motion carried 8 ')>es" - 1 "no." Chairman Poteet voted "no. "
C. Conveyance Proposal Updates - staff
Alex Sulecki noted the following:
. Caloosa Reserve - Staff is awaiting resubmittal of the Management
Plan from the landowner.
. Benfield Road properties - Management Plan slated for action today
and the owners have indicated they are in agreement for an
endowment fund for maintenance (there is no formal agreement at
this time).
The Committee determined to require a Phase I Environmental Assessment for the
Benfield Road properties.
V. New Business
A. ICSR's
1. Joyce
Christal Segura provided a Power Point presentation on "Conservation
Collier Initial Screening Report - Joyce Property" dated November 10, 2008
and highlighted the following:
. The property is 2.27 acres adjacent to the Oetting and Freitas parcels.
. The Oetting and Freitas parcels were previously acquired by the
Program and are adjacent to Horsepen Strand.
. Access is via a paved road, 60th Ave NE
. There are minimal invasive exotics present.
. The adjacent properties are undeveloped
. Estimated market value - $27,000
. Overall score 261/400
. The Elementary School across the street will be involved in naming
of the Preserve, which will serve as an educational opportunity for
the Public.
It was recommended the Big Cypress Basin provide an update on their
funding activities for research in lIorsepen Strand
B. Cycle 6 proposal updates - scoring charts
Alex Sulecki presented the document "Conservation Collier Cycle Six Willing
Sellers" dated November 10, 2008.
Included in the package was an overview of all of the Cycle 6 properties
(excluding the TDR conveyance properties) for the Committees consideration in
8
> .
.
'-;I
November 1O~0~ I 1 tt} n
ranking the parcels for acquisition in December. It was noted the Joyce parcel
value of $27,000 ($12,000/acre) should be incorporated into the "Estimate
Value/Actual Value" and the "Estimated Cost per Acre/Cost per Acre" columns
respectively. Also submitted for "ranking consideration" was a document entitled
"Conservation Collier Cycle 6 Ranked Scores."
Ms. Wolok left at 11:05am
C. Refresher - development of Active Acquisition List
Alex Sulecki presented the document "Conservation Collier Ranking Procedure-
November 2008" for the Committees consideration in ranking the properties for
acquisition in December.
D. Conservation Collier Logo proposal
Alex Sulecki provided the Executive Summary "Conservation Collier Logo"
dated November 10, 2008. She noted the Committee may approve the logo, but it
will need final approval by the Board of County Commissioners who are in the
process of determining whether separate logos within County Agencies are
appropriate.
The Outreach Committee recommended the logo (logo I) designed by Jeff Curl. It
will be revised to state "For Present and Future Generations."
Mr. Staiger moved to approve logo "I" as the Conservation Collier logo as
revised. Second by Mr. Pires.
Mr. Kriz and Mr. Espinar stated they would prefer a simpler logo design.
Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Kriz and Mr. Espinar voted "no."
D. Benfield Road Restoration Management Plan
Melissa Hennig presented the Plan noting it was recommended for acceptance by
the Lands Evaluation Subcommittee and CDES Staff.
Mr. Kriz moved to approve the document "Conservation Collier: Benfield Road
Properties Restoration and Management Plan" dated October 2008. Second by
Mr. Staiger. Carried unanimously 8-0.
F. Starnes Panther Conservation Bank Agreement
Melissa Henning presented the document "Summary of Starnes Panther Habitat
Unit Conservation Bank Exhibits, Appendices and/or Agreements" dated
November 10,2008. Also included was a draft Executive Summary related to the
document.
A discussion ensued regarding the details of the document between Committee
members, Staff and Amber Crooks of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
9
...._-_.._~,"._,_.__.-."._..'-
,. ~
.. .
.~
~ \.~
..
16 I 1 CA)/1-
November 10,2008
The Committee determined the item should be taken up by the Lands Evaluation
and Management Subcommittee and returned to the full Committee for review.
G. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program
None
H. Coordinator Communications
Alex Sulecki noted the following
. Outreach Committee has recommended coordinating with CREW
(Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed) Land Trust to distribute
Conservation Collier brochures.
. CREW has added a Conservation Collier link to their website.
. CREW will be opening their Cypress Domes Trails on January 23,
2008 and have invited members of Conservation Collier. Any
members wishing to attend should notify Staff so proper Public
Notices may be issued if necessary.
. She thanked Ms. Wolok for representing Conservation Collier at the
Environmental Leadership Program conference.
. She is attending the Ross W. McIntosh Show on November 20,2008.
VI. Sub-Committee Meeting Reports
A. Outre.ach - Tony Pires, Chair
None
B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Marco Espinar, Chair
There will be a meeting immediately following this meeting to review the Milano
Land Management Plan.
C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures - Will Kriz, Chair
None
VII. Chair Committee Member Comments
Chairman Poteet thanked all for the cards he received during his illness. In addition
reminded members the annual ranking of properties will take place at the December
meeting. Contact Staff with any questions regarding parcels under consideration.
Mr. Delate recommended the Preserve Naming Competitions include public and
private schools.
VIII. Public General Comments
Paul Constentino addressed the Committee stating he will remove any debris
existing on his property at his expense.
IX. Staff Comments
]0
161 1 (4-)J
November 10, 2008
Melissa Hennig stated the Office and Management and Budget will prepare an in-
depth analysis of Conservation Collier financing following the November 18, 2008
Board of County Commissioners meeting.
.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 12:27 P.M.
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 1e~
as presented f../'" or as amended (If';
'-
S' .2 ocr
,
11
-'--.~-..._--~-_.._._-~_..-~_..,.
Fiala ~/.~ l
Halas ~ I . L4'/
-J '
~~~~ng ,
Coletta --lflZ....
COLtIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
1611~[bc.~
AGENDA
flu)
n i,"i
;f,:I'!!
I.P,
....L,'
is
[~..
Headquarters Librarv
i~n~0~m
DEe '; 1J 2~08 WJ
Tuesday, December 9,2008 at 10:00 a.m.
Call to order
Approval of Minutes
RECEIVED
DEe 1 5 2008
Literacy Program Report
Board of County CornmissJoners
Report of Officers
Communications
a - Written
b - Personal
Unfinished Business
1. Employee of the Month - Nov/Dec
2. South Regional Library Construction
3. EnvisionWare
New Business
a) New LAB members recommendations
General Considerations
Director's Report
Report of the Friends
Adjournment
~ "OIPS to
16'llk)13
Naples, Florida, October 21,2008
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in
regular session at 10:00 a.m. in the Library Headquarters with the following members
present:
CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis
Connie Bettinger-Hennink
Andrew Reiss
ABSENT: Loretta Murray
Karen Louwsma
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director
Linda Fasulo, Executive Director, FOL
Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator
Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of September 16, 2008.
There being none, Mrs. Hennink moved, seconded by Mr. Reiss and carried
unanimously, that the minutes be approved as submitted.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT
Mrs. Reiss reported the following: The fiscal year that just ended revealed an increase of
10% in volunteer hours. An open house recently held at the Golden Gate Branch Library
had been very successful. The new software for ESOL students is user- friendly and very
popular. Attended a conference in Little Rock, Arkansas where she got to look at a new
tutor course program and a new citizenship class program.
REPORT OF OFFICERS - None
COMMUNICA nONS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee
ofthe Month. Mr. Reiss moved, seconded by Mrs. Hennink and carried unanimously, to
select Ronney Cox, Library Associate at the Naples Regional Library, as Employee of the
Month for October 2008.
In reference to the South Regional Library construction, Mrs. Matthes reported that the
building is looking very nice and that it's almost completed. The signs are ready and
furniture specs will be out for bid soon. Still waiting on certificate of occupancy. The
._----"..."._,.,..._..,',.._._,._,~-- -~-"..>.._--~-","~---~_....,
~._.,."~-"_.,."-..--_._---""-
16 , 1 (k )13
staff will be selected sometime in January 2009. The hours of operation may have to be
reduced. Expect to have approximately 30,000 volumes on the shelves at that branch.
The projects/issues/policies has been postponed for the December meeting. The Board
discussed the proposed EnvisionWare program. The Library staff is recommending that
non-library card holders be charged a fee of $5.00 per 30 minute session of computer
usage. Motion: Mrs. Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Lewis and carried unanimously,
that non-library card holders be charged a fee of$5.00 for the usc of public computers at
the Library.
NEW BUSINESS - None
GENERAL CONSIDERA nONS - None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mrs. Matthes reported the following: Circulation topped 3 million. A second renewal
phone line has been added. The County has reduced cleaning staff to three days per
week. Hiring for the South Regional Library should start soon. The annual inventory
report is being updated. No changes have bcen proposed. It then goes to the BCC.
Attended the mIDual State Library's Directors Conference recently - there's talk of
eliminating some programs and of bringing some back that had been eliminated.
Economic incentives are being discussed.
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Mrs. Fasulo reported the following: New office hours are in effect. Their new hours are
Monday through Friday from 9 to 4:30 p.m. She invited the LAB to attend a Member's
Only reception for Kristy Kiernan on November 7'\ from 6 to 8 p.m. The annual Sock
Hop has been scheduled for December 12'h at the South Regional Library from 7 to 10
p.m. The Marco Island Friends are holding a car raffle at $50 per ticket, or 3 tickets for
$100. The drawing will take place on March 5'\ 2009. The FOL annual meeting will be
held today, (10/21/08) at 3:00 p.m., at the Naples Regional Library.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mr. Reiss
moved, seconded by Mrs. Hennink and carried unanimously, that the meeting be
adjourned. Time: 11 :15 a.m.
Approved ~_,
(i'V> \ ~
Doris J. Lewis Iv
Chair, Library Advisory Board
--""-"'~~~--'-""'-"-'"""'--~---".'-"'-"--'_.',----,---_.~.,-~..<-,_..~"._.
Fiala __f>~~~
~:~~ng --I'll v7.L-.
Coyle ~-
Coletta (-.--
IjE~EI\(ED V-
16' 1 \tft", 11~
Board Of Counly Cornmiuloners
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,2008
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
The meeting came to order a I ittle after 7PM.
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN RECOMMENDATION LETTER TO RE-APPOINT
DARCY KIDDER AND MITCHELL ROBERTS TO THE ADVISORY BOARD:
Mitchell Roberts explained the reason for the recommendation letter and read it aloud as
per the attached.
A motion was made by John Pennell recommending the re-appointment of Darcy Kidder
and Mitchell Robelts to the Advisory Board it was seconded by James Simmons and the
motion was passed.
Mitchell Roberts signed the reconunendation letter changed the date from 1 I -10-08 to
11-17-08 and initial the changes.
The Advisory Board Meeting was rescheduled from Monday 11-10-08 to 11-17,8
because there wasn't a quorum for the 11-10-08 Meeting.
APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FOR 10-13-08:
Jol1ll Pe11l1ell made a motion to accept the minutes as read, Mitchell Roberts made a
motion to approve with one type 0 bottom of page onc our new member his name at the
bottom should be James instead of .lean.
OLD BUSINESS:
J. DOl FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Chief McLaughlin - The money has been approved for the application for some
assistance money from the Department of the Interior because we work with the
Park Service. $11,000 assistance money for shelters, blUSh gear and protective clothing
That just came through they will let us know when we can make our purchases.
Page I
Mise. CoIres
Date:.QJ) l?, I D9__
,tem,:l\elC GAt ~
Ccpiet to:
1611 (ff) I~
Chief McLaughlin- We received an e-maillhat some routing was changed at the Federal
level. We are just waiting to hear from Mr. Boyd then we can submit an invoice to him.
So as soon as they tell us we can make our purchase we'll go forward with that.
James Simmons - This is different than what I was reading about in the past years the
County use to share pal1 of this money.
Chief McLaughlin - That's Pill Funds that's different.
James Sinullons - He said you don't get that any more.
Chief McLaughlin- We no long receive it.
Chief McLaughlin - He went over the Ochopee Advisory Board Report for October 2008
as per attached. He referred to the training section of the report and that the personnel
had trained more hours than listed.
Chief McLaughlin - Thc assistant Chiefs position is still not tilled and may not be.
He went on to say it will probably be changed to a Captains position.
Chief McLaughlin - A portable gcnerator has been purchascd for the Ochopee Fire
Station. The station has been tented and now the rats have to be removed.
The ceiling and walls have to be replaced. New counter in the kitchen then thc building
needs to be cleaned and sanitized. Wc arc going to put rat boxes out there and rat lights
in the ceiling to deter thcm. He explained that this is a viable station and will be the
Depal1mcnt's fall back station because Everglades City floods. He found a company for
$9800 to refurbish the station. The money is in the budget. Instead of a company
installing the rat lights the Department purchased them and a ccrtified electrician will put
them in. Most companies want $4,000 for the lights with out installation. He went on to
explain how the strobc lights work. He referenced this years projccts and that most of
them had bcen complcted.
The over time budget is going to I'lm a little higher this year it was rcduccd by $25,000
this year from last year. But last year we spcntjust about the entire overtime budget so
we will have a short fall this ycar. He is trying to get Iluman Resources to change their
hiring policy it takes too long for us to fill our positions and due to the minimum
maIming status of our Department we have to fill in with over time. He would like to
create a hiring pool like the other Fire Departments. The candidates test once or twice a
year and then when a position is going to become available you select from the pool
do the interview have thc back ground check done and thcn you are ready to till the
position as soon as it is available there is no impact. He feels Human Resources does not
understand how our Department operates becausc we are so differcnt from the olhers.
Page 2
16 11 (11) N
Chief McLaughlin - Human Resources suggested that wejust don't till the position
during the hiring process but we can't do that we have minimum manning we have to
have four on shift we can't operate with just three. Now we have two otTbecause one of
our personnel is off on Administrative Leave. He is trying to cm1ail the overtime with a
Job Banker he has been trying to get one for a year they have finally given him
permission to do so. He explained that a .lob Banker is a temporary employee. The Job
Banker has to have the same certifications and qualifications as the other fire Personnel
and it is also required that they have a physical. Then they are put into a pool which he
can draw from to fill in on shifts. But he needs three to four Job Bankers because most of
them work for other Departments and may not be available when needed. Hc said last
year it was projected that we could save over $8,000 out of the over time budget by using
Job Bankers.
James Simmons asked if he had any volunteers.
Chief McLaughlin - In the state of Florida now volunteers must have 160 hours of
training and take a State test to become cet1ified. It will be going up to 200 hours.
It's hard to gct people that are willing to do this.
NEW BUSINESS;
I. PORT Of THE ISLANDS MARINA ON BCC AGENDA 10-28-08 REGARDING
FIRE STA nON
Chief McLaughlin - Tomorrow it goes before the Board, we are spending $188,000 out
ofImpact Fees and $600,000 out of the regular budget. He was looking at $80,000 to
remodel the marina but he was just told it would probably cost $130,000 making it
approximately a total of $900,000. For that he could purchase the property at
Cays Drive for $450,000 usc the Impact Fee money as a down payment put a 30 year
note on thc property and put up a ncw metal building for approximately $550,000 with
twice the area that I'm buying. But we arc already conunitted to this ifthc Board
approves it then we will move forward with this. If the Board shoots it down and it
docsn't pass tomorrow he is going to get with the Real Propel1y Department about the
propcrty at Cays Drive and pursing the previously mentioned path.
Mitchell Roberts - He asked about the maiming at Port of the Islands and whether there
needed to be two trucks there.
Chief McLaughlin - He said you cannot put less than two men on a truck.
Mitchell Roberts - Asked if that meant that you need two trucks making minimum
manning four personnel.
Pagc 3
16t 1 (A-)J4
Chief McLaughlin - He explained that our minimum manning is four that he would split
up the man power by putting two of the Firefighters at the Port of the Islands Station.
James Sinunons - He stated a friend of his ran into Conunissioner Colletta and that he
felt it would probably pass.
Chief McLaughlin - He commented that it seems that two of the Commissioners are
favorable, two are not certain and one has not made up his mind yet. He said it wouldn't
surprise him ifit was a tlu'ee to two vote eithcr way. No matter what the decision he is
going to move forward with it. He did mention that the reporting system was up and
rtnUllng.
2. INTERNAL ADVERTISING OF LIEUTENANT POSITION AND TESTING
Chief McLaughlin - The intcrnal advertising of thc Lieutenant position has becn finished.
Tomorrow the oral interview and written testing for the Licutenant position will take
place and he should have a dccision by Wednesday. He will be processing tile necessary
paper work for the Lieutcnant's Positionlhen hc can advertisc tor the now available
Firelighter Position. Due to thc County Process this is Icngthy and costly way of filling
positions due to the time it takes to complete the whole process. Meanwhile the
Department has to pay overtime to ful Ii II its minimum manning of tour. lIe even filed an
exccption asking if he could use the applicants that Isles of Capri just had two weeks ago
for their Firelighter position. But the Human Resources Dcpartment disallowed this
procedure, the position has to be advertised and selected from that group of applicants.
3. FIREFIGHTER PHYSICALS
Chief McLaughlin - Per the NFP A 1563 Public Safety Act requires that Firefighters have
physicals yearly but this type of physical has specific testing. The company doing the
physicals have done other Fire Departments in the area and we are piggy backing on the
Jacksonville bid regarding thc cost of the physicals. He has added that every fivc years
there will be chest x-rays and heavy metal testing. We will cslablish a base line and they
will have a physical from here on out every year. There have been several incidents
where lives have been saved due to this preventativc procedure.
Mitchell Roberts - He wanted to know if this would be billed through the employees
insurance or is it required for the job and the Department pays lor it.
Chief McLaughlin - We took it out of the budget.
Mitchell Roberts - Is that something that is a union bcnelit issue.
Chief McLaughlin - He said no because we are required to do this for our personnel.
Page 4
.1 6 11 /f1-)'~
OLD BUSINESS:
4. DOT LETTER
Mitchell Roberts - At the last meeting we approved a letter to go to DOT that was in the
minutes requesting that either the State or if there is a Concessionaire they would
contribute to all the expenses of all the calls this Station has to go to on 1-75. He received
a response and read it aloud. (The letter is attached.) We know a few years ago the tolls
went up so that they could add additional Highway Patrolmcn. So evidently there is
something they are not telling us.
Mitchell Robel1s wanted to make a motion to draft a reply to the DOT letter bring it up at
the ncxt meeting to address this issue as to how could this happen that you are getting
highway patrolmen and we can't get any funding. If you think this is something we need
to step up and do faster then we could call a special meeting come in to review the letter.
We nccd to answer back because it says wc can't help you and it can be done.
John Pennell made a motion to follow up on thc DOT lettcr it was seconded by Mitchell
Roberts and the motion was passed.
Mitchell Roberts - He got an e-mail from Chief McLaughlin in reference to going before
the Board of County Conunissioners. Every four years the Committees go before the
board for their continued existence. He needs to know what to do and what the schedule
it.
Chief McLaughlin said he would get it to him.
Mitchell Roberts - He brought up Macbeth Collins. I Ie asked the Chief if he should be
contacting the mayor regarding this matter.
The Chief said the Chairman should contact the mayor in regards to Macbeth Collins and
his attendance.
Mitchell Robel1s said he would contact the Mayor regarding Macbeth Collins as to
whether he is still representing Everglades City on the Advisory Board and if not he
needs to appoint somc one else some one who will show up for the meetings.
Chief McLaughlin - During the AUIR meeting the Board of County Commissioners
directed him to look into Cost Recovery again so he has pursued it. This would off set
some of the costs for responding to 1-75.
Page 5
....~.-.____,___,_~...,,",.__~_~.._.,..~__~'.M".
16 I 1 tAl Jt
James Simmons - He asked how do they determine the cost is it a flat rate?
Chief McLaughlin - He said there is a national rate for example, $250 for a vehicle
accident and $500 for a vehicle fire. They vary a little but they are not far off. There are
several Counties and Municipalities in the State where this is bcing done with the recent
tax cuts it is a way to get some money back. The company will do the billing and we get
our cut out ofi!. The insurance company is billed.
John Pe1ll1ellmade a motion to adjourn the meeting it was seconded by Mitchell Roberts
and was passed the meeting ended.
/
'j f.'
/ 4;::~:~J~'-o:!;~~, ~x1
Mitchell Robe,:ts, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
-j
,
,
Page 6
Fiala
COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBIC SERVICESialas
Henning .
Parks and Recreation Department C I
15000 Livingston Road - Naples. Florida 34109 - Phone (239) 252-4000 _ Fax (239) 514-8657 oye
Website: coiliergov.net Coletta
RECENEo
DEe 1 0 2008
iiOilrd of County CommjSSioners
AGENDA
16,/ ICit)1
December 1, 2008
I. Call to Order
II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - November 3, 2008
V. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights - Vickie Wilson
VI. New Business
A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez
B. Budget Questions
C. Board Member Applicants
D. Frontier Days
VIII. Member Comments
IX. Public Comments
X. Adjournment
The next meeting will be on January 5, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Collier County Golden Gate Community Center
4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C"
Naples, Florida
~.
I~:
C'
-
Mise CoIres:
Date: Ol/l~/DCJ
lIem#L~I {1)Al0
---_..-_---'_.._-,---,._~,--~-_.__.-.
16/1lrt~
Rt;CEIVED
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTxDEC 1 5 2008
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMMiffounlYCommisslonert
Community Development and Environmental Services [CDES] Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; November 10, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members p~t: t.J~
Halas _ . "'--::.-,
CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel Henninc -r ~...
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna Coyle ~=-V
Brad Cornell Coletta ~~-~~
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Dave Wolfley (left meeting at 12:00pm)
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek
ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood and Mike DeRuntz of the Comprehensive
Planning Department, Jeff Wright of the Assistant County Attorney's Office, Nick Casalanguida of the
Transportation Division, Laura Roys of the Engineering and Environmental Department as well as
approximately 15 members of the public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05AM by Chairman Ron Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 8 of II rnembers were present, with Jim
Howard and Fred N. Thomas, Jf. absent and Bill McDaniel having excused absences. Thomas
Greenwood pointed out that Floyd Crews was forced to resign due to County ordinances which
prohibit members to stay on a Committee or Board when they are running opposed for an elected
position. An earlier email was sent to Committee members to advise of this fact. A quorum for
meetings will now consist of a minimum of 6 members in attendance.
III. Approval of Agenda
Tom Jones moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Tammie Nemecek. Voice
Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minutes of the October 14, 2008 Meeting Brad Cornell stated that the abbreviation
for South Florida Water Management District needed to be corrected to which staff stated that the
abbreviation will be corrected. Gary Eidson moved and Tammie Nemecek seconded to approve the
minutes as distributed with the correction. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
V. Presentations. No presentations.
MIse '..Ie" Il,;S
Dale Pl/L'6LrtL
1, \ to I L l')Pllb
IIPage
16 I 1 ( ft) I ~
VI. Old Business
A. Phase 2.. .Review of GrouD I-GrouD 5 Policies ofthe Rural Land Stewardship
Overlav. incIudinl! Issues. Concerns. and Ouestions
1. Proposed new Policy 3.7 of Transportation Element of the GMP and RLSA
Overlay Policies 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7.1, 4.14 [Transportation Division] and proposed
Economic Development Corporation amendments to Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3,
new Policy 4.7.4 and amendment to Policy 4.18
Policy 3.7 [new policy for the Future Transportation Element...see attachment from
the Transportation Divison/ECPO]
Within 12 months after adoption of this policy. the county shall develop a plan for a
transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service (LOS)
throul!h the build out of the county (the "County Build Out Vision Plan"). The build out
network shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan shall define the existing roadways
that need to be improved. all proposed roadways. and the facility type and lane needs.
The County Build Out Vision Plan shall be adopted by the MPO. serve as a guide to
future updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). and be reviewed no less
than annually and amended as needed by the MPO to retlect changed circumstances
which occur from time to time. The County Build Out Vision Plan adoption and review
shall include a review of land uses within the County and shall include consideration of
the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population. These
services shall include but are not limited to government offices. iails. court houses.
landfills. maintenance facilities or any other facility that might otherwised reQuire long
distance travel.
Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida, Director of the Transportation
Planning Department, stated that this proposed new Policy is intended to apply county-wide and
not be limited to the RLSA Overlay. Mr. Farmer asked what is considered "long distance travel"
to which Nick Casalanguida replied that it is subjective, but generally a trip in excess of 30
minutes in length. Mr.spagna questioned if the "County Build Out Vision Plan" would be done
in one year. Nick Casalanguida stated that it would.
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed new Policy 3.7 to be located in the
Transportation Element of the GRP and is outside of the RLSAO, but should be considered for
recommendation by the Committee as it would harmonize the new language being proposed in
the RLSAO. The above language represents a consensus by those staff personnel participating in
its creation.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred certain Group 4 Policies to
John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve and this new policy outside of the
RLSAO was found to be needed.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Mr. Farmer moved and Mr. Jones seconded to
approve the new Policy 3.7 as proposed. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 4.4.. .see attachment from the Transportation Divison/ECPO]
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA.
Such updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be
2lPage
16 I 11A-)Jl~
retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment
process when it periodically occurs.
Public comments on November 10, 2008: None.
Staff Comments: The language show above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation
Division and John Passidomo to remain unchanged and the Committee should vote on this policy.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. Wolfley seconded to
recommend to not amend Policy 4.4. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 4.5....see attacbment from the Transportation Divison/ECPO]
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted
to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will
demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC
Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatihle land uses are directed away from
wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To the extent
practicable. the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the Countv's then-adopted Lon~ Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Countv Build Out Vision Plan referenced in Policv 3.7 of the
Future Transportation Element. and Access Mana~ement procedures.
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing
human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks. passive recreation
areas. g:olf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements. including agriculture. shall
be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by
human activities. Consideration shall be g:iven to the most current guidelines and
regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall
also require the dissemination of information to local residents. businesses and
governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices( such as appropriate
waste disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while
minimizing opportunites for negative ineraction. such as appropriate waste disposal
practi ces.
Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Judy Husbon suggested a few changes or word
smithing to the new paragraph 2 language which changes are shown above in paragraph 2 of
Policy 4.5. Thomas Greenwood stated that the same language should be amended in Policy 5.5
which was approved by the Committee on October 28'h
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation
Division and John Passidorno to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to
approve the amended language for both Policy 4.5 and for the portion relating to the Management
Plan contained in Policy 5.5 as approved by the Committee on October 28th. Upon vote, the
motion carried unanirnously.
31Page
16 J 1 tA} I~
Policy 4.6... see attachment from the Transportation Divison/ECPO)
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies
referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (II). F.S. and 91-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and
techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations,
clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of
rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas,
maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and
providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also
include a mobilitv plan that includes consideration of vehicular. bicvcle/pedestrian. public transit.
internal circulators. and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of
outside development and land uses. The mobilitv plan shall provide mobilitv strategies such as
bus subsidies, route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transist
services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the Countv Build
Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture.
and reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as
methods of discouraging urban sprawl, .encouraging alternative modes of transportation.
increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy has some
concerns about the use such words as "consideration", "encourage", etc. and that the langnage
should be more definitive. David Wolfley stated that he agrees with Ms. Ryan. Russ Priddy
stated that the RLSAO is a voluntary program and the property owners do not need more
regulations or the program will be less likely to work and suggested leaving the language the way
it is. Tammie Nemecek stated that the program does need to be flexible. Judy Hushon stated
that sustainability of communities is key to making the RLSA Overlay program work. Gary
Eidson stated that the language needs to be wide enough and broad enough to cover everything.
Mr, Casalanguida suggested the following change in the second new proposed sentence the
words "consider the applicability of' to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or"
in the same sentence. Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Priddy if he was OK with that change to which Mr.
Priddy stated that he was.
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation
Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on Seotember 23, 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to
amend the language of Policy 4.6 as shown above by also changing in the second new proposed
sentence the words "consider the applicability of' to "provide mobility" and to change the word
"and" to "or" in the same sentence. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 4.7.I...see attacbments from EDC and from the Transportation Divison/ECPO]
Towns are the largest and rnost diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix
of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is
compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips
and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than.J,GOO 1.500 acres or more than 4;000 5.000
acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity
4lPage
16 11 (A)Uf?
and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for
community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobilitv plan. which shall include a
transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriatelv located within the town to serve the
connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one
community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include
both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, iH a retia as praviaed described
in Policy +.-M 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office. research.
development companies. and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park
and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. and those included in Policv 4.7.4.
Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible,
schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities and as provided in Policies 4.IS.2 and 4.IS.3. Design criteria for Towns are ,hall be
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the word "may"
should be changed to "shall" in the proposed new sentence included in the first paragraph. Tom
Jones stated that he is comfortable with that change. Tammie Nemecek eXplained the minor
changes to paragraph 2. Brian Gogen suggested adding "development companies" as a uses
which may be pennitted in Towns. Tammie Nemecek stated that she felt that would be a good
addition.
Staff comment: none
Committee action taken on November 10. 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Mr. Eidson
seconded to recommend the amendments to Policy 4.7.1 as shown above. Upon vote, the motion
carried unanimously.
Policy 4.7.2...see attachment from the EDC
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100
acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1.500 acres
outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation
by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages
shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.1 S.
Appropriatelv scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be pennitted in Villages. Villages
are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks
shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design
criteria for V illages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek stated that the addition of the 4th
sentence from the bottom of this Policy is needed to refer to a new proposed Policy 4.7.4.
Staff comments: none
5lPage
16 11 (~II
Committee action on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Gary Eidson
seconded to approve the additional sentence, "Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4
shall also be permitted in Villages." Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 4rlA 4.7.3.. ...see tbe attacbment from the EDC
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that willl"reviae fle1libility with resl"eet
te the mi" ef Iises ana aesign stanaams, but shall etherv;ise eemply y;ith the stanaaras ef a
Hamlet er Village. shall support and further Collier Countv's valued attributes of agriculture.
natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and
support services necessarv to further these attributes within the RLSA Primarv CRD uses shall
be those associated with and needed to support research. education. tourisrn or recreation.
Appropriatelv scaled compatible uses described in Policv 4.7.4 mav also be permitted in CRDs.
A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing, ana the serviees
ana faeilities that sUl"l"ert pennaHeHt resiaents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent
with the demand generated bv the primarv CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum of two
units per gross acre. A CRD shall be a rnaximum size of 100 acres. ,A.n example of a CRD is aH
eeet'lIirism ',-illage that ",eHla ha-. e a Iim€jHe set ef Iises aHa sUl"l"ert ser.<iees aifferent Hem a
traaitienal resiaential village. It weula eentaiH tHlnsiemleaging faeilities ana serviees llJ3l"fel"riate
te eee telirists, llllt mey Bet l"reviae for the Fange ef ser..iees that are Beeessary Ie sUl"l"ert
l"enRanent resiaems. EJ(eCflt as aeserieea aeeve, a CRD will eenferm te the ehameteristies ef a
Village er Ilamle! as set felth en ,A.ttaehmem C Basea en the size ef the CRD. ,A.S resiaemialunits
are net a re€jHiFea lise, these geeas ana serviees that sUl"l"elt resiaems slieh as retail, efliee, eivie.
gevemrnontal 8Fla iBstitutienal uses shall alae He! ee Fe€juirea, " Hhewever, for any CRD that
aees iflelHae l"efffianeBt resiaential helising, the l'fel"ertienate sUl"l"ert serviees listea aeeve shall
Be l"re',-iaea in aeeeraanee with ,A.ttaehrnent C. Te maimaiB a l'fel"ertien ef CRDs ef 100 acres er
less te Villages ana TewHs, Bet mere than 5 CRDs ef 100 aeres er leas. iB eem13iHatien with
HamIets. may Be al"l"revea as SRi\s prier te the al'l'reval ef a Village er TewH, ana thereafter not
mere than 5 aaaitieHal CRDs ef 100 aeres er less, in esmeiBatien v..ith HamIets, may Be al"l"revea
f-er eaeh suese€jlient Village sr Te'1;n. There shall be He mere than 5 CRDs sf mere than 100
aeres iB size. The al'l'rel'rialenes5 of this limitatisB shall be revie'.yea in 5 years 1"IIfsliant to
Peliey 1.22.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek stated that the only additional
sentence being added is the fourth sentence and that she would like to change the word "shall" to
"may". Gary Eidson stated that the word "compatible" could be added after the word "scaled".
Judy Hushon stated that she does not like industry in CRDs and felt that it should be limited to
Towns and Villages. Nancy Payton stated that she felt the same but there are nature and
agricultural based uses that would be appropriate and that the compatibility issue can be
addressed in the LDC. Tom Jones agreed with Nancy Payton. Gary Eidson asked if CRDs, as
proposed, are not rnorphing into Hamlets. Anita Jenkins pointed out that the first two sentences
point out that the uses must be in support of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversity
and that the CRDs rnust demonstrate a set of uses to further these attributes within the RLSA
Mr. Farmer stated that the CRDs must be very small in size. Mr. Wolfley stated that he is
concerned about an intense use heing placed on a 100-acre site. Russ Priddy stated that he might
do two or tlrree CRDs and asked what if someone wanted to do agricultural research, etc. He
stated that the door needs to be left open for these uses. Mr. Jones stated that a use might be a
fishing lodge. Anita Jenkins stated that the Committee needs to address the intent of the CRD as
it is now written. Judy Hushon stated that CRDs should be limited to envirorunental and
agricultural uses. Brad Cornell stated that the word "shall" may be too strong and that it should
be changed to "may" as uses are not permitted by right and that there will be a need for strong
6lPage
16 j 1 (k)llt'
LDC language. After further discussion both Gary Eidson and Tom Jones agreed to amend the
motion by substituting "may" for "shall" and inserting the word "compatible" after the word
"scaled" .
Staff comment: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Gary Eidson moved and Tom Jones seconded to add
the fourth sentence with the two changes of changing "shall" to "may" and adding the word
"compatible" following the word "scaled". Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policv 4.7.4 ....see attachment from the EDC
Existing urban areas. Towns and Villages shall be the oreferred location for business and industry
within the RLSA. to further promote economic develooment. diversification and iob creation.
Permitted uses shall include. but not be limited to environmental research. agricultural research.
aviation and aerosoace. health and life sciences. corporate headquarters. cornouter hardware.
software and services. information technologv. manufacturing. research & develooment.
wholesale trade & distribution: technologv commercialization and develooment initiatives. trade
clusters. and similar uses.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek stated that she would like to add
environmental research and agricultural research to the use of permitted uses. Brad Cornell
stated that he would like to see the words, "existing urban areas" added at the beginning of the
Policy as this is a preferred location of business as the infrastructure is already in place. Nancy
Payton asked to have CRDs eliminated as preferred locations for business and industry although
such would not necessarily prohibit such uses and that "environmental research" and "agricultural
research" be listed as examples of permitted uses. Tammie Nemecek stated that she is
comfortable with the changes prornoted by Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton.
Staff comment: none
Committee action on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Tom Jones seconded
to recommend the creation of new Policy 4.7.4 as outlined above, including all changes
discussed. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-1 with David Wolfley voting in opposition.
Policy 4,14....see attachment from the Transportation Division and ECPO
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access
via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA
aoorovaL an SRA orooosed to adioin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Ooen
shall orovide for the opoortunitv to orovide direct vehicular and oedestrian connections from said
areas to the Countv's arterial/collector roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out
V ision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel exoenses. imorove interconnectivitv. increase
internal caoture. and keeo the use of countv arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between
develooments in the RLSA.
Public or orivate roads and connectin\! sil!I1alized intersections within or adiacent to an SRA shall
be maintained bv the orimarv town or communitv it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the
capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in
accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of
SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3
of the LDC. or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the
necessary data and analysis. To the extent required to mitigate an SRAs taffic imoacts. actions
71Page
16 \ llA--)I~
mav be taken to include. but shall not be limited to. provlSlons for the construction and/or
permitting of wildlife crossings. envirorunental mitigation credits. right of wav dedication! s ).
water management and/or fill material which mav be needed to expand the existing or proposed
roadwav network. Anv such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer
contribution agreernent. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence
of the proiect traffic on existing or proposed roadwavs that are anticipated to be expanded or
constructed.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the language
proposed is now in two paragraphs rather than the existing one paragraph and has been
developed in working with ECPO. Gary Eidson asked about the Open Lands and if no
development occurs in such lands. Laurie McDonald stated that "DCA" should be spelled out
because of possible confusion with the Department of Community Affairs. Nancy Payton stated
that the language on mitigation needs to he clarified as to whether it is envirorunental or
transportation irnpact. Nick Casalanguida stated that the intent is transportation mitigation. Dave
Wolfley stated that the word "Credits" should be capitalized and not to use the DCA abbreviation.
After further discussion conceming language in the new second paral,'faph the Committee asked
Nick Casalanguida, Nancy Payton, and ECPO to resolve and clear up ambiguities and report back
to the Committee when resolved. Later in the meeting, Nick Casalanguida read the proposed
new language for the second paragraph and stated that this language was agreed to by those
meeting this morning.
Staff comment: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Gary Eidson moved and Tom Jones seconded to
approve the above language amendments to Policy 4.14 as shown above. Upon vote, the motion
was approved unanimously.
Policy 4.18. ...see attachment from tbe EDC
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be
adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-
workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such
as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a
minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement. and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and
other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of
service standards.
It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA mav generate surplus revenues to Collier
Countv and Collier Countv mav choose to allocate a portion of such sumlus revenues to ensure
that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Countv to respond expeditiouslv to
economic opportunities and to compete effectivelv for high-value research. development and
commercialization, innovation. and alternative and renewable energv business proiects.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek explained the rationale for this
language. Judy Hushon stated that a CRD might provide such surplus revenues. Laurie
McDonald asked if such surplus revenues could be used for envirorunental purposes. Tammie
Nemecek stated that the purpose of the revenues is to further economic development. Brian
Goguen stated, as chair elect of the EDC. that he supported this language.
8lPage
-~'--"-"'---- ~ "._._'__,.,_...._~._...,.._--.....u.,~__~..,..._
16' 1 (4-)I~
Staff comments: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Gary Eidson
seconded, to recommend the additional language to Policy 4.18. Upon vote, the motion carried
unanimously.
2. Proposed new RLSA Overlay Policies 4.22 and 5.7 [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Noah Standridge appeared on behalf of Naples Cultural Landscape and presented the
attached proposed new Policies.
Policv 4.22
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation
process. the applicant in coni unction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources
will assess the historic or cultural sil!11ificance and explore the educational and public awareness
opportunities regarding significant resources.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Noah Standridge presented the proposed Policy
4.22. Tom Jones asked if the Policy was intended just to promote. Gary Eidson asked who is
going to determine historic or cultural resources to which Noah Standridge stated the County and
the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources determine such at time of a
development review. Gary Eidson questioned whether this Policy is superfluous. Noah
Standridge stated that the Policy is intended to promote, once such is identified. Gary Eidson
suggested moving the first clause to the back of the Policy. Christia(l Spilker stated that the State
often keeps its responses to development reviews as quiet as possible hecause of the possibility of
someone destroying or removing such if that information gets into the news media. Gary Eidson
asked Noah Standridge to re-craft the language for each Policy and report back to the Committee.
This item and Policy 5.8 were temporarily tabled. Noah Standridge reappeared during the
meeting and presented revised language for Policies 4.22 and 5.8 which was re-crafted with input
from Christian Spilker and ECPO.
Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State tind an historic or cultural
resource, then such must be preserved per the LDC.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Tom Jones moved and Gary Eidson seconded to
approve the language as re-crafted above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 5.8
When historic or cultural resources are identitied within the RLSA. the applicant in coni unction
with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural
significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding sil!11iticant
resources.
Public comment on November 10, 2008: Refer to Public discussion above under Policy 4.22.
Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural
resource, then such must be preserved per the LDC.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Tom Jones seconded
to approve the language as re-crafted above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
91Page
16 il :l(A-)I~
VII. New Business
A. Review of Draft Executive Summary to BCC to accompany the Phase 2 Reoort
David Woljley stated that, as a member of the Planning Commission, he is opposed to
bringing the Phase 2 Reoort to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the GMP As to
the RLSA Overlay. He stated the Commission needs to understand what is being presented
and response and react prior to the GMP As going forward. Tom Jones stated that he does not
believe the Committee is jamming anything. citing about 30 advertised Committee meetings
and that the Phase 2 Reoort has morphed into a GMP A document and that it is appropriate to
get BCC direction as to when and how they wish to have the Phase 2 Reoort presented to the
EAC and CCPC. David Wo(fley stated that EAC and CCPC want to see the Phase 2 Reoort
first and then with a follow-up GMP A cycle stating that the RLSA Overlay is too important
to the County to shove through. Tammie Nemecek stated that it was the intent of the
Committee since November, 2007 to make specific recommendations in the Phase 2 Reoort
Regarding specific amendrnents to policies in the RLSA Overlay. Ron Hamel stated that he
was involved in the original RLSA Overlay presentation and he recalls that the Committee
report went directly to the BCC for direction and then into GMP A transmittal and adoption
hearings. George Varnadoe stated that Ron Hamel's recollection is correct, that the original
RLSA Overlay report went to the BCC and the BCC directed GMP As which then went to the
CCPC and EAC in transmittal and adoption hearings. Jeff Wright stated that the Committee
can go to the BCC without the Phase 2 Report being completed and ask their direction with
respect to the special GMP A cycle, priority on the Cycle and presentation timing to the EAC
and CCPC. George Varnadoe stated that is a good approach and this will let the BCC decide
as to when the EAC and CCPC will receive the Phase 2 Reoort. Gary Eidson stated that
there must be an emphasis as to how long and how many public meetings the Committee has
taken to get through the RLSA Overlay. Christian Spilker stated that there is a perception
that the Committee wished to bypass the EAC and CCPC which is not the case. Laurie
McDonald stated that the EAC and CCPC sirnply want to review the Phase 2 Reoort before it
comes in the form of a GMP A on such a complicated matter. Mr. Jones stated that the BCC
can decide when the Phase 2 Report should come to the EAC and CCPC and no one is
planning on bypassing the EAC and CCPC.
Committee action taken on November 10.2008: Gary Eid..on moved and Tammie
Nemecek seconded to have Chairman Ron Harnel craft a letter to accompany an Executive
Summary to the BCC to be presented to and approved hy the Committee during its December
II meeting which will ask the BCC to determine when it wishes the EAC and CCPC to
formally review the Phase 2 Reoort [either prior to any GMP A or in conjunction with the
GMPA if authorized by the BCC]. Upon vote, the motion canied, 6-1 with Neno Spagna
voting in opposition.
B. Future meeting space available and Phase 2 Report wrap up. Tom Greenwood reported
that meeting space has been reserved for the December II and possible December 18
meetings in Conference Room C of the Administrative Building of the North Collier
Regional Park located at 15000 Livingston Road from 9am to 12 noon. The agenda for the
December II meeting will include a review of the draft Phase 2 Reoort and draft Executive
Summary and letter from Ron Hamel to the BCC.
VIII. Public Comments.
IX. Next Meeting. Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on Thursday, December 11,
2008, in Conference Room C of the Administrative Building of the North Collier Regional Park located at
15000 Livingston Road from 9am to 12 noon for the purposes ofreviewing the draft Phase 2 Reoort and.
10IPage
1611{fr)llp
the draft letter from Ron Hamel to the BCC to accompany the standard staff Executive Summary to the
BCC.
x. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at l2:30PM.
'ew Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on/co//~/O~
amended
as presented
~
or as
~\7 A~(k::J
06v~
llJPage
16 , 1 (rr- II (P
11-/ O-{)~
&h?h)/~S~
Final Consensus Draft of Proposed Transportation Related Po~inents
Future TransportatiQn Element NewPolicv
/ Policv 3.7
Within 12 months after adoption of this policv. the countv shall develop a plan for a
transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service (LOS)
throuah the build out of the countv (the "Countv Build Out Vision Plan"). The build out
network shown on the Countv Build Out Vision Plan shall define the existina roadwavs
that need to be improved. all proposed roadwavs. and the facilitv tvpe and lane needs.
The Countv Build Out Vision Plan shall be adopted bv the MPO. serve as a auide to future
updates of the Lona Ranae Transportation Plan (LRTP). and be reviewed no less than
annuallv and amended as needed bv the MPO to reflect chanaed circumstances which
occur from time to time. The Countv Build Out Vision Plan adoption and review shall
include a review of land uses within the Countv and shall include consideration of the
location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population. These
services shall include but are not limited to aovernment offices. iails. court houses.
landfills. maintenance facilities or anv other facilitv that miaht otherwise reauire lona
distance travel.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed new Policy 3.7 to be located
in the Transportation Element of the GRP and is outside of the RLSAO, but should be
considered for recommendation by the Committee as it would harmonize the new
language being proposed in the RLSAO. The above language represents a consensus by
those staff personnel participating in its creation.
Committee action on Seotember 23. 2008: The Committee referred certain Group 4
Policies to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve and this new policy
outside of the RLSAO was found to be needed.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
RLSA Overlay Group 4 Proposed Revised Policies
) Policy 4.4
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved
SRA. Such updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. but
shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based
amendment process when it periodically occurs.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by, consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to remain unchanaed and the Committee
should vote on this Policy.
Committee action on Seotember 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
16 I 1 (14') I to
Final Consensus Draft of Proposed Transportation Related Policy Amendments
p. 2
I Policy 4.5
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and
submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master
plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and
the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed
away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map.
To the extent practicable. the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the Countv's then-
adopted Lona Ranae Transportation Plan ILRTP1. the Countv Build Out Vision Plan
referenced in Policv 3.7 of the Future Transportation Element. and Access Manaaement
procedures.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Cornmittee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
I Policy 4.6
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies
referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I). These planning strategies
and techniques include urban villages. new towns. satellite communities, area-based
allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow
the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and
other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public
facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobilitv plan that includes
consideration of vehicular. bicvcle/pedestrian. public transit. internal circulators. and other
rnodes of travel/movernent within and between SRAs and areas of outside development
and land uses. The mobility plan shall consider the applicabilitv of strateaies such as bus
subsidies. route sponsorship and other incentives which encouraae the use of mass
transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the
Countv Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would
increase internal capture. and reduce trip lenath and lona distance travel. Such
development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl,
encouraaina alternative modes of transportation. increasina internal capture and reducina
vehicle miles traveled.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
16' 1 (k}ILp
Final Consensus Draft of Proposed Transportation Related Policy Amendments
p. 3
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
I Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types
and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support
development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land
uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than +,{lOO
1,500 acres or more than 4,{)00 5.000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or
neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use
town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services.
Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods.
Towns shall include an internal mobilitv olan. which mav include a transfer station or Dark
and ride area that is aoorooriatelv located within the town to serve as the connection ooint
for internal and external oublic transoortation. Towns shall have at least one community
park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall
include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as
provided in Policy 4.15.1 Towns may also include those compatible corporate office and
light industrial uses as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and
Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. Towns shall be the preferred location for the
full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located
abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as orovided in
Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3.. Design criteria for Towns shall be included in the LDC
Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above. However,
the Comprehensive Planning Department staff has noticed in the consensus version given
to staff that the changes to the threshold acreages for Towns was not changed according
to the Committee's recommendations and has shown that change and has incorporated
that change in Policy 4.7.1.
Committee action on SeDtember 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
Policy 4.14
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect
access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate
the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning
16 11 (tr) lit?
Final Consensus Draft of Proposed Transportation Related Policy Amendments
p.4
standards. At the time of 8RA aooroval. an SRA orooosed to adioin land desionated as
an SRA or lands desionated as aDen shall orovide for the oooortunitv to orovide direct
vehicular and oedestrian connections to said areas throuoh the Countv's arterial/collector
roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel
time and travel exoenses. imorove interconnectivitv. increase internal caoture. and keeo
the use of countv arterial roads to a minimum when travelino between develooments in
the RLSA.
Public or orivate roads and connectino sionalized intersections within or adiacent to an
SRA shall be maintained bv the orimarv town or communitv it serves. No SRA shall be
approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is
demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency
Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact
assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor
regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and
analysis. To the extent re~uired to mitioate an SRA's imoacts. mitioation mav include. but
shall not be limited to. the construction and oermittino of wildlife crossinos. the orovision of
environmental mitioation credits. and/or the orovision of rioht of wav. water manaoement
and/or fill material which mav be re~uired as mitioation to exoand the existino or orooosed
roadwav network. Any such mitioation orovided to offset environmental imoacts and to
maintain the adooted level of service shall be memorialized in a Develooer Contribution
Aoreement (DCA). The DCA shall consider the need. if any. to orovide mitioation for
soecies. wetlands. or other imoacts within the area of sionificant influence of the oroiect
traffic or existino or orooosed roadways that are anticioated to be exoanded or
constructed.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on SeDtember 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
16/1~ll
Policy 4.5
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation. as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate
that the SRA complies with all applicable polici of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship
District and is designed so that incompatible land ses are directed away from wetlands and critical
habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the verlay Map, To the extent practicable. the SRA
Master Plan shall be consistent with the Co t's then-ado ted Lon Ran e Trans ortation Plan
LRTP the Count Build Out Vision Pia referenced in Polic 3,7 of the Future Trans ortation
Element and Access Mana ement roce res.
Each SRA master Ian shall include a ana ement Plan which includes s for minimizin
intensit land uses e. . arks oil'
courses and ve etati n eservatio re uirements includin a iculture s II be used to establish
buffer areas between wildl e hab' at areas and areas dominated b hum activities. Consideration
shall be iven to the most ent idelines and re lations on t Imi ues to reduce human
wildlife contlict. The mana ement lans shall also re uire the disse 'nation of information to local
residents. businesses and governmental services about the pres nce of wildlife. practices that
enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while mmimizing opportunites tor negative
ineraction. such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
GreenwoodThomas
"relf""l'" 1)
~ . vrl'
/ /;:::/ ()- ~ n~ F tLs>"_""\
<--c,))7'I/:rY ~ ~r'-4U
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Noah Standridge [noah@centrusplanning.com]
Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:29 PM
GreenwoodThomas
Re: Friendly Reminder...Monday, November 10 Committee meeting
Tom,
Please find below policies 4.22 and 5.7 on behalf of Naples Cultural Landscapes. Thank you for putting us on
the next meeting agenda. If anyone has questions or comments, feel free to direct them to my contact info.
Sincerely,
Noah Standridge
www.centrusplanning.com
239,777.7145
Naples, FL
Proposed Amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Regarding Historical or Cultural
Resources
11/10/2008
Policv 4.22
To promote knowledge of Collier Countv's historical and cultural heritage. when historic or cultural resources
are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process. the applicant will assess the historic or
cultural significance and explore the educational opportunities regarding significant resources.
Policv 5.7
To promote knowledge of Collier Countv's historical and cultural heritage. when historic or cultural resources
are identified within the RLSA. the applicant will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the
educational opportunities regarding significant resources.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COlLIER COUNTY .."
3050 Horseshoe Drive North, Suite 120 . Naples, FL 34104
Phone (239) 263-8989 . Fax (239) 263-6021
www.eNaplesFlorida.com
If-JO~~~
~
.
MEMORANDUM
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
of Collier (;ounty, Florida
Growing Great Ideas
~
To:
Tom Greenwood
From: Tammie Nemecek
Date: November 5, 2008
Re: Economic Development Policy Changes
In order to strengthen the economic development section of the RLSA, the Economic
Development Council of Collier County would like to propose this clarifying language.
Thank you for the consideration. Modifications are highlighted in RED.
I Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA. with a full range of housing types and mix
of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is
compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips
and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than 1.000 acres or more than 4-;QOO 5,000 acres
and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and
character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for
community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobilitv plan. which mav include a
transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the town to serve as the
connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one
community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns
shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods.
Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a f!ltis as
proviaea described in Policy +.H 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate
office, research and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park 'frtd
Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE am! those included in Policy 4.7.4.
Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible,
schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns shall be
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Ii .
Policy 4.7.2
G:\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\RLSA 5-year Review\Committee Meetings\Nov 10, 2008\EDC proposed policy modification
11-5-08.doc
.L 0 , l'ft) l~
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character ofthe particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100/
acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1.500 acres
outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation
by including an intercor1Ilected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages
shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15.
Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be pennitted in Villages. Villages
are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks
shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design
criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Policy 4.+.4 4.7.3
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will )3fO'.-iae tle)[iBility with respeet
ta the mix of lIses aRa aesil;'fl standards, BlIt shall atherwise eOffi)3ly 'I.-ith the standards af a
IIamlet Elf Village. shall support and further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture,
natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and
support services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA. Primary CRD uses shall
be those associated with and needed to suPport research. education, tourism or recreation.
Appropriately scaled uses described in Policv 4.7.4 shall also be pennitted in CRDs. A CRD may
include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing, aftd the serviees and faeilities
that sliflpafl )3elffiafteftt resiaems. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the
demand generated by the primarv CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per
gross acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. fill e1lafllj3le af a CRD is aft eestallfisffi
village that wallla ha'le a lIfti'l"e set sf lIses aftd slifl)3afl serviees differeftt frem a traaitisftal
residefllial Yillage. It ',vallld eomaift lffiflsient lsdgiftg faeilities aftd serviees lljJ)3rspriate ta eea
tallrists, BlIl may ftat )3ra'/iae f-ar the raftge af ser.-iees that are fteeessary ta sll)3pafl )3effilaftent
resiaems. Elleept as deseriBea aBave, a CRD ',vill eoftfalffi ta the eharaeteristies of a Village sr
Hamlet as set faflh Oft f.ttaehmem C Based Sft the size af the CRU. f.s resiaemialllftits are ftot a
reqllired lise, those gasas aad sel'\'iees that sup)3sfl resiaems sueh as retail, sffiee, eivie,
gsyemmental and iftstitllliaftal lIses shall alss ftat Be re'l"ired, , Hhswever, far aft)' CRD that
flses iftelllfle )3efffiaReftt resiaemial hOllsiftg, the pfEl)3sflioliftte sllp)3afl sel'\'iees listea aba'/e shall
Be )3rs\~ded ift aeeardaftee with f.ttaehment C. Ts maifltaift a )3rapsfliaft of CRUs sf 100 aeres or
less ta Villages aftd Tel'".ftS, ftat msre thllfl 5 CRUs sf 100 aeres or less, ift eemBiftatiaft 'I.-ith
Hamlets, ma)' Be apprsved as SR.f.s prior la the a)3)3fOval ef a Village ar Tawft, aftd thereafter ftot
mare thaft 5 additiaftal CRDs af 100 acres ar less, ift esmeiftatiaft with Hamlets, IfllIj' Be appre'iea
for eaeh sllBseqlleftt Village ar Tmvft. There shall Be ae mere thaft 5 CRDs af mare thaft 100
aeres ia size. The appfElpriateftess af this limitatioa shall Be reviewed ift 5 )'ears )3llfsllaat to
Paliey 1.22.
Policy 4.7.4 (New policy)
Towns, Villages and CRDs shall be the preferred location for business and industrv within the
RLSA. to further promote economic development. diversification and iob creation. Pennitted uses
shall include, but not be limited to: aviation and aerospace, health and life sciences. corporate
headquarters, computer hardware, software and services, information technology, manufacturing.
/
I
research & development. wholesale trade & distribution: tcchnolo!!V
development initiatives. trade clusters. and similar uses.
A Hamlet is a fSfIB sf ~lL'\ tllat will J'lre-/iae t1s11iBility witll resJ'lect to tile mix cf uses aHa
aesiga stliflaaraa, but sllall etllerwiae eefllJlly v. itll tile staHaaraa ef a Hamlet er Village. aHa tile
services aHa facilitiea tllat slIflJ'leFl J'leI_aeRt resiaeflts. l\n eJlafllJlle ef a CRD is aH ecetellrism
village tllat weHla lla'/e a IlHi'!ue set ef lomea aaa allfll'ert servieea aiffereHt fFem a tr-aaitieool
resiaeHtial '/illage. It weala eeHtaia traasieRt leaging facilities aHa services aJ'lJ'lreJ'lriate te eee
tellrists, But may aet J'lreviae fer tile raage ef ser/icea tllat are aeeessar)' te saJ'lJ'lert J'leFlflaaeat
resiaeats. ExceJ'lt as aeserillea aBeve, a CRD will cenf81'lfI te tile coomeleristies ef a Village or
Hamlet as set fertll ea AttachmeHt C Basea en tile size eftlle CRD. .'\a resiaeRtiallfflits are aet a
re'lllirea lise, tllese geeas ana servicea that sUJ'lJ'lert reniaeHta saeh as retail, efRce, eivie,
gevemrnental ana iaGtitlltieaal asea shall alse net be re,!uirea, , Ilhewever, fer aa)' CRD that
aees inclllae J'lefffltlaeRt renitleRtial lleHsiHg, tile preJ'lertieaate sUflJ'lert services lintee all eve sllall
Be J'lreviaea in accereanee with l\ttaehmeat C. Te maiRtain a J'lrsl'ertiea ofCRDs sf 100 aeres or
less te Villages ane Tewns, net mere than 5 CRDs of 100 aeres Elf less, ia eemlliaatiea '.vith
Hamlets, may be aJ'lJ3reyea as SlL'\s J'lrior te the oJ'll're\'al of 0 Village er Towa, aHa thereafter not
mere thoa 5 aaaitieaal CRDs ef 100 acres er lens, ia eemlliaatiea ',vith Hamlets, ma)' Be aJ'lJ'lrevea
fer eaeh sUBse'lHellt Village er Tewn. Tllere shalllle IlO mere tlloll 5 CRDs ef mere tholl 100
aeres in SIze. The ol'I'rel'riatelleGs of this limilatiell shall Be reviewee ill 5 years I'llfGaaat te
Peliey 1.22.
'~.l
commercializatJ Q I 1 (A) II
Policy 4.18
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be
adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-
workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Teclmiques that may promote fiscal neutrality such
as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a
minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater. irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and
other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of
service standards.
It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA mav generate surplus revenues to Collier
County and Collier County mav choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure
that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiouslv to
economic opportunities and to compete effectively for high-value research. development and
commercialization: innovation: and alternative and renewable ener!!V business projects.
11-/O-lJJ 1~)1
~J~e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY fZ-,--e......v{~
(DRAFT, SUBJECT TO REVISIONS)
Request of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee to the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners to consider authorizing a special Growth Management
Plan Amendment Cycle solely for the purpose of considering the adoption of the
Committee-recommended amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of
the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan as outlined in the
Committee's Phase 2 Report, and authorization to present and review the Phase 2 Report
concurrent with the requested special Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle.
OBJECTIVE: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee ("Committee") on
, voted to request the Collier County Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) to
consider authorizing a special Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Cycle solely for
the purpose of review and consideration of the Committee-recommended amendments to the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth
Management Plan as outlined in the attached Phase 2 Report, and to review the Phase 2 Report
concurrent with those amendments. The RLSA Overlay is the basis for Section 4.08.00 of the
Land Development Code (LDC) entitled, "Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay
District" and, if amended. would servc as the basis for amendments to this section of the LDC.
By established BCC policy, there is only one GMP A cycle per calendar year. However, the
Florida State Statutes permit local units of government a maximum of two GMP A cycles per
calendar year. This request, if approved by the BCC, would use the second statutorily available
GMP A cycle solely for reviewing the Committee-recommended amendments to the RLSA
Overlay concurrent with the Committee's Phase 2 Report.
The Project Management Plan (PMP) for the five-year review of the RLSA Program calls for the
Phase I Report and the Phase 2 Report to be submitted to the Environmental Advisory Council
(EAC) and the Planning Commission (PC) prior to submittal to the BCC, The Phase I Report
complied with this directive of the PMP. However, the Committee did recommend to the BCC
that the review of the Committee-recommended amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area (RLSA) Overlay of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan be
considered concurrently with the Phase 2 Report for greater expediency and to eliminate what
the Committee considered double reviews by the EAC and the PC of the Phase 2 Report. Thus,
the Committee is asking BCC concurrence to divert from the PMP only with respect to this
provIsion.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The RLSA has been recognized in Florida, regionally, and nationally for visionary methodology
to preserve environmentally significant land, to protect agricultural land and to direct growth to
suitable locations. Collier County adopted the RLSA Overlay in the Land Development Code
(LDC) on January 30, 2004 as the implementing regulation for the Growth Management Plan
amendments known broadly as the "Rural/Eastern Lands Amendments" which were developed
in response to Administration Commission Final Order No. AC99-002, which required a "Rural
1
16 I 1 (A )l~
and Agricultural Assessment" and subsequent adoption of the Growth Management Plan
amendment based upon that assessment.
Policy 1.22 of the of the RLSA Overlay requires a five-year comprehensive review of the RLSA
Overlay by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) following the five-
year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District into the LDC. Accordingly, the BCC
on October 24, 2007 approved Resolution 2007-305A which provided for the creation of the
Committee and listed its functions, powers and duties, including: I) "Review data concerning the
participation and effectiveness in the Overlay meeting the Goal. Objective, and Policies in the
Future Land Use Element of the GMP"; and 2) "Review the RLSA Overlay and make
recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the Overlay". Staff of the Comprehensive
Planning Department was assigned to assist the Committee in its functions, powers and duties.
With respect to number I above, the Committee's efforts resulted in the issuance to the BCC of
the Phase I Report and airing during the BCe's May 27, 2008 regular meeting. During this
airing the BCC authorized transmittal of the Phase I Report to the Department of Community
Affairs as provided for in Policy 1,22 of the RLSA Overlay. The Phase I Report was transmitted
to the DCA on May 30,2008.
With respect to number 2 above, the Committee's Phase II Report was compiled during the final
] 9 of the total 27 Committee public meetings in its effort to provide a comprehensive review of
the existing RLSA Overlay with all stakeholders. Committee meetings were well attended; open
dialogue was encouraged; and minutes were taken and maintained as part of the public record by
personnel of the Comprehensive Planning Department. These public meetings were held in the
Ave Maria University Academic Building, in the Community Development and Environmental
Services Building, and in the North Collier Regional Park Administration Building.
As directed by Resolution No. 2007-305A, the Phase 11 Report includes recommended GMPAs
to improve the effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay based, in part, upon the experience with the
RLSA Program during the first five years following the January 30, 2004 adoption of the
implementing Section 4.08.00 of the Land Development Code. Committee-recommended
amendments to the RLSA Overlay were also based, in part, upon the following:
I. Expert speakers who spoke during Committee meetings;
2. Independent research reports, statements, and issues expressed relative to the Rural Lands
Stewardship program;
3, Public participation;
4. Data and analysis/justification; and
5, Cursory Staff input.
The following organizations were involved in the deliberate and detailed open public discussions
and educational efforts involving the Committee's review of the RLSA Overlay:
1. Audubon Society
2. Collier County Planning Commission
3. Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division
4. Collier County Environmental Advisory Council
5. Collier County Transportation Division
2
1611 (k)ll
6. Conservancy of Southwest Florida
7. Defenders of Wildlife
8. East Collier Property Owners
9. Florida Gulf Coast University
10. Florida Department of Community Affairs
11. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
12. Florida Wildlife Federation
13. Fort Mvers News-Press
14. Naples DailvNews
15. One Thousand Friends of Florida
16. Sierra Club
17. South Florida Water Management District
18. University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The legal review of the Phase II Report has only been cursory,
concentrated on only a few Policies, and has not been completed. A full and complete legal
review of the Phase 2 Report and the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments would
need to be completed. Note: This section has not yet been submitted or reviewed by legal staff
and will be modified prior to submittal to the Bee.
FISCAL IMPACT: IF the BCC authorizes County staff to initiate a Growth Management Plan
Amendments special cycle solely for the consideration of amendments to the RLSA Overlay, the
following are the estimated associated costs:
a. Legal advertisements: $10,032 [for transmittal and adoption hearings before the
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), Planning Commission (PC) and BCC: $1,254 x
8= $10,032]
b. Court revorter: $7.495 [assumes 1.5 days for EAC; 2.5 days for PC; and 1.0 day for the
BCC]
c. Cost of printing: This cost cannot be calculated at this time.
d. Cost of staff time: Staff time to review and compile this GMP amendment is difficult to
calculate. However, the following is an estimate of staff hours by Division:
· CDES Division: 2,000 total staff hours, including the following departments:
Comprehensive Planning, Engineering and Environmental Services, Zoning and
Land Development Review, Assistant County Attorney, and Administration.
· Public Services [Housing and Human Services): 100 hours
· Public Services [Parks and Recreation 1: 50 hours
. Public Utilities: 100 hours
. Transportation: 200 hours
There are no additional fiscal impacts associated with this project, other than incidentals, such as
postage, etc.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The GMP will need to be amended concurrent with
or prior to the proposed RLSA Overlay amendments to align Plan dates throughout the GMP in
response to the Objection received from the Department of Community Affairs related to DCA
review of the 2006 cycle ofGMP amendments.
3
161 rlk)j
The Phase II Report recommendations have not been comprehensively scrutinized in their
entirety by County staff to the point where it can be said that the recommendations are ready for
GMP amendments presentation and public vetting. However, the Assistant County Attorney, the
Transportation Division, and several CDES staff have participated in all or portions of the
Committee's deliberations and have provided some input to the Committee.
Due to the attached list of projects internal to the Comprehensive Planning Department,
including the 2007/2008 GMP Cycle amendments, upcoming 2009 GMP Cycle amendments, the
Annual Update and Inventory Report, and many other projects, the Comprehensive Planning
Department staff will need BCC direction as to what priority to assign to the Committee-
recommended RLSA Overlay special GMP A cycle. If priority is given to this project, then the
production of other products may be delayed. Further, all dates for transmittal hearings and
adoption hearings will need to be coordinated with the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC),
the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and the BCC, both as to meeting room space
availability and availability of the hearing bodies for specific dates.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners provide
direction to staff with respect to the Committee's requests which are: I) authorization for the
holding of a Committee-recommended special Growth Management Plan Amendment cycle,
which is a departure from the BCC-adopted policy of limiting GMP amendments to one cycle
per calendar year; 2) assignment of priority to this special GMP A cycle required hearings versus
the already filed GMPA 2007/2008 combined cycle petitions and the upcoming 2009 GMPA
cycle petitions; and 3) authorization to present and review the Phase 2 ReIJort concurrent with
the requested special GMP A cycle contrary to the PMP.
PREPARED BY: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Department
4
DRAFT
Comprehensive Planning Department Major Projects 2_2011
....
o la
Prepare annual PopulatIOn esbmales ana pro_lions by PC:; diles. allflf"e (listrlC1s, all ,^,<Ilef g, se~r districts, HS~ OlInendance
1 ,zones. C045Ia1 Urban are.a,GGe;.RFMUD. RLSA9. oHulr ~ographles as Warrilll1ll!d
J. Prepllre ..nnu.l!IrI?U.Suma1,~~ and,eroi.eC!:i2r.'S.
3 P.!!P'!I'e'IJl)d.leofOO~id~J~:1Ji~5Ilrl.Stud)'
DemOlr.ptKil~tory Datil
l' LipOatep.~~ I. Economic, profile.
21 U~ I~~riai Inventory-
_~~~t! Comme~1 in\l80t0ry.
..I Update FIAU lAodel
51 Update Interactive Growtn Model
ifGI~ _~"i! of Inventories and Modles
QMP Amend~.
1 200712008 combine<! .llnual..~Y~.!~_S~!5~~f~~mendm611t petitlOr'!:!! (n1Nl1007 p!ollban~-.!:~~,_2.QQ.~U?etibo'J~)
~2009 annual crcJe of mAP amendmenlpetlllons.
;J ?010annual cr<=~ of GMP amendment petitions
~ 201 f annual cf'Cte of GMP amel1~ment..P.!bJ!..?n~,
$,Amual elE updale
IRLSA a--:-Yeer Review-based amendments.
7 Align dates in "all EJemenii(e.g. RUM, TE map5.~~SAO. elc,!, aor.l compile necessary dale & anal)'sl$
8. w.4~_C;;.bilsed,
9 CP.2006.1 1. TQlI.ftanlesnake ORI.~I.'ed alTletldmem
. ^mend G~PA procedural ResOiUiiOn to e.dd NIM requirement & nnrence loe property own., nobfiCahonreq'm1.. and as
tOotherwlsenecessalY:__ .-...-. .. --~_.~
Revise GMPA pelition. jll(;lude 1::0V8I' sheel to heip explaIn- dl!sl'i!ld fOfmBl!orgaoizallOn of 1he petition paclo.age. Create a
11 checkWst?lnc!ude NIM and property O'IIL'nlllfnoUflcatlon requirem~t5.
12 p~_ ~ieW of 1M ~d..n Gate Master Plan
13 Exploration of adopllon of mass Ir..n51~~~en!.E_g-'I"P POt' CCPe
LDC 'Amllndm~r.
11 RLSA 5-Voar Review.based LoCA-s.
2 i PSFE-baS&d. -
G_'-~~'-~~_R"'1eWa . .. _ ___________.'
11CPCO (Camp Plan Conll,..ncr Oe1err:tinatiOnl ~!9uests ~requlfe~by DEP and USACOE (mDstlY_W~~~~l?fIl~~),
2lConsislerq ,evlews of ZLOR petitlons IRZs. CU., PUDZ",. SRAs, 1I1(;.t,.
Oth.r~Of' T!Wu _" _
11Revlse S8R 1LA. in COOfdi,-.atlon with School District m.tf
2 ProcessJRevie""r'PIe~ COO peUlJons as 'ubmitted --
3. Proc;enJReY1cMo SSAs 8S subm.fted' -.--
4. RevIeW 'proposedl'-eiop~ S~i.lion for Impact_~P()f1 Coll4er County
~ ,AnnWlfly _~ Int.racll". Growltl t.tod&I
~ E1.~.{due 11l_20_!_!L_____ ____ _._
7~CenSUi 2010 PSAP (thanIJ-n to tracts, block groups., COPs., CCOs)
_ ~ _c.!DSUf ~~..~..B~up Quart'r$; ReVIew (mning homeS,-ALFs, alc-l_
e BCC Ra-<l~!...~ing.
to. eM At\fIUiI! and Ouarterly fWpurtinljl
Commitle! ~~-'"
1 :Staff_~1'1I!1'lg Group of5~hools Inlerlocal Agre&l'Tlenl
~ Atfon:l.;bIe HoUSlr1.i_COrnmlu~
3 RoocIQI!!nf.4~ntCommlttee
4.Nap~~r~ ~C!:I~~~~J!t}fom~
~ t~~a AI"!8 Mastel" Plan and Vlllonl"" Comml,ft8~
e ~LSA5--y..r RArnew CommIllee
--., HOOilin Studt OVersl1e CornmInee
lmmobl_ee~~_~.!"",
'. Enterprize Zonll auart~ Repol1$
2 ~erprtze Zone AnnUIII Repon
Mlle. Tub_ _m ... "'_ .___ _ m
~ Raspr;md)o PubWc_~~ .~~ues1S MldRequnts far Public InftwmatlO/\
2 TOR Program AdmInistration.
3: Sity~..~trind GAP AdOpIion-
4iAve~QRH5-Jtl.rfevlewofAAM ... m _u.,
_ _~sl~~va re'MW of propoae<l Orowlt1l!18.negemem and ~d 18lIislalJon
I: Review of FAC proposed ~sl~~ ~~I8fI!~."
7'''Green" GMP amendrme1s
looi.ltlllalfliOfpro,io:o:b.blll;jlld*li~
0; CcmplDavld
16 11(A )I~
DRAFT
~,
lII1l1.....1
11I111.....1
peI1Q(1IC_
..nl1u81
."nual
aM....
11M....
.,.,n...;II
II11nU81
."....al
lInroval
1I1"\f\U1J1
'"~IJI
5~-
On!;;ll
OO~
oo~
pCliod,c
~CM1Ic
l!'IIrJ'_L-!O--.ro-rs...
ooce (mulU year)
-t~yelrs
,Cl1c;ll
on'90ln9
_~:90In9
per.:;du;:.
OI'I-g<llnq
on_~.!..n~_
.nn....t
.nnu'l
~!yel'1l
'N#It>f 10 ye"'~
e.-ery'O~u'~
e'""'Y5)'('.l'lI
1')t'\i!""'ljI
Qn1!OI~..
.tlf>--j}llinll
_CJfllloll>R
onlIulllg
_once (tWh year)
once~1 yew) "
once (1TUl1_year~
_~"Ce.~lir
,-4limft/yur
~~
onilong
CJrlCe lmultl year)
-
Mnual
~~I
iflnu.l
Ifl.l6-0S
0'<-- 16 11 (l?) I
MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RECEIVED SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
DEe 1 0 2008
Fiala
Halas
Henning )
Coyle
Coletta
ber 7, 2008
~oi'lrd of County eommiSSlOOers
Naples, Florida, November 7, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, in and for
the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at
9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610 of the Collier
County Community Development and Environmental Services Building, located at
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, and the following persons were present:
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson
Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate
STAFF PRESENT:
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney
Kitchell Snow, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor MI~C OQffff'
Marlene Stewart, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary 0 l
Date:
t
.1,:
16 j ll~ I
November 7,2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Meeting was called to order by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda
Garretson at 9:00 AM. 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) for a Resolution by Stipulation; looking for compliance without being
punitive.
RECESS: 9:15 AM
RECONVENED: 9:30 AM
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Marlene Stewart, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary, proposed the following
changes:
(a) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the
County due to compliance:
· Agenda # 11, Case #CEPM 20080008511 - BCC vs. Zonia Barginer
(b) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the Folio Numbers were corrected in the
following cases:
· Agenda # 6, Case #CESD 20080009498 - BCC vs. Parker, the correct Folio
Number is 24533040005
· Agenda #7 - Case #CESA 20080009496 - BCC vs. Parker, the correct Folio
Number is 24533040005
(c) Under Item XIII, "Consent Agenda," there will be a recommendation to approve
the imposition of liens for owners of record who failed to pay invoices resulting
from Nuisance Abatement violation actions.
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
The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on October 17,2008 were
reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted.
IV. MOTIONS
A. Motion for Continuance: NONE
2
16 Ill~) I
November 7, 2008
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stipulations:
3. Case #CEV 20080008925 - BCC vs. Louis A. Berkel
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renaid
Paul who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violation(s): Collier Co. Land Development Code 04-41, as amended,
Sec.2.01.00(B)(3)
Commercial vehicle parked in front of residential property
Violation Address: 1780 43rd Terrace SW, Naples, 34116
A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on November 6, 2008.
The Investigator stated the violation has been abated and the Respondent agreed
to pay the Operational Costs.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, andfinding the violations did
exist but were CORRECTED prior to the Hearing. the Respondent was found GUILTY
of the alleged violation and was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of$I17.43 on or before
December 7, 2008.
2 Case #CEV 20080011541- BCC vs. Jacquelin & Sarilia Francois
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renaid
Paul who was present.
The Respondent, Sarilia Francois, was present.
Gabriel Francois served as translator for his mother.
Violation(s): Collier Co. Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sec.4.05.03(A)
Parking vehicle(s) on the grass in residential area
Violation Address: 4956 18th Ave. SW, Naples, 34116
A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent, Sarilia Francois, on November 7,
2008.
(The Respondent stated she is divorced from Jacquelin Francois and is the sole owner
of the property.)
The Investigator stated the Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the
Courthouse, as well as sent via Certified Mail. Verification of delivery was provided
by the U.S. Postal Service,
3
lV~b.!7,!J6 )1
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to remove the vehicles from the
front yard and to park the vehicles on a stabilized pervious or imperviously treated
surface on or before November 10,2008, or afine of $50. 00 per day per vehicle will
be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a
subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
lf the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by contractor bid-out and to assess the costs to the Respondents.
lfnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.43 on or
before December 7, 2008.
The Respondent is to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to concur
the violation(s) had been abated.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Hearings:
1. Case #SO 105431- BCC vs. Elizabeth Jennin2s
The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present.
Collier County Sheriffs Department Officer David Butler appeared on behalf of
Officer Bill Hems who could not attend.
The Respondent's father, Oscar Molinet, was also present.
Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-67
Parking in a Handicapped space
Violation Address: Parkway Plaza - Kmart
The Respondent's address is 14895 Mystic Lake Circle, Apt. #7102, Naples, Florida
34119.
The Respondent stated she had taken her parents shopping and placed her father's
handicapped placard on the rear view mirror of her car, It had apparently fallen off
the mirror. She produced her father's handicapped parking permit.
Cpl. Butler examined the permit and stated it appeared to be in order.
The Special Magistrate assessed afine of $5.00 for failure to adequately display the
Handicapped parking placard.
4. Case #CEPM 20080006785 - BCC vs. Melissa Spencer
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Michelle Scavone who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
4
16JelJ 2~) I
Allyn Blair appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI, Sec. 22-231,
Subs, 12(N)
Accessory structure on estates zoned property not being maintained
and kept in good repair & sound structural condition
Violation Address: 200 22nd. St. SE, Naples 34117
Mr. Blair produced written authorization from the Respondent [signed as: Melissa
Spencer, n/kIaRunion] which was marked as Respondent's Exhibit "A" and admitted
into evidence.
The Investigator introduced six photographs which were marked as County's
Composite Exhibits "A" (dated February 6,2008) and "B" (dated November 6, 2008)
and were admitted into evidence. Admitted as County's Composition Exhibit "C"
was a Demolition Permit Application,
The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent sent a Motion to Stay to her office,
The Special Magistrate stated she did not have the authority to rule on the Motion
since the case had not been brought before her, and the Request for a Motion to Stay
should have been directed to the Connty.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain a Collier County Demolition
Permit with all required inspections, remove any debris, and a Certificate of
Completion, on or before November 20,2008, or afine of $100. 00 per day will be
imposedfor 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 Respondents.
Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.87 on
or before December 7, 2008.
The Respondent is to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to
concur the violation(s) had been abated.
The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent could file an appropriate Motion for
Extension of Time only if there were a delay in the process beyond the control of the
Respondent. The Special Magistrate stressed the Motion could be filed only in the
case of an "extreme hardship. "
5. Case #CEPM 20080010296 - BCC vs. Tribeca Lendinl! Corporation c/o
Corporation Service Companv
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Jonathan Musse who was present.
5
16 I !01~)2ot
The Respondent was not present.
Bonnie O'Neill, ReMax Realty's listing agent, was present as an interested party.
Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord., Chap. 22, Article VI, Sec,22-23I (15)
Pool is stagnant and not maintained
Violation Address: 776 92nd Ave. N., Naples 34108
Ms. O'Neill stated her office address was 7910 Summerlin Lakes Drive, Fort Myers,
Florida 33907, and appeared as a representative only of ReM ax Realty and not the
Respondent. She found the Notice attached to the front door of the property.
The Investigator introduced a photograph which was marked as County's Exhibit "A"
and entered into evidence.
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on October 27,2008 to the
Registered Agent. Proof of delivery was provided by the U.S. Postal Service.
Ms, O'Neill stated she is the listing agent for the property and has hired a pool
cleaning company to remedy the pool's condition. It was her understanding the pool
company was investigating whether or not a permit was required before work could
begin.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to completely drain and clean the
pool, and to keep it clean and free of mold, liUer and/or debris, and to replace the
pool pump on or before November 21,2008, or afine of $1 00. 00 per day will be
imposedfor 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 Respondents.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $/I 7.69 on
or before December 7, 2008.
The Respondent is to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to
concur the violation(s) had been abated.
RECESS: 10:45 AM
RECONVENED: 11:15 AM
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B Hearings:
6. Case #CESD 20080009498 - BCC vs. Wallace R. Parker. Tr.. Steve H.
Parker, Tr.. & Wallace Parker Tr.. UTD 8-2-96
6
~6rLlsl~) I
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Jonathan Musse who was present.
The Respondents were not present.
The Respondents' son, Brent Parker, was present earlier but left [due to a family
emergency] before the case could be heard.
Violation(s): Collier Co.Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended,
Sec(s).1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(A), I 0.02.06(B)(1 )(E) & I 0.02.06(B)(1 )(E)(I)
Shed built without obtaining proper Collier Co. permits
Violation Address: 85 7th St., Bonita Shores, 34134
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on October 23, 2008, and the
property and the Courthouse were posted on October 27, 2008.
The Investigator introduced one photograph which was marked as County's Exhibit
"A" and admitted into evidence.
The Investigator stated he spoke to the Respondent's son on November 3'd who
informed him that his father was very ill.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and were ordered to obtain the required Collier
County permit for the addition to the residence, inspections and a Certificate of
Completion, OR remove the unpermitted addition by obtaining a Collier County
Demolition Permit, with required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion, all
on or before December 7, 2008, or afine of $50. 00 per day will be imposedfor 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.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $11 7.69 on
or before December 7, 2008.
The Respondents are to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to
concur the violation(s) had been abated.
7. Case #CESD 20080009496 - BCC vs. Wallace R. Parker. Tr.. Steve H.
Parker. Tr.. & Wallace Parker Tr.. UTD 8-2-96
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Jonathan Musse who was present.
The Respondents were not present.
The Respondents' son, Brent Parker, was present earlier but left [due to a family
emergency] before the case could be heard.
7
1611 (f))/
November 7, 2008
Violation(s): Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted by Collier Co.,
Sec 105.1
Constructed a wooden fence without first obtaining proper Collier Co.
permits
Violation Address: 85 7th St., Bonita Shores, 34134
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on October 23,2008 and the
property and the Courthouse were posted on October 27,2008.
The Investigator introduced one page of photographs which was marked as County's
Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence,
The Investigator stated he spoke to the Respondent's son on November 3rd who
informed him that his father was very ill.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and were ordered to obtain the required Collier
County permitfor the fence, inspections and a Certificate of Completion, OR remove
the fence by obtaining a Collier County Demolition Permit, with required inspections,
and a Certificate of Completion, all on or before December 7, 2008, or afine 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 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.
Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.60 on
or before December 7, 2008.
The Respondents are to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to
concur the violation(s) had been abated.
8. Case # CENA 20080009497 - BCC vs. Wallace R. Parker, Tr.. Steve H.
Parker, Tr.. & Wallace Parker Tr.. UTD 8-2-96
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Jonathan Musse who was present.
The Respondents were not present.
The Respondents' son, Brent Parker, was present earlier but left [due to a family
emergency] before the case could be heard.
Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord., Chap, 54, Article VI, Sec. 54-181
Litter consisting of but not limited to, folded table, coolers, wood, road
cone, rugs, broken tile, plastics, buckets, etc.
Violation Address: 85 7th St., Bonita Shores, 34134
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on October 23, 2008 and the
property and the Courthouse were posted on October 27,2008.
8
Nle~J7,JoJb) I
The Investigator introduced seven pages of photographs which were marked as
County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. As of October 31 st, the
violation had not been completely abated since some debris still remained.
The Investigator stated he spoke to the Respondent's son on November 3rd who
informed him that his father was very ill.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and were ordered to remove the litter to an
appropriate disposal facility or to store the derelict property in a completely enclosed
structure on or before November 14,2008, or afine 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.
lfthe 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.
lfnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.43 on
or before December 7, 2008.
The Respondents are to notifY the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to
concur the violation(s) had been abated.
9. Case # CEPM 20080005933 - BCC vs. Carolina M. Alvarez
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator John
Santafemia who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violation(s): Ord. 2004-58, as amended, Sec. 6, Sub(s), 1,5,8,9, 11, 12D, 12I, 12J,
19C & 20
Numerous minimum housing violations
Violation Address: 724 109th Ave, N. Naples, 34108
The Investigator stated the Notice of Violation was posted at the Courthouse and the
property on September 8, 2008. The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail
on October 23, 2008 and return receipt was received. The Courthouse and the
property were posted on October 28, 2008,
The Investigator introduced a copy of a fax which was marked as County's Exhibit
"A" and eleven photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B",
and admitted into evidence.
On May 2, 2008, the Investigator faxed a copy of the Residential Property
Maintenance Inspection Report dated April 23, 2008 to the Respondent's husband,
Ricardo Ramero. Since the tenant would not allow Mr. Ramero access to the
property, the Investigator granted an extension of time to comply.
9
16 I 1 (\? ) I
November 7, 2008
The property is now vacant and the violation has not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to completely correct all violations
cited on the Residential Property Maintenance Inspection Report on or before
November 14,2008, or afine of $250. 00 per day will be imposedfor 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 Respondents.
if necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118. 13 on
or before December 7, 2008.
The Respondent is to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to
concur the violation(s) had been abated.
10. Case # CERR 20080006426 - BCC vs. Carolina M. Alvarez
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator John
Santafemia who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violation(s): Ord. 2004-58, as amended, Sec.7(2)
Residentially zoned duplex being used as rental property without
obtaining rental registration certificate
Violation Address: 724 109th Ave, N. Naples, 34108
The Investigator stated the Notice of Violation was posted at the Courthouse and the
property on September 8, 2008. The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail
on October 23, 2008 and return receipt was received. The Courthouse and the
property were posted on October 28, 2008.
The Investigator introduced a fax of the rental registration form which was marked as
County's Exhibit "A" and a photograph of the property which was marked as
County's Exhibit "B" and admitted into evidence.
The Investigator faxed a copy of the rental registration application form to the
Respondent's husband on July 23, 2008, To date, the property had not been
registered,
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to register the property as rental
property with Collier County and obtain a valid Registration Certificate, pay all
penalties, fines and/or latefees on or before November 14,2008, or afine of $25.00
per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered
by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
]0
16Jr 7AoC ~ ) I
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.52 on
or before December 7, 2008.
The Respondent is to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to concur
the violation(s) had been abated.
C. Emergency Cases: NONE
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
1. Case # CEPM 20080008890 - BCC vs. Jill J. Weaver & Henry Tesno
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow.
The Respondents were not present.
Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI, Sec,22-23I, Sub(s). 9,
12B, 12F, 12H,12G, 121, 12K& 12N
Repeat Violation-Minimum housing violations
Violation address: 3072 Van Buren Ave., 34112
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the Courthouse and the property on October 28,
2008.
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $118.04,
together with fines 01'$39,500.00 for the period from July 26, 2008 through
October 13,2008 (79 days @ $500/day) and reimbursement to the County for
abatement in the amount 01'$2,629.00, for a total amount 01'$42, 247.04.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $42,247.04.
2. Case # CEPM 20080003036 - BCC vs. Ethel Kinser
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha,
The Respondent was not present.
Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord" Chapter 22, Article VI, Sec.22-231, Sub(s).
12B, 12R, 121, & 19
Abandoned mobile home in deplorable & hazardous condition
Violation address: 160 Kathy Lane, 34112
The property and the Courthouse were posted on October 23,2008.
II
'lJ~nbL~ol~ )1
The Investigator stated the owner died and he received a letter from the survivors of
the Decedent disclaiming any ownership in the property, No probate proceeding has
begun.
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$117.87,
together reimbursement to the County for abatement in the amount 01'$2,349,00, for a
total amount 01'$2,466,87.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $2,466.87.
3. Case # 20070000304 - BCC vs. Jill J. Weaver & Henry Tesno
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha.
The Respondents were not present.
Violation(s): Ord. 2004-58, Section 6, Subsections(s) 2
Mobile home being occupied without water & electric
Violation address: 3080 VanBuren Ave., 34112
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the Courthouse and the property on October 28,
2008.
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$243.60,
together with a civil penalty in the amount 01'$5,000.00, fines 01'$59,500.00 for the
period from March 15,2008 through July 10,2008 (117 days @ $500/day) and
reimbursement to the County for abatement in the amount 01'$3,720.00, for a total
amount 01'$67,463.60.
The Special Magistrate noted her previous Order involved only Ms. Weaver and that
Mr. Tesno was not a party to the action.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $67,463.60.
4. Case # 2007080695 - BCC vs. Richard K. Cruce
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Specialist Jonathan Musse.
The Respondent was not present.
Violation(s): Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted by Collier Co.,
Sec 105.1
12
16vlbI7, L~ ) I
Fence erected on agriculturally zoned property without obtaining
Collier Co. permits
Violation address: 6101 Taylor Rd. S., 1mmokalee, 34142
The Supervisor stated the violation has not been abated.
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the Courthouse and the property on October 27,
2008.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$117.52,
together with fines of $3,200.00 for the period from October 6, 2008 through
November 7, 2008 (32 days @ $1 OO/day) for a total amount of $3, 317.52.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of$3,317.52, and notedfines will continue to accrue.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Request to forward cases for Foreclosure/Collections: NONE
RECESS: 12:15 PM
RECONVENE: 12:27 PM
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA:
The County withdrew recommendation for approvaL
IX. REPORTS: NONE
X. NEXT HEARING DATE - November 21, 2008 at 9:00 AM
The Hearing will be located at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive in the Community
Development and Environmental Services Building in Conference Room 609-610.
*****
13
16 111ei!J~' 1008
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by
Order of the Special Magistrate at 12:30 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING
cial Magistrate, Brenda Garretson
These Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on ----HoJ ' I ( I Joo~
as presented , or as amended .,/
14
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta ~
MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED
DEe 0 9 2008
6 I ll~ J I
ember 21, 2008
Naples, Florida, November 21, 2008
BoanI of Coooty Commission....
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, in and for
the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at
9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610 of the Collier
County Community Development and Environmental Services Building, located at
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, and the following persons were present:
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE:
Honorable Brenda Garretson
Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate
ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney
Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement
Kitchell Snow, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor
Marlene Stewart, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary
Misc. COIfes:
Date:
Novlt621Lr1(0 ) I
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Meeting was called to order by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda
Garretson at 9:00 AM. 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) for a Resolution by Stipulation; looking for compliance without being
punitive.
RECESS: 9:15 AM
RECONVENED: 9:30 AM
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate, proposed the following correction:
Under Item VI(A), "New Business - Motion for Imposition of Fines," in Agenda #3.
Case #2007-0000304 - BCC vs. Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno, the fines were
changedfrom $59,500 to $58,500.
The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on November 7,2008 were
reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Marlene Stewart, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary, proposed the following
changes:
(a) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the
County:
· Agenda # 2, Case # PR 00191 - BCC vs. Felix Borges
(b) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the
County due to payment:
· Agenda # 3, Case # PR 040936 - BCC vs, Robert E. Williams
(c) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the
County due to foreclosure status:
· Agenda #4, Case # CEPM 20080011831 - BCC vs. Carla Kollar-Poghen
(d) Under Item VI(A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was
withdrawn by the County due to payment and compliance:
· Agenda #1, Case # 2007100480 - BCC vs. Rudy Martinez & Jesus
Conception Martinez
2
16 , 1 (f;) I
November 21,2008
(e) Under Item VI(A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," in Agenda #4, Case
# 20070800486 - BCC vs. Douglas Menendez and Kevin R. Swinderman,
Mr. Swinderman's name was removed as a party to the action.
(1) Under Item VIII(A), "Consent Agenda," the County has WITHDRAWN the
recommendation to approve the imposition of liens.
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.
IV. MOTIONS
A. Motion for Continuance: NONE
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stipulations: NONE
B. Hearings:
I. Case # PR 003344 - BCC vs. Cab East. LLC
The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present.
Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was present.
Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-66
Failure to properly affix sticker
Violation Address: Barefoot Beach access
The Investigator stated the parking sticker should be placed on the left side of a car's
rear bumper or it is a violation of the County's Ordinance. He introduced a
photograph of the parking sticker, in a plastic bag, which had been placed on the
dashboard.
He stated he had read the Respondent's letter.
The Investigator stated only newly-issued stickers are to be placed inside on the
windshield on the driver's side of the car. The Respondent placed an old sticker in
the area reserved for a new sticker.
The photograph and the letter from the Respondent were marked as County's
Composite Exhibits "A" and admitted into evidence,
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $30.00, together
3
16 , 1 f~1r2"2oo8
with the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution
of this case in the amount of $50. 00 on or before December 21.2008.
Total amount due: $80.00
5. Case # CESD 20080009445 - BCC vs. Odet A. Mendez
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald
Paul who was present.
The Respondent was not present
Violation(s): Collier Co. LDC 04-41, as amended, Sec. 1O,02.06(B)(l)(A)
Garage conversion without permits
Violation Address: 1924 41st St. SW, Naples, FL 34116
The Investigator introduced the following County exhibits which were marked as
follows and admitted into evidence:
Composite "A" - proof of delivery of Certified Mail from the U.S. Postal Service,
Composite "B" - photographs of the violations at the property, and
Composite "C" - photograph of the Notice of Hearing which was posted at the
property and the Courthouse on November 10, 2008,
The Investigator stated the Respondent informed him that both she and her husband
were unemployed and unable to make any repairs due to financial constraints. He
stated the violations have not been abated and a lis pendens had been filed against the
property by a bank.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain either the required Collier
County permitfor the addition to the residence. inspections and a Certificate of
Completion, or to remove the unpermitted addition by obtaining a Collier County
Demolition Permit, with required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion, all
on or before April 21,2009, or afine of $200.00 per day will be imposedfor each day
the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order
of the Special Magistrate.
lfthe 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 Respondents.
Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
The Special Magistrate ordered the conversion may not be used for rental purposes,
and if the County discovers it is occupied, the daily fine will begin to accrue
immediately upon discovery.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.43 on
or before January 21,2009.
4
16 tJJer~,2oJ
The Respondent is to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to
concur the violation(s) had been abated.
C. Emergency Cases: NONE
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
2. Case # 2007100446 - BCC vs. Capital Ed!!:e. LLC Tr.. Desi!!:ns Land Tr.
UTD 5/12/06
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow,
The Respondents were not present.
Violation(s): Ord. 2004-4], as amended, Sec(s). 5.03.02(A)(2) & 5.03.02(A)(3)
Property fence not sound construction & not maintained
Violation address: 179753'd Ln. SW, Naples, FL 34116
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$350.44,
together with fines of $3,900.00 for the period from May 5, 2008 through June 13,
2008 (39 days @ $IOO/day), and reimbursement to the County in the sum 01'$495.00,
for a total amount of $4,745.44.
The Notice of Hearing was posted on November 10,2008 at the Courthouse and the
property.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $4, 745.44.
3. Case # 2007110238 - BCC vs. James W. Johnson
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Ord, 05-44, Sec, 6, 7 & 8
Accumulation oflitter, consisting of, but not limited to: an abandoned
boat, wood, tires, windows. roofing materials, buckets, rubber cones,
cans & yard debris
Violation Address: 403 16th St. SE, Immokalee, FL 34142
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations.
5
NoleJ218 (e,) j
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$216,09,
together with fines of $3,800.00 for the period from May 10, 2008 through
June 17,2008 (38 days @ $IOO/day), and reimbursement to the County in the sum of
$1,100.00, for a total amount 01'$5,116.09,
The Notice of Hearing was posted on November 10,2008 at the Courthouse and the
property.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $5, 116. 09.
4. Case # 2007080486 - BCC vs. Doul!:las Menendez & Kevin R. Swinderman
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow.
The Respondent Douglas Menendez, as sole owner of the property, was not present.
Violation(s): Ord. 04-58, as amended, Section 18
Residential property with severe fire damage open and unsecure which
is unlawful and creating a public nusiance
Violation address: 219 Johnnycake Drive, Naples, FL 34110
The Investigator stated the violations have not been abated.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$117.52,
together with fines for Boarding in the amount of $27,750,00 for the period from
August 2, 2008 through November 21,2008 (Ill days @ $250/day), and fines for
Demolition in the amount of $23,500.00 for the period from August 19,2008 through
November 21, 2008 (94 days @ $250/day), for a total amount 01'$51,367.52.
The Notice of Hearing was posted on November 10, 2008 at the Courthouse and the
property.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $51,367.52, andfines will continue to accrue. The Special
Magistrate noted the County has the option to abate.
S. Case # 2007060709 - BCC vs. Shanna Ward
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Investigator Ron Martindale.
The Respondent was present.
Respondent's husband, Steven Weisman, was also present.
Violation(s): Ord. 04-58, as amended, Sec. 12C
Failure to install permanent roofing on single family dwelling structure
Violation address: 728 II0th Ave. N" Naples, FL 34108
6
N!e~er'21}O{ &) I
The Supervisor stated the the violations have not been abated as of April 18, 2008.
He also stated the Operational Costs of $225.17 were paid.
The fines had been stayed by a previous Order of the Special Magistrate.
The County requested imposition of fines of $11 ,600.00 for the period from
February 20, 2008 through April 18,2008 (58 days @ $200/day) and fines continued
to accrue, for a total amount of $11 ,600.00.
The Hearing of April 18, 2008 had been "Continued." Accruing fines from April 19,
2008 through November 21,2008 at $200 per day for 216 days is $43,200.00, The
total recommended lien amount is $54.800.00.
The Respondent's husband stated the initial damage was caused by Hurricane Wilma,
They are currently involved in litigation with the insurance company and the bank for
non-payment of and non-access to the funds allocated for repairs. When the funds were
finally obtained from the insurance company, the bank refused to sign the insurance
checks. The checks could not be deposited and repairs could not be made. He stated he
and his wife have done everything possible to resolve the situation but the other parties
have refused to cooperate. The house is in foreclosure and will be taken by Wells Fargo
Bank.
The Investigator stated the lis pendens is still on the property.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $54,800. 00 and fines will continue to accrue.
RECESS: 10:25 AM
RECONVENE: 10:38 AM
11. Case # CEPM 20080001391 - BCC vs. Edilbrav Perez & Belkis Martinez
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha.
The Respondent, Belkis Martinez, was present.
Jorge Quinones served as interpreter for the Respondent.
Violation(s): Code of Laws and Ord. Sec. 22-231 (12)(1)
Vacant tri-plex with several broken windows, structure is being
Accessed through broken windows
Violation address: 5563] 7th Ave., SW, Naples, FL 34] 16
The Respondent stated her husband was unable to attend due to his work schedule.
7
~______...~.___......,,_....M"'___"______.""""~___~<_'''"~__"."""","___""~_,_~;,<_,~~~,.",,,">,,,__.,_,_",_,...
16 tJJer~Jool
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations by boarding.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $270.49,
together with fines 01'$12,750.00 for the period from April 12, 2008 through June 2,
2008 (51 days @ $250/day) and reimbursement to the County in the amount of
$2,396.65, for a total amount of $15.417, 14.
The Investigator stated the violations were repaired by the Respondent after she
acquired the property from the bank,
The Respondent stated she experienced financial difficulties because the two other
apartments were not rented. The bank notified her the property was going into
foreclosure in October, 2006. She moved to Port Charlotte in November, 2006. She
further stated she did not receive a Notice of Violation. In January, 2008, she called
the Sheriffs Department because she wanted to board the property but was told not to
do so because the property was in foreclosure. The bank would not negoitaite with
her until three weeks ago when it agreed to allow her to redeem the property, She
stated the bank will send her the documents by December 1, 2008 and her first
mortgage payment is due on January 1,2009.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $15,417.14.
The Special Magistrate ruled if the Respondent and her husband pay their mortgage
for a period of six months, the fines and lien will be forgiven. Proof of each payment
must be provided to Investigator Mucha.
The Operational Costs of $270.49 and abatement costs in the amount of $2,396.65
must be paid by the Respondent. The total amount is $2,667.14.
The Special Magistrate ruled enforcement of the Order will be stayed until the
December mortgage payment has been made or the bank has determined the date for
her first mortgage payment to be made.
Ifpayment is not made, thefull amount of$15,417.14 will be assessed as a lien. The
Investigator will file an Affidavit of Non-Compliance requesting imposition of the
lien.
9. Case # 2007080938 - BCC vs. Linda Haines & Williams Haines
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha.
The Respondents were not present.
Violation(s): Ord. 04-58, as amended, Sec. 6, Sub(s). 12B, 12C & 12 I
Property Maintenance issues
Violation address: 3087 Lunar St., Naples, FL 34112
8
le2el.lo( ~ ) I
The Investigator stated on November 10,2008, he met with and hand-delivered the
Notice of Hearing to the Respondent, Linda Haines,
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$244.99,
together with fines of $40,500.00 for the period from May 19,2008 through
October 28, 2008 (162 days @ $250/day) and reimbursement to the County in the
amount 01'$2,904.00, for a total amount 01'$43,648,99.
The Investigator stated the Respondent said she had continuing health problems and
had been hospitalized several times throughout the year which prevented her from
complying with the Order. She does not have the finances available to repair the
problems.
At the January 18,2008 Hearing, the Respondent stated:
"... she was aware of the condition of the vacant mobile home but both
she and her son, William Haines, had been hospitalized on several
occasions due to severe medical problems. She stated she lives next
door to the property and that it is fenced. "
On January 18,2008, the Respondents were "... ordered to obtain a Collier Coun(v
Demolition Permit, inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before May 18,
2008, or ajine of $250. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violations remain
thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special
Magistrate. "
On September 19,2008, the Respondents filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
Comply which was heard and denied. The Special Magistrate noted the only thing
accomplished by the Respondents was the removal of the siding from the mobile
home which made the situation worse and they have not substantiated their claims
of medical problems by submitting copies of medical bills.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $43,648.99.
6. Case # CEV 20080007422 - BCC vs. Jill J. Weaver- Tesno & Henry Tesno
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow.
The Respondents were not present.
Violation(s): Collier Co. LDC 04-41, as amended, Sec. 2.01.00(A)
Repeat violation: Unlicensed/inoperable vehicle(s)
Violation address: 3411 Basin St., Naples, FL 34112
9
16e!I,1J.~) l
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations.
The Notice of Hearing was posted on November 10, 2008 at the Courthouse and the
property. Notice was also sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery was received.
The Respondents received a copy of the abatement invoice.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$247.77,
together with a civil penalty of $500.00, in addition to fines of $25,600.00 for the
period from July 8, 2008 through September 10,2008 (64 days @ $200/day x 2
vehicles) and reimbursement to the County in the amount 01'$250,00. for a total
amount 01'$26,597.77.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $26,597.77.
7. Case # CENA 20080007439 - BCC vs. Jill J. Weaver-Tesno & Henry Tesno
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha.
The Respondents were not present.
Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 54, Article VI, Sec(s). 179-181
Repeat violation: Litter
Violation address: 3411 Basin St., Naples, FL 34112
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violation,
The Notice of Hearing was posted on November 10, 2008 at the Courthouse and the
property. Notice was also sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery was received.
The Respondents received a copy of the abatement invoice.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $241.46,
together with a civil penalty 01'$500,00, in addition to fines 01'$14,200.00 for the
period from July 8, 2008 through September 17, 2008 (71 days @ $200/day) and
reimbursement to the County in the amount of $1,147.50, for a total amount of
$16,088.96.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $1 6,088.96.
8. Case # 2007110459 - BCC vs. Henry Tesno & Jill Weaver
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha.
The Respondents were not present.
10
1611l~)1
November 21,2008
Violation(s): Ord. 04-58, as amended, Sec. 6, Subsecs. 10 & II
Minimum housing
Violation address: 3069 Lunar St., Naples, FL 34112
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations,
The Notice of Hearing was posted on November 10,2008 at the Courthouse and the
property, Notice was also sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery was received.
The Respondents received a copy of the abatement invoice.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$247.07,
together with a civil penalty 01'$5.000.00, in addition to fines 01'$28,500.00 for the
period from December 13, 2007 through February 8, 2008 (57 days @ $500/day), a
rental inspection fee of $200.00, and reimbursement to the County in the amount of
$2,178.65, for a total amount of $36,125.72.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $36,125.72.
10. Case # CEPM 20080003564 - BCC vs. & Jill J. Weaver- Tesno & Henrv
Tesno
The County was represented by Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow and
Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha.
The Respondents were not present.
Violation(s): Ord. 04-58, as amended, Sec. 6, Subsecs. 1,2,3,4,9, 10, 11, 121,
12K, 12L, 13 & 19B
Numerous internal and external minimum housing violations
Violation address: 3180 Van Buren Ave., Naples, FL 34112
The Supervisor stated the County abated the violations.
The Notice of Hearing was posted on November 10,2008 at the Courthouse and the
property. Notice was also sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery was received.
The Respondents received a copy of the abatement invoice.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum 01'$271.25,
together with a civil penalty of $5,000.00, in addition to fines of $68,500,00 for the
period from May 24, 2008 through October 8, 2008 (137 days @$500/day), and
reimbursement to the County in the amount 01'$2,629,00, for a total 01'$76,400.25,
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines
in the total amount of $76,400.25.
11
16 LIJ2~)81
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Request to forward cases for Foreclosure - Collections: NONE
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Recommendation to approve the Imposition of Liens for owners of record who
have failed to pay invoices resulting from Nuisance Abatement Violation
enforcement actions.
The County withdrew recommendation to approve the imposition of liens.
IX. REPORTS:
Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement, thanked Marlene Stewart for the great
work she has done for the Office of the Special Magistrate. Ms. Stewart has accepted a
position in the Code Enforcement Citation Office.
The Special Magistrate thanked Ms. Stewartfor her commitment, cheerful attitude and
helpfulness.
She also introduced Marjorie Student-Stirling as the Assistant County Attorney
representing the County and Diane Flagg as the new Director of Code Enforcement.
X. NEXT HEARING DATE - December 5, 2008 at 9:00 AM
The Hearing will be located at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive in the Community
Development and Environmental Services Building in Conference Room 609-610.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by
Order of the Special Magistrate at 11:45 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING
(~\~~
ecial Magistrate, renda Garretson
These Minutes ',Yljre approved by the Special Magistrate on b~ 'S I ~"
as presented ~, or as amended _'
12
RECEIVED
DEe 1 5 2008
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta -
1611{(bl~
September 18, 2008
o03rd of County Commissioners
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MEETING
Naples, Florida, September 18,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Public Safety
Coordinating Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM., at the Human Resources
Conference Room, Building B, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, in Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Fred Coyle
Judge Cynthia Ellis, Circuit Judge,
(Designee for Chief Judge Cary)
Rich Montecalvo
(Designee for Stephen Russell, State Attorney)
Mike Orlando
(Designee for Kathy Smith, County
Public Defender)
Chief Greg Smith, Sheriffs Office
Charles Rice, Director,
Director, Collier County Probation Department
Mark Middlebrook,
Collier County Deputy Court Administrator
Richard Callanan,
Director, Court Administration
Christine Holmes,
Administrator, Batterers Intervention Program
David Schimmel,
Executive Director, David Lawrence Center
ALSO PRESENT: James Mudd, County Manager
Chief Scott Salley, Sheriffs Office
Skip Camp, Director, Facilities Management
Mike Sheffield, Assistant to County Manager
Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney
Misc. Cooes:
Date:'D \ !\3( D3
Item #J to I ( l) ~')--
~opies to
sePtele~8,(oJ (p; ) ~
I. Introduction
A. Call to Order
Chairman Fred Coyle called the meeting to order at 2:07 PM,
B. Approval of Minutes of June 12, 2008 PSCC Meeting
Correction:
. On Page 3, Judge Hardt's first name was changed to Fred.
Rich Montecalvo moved to approve the Minutes of June 12, 2008 as amended.
Second by Mike Orlando. Carried unanimously, 10-0.
C. Acceptance of June 12,2008 Regional PSCC Meeting Minutes
Correction:
. On Page 2, under Item #4, the capacity of the jail was changed to 1,336.
Chief Greg Smith moved to accept the Minutes of June 12, 2008 as amended.
Second by David Schimmel. Carried unanimously, 10-0.
II. Old Business
A. Report on Booking Fees - Chief Scott Salley
Chief Salley distributed copies of the written report to all members. He stated
Judge Hardt had suggested assessing booking fees to individuals who were part of
the weekend lock-down program. The individual would be assessed a fee each time
he/she went to jail. He noted the one-time Admission Subsistence Fee was
increased to $25.00 in July, 2008 and recommended a change to the existing policy:
"It will be recommended that a policy change is in order to reflect a charge
for each "Weekend Lockdown" inmate. The first weekend served by a
"Weekend Lockdown" inmate will be charged an initial Admission Subsistence
fee of $25. 00 and two dollars ($2.00) per day thereafter for each day served
inside the jail. "
He stated he would submit this recommendation to the Sheriff if the Committee
supported it.
Chairman Coyle moved to approve submission of this recommendation to the
Sheriff. Second by Christine Holmes. Carried unanimously, 11-0.
B. Jail "Snap-Shot" Report - Chief Scott Salley
Chief Salley stated the Average Daily Population was 1,165. County Manager Jim
Mudd verified it was 13.53% less than last year which resulted in a savings to the
taxpayers of the community,
Chief Salley stated one reason for the reduction was due to the Criminal Alien Task
Force ("CA TF") , An average of 55 inmates have been transported to Immigration
& Customs Enforcemcnt ("ICE") by U.S. Marshalls through CATF, This has
resulted in a decrease in gang activity in Collier County,
2
sep!J?r J 218 ( ~ ) ~
IV. Comments/Suggestions
Judge Ellis suggested a draft of the Legislature's letter could be sent to each agency to
provide the correct terms to be used in the individual organization's letter.
Mike Sheffield stated he would prepare and circulate a draft,
V. Public Comment
Kathy Ray provided information to the Committee about another potential source to
work with the Collier County jail to identify inmates with mental health problems
David Schimmel stated he would work with her regarding a "re-entry program."
Mary Andrews, Mental Health Association of Southwest Florida, invited the
Committee to attend a Legislative Update Breakfast on October 20, 2008 which will be
held at the Bellasera Hotel in Naples. The guest speaker is Judge Steven Leifman who is
Special Advisor on Criminal Justice and Mental Health to the Florida Supreme Court.
The next meeting of the Collier County Public Safety Coordinating Council will be held on
December 4, 2008 at 2:00 PM. The location will be announced at a later date.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chair at 3:35 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
COORDINATING COUNCIL
---"
These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented ...-'6r as amended
/2 It,..}. joy
6
~_......=.__._,--
Fiala
Halas
AGENDA Henrnng
DEe 0 2 2008 Revised II Coyle
COLLIER COUN1i~c,~<bIibiIIWG>~SION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M.~f~ Y, DECEMBER 4, 2008, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
RECEIVED
61 Iut)f
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRlTTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRlATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED tN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WtLL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT AnON TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC 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 TIlE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
]. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ OCTOBER 7, 2008, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 16,2008, REGULAR MEETING;
OCTOBER 22, 2008, AUIR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS ~ OCTOBER 28, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 30, 2008. LDC MEETING;
NOVEMBER 3, 2008, AUIR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: PUD;':-2007-AR-I2097. Thc Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc, and Florida
Community Bank, Inc., represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP of Planning Deve]opment, Inc., are
requesting a rezone from the Residential Single-family (RSF- I) Zoning District to the Community Facilities
Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly CFPUD, which
would memorialize the existing church uses and would pemlit redevelopment consistent with a master site
plan to a maximum of 100,000 square feet of houses of worship, children and adult day cares, a Pre-K
through 3rd grade school, and various accessory uses; and an additional 20,OOOM'ftjlt~ of children and
adult day cares, Pre-K through yd grade school and accessory uses contingent upon Conditional Use
approval. The I 5.93-acre subject property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevar<t>ll1l!d comprises the entire
block bounded by Ridge Drive, Wcst Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard In SectlOn 3, lownship
49 South, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David ~,#:AICP) CONTINUED
FROM ]1/6108) ;_ Ol/\~ 9
1 l~ I(0ALt-
16 1 1 CA] 4
B. Petition: SY-2006-AR-I0482, Seasonal Investments, Ine, d/b/a Fairways Resort, represented by Tim
Hancock, Ale? of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting seven variances. The first variance is from
Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.a. of the Land Development Code (LDC) which requires an off-premise sign to be
located in a nonresidential zoned district to allow an off-premise sign in a residential zoned district. The
second variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.i. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign area of 12
square feet for a double-sided off-premise directional sign to pennit a 79.6.1 square-foot off~premise sign.
The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.ii. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign height of
8 feet in height above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway for an off-premise directional sign to
allow a maximum sign height of20 feet. The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.iii. of the
LDC which requires that a sign is located no closer than ten feet to any property line to allow a sign within
zero feet ofa property line. The fifth variance is rrom Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.c. of the LDC which requires
an off-premise sign to be located no closer than 50 feet from a residential zoned district to allow a sign to be
located within a residential zoned district The sixth variance is rrom Subsection 5.06.06.Z. of the LDC
which prohibits any sign which publicizes an activity not conducted on the premises upon which the sign is
maintained to allow an off-premises sign. The seventh variance is from Subsection 5.06.06.AA. of the LDC
which requires that no sign shall be placed or permitted as a principal use on any property, in any zoning
district. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Piper Boulevard and Palm River
Drive, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy
Gundlach, AlCP) CONTINUED FROM 11/20/08)
C. Petition: Y A-2008-AR-13568, Robert Oster, Trustee, represented by Clay Brooker, Esquire, is requesting a
14 foot 1.25 inch variance rrom the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet as specified in the Naples Bath
and Tennis Club PUD (Ordinance No.8 I -61) to allow a rear yard accessory structure setback of 10.75 inches
to allow construction of a screen enclosure over an exiting pool and patio. The subject 0.32-acre parcel is
located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31) and approximately 31t mile south of Pine Ridge
Road (CR 896). More specifically the property is located at 540 Bald Eagle Drive, in Section 14, Township
49 South, Range 25 Fast, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
D. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-I;1,2JQ, Collier County Coastal Zone Management represented by Laura Dejohn of
Johnson Engineering, Inc., requesting a Rezone from the RMF-6 (Residential Multi-family) and C-3
(Commercial Intermediate) zoning districts 10 the CF (Community Facility) zoning district to provide
overflow parking for the Bayview Park boat launch. The + 2.13-acre subject property is located in
Section 23, Township 50 South and Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss,
AICP)
E. Petition: PUDZ-A.2006-AR-I0325, Wynn Properties, Inc. and Carbone Properties of Naples, LId
Liabiltiy Co., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP ofRWA, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel and
Andress LPA. and Carbone Properties of Naples, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., are
requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) for the Sungate Center CPUD. The project proposes a maximum of 83,000 square feet of
commercial leasable floor area. The subject 10.0::1:: acres are located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section J 5, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
A. Detennination of daters] for CCPC workshop with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
regarding its Phase II Reoort, which is a review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. (Review
Committee liaison, Thomas Greenwood, A1CP).
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. D1SCUSStON OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
12/4/08 C("PC Agenda/Rl3Isp
?
AGENDA
16 I 1 t~) q REceIvED
DEC , 5 2008
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M.. THURSDA Y, DEC~Gtl!ljti~ IN. ~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMtSSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNME
CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST. NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP
ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM
IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN
OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST
SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE
PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE
COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
I.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF TilE CCPC 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 UJfJ.~ WHICH~T~
APPEAL 1S TO BE BASED. Hala - --- ./
a as . - "A _ .
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Henning -y-
Coyle V
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Coletta -(fL..---
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 2008, REGULAR MEETING
6.
BCC REPORT- RECAPS - NOVEMBER 14,2008, LEGISLATIVE MEETING; NOVEMBER 18,2008, REGULAR
MEETING
7.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: SV -2006-AR-I 0482, Seasonal Investments, Inc, d/b/a Fairways Resort, represented by Tim Hancock,
AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting seven variances. The first variance is from Subsection
5.06.04.CI6.a. of the Land Development Code (LDC) which requires an off-premise sign to be located in a
nonresidential zoned district to allow an off-premise sign in a residential zoned district. The second variance is
from Subsection 5.06.04.CI6.b.i. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet for a double-
sided off-premise directional sign to permit a 79.61:. square-foot ofT-premise sign. The third variance is from
Subsection 5.06.04.CI6.b.ii. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign height of 8 feet in height above the lowest
center grade of the arterial roadway for an off-premise directional sign to allow a maximum sign height of20 feet.
The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.iii. of the LDC which requires that a sign is located no
closer than ten feet to any property line to allow a sign within zero feet of a property line. The fifth variance is
from Subsection 5.06.04.C.I6.c. of the LDC which requires au oftCpremise sign to be located no closer than 50 feet
from a residential zoned district to allow a sign to be located within a residential zoned district. The sixth variance
is from Subsection 5.06.06.Z. of the LDC which prohibits any sign which publicizes an activity not conducted on
the premises upon which the sign is maintained to allow an off-premises sign. The seventh variance is from
Subsection 5.06.06.AA. of the LDC which requires that no sign shall be placedM1SP~ as a principal use on
any property, in any zoning district. The subiect property is lucated at tbc northwest corner of Piper Boulevard
and Palm River Drive, in Section 23. Township 48 South. Range 25 East, Collj~teountv Flnrirb _~inator:
Nancy Gundlach, Alep) CONTINUED FROM 11/20/08)
1
item #,__ ._-'-
::oP\eS to.
16 11 tlr) 1
B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0325, Wynn Properties, Jnc, and Carbone Properties of Naples, Ltd Liabiltiy
Co., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel and Andress LPA,
and Carbone Properties of Naples, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., are requesting a rezone from
Planned Unil Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for the Sungate Center
CPUD. The project proposes a maximum of 83,000 square feet of commercial leasable floor area. The subject
10.0:1: acres are located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard
(CR 951) in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem,
AICP)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: V A-2008-AR-1360 I. Okeeehobee Inn, L TO, represented by Gina Green, P.E. of Green Engineering,
Inc., is requesting a Variance from LDC Subsection 4.02.27, Specific Design Standardslor the Immokalee-State
Road 29A Commercial Overlay S'ubdistrict, to permit access to State Road 29 for a parcel having less than the
minimum 440-foot street frontage width. The 9.04-acre subject property is located on the wesf side of State Road
29, just north of the Lake Trafford Road interscction, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East,
Immokalee, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
B. Petition: CU:~08-A~-13639, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saiots, represented by Alan Brewer of Reynolds, Smith and Hills, is requesting a Conditional Use for a church
in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District, as specified in Section 2.03.02.A.l.c.2 of the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC). The 4.63-acre subject property is located at 4935 23rd Court SW
in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss,
AICP)
C. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13391, Bishop Frank ,J. Dewane, Diocese of Venice, represented by Margaret Peny,
AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., and Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel & Andress is requesting a Conditional Use
expansion in the Residential Multi~family (RMF-12) zoning district pursuant to Collier Count)' Land Development
Code Subsections 2.03.02.C.l.c. The proposed Conditional Use will supplement the existing Resolution Numbers
98-173 and 04-220 by adding four (4) lots to be used for church and school related uses including but not limited to
a chapel, church/school related offices, religious goods store (not to exceed two thousand (2000) square feet),
priests residences, and parking for church and school uses. The subject property is located at 5280 28th Avenue
S.W. and 2760 52"d Terrace S.W. in Section 28, Township 49 South. Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
D. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, Stephen J. Lockwood. Trustee for SJL Realty II Trust, represented by Heidi
Williams, AICI', of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette,
Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich & Koester, P.A., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning
district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the
Savannah Place RPUD, to allow development of a maximum of 20 townhouse, single-family attached or single-
family detached dwelling units. The subject 6.81+ acre property is located on the south side of Orange Blossom
Drive approximately Y, mile west of Airport Road (CR 31), in Section 2. Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier Counly, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem. A ICP)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
12/18108 cepe AgendalRB/mk/sp
2
RECEIVED
DEe 1 ~ 2008
Board of coun~ Cof\lIllI$SIOOOlS
TRANSCRIPT OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MEETING OF THE C ) ~
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 6 lIlt
Naples, Florida
October 7, 2008
./
8
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 12:30 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION
in Building "F" of the Govenullent Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney (Absent)
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley (Absent)
Karen Homiak (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
MISC. Corres:
Date:
Item #
Page 1
'S iC
1611 GA-) Lf-
october 7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone -- actually, it's afternoon. Thirty minutes in the
afternoon. And now that Mr. Anderson's here, we can start.
If you'll all please rise for The Pledge of Allegiance today.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And welcome to the continuing saga of the Land Development Code
amendments for 2008, Cycle I. And last week we had left off in some environmental items that are going
to be heard today. There are four items that will be heard today.
We'll take roll in a minute, but I want to let everybody know that in case the audience is interested,
and Bruce is the only one, EIS thresholds, preservation standards, preserve management plans, criteria for
removal of protected vegetation and definitions for passive recreation, those are the four items that we
would expect to get into today.
And with that, Mr. Vigliotti, can you do roll call.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I will.
Mr. Eastman is absent.
Commissioner Ko1f1at?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent.
Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Myself, Bob Vigliotti is present.
And Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak and Commissioner Woltley is absent. We
do have a quorum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Okay. Now, Catherine, when we started these meetings off each time, Susan indicated you may
want to do an introduction. Just feel free to do it so the record's straight. then we'll go on.
MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, This is a continuation of the hearing that was extended from Friday
the 26th, September, to today of the LDC Cycle I 01'2008. I've handed out a checklist today that shows the
four we'll be hearing, and then we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven amendments left to hear, and
we have run out of dates. And that's about all the information I have for you today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's hope we can finish the four today to a point where they can go
back for rewrite and we don't need to have another date scheduled 'til the rewrites are ready.
So in that regard, let's go to the first one, and it's Section 10.02.02, submittal requirements for all
applications. And this one is for the EIS thresholds.
And Steve, you get the fun of addressing us again today. And this one was a rather difficult
grouping of pages to follow because it involves requirements for environmental review from an application
perspective.
And I was wondering, I think it might help all of us here, and even those watching to understand
what currently is in process and what -- some of the terminology used here. And I have five agencies that I
understand -- or I've seen referenced in here, and three criteria that I've seen referenced in here. If you could
briefly -- I'll read them to you and if you could explain them to us a little bit as to what they do, so that as
Page 2
16 I 1 l&;ott 7 2008
,
we're going through this document we already know what agencies are doing and then what Collier County
is proposing.
And the first one -- and the rust three will say South Florida Water Management District, the Corps
of Engineers, DEP, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission.
Can you kind ofbrietly tell us what environmental responsibilities are South Florida's currently and
what the county relies upon from each of those agencies to date?
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Steven Lenberger, Engineering and Environmental Services
Department.
The South Florida Water Management District is in charge with the water resources of the State of
Florida. They do the environmental resource permitting. There are certain exemptions which apply which
are -- which do not require mitigation. And those would be basically impacts to uplands.
When you start impacting wetlands, particularly if it's a half acre or more, then there's extensive
review to analyze the impacts to those wetlands and to address compensation for mitigation.
The Army Corps of Engineers will review projects for wetland impacts. They also issue a permit.
An application is submitted to the state agency, that being South Florida Water Management District in
most cases, a joint application. A copy goes to the Army Corps of Engineers for their review.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, the process through the South Florida is the ERP permit
process, which is Environmental Resource Permit. And South Florida and the Corps both establish
jurisdictional lines for wetlands, is that --
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next one after that would be DEP.
MR. LEN BERGER: The DEP. They do some of the environmental resource permitting for the
state, what they're delegated to by state law. They'll do all your marina facilities, for example. They'll do all
the permitting for boat docks. So in those instances where the South Florida Water Management District
does not issue a permit, it's under the authority of the DEP, And it's also ajoint application to the Army
Corps of Engineers for those activities when it involves open water or wetlands under the Corps authority.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And at certain elevations -- certain points along the way, some of
these agencies do public notices and receive public comment? I know the Corps does. I'm not sure about --
I know in certain permit requirements, the DEP does.
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, I don't know about the state. I do know the Corps has a public notice
they issue for permits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about U.S. Fish & Wildlife and then the Florida Fish & Wildlife
Commission?
MR. LENBERGER: These are wildlife agencies. They have jurisdiction over the listed species in
the state. There are different lists. Some are listed by both agencies, some are only listed by one. But that's
the jurisdiction they have.
The state and the federal govemment usually comment during the review process for an
environmental resource permit with the District and Corps.
It's been my experience that both those agencies really primarily comment during the public notice
for the Army Corps of Engineers during the permit review. And that's when they add conditions or do
review under the Endangered Species Act or whatever the particular laws they're required to follow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During -- since some of those are state agencies and others are federal, are
we obligated to accept their results as a minimum standard for Collier County? We can't accept less than
what they would; is that correct?
MS. MASON: Yes, that would be correct, that if they require something, we can't overrule them
and make it easier.
Page 3
16 I 1 (o~~et7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
And then Steve, there are three acronyms, and I know Tor loves acronyms, so I thought we'd talk
about those a little bit.
The first one is your FLUCCS maps. The second one is UMAM scores and the WRAP scores. I
was wondering if you could explain the -- how those three interact with the agencies in different reviews.
MR. LENBERGER: I put on the visualizer the Florida Department of Transportation's cover sheet
for their Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classifications System. That's what FLUCCS stands for. And
it's used by -- well, not just the DOT, it's used by all the regulatory agencies to identifY the different types of
habitats, whether it be an altered site or a native habitat. It's just a numbering system that's assigned per
different type of habitat. For example, pine flatwoods are in the 400 category, cypress are generally in the
600 category. And this is how they identifY different habitats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in order to identifY the habitats, they don't ground truth it, do they,
or do they do it by aerials, or how is that done? Or is that just saying that if you have this cover, this is the
number you use, and they don't really go county to county and identify the actual habitat?
MR. LENBERGER: The descriptions in there are kind of generic descriptions. They have to fit
different areas of the state. And obviously, you know the southern par1 of the state does vary from the
northern par1 of the state. So there are some differences and gradations. So the classifications they use are
in the context where they can be applied both north and south.
Some are only applicable to a specific region, but the ones that are statewide, they're generally
written so they can encompass all those different habitats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So an applicant would have to determine what FLUCCS map
designation applies to the various components of his parcel. And using that they determine a rating through
the ERP process on whether it's a par1icularly environmentally sensitive area or not so environmentally
sensitive?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. Generally the FLUCCS determinations are done by aerials
initially, generally through the bigger picture, your flowways, you might have your pine habitats. You can
read different aerial interpretation on what these different signatures mean.
And then the consultant go out to the site and ground truth it to verifY that the habitat is true to
what the FLUCCS code they have identified previously.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what about UMAM?
MR. LENBERGER: UMAM is an evaluation of a site. It's the current methodology used by the
state to assess the functionality of a wetland.
WRAP is the older method. But some projects are vested under WRAP scores and some are using
UMAM, the newer ones, This is why we have both of them listed in our amendment.
Basically it identifies the site to be impacted, functionality score, and also addresses any mitigation
site. And the mitigation site, also what needs to be done to bring that up to a condition which will meet our
-- the habitat being impacted.
And based on that, ratios are developed on what acreage of mitigation, what cost of mitigation is
involved for the agencies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so basically there are five agencies referenced in here, at least that I
could find, that somewhat involve themselves with environmental permitting.
And within those five agencies there are at least four levels of documentation that they use to assist
in their evaluation supplied by analysis from the applicant, I would assume FLUCCS maps, UMAM and
WRAP scores.
MR. LENBERGER: They use all three of those, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do the agencies themselves, for example, say they took a remote site
Page 4
16 I 1 ( If) l}
bctbber 7,2008
in Collier County, someone wanted to develop it and they came in and produced an ERP, submitted it to
the five agencies, submitted all their FLUCCS maps, UMAM scores, WRAP scores, either one they would
then pick to fill out the documentation needed. Would the agencies come out and physically inspect their
property?
MR. LENBERGER: The agencies do inspect the property. They inspected one for the wetland line,
that would be the wetland jurisdictional line, to verifY that it's in the right location. And then they'll also
assess properties later during the UMAM or WRAP analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the Corps and South Florida, when they do wetland
jurisdictional lines -- I know they each do their own, they're each culled out and they're each walked with
the biologist on the property.
When those lines vary, the county I guess is obligated to accept the most stringent of either one,
because you can't do anything less; is that right?
MR. LENBERGER: Actually, the state law requires us to adopt the state line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can the state line be less than the ACOE Corps line?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then how does the Corps then justifY us accepting this lesser line than
what they would if they're the -- regulated by federal government?
MR. LENBERGER: They do their own permitting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So regardless, if the Corps disagrees with South Florida and the
Corps wants more, before you get a Corps permit you're going to have to give them the more,
MR. LENBERGER: Y eah. You'll have to analyze it basic to their -- analyzing with their criteria,
yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to make sure -- I don't know how many of you on this
panel were familiar with this kind of permitting. I thought it would be help just to provide a little bit of a
refresher onto the levels of scrutiny that already occur before we got into this particular issue.
Steve, if you have opening comments, we're more than welcome to hear them, then.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Tor, and then --I mean Brad, then Tor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, last week we were discussing the groundcover and the
percentage of it, and we were discussing higher as an elevation of the groundcover. Are you sure the higher
doesn't mean the FLUCCS score?
Remember where it said that you would take the highest cover--
MR. LENBERGER: No, it would be the -- we were talking about strata, if I remember correctly.
No, it's not the FLUCCS -- it has nothing to do with the FLUCCS designation for that site. We were
dealing with strata elevation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're sure of that?
MR. LENBERGER: Positive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, if an applicant contacts DEP, is it not true that DEP might
solicit comments from other agencies, such as the Corps?
MR. LENBERGER: I don't know exactly how they do their procedure, but I know there is a joint
application, which is automatically sent to the Corps.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So the Corps will participate in anything that has been risen as a
question to the DEP?
MR. LENBERGER: I don't know exactly how they coordinate it. But the wildlife agencies and the
Corps will all be involved. I don't know exactly the coordination you're asking.
Page 5
16 I 1 ~ctL*, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The DEP generally sends a notice to the Corps that they've received an
application with usually a copy of the application, asking for a comment within a period of time. And ifthe
Corps feels it's something they want to participate in, they'll make a comment. And then that's how the
Corps gets in, if at that point they want to get in, if they're not previously required.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, did you want to do any opening comments on this, or just dive right
into it?
MR. LENBERGER: The amendment is for an amendment to the Environmental Impact Statement
section of the code. And it's basically to look at the thresholds for requiring an EIS and to analyze what
environmental information would be required to evaluate a project in lieu of an EIS being required.
And that's basically the gist of the amendment.
We can go page by page.
I have been reading this and thinking about it. I have a few comments along the way, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have a lot of comments, Steve.
MR. LENBERGER: As we go page by page, I tIUnk that will be the best.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we certainly appreciate your patience, because you've been very
good to deal with since this has started.
On Page 219, does anybody have any comments?
Tor?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, On 219 you indicate that you demonstrate no increase in lead,
zinc, copper loadings in the post-development scenario.
Now, I have to ask you to move to Page 222. Under 3.i.
MR. LENBERGER: Just excuse me one second. My numbering's a little off on mine, so I'm just
going to verifY what season I'm on, how many pages off.
Okay, all right, go ahead, 222.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, yes, the first page mentioned lead, zinc and copper. But if
you look at iii there down at the bottom of that paragraph, it says also no increase in nutrients, biochemical
oxygen demand or total suspended solids.
Why is there a disparity between those two? The first page indicates what we're interested in and
this here elaborates and adds some other items.
MR. LENBERGER: The previous requirement is indicating the additional requirement for adding
zinc and copper and lead and suspended solids.
Let me just read number three so I understand exactly what they're saying here.
I believe that's in the compo plan. I'd have to check. I put the compo plan language on the screen
here.
Does that answer your question? Existing single-family homes. Any product impacting five or
more -- five acres or more of wetlands must provide a pre and post-development water quality analysis to
demonstrate no net increase in nutrients, biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, lead, zinc and
copper loadings.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I tIUnk the thing that bothers me is the disconsistency (sic) here in
that the first change indication or representative change was that lead, zinc and copper would be added. But
when you read in the body of this, there's also nutrients, biochemical oxygen and total suspended solids.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, you need to bring your speaker a little closer to you, if you could.
Thank you.
But see, Steven, Tor's hit on a problem in that section. If you read on Page 221, it says the
following information is required for all development, yet the GMP says for five acres or more. Is that an
Page 6
16 I 1 (~~o~r 7,2008
inconsistency with what the GMP says, or should it be written a little more clearly?
MR. LENBERGER: These are general submittal requirements, environmental submittal
requirements. And they're required for all development orders. But this particular one, although it's required
for all, it's only applicable to site development and construction plans impacting five or more acres.
I included it there, but I did spell it out that it only as it applies to those with five acres or more,
impacts to wetlands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Tor, did you have more to --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, other than therefore the nutrient and the biochemical oxygen
demand as well as total suspended solids will be -- have to be a demonstration that it's no increase; is that
correct?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 219, Steve, this -- I've got a question on 219. It's actually to
do with the EAR language, the first group oflanguage that you had up there. I think it's above this one.
The last sentence that was added, county's land development regulations still establish their criteria
for determining the type of proposed development requiring an EIS.
It doesn't say that you're going to establish criteria for ones that aren't going to have an EIS. It says
you'll establish the criteria for ones that are going to have an EIS.
Now, if you take that philosophy a step further and read the balance of that sentence, it says,
including the -- one, the size and nature of the proposed developments. So that's one criteria. Two, the
location. Three would be the degree of site alterations. And four, other pertinent informations.
So it seems to me that the policy's looking for when an EIS is going to kick in based on those four
criteria to be elaborated in the LDC.
Why did we -- what part of this brings in the balance of all this new language we have for areas
that are not part of an EIS, or not required to do an EIS?
MR. LENBERGER: If you look on the visualizer, I put the complete language up there except for
all the struck through.
And it says here, an Environmental Impact Statement, and then the additional language says, or
submittal of appropriate environmental data as specified in the county land development regulations that is
required --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I would read that as to say okay, we're going to either come up
with a criteria for an EIS or we're going to come up with a criteria for other appropriate data as needed for
those items that qualiry for the four items down below that we're concerned about. It doesn't say we're
creating a whole new section of the code for non-EIS projects. And I don't know how you got to this
language.
And I mean, I've got a lot of problems with the language, page after page after page, because it's
more like an EIS for everything. Although I understand what you're trying to do, but it doesn't get there,
from what I can see, and I'll certainly demonstrate that in our discussions here today.
I just don't see the need for all this new language. I'm real concerned about it. And I don't know
where -- I don't believe the EAR or this policy supports that new language. So that's right off the get-go
where I've got a concern with.
But in deference to the fact you wrote it, I'll still walk through everything today. But in the end I
don't see the need for it. So I don't know how you got there or how somebody got there. I sure don't blame
you for everything, Steve.
Any other questions on Page 2 I 9?
Page 7
16 I 1 (4~) If
October 7,2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we turn to Page 220.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Steve, my question relates to Page 220 and the fiscal which has to
relate then to 221, number 2.A, wetlands, i. Got it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on page -- what page are you on?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm on 221. I'm referencing 221 by 220 having to do with fiscal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure we're following.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.A.i?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, sir.
And have you got it, Steve?
MR. LENBERGER: Okay, so you're --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I haven't gotten to what I was going to say. I just want to
know, you're at the point?
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, here's my question: It says, where wetlands are suspected of
occurring. And my note is by whom and on what basis.
And I know you said something about a consultant before. My concern is if it's suspected, and I
realize you're talking about perhaps the aerials and so forth, however it's suspected.
But what science do we have? I mean somebody -- yeah, I think there's a wetland on there. Now
that requires a fiscal irnpact. And going back to Page 220, and I'll read it to you, changing the thresholds
when an EIS is required will save time and expense on the part of the staff and the applicant.
So my concern is suspected. That's a very interesting word there. So want to help me understand
that a little bit better, please?
MR. LENBERGER: Absolutely. An environmental consultant will look at the property, and if they
suspect wetlands, they'll evaluate the site for jurisdictional wetlands, because they'll have to know that
information at the time they go in for an ERP permit and for permitting with the county, if there's
jurisdictional wetlands on-site.
So they'll look at the site and they'll make an evaluation if they think there's wetlands on-site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What savings would be realized for the applicant in that
connection then? He has to hire a consultant --
MR. LENBERGER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- because who inspects it?
MR. LENBERGER: Much ofthe information on your environmental submittal requirements on
Page 221 have to deal with site plan review. These basic site plan review, the basic raw data they obtain,
whether it pertains to wildlife, preservation of habitat or wetlands determinations for -- are all information
they need during their environmental resource permit process with the state.
And if they're impacting wetlands, they'll also need that information for the Corps of Engineers.
So there is no net decrease or increase. That's a wash. That's basic information that they'll have to
obtain.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So the savings that the statement makes here, savings on
time and expense on the part of the staff and the applicant is not applicable to that.
MR. LENBERGER: Not the raw data. The raw data they're going to have to analyze anyway
during the ERP process.
Page 8
16 1 1 Uk) t
October 7,2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's rest of this that the savings--
MR. LENBERGER: You have to look at the differences between the environmental submittal
requirements and the Environmental Impact Statement requirements. Environmental Impact Statement
requirements requires a document with all this information in it.
A lot of this other information related to the environmental submittal requirement is more related
to the site plan. And a site plan review, that's where the applicant will put this information, they'll put their
FLUCCS codes, they'll put their wetland lines on the site plans and on aerials and whatever site plans they
need, which will be submitted to the South Florida Water Management District. And if they're impacting
wetlands in the jurisdiction of the Corps, also the Corps of Engineers.
So it's basic raw data. That's the way this was structured in the environmental submittal
requirement.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I appreciate that. I guess my concern then is the use of
the term suspected, because it sounds to me from your statement that it's not a matter of suspicion, it's a
matter of performance that --
MR. LENBERGER: It has to be analyzed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So why do we have a statement that says where wetlands are
suspected of occurring if it's a condition that's going to be qualified no matter what?
MR. LENBERGER: There have been a couple instances where wetlands were on-site and the
consultant didn't identiry them. And I don't know a project specific to those. Perhaps Susan can elaborate.
But that has happened on rare occasions.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just trying to understand. And I can appreciate if it's raw basis,
and you have to go from get-go, and you're going to hire a consultant anyway. I'm just trying to figure out, I
don't know why you'd want to even put in the term suspected.
You know, if that's a standard operating procedure to check everything, I don't even know why you
need a prerequisite determination there.
MR. LENBERGER: This is the county requirements. And it shows you the basic information. We
need it on our site plan to effectively evaluate a project.
Just for comment, we talked about the size and nature of the proposed development earlier,
locations, site alterations. We probably need to talk about that when we get to the section with the EIS
requirements and what projects qualiry.
So just keep that in mind.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you cut that sentence down and maybe for your own benefit,
I don't know, maybe, but on the second sentence there it says, where native vegetation occurs or is
suspected to occur. Maybe that will help you in that regard. Or maybe you don't have to change anything.
But I have my answer from you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? We're supposed to be on Page 220.
Does anybody have any questions on Page 220?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I've got two questions on Page 220.
Fiscal and operational impacts. I understand what you're saying there, but it doesn't give us
anything. There are costs involved in the process, and I think you need to quantiry or qualiry that with a
value, because this -- this is quite at few pages of additional regulatory data that duplicates apparently in
some ways what is already being requested by other agencies.
And if that's the case, if that is really what you believe, then simply say that under environmental
submittal requirements the requirements for the ERP will be copied to this agency or whatever, something
of that nature.
Page 9
16 11 ,~A-\LL
Oct~e~ { ~008
You don't need to go through and recreate the whole book on what the environmental process is for
submittal, simply say provide the ERP application. And if that's not what your intention is, tell us here
today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, please.
MR. LENBERGER: Our intention is to have the appropriate data put on the site plan required by
the county so we can effectively evaluate the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you just tell us it was the ERP submittal.
MR. LENBERGER: We don't review the ERP. We review the ERP for consistency with the
county project once the permit is issued, but we do not review their plans in lieu of county plans.
The county has requirements, submittal requirements for site plans of specific sizes and certain
information, and we need that information on those plans to effectively evaluate the project.
Also, when a project is approved, it gets scanned and it is the site plan which is used as a reference
point by applicants who want to amend a plan, for inspectors who want to look at something, for code
complaints. It is the site plans which are retrieved. That's why we need the information on the site plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't they provide site plans in the ERP app -- wait a minute, I know
they provide site plans, because I do that.
So in the site plans that we provide for ERP applications, they're almost a mirror image ofthe
SDP's. Why can't you just get another set of those and scan them and keep them? I don't understand why
you have to have another special set made up just for your department.
MR. LENBERGER: Because the county has to approve the plans and the plan set that we have it
on the county, we need them on our site plans.
Just for your information, a lot of those plans, they are the same. They're at a much reduced scale,
but they are taken from the county plans. The engineer is working on the same drawings.
Go ahead, Susan.
MS. MASON: Excuse me, if] may interrupt. My name is Susan Mason, with Collier County
Environmental Services Review section.
And the state rules for regulating wetlands primarily, along with the listed species thing. The
county does have different standards for natural native vegetation retention that it is not always the same.
So while all the plans have to be consistent, if the agencies allow impacts to wetlands, we must
ensure that the plans that we approve also show no more impacts than what those agencies had permitted.
But there could be different issues with if it's a count preserve, there may be setbacks that are required, or
different plantings that are allowed within an area in relation to a preserve.
All the plans have -- the plans have to meet the requirements of all the agencies, but the agencies
do have different regulations. And it's -- and some permits are -- go through and they don't have the level of
detail that the county requires in our review. They do provide us with their staff report and exhibits for the
ERP or for the Corps permit so we can compare and make sure that their wetland impacts that they're
requesting from the county are consistent with what was permitted by those agencies.
But the requirements are not identical, and not all the information that's in an ERP application will
answer all the questions that we have. They can duplicate some of those, like if it's a FLUCCS map, it
should be an accurate FLUCCS map that all agencies can accept. So those kind of things they could just
reproduce another copy of in a legible format.
But like Steve was saying, we'll normally get copies of those plans that are on eight-and-a-halfby
11 sheets of paper, and much if not all of it is illegible. And the county requirements are for larger sheets of
paper at this point, much larger. So they would be in a scale that we could read and measure and veriry and
the inspector can use and that type of thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an answer I would have expected out of Randy Cohen. He provides
Page 10
16 'o!o~t) ~08
those kind of details to a simple request.
And that's not bad sometimes, but in this particular case, I'm concerned, because the whole premise
of this whole operation is supposedly to save money and time and expense on the part of staff and the
applicant.
Now I'm finding out that's not really true. We want everything you've given to all the other five
agencies, plus now we want more stuff that we specialize in but we're not going to tell you exactly what
we're looking for unless you dig through this document to find it.
If that's what you want, why don't you say environmental submittal requirements are required in
addition to the state and other agency requirements, and just list them. And then tell us what they are,
because I can't figure it out.
MS. MASON: There is definitely a cost saving to the applicant. This would weed out a certain
percentage of projects that are currently required to do an EIS. Right now it's almost any parcel that's 10
acres or larger has to do an EIS, and there are definite fees. Besides the consultant preparing it, there's a
$2,500 submittal fee that covers two reviews. And resubmittals have more fees relate to review time. In
addition, ifit has to go to the Environmental Advisory Council, the applicant has to provide, I believe it's
like 14 copies for the various staff members and all the EAC members, including the alternates. There's a
lot of expense that would be avoided if we can just get the information on sites that don't require the EAC's
evaluation. Just some things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, I'm sorry, I was out in the hall talking about something else. And I think I
understand the context of the questions.
The purpose here is to ensure that we have the information, whatever information we need to have
to apply the Land Development Code provisions for identirying size, location and what types of habitats
typically a preserve is required. That's first and foremost.
So the information that we need to have is, I think what staff is listing here it's typically has been in
the original EIS section for the most part. And so what we're trying to do is we're trying to say that if you're
not required to do an EIS -- so we set the thresholds differently for what's required for an EIS, which then
has to go through a whole separate process -- if you're not required to do an EIS, you're still required to
provide us the data and information so that we can apply the Land Development Code provisions for
determining preserve location, size, et cetera.
And what we've done is we've listed the information that's typically needed to do that, and that
parallels the EIS requirements. Some of that information is similar or the same as what the applicant is
supplying to the agencies.
But we also need that information to apply our Land Development Code criteria to it.
Now, there's two ways of doing it. One way could be that we list the information that you see here,
and maybe we can do it in a different format. But that's the information that we will gather to evaluate it. Or
we simply have like a one line statement that says the applicant is responsible to provide all information to
establish preserve requirements, et cetera, et cetera.
Of course at that particular point you're not listing the information. Somebody picks up the code,
they may not give us the information we need to have to do our evaluation of their proposed preserve
location.
So that's just a little bit of a -- comments here to maybe help move the process forward as to what
you may want to see.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your started out your statement by saying this was taken out ofthe EIS
section. Right, it was. You just took it and reprinted it in the non-EIS section. So now we have two sections
that are EIS sections.
Page 11
16 I O~tl~!218
I just don't understand at all what the gain is here, especially on the parcels that are supposedly
exempt from an EIS. If they're exempt from the EIS, number one, they don't have that kind of sensitivity
that requires, from what I can understand, five new pages of regulation for scrutiny. This is just absurd.
MR. LENBERGER: May I offer comments here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Steve.
MR. LENBERGER: First, some of the -- a lot of the information is on the site plan, and we require
that. But there are some things on here, we can create a separate section, just referencing certain things.
For example, special treatment overlays, the Manatee Protection Plan. We can create a smaller
section just referencing the sections to help applicants and staff, have checklist, so to speak, referencing
those areas.
It would be good for this section, it's very good for this section, because it is under Section
10.02.02, which are submittal requirements for all applications. And the title of this is Environmental
Impact Statements and other environmental requirements. So this would be a good place to actually create
those references. And we can do that, and that would shorten it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that would reduce the five pages to something less than we have here
today, that would be a move in the right direction. Plus if it was done in simple English, it would be a great
move in the right direction.
But now back on Page 220.A, Environmental Impact Statements, and it says, and other
environmental requirements.
I'm looking at the language you have on the overhead and it says, or submittal of appropriate
environmental data a~ specified. It doesn't say and additional data. If it's an EIS why do we have the word
and in there, why isn't it or? Or why do we need it if it isn't --
MR. LENBERGER: We'll or in there, that's fine. Good point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we move to Page 221.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before we leave that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think on that line, you should bold Environmental Impact
Statement and put in parenthesis EIS, just to start to set up the fact that that's a separate entity.
I know you do it on the chapter, you do -- Mark, there's one question I have in terms offormat.
Would it be best to talk it now or at the end--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I think you just need to -- as it comes to say your mind, so we don't
forget, this stuff needs to be brought up. So just keep bringing it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's appropriate that number one is the purpose. But I do
think number two should be where it applies. And then the third thing I think you should get into is the
exceptions to it. The fourth thing I think you should get into is the EIS, and then I think if you want to bring
in this other environmental requirements.
But I think it's really important for somebody to know what your intent is, know if it applies to
them or not through the applicability or the exceptions right away, not at the end like you've organized it.
That's my point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? I have no problem with -- anything to clariry this is
-- we should be looking at.
MR. LENBERGER: Just so I got this straight here. The purpose. Two, you want to keep the
environmental requirements there, just say where applicable or --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I think what you should do, number one should be the
purpose. I guess we could go through it.
Number two maybe should be what you have now as number -- well, I mean, number three, is it?
Page 12
16 I 1 WJe~, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Applicability.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, number three.
MR. LENBERGER: Applicability?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think number eight is your exceptions to the EIS. And
nine is exceptions too.
In other words, just a drift. Of anybody reading the code, they should really -- you know, you
should layout what you're up to. B, does it apply to me and that's through applicability and exceptions.
And then you could get into the requirement. If in there you could differentiate, because the point
Mark's making is true, you have two things going on here. You should certainly differentiate when an EIS
is required and then when it isn't required, this other thing is required. And make that clear towards the end.
That's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to Page 221. Are there questions on Page 221?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The building permit, that's kind oflike a -- what are we really
intending to do there? And again I maybe should study the exceptions. But if a guy has a restaurant and he's
building a new little dining room on the side of it, he would be required to show all this information,
correct?
I mean, would --
MR. LENBERGER: Well, it has to be applicable. And some building permits, for example, special
treatment overlays, single families are required to have an Environmental Impact Statement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern, for exanlple, if he was going to do that, he
probably would have had an SDP prior to that. So wouldn't that -- I mean, the word building permit scares
me, because that means essentially every single building permit is up -- you're going to hold up for the light
and decide whether it needs it or not and --
MR. LENBERGER: You look where it's applicable, it will tell you there, where it applies. So just a
building permit per se won't apply.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wouldn't apply? Then why do we have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can show us where it says that, Steve.
MR. LENBERGER: It says -- where the applicability -- you have to excuse me, my page numbers
are a little different than yours.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We're on Page 225.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm not as worried about the EIS. I think we've got a history of
that. It's the --like number nine on Page 235+++
Where you have other. This is where the other starts to
reign, and I'm --
MR. LENBERGER: You have to excuse me, my pages are all mis-numbered here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will be number nine.
MR. LENBERGER: I got it. I'm just going to number them right now so I don't get lost during this
discussion today, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, I think to sum my question is up is, is not that something
that should be handled at the SDP level and not at the building permit level, and just using the word
building permit could cause confusion.
MR. LENBERGER: It can be -- can apply at the building permit stage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Give me an example of --
MR. LENBERGER: But I understand what you're saying. I'd have to think about the building
Page 13
16 I 1 [ro)t~er 7, 2008
permit issue. You know, we can tie single-family to ST permits that would require it. We can require it to a
site development plan.
I'll have to discuss that with staff and the attorneys office, just to get clarification. I understand
what you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the experience I have is I think the county's very tight,
that, I mean, you really need an SDP. If you don't have one, that will be part of the -- so in other words, at
that level it makes sense. But at any other level it may be --
MR. LENBERGER: I'll discuss it with staff. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 221, does anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, on 2.A.I, when we talk about -- Mr. Murray brought up the word
suspected. Why don't we just simply say who the wetlands -- where wetlands are determined by, and then
state who it is you believe is the right person qualified to make that determination. And then we don't have
suspected anymore.
MR. LEN BERGER: That's an excellent point, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourth line down, site plan, the location of all, and it says, Collier County
jurisdictional wetlands. Same language is again said in the sixth line down.
And I'm just wondering, what's the difference between Collier County jurisdictional wetlands,
South Floridajurisdictional wetlands, Corps of Engineers j urisdictional wetlands and/or DEP jurisdictional
wetlands?
MR. LENBERGER: The county jurisdictional wetlands are the same as the state agencies, that
being the Water Management District and the DEP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say that, or just drop the reference to Collier County
jurisdictional wetlands, since that's not what they are, they're state or Corps.
MR. LENBERGER: I believe it's stated like that in the compo plan. I'll let management speak on
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if ours are the same as theirs, why don't we just have uniform
language so we know what everybody's referring to. Because if I was reading this and didn't know the
answer you just provided, I would assume then Collier County must have its own way of figuring it out, on
top of all the other agencies.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I -- sure, that's what it says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we standardized the reference to the way you pick it up
jurisdictional wetlands and then let's leave it at that and then --
MR. LENBERGER: Well, it's in the compo plan on, the wetlands shall be verified by the state. It is
explained in there. And I'd like to take a look at that language first before I just change it, to be consistent
with the compo plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I'd just like there to be consistency so we all know what they're
talking about.
Okay, let's go to Page 222. Are there questions on Page 222?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, on III up on top.
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's talking about site development plans. But if the ERP already does this,
and if they're exempt from an ERP, would they then be exempt from Collier County?
MR. LENBERGER: If they're impacting wetlands that are under the jurisdiction of the state and
the county, they wouldn't be exempt from an ERP.
Page 14
16 11 (frJoir 7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any wetlands of any size that are exempt from the state or --
MR. LENBERGER: Under a half-acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so do we have that provision here?
MR. LENBERGER: We, it just says five acres or more. It's covered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if it's greater than an acre up to five acres, we still require it and
they don't? I'm trying to understand what -- if a half-acre or less is exempt, do we provide that same
exemption?
MR. LENBERGER: Do you want to answer that?
The permitting with the state, they use a half-acre threshold, and they'll review projects, but I don't
believe mitigation is required for the half-acre. These are the state criteria, not what the county uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I might get the answer before the day's over. I understand it for--
MS. MASON: This paragraph, though, is only for projects that are impacting five acres or more
wetlands. And I do know that with the smaller wetlands like that there is exemptions. But normally, and I
don't know all their language, they'll issue likc a sort of a noticed general permit type thing. It's a permit but
it's apparently a more simple process. But they still do, they'll do the lines, they'll approve the lines, and
then their mitigation for any wetlands impacts are different based on the size and the connectivity of that
wetland.
But this paragraph, Roman numeral III on 222, starting with site development plans, that is just for
impacts of five acres or more of wetlands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on then. The rest of that page under B, it says listed
and we're back to the word protected. And I notice it got through in this entire section, it pops up
everywhere. I'm assuming you're going to clean that up?
MR. LEN BERGER: Right. This is the version that hasn't been changed since your initial
comments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand.
MR. LENBERGER: We acknowledge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first sentence says, a wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels.
And it will say now when listed species.
Now, first of all, don't the agencies require the wildlife survey?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, first let's back up. Did you want to add bald eagle in there? We talked
about this before. I believe you were going to be listed species or bald eagle; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the bald eagle is supposed to be in there.
MR. LENBERGER: I just clarified that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm trying to get at is, that paragraph, isn't it already required of the
state or federal agencies to do the surveys anyway?
MR. LENBERGER: I don't know their standard protocol for all sites. I know the wildlife agencies
will want wildlife surveys for certain projects for sure. What threshold triggers tl1at, I know certain areas
they've identified as definitely areas oflike RCW woodpecker foraging habitat, so they definitely require
surveys in tl10se areas. But do they do on every parcel? I don't know for sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we look and see what they require so that the same
document tl1at tl1ey require can be used by the applicant who doesn't need to put in an EIS. Otl1erwise when
they get done doing tl1ese surveys, they're getting into the same level of involvement that a full EIS would
take. So I'm just wondering why don't we just utilize these other agencies' paperwork if they require it?
MS. MASON: They'll provide us with information, as long as it's current, and it -- if you read
farther down it says it has to be consistent with the agencies' guidelines. We definitely accept those. And
tl1at's mostly what people do, is they'll do one survey and they do it consistent with the guidelines of the
Page 15
16 I 1 ~ Pr~c~ber 7, 2008
agencies, and they provide it to everyone who's -- needs it, whether it's an ERP or if it's just County review
if tl1ere's wetlands impacts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I think I'm trying to get at is, if the agencies don't require it, the
federal and state agencies don't require it, who list these species, do we? And if we do, why? How is that
simple?
MR. LENBERGER: This is meant to require a survey if there are species on-site--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, if there are--
MR. LENBERGER: It's not to say every site is going do a listed species survey. That's not the
intent here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does say --
MR. LENBERGER: It says where tl1ey're known to inllabit communities similar to those existing
on-site or where listed species are directly observed on-site.
We deal with a lot of projects, a lot of them are infill projects, to be quite honest. We don't want to
require a wildlife species survey if it's not warranted. We go out on a site, we see a gopher tortoise burrow,
well, you need to do a gopher tortoise burrow survey. But we don't want to say you have to do a wildlife
survey.
We want some flexibility here. We require it anyway. We don't want to make it onerous. We want
a little flexibility here to say it's not really warranted here, you don't need to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you feel that flexibility's built into this paragraph?
MR. LENBERGER: If you'd like to change the language to make it clearer, we're open to
suggestions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying desperately to follow the reasoning here. And the reasoning that
I keep coming back to is we have five agencies reviewing in this state environmental applications of every
size and type that could possibly be imagined. We have scores that have to be met, UMAM, WRAP's, we
have FLUCCS maps tl1at have to be studied. All tl1at stuff is good. And I think the environmental
community has done a darn good job on making sure that we've got a standard ofprotection.
But now we seem to be adding stuff in here. And I'm trying to sort out what it is we think we're not
protected by, so I know if we can evaluate it from this board's perspective if it's warranted.
MR. LENBERGER: May I make a suggestion? There's two places here, one if it's known to inllabit
biological communities similar to those existing on-site.
And two, it says, directly observed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. LENBERGER: Instead of just saying known to inhabit biological communities, we can use
language referencing areas identified by the wildlife agencies as requiring a listed species survey.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we go. That would clariry it. And it says, directly observed on-site.
We learned in meeting about a month ago that that direct observation means someone just calling in on
your neighbor and saying oh, I saw something on their property, and all of a sudden it's now directly
observed on-site with no verification. So I certainly think that language is questionable.
MR. LENBERGER: We can do directly verified by government agency or a consultant.
MS. F ABACHER: Environmental professional.
MR. LENBERGER: Environmental consultant.
MS. FABACHER: Environmental professional.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, that will be another issue before tl1is is over, how we qualiry
what is an environmental consultant versus an environmental professional, and making sure that just an
employee of the county who has no background except the day they got thrown in that department has
decided they're an environmental professional.
Page 16
16 I 1 (1 it' b~Ober 7, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You betcha.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would hope we can have standards tl1at would have to be met, so--
on that same paragraph, tl1e last sentence says, and it starts about five or six lines up, the recommended
survey times may be reduced for small isolated parcels. Okay, how small is small. So I tl1ink that needs to
be quantified.
And where the likelihood. Here we are with that ambiguous language again. Who decides whether
it's the likelihood of a listed -- and of course you're going to cross the word protected -- is low. Well, how
low is low?
All tl1at language in tl1at last sentence is very ambiguous, and it isn't anything that anybody can
know what to do by. I mean, 10 acres may be small parcel for some people, but tl1en a half an acre may be
what you were thinking.
So could we -- if we're going to use that kind of language, I think it would be better if we were very
specific about what our minimums were.
The last line, additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered on these
parcels. Who decides that? And what does that mean? Who -- ifit's required, it's required. Who's making
the decision whether or not more has to be or not.
MS. MASON: There are -- Susan Mason again. There are guidelines we have for survey
requirements based on species and habitat type, and tl10se are standards that have been created by Wildlife
Commission personnel.
Those are the ones that we really have in writing. And if they want a deviation from that to go with
something less, at this point what we've had to do is require tl1at they get something in writing, you know,
an e-mail or something from a Commission employee saying that they understand that tl1ey've been in
conversation with the applicant and with the information they've provided no more surveys are needed.
And this would give some flexibility to county staff to try to make some of these determination if
it's smaller, but at this point --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to use guidelines by somebody, why don't you reference the
guidelines here so that everybody then knows what -- where tl1ey have to go and what to get.
If it's a section oftl1e code, reference tl1e section of the code. If it's sometl1ing else, reference it. And
if we haven't seen it, get it to us so that we can see it next time this comes forward.
MS. MASON: I'm putting up on the visualizer the section oftl1e Growth Management Plan, it's the
CCME Policy 7.1.2, paragraph one, a wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species
are known to inllabit biological communities similar to those existing on-site or where listed species are
directly observed on the site.
A survey shall be conducted in accordance with tl1e requirements of Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service guidelines.
The county shall notiry FWC and FWS of the existence of any listed species that may be
discovered.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says known--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's frustrating. It references, it says known, right? And where listed
-- let's see, where's the only one. Where known or where listed species are directly observed -- where
known observed, not suspected, not -- I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you use the language here and the LDC implements the
language by defining what you're trying to say there, we can get to where we have to go. And that's what I
think you need to do.
I don't think by -- that language is more conceptual and ambiguous, and if you define -- and then
Page 17
611Mk'J
1 . tlcto6er~, 2008
the LDC is supposed to be implementing that language, so why don't we use it for that, so -- go ahead, Mr.
Lorenz.
MR. LORENZ: And we may want to -- and we can talk amongst staff to see if we can work this
out. But it could be simply that I think the language in your -- or some of the comments that I've heard from
tl1e commission is more geared towards if the agencies require the survey, the applicant simply provides
tl1at survey to us and we utilize that survey for the analysis of the preserve areas.
Maybe we could be as simple as that. The gap, though, is when the agency doesn't require the
survey and we may need to have it to analyze our information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we just need to know when -- what -- when that exception, if
the agencies don't require it but we want to, tell us what your criteria is for that 'we want to' part. And then
that's the part that we then need to be focused on.
Agencies already require it, doesn't hurt us to say just give us what tl1ey got. But if we're requiring
more tl1an tl1ey have for certain things, it would be nice for everybody to know tl1at that is, where that level
of understanding is.
MR. LORENZ: Maybe we can take that tact of -- in the rewrite along those lines.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was just going to say that whatever they require in the format
tl1at you need it, so iflike Susan was talking earlier, you don't want the little eight-and-a-halfby 11 tl1at's
been copied 1 7 times and you can't read what's on there any more, you need whatever, 11 by 17 or
whatever the size is you want, and all of that. I mean, that can be specified. But --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we move down the page, in II, besides the clean-up that we've already
talked about, in the middle of the paragraph, it says wildlife management and monitoring plans shall be
included on approved site development plans and construction plans.
Don't those plans, the wildlife management and monitoring plans require you to list who the
biologist is and who the responsible parties are and some other criteria that has to be flexible with time?
And my concern is if you change one of those, you have to do an SDP amendment.
Have you ever thought about that? Because right now aren't those provided in spiral-bound little
booklets as a separate submittal?
MR. LENBERGER: Preserve management plans, which a listed species management plan is a
component of, are required on tl1e site development plan.
As far as amendments to that, you know, putting on tl1e plan the owners and the -- homeowners
association, whatever it is, who owns the property and the consultant, that's a discussion I'd have to have
with management, because obviously things change through time. But that's the preserve management plan.
We are going to go through tl1at as well today, hopefully.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I had the same question when we get tl1ere, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you're thinking about it now then maybe we'll have an answer by the
time we get there. Ms. --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because we started to talk about that the otl1er day too, about how
exactly you attach tl1ese tl1ings to a site development plan, with some information that is extraneous to --
and others that are very necessary, so --
MS. MASON: Currently tl1e way people submit it and it's provided is in the format that the LDC
describes, where you have some standard, you know, you can't leave trash in your preserve and then you go
into specifics about listed species management or some other exotic information, and tl1ey'll include the
name of tl1e property owner and the manager for that until that -- normally the way tl1ey do it is until the
developer turns it over, this is who's responsible.
Page 18
1 6 I 1 r ~Jb17 2008
,
And we have had a few but that have gone to the point where they want to change that but that's the
only tl1ing that needs to change; they get a new consultant or it's a new owner. And that does not kick in an
amendment to the construction plans. They'll provide us with a letter from tl1e homeowners association
saying so-and-so is no longer our consultant, the new consultant is, and here's the information.
We send that over to the records department who puts that in the file for tl1at SDP and scans it in
for that site development plan so code enforcement or whomever in the future needs to contact them has
the current information.
But that start out on tl1e same sheet. It could have a different place, it just makes sense at the
beginning to put it there. But amendments of tl1at kind of information do not trigger a substantial change to
their plans.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So that's important information that Mr. Strain needed to
know, because he's worried that they're going to have to come in and change their site development plan
every time.
And tl1at's not tl1e case, you say, all they have to do is give you a letter, you staple it to the plan and
away we go.
MS. MASON: There's no fee involved with tl1at. It just -- I've gotten a couple addressed directly to
me and then I just send it to the records department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you have a break or sometime, will you let me know what section
oftl1e code allows statfto accept that kind of an amendment or change to an SDP?
I'm sure if you're saying it can be done, it can be. But I'd like to know that so what way I can make
a note of it for the future.
MR. LENBERGER: I believe that was an interpretation by management. It's in tl1e preserve
management plan section of the code. You have that section. We're going to discuss it today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I mean the section tl1at says you can change the language on tl1e SDP
by a simple letter to staff, tl1at would be very --
MR. LENBERGER: That was an interpretation. There's nothing in the code regarding tl1at that I
know of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who made the interpretation?
MR. LENBERGER: Interpretation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did that -- so now -- okay, where does interpretations like that end
then? At what point can you change an SDP by a letter to staff?
Now you've opened up another can of worms I'd be curious in, because we have changes that are
listed in the code that are allowed, and staff is allowed to do some. I'm just -- don't recognize this as being
one of tl1em.
So -- well, I'm sure l'lllook further into that.
On the last line of that page, it talks about bald eagles' nests and the copies of which shall be
included as exhibits attached to tl1e PUD document. So that means when we pass an ordinance, a PUD
ordinance, is the intent here that the bald eagles management plan become a physical part oftl1at ordinance
and fall like a matter of law like the ordinance does?
Because what happens tl1en is if there's any changes needed, whether they're good or bad, they
could be for the benefit of the environment or against, no matter what, you're going to have to go tl1rough
public meetings to get them changed. And I'm just wondering if that's the intent.
MR. LENBERGER: I understand the concern. I tl1ink there was something in tl1e compo plan
related to tl1at, so I'll ask management to look tl1at up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was so much slid through the compo plan that we didn't question
enough, I don't doubt it.
Page 19
16 11'cfr~~, 2008
.
MR. LENBERGER: I have to be consistent with the compo plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, believe me, I've been hearing that lately a lot, yes. That's tl1e
worrisome part, Steve.
While you're looking at that, let's move to Page 223.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Steve, you reference a lot management. Who's management?
MR. LENBERGER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You reference management. Isn't that Bill and --
MR. LENBERGER: The management in our section are Barbara Burgeson is in charge of the
review section, Susan Mason is under her, and our department director is Bill.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That explains my fears. Thank you.
Page 223. Are tl1ere any questions on Page 223?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you -- I heard Joe talking. Did you finish up the discussion on tl1e
PUD document so you got an answer to my question on that or not?
MR. LENBERGER: I have to see. Bill or Susan are looking at it now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when it comes back for rewrite, would you consider that question as
far as getting a response?
MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chair, the specific question, because I was back and forth witl1 different
conversations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's about adding a bald eagle management plan to the PUD.
MR. LORENZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe do that, when you put that language in here, was it understood that
any change that happens for example to the benefit of the benefit of the eagle management plan, things that
could be better or even things that could be worse, nothing can be changed if it's added to the ordinance
witl10ut possibly a PUD amendment. I'm wondering if that was thought out.
At the very last sentence on Page 222, Bill.
MR. LORENZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- Page 223, back at the top, native vegetation preservation. It's C.1, or
C first I. And Steve, this reads, for sites tl1at are currently clear of any native vegetation or in agricultural
operation pursuant to the Right to Farm Act.
Any native vegetation, that's kind of hard to say. I mean, farm ditches are going to be loaded with
native vegetation. I'm not sure you -- I think you need to qualiry the statement, or in agricultural operation.
Does that mean if you have a section of land, you've got 70 percent of it operating as agricultural, how does
this paragraph then apply to a mix like that? Are you looking for a percentage?
And then as far as agricultural operation, in that regard are you looking for row crops that are
harvested yearly, you looking for citrus that's harvested yearly, you're looking for crops that are harvested
on a longer period of time?
So I'm not sure that that gets us as clear as we need to on that first part of it.
MR. LENBERGER: I would have to speak to tl1e county attorney's office regarding the length of
time agricultural operation. Look at the code.
This gets back to the native vegetation definition section we've been working on, and perhaps when
tl1at's ironed out, this should reference that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of all tl1is language we just referenced in tl1e section --
Page 20
1611 ( Acr47,2008
MR. LENBERGER: Right, it should reference that iftl1at's tl1e section to look at since we are
going to address tl1at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm all for trying to tighten it up, tl1at's fine if that -- okay. I guess
tl1en for tl1e rest of this when we're talking about permits and time frames of permits, all that will be
addressed when we get into that other section then. Okay.
II, I don't have anything there. Anybody on the rest of the page?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, III refers to the superimposed on the development plan. Are you
talking about the aerial development plan for the location of the habitat or the development -- can you take
an aerial and overlay a development plan on it? Is that what you were intending on III?
MR. LENBERGER: II is the aerial, III is the site development plan. And really, where it says
superimpose on the development plan the location of all habitats, it should say all native habitats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation. Now, what
have tl1ey got to do with it? They're the ones that actually issue the FLUCCS codes?
MR. LENBERGER: The state --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DOT?
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, the state and federal agencies all utilize the FDOT standards for
classification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under five.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said should be native habitat. And I think I understood you on
that. But anything that grows in the soil is native, but you don't mean it in that context, you mean it that's
listed native habitat, right?
As to differentiate between weeds that are in -- can it -- you know, location of all native habitats,
anything that grows in the soil after a while is native to it except by our determination that it is not.
So the only way we determine it is tl1rough listing of what those native habitats are, right? Is that
where we're trying to go?
MR. LENBERGER: We would have to defer to tl1e native vegetation definition section we're
working on for tl1at and not really look at that here. Just let's address it where it actually defines it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we ready to move forward with this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're trying to -- there seems to be an insistence -- first of all,
my own personal thought on this is that you don't need -- there's no requirement in the EIS thresholds
shown in tl1e CCME language in front of us to modify anything beyond tl1e EIS language.
Someone's made this into creating a whole new section of the code that's five pages long. I'm not in
agreement with it. But in order to move forward so that staff has some kind of indication how they could
possibly correct things or come back, I'm still trying to plow through it. I don't, you know --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're right to do that, but I will tell you what my frustration, my
concern is, is that what we're doing is piecemealing correcting. And we're going to tend to legitimize the
structure tl1at exist here, because otherwise it's really a complete rewrite.
You're referencing otl1er things we're about to see or we may see at some point. I don't know how
we can make an adequate judgment on it. I don't mean to be offensive, I apologize. I don't mean to be
offensive. But I'm sure you're just as frustrated trying to portray this as we are trying to understand it all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Steve, on number five, the second line up from the bottom, it talks
about tl1e applicant shall show tl1e proposed and existing development roads and areas for stormwater
retention.
Page 21
1611 aft f~ber 7, 2008
You're limiting that to what they're doing on-site, not adjacent to the site; is tl1at correct? Because
tl1is paragraph starts out talking about with -- that seems to want to indicate tl1ings off-site in corridors that
it's connecting to.
So I want to make sure you're not looking for someone to come up and know all tl1e roads and
areas for stormwater retention in the existing development or things tl1at could go on in that area.
But the proposed word, though, is what I'm trying to get at. That refers to what the applicant's
proposing only so tl1at it stays within his site?
MR. LENBERGER: We can clariry it. It was -- in a general context, it would mean development
orders that are approved such as PUD master plans, final development orders. It's meant to show
development in relation to the preserves.
I understand your concern about how much you'd have to show on the plan. We'd have to take a
look at tl1at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could just define it, that's all I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead Mr. Schiffer. Then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on tl1at same section. Do we have a requirement
someplace else that has electronic submission?
In other words, are -- in the past and up till now and in the future, do people submit this stuff so
we're dealing a data base of these?
MR. LENBERGER: It's in the EIS section. I didn't take it out so it's somewhere in tl1e section. I'd
have to look for it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there is the ability to get information off of neighboring sites
and stuff with prior submissions, if there was one?
MR. LENBERGER: I don't know the extent of what is scanned, if every -- I believe -- well, I know
tl1e final EIS is scanned. Whether all EIS's, previous submittals are scanned, that I don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, what I was looking for is something where the actual
working data was submitted, where somebody could use it on an adjoining site. But it's not, I guess.
MR. LENBERGER: Oh, I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A scan's not that handy, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, on that five item there, here's the tl1ing. You're talking about
a site development plan as you've indicated, and they're pretty much complete. However, we're referencing
here adjoining land and neighboring properties and all the other.
On the otl1er hand, you've also said that you would like to have an 11 by 17 or larger document,
that aerial or whatever that shows all the detail. Does this become a redundancy if you were to have that? Is
tl1is redundant to that?
Or, you know, if you want to save them money making tl1em go out and having a site development
plan tl1at they have to now adjoin to neighboring properties, I don't -- I understand your desires, I'm
wondering though whether or not we have a redundancy here.
Can you tell me tl1e difference between those two?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, the site improvements you're constructing are identified on the plan.
But we needed some sort of conceptual plan showing how this all fits in the big picture. And how we
addressed in here, I'd have to think about it some more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want to put an applicant in position where tl1ey have to go out
and do extensive research to find out where all the proposed things might go on property that's is adjoining
and neighboring to tl1em as noted in this. And I think --
Page 22
16 I l~A1~ber 7, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they're actually asking them to do land planning in tl1at
context, really, if you think about it. Maybe that's not a bad tl1ing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tl1inkjust look at the wording and I think you could clariry the wording.
MR. LENBERGER: It's all part of land planning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 224, I have questions.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, Steve, could you look on Page 224 under item D for David.
And 1.1. Do you have that?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, tl1e multi-slip docking.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. For that first sentence there, for multi-slip docking facilities
with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, how do you differentiate between all marina facilities
and slips that constitute 10 slips.
MR. LENBERGER: That's what triggers the review for the Manatee Protection Plan under tl1e
Manatee Protection Plan. Those are the triggers tl1at are already adopted in our plan.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: How do you define marina? By number of slips --
MR. LENBERGER: It's a defined -- it's bolded, so I'd have to look it up in the LDC. I don't know
-- but it is a defined --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that by number of slips?
MR. LENBERGER: I believe it's by the type of uses, activities that occur on it. It is a bolded, and
since it is bolded, it is defined in the LDC. I'd have to look it up. I don't have a copy here, I do have one in
the back I can get for you.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm wondering like, for example if you had tl1ree slips
couldn't that also be called a marina?
MR. LENBERGER: It has to do with uses, and this really is a zoning question. Perhaps Catherine
could --
MS. F ABACHER: Tum tl1e pages faster?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe knows. He has three marinas.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. A marina is defined as a commercial operation. It
usually has a boat store, refueling or otl1er operations that are deemed a part of the business.
So not -- a mass of docks doesn't neccssarily mean it's a marina. It may seem to you, but our
definition is very clear, determines what -- a marina is a separate business entity that -- and what, how does
the definition, Catherine. Boat store or other accompanying activities --
MS. F ABACHER: All or any combination of the following, boat slips or dockage, dry boat
storage, small boat hauling or launching facilitics, marine fuels and lubricants, marine supplies, bait and
fishing equipment, restaurant, boat and boat motor sales and rentals. Does not include dredge, barge or
other work dockage service.
MR. SCHMITT: So thc mere fact that you might havc 10 boat slips does not constitute the
definition of a marina.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But a massive amount of boat slips might have an adverse impact
on the manatee, which is what we're trying to protect with tl1is plan.
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. But then you go through the siting method in the Manatee Protection
Plan. And Bill and certainly Steve can discuss that. But that's where you get into the number of docks, the
shoreline, length of the shoreline, whether it's a preferred site, those type of activities that are clearly
defined in the Manatee Protection Plan.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Well, on the assumption that the wording thcn here is
correct or can be corrected to adequately describe these points, would you also turn to Page 232, under item
Page 23
16 f 1'{ PI)~tober 7, 2008
H, as in Harry, little Roman numeral I.
And the first sentence oftl1at paragraph is identical with the sentence we just talked about. And I
don't understand the reason for redundancy or why we want to repeat that.
MR. LENBERGER: First, on 224 that's from the general submittal, environmental submittal
requirements.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
MR. LENBERGER: And on 232 that's the Environmental Impact Statement requirements.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the sentences are identical, the two sentences are identical.
Why do we repeat that?
MR. LENBERGER: They are -- you have to be in compliance with the Manatee Protection Plan.
The EIS requires that you analyze that. We require that information on a site plan review.
This is one of the items I thought would be best just to reference, as I mentioned earlier. Just
reference tl1at Manatee Protection requirements, what section it would apply to.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well I'm just trying to help our chairman eliminate some oftl1ose
redundancies so we can reduce those five pages to whatever pages he'd like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Zero. Thank you, Tor.
Go ahead, Bill.
MR. LORENZ: Well, along these lines, and tl1is is where we might be able to structure it
differently. I think somebody, Mr. Murray may have mentioned it before about looking at tl1e bigger picture
as supposed to working on each individual comment. Which we can do.
But we may want to structure this completely different to where we will have kind of basic data
that needs to be required for anything, and then in the EIS maybe more. And maybe that's a better structure
where we don't have to be repetitive.
And so we'll take a look at that. And I think tl1at --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
MR. LORENZ: -- it goes towards a number of commissioners' comments --
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I tl1ink Commissioner Schiffer had it right when he said tl1at if
you change the way you've got it organized, it will flow and you will get rid of redundancies that way, I
tl1ink almost automatically --
MR. LORENZ: We'll work towards that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and that should--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bill, if you're going to have basically what sounds like, and I think
what we've directed, is a complete rewrite of this section, are we wasting our time spending hours -- we're
going to be good for good anotl1er hour to two just on this one section, or better leave it to you to come
back with the rewrites of this section with all the other environmental rewrites at another time?
MR. LORENZ: It may be that there -- iftl1ere is some major objections to some of the concepts
here, it would be good to hear that in discussion. Otherwise, of course, talking -- wordsmithing one little
section versus another, I think that would be wasting time.
But if there's some major issue points here that we'd want to have a discussion, that would be
helpful for our rewrite.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what I'll do, because I have a lot of comments on every page.
Instead of asking you to respond to them, I will state my comment, and if it's sometl1ing you're going to
rewrite anyway, fine. If you're not we'll get it back and discuss it at tl1at time. Because in the rewrite, it may
have clarified the comment to a point I won't have it any longer.
So for my part I'll move forward doing tl1at. And the other members can proceed as tl1ey wish then,
as we get to each page. And that will expedite the remainder of this section. Then we can hear tl1e public's
Page 24
16 I.l(~)~ 7, 2008
comments and you'll have as much as we can provide you with on this then.
With that in mind then, on Page 224, third line on the top, it says, project design effects improves
predevelopment.
In prior locations of our code, we've used does not negatively impact. I'm not sure you need to be
consistent. It's a suggestion.
On number seven, tl1e off-site native vegetation preservation retention demonstrate tl1e -- that the
criterion section has been met.
If you have native vegetation -- off-site native vegetation preservation, how do you have it
retained? I mean, isn't that kind of a contradiction? If it's off-site, it's not retained. It's off-site native
preservation.
So anyway, tl1at's just a comment. As you go down in D.II and D.5, you're talking about
environmental contamination, but I would certainly think you want to qualiry that by a licensed Florida
geotechnical professional.
And so I notice in all of your criteria you talk about some regulations involving contaminants. But I
would suggest that we make sure the right people are judging those contaminants. Arsenic is a prime
example. Arsenic levels very widely as a natural occurring element throughout the state. In some areas they
actual increase because of various things that have been done improperly.
But tl1ere are also multiple levels. You can arsenic level for industrial property, commercial
property or residential property, and each level of arsenic does not necessarily mean the property has to
have anything done to it.
So somehow all this factor has to factor in when you start to talking about contamination. And I
used arsenic as an example. But it does apply to some of the other elements here that you're talking about.
So if we're going to get into this kind of an issue, then I think we need to make sure we're
specirying whether we're looking for residential standards, commercial standards, what kind of standards
we're looking for, who's doing the testing, how -- what their licensing is. And I know there's geotechnical
professionals in the state. I've used them many times. There's some good firms out there.
And I just want to make sure that we get tl1e right people doing the right testing.
MR. LENBERGER: Licensed geotechnical --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Licensed Florida geotechnical professional. And maybe -- I don't know if
Florida is necessary or not, but at least geotechnical professional.
MR. LENBERGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In tl1e number five on tl1e bottom of224, you talk about soil and
groundwater sampling shall be required for sites that occupy farm fields, golf courses, land for junkyards.
You mean former farm fields or preexisting farm fields or golf courses, landfill or junkyards,
because if someone's coming in, you want to know -- it only would apply if they're coming in on raw
property, you don't need a golf course to do the analysis on the raw property, only if it was another golf
course before the new golf course came in, or something like that, right?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, it could be a conversion. It could be an existing golf course that's being
converted --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, well then it would apply the same way. Yeah. They mean
preexisting, though, you don't care if it's native, you only care if it's preexisting, one of those uses. I would
tl1ink.
Any other questions on 224?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 225?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going back to tl1at.
Page 25
16 I 1 ~A) ~ctober 7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a thought on that issue and the issue of arsenic. You could
have native soils that have a higher level than you would in a previously used ground. So would you -- do
you want it for every possible opportunity or restricted to these?
MR. LENBERGER: We originally had a reference to arsenic in here on tl1e next page, it's not on
your text, that said, include a background soil analysis for an undeveloped location hydrologically
upgradient of the suspected contamination site.
And then we had language says, especially when evaluating arsenic, since it is a naturally occurring
soil constituent. We did have language to tl1at effect in. We were asked to delete it by DSAC.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So -- okay. So if undeveloped, you leave it alone, you don't go
after it. Is that what I heard you to say?
MR. LENBERGER: We need a background to see what it was naturally. And as far as the--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if it's higher? Do you have limits, is what I'm trying to find
out. You have thresholds, don't you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, tl1ere's -- but it depends on what the use of the property is going to
be --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I agree. And I understand that. IfI'm going to have a home
built on it or I'm going to have kids around it, I certainly don't want to be in an arsenic field area.
But, I mean, there are other applications. It might be a cement plant? Would tl1at be something --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Yeah, there's different levels for different uses, right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My concern is are we, by designation of these particulars, are there
any others? The moment tl1at you become specific, then aren't you required to have the full range of
specifics? No?
I mean, I guess they are representative, right? Occupy farm fields, golf courses, land fill or
junkyards. Is tl1at the only other property, that's the extent of property classifications that we have. Do I
make myself clear?
MR. LENBERGER: No, I understand what you're saying. These are areas where you likely could
have contamination.
We did have former in there originally but they could be existing and be converted. And the
recommendation to take out former was actually tl1e county attorney's office recommended we take the
word former out. We did have it in there.
So I would have to consult with him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same paragraph that Mr. Murray -- and my follow-up comment to
Mr. Murray's question, that last sentence opens up a Pandora's box I think for Collier County, one that I'm
not sure you really want to or that's appropriate.
It says if this analysis has been done part of an environmental audit, then a report shall be
submitted.
First of all, those audits are highly confidential between a property owner and their professional.
Second of all, they go into a lot more issues than just the points of interest that you have here.
So if the county gets the entire audit, it then becomes public record, you're opening up an issue of--
that may be potentially problematic. Ifwe're not legally addressing any other issues than what's in this
paragraph, what do we want to see all tl1at lor?
Iftl1ey want to supply the environmental audit, tl1en that's fine. And I tl1ink tl1e word shall ought to
be changed to may, and that's my concern. But if they want to have an independent report done by a
professional just on the items tl1at concern tl1e county, they should have that option to do that as well.
So that's the point I was trying to make on that paragraph.
Page 26
1 6 J 'I ~lfJo~r 7 2008
, '
MR. LENBERGER: I would have to consult witl1 the attorney's office and management on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item VI, I think Tim Hall or somebody mentioned to me that 3.07.00, and
it's referenced a couple of times in this document, doesn't exist. I don't -- he's probably right, but you need
to check it out to make sure that's tl1e right reference.
And VII, we again referred to the last part of it, will not be adversely affected. Again, whatever
language we typically use, and that means does not negatively impact, as example, if we typically use that
language we need to be consistent, because there is a lot of different intentions of the meaning.
MR. LENBERGER: You're talking seven?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight -- no, seven, I'm sorry, seven, tl1e last three words --
MR. LENBERGER: Adversely affected. Is that what you're referring --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, will not be adversely affected. Was that tl1e same as not being
negatively impacted? I'm not sure, but whatever language we use, we ought to be consistent.
Yes, sir.
MR. LORENZ: My suggestion is tl1at it should tie into the stormwater criteria and show how it's
consistent with tl1at section of the code, if and when it gets adopted. And I think that would be the better
way of handling it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine.
MR. LENBERGER: And this is one of the ones I was just going to comment on. We wanted to
actually change that. It should be consistent -- we did change tl1is on Page 231, five. It was reworded.
Ifapplicable, demonstrate that preserves conform to the requirements of Subsection 3.05 ofH.I .h,
which is tl1e stormwater section. So we did a reference there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.05.07.H.l.h?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. LENBERGER: That should be the stormwater. That came at the recommendation of DSAC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, if you turn to Page 198. I know, you don't know what tl1e heck
page that is. Well, that's one of the other sections you gave us to have fun with. Let me see if] can find a
reference.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it is here, if you look down at tl1e bottom of our checklist here,
stormwater in preserves is 3.05.07.H.1.h.ii.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, tl1en we've -- okay. Because that's the section that references tl1e
stormwater in preserves section that's another section that becomes part of that section, okay.
MR. LENBERGER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's take a break for 15 minutes, be back at 2: 15, okay?
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back, everyone. During our break we were trying to move a
little faster through the first environmental rewrite today, with the intention that we'll kind of high point it
and then staffs going to come back with a substantial rewrite anyway.
So with tl1at, I guess we left off at about 230, if]'m not mistaken.
No? Where did we leave off?
MR. LEN BERGER: 225, I believe.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 225, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was moving ahead, sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wishful thinking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, wishful thinking. 225, and we start on number three on 225.
Again, I think tl1is one refers in your less exempted and it starts talking about building permits.
Page 27
16 I 1 ~ ~tJt\er 7,2008
Please consider Brad's comments. You may be getting into issues that are more strenuous than you need to
when you start making environmental issues become relevant to building permits. You're going to have
SDP's, you're going to have plats, you're going to have rezones. I'm not sure a building permit does you any
good.
MR. LENBERGER: I see. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 226.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a question on B. It says all sites with 20 or more acres of
native vegetation on-site. Where did the 20 or more acres come from? What was the rationale for that?
MR. LENBERGER: It came from management as a starting point.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: It's open to debate.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What about PUD's that might be 10 acres? I mean, that's tl1e
qualification to be a PUD is 10 acres, so wouldn't you want to start tl1ere, maybe?
MR. LEN BERGER: I guess it would -- it really depends on the site and not necessarily the type of
development order being issued on it. So we're more looking at the site.
MR. LORENZ: Again, this was -- this is --
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is 20 or more acres of native vegetation, not 20 or more acres of
the site. Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: Right, when you meant site, I was referring to the type -- some sort of analysis
of the site, not just because it's a blank acreage. Based it on native vegetation, because that's what we're
interested in. One of the issues.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that really changes, though, what was originally in the GMP
that got crossed out.
MR. LEN BERGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was the purpose of crossing it out ofthe GMP to move it into the LDC or
to physically say that that's not what we want? Maybe that's a more appropriate question.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, the purpose of crossing it out of the GMP was tl1is was too specific. We didn't
feel that these types of sites would qualiry to have to go to the EIS.
Our intent is to try to minimize tl1e process in going through an EIS and tailor it to sites that are
very important to go through tl1e public hearing process, figuring the EIS is going to go through the EAC.
So we wanted to remove that specificity in the GMP and give us the flexibility in the LDC to craft
regulations tl1at would make more sense as we go through this process here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Remember the other day when we were talking about tl1at site on
Este?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Did that site have less than 20 acres of native vegetation?
MR. LORENZ: I don't remember the numbers, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't eitl1er. I'm just trying to figure out where tl1e 20 came in, if
tl1at 20 is actually a reasonable number or not.
MR. LORENZ: Well, as Steve said, staff worked through just the numbers and thought that that
was a reasonable number to apply to the EIS requirement.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On that same page, if we go to CA, it says location and dimensions
of preserves were not previously approved or are not consistent with the current GMP. Now, this is for the
applicability.
Page 28
16 I 1 dA~~er 7, 2008
There isn't anything in the county that's going to be consistent with tl1e current GMP CCME
criteria. So basically any site coming in of any size will fall under CA, would it not, or how would you see
that?
MR. LENBERGER: I would have to disagree with tl1at. There are lots of projects which are
consistent. They also may be vested with preserves already established, so they would not have to do an
EIS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how about that place down off County Barn Road I used for
example the other day, starts with a V, not Yo-Tech but -- oh, I forgot the name of it. They had bought a
piece of property, had it permitted, built a facilities on it and tl1en they tried to buy a piece to the north next
to tl1em and expand there, but then the argument was that they now had to practically preserve the entire
piece to the north they bought to expand on because they now came under the new criteria of the GMP
which was different than when they were previously permitted on their smaller parcel.
How would that fit into a situation like this?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, that would have to be evaluated under tl1e criteria for tl1e native
vegetation definition, which we have to analyze.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember the name of it, unfortunately, so -- Youth Haven. That's
what it was. It's not a V, that's a Y. Y outl1 Haven. How does that Youth Haven site fall into a situation like
we have on C.4?
MR. LORENZ: I think Steve alluded to the native vegetation retention definition -- native
vegetation definition. And what we really need to do is we really need to define tl1at and define what
conditions exist for a particular site that would vest the vegetation currently on-site.
And I think that begins to tie -- those decisions begin to tie into this particular provision. In other
words, iftl1ere is a certain vesting of a particular project of its native vegetation retention requirements that
may not be consistent with today's GMP, it's simply vested. We will identiry that. We would not be
requiring an EIS for tl1at particular type of project. So I tl1ink it's tied into making those decisions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll come back witl1 it, then, I'm assuming, when the rest of this gets
cleaned up.
Page 227, anybody have any questions on Page 227?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 228? No changes.
229, no changes there.
230?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, on the -- or Steve, on the top of230, and we would be looking at
since you don't have our same pages, EA.
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, I see it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last sentence says, for sites outside the RMFU district where higher
quality wetlands are being retained on-site, provide justification based on UMAM.
I noticed that was dropped from paragraphs five and six. Why?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, it should be specified somewhere below. It may have been restructured,
but I have to look at it. It looks like it's been restructured. But it looks like it's included in here and
elaborated on as far as the evaluation, the .65 WRAP,.75 UMAM. So it is here, it's just been restructured.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's referring to only higher quality wetlands for that reference, but--
okay, as long as it's in there when you rewrite, if it's there, then I just wanted to make sure --
MR. LEN BERGER: It's under the wetlands section, so it's supposed to evaluate the wetlands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 230?
Page 29
16 I 1 M)Mber 7, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 231?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up on the top of 231 you have an underlined section that continues the
sentence that was started. The first part of the sentence says, the analysis shall be performed using
metl1odologies approved by federal and state water quality agencies. Then you added the demonstration of
otl1er nutrients and biochemical oxygen demand, et cetera.
Is that needed to be added if you're already going to do the analysis pursuant to federal and state
methodologies?
MR. LENBERGER: It's tying in the compo plan requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand. But tl1e analysis that is required by federal and state, is
tl1at already inclusive oftl1at same language?
MR. LORENZ: While Steve's putting that up, let me -- I think tl1e analysis is the methodology.
We're not speciiYing any different methodology than what the federal and state agencies would accept. But
tl1e Growth Management Plan is specific as to what parameters need to be looked at, and that's why we've
added tl1e list of parameters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, anything else on 231?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 232?
MR. LORENZ: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. LORENZ: I want to say that we've got the language in here listed or protected species. I think
we need to scrub protected.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Steve acknowledged in the beginning he was going to do that.
On 232, I-UI. You might want to consider the words applicants may include the results of any
environmental assessment. Again, I'm not sure we can demand that they do, but -- and four, H.4, there's
some reference to farm fields and golf courses, whatever language is preexisting. I think you might want to
clari iY that.
Right after that language, continues, or for which there is a reasonable basis for believing there has
been a previous contamination on the site.
Who determines whether or not there's a reasonable basis?
I had one time heard staff tell us every farm field qualifies as reasonable basis. I don't think tl1at's a
good reason. So I mean, I wonder how that's determined then.
MR. LORENZ: There's -- I mean, staff will look at it and make that determination as a
requirement, at least ask the applicant.
Typically what this is applied to, at least from some of my understanding of examples, would be
for instance if you have a -- an area where you've got a pesticide mixing tank where you had pesticides
being mixed, or a former cattle dipping type of pond. Some area that would have concentrated chemicals
associated with it, that would be an area that would have a reasonable basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is tl1ere a way that we could qualiiY that statement? I agree with you, by
the way, in the fact that cattle dipping issues in the outlying rural areas are -- in fact, we're looking at
Pepper Ranch, I understand that has some cattle dipping areas in it. So I think they're important to look at
those more closely.
MR. LORENZ: We can certainly try to provide some criteria for how we would define reasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for my edification, if nothing else, Bill, are the areas where
Page 30
1 6 I ~JJ~2r f 2008
you go into groves where they have the chemicals there to, you know, to avoid bringing in disease to the
groves, does that also quali1)o? If that land were going to be used, converted?
MR. LORENZ: That would typically be covered under farm fields and if there's an application of
pesticides for -- wherever you have an application of pesticides, that would be something that you would be
concerned about, a long-term --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess that's considered pesticides. Okay, thank you.
MR. LORENZ: Right. And we would consider that as agricultural farm -- it says farm fields here,
but we would certainly think that would be reasonable.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I didn't know groves were considered -- I guess farm fields,
yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 233, anybody'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 234?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On B on the top it talks about -- now this is under the section for
exemptions. And by the way, you have exemptions on eight, exemptions from an EIS. Then on nine you
have exemptions from an EIS and other environmental. Just out of curiosity, why the difference?
One takes you out of everything and one only takes you out of the EIS; was that the intent?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Upo on B where it talks about agricultural operations on Page 234,
they fall within the scope of the Florida Statutes. The last sentence, I was trying to understand what you
were trying to do herc.
This does not obviate the applicant from providing all other environmental data required for
I 0.02.A.2 where applicable. Well, tl1at's everything tl1an an EIS has, or close to it.
So what is it that we're allowing the ago operations to be exempted from?
Well, just look at that as a concern. I mean, again, I keep forgetting we're just going to give you our
bullets right now and you're going to come back with a rewrite anyway.
MR. LENBERGER: Two is environmental submittal requirements.
What it's saying here is if there's some other environmental submittal requirements, general
environmental submittal requirements, you would need to show tl1ose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would they be required to show tl10se to the otl1er agencies if they're
going to do ago operations?
MR. LENBERGER: Ifthey're going to start an ago operation or convert?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever B would apply to.
MR. LENBERGER: B is an exemption from an EIS. That means you have an existing ago
operation, and falls under tl1e scope of the Right to Farm Act. And you're going to convert it. Then you
would not be required to submit an EIS, but tl1ere are other things in the environmental submittal
requirements such as contamination for old farm fields. We just talked about mixing areas. So that's
something that would apply from 1O.02.02.A.2.
So it's just to capture that ifthere's anything that you need to submit, that's what it would be. That
would be one example.
MR. LORENZ: Restructuring I think may help.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it sure will.
Under C, where it says nonsensitive areas. Now, you struck parts of tl1is section, and you included
new language. When I was looking at it, I couldn't understand why you would want to strike the sections
you did. And that's all from C forward.
Page 31
16 I 1 f~,4', 2008
I just don't understand why all of Section C, including the beginning narrative, because it was so
simple, nonsensitive areas, C. Then you went into one, two, three, four, here they are.
Well, now you've struck most of that. You have a longer dissertation to begin C into what you're
trying to say, which now isn't as clear as it was before. And then I'm not sure that two is really the only --
it's too limiting.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, it's also II on the next page, previously developed areas. And that
captures already altered areas on I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but--
MR. LENBERGER: -- so it's shortening it in capturing already altered sites.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's limiting it to 1,000 square feet.
MR. LENBERGER: No, that's -- no, it's not limiting it. It's previously developed areas. And it just
has a de mimimis of 1,000 square feet. If you have] ,000 square feet of vegetation, you still qualiry under
the exemption.
It's just some sort of de minimis language to say okay, there's not absolutely nothing, there's one
little patch there, 1,000 square feet. It's just a de minimis amount to say okay, we're going to ignore that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Steve, I don't want to know -- if you're going to rewrite all this, if we
should take the time now to go into tl1is. But look at C.I, you crossed out tl1e subject property -- this is for
an exemption. Nonsensitive areas.
And you more or less defined them by saying I, the subject property has already been altered
through past usage prior to the adoption of the code in such manner that the proposed use will not further
degrade the environmental quality of the site or tl1e surrounding areas which may be affected by tl1e
proposed use.
MR. LENBERGER: And that's captured under two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how is that captured under two?
MR. LENBERGER: The use of development will occur on previously developed or disturbed
sites.
They botl1 have to deal with disturbed sites. They're already altered, they've already been cleared.
It's just a different way of wording it. It's trying to reduce some of the language here, make it simpler --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm all for tl1at.l'mjust trying to make sure it does that, because if you take
one, two, three, four large paragraphs, convert them all back to one sentence, that's great. Just continue to
do that and we'll have a better code.
MR. LENBERGER: That's what we tried to do here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just a little -- based on the way tl1is document -- all tl1e environmentals
have been written, I'm suspicious that it's not being done for the reason that you may think it is, or that
we're being told because that's the way you tl1ink. But I'm not sure where it may have came from.
Okay, I'll certainly look at that one closely in the new one that you come out with.
Why is E being removed?
MR. LENBERGER: E on the next page? Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 235. And why is F being reviewed (sic) and why -- and G. So I
know --
MR. LENBERGER: Well, if -- we don't regulate tl1e incorporated areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. But that's -- so it shouldn't have been here in the first place?
MR. LEN BERGER: Right. And then F is included in the last -- number nine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's exempt from--
MR. LENBERGER: 9.B. It's exempt, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about G?
Page 32
16 I 1 (~~r 7,2008
MR. LENBERGER: G? That's in the next one, too, A on 236.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, because G says single-family lots, and A says single-family
duplex uses. Is there a significant difference on why tl1e word lots wasn't retained?
MR. LENBERGER: We look at single-family and duplex as a single-family development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. LENBERGER: So we look at them the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. LENBERGER: It says, and single-family lots in accordance with 30.04.01. I'd have to look at
3.04.01. But it's basically exempting the single-family residences.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I wouldn't -- do you think someone would read -- see, when it
says lots, it to me means the four comers of the lot. When it says uses, I was worried tl1at someone could
say tl1at the footprint of tl1e house that's the actual use is exempt, but tl1e lot and the remaining portion is
not.
MR. LENBERGER: I see what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only reason I -- and Steve, I know you may not be the one that
would twist it that way, but it could happen, and I'm -- so I thought we certainly --
MR. LENBERGER: We will take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under E, you're talking about legal nonconforming use. Why did
you pick 1974? Because our code makes legal nonconforming uses all the time. Every time we pass a new
code, anything prior practically was a nonconforming use.
MR. LEN BERGER: This has to deal with the area of critical state concern, which was created in
1974.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has it been changed since then or not?
MR. LENBERGER: It's tl1e same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's nothing more comforting when you're trying to get an
understanding of a code to have a line like, unless otherwise required by code. Which is -- so can't you tell
us where that -- I mean, you can't do that tl1ough, that's a dirty trick. That's in 9.A.
MR. LENBERGER: You're referring to--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 9.A.
MR. LEN BERGER: There are requirements for retaining native vegetation and tl1e amount of
alteration you can have. For example, in the rural fringe mixed use district, they pertain to single-family as
well as other uses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the use of the code has to beware ofthat, can't you just list,
unless required by, and list those other places? Other than that, it just -- you totally leave somebody
exposed. I mean --
MR. LENBERGER: That could be quite --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Voluminous.
MR. LENBERGER: If you go to Page 221, and go to two at tl1e end of the paragraph, the
struck-out language, we initially had it there, unless otherwise required -- no, it's not in your version, I'm
sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was going to say it sure isn't.
MR. LENBERGER: I'm sorry, I have DSAC's comments here so you have to excuse me. I'm trying
to work through this, okay.
Page 33
1611 ~~7,2008
But anyway, it could be difficult to try to capture everything. We could miss sometl1ing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, so could the person who's reading it.
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, but there's not -- they're exceptions, they're not common things. But the
rural fringe mixed use district is one tl1at stands out. It definitely has preservation requirements, not as a
preserve, but as retained vegetation, which you could alter on-site.
So we have to capture that here. But finding all those exemptions in the code, I don't know, we
very well could miss something.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so could the person using the code, you know, that's the
problem.
And first of all, when you refer to the code, somewhere did you define the code to mean tl1e Land
Development Code? Is that the code you're referring to?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it is. And I would -- that would be--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Normally in the beginning of a -- so somewhere in the beginning
of it, it states that whenever it's referenced the code, it references the Land Development Code.
MR. LENBERGER: I would have to defer to Catherine on that. She's better on restructuring -- the
structuring of the code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Steve, how many locations do you think you would find when you
say tl1at, it is a dozen? Is it in one area, can you help the poor guy out?
MR. LENBERGER: I would find it very difficult to try to pinpoint everything. And we would
probably miss something. But they would be the exceptions, not the rule.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know what Brad's getting at is what we started talking about last
week. This code is what this board, the BCC and members of the public are supposed to be able to read and
understand.
And I understand what happened here, Steve. But if you don't know tl1is, this example --let me
give you an example. Golden Gate Estates just had a tremendous error in the measurement of setbacks
along tl1e rear property lines. Staff didn't know that Estates section had a particular reference to a rear
accessory use setback of75 feet. No less, period, that's it, 75 feet.
Instead, a staff member pulled up the accessory standards table and said oh, it's only 10 feet. So
now we have a bunch of buildings that are nonconforming uses allover the Estates at 10 feet or whatever
they ended up being. But they certainly didn't meet the 75-foot that's right in the code.
Had tl1e reference been there, like it is as we now changed it, at least someone would have been
highlighted to say, you know this is the code cxcept here.
And if we have to write a code with those kind of exceptions in it, I think they need to be shown.
That's critical for the community to understand what are exceptions. So if you can't list them, then don't put
it in there. Think of some other way to do it.
MR. LENBERGER: We can't just exempt the rural fringe, for example.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you can say single-family and duplex uses are exempt from certain--
speciry what they're exempt from if you can't -- and then maybe if you want to know more than tl1at you go
to other parts of tl1e code.
But I don't think the reference that is here is the correct way to go. And it was good tl1at Brad
pointed it out. It's a gotcha.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me ask it the other way. If you do find one of those tl1ings,
is it saying that this is exempt from the EIS?
In other words, when you do find --
MR. LENBERGER: Single-family would not have to do an EIS unless they had an ST overlay, for
example. They would be another example, you have an ST overlay, you're on Key Waden Island, you're
Page 34
16 I lUJ)~ 7, 2008
building a home, you would have to do an Environmental Impact Statement. So there's two examples.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask you this, staying on that. So in tl1e ST it states that a
single- family home has to have an EIS? That would even be a dirtier trick if you hide --
MR. LENBERGER: It does not exempt them in the ST section.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but is it clear reading the ST section tl1at a single-family
home requires an EIS?
MR. LENBERGER: From what I recall, yes, it's pretty clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, look at D above, doesn't that kind of get into it? A conventional
rezone with no site plan or proposed development plan. This cxception does not apply to lands that include
any of the zoning. That's for a rezone.
MR. LENBERGER: Which section are you on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 235, D.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay, you're on the previous page now, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't hit it right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But see, here's tl1e thing. If somebody is trying to know where an
EIS is required, they're in this section. And that's really unfair, because even in your conversation you can't
be sure you're listing everything yourself, so how are they supposed to not make a mistake? And that's the
problem. Mark gave an excellent example.
MR. LENBERGER: I'm not sure how to fix it. I would have to rely on management on that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think find out how many locations there are. Ifthere's 5,000, it's
different than if there's six.
MR. LORENZ: I think -- sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. And then Mr. Murray's got a question too.
MR. LORENZ: I think we'll try to work that through, Steve, we'll try to find tl10se exceptions.
And I think again, tl1e restructuring will help, because tl1ere is a -- the note earlier in the EIS
section, this is listed as EIS and environmental data. So I tl1ink the restructuring will help and tl1en we'll
work towards making sure that we cover all the exceptions that we're aware of in the code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess just adding to that, the question that came to my mind was
if you're referring to so many potential tl1at you'd have to list, wouldn't that also be a problem for the people
who are in your organization who have to know the exceptions? Couldn't they miss them as well? So it's to
your advantage to do something different, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you may just in the end have to chart it like we do for so many
other things. Put a chart in there, these are the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And tl1en the last page is 236. Does anybody have anything on Page 236?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we are going to have public speakers. Ijust want to comment
to staff, you're going to hear more from the public undoubtedly.
This whole environmcntal process this time, and we've still got more to go, has been probably the
worst I've experienced in the number of years I've been on the planning commission.
You're going back for rewTites. I don't know what it's going to take, but if you rush witl1 the
rewrites and you bring them back, they're not plain and simple to a manner tl1at people can understand
tl1em, and they don't do what this board had always thought it was supposed to do, or for that matter the
BCC, and they go off in tangents likc we some ofthis, we're going to be back into rewrites again and again
Page 35
16 I 1 [&~1tr 7, 2008
and again.
Because honestly, I don't think the Board of County Commissioners would appreciate it if we just
shoved it under the rug and passed it on to them to discuss. We need to beat it up here and make it right for
the public of Collier County.
And to do that, it's going to have to keep coming back and back. So I think you all need to make a
decision on how and when you want to bring it back. Even if you want to defer it to another cycle, I don't
care what you do, but it needs to be done right. So I urge you to consider that.
And I know there are public speakers. And so guys, there's no girls amongst you so I can't pick who
goes first, but Bruce jumped up, so --
MR. ANDERSON: It's alphabetical.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Anderson, okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought it was beauty before age or something like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're too nice to him.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Bruce Anderson, from the
Roetzel and Andress law firm, on behalf of the Bonita Bay Group.
I sat back and listed to all your very good comments. You've taken most oftl1e wind out of my
sails. They were all comments, concerns that I had.
I want to the address myself to two specific things. One is on Page 226. And it's paragraph Roman
numeral IV, C.IV, where we talk about things tl1at are subject to the EIS requirement. And they've proposed
this new language, location and shape were not approved or are not consistent.
I can tell you from firsthand experience that that interpretation, that is an interpretation that's
already being applied under the existing language. I have a client who was a victim of it.
I would ask you to leave that language as it is, as it reads today and not add that that's proposed.
Because the effect of it is you get struck in a regulatory resolving door. Every time you tl1ink you've
complied and you're about to get your permit issued, then the regulations change again and you get sucked
back in. And it's a never ending struggle.
My last comment is on Page 234. You raised -- it's about the use or development will occur within
a previously developed or disturbed area. And Steve explained what it was tl1ey intended. And since we're
into simplirying things, I'd just suggest that we place the word or between those two sentences.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where exactly are you at, sir?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, Page 234, Roman numeral II.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't have a Page 234 witl1in it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's on 235.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's on Page 235, so you've got the wrong set -- okay.
MR. ANDERSON: See what I tell you about things changing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Where were you suggesting changing the word or?
MR. ANDERSON: Between the two sentences.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The use or development will occur within previously developed or
disturbed areas or there shall be no impact to listed species or more than 1,000 square feet; is that what
you're suggesting?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll just see how that fits witl1 the new language, but --
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. That's all I have to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your first comment, by the way, expresses exactly the concern I was
trying to when I had talked about that one. Because I don't know anything tl1at can be consistent with the
current GMP, because we change it so much. So it's real concerning when we fall back on stuff like that.
Page 36
16 I 1 (ff) q October 7, 2008
MR. ANDERSON: In years past property owners were required as part ofthe PUD process to
identiry the preserve areas. They sold property that may have been partially developed based on what was
approved in the PUD as a preserve area. That ought to be respected and adhered to, and not, you know,
getting back door change like we've seen happen too many times.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pay your dues once, twice, three, four, on and on. Thank you, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question, though, on tl1at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That may be being taken care of in some of these other amendments,
Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: Which one are you --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I can't give you a page number unless you have the document that
they combined everything to.
MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't have that with me.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. If you do, look at the bottom of Page 9 under redevelopment
and expanded sites. And see if under A it solves your problem. And would you just let me know ifI'm
reading something correctly or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should make the assumption you're reading it correctly and he may
not be. So let her know if she --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I don't know--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reverse tl1at--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- if it applies to this or not --
MR. ANDERSON: This is respect to which of the two tl1at Ijust spoke about?
COMMISSIONER CARON: The first one.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, okay. I will. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure if that's what it intends to do, protect what you're talking
about or not. I think it does. I had a question when it comes back to us to ask, so --
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, Bill--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, I think to that point, I think we're going to have to work with -- that's what I
was eluding to before about working tl1rough what the preserves, what the native vegetation retention
requirements will be as we have different approvals in time.
And we need to define that, and actually probably map tl1at out so that we can make that
determination. Because I know that working with Doug Lewis here on the Youth Haven example, that's the
example of where staff is getting tripped up on this principal of what can be nonconforming.
And I think the easiest way to solve that is to identiry very specific circumstances and define the
circumstance of a particular PUD with a master plan approved on such a such a date would be vested --
maybe I tl1rew that term around too much, but would be accepted as redevelopment occurs. And we should
be able to identiry all those specific requirements.
And I think that's going to be really helpful. And that's where I -- I don't tl1ink the language that we
currently have now gets us to that point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Bill.
And Doug, before you go too far, last week, as you reminded me, we cut you off because at 3:00
we stopped and tried to get some things moved out of here.
Page 37
16 I 1(111) ~October 7, 2008
So you wanted to address those issues for the record, you certainly are welcome to do it when you
finish on tl1e issue in front of us today, or if you haven't got anything on this one then you can go right into
that.
The second thing I wanted to mention to you, at 8:30 in the morning next Thursday, the first thing
up is going to be the noise ordinance. So I know you had a lot of involvement with that, and I would want
to make sure tl1at your input is received at tl1at meeting. So that's what time it will be and that'll be tl1e first
thing up next Thursday.
MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Commissioner. We've been working with your staff on the noise
ordinance and appreciate all the input. I know it's a difficult challenge, so appreciate tl1e effort.
Good afternoon, members of the planning commission. My name is Doug Lewis for tl1e record,
and I'm an attorney for the law firm ofRoetzel and Andress. And I'm also a registered lobbyist and I'm here
today on behalf of Youth Haven.
Youth Haven is an organization that has been providing continuous needs and assistance to abused
children and families at risk here in Collier County since 1992.
And I will focus my comments today on proposed changes to Section 2.05.07.A and B. I appreciate
the opportunity to speak. I've been here on several occasions. We just didn't get a chance to get to this item
in the very last hearing, we ran out of time. So I appreciate the time today --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one we tinished -- we sent back for rewrite last week and it's not
this one today. So basically he's going to comment on what we already sent back. But your comments for
the record hopefully will have an impact that will help your issue.
MR. LEWIS: Appreciate it. Hopefully it will give you some background and--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mr. Chairman, can we get a page reference on that?
MR. LEWIS: Sure. Page 165 is the very first page. Based on tl1e August 22nd, '08 edition. I don't
know if there's another edition or a later edition. But Page 165 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's tl1e latest edition. That's the one we worked with.
MR. LEWIS: Okay, fair enough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can follow along.
MR. LEWIS: First of all, my comments hopefully today will be viewed in context with our client's
proposed expansion of its existing care facility and its site development plan submittal.
And hopefully this will allow the planning commission to provide a little perspective on how tl1e
proposed changes to 3.05.07.A and B impact a project that's in the pipeline. Hopefully it's illustrative. I
know it certainly has been for staff and myself.
Our client has experienced significant difficulty and tl1ey've also incurred very substantial legal
expenses in addressing staffs application in our particular petition of Section 3.05.07.A and B.
By way of background I've put on the screen here a 1975 aerial photograph of the Youth Haven
site, and it shows that as of 1975, that aerial, that 3.1 acres ofland -- and again, this exhibit was prepared by
Davidson Engineering -- but the 3.1 acres of this site located within a 16.8-acre parcel that's part of the site
plan, that that 3.l-acre site had been cleared as of that date.
And I think it's important by way of history to see how this site has been developed and cleared.
Based on that November 1975 aerial photograph, the very first phase of this development involved
three buildings. And as you can see from the aerial photograph, the site contained at that time very, very
sparse native vegetation. If you look at the aerial, it's very, very sparsely populated in terms of native
vegetation.
I think tl1at's very important because in tl1is discussion we seem to be blurring the lines between a
requirement that imposes a preservation requirement on native vegetation, and a blanket requirement on
acreage.
Page 38
16 I 1 CA-j L\-October 7,2008
And I can tell you in this instance, we were viewed as acreage. You have a 24-acre PUD, we're
going to apply a 15 percent preserve requirement to tl1e acreage, irrespective of what's going on.
And I think it's helpful to look at tl1is picture back in 1975, and you can see if we're trying to in
effect preserve -- establish a preservation requirement of existing vegetation, look at how sparsely
vegetated it was back in '75.
There's a 1985 aerial, and in that 1985 aerial, a total of 9.1 acres of the current 16.1-acre site had
been cleared. And you can see the -- kind of the outline tl1ere in red, those boxes or buildings that were
constructed. But you can see that large area. Again, you can tell by the aerial that this is a very sparsely
vegetated site.
And if you tl1ink about 15 percent of 24 acres, you're talking a little over three acres. If it's 15
percent of the actual existing vegetation, whether you look at it currently or '85 or '75, you come up with
very different numbers.
Youth Haven, per the Youth Haven PUD that was in effect at the time the site was originally
developed, all of this before 1985, that original PUD did not contain any native vegetation requirement
whatsoever. In fact, it wasn't even part of our GMP, our Growtl1 Management Plan at tl1e time. Very old
PUD.
And by its terms, the PUD did not specifically enumerate a percentage of preservation vegetation
requirement. Just didn't exist.
On February 28tl1 of 1989 and pursuant to ordinance 89-12, 9.7 acres ofland were added to the
Youth Haven PUD. So they enlarged tl1e PUD, they made it bigger in 1989. And the PUD was amended
and restated back in 1989.
Now that amended and restated PUD did not contain, and does not contain, and that's the current
PUD as of today that we're operating under, does not contain a percentage of native vegetation requirement.
So you have an '89 PUD that was approved by the county, didn't contain a preservation
requirement. You had existing phased development, of which 9.1 acres had been cleared and developed
under approved site plans by the county. 9.1 of those acres had been developed and cleared. No preserve
requirement at all.
It's a little helpful to see the background as we look at how tl1ese proposed changes will impact
development.
Pursuant to Policy 6. I .1, subsection eight, and tl1at's in the coastal -- the Conservation Coastal
Management of the Growtl1 Management Plan -- and I'll put that up on the visualizer -- you can see that the
Growth Management Plan establishes a preservation requirement, in this instance it's 15 percent because
it's commercial and the size of our development is over five acres.
And then it -- after it establishes the preserve requirement, it has certain policy statements that
apply to this preserve requirement that tl1ey're establishing.
Again, it's important to bear note tl1at I think the preserve requirement is, again, a native preserve
requirement, not an acreage requirement. You're looking to preserve 15 percent of what, is it 15 percent of
24 acres, as the county staff originally had indicated, or is it 15 percent oftl1e existing vegetation. I think
that's very, very important.
But there are certain exemptions, and the eightl1 -- if you look under 6.1.1 (8), and I'll put that up on
the screen, it very clearly reads that parcels tl1at were cleared, legally cleared of native vegetation prior to
January of 1989 shall be exempt from this requirement.
Now, we've had some discussion today about, you know, tl1e importance of having very clear
language, minimizing ambiguities, making sure that things are for clear so that businesses and projects and
members of the community have certainty when they look at the code.
If you were to ask me how I could construct language that would be clearer tl1an that exemption, I
Page 39
16 I 1 (A}~tober 7,2008
don't know how I could do that. I think it's very, very clear language. It says it's exempt.
Now, certainly there's discussion and room for discussion as to whetl1er or not acreage was legally
cleared. But I think that the statement is very clear, that if it was legally cleared before January, 1989 it is
exempt from the preservation requirement.
Now it's either exempt or it's not exempt. It's like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't. I
think the language is very clear and I think it's helpful to see that because it will tie in again to some of the
changes that we're looking at by way of background.
That same language has been in and was in the Land Development Code under Section
3.05.05.07.B.2.A, and you'll find that on Page 170 in your packet.
Now, as you've been reminding -- I think in a wise sense directing staff to incorporate the Growth
Management Plan and not deviate from that, that very language that you find in the Growth Management
Plan is found on Page -- or was found in the code and has been there. If you note, tl1at language has been
deleted.
It's under exceptions, it says, an exception from the vegetation retention standards above -- and
again this is the 15 percent requirement -- shall be granted in the following circumstances. And that's right
out of the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go too far, I've got a question of Bill.
Bill, if that language was in the GMP -- I mean, this is a question we didn't ask when it came
forward -- why is it struck? Why would we feel we can strike it? Or is there something missing here?
MR. LORENZ: Well, it should --I understood that it was going to be moved to a different section.
It should not be struck. That's very clear GMP language, and it could be moved to a different section. But I
haven't found the section that it's moved to. I think that was the question I asked --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bill, again, I'm not -- there's been a lot of things happening that I
don't think everybody is fully aware of what their intentions were until they gets fleshed out like this. So we
appreciate your help with that.
Go ahead -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, let me ask you a question, just for my own knowledge. Was
tl1ere a way to illegally clear prior to January, 1989?
In other words, the impression I get is that's when it came into the code. So you're asking if
something was legally cleared. But what would illegally cleared be?
MR. LORENZ: Let me have Susan talk about that, because you get involved in a prior ordinance
in 1974, and it was called a tree removal ordinance.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And to save time, Susan, you can say yes or no.
MS. MASON: There was rules starting in '74 about trees, and then it evolved over time. I don't
have tl1e exact time line so I can't go on too long.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. LEWIS: And I have reviewed the prior versions of the Growth Management Plan and the
code, and that is correct. This thing has really evolved. And I think there's been some discussion over the
past few months from members of the community, we really have gone from a requirement that you have to
get a permit to remove vegetation, you have to get prior approval to remove vegetation to now that that
there's a percentage of preservation requirement and that you have to actually preserve a certain percentage
of existing vegetation. In addition to getting approvals to clear vegetation now you have to preserve a
certain percentage, and we're getting into other areas.
But that date is important, tl1at January, '89 date is important because tl1at's tl1e date that the Growth
Management Plan contemplated that preservation requirement that a certain percentage, and it's evolved
Page 40
16 I 1 (if) Lt October 7, 2008
over time and it's different today, but a certain percentage of a site would be preserved in terms of native
vegetation, not acreage. And I think we're starting to blur the lines.
The request that you asked, Commissioner Strain, I think tl1at there is -- I do see in section -- if you
turn to Page one -- I believe it's 168. And it's A.6.a romanet two, there is an exemption that they've created
here new language that deals witl1 a parcel that was issued a county permit to clear vegetation for
agricultural purposes prior to July, 1993 and remains cleared of vegetation.
That is a very distinct and different exemption. Completely different exemption. So I will tell you,
I've reviewed the language, I don't see where that exemption has been relocated or renumbered or moved.
So it's either somewhat misleading or it's just patently incorrect when staff states in the beginning
of the amendment request that they've relocated quote, the exceptions, close quote, subsection criteria--
this is on Page 165 I'm reading -- to the quote, general standards and criteria, close quote, subsection.
I want to point tl1at out. I'm not trying to point fingers, I'm just trying to articulate, especially if you
see the context of what our client's gone through in addressing this issue witl1 staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Doug, this is the prime example of what gets our community in
turmoil over these things, and it creates a bad taste for not only business, because now it looks like business
is always fighting but it's for tl1e environmental community for taking positions that are not supported,
especially when tl1ey're straightened out in tl1e GMP.
I would certainly like to know if this got relocated, Bill. It would be important at some point for
you to tell us. And if it didn't, why didn't it and how we got here today.
MR. LORENZ: For me, if it didn't it was simply an oversight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know for you it might have been. I'm not sure that's everybody's
involvement.
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I wanted to say all due respect to your client, it would make no
difference to me whether you had a client or not. That's a great catch. We don't want to be doing things like
that, that's not the intent. It certainly isn't the intent of this --
MR. LEWIS: And I'll tell you, in speaking with Bill, I tl1ink I'm very heartened by tl1e reaction and
I appreciate the efforts of staff to work through that.
I tl1ink tl1at was a little bit, in this context, a little bit of the client's frustration, because we were
looking at very clear specific language and we wanted to meet with staff to say look, here's the exemption.
We want to come in and show you what evidence we have of legal clearing. And we're happy to discuss
that. That's a fair discussion. But we'd like to establish as a ground rule before we waste our free meeting
with staff, because after that we have to start -- you know, they start charging us for those meetings -- we'd
like to establish at least that if we can come in and show evidence oflegal clearing before that date tl1at tl1at
land is exempt. But we weren't able to get to tl1at point.
So I think it's illustrative and I think it's helpful. And partly I think we weren't able to get to tl1at
point because I think staff was getting confused with the way the code was currently written in the GMP
constructed and what they were intending to do in this cycle --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no confusion --
MR. LEWIS: -- there may have been a mix-up. And that's my own supposition and I don't know if
tl1at's the case but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no confusion. Staff has an implementation document that says
what it says, period. There should be no confusion. There should be no exercise of personal agendas to get
there either.
But go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, maybe in an effort to avoid errors such as this, we have
Page 41
16 I 1 (It; + October 7,2008
-- typically we do underscore and strike-out and so forth. Maybe you ought to devise another format,
another means by which we can show there's an anchor when we make a change or if language is modified
or bring it to our attention that it's modified. And while everybody strives to read and record everything
tl1ey can, it is a fact that some things will be missed, as evidenced by what you caught today. Thank you.
But it strikes me that if the director of his department doesn't know tl1at something got changed and
didn't get anchored someplace else, then maybe a good procedural metl1od, maybe some form should be
introduced. Because this is something you're not happy with either, I'm certain.
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Doug.
MR. LEWIS: I wanted to put back that 1985 aerial.
And so in the context of our discussion, and I think what we were -- we're looking to establish is
that in tl1is regard 9. I acres were cleared. Now I tl1ink there's a question as to whether it was legally cleared.
Our client is very comfortable that it has been legally cleared as of that date, that those lands once they've
been legally cleared that they are exempt from the 15 percent preservation requirement per the GMP and
tl1e Land Development Code.
The Land Development Code which was adopted after the PUD was adopted originally and then
amended and after the site was developed pursuant to site development plans, imposed a -- the Land
Development Code imposed a 15 percent preserve requirement.
And I tl1ink it's helpful to understand, this is a project where you had a PUD tl1at was originally
approved, it was amended, and then it was developed, 9.1 acres of that project had been developed, and
then later on there was tl1is 15 percent preservation requirement.
Given tl1at background, at best we're talking about applying 15 percent to the remaining 7.74 acres.
Again, it's a 16.8-acre development under tl1e SDP. And based on that application, our client has taken the
position that the native preserve requirement is 1.] 6 acres.
That's very, very different, about one acre. That's very different from tl1e 3.1 acres that staff
originally had indicated based on a 24-acre PUD and based on an assumption that all of that acreage is
native vegetation. You saw the aerial, you can see the aerial.
Policy 6.1.1 (8) remains very clear and unambiguous, and it states tl1at where a parcel was legally
cleared, it's exempt. The January '89 date is significant as this constitutes tl1e date that the Growth
Management Plan was amended to add native preservation requirements that did not exist previously in the
Growth Management Plan.
The Growth Management Plan clearly recognized existing developments with vested rights and
exempted such legally cleared parcels from the native preservation requirements.
I see in -- as we talked about the exemption that staff is creating for this re-creation requirement,
and I'll talk about tl1at shortly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, just so you know, you've been at it for 20 minutes now. We've
having a lot oflatitude with these LDC meetings because we do want everything. You're on a very project
specific example. I think we all get it. So if -- you need to kind of move ahead if you could.
MR. LEWIS: Okay, fair enough.
Specifically in context with the language in the LDC, we're going to request that the strikethrough
for the exemptions, that that be removed. That tl1e language in the GMP remain intact and that the LDC be
preserved.
On Page 168 we get into the issue of where legal-- where vegetation's been legally cleared. The
amount of native vegetation used to calculate that preservation requirement will be on the amount present
at tl1e time of that development order or land use petition application.
I would suggest two things. First is that what we need to do is we need to recognize the exemptions
Page 42
16 I. 1 (W7t4er 7,2008
that are in the code. And so when we're talking about legal clearing and the amount of acreage that's to be
preserved, we need to recognize that there are instances like in this instance where 9.1 acres had been
legally cleared. And within that 9 . I-acre parcel if tl1ere had been replantings that have occurred or
development that's occurred, that acreage is exempt per the GMP.
And the second is tl1at we need to account for plats or site development plans that have come
through the county, the county's looked at that and said, based on tl1e existing vegetation as ofthe date of
this SDP or plat, that we're going to require that you preserve "X" amount of native vegetation.
What happens in effect when you don't reC06'11ize that is you have a moving target. If there's been
re-creation or regrowth of native vegetation on a site, under this language you're calculating the amount
that's present at the time of the development order.
So I could come in today on a PUD or on a plat or an SDP and the county says you have to
preserve two acres. We preserve two acres. I come back in 10 years and we amend our SDP and the county
says well, we're looking at, through your EIS, that you've had some re-creation and tl1ere's more vegetation
there.
And the standard should not be what's there at the time -- what's present at tl1e time of that
development order. I think that's very clear.
And so I would suggest that with respect to lands that have been legally cleared we consider those
two things, one, where we have vested rights and two very clearly that where we have expressed
exemptions, like the one I described, and that we don't penalize developments that re-create, that plant. It's
a moving target.
As Bruce Anderson indicated, it's very difficult to have certainty when you say today the standard
is "X", in 10 years it's another standard. So I think we need to look at that specific issue in context with our
development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Does this language under redevelopment and expanded sites -- do
some of this -- although it certainly is much simpler the way it was in the old way -- but it says within the
boundaries of an original site requesting development or redevelopment. Your preserve requirement is
based on the original site development. So whatever you required and if you required nothing, you get
nothing, right?
Now, if you're looking to expand, tl1at's what I think the next ones go into. Iftl1e preserve
requirement is less today, then you get to go to the lesser amount, from what I'm reading here. And this is
what I wanted you and Bruce to take a look at.
But if our requirement now is greater, then you try to get as close as possible without re-creating
anything. Is that what this is saying?
MR. LEWIS: I think we're going to have to do some substantial work. And I can get into -- I can
get drilled down and be more particular. But for example, original site. What is an original site? In our
development we had an original SDP that cleared 3.1 acres. Then we had an amendment to the SDP that
now we have 9. I acres that have been cleared.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But you had an original PUD.
MR. LEWIS: We have an original PUD, that's correct. So --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. It had certain boundaries--
MR. LEWIS: Clearly.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: H+
MR. LEWIS: And at the time of the original PUD there was no preserve requirement. And so--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So you don't have anything for those original acreage.
Page 43
16 lIe Ii ~ttober 7, 2008
MR. LEWIS: We have current Land Development Code, a current Land Development Code that
says you're required to preserve 15 percent of the existing vegetation. And that's being applied to the
development.
The question becomes do we say that you have a 24-acre PUD, as staff did initially, and say tl1at
you need to preserve 15 percent of 24 acres. Or do we say we have a 24-acre PUD, we less out the 9.1 acres
that were exempt because they were legally cleared prior to January, '89, and then we apply preserve
requirement to tl1at.
But I think tl1at to maybe expedite, there are a number of nuances and there are some tl1ings that are
very technical, and Bill and I have gone over those. I'm happy to discuss tl1ose.
In answer to your question, I think tl1e short answer is I don't think that seven adequately addresses
tl1e issue of exemptions tl1at exist in the GMP or the code or vested rights.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, okay. And that was my question. So--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, thank you for your time, and especially the important point you just
made about the GMP language being struck out.
And I only ask staff to please, go back and come back with us with something that's better than
what we've seen.
And I hope you keep your eyes on it, Doug.
MR. LEWIS: Appreciate it. Thank's for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, did you have something you wanted to contribute?
MR. STERK: Yes, please. Jeremy Sterk, Davidson Engineering.
I wanted to stick on this one real quick and just bring up two quick points on tl1at same page, on
Page 169.
Not to really pile onto this number seven of redevelopment, but I don't think anybody really
discussed the implications of B and C. Because that's really the ones that hit us head on with Youth Haven.
And the implications of that, tl1at basically it's -- you're providing 15 percent of your entire site if you're
expanding, period.
And, you know, that gets back to it's not allowing for any of the historic uses of the site or
entitlements. So those two I think are just way off base and need to be rewritten.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand, thanks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeremy can answer it, too.
Jeremy, when you look at Page 170, the struck-through two. Doesn't tl1at mean that if the site was
legally cleared that it's totally exempt from all those requirements? Why was Doug saying that it would be
-- he would take the native vegeta -- I mean, it says you're totally exempt from this requirement. In other
words, the whole thing does not apply, the whole process does not apply, right?
MR. STERK: Yeah, I think that's -- I mean, I would interpret that that it -- that's where the entire
parcel is cleared of native vegetation. I think where we're running into some confusion is when tl1e site's
been partially cleared, what do we do then.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those words are important.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You really--
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's an important distinction to--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. STERK: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Page 44
16 I 1 CAJ4ber 7, 2008
added to the amendment.
And basically this is to address preserve management plans and see how they address the concerns
indicated in the compo plan.
You've heard this amendment before. We did a little cost analysis for you, as directed by this
board. And I'll be here to answer any questions, if you want to go page by page.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We haven't gotten anything new, though.
MR. LENBERGER: You haven't -- its revision date is dated September 16th. Do we have this?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the one I'm looking at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have it.
MR. LENBERGER: 193. And last revision is September 16th that I have.
COMMISSIONER CARON: She handed it out to you this morning?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't read it between this morning and now.
MS. F ABACHER: This morning's just -- it was already handed out to you originally __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who has September 16th, 2008.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do, from original.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, prior to today. Who's had it to read from? Mr. Murray has, I have.
Tor, which date is on yours?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: August I I tho
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti, Ms. Caron and Tor have August 11th. Bob and I have
-- okay. You're going to come back with rewrites, this will be discussed with those sets of rewrites. And
we'll just put it off till then. I don't want to get into something, especially with a majority -- not a majority
having read the actual document.
Let's go to Page 157. The document you should be reading from on this page should be dated
September 12th, 2008. It's the revision to the dead plants with bird nests in them.
That's as scientific and environmentally sensitive as I can be today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: If they had just said that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's got some highlight on it.
Okay, Steve, this is the second time this has come back, and it's a rewrite from last time. The
intention here was to go back and focus on thc fact that we were talking about trees with eagle nests in
them, and we're taking all the other language. Now, has everybody reviewed it?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And from I read, I think they finally did what we had asked them to
do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is the first time I've not had a markup on one, so -- does anybody
else have any questions or concerns?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we're talking on pages 157 through Page 163. Okay.
Brad disappeared, so I just guess we can -- well, we've got enough to vote so -- well, we can --
yeah, I guess we could go back and vote on this after he gets back.
So Steve, I don't think there's any questions on this. We'll vote on it towards the end of the meeting.
We have one more left to do today, and that's the passive recreation on Page 139.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here's Mr. Schiffer, maybe we could take a vote now, get that over
with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, since you're back, we wanted to make sure we got any comments
Page 46
16 11~if~~r 7,2008
from you on Page -- first of all, on Page 193. Would you tell us what version you have, what's the latest
version you have?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have September 16th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's three to three. So we're postponing that one to be discussed
when all the rewrites come back together.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because not everybody's got the same version.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that the correct version?
COMMISSIONER CARON: You actually have the correct one this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we're moving on to -- then we went to Page 157, which was a
rewrite of the dead trees with bird nests. And we didn't have any problems with it. We're looking for your
input.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have none either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we've got everybody on the same page, we're all here. So I
can ask for a recommendation for LDC Sections 1.08.02,3.05.05, and 10.02.06 as to be for a
recommendation of approval or denial consistent or inconsistent with the GMP.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move, approval, consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to recommend approval consistent with the
GMP. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. One more done.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You guys went fast. I'm going to go back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, in the passive recreation section is -- Ms. Fabacher, go ahead.
MS. F ABACHER: It's my problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is?
MS. F ABACHER: This amendment. No, I'm saying, Steve isn't going to present, I was going to
say I'll be presenting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I wanted to get us on the right page and the right -- just turn to Page
139. And the latest edition that everybody should be reading off of is dated 2/21/08. Does everybody have
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 2/21?
MS. FABACHER: No, you got one on 7/30/08.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's what I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Page 47
1 6 I lo~~) *2008
MS, F ABACHER: But let me say this. I don't think it's changed significantly, because staff has
taken the position at this point that if we're going to have to do extensive work that will have to go to
another cycle, but the fact remains is we still contend that when it was looked at in 2006 -- and I have the
dates of the minutes, if you would like to go back on them. The BCC heard it on October 30th, 2006, and
that's going to be Pages 42 to 44 of the minutes for the BCC of that date.
And then the CCPC heard it on August 1st, 2006, and that is Pages 9 to 15 on the August 1st, 2006
CCPC minutes,
In doing future research on this, I noted that when the BCC went to pass this term in this way, at
that time it had been changed by the planning commission, and the planning commission had voted 7-0 at
that August I st meeting to approve this same language to go to the board.
It's unclear about what the board's direction is on this, It always has been. The problem is, as I tried
to explain the other day, and I'm sure -- I know you're aware of the Attorney General's opinion that the State
of Florida doesn't define passive recreation, because it depends. It is really a site specific issue.
We had that long discussion on preserves about how some might allow boardwalks, some might
allow bicycles or not. You're trying to deal with resource-based conservation-zoned properties such as
conservation Collier's, and then preserves, which are obviously zoned the same as whatever commercial or
industrial they're on.
What I'm saying is those are intended to preserve the resources. And it would be on a site by site
determination as to whether or not any of these passive activities could be used,
Same thing goes with Conservation Collier, and particularly this also involves PUD's. And I think
that's why the Board of County Commissioners did want to have some clarification or something to put in.
The scheme that staff has come up with two years ago, and still stands by, is that we -- I believe the
first time we met, I showed you about nine to 10 different definitions from different, you know, parts of
Florida, that all are pretty much generic and say the same things, and they say include but not limited to,
And it's always been our strategy that we would go and identity exactly which passive recreational
uses by the PUD, by the preserve or by one of the Park and Rec's parks.
So if you -- at this point we've done a lot of work and time on it, and if at this point you just can't
live with it, then we're requesting you go ahead and move to deny it or want put it to another cycle, I can
put it back to the board with a denial and get further direction.
But I keep saying that we're just not going to -- all the users will not agree on one set of passive
recreational activities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this -- and my memory is not as good as your recent reflections when
you've read everything, You're saying this language came before us a year or two ago, we approved it, the
board then approved it --
MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, you amended it and staff agreed. Then you approved it and it was
passed to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the board rejected it?
MS, F ABACHER: No, it was hung -- it was caught up with a lot -- it ran with some Conservation
Collier language. And at that point the board said take the Conservation Collier language, put it in the Code
of Laws and then come back with this passive recreation definition in another cycle,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the passive recreation definition in front of us today, the one that was
previously approved by us, was never really weighed in by the BCC; is what you're saying?
MS. F ABACHER: They read it, they liked it. I don't know why we couldn't approve it, but we
were all caught up in Conservation Collier matters, It was all packaged with the Conservation Collier stuff
that we did in essential services two years ago,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So what you're asking today then is to us to re endorse it or to re
Page 48
16 I l~ItJr~, 2008
suggest changes to it so it can either be moved forward or kicked out to another cycle?
MS, FABACHER: Yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
MS. F ABACHER: Oh, sorry, Jim?
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to for the record make sure you understand. What got caught up in this
was the passive recreation but hunting and some of the other type of activities that -- or --
MS, FABACHER: Fishing, boating--
MR, SCHMITT: -- parks and what was open, allowable for public access. And that's what got kind
of caught up in the whole definition of this with the board, So we just haven't gotten this thing through.
And that's why it's back in this cycle,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms, Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's absolutely correct. I mean, all passive recreational uses
are not appropriate for all preserves. I mean, there are going to be differences, And Parks will be more
lenient than a strict preserve will be.
So the language as we have it here right now, I think is fine. We added the word uses, passive
recreation uses, to it. I would suggest that at the end we also add provided the Board of County
Commissioners determines that such use is appropriate for the environmental or conservation of the natural
resources.
And then that puts it through the process, we get to look at it on a case-by-case basis, which is the
only way, according to the AG's report that the we got we can actually do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then any time someone suggests that they have a passive recreational
use, they'd have to come --
COMMISSIONER CARON: They have to define it--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd have to come back --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for their use,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- through the public process.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no. Initially when they come through the public process, they
would have to define it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but what if it wasn't -. what if a use came up that was thought of
later on, it wasn't in the initial list, you're suggesting they come back through the PUD process or whatever?
MS. F ABACHER: I think it could be a PUD deviation right up on the face of it. I think it could be
presented as a PUD deviation.
We have recreational uses, but we also -- passive recreational uses, but we also have this use which
we would like to be considered passive recreation, Or in the PUD they could say anything -- they could say
we will allow passive recreational uses plus A TV's, plus -- and just name in the PUD what they would --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't use ATV's,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
MS. F ABACHER: Well, I just used that, sorry, as an example.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Once you start to define, you get yourself into the problem of then
having to come back, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe if we leave -- ifby putting a definition in the code, it allows
someone to come in through a PUD and argue that they're passive recreation, And then the boards can then
hear the process as Donna was indicating, and through that process they could be deemed approved by the
BCC.
So I'm not sure that -- the language at the end you were adding is what got me a little confused. I
was worried it was going to trigger more reviews strictly because they wanted to add a use after the fact.
Page 49
16 I 1 GA~e*7, 2008
Well, it would anyway. That's why I had that language is what I'm getting at.
MS, F ABACHER: And if you're not in a PUD, if you're just in a -- now, the preserve, I don't know
what Bill's process would be for adding a passive recreational use to a preserve, but I think they just
identity it in their management plan is my understanding,
But the other thing I was thinking of is -- the other traditional way to go would be to ask -- you
know, you talk about compatible uses -- and that goes to the BZA, as you recall when we did our little land
use book -- that goes to the BZA to determine whether this is compatible,
So they could either do it through you and the board in a PUD document. Or if there was some
contention and Susan, say, did an interpretation and say no, this is definitely not a passive recreational use
in this instance at this site -- well, she can't say at this site, but in this instance, we don't agree -- then it goes
to the BZA and they determine if it's a compatible use or not to passive recreational activities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that's sort of where I was trying to get with the added
language, was to make sure that it didn't just end up being a staff determination that swimming was a good
thing, you know, was an appropriate use,
It should come before the boards, whether that's the BZA or --
MS, F ABACHER: I'd have to ask Bill Lorenz about the process for identitying the passive
recreational uses in a preserve management plan. I don't know if that comes before the planning
commission or the board or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, I wanted to quality something. I have two editions, one
original, and they were dated 7/30, and then a new one in the packet that was given out. And I do not see
the words uses put into the documents I have, And yet Donna just read off uses.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It was what we requested.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What we requested, but I don't see it in here, So it hadn't been
modified yet to --
MS. F ABACHER: Well, because that would throw it in then with uses, and they're not really uses
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so maybe I didn't hear the rest of that --
MS. F ABACHER: -- the use would be conservation use or whatever the public use is that a park is
zoned. It's really not a use, it's more activities.
And I might add that you all also added characterized by non-motorized activities, That was added
by the planning commission as Mrs, Caron was pointing out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hadn't finished yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Murray still has more.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust -- trying to get the point here, your attention should be called
to 140,3, where they talk about, you've read it no doubt, but they talk about as not defined by statute.
And so it comes down to either listing every mother's son on there or it comes down to some other
kind of statement. An activity and use is the same to my way of thinking. An activity is essentially a use.
MS. F ABACHER: Well, not in our terms. An activity certainly doesn't require -- changing a use is
a serious thing. The use in a conservation district is -- I mean in a preserve is a conservation use.
The use in a park is going to be a public use, I forgot what we call them, public utilities -- I forgct
the zoning, And the park is the use, What you do in the park is really not the use.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But basically you're saying that in your definition you say passive
Page 50
t 6 I 1 (1ft] + October 7, 2008
,
recreation activities characterized by --
MS, F ABACHER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Passive recreation activities are characterized by. They're
activities, they're use, No?
MS. FABACHER: No, they're different from a use because -- I mean, you could say in the regular
world activities are used. But in planned zoning a use is a different thing that you would have to treat a
whole lot more seriously than an activity.
Because they're really not a list of permitted uses. When you look at the land use and what's
permitted, they don't say kayaking, you know, I mean, retail sale of goods, park. These are the permitted
uses. You don't see kayaking and all as a permitted use. That's why we're calling it an activity,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I don't think we've have resolved anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All's I wanted, could somebody on the visualizer put the most
recent version, just to make sure mine's close,
And the other thing is, is the problem going to be with this definition that after something is built
that there's an activity on it that code enforcement or somebody is trying to regulate or is this during the
plans process, people designing elements for a preserve?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you it's going to apply both ways, because there's a lot of preserves
out there right now, and people are going to want to, if they do put something in there or if they've currently
have something in there that doesn't fall within this definition, I'm not sure how that would be treated, We
probably need to consider that.
Is there a definition going to be put on the --
MS. FABACHER: Yes, It's also on the first page of that packet I gave you.
MR, SCHMITT: For clarification, I don't enforce based on definitions. Definitions are there only to
assist in the understanding of how the code is written.
As you know, when we went through the recodification, one of the things we tried to do is remove
regulatory language from definitions.
So all this is is setting the standard as to what is deemed passive recreation. And I've got to tell you,
I can't even remember why we got into the reasoning why we even had to have a definition,
But you do recall the last time we went through this mental gymnastics was the passive recreation
for Cocohatchee. And we went through --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we listed them --
MR. SCHMITT: -- you know, what can they do, can they throw Frisbees versus whatever. I don't
even know why we're -- J can't even recall now why we're wrestling with this, other than we were looking
for a definition because it's used elsewhere in the code,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is there a problem,
Mr, Klatzkow?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't think there is,
MR, KLA TZKOW: Why are we defining passive recreation to begin with?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what Ijust asked, why is there a problem? Do we have a problem in
the county with the issue, Because if we don't, and we're currently defining it in each PUD as it comes
forward, why don't we leave well enough alone,
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: In almost every PUD that comes before us, under preserve section, it
says passive recreation uses, right?
MS. F ABACHER: J believe you're right, Commissioner. That's why the board asked to get a
Page 51
16 I 1 ~Jt~r~, 2008
definition,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Or is it just saying passive uses?
MR. LENBERGER: It says uses within preserves is usually the way I've seen the PUD structured.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uses within preserves, and what does it say? What's -- use number
one is what? Passive recreation uses, right?
MR. LENBERGER: We've had --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Passive recreation is what it says, period,
MR, LENBERGER: I'd have to defer to Susan on the current formatting, I haven't been involved in
the PUD's lately, so I will --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, you're sitting there like you may be able to contribute to
this.
MR. SCHMITT: Bruce, you may have to write the code here, Could you help us?
I won't be mad at you this time.
MR. ANDERSON: For the record, Bruce Anderson,
I think you've really already done it. You've already fleshed out the definition in the section called
allowable and exempt uses within preserve areas, You've been pretty specific, but you've also had all
inclusive language in there.
And I speak just for myself, but let's live with the loose flexible definition, I'll call it, in the
Comprehensive Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which says?
MR, ANDERSON: Which says passive recreational uses that do not impact the minimum required
vegetation or cause a lot loss of function to the preserve area,
Loss of function to the preserve area includes a reduction or a change in vegetation within the
preserve and harming any listed species present in the preserve.
And then it says more specific standards to implement this policy shall be set forth in the land
development regulations and will address the types of construction that are compatible with the function of
the preserve. The LDR's will also provide criteria to define appropriate passive recreational uses.
The criteria will be established to allow for passive recreational uses such as: Trails or boardwalks
that provide access within preserves, providing the use doesn't reduce the minimum required vegetation or
cause harm to species,
The problem with waiting until in the zoning change to do it, and I mean, that's great to put it in the
PUD, but most of the problems crop up afterwards, whether it be an old PUD or a PUD that gets
interpreted a different way,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That section in the code, and we've already reviewed it, that's why I can't
remember what section. Do you remember what page that was on our --
MR, ANDERSON: 198,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've already sent that back for--
MR, ANDERSON: Rewrite,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- rewrite. But the essentials of it stay the same. So if we were to take the
definition in the GMP, insert it into the LDC so it can be found, same language, and reference the standards
that are starting on that section, we'd be --
MR, SCHMITT: Two different things. Two different things. Passive recreation may not necessarily
be only in preserves.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's right.
MR, SCHMITT: So that was the issue. So we buy -- some of this came up during Conservation
Collier, what can they do within lands that are Conservation Collier. They're not designated preserves, but
Page 52
to clarity it further with the LDC?
See, what I'm getting at is we have a pile of PUD's out there that go back decades, and in those
PUD's, rightfully so, as Ms. Caron pointed out, in their section they said passive recreational uses are
allowed,
Well, I can tell you that people have a different idea of what passive recreation is. Some will think
horseback riding and stables may be passive recreation, some will think bird watching is passive recreation,
And it may be.
But I think there's probably a reason -- now, the other concern I have is if you go to define it and it
affects those older PUD's, what kind of issues are we getting into with Burt Harris claims and issues like
that? Any at all?
MR. KLATZKOW: No--
MR. SCHMITT: Again, I don't look at a definition as a regulatory --
MR. KLA TZKOW: This definition simply says examples include the following. It doesn't
eliminate anything. And I think that on a case-by-case basis you could say there's enough acreage here to do
horse riding here, but on this one there isn't.
I think it's malleable enough that you could use this on a case-by-case basis.
MR. SCHMITT: I like what the language that Ms. Caron mentioned at the end. Just add that
provision on the end, or other uses as approved during the public hearing and zoning process, or something
to that effect.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Something like that, yeah,
MS, F ABACHER: Activities.
MR. SCHMITT: Or other activities as approved through the public hearing and rezoning process,
MR, KLA TZKOW: Or just let it go and do it on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Klatzkow, on what you've just said, which it seems fine, 10
years or whatever into a PUD, the homeowners decide that they wants to do something different. Will that
compel coming back for a revision of a PUD?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, no. They're not amending the PUD, what they're saying is that we think
that a passive use is this. They start doing it I guess it becomes a code enforcement issue, where code
enforcement says that's not really a passive use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couldn't they come under section, Page 198 and 199 that we've already
discussed and meet those standards and then quality?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, my concern is we said horseback riding, for instance,
Cocohatchee could have horseback riding. And some place might want to have horseback riding, they
didn't have it before. And code enforcement says you can't have horseback riding. And now they're forced
to come back in some form and they have to abate, and then they have to try to change. No?
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why I like just doing it on a PUD-by-PUD basis and you avoid that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Cocohatchee--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, maybe I didn't make myself clear. The PUD was already
established, Some time goes on and the community decides it wants to have an additional or another in
place of, either way we have it, other form of their determined passive recreation that is not listed in the
original PUD.
Does that then mean that they have to come back in for a rezone? Because that's the concern I
would have.
MR. SCHMITT: No. It depends on if they want to put stables on-site or some other type of use,
they may not havc an allowable use.
16 I 1 CAJtber 7, 2008
Page 54
16 I 1 ~)ttF 7,2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is a concern, it is something we have to think out.
MR. SCHMITT: But I have golf carts that go through preserves. Golf cart paths. I have other type
of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know, with the language we put in Section 3.05.07.H.l, whatever,
and the GMP left as it is, do we really need another definition to enter the picture?
MR. SCHMITT: I'm fine with it. We'll just go back to the board, tell the board that--
MS. F ABACHER: You deny it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the standards that we've put in that 3,05.07 provide what you can
and can't do within those standards, and if you want to go beyond that you need a deviation or a process of
the PUD. If that works, we don't have to beat this to death,
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then, you know -- and I agree, really, putting a standard in the
preserves so everybody knows what a preserve is.
Joe, when you say you have golf carts going through, you actually don't, you have a preserve
bisected by a golf cart path --
MR, SCHMITT: Bisected, correct. Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's a preserve on each side. And then if somebody wants to
use non-preserve area for passive recreation we'll define it at the time of zoning as to what their limits are
then,
So this definition really isn't useful. I definitely think everybody should understand what can go on
in a preserve, and it should be controlled in the section Bruce noted, and then there's just no reason for this,
Because if somebody -- this definition would only be useful for outside preserves areas anyway, and again,
it's an activity we would establish at the hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the consensus then from this panel is that we don't need this
definition, and we've already covered it in the section that's being rewritten, Is -- that meet with everybody?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll go with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then I think we could do that with a motion, LDC Section
1.08.02, a recommendation for approval or denial as inconsistent or consistent with the GMP.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'll make that motion that be not necessary to maintain
consistency with the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. Discussion?
Bruce, you're shaking your head. You're not -- you can discuss, What's up? Don't want to make a
mistake, so -- because you'll just have us come back here under some kind of court order or something, I
know.
MR. ANDERSON: You really shouldn't make a finding. But it's -- that you don't need to do
something consistent with a plan or that you can do something that's inconsistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's strictly a recommendation not to approve,
MR. ANDERSON: And make a finding that what you're recommending is consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion to recommend denial and that that motion is
consistent with the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, do you second it?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do.
Page 55
16 I 1 (J~oir 7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now discussion.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. All in favor, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
That takes us through everything that we have, except for all the rewrites we sent back, And all
those I think are strictly environmental.
And Mr. Klatzkow, I have to ask you, we need an indefinite -- we don't have a definitive time, and
it won't be any time soon.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can talk to Joe. I don't think you're making this cycle--
MR. SCHMITT: No, this basically concludes this cycle, We will look at dates when we can bring
these back under a special cycle or a follow-on cycle, because they're going to take some time to do
rewrites.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [would surge that in the rewrite process, please, get together with some of
the stakeholders that were in these rooms. Try to get language that everybody can understand. Because
we've just got to understand it.
And I think if we -- that's part of the problem with the public side of it too.
MR. SCHMITT: We have been with the stakeholders on this, And we've put a lot of -- between the
various committees this has gone through, the stakeholders have been involved.
It's unfortunate that it gets to your level when it really becomes detailed. Because this has gone
through several, at least seven or eight reviews,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I know you would understand this, I bet you if you were to take any
one of those other committees and ask them, individuals, point blank one at that time, understand what
these mean, what they actually sent to us, it would be kind of like for the most part we are, you can't tell by
the language. The language still is not clear enough to really get a good understanding of those users that
need it.
So I think that's becoming critical --
MR, SCHMITT: We went through painful--I mean, I'll call it painful. But we went through
detailed review with the practitioners that put this in place through the DSAC, and there were rewrites both
at the EAC and at the DSAC level. I appreciate your efforts,
And I do want to point out Steve is probably suffering from shellshock.
But we did -- for that area where it was January, 1989, we've already discussed that. Steve already
had direction for the rewrite on one of the other elements to put that language back in. Somehow -- you
don't even have the versions yet that he started the rewrite.
But that language, after we began to deal with what we were dealing with Youth Haven, it became
clearly evident a month ago that we said well, this was not put baek in where it should have been, And
Steve has that in one of the rewrites, but you'll see that when it eomes back. But it was -- why it was taken
out of this section, I don't know, but we clearly identified it needed to go back in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for your shellshocked staff member there, Steve, we certainly
Page 56
appreciate your efforts and patience today,
(Applause,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Without you it would have been much, much worse. So, really, thank you
for trying to help us through this. I know you may feel like it didn't come out right but --
MR. SCHMITT: He did a good job --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He did.
MR. SCHMITT: Just understand, there's at least one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight
EAR-based amendments, at least seven EAR-based amendments that will be delayed. And that's fine with
me, We will work with the stakeholders involved so we can clarity that language.
There's two that you had reviewed last Thursday, One was the EAC powers and the other had to do
with a submittal of requirements for permits, both of which had minor rewrites, one involving you wanted
some formulas. But those two will be kicked to the next cycle.
You don't have time to review them, let me explain, number one. Our advertisement runs out on
the ninth, The only way you could see it is on the 16th, You can't see it on the 16th because I'd have to
readvertise, And I can't readvertise for the 16th because I'm not within the 14 days.
So be that as it may, you will not see anymore amendments. We will prepare and finalize all the
rest of the amendments you approved today and previous amendments for the board hearing on the 30th.
And the ones that you didn't get to, which were actually three, and another six or so will be bumped
until we can sort through with the industry and come up with language. We want to get with the
stakeholders involved.
We certainly would appreciate if you have any written input that you want to provide us, we'd
certainly like to take your -- if you have notes on your pages for any of the ones that you went over with
Steve, we'd appreciate it. And then we can work from there.
Because, as I mentioned to you at thc start of this, I want this to be right, because these are very,
very critical issues. And I think the ambiguity in the code is what's been causing problems. And I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agree with you --
MR, SCHMITT: Unfortunately what we're faced with is now still some more ambiguity in the
code, And what this was meant to do is try and clean up some of that ambiguity. We'll get there,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank very much, Mr, Schmitt.
Mr. Schifter -- oh, Ms, Caron and Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, do you need a motion to adjourn this cycle, let
me know, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as Ms. Caron gets done.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: The two that we did not -- that we were going to hear next time at the
bottom here, the powers and duties, wa~ that -- I was just trying to remember whether that was a massive
rewrite,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The EIS one for the -- no, no, one was dependent on the other, so we can't
-- the EAC stuff was really dependent on the ETS language, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, yeal1, you're right.
MR. SCHMITT: Right, the EIS -- there was EIS language, and that is certainly dependent on the
other one line you struck, which had to do with additional meetings, or something to that. That's already in
an ordinance, that doesn't even have to be in the LDC, which I already -- I told John that that's already in a
separate ordinance for committees and board meetings,
But that was written in there specifically because of some of the past problems in EAC. But that
language didn't need to be in there.
6. October 7,2008
1..... , l'A}f
Page 57
The other one you wanted some kind of a formula --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Calculations--
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, calculations--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and needs other exceptions, yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: Which --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just looked, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
MR, SCHMITT: -- won't have time to do. I mean, we're out of time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is my privilege to move to adjourn Land Development Code
amendment Cycle I, 2008.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Please,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti begging us to adjourn. All those in favor, signity by saying
16 , 1 C Arr7,2008
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We are done,
*****
Page 58
Tbore ocillg 00 furthcr b",ioc~ fo< ili, good "nb, G'~,. ilio ~~"~ W~ "~ll'~:ro: ~008
Chair at 4:00 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
,
\ - '. '. j
'v,,",- V\ I ~ , ~\i\ [-
MARK p, STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on 11' ~ I . () ~
corrected
, as presented
v
or as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY
CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
Page 59
BECENED
DEe 1 t2008
_'-dotcounty~
'I \Y~ ()y
~:I:S, ' - '10 If 4
Henning -r '
Coyle V
Coletta -oz----
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida October 16, 2008
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
Karen Homiak
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J, Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeftfey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, Community Development and Env, Services
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, Director of Real Property, School District
Misc. Cooes
Date:
?r,;
Page 1
I 6 bcle~A-) t
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone, Welcome to the October 16th meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission,
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison,)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's see if you can remember the roll call.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent.
Conunissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here,
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm here,
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here,
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Made it through that.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Tough day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just beginning.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Addenda to the agenda. There are some changes, And the first of which is Item 9(D) has been
continued due to a sign, I guess a sign wasn't placed on the property?
Mr. Kolflat, I understand that you may have some input on that?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I visited the site in anticipation of it being heard today, and
there was no visible sign there. So I talked to the chiropractors, asked where the sign was located. They said
there had not been a sign there since this issue had been brought up.
So I contacted John-David Moss, the principal planner, and so advised him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is somebody on staff supposed to be checking these when they come
in for variances and conditional uses?
MR, BELLOWS: The process requires that the applicant provide documentation ofthe posting of
the sign. And we had a coordinator at one time that worked with our principal planner, and that coordinator
position was eliminated. The planner assumed that responsibility. And 1'11 follow up with John-David to
Page 2
16 , 1 ctA),~08
make sure that he's double-checking for that.
(At which time Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you wouldn't rnind, from now on in our packet whatever
evidence they provide you, to show that. If you provided it to us in the packet, it would be helpful
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, some planners are doing that. But we'll make sure everyone--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,
MR, BELLOWS: -- follows that same process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch, Mr. KolfIat.
The other item on the agenda that's going to change -- well, it's not a change, it isn't clear, though,
The IO(A), old business, that will be the noise ordinance, that is going to be the first thing heard today,
So when we start our hearing, we will not be starting with the Moraya Bay Club, but we'll be
staying with the noise ordinance. And the experts involved in the noise ordinance have to leave early, and
they can only be here for the first part of the morning.
Ironically, for those people that are here from Vanderbilt Beach for the Moraya Bay Club, a lot of
the noise ordinance issues have generated as a result of issues in your area, So as you hear the discussion of
the noise ordinance, if you have any input, we certainly would welcome your comments.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Planning Commission absences. We have -- the next regular meeting is November 6th, Does
anybody know if they're not going to be here on November 6th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Midney, welcome,
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sorry,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, you travel farther than anybody.
Okay, with that we'll assume we have at least a quorum or more for the 6th.
Next week, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday we have the annual review of the AUIR in
conjunction at a workshop with the Productivity Committee, The meetings will be held over at the
developmental services conference room,
And the Productivity Committee attends in cycles of three, usually. They each group of them have
taken a specific section, So they'll be coming and going during the meeting.
Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting next week?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: l'11 miss Wednesday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for the benefit of this board, iffor any reason there isn't a quorum
any particular day, I don't see any reason we can't continue with the meeting and hear the facts and, you
know, discuss the AUIR, And then the next time this board gets together with a quorum --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think you can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Productivity Committee does that, and that's why I was
wondering why we --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Right. You're the Planning Commission. I would much prefer that you guys
meet with a quorum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what that means then, that if during the A UIR meeting if we don't have
Page 3
16 , rctteft6)~
a quorum, we can't hold the meeting?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't want the AUIR process tainted by any allegation that you didn't have a
quorum, I really --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how does the Productivity Committee--
MR, SCHMITT: There's no statutory requirement for the AUIR to go through the local planning
authority,
MR, KLA TZKOW: I understand that, Mr. Schmitt, but I do not want any issue there with lack of a
quorum. If you don't think you're going to have lack of a quorum, let's discuss it now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think by acknowledgment today we're probably going to have a quorum.
But what I -- and the only reason I thought about it, Jeff, is that the Productivity Committee does not
maintain a quorum during that meeting, I've not seen a problem with that.
What they do is they take it back to their group as a whole and then they vote on it with a write-up
that's submitted later.
Is that okay for them to do then, now that you've raised the question?
MR, KLATZKOW: You and I will have a discussion off-air about this process. But I do not like--
I do not like when any committee meets without a quorum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand.
Okay, well, then next week it will be a quorum or the meeting won't be held, So we'll go from
there,
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 28, 2008, LDC MEETING; AUGUST 29,2008, GMP
MEETING; SEPTEMBER 4, 2008, REGULAR MEETING
Approval of the minutes. We have three sets of minutes, The first one is August 28th, LDC
Meeting, Is there a motion to approve or change?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti,
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms, Caron,
Discussion?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MTDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody not approve?
(No response,)
Page 4
16 I loc'Jh\~
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries 9-0,
The next set is August 29th, 2008. It is the GMP Meeting. It is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron made the motion, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
All those in favor, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye,
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye,
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
And the last one is September 4th, 2008 re!,'lllar meeting, Motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve,
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti,
Discussion?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye,
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Aye,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0,
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOT A V AILABLE AT THIS TIME
There are no BCC reports or recaps at this time.
Chairman's report, I'm just going to need aspirin before the day's over,
There are no consent agenda items for today's agenda.
Page 5
.______"'~......__..-_~"',..~,."."._..""_,._.___u...___..~__...,._,..__.~._~_~_,____,__..
16 I oJ:o'r4, ~4
Item # lOA
OLD BUSINESS - NOISE ORDINANCE
And with that we'll move into Item 10(A), the noise ordinance. We'll receive certainly a
presentation by staff. Discussion,
As everyone knows, this has been floating around for probably nearly 18 months. I don't know how
many drafts,
This particular one I had reviewed with staff to some extent. I have a feeling it's not going to get
through on the -- rewritten the way it is. So we'll go through page by page after staff makes any kind of
introductory comments they'd like to make.
So whoever the staff member is in charge of this, it's yours to bring up,
Mr. Schmitt?
MR, SCHMITT: Mr, Chairman, I have instructions from the board to show a tape first. Do we want
to do that now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if you've got popcorn,
MR. SCHMITT: It's a short tape,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: So maybe the popcorn won't be ready. But let me try it.
It's not playing, Ray,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's waiting for the popcorn,
(Tape played,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Stevie Tomatoes,
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. I think that the board's intent was to provide that tape to you. It was part of
the public comments during the discussion on the Pebblebrooke settlement agreement at the last Board of
County Commissioner meeting,
The board wanted to make sure you were aware of the impacts -- or at least to use that and to ask
questions based on that as we go through this noise ordinance, whether this ordinance will prevent some of
what you just saw.
So we can discuss it as we go through the ordinance as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in talking with staff, I had asked that same question yesterday.
And I think the resolution was it has to be viewed in combination with the structural elements that are being
proposed, So maybe that's how we ought to think about it as we move forward,
MR, SCHMITT: Yeah, for the record, the Board of County Commissioners did approve a
settlement agreement which included an eight-foot wall to continue around the back. I do not have the
drawings with me. But there would be an eight-foot masonry wall around the back of the building,
And the dumpster location would move further north on the property somewhat away from where
you saw the dumpster; it would be that location where it said the dumpster further from the building.
And then there would be significant landscaping placed as a buffer between the residential
properties and the commercial property.
So that settlement agreement's in place. I suspect those plans to be in within the next I would guess
seven to 14 days, and then hopefully the developer will get started on some of the -- or at least on that
project to mitigate some of the impact of that development with the residential properties,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In coming up with the elements that you've suggested or that are being
suggested to be added to help with this kind of noise, was any kind of sound expert involved in whether or
not the effectiveness of those will have an impact that everybody's expecting?
Page 6
~-_......,-> .. "'~"~'"'-<"--"_.,--".. .' -~.._-~~._<-" '.,',<' '"..__.._-.-..~.,._".,~
16 , fct(e;, 2~~
MR. SCHMITT: Good question. And I would have to defer to Dave Scribner. Dave can probably
discuss that.
David, I know your folks have been out there taking readings. I don't know if anything there would
have triggered a noise violation,
MR, SCRIBNER: For the record, David Scribner. I'm the Investigative Manager for Code
Enforcement.
Just to give you a little history on Stevie Tomatoes, we actually started working with the owners of
that property several years ago trying to mitigate some of the noise issues.
And the wall came up in the very beginning. And what we ended up doing -- and the owners of that
plaza did engage the services of a noise consultant, and it's Lisa Schott. A group of people got together and
paid for her outside of county funds to do a noise study on that property to look at ways of mitigating the
nOise.
And some of the issues -- and Lisa can address those for you today -- was the shutters that were __
she recommended to be put up and some other issues, But that's been an ongoing problem.
And whether or not what's taking place now is going to mitigate that noise, I will defer to Lisa, I
think she's the expert on that and she can probably give you a better sense,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's real good that the noise expert who helped with this noise
ordinance was the same one who helped with the design of these mechanical features to help with this
Stevie Tomatoes issue, because I certainly would like to hear for the record if the combination of the two
are going to have any impact or what kind of impact they're going to have,
MR. SCRIBNER: Right. I just want to make it clear for the record the work that she did for the
Stevie Tomatoes issue was outside of any contract she had with the county, We did not pay for that. That
was not out of County funds; that was paid through private funds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but hopefully using the same person it was more or less done in
knowledge with what was moving forward with the noise ordinance, So maybe the two combined will have
a better impact.
So thank you.
MR, WRIGHT: Morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, For the record, I'm Jeff Wright,
Assistant County Attorney. And I'm here just --I wanted to point out that the noise ordinance is a tricky
animal. There's a lot of competing interests.
And what we've done is try to sit down with everybody, the Sheriffs Office, citizens, the
development community and staff, and come up with something that everybody can agree to. And
obviously that's a challenge, But we've made quite a bit of progress in the past few months.
I wanted to point out a couple of people that are here this morning, Lisa Schott is our sound
consultant. Dave Scribner you just saw, Ross Gochenaur is a staff member who deals with permitting
questions relating to this draft ordinance. Doug Lewis is also here, he's been very helpful in providing
private sector comments. And Commander McDonald from the Sheriffs Office is here as well.
So I'm happy to answer any questions you have on the noise ordinance. And depending on what
type of question it is, we might have to have one of those individuals field it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Normally we take the ordinance page at a time. Is that okay with
everybody on the commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we do that, though, if Lisa could come up and explain to us as we
go through the pages of the ordinance we can better understand the impacts and how this ordinance, as well
as the physical things you've suggested for the Stevie Tomatoes application would fit, so then we know if
the ordinance is as effective as we think it needs to be,
Page 7
1611
(to$; 16)0*
MS, SCHOTT: Good morning. I'm Lisa Schott, President and Principal Acoustical Consultant of
Quietly Making Noise, based in Orlando, Florida,
I want to clarity though that I was engaged by the Collier County Board of Commissioners -- Board
of County Commissioners a few years ago to do a noise survey in the Pebblebrooke community near Stevie
Tomatoes.
I had hoped to work with either the owner of the plaza or Stevie Tomatoes on their noise mitigation
options, but I have not been engaged to do so. So I think there was unfortunately a misunderstanding by Mr.
Scribner that I had worked on those mitigation measures. I have not.
I made some recommendations in my previous contract for the county on what that owner could
do, but those recommendations haven't exactly been implemented as originally recommended, And I
haven't been involved for at least -- I don't know the exact date, but I think it's been two or three years since
I've been involved in that project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So the recommendations that -- I think one here showed a concrete
wall and some other things that were being discussed, and we heard that mentioned. So those -- you didn't
have any -- those weren't your recommendations?
MS. SCHOTT: We did early on, A few years ago we did discuss a wall and we discussed shutters.
But then I have not been involved in the design. And for instance, acoustical shutters is a product that I have
a patent pending on, and they did not purchase those from me, So I don't know what type of shutters those
are. They're either not acoustical shutters or they're possibly infringing on the patent.
So I don't know what the situation is there and I don't want to say anything that would vouch for
what they're doing as being good or bad, because I haven't had any involvement in that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the way the noise ordinance has been structured then, let's say that
the structural elements that you weren't involved with that aren't -- we didn't count those for the Stevie
Tomatoes thing, This noise ordinance that we're about to work our way through, would it have any impact
on the Stevie Tomatoes situation?
MS. SCHOTT: Good question. I think the noise ordinance goes a long way in preventing many of
the issues that have occurred there from happening on future projects. But I think I would ask Jeff for some
support here on how it would be implemented and enforced on existing projects,
MR, KLA TZKOW: Mr. Chairman, could I just note that there's a distinction between zoning
issues, which is really what Stevie Tomatoes is, and noise issues in general. And I don't know that you can
solve noise issues when you have zoning questions.
As an example, this board went into Smart Growth where we were getting mixed units between
commercial and residential. And they're going to -- that's going to require a different tact than say Golden
Gate Estates with the noise.
So I'm just asking, don't confuse the zoning problems we might have here and there with overall
county noise issues, because they don't mix.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think what I was trying to do is that for the benefit of this
board and those members of the public following this, is to make it clear what this noise ordinance in front
of us would do about the most prominent example that's occurred recently, and it's probably on everybody's
mind, which probably originated the most focus on this ordinance as not having enough application as we
would have hoped it had,
It's being rewritten specifically because of the example of Stevie Tomatoes. And that's fine, But if
it's not going to have the impact on that, we still will want to pass something.
But I'd like to at least let everybody know that this isn't going to be the cure-all if it's not going to be
for that application. That's all I'm trying to find out.
Because based on my conversations yesterday, with -- Jeft~ with you and other members of staff,
Page 8
16 I 1 lOb1:t, 22lf-
there are issues in here that don't seem to address the Stevie Tomatoes situation. And I think your reaction
yesterday was that they don't, they have to be looked at in combination with the physical features,
And I just want to make sure that everybody realizes when we get done reviewing this and it gets
made into law, if it does, that it may not be the thing that we're then allowed to send out code enforcement
to say stop the noise. This may not be the way to get there, may not get us there, And if that's the case then I
think everybody just needs to know that up front.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, Mr, Chairman, as I explained, it's tricky to balance all the interests involved.
Stevie Tomatoes doesn't involve amplified sound, You're dealing with human voices, And the first
amendment allows people to express themselves with their human voice,
So in no way is this ordinance going to be a panacea, a cure-all to all the problems that exist
relating to noise in Collier County, It's our best effort to do that.
We've improved some ofthe features that the police -- the Sheriffs Office, for example, has the
ability to cite somebody rather than arrest them or charge them with a crime. They can charge them with a
citation, a code citation, which they've expressed is a benefit to them and it makes enforcement a little bit
easier.
We've also changed the definition of the exemption for the human voice, We've qualified it to read,
the reasonable use of the unamplified human voice, which is intended to -- if you're reasonably using the
human voice in an unamplified way, you're exempt from this ordinance, But if you're unreasonably using
the human voice, potentially you would be subject to enforcement.
So it's almost impossible to address these things in an airtight fashion, but we've done our best to
attempt to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with your statements. I'm just wanting -- my biggest
concern is that when this gets sent on to the BCC it's sent to them clearly acknowledging that it's not going
to cure the problems that it may have started for.
And if that turns out to be the case, I just want to make sure everybody knows it.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR, SCHMITT: Yeah, just to refresh everyone's memory, and not to go through the entire history,
but you recall, the noise ordinance was moving parallel with the outdoor seating ordinance, Outdoor seating
amendment to the LDC morphed into an outdoor seating ordinance. That ordinance went to the board, The
board sent that back to you.
It's not part of your packet today, It will be next time it comes back, this ordinance along with the
outdoor seating ordinance. Because two things the board wanted: Your opinion on the noise ordinance and
then your recommendation as to whether to proceed with the outdoor seating ordinance,
Which was, as you recall, a little bit different twist. That was an annual permit application process
for outdoor seating. And certainly outdoor seating in this part of the country is desired by a lot of restaurants
for a lot of reasons. One, to enjoy the weather, also the prohibition of no smoking in restaurants has
promoted outdoor seating.
So you'll have that as well, because I've got to bring both back to the board, both the outdoor
seating ordinance and the noise ordinance, And you recall they were almost blended together. Now the two
are separated.
So that was the piece that more dealt with Stevie Tomatoes, the outdoor seating ordinance and
whether the outdoor seating became a -- was deemed to be a public nuisance,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my -- hopefully the goals today will get us as best we can an
ordinance that can apply to a situation like the people in Pebblebrooke are experiencing, because it's not one
anybody should have to live with.
Ms. Caron?
Page 9
16 I 1 octl~r l~OO~ f
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. So basically what we're saying is that with this ordinance it's a
going forward ordinance. It's not going to solve a Pebblebrooke, it's not going to solve issues in Vanderbilt
Beach, it's not going to solve issues at Imperial Golf, it's not going to solve issues at the Uptown Center
with Pelican Larry's, Those things are not going to be solved by this ordinance. This is a going forward
ordinance so that in the future we won't be creating --
MR, SCHMITT: No, ma'am, that's probably not correct, because they're __
COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly, so --
MR, SCHMITT: This ordinance, if they exceed the noise decibel levels as measured by the
enforcement officers, then this ordinance becomes in play. Where Jeff was saying Stevie Tomatoes, the
unique difference there is the noise you heard has nothing to do with amplified sound, There's no TV's
playing on -- as far as sound, there's no music. What you heard on that tape is human voices,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And this is not just amplified sound,
MR. KLATZKOW: Ifwe're going to zone outdoor seating adjacent to residential neighborhoods,
you're going to have issues that this ordinance will not be able to address.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this ordinance, based on what Jeff was saying and what I have read,
does address certain levels of human voice, certain types of human voice. And that's kind of why this whole
thing is being highlighted this morning and that video was needed, is because if the problem is what we saw
in this video, as we go through this ordinance if we can find ways to tweak it and tailor it so that those
issues can be addressed, then we may accomplish more than just going forward, we may actually
accomplish something that can be applied to existing situations, which I think we all would like to see.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is -- yeah, otherwise I think it's an exercise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that then, ifthere are no other questions on that issue, why don't
we just move through the document as we normally have,
Pages] and 2 are mostly introductory pages. Then we get into the definitions on Page 3. So let's
take one, two and three.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, on Page 3, I just reference for you ambient noise, and then I
reference Page 6 where you speak about noise having a meaning. And noise -- in one case we talk about
sound, and the other case we talk about noise, and I'll go further in that in a minute,
Then the other issue is amplified sound where you have device which electronically, and I
recommend that you put or mechanically, interpolate or mechanically in that.
And then background music means any music or other sound played in a public space. What about
a private space, doesn't that apply as well?
MR, WRIGHT: Well, background music, we did need a definition for it. And I went to Lisa for
language, and Lisa came up with this language. We can always --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm asking you with your judgment as an attorney, wouldn't
you say private space is also applicable?
MR, WRIGHT: Sure, I don't see any problem with including private space. I guess the idea is that
the public would be listening to it.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: AIl right. Returning to the ambient noise thing, where the issue
came up was trying to understand noise and sound.
In one instance we talk about sound, in another instance we use a sound meter and we talk about
noise, And I think that that's going to create some questions throughout this document.
I'm not sure I can quality a question to you directly, but I point this out because I'll reference it as
we go through the pages.
Thank you.
Page 10
16 I loctlr 1~08) f
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on the first three pages. Anybody else?
Jeff -- oh, go ahead, Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just had issues putting this into perspective. It was talking about
A-weighted and C-weighted networks. And seems like throughout this whole document it's all subjective. I
mean, whether my voice is amplified or not, whether or not -- you know, how close I am to the microphone
has to do with how loud I am.
Now, I couldn't tell the difference between this A and C-weighted. I didn't get it.
And my other points are, you know, regarding the Stevie Tomatoes, I imagine if you're inside and
they're enjoying a football game and they've had five beers, then it's pretty subjective to what noise is.
Because, you know, you have one beer, two beers, another loudmouth and another loudmouth, So you've
had four of them and so, I mean, it gets louder and louder, if you know what I mean,
Foran officer that's called to a scene about noise, how is he going to detemrine -- I mean, is
everyone going to carry around a noise meter, sound meter? I mean, how can you determine? This is so
subjective, I can't wrap my hands around this thing.
MS. SCHOTT: Well, I think the subjectivity is limited by the fact that there are only certain types
of sounds that can be cited if the enforcement officer does not have a sound level meter, And those are
delineated in one section. Basically animals and off-road vehicles. Otherwise the sound level meter is
needed, And that's how we take the subjectivity out of it, by requiring a measurement. And then that
measurement gets compared to the maximum limits that we've established.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. We're going to be getting into here, they have two or three
or four -- not you, but the document has two, three or four typical sounds that had -- and certain dB levels,
And I just -- we'll get into that as it goes, but the subjectivity I had an issue with.
MS. SCHOTT: May I offer an explanation on the A-weighted versus C-weighted?
They are two different measurements, You can measure them at the same time on a sound level
meter or very close in time,
The A-weighted sound level takes all of the frequencies that the human ear can hear and applies a
weighting, either negative or positive weighting to that frequency based upon how well our ears hear that
sound.
We hear middle frequencies very well, say 500 to 2,000 hertz, and that's for the human voice -_
most of the frequencies ofthe human voice occur. So there's either a positive weighting or not much
weighting in those frequencies.
We don't hear low frequency and very high frequency very well. So there's a large negative
weighting in those frequencies. This is all done internally within the sound meter.
So the A-weighting is the best representation of the sound level that is heard by the human ear,
Because it gives a large negative weighting to low frequency noise, we also use the C-weighting, because
we're concerned about low frequency bass music. People complain about what they call boom cars, you can
hear the low frequency all the way down the street.
Well, the A-weighted sound level doesn't address that very well because the low frequency gets a
large negative weighting, So the C-weighted sound level hardly has any weighting at all, and it gives us an
idea of how much low frequency noise there is in the environment.
So when we use the A and the C together, we get the audible sound level and another reading that
indicates how much low frequency noise there is, And the two together give us the right enforcement
capability to regulate not only human voice and air conditioners and things like that that make
mid-frequency noise, but also the low frequency bass noise.
So those are not -- we're not mixing those values, they are two separate values that have to be
measured in order to provide us the right tool for enforcement.
Page II
16 'lob{1648 )+
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm going to be getting into that vehicle and sub-woofers and so
on a little bit later, but okay, thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 3, several questions, If you go to the amplified sound, the last
sentence, For purposes of this ordinance amplified sound does not include background music.
And as I mentioned, Jeff, I'm concerned that by leaving it to not include background music, people
have a tendency if they want to circumvent that process to declare everything background music. And I
understand you've got a definition down below that, but is there -- how do we get around that?
MR, WRIGHT: What we're trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to not require, for example, Publix
who's playing holiday jingles outside from having to get an amplified sound permit. That's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you, and I think that's fine. But what ifPublix decided to
take that holiday music outside and crank it up to, I don't know what scale, but the high -- a loud scale so
you can hear it 2,500 feet away. Is that still background music?
MR, WRIGHT: I hear you, that's a valid question,
I think that what we could do here is, given the goal and given your concern, we could come up
with something that just doesn't -- maybe further qualification of the term background music,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we set a decibel level to it so that background music shall not
exceed a certain level so that it's qualified in a manner that is non-offensive then? Because that's what it's
supposed to be, it's supposed to be mood-setting background music. Is that an acceptable way to look at it?
MS. SCHOTT: That can be done, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, The reason I'm going there is if this goes into law and it starts to be
enforced, between the Sheriff's Department, code enforcement and everybody, I can see a lot of people
trying to challenge it if they come under the !,'Un on this thing, and why give them an out if we can avoid it,
so --
MR, WRIGHT: I agree that the decibels would take the subjectivity out of it.
MS. SCHOTT: Well, I think the reason the amplified sound is defined is to determine who is
required to get an annual permit to play amplified sound, So that's the only place that it's used and the
reason we didn't want to require businesses to get an annual permit for background music, So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree with you, I don't think they should, I mean, that's -- no,
you're on the right track, I just -- because of the way the law works and people can wiggle out of things,
why don't we just say background -- put a decibel level to background music.
MR. WRIGHT: In the definition, I agree, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're there.
When you get down to background music, the definition reads, means of any music or other sound
played.
Since we are referring to amplified sound, could we simplity that definition by referring to
amplified sound that does not exceed "X", and we're back to decibels in a definable term that can be
measured by all those enforcing this code, or is background music something that necessarily cannot be
amplified? I can't imagine how it could be background if it's not amplified, but --
MS. SCHOTT: I could envision either situation, amplified or unamplified, You may have, for
instance, an acoustic guitarist playing background music that's not amplified, or a piano --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a suggestion. I think there's a lot of ambiguity, and Mr, Wolfley hit that in an overall context to this document. And as we go through this, there is going to be a lot of
examples of that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr, Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be very careful, however, because -- and I used the word
Page I 2
16 11 [o~~, 20~t
private before because I was thinking about somebody having a party and they're on their property.
Now, a small parcel of property, the sound is, you know -- the adjacency, you're going to have
problems people perceiving it if you set a certain level. Background music at K-Mart with a large parking
lot, you know, you have sorne degree. So I offer that you really have to give consideration to it.
Once you fix a number, then an awful lot of potential unintended consequences can occur as well. I
realize that's a hard place and a rock, but that would be my suggestion on that.
And there are occasions, because we have here 60 decibels, which is in the range of the human
voice, Go up to 65, you're now in violation for the human voice. And I think it's contextual what you said
earlier about the human voice, where it is, when it is and how it is, So I'd be very careful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I think if you take the background music definition combined with a
change in the amplified sound and reference a decibel level that background shouldn't exceed, I think we're
there.
I have some other concerns in that definition but they would go away with a maximum decibel
level plugged in there somewhere. So I'll just forego any of those others until we see what comes out of that
suggestion.
On Page 4, are there any questions on Page 4?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The first one, continuous noise. How could a sound, you know,
continuous sound not be part of the anlbient sound? That's --
MS. SCHOTT: Well, there's two definitions that go together, continuous noise and intermittent
noise. And that is -- a continuous noise could be a noise that occurs for perhaps 10 minutes or an hour or
two hours that is not normally part of the ambient. It's still continuous during that time and not fluctuating.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, So you'd be able to isolate it by testing when it's off, testing
when it's on,
MS. SCHOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question, down at the bottom, equipment.
Generator is not on that list. Is that on purpose or --
MR. WRlGHT: That's not on purpose. We could add it. It's actually taken frorn -- it was embedded
in the ordinance. We moved it over to the definitions section as-is. So we could add generators. I think that
it fits in the context of those other items that are listed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then my other question is multi-family consisting of two or
more, and --
MR. WRlGHT: We have -- again, that was moved from another location. We need to delete the
clause beginning with the word within, all the way to the end of the sentence of that definition, so--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we stop at fixture, and then the rest of it gets stricken?
MR. WRIGHT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'm done, thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the decibel, I -- this was very challenging here, so I went
into Wikipedia and I got something a little bit better, maybe. And I gave it to my fellows on the board here
to look at, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? Did you pass this out then?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I --
Page 13
16 r 1 IOb~~, 2) If-
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you give one to the -- for the -- you got -- okay, good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My only point here is that while I don't necessarily suggest that this
is the right one, it was my effort to try and find a better way of expressing it because of this poor brain here.
This was a little challenging.
I mean, we can understand the words, but conceptualizing it is a little challenging. And I'm not
thinking about myself being the person concerned ultimately because it's that person who has the C meter
and the A meter and their judgment in what they have to do in explaining it to somebody. Is there any better
definition that we can come up with this?
MS. SCHOTT: Well, as you can see, a lot of the old definition has been stricken because I felt that
that was very confusing. So I'm the one who authored the new wording to be technically accurate. And this
is the defmition that is most commonly used in the world of acoustics.
I will be glad to look at your Wikipedia definition and see if it, number one, it's technically
accurate, because anyone can edit Wikipedia.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeal1, I understand.
MS. SCHOTT: And also ifit's better, we'd certainly be glad to incorporate that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that I understand. Thank you. And I think Joe Schmitt, I had
given him a copy for review, you might want to take a look at that.
And then down where -- the word equipment. My note here is why not commercial or industrial.
Why is equipment not included applicable to commercial or industrial? Because at the end it says or
associated with multi-family building comprised of two or more residence dwellings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're striking all that language, After the word fixture, everything gets
stricken,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear that. See, these things don't always work right.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Speak up, would you, please?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, where did we strike?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the word fixture, second line.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That's my question for that, thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others on Page 4?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, up on top, continuous noise, last three words, for the period of
observation. I would suggest that we make that a standard instead of a reference, meaning on the next page
you talk about a one-minute period for certain things. If that's what the period of observation needs to be,
why don't we put a definitive in there, either as a minimum or maximum.
MR. WRlGHT: I'm fine with that. I spoke with Lisa about it this rnorning. Her only caution was if
we wanted to change some of the periods of observation within the text of this ordinance, the way it's
worded currently we would be covered for that. If we specify a time frame within that definition, then __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, never mind then, l'lljust withdraw the question.
And then the other one we just got. So that's it. We're on to Page 5. Anybody have any questions on
Page 5?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to have questions on just about every page.
Down in intermittent noise, my note here can be less than but still annoy. Intermittent noise means
a noise whose sound pressure level exceeds the ambient noise level at either regular or irregular intervals,
Is it not true that it can be less and still annoy?
MS. SCHOTT: Are you asking if a -- can a noise be less than the ambient and still annoy someone?
Page 14
16 I 1 tctot16, 2l ~
I suppose if they are already annoyed by the existing ambient noise level, then yes, I suppose that
could be true --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the subjectivity is growing in this context, yeal1,
MS. SCHOTT: Well, but this is just defining intermittent noise or you could think of it as
fluctuating noise, not a noise that annoys.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was trying to understand, we have an ambient noise level, if you
will, okay, and we perceive it as sound, okay, In this room there's an ambient noise level, there's AC
running and there's people coughing and so forth, all part of the contribution of it.
So you're describing a noise whose sound pressure level exceeds the ambient noise. So I suppose a
person who coughed loudly, that would be -- is that intermittent noise?
MS. SCHOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if we assess or assign a decibel level to noise and a person
coughs, they may exceed sound level and be guilty of an infraction? I mean, that's my concern about so
stringently applying decibels to it as an absolute, So that would be something to consider. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions on Page 5?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, pursuant to our prior discussion, I believe the intent of the last
definition, you were considering changing it.
And Ray, I think you had the suggestion that the mixed use project really means mixed use
structure. Because any project that has commercial in it with residential may be considered a rnixed use
project. And I wanted clari fication on that. Is that still what you're thinking?
MR. WRlGHT: I spoke with Doug Lewis this morning, who provided this language, and he said
that we should have enough wiggle room to figure something out.
I like the idea, but I might have to defer to Ray for the specific concern, structure versus a
development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a huge difference in the way you would apply the internal
parts of this particular ordinance. If it's a structure and you have restaurant downstairs versus residential
upstairs, that's a whole different connotation than Pebblebrooke where you have a commercial part with a
residential part.
So I just want to make sure we're clear on where it applies. And that definition does bring in a lot of
different areas within the context of this whole ordinance.
So before this is all over, I think we need to get a reading on that, what you're planning to do,
because that's a main definition of the whole thing.
Page 6, anybody have any -- go al1ead, Brad --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, you brought up a question.
So you're going to change that to be a mixed use project is a structure with multiple occupancies as
opposed to the whole development having it?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
The concern that I had when reading this documents was that we have projects like Mercato, for
example, that have comrnercial on the first floor and residential above. That is a true multi-use structure.
A project like Pebblebrooke has a commercial tract with buffers separating it from the residential
tract. There are different issues in regards to how noise travels from floor to floor, versus from building to
building through tracts and buffers with fences and the like.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is you could have a mixed use project, you could
have a totally residential building across the street from a commercial building with restaurants and noise.
So, you know, that's still a mixed use project. If you call it structure, you're separating those two buildings
Page 15
when I don't think that's what we should --
MR. BELLOWS: No, you make a good point. There is PUD's, we have the designation rnixed use
planned unit development, and that's when the PUD itself contains both commercial tracts and residential
tracts,
However, there's a -- for determining sound, you're going to have a more difficult time dealing with
sound when commercial is under our residential building or residential above commercial. It's a whole
separate issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think Pebblebrooke, based on this defmition, is two different
developrnents, So this would certainly not apply as a mixed use, You couldn't combine those two
developments, Aren't they independently developed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go too --let me -- Brad, your question is exactly why the
issue has come up. If you turn to Page 18, item four, and notice the last line. It said, rnixed use projects shall
apply only to sound effectuated residential end uses or zoning located outside of the mixed use project and
shall not apply to residential uses or zoning within the mixed use project.
That's why I asked the question. Because if you read that, and Pebblebrooke is a mixed use project,
then it doesn't apply to the Pebblebrooke project, and that concerned me.
So I brought the question up saying if you mean mixed use project, how does this fit the problem
that this all came about from. And that's when Ray suggested it should rnean mixed use structure, or he
suggested that. And that may be a resolution, but it does change things.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But structure's a problem because that isolates one building.
Mixed use project's going to have multiple buildings in it, probably.
For example, let's go back to Mercato, I'm on the residential thing. Above the store, the stores are
quiet, but it's the movie theatre across the street that's bugging me in another structure. You know, that's __ I
shouldn't be able to complain. And -- because there are, you know there's different governing things within
a mixed use project, and that's where they should be complaining, not at the __
MR. BELLOWS: That's a good point. And I think maybe the answer is that we're talking about
mixed use structures and mixed use tracts, tracts that have both commercial and residential uses on the same
tract. Pebblebrooke doesn't have that situation, and that's where the difference lies.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when Pebblebrooke was developed, was it developed as a
mixed use project?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the site that the restaurant is on, was that shown as part of that
development? I always understood that that was residential that they flipped through a PUD, they __
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the original PUD had a commercial component to it and -- a much smaller
size. And the amendment increased the size of the existing commercial tract to include what was basically a
residential part -- future residential part of that PUD,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeal1, the part that Stevie Tomatoes is on was an expansion of the original.
But it always was a mixed use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so based on this defmition, it would be part of the mixed
use project. So they really -- because I think the concern is, and when Jeff rnentioned it, if sornebody moves
into the second level above a restaurant in a mixed use Smart Growth thing, they've got to realize the noise
is going to be different than if they're out in the middle of a field somewhere. And we shouldn't be getting
involved in that cornplaint.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, which is why this definition needs to be fixed __
MR. BELLOWS: Yeal1, that was my concern--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- somehow. And fixing it, that's the point I think we've both now come up
16 I 1 Otbi46,)04
Page 16
with,
16 '1 (ct0I416)00l[-
MR. BELLOWS: And I think maybe the solution is talking about mixed use tracts along with
mixed use structures --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, try to avoid the --
MR. BELLOWS: -- versus an overall PUD that is mixed use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the word structure is going to get you in trouble, that's my
only point.
I'm done,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 6, anybody have any questions on Page 6?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the definition ofrnulti-family, you say two or more units. Now,
just to drag building code into it, the building code is three or more units would be a multi-family. Is your
concern that like in a duplex the noise between the tenants in that duplex, is that what you're trying to pick
up here, or --
MS. SCHOTT: Actually, the building code for sound transmission is two or more units,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is?
MS, SCHOTT: Yes, International Building Code and also Florida Building Code. So yes, this
would apply to duplexes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But under the definition ofrnulti-family in--
MS. SCHOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right.
Second thing, noise. It appears that noise is only something that annoys. I mean, so, much like -- so
I guess noise is in the ear of the beholder or something that __
MS. SCHOTT: That's true. And as the traditional definition, we normally use the word sound for
all sounds, and then noise is normally considered sound that annoys.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To who?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's in the beholder. I mean, if I'm quietly playing a clarinet
and I've never played one before in the corner there, I'll be annoying. So that would be __
MS. SCHOTT: It's always a difficult issue, What some people find pleasing sound others find is a
disturbing noise, That's always --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeal1, under pure tone, just explain why we would need this as a
definition in here, how it impacts in any aspect of the document.
MS. SCHOTT: This would come into play for instance if you had let's say a commercial
establishment that for some reason was emitting --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Harmonic?
MS, SCHOTT: -- an alarm or a tone of some sort, that's what a pure tone is.
And pure tones can be -- they're more noticeable by the human ear, so they can be more disturbing
and more annoying in some cases than general broad frequency noise.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Again, returning to the area of the ambient sound, a pure tone is
discernible in an ambient situation, right?
MS. SCHOTT: Depending on the decibel level, it can be, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, right.
MS. SCHOTT: It's usually more easily discernible.
Page I 7
16 11 octlrt)oof
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On a higher the decibel level -- or actually you can get to a certain
point and it ceases to exist, except for dogs, right? Sound -- noise to the dog, the tone.
MS. SCHOTT: Oh, yes, right. You can get up into high frequencies that we can't hear.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But what I'm driving at is that you could have a tone, pure tone at a
low rate --
MS. SCHOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- and hardly discernible; is that right?
MS. SCHOTT: Yes, you could.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what is it we're trying to capture? What machine, what
A-weighted or C-weighted machine will qualifY pure tone?
MS. SCHOTT: There are many machines that emit pure tones. The reason it's defined __
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, no, I'm sorry. What testing device, A-weighted,
C-weighted, will be able to register pure tone?
MS. SCHOTT: Oh, actually, in order to determine a pure tone by this definition, you have to have a
sound level meter that will measure octave band sound pressure levels.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's three meters so far, right?
MS. SCHOTT: In most meters -- let me take this back. Most meters that acoustical consultants
have, and I know that your code enforcement department has, will measure all three. The only meters that
typically won't are the very inexpensive meters you can buy at a place like Radio Shack.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's important to note, I think, for us, that you're talking
about there is such a thing as a meter that can register more than -- or at least these three sounds, these three
MS. SCHOTT: Yes. And your code enforcement department already owns them,
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's important for me to know. Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7, anybody have any questions on Page 7?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go al1ead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the real property definition, you use the word imaginary line.
And I think I know why you're doing that, but -- for the description of a lot line. Now, in the building codes,
and again we have an imaginary line, means something else.
So is that the intent here, or is the intent just to try to come up with a definition of what a lot line is
that --
MR. WRlGHT: This definition's been in the code for a while, and there really wasn't a whole lot of
focus on changing it. I think the idea is to capture the concept of get the visual line for the property
boundary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you,
MR. WRlGHT: But I'm happy to give it a closer look, if you think that's necessary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8. Anybody have any questions on Page 8?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 97
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go al1ead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the definition of vehicle, it's transport or drawn upon a
highway. Should we change that to roadway? I'm just -- could somebody be defending themselves by
saying that I'm not on 75, I'm on your neighborhood street?
And then .- you see what -- I'm sorry, it's on the second line towards the end.
Page 18
~---'-,._".._-,,---~,_..~-
16 , 1 O~b!;t~J
,
And legally that may make sense. So you'd judge that, but it says transport or drawn upon a
highway. Would that mess up a category or--
MR. WRlGHT: I agree with you, A lot of those things wouldn't be allowed on a highway, So
roadway would be rnore appropriate.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the next line where it says including and it starts to list
everything. Should we say but not limited to, or do you think that's obvious, the word including? You see
that, J eft'?
MR. WRlGHT: I think it's always safe to say but not lirnited to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other thing is you don't have laWTilllowers.
Now obviously is that on purpose or you want to exclude lawn -- I guess the roadway -- well, I have a
friend who drank a lot and he drove his laWTilllower up to the 7-Eleven quite a bit, so __
(Laughter. )
MR. WRlGHT: I think the farm labor vehicle would be a tractor. But an actuallaWTilllower would
not be a vehicle.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, that will make him happy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Pages 8 and 9. Any other questions on Pages 8 and 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, on the top of Page 9 where you refer to number five, public and
private schools, colleges and universities, all those are considered residential uses, which means for the
level that you'd be measuring them.
However, a lot of our noise that we have complaints from come from football teams shouting at
night, games going on, noise from stadiums, things like that that are within those facilities.
So are the ancillary facilities to all those also going to be weighted at the residential use level on
number five? Is that the intent?
MR. WRlGHT: I think that if the ancillary use is literally part of the school, then it would fall under
this language.
However, there really wasn't a whole lot of examination done as to whether or not this would apply
to stadiums, and it may be worth further investigation. And maybe we should hammer out a specific
provision to stadiums, because I don't believe that this covers that situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know jfwe want to stop football games at stadiums, that's not
where I'm going, I just want to make sure that if it's to be a measurable level or to be excluded or however
it's to be applied it's addressed in this ordinance, so -- and I didn't see it anywhere, so that's why I'm asking
the question.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think they're excluded further on in this document, ifl'm not -- I
certainly don't have a tag so I wouldn't --
MR. WRlGHT: It may be Page 25 at the bottom where there's an exemption for authorized school,
park or playground activities, sporting events included.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got it noted down, Okay. I should have caught that. Thank you,
Ms. Caron, that's a good point.
Okay, any questions on Page 10?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think that -- would it be helpful if we could just get a rule of
thumb chart here to list certain things that we hear every day and put a level to that so that we can put some
substance to this ordinance?
Page 19
16 I lcto~ ~2~8t
So in other words, anyone can read it and say well, a typical car horn is this loud, you know, the
traffic on 1-75, you know, although being a drone, I mean, it can -- drowned out, but, I mean, what is the
level of that standing 100 feet away or whatever. We all know what that sounds like,
Or the ringing of bells outside of a discount store during the holidays. I mean, you know, although
permissible they're loud and can be obnoxious. Not that I disagree with it. Or a police siren, we all know
those are very loud. And how loud is it?
Humans cheering at a football for a team at a sports bar, how loud is that?
MS. SCHOTT: I have a document I call a noise thermometer that I thought I had distributed at the
previous meeting, but perhaps I haven't. Unfortunately I didn't bring a copy of it again. But yeal1, there are
-- I do have a standard noise thermometer that would show you probably a dozen different noise sources
and what the decibel levels are.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We typically hear a baby cry in a restaurant, you know, things like
that that we all could relate to. Am I the only one that thinks that will be helpful or __
MS. SCHOTT: Are you suggesting that to be put in the ordinance or just that you would like to see
something like that?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think that if someone's going to try to defend themselves with an
ordinance, there should be some rule of thumb in there, I mean, other than saying well, my rneter said this.
It's like getting arrested for going 38 in a 35 or something. Well, that was his meter.
Well, what's a good rule of thumb for the sound? I think it would be helpfuL Maybe I'm the only
one. But I would sure think that if I'm trying to defend myself because I was driving down the street with
my sub-woofer or whatever blowing and I got a ticket, that I'd need to be able to defend myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would listing in this code that a sub-woofer may be too loud give you
any help in defending yourself?
I mean, maybe for your personal benefit Mr. Wolfley could use a list. And if you have such, you
might want to give it to him so that the next time this comes forward if after you read the list there's a valid
reason in which it may apply to this, then it might be a better time to consider adding it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Chair, it's due to the subjectivity of almost every one of
these clauses, And that's what we've been discussing mostly, everyone's issues have been that it's so
subjective we can put a thumb on the thing.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got a choice. Your choice is either have a sound ordinance that is strict,
all right, which I think is what this community wants. In which case you will have sorne subjective
standards. Or you can have an ordinance that is not strict, in which case we make everything objective.
And it depends what you want. If you want something that's 100 percent enforceable but that's
going to give you a lot of noise in this county, however, we can give you that and we won't have any
subjectivity here.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, one thing I don't want--
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a provision here that refers to loud and raucous noise, for example,
all right. And yes, that is as sUQjective as you get.
But there are times when somebody's driving an A TV behind your house, for example, that it's just
loud and raucous and you want to do something about it. Or the boom box in the car driving by.
And I agree that is subjective, but if you want something that I think comports with what the
community wants, that's the trade-off here.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, if we're putting together a law, the last thing I want is a law
that can't be enforced. Then why even do it? It's a waste of time.
MR. KLATZKOW: But that's like I can give you a sign ordinance that's 100 percent constitutional
and you'll have neon signs and you'll have Girls Here signs and everything else, I mean, the more strict you
Page 20
16 I loct'e~ 2}8t
get, the more likely you're going to get somebody challenging it, and sooner or later the more likely you're
going to get a sympathetic judge, I mean --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But why should we put something together that no -- well, I guess
I'm putting it too far, but why have more laws if the laws can't be enforced?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why we're here today is to go through this and tweak it to a point.
Mr. Wolfley, you made a suggestion about adding something to the ordinance. I'd like to see what
the response is first without putting it in to see if it's worthy of putting in so the rest of us can weigh in on
your concern. Is that fair enough?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 1O?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess one thing is in the ANSll thing there, And I think it would
be good if you put the title of the ANSI! thing also, the ANSll standard you're referencing,
In that standard does it require multiple tests or -- what you're kind of -- when you go into an
ANSll standard, you're hiding a lot of things, But in other words, when the person's making this test, is it
done multiple times or you just do it once, pack up and go home, or -_
MS. SCHOTT: This ANSI! standard doesn't specify one or multiple times. So the ordinance
requires a minimum of a one-minute -- a single one-minute measurement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that good? Should we have -- shouldn't we test it a couple of
times while we're there, while we're set up or--
MS. SCHOTT: I think as a requirement it's good the way it's written. I think code enforcement will
certainly take multiple measurements when they feel it's necessary.
It all depends -- when I go out and do testing, for example, it depends upon the nature of the sound.
If it's continuous and steady, then I may determine that technically one measurement is sufficient. If it
seems to be fluctuating over time, as you would have with any sort of entertaimnent venue, you would take
many measurements over a long period of time.
But I think as a requirement a single one-minute measurement is sufficient, and it should be left up
to the -- either enforcement officer or the person taking the measurement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you did leave that up to someone's judgment. Shouldn't we __
in other words, if the sound isn't continuous, shouldn't we require multiple tests?
MS. SCHOTT: I really don't see any way we could predict every situation. And I'm afraid that by
making this more specific and trying to define how many measurements you take in various situations, we
will cover only a small percentage of the possible situations out there, There won't be guidance for other
situations.
And it would be extremely cumbersome to try to define -- beyond the way it's written now to try to
say okay, for situation A you have to take 10 measurements, for situation B you have to take 20. There's
just no way we could predict that. Some of these types of decisions have to be made based upon the
experience and expertise of the tester.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the tester could be being hired by the person who's trying to
refute the claim. So, for example, I could be the tester, I'm out there, I'm standing, I'm all set up and I do my
test. But it's only a noise when the guy opens the door to the back of the bar that I -- you know, So in other
words, I could say I did what you said, you said go out there, take one test for one minute. I was out there
one minute, ran the machine and I didn't pick up anything,
MS. SCHOTT: Well, of course each person is going to try to put their data in the best light
possible, that's always the case. So you rnay have the situation you're describing but then the enforcement
officer has the responsibility of determining if at another time there was in fact a violation, and that may
Page 2 ]
require rneasurements at various times,
MR. SCRIBNER: For the record, David Scribner.
I can tell you that as a practice we take multiple readings, The only time I can think that we would
had one reading is if we took a reading and then for some reason weather played a factor. If it started
raining we wouldn't be able to take a second reading. What we would probably do is go back the next day
when the weather cleared and take another reading. We want multiple readings to show a pattern.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeal1, up at the top there you have the first three lines of -- lined
out. And then you have the second. Then it begins, in order to file a complaint, the complainant rnust
provide his/her name, address and phone number.
Is that still true? I thought that the code enforcement -- that was changed by policy, Code
enforcement does not expect to receive a name and phone number, address; is that true?
MR. SCRIBNER: This is one of the few ordinances that we have that require people to leave a
name and address. We want to know the noise affected site.
For instance, you may have a neighbor to a bar who is not offended by the noise that comes from
that bar, but maybe the neighbor down the street does.
So we want to make sure that we find out where the noise affected site is and we take the noise
reading from that site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have any other exceptions to the policy that the
Commissioners made? That's interesting, I thought they changed the policy. So you're saying __
MR. SCRIBNER: This isn't policy; this is part ofthe ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I said, this current ordinance does require somebody to provide
their name and address.
Okay, I don't personally have a problem with it, but I was just curious about that. Thank you.
MR. SCRIBNER: What we didn't want is -- and we have this in other issues where we will have
competitors complain that are not affected by the noise or the sound at all. And this is one way that -- we
have people that we go to and find what their issue is, where the issue is. And we take it because we don't
know exactly where the noise affected site may be.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I could give you an example of that. I live probably a mile or
two away from Lely High School and I hear the band practicing sometimes, and I think it's wonderful.
MR. SCRIBNER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: God, I hope we don't do things like cutting that type of thing out.
MR. SCRIBNER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Getting back to what Commissioner Schiffer brought up on this
question of one measurement. Will the statement one or more measurernents solve the problem?
Apparently the code enforcement doesn't always do more than one, and this leaves it open that it
could be one or more.
MS. SCHOTT: I'm trying to think of possible unintended consequences of that.
We do currently say a minimum of one, one-minute duration. I'm sorry, a measurement of
minimum one-minute duration, which allows you to do more at your option. So I think we already
addressed that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just by virtue of it being a minimum.
MS. SCHOTT: Right. Saying minimum or saying one or more I think is accomplishing the same.
October 16, 200S
1611 (A)Lf
Page 22
16 I 1 ot,r~t8
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I didn't know whether it might clarify it or not. Apparently not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 10.
Jeff, I had mentioned to you a concern that the underlining in the top of that page may not work
with all zoning districts in regards to setback because we have zero lot lines and we have lots in some cases
that are narrower than 50 feet.
I'm not asking you to respond to it now, but you might want to take a look at that in reference to
that issue so that when this comes back we can see if that was a -- if there's a consideration needed to be
addressed there.
MR. WRlGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page II. Anybody have any questions on Page II?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I had -- I don't know, ma'am, did you get that sheet that I handed
out? He gave it to you?
MS. SCHOTT: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, And this is particularly why I'm concerned. We have
residential, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m, The human voice runs from 40 to 60 decibels. So in other words, ifI'm
at 61 decibels I'm breaking the law. And I find this very challenging, to say the least.
MS, SCHOTT: Keep in mind, it's at the property line of the property receiving the sound.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm sure that would be true. But let's say you have a
circumstance which is going to happen, I'm certain, where you have condominium people living next to
each other, people in townhomes, people in various situations, they will not be concerned with property line
because that would be hard for them to distinguish it. They're concerned with the sound, they're concerned
with the noise.
How do we deal with that? Because how do you go in -- I mean, my neighbor next door who is
hard of hearing keeps the TV loud. It's going to exceed the voice level because the person can't hear the
voices very well. How will we deal with that?
MS. SCHOTT: In the condominium situation that will fall under the multi-family requirements,
which start on Page 14.
And the way that's regulated is not at a property line, because that wasn't appropriate, as you
mentioned. We require specific limits within the condominium that's receiving the sound,
So the way that is handled is not only a person -- the builder, the designer of the building has to
design the tenant separation walls to be sufficiently built to reduce the noise a reasonable amount.
If the -- if one neighbor is particularly loud, that wall may not be sufficient. So the controls are not
only limiting the amount of sound one person can make, but also the design that has to be incorporated into
that building in order to accomplish these final levels.
But you can see here the level inside a condominium or any multi-family dwelling cannot exceed
53 decibels during the day and 45 at night.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Human voices --
MS. SCHOTT: Normal human voices will not be a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Human voices run from 40 to 60. I live in --
MS, SCHOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- a condominium --let me finish. I live in a condominium
upstairs. If they have entertainment on their lanai on a nice November or December day, they have their
doors open and I have my doors open, they make it challenging for me to hear my TV, I try to, you know,
make sure I don't abuse them,
Page 23
1611 (~~t2008
What I'm getting at is that I realize that we talked about subjectivity, and I appreciate all thai we're
attempting to do here, but I'm just wondering, are we setting our decibel numbers so low that we are going
to actually precipitate problems? Or is this something that you can testify as the expert that this is
universally accepted throughout the United States?
MS. SCHOTT: These levels are universally accepted. And these are also the levels that you have
always had in your ordinance. The levels have not been changed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That doesn't--
MS, SCHOTT: And you haven't had --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're here because we're looking at the noise that--
MS, SCHOTT: No, I understand --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you know, I mean -- the ordinance because it needs to be
modified.
So you're testifying, actually, that this is universal throughout the United States?
MS, SCHOTT: Yes, these are generally accepted levels,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm amazed. Okay, thank you.
MS. SCHOTT: And ifI might address the condominium issue. The building code does require
tenant separation walls and floor ceiling systems to provide a sound transmission class rating of at least 50.
This is not directly related to decibels, but it's roughly a reduction of 45 to 50 decibels between units.
So our 53 limit during the day, add another 50 decibels onto that, that would say that the next door
neighbor would have to be at 103 decibels, roughly, in order to violate this ordinance. And that's quite loud.
Now, the situation would be different if the windows are open. And so your noise ordinance may
say okay, if you're playing a stereo or if you're having a party or talking very loudly, you may have to close
your windows so that you're not in violation ofthis ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. We have lanais, and the lanais are open and people should
have a good time and they should have the opportunity to entertain and talk and laugh and enjoy their
evemng,
I just am concerned that it doesn't become an opportunity for people to be cranky and grumpy,
That's all, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question was the building code thing you explained, thank
you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeal1, I think you've just answered my question as well. You said that
these sound levels have not changed --
MS. SCHOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- from the code as it currently stands.
So my question to you is how are we helping all the situations that we're in now that code and the
Sheriffs Office can't do anything about if we're not changing these levels, if we're not making these levels
more strict?
MS. SCHOTT: Well, in many ways, actually, by -- through some of the other phrases and clauses
that have been included.
For instance, we talked about outdoor seating before. And there are new requirements within the
annual permit section that require all businesses within 2,500 feet of residences to obtain a permit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand. So I go get a permit, but these noise levels
haven't changed from today whether I have a permit or not. So how is that helping us?
MS. SCHOTT: Well there are also new limits on hours of operation for businesses within the 2,500
Page 24
16 11 (I Jt~~r6'2008
feet that were not there before. That's one of the strong --
COMMISSIONER CARON: We're relying on things like hours of operation and permits more than
on the actual noise levels.
MS, SCHOTT: Well, because --I think you're starting from good sound level limits, And as I
mentioned, they're very similar to many other communities. So we didn't feel a need for those to become
more stringent, just the ways that enforcement can be done,
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just -- and again, I'm just curious, because it seems in the past
we've had a great difficulty with enforcement, based on these numbers.
Our code enforcement people go out and, you know, get these readings and we have people that are
extremely affected by the noise that's happening, and yet code says I'm sorry, I can't do anything about it
because the noise levels are "X" and they're not surpassing them.
So I just -- I don't want to put a lot of extra verbiage in here if we're not going to actually solve the
issue. I think we should be getting stricter on these things, frankly,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe by way of example, let's take -- Stevie Tomatoes is the easiest
one to use. We have Stevie Tomatoes. Between it and the residential we have a preserve area, and then we
have the residential area.
Based on the sound levels that you have here, on the Stevie Tomatoes site to the edge of their
property line on their side of the property line it would look like from 10:00 on they could have a dBA of
60; is that a true reading of that?
MS. SCHOTT: Well, we have to be concerned only about the receiving property. They don't have a
limit -- commercial business does not have a limit at their own property line. It depends on what the
adjacent property is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so then you would have to go to the residential property to ignore
the preserve?
MS. SCHOTT: Right, this would apply -- yes, this would apply at the boundary in that case
between the residential and the preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then you would go to the inside edge of the residential property,
you'd put your meter in, you'd come back at say 10: 15 and they would have a less than 55 decibel level, 54,
say, they'd be okay,
MS. SCHOTT: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the dumpster enclosure, for example, the dumpster being lifted
and dumped and all that banging, will that exceed the 55? Because they would do that prior to 7:00 in the
morning.
And then would some of the noise you heard in that tape -- and I know you can't make a sound
judgment, but does the type of noises we generally heard on that tape exceed the decibel levels we see here?
And that's what I'm trying to get to, because if -- and Ms. Caron's absolutely right, if we still have a
problem because the decibel levels are placed too high and they should be lower, then maybe we ought to
be looking at that.
MS. SCHOTT: It's possible that the dumpster was in violation. And the reason I say that is if you
look at Page 14, paragraph C.2, we do allow for non-repetitive impulsive sound, like the banging ofthat
dumpster, to occur up to five times an hour during daytime hours only. At night that has to meet the
nighttirne noise level limits.
I didn't take the readings of any dumpsters being dumped there, but it's possible that that was in
violation,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of the sounds you would typically hear from a bar that's say 1,000
feet away, would you expect them to be underneath these decibel levels like the video showed, do you
Page 25
16 11 (bttob)1*2008
think?
I know it's really subjective for you to answer that. I think that we're trying to get a handle on what
we're saying is right or wrong.
MS. SCHOTT: Depends on the size of the crowd and what's going on in the bar. And unfortunately
I didn't take any readings there when they had amplified sound on the outdoor seating area.
But amplified sound through loudspeakers of a TV or stereo or even a live performance is probably
more likely to violate this ordinance than even a crowd of human voices, More likely.
It's possible that a crowd of human voices could be in violation, but it would have to be sustained
loud levels of voices because of our measurement period of one minute. So sustained noise would be more
potentially in violation than an occasional shout.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know this is probably impractical to even consider doing, but Mr.
Wolfley's concerns about how this applies is a good point. One of the best ways we could ever learn is to go
somewhere and actually have it set up so that we can hear the sound differences in these decibel levels over
different periods of time and see what it means.
But I don't have any way of accomplishing that. I don't know if you've got something that is --
there's a living example that is available.
MS. SCHOTT: The easiest way I've done that in the past is to bring in a loudspeaker system into a
room like this and play different levels for you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you do that with the acoustics in a room and amplifying everything as
well as -- because this is not the typical way you'd hear it, possibly. Is it --
MS. SCHOTT: Right, it would certainly sound different than it would in an outdoor enviromnent,
but it could give you an idea. I mean, I would -- what I would do would be set up a loudspeaker system,
have a microphone right in front of you and then verify the decibel levels as I adjust the sound.
I have done that in the past. And this is a fairly good room for that. I've done that kind of a
demonstration in a large reverbing courtroom in the past, and that's not such a good enviromnent. But you
have acoustical ceiling and carpets and it could be done.
It would be hard to do it I think out like, let's say you go out in your community, we would
probably be driving around for hours trying to find the sound levels that you wanted to listen to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that topic with the non-repetitive sound on Page 14, wouldn't
you be able to set the machine up, and as these people are yelling you could -- you know, one guy goes over
the thing and you've got within an hour five, So as soon as you hit five or an hour, wouldn't you have
captured the violation at that point in time?
MS. SCHOTT: Yes, you can do that. Integrating sound level rneters are capable of doing that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So in other words, you really would catch -- if those shouts
exceed the limits, you would catch them.
MS, SCHOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just curious about the 6:59. We have a couple of
instances where we have a whole minute in our lives where we can do anything we want, and Ijust
wondered why that was, We can all scream together or whatever it is,
(Laughter. )
MS, SCHOTT: Well, would 659.59 be better? Then you'd only have one second, Or we can round
to the nearest minute.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In the rest of them it says from 10:00 p,m, to 7:00 a.m. and from 7:00
Page 26
16 11 ( A- ~Zr 16,2008
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on charts that when you go further along in this document. And I just thought it was
amusing.
MS, SCHOTT: We can do it either way, however you'd like.
Also, I mean, the same issue comes up on decibels. If you're at 60.1, is that a violation? If you're at
54.9. Normally the custom is to round to the nearest minute or decibel.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's turn to Page 12. Any questions on Page 12?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On the top paragraph there, the bottom part of it, you indicate five
dBA or dBC. The quantitative number of five only precedes dBA, it does not precede dBC.
Now, if you go to Page 9, down at the bottorn of the paragraph there, last paragraph, you do have
the number five dBA or five dBC. For consistency, shouldn't you repeat the quantitative number or not
repeat it?
MR. WRlGHT: Yes, we'll make that change.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. That appears in several places on Page 12. More than
once,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on Page 12?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 13 is all crossed -- well, the top's the only thing that's not crossed out.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: My note here is we do this because. The difference alleged
violating sound level and ambient sound level. We put a correction in because we recognized that there's a
certain degree of inaccuracy as a result of a human interface with a rnachine that may also need some
adjustment or qualification?
MS, SCHOTT: No, actually, the correction is made because when you take a sound level meter out
to take a reading, you're measuring all of the sound in the environment, which is the sound from the
machine or the commercial business that's being created, plus the wind rustling the leaves in the tree and the
dogs barking and the neighborhood noises that exist in the ambient.
So we recognize that the person making the noise cannot control all these other sounds, And if
they're -- the sound that the person is emitting is close to the ambient, there needs to be a correction made to
subtract out all of that other noise that is not due to the person generating the noise.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that.
Mr. Schiffer also, when he talked about the intermittent noise, and you mentioned a sound
integrating device, does the Collier County Code Enforcement and deputy sheriffs, do they have such a
device?
MS. SCHOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 14? Are there any questions on Page 14?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 15?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Again, my question here -- I'll read my notes first.
Okay, 53 dBA, again, normal human voice. Laughing would be higher, right? The volume the
sound made would be higher than that.
So in other words, if! get up in the morning and my wife cracks ajoke and I laugh earlier than 7:00
Page 27
16 '1 (~Ob)+2008
a.m" I violated the law. That's what it comes down to, isn't it?
MS. SCHOTT: No, again, this applies at the adjacent property receiving the sound, not at the
property on which the sound is being generated, even if there's two people there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, obviously someone's going to assert it before I could be
visited by somebody, So I'm already presumed that's in effect.
And I'm relating to November, December, January, February, where our doors are open and so
forth. Many people are early risers.
I just want to -- I'm going to keep on harping on the point if! have to about -- I'm going to give you
an analogy that doesn't exactly strike. But I once read a book about -- short book, but it was about a village
that lived in the Alps that -- the village was in the Alps and the people who lived there were very concerned
with avalanche. So over a course of a long, long period of time they all learned to whisper. Nobody ever
said anything very high for fear of the avalanche.
And one day somebody came and they made a mistake and rnade a loud noise and an avalanche
happened going down the other side of the mountain.
So that's a concern about what we have, what we put in effect that impacts people. We have to do it
the right way. And I respect everybody's efforts here. Whether we go high or low in the dBA, we're trying
to find the right answer.
MS. SCHOTT: But keep in mind too, the reasonable use of the unamplified human voice is
exempted.
MR. WRlGHT: So in the case of cracking a joke, you'd have a defense,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there you go.
See, now when you get down to E, where you say enclosed residential dwelling unit, what do you
exactly mean by enclosed? Is this when the door's closed and the windows are closed?
MR. WRlGHT: Yes. And this question has come up, I've talked with Lisa this morning and we've
agreed that we're going to change that language, enclosed, to make it clearer. And it will be as follows:
With all doors and windows closed --I'm sorry, completely enclosed by walls and roof with all doors and
windows closed,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that makes more logical sense. Being enclosed is really
arguable. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeal1, my question was enclosed.
But Jeff, I'm having trouble with reading one line. You see where it says, no sound tested by
equipment shall violate this subsection or ordinance unless?
I read that over and over, and I know it occurred before. It just seems clumsy to me, I mean,
wouldn't it be better to say, no sound tested by this equipment violates this subsection?
I read it and sometimes it makes it sound like you're demanding this thing to violate the section,
you know.
MR. WRlGHT: This came up at the first time through, and we have since modified the language to
make clear that it's a two-part test. It has to exceed the sound level limits in Table 3 and also exceed the
ambient sound by five. So that's what's intended there.
If it's clumsy, we can always make it less so.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what's clumsy is when you're -- you know, you're telling
the equipment -- it's just a tense of shall violate this unless. I mean, if you just -- why do you have shall in
there when you could just say no sound tested by equipment violates this subsection or ordinance unless?
The word shall just -- because normally we use that someplace else to require somebody to do
something, In here it's -- I'm not sure what its power is,
Page 28
16 I 1 (october), 2008
4-. t
MR. WRlGHT: I agree, So it will be equipment violates, That's smoother. I'll make the change.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, in an effort to save time, I had gone over a lot of issues with you. I'm
not going to repeat them here today now. It's going to take --
MR. WRIGHT: We have captured them all, mostly cosmetic --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you have, it'll just take too much time, so let's move on to Page 16.
Page 16?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeal1, I -- when you spend your time going over these things, that's
good, and you've now indicated that you have other issues. Maybe the board could benefit from the insights
that you have,
Not that I want to sit here for any great length of time beyond reality, but you're actually making a
separate arrangement with sornebody to change something we will not have heard or known about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr, Murray, when it comes back to us in re-write, if you object to
capitalization of definitions and grammatical changes, you can make all the objections you wish.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's fine. I wish you had said that in the first instance, that
would have been nice. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want to waste this board's time on things that I can resolve and
read rnyself and that don't involve the general issues at hand. And when I can do that, I'm going to be doing
that in the future, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, fine, sir, I just would expect that you would tell us that those
were, though, the minor changes so that we wouldn't presume that there was something else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on to Page 16. Does anybody have any question on Page 167
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr, Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Down under B, where you have here, and welfare -- let's see, it's
one, two, three -- it's the fourth line that I'm concerned about, the use of the word designee. And you say,
interest of public health, safety and welfare may apply in writing to the county manager or his designee. I
would say to you to eliminate the word designee there.
The county manager is the one it should be brought to. If you bring it to a designee, you now have
the county manager perhaps unaware of the issue. We know it's going to be a designee,
Do I make myself understood?
MR. WRlGHT: This is in effort to be consistent. You make yourself very clear. Just consistent. A
lot of our ordinances do have this language with county manager or his designee that basically allows the
county manager to delegate this to someone else.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, but being consistent doesn't always make it granunatically
valid or instructionally valid. And I think in this instance that -- in this instance in particular, if somebody
asserts an emergency and they go to Joe planner -- and I'm being sarcastic, I know -- but they go to
somebody who is other than the county manager, who may very well have the authority to do that, and if
the county manager doesn't know about it as such, then it becomes a matter of repercussion,
That's the concern I have. IfI'm incorrect, that's fine. But I believe I'm right.
Page 29
16 I 1 tclter l~r8
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 17. Anybody have any questions on Page 17?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeal1, on Page 17.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the bottom there, that distance must be rneasured and so forth,
This is except a mixed use, right? This is the one where you made a modification, is it?
MR. WRlGHT: That's correct.
And I just want to point out before we get too far into the details of the permitting, we do have an
alternative that seems to be very attractive to everyone I've run it by. So I just didn't want you to -- I'd be
remiss if! didn't mention that on the front end,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, That was the concern I had, Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeal1. Excuse me, Number three, exceptions, Why is it that we're
excepting the govemment from everything? If this noise affects the rest of the world, why does county
government get to be offensive without any --
MS. SCHOTT: County govemment doesn't require construction --
COMMISSIONER CARON: We do this all the time. We except ourselves,
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, I think I can partially answer that. I don't know if Nick's around or not.
But we do do emergency road work, we do do emergency public utilities work, we --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but there are already exceptions for those things in here,
MS. SCHOTT: I think this section is just saying that government would not have to get a
construction permit. But the last phrase there that's underlined said the activities must still be in compliance
with this ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So it is saying -- where does it say just a permit?
MS. SCHOTT: I think that was the intent anyway.
This whole section deals with getting construction permits, does it not?
MR. WRlGHT: I believe under 2.B there's a -- I think this is what Mr. Murray was focusing on
earlier, the ability to get an emergency construction permit. It's the fourth line down,
And then construction activities by government are exernpt from that requirement. However, they
still have to comply with the sound ordinance, the levels in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go on to the next page, let's take a break till 10:15.
(Recess. )
MR. SCHMITT: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from our break.
We were moving at lighttling speed.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Snail speed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're on -- Page 16 is where we left off. I just want to make sure
there's no other questions on -- actually, it was 17. Wow, Let's just go that -- let's just take that one page
while we can,
Any other questions?
Mr, Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I spoke with you a little bit about this confusion on the exception
that was raised by Ms. Caron.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you move your mic, a little closer to you, sir? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would you explain that again to me?
MR. WRlGHT: Yes. Mr. Kolflat pointed out that logically this section that begins on Page 16, it's
Page 30
16 , 1 {ctlf 1~~8
labeled F, construction sounds, there are three sub-paragraphs, one, two and three. And Mr. Kolflat pointed
out that they don't seem to be organized in a logical fashion.
And I suggested to him that I would make it so it is organized and logical. And my immediate
thought is to move the exception to the front of this to qualify that the construction activities by the
government are exempt from the following, and then list the two requirements there that are in numbers one
and two.
So spiff it up and make it more logical I think was his general suggestion,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So in other words, government is exempt from I as well as 2.A and
B?
MR. WRlGHT: That's the intent, yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to Page 18.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right at the top up at residential amenities where you talk about
places like clubhouses, you could have them enclosed, you could talk about recreation centers, same things.
Pavilions, maybe not.
Swimming pools, especially if they're occupied by children, I can't imagine them not violating the
ordinance, based on the numbers that we're talking about.
Do we have sound recordings? Do you -- as an expect, have you recorded sounds up, say, in the
north park, you know, the Sun 'N Fun Lagoon and so forth? Not that it's close to anybody's situation, but we
do have Golden Gate Park, we do have others, and we have -- more than anything else, we might have
somebody's private pool.
And I wonder, do we have any kind of exception for things like that?
MR. WRIGHT: I'm looking at Page 25. Again, this came up in the context of the stadiums,
authorized school park or playground activities.
Now, Chairman Strain pointed out that within that paragraph parks aren't culled out. And I think
that would be the appropriate place to put parks and address the Sun 'N Fun Lagoon question.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Good, I'm glad he caught that. But my concern would be more
about since we're talking about it being residential amenities, where swimming pools fall into this is that
issue that I'm trying to raise is qualify,
You know, we do have common pools for different developments and so forth.
I'rnjust trying to understand whether or not the ordinance will become a problem for communities
in trying to deal with the grandkids come down, somebody doesn't like that there's grandkids, they make a
noise, they call code, somebody takes and puts a meter on it and we have somebody cited, and I'm not sure
who, maybe 12-year-olds.
I don't know, have we given consideration to that?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, first of all, there's more of a desire to regulate the commercial setting,
because that's where this comes up more often where we have a need for an amplified sound permit.
Now, as I mentioned earlier, if you look on Page 20, there's an alternative. And the more I look at
this alternative and discuss it, the more attractive it appears to be --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with you, by the way.
MR. WRlGHT: And if we go with that it rnight get rid of the need for addressing and culling out
those other --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I agree with you. Thank you on that.
Page 31
16 11llto~~'2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the commercial, you use the word habitable. I think occupied
would be better. Habitable means the residential space, Occupy-able (sic) would be any space that's allowed
to be occupied. Habitable is a subset, but --
MR. WRIGHT: Triggered by a Certificate of Occupancy; is that the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, just occupy-able means -- at least in building codes it makes
sense,
And then my other question is in residential you don't require an amplified sound. But I can see a
situation where somebody could have parties and stuff with rock bands and stuff like that, the baby boomers
are movmg m.
So would that not be something that an adjoining property could have a problem with?
MR. WRlGHT: WelL I believe in the case of a rock band, they would probably be just plain old
exceeding the sound level limits, and there wouldn't be any --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they would never have to get the amplified permit for those
particular parties and stuff or -- in other words, what you're saying below is that if you're indoors and you're
making such noise that you're violating the sound ordinance then, you know, you're going to have to start
getting amplified sound permits to come under control.
I think that could apply to some situations in the residential. Obviously the clubhouse. On the patio
they could have a once-a-night AC/DC party or something and that wouldn't be good to a guy within 2,500
feet.
MR. SCRIBNER: For the record, David Scribner, Code Enforcement.
I think the object of the amplified music permit was to give us some leverage so that if people
violate it, we can revoke the permit on a commercial establishment and really take care of that.
The issue with a residential rock band, as Jeff said, if we get those complaints, we go out and either
code enforcement, the Sheriffs Department addresses those issues and brings them before the Code
Enforcement Board.
The amplified music permit is more for those ongoing commercial establishments, that we have
another tool to use in order to bring them into compliance. And I'm not sure how that would work in
residential.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Only like if the clubhouse had repetitive stuff, I think they should
be getting amplified permits too.
But what you're saying is you're going to go out, if they have a party once a month that violates it,
you'll be out there once a month giving them a citation,
MR. SCRIBNER: Yes, yes. Ifwe get complaints about it, yes, we'll do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 19, Anybody have any questions on Page 19?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, I'm looking at six, and I'm looking at the alpha to the delta.
And my note to myself, as it gets later it gets quieter and these sounds will seem louder.
If you look at that, you're talking about distances. You know, during the day the ambient noise is
level, the ambient noise is higher. At night it gets quieter.
How do we -- do we have a provision for that? I mean, I hope that if we're going to adjust hours of
operation that we'll put that on the permit so that people will know at least that they are constrained for
distances so that they have something that they're aware of.
Because I realize you're trying to fix a situation, but I think if we do not have that kind of
Page 32
16 11 ( ~0~i'2008
information on a permit or some attachment to the permit, we actually put people in a strange situation.
I think I'm right and I think that most would agree that over time in the evening it gets quieter and
quieter and it's easier to hear sounds that you might not have heard 2,500 feet away,
MR. WRlGHT: Mr. Chairman, if! may make a point, related point.
When you see 6.A through D, dealing with the distance in times, that I viewed as problematic. And
that's one of the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. WRIGHT: -- reasons that we came up with the alternative.
Andjust for your information, there's a problem with over-breadth. For example, an establishment
can be quiet, but it would have to shut down at 9:00 no matter what, due to its physical location, not due to
nOise.
And we want our regulation to be more narrowly tailored to the goal of addressing sound and peace
in the community.
So the alternative that I've put forth eliminates that potential for over-breadth, which is a basis for
challenging an ordinance like this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, great. All right, super. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: We don't have a copy of that yet, though,
MR. WRlGHT: It's on Page 20 of35.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry, yes--
MR, WRIGHT: In the bracket in bold.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and I had a note about it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing with these distances and everything, we don't really
clarify what the distance is. For example, if I'm across water from something, I'm going to get more sound
than if there's a preserve between me and that something.
Is there any way in here that in the approval of this that that can be considered? I mean, 2,500 feet
of a body of water could carry that sound.
MR. WRlGHT: We have Ross Gochenaur here to answer that one.
MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Zoning and Land Development Review.
First I'd like to point out that I'm totally in support of the alternative that Jeff mentioned, and that
would be no criteria. I think that that's greatly preferable to what I tried to come up with as objective
criteria, but I feel that they're flawed for a couple of different reasons.
If you decide to go with the criteria, for example, and you use the distance across water, would you
treat that as -- if you had water between the sound and the residential community, you're saying that that
2,500 feet should really carry the same restriction as 500 feet across land?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I don't know, Ross. And we're in the approval criteria,
You might be the one making these approvals. Would you take into consideration that -- this is waterway,
but would you be trapped by the 500 feet?
And maybe I guess we should just bow off and look at the alternate anyway and --
MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, to be honest, when I built in the mitigating factors, that was basically to
cover a situation where you would have somebody who was close enough to residential that they would
have to shut down at ] I :00, but we wanted to take into consideration that there could be a 1 O-story building
between the music and the residential.
I didn't take into consideration the possibility that distance across water could actually amplifY the
sound and have a reverse effect. I feel that's one of the flaws, and again, that's one reason why I support
Page 33
1611 ( iF~~2008
Jeffs alternative here,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 19?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move to Page 20. And that is the page with the alternative, so I think we
need to have discussion if that's the way we would suggest this be modified to, Then we need to let the staff
know that.
So any comments on Page 20?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the sense of what you were just saying, I would support
alternative F. I think that does help a great deal in this regard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Ms, Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I guess my only comment gets back to the actual levels that
we're using for enforcement as to whether this is going to end up being an effective ordinance and solve the
Issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the alternative versus the other F change the -- be changed by any
impacts of the levels then? I guess that may be another way of approaching your concerns?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I think they don't do that. They have nothing to do with levels,
I'm just saying going to the alternative is fine by me, except overarching this is I'm not sure we're actually
solving what we're trying to solve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so I think the consensus is from the board that F is a more viable
alternative to go to, but we still have concerns about the magnitude of what's allowed to begin with,
So we probably will have to go back and visit that or have some more input on that as far as how
normal they are versus what the public may expect.
I'rn not sure how to get there with that. I know we talked about a live example, but we'll have to __
I'm not sure --
MS. SCHOTT: Is that something you'd like to address now or later?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get through the rest of the ordinance and hit that as an overriding
point to discuss at the back end.
On Page 21, it's all crossed out. Are there any questions?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 22 is the same way,
Page 23, Any questions on Page 23?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 24.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 23 under F, and where it says, any other noise resulting
from activities of a temporary duration permitted by law for which permission has been granted by the
county.
Should we be consistent here again by saying county manager? Because in one other place I
noticed we did have the administrator of CDES in here,
MR. WRlGHT: I would agree the consistency -- we should aim for that. We'll rnake sure they're
consistent.
Page 34
1611 ( jFott,2008
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That was your intent, though, right, it's under the County
Manager's purview --
MR. WRlGHT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and whatever structure he organizes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one quick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go al1ead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeff, up at the top where it says, are exernpt from the sound
level limits, do you think you should you add of 6.B, just to be really clear? Or is it --
MR. WRlGHT: We'll make a specific cross-reference.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'rn sorry, where were you, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was up at the permitted uses, and there's an added line, and are
exempt frorn the sound level limits. But it's really of6,B that they are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The question that Mr. Murray raised about a change, what was the--
permission has been granted by the -- now what do you think you're going to say there?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: County manager.
MR. WRIGHT: County manager or his designee. And I know you don't like that term, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, his designee is used in all aspects of our code, So I -- and the county
manager doesn't sign anything that I've ever seen from a permit, so I'm not sure that is applicable in this
instance.
But what I'm wondering is, is it the county manager or his designee that give permission, or is it the
county system that gives permission? I'm just rnincing words, but--
MR. WRIGHT: Well, theoretically I suppose that the Board of County Commissioners could grant
this permission. So it might be appropriate to leave it as county, that way we'd cover that possibility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was suggesting, so -- I think you just need to take a look at it
and make sure it's right, that's aIL
Page 24. Are there any questions on Page 24?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Under I, obviously code doesn't regulate vehicles when they're on the
road, but the Sheriffs Office does; is that correct?
MR, WRlGHT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Under L, we have all of the normal things that have to be taken care
of, tree trimming and limbs and mowing and whatever. Why would the hours of operation extend to 10:00
p,m. for any of those kinds of daylight hour jobs?
MR, WRIGHT: That's a great point. In fact, I don't know ifMr. Thomas is still here. Milt Thornas,
a citizen, has raised the same concern. Who is out cutting their lawn past sunset even? And that is not a
change that we're comfortable just making on our own, But if you'd like to note that recommendation, we
could keep it in the text --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I really think we need to get daylight hours in here for this kind of
thing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doma?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go al1ead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is mosquito fogging, and that's -- from my experience,
I've only seen that at night, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: They come early in the rnorning, actually,
But okay, it may require two paragraphs then.
MR. WRlGHT: Exactly. We could split them.
Page 35
1611
( It :)~r 16, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't mosquito be a government action?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, not if you're doing it for a certain --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not if you're doing it for a certain property under this context.
Tree trimming and mosquito fogging, that's a personal thing, not a governmental-- I think that's what you
meant, correct?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 24?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y : Yeah, just one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: More out of curiosity than anything else. And I understand it, I
think. Not -- at H, you're not including scale model aircraft. The assumption being that the scale model
aircraft will have their own area someplace and they'll be under a penrut, or what?
MR. WRIGHT: I think that these are --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or a conditional use or what?
MR. WRIGHT: These are exemptions.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Ycah, I understand that. So you don't want to exempt model
aircraft, So they do exist, there are pcople who have that hobby, What are we doing, are we throwing them
out into space, or what?
MR. WRIGHT: They're subject to thc normal sound level limits, They're subject to the ordinance,
unlike other aircraft.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: However, by virtue of them being (makes hUll1illing noise) they
aren't going to exceed the normal sound level. Are we simply eliminating them as an entity, or __
MR, WRIGHT: I can't speak as to what their levels would be. If they're too high, we can enforce
the ordinance against them. If there've under the sound level limits, they would be able to get off the hook,
MS, SCHOTT: So it depends on the proximity to the nearest residential property.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do the 2,500 feet apply?
MS, SCHOTT: I'm not sure what a noise level of a remote control aircraft is, I agree with you that
they're loud, but --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe're gong to excise them, if we're going to accept it, if we're
going to preclude their people using their hobby, shouldn't we know what it is we're doing?
MS. SCHOTT: I don't believe that we're precluding anyone from using that hobby. We're just
saying that they must meet the same sound level limits that we've applied at residential property boundaries.
So if you can run your remote control aircraft and it's no higher than 60 dBA during the day at the
nearest residential property, then it's acceptablc.
And depending on how loud that aircraft is, you might have to be 50 feet or 500 feet or 5,000 feet
away from the nearest residence.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bad law,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, under M, the exceptions for existing operations, I'd like to look
at the last line, It says, in these instances the noise ordinance pertaining to industrial/commercial boundaries
shall govern and the business shall not be required to meet those noise levels pertaining to residential
boundaries.
So it is -- you're making this a which came first thing, not a zoning issue, So someone can't come
back and claim but my zoning is commercial so I should be allowed to do this. It would be what was there
first, the houses that are next to you now or you as the commercial operation, correct?
Page 36
16'1 (oc;}r):r8
MR, WRIGHT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 25? Anybody have any questions on Page 25?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chairman, I--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Under N, Ijust had that word reasonable again, Amplified human
voice, I raised three kids through the teenage years, and there's a little bit of a difference what's reasonable
and what's not in that kind of a household.
MR. WRIGHT: A lot of effort went into this, because the Sheriffs Office had its view, there was a
lot of different views on this. What we ended up doing was looking up several ordinances, and we went
with the Tampa provision,
They have this exact language, this exact exemption in Tampa, Tbey have a lot of issues with noise
in Tampa, And I've talked to the code enforcement prosecutor from Tampa who wrote this language maybe
10 years ago.
And I said, have you ever had a problem with it? And he said, no, because reasonable is intended to
be an objective standard, The ordinary person, a reasonable person in the listener's shoes, would they find
that noise to be the unreasonable exercise.
So judges like reasonable because it's an objective standard, and we can present that to a court or a
tribunal knowing that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, No, I think I understood it. And I found raising three
children through the teenage years, most of it was annoying and unreasonable. So I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions on Page 26?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing we did is with the church chimes, we took it out. Do
you think we should add R, which would be church bells and chimes?
MR, WRIGHT: That's a hot button in the literature. There's not a whole lot of case law, but the
literature suggests you shouldn't allow church bells to ring and other bells not to ring,
So we didn't want to quality it by saying religious institutions can ring bells but non-religious
institutions can't. So we just said chimes and bells,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what happens if a church has chimes and bells? It's going to
be -- I mean, you're going to be -- I guess they have to meet the sound ordinance so they have quiet chimes
and bells?
MR. WRIGHT: Now, these are exceptions again, and noises of bells and chimes. So if a church
rings its bell and we come after them and try to enforce the ordinance against them, they would have this
defense, that they're exempt.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where do you see that exemption?
MS. SCHOTT: Page 23.
MR, WRIGHT: Yeah, Page 23.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you did by taking out chimes and stuff, you essentially
set up that these are really safety -- these are -- I would read that to say these are devices that enunciate, you
know, emergency sprinkler systems, emergencies with maybe, you know, lift stations, stuff like that.
You honestly think that -- because everything else, noises of safety signals, warning devices,
emergency pressure -- so you want to include it in there.
I guess what I'm saying is can't we -- if you want to take bells and chimes and make that a separate
thing, then maybe -- but your point is that some restaurant could come in and say I have my restaurant bells,
Page 37
16'1 (pfctot +2008
and you couldn't say you're not allowed to do that? You can't say church bells and chimes; is that what
you're saying?
MR. WRIGHT: You can, but you run the risk of a First Amendment challenge,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what Mr. Schiffer is saying is you need to delineate it that it
isn't an -- you're not talking about an emergency type of bell and chime like you'd have on the back of a
truck or something else, You're talking about a decorative or some kind of aesthetic bell and chime.
And maybe a separate section so it's clearly not part of that emergency section might be a better
way to put it.
MR. WRIGHT: Another thought that comes to mind is the word non-emergency before the word
bells.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there are -- you know, sprinkler systems have gongs that are
essentially a bell, they're -- you know, and you really don't want those, but that are run by the flow of water.
So I think that's what it looks like you're saying you're allowed there.
But, I mean, I would just start a separate category if you want to do it, you think. But what happens
if a guy really says the theme of my restaurant is Hell's Bells or something and he's ringing these bells all
night long, and he'd be exempt. I don't know.
MR, WRIGHT: I understand what you're getting at. And what I'll endeavor to do is specity the
safety warning emergency stuff in one provision and then separate bells and chimes, finesse the language
and bring it back --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you say church and see if we start having a problem
with it. I mean, if you say church, the restaurant guy doesn't see that as a loophole. Ifhe wants to go to court
and play with it, then we'll deal with it then.
But the intent is to have nice n the ability for a church to have chimes and bells.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're going to leave it just churches, you don't need to change the
language then, just leave be like it was.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except that it's in -- well, yeah. But I do think you should separate
emergency enunciation and church bells in a separate category,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Koltlat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, it's been answered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say, can't you use the catchall such as
churches? You know, chimes and bells such as associated with churches __
MR, WRIGHT: That's great.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And then you don't trigger anything, but you make it clear the intent.
MR. WRIGHT: I think that's a great idea. And I'll incorporate that into the second of the two
paragraphs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 26?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Regarding Q, the raceway facilities and activities at the
Immokalee Regional Airport, Once again I get into many times at an eighth mile, people go to it because of
the noise, you know, because of the exhaust and that level of noise.
Just as at the fairgrounds when there are demolition derbies. I mean, if it didn't have any loud noise
to -- you know, crushing and -- you know, people wouldn't go.
So I guess I'm trying to figure out, is this -- I couldn't quite get a handle on this one as far as if
they're supposed to stay below 60 dB at their events. Is that what it's saying?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, before you go too far, this is the same language that was in the code.
Page 38
"~.~",..h,__.____,_______.~..".^."_ ',.~__..~ ....___
16 11 (~be),ioo8
The only problem is there's four sections, four sentences that have been deleted from it. Those sentences are
supposed to go back in because they were deleted from a prior page,
And from what I understand from the code enforcement people, there have been no issues with this
in Immokalee, So when those sentences get put back in, I think it makes it whole again, It's then consistent
with what they've lived with and what they wanted from originally in the ordinance,
Go ahead, Mr, Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So I guess my point was that regarding the nearest home, there
aren't many homes right around that area,
Now -- and what makes me think of this is the Naples Airport, homes kept getting built closer and
closer to the Naples Airport and they started complaining about the noise. And it was the old what came
first. Well, the airport, because it had been there for many years. Homes just infilled, And they started
complaining. So we got quieter planes coming in.
Now, is the same thing going to happen here for these drag races? I mean, we're just going to end
up going through this thing again,
MR, WRIGHT: I think the intent of this, and I wasn't in the front row for the history, but I think the
intent is that there's a drag strip out there, it's got to comply with this.
However, we're leaving a crack in the door in case they want to come back and get an approval to
do more than what they're doing right now. That's the way I read this.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I realize about the raceway, and I think that's fine, but what's
missing here is the swamp buggy, which happens only three times a year, and then one other item that
occurs once a year, which is monster trucks.
And I'm aware that there have been complaints, these things do make a lot of noise, it resonates
quite a distance sometimes. But it happens so rarely that it does engender complaints.
If we're making an exception, as it were, for the raceway, should we not consider making an
exception n even though I recognize it's there before somebody else was built, you have that clause in here,
But because of the nature of it, the occurrence is only infrequent. Should we make some kind of a
notable exception so that those who are trying to enforce the law have something to explain to somebody?
MR. WRIGHT: I would point again to this exception for authorized school, park or playground
activities, sounds emanating from any authorized, dot, dot, dot, sporting event, entertainment event or
authorized event.
I think that the truck pull I'm not sure about, but I think the swamp buggy would fall into that as an
entertaimnent event that's been approved --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, monster trucks is also an entertainment to some -- okay, And
there's good money paid to see it and it's very crowded, so it gets a lot of people. And I think it's something
that has to be related to if we're going to -- I don't understand, I guess maybe I do understand.
Under Q, raceway facilities was an attempt to try and provide for a future element; is that correct?
MR, WRIGHT: I believe so. Keep the door open,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So in other words, we're construing that monster trucks,
although new in the sense than it's only several years old, is essentially a component of swamp buggy?
MR, WRIGHT: I think maybe a better way to put it is the swamp buggy and the monster truck are
entertaimnent events, whereas the raceway facility is kind of a use that may seek permission in the future.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense to me, thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 27, it's all strike-outs,
Page 28 is almost all strike-outs except one sentence.
Page 39
'--"'_"_""---~-......~-,~~~-------,_.,,-_._--_.,_...,_..
16 I 1 'cd; 1)2~ts
Page 29?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Section A, or Section 10.A, it says upon adjudication, Should
we defme there from who's going to be doing that adjudication? This is the first time it shows up, Further on
it's discussed, but --
MR, WRIGHT: I'm sorry, you want to define the term adjudication?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it says upon adjudication, By who? I mean, we do discuss it
later, I realize.
MR. WRIGHT: I agree, we could plug in those same tribunals after the adjudication in that top line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then down below it says, each day the violation's committed
or permitted to continue,
Should we put from what point? Or, Jeff, if you feel comfortable with that, because these are
matters you deal with a lot, you know, I'll just quickly bow to that. If you're comfortable.
MR, WRIGHT: I'm sorry, I lost the spot.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it would be down on the -- underneath the box, the first
sentence, And it's committed to continue. And my thought was should we put from what point it continues?
But again, you're in code enforcement. If you find that that's okay, because it's defined later, I'll __
I'm good with that.
MR, WRIGHT: I hear what you're saying, I think that if we said each day such a violation is
committed shall constitute a separate offense. I don't know that permitted to continue helps at all.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You know, my comment was essentially the same, because 1--
further citations including the day upon which the original citation was issued, I guess the language you just
related I think may solve that for me because of what you're attempting to say here,
I wasn't sure whether you were saying -- using the word further citations, whether that really
represented the same cite-able offense or other citations, I'm not sure, So that's why I considered it as an
issue.
Would you please repeat the language that you said in answer to Commissioner Schiffer's __
MR. WRIGHT: Well, now that I look at it, this is how it reads in the draft before you. Each day
such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense.
I think the permitted to continue, let's just say it's a broken generator, a broken air conditioner that's
really loud, That's something that you didn't necessarily commit that violation but you're allowing it to
continue.
So I think the idea is that you don't get a free pass the second that you're cited, You get cited and if
it keeps happening, you'll get cited again. That's what this is intended to capture.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the words further citation is that reference, that's what you're
saying there?
MR, WRIGHT: Exactly,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Including the day upon which the -- I guess that's what throws me,
including the day, So in other words, further -- okay, further citations means not only the day we first found
out about it but every day thereafter, that's what you're really saying there?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, All right. Ijust didn't understand it that way. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
Page 40
16 11 l A-loir 16,2008
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What if somebody's having a really noisy party and they're playing
loud music and it goes on, you know, past 10:00 or something like that and I complain and the police come
and they tell them now you've got to turn it down.
I don't see anything in here about a warning. Is there anything here where they don't necessarily
have -- if they turn it down right away they don't have to get a fine?
MR, WRIGHT: I don't know that there's language in here, but I know that the enforcement folks __
and Commander McDonald, he might want to chime in on this one.
But they do use their discretion. They're not out to just give people tickets, they want to be able to
communicate. But I don't want to speak for him. He might give us his approach.
MR. MCDONALD: Good morning. My name's Bill McDonald with the Collier County Sheriffs
Office.
We give our officers discretion, especially in minor non-criminal events. If you force a warning or
you say that a warning is always on the first offense and it's very egregious, we're pretty much stuck with a
warning on the first offense and probably should have been cited.
I'm comfortable with the way it's written that officers will use appropriate discretion and warn the
offenses that merely require warning and a reminder to turn it down, you've got neighbors, And I'm
comfortable with it anyway.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: I'm comfortable with the way it is now, because, you know, there is
the thing about the warning. But in reading this, I don't see anything here where it says warning.
MR, MCDONALD: I think I have a different copy of the ordinance, I know it set provisions for the
first violation that's cited.
That's the -- yeah, violation of an annual permit. That's specific. Because it goes into problems after
a warnmg,
In the other section, I believe -- is this where we're at? This is actually for a first violation, That's
for a first cited violation, If it's not cited, it's not a first violation, Or wouldn't be a first or second or third
violation, It would be --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you on Page 29?
MR. MCDONALD: Well, I'm not sure because mine's numbered different.
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: E, I think will answer the question.
MR, MCDONALD: Any person violating a provision of this ordinance shall upon adjudication be
subject to a fine not exceeding $500.
And then there's the guideline for the magistrate, first violation, second violation, third or more
violation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley just pointed out, though, on our Page 30, Number E, if you
read that, it might answer your question, Towards the end of it especially, it talks about the way an
enforcement agent or officer could look at it.
COMMISSIONER MTDNEY: But I see where is says for which an annual permit has been issued,
What if somebody's just having a party and they didn't get a permit?
MR, WRIGHT: 1fT may, we're not coditying the requirement to give a warning, but we're aware
that the enforcement people out in the field do have that discretion.
You do see a reference to a warning in the annual permit, that language I think on Page 31, But
that's not what you're talking about.
I think to answer your question is they have discretion and this is not codified.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, how can you have discretion that's not codified? It has to be
Page 41
16 11 ( ~t)r J 2008
written, otherwise it would seem to me as though if it says fine, it has to be fine.
MR, MCDONALD: Well, the discretion comes in the enforcement of it. Once it's enforced, the
fines are dealt with.
The ordinance is no different than any of the hundreds of traffic statutes that are out there that a
deputy stops a violator on any given day for a minor speeding infraction and issues a written warning,
There's nothing in the statute that says a warning's okay. The officers have just chosen not to take
an official enforcement action that would go into court and start proceedings or points on license and so on,
And the ordinance I don't believe is any different than that.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Okay. Just as long as it's something that is legal and that will be,
you know --
MR. MCDONALD: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: -- universally applied,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you have anything else you wanted to follow up, or is
that your only comment?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 30.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm looking at B, and it speaks of confiscatory practices,
And my question to you would -- there are two parts to the question.
If the offending item were a radio in a car, would we confiscate the radio or confiscate the car? And
the question would be what would we do with the asset after that? Would we convert it into income for the
county?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, first of all, the car, if it's moving, the county wouldn't -- code enforcement
department wouldn't have jurisdiction over it, that would be a Sheriffs Office issue,
But if there was impoundment -- and I believe this language has been in the ordinance for a while,
We've never exercised it. But it is a tool that can be used.
As to the specific procedures, how that would go about, I think it would just be a remedy that you
would get from the tribunal.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Jeff, it's very clear, it says, be grounds for permanent confiscation
by the code enforcement board, special magistrate or court,
Now, if the vehicle were off-road, as is indicated in here that code enforcement officers may issue a
citation for it if it were off-road and in violation, then it falls under the code enforcement board and the
special magistrate.
My only question, though, really runs to what is the offending item and which one do you do? Do
you take the radio or do you take the car because it has a radio in it?
If you're going to have law that has certain tenets to it, they ought to be applicable and valid. That's
my question. I don't care if it's been there for 1,000 years,
MR. WRIGHT: I think that in the context of a car, you'd probably be able to -- it would be tough to
confiscate the whole car --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with you,
MR. WRIGHT: -- I think the only straight-faced argument you could make would be the radio and
the speakers that go with it. That's all you would be aiming to confiscate, I think beyond that you'd be
getting in trouble,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words we intend to leave that in there so that that would
be the ultimate penalty beyond any personal penalty?
Page 42
1611 { A- ~tfrI6'2008
MR. WRIGHT: Yes. And my only concern is with the word shall. I think we should temper that,
given discretion. But we've added the word shall be grounds for permanent confiscation. So the tribunal has
discretion,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Under E, where you say County Sheriff, I would suggest
you use deputy or his deputy, I don't know that they use designee,
And then I would be curious as to other authorized enforcement agency, What are we
contemplating there? What other authorized enforcement agencies are there that would be involved in such
a thing? Is it just a catchall?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, it is a catchall. Theoretically there could be domestic animal services or some
other entity called in. But it is a catchall.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because on the second line from the bottom where it says,
issue to notice to appear or to arrest. And I just wondered who all has the authority,
I mean, anybody has the authority to arrest if they have the courage to do it. However, only a
deputy has the official authority to arrest, being charged with knowing the codes and statutes, et cetera,
So with -- that does come into the other authorized enforcement agency. I just wonder if that's
where -- if it's appropriate, should it be broken out, be more definitive, more clear; separate the powers,
because the police have the police powers,
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, you're right. Arrest is just a Sheriff's Office function, code enforcement--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think if they were separated and sub-categorically, they would be
better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, everywhere you've got the word adjudication, you're going to follow
it by of a violation, right?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Page 3 I, anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 32?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, I'm still working here.
Under number four, where in the ordinance I found it, I, okay, county manager or his designee.
Okay, thank you very much, I solved my own problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 33?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, what you've done, you've taken all of the lists out there. Yet
in C you reference the above listed. Should you put in there classified as residential use instead, which is __
MR, WRIGHT: I'm not really clear on what you're suggesting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, B has -- you note that this is only applying to classified
residential uses, and you've stricken everything else. And then in C you reference the above listed, which is
essentially what you've stricken,
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, there's a couple of ways to address this. And the Chairman brought this to my
attention yesterday.
I think that we could just incorporate that same list into the paragraph below it, that way we would
capture all those listed items. That's one way. I'm open to other suggestions as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, are you going to put these listed items back in?
MR. WRIGHT: I think if we're making reference to the listed noise-affected site, we're going to
have to bring in the list.
Page 43
16 , 1 C <Amer},ts
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, Because my second question is why strike it, but you're
going to bring it back in,
MR. WRlGHT: Yes, In order to use the word list, we have to have the list.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or instead of use the word list, use -- classify it as residential use,
MR. WRIGHT: Can we leave that as an either/or, we will fix that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, is the intent to provide it at these uses that were listed? I
mean, you struck them out, so I assume you no longer want this to apply this to hospitals. If you do, don't
strike it out.
Is the intent not to provide the ability to do this non-tested thing at these other uses?
MR. WRlGHT: I think the intent is to keep these listed items and regulate them in what we will do
as paragraph C, put the list into paragraph C. That way we haven't lost those items.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm confused -- okay, I'll wait for the next version.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on Page 33?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 34?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, point, if! may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On four, exceptions, you do reference above listed class. So when
you look at the first thing, you'll probably want to qualify this too.
You see where I'm talking about? Second line under four. Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have one outstanding overall encompassing issue, and that is the
sound levels in which we allow noise to be generated right from the get-go. And that's on the table on Page
II.
I might recommend to the board that before we go into discussion on that that we fmd out if we
have any public speakers to get any input that's available out there,
And Ray, do we have any public speakers?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're also going to return to alternative section F as a
conversation, if I'm not mistaken.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we already had settled that. I don't know why--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You said at the time -- I'm pretty sure you said we'll return to that,
it's overarching.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that we would return to the discussion of the decibel levels on Table
I.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, then I misheard you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, how many public speakers do we have?
MR. SCHMITT: Ray is handing out a packet that came in to the commissioners. This is to be
accepted as a public speaker, but it's a written info that just came in from a constituent.
Again, you can take that with you, You certainly don't have to read it. He's not here, but they
wanted that inputted into the record, their feelings on the ordinance,
You have three public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is from Mrs, Gay?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I don't have one--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Gay, are you -- she's here. She may want to speak.
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, I'm sorry, she's here, I don't have her --
Page 44
1611 l~b}4008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll catch her then. We'll ask you to speak, even if you're not registered.
MR. SCHMITT: She's registered to speak, and we'll call Mary 1. Gay first, followed by Bruce
Burkhard and then Doug Lewis,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do have a time limitation, but we try not to be too strict with that.
We're more inclined to want to hear what you have to say. So as long as we don't get too sidetracked, we'll
be okay.
MS. GAY: Like I said in my notes to you all --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to say your name for the record and then go forward.
MS. GAY: Let me get settled down here, I'm sorry,
Good moming. My name is Mary Jane Gay, and I'm also talking for Truman Gay. We live next
door to Corkscrew Sanctuary.
It's a prestine area. And we have fought over the years to try and keep the noise down. Can you
hear me okay?
And a lot of times these people, they have parties out there. They have bands. And I'm talking
about like two miles away in my house I can hear the words.
I have called -- I call the Sheriff's Office, they come out, they don't seem to do anything about it.
Sometimes they tell me, well, they'll quit at 10:00. Well, 11:00, 12:00, I :00, even 3:00 and 4:00 and
sometimes all night they still go on.
And you're all talking about fines. I don't think any of those people out there have ever been fmed,
And also I had one time a deputy told me, he said, if I have to come back again, I will take the man
to jail. Well, the deputy would have done that, but his sergeant said oh, no, no, we don't want to do that.
But anyway, back to my issues. I think in and around Corkscrew we need to change the decibels
from 75, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Are you aware how loud 75 is? Has anyone listened to 75 for
hours?
You have tourists that come, plus we moved out there to enjoy the peace and quiet and listen to the
birds and things, and we have a lot of unique things on just our property, because we're next door to
Corkscrew.
But another thing too is you all were talking about the road vehicles. That should also be put in
there for on private property and private roads. See, a lot of the roads out there are private, like Chickadee,
Honeybee and all of those.
One night at midnight these people are out there in four-wheelers. I called the Sheriffs Office. He
said oh, well, we can't go down there because it's a private road, And finally I said, but it's a noise nuisance
law. And he finally came out and he finally closed them down.
But another thing is on Sundays we have a lot of problems with people running machinery, I'm
talking about heavy equipment and all that and things on Sundays. And that should be changed also.
I'm sure everybody's entitled to enjoy, do what they want. But once if the noise leaves their
property, and that's considered noise nuisance from the old Tommy laws that used to be there,
And you're talking about people talking. When they have these parties, the more they drink, the
later in the night, the louder they get. And the police tell me, hey, I can't do anything about them laughing
and doing all this, but yet it's loud enough that it keeps us awake.
But like I said, it needs to -- and in your -- tllere, you talked about pumps, You took out the
vibration. Why? Because one morning this lady up the road on Purple Martin, she called me and she said,
Mary Jane, come up here. She has a watercress farm next to her, which is her property and their property
joms.
That morning -- and I've heard the pumps many times at my house which I'm like, I'll say, a mile
away or half a mile away, That morning at her house the pumps were registering on her little meter of 65
Page 45
"~'--"-"-_"'-'__._-_._",.--.,-~,_..,.. ._"''''-'~-~_'_-~'~-''-~-_._'~~,.",.
16 r 1 l eOb):f;oos
decibels. In her chair -- I sat in her chair in her house, and it was like you was in a vibrator. So that needs to
be addressed. And it's been very damaging to her health,
And also, I think that we shouldn't have to always depend upon these meters. I think it depends on
the person. If they can't enjoy, as you all said here, the peace and quiet of the area, then you can't always
rely upon those meters,
I had a problem with some drums. I called, and Gary Dantini, which used to be in code, and David
Butler came. They were playing the drums like a half a mile away, and I could hear them in my house. I
couldn't even enjoy my radio.
They came with the meter. I watched the meter before it started, the drums started, you didn't see
the meter move. But whenever he started to playing the drums, the meter still didn't move. So to me these
meters aren't always the best thing,
And like my husband says, the ears is one of the best things is how -- if! can't enjoy my peace and
quiet then, you know, that's where that we need to put those things back in there,
And also, this noise is also I think damaging to the wildlife. Because when we have a lot ofloud
noise, the wildlife leaves. They go off to another area. They don't like a lot of noise.
Does anyone have a question that they'd like to ask me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but we're going to do some follow-up with the county staff on your
concerns,
MS. GAY: I think that -- I brought this map. This is Corkscrew, around Corkscrew. And if you all
want, I can get a better one or make you a copy. That I think this area should be made and change the
decibels in as the prestige area.
A long time ago I had a problem with some roosters and geese and guineas and all next door. And I
called the Sheriffs Office, and Solomon from Immokalee, he came out. And we sat down by my pond and
he said, you know, Mary Jane, he said, this is the most prestige area we have in Collier County. He said, it
needs to be preserved,
And he went over there that next day and made those people do a lot about with the roosters and
things.
But I think in our area here that we need to change and lower, because we have a lot of tourists
coming. You don't want to hear -- if you're coming -- like if you're going somewhere to enjoy the birds and
peace and quiet, you don't want to hear a bunch of motors running and a bunch ofloud music and all this
stuff. You want to enjoy the birds and things.
And I appreciate you all letting me talk, and I think I covered all that I have. But it's inhumane at
75. My husband said it's inhumane listening to 75. I know, I was at my friend's house for like a half an hour,
and we listened a half an hour at 65, and it was very nerve-wracking. It just like, you know, it just unravels
your nerves.
I don't know where you all have ever had to listen to the noise for hours, but it can be very, very
detrimental to your health.
And another thing, we sometimes have problems. As I said, we got a lot of good deputies out there,
but sometimes we have problems with them enforcing the laws. And sometimes when I read them the law,
they kind of get upset with me.
For instance, I had one -- and then I'll quit. I had one, the people across the road from me, my house
sits on 10 acres, I sit back 330 feet off the road, I shouldn't have to listen to other people's noises. But this
man was playing his loud music, and I could hear it over there in my breezeway. I called the Sheriffs
Office.
The man came out, he wouldn't go in there. Finally I went out to the road and I said, hey, here's this
2007-61.
Page 46
-~~~~'____'__'~"" ".___'_"__.~.m._
16 I 1 ( Aoc~efh, 2008
Oh, I know the law, he says.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to criticize him, but he's, oh, I know the law.
And I said, well, then go in there and shut him down.
Well, I don't hear it, it's not very loud,
I said, please, come up to my house.
Finally he did go in and shut him down.
I appreciate you guys, you're doing a great job and thank you so very much and have a great day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am, And we're going to follow up right now with Jeff
before we go to our next public speaker.
And Jeff, what I'd like to do -- she brought up many good points. I certainly understand what she's
saying, I live in the same area, general area, and at night when I first moved there you could sleep at night
with your windows open and not have to have your air conditioning on. In fact, I didn't have air
conditioning.
Now you've got to have air conditioning and all your windows closed, because the night sound
travels so much in our rural area. That happens, a lot of it, because of the agricultural nature of the area.
And I certainly would like to see a lowering of the decimal points for residential uses in ago that are
adjacent to ago that is nonresidential. And I think the example is the pumps, as her first concern.
Most of the Estates or areas like that are either zoned ag, or rural estates, which is considered ag, in
a lot of ways. And when you're right next door to an agricultural operation, if the decibel level is allowed to
be 75, that is way too high. That's not compatible to the residential levels in other parts of the county.
Is there a way to get it there?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, it kind of depends, Because they might have a vested right to that use, to that
noise that goes with the use. And they also might have an exemption under the Right to Farm Act, which is
something that kind of bumps out of the way from a regulatory standpoint.
But I think that if we were to isolate a specific geographic area, we could probably analyze whether
or not we could lower those limits, Some of the sound emitters might have defenses to any new regulation
is what I wanted to highlight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good thing to look at and come back to us with a
recommendation on.
MR. WRlGHT: So should I say that Corkscrew Island Sanctuary?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Gay, if you could at some point get your information to Jeff and we
could look at the zoning application that is in and see where it falls in the county. And maybe it's broader
than just her area because of its zoning there, and maybe it does fall in other areas,
There's other areas out there that are split up like hers in the larger tracts outside of the Estates that
may be applicable to that. It's something I certainly believe is warranted to look at.
Her other issue on A TV's, I believe this new language kind of addresses that. I know that
Commissioner Coletta was insistent on seeing that A TV's get addressed,
MR, WRlGHT: I'm sorry?
MS. GAY: I had a problem next door. It wasn't an ATV. I don't know what it was. It was
something homemade. But she'd go voom, voom, voom, for hours, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me just take the items you've brought up one at a time.
MS. GAY: Could I say one thing about -- nothing against the farming, but if you read the Florida
Statutes, it's an old one, 82-24, it says in there that the farmer's operation will regard to noises, odor, dust or
fumes. And that means that they cannot do these things to disturb the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think when -- if you need to get Jeffs number so that when he
does the research in response to your concerns he can come back with as much knowledge as possible to
Page 47
16 I 1 ( Aoc~46, 2008
address what needs to be addressed,
MS. GAY: We've been talking some, He's a good guy, yeah,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, you had something positive today,
MR, SCHMITT: You don't know him very well.
MS. GAY: Oh, I don't know him very well?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you don't know him very well. That's what your boss just said.
Okay, the other issue on A TV's, I know Commissioner Coletta has been very concerned about that.
It's been an issue out in District 5. In reading this, I belicve you've expanded on the ability to crack down on
A TV noise. Is that what this intention was based on in this ordinance?
MR, WRIGHT: That was our intention, yes.
And talking to the Sheriff -- I'm not sure if the Commander needs to get up here again. But they
seem comfortable with their ability to do more, and namely their ability to issue a citation, rather than
having to do the misdemeanor criminal route, which is a lot more labor intensive for them. So that's a plus
for the A TV noise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So Ms. Gay, thank you, When this comes --
MS, GAY: Sir, can I ask one more question? Who issues these permits for these people to have
parties with loud bands and amplified bands?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a residential area, I doubt if they even apply, if there is a permit. It's not
a special event. They just have it as a use on their property.
I'm not sure they have a right to be as noisy as they're being, and that's probably why this law can
come into effect and hopefully stop that.
MS, GAY: Appreciate it. You guys are doing -- everybody's doing a great job.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
MR. SCHMITT: Bruce Burkhard, followed by Doug Lewis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Doug our last speaker?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, for this item.
MR, BURKHARD: Good morning, gentlemen, and ladies,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got two now.
MR, BURKHARD: My name is Bruce Burkhard and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association.
And what I'd like to do is just put on the record a little bit of anecdotal evidence about the noise
problems that we have in our residential area,
We're in an area that's kind ofunique.lt's a combination of single-family dwellings, condominiums,
zoned for RT, as well as individual homes.
We have a problem with LaPlaya, and specifically with their party room, which is on the lagoon
side of Gulfshore Drive. The problem primarily comes about during the cooler weather months when they
have the doors open, and typically it will happen on weekends when they have wedding parties.
And as the lady previously was talking about, as the evening goes on and the people get drunker,
the noise gets louder.
We also have amplified noise very offen from either music or DJ.'s,
The noise carries extremely well over the water. In fact, it's probably even amplified as it crosses
the water, And I think this problem needs to be addressed.
One of our residents in particular has a problem. He's immediately across the water from the party
room, And he has two little children, and they're very often subjected to foul language carrying across the
water from people standing out on the verandas as they've been drinking.
It's a serious problem. The noise even carries down to my house very often in the winter months,
Page 48
16 I 1 ~(;.1o);16, 2008
and I'm probably a quarter of a mile to half a mile away. So it's not just the people immediately across from
this party room, but people all along that waterway.
So I think the noise ordinance needs to be tightened up. The lower you get the decibel count, I think
the better for all of us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Jeff, I need to ask you a couple comments about that, if you don't mind,
The -- Mr. Schiffer brought up a point earlier, and it was well made, that there's a distance -- there's
an issue when sound travels across the water.
Is there any way that in instances where there's water adjoining a commercial or nomesidential
facility -- I shouldn't say nomesidential, because under this code a hotel is considered residential -- but of a
meeting facility or such that Mr. Burkhard is talking about where the measurement can be made at the
property line where it borders the water instead of across the water?
And the reason I'm concerned is because by the time that sound travels across the water, it is still
loud to the people who have to live across from it, but it may not be at the decibel level that we're talking
here.
But it would only -- and generally if you didn't have the water, it may not carry so far at a higher
level than it would if it had a buffer like a tree, landscape, or wall or something like that.
MR, WRIGHT: I'm going to call Lisa up here just because it sounds like it has a technical ring to
the question,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,
MR, SCRIBNER: For the record, David Scribner.
I just wanted to inteIject something.
I'm familiar with the LaPlaya issue and the very problems that it presents. And there's no -- as I
recall, the deck is on a second story. And I don't believe there's much room between the edge of the building
and the water, if there's any water -- any area there,
So taking an adequate noise reading, even on that property, wouldn't give you a true sound reading,
It's probably -- in all reality, it's probably better across the bay, because I'd be under the deck taking a
reading on that particular subject.
Now, ifit was on the ground level, we certainly could probably do that. And we have tried working
with LaPlaya, They have been less than what I would say cooperative in trying to resolve that.
But we have taken numerous noise readings across the bay from that property. And yes, I know the
voices are annoying, but they haven't risen to the level of a violation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything in the new ordinance that can be modified or suggested
that would help with this situation? Because the fact that some of the residents had to go to the effort to file
a lawsuit for this kind of noise, I mean, they shouldn't even have had to get to that point.
I'm just wondering amongst the three of you, and you all specialize in this kind ofthing, is there
something that can be changed on this ordinance that helps those kind of situations more directly?
MR. WRIGHT: I'd like to know the lay of the land where the water body -- is there property lying
in between the water body and the sound-affected site?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In fact, I'm familiar with it. What you have is the LaPlaya going up to
the edge of the seawall. Then outside the seawall you have a submerged land lease where they now have
docks. You have a body of water that -- I don't know how many hundreds of feet wide it is before you get to
properties that have cul-de-sacs that butt lots right up on seawalls adjacent to the body of water.
So you've got commercial, a body of water and then residential. And the body of water varies in
width, And the intensity over that water I think is an absolute concern. It's justified, so --
MR. WRIGHT: I think it's something that we could come up with, but I want to make sure I
Page 49
16 11 (~)btf16'2008
understand the technical side of things,
MS, SCHOTT: Well, it is true that noise traveling across water travels much more efficiently, can
be reflected off the water and possibly even louder than it would have been without the water there, That is
a fact.
We can certainly set different levels for that situation. I have never seen that in another noise
ordinance before, but it certainly could be done.
You'd have to defme how much water, you know, would cause this new lower limit to apply, We'd
have to hammer out all the technical details, but it could be done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't wind also carry sound?
MS, SCHOTT: Yes, various environmental effects, including wind, can affect the sound, And in
fact it can change from day to day, If you have a house that's a half mile from a noise source, you may hear
it more clearly on some days than others. And that's ground effects, water, wind, temperatures, temperature
inversions, humidity, lots of different factors,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one of the things we're doing here, we're adding the decibel C
rating, Do you think that might clear up some ofthese problems? This is new to thc code, Do you think that
will help, or what kind of --
MS. SCHOTT: The C-weighting is new, but it is a replacement for the old octave band sound
pressure limits, And they both accomplish -- they're both intended in this ordinance to accomplish the same
thing, which is to regulate the amount oflow frequency noise,
So that would address bass noise from bands or D.J.'s at events,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff?
MR, KLATZKOW: We're measuring the decibel level from the standpoint of the person who's
complaining, all right? It either exceeds the decibel level or it doesn't. The fact that there might be a lake
there or a field there or trees there or whatever, I don't think it makes any difference. They're either above
the decibel level, in which case it's a violation, or they're not, in which case it's not.
You're not going to get peace and quiet. This is an urbanized area. I don't know how else to say
this, I know people want to be able to sleep with their windows open and everything else, but as you get
more and more people here, you're going to get more and more noise. That's just how it is,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think as far as the wind issue is concerned, isn't that part of
what our correction is for, the correction you have on Page 13'1
MS, SCHOTT: The background correction? No, not directly, But I agree with what was stated.
You know, we've set limits, And if -- the limit at the property boundary, it really shouldn't matter what the
conditions are off of that property.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, apparently that's not the way it's been measured, because code
enforcement just got up and told us that they couldn't get a reading because they were trying to do it from
the LaPlaya property,
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He said potential.
COMMISSIONER CARON: He said he'd be under--
MR, SCRIBNER: No, let me clarity. I was saying that it had been offered that maybe we could
take the noise reading from that property. We have not taken any readings from that property, We've taken
it from the noise-affected site.
And we are constrained by winds. If it's too windy, we're not allowed to take that reading; we won't
get an accurate reading, 1 think it's I I miles an hour. We actually measure the wind prior to taking readings,
Page 50
16 11 l PI )t~er 16, 2008
and we document that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, while you're there, what readings did you get on the closest
property, or especially the one that was having trouble with the --
MR, SCRIBNER: I don't recall. But I do know that we've been out there several times, I've been
out there myself taking readings, and this is probably more than a year or two ago, and they were well under
-- they were still under the limit.
Although you can hear the voices, And there's no question, we had people coming out onto the
deck, there was some sort of a function going on. And it wasn't amplified music, it was voices that were
traveling right across that bay, and it was like you were standing not too far away from them,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you couldn't give us the number? Do you remember?
MR. SCRIBNER: I couldn't give you the number right now, but it was under the limit. And we
were out there at about --I think it was about 8:00 at night on a SUll1iller night, so it would have been the
daytime limit of 60. It was somewhere undcr 60 decibels.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because Mark, here's the problem. If we knew like, for example,
at Pebblebrooke if somebody was filming it and testing it, we would know -- have a reference as to what
that sound level was.
In this case if we knew what these sound levels are -- because other than that, I just can't judge what
a decibel rating means.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what's interesting, we've heard someone from the urban
area describing a problem with sound travel that is identical to the sound, the problem that we heard of
someone from the agricultural rural area with the same kind of problem.
And I'm wondering if we're trying to blend too much into one -- into a limited number of categories
that don't fit every circumstance. And I know we can't fit every circumstance, but it seems like we may have
a lot more of this other circumstance that we didn't specifically address, and that is sound in areas that are --
where it travels more readily, where it's more open, where there's more, I don't know, issues that make
sound seem louder.
And I'm wondering if there's -- Lisa, from your experience have communities ever looked at these,
and I -- pristine areas, let's say, for sound where this changes occur, where we've now got urbanization but it
still travels like it was in a serene peaceful area?
MS, SCHOTT: Well, typically what I've seen in every other noise ordinance is that the residential
limit is the most stringent limit. I haven't seen any that carve out another area that would be quieter than
that.
I think you have to keep in mind what is the goal of the sound level limits in this ordinance,
If you were to lower the limits to levels where sound couldn't be heard outdoors, you would
essentially eliminate all business and all residential mechanical equipment from your county.
I mean, noise ordinances are not -- the levels that are set are not intended to create an environment
of complete quiet. And people have different levels of sensitivity to noise,
The levels that you have in your ordinance are reasonable. And as I mentioned before, they're
generally accepted, I see these levels all over the United States,
To go lower would create a tremendous amount of unintended consequences by requiring
established businesses that have been designed to meet these levels to now implement additional controls,
And it would probably eliminate a lot of businesses from being able to move into this area, because they
simply couldn't comply, it would be cost prohibitive.
So I think the point of this is you have to keep your goal in mind. Are we trying to set levels so that
it's as quiet as a forest or to set reasonable levels in a community for the majority of people to be able to
Page 51
16 11(1t ~~rI6'2oo8
enjoy peaceful enjoyment of their property,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Lisa, there's something else. We're trying to homogenize all the
particular noises for a particular use, like residential.
Mr. Murray, I see your finger.
What I'm more concerned about is if we take the residential uses that are affected by differences in
location and then change the levels there within, for example, across water or in areas that are not as
densely inlmbited as our urban area, is there a way to look at it as a sub-category to the residential that's here
for more definition for the residential circUll1stances?
MS. SCHOTT: Well, as I mentioned before, you could -- technically you could do that, but I
question why from a policy standpoint you would want to do that. Because ifI'm at a residence that is
across water from a noise source, my limit is still 55 decibels at night and 60 in the day.
Why should my limit be lower than the person who is across a preserve from a noise source, for
example, If everyone is being treated equally, if the levels are kept the same, and if we keep the levels the
same, that may mean that the noise source that is across the water has to be quieter than the noise source
that is on the other side of a forest. But the receiving level being the same I think is more fair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, you have a violating source. It was built -- whatever it
may be, it was built in 1960, Got a house that was built across the water in 1959, You got another house that
was built in 1961. Complaints come in from both of those sources.
The one you can't acknowledge because it says you were there first. And the other one says wait a
minute, I was here first, you should shut the noise. I submit that there are some problems that border on, if
not in fact happen, are unsolvable in terms of the social contract between human beings,
And I think the more stringent we make this, the more likely it is that the statute or the ordinance
would be stricken for being prohibitive for human behaviors, So I hope that we use good prudence on this
one, that's my statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 25 when we were talking about exemptions, and under N it
said the reasonable use of the unamplified hUll1an voice, So if we're talking about this instance here, for
example, of the LaPlaya, and there are people out on that deck and they are hollering and laughing and
screeching and swearing and whatever else, you know, is happcning around midnight. Would that now be
an unreasonable use and would the Sherifl's Office be able to do something about that?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, it ends up being a factual question, And really, it comes down to whether or
not you could with a straight face say to a judge this is an unreasonable use.
Because, for example, a barbecue on a Saturday afternoon with voices being the sound, that's no
problem, But a barbecue at 3:00 in the morning would be an unrea~onable application of the unamplified
human voice,
So it all comes down to will the tribunal buy the argument that this is unreasonable. And it should
be an objective standard based on the average ordinary person is this unreasonable. And having a barbecue,
probably not. Hanging out at the LaPlaya clubhouse, probably not.
Now, if it's one lone person at 3:00 in the morning or a group of people at 3:00 in the morning, it
probably gets closer to being unreasonable. And the more unreasonable it is, the easier it is to prosecute
under this ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a way to look at sound that impacts residential because of its travel
characteristics in the area in which it is? And I'm talking specifically Ms, Gay's issue, for example.
The travel characteristics of a party a mile or two away is what affects her. And that same travel
characteristics wouldn't necessarily apply in a densely packed urban area or something likc that or on a
Page 52
16 11 (It )c~er 16, 2008
different time of day,
Just like the travel characteristics of the sound across the water at Vanderbilt will have more of an
impact to the homes directly across the water than if it was confined in a commercial center somewhere else
of a different nature.
Is there any way to look at it through that angle?
MS. SCHOTT: I hear what you're saying and I understand your thinking on this. But my thought is,
yes, the sound might be louder at the homes directly across the water, but is it within the acceptable limits?
You know, I guess I'm struggling with the concept of if we give any -- if we establish lower limits
for a situation where the travel path -- it's just not logical to me. Because what we should be interested in is
what is the final resulting sound level that is occurring on that residential property, Regardless of how it gets
there, over water, through a forest, there might be a temperature inversion on one day that actually can
create higher sound levels at a greater distance.
You can't regulate all those different types of paths, I probably couldn't even identity all them for
you. If I identified them, there would be another that would occur in some specific situation.
I think what we need to be concerned about is the resulting sound level at the residence, and is that
an acceptable level, regardless of how the noise gets there,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the choice keeps going back to if we want to do something of a nature
that changes this, it's a matter of affecting those sound level limits that you've established.
MS. SCHOTT: I think so, yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to get this issue completed by lunch, so let's hear -- we have one
more public speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes,
MR. SCHMITT: Doug Lewis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Doug, thank you for your assistance with staff to get the
ordinance to what it is today. Because we've got a much better job so far than we've had in the past. And it's
getting there.
And that's also for Jeff and David and everybody else on the staff who helped to get us here today,
It's a much better product so far.
MR. LEWIS: Thanks to staff as well, they've done a great job,
Good morning, Commissioners, My name is Doug Lewis, And for the record, I'm an attorney with
the law firm ofRoetzel and Andress. I'm a registered lobbyist.
I hadn't planned to comment today. We do represent Barron Collier and do work for LaPlaya, I
hadn't planned on commenting on behalf of that client today.
I will say for the record I'm happy to visit with staff and talk to Jeff in particular about any concerns
or comments,
I think it's important to think about, you know, this concept that we really kind of need to grapple
with, that when you put commercial and residential together in close proximity these are the kinds of things
that happen, I just think it's important to understand that.lt is zoned RT, and these are the kinds of noises
that occur.
Now, with that, there maybe some things we can look at. I just think it's important to bear in mind
there is ongoing litigation between the parties, and ultimately that will work itself through. To my
knowledge, and you may correct me ifI'm wrong, code enforcement, I'm not aware of any violations that
have occurred.
You're talking about an establishment that's been constructed and built, And it's insightful to think
about at what point do we impose these restrictions, how do we address these anticipated issues before they
become an issue,
Page 53
16 I 1 (If) f
October 16, 2008
So those are some things to think about. Again, I'm happy to work with staff to address any
comments.
I am here today representing the Lutgert Companies with respect to Mercato, and I'm here with
Robert Lilkendey with Siebein Associates. Siebein is an acoustical firm, it's established back in 1981, and
they have their primary office in Gainesville, I'm happy to have his input on any questions you may have.
They're very difficult issues that you're dealing with, and there are a lot of nuances, as we've seen,
And I would like to commend staff for their efforts. They've involved the stakeholders, they've listened,
And I think as a result we're going to have I think a better ordinance that again addresses these competing
interests of all of the members of the community,
Specifically I wanted to comment on the issue ofthe Mercato concept. It's a mixed use, And I do
concur, there was some discussion earlier on about out-parcels, these commercial out-parcels that you see at
a place like Pebblebrooke where you have platted lands,
And I'm not real, real familiar with the details at Pebblebrooke, but I am familiar with these
concepts of these commercial out-parcels, Then you have maybe a residential tract and there's some
buffering between the two,
I think it's very important to draw a distinction between that type of a development, and I think you
can clearly see that there is a distinction between that and the mixed use where you actually have within that
zoning designation, you have residential on top of commercial.
And that's really what we're getting at with respect to Mercato, Very, very distinct from having a
zoned commercial tract and a separate residential tract behind it where you have Pebblebrooke.
And I do agree with the concerns that have been expressed here in that regard, and they are very
real issues, but I think what we're saying here in essence is that this new ordinance acknowledges that we
don't have a one size fits all approach to sound, We acknowledge that in places like mixed use communities
where we encourage commercial to be -- residential to coexist and residential on top of commercial that
there's an expectation that there's going to be other public policy considerations like traffic and other great
things that we have in these environments, but that there will be higher sound level limits.
As such, mixed use and town center communities should be treated differently, and they are, and
we appreciate that acknowledgment, to enable them to function as they were intended to function, to
comply with the noise ordinance, which is what they want to do and to have greater certainty in their
development. And I think that these enl1ancements certainly accomplish that.
You know, outdoor activity and lifestyle, as members of the Planning Commission have said, is
why many residents say why we come to Naples. It's a great thing that we offer down here with the weather
that we have. And encouraging these types of activities in the right locations serves a very significant and
important public purpose,
With respect to the alternative F section -- and I would want to commend the staff for their insight
on this. And we've put a lot of thought, there's been a lot of vetting on this.
And staffhas indicated that in essence that this alternative where we would -- where it would read
that permits will be granted unless prior adjudication of violation of certain ordinances (phonetic) has
occurred. If things are working, there aren't problems, that you would get your permit.
That under this alternative, compliance with the sounds level limits would be required, and
violations ofthe ordinance would result in the repeal of that permit.
Staff has said that this process would be simpler, it would be less resource intensive for the county
staff, and it would be less burdensome on business. And I would concur with that. I think there's some real
wisdom and insight.
And I think in addition this concept of a one-time permit I think is very wise. Because again, for
those same purposes of again reducing cost to the taxpayers in the county, the businesses, reducing demand
Page 54
16 I 1 Cfr ) ~ctober 16, 2008
on county staff, So I think those are things that our client would support and appreciate staffs effort there.
Finally, I did want to comment just very briefly and highlight what the County Attorney's Office
indicated, which I agree, I have some real concerns, And your County Attorney's Office has indicated that
in the context of commercial speech that when we have these overly broad, very hard and fast 500 feet
you've got to shut down the amplified sound at 9:00,501 feet, you're able to have that amplified sound to
I I :00, that those are some real concerns that they've expressed in that.
I just want to remind the commission I would concur with that. I think that certainly when you--
when we've had multiple discussions at the stafflevel about this, how did these distance requirements get
there, why are we saying that at 500 feet -- is there some measurable drop-oft' on dBA's between 500 and
501?
You can envision a development where you have the development projected into the commercial,
the commercial area and the residential behind it and you could be operating well below the dBA, dBC and
still be required to shut down at 9:00 or 11 :00. Certainly Mercato would be impacted,
I think what we were trying to say with staff in that context was look, if you're in a mixed use
community, we don't think that a permit would be required in that context. r would agree with that. You're
in that community. Certainly with respect to Mercato, we know there are residences within that 2,500 feet
and we would have to get a permit as it relates to ensure that those residences that are outside the mixed use
are protected. And our client's comfortable with that, it's reasonable and it makes sense,
With that, I think those are primarily our comments, and we do appreciate the amount of time,
There's a lot of time that has been put into improving. r don't think we're there just yet, but I do appreciate
the efforts,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Doug, Again, thanks for your participation,
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doug, quick question. Within Mercato, ifthere's a noise issue
between in this case tenants or owners, that would be resolved solely within the govemment of Mercato,
correct?
rfthey appealed that, where would they go? Would they go directly in the court? They wouldn't
come into the county, would they?
MR, LEWIS: Well, first of all, that's not totally correct. Ijust want to make sure we're clear.
We have in essence a recognition that we are going to have sound level limits within a mixed use,
it's not a free-for-all. What we recognize is those sound level limits need to be a little higher. And we want
that. It's important for the developer to make sure that the residents are happy. It's a very fine line that they
walk between the commercial and the residents.
What we've done is we've said the point of measurement will be within the enclosed unit. So when
you live in that area, and if you're in an upstairs condo and you're across the street from a -- we're not going
to measure it from your balcony outside, we're going to have you close the doors, close the windows and
then we're going to do a test. And if it's above the dBA, dBC, then you've got a violation and they would be
cited. And they should be cited,
So hopefully that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is if they don't come to agreement, and I guess they
get into a litigation, they go directly in the court, they don't come into the Collier County system?
MR, LEWIS: My answer to you was rather they get cited because they violated the county noise
ordinance, and you take it from there. You can -- if a permit was required, you could pull the permit.
There's fines,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm within Mercato, I live across the street from a restaurant let's
say that's under the theatre, That restaurant's making noise. I complain. We have all the associations that I
Page 55
16 I 1 (A- ) if October 16, 2008
complain with, You may be in my unit testing. And I guess we use -- is it the same decibel rating that the
Collier code is?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he's talking about deed restrictions that you might have within your
unit, buyers -- or disclosures you may have made upon sales, Certainly your company would have wanted
to deed restrict properties or put covenants in place to protect themselves and their tenant downstairs from
the tenants upstairs. So I think maybe that'd be part of what --
MR. LEWIS: Sure, sure. There are clearly notices that are in the prospectus, and you're moving
into a mixed use community.
But to your point, in your ordinance, in your ordinance, in the mixed use environment they have to
comply with the sound level limits that are set forth for the mixed use, And they're all enumerated. And
Donna's got them there.
And essentially what you're doing is the distinction is you're saying we're not going to measure in
the mixed use from the property boundary. We're going to measure, like we do condos, from inside the
enclosed unit, and we're going to recognize that the dBA's, the dBC's are going to be a little higher. It's not
going to be out in the rural area where you can hear birds and things are really quiet, you don't hear a lot of
that noise,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kind of what I was getting at. If they can't resolve this in-house
within the Mercato governing system, do they go into the Collier system or do they go to court? Would they
__ I mean, if I'm the guy across the street and I'm not happy with the outcome of all this stuff and I believe
that -- you know, maybe it doesn't matter. I mean --
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'd like to clarify, if] could, In the Mercato or mixed use setting, the
proverbial mixed use setting, somebody is playing the music too loud downstairs, so they call code
enforcement. They shut all the doors and windows and measure. And let's say there is a violation. There's a
remedy in this ordinance for that. There's specific levels that cannot be exceeded,
So that's one route and would end up in a code enforcement proceeding, which has its own
provisions for appeals.
There might be other remedies inside Mercato by virtue of the private restrictions, But this
ordinance does provide a remedy for that situation, even if it is all in-house,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had the impression that mixed use was exempt from the
ordinance, but I guess not?
MR. WRIGHT: No, it's pulled out and there's a specific paragraph with levels for mixed use,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Doug.
Members of the commission, we normally break at I I :45, I would like to finish this before we
break for lunch, So if you don't mind?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. I wanted to clarity, because I thought we hadn't yet
concluded on the alternative section F. I thought you made the comment that there was consensus for that.
And I may have misheard you.
I would like this board to understand or to let me know at least whether there is consensus for
alternative F, versus the other strictures, so that we have the proper marching orders for Jeff for what we're
going to go forward with,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We asked that question earlier, and I thought the affirmation was that
alternative F was the way to go. Does anybody disagree with that?
(No response,)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, I didn't hear that. I apologize. Thank you,
Page 56
16 , 1 ( It )~ober 16,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the only caveat to alternative F is Table l. And there was going to be
a final discussion on whether or not there's a suggestion to lower the decibel limits or raise them or do
whatever we want to do on Table l.
So far I think the changes to Table I would center around the circumstances ofthat special zoning
area such as what Mrs. Gay lives in. And you're going to look into that and possibly come back with
another possible zoning use or category to add to that table, to effect basically residential adjacent to
agricultural.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One final nI'm sorry,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the discussions we had with Mr. Burkhard and everybody else,
we now need to decide if we want to adjust Table I at all or have any discussions in that regard,
Mr. Murray, you had something else?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I had one final question on that. For Ms. Gay, who lives I
think n that's right, yes, who lives out in the boondocks, is it -- it's not required that when the meter reading
is taken that she enclose her --
MR. WRIGHT: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, It's clear that that's a differentiation there,
MR, WRIGHT: You would measure from at or within n
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because they're taking the -- it's different in the urban area versus
the suburban or the rural area.
But that's the only distinction, I agree with the Chairman that we don't have adequate -- we really
do probably need to make a diffcrentiation somewhere, but we do not have that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, what was the basis ofthe determination of the values for the
decibel A and C? Is that based on the survey of various others counties, or how did you arrive at those
quantitative values?
MS, SCHOTT: Well, two things. These are the levels that you have had at least since 1990, perhaps
before that, but we started from the 1990 ordinance. So these are the same levels that were in there on the
dBA scale,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There was no other type of analysis or comparison to see if n
MS, SCHOTT: Yes, I did benchmarking of noise ordinances from many communities across
Florida, as well as across the United States. And these are very typical levels.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you,
MS. SCHOTT: The C-weighted values were calculated from your old octave band sound pressure
level limits, so meaning that they are equivalent in terms of loudness.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But there was no other testing to determine the subjective
impression ofthese noise levels?
MS. SCHOTT: Well, I'm very familiar with what these noise levels sound like, so I was -- to me it's
not a subjective assessment of whether these are the appropriate levels.
But the answer to your question is it's the levels you've always had and also benchmarking of other
ordinances.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But lor us to make a determination, would it be helpful to have us
have that same exposure that you have to a degree?
MS, SCHOTT: Right, that came up before. As I said, we can do that, if you're interested in doing
that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't know, Mark, if you have any feeling on that or not, whether
that would be of value or not.
Page 57
16 , 1 ( .4-) t October ]6, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about doing a live example. And I think if we were to, first
of all consider that, we should only do it with the consensus from the BCC that they wanted us to go into
that extent.
And the reason I'm pointing that out is because it may be something they would want to do since
they're the final deciding body. And that would be a costly and time consuming affair for the county and the
consultants involved. So I'm not sure if it's as effective for us as it would be for them,
So that's kind of where I'm at with it.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We'll, I'd have to be honest and say that I have no way of judging
these values whether they're right or wrong from what we've heard so far.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure by putting a speaker on the front of the podium in a room like
this will give us the eftect that you're looking for in regards to trying to understand what Ms, Gay's going
through and what Bruce Burkhard's area is going through.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know what I think might be good is ifMr. Scribner has data
on -- I guess he's been out to Pebblebrooke, he's out to Connor's area, he's been out there. I'd be curious to
see what numbers he's coming up. Because obviously one thing wc know, he's coming up with numbers
less than this ordinance. So essentially using the decibel procedure isn't working,
The only other procedure we really have is that Section 12 which is, you know, measurement
without a thing. So maybe we should be focusing on that.
But could you do that, Mr. Scribner? I mean, could you show us the kind of readings you get at
these trouble locations?
MR. SCRIBNER: We can certainly pull those records and find out what the readings were.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because like, for example, if you're getting a 59 and 60's, that's
one thing, If you're getting a 39, then obviously the decibels is not going to be the way to go,
MR, SCRIBNER: It certainly wasn't 39, I can tell you that I've taken measurements out in the
Estates on a quiet evening with no noise source and they're 60 decibels, just from the crickets and whatnot
that are going on out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think your expert here could probably confirm this, But if you drop these
decibel levels, you're going to be putting a lot of people out of compliance the second that ordinance gets
signed,
MS. SCHOTT: Yes, I'd agree with that. These are relatively quiet levels. Again, I go back to, you
know, it's not going to -- they're not as quiet as a forest, and people will hear things on their properties, so
that's -- but I don't think that's the goal is to make it as quiet as a forest.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Again, I brought this out initially. If we could just -- and it's not
necessarily for the people that -- like policemen or whatever, but if we could get like -- what is the level in a
typical area of a car horn blowing or of a medium sized dog barking, so we can get a -- it's to the offenders.
Let's say I have a party and I don't think it's too loud because I've had five or six beers or
something, which I don't do, but ifthey -- well, you're louder than the car honking outside to your neighbor.
Okay, I get it now, okay, I'm loud, tum it down,
It's just we're having a hard time relating to what 60 dB's is. Is that a car horn blowing?
MS, SCHOTT: Yeah, I understand. I wish I had my noise thermometer here to show you more than
one level.
But I can tell you that if I was sitting across the table from you, let's say in a conference room
without amplification, the sound of my voice would be between -- it's typically between 60 and 70 decibels
Page 58
16 11 (it )C~ber 16,2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Really?
MS. SCHOTT: At that close distance, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would have never thought that.
MS. SCHOTT: Ifwe all are all quiet for a moment in this room, you can hear the air conditioner,
you can hear some things down the hall, The level here is probably between 45 and 52.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No kidding. Well, see, I never would have thought. I would have
thought it was 20 to 30. Okay, there you go. That helps,
MS, SCHOTT: The quietest sound I think I've ever measured was actually out in a forest, and it
was -- there were no insects that day and maybe a little bit of wind blowing. It was in the high 20's.
So some people think zero is the threshold of hearing. Zero doesn't exist in nature. Like I said, the
very quietest forest may be in the 20's. I've been inside a very quiet residence before that was in the 20's, but
that's without the air conditioners running, no lights on, because lights buzz and make noise as well.
Nothing going on in that home,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: If those dB levels are so good, and as Mr. Klatzkow says, if we tried
to lower them we will suddenly throw everything into a panic here in Naples, then where is it we go from
here?
Is it just that people aren't enforcing these levels? We have problems, we have Pebblebrooke, we
have lawsuits, we have this poor woman calling code enforcement every Saturday night, whatever it is.
If the Sheriff can't take this new ordinance and if our code enforcement people can't take this new
ordinance and effect change, then we're just spinning our wheels here.
So I just want to make sure that we're actually going to effect change. Are the people at Imperial
Golf Estates whose homes back up to the restaurant and bar, are the people's homes who back up to Pelican
Larry's on Immokalee, are they going to be helped by this ordinance? Or are we just saying I'm sorry,
everybody meets the 60 dBU (sic).
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, that question I think had been asked, too, And I think your
points are right. Part of it is a zoning matter, I think what Mr. Klatzkow said. And that becomes an issue,
And maybe that's how part of this is going to have be figured out.
MR, KLA TZKOW: The other thing is you have nuisance issues here. And we are suing
Pebblebrooke, and it is based on nuisance, And you know, LaPlaya may be a nuisance. You know, that's
another issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think, Donna, the measurement system hasn't worked or it
would have, So why are we focused on it stilI? Every week we come to the same conclusion, Ifit would
have worked, it would have worked.
But I do think Section 12 is where we have to play, and that's where, for example, the nuisance is,
They mention the concept of an individual with normal sensibilities making judgment. Maybe we should
elect somebody to be that person once a year and -- but the point is, is that I think if we're going to solve the
problems, it's going to be solved in Section 12, it's not going to be solved in getting some electronic device,
because it would have worked before,
Oh-oh, here comes the person with normal sensibilities.
MR. SCRIBNER: I just want to point out, I made this comment the last time, If you go to -- in
Section 12, number four, and I don't want the board to be -- on Page 34. I don't want the board to be misled
that somehow we're going to apply that to Stevie Tomatoes because it's lawful business or profession.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not saying it's perfect now, but I'm saying let's not focus
Page 59
16 I 1 (A- \:;tber 16, 2008
on the equipment side of it, let's focus on Section 12 and work Section 12 to be what we want.
We're fooling ourselves to think it's going to happen with your device, And the joke is maybe there
is somebody that is the one that makes these judgments, and people can discuss judgments with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For David and Lisa and Jeff, you guys did a great job to get us 50 percent
of the way, whereas before we had fallen flat on every attempt. So honestly, 1 think this document is a lot
further than any of the previous documents.
I think the points that we've made here at this board, the testimony you heard from the public and
the direction you've gotten, and the most recent one by Commissioner Schiffer on Section 12, that may be a
way to look for a solution to some ofthe problems we heard,
That should give you enough to come back in a rewrite tweaked to some of these concerns, And I
know that everything may not be accomplished, but let's try to accomplish SO percent and then we're as far
as we can go with this one. And hopefully some other codes will come into play.
I believe that's where we can leave this for today's discussion. Is that consistent with everybody on
this panel?
MS. GAY: Mr. Strain, may I say something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it's short, Ms, Gay. Come on up and use the speaker, We've
only got a brief time here,
MS, GAY: To me and my husband, this is what we've always said, listen to your ears, And if you
had LaPlaya, and these people are complaining, complaining, complaining, there is a problem. Then listen
to them. Don't listen to these machines, I agree with this gentleman.
You don't listen to these machines because they don't always work right. But what I'm just saying,
listen to your ears. If it's too loud for you, you're saying back again, well, it's for the first part of your thing
saying that it's for the health and welfare --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Gay, we understand where you're going, We'll get there, Give us a
chance to get there.
MS, GAY: I know you will. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll do the best we can and hopefully come back with something that
helps. It may not cure but it will help.
MS. GAY: But instead of relying always like she's saying on these decimal (sic) meters, let's listen
to the people's ears of who's complaining.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS, GAY: Thank you. Have a good day,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of people don't have such good hearing, though. And Mr. Murray
sometimes is one of those because he has trouble hearing a lot of things. So anyway -- I don't mean that
bad, I mean he actually has --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't take it bad --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He does have a hearing aid, and that does cause a problem [or the speakers
up here,
So it's all a matter of who's listening to it. And we have to quality and quantity that hearing. And
that's where we're going next.
So with that, I think we've given as much direction as we can on this. We'll come back here in one
hour. We'll resume with the Moraya Bay Club at 1:00.
(Lunch recess.)
MR. SCHMITT: Live mic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back everyone from our lunch break. And we will finally
move on to our regular agenda. Our regular agenda of at least hearings.
Page 60
1 6 I 1 ( A- )ctfber 16, 2008
Item #9 A
PETITION: CU-2006-AR-I 1046, VI LTD, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
First one today is item 9(A), Petition CU-2006-AR- I 1046. It's VI Limited Partnership, also known
as the Moraya Bay Beach Club,
All those wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part ofthe Planning Commission?
We'll start with Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I talked to Richard Bing, Bruce Burkhard, Al O'Brien and
Doug Fee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: (Shakes head negatively,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I've spoken to the petitioner and the petitioner's agents and
various members of their team, I've spoken to community members, Bruce Burkhard in particular.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke to Richard Yovanovich and Bruce Burkhard. Not at the same
time.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Mr. Bing called me. Brief conversation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. WolfJey?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY : Yes, I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich over the phone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I also spoke with Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, this is a continued item from the last time we heard it,
which was I believe a couple of weeks or more ago. We had asked the applicant to do some research, bring
back some more information, which they have provided to us in our packet.
And with that, Mr, Y ovanovich, you can move forward.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Look at my notes. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
We have the same people here at the meeting that we had last time, Mr, Jerry Griffin, who
represents the property owner, Karen Bishop, Anne Miller, Reed Jarvi and Jay Milanfi (phonetic) are here
to answer any questions you -- Jay Westendorf. Milanfi, wrong client. Jay Westendorf with Omega is here
to discuss any questions you may have regarding the civil engineering related to the project.
Where we left off last time, there were some questions regarding parking for the beach club itself.
There was a discussion about employee parking, And T'll address that one first.
The required parking, we have 72 units, the required parking for those units would be 144 spaces
for the units, as well as two additional loading spaces. So the parking related to the residential portion of the
building would be 146 parking spaces,
The approved site development plan has 157 parking spaces on it. We have eight employees, so we
have three extra spaces on-site to address employees related to the beach club.
Page 61
1611(;t).t
October 16, 2008
As we had discussed at the last meeting, there was a concern that the employees might utilize the
county's park and the parking facilities associated with the county's park as part of meeting our necessary
parking,
So from an employee standpoint, we can accommodate the employees on-site through the
additional parking spaces we have on the premises,
Then there was the question of what parking was actually going to be necessary for the members.
Now, the members are the unit owners within the condominium building, and we've agreed to limit the
outside membership to developments that have an existing shuttle stop within it, so people, as you will
recall, we prohibited any members from driving to the club.
So we will no longer need some type of an off-site parking area, because we're going to limit those
memberships to communities that have an existing shuttle stop within that community.
So we don't need to provide any parking related to the members themselves because they're all
coming by shuttle, And as we discussed, there's two shuttles per hour. So coming and going for those two
times, we'll have a total of four trips on the road network to bring people to the beach club.
The next issue, and it's in your packet and l'l1 put it on the visualizer, was -- you all have this, but
for the benefit of the audience. You asked us to prepare an exhibit that shows the -- what l'l1 call the private
portion of the beach versus the public portion of the beach, as we discussed,
Everything seaward of the erosion control line is the public's portion of the beach, and everything
landward of the erosion control line is private property. There was beach renourishment done, so since
public funds were utilized for that beach renourishment you established an erosion controllinc and the
public benefits from any new beach as a result of that renourishment project, and we get to kecp basically
what we had prior to that.
This exhibit is the recreated dune area that we're required to do as part of the project. And -- Karen,
you'll probably have to help me with the line, but --
MS. BISHOP: The dashed line. This line right there,
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have another exhibit in the packet of information that shows the line
better. But on this exhibit where my pen is, there's a dashed line that goes like this. That's the erosion
control line,
So everything from this direction is private. Everything from this direction is public. The mean high
water line is further west.
And so keeping that vision, I will put up an exhibit that shows better the erosion control line. And
on this one it is -- this dotted one? This dashed line right here is the erosion control line, and this is the mean
high water line.
So as you will be able to see, there is still plenty of what I'll call public portion of the beach for the
general public's use of the beach area.
There were some concerns that we were somehow utilizing this petition process to take over the
public's portion of the beach, and we are not doing that. We will be limiting our use to the beach that is the
private property of the condominium building and the club.
The -- another concern was the -- how were we going to address the monitoring of people who are
coming, We will both monitor that through the shuttle driver keeping track, but there's also when you check
in, you have a card swipe, so you swipe that. So we'll be able to know through the card swiping how many
people are there, And we'll be able to monitor when they leave, because they'll swipe on their way out, as
well as the shuttle driver will be able to keep track of who he's bringing and who he's taking away.
So we will be able to monitor the limitation of the 250 outside individuals in that manner.
The -- there was a concern about the county was still listed as an applicant. We had taken care of
that, but the staff report had not. So the staff report has been revised to delete the county as an applicant.
Page 62
16 11 (tr )tctober 16, 2008
There was a request for additional information on how LaPlaya operates, We have provided that
information to the Planning Conunission, The LaPlaya is a private club, People drive to the LaPlaya to go
to that club,
So from a traffic standpoint -- in reviewing the minutes, I think they said they can have between
three and 500 people coming to events. I'm assuming that's related to the private club,
But in any event, people will be coming to that private club and driving their vehicles to get there,
versus in our particular case they won't be allowed to do that. There'll be four, like I said, four total shuttle
trips per hour.
So from a transportation standpoint, we are much less of an impact than the LaPlaya's private beach
club. And I believe the LaPlaya was cited as a positive example of how a beach club operates up in that
area, So we think we're better than that through our operational limitations.
Going through my checklist, make sure I -- the final issue was -- and I hate to say the word noise,
considering what took a while this morning. But we -- I'm going to describe how the current Floridian
Beach Club operates, and then I think we're willing to make sure we come up with the same restrictions.
The current Floridian Beach Club, and we're willing to do this here, is we do not allow boom boxes
or any private radios, You can have an I-Pod with ear phones, you can do that at the Floridian Club, and we
would agree to those limitations here, obviously.
We do have some speakers around the pool where we play music at a lower level, background
music, and we'd like to be able to do that here.
And then they have the occasional event out there where there is actually live entertainment
provided, and we could agree to the number of times and time frame for those as part ofthis.
But this is not ever envisioned to be a noise producer to where it would be, you know, adversely
impact the residents to our south, the residents to our east. And I guess -- let me put the site plan back up,
I can't see anything with the glasses. Where's the -- the beach club is internal to the building, Golly,
this is terrible.
The beach club is internal to the building, as well as the use of this pool area here and the beach
related to it. So where the beach club is, entertainment inside obviously is going to be a non-issue because
it's internal to the building and will not generate any external noise.
Any entertainment that could happen at the pool, people to the east are -- the building's going to
block it and people to the south, buildings are going to block it as well.
But keeping that in mind, we obviously are subject to several regulations, including the noise
ordinance, whatever form it may take. But we also are agreeable to limiting the number of times we can
have outdoor entertainment.
So -- and we'd like to work with the Planning Commission on crafting what would be acceptable,
based upon the discussions we had at the last hearing.
With that, I think I've highlighted where we left off. And I think we've provided all the information
that was requested at our last hearing,
And with that, we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding our request for the
private beach club,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the Planning Conunission?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the monitoring plan, you use the term logging in and logging
out electronically. Will you -- that generates a record, presumably.
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will you be retaining those records?
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Sure. So you can come verity, if you wanted to audit, you'll be able to do
Page 63
16 11 (If ) 1ctober 16,2008
that.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I note here where it says, and maybe this is unnecessary
language, it says the club manager and personnel will ensure ongoing compliance. You said that people
would be required to come in and however they'll do it magnetically, pass card or whatever, and on going
out. Is it such that they have no option but to go through a single doorway, or --
MR, YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's the case for the external members, Obviously the internal
members are already there, live there, yes. So I think we have controlled access don't we, to the club? Yes,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what my question is really trying to understand, is that a
redundancy or a need by the statement the club manager or personnel will ensure. If the electronics
performs and the internals are already there, what will those two entities, those two people --
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's a belt and suspenders approach, if you will. We have three checks.
You've got the shuttle and the driver, you've got the checking in and out through the magnetic card, and
you've also got your management staff who know that there are those limitations. So we were trying to
provide redundancy so people would know we were not exceeding the requirements.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. What it provoked in me was the question
why would you need that redundancy if you're already accomplishing your purpose?
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Well, theoretically you wouldn't, but it's -- again, it's --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, l'1llet it stand, But I think you -- I hope you take my point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any -- Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, a couple of concerns that came up, One is that a lot of
people are going to be using this because it's a beach access, so there could be a lot of congestion of beach
users at this access point.
Are the beach users allowed to go north without any charges? I know the state owns that property.
MR, YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if the state charges you to take a right turn as you get off the
public access that we provided to the county for the general public. I don't know, I've never used it. Does
anybody know if they charge you to use the -- they don't charge you to go use the state --
MR, CONNOLLY: Yes, they do, That's not right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Joe, Ijust said I didn't know the answer. I was told back here. You can
correct it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you get time to speak can you come up to the microphone when we
call you. Other than that, I'm sorry, you can't shout out from the audience.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't change because, let's not forget, the public has the right to use this
beach regardless, whether it's the members, whether this club's approved or not, the people who will be our
members will have the right to come use the public beach whether they can go north for free of charge or
pay a fee or head south, they'll still be coming to the beach,
What we view this is we're actually going to limit the area that they'll be utilizing and freeing up the
public's portion of the beach because we're opening a private property for those members to utilize, versus
public property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I'm asking it is that we're looking at congestion of
beach users. And if that's not the case -- Mr. Chairman, could that person answer that now or do we have to
wait --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather wait until public speakers. Let's finish with the presentations like
we normally do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. Okay, let's discuss the shuttle a little bit. One of the
things we're doing here that's strange to me, and the strangest thing is the lack of data on the shuttle. But
Page 64
16 I 1 (It ) tJ-ctober 16, 200S
we're replacing Land Development Code amendments with a private bus system. So where are the pick-up
points going to be for these shuttles? Describe that a little bit.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The pick-up point is we anticipate that one of the communities that would
be potential mernbers is the Dunes community. The shuttle would go inside ofthe Dunes, pick the people
up within the Dunes, then drop them oft' at tl1e -- and again, when we talked about this last time, it will
either be at the county's roundabout, and if that roundabout is not built, then they'll drive in to the project
itself, drop people off. But that will be the pick-up and drop-off points.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you said that the members of this could be any community
that has parking already, essentially a residential condo is an example of that. So there will be multiple --
but my point is --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we talked about this last time, and let me make it clearer. It's a
Signatures Communities, which would be the Dunes or the Cocohatchee Bay project that is yet to be built.
But those are the anticipated two developments that would receive the shuttle service.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So testimony, nobody outside a Dunes community, or a Signature
community, however --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's -- we're willing to accept that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And are these people, everybody who buys into this community,
are they automatically a member?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that we've gotten to that level of detail yet. I don't know that
we really need to get there at this point.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the potential is that they would be --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The potential. Right, and then there's the cap, don't forget. We can't have
any rnore than 250 people there outside of the residents of this building at anyone time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm having -- you know, the cap, I appreciate that, and it is, I
know, 250 is the members with a guest can't exceed 250, But the uncontrollable thing is that people in the
condo can have unlimited number of guests --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They can do that today --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- just because of their rights today, correct.
So the rnembership is not going to come with the purchase of a unit?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't say that. I said we don't know. We don't know the answer yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's go back to the bus a second, the timing of that, what kind of
a schedule? Is this something that someone will go to the lobby and call the shuttle to come or is there a bus
route or what is happening?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a bus route. And there'll be twice an hour pick-up at the Dunes or
Cocohatchee -- and/or Cocohatchee Bay and twice an hour drop off. And it's going to be as scheduled as
you can, based upon, you know, going to and from the pick-up places.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the bus will operate only the hours the club is open, or didn't
we sayan hour before and --
MR, YOV ANOVICH: We talked, there was going to be an hour before and an hour after.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How are handicapped people going to be accessing the beach
club?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our vehicles will be handicap accessible.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So no handicapped person is going to be driving to the site to park
on-site.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. Remember, we said everybody has to arrive by the shuttle.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On-site you have all ofthe staff. And how did you come up with
Page 65
the staff calculation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what our experience says we're going to need to operate the club. We
have experience with one right now, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then what are you going to do at the shift change.
Because kind of like hospital, restaurants tend to --
MR, YOV ANOVICH: We stagger it now, so we would be able to stagger it so that it's not a total
shift change.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Okay, let me just -- another question. Back to the
mernbership a second. The club's going to obviously have a bar. It's a beautiful bar design. Is it going to
have a liquor license? What kind oflicense is it going to have?
MR, YOV ANOVICH: The license we have will allow us to serve the full range of alcoholic
beverages.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is it going to be a private -- profit or nonprofit will this
beach club be set up?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you know, Jerry? I think the goal is to make money,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I have some questions for staff, but I'm done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This shuttle will operate from 6:00 in the morning till midnight; is
that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our hours for the external -- I guess, yes, 6:00 a,m. and then to -- our hours
of operation are 7:00 a.m. for the -- till basically 7:00 p.m. dusk, dark, for the external portions ofthe club,
and then 7:00 a,m. to 11 :00 p.m. for the internal portions of the club.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the shuttle runs an hour before --
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: An hour before and an hour after.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that will be from 6:00 in the morning till midnight.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, four trips an hour,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. Now you also say that the arrival in private vehicle other
than shuttle is prohibited, Explain to me how you're going to enforce that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they will not be able to -- if we see them doing that, we'll have to deal
with that, and eventually maybe they'll lose their membership as a form of enforcement.
We honestly, through experience now, is why would you drive your vehicle, park at the county's
park and walk here when you can get on the shuttle, come to the club, have fun, get on a shuttle and go
back?
We don't think that it's going to become an issue of people wanting to drive there, because we're
limiting who can be members, and it makes good common sense to take advantage of the free transportation
from your own personal safety standpoint as well. So we don't think it's going to become an enforcement
Issue,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the club membership will be compliant then on enforcing this
or following of this rule; is that right?
MR, YOV ANOVICH: It's like -- yeal1, well, every rule that's out there, we have to rely on people
to be willing to follow the rules,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the presentation?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeal1, I'd like to go back to the number of parking spaces for a
minute,
1 6 lIt It- ) t1- October] 6, 200S
Page 66
16 I 1 (A-- )tfoctober 16, 2008
You said you have currently eight spaces for employees.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have 157 spaces, 146 of them are required. We're going to have we
believe eight employees is what we need, we can go up to II employees and still have sufficient parking.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You believe that eight employees will be inclusive --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be within that number of 157 --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- of the beach club and whatever management staff that you have to
have for the tower, the beach tower itself?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeal1, the condominium itself, remember, the county has decided that the
appropriate number of parking spaces for the residential aspects of this is 144 spaces.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then two loading. So we've satisfied that. Now, the beach club
operations, we're going to need eight employees for the beach club.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then we have II extra spaces, so those are the numbers.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But please answer my question, which was is that inclusive of any
employees you need for the tower as well as for the beach club?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer is yes. The total number of parking --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the condominium association will have to have a director, a
manager, and some maintenance people. Are they included in the eight? I think that's what --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They're not included.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, they're not. But their parking is included in where the county came up
with its requirement of two spaces --
COMMISSIONER CARON: For the 146,
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. I'm sorry, I think I was hearing the question, I just wasn't answering it
the way you --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay,
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I -- let me, before you .- I know you're about to -- we have gone back,
and I'm going to say this, but we're not in yet to get the SDP modified. But we've looked at the SDP and we
can increase that number of parking to 165 spaces.
But I don't have that approved yet, and I didn't want that to be -- I didn't want to throw that number
out there because it's not fact today, Fact today is 157, but we could find eight more spaces, and we'd have
to modify the SDP to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because my point is that the 144 doesn't give you any parking
for your management staff or the guy that's going to run the health club, or the secretary, because you're
promising your residents two parking spaces each. That accounts for the 144 spaces. Those are residential
owner spaces, those are not employee spaces.
So I was just trying to get to how many people are going to be employed here that need to have
parking.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not including the beach club, we expect three or four additional employees
to be there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So three or four of them. And then how rnanY for the beach
club?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was the number eight, eight or nine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Eight for the beach club, eight or nine for the beach club, okay.
Page 67
16 11 ~ It )iClober 16, 200S
Thank you,
Now, the shuttle. We've established now that the only outside members will come from either
Cocohatchee Bay to be developed, now called Moraya Bay, and/or the Dunes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Dunes, correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The Floridian Club that you already own down the street, what's the
square footage of that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Karen, do you know the number ofthe square foot? We'll look that up, it's
MS, BISHOP: 2,300 square feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The club is 2,300?
MS. BISHOP: Plus or rninus.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeal1, about 2,300 square feet.
MS. BISHOP: It's on the top of the plan,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And then you probably got what, another 1,000 for the pool or
something.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It says the pavilion is 2,312.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the pool is 1,010 square feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so another 1,000 for that.
All right. But that is -- and that is a commercial operation, because it's in conjunction with the motel
across the street, correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? Anybody--
COMMISSIONER CARON: That is it through this minute, I've got to get through -- go al1ead, you
can go al1ead, ask questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, back to the parking, What is the maximum amount of
parking that's required for this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The maximum?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. In other words, obviously the club itself, I mean, everything
is 144 plus two loading, plus eight, plus four. But I'm looking at the study and it ends up it has like internal
capture for the beach club. But that doesn't make any sense.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. And I regret we even did that. Because this is unique in the sense
that -- and we talked about this at the last meeting. The code technically says if you have a pool that serves
a residential community, you're supposed to provide parking to that, but usually the pool is separate from
that. And nobody is driving to this pool so you really don't need parking for that.
And then we were trying to under -- we tried to be conservative in figuring out how much parking
do you need for the beach club, taking into account that 72 unit owners are automatically members. So I
wish we had never done that study.
The bottom line is we don't need any parking for the outside members because they're all coming
by shuttle. And we don't need any parking for the internal members because they already live there, And
what do we really need, we need parking for the unit owners, we need parking for our employees. And I'm
hoping that we've clarified that number to come up with really how rnanY parking spaces we need on-site,
so that the community is sure that we're not using the county's park parking lot to satisfy our residential
needs and our beach club needs.
Page 68
16 11 (It- )ictober 16,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm looking for is the gross number of parking required.
Because that's what we're substituting the bus line for.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The gross number.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would that be 244, which is the 104 you calculate for the --
which is in your study, which you gave us the exact same study. You're right, you did promise not to do that
recapture, but you gave us the same study you had before,
C cornes up with 104 spaces for the club. That's taking into account the dining areas at one to 100,
assuming that this is a fraternal club, and the outside pool area. So the demand of the club would be 144--
I 04 cars, correct?
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Well, I know -- is that right, Jay? I remember what we did is rernember we
went on the number of seats, because that resulted in a higher number, versus square footage, And we have
250 seats, and it's one per--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's 65. And then you --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which is 83.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighty-three, I'm sorry. No -- yeal1.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, So we --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what I'm trying to find. I'm trying to find -- let's pretend
you had all the parking lots available in the world. How many parking spaces would you be building for this
club?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I guess if you were to factor in the swimming pool area and the seats,
that would be 104,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the 146, which is the units plus the two,
MR, YOV ANOVICH: They're already there, we wouldn't be providing any,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm trying to come up with a gross number--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remember, it's based on square footage. So square footage is -- it's not
number of members. The LaPlaya is not number of members, it's square footage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine with 104 for the club. Now I'm just trying to add to that
what's required for the apartment -- or the condos, which is 144 plus two --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Plus two, which is 146.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So 250 parking places --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you did it all on-site --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We wouldn't be having this conversation about parking. That's
fine. The answer, I got the answer I'm looking for. All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeal1, I had one more thing, The shuttle buses that are running every
two hours, is there a problem in having those buses actually stop at your condo front door, as opposed to in
the turnaround, in the community turnaround?
Because I just want to make sure that we're not preventing any public access or delays by having
these buses stop there all the time to unload people. This is supposed to be auto turnaround and not a bus
stop, And so is there a problem with you taking your buses up to the front door and dropping them oft?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the answer. I need to talk to my client. I hadn't --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, will you find out?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Ms. Homiak?
Page 69
16 I 1 (k ) iClober 16,2008
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just have a couple of questions of -- about the lounge. And it says
there's fixed glass around the -- is it -- does it continue to the terrace, between the terrace and the dining
area, or does that open up?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does the terrace and dining area open up? It's fixed glass.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All fixed glass? So the possibly amplified entertaimnent you will
have would be around the pool?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: External, you mean?
MS. HOMIAK: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could have -- the answer to your question, I guess your question is if we
had it inside would we open it up or be able to open sliding glass doors and have it go out. The answer to
that is no, we won't have that ability, so --
MS. HOMIAK: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Richard, what kind of arrangements do you have with the property owners that are going to be
handling this off-site parking for the club?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Arrangements? They already -- at the Dunes they already have shuttle stops
because they take shuttles now to the Floridian Club, So there would be another membership opportunity
for them, So they're already accustomed to that.
And then obviously when we get around to developing Cocohatchee Bay, Moraya Bay, we would
provide that information to them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking, 1-- I would have mentioned this to you had I
thought of it earlier, but in your discussion over all the parking issues that I've just heard, I rernembered
there was a section ofthe code that deals with off-site parking of different ownerships. And in that section
of the code it requires a minimum lO-year lease agreement between the property owners, and that's to be
reviewed by the County Attorney,
I'm not sure it applies here, but I would like to know from county staff and from the County
Attorney. I'll give you the section. It's 4.05,02.K.2,
So while we're continuing on with this discussion, if you guys could take a look at that to make sure
that I haven't missed something in the way the arrangements are with the off-site uses to make sure that
those people don't object to your using their facility as a point of drop-off and pick-up for this club. That
would be helpful to know too, so there's nothing tripped up down the road,
Your answer to the employee parking spaces, in listening to that, I had done a calculation, and I
relayed that to you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't realize, but the documents you gave us in this rnost recent book are
not the ones that are approved, they're the ones that you have in for approvaL Because they come up to 165
spaces.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to have to -- I -- ask her to -- okay, apparently we gave you two
documents.
We gave you the approved, which is the second set, and that's the 157 calculation. And it should
have a date. If you look at the lower right hand, it should start with sheet I of 13,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me shorten this for you. There's a tab here that says parking
calculations, And behind that tab are two sheets that reflect 165 parking spaces --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the plan I was telling you we just did and we would submit to
increase. And then behind that you should have another set that's the actually approved at 157.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha.
Page 70
16 11 (If ) L{- October 16,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that help?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeal1, Ijust want to understand which -- I do have the newest one.
In the parking calculations tab, and I know that you may have answered some of this to Brad, so if
I'm being redundant just say it's been resolved, and that's fine,
Under Item A, private club, sununary of uses, you don't list the beach area, which I'm sure you'll
have chairs out there that will accommodate people in addition to all the other areas, is that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, because I'rn capped at 250 seats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so whether those seats are occupied or not, the rest of the
people there are still capped at 250, regardless of whether --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that's why I wasn't even sure we should be dealing with the pool
area, because within the 250 seats as well.
So that 104 from a standpoint is, I'm capped at 250 people coming to the premises from not being
there, If you looked at a one per three, that's 83.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's no problem --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I know that. I had a look from someone else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under part D, on-site parking, I brought this up to you when I saw you
before, that it shows 36 spaces are required for on-site. Did you already explain that to Mr. Schiffer as to
what that means, or is that something you need to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that was the internal capture number that I think we wish we never
included in the calculation,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the 36 spaces on-site are no longer part of -- well, it's after the
internal -- I guess it could be part ofthe internal capture,
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When you net it all out, I think that 104 is an overstatement, but at least it's
an overstatement versus an understatement.
How's that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But all said and done, your intentions, the only additional traffic this club
would generate is for the employee parking that would be in that building. Is that what you're --
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Correct --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the shuttle --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and the four shuttle trips per hour.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm rushing through the rest of my questions,
The plan that shows the improvements to the Dunes system, it shows the colored one with the
bright orange on it, I think I've got my answer now.
That outside line that's there wasn't labeled property line, but I assume that line that shows 200 and
then 210 feet is now the property line, based on the second drawing you put up there. Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And keeping in mind that there's sandy beach beyond the property line.
Because it does look like we're somehow blocking the flow of pedestrian traffic. But that's in fact not the
case,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has staffhad a chance to look at that reference in the code that I provided,
or the County Attorney's Office?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I did have a chance to read it over. I don't think it applies in this particular
case, though, It's dealing with parking exemptions for properties under different ownership, the county
manager or designee may approve parking on continuous lots that are under different ownership.
The site development shall be submitted to the County Manager or designee, which includes -- and
it talks about showing a 10-year lease agreement between property owners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not being picked up by the mic., Ray.
Page 71
16 11 (A- )ltoberI6,2008
MR. BELLOWS: My reading of this is more -- that's for a different type of off-site parking
situation than being proposed today,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? I mean, what I'm concerned about, and I didn't really think ofthis
until I heard some ofthe explanations today, if you have three different condominiums, or four or five or
however many are going to contribute to the shuttle operation, their condo docs would have to disclose to
them that some of their property is going to be utilized -- because they're going to end up rnaintaining their
property from whatever cost it would be to have the additional traffic of a shuttle going in and out, the
weight of that, the people waiting for it, where they're going to sit and things like that.
Those things, I'm wondering if they're all anticipated by the other ownerships. And if they have
been, that's fine. Does this then I O-year lease agreement though need to be in place to assure us that the
requirements of that shuttle being able to get there and pick up don't run into some kind of confrontation
with the condo commandos that generally pop up in these kind ofthings and decide they want to negotiate a
deal for you to be there?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's already in place really -- I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Yovanovich will correct me ifI'm wrong. My reading of these is that let's
say you had a fixed locational business and you needed a parking lot but you didn't have enough land of
your own for the parking lot, so you got into a transaction with your neighbor to get the required parking for
that particular business,
What they're doing is they're getting into arrangements with other communities that there'll be a
shuttle from that comrnunity to their private beach club.
Now, if that community has problems with it, he can't run his shuttle. I mean, at the end of the day,
he won't have a shuttle --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And they won't -- right. And they won't be members.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So -- and it's already -- Mr. Strain, there's already a shuttle in operation at
the Dunes, and we can obviously make sure that there's no issue at Cocohatchee Bay, since it's not
developed yet.
But I think that from an operational standpoint, I think it self-polices itselt~ because ifthey say no
then they lose an opportunity to be members of the beach club,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I hear what you're saying,
The noise issue, we have heard testimony -- you're convenient today being here after the noise
ordinance. We heard testimony this morning about issues already up there from noise in that area.
You guys decided to make this a residential facility, and expecting it to be such, including the
people that live within that tower, a lot of unnecessary noise outside down below would be problematic or
could be problematic for the people in the tower or for residents in the area.
And the answer that I got from your response here, that it's going to be consistent with the noise
ordinance, we already know that doesn't work, So I understand what you're trying to do, you're looking for
outside entertaimnent. I'm wondering why you need it at all.
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think there could be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not background music, by the way. I understand what that is, so let's go
beyond that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's take first -- let's answer the first -- take a step back. There's full
disclosure through the condominium documents when people are buying these units, that we're requesting a
private beach club.
So they know that going in, And these are expensive units, so you're dealing with what I like to
Page 72
16 11 (fY)%ber 16, 200S
believe are sophisticated buyers who understand that there could be a beach club down there.
Going to the next question -- so I just want you to understand there's the disclosure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to finish the answer to that one first by another answer?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you're buying a unit there and I read a disclosure, and I've read
many of them, that says there's going to be certain activities you're going to be accepting as a member of--
or as joining that condo group.
Disclosures usually don't get so finite as to say, and the pool area will be part of the club and the
pool area has the opportunity to have outside amplified music and noise and bands and reggae bands,
whatever they want.
Are you saying --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good point. No, no, no, Hang on. The pool -- by the way, the pool was part
of the disclosure as part of the club but the next -- how about this, we will have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's this, make a deal?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Let me go in the order I was going to present it, and then we can talk
about it if we need to do let's make a deal. But I wasn't -- we expect -- so the disclosure's there and we
understand the issue of did they sign on to parties every night? No.
So how -- what we expected was to ask for a limited number of events that we can have outdoor
entertaimnent, because you know, you have 4th of July or you have your different holidays where it's
customary to have that.
But we'll further limit it to we can't do that without the condorninium association's sign-off first. So
that way at that point you know the condo's approved it before we have the event, so -- with outdoor
entertainment -- so there's not that conflict of it happening all the time. And they could say no. If they say
no, we don't have them at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You pluralized the word associations, what condominium associations are
you referring to?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The condorninium association, I should have said, Moraya, the Moraya Bay
-- what's the name of the condo, Moraya Bay -- I think it's Moraya Bay Beach Towers Condominium
Association. But it would be the residential association for the condominium.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many units have to be sold before control is lost by the developer?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, boy, now you're talking about the statutes. I don't know exactly under
that statute when that happens. Mr. Strain, I don't know. I'm not a -- but there's a statutory scheme where
you lose control. I think it's not to exceed seven years at the worst case, and then there's a number of units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the neighboring condos -- we got another deal?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I feel like I'm bidding against myself. I'm just going--
MR. KLA TZKOW: Take the box,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to tell us what the latest is?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're ready? Okay. I guess we're not going to do it. We don't want any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would simplify life. No outside --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, we don't want any outdoor amplified music --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Above that defined as background.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, the background and the I-Pods and things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That helps,
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll ask for staff presentation at this point.
Page 73
1611(lPr ) itober 16, 200S
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, I'm a Principal
Planner with Zoning,
You have an updated supplemental staff report that is dated October 16th in the lower left corner.
And it goes over the issues that were to be addressed in today's continuance. There are II items on there.
Most of those were to be addressed by the petitioner, and he has done so.
And there are several items that were to be addressed by staff. That discussion begins on Page 2 of
that supplemental staffreport, and it's Items six, eight and II. And we have provided to you our assessment
of those issues. And I'll assume that this is part of the record. I won't reiterate it.
I will say, however, that I do have the affidavit of posting and the photos that are required for the
SIgnS.
And I did receive two additional letters frorn persons regarding this petition, one of which I got
today. And I believe that one was also e-mailedtoMarkStrain.Itis from the NPAA Civic Association,
signed by Barbara A. Bateman, And it -- if you like, I can read it into the record. I do not have copies to
share with everybody, because I'm working from a laptop.
But it does ask me to make this e-mail available to you. But obviously like I said,Ididn't have time
to do that.
But to go on, it says, on behalf of the Naples Park Area Association, we are supporting the
Vanderbilt Beach residents in their opposition to the conditional use permit of the Moraya Bay Beach Club,
the canyonization effect of the building is overwhelming and hideous looking and overpowering for the
area,
The population in the area is maxed out with not enough places to park. We are approaching season
and of course on holiday and weekend trying to get to Vanderbilt Beach, traffic is in gridlock, lined up with
autos idling away with pollutant gas fumes and cars parking everywhere and anywhere.
Adding more density and traffic for the MBCC condo owners and outside members presents
greater problems for surrounding communities trying to access Vanderbilt Beach and Delnor Wiggins Pass
park. With only 75 parking spaces and four handicapped spaces at Connor's Park, plus taking away the
approximate 10 public parking spaces next to Moraya Bay Beach Club, pray tell, where are the beach goers
going to park.
We are requesting that the Planning Commissioners deny the conditional use permit of the beach
club. And that's the end ofthat letter.
The other letter I did forward to you, and hopefully you do have copies of that.
Other than that, I have nothing else. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, the two things, one of the things on here, the first thing was
is the concept ofthis is, as they testified today, it's going to be a privately owned for profit club that's added
to this use,
So rernember, we discussed thorougWy and Ross sent a letter saying that it's no different than a
hotel. But do you believe this has really become a mixed use property by the addition of another business
into this building?
MS, DESELEM: No, sir, professionally speaking, I do not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, Because this is a new business in there, I rnean' it has
different membership and everything, Even though the people who live there can use the facilities, it's
becorne an amenity for thern also.
Okay, the other issue is, this second level of parking. What happened in the review of this thing,
and you sent the documents, is that to get the additional story, and the neighbors are not happy with the
Page 74
16 11 (It ) ~tober 16, 200S
height of this building. So to get that additional story, they used the waiver that would allow you to take
parking off your site, bring it inside and raise the building to hold that parking. Yet the parking is not much
of this floor. I mean, is there any requirement of what else can be on that floor with the parking when you
use that waiver process?
MS. DESELEM: I'rn not aware of any, no.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I can design a building and I can go for this waiver, put one
parking place up in there and fill the floor up with whatever use I want to?
MS. DESELEM: I don't know that to be the case either. I'm really not -- I wasn't involved in that
particular information. They did provide you what they used to get that approval. And it clearly showed the
amenities proposed on that second floor, as far as I know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that second floor was given to them. The height was given to
them to put parking, And --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's hardly any parking.
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding of -- my reading of the LDC concerning this exemption of
height, it doesn't have a percentage of parking. It just says if you provide the parking under building for two
stories, then that's what you're accredited toward the building height.
I agree that it could be perverted to get extra height if you put one space in. But the cost of
engineering the building to structurally to put a stall in there and the drive access up there, I don't know that
they're a great trade-off in that regards either.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it would be, It would be an excellent trade-off if it would be
used every day.
The way the thing is worded, it says that it can only raise the building to the extent necessary to
provide the parking. We've raised this floor almost 13 feet. Obviously that wasn't to provide the parking.
And the impression of that clause could also mean than it's only allowed for parking. I mean, there's
nothing in there that says you can raise the building to the height to provide the parking and the beach club
or any other facilities,
Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to say who goes -- Richard, then Mr. Schmitt.
MR, YOV ANOVICH: I want to -- first of all, I'm not sure that it's relevant to today's discussion,
but I do, Mr. Schiffer, want to address a point. And that point being the residents not being happy with the
height.
When we dealt with the Burt Harris settlement, and I believe you have the minutes of that Burt
Harris settlernent as part of your record, I was specifically asked what was the height ofthat building going
to be as a result of the settlement. And Page -- this is on June 14th, 200S on Page 217, I said the building
height was going to be 13 S feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the height is not part of this conditional use discussion--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand, But Ijust--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I don't know ifMr, Schiffer was going there. I think he was trying to
talk about the uses of the second floor that would or should not be allowed based on the code.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, But he said the people were unhappy with the height. Ijust wanted
to rnake sure that in the spirit of full disclosure that's exactly what it came in at --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree, you did give a maximum actual height. You also gave a
maximum zoned height of90. By lifting this up, that lifted that zoned height up in this case 12 feet,
certainly much higher than you needed for parking.
The reason I think it's relevant is that, you know, are we giving away parking spaces -- I mean,
Page 75
16 11 (A-) 'ttober 16, 200S
essentially that free area is for parking,
I mean, you've used it for amenities to the tower already, and now that's where you want to put the
beach club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, you had a follow-up question that you wanted to ask?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeal1, I was just going to follow -- I just wanted to put what Mr. Yovanovich
already said during the settlement agreement, it was clearly identified to the Board of County
Commissioners, as well as an elevation drawing, The elevation drawing showed parking and amenities on
that second floor.
Mr. Yovanovich clearly defined what the height would be of that building, and that was the criteria
that staff used to evaluate this site plan.
And I know this is not an element ofthe conditional use, but I want to put on the record that the
plan was reviewed and approved solely based on the criteria in the LDC and in the settlernent agreement.
And ifthere were objections to anything that was reviewed in regards to that SDP in relation to
how it was approved or why it was approved or what criteria, we're long past any opportunity to file an
appeal. But certainly members can take that to the board if they so wish. But it is what it is.
There's no criteria to defme percentage of parking on a level. There is parking on that level and that
level also includes the lobby, the elevators, and of course a portion of it includes the amenities,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that document part of the settlement agreement? Because if it is,
you never gave us that when you gave us the settlement agreement.
MR. SCHMITT: No, that was not. What was shown in the record was a elevation drawing. I have
an e-mail that has that elevation drawing. I could try and display it on the screen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a copy of the settlement agreement, which sheds all drawings,
except for one showing the boundary line up by the club. So doesn't legally -- I mean, what is legal, the
drawings that they showed prior to the agreement or the agreement speaks for itself?
MR. KLATZKOW: The agreement is the agreement. But like Joe said, we're past that at this point,
I think.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, obviously the building's built, we're way past that. But the
concern I have is we're going into area, area that's shown I think on that drawing that's part of -- the beach
club is now eating into sorne of that parking.
MR. SCHMITT: Also there was a transition in the plan ofthis facility. At one time it was -- when
the settlement agreement went to the board, there was conternplated to be two separate buildings, one
building for the beach club and restroom and then the main building would of course be the condominium
and the amenities.
That changed, There's a long history of why that changed. One, and most significant, was that they
were told in no uncertain terms that staff would not support any FEMA -- or staff would not support any
variance request for a variance of the FEMA height required for the construction of any habitable floors
below the FEMA elevation, And that sort of did in the separate building.
And of course you know what happened with the result of the restroom, it was designed to be built
above FEMA.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe, here's the problem I'm having with what you're saying.
You're saying you had a lot of negotiations that obviously we're not privy to. And then a settlement
agreement was made which we were given and told to rnake a judgment based on.
But why are we caring -- I mean, is there promises made during that -- you're saying look at that,
look at that, that shows that it was always understood that there wouldn't be all parking. I mean, actually
looking at that, we are eating into some of the area that even that shows as parking.
How many parking spaces does that drawing show?
Page 76
16 'It ~t~*6, 200S
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's 36 spaces on the second floor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is about the same we have, I think.
(At which time, Commissioner Murray exits the boardroom,)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know about this new -- I'm just saying there's 30 --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so we lost some,
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, we met -- we met the park -- this is not the extreme that you're
describing where we only put one parking space up there so we can somehow create more building area for
the development.
And don't forget, when you put parking under the building, you're also required to increase your
open space, so there's the trade-off for that as well, which we've done. And this parking area, we met the
parking requirements, it's not just one space to get another floor for the building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not -- it's a smaller percentage than the other uses you put
on that floor.
So Ray, you're the -- you know, frorn the department, what you're stating is that the way that's
written -- Ray Bellows, are you listening?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm listening,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That the way that's written is that you can lift your building, all the
designers in town can be listening, you can lift your building that additional story and that level does not
have to be fully parked. You can get a floor to floor height, whatever you want, has nothing to do with the
parking, And that's what's allowed.
MR. SCHMITT: That's no different than was the -- the Cocohatchee was designed, Coconilla, other
projects where there's two stories parking.
Normally the second story has the entryway, the elevators, those kind of functional spaces that have
to be above the FEMA elevation,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
MR. SCHMITT: But do provide access and entry to the habitable floors.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when the neighbors saw 90 feet -- now remember, back at that
time everybody thought we were going to get a nine-story building. The fact that you're saying even at that
time there was evidence to prove to them that there was going to be this additional story.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There was always two -- when we were meeting with the neighbors, there
were two levels of parking and 10 levels of residences above that.
And then we went back and forth because the overlay said 75 feet and they tried to get us down to
eight levels of residences over the parking. And we compromised at the nine level of residences over the
parking. That's what we were discussing when we met with these people.
The height is 135 feet. We could have put the rec. facilities on top of the roof, which would not
under the code count against height but would have put the building above the 135 feet we promised,
We stayed at the 135 feet. And there's nothing in the code that says that that second level has to be
100 percent parking.
And we were asked to bring the club into the building, Because the residents, when we originally
came through with the conditional use, it was external, and the feedback we got from the community was
bring the club in, inside the building, which we did. And we put it in space that's on the second level of
parking.
So we've stayed within the height we told the community it was going to be, we stayed within the
setbacks that we told the community, and we brought the clubhouse inside the residential condominium
because the community at our neighborhood information meetings and in publications said bring it inside.
So we've kind of done what we were asked to do and what we --
Page 77
1611 (A-) ~ctober 16,2008
MR. SCHMITT: Can I just show--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeal1, tell us how this picture factors into everything.
MR. SCHMITT: This picture is the picture that was presented during the public hearing that
involved the settlement agreement.
I neither support nor defend it other than the fact that this is what was presented to the board and
this is what was used to review the project, along with the settlement agreement.
And you can see clearly where it says second floor, and I'll point. And this is what was used. It can
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that crosshatched area right below the words second floor, all that
diagonal lined area?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the ramp.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the ramp was shown? Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeal1.
MR. SCHMITT: That was the elevation drawing that was shown during the public hearing,
Now, I can't tell you whether it was rnade clear or not, but the settlement agreement was approved.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, is the top floor the II th floor?
Joe, if this was being shown there, why wouldn't this have been included in the settlement? Why
wouldn't you include that sketch? Why would you verbally describe something __
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we took -- remember, I was being coached at that meeting in the
back. And it originally had II stories, And when we were talking about it, he said take the top two floors
off and that will result in the 135 feet in height.
So that's the coaching I was getting back then to come up with the height when Commissioner
Halas asked me what the height was. Why it didn't become an exhibit, I don't know. Nobody thought that
that was important.
The really important part was, because what was unknown at the time was the turnaround, how was
that going to affect the site plan and we all wanted assurances on, because that was the unknown at the time,
was the turnaround.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Last question on this topic, Is the number of parking spaces shown
on the drawing prior to the settlement the same as it is today on the second level?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: My guess is there's probably a little bit less because there's less--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't have to guess. We can count.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, That's not the floor plan, I don't believe, I think that's just the
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, there is a floor plan that you just showed, remember, and I
kept saying it looks like it's eating into that parking --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's the current --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's the current now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plan that's on the screen is the one that's in for approval.
MS. BISHOP: It's not in yet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the one we're going to submit for the 165.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. There's 35 spaces on the second level of that plan.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the revised 165 number, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That has 36 on that--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, down below it says 36, I'm not sure -- 15 and 21, yeal1, 36,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 15 and 19 on mine.
Page 78
16 I 1. ( It ~t~er 16, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's dated September 23rd, 2008? No revisions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's -- hold on, Where's yours coming from, the parking?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the parking calculations tab. It shows on the bottorn under the word,
it says second floor parking, proposed parking layout for 36.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 15 and 21, okay, So we get 36 spaces. How many are shown in
that -- you have that drawing, just find it again and I can count.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What drawing are we talking about?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just looking for the drawing -- you showed us a drawing,
here's what we showed everybody before the Burt Harris claim was written up -- and how rnanY does --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Blow that up a little bit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Keep corning, keep coming, 47. So we're cutting even from that
concept. Well, actually, even more, if you look at what's up front going up on the ramp.
In other words, to get that second level, here you're showing 47, We're cutting that by about 10.
Actually, more than 10. 10, I mean --
MR. SCHMITT: There's 45 right now on the drawing that we have.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is that that ability to get that additional height is to
provide parking, not to provide beach clubs. Obviously parking has associated things like elevator lobbies
and all the other goodies,
And, you know, even here from what you're showing, you're providing less parking on the current
plan than then. But I said it was my last question, it's done.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just in response, the elevation we showed said parking and amenities, okay,
So let's put it in the context. It's not like we didn't say it was going to be parking and amenities as part of the
settlement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I'm saying--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are fewer spaces than what was shown before, yes, But we did show
that it was parking and amenity level on the second level, which is consistent --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm saying you should have labeled it amenities and some
parking, you know. That's all, I'm done,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the staff or of the applicant at this
time?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, this was the time we're asking you questions but you kind of got
lucky,
MS, DESELEM: I'm losing track of whose on first here,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't blame you, Any questions of staff?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had asked a question about the GMP and consistency with
the GMP based on the staff report last time around. This time around they just changed it but without any
explanation,
MS. DESELEM: They reviewed the information, the current application information, and
determined that yes, indeed, it is consistent. Whether it be limited to the residents or not.
Because if] recall correctly, the original one says if it was implied that it was only for the residents.
And they looked at it in light of removing that clause to say that yes, it is consistent.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I understand that they rernoved the clause. I want to know why
they thought that was appropriate to remove the clause or why they had it in there to begin with. And I
never heard from anybody on that issue.
Page 79
16 11 (A- ) if October 16,2008
MS. DESELEM: I gave them -- I forwarded to comprehensive planning staff the most current
information we have, which shows it being shared with other entities,
They had reviewed based on their original assumption that it would just be limited to this particular
project, Moraya Bay. So I don't know what thought process they used to corne up with the conclusion they
did. All I can say is this is the memo that now states that it is consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
MS. DESELEM: That merno is Attachment I to the supplernental staff report,
COMMISSIONER CARON: In the LDC, if you go to the RT clistrict.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In the LDC, if you look at the RT district, it says that that district is to
provide for tourist accommodations and support. So hotels and motels and whatever you need to support
those facilities, and multi-family uses.
Everywhere in the code where you look at multi-family, it says that the uses shall serve the
immediate needs of whatever that use -- the multi-family,
Will you explain to me why you think this does that?
MS. DESELEM: It doesn't -- in saying immediate needs, it doesn't necessarily limit it only to the
residents of that project. Immediate needs can be of the area, the entire RT area. It could be the beach area.
And that is identified in the Vanderbilt overlay as an allowable use as well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that. That's not --
MS. DESELEM: So I don't think that there's a conflict. In my mind there isn't a conflict. It doesn't
need to be limited to just this project's residents.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. If no other questions of staff, Ray, is there any public
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have five speakers. The first speaker is Doug Fee, to be followed by Joe
Connolly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, could I have the fellow that -- I don't know ifhe's even
registered -- that raised his hand about the cost of going north on the beach?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, he can come up when he's called,
Is the park service gentleman on the list, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: What's his name? At the end of the public speakers we'll ask that he come up and
address your question,
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I appreciate the
time to speak today on this matter.
What you have on the visualizer is a map of the area up in North Naples pointing out the two
PUD's, Cocohatchee Bay and Dunes PUD. Both of these PUD's were mentioned by Rich Yovanovich as
locations where the shuttles may originate. And what I'd want to rnake sure of is in your approval that the
resolution specifically states where these shuttles will originate and drop off,
And if there are any added communities in the future, that they would come back and amend that
conditional use to include those communities, okay? And I think it's important just to make sure that we
have that documented.
What I want to point out here is when Cocohatchee Bay was approved back in December of 2000,
that came only months after The Dunes had gone forward with an amendment to The Dunes PUD. They
added some units at The Dunes, You can see here, I circled the two projects,
Page SO
16 11 I It ltoir 16, 2008
The land is abutting, okay? Even though there's water between the two projects, technically they're
abutting properties, there is a letter in the county records from the southwest regional Planning Commission
that stipulates that they would not have to go through a DRI process ifthey followed five stipulations.
And one of the stipulations in the letter mentions that they cannot market common amenities, We
have a beach club that's not part of the communities of these PUD's, However, if they are shuttling from
these two communities, it seems to me that they now are marketing to their members, to their unit owners,
this club.
And I want to raise that issue just because it's in the record. The DRI requirements may have
changed today, but back when these PUD's were approved they were stipulated that they wouldn't have to
go through that process, but they necded to make sure they didn't market these amenities,
Okay. I do have a question raised about the membership. I think it's important to know whether it's
a membership that one pays, i.e., an initiation fee and a dues, and/or if these are included as you buy a unit
in any of these PUD's that would be conditional use.
Profit or not for profit. I'm an accountant, and I'm not trying to sell my services, but I have clients
that are restaurants as well as I have clients that are private clubs. There are different liquor licenses for each
of those types of businesses. One is more expensive and it's open to the public. One is less expensive and
it's only available to the club members, okay, they're H-l or H-7, that's the application,
I think it's important to know that so that if it's a for profit, which is what has been stated, is it going
to be open to the public? I can tell you ifit's a not for profit, if they were a not for profit, they could not be
open to the public, it would only be the members.
So I wanted to raise that issue,
Another issue is in the neighborhood informational meeting, Mr. Griffin specifically told the
audience that the sand in front of the private beach club would be available to the public.
Now I know there's a reconfiguration here, and I wanted to figure out where exactly the sand is
today versus they were talking about a dunes restoration. Are they taking quite a bit of that sand and
restoring the dune, which I'm not opposed to at all, but is there going to be sand behind the dune that would
be available to the club members but not necessarily be available to the public, when at the public
information meeting he stipulated that the sand would be available to the public, that they wouldn't be
kicked off, okay?
So I want to make sure that -- the only other thing I'd say is if there's a way to make sure there's a
provision in there that, let's say, two years from now that we could come back and review this, not hoping
there's any problems, there may not be any problems, but in case there were, having the ability to review it
and then grant it for another five years or however long you want to do it. I don't know that the conditional
use, does that -- is that permanently out there and it cannot be revoked? If there's a way to somehow have a
review period,
And those are my comments. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, We'll try to get some of them responded to.
Ray, has staff done an analysis to see if this project breaches any DRI threshold issues?
MR, BELLOWS: I believe that's something Kay needs to answer.
MR. SCHMITT: The question that Doug referred to was the sharing of amenities but the amenities
is not on the properties that were identified with The Dunes or Cocohatchee, so I don't even believe it
applies.
But I've got to turn to Kay, because the way the wording -- the way he described it and the wording,
I listened to it, was no shared amenities. But the amenities are not being shared on the either of the two
properties that he discussed. Of course the amenity is being shared on now what is called the Moraya Bay
property,
Page 8]
16 11.(' A- oc~e~6, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you aggregate properties you come under possible DRI
thresholds. If aggregation occurs within a certain distance, I think it was three rniles, it could be less, you
have to -- you then qualify for what's called aggregation, and you fall under the DRI threshold rules.
But those thresholds have changed over the years and whatever they are currently today is what
would be applicable here. Do we know what the density count or the threshold -- have any of the thresholds
been broached by these projects?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, I don't know the date of the letter. Ifhe said, I didn't
hear it. But the thresholds for Collier County did go up in the early 2000's, And it's now 1,000 units unless
you're -- I'm sorry, 2,000 units unless you are within two miles of a boundary to another jurisdiction or
something like that. And the aggregation rule can be used to determine if a project is -- and DRI, if you call
it A, B, C and X, Y, Z but they share common things so that people can't get around the DRI thresholds,
But I would have to see the letter to see what the date of it is and see what information was
provided at that time. I don't know,
But in rny opinion, we did not get an interpretation at any kind frorn the regional planning council.
But I don't believe that this project, even in conjunction with the ones that are controlled by the other
petitioner, would trigger any DRI thresholds,
MR. FEE: If] could, Doug Fee here. It uses the term marketing. It prohibits the marketing of those
common amenities. So it doesn't talk about where it's located --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, you had your time. Just sit down for a rninute, I can ask those
questions, I was about to.
There is more to a DRI threshold than simply unit count. You have to -- and distance -- you have to
also look, just like Doug was saying, at marketing. Common management is another one. Common usage
of facilities,
I think from a criteria of whether or not they qualify to be a DRI, they trigger criteria, but I don't
know if they trigger the density thresholds. Because without the density thresholds, the trigger doesn't
rnatter.
MS. DESELEM: Exactly. And I think that because they've changed the numbers for Collier County
in recent years based on the increase in population that that document may no longer be a concern, because
aggregation doesn't kick in because it doesn't have enough units overall to be applicable,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you make a note to verify that when you get a chance,
MS. DESELEM: I certainly will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other couple -- I tried to make notes when Doug was talking so I may
miss a few, and I'm sure somcbody else here will know it. Public or not. And that was an issue concerning
the liquor license. I need you to say for the record whether you're public or not and if your liquor license
coincides to a public license or a non-public license.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're in for a private beach club, not a public beach club. We're in for a
private beach club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't your commitment in this prior meeting that you would seek no
members outside those PUD's that you're in control of?
MR, YOV ANOVICH: We said that then and we said it again today, it's those two projects,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even if you had a liquor license that could open to the public, you're
still going to be closed to the public because you're limited to those people that live in your current
facilities.
MR, YOV ANOVICH: We're limited to members only, I will not be able to go there unless I'm a
member, and our rnembership is limited to those two off-site developments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And can you explain this sand versus the public issue that came up,
Page 82
16 I 1 ( ,4- }ttter 16, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeal1, where did rny exhibit go?
The issue came up in regards to we always knew we had to build this revegetation, okay. So
water-ward of the revegetation, there's white sand. And obviously on that white sand there's not a line that
says property line,
We told people if they happened to come over onto what was our private property, we weren't
going to kick them out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the area that's shown as rope and bollard fence, from that point
westward, even though it's on your property, the public will be able to use it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, if they put their chair there, we're not going to boot them out. That's
what we said.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, point to the mean high water line on that. Run your finger
up it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not on that one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but where does that -- remember in the other scheme, your
brown -- the westerly part. Where would that be? Where your thumb is?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it would be in this area right here,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in high water there's not that rnuch width at that point that's
public then.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's about 100 feet wide, between the mean high water line and the line I just
showed you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, the dark line on this plan between the two erosion lines, that's your
property line, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's our property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now flip over to the plan, The property line on this one is that same
dark line, and it's wider and narrower, depending on from north to south where you go. Does that help?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, But then look up at the top. The brown area is touching that
line, correct?
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Right, but remernber the property line is before the erosion control line.
Now, the erosion control line is landward -- I mean water-ward.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go to the next one now, because it doesn't -- so pull down so we
can see the northern property line.
MR. SCHMITT: Brad, I'll make it clear that the requirement for the revegetation was to match the
properties to the north and south. That was a requirement.
And the properties to the north and south actually have -- and I believe to the south is actually
planted grass to the south. So it's already treated alrnost like it's private property to the south, which we
require them to match that dune line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if it's -- in other words, remember, that was touching the
property line, which is your dark black line here at about where that easement is on the top, right? Yes. So
there's hardly any distance. That's not 100 feet, Rich. It's more like 30 feet maybe. What's the width ofthat
right-of-way? It's -- the 20 foot right-of-way, so --
MS. BISHOP: It's about 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's about 30 feet. Well, we have hopefully a measuring device
in the building,
But in other words, around that point you're going to walk all the way down to that distance close to
Page 83
16 I 1 (f.t )nEtber 16, 2008
the mean high water. I've asked if you can go north and you guys say it's okay. Somebody in the back's
going to tell us something else, maybe.
So the public, everybody coming to this beach access has to walk around that tip and maybe go
south.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, Mr. Schiffer, if you could convince enviromnental staff to
shrink that tip, we'll be happy to do it. This is the revegetation plan that we were required to build. And
we've got to build that regardless of there being a private club or not. So if we could skiMY that up to
somehow make it easier for people to head south, we're all for it.
MR. SCHMITT: This is the original property, and I apologize to interrupt, but you can see where
the state park property is and their dune line, and the property to the south. When this came in for review,
one of the requirements, requirements by the state as well-- and Susan, I can have Susan come up and
discuss this if you want further -- but of course the old hotel alrnost went up to the dune line, I believe, Rich,
and you don't have the footprint of the old hotel, but one of the requirements we had was to restore that
dune line and match it to the properties to the south and to the north.
If you are directing that we crop some of that off, then we will do so. We'll make that note to the
board. But I don't know if we can get through state approval on that. I'm looking to my staff for that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: State we're okay with, We know we can get through the state.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I'm bringing it up is that this is a public beach access,
It's going to be a major public beach access. And the fact that we're pinching it so tight there, and then the
fact that we're being asked today to add 250 people to that same area, that's the question.
MR, SCHMITT: Again, it was a motel before that, hotel, rnotel. I have no idea what was there
before. That's why the beach is pretty much designed the way it is. But the requirement was to match that
dune line to the north and the south.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can assure you from a carrying capacity of that beach, the fact that we've
gone to this residential development plus the beach club, there's a lot less people on that beach than was
there when the Vanderbilt 1M was there. And it was a motel, hotel with a cheekie bar and everybody there.
So from a -- if you want to look at it is there an increase today over what's been in the past, I can
assure you there's been a decrease. And we provided the public access with the 20-foot access, So we're
helping the public get to the beach.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the point is that -- I'm really curious what we can do about
people being able to go north, That's a big concern. Because there's no sense getting to the beach if -- who
wants to go to Jones beach when, you know, we're at a density that doesn't meet the experience.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this particular plan you have here, see the dark line out to the left out
by the water. Is that the property line? It is?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This right here? Is that what it is, Joe?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the original property line, yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the plan that's colored on, the orange coloration.
Now, the orange coloration, the revegetation goes all the way out to the original property line. Now
put the other one back on.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeal1, good point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you line up with the vegetation to the north for dune revegetation, do
you need to go that far out?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is from the property appraiser's aerials, So as far as total accuracy I
wouldn't rely on it as far as that -- if they put the property line there as being totally accurate but --
MR. SCHMITT: It's not.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, so -- so I would say Mr. Strain, I wouldn't rely on that hard line on
Page 84
1611 t IT )c~r 16,200S
the aerial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just want to make sure that the statement was it was to line up with the
dune to the north. And if that's what it's doing, that's fine. Ifwe've asked for something beyond that, I would
hope we're not doing that.
MR. SCHMITT: No, we are not. It's just to line up with that vegetation to the north so it blends in
to both the vegetation to the north and the south.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
Cherie', we're going to take a break in about three or five minutes here, okay?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Joe, you can testify that the edge of that line was solely
deteID1ined by your staff: and that they've got the most beach that they could possibly get --
MR. SCHMITT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- subject to -- in other words, Richard would probably give us
more beach if it was up to him --
MR. SCHMITT: That north section, I can crop it off--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm here to help.
MR. SCHMITT: -- you direct it, you put it as a stipulation and that's what we'll present to the
board.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you do know everybody walking there heading south is
going to walk it offbefore long anyway.
MR. SCHMITT: No argument. You stipulate it, we'll do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had tried to finish up with the questions from Doug. Did I miss
anything that needs to be addressed?
Okay, with that, let's take a IS-minute break and be back here -- well, 17 minutes. Back here at
2:4S.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcorne back from our break, We had left off with
public speakers.
And Ray, if you'll call the next speaker, please.
MR. SCHMITT: Could I for clarification, because of the question, can I -- for clarification because
of the question that was asked, I wanted to make sure that you all understood what was happening here,
This is the original building. This is of course the footprint for the new building. This is the Collier
County coastal construction setback line.
This is the area. All this is where we're requiring the beach to match the dune line, the dune line to
the north and the dune line to the south. You can see at one time this was parking, which it is no longer.
And here was parking here. This is the building,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you slide that down a little so we can see the north part where that
point is that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or zoom out, yeal1.
MR. BELLOWS: We can't zoom it out anymore, further zoom out.
MR, SCHMITT: But this is the end of the old hotel and parking. And the requirement was for the
developer to match the vegetation and dune line to the north and to the south, And that's why -- this is pretty
much that roped area, or whatever you call it, bollard and rope.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's my -- that's where I've been having my problem.
See that dark, black line you have around, that slashed line?
MR, SCHMITT: Down here.
Page 85
1611 (A- )L\-
October 16, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming that's the property line. Otherwise I don't know why anybody
would show it on this plan. If you look at the --
MR. SCHMITT: That is the property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if you look at the orange plan and look at where the dune
location is here, on the orange plan you've got that northern property line intersection as to where you're
going with your revegetation, which is many feet westward of where the dune seems to be.
MR. SCHMITT: But some of this has been replanted as well. This is -- this was into the park area,
and of course the right-of-way has been replanted and revegetated,
And all the requirement is is to try to match -- and this is what you're referring to, all the way down
to here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Look at the difference.
MR. SCHMITT: All we're requiring is to match the dune lines to the north and the south.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then Mr, Schiffer's issue is correct, we won't have that issue
up on the north because there's no vegetation to that point ofthe north,
MR. SCHMITT: No, what I'm saying is some of this has already been revegetated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: May I just say, there's been a couple of tropical storms and
hurricanes since that original -- this plan that he's got, the big one has been done? And there's been quite a
lot of realigmnent due to wind and waves and so on, so it's kind of a tough issue there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if there's been a lot of realignment from tropical storms and waves, it
would be even less vegetation to match up to then.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well. I think they replanted on the north.
MR. SCHMITT: They replanted,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I would suggest is that if you're going to match to something to the
north, someone needs to field verify that something to the north is there to match to. How's that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we -- okay. We've done that, but we'll--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, public speakers, Ray, or somebody could call the next public
speaker.
MR. BELLOWS: Joe Connolly, to be followed by Alexander O'Brien.
MR. CONNOLLY: For the record, my name is Joe Connolly, and I live at 10633 Gulfshore Drive,
And I'm vice president ofthe Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association who are opposed to the Beach Club.
And first of all, I want to thank you all for your service. After sitting out here since 8:30 this
morning, you all really deserve a whole lot of credit, and I know you don't get that much, so thank you very
much,
MR. SCHMITT: Joe, can you make sure you have the microphone? Thank you. We're -- yeal1.
(Microphone fell,)
MR, CONNOLLY: Don't know what--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait till you get the bill for that.
MR, CONNOLLY: You mean my tax money won't take care of it?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The whole thing's going to go.
MR. SCHMITT: Speak right into it. There you go, thank you,
MR, CONNOLLY: Prior to the September meeting we had a meeting with Mr. Bing and Mr.
Griffith at their request at the Beach Club that they now have.
And then when we came to the meeting here in September, it was like a different world. The initial
meeting with them, this new beach club was for the Cocohatchee Towers, not -- The Dunes was never
mentioned. And the parking lot, which hasn't been mentioned today, was not mentioned, although it was in
Page 86
16 11 (k )4- October 16,2008
September.
So now today we're getting The Dunes and the Cocohatchee Towers on the scoreboard. But The
Dunes already has a beach club. Are you going to run two beach clubs, or are you going to have one beach
club0
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to direct the questions to us and we'll ask the applicant.
MR. CONNOLLY: Well, that is the question, are they going to have two. Because The Dunes is
for the other beach club. That's what they said. This was for the Cocohatchee Towers, which was some time
off.
Now, if you look at the beach club they presently operate, they have 100 feet on the beach at the
very widest part of Vanderbilt Beach. And Vanderbilt Beach, as you get down to Wiggins Pass, narrowly
tapers and gets narrower and narrower and narrower as you approach Wiggins Pass.
So even though they have 400 feet on the beach at Moraya Bay, they don't have half the width of
the beach they have at their other beach club. And now they're going to encroach on that. I mean, they say
it's their property, it is. And if they're going to put all their rnnbrellas and chairs and paraphernalia down
there and serve the drinks on the beach in there, there's only a little narrow strip, like one lane of road that's
really going to be available to the public. So there couldn't be a worse possible place for beach clubs.
I'm not opposed to beach clubs, I'm opposed to this one because of where it's located.
At a public access next to Wiggins Pass Park the county's going to expand their parking to get more
people to go to the beach. And unless the good Lord opens up the Gulf, they're not going to have anyplace
for them to go. So I don't think it's right.
And they say 275 members. Remember, there's 140 people going to be living in the building and
they can go to the beach without going to the beach club. So you've got 350 or 400 people that could be
down there.
On the parking issue, nobody has asked where the people that live there, where are their guests
going to park? Are they going to have to go to The Dunes and be shuttled in to visit the owners of the
condominium? There's no guest parking that's been mentioned.
So in all this is a poor scheme and a wrong place.
And I don't think with the commissioners always preaching beach access, beach access for the
public and more importantly for the tourists, is the way they look at it, is that, you know, you're narrowing
where they can go to the beach. I didn't say privatize. Rich mentioned it last time. But that's really what it
sort of amounts to.
So we are opposed to the beach club very, very much. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, Paul's got a question, and then I have a -- Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeab, so you're opposed to them having any kind of a club there at
all?
MR. CONNOLLY: And busing people in, yes. You're going to have ISO people living in the
building, plus their guests and that which, you know, that's pretty much going to fill up the beach. And the
beach is not that wide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I've got one question. You had said previously they were originally
going to limit themselves to the Cocohatchee project?
MR. CONNOLLY: That's what they told us, this beach club was to service the Cocohatchee
Towers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have they ever modified the number of people that they're going to be
using this club for as far as nrnnbers go?
MR. CONNOLLY: No, no, it was 275, and they were going to bus them in. And they were going
to also have The Dunes Club. And it's like -- I think it's ISO members.
Page 87
16 11 ( A- )~ober 16,2008
And they say that they have to close it during the season it gets so crowded. They had some
problems down there with the neighbors and that, but I think they've resolved most of them. And they also
gave the neighbors membership in the Beach Club, and I think that helped a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir.
Okay, Ray, next public speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Alexander O'Brien.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER IN THE AUDIENCE: I think he left.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay, Bruce Burkhard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he left, too.
MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Bruce Burkhard, Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association.
I'd like to start off by giving you a little bit of background on this whole project, and maybe get a
little bit of a feel for the genesis of our opposition to the project and the reason that we think that it's a bad
project and should not be given a conditional use.
We started as a community late in 2001, and we were trying to seek major revisions in the LDC
pertaining to the R T district, residential tourist district.
Our little narrow strip ofland, centered on Gulfshore Drive, was still and still is a target for
developers. We suffered from many questionable rulings by the county staff. The LDC was changed
nrnnerous times without any input from local citizens. In effect we had no control over what was happening
in our neighborhood.
We successfully achieved a building moratorirnn in January of2002, so you can see this has been
going on for quite a while.
A consensus through a series of meetings developed to preserve the Gulf. And what we wanted to
do was try to preserve the Gulf, the lagoon and sky vistas; in other words, our water views. We wanted to
reduce permitted building heights to something consistent with the average of all the buildings in the RT
zone, which was and still is about 50 feet ofreal height.
Our goal was to improve air and light movement, thereby reducing the condo canyon effect.
Many other practical ideas were put forth to preserve and improve this unique place where
residents live, work and play.
The process dragged on for about three years and cost our association well over $50,000.
We ended up with maximrnn building heights of75 feet of zoned height. And many other criteria
were added as well to what we now call the VBRTO, the Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay.
Progress never seems to come easy, however. By the time the overlay paperwork was done, the old
owners of the Vanderbilt Inn, the site we're talking about today, threatened the county with a Burt Harris
claim. Under the gun, the county settled rather than fight. Compromises were negotiated and the zoned
height of90 feet was signed off on. Our residents all understood that 90 feet was the top -- on top of 15 feet
ofFEMA elevation.
I have no recollection of this I 35-foot height that they've been talking about today. My recollection
was it was a 90-foot building on top ofFEMA. Be that as it may, it's a large building.
So then administratively the second floor parking that Mr. Schiffer has been talking about was
added on to what is higher than what the overlay originally permitted, 75 feet plus say 15 feet for FEMA.
So what we're dealing with now is a monolithic monster of almost 135 feet real height, far, far from
the 75 feet that we thought we had won in our overlay.
Another hard won feature was an improvement in setback requirements. The idea was that we
would have increased green space and improved site corridors. The front and year yards were increased to
half ofthe building height, and that amounts to about 45 feet.
Page 88
16 11 ( It- )4berI6,2008
Sounds good. But a huge, ugly concrete ramp sits in the middle of the front area. There'll be very
little greenery visible in this area.
Side yards are also half the building height. We now have balconies jutting out into the setbacks.
Five feet, in fact. And the top floor balconies even have a solid roof over them which seems to us to
contravene the LDC which doesn't allow for a roof over a balcony projecting over a setback.
Obviously this adds to the massive character of the building.
The development has absolutely maxed out this site. Our whole overlay has been overturned, we
feel.
Is the developer satisfied that he's squeezed all he possibly can out of this site? Apparently not. He's
now before us asking through a conditional use to be permitted to increase the intensity of use even further.
They want a beach club, essentially a bar and a restaurant, along with exercise facilities and a
swimming pool. They will also be staking a claim to a generous portion of what has heretofore been used as
a public beach.
When the Vanderbilt Inn was there, although it technically was private property, the public freely
used the entire beach. Now we're being told that part of it is going to be fenced off, duned off, unavailable
to the general public. And even if the public were allowed in there, I don't think they're going to be feeling
welcome. I think there are going to be cabana chairs and towel boys and everybody else walking around
that they're probably going to discourage the public from using that area of the beach.
So they're going to move to a more convenient part of the beach, either to the right up into the park
where technically they're supposed to pay a dollar entrance fee. There's a sign right there at the south end of
the park that says go to the ranger station and pay a dollar to enter the park.
It's probably not going to happen. The park's probably just going to be beat out of the dollar, unless
they get a guy out there policing it.
The other option would be for the people to walk a narrow gauntlet through the cabana chairs and
to the beach to the south of this facility.
So due to the circrnnstances that I've mentioned, our association feels that we and all of the public
are adversely affected due to the breaches and the spirit of our VBRTO conditions and the loss of public
beach access. We believe the existing building, by adding a beach club, is incompatible with the adjacent
properties and other property in the district.
Please keep in mind that this property stands alone all by itself as an R T property at the very north
end of Gulfshore Drive. It's surrounded by residential RMF-16 properties. That's the real character of the
neighborhood, RMF residential, not really a touristy commercial area.
No other condo in the area has or would have the high level of people coming from the outside into
the immediate neighborhood.
It also seems to us that this high intensity project will have a deleterious effect on the traffic
situation on Bluebill A venue and will have a negative economic effect on the properties in the adjacent
Baker-Carol (sic) Point properties.
We have raised the lack of parking at the facility as a negative and an indication that the site has
been already maxed out. As we read the LDC, Part 4.05.01, we don't believe that the remote parking
concept being promoted to permit the CU is consistent with the LDC at all.
And the --I have a copy ofthe LDC for 05.01, and it says the intent of the section is the public
health, safety, welfare, comfort, order, appearance and so on, general welfare, require that every building
and use erected shall be provided with adequate off-street parking facilities for the use of occupants,
employees, visitors, customers or patrons. It must provide off-street loading facilities as well.
We haven't even discussed that. But that's another whole issue that we need to talk about.
In design standards 4.05.02, item J, all off:street parking facilities shall be located on the same lot
Page 89
16 11 (A- )~ber 16, 2008
that they serve or on a contiguous lot under the same ownership.
And I think you were talking a little bit about that before, Mr. Strain. That is zoned for use as a
parking lot.
So here right in the code it's directing you to put parking at this site. And the county is in the
process, if this conditional use were approved, to forget about that, waive the LDC, be inconsistent with the
LDC, and just charge abead with this bus shuttle scheme.
Earlier you were referring to exemptions, and the exemptions is they talk about the various criteria
for exemptions to this on-site parking. What they all seem to indicate, that the parking will be in the
immediate vicinity of the building, of the facility that's being used, in this case the Beach Club. They talk
about okay, we can have off-site parking across the street as long as it's not designated as an arterial or a
collector roadway.
We kind of have a similar situation to that with LaPlaya. They have their parking not right on the
site of their beach club but across the street. And they've obviously qualified for this waiver to do that. So
there are various levels.
The BZA, after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, may approve a parking
exemption under the following circlUOstances. And there are a list of circlUOstances. But the implication is
that parking be nearby and across the street, not miles down the road.
So again, they seem to be disregarding the LDC.
And one of the criterias they need to know for this waiver, the distance of the farthest parking space
from the facility. Which would seem to indicate that they're looking for how far do people have to walk to
get from the parking lot to the facility. And in this case clearly they're not going to be doing that.
They talk about pedestrian safety as a consideration. And they -- right now with this busing
scheme, the idea is to drive down through the -- near the park entrance through a circle where other people
will be circling around and dropping people off. And pedestrian safety might -- should be a consideration,
as well as vehicular safety, something that you would have to look at if you were granting any kind of a
parking waiver.
And also, this turnaround area actually is possibly a problem somewhere down the road. And down
the road, what we're talking about is the requirement for a drop-off place. If you're running a bar and a
restaurant, you're going to have to have liquor being brought in, food brought in and dropped off, various
other -- napkins, various other things that you're going to need to run your restaurant and bar. And the only
place that I see that that's a possibility that they're going to be using will be this turnaround circle. And we
already have a problem on Gulfshore Drive at the Turtle Club site where delivery trucks park virtually in
the middle of the road and unload their beer and wine and food and so on. And it creates a problem for
residents in that area as they traverse up and down Gulfshore Drive.
The same is true for the LaPlaya Beach Club and restaurant and bar. Their delivery trucks also
project out into the road and create traffic problems.
The third -- the last item that hasn't been addressed as far as I know as far as this beach club goes is
that bicycle parking is a requirement. It's a little thing, it's not a big deal, I'm sure, but that has not been
addressed anywhere that I've seen in any of the paperwork.
So basically what we're doing, we're asking for a vote to deny this conditional use due to a lack of
consistency with the LDC, parking, traffic flow problems, effect on the neighborhood and compatibility
with adjacent RMF-16. And that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce.
l'll do some followup questions was staff, so -- and I'll ask them. I made notes.
MR. BURKHARD: Okay. I can't hear you very well, anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I'll run by staff with a couple of your concerns and
Page 90
1 6 I 1 (Ac1e+6, 2008
see where we stand.
MS. DESELEM: Did you want me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Kay, the bike rack issue. I know it's a small issue, but isn't that
something required through the SDP review?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Loading spots. They won't be using that turnaround because they
have two loading spots tucked away back into the side of the building in the south, if I'm not mistaken.
MS. DESELEM: That is my understanding also. That doesn't preclude from somebody like U.P.S.
or somebody from stopping the way they normally do in the travel lanes. I mean. they do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, so do landscaping and --
MS. DESELEM: But as far as loading spaces --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- everybody else.
MS. DESELEM: -- they comply.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other thing on this parking area issue, if they were to have
parking within -- say off-site within a walking distance of the project, which I think that's what our code
tries to regulate somewhat, that if you're going to have off-site parking, you still got to be able to walk
safely to the site where you're going.
In this case they have distant parking with a shuttle. But ifthey had off-site parking within a
location closer to the building, that then would trigger traffic impacts for the immediate area; whereas. that
doesn't happen with the shuttle and the distant spaces further away.
MS. DESELEM: That would bc my undcrstanding. Thc shuttle would bc a rcduction rathcr than an
mcrcasc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understood thc argrnnent about the parking bcing off-site. In fact, I think
-- I brought it up earlicr. My conccrn was I think it would makc it worsc. not bcttcr ifit was closc by,
bccausc you'd bc gcnerating more traffic. And that -- that's just my thought on that, and I wantcd to
understand staffs pcrspective on it.
MR. BELLOWS: No, for the record, you arc correct, the traffic impacts would bc greater for
parking facilities close to this particular club, because you're having more vehicles use Vanderbilt Beach
Road or thc other roads coming to get to this point versus a limited shuttle servicc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeab. I have a question, please.
Are we allowcd to consider -- he was bringing up about the compatibility with the neighborhood.
I'm thinking about the compatibility with the statc park immediately to the north. Evcn though the state park
is not county propcrty, is that an issue for us to consider?
MS. DESELEM: It's still a neighbor.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Question as to the loading spaces. Is there any rcquirement to have
additional loading spaces, sincc thcre are two separate uses going on here now?
MS. DESELEM: Not that I'm aware of, no, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So it wouldn't matter what the intensity of the use was, two loading
spaces on this site.
MS. DESELEM: My understanding, if you believe that the private club conditional use would
neccssitate the need for additional loading spaces, we could require it as part of that in your
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
Page 91
16 I 1 ( Pr )~tober 16, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is the loading spaces for the restaurant now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at the first floor parking, A-I, if you look on the bottom of the
page in the right -hand side, there are two spaces, and they go all the way to thc south. That black line on thc
bottom is not the property linc, it's just an aesthetic line to be undcrneath the title.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. On the oppositc cnd of the building is where the purveyors
are going to drop off food and stuff?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what it shows.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That might have made sense for the apartmcnt building, maybe,
but --
MS. DESELEM: Also, I might mention that they do need an amendment to the approved SDP for
this use. And that will be evaluated at that time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let mc see if I can -- do we have a site plan -- well, that can't be it
because a large truck would block the access to the garage. so -- so the only drop-off and loading zone for
the restaurant is such that you would block thc access driveway and it's on the opposite end ofthc building.
MS. DESELEM: I'd have to look more close.
Did you want me to respond to that or are you just making a statemcnt?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, don't respond.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's kind of their problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Arc there any other questions bcfore we go to thc next public speaker?
Ray, would you -- go abead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well. actually, I sort of do want a response. Because you said -- the
amendment that thcy'rc coming in for now for that parking, is that just a parking amendment or is that other
things that the neighborhood doesn't know about?
MS. DESELEM: I'm talking about an amendment to the SDP to allow the use becausc it wasn't
addressed, just part ofthc original.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And also the additional parking?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
MS. DESELEM: They have not submitted yet. All those issues will be addressed at that time, along
with compliance with any conditions that the board might impose.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Connolly brought up guest parking for just guests of those who
live in this tower. Sincc you're taking all the cxtra spaces away to give to the club, what's the
accommodation for -- I guess I'm really not talking to you. Kay, I'm actually talking to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The code requires two spaccs per unit, which includes guests. They only get
onc assigned space per unit. The residcnts are -- they're assigned onc.
So there's the -- the guest spaces are accommodated through the two per unit required by code.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Really? Okay. So if! buy a condo in this building, it's only going to
come with one spacc?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. ma'am. One assigned space. One assigned space.
In response to some of the comments made, we scaled off, because there's been some confusion
about where --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying your prior testimony was inaccurate?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I said therc was two spaces per--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm talking about this plan you've got here. Because this is exactly
what I had suspected is the --
Page 92
1611 fA- \ct1erI6,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I -- what we're tying to show you here is the property line is the dotted
line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The dune linc where it ends is about 60 feet from the mean high water line,
okay? We just wanted to put that -- wc've scaled it off since that to clarify it's not that little -- it's not, you
know, one body wide. You havc 60 feet between where thc dune ends today, or the dune we're bcing
rcquired to build and the mean high water line.
So I just thought that would be helpful in explaining what's actually out therc as far as sand you can
walk on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The prior question, I thought the result was that that line that's indicated by
the dimensions was told to be the property linc. So in actuality the property line is furthcr out, which now
does provide that this does line up more in alignmcnt with the dune to the north. So now that makcs sense.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions before wc go to the next public speakcr?
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Kathy Robbins.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many more speakers do we have aftcr Ms. Robbins, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: This is the last one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll then we'll ask thc gentleman from thc forcstry department or
parks or wherever hc's from.
MR. ROBBINS: Thank you, Commissioners. My namc is Kathy Robbins. I live at 10525
Gulfshore Drive in Vanderbilt Bcach, and I represcnt Vanderbilt Bcach Residents Association. I'm the
sccretary .
And as Joe Connolly and others havc mentioned, we are against this club as an inappropriate usc
for basically a residential building.
A commcnt was made by Mr. Y ovanovich that the community said at thc first meeting, bring the
club back into the building.
We said nothing of the sort. We don't really care about the club, othcr than we don't want it -- we
did not want it on top ofthc restroom, which was the original proposal for the club. They were going to put
the restroom, if you recall, at gradc level and then thc club was going to be the second story of that.
The -- I notice that the sccond level of parking has extra height allocatcd to it, and that was true
from the get-go. And I'm not sure you nccded that much extra height for just amenities.
Since things -- since plans that this dcveloper proposes seldom end up as proposed, I'm wondcring
if he had something in mind from thc get-go. Which is one reason why wc arc against this club. Because
even though they describe it in plan A today and we approve it as plan A, it's going to end up different, I
can tell you that.
Nobody has mcntioned what happcns when peoplc don't observe the rule about taking thc shuttle to
the beach club. They said well, they're going to park in the county parking lot.
I live on Gulfshore. I know they're going to park along the street, okay? They do it at the Floridian
Club when it gcts crowded, on holidays. they nosc into the parking lot across thc street in that little motel,
their tail sticking out on Gulfshorc. You know, it's a zoo getting up and down Gulfshore.
To say nothing of the trucks that were mentioncd before, the delivery trucks. LaPlaya, Turtle Club,
this place is going to have delivery trucks. And thc construction trucks now is making it very difficult to gct
by that intersection.
Another comment I have is quite often I'll call a friend and say meet me at the club for lunch. How
are you going to meet somcbody at this club for lunch? You know, ifI'm a member of the club, I'm going to
Page 93
16 11 (A-- )c4er 16,2008
ride the shuttle. What am I -- you know, what's my friend going to do? Thcy're going to have to come to my
house, get on the shuttle and then go. They won't bc able to meet me at the club for lunch. So that's a
problem that hasn't becn addressed.
And as I mentioned, things always turn out somewhat differently. We're a little suspicious, and
that's why we would ask you. do not approve this plan. Thank you for your tolerance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Richard, a question to respond to the points just raiscd. How are you going to be stopping folks
from driving to the club, both folks who are members and their guests?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, first of all, the guests will have to go meet their member at thcir
member's residence and ride the shuttle with them. Shc will -- I will --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How will you enforce that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: How will we cnforce that? We -- well, if we see members violating the
rules, we will cancel thcir mcmbership.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a previous meeting I thought you indicated somehow that if pcople
didn't come off the shuttle as club -- for the club, they weren't going to be allowed in the building, meaning
the only way they get in is from the shuttlc. You had some idea how you're going to monitor that and I
thought you had said bar codes or something.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wc have the swiper.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now, that's important. Becausc ifyou'vc got that -- and I thought
that's what you said at the prior meeting, which is not what you seem --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wc did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to bc saying--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wc did. Thc answer to that question is yes.
Is there a possibility that someone could park in the county parking lot, walk over and use thcir
swipe card? If we catch that pcrson doing that, we will be in a position to terminate their membership.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what I understood from the last mecting. It was my
understanding from the last meeting that you would have thc ability to monitor everybody that goes in there
with a bar codc coming off the shuttle, that it wasn't dependent on someone sneaking in.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, we're not dis -- I think we're saying the same thing, Mr. Strain.
Every member is going to havc a card to be a mcmber to gct through, okay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So when they come off the shuttlc they'll swipc their card and they'll be
allowed in the gate.
I guess can someone park -- not ride the shuttle, they're still going to have a card, okay.
Oh, swipe on thc shuttle first?
Okay, then the answer is they have to swipe their shuttle first to get on the shuttle and then to get
into thc club, so they won't be able to cheat the systcm, is what I'm being told.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I -- that's closer to what I --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I gct it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- thought wc understand.
Any other questions bcfore we go to the next public speaker, which is Brad's?
Go abead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just as a point of order. Mr. Griflin's been making some
comments, but he was not sworn in, and so I think that probably should happen. He was out of the room
when --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He hasn't been making them on record. He's been talking to his client.
Page 94
1 6 I 1 (It )c~er 16.2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, through you? Okay. Fine, if that counts.
I had a question about the other clubs in the area. Your other club. for example, which we know is
like 3,300 square feet. And LaPlaya is what? Do you know what size that club is?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know one ofthc -- because wc talked about it. One of the square footages
was 5,000.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 5,800?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that what we talked about, 5,800? That's my recollcction.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There was -- okay, the club and dining, lounge chairs is 5,850. Locker
rooms, 1,500 --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's just thc -- wc'rc doing apples to apples.
So it's around 5,800.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And thcn the pool is 937. Poolside dining is 350.
And then -- those are what I would call the pool and poolside dining and the club dining and lounge
terrace, I would say.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So about 8,000 altogether.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and we're about 7,000 altogether.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. would the -- I think that's it at this time, Richard.
Will thc gentleman from the park service mind coming up and addressing a question from
Commissioner Schiffer?
You just need to identify yourself for the record.
MR. STEIGER: Good afternoon. My name's Robert Steiger and I'm the park manager at
Dclnor-Wiggins Pass State Park.
THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in?
MR. STEIGER: No, I was not sworn in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your name, please?
MR. STEIGER: It's S-T-E-I-G-E-R.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeab, my question was, since this is going to be a public
access, a lot of peoplc are going to be coming down perpcndicular to thc watcr. When they hit the water, is
there any regulation they have about going north?
MR. STEIGER: Well, once they step over the boundary line, they'rc in a state park. And we have
signs posted to let people know that thcy arc in a state park with rules and regulations and that therc is an
entrance fee to pay upon entry to the park.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So an honest person would see that sign, go to your booth, give
the guy how much money?
MR. STEIGER: It's a one dollar entry fee if you walk in. Or if you own an annual pass, which we
sell, then that's good also.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, how much is the annual pass?
MR. STEIGER: Annual pass is $40 plus tax for an individual, or $80 plus tax for up to eight
people.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the answer thcy gave that it's free access is not to your
understanding.
Page 95
16 I 1 { ~ct)r'lo, 2008
MR. STEIGER: There is no free acccss into the state park.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you vcry much, sir. Appreciate it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm a little con -- does that mean you can't walk on the beach for free? I
think that's -- that was the question that was asked of us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come back, sir. Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean. I'm just trying to -- I don't know, I've never walked the beach up
there going north.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does your restriction line go all the way into the water, or is it just above
the mean high tidc linc?
MR. STEIGER: No, we also have a boundary line. Public domain means below mean high tidc,
that it's a public access and we don't charge an entry fee to walk along that area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to add to that. And just for background, I'm a former District
Commander for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And federal experience in dealing with all sorts of
activities along U.S. navigablc watcrs and U.S. waters, normally the boundary is the vegetation line. So we
would have to have legal opinion on that. Because there is no prohibition of preventing anybody from
walking along the beach.
But if you walk north and you turn and go west abovc thc vegctation line or into the property itself,
then they can be charged. But cvcn if the property line extends onto the sand, as long as you are betwccn thc
water and the vegetation linc -- you'll have to check the law, but my understanding is that there are no
restrictions, and you're protectcd by U.S. law. So we would have to verify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think for thc purpose of what Brad wanted to get at, we've got the
answer here today. And that's what we want to stay focused on.
Brad, are you --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm thinking is that I'm a citizen of Collier County, I walk
out to the thing. If I look to the north and there's nobody and I look to the south and it's Jones Beach, I'm
going to go north, and I don't want to have any problem with this guy.
So whcre do I get in trouble with him? I mean, obviously if I stay below the mean high water line I
feel comfortablc, not that that's the most obvious thing, but I feel -- you're not going to give me trouble with
this? As soon as I hop up on the beach with my chair, you might havc a conversation about a dollar. right?
MR. STEIGER: We could. We probably won't.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe says you can't until I walk into your bushes.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I'm not an attorney. I would defer that. But based on my expericnce,
normally the control line is at the vegetation line. Anything abovc the vegetation line would be deemed
state park or federal park or whatevcr the cntry level fee was. But if you're on the beach and you'rc on sand,
normally that is deemed public acccss, opcn to the public anywhere, any placc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich. can I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeab, I mcan, we got to stay on the object of the conditional use here. I
mean, whether they chargc to get in the park or not, I don't care. It has nothing to do with this conditional
use, but go abead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it does to mc becausc, you know, thc conccrn that all the
rcsidents have in that area is the intensity of use on the beach. Ifhe's going to draw a line and limit it, that's
a -- he's taking away half of the beach that cverybody imagines.
Rich, could you guys work some sort of a deal that never becomes an issue? Can you buy a -- do
something that -- so that everybody who comes down that access way has no concerns about walking
Page 96
16 11 ( It O~b~6, 2008
north? I mean, I don't know what it would be.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer. I don't cven know how to begin to address that with the statc
to address that.
And, you know, my point is this: You got that issue regardless. This is -- you're going to have -- in
our opinion, you'rc going to have the same amount of general public coming to this portion of the beach
with or without the beach club. Because the two communities that this -- are going to bc open in
membership. their closest public access that again we'vc provided is this portion ofthe beach. So thcy're
either going to -- they're going to probably now drive their cars and usc the county park to access the, quotc,
public beach, and they're going to be on the portion of the beach that the whole general public is competing
for.
With the beach club alternative they're going to come there by shuttlc instead of by car and using
up public parking spaces, and they're going to stay on the private beach facilities and not compete for the,
quote, narrow portion of the public's beach because thcy'll bc mcmbcrs of this condominirnn.
So we believe it will actually incrcase thc public's ability to get to the beach. And it's also less than
what was therc before. And ifit was working okay there before with the Vanderbilt Inn with its many hotel
rooms where you're n I can guarantee you during season they were putting more than two peoplc per room
in there. And I know that that chickee hut was well attended; I may have evcn secn some of you there.
So, I mean, from a beach-carrying pcrspective, I think that's a red herring. I think that's being
thrown out there to say that this beach club is somehow taking thc public's access away from the beach
when this new project is a lot less beach intcnsive than what was thcre before and is creating beach parking,
because we'rc providing a shuttlc.
So I mcan, I think a lot of those issues are red herring issues and will be there -- if the beach club or
not, you'll have those issues regardless. With the beach club it's better.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not so surc. Bccause I think, you know, there comes an area
that therc's a big hassle to gct access to thc beach. Your pcople from The Dunes aren't going to want to go
there either.
But anyway, there is an issue here. People do have to pay to walk to the north.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They've always had to pay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- I mean, so what we're really saying here, when I make a
suggestion on this. I'm going to make a judgment on only land to thc south.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So tell mc what I can do to--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, why can't you work --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: --I'm going to pay 80 bucks for everybody in the public?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, and honcstly--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Forty.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n we're getting far astray here of what this conditional use is about. And if
there's park lands to the north and they havc to monitor it and charge people, everybody's wcll aware of that.
I don't know if we can rcgulate that with a conditional usc.
If you want to vote no on a conditional use because it's too close to a public park, that's your option
if that's the reason you havc, Brad. But I'd rathcr not beat this to death over an issue that's not going to
change betwecn the two of you talking tor the next two hours, if you wanted to talk about it. So I'd like to
move on.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: l'll vote no then. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mr. Schmitt mentioned he was not an attorney and gave an
opinion. Why don't we ask our county attorney ifhe has an opinion as to whether that land is public or not.
Page 97
16 11 (A9c~etf-6, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if the county attorney is familiar with how state lands
rcgulates their boundary line.
Jeff, it's up to you if you want -- again, I'm not sure where we'rc going with all this.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You know, I leave for a little bit and we're up the beach hcrc.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, some people say the public is cntitlcd to land up--
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know how thc public can't just go onto the beach without having to pay
this guy, to be perfectly frank with you. But if a guy in a uniform's going to come up to you and say, you
know, it's $5.00, please, I don't know how you say no either. I think that's the reality.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. sir.
Are there any other questions of the public speakers before we go into rebuttal by the applicant?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I was going to ask if Mr. Yovanovich had talkcd to his client
about dropping people off at the entrance to the building, as opposed to the turnaround.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can agree to that condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Y ovanovich, do you want 10 minutes for any kind of closing
comments?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that my limit?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to have some limits today, because it's gonc on for hours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, and -- we don't nced 10 minutes. I think we've -- I think thc
issues that have been raiscd arc compatibility issues.
The residents of this condominirnn projcct are fully awarc that they'll be sharing a private beach
club with non-resident members.
I haven't heard anybody mention that they thought it would be inappropriate to have these facilities
available just for the residents of the condominirnn themselves. I don't think that's an issue at alL I think it's
the outsidc mcmbcrship.
And so from a compatibility standpoint, is it compatible with the residents who are living therc?
They're saying yes, because they're buying the units, and they understand that. And there's economies of
scales that benefit them by having outsidc membcrs to help dcfray thc costs of the restaurant and the food
scrvice and the drink service. So from a compatibility standpoint, internally, ycs, it makes sense.
From a compatibility to the neighborhood, it makes scnsc there as well. We are reducing beach
traffic and competition for the parking spaces at the county park. With our shuttle service, those people will
be able to ride a shuttle to our private bcach club and not use county spaces to compete for beach access.
This project n it's almost as if you're penalizing this project for being a good neighbor and
providing a 20-foot widc beach access for the overall community to havc access to the beach. Because had
we not done that, we wouldn't be talking about the general public's ability to get to thc beach. So this project
is what made beach access availablc to the gcneral public.
And now what you're saying is in doing that we don't want you to make it easicr for a limited
portion of that general public to use that public access point. You're saying if you allow 250 non-resident
members to have access through this bcach via shuttlc and the ability to get food and a drink at this
condominirnn, no, you can't do that. But if you want to not provide those services, it's okay for evcryone in
The Dunes and the Cocohatchce Bay to come to this site by thcir own vehicle and use and compcte with the
beach access.
It doesn't make any sense to us to say to this property owner, thanks for making beach access
available to everybody, but bccause you've done that we're going to limit who can come on your prcmises
to access thc private portion of the beach. That doesn't makc any scnse to us.
We hcard concerns about traffic. I think that we've laid thosc issucs to rcst. Weare -- and the
Page 98
1611 ( A- 0)416,2008
example they cited as a good example of LaPlaya. we're far less traffic than LaPlaya has to this area of the
beach from both on the road and on the bcach itself.
We believe we've met all of the critcria for a conditional usc. And remember, a conditional use is a
permittcd use on the property. Unless you don't meet -- unless there's certain factors that say you shouldn't
have this use there. But it starts as a permitted usc.
We've met the criteria. Your staff says you've met the criteria. We'vc had our professional staff and
you've had your professional staff testify that the criteria have been met. You haven't had any professional
stafftestify to the contrary.
The issues have been raised regarding beach access and who will be using the beach. Those same
people are going to bc using the beach regardless. And you have questions about transportation. We've
shown that we're reducing transportation impacts.
Your staff's recommending approval. We've done everything wc've been asked to do through the
public process.
There was a newsletter, and I don't remember who published the newsletter, but there was a
newsletter that was published by one of the organizations up on Vanderbilt Beach that said move the beach
club inside. They didn't want that outside beach club.
We did that. We movcd it inside.
We've I believe addressed every concern about access and abuse of the membership of using this
beach access point. The remaining issues are not issues that would lead to a detcrmination to not approve
the beach club.
Thc state beach has, to my knowledge, has never -- and I think some of you can probably testify to
this yourselves, charged for people walking on the beach from thc south to thc north.
So I think that's a -- it's a non-issue. If there was something I could do to grant these people
anmesty who decided to go right instead oflcft, I'd bc happy to do that. But I think that's probably a
non-issue from the state's perspective. And I think he said that too, he said probably not.
So I think that's really not an issue either. I think there's more than enough acccss to white sand for
the general public with this beach club, and we're asking that you recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners approval of our conditional use with the beach club with all of the stipulations and
conditions we'vc also agreed to today, even regarding the area of dropoff of our members.
And with that, I'm again available. I hope we've clarified any of the issucs. If you'd like us to come
back with a drawing to show a reconfigured dune, wc'll bc happy to do that, because of the concerns that
may have been raised about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard. I made some notes. I want to ask you where you stand on these.
I believe you agreed that there would be no outside amplified music or amplified sound cxcept that
as defined as background music in our noise ordinance.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That thc conditions provided and relating to thc parking and shuttle service
as provided in this package will all be incorporated and met as conditions of the conditional use.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ycs, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The off-site parking locations would be limited to thc existing parking
areas in the Cocohatchee and the Duncs PUD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ycs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That the public will bc allowed on the beach property west of the dune re-
vcgetation arca.
Page 99
16 III Hoc)416, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On our private beach property, west -- yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wherever that dune rc-vegetation --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ijust want to -- well, they're already allowed on the public portion.ljust
wanted to make it clear that we would allow them on our private portion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that the drop-off point for the club will be at the entry to the building,
not the turnaround.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And I think that actually will make it easier to monitor anybody who
tries, besides the double swipe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, those arc the notes that I made. And I wanted to make sure
that the applicant had an understanding ofthose before we went into discussion.
If there's no othcr commcnts, we can close the public hearing and we can have discussion or
entertain a motion, whichever is preferred.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you were doing that.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion of approval with staffs
recommendations and the recommendations that we just discussed with Mr. Yovanovich and Chairman.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 1'll sccond that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made for thc stipulations by staff and the five
stipulations that I just requested of Mr. Yovanovich for confirmation. It was seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Is there any discussion with the members?
Ms. Caron, Mr. Midney and Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeab, I think that thcrc is a real compatibility issue here. Because if
you take a look at the other clubs in the area, they'rc primarily connected with commcrcial operations. Their
own Floridian Club is only 3,300 squarc feet. The LaPlaya is about 8,000. That's at a major hotel.
The Turtle Club, I don't know, we hadn't askcd staff to comc up with a figure for the Turtle Club,
so I don't have that.
But again, thcse are all hotel and resort or hotel/motel properties. And this residential tower now
wants over 8,000 square feet for this club.
And it's rather ironic, because in the case of this petitioncr they went to great lengths to say change
what was commercial, the old Vanderbilt Inn property, to residential. They wantcd residential. And there
were obvious, you know, financial benefits to them for doing this.
But now thcy want to havc it both ways. And the attempt with this conditional use is to create not a
private club scrving just the residents but to create a very large club facility, restaurant and bar, in this what
is a residential building.
I think alarms should go off for everybody that it's taken multiple variances to even get to where we
are today.
First there was the height variancc to provide thc second level of parking. Then there was the trellis
variance. And essentially we're now being asked for another variance which is with the parking
requirements. We're being asked to accept the busing schcmc.
At some point I think we have to realize that this project -- if this project werc appropriate, it
wouldn't have been so difficult to accomplish, and it wouldn't require a variance around every corner.
I think additionally we also had discussion earlier in the day about noise compatibility. And I think
that you may find that there are going to be somc noisc issues for these residential units with respect to this
very major club. And that's -- those are my comments.
Page 100
16 11 {It- lair 16,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My commcnts arc that this is a conditional use, and I see it as an
intensification.
I think also that it's incompatible with the neighborhood. Espccially I really don't have too much
contact with the hotel side of Naples, but we do use the state park, which has been rated as one of the finest
statc parks in the whole United States. And I think that this intensification is incompatible with the
neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is, you know. Rich is saying that punishing them for the
20 feet, but the 20 feet was something that you got in the settlement agreement. And I don't believe thc
settlement agreement mentions anything that guarantces you --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't rebuttal for you, Richard. so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I'm just going to ask if! can--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Schiffer finish. We'll continuc--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, the 20 foot comes from the settlement agreemcnt.
And it has nothing to do with whether you're allowed to do thc bcach club or not.
Ifthere was an assrnnption you could do it, I don't think -- you know, thc neighbors had an
assrnnption. It states that the maximrnn zoncd height of the building can be 90 fect, yet staff somehow fclt
that that would allow thcm to use the optional mcthod to get that higher.
And then the conditional use, it isn't -- you know, it's a matter of -- the conditional -- this is
definitely a use that's allowed, but it's an additional usc. In other words, we have a residcntial use, now we
have a conditional use to allow a club addcd to it. I mean, next thing you know we could want a nursing
home put in the center courtyard.
So the point is, we have to judge whether thesc two uses over-intensify the site. And that's why I'll
be voting no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other commcnts?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust want to say with this ovcr-intensification, I think it's sort of a
down n it is dcfinitely to me a downgrade from the Vanderbilt Inn. There's not nearly as much traffic there
or will be as much traffic as there used to be. I mean, it was a real problem trying to find, you know, illegal
parking to get onto -- into the club back there, but we somehow managed. And -- as I found out it was
illegal. I always used to park in those I I or whatevcr illegal spaces. It was perfect.
But I think it's a much lower -- much less intense than it had becn. So I think it's a much better use,
personally.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I say something, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it isn't rebuttal to him. If you got --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wcll, it is rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're into discussion -- okay, go abead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the concern --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wc'vc gonc all day with this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the neighbors really have the exact same concern, they'rc
afraid that people are going to be doing the exact same thing that happened at Vanderbilt Inn is finding
ways to stick a car in the neighborhood. And that's thc fear of the neighbors today.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But--
Page 101
-'~^"._--'~~-"'~"-'""--"--'-"----~_""~
16 11 (A- )t~r 16,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go abead, Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm kidding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm fine, I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, what's good for one is good for all.
If there's no other comments, my --I'm going to support thc motion. I find it consistent with the
GMP, consistcnt with Land Development Code and consistent with thc Vanderbilt Beach overlay.
I know that in the past I've tried to throw everything I could at this, but I can't find where there's a
reason based on the codc that it should bc dcnicd, so thcrefore I am supporting the motion.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I just want to clarify, there may be an issue with the cntry. You had one of
your stipulations to use the main entry.
And I know Nick -- there may be concerns with exit -- ingrcss and cgress from that point, rather
than using thc turnaround. And I just want to make surc that that is reviewed by -- from a traffic
perspective.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't hear Nick get up here, and I'm not asking him to now.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant had offered it and we're going to leave it that way.
MR. SCHMITT: All right, then leave it -- we'll leave it that way. If they n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thcre's becn a motion madc and discussed. Any -- we'll call for -- all those
in favor, you're going to havc to raise your hand and signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ayc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those against?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion is ticd 4-4.
You'll have to go to the board with the motion as defined. You can tell the board why we're split up
like we are, give them stipulations for and against, anything you -- staff would have to do in that regard, so
MS. DESELEM: I just -- if! may. For the record, Kay Deselem.
I just wantcd you to clarify a couple of the things.
You had made mention of some over n all-encompassing statement about and everything clsc
included in thc information that we got. And I necd a little bit more specific information in order to write
that up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, we were provided two packages. These are the two packages. In here
ovcr a course of] don't know how many meetings thcy havc answered many questions concerning the
parking, how they're going to get n where thc parking's going to be, which is off-site, and the shuttle
process to use it. Two times an hour, thcy'rc going to have bar codes, monitor peoplc coming off the shuttle,
how thcy'rc going to keep track of them. That's thc kind of stipulations we don't have time to rewrite here
today that I expect staff to bring back on consent.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. And you want those included in the conditions.
Page 102
1 6 I 1 (:f+ ) tpctober 16, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually what about consent on a tie vote, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't come back, do we? We're done, aren't we?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I think we should,just to make sure.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think we should. I think this is going to be just as intense before the Board of
County Commissioners, and I'd like to make sure that the stipulations arc accuratc.
And while I've got the mic, Mr. Kolflat, did you give reasons for your denial for the record?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Intensification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use your speaker, Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: More intensifi -- higher intensification.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we'll come back on consent. What basically you'll do is outline
the stipulations of the four that had -- werc affirmative and then any comments from the negative that would
normally be shown in your executive summary.
MS. DESELEM: One other clarification I was going to ask you about. A lot of the information wc
had and in staffs condition as wcll, it said that the use of the private club by non-Moraya Bay Beach Club
residents shall be limited to those persons who rcside in a community that provides on-site parking.
In your motion you spccifically listed it to two projects. Was that your intent?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, I did.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
With that, beforc we n we're going to move on to the next one.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I necd conditional use forms.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thcy'rc working on it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One minute.
Item #9B
PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12619, K.O.V.A.C. ENTERPRISES, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next petition up is CU-2007-AR-12619, K.O.V.A.C. Enterprises,
for a refuse use system in the industrial zoning district on Elsa Street.
All those issue wishing to tcstify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the
court reportcr.
If you're going to provide testimony, please rise.
(Spcakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a brief conversation with Mr. Hancock. So other than that?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, it's all yours.
MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I pray to God this is a slightly
simpler application.
Tim Hancock, with Davidson Enginccring, for the applicant, K.o.V.A.C. Enterprises.
K.O.V.A.c. Enterprises is reprcsented also by Ms. Tina Langham, who was just outside when we
swore in, so if she does need to speak at any point, we'll just ask that she be sworn in at that time.
Page 103
1611llt)t.\
October 16, 2008
Tina's the daughter of Kenneth Vaughn, who started this recycling operation.
Also in attendance is Karo Vaughn, Kenneth's son, and also is Martha Vaughn, Kcnneth's widow.
Karo is thc day-to-day operator basically of thc site, so any operational questions Karo can help us
out with.
As you can see from the zoning map before you, the project is located on Elsa Street in the Pinc
Ridge Industrial Park just a little bit to the west of Janes Lane.
And let me givc you an acrial, a color aerial that might be a little more helpful to you as to the
current condition.
As you can see from this aerial, thcrc are operations in the immediate area of this particular
operation that deals with storage and processing of materials.
You may notice in the supper left-hand corner, if we zoom out just a little bit on that, you'll see
actually thcre's a concrete batch plant up to the upper lcft. It's also ncarby in thc industrial park.
The request before you is a conditional use request to permit what is called a refuse system per SIC
Code 4953. But in actuality it's a concrete recycling operation.
The functions performed on the property arc rather straightforward. Concretc, brick and stone
products that are part of the construction waste-stream are brought on-site and drnnped in pilcs.
The material is sorted. Steel such as rcbar is removed, and the material is crushed using a single
portable crusher into small pieces suitable for use such as road fill, landfill cover and the like.
The material is then loaded and haulcd off-sitc.
Each truckload of material that's brought onto the site is charged a fairly low fee when compared to
what the Naples Landfill would chargc thcm to dispose of only concretc, brick and stone products.
Customers are charged by the truckload for hauling the material off-site for their usc.
This operation began in 2001 by Kenneth Vaughn. At the time Mr. Vaughn, or K.O. as he was
better known, was a private contractor working for Florida Power & Light.
He used this propcrty which hc purchascd in 1997 to store materials on and for some of the
cquipmcnt that he used in his contracting work, and then started a small crushing operation, which has
certainly grown along with the construction industry in Collier County.
Businesses such as this one serve an important purpose, in that ifthis matcrial were not recycled it
would end up in our landfill taking up space and prematurely expanding the areas needed for other types of
residential waste.
Thc fees charged by the landfill for accepting concrete are fairly high. A typical 20-ton truckload
would cost in excess of$I,OOO to tip at the landfill. Whercas operations such as this typically charge 100 or
$150 or maybe as much as $300 in order to have that matcrial dropped of I
Therc are only three places in coastal Collier County that accept this material, or at least that I'm
aware of. One of them's at the end ofYahI Street in this gcneral arca. It was permitted back in 1981 under
provisional usc.
However, it does not have a crushcr on-site. They charge by the truckload or by the ton and when
they get enough material, they'll have somebody bring a portablc crusher on and crush it and then dispose of
the material. They're rcally not in the concrete recycling business as much as they are -- and I belicve they're
a subsidiary of Waste Management at this time. Almost more of a transfer site.
There is another site in the county that has done this kind of work in the past, but you might check
on that, indicates that the zoning is not adequate.
This rezone is an effort to bring the site into compliance, to adopt some operational standards that
previously did not exist.
Subsequent to this conditional use, a site development plan will have to be approved and the site
improvements will have to be put in place aftcr the approval of the SDP.
Page 104
16 11 ( if) t October 16, 2008
This effort is in response to a code enforcement case that originally cited Mr. Vaughn for not
having an approved site development plan. Subsequently they found out a conditional use would be
required also.
I'd like to point out that the refuse system SIC Code 4953 also includes things like landfills and
toxic waste handling. And when you look at the totality of 4953, I can understand why it's a conditional use.
When you look at the operation of crushing concrcte and hauling it off-site, yet in the same
industrial park undcr industrial zoning without a conditional use you can manufacture concrete block, you
can make concrete. The two are very similar in the byproducts and the operational characteristics.
It was Mr. Vaughn's dream to create a business on this site and allow that business to provide for
his children through its operation. And he was a prctty simple straightforward guy and was not terribly
enamored with the burcaucracy hc found in trying to get this thing put through the system, and hc just about
gave up prior to his passing in 2006.
But upon his passing, the responsibility to address these issues fell to his wife and children, and
we're here today to try and make that happen.
While it's our believc that thc use is entirely consistent with the zoning district and the land uses
that currently exist in the industrial park today, such as concrete plants, storage yards and materials
processing of a varying nature, we also understand that thcre are operational characteristics of this use that
have to be recognized.
This type of operation is noisy and it's dusty at timcs. These points, along with others, werc raiscd
by neighbors at the neighborhood information meeting, and particularly those that are immediately to the
south of thc property.
The current opcration has a portable crusher which is stationary but sits on rubber tires. And in the
aerial before you, the crusher is locatcd right about where I'm pointing right here. So it's fairly close to the
propcrtics that are along this southern boundary.
Material that's brought into thc site basically goes to the ccntcr ofthe site where it's drnnped, and
from there it is then put into pilcs, put into thc crushcr. And, you know, thc crusher makes noise, period.
And what we -- one of the concerns we heard about and we'll address them are basically noisc,
visual aesthctics and vibration.
On the issue of noise, in addition to wherc thc crushcr sits on thc property, as trucks come in to be
loaded to haul off, they also sit in that same general arca. And wc all know that diesel engines, while they're
idling, can be a littlc on the loud side also.
I've stood next to this crusher and had a conversation with somebody. But if you put a diesel truck
next to it and havc thc two running at the same time, you start to understand the complaints ofthe
neighborhood.
What we've tried to do is put together an opcrational plan that will address these issues.
This operational plan rcsulted in the stipulations you see before you in your staff recommendation
of approval. And primarily what we've tried to do is take the crushing operation and move it 200 fcet to the
north and east to where you see in between the two small ovals. That's where the crushcr would sit.
Additionally, the vehiclc loading area would be adjaccnt to that crushcr.
So what we've done is we've taken the existing condition of the crusher and the trucks being closer
to those businesses and moving it to the north and east where it's going to provide less noise and be more on
the compatible side.
We can't eliminate the noise, but by moving it to this location we certainly feel we can reduce it.
A second complaint we had was airborne dust. We proposc two ways of dealing with this. One is
that spray heads will continue to bc employed full-time on the top of the crusher to reduce the airborne
particles coming out of the crusher.
Page 105
16 11 (A ) tt October 16,2008
This crusher, if you look at it, it looks like the back end of an 18-wheeler. It's got wheels on the
back of it, rubber tires and it sits on top of a platform. And it's got basically a bin or a shoot on the top of it.
Inside of it arc just hammers. And it's not fancy, but it works. The concrcte is dropped inside, which is
crushed with the hammers.
Therc are two systems, one of which has always been cmployed and onc of which that will be
employcd in the future and that is that there's watcr that runs into the center of that crusher while it's
operating. That typically kecps most of the dust and debris from coming out of the top ofthc crushcr.
It's it also outfitted with spray heads on the top edge ofthc crusher. And those have at times not
been operational. Part of our operational plan is to ensure that both of those systems are working at all times
that the crusher is in opcration.
For acsthetics and additional dust control staff has recommended using a fivc- foot hcdge along the
south and west property lines, in addition to the trees which will bc plantcd one on every 30-foot center.
Thc applicant has agreed to doing this along the southern property line adjaccnt to thc existing
businesses. However, we'd like to clarify that when we talk about the western propcrty line, I hope we're
talking about the area here along the entry road. To put a five-foot hcdgc on this property line adjacent to a
lime rock graded rock on the Kirkoffs property doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense.
So I'd like to at least requcst the clarification that what we're talking about is an additional five-foot
hedge along the south property line here and along thc western propcrty line here to address those
businesses nearest thc operation.
One other concern wc had from Mr. Brett, who's one of the adjacent businesses was a security.
Apparently at some point somebody had drivcn onto thc site, cut through the fence to the back of his
business and burglarizcd his business.
We have agreed to basically fence and lock thc opcration when somebody's not on-site to try and
reduce the possibility of that happening again.
And lastly, in an attempt to address the visual conccrns, and I'll think you'll hcar some of that today
from even a property owner that's on the south side of Elsa Street, in addition to the vegetated buffer, thc
applicant has agreed to a height limitation for material piles of no more than 40 fcet. That is 10 feet below
the cxisting pcrmitted height in industrial zoned districts.
With these controls in place and thc site being brought up to current code for landscaping and
parking, we feel the concerns of the neighbors are bcing addressed in a cooperative and reasonablc fashion
and that thc sitc will opcratc in a manner consistent with and in a morc compatiblc fashion than the existing
permitted uses that are currently in operation in the park today.
Thc last item I wish to discuss with this body is the native preserve requircment that is being
required of this sitc.
We have no ability to prove that the site was legally cleared. Mr. Vaughn used it for storagc and
whatnot starting in 1997. And there was vegetation, some vegetation on the site at that timc.
The calculation provided by staff, and we don't dispute the calculation per the Land Development
Code, is .37 acres of preserve is going to have to be recreated on this site.
The location of the prescrve that staff has recommended is in thc northwest corner. The basis for
that recommendation, as I understand it, is becausc therc's vegetation immediately to the west.
That vegetation is not in a preserve. It may be at some point if that property comes in, but right now
it's not.
On that basis and that basis alone, we submitted our master plan showing the preserve in that
location.
We do think we have a better plan, though. A .37-acre preserve, as this body has laboriously
discussed over the last four meetings, is not exactly habitat. It's basically just a way to find a spot and put
Page 106
1611(A)~
October 16, 2008
aside some trees and vegetation so that things aren't mowed down 100 percent.
Nrnnber one, we would like to have the opportunity to mitigate off-site at a one-to-one ratio if
possible and acceptable to the county.
If that option is not availablc, our plan B, if you will, is to create the .37-acre preserve on-site but
adjacent to the property owners to thc south.
If you agrce that we're not really going to create habitat here one way or the other, all wc're going to
do is create vegctation, then the location shown on this plan to me scrves to be a better ncighbor than what
staff is recommending. And it is our request that ifwc do crcate prcserve on-site that it be locatcd
somewhere that it does more than just stand as a tree, but will hopefully create more buffering and more
compatibility with the off-site properties.
In wrapping up, we ask you accept staffs findings in thcir staff report and approve the application
before you with a clarification in incrcascd buffering, as noted on the south and west, and the opportunity to
either mitigate off-site at a one-to-one ratio or at lcast locate the prcscrve in the location shown in the
exhibit before you.
With that, I will do my best to address any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How long has this operation becn running and in effect?
MR. HANCOCK: It's becn running since 2001 or 2002.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley'!
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thcre was another issue, Mr. Hancock, regarding thc -- at thc
neighborhood information mecting rcgarding the vibrations. Somebody said that therc are cracks in the
stucco building that he believed were from the vibrations caused. I know you mentioned several times about
rubber tires --
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- which would mitigate that vibration.
Do you feel that's still a concern?
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Brett, who had that conccrn, is an honorable man. I've worked with him on
other projects. And I don't doubt that he has felt vibration at times.
My personal experience with this operation is that I've stood ncxt to that thing, and I don't feel the
vibration through the soles of my shoes standing 50 feet from it or 20 feet from it.
However, we think -- what we've tried to do is by moving it 200 fect to the north and east further
away from his property, we've done cverything that we can. And by having a portable crusher on tires
instead of a hard mounted crusher in a foundation, we think that vibration is dampcned and grcatly reduccd.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Indced.
MR. HANCOCK: So I hope that thosc two things are sufficient to address his concerns.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And one other thing. I do think this diagram herc would be a
better preserve n location for the preserve area, due to those offices right there.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Wc don't anticipate off-site mitigation to be an casy process. So in all
likelihood, if this plan is what wc move forward with, we prefer this, becausc wc think it makes us simply a
better neighbor.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. And my last thing is that, you know, we're always asked
how it affects the neighbors, you know, does it look good, does it smell good, does it sound good and all
this. And I -- this area, you know, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I've had people that are upsct about
solar panels, about windmills. Well, I happen to think that's beautifuL So, you know, I think this is perfectly
appropriate. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
Page 107
16 11 ( A- ) 'f October 16,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. KolfJat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. You mentioned you have Type A buffers. Your plan drawing
shows this to be five feet, whereas the standard that I have, the width is 10 feet standard.
MR. HANCOCK: The Type A buffer in the industrial zoning district is a five-foot width.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It is five, not 10.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The only place we'll have a 10-foot buffer is along Elsa Street it
becomes a Type D buffer adjacent to a right-of-way. That is still-- it's a Type D but it's 10 fect in width
with one tree every 30 feet on center.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And that has a hedgc also, doesn't it?
MR. HANCOCK: Along Elsa, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Along Elsa.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is the maximrnn pile height permitted in the zoning district?
You said it a little earlier and I forgot.
MR. HANCOCK: Currently piles or stockpiles are not regulated specifically or individually, so you
havc to go with the building height, which is 50 feet.
We're proposing a reduction in that by 10 feet for our pile hcight. Again, mainly because the folks
across the street had great concerns about ifthc operation -- how big can be too big. We thought by putting
a height limitation on thc piles, we could limit the amount of material on the site at anyone time that way.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, according to the neighborhood information mceting notcs,
thcrc was a question about looking into how to make entrance and driving paths better (sic) minimizc dust.
Have you donc anything in that regard?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Containcd in thc stipulations in the staff report before you is a
requirement to water the working areas of the site at least twice daily. Again, today we're under no standard.
Under this operational plan wc'll havc the standard, so that includes all drive arcas, unpavcd drive areas.
And any ofthe piles that arc bcing worked that day, what they have is the ability to move sprinklers on
those pile areas and to wet them down.
And the operational plan includes wetting them down at least twice a day. So that's a minimrnn
standard. If dust is being created, we will try and do more and morc. As a matter of fact, we're going to try
and get a well on-site becausc the county water is so expensivc to do this. If we can get a well from a
surficial level, it will allow us to do it more and cheapcr, and that's our goal.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, one ofthc ncighbors cxpresscd concern regarding building
cracks due to the crusher operation. Have you investigated that any further with him?
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Brett's building is the one we're talking about. And I'm sure he'll address that
with you.
It's an older building. You know, my only experience with this operation is standing there when it's
running. As to whether or not his building cracked because of the crusher operation or it cracked as
thousands of buildings have in Florida for no apparent reason, it's hard to say.
What I can tell you is that, you know, I've worked around mines where blasts occur. I know what
vibration fcels like. And in standing in a close proximity to his business, it did not -- I didn't sense any
vibration through the ground at that time while thc crushcr was operating. We're going to makc that better
by moving it 200 feet away. Beyond that, the fact that it's on rubber tires as a dampening effect, I'm not sure
there's much more we can do, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, whcn I inspected the site, there was a huge pile probably 40
feet high of debris, and it looked to me like it was in the northwest corner of the property; is that correct?
MR. HANCOCK: Ycs, sir, that would be the highest pile at this time.
Page 108
16 11 (A ) <f October 16,2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And what the plan is, is to reduce all ofthat debris and make that
into a prcserve area?
MR. HANCOCK: Well, that's where staff would like the preserve to be.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think your suggestion to spread this preserve area down and more
in the boundary is a much better solution for that arca up thcre, becausc the siting around it is -- the only
place to really worry about is to the south I think where the neighbors are. The other site's just as bad as the
area for appearance as this one is.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. If we're going to lose .37 acres of land to a preserve, let's at least do it
where it can help the neighbors out.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think it's an cxcellent suggcstion.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, one thing: You want to locate thc crusher more towards the
eastern property. Why wouldn't you bring it over towards the casting next door? In other words, wouldn't it
be -- I think where it is north-south is fine. Why wouldn't you have slid it to the west boundary? Bccause
the eastern boundary has officcs and other kinds of uses.
MR. HANCOCK: Primarily ultimatcly when this site operates what we'd like to have is we'd likc to
have the -- the way this type of business runs is you may not get a lot of folks who need material for three or
four days in a row. And then you get a phone call at 10:00 at night saying I'm going to have 20 trucks there
tomorrow. And so you have -- you want to makc sure there's queuing on the site for those trucks.
By putting it in thc northeast corner we'vc allowed internal queuing of those trucks at the point
furthest away from those busincsses, which would bc along the northern property line. And so that's why it
madc the most sense to me to be up there.
The other reason is those buildings adjacent to it are cnclosed. For example, Darcy's business, you
know, it's auto repair, and they open the back door, because I wouldn't want to work in thcre without that
back door open. And, you know, so that's a different kind of operation.
The buildings that the crusher would be closc to now arc cnclosed more so, and we thought that just
made more sense.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, you could move it and get the same travel distance.
I mean, I don't think --
MR. HANCOCK: Wc could circulatc thc other way, sir. And I don't think we really havc a care
about that. And if it's this board's desire to move it to the west instead ofthc east side, we can just reverse
that rotation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I think you can do it.
The storage area. Looking at the aerials, it looks like containers and stuff like that. What is that,
just, you know, nothing really organized but just a place where peoplc can put trailers, stuff like that, just --
MR. HANCOCK: Y cs, sir, it's fencc secured storage. You know, again, we have a real need for
that in the community.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not -- yeab. It's not material. I mean, you're using that. The
work area is wherc you're moving all your material around, corrcct?
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. Thc storagc area is just as wc indicated, it's just for storage of:
you know, equipment and materials for others.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other issue is do you need a building on the
site? There's a statement here that thc office work is done not on the site; do you have another office in the
neighborhood.
Well, what is the real desire in terms of buildings and stuff?
Page 109
1611(A--)~
October 16, 2008
MR. HANCOCK: Ultimately what you see here is what we'd like to accomplish, which would be
to have a small operational office as people come in with a couple of parking spaces.
Undcrstand, this is not a consrnner-based business. You know, thc vchiclcs that come on thc
property are there to cither drop something off or pick it up.
But ultimately we'd like to have a small office on the property with a rcstroom in it. But the point
being right now they have an office on Shirley Street. You're looking at the operators. Ms. Langham is a
pharmacist by trade but is a mean front end loader operator also. And there's one or two other folks that will
work on the site. But they have facilities nearby. We're just trying to kecp the cost down as long as we can.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you -- I mean, you'rc looking at the conditions. Do you
need the building? I mean, do you want to -- I guess you could probably do restrooms with portable and
stuff if you really wanted to.
MR. HANCOCK: We don't need the building. But what we'll be required to do within 90 days of
this being hopefully approved will bc to come in with a site development plan, and we'll have to make the
decision at that time whether we'll nced a building in the first phase or not. And we're just not there yet. The
economics are not solid.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staffrcport?
MR. MOSS: Good afternoon, Commissioncrs. For the record, John-David Moss, Departmcnt of
Zoning and Land Development Revicw.
The project is consistent with thc urban industrial district ofthe Growth Management Plan, the area
in which it's located.
It's also consistent with all the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code.
And staff is recommending approval ofthc petition, subject to the stipulations containcd in Exhibit
B of the resolution. And they're dated September 23rd.
One thing I wanted to clarify in those commitments is that -- or excuse me, in those conditions --
was that the buffer should bc along the southwest portion of the site. It does say western, as Mr. Hancock
pointed out, and it should say southwestcrn.
I also wanted to clarify that the stipulation is for a Type B Buffer, which is trees planted 25 feet on
centcr. Mr. Hancock had said 30 fect. So I just wanted to let you know that the opacity that staff is
recommending is greatcr than what he had stated.
But this may all bc a moot point if you all decide to move the preserve area to the southem
boundary of thc site.
And l'Il be happy to answer any questions you might have about the petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: J.D., there seems to be a consensus of moving the preserve area
down. Do you have a major problem with that?
MR. MOSS: I don't. But environmental is the one that recommended that it be located in that
portion of the site. So I know Susan Mason is here, perhaps she'd like to make a comment about that.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I'd like to hear from Susan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Susan, there seems to be general consensus to move it down. Do
you have a major problem with that?
MS. MASON: Well, for the record, Susan Mason with environmental review section.
The LDC does rcquire that there be off-site connection whenever possible. The only area that
Page 110
1611 (tr)q
October 16, 2008
would bc possiblc would be if whenever some development of some sort would bc coming into that parcel
that's to the west where the original preservc location was shown.
The preserve -- it is, you know, a small prcscrvc, granted, but there's definitely no possibility for
any off-site connection of any type in this plan that's been proposed today.
I don't know exactly how it would work. And I heard the time linc that Mr. Hancock was referring
to. As you know, the LDC amendment allowing off-sitc preservation won't be going through this cycle. If
they stick with that original time line, probably because of the code enforcement case, this really would be
an ideal situation for an off-site preservation. But we can't allow that at this time, so --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't think they're looking for ofj:site, I think they're looking for
this. Which I think and most other people here think it makes more sense, so --
MS. MASON: I think it scrves as a landscape buffer for people, but it would not rcally pre -- it's not
as compliant with the code as the original location, but --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Besides hardworking people, are there any endangcred species on this
site?
MS. MASON: Not that I know of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then the preserve application isn't for any kind of endangered
species or anything else, it's just a planning criteria of the code, which is more of an open space criteria.
Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: A motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do we have any public speakers, Ray?
Bcfore we go into that, you know what? It's been anothcr hour and a half. We're going to try to get
out ofherc by 5:30 or so, Cherie'. Why don't we take a I O-minute break and come back here at 4:26 and
resume, give you a little break. Thank you.
(Recess. )
(Commissioner Midney is now absent.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from our break.
And Ray, last time we left off with going to public speakers. Would you please call the first public
speaker, pleasc.
MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker would be Dan Brett, to bc followed by Dorsie Whisman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you need to identify yourself for the record and move forward.
MR. BRETT: My namc is Dan Brett. I own the property that backs up to the southwest corner of
the K.O.V.A.c. Enterprises' property. Right where Mr. Hancock has his pen, that property right thcre.
Okay, thc presentation that Mr. Hancock has just brought forward to the board, I agree with most of
what the changes are; are a distinct improvement over what the current status is behind us. I've also read the
Collier County staff report and agree with most of the recommendations. I wish to address points three and
seven of the recommended conditions of approval.
Point number thrce: One thing that I was glad to see is that they idcntify one crushing machine will
be allowed to operate on-site and shall not be located within 200 fect of the property's southern boundaries.
This current crusher is located 108 feet offthc northeast corner of my building. Up until about four
months ago, which was just after the neighborhood meeting wc had, if you sat in my officc with that
crushcr operating, you would think you were in southern CaIifomia experiencing a tremor. I had people
sitting in there that wide-eyed looked at me when that was going on.
Since the neighborhood meeting, I have seen that thcy changed the way that their crushing machine
Page 111
1611 (It )~
October 16, 2008
is mounted. Yes, it does have rubber tircs, but prcviously that whole machinc was sitting on the ground.
Now they have the machine suspended, that both ends are up off -- are sitting on the ground and the rubber
tires are two to three feet in the air.
I ask the Planning Commission to consider requiring this crushcr or any future crusher that they
may get once this one wears out or ifthcy go and expand this operation and they get a permancnt crushcr, I
ask this Planning Commission to consider requiring that any crushcr be placcd on an engineered vibration
reduction pad which will eliminate the vibration as they do move this from close proximity to me, thcy will
bc moving it closer to one of our neighbors. I ask that you seriously consider that vibration pad that the
crusher be located on.
Point number seven relates to the dust prevention. I ask that the board would consider -- scriously
considcr to help prevent dust from traveling off-site. I ask the board to consider that the first 150 feet of the
two-way access be paved, thus eliminating the mud holes the trucks drive through as they leave, carrying
thc mud onto the road which dries and the traffic on Elsa Street creates dust that pcrmeates into our
buildings, into the showrooms and onto our cars.
I appreciate your listening. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
What I'd like to do is get all the public input and then wc'll ask Mr. Hancock about the issues when
we're all complete.
Next spcakcr, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Dorsic Whisman.
MR. WHISMAN: My name is Dorsie Whisman. I have the property to thc right ofMr. Brett's,
dircctly behind where all the dust and dirt and everything is.
But the main thing I'm concerned about is the noise and the dirt. Because I get the dirt and dust
from the rear, and it comes around to the front. But I see some of that could be handled by what they're
doing here, if this is done here. If they go the other way, I don't scc any way of solving it. I mean trces 30
fect apart not going to solve anything. Exhaust, fumes, no dust, no dirt, no smoke.
And I havc -- like I say, I havc a shop with the front doors open and it comes straight through both
ways. I get dust in the front and dust in the back.
But I think this here would work. And they've worked with mc and I try to work with them. I think
they can do something like this. I don't know what the environments have got to do with it, but --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Neither do we.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't either, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wc don't either.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Neither do wc.
MR. WHISMAN: But, I mean, I guess they do, but I've dealt with thcm before because I got a
campground zoned one time, so I know what they do.
But I think what Mr. Brett said is about what I think too. So that's aliI have to say. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Katherine Tarrant.
MS. TARRANT: As he said, my name is Kathcrine Tarrant, and I own Clean Air and Allied
Supply that is not to the south located where my neighbors here are, but I'm across thc street from them. But
I'm directly facing the operation.
And the operation, in ycars prior when it started, was never a problem. But of course after Mr.
Vaughn died and it bccame a bigger facility, it became a major problem for me and my business. Because
even though I have warehouses and keep the doors shut and we're primarily a -- we deliver products to
Page 112
1611lA-)t
October 16, 2008
customers, it is almost impossiblc to kecp anything clean.
And after about a year of this, I had called the code enforcement and called thc pollution also. And
I was shocked that they both laughed at me, honestly, and they said they saw no pollution problem, nothing,
no problem of any sort.
So I'm very thrilled that this issue has come to light and is being addresscd. So I want to thank you
upfront for that.
I think plan B is much more acceptable than -- and I'm really pleased that it's advanced this far.
I'm still concerned, as has bccn prcviously stated, that if it remains a dirt road and it's not paved,
we're still going to have dust and dirt from that.
The height of 40 feet still allows for a lot of dust and dirt over the trees or the shrubs. I don't know
any way to eliminate that either. I wasn't making a suggestion, I'm just saying I don't see a resolution for it.
It does -- cverything we send out to a customer has to bc cleancd prior to going out, even with a
warehouse being shut up, because it's just continuous. Even insidc our small showroom, the shelves and the
products are dirty all the time. And it's this fine mist of dust that somehow gcts in. So not only inhaling it, I
consider for all my neighbors is not healthy, but the fact that it is a nuisance.
So thc traffic on Elsa Street, which is a small street in width, is always a bit of a contention. And
when there have been heavy use of the trucks, of course it creates more of a problcm.
But those are my main issues. And it seems as though -- I think something's been provided for
water drainage. I think I secn that. That was one of thc othcr things I wanted to bring up.
But otherwise, one more thing is that the father had operated only at night, like aftcr 6:00 at night,
and before 6:00 in the morning, which we usually opcn about 6:00. So this never -- was anothcr reason I
think it didn't create a problcm to -- for myself and the neighborhood.
And I think if those hours could possibly be opcra -- hours of operation again, it would help to
eliminate a lot of the -- what they're doing, the dust and the noise and cverything would be eliminatcd marc.
Just my thoughts. And thank you for listening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Hancock, we certainly would like you to respond to the various concerns you heard from the
three members of the public that spoke.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'll just take them as list items.
Mr. Brett requested that under nrnnber three that the crusher, when relocatcd, be elevated and
placed on n and his words were vibration reduction pad. That may in fact be a pre-engineering term that I'm
not entirely sure what it means standing before you today. But let me tcll you what I think we can ccrtainly
agree to. That is to elevate the crusher and make sure the crusher rests on cithcr material or a pure
foundation that is designed to rcduce vibration.
And that I'm comfortable with, if that wording is acceptable to Mr. Brctt. I think we're trying to get
to the same place, but I'm not sure that I can agree to vibration reduction pad without fully undcrstanding if
that has a fiscal impact to my clicnt.
Under nrnnber seven, dust prevcntion: Paving the first 150 feet of the driveway. And that actually
takes us back to about the fence line. And that's something we anticipated doing at the SDP stage, so we're
more than happy to include that as a condition.
Mr. Whisman, I think wc've done about as good as we can do to address his.
And the only other comment I heard, the height of 40 feet is something that I think we've already
dropped from 50 to 40 and I'm not sure going down to 30 actually is going to have any visual impact to
business owners across the street. And since we've agreed to water the working areas of the piles, that
should take care of as much of the dust issue is as reasonable.
And hours of operation: While we can limit the hours of operation with respect to the truck traffic,
Page 113
16 11 ~(Pr)Lt October 16, 2008
as I mentioned earlier, this is a very odd business. And sometimes you get a call late at night and they need
a lot ofloads in the morning and so you'll bc crushing at night. Sometimes you'll get that call that they need
it late in the day and you'll bc crushing in the morning.
So it is an industrial park. We don't limit hours of operation on most businesses within the
industrial park, so we simply ask that that bc lcft aIonc.
But I will tell you, it is Karo Vaughn's -- you know, he'd rather work at night because it's a heck of
a lot cooler. And therc seems to be some of that, but I'm hesitant to limit those.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go abead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, one thing. I think the point she was making on the height
might makc scnsc. What is the material up at the peak of that? Are these large chunks of concrete or is it a
fine dust material?
MR. HANCOCK: No, the stuff at the top of the piles, as someone who has climbed those suckcrs a
couple oftimes to take some pictures, is fairly large pieces. The way in which I think the height of the pile
may crcate dust is when the top of that pile is being worked and pull cd down to beset up for crushing. And
if we are watering that pile that wc're working twicc a day, I think that's a reasonable accommodation. We
don't want piles of 40 feet. We'd like 'em smallcr. They'rc casier to operate and easier to maintain.
Onc of the problems we've had is we haven't been able to get as much material off-site, bccause
until we resolve the conditional use, we've got potential clicnts out there like the FDOT and the county
landfill that won't use our material, becausc wc necd to bc okay with code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think if there is fine material and it is up high, it will blow
further. I think she --
MR. HANCOCK: It will. Most material up top is larger pieces. The actual flOes in thc
post-crushing material is down lower, and those piles don't get much marc than 15 or 20 feet. It's a working
pile.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And thcn I did like his idea of calling that an engineered
vibration pad. That means somebody who's, you know, got a background in vibration is the one who's
determining what's the best method. It docsn't havc to be expensivc, just the best available method.
MR. HANCOCK: Again, l'll -- my lack ofknowledge will restrict me on that.
We undcrstand thc intcnt that Mr. Brett's trying to get to, and I'm just -- I don't know if that is a set
tcrm out there that means it's $100,000 itcm, or if it's a $10,000 itcm. I honcstly don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think you mean the person who's doing it knows what he's
doing I think is the intent.
MR. BELLOWS: Ycab, I'd just like to add, we'll coordinate with our engineering staff to see if
there arc ways that this can be placed so as not to create additional vibrations.
MR. HANCOCK: And since we do have to come back in for SDP, if the stipulation is that we will
design a pad for the portable crushcr or a support system for the portable crushcr that is designed to reduce
vibration, we're more than happy to do just that. Because your engincering staff will have to review it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would they have to provide an SDP for this site?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wcll, SDP's got to be done by a licenscd Florida civil engineer,
right?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the civil enginecr -- if you require on the SDP that this material and
foundation vibration reducing pad be shown on the SDP, that means it's going to have to be engineered.
MR. BELLOWS: I be -- yes.
Page 114
16 I :.1 l Pr rrber 16,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would probably fill the bill.
Are there any other questions of Mr. Hancock at this time?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No questions. I'm ready for a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have onc. Ijust want to make sure everybody else had theirs.
Ray, this preservc area, part of the rcason that we've argued that they necded a buffer was to help
with the dust situation certainly visiblc, and noise.
Created preserve areas to me, especially in arcas that are more uplands like this, could be very
sparsely populated. Do we rcally want to limit it to a crcative preserve area or a landscape buffer area where
we could expect bettcr material that could actually fill the area out versus what a preserve might not do?
And I'm just throwing that out as a suggestion, bccause that would actually makc it better for the
people to thc south, because -- and it may cnd up bcing the same price, because you're looking at more
readily availablc landscapc material.
Because the purpose hcre can't be for a preservc in the middle of the industrial park. So lct's just
facc it, it's going to be a green space with some landscaping in it. And maybe thcre's a better way to look at
that than trying to recreatc a preservc that isn't cvcn practical. And I'm just throwing that out as a
suggestion.
MR. HANCOCK: If! may offer by way of something that may bc built into the motion, that the
emphasis in the preservc area would bc on trees and midstory plantings. I don't think groundcover's going to
help anybody. But if the cmphasis is more on trees and mid-story plantings in thc prcserve area, that gets us
whcrc we want to get to so that we don't have thc ncighbors upsct at us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Ray, is thcre -- do wc havc any issues with that? Do we have--
I don't know if we -- wcll, this is a conditional use. We just leamed in thc last one we can change about
anything undcr a conditional use. So why don't wc just not call it a creative preserve arca, let's call it a
landscape --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- buffer area and allow for somc flexibility in the landscaping. Can you
come --
MR. BELLOWS: Wcll, one conccrn I have is that there would be some requirement to provide the,
what's that, 5.7 acres --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .37.
MR. BELLOWS: -- were rclocated from thc northwest corncr to the south. Are we going to
mitigatc that offset one to one thcn?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's what I'm suggesting: If this is a conditional use and we don't
have to request dcviances to thc code because it's a conditional use, we can just approve it as a conditional
use.
They don't have any preservc on that property now, why make them create a strict preserve when
creating a landscape area might be morc effective for the people to thc south since the preserve is
impractical?
And if my assrnnptions from a code vicwpoint are wrong, lct me know. But if we're wrong on this
one, then we're going to be wrong on the last one. So I don't know why wc just can't make this a landscape
area subject to a little bit more flexibility in the material used.
MR. BELLOWS: I think that's acccptable. The only reason I'm hesitant is I think that therc is some
code requirements for the creativc preserve that I'd like to at least run by the environmental staff. I don't see
a problem enhancing it with othcr types of tree vegetation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait, you run it by environmental staff, they got one thing in mind, create
Page liS
1611(A- )~
October 16, 2008
a preserve.
Can you run it by Nancy or Mike Sawyer, somc of the guys -- or whoever's now -- Bruce McNull,
he's in charge oflandscaping.
MR. BELLOWS: One thing that -- it's not a problem for the Planning Commission to make any
rccommendation they want and we'll carry that forward. I just can't guarantce that we won't have a staff -- a
side note to add to it.
MR. HANCOCK: The solution may be that regardless of the planting material, that we placc it in a
conservation easement. And we may be fully code compliant with that and just having a material differencc,
literally, in what is plantcd therc, versus what a recrcatcd preserve would havc.
MR. BELLOWS: I think that will work.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the point is this is real impractical for preserve --
MR. BELLOWS: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in its true sense ofthe word, so let's just be practical and give the people
to the south more protection.
And ifthe applicant's willing to do that, in the cnd it docsn't -- probably would be less costly than
trying to recreate native vegctation in a place where it probably will never survive. Let's just be practical
and do it right. So that's kind of wherc I'm going.
Anybody else have any questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll close the public hcaring and we'll cntertain a motion.
There is a motion? Mr. KoJjJat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ycs, I move that wc approve Conditional Use 2007-AR-I26I9.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that with staff recommendations?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: With all staffrecommendations, and the agreemcnt of the
landscapc area to thc south.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some clarifications whcn we get past thc second.
Is therc a second to that?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: l'll sccond that, and add the paving of I 50 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to rcad that in.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, I havc three or four things that were brought up that we may
want to consider adding.
Nrnnber three, where it talks about the crushing machine, we would add to the cnd of it that the
crusher will be clevated to rest on matcrial or a foundation that reduces vibration, as designed by the Florida
engineer through thc SDP proccss.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing on that same one. I think we should suggest that it's the
200 feet from the property southern and eastcrn boundaries.
I think the crusher's nevcr been over on the east side, so the people on the east side -- which is an
office building. So I think if it's good enough for the ones at the south -- Tim, what that would do, I think
the 200 feet would push it off to the western part.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That storagc area, how wide is that?
Page 116
--'."----...~-",.-.._._-~---~-----~-
16 11 l A- ) ~tober 16, 2008
MR. HANCOCK: Well, it's about 70 feet or more widc and it's on the other side of a 30-foot
drainage easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a street betwecn it and the buildings across the way, or not?
MR. HANCOCK: There is not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're looking at about 100 feet. So you're talking about moving
it somewhere 100 fect to the wcst or putting it on the west sidc ofthe propcrty 200 feet north of the southern
propcrty line. Is that what we're thinking of?
MR. HANCOCK: The problem is whcn we move it to thc far side, we don't havc as much staging
for trucks. But more importantly it's going to have to be closer to that property line than it is on thc east, or
else we lose space.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How wide is the property? There's no dimensions herc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, what is the width of their property as it hits the strcct in the
south? Do you know how much frontage --
MR. HANCOCK: You mean on -- fronting on Elsa Street?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. HANCOCK: It's a little less than 100 feet. It's about 90 fect, if I'm not --let's scc. I've got to
look at my survey.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I think 100 -- the point is that the crusher's never been over
on the eastcrn part of the boundary yet.
MR. I IAN COCK: Mr. Schiffcr, we'll movc it to the west.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to the west is no occupancy. So, I mean--
MR. HANCOCK: We'll move it to the wcst.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would bc 200 feet from the eastern propcrty line and 200 feet from
the southern property line; is that what you'rc agreeing?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takcs care of the -- wc just would add anrnnber three then. It
would read: 200 feet from any property's southern and eastern boundarics. And we would add the language
about the crusher being elevated on a vibration rcducing pad.
On number seven in the last line we'rc talking about a buffcr be along the southern and
southwestern boundaries.
Thcn nrnnber cight, we would add paving of 150 feet ofthc entry roadway into thc site.
Numbcr nine, we want to makc sure that we usc the site plan that's shown now on the screcn in
relationship to wherc the creative preserves will bc.
And nrnnber 10, thc planning area that's been talkcd about for the crcative preserves, the intention
is to provide more flexibility for the material used within thc, quote, preservc arca.
And that staff would look at that and come back on a consent agenda with an analysis of that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just onc more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one morc thing that Mr. Hancock had mentioned and that's that
the sitc will now bc fcnced and lockcd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will be fenced and n
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Will be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeab.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what he had --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Hancock, arc those all consistcnt with your understanding?
Page 117
1611l A )t
October 16, 2008
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, they are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is staff comfortable with the conditions that we've asked to havc
delineated? I see J.D. nodding his head, and Ray.
Okay, with that we'll ask, does the motion makcr acccpt thc conditions that wc --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just read?
Does the second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
MS. HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- we're down to 7-0.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, conditional use forms.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all.
We do havc -- Tim, you do know we do a consent, so see that when it comes back through.
Everybody pass in your forms to Ms. Caron.
Item #9C
PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13395, IMMOKALEE -WOOD, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item for today is Petition SV -2008-AR-13395 at 2600
Immokalee Road, and it's for a real cstate development sign for John R. Wood.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by thc court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Schiffcr's taking off?
Go abead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Fernandez.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had c-maiIs going back and forth to Mr. Fernandez. I left a
voice mcssagc at his of lice, but we never actually spoke.
Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike, it's all yours.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Commissioners. I know it's been a long day. I'll try to go through
this as quick as possible, because it's almost 5:00.
What you have -- the drawing that you have before you thcre is just showing the location, trying to
orient you. This is near the southeast corner of Airport Road and Immokalee Road. It's next to the Sam's. It's
part of the Uptown Shopping Centcr, which is a PUD.
Page 118
1611(Jr)Lf
October 16, 2008
Thc subject property was not plattcd, but it is part of -- it is a land condo. As you can sce, there's
two parcels that havc been recorded in public rccords that are in thc front ofthc site, adjacent to Immokalee
Road and then at the rcar basically accommodatcs the shopping center.
This is an aerial of the existing improvemcnts that arc on there. And you can see it's basically an
L-shaped shopping centcr with thc two out-parcels.
The PUD -- and thcrc's a docrnnent in your packct that shows the PUD actually anticipated two
out-parcels fronting along Immokalee Road, or provided for the opportunity for that.
Talk a little bit more about the contcxt. One of the issues that I wanted to identify was that on the
west side of the property adjacent to thc Sam's, there's about a 2,300 squarc foot linear preserve that's a part
__ and adjaccnt to the buffer bctween the building and thc propcrty line. And that's one of the impediments
that we have in having signage on that western facade of the cxisting building.
Now I'd like to identify one ofthe other issues that just only recently came up.
The PUD is an older one, and when it was approved it was part -- it was approved on a two-lane
Immokalee Road which was scheduled for improvements to a four-lane Immokalee Road. There were
conditions in the PUD that providcd for that additional right-of~way.
Subsequent and thereafter there was thc decision to widen Immokalee Road to six lancs, and that
was not anticipatcd in the PUD. And as you can scc in this drawing, which was part of the permit for the
structure, therc was an existing right-ot:way line and thcn you can sce this jogging dash line which became
the new right-of-way line.
As part ofthat -- of the six-laning improvcments, the existing -- the thcn existing Type D landscape
buffer was displaccd.
I'll also call your attention in a minutc to above the edge of shared propcrty linc, or the common
property line at the right-of:way therc are FP&L power lines that are along that edge.
And then on thc south side of the landscaped area, you'll see that therc's also an FP&L cascment
along a majority of that parking area along that south -- along thc south edge. And in between, you'll sce in
a photograph in a moment, is a water management arca.
The rcqucst that we'vc brought to you today is for a variancc. It's a variance based on hardship in
that the building right now is not adcquately visible for our clicnt's clientele to find thc building. Or for any
tenant who would be in that building to find their building.
Whcn cars are going in a -- castward on Immokalee Road, there's no opportunity for signage behind
that prcserve area. You wouldn't sce it. And in fact you don't see it. And what happens is his clicnts tend to
pass up that facility and then end up going past the entrance of thc shopping center and thereafter have to
make several n almost a mile down the road do a U-turn and then come all the way back. And therc lics the
public bencfit of having this additional signage.
So we're basing, like I said, thc variance requcst on hardship and on public benefit.
We did a serics of photographs that wc placed in your packet. You can sce that this is the existing
wall sign that does exist. And this faces -- this is on the east side of the facade of the building. And it is
visible for wcstbound traffic on Immokalee, but not again for thc castbound.
In front of the building you can see that there's trecs, and this -- you can sec this is date stamped in
the photograph. It's been a year more and the trees that front along Immokalee Road also do not allow
visibility ofthc building along that cdge.
And as I mentioned earlier, you can see the powcr lines that occur right there adjacent to thc
sidewalk. So that precludes issues -- or trces in that arca.
You'll also notice the swale that runs in between. And as I called your attention earlier to the
drawing, thcrc's also an eascment on thc southern edge.
Anothcr item that we identificd as part of our application but staff did not pick up in thcir analysis
Page 119
1611(A )tt
October 16, 2008
is that there's a differential at four fect right hcre at the cdge betwcen the building and thc cdge of pavemcnt,
or the sidewalk there. And it's evcn higher as you go closer to the center line ofthc road. So it's almost six
fcct by the time you get to the center line of!mmokalee Road.
So the building is somcwhat dcpressed into the site, as many structures are along Immokalee Road.
And this was not anticipated in thc four-laning condition, it only occurred whcn they did the
six-laning. And you may not be able to tell, but over hcrc at thc sidewalk, that's actually a rctaining wall
that's just about three feet.
This is the landscape buffer preserve, if you will. And you can see -- and again, it's another year of
maturity. And essentially this vegetation is an effcctive blockage of visibility of the building.
Our client originally made application for the sign permit and had an understanding that it was
going to be approved and then found out that it wasn't. He retained our firm and we went -- are going
through an SDP amendment process. And originally wc understood it was going to be approved and then
wc found it was not.
And the issue really licd on the -- whether or not this was an out-parcel. If this was identified by --
or defincd by the LDC as an out-parcel, then it would be cntitled to a 60 square foot sign in front of the
building.
And traditionally it's bcen our cxperience and our understanding that condominirnn parcels did
constitute a out-parccL We were asked to do a formal intcrpretation, which we did, and staff made a
determination that a condominirnn parcel essentially is not a out-parcel, cannot bc an out-parcel as a
shopping center.
However, I did wanted to note that in the criteria for a variance, onc of the issues -- one of the items
that comes up is would granting this variance give us something that others don't enjoy?
First we would say cverybody has a right to get a variance. But wc wanted to go a little bit further.
This is a shopping center that's existing at thc comcr of Pine Ridge and Goodlettc. This is the Raymond
James Building. This is a Starbucks and another little restaurant next to it.
Both these buildings have full signage out front. Both of them are part of a condominirnn. And you
can see that there's no -- there's a parking lot between thcm. So that in somc cases staff has becn ablc to
grant such signage in thcse conditions.
That's not a projcct that our firm did, but there's another onc that our firm did ovcr hcrc down the
road on Pine Ridge. This is onc that's the Steak 'N Shake in thc Carillon Shopping Centcr and next door
therc's a car wash. This is a condominium parcel.
And if you were to go out there, wc were to able to permit signage for both of these structurcs
independent, just like wc're asking for John R. Wood, and they wcrc condominium parcels.
While this is not a shopping centcr, this is on the North Trail adjaccnt to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
These properties are owncd under a condominium that's under one ownership, and thcse buildings all havc
and enjoy signage.
So basically what I'm trying to say is that there have becn instanccs where businesses have bccn
ablc to permit under a condominirnn ownership such signage.
Now, the proposed sign that we -- that was submitted by the -- by our client, this is for John R.
Wood. But -- and I know, Mr. Strain, you made a comment that it was for rcal estate signagc.
We're actually wanting to gct -- this application is for a variancc for signage for whatcvcr tenant or
tenants are in that building, as opposed to specifically for John R. Wood.
And we noticcd in the conditions that staff was proposing, should you wish to approve this, they
were proposing that it be limited to just John R. Wood, basically thc existing tenant in the building, who
also has a contract to purchase the site. And we don't think that -- that's something that docsn't make any
scnse. Becausc if the variancc is required for this owner and this tenant and it's in the public benefit to have
Page 120
16 I 1 i If ) 40ctober 16, 2008
such signage, it shouldn't be restricted to just this one user, and it should be available to any user.
Again, as I said, we're doing this on the basis of hardship and public benefit.
On the LDC provisions for on-premise signage, it talks about pole signs and it talks about 1,000
foot separation.
And the actual provision that we're requesting is a reduction from thc 1,000 fect that would
normally be rcquired to 276 fect, which would place these closer together.
In the last sentence of the LDC provision that's in our Exhibit J listed, it says in no case shall thc
nrnnber of pole or ground signs exceed more than two per street frontagc.
This will be the second sign for this project overall, so we will not exceed that standard.
Therc's certain criteria in reviewing this variance that I want to go and review with you. The first
and thc second talk about are there any special conditions or circumstances that arc peculiar to thc location
size, the characteristics of the land structure or the building involved.
And two, talking about are there any spccial conditions or circumstances that don't result from thc
applicant.
And I've already identified those to you in that cssentially therc was a taking that reduced thc
amount ofland out front. Also, that we have the prcserve requircment that was there. That was some of the
only existing vegetation that was availablc to be saved on the sitc at the time of the original application.
And when they increascd the roadway, it raised the roadway. And so now thcre's a height differential
between drivers on the adjacent pavement and the roadway which again reduces the amount of cxposure
that the building cnjoys.
And if you go through these, and thcy go onc through I belicve eight, you'll see that staff and we
disagree in our reviews. Whethcr or not -- again I already addressed if thesc provisions, would it grant us
somc special provision. And I've shown you examples of other projects that enjoy not having to mect that
1,000 foot requirement, and thosc parcels are also not by the interprctation that was made by staff
out-parcels.
And again, if -- do wc need it bccause is this thc most -- if grantcd, is this thc minimrnn variance
that would be required?
Now, we submittcd -- and staff has proposcd that if you do approve this, that you limit the signage
to what we basically submitted, which was that thcir analysis is 38 squarc feet of signage. The code would
allow us to have 60 fcet of signage. And we'rc fine limiting it to that 32 feet of signage, provided that we are
not also then going to be encrnnbcred by the additional landscaping that's being proposed by staff.
I -- this signage was designed by the sign company working with our clicnt with the existing
conditions in mind. Should thc existing conditions changc, they'll necd that flexibility to havc a larger sign
to have greater cxposurc.
The other part of this is the conditions that I've already pointed out to you and that is that the buffer
that county staff has rcqucsted we install, which was removed by thc county as part of their expansion and
we're endeavoring to get from the county staff through their right-of-way department, the actual agreement
wherc they took that landscaping so that wc becamc a legally cxisting nonconforming condition is a
condition that we want to retain.
We have the hardship, the additional hardship thcre. A significant cost if we're trying to displace
the water management therc and to address the FP&L casements, to removc those FP&L easemcnts or
somehow otherwisc address those.
Additionally, our client that we're working for, which is John R. Wood, does not control the entire
shopping center and we don't have authority to even agrec to put additional visual obstructions in front of
the shopping center, because that's not part of our client's agrecment with the othcr condominium owncrs.
In granting this variance will we be in harmony with thc intent and purposc of the code?
Page 121
16 11 ( Pr )ijber 16, 2008
Absolutely. We are doing something that again is a -- under hardship it is also a public bencfit. And
going further, it's somcthing that similar projects have cnjoyed.
Arc there conditions, physical conditions? We mention again the gradc scparation in the preserve.
And staff determined as we did that granting this variance is not inconsistent with the Growth Management
Plan.
Rclative to thc staff recommendation, they're rccommending denial of the pctition. And again, as
you look through those different criteria you'll sec that we addressed them at our application packet to you,
very much in contrast to how thcy reviewcd it. And I believe we'vc shown supportive evidence here today
that supports our position.
Again, the 38 square feet limitation that they would propose, should you want to approve this, is
something that we can live with undcr the existing conditions to which it was designed.
That their second condition is suggested to be to limit the name of the business entity located within
condominirnn parccl two.
And again, thcre may be multiplc tenants in therc or the business entity may not be the same as the
tenant name, and so that's not a usual restriction on signage.
The third one is the same thing, the sign shall bc removed upon relocation ofthc subjcct business or
occupancy of the building by a different busincss. Which I've ncver seen such a suggested restriction in this
case.
Again, if it's good enough for us, if the variance is good enough for us, it's good enough for the next
tenant. And they will have the same hardship and the public has the samc challenges in finding this
location, whether it's John R. Wood or some other company or some other rcaltor or some other firm that
may use this facility in years to come.
And thcn in regard to the right-of-way buffer, we noted that to the -- we noted with the approval of
this project that staff did initially request the buffer be put in place, but the issuc was outstanding at thc
C.O., subject to further resolution. And the ultimatc resolution was that the buffer was not put in place. And
we're getting a docrnncnt from transportation rather to that nonconforming status.
Subsequent to this, thcre's been a couple other SDP's that have been submitted. And that issue of
putting that buffcr hasn't been raiscd. We would assumc it's for that samc reason.
With that, l'll be happy to answer any questions that you may havc regarding this petition or our
presentation, and I would like to reserve the right to respond to any comments that may bc raiscd through
staffs prescntation or further discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This letter from Susan Istcncs, on August 29th, I think 2007. Is
that the corrcct date, or is it 2008?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, again, that's the correct date. This has been in progrcss, not neccssarily
with our firm but for about two and a half years.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Did you appeal that official interpretation?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. At thc time our client -- that was -- we were told that there was
another better alternative which wc pursued at that timc that would be more cost effective. So we did not
appeal that.
Although we had that -- we already had presentcd the evidence, such as the one at Carillon, prior to
that time.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So you did not utilize that avcnue as far as an appeal.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, wc did not.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any othcr questions of the applicant?
Page 122
16 lIt ~ ) {ctober 16, 2008
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all-- okay, Ms. Caron, go abcad.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeab, I just had a question.
On the preserve area to the west of the John R. Wood building, is that all actually preserve or is it a
combination of preserve and landscape buffering?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's a combination of existing vegetation and additional enhancements within
the preserve with itself. And thcn between thc building and the prcserve there was additional landscaping
that was put in to meet other code requircments.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, bccause in driving by here it looks like the prcscrvc portion of
it is to the southwest, and that the section -- you know, and I don't know how many feet it was, but
continuing toward Immokalce was just some sort of a landscapc buffer.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeab, I think this drawing where you see thc hatch, that's the preserve area.
Okay? So it extends into the front butler or up to the front buffer and all the way down to the shared
interconnect with the adjaccnt Sam's project.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So it does go the full Icngth.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Of the building, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Y cs, it does. And thcrc's like a little break in there. Even in my pictures you
saw it. But if you go and take a closcr look, you'll sce that there's a lot of smaller trces that werc plantcd that
were part ofthe requirements that again are going to continue to grow and obscure further the building.
It's something that wc did look at. Obviously that was the easy solution, bccausc we still had
available squarc footage, and wc would much rathcr put it there. It would have bccn a much simplcr
opcration. But again, because of that prcscrve being there, it rcally didn't afford us the opportunity.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeab, in driving by it was why couldn't thcy just trim some of these
trees and put the sign on the building? Becausc as I say, it didn't look like it was all prescrve, it looked like
part of it was just a landscapc buffer. But I sec the -- thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: As you're well aware, we unfortunately can't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, official interpretation was apparently rendercd August
29th, 2007. It's gonc through its appeals period with no requested appeal.
Does that stand as an official interpretation of the law?
MR. KLATZKOW: It is the law of this case, yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Just for clarification, we're not trying to appeal it hcrc, wc are just showing
that therc's other projccts that have enjoyed the ability to get signage so it's not being inconsistent to grant
one in this casc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not an out -parccl, though.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. And neither were those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter. You can't be, so you have to follow the rules that then
apply to the regular --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, and that's why we're here for the variancc. Thank you.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And I did work with Susan on that. And the word distinctions between that
and some of the examples that he showcd, I do remember that. So it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the sign permit application that was supplicd, I noticc it said it's
replacing an existing sign.
Which sign is being replaced?
Page 123
1611 (A,) tfoctober 16, 2008
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, which onc are you referring to? Are you referring to the wall sign?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, it doesn't say. It says that--
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think that was a staff exhibit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a staff exhibit. It was supplied -- the applicant's namc, it was called
the sign permit application. I don't know if staff madc those out. Usually the applicants make --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, that's a -- staff included that in their packet. We did not include it in
our packet.
If you look further in I think the next page or two, that's thc wall sign application. And I think they
put it in there so you could see the size of the wall sign. So that was to -- for the wall sign that's there now,
not for the signage that wc're requesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, during the preap. transportation notcd that the PUD compliant staff
has notificd the reviewer that traffic counts arc due and arterial level street jightings are unfulfillcd through
the PUD commitment.
Is those still outstanding? Are thosc commitments still not made?
MR. FERNANDEZ: My understanding was that -- I don't know the answer, but I understand that it
was in progrcss being addrcssed by the condominirnn association.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as the condominirnn association goes, arc you n are they in
agrcement with this? I mean, is this on a common area of the condo association?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. If you look at thc actual signature ofthc authorizing individual for us
to be here today, it's on behalf of the association.
Our limitation is to address the issue ofthc signage and the landscaping that would go along the
bottom of it and any immediatc improvements in that area that would be required. And of coursc we will
have to go through an SDP amcndment for that purpose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Condo sign-off you have, can you tell me -- that's in our packet provided --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- byyou0
Okay, can you tell me what it looks likc?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's the application to sign authorization on there by Mr. Dingle. And he
represents and is the authorized signee for the sharcholders in the shopping ccntcr. And there's a list of the
shopping centcr owners, sharcholders in your packet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the name of them? What's the name of the entity that we're trying
to seek?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Immokalce Road, Inc.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeab, ImmokaIee Wood, LLC, I believe.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Immokalee Road, Inc.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeab, Immokalee Wood Manager, Inc. Immokalee Wood, LLC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the difference between Immokalec Road, Inc. and Immokalee
Wood Manager, Inc.?
MR. FERNANDEZ: In your packct in the application there's a copy of the warranty decd. This is
for -- this is undcr Exhibit F, thc warranty decd and corporate owncrship docrnnentation.
And you'll sec there it starts with a warranty dced. And then you'll see thc Immokalee Wood, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company with the appropriate signatures. And then you'll sec --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, well, well, let's stop there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The unit, condominium unit number two is the one we're talking about; is
that right? Is that the building?
Page 124
16 11 (A) 4-october 16, 2008
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's for John R. Wood, ycs, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the Immokalce Road, Inc. group, from what I can tell.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The Immokalec Road, Inc. group I believe is still the entire entity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the warranty deed gives Immokalee Road, Inc. the condominirnn
unit nrnnber two of Uptown Centcr, a Commercial Condominirnn. So I think Uptown Ccnter, a Commercial
Condominirnn might be the name ofthe condominirnn.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Of the ovcrall association?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, which is the one I've been seeking.
If you turn to Immokalee Wood, LLC, thc pcrmission -- the limited liability company unanimous
consent of membcrs, it's not signcd by anybody with Immokalce Wood, LLC. I'm wondering if it needs to
be.
Maybe the County Attorncy can answer the question.
MR. KLA TZKOW: When wc reviewed this, we had no issue as to the application itself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: We were okay with this. We could look at it again if you'd like, but when wc
reviewed this, we werc okay --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's what I'm trying to find out. We have a condominirnn building. They
want to put a sign on a common arca that's part ofthc condominirnn wholc.
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The condominiurn whole has other members in it who already have a
marquce out there that if! was another mcmbcr I'd be wondering why is this guy getting a sign standing by
itself, why can't I have one like that too? It surc helps my property.
So I'm wondering where the pcrmission is from the other units there who are part of the common
area to let -- or to consent that this sign is something they agree to.
I find the name Immokalce Wood, LLC on a documcnt, but I don't find thc signatures for
Immokalee Wood, LLC on that document. I find signaturcs for Immokalce Wood Manager, Inc. and
Immokalee Road, Inc.
I also find a refercnce to a condominirnn group Uptown Center, a Commercial Condominium, but I
haven't yet found thcir consent, which is what I'm trying to find.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Wcll, therc's a letter of authorization --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- with Immokalee Wood, LLC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Immokalee, LLC (sic) is the building.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. As a point of clarification it's actually the lot arca which I showcd in
onc of the early exhibits. And it actually includes the area where thc sign gocs in.
If you'll recall, there were two parcels that were shown fronting Immokalee Road. And the parcel
that this building encrnnbers along with its associate parking areas and landscaping are all part of that
condominium unit. So it's not simply just thc building.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And there's a warranty deed here --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- to Immokalee Wood, LLC for the condominirnn unit nrnnber two of
Uptown Center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's signed by ImmokaIee Road, Inc., a Florida Corporation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right.
Page 125
~~-"",,,,,,",,,-,,,,,,-,~-,,~-~--------,.,>-'-'--' -
1611 (A- ) t
October 16, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thcn Immokalee Wood, LLC is the owncr of the property; is that what
we're getting at?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeab, I think we'rc okay on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because Immokalee Wood, LLC's consent of members isn't signed
by anybody from Immokalee Wood, LLC. But if you guys arc comfortable with that, then I guess--
MR. KLATZKOW: We're comfortable with it. We've got other issues with this petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't even think you wcrc involved in this when it came through, that's
why I'm asking.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, actually, I was involved with this when it first came through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcrc you? Okay.
How high is the sign going to be above the nearcst adjacent road?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That was on one of the earlier exhibits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had one colorcd exhibit that n
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, that's what I'm looking at right now. It's approximately -- looking at
this exhibit there, therc's an eight feet to thc top of whcrc you can see where thc signage is, and then there's
approximately a foot and a half of the balancc that includes thc addrcss of the building itsclf.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what's the actual hcight of the structure that the sign's going to bc
placed upon? How's that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: So you'rc looking at a total oflct's say 10 and a halffeet plus thc adjacent
grade, which I believc we've measured it around there about four, four and a half fect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's not--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nine feet, cight, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, scc where your eight feet goes? It gocs --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- up past thc two and a half. So thc two and a half goes below.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's about a foot and a half then on top of that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ycab, let's say nine and a halffeet. And then the grade of where the si~,'n is
located is approximately four plus feet below the edge ofthe sidewalk and the pavement ofImmokalee
Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you havc a picture of the marquce sign that's already out there?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, I do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a rcason you're not on that sign?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. We don't have the rights through the agreements to share in that sign.
That sign is limitcd to the tenants that arc actually in thc tract that is part of the shopping centcr and not onc
of the tracts that is part ofthe condominium out-parcels, if! can call it that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody cIse have any qucstions?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staflreport, pleasc?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with
Zoning and Land Developmcnt Rcview.
And staff is recommending denial of this sign variance because it does not mcet any of the
evaluative criteria outlined in thc LDC.
Thcrc are opportunities currently existing on the building that the petitioncr has not taken
advantage of. They are allowed up to 150 square fcet of wall signage. Currently therc's about 55.4 square
feet of wall signage.
Page 126
1611 ( A )~berI6,2008
And as you mentioned earlicr, there is a directory sign and that opportunity has not been taken
advantage of.
And in regards to the sitc planning of this site, this site, just to givc you a little bit of a timeline, it's
a rclatively new development. It was dcvcloped in 2004. I do have the plans, a copy of the plans with me
showing -- therc's just a lot of hardships that have been sclf-created in tcrms it oflocating a preserve on the
west side of the subject building, and locating large canopy trces on thc north side of the building, which
fronts onto Immokalee Road.
And it's important to note that this building is consistent with thc PUD, it's set back 30 feet.
And we also have an aerial that shows -- I've got acrials from thc past thrce years. It shows when
the landscape -- the requircd landscape buffer along Immokalee Road disappeared with thc roadway
widening.
And I spoke to the project managcr of the Immokalee Road widening projcct, and he said that thcy
paid $113,000 for thc right-of-way taking and losses associated with it.
And I also havc a copy of a landscape inspcctor's inspection rcport that states that the trees are to be
planted, on onc of his sitc visits. We'rc still waiting. And that was a couple of years ago. That was back in
2005.
So to concludc, staff is rccommending dcnial of this petition, and I am happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, onc of the biggcst problems is that had they instead of a
condominium line drawn in the site, had that have becn an actual property line, then this would havc been
considered an out-parcel; is that right? Or would they have other issues with buffcring on that linc?
MS. GUNDLACH: In order -- the oflicial interpretation claborates on out-parccls. This -- it has
been determincd that this is not an out-parcel. There arc ccrtain parking rcquircments, architectural
requirements and landscape rcquiremcnts that an out-parcel site must mect, and this does not meet any of
those.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when thcy drew the condominirnn line, is the parking that's
rcquired for this building within the condominium line?
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm not surc about that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Okay, I can maybe a~k the applicant later. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Koltlat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Ycah, but isn't an official interpretation likc an rnnpire's call? Ifhe
says it's a ball, it's a ball, period.
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm sorry, can you repeat that, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow can provide --
MR. KLA TZKOW: They had the ability -- they structured this transaction because they did not
want out-parcels, which would have had their own requirements in the LDC. Okay, so they structured it as a
unificd development.
And now they're coming in herc saying becausc we condo-ized it we should be treated as an
out-parcel. If they wanted to bc an out-parcel thcy should have created an out-parcel. Thcy didn't. They
could have appcaled the decision. They didn't. Instead they're trying to back door the cntirc issue by going
through this variance proccdure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Kolflat's question is if it's an OJ, it stands.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It stands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It stands unlcss it's appealed and thc appeal succeeds. And in this is case it
Page 127
16 11 ( It ) ~ctober 16,2008
was not appcaled.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was not appealcd.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, the rcfcrence in the pre-ap. concerning the strcet lighting that is
unfulfilled, you've said that thcre's a buffer that's unfulfilled. The street lighting is also unfulfilled at this
timc?
MS. GUNDLACH: I would have to confirm the street lighting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just was rcading it off the application that was provided to us, so --
Okay, any othcr questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I gucss that's it, Nancy. Thank you.
And there is no public speakcrs or thcrc are public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad had a qucstion ofMr. Fernandcz.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, the question I had is that, you know, there is a
condominirnn line, you know, another imaginary line, as is a property line, I gucss. Is all the parking for this
building within that condominirnn linc?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Based on our quick analysis of looking at the building, it appcars that it does
mect the requirements for parking. In other words, we're allowed to subtract out thc perimeter one foot
around thc edge for thc wall thickness for parking. And by doing that, I think it gets us to that nrnnber, or
we're within one or two would be the worst case scenario, dcpending on the thickness of the wall.
And if that were thc -- if we needcd to, wc could mect that requiremcnt. There is a littlc green area
that could be added too so that cssentially wc could mcct that rcquircment.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then thc architectural standards that an out-parcel would
have, whcrc do you differ on this building?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Wc startcd to do the analysis. We werc actually encouraged by staff to instead
of going that route to go through thc interprctation route -- or not the intcrpretation but the variance route.
And again, we're not here trying to, you know, appcal the out -parcel issue. We're basically -- that's
why we're here for the variancc. And wc're basing it on hardship and public bcncfit. And we do think there's
a significant benefit.
We should probably be very close. If there's an area that may not meet it, it would be adjacent to
the prescrve area that's largcly straincd.
Again, if you take a look to the site, it's well landscaped. It's a good-looking commercial building.
One story. It sits there vcry nicely. Those peoplc that try to find it have told our clients again and again that
it's difficult to do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Arc there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, you want a few minutes to make any closing statements?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
Again, you know, I don't think thc issue hcrc is the out-parcel one. There's criteria there. Wc
analyzed it by the criteria. Staff hasn't acknowlcdgcd the issues of whether or not there is the prcserve or
whether -- which is I think one of the listed critcria or items that can be uscd for that.
And then also the hardship of the additional taking that caused the differential in hcight that again
adds to obscure the site.
Page 128
1611( A }*berI6,2008
We would love to take advantage, ifit were possible, to be on the directory sign. It's not something
that we can avail ourselves of.
So having said that, I think we've met the criteria for the hardship, we've met the criteria for
approval, and wc'd ask that you approve this.
We haven't seen -- Nancy just mentioned that shc has something from staffreviewer that they're
still waiting on the landscaping. When we looked at the county rccords, we didn't find any. We've becn
talking to county staff, and this is the first wc've heard of it. If that's the case, ifthere's requircments that
nced to be met, you know, those can bc a condition of approval ifthey indecd are requircments that have
not been previously waived or, you know, ones that wc can controL
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no public speakcrs, we'll closc the public hcaring and we'll cntertain
a motion.
Mr. KolfJat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Bcfore I make a motion, I'd like to summarize a little of my
thoughts on it. I've written it out so that it will move faster.
LD Section 9.04.03(A-H) lists eight general guidelines and cvaluative critcria to be followcd by the
CCPC and the BCC whcn considcring a variance.
In reviewing this petition relative to these guidelines, I find: Thcre are no spccial conditions
peculiar to the land or structurc characteristics. There arc no special circrnnstances such as preexisting
conditions relative to thc property. And a literal interpretation ofthe LDC will not work an unnccessary
undue hardship on the applicant.
A legal hardship exists only in those cases where the property is virtually unusablc or incapable of
yielding a rcasonable rcturn. And this is not thc casc.
Furthermore, the variance will not bc the minimrnn allowing reasonable use ofland, building or
structure since the permitted sign is three times as large as the cxisting actual sign.
Granting the variancc will confirm the applicant a special privilegc denied to othcrs. Granting thc
variancc will not be in harmony with the intcnt and purpose of the LDC, which is to prevent the
prolifcration of signagc.
Continuing: There are no natural or physical induccd conditions that ameliorate thc goals and
objectives of the regulations such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, et cctera.
Although granting a variancc would not be inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan, it
would disregard the LDC general guidclines and cvaluative criteria to be followcd when considering a
variance petition.
The CCPC is charged to consider thesc cight guidelines and the evaluative critcria.
Bascd on the prcceding analysis, I belicvc we have no othcr choice than to recommend denial of
this variance, and I would like to make a motion that wc deny it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you making a motion to recommend dcnial based on the statement
you just read into the record?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and secondcd.
Mr. KolfJat, I don't know, but in your prior life you must have been a judge or an attorney or
somcthing.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, but I've been in court.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Holiday Inn Express.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I couldn't have said it bctter. I agree with your findings. And that's my
Page J 29
__w.<__.'.....'..._..__..w~.__....___., . _"...___~~'"_____~
16 /1 1A-- )t O~tober 16,2008
position on it.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeab, I think unfortunately the County Attorney also made it vcry
clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll call for thc vote.
All thosc in favor for thc vote for recommending denial, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ayc.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ayc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carrics 7-0.
And with that, that concludes the regular items on the agenda today.
And we will now -- old business was movcd up front so we're done with that.
Item #11
NEW BUSINESS
New busincss. Is there any ncw busincss from thc commission?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none n
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Under old business, has there becn any indication as what date
we'll hcre the Grande Resort sign variancc pctition?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Possibly -- it shows on here continucd -- whcn this was continued, I askcd
staff, they said possibly November 6th. It depends on when they get thc advertising and the sign up and
things like that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And aren't thcy going to rcsubmit some drawings showing thc
new locations and stull?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thcy should.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got nothing in my packct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's probably the reason it wasn't ready to go.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing nothing else, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sccond.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Page 130
16 11 I A- )titer 16,2008
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ayc.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We arc adjourned.
*****
There being no further business f()r the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthc
Chair at 5:35 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION 1 !
, !' 'I
" ! i .. 11
" ! I ,'i"" r
,v i C",,- d 1 . \J It'-l '----'
,
MAR~ STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approvcd by thc Board on ' .;:. . 4. 0(,
as presented v/ or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Grcgory Rcporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 13 I