BCC Minutes 11/26/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 1996
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
Also present: W. Neil Dotrill, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to order on
this 26th day of November, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an
invocation and pledge to the flag, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning, and we
thank you especially this week of Thanksgiving. We have so much to
praise you for and to be thankful for. We are thankful for the
opportunities that we have as public servants to make a difference in
this community. We thank you for our families who support us so well
throughout the year and as we endeavor in our jobs here with the
county. And we are thankful for the hard work of our staff and of the
many citizens in this community who choose to participate in this
government.
Father, as always, it is our prayer this morning that you would
give this county commission the conviction and the desire to do what is
right and honest in your sight as we make important business decisions
that affect Collier County and its people, that you would bless our
time here together today. We pray these things in your son's holy
name. hen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see we have a couple of changes to the agenda,
Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. In keeping
with the mode of tradition, I've been taking a survey the last couple
of years. How many of you will actually be having cornbread dressing
with your turkey on Thursday?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Only Pam.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the only real kind. And as a matter
of fact, I'm going to have mine in the woods this year. I'm going
camping. We're cooking our sweet potatoes and corn on the fire. Just
thought I'd share.
MR. DORRILL: Just a little plug this morning, Mr. Chairman, for
cornbread. We do have two changes on your agenda this morning. We
have one add-on item that was actually continued from your meeting
last week. That's Item 8(A)(2) as it pertains to an appeal of an
administrative decision, the county manager, on a code enforcement
case prior to its appearing before the Code Enforcement Board, Mr.
Pires representing Dale Steinberg, and that's 8(A)(2).
And I have one item that will be withdrawn and rescheduled
by the staff as necessary. It's Item 16(B)(1), which was the award of
a bid for an all-terrain excavator for drainage-associated work by the
water management department.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I, unfortunately, was already
under the impression that we bought that sucker because it was so long
ago that we talked about it. Is there any particular reason -- and I
know there was somewhere particularly in East Naples that this was
needed for.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we had bought it.
MR. DORRILL: We had one here on demo. You may recall
that the staff had recommended putting it in the budget. I took it
out. You put it back in. And they simultaneously, beginning in the
end of September -- we went ahead and bid the item. And we've just
recently awarded the item, and I don't know whether we've got a bid
protest or what the nature is.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Making his final appearance
as a poor underpaid --
MR. CONRECODE: I've got a full slate for next week.
For the record, Tom Conrecode of public works. This
item was, in fact, budgeted effective October 1st. We went to bid.
Very competitive bids on this: $2,000 between the number one and
number two bidder. Top-notch pieces of equipment. There's a protest,
and we'll hear that protest out over the next week or so and bring it
back to you for final decision. We're looking at delivery in about 90
days.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The wheels turn more slowly than
we wish, I guess.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have something?
MR. WEIGEL: Just one very minor change; 16(D)(4) on the
consent agenda I would ask that we move to the regular agenda. If
there is no question when it's called, it can be heard and passed with
no comment, if necessary. But to meet the statute requirement, it
should be moved to the regular agenda. It's a settlement, 16(D)(4).
MR. DORRILL: Will become 8(D)(1).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(D)(1). Commissioner Berry, any
other changes?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We have minutes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hove to approve the regular
meeting minutes of November 5, 1996. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #5A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 1, 1996, AS WORLD AIDS DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY - ADOPTED
Proclamations. Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think you have
one today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do have a proclamation this
morning. At this time I would ask Maria Pascual and Char Wendel to
come up to receive it. It's one of those that's not -- it's something
we're celebrating. But it's something that it's a responsibility to
bring to our attention, and we want to take this opportunity to bring
-- if you guys will turn and face the camera and say hi to your mom.
Whereas, the global spread of HIV infection and AIDS
necessitates a worldwide effort to increase communication, education
and action to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and
Whereas, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
observes December 1st of each year as World AIDS Day, a day to expand
and strengthen the worldwide effort to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS;
and
Whereas, UNAIDS estimates that over 20 million people
are currently living with HIV/AIDS, with more than five new infections
occurring every minute; and
Whereas, the America Association for World Health is
encouraging a better understanding of the challenge of HIV/AIDS
nationally as it recognizes that the number of people diagnosed with
HIV and AIDS in the United States continues to increase with over
513,000 AIDS cases reported as of December 31st, 1995; and
Whereas, World AIDS Day provides an opportunity to focus
on HIV infection and AIDS, caring for people with HIV infection and
AIDS, and learning about HIV/AIDS; and
Whereas, UNAIDS designated 1996 World AIDS Day theme
"One World, One Hope," which urges the world to work together to
overcome the challenges caused by HIV/AIDS, recognizes that everyone
can do something about the pandemic through prevention, education and
compassion, and emphasizes the hope of finding the means to prevent
and cure HIV/AIDS.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that December 1st, 1996, be
designated as World AIDS Day in Collier County and urge all citizens
to take part in activities and observances designed to increase
awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge, to take
part in HIV/AIDS prevention activities and programs and to join the
global effort to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS.
Done and ordered this 26th day of November, 1996, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Iwd like to move we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I~ll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Applause)
MS. PASCUAL: We hope to see everyone on Sunday at
Cambier Park at six o~clock for the World AIDS Day celebration of
Collier County. Thank you.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have one service award today for
ten years. We have Bryan Milk from our current planning staff.
(Applause)
MR. MILK: Thank you.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION OF BOOK WRITTEN BY FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY TO THE BCC
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a special presentation today
by the -- our library director's here with some Friends of the
Library, and they're going to make us a special presentation today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that mean we did something
right?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It couldn't be that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It might be a fire alarm.
MR. STEERS: Good morning. I'm Chuck Steers with the
Friends of the Library, and with me is Bob Chartrand, prior president.
The Friends have been around longer than I think most people realize.
We're on our 40th anniversary year. We've been supporting the library
system of Collier County and, as one supporter to another, we want to
thank the commissioners for all the leadership and support that you've
provided, because I hope you really understand we have an excellent
library, and it's getting better every day.
As a group that works with the library, however, we've
done something unusual. We wrote a book. Actually, The Compliments
of the Chef is a compilation of the recipes provided by area chefs and
area restaurants. It's a celebration of Collier County. It's
available at the library, and as I mentioned, please check the
cornbread recipe.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All right.
MR. STEERS: We're going to do one thing that is a
little different, though. We're probably going to be the only people
here to see you today who aren't asking for something. We're here to
give you something. We'd like, with our compliments and the
compliments of the chef, to present you with a copy of the book.
Thank you.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanksgiving this weekend, your
timing couldn't be better in my household.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Jones. That was very
nice.
MR. STEERS: Well, you folks have done so much for the
library, it's a very small perk from us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
Item #SA1
COUNTY MANAGER TO PREPARE LETTER FOR CHAIRMAN TO SEND TO DEP REGARDING
COUNTY CONCERNS OF THE MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE HANATEE PROTECTION
PLAN BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. STAFF
DIRECTED TO FILE A RULE CHALLENGE
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I believe that concludes the
ceremonial part of our morning; so we will go right into business here
with 8(A)(1), Hanatee Protection Plan.
Mr. Dugan, what are these rascals doing to us today?
MR. DUGAN: Mr. Chairman, Board, I'm Kevin Dugan with
the natural resources department. I kind of apologize for the
timeliness or untimeliness of this executive summary, but I just
learned of the changes a week ago Monday and had to get the executive
summary out to you-all in time. As you well know, the Hanatee
Protection Plan that was approved by the county and also approved by
the state was the culmination of years of -- I don't want to say
bickering, but compromise back and forth between -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bickering.
MR. DUGAN: -- the county and the DEP.
Well, we thought we had a plan back in Hay of 1995. As
part of that plan, the state DEP was going to enact rules that would
make the speed zones that we had in the plan official and able to be
enforced. They held a public hearing in the boardroom here on
September 25th to take comments. As a result of that, comments, I
received a letter that was dated November 6th, but like I said, I did
not receive it myself until a week ago yesterday, stating that they
had made what they considered minor changes to the speed zones. The
minor changes that they brought out, as listed on your executive
summary, are Vanderbilt Lagoon and Naples Bay, which they had
considered as slow speed. But the City of Naples and Collier County
figured, because those are seawalled areas, that the idle speed, the
more restrictive speed, is just more appropriate for that.
Clam Bay system, the DEP modified plan does not address
the Clam Bay system, but the county has already declared that as an
idle-speed area. Rookery Bay, in the plan it called for 30 miles an
hour in the channel, 20 miles outside the channel. They've changed it
to 30 miles in the channel and 20 -- and slow speed outside the
channel. Since there is no marked channel in Rookery Bay, this, in a
sense, makes it a slow-speed area.
Then Henderson Creek was supposed to be in the plan. It
was 30 miles in the channel, slow speed outside the channel. Again,
since there was no channel up in there, it would be essentially a
slow-speed area. But the folks at DEP have now made that an
idle-speed area. And one other thing that I didn't put on the
executive summary is that they had included a plan that charter
captains and guides could be exempted from some of these areas. So
today, you know, I'm here looking for direction as to how we reply to
DEP on that.
And one other correction on the executive summary was
under the fiscal impact section. I put that there was no fiscal
impact associated with this request, and that's the one from the
natural resources department. There probably will be a fiscal impact
if we proceed with that kind of rule challenge, but the county
attorney could address that better than I could.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd be looking for a little
guidance from our resident expert, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a -- it sounds like a
silly question at first, but does the state determine a minimum water
depth for manatees to exist?
MR. DUGAN: I don't think there's any official depth.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because we have a protection
zone that covers areas at high tide or 2 feet, which if you talk to
the charter boats, you know, and I'm talking about the individual
guides, these are folks that have been running guide boats in here
for, you know, 40 years, or second- or third-generation guides, they
have to get up on plane to get to most of these areas. MR. DUGAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And a manatee couldn't walk in.
You know, it's just -- it's kind of silly. But what really concerns
me is we have -- by adopting these, we will eliminate the possibility
of enforcement for marine patrol and county sheriff in these areas for
the simple reason that if it takes them two hours to get back to a
popular fishing spot to check licenses, to check catches, they're not
going to do it. They're not going to lock themselves into four hours
of round trip during an eight-hour patrol to get back into a bay area
and check for one or two. My only hope was that by allowing it so you
could have at least 30 miles per hour in a channel, we could go in
later and mark channels. Even if we marked them as nonmaintained,
mark channels in the areas with known depths to say this is a channel,
you can do 30 in here. We could increase enforcement capability in
the unreached areas. If that's eliminated, the DEP is working against
themselves.
MR. DUGAN: That's correct. I've been in contact with
the marine patrol from Tallahassee, and they have stated that the plan
as it is written, because of certain areas that they have to get up
into, is unenforceable.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that is probably -- we
have two issues. One is the Florida -- if the Florida Marine Patrol
says that it creates an unenforceable area for them in all practical
purposes, we need to hold off. I don't think we should adopt any
changes that our local law enforcement agencies say hinder their
ability to enforce the laws they're charged to deal with; so that's
the first statement. So in those areas where we cannot at least --
even if it was going to cost us money to mark a channel and get in
there, at least now you could get in there.
MR. DUGAN: Well, with the 20 miles an hour, that would
allow, you know, these skinny water boats to be up on plane.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. DUGAN: And that's what they want, is they want to
be able to be up on plane going across these areas.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure we want to enter a
legal battle, but I -- this is not sensible to me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me make a suggestion. What
I think I'd like to see done for the board's consideration is that we
do the staff recommendation to direct staff to file a rule challenge.
But in addition, I would like to see us write a strongly worded letter
to the DEP director and assistant director stating that we -- well,
outlining the public process that we went through down here in Collier
County and the time period that was involved and that we ended up with
consistent consensus, not only with the county, but the Marine Trades
Association, the public, and the DEP. Everybody agreed at that time,
and that's how our plan came about. And for us to submit the plan
then for final approval and have it come back unilaterally changed by
the DEP, I think we should note that we are not only shocked, but
dismayed that they would do something like that.
So I would like to see, if the board has no objection,
that the county manager formulate that letter for my signature and
that we send it up to the DEP.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in agreement with that. But
may I add that we get correspondence from the sheriff's office and the
Florida Marine Patrol indicating their difficulties with the
enforcement that this would create, enforcement difficulties. If one
state agency can't listen to another state agency --
MR. DUGAN: Within the same department.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. You can walk in one door
and visit both of them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I absolutely support that,
especially with the addition of the law enforcement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my favorite, "No new data
showing an increase in manatee mortality was presented to justify
restricted speed zones in these areas." Why? Because they can't swim
in a foot of water.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have speakers on
this item?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, we do. We have several.
Mr. Lyon, if you would, please, sir. And then, Mr. Walsh, I'm going
to ask you to come up and stand by.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As the speaker's preparing,
Mr. Chairman, I'll outline -- I intend to make a motion. Perhaps
they'll persuade me otherwise, but so far, anyway, my inkling is to
file a motion that we do go ahead and file a rule challenge, that we
include your suggestion of putting together a letter for DEP, and
particularly include the backup paperwork from our enforcement
agencies suggesting it is unenforceable. Mr. Lyon, go ahead.
MR. LYON: Good morning. I'm sorry to have to be here
in front of you again. I'm Lee Lyon. I represent the Marine
Industries of Collier County. Needless to say, like much of the rest
of us, we're very disappointed. You know, sometimes it gives us a
reason to believe why people don't want to be involved in politics and
don't trust politicians when we sit there and work for five years to
put a program together that The Conservancy, the cities of Everglades,
Naples, the Federation of Wildlife, the Audubon Society, everyone,
even the general public seems to be in agreement with this program,
and yet they can turn around and with the sleight of hand change
everything for us.
We totally go along with Kevin's recommendation to you
people with the exception of what we would like to see done is instead
of going through the rule challenge, which we feel is not only going
to be very time consuming and very expensive, we feel that
maybe a letter directed to Virginia Wetherell or -- you know, where we
can get together again as a special committee or whatever, like we had
before, to sit down with her and get this thing resolved without going
through all that process for the expense and everything.
But we do support the fact that we want to live with the
program we've put together. We think it's really for the benefit of
all. You know, another thing too. We keep talking about putting the
Hanatee Protection Plan into effect; they keep stalling it off. How
are we ever going to know if it's going to work? You know, we all
agreed with The Conservancy and the Audubon Society, the manatee
people and everything else, that if it didn't work, we'd all sit down
and renegotiate it again and make the changes necessary. They're not
even giving us a chance. We can't even put the program into effect.
And like I say, representing the Marine Industries, we'd like to see
it go forth the way it was programmed, and anything we can do to help
we'd be more than happy to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Walsh. And then, Mr. Harkness, I'd
like to have you come up, please.
MR. WALSH: Good morning. My name is William Walsh.
I'm a retired executive who came down to Marco Island four years ago
and started a charter business. I've been working with Kevin and his
staff for these changes over the last four or five months and am
sorely disappointed also with the changes that were made by the state
unilaterally without any input. There were a lot of people who put
many, many hours into good thought as to how we could protect the
manatee and yet leave the boating public unabated in the enjoyment of
the waters, and this last plan certainly doesn't do that.
Now, the charter people are not organized in Naples or
Marco; so I don't represent them. But I do know that if this law were
enacted as it's written, it would have severe impact especially for
those guides that use their boats on a skip basis in backwater.
They're essentially out of business. So for the impacts that were
made in the past few years on the net fishermen, if this were enacted,
then there has to be some consideration given for those people who use
this as their livelihood, and that this would extract that ability to
make a living.
So I am joining the commissioners and Commissioner
Hancock and Norris to take severe action. I think it went -- when
we're -- if we go back to put committees together, we need very good
representation from the charter industry, both in Naples and Marco, to
provide input because, as you said, Commissioner Hancock, those
fellows know the waters as well as anybody here. So thank you for your time this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Harkness, if you would, please, sir.
And then, Mr. Hordecai, I'd have you come forward.
MR. HARKNESS: Good morning, Mr. Commissioner (sic) and
Commissioners. For the record my name is Lee Harkness, 1651 Barbados
Court, Marco Island. And I'm here this morning representing the
Marco Island Rod and Gun Club. We're a group of approximately 160
boaters all living in the Marco Island/Naples area. And I would like
to say I appreciate your taking this issue on and writing a letter to
the DEP. I'd like to go back a couple of years and explain some of
the reasons that we're here objecting now and not objecting before.
When I first heard of the Hanatee Protection Plan, there
was a meeting on Marco Island. This is approximately a year and a
half, two years ago. At that time we attended the meeting, we didn't
have an awful lot of objection to the plan because there were no
slow-speed zones. There were some additional idle- and slow-speed
zones in the channels around the bridges in Marco and in the
intracoastal coming down from Naples, but the areas outside of the
channel and Marco remained 30 and 20. That was our understanding of
the Collier County manatee plan. As I understand, that went before
you, the Board of Commissioners. You approved it. It went to the
state and then came back. And sometime in that period the slow-speed
zones were added. At that time, to my knowledge, there were no public
hearings other than before the board. If it was publicity on that, I
think we all, the users of the waterway, assumed it was the same plan
that we had been introduced to.
So that went forward. And the next meeting I went to
was the September one. The DEP held a meeting here in the board of
commissioners' chambers. We had approximately 30, 40 people of Marco
boaters and charter captains that expressed dismay on the slow-speed
zones. And, of course, the DEP sat there and listened to us but
didn't do anything. Since then I've written letters to the DEP and
have received no response. I wrote Commissioner Norris, and
Commissioner Norris was nice enough to reply to me. And now we stand
here today with the same problems, with the addition of more
slow-speed zones that we didn't know about. I think it's time for us
to relook at the plan and, if we do, have some input to the boaters
and charter captains on Marco.
One of the things that they did mention was the
exemption for charter captains. Of course, as a boater, I do use the
backwaters. I'm a very careful boater. I fish the backwaters. And
we feel that if there's an exemption, there should be some way to get
an exemption, not only for charter captains, but for the backwater
fishermen who are just as knowledgeable as some of the charter
captains. We feel that these slow-speed zones are a safety hazard
because they do funnel all of the boats into a narrow channel. Right
now there are a lot -- particularly on Marco, a lot of WaveRunners
being rented. They go in Addison Bay; they go in the areas adjacent
to the channel on the river.
If this goes into effect, they will be all funneled into
the channel or out into the gulf. And we all know what happens when
they all go out in the gulf. We just had a death on Marco Island
because of that. So we feel that it should be relooked at, and we
appreciate any help you can give us. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Mordecai. And then, Dr. Stallings, if
I could have you come forward.
MR. MORDECAI: My name is Brian Mordecai. I live on
Marco Island. I'm here as a member of the Marco Men's Club, a
not-for-profit group of some 350 members, most of whom are boaters as
well as taxpayers. I want to thank the commissioners for their
consideration of this again. And I concur with Mr. Harkness that
things have changed from the original belief that we on Marco had of
what was going to be the impact. The slow-speed zones will eliminate
an industry on Marco that's very important to our economy. Charter
boat captains will no longer be able to apply to go through the
backwaters to take clients to fish.
Many of you see television programs now that show guides
fishing these waters with clients from all over the world. Those of
us who are also fishermen in the backwater will be limited to fishing
the channels and areas very close to that. Many people would be
required -- who live some distance from the main channels, would be
required to spend a half a day getting to the channel or to the
fishing area.
I also believe that restricting boats to the channels
will take them out of the backwaters, put them in the channels,
increasing the congestion in the channels now. Looking into the
future, it's going to be worse than downtown Naples in season. We
have enough problems now trying to get laws of slow- and idle-speed
zones enforced in the Marco River. And this season will show
tremendous increase in boat traffic there. If we also take the people
required to enforce those speeds and put all four of them throughout
the county trying to enforce slow-speed zones, we will have scoff
laws. No one will be able to enforce it, and we'll have to pick out
individuals to make examples of, which is not the way laws should
work.
Again, I commend you for taking another hard look at
this. We know the hard work that those committees have done. We
don't agree with the DEP and their rather high-handed action of making
changes to satisfy their agendas and not listening to the people in
local areas. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Stallings. And then, Mr. Simonik, if
you would come forward.
DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings speaking on behalf of
Save the Hanatee Club. At the time this controversy began, I was
natural resources director for Collier County. And a whole crew of
us, including the broad diversity of interests represented here today,
plus even more, development community and whatever, sat down together
and began to work out a manatee protection plan. And we took into
consideration all of these problems, for example, the law enforcement.
There's an exemption that allows the law enforcement people, if they
need to get somewhere in a hurry, to do it. You don't see policemen
arresting each other out on the street when one has to go down
Airport-Pulling at a high rate of speed. And the marine patrol is the
same way. So we do not agree that there's a potential for lack of
enforcement here.
Now, we went through this long process, and we took into
consideration the marking of the channels and so forth and so on. And
we put to rest, we thought, a lot of the statements I've heard this
morning, statements to the effect that we're going to put the charter
fishermen out of business. That's just simply not true. We just
aren't going to do it. And what we have here this morning in terms of
Kevin's recommendations is a whole program that was worked out
carefully over a period of several years. And we're really about that
far from closure on it.
And if you look at the whole scheme of things here, the
changes recommended by FDEP are very minor in the big scheme of
things. Now, if we want to go ahead into court, we can do it. And I
think we can look to Lee County as an example of what we're getting
into. And what we're getting into is at least a year's worth of
litigation or more and hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses
for all of us. And I guess we can go along and, you know, help the
legal profession out with their economy.
But we didn't get everything we wanted in it. We wanted
a lot more protection than we got. This year we've had 15 percent of
the known manatee population killed. A large percent of those, much
larger than can be documented, are killed by boats. That's one of the
few things you can do something about. But we've compromised. And
the technical staff at the club has wanted to file a legal challenge.
And as co-chair of the board of directors, I've discouraged that,
because we sat down in this spirit of cooperation to come up with
something we could all live with.
So it's not our intent to challenge it. But if the
county challenges it, then obviously we're going to come in, and we're
all going to sit down and help out the attorneys and bring in our
expert witnesses, and we're going to be tied up for a year or more.
But there's another side to it too in that there's this one-in-
one-hundred rule, which you get one slip per 100 feet of linear
shoreline. We have a number of marina projects sitting out there
waiting to go forward; they can't go forward until this rule is
approved. So there's a side to it there, too, that has some other
connotations.
So I just wanted to bring some of these things to your
attention. And also, I don't agree that by having marked channels and
speed limits that we're making the waters more unsafe. We took those
factors into consideration when we sat down with the committee. And
there were really two things that we shot for there. One was actually
to improve safety for the boating public and, at the same time, to
provide a reasonable level of protection for the manatees. And I've
spent much of my life on the water. I've held a commercial shrimping
license; so I'm not speaking as a novice. So, like I said, I think
we're about this far from closure, and we're looking at opening a
humongous can of worms here that's going to cost us all a bundle. So
sometime, somewhere we do need to bring this to closure.
The modifications, if you look at the whole program,
are really very minor. They don't prevent people from fishing in the
backwaters. These modifications don't hinder that many people. And
really, they have nothing -- very little to do with Marco unless
somebody from Marco goes over here to this particular area, as they
sometimes do.
So anyway, I hope that we can go ahead and not file the
challenge and let this thing come to closure. Because otherwise, like
I said, we're facing at least a year, hundreds of thousands of dollars
in expenses, and about a year and a half or two years' work that many
of us put in that have just simply gone out the window. And some of
the people I've heard speaking here this morning were not here when we
sat down and put this program together. So anyway, I, you know,
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you and hope someway or other
we can resolve this in a reasonable manner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Stallings --
DR. STALLINGS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- are you supportive of all of
DEP's recommendations as outlined here today?
DR. STALLINGS: Yeah. I do -- I do agree with Lee,
though, that we felt like we pretty well had it finished and we'd like
to go on and get closure. But on the other hand, these
recommendations are not that onerous. And I would point out one other
thing, that the state is under a legal mandate to provide a certain
level of protection for the manatees. So I don't think all of what
they do is just simply being high-handed, but they have a legal
mandate. If they don't go far enough, then ourselves or someone else
can go and file suit against the state and say, hey, you haven't lived
up to your legal responsibilities to protect these critters.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I remember the public hearing
a year ago September, and virtually everyone was in agreement. But I
remember you got up, Dr. Stallings, and said,"Well, this is a good
start." And it was a 4-1 vote that day. I voted against the
agreement, not because I didn't like the idea that everyone had come
together, but because of that one statement. I was concerned that the
fact that everyone agreed wasn't going to be good enough when I heard
that one statement, "Well, this is a good start." Because it wasn't a
start, it was a compromise on all parts. And --
DR. STALLINGS: I agree it was a compromise.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- come to agreement. So I'm
concerned when I hear now, okay, we're going to do this much more and
this much more. We had an agreement a year ago. And I understand
your concern, a very good one, about litigation and the expense
involved and so on, but it just seems to me if virtually every group
had come to agreement, the state owes us to keep that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And right now we have no
protection in these areas. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By proposing an increased level,
we can't do anything short of a better job. And there's no question
that it won't be far enough for a lot of people.
Your comment about law enforcement is not entirely
correct. The original statement is that they must be on a certain
caliber of call. In other words, there has to be a complaint, a
crime. In other words, you know, you've got to turn the lights on.
When I was in the Coast Guard, we had no-wake zones that
we had to comply with unless we were on a call. And what it meant is
it took those sections out of our patrol zone, because we couldn't
afford to get in there and spend four hours patrolling a one-mile or
two-mile stretch of area far away when we could cover a lot more area
where there wasn't that speed zone.
So if a Florida Marine Patrol officer just wants to go
back, he sees eight or ten boats off on the horizon and wants to go
check their fish, if he doesn't have a call, he doesn't have the legal
right to get up on plane and get back there. He's got to slow-go it.
So the enforcement issue is still valid in that respect. I appreciate
the half step, but we really need a full step where enforcement is
concerned.
And I have to say, if you look at a map of the back bay
area, and -- I mean, we are known for backwater fishing all over the
world.
DR. STALLINGS: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've talked to people that live
in Washington State that travel here just to fish. And they go to
Marco; they hire a boat, and they go backwater all day, two, three
days on end. And I am concerned that when that half-day trip that
used to be $45 or $50 becomes a full-day trip at $75, $100, or $125,
are we hurting an industry? You bet we are. And it's a fairly
responsible industry that has not shown itself to be damaging.
DR. STALLINGS: But, Commissioner Hancock, I would say
that the channels do have the higher speed zones; so you can get to
the backwater area where you want to fish. And where you have to go
slow is when you leave the channel and go over toward the mangroves,
which is not a great distance. And for that reason, I don't believe
that it's going to add all of this time and that it's going to make,
you know, a full-day trip out of a half-day trip.
But I would close with saying that what's proposed here
in the way of modifications is very, very small compared to the bigger
scheme of things. If we go back and reopen the whole thing, well,
like I said, we're in for a year or two's worth of litigation that's
going to cost us all a lot of money and time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Dr. Stallings, refresh my memory.
You're representing today Save the Hanatee group? DR. STALLINGS: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Didn't your group sign off on the plan
as it was originally presented to the commission? DR. STALLINGS: Yes, it did. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you're up here now telling us that
although you agreed with everyone else to submit the plan, you've
decided now that if we try to stick with the plan, in effect, that
you're going to open litigation; is that what you're saying?
DR. STALLINGS: No, no. I'm not saying that at all.
I'm not going to go back on my word, Commissioner Norris. And what
I'm saying here is that this represents a relatively fine-tuning, and
I don't think it's worth either us filing suit or you filing suit. I
think we need to bring this thing to closure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So far what I hear the majority
talking about doing is writing a letter and trying to, you know, avoid
a legal challenge, if possible.
DR. STALLINGS: Yeah. I would support that. Certainly.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question. What's the
difference between idle speed and slow speed? I mean, both sound
pretty --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It depends on how far you're away
from the officer.
MR. DUGAN: Idle speed can roughly be defined as 5 miles
an hour, and slow speed is approximately 8 miles an hour.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: How much?
MR. DUGAN: Eight.
DR. STALLINGS: At slow speed you don't get up on plane;
you stay below plane. And at idle speed you maintain steerageway; so
the differences are pretty minor.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: It just seems like there's a lot of
that in here, and, I mean, I hate to say it, but what's 3 miles an
hour? Is that a big difference?
MR. DUGAN: Well, see, one of the reasons the DEP people
from protected species that come up with slow speed -- I mean, the
marine patrol who has to enforce it doesn't like it slow speed because
there's not a good definition of slow speed. In fact, that definition
that they give of slow speed is more of what slow speed is not.
it's very confusing. An officer can enforce idle speed because idle
speed is no wake, whereas each boat at slow speed is going to be
different.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A troller at slow speed will
throw a 3-foot wake at you.
MR. DUGAN: A Bertram will throw a 5-foot wake at you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I have to -- Commissioner
Hac'Kie, I do want to clarify something. What I heard is that at
least three members of the board were talking about preserving our
rights under the rule challenge because we have to do that by the 29th
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but to follow that with a
letter. And if Secretary Wetherell or anyone wants to sit down and
talk about what Dr. Stallings has called minor differences -- and I
agree with you except for E, on Henderson Creek. I think that's
substantial.
DR. STALLINGS: Well, that is just east of 951, which
is not a great distance, you know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know. But there's a couple of
bays back there that are rather popular. So E is substantial to what
was presented. So I think we do need to file and preserve our rights
under the rule challenge. So I heard someone, a rumor of a motion
down there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Rumor of a motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we have one more speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Simonik. And he's your final one,
Mr. Chairman.
MR. SIHONIK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Hike Simonik, environmental policy coordinator for The Conservancy of
Southwest Florida. It's going to be very difficult for me to stand up
here and disagree with Dr. Stallings but The Conservancy -- and agree
with you guys. But The Conservancy still agrees with the Hanatee
Protection Plan that was adopted in Hay of 1995, and we're comfortable
with the direction that you're headed this morning mainly for two
reasons: The enforcement difficulties and, as well, in the words of
our biologist, Dave Addison, hey, a deal's a deal. And let's stick
with it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Simonik, would you be kind enough
to have The Conservancy join with us in writing a letter to the agency
expressing your feelings?
MR. SIHONIK: We can write a letter, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's great.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if there are no
more public speakers, I'll make a motion that we go ahead and file a
rule challenge. Also have a letter under your signature drafted by
the county manager and staff expressing our concerns to the secretary
of the DEP, and include backup from the appropriate agencies,
particularly law enforcement agencies.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And The Conservancy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And The Conservancy.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They'll fall under
appropriate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, on filing the
challenge, I think, is there something -- is that hard to get out of
once we get into it?
MR. WEIGEL: I really don't know. But it seems to me
that we need to follow the rule, particularly the direction of the
board. And I expect that -- I would expect, based on limited
experience in these matters with DEP, although a lot of other
experiences with DEP, that arrangements could be made as suits the
individual needs of both agencies dealing with the change.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because I, without being, you
know, either naive or optimistic, think surely, you know, this can be
worked out.
MR. WEIGEL: Hopefully.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd like not to get involved
in a lot of --
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not necessarily of the opinion that
just by filing a challenge for the limited purposes that this is,
notwithstanding there's some broad reasons, that it opens the whole
thing up again. And I have not seen that rule and, you know, I would
be ready to debate that with anyone in DEP.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second to that motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, before I call that
question, have you seen the letter that I just received this morning
from the DEP?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll make sure you get a copy of
that.
Kevin, do you have one over there?
MR. DUGAN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No ~esponse.)
Item #8A2
ANTHONY PIRES, JR., REPRESENTING DALE H. STEINBERG REQUESTING AN APPEAL
OF THE COUNTY HANAGER'S DECISION TO UPHOLD CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF'S
NOTICE OF VIOLATION CONCERNING THE DUPLEX USE OF A RENOVATED BOAT HOUSE
AT 2854 BECCA AVENUE, CASE NO. 60209-14. COUNTY HANAGER'S DECISION
UPHELD
The next item is the Steinberg hearing.
MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mike HcNees
from the county manager's office. My part in this will be brief.
It's to report to you that, as directed last week, a supplemental
hearing was conducted where I heard, as the hearing officer,
additional testimony related to the appeal of the notice of violation
that is in question today. And having conducted a review of all that
information, have found no evidence or reason to overturn what was my
original ruling, which was that the notice of violation should be
upheld in this case. And that was my rule, and I make that report to
you this morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is the procedure, Mr. HcNees, if
we uphold your appeal here today? What happens next? What's the next
MR. HcNEES: I believe I'll let Mr. Cautero answer that.
I think the next step is code enforcement. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, planning services director.
To follow up on that question, it's our opinion that if you uphold the
county manager and staff's decision that this is a valid notice of
violation, that this would proceed to the Code Enforcement Board as
would other notices of violation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, there's a staff
presentation. Mr. Pires is here and is registered, and I've got two
additions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Again, Wayne Arnold, planning services
director. I'll make a brief statement maybe to give you a little bit
more historical background as to how the violation came about and
staff's position that we found. In effect, this property is located
on Becca Avenue, which is approximately 2 1/2 blocks south of U.S. 41
and just west of Bayshore Drive. It sits on one of the finger canals
off of Haldeman Creek. And that, in essence, makes for the original
notice of violation which was issued back in March of this year. And
the issue that we have, there's one -- I hope that the diagram is
plain enough for you-all to see. But what we have essentially --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hand-held microphone, please.
MR. ARNOLD: Can everyone see that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mike.
MR. ARNOLD: What we essentially have is Bayshore Drive
would be over here (indicating); Becca Avenue would serve this side.
It sits on the corner of Cypress Street. On this lot (indicating) we
currently have a single-family dwelling. There is also an existing
dock. This structure that sits right here (indicating) is the subject
of the notice of violation. It's currently being utilized as a
duplex. There are two living units there.
The question is really whether or not a 1969 building permit
authorized a conversion of what was apparently a boathouse into a
duplex living structure. We're going to as staff try to explain to
you why that structure would not have been permitted to be a duplex
back in 1969 nor why it would be permitted today as a duplex for a
variety of reasons, which were presented as evidence in the two
administrative hearings we've had before the county manager's office.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you continue,
Mr. Weigel, our decision today is simply whether or not the
administrative process was done properly and all the information in
that is what we can consider in our decision. We're not starting from
scratch with a new hearing today; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the standard of proof? I
mean, do we -- is there one?
MR. WEIGEL: It's the general competent and substantive
evidence rule. Margie may want to --
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. It's the same standard as a comp. Plan
appeal. Whether the decision of Mr. McNees was based upon competent,
substantial evidence and whether or not the decision is contrary to
our code, our Growth Management Plan, as the case may be.
MR. ARNOLD: Again, it's the staff position that the
1969 permit that was issued, which appears on page 8 of our agenda
packet, if you-all have the original backup material, is a building
permit, No. 69-317, issued to a C.M. Townsend for the subject matter
property at 2917 Cypress. This specific building permit, it says that
the use of the property will be living quarters and bath and a half.
There were no other diagrams available for the property or very little
other information, other than what appeared on the face of the
building permit application. One thing that has been the focus of a
lot of discussion internally and before the county manager has been
the zoning district that's applicable on this property. The
application will show that the zoning district was R-2, which was a
1965 zoning ordinance designation.
The county, back in 1966 and 1967 and again in 1968,
made major amendments to its zoning code and was going through
countywide conversions. I have a conversion table that appeared in
1968 as a resolution that I'd like to hand out to the board for their
review that shows that the R-2 properties were becoming an interim
zoning district of MF-4, which again was to become a new MF-1 zoning
district.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, when you return to
the microphone, if you could simply tell me what is staff's position
as far as the zoning district that was physically in place at the time
this particular structure was altered.
MR. ARNOLD: It is staff's position that at the time
this permit was issued that the property in question would have
carried the interim MF-4 zoning designation. I say that for a couple
of reasons. I think it's very difficult to, with a great degree of
certainty, point to a specific zoning district that was in place on
this specific piece of property. The rezoning procedures didn't
follow an ordinance format; they were all developed by resolution. In
some cases there were no resolution numbers given. There were no
repealers of old resolutions. Nothing was filed with the Secretary of
State. So the track record is sketchy at best to try to determine
exactly when and what transpired on this specific piece of property.
But we do know that as early as 1966, the county did
away with its R zoning designations and had developed a whole new set
of multifamily districts that begin with the MF-1 district. And I
have -- again, I don't want to belabor the handouts, but I do have
additional information from June 7th of 1966 that shows that the
county adopted a countywide zoning ordinance, adopted single-family
and multifamily districts, as well as a waterfront supplementary
district that required building setbacks from waterfront districts
unless you had this W designation following your zoning district.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the date, one more time,
when that was adopted?
MR. ARNOLD: That was June 7th, 1966.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Three years prior to the permit of
issuance. I think the significant part of that is really, in my
opinion, not the R-2, the MF-4, or the MF-1. Because in any case,
this structure wouldn't have met any of those building setbacks
applicable to those zoning districts. And, furthermore, the staff's
position is that the W supplementary waterfront district allows you to
build up to, but not beyond, a bulkhead line only if you have this W
designation, meaning that otherwise you would have had to have a 20-
or 25-foot setback from that seawall for any principal dwelling unless
you had the W designation after your zoning district.
We know from some information that Mr. Pires found,
which was resolution, I believe, R-399-C, which did occur in 1969,
where it effectively did fezone this property from old and interim
zoning to the new zoning district MF-1. It did not fezone that to
MF-1-W; it rezoned it to MF-1. I have other rezoned files that I
found in the clerk of courts, clerk to the board's office, as well as
our own records room at Horseshoe Drive, which shows that there were
other fezones to this W designation for properties not in this
immediate area but throughout Collier County. So we believe that
because it lacked the W designation, a building or structure at this
location would have clearly been prohibited in 1969, because those
waterfront districts came in effect in '66 and were again modified in
1968.
One of the other things that goes to the point of this
one, it shows that they were developing a living quarters and bath and
a half. The standard building code at the time in 1967 required each
dwelling unit to have at least one water closet, one shower, and other
lavatory facilities. In this particular case we're going to have to
make an assumption then that this structure already was in existence
as some form of a dwelling unit, which still wouldn't have been
permitted to be there, and then was converted again to add another
bath and a half to make it a full single-bath unit on each side of the
structure.
We would also point out that if it were the MF-4 zoning
district at the time, it would not have met the minimum dwelling unit
size for structures in that particular zoning district. It would,
however, have met the zoning district requirements for the R-2
designation in terms of size, but it would not have met it under the
MF-4 or MF-1 zoning district requirements.
I'd like to go ahead and just hand out, if I could, a
copy of a plumbing code that was in effect at the time and a copy of
the old resolution adopting county zoning codes in 1966, if I could.
And this information, again, verifies what I just
explained to you regarding the adoption of zoning regulations in
effect at the time and the standard plumbing code and, again, the
table showing this interim zoning. In researching this case history,
it's amazing how little and how much sometimes you can find relative
to old zoning information. But what's been impossible to find for, I
think, both Mr. Pires and myself has been a copy of a zoning map that
would have been in effect at the time, which would have clearly shown
what that designation was on this specific piece of property. I think
what Mr. Pires is going to tell you is that we should utilize the R-2
that was clearly placed on this building permit as the applicable
zoning. But I think some other information that was provided in the
packet by Mr. Pires, or at least a as supplemental information from
Mr. McNees, was that there were other building permits issued even
after. We clearly know that the county adopted the new MF-1 zoning
regulations for this property which still shows the R-2 district being
in use on building permits in the county.
And my opinion of that is, one, simply that we were
much, much less sophisticated in 1969 than we are today in terms of a
building department that's integrated with zoning and following those
issues on a daily basis. And I think that the time lag occurring for
people who were used to coming in and filling out permits when all
you had was a five-minute process is much more different today and
requires so much more information. We have formal zoning maps we
track on a monthly basis now as opposed to some that are relegated to
work maps from 1967.
That, in essence, is the county's position: That this
permit did not necessarily permit the alteration of this structure to
become a duplex, and in fact, by today's standards this structure
would not even be allowed to be constructed this close to a canal nor
allowed to be cantilevered out over the canal as it is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So what you're telling us is that the
decision of the staff and of Mr. McNees was entirely based on
competent, substantial evidence?
MR. ARNOLD: We believe that we provided evidence to
support the county's position that there should be a notice of
violation issued, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, I have two questions
to help me clarify staff's position. MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions to help me clarify
some statements that you made. If -- since the zoning district tried
to determine exactly which zoning district applied at the time, as you
said, is, you know, a little iffy, if we were to assume the more
liberal approach of an R-2 zoning district, which seems to be the
argument of the petitioner, there are two items that still would
create an inconsistency. The first is the minimum square foot per
building in place in the R-2 district at that time, which is 600, and
I believe theirs are 325 feet each. MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the second issue is that the
building permit that has been shown or a notice of inspection that was
shown was for one and one half baths, not two. Being one and one
half, according to the plumbing code, they could not create two
dwelling units out of a bath and a half. You have to have two full
baths to create two dwelling units. Are those both elements of
staff's position?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, they are. And I think one other point
that goes to that, when you just look at -- the whole permit says
they're going to alter. There's no indication that they're creating a
duplex with this building permit, which I think is something that
clearly -- if you're taking this structure from a boathouse, which is
clearly an accessory structure of the property, to become the
principal dwelling unit to house people, that something more should
have been placed on this permit to indicate that occurring.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it does at least say a living
unit with a bath and a half?
MR. ARNOLD: It says living quarters and a bath and a
half.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quarters. Okay. Do we have any
record whether there was a half bath or another bath existing at the
time?
MR. ARNOLD: Our permit records don't show that there
was such an addition.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Anytime prior?
MR. ARNOLD: In the past or any other time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, I guess we're ready for
Mr. Pires now.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. And I have two additional
speakers.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name
is Anthony Pires, Jr., representing the petitioner, Dale Steinberg, as
trustee in this case. First of all, I would like to object as I
understood that this meeting or this hearing was solely to be based
upon the record created on June 17th and November 19th, 1996, the
supplementary hearing held last week. Mr. Arnold's last handout, the
first -- the 1966 zoning regulation, the resolution that he alluded to
with the page 255 at the top, the date of June 7th, 1996, was not part
of the record, was not made part of any of the proceedings. And we
would object and ask that that not be made part of the record or part
of the proceedings. This is new information that, once again, was not
before Mr. McNees at all.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, maybe Mr. Arnold can
clarify. I believe that was an issue for the record, and all that was
lacking was a certified copy of the same. Mr. Arnold could provide a
little more detail in that regard.
MR. ARNOLD: Maybe to refresh Mr. Pires' recollection,
at the hearing before Mr. McNees last Tuesday afternoon, I handed out
copies of an MF-4 zoning district. Mr. Pires requested whether or not
that was a certified copy accompanied with a resolution. I indicated,
no, I did not have the certified resolution copy with me at that time,
but I handed out the photocopy I had from our reference files at
Horseshoe Drive. This is the copy that came from the clerk to the
board's office.
MR. PIRES: If I may, I have the original transcript
with the exhibits, and it's not part of that. But if I can make this
part of the record --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine, Mr. Pires. But really, we're
not going to try the issue here today. Our purpose here is to try to
determine if the staff based their judgment on substantial, competent
evidence. And from that decision we need to decide whether to send
this forward to the Code Enforcement Board where at that time you can
try all the merits of the case.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. If I may then continue. With
regard to this, I would like to make this original transcript part of
the record. I believe that copies have been provided to the various
board members and to staff. With regards to this, I think it's
important to review the -- unless Mr. McNees handed out a new written
ruling today and I have not been favored with one. So I assume that
the hearing and the appeal that we're reviewing today is based upon
the memorandum dated July 15th, 1996, from Mr. McNees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We did get something supplemental
to that, Mr. Pires. I'm trying to put my hand on it. It's a
one-sentence memo.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It says, my opinion hasn't
changed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It says: I've reviewed the
supplemental evidence presented by the parties to this appeal at the
board-directed hearing on November 19th, 1996. Having reviewed all
information received, it's my opinion that the notice of violation --
it gives the appropriate number -- be upheld.
MR. PIRES: Okay. So that adds nothing further other
than reiterating it. Thank you very kindly. I'll pick up a copy
afterwards. Thank you.
But the memorandum dated July 15th, 1996, articulates
the basis for Mr. McNees's opinion. And in this gray little folder
that I have, that's Tab No. 3. I believe I previously provided that
to the board members. At that time -- and the sentence that I think
is important is -- that's the third sentence, the third line: The
zoning regulations in effect at the time this permit was issued
clearly require that a two-family dwelling have a minimum floor area
of 500 square feet per unit.
And the units involved here have 325 square feet per
unit. The testimony that was provided at the hearing was that the
500-square-feet-per-unit regulation was the MF-1 zoning district.
That is supported by Mr. Arnold's executive summary dated October 8th,
1996, for this particular item that states in the first sentence of
the last paragraph, quote: It is staff's contention that Permit
69-317 did not authorize the creation of a duplex, as such an action
would have been inconsistent with the minimum dwelling unit size
specified in the MF-1 zoning district requirements in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
What has happened in this case is at the original
hearing of June 17th, 1996, there was introduced into the record, and
I believe you have copies, a May 16th or May 22nd memorandum from Mr.
Cautero, who was the -- advised the county manager that the zoning
district in effect was R-2. Dennis Mazzone's testimony at that
hearing was that it was R-2, and that's in the record, the transcript,
page 25, line 17; page 26, line 1. Mr. Mazzone stated, he's the
investigator, that the zoning was R-2.
Then during the course of that hearing -- I'll call it
position 2(A) -- the staff then stated that the zoning was MF-1. Mr.
Arnold's testimony at June 17th was that the zoning district was MF-1.
And then I'll call it the 2(B) position, during that same hearing
Mr. Mazzone testified that both the R-2 and MF-1 were in effect at the
same time. Now, Position 3 arose last week at the November 19th, '96,
hearing where staff, Mr. Arnold, now testified November 19th that the
MF-4 regulation was the appropriate zoning regulation.
The critical issue is the hearing officer's
determination was not based upon setbacks, was not based upon yard
requirements. It's based solely upon the fact that the unit size was
too small; i.e., it should have been 500 square feet per dwelling unit
versus 325 square feet as they exist. The R-2 zoning regulations,
they're in the packet, and as part of this gray packet they are Tab 6
at page 17, page 16, state: The minimum area of the building is 600
square feet.
The R-2 regulations in effect indicated the building
size had to be 600 square feet. The MF-1 regulations referenced in
Mr. McNees's ruling, referenced in Mr. Arnold's executive summary,
were 500 square feet per unit. The MF-4 regulations now mentioned by
Mr. Arnold and testified to last Tuesday are 400 square feet per unit,
not per building.
So once again, the basis of the hearing officer's
determination, we would contend, was the square footage of the unit.
And to now change it to MF-4 with 400 square feet per unit we think is
inappropriate. Furthermore, there's no compelling evidence; there is
no -- contrary to Mr. Arnold's position, contention, that June 6th--
June 7th, 1966, resolution was not introduced at the hearing. It's
not part of that transcript received from the court reporter.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr.
Pires.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I asked earlier
about the information that we can consider as part of this last week's
hearing, November 19th, 1996, hearing. The information presented in
that, I assume, can be considered by the board?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it can be considered by the board.
That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Once again, we have -- in fact, during the
course of the hearing on June 17th, to add to the -- I use the term
once, "confusion .... I won't use it again -- is that Exhibit C, which
is in the -- it's part of the record. I also put it in the back
portion of this folder. Exhibit C, the staff's articulation was that
Exhibit C -- it said see attached Collier County zoning regulation in
effect at time of above-noted alteration.
And that's the October '68 regulation. At that same
hearing on June 17th, staff introduced Exhibit D, which stated see
attached Collier County zoning regulations in effect at time of
above-noted alteration. That's the January 1965 regulation.
Once again, part of the record you have is lack of
certainty, as testified to by Mr. Arnold, as to what the zoning
regulations were. I think the clearest representation of what the
zoning regulations were is the permit itself. The permit clearly
states on it that it's R-2 of the zoning regulations in effect, was
the zoning regulation for the permit. I have provided a blowup of
that permit which was part of the exhibit at the June 17th hearing
that states R-2.
One other item I think is important. It wasn't to build
the building, but it was to alter an existing frame building, to add
living quarters and bath and a half. And I believe the testimony that
was adduced before the hearing examiner back on June 17th from Mr.
Steinberg was that their understanding was there was a shower in
existence before this alteration. When Mr. Steinberg's parents bought
the unit back in 1970, there were two separate distinct units, two
separate bathrooms, one in each unit. Each unit had a separate
entrance and exit. There were two distinct, separate dwelling units.
Furthermore --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, Mr. Pires --
MR. PIRES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- all of this is interesting, but
it's really not as pertinent as it could be to the Code Enforcement
Board. We're just merely trying to decide whether the staff's
decisions were based on competent, substantial evidence.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, I understand it. I'll briefly
wrap up.
The resolutions introduced at the hearing on November 19th
as to October '68, I think it's important to look at those items.
That's in the transcript of November 19th. The staff's exhibits that
were introduced included a copy, and that's Exhibit 4, of -- Exhibit
5, excuse me. The document's dated 10/8/68. That document does not
say it fezones any property in Collier County. That document entitled
Resolution Adopting the Zoning Regulations for Collier County, just
states that the zoning regulations for Collier County be adopted.
We have provided as part of our exhibits and part of
that same November 19th hearing -- and it's in our exhibit package --
is Resolution R-381-C adopted November 5th, 1969, which specifically
stated that this property was rezoned to the classification heretofore
established as new zoning classifications as adopted October 8th,
1968. I think it's pretty compelling that contrary to the hearing
officer's determination -- and there's substantial, competent evidence
to the contrary -- that the regulations were adopted October '68 and
incrementally applied to the property as evidenced by this November
5th, 1969, Zoning Resolution R-381-C.
Another item to indicate that that is what occurred is
Exhibit 2 that was part of the November 19th, 1996, supplementary
hearing. A compilation of building permits which showed from January
6th of 1969 through April of 1970 the R designation was used for a
substantial number of permits. And it shows probably over three or
four hundred permits using the R designation, which is the old
designation. What we believe -- and to use the words of Mr. Arnold, I
believe he stated, Difficult to a great degree of certainty, as to
what the zoning classification were. And the record is sketchy as to
what the zoning classifications were.
Once again, I think the best evidence of the zoning
category is the R-2 regulations, which is on the permit itself. The
R-2 regulations call for a building of 600 square feet. This
building has 650 square feet; that the determination by the hearing
officer, based upon the inconsistent and contradictory evidence and
testimony as to the zoning categories going from R-2 to HF-1 to HF-4,
show that there was not substantial, competent evidence for the
hearing officer's determination and decision in this particular case.
We also had, as part of the record, testimony from Mr. Steinberg of
his discussions with Carl Clemmer. Carl Clemmer is the individual
that -- whose name appears on that building permit. He was the zoning
director at the time. After acquisition of this property -- and it's
in the record -- Mr. Steinberg talked with Mr. Clemmer, and Mr.
Clemmer advised that that duplex was a good investment, fully knowing
the use and purposes for that particular unit.
Once again, based upon all the foregoing, we do not
believe there is substantial, competent evidence and even the staff's
own admissions, based upon prior memorandum, where they stated it was
R-2. The building permit states the zoning district is R-2. There's
no map that states the zoning was other than R-2 on 2/11/69. The
staff Exhibit C during the June 17th hearing contradicted staff
Exhibit D. Then staff contradicted themselves in the hearing where
they said two regulations were in effect. Then on November 19th a
third regulation was brought forward by staff not known to the parties
prior to that time. So based upon all the foregoing, and with the
shifting theories and shifting bases, that we contend that the only
competent, substantial evidence is that the zoning was R-2 and that
the notice of violation should not be sustained.
And I'd like an opportunity for a brief rebuttal if
there's any other further presentation, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: If I might just add just a clarification.
I think it's important to review Mr. HcNees's finding as the hearing
officer in this case. In his original July 15th hearing, Mr. HcNees,
in staff's opinion, did not necessarily find just because of the size
of the structure that staff's position was upheld. When I read the
memorandum created by Mr. HcNees, it clearly says that there was no
compelling evidence heard at that hearing to substantiate that. And
he went on to add some additional information about the building size.
We presented many pieces of evidence at that hearing. I
don't believe that Mr. HcNees could have, in a short memorandum,
indicated every piece of evidence that was reviewed in making that
finding. And I just want that to be part of the record, that clearly
it says that there is no compelling evidence to support that that
building permit justified the creation of a duplex at that location.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next speaker, please.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Steinberg.
MR. STEINBERG: Good morning, Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is Dale Steinberg, trustee for my parents on
the property that we are presently discussing. Tony Pires has
covered the legal aspects of it. The only thing that I can refer to
is that when my parents had purchased it, it was a duplex at that
time. It did have two baths. It had two kitchens. It had two doors
for each apartment. It had two electric panels for each apartment.
It was discussed with Carl Clemmer at the time. I don't know if he
was right if it was a good investment or not, but he was aware of it.
We're all aware, including the staff, that the permits that were
issued at that time were probably very lacking in their content. The
fact is, many of the permits are missing completely. The permit for
the original structure they cannot find. In fact, they could not find
the C.O. For this structure, which we were able to find. In our
original meeting they indicated that there was no C.O. For this
structure.
I had the privilege to talk to the previous owner, who
was a former building inspector for Collier County. And he had
relayed his family history of when they had lived in the property and
of swimming in the canal. At that time, apparently, they were -- felt
safe to swim in the canal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please don't try this at home.
MR. STEINBERG: Pardon? At that time he had relayed to
me that it was a boathouse and a bathhouse. It was next to the
swimming pool and that it had contained a shower of which they used
when they went swimming before they were able to go into the house,
into the residence. I have no other information. I had not seen it.
What it was before that is what he had relayed.
The permit calls for a bath and a half. I cannot
imagine that in a structure that size that they would put a bath and a
half if that was all they were going to put in it. The only thing
that would have made sense for would have been for a duplex.
When my parents had purchased it, it was rented as a
duplex, and it has been rented as a duplex for the last 26 years. It
was income that they had when they retired for their support. It has
been on the tax appraiser's records for the last 26 years. Impact
fees were paid for a duplex for two bathrooms for each side -- one
bathroom for each side. We know of nothing else that indicates that
that wasn't a duplex, and it's been there for 26 years.
To go back that far on all the properties that we have
in Collier County, I venture to say that this board or the staff would
have no time to do anything else if they were to pull every permit
that appeared to have a discrepancy on it or that they might challenge
that was 26 years ago. I ask, simply ask, this morning that this
board put it to rest. And they have it within their ability and their
power to do that because, as the staff has indicated, there's a lot of
confusion. I mean, I'm not going into what Tony Pires went in, but
they've changed opinion of what the zoning was three times. And
that's what I would ask for this board this morning, is to be able to
put this to rest.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, if this were to get
to the Code Enforcement Board, will they get to opine on the
applicable zoning regulation, or are we determining that today?
MR. WEIGEL: No, you are not determining that today.
They will have the opportunity to opine, based on the arguments and
presentations of both sides, plus any public speakers, as to what
applies. They'll make that determination themselves. You're here for
the limited purpose to determine whether, in fact, staff presented to
the hearing officer substantive and competent evidence upon which the
hearing officer could make a decision. And I'd further add that in
regard to the public speakers, such as the one you've, heard and
potential speaker or speakers that come afterwards, that they, I
expect, were not part of the record that was brought before Mr.
McNees. And to the extent that they -- and they have not-- Mr.
Steinberg did not qualify or indicate that he himself was part of the
argument or presentation to Mr. McNees. And although it's
informational and of some assistance generally, that is actually not
part of your review process today either.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rankin.
MR. RANKIN: I'm going to make this very short, Board,
because I'm supposed to be at a trial next door about 15 minutes ago.
Douglas Rankin. I represent some neighbors in the area that have no
direct -- their only direct interest in this is they live around this
property. One of my clients owns all the property across the street;
the other one lives right next door. My clients are interested in
seeing this neighborhood become a good neighborhood. As you know,
this is off Kelly Road. This is one of the areas that's being
renovated and made better.
The delay -- what we object to is the delay. This
notice of violation was entered in March of '96. By the time this is
all done with code enforcement, it will be March of '97. Your
commission has already wisely changed this procedure to stop all this
delay and stop all these items in the meantime, but we're stuck with
it in this case. I suggest that this matter needs to go to code
enforcement where they can try the matter in full, as your attorney
has just advised you they will, and all that stuff will be handled
there. They're entitled to their day in court. Right now they've had
about a week and then some. And by the time it's done, they'll have
more than that.
I have seen no -- I have seen plenty of substantial,
competent evidence to support the staff and the county manager's
decision. I have seen no evidence of any prior existing item on this
property. In fact, it wouldn't say living quarters, I think, if it
were living quarters before. And I think the permit speaks for
itself. There's no evidence even that the boathouse was permitted or
that the first dwelling unit, alleged first dwelling unit, was
permitted. I think the evidence shows that they're entitled to the
unit and a bath. And in fact, on these two small lots you actually
have three dwelling units. I think that you should uphold the
determination of the county manager as supported by substantial,
competent evidence. Also I would -- although I don't know if I have
a standing to, but I'm sure somebody will -- object to the hearsay
nature of Mr. Clemmer and the previous owner's testimony. I
understand the previous owner's deceased, and I'm not sure about Mr.
Clemmer. I don't want to put him there if he is not there. Thank you
very much, Your Honor.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Pires has brought to my attention that
Mr. Steinberg did, in fact, participate in the hearing process before
Mr. HcNees.
MR. DORRILL: I believe that's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all? Okay. Well, it seems to
me that we certainly have two sides with good-sounding arguments that
are in disagreement. And that sounds to me like that's a matter for
the Code Enforcement Board.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, apparently Mr. Steinberg's
son also wanted to speak. They just filled out one slip.
MR. STEINBERG: David Steinberg. Thank you for letting
me talk. I wanted to object to one thing that has been said twice
now. Last week it was mentioned that the neighborhood was in an
uproar. And I found that very disturbing because I've been -- I live
in the house that is in question on, the property. And I have been
instructed to be a good neighbor all my life. And so after that
comment was made last week, I approached my neighbors, of which I have
four, a total of four neighbors. And I approached my neighbors, and
as far as I know, I do not have a problem with three of my neighbors.
I have a problem with primarily one neighbor, and they have not
approached me directly about this issue. And I don't think that is
germane to this issue. The neighborhood is not in an uproar. My
neighbors have been very nice to me. I approached them this week and
they have assured me that they have no problem with me or with the
property. And I think that should be made known.
I'd also like to say that Attorney Rankin had mentioned that
he believes that the county has provided substantial, competent
evidence for their position. To that, I guess, I would say, which
position? There's been at least three different positions so far. I
think if you were to take any one of those positions, the county would
say that they have substantial, competent evidence for that position.
If that's the case, then I ask how can they change their position and
then say, oh, well, there's substantial, competent evidence for this
position as well and then yet a third time change it to another
position and say there's substantial, competent evidence for this
position. The issue goes back 26 years. There is not substantial,
competent evidence to support their decision.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only question, Mr. Weigel, is
it comes down, at least for my decision, to whether or not we're
basing this on R-2 or an HF-1 zoning district. Is that what we are to
make a decision -- or that -- can that be a part of my decision today
in assessing whether -- because staff -- if it's an HF-1 zoning
district, I have to agree with staff. If it's an R-2 zoning district,
then I'm going to find myself in disagreement with staff. So that is
kind of the -- that's the Y in the road for me. And I guess what I'm
asking is, staff has made a presentation. If I feel that the R-2
zoning district was in place at that time and not HF-1, I would be
inclined to disagree with staff on this. And I just need to know if
that can be a part of my decision, which zoning district was in place
at the time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm in exactly the same position
because I think that the stronger evidence is that staff is wrong
about which zoning district was in place at the time, but I'm not sure
if that's my role or if my role is just to say did they have a good
basis, a reasonable basis, to determine which zoning district.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. I think you need to base your decision
upon what is in the record, what was in the record before Mr. McNees
on the 19th and what was in the record earlier in the hearing before
Mr. McNees in June, in making that determination of what ordinance
applied.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're to decide which
ordinance we think applies, or we're to decide that the staff had a
good reason to choose, to make the choice it made?
MS. STUDENT: No. The decision is whether or not you
uphold Mr. McNees's decision and whether there's competent,
substantial evidence in the record to support that. And I believe as
part of that you examine the record and see -- you look at his
decision, what the predicate in the record for the decision was. And
if that gets into which ordinance was in effect, then you look at the
evidence in the record to substantiate that question as to whether
there was competent, substantial evidence to support that decision.
I hope I'm making myself clear, because what ordinance
in effect has an impact on what decision was made. So you need to
look at the whole record to see if there was competent, substantial
evidence to support the decision, including competent, substantial
evidence to support any argument as to which ordinance was in effect.
MR. ARNOLD: If I might jump in and make one other
point. I think it's -- from staff's perspective, it's a little less
important, the specific zoning district, in our opinion, that was in
effect on the day the permit were issued because whether it was R-2,
whether it was MF-1, or whether it was MF-4, it met none of the zoning
district requirements other than the minimum dwelling size for the R-2
district. It met none of the front-yard, side-yard, or rear- yard
setbacks for a structure in the R-2 district, nor in the MF-4
district, nor did it meet the waterfront setback requirements in
effect at that time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion, please.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going back to when the
county, in the past, had issued permits, that the result was that
there was a violation of setback. It's not the county's
responsibility, when someone applies for a building permit, to -- you
know, in other words, if you need a 25-foot setback and you provide a
20-foot setback in your building permit application, it's your
responsibility as the applicant to ensure that all construction
complies with the setbacks at that time. If the county makes an error
in even reviewing it saying whether you do or don't, the onus still
falls to the applicant. Is that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. And that's been confirmed
in the Trianon case that's come before the courts in Florida.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on that element, I happen
to agree that the R-2 zoning district should have been the accurate
one at the time. But with that statement from Mr. Weigel, I don't
think we're given any choice but to uphold Mr. HcNees's opinion that
the violation is, in fact, correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I move that we uphold the
assistant county manager's decision.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
We'll take a very short break and be right back.
(A short break was held.)
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 96-527 ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE FOR THE LEASE OF PROPERTY
LOCATED BEHIND THE COLLIER COUNTY JAIL AT THE GOVERNMENT COMPLEX FOR A
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY - ADOPTED. STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AGREEMENT
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the meeting. And
we're ready for Item 8(B)(1) concerning the Juvenile Justice Center.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo
Gonzalez, capital projects director. The purpose of this item is for
you to consider entering into a ground lease with the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice for approximately three acres of land
located just north of the existing jail building. The three acres of
land was located in size to accommodate future jail expansion needs
for our facilities. As part of the item, there may be some roadway
relocation and utility relocation cost attributed -- associated with
providing water and sewer to that facility. There are some lines
there right now. We may have to move them out of the way so that
doesn't conflict with their construction work. The staff will be
bringing back to you at a later date an item to take from 301 reserves
lanes to, due to the planned relocation of the road, perimeter road,
the water and sewer lines.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Gonzalez, can I interrupt.
Isn't this just a perfunctory item, since we've already decided to do
this? It's really just a matter of looking at the lease and if the
county attorney has blessed the lease, can't we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I didn't realize
we had already decided to do this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, some time ago.
MR. GONZALEZ: I understand you directed the staff to
come up and actually draft the lease agreement and find the land. One
additional request I'd like to make to you is that to -- the
draft lease agreement needs to be revised to include connection to
both water and sewer lines that are available there.
MS. ASHTON: This item was previously discussed about a
year ago, but you directed staff to come back because the lease and
the location was not identified at that time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But generally --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your name?
MS. ASHTON: The general contract was approved, but the
location was not identified.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name?
MS. ASHTON: Heidi Ashton.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's -- what Mr. Gonzalez
said, I have one concern. I thought this was just going to be a quick
item. But we are going to have to take money from reserves to
relocate water and sewer lines so that this can be put there. And yet
it's -- I mean, we -- I'm not arguing the center. I'm just saying
that, you know, a lease that's going to cost what, nothing a year, yet
we're going to have to take out of reserves that were paid for by
local residents to move water and sewer lines underneath this? I
think that ought to be folded into the construction cost of the
juvenile center, not borne by the local taxpayers. That's just first
blush on that one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What dollar amount are we talking
about, what balipark?
MR. GONZALEZ: Less than 45,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- you know, this isn't
being created by -- you know, by our expansion needs specifically. It
is a new project coming on line. I just think that's a part of the
construction cost, just like a site prep would be, which they don't
have to do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that something that -- do you
know, Ms. Passidomo, if that's in the budget for the center or could
be?
MS. PASSIDOHO: Kathleen Passidomo. I think I'm an
officious intermeddler here. I'm with the Juvenile Justice Council.
I think that there were protracted discussions between county staff
and the state regarding the relocation of the road. And I think that
county staff seemed to think that that would work, but I don't --
Adolfo, didn't that -- that was sort of part of the conversations.
MR. GONZALEZ: We can make it work. We have designed
and accommodated a relocated road, if need be, perimeter road, and the
water lines would have to be either abandoned or relocated to serve
the Building H area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Regardless, this item will come
back to us and we can approve or disapprove the $45,000-ballpark
expenditure at that time? Am I right about that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now would probably be an
appropriate time to get into that though, rather than -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At that time?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, now I think would be an
appropriate time. My question is a different one. And that's I know
we had endorsed the idea, but your point that we had to come up with
where it was going to be is a big concern to me when we look at Item 2
on the executive summary and it says, "The board will need to make a
determination that the leased land is not needed for county purposes."
My only concern is that if we look at how much this
campus has expanded in the last several years and how the needs have
grown in the last several years, and you look at the site plan on here
on campus for where this is, I'm not sure I can in good conscience say
the land isn't needed for county purposes and think that sometime in
the next 50 years that the county isn't going to come up with some
potential needs for that. I just believe as we continue to grow, our
needs will continue to. And which I fully endorse the concept of the
juvenile center, but the location here, to try to suggest we won't
ever have any need for it, concerns me.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: My concern was I'm not opposed to
the juvenile center either. My concern was what effect would this
have on the expansion of the jail if and when there is that to take
place.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Could I address both commissioners'
questions? When we discussed this almost a year ago, we had a drawing
-- and I didn't bring it with me; I think county staff has it--
showing the location of the land. We discussed it fully. We have
been in discussions, the county staff and the Department of Juvenile
Justice, for a year now on the location. And I think everybody had
agreed that it was the perfect location for a juvenile detention
center as it's located adjacent to the jail.
Which brings us to the second answer, and that is that
the expansion of the jail, when it does occur, will be -- they're
going to fit right in together. And all that has been taken care of,
and that's why we've been doing this for a whole year, discussing
this. We've got legal descriptions. I think everybody from day one
has been on the same playing field with the location.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: My concern is that I don't happen
to have that master plan, if you will, for the jail area. I don't
have that information. I might have liked to have had that, I think,
to better --
MS. PASSIDOMO: I think they have copies here.
MR. GONZALEZ: Commissioner Berry, that was the primary
concern when we were trying to locate, and not only to locate the area
of the facility, but also the ultimate site. The original facility
that was contemplated, or area, was a little bit larger than the three
acres that is in the current lease agreement, but that overlapped with
future jail expansions. So what we did, staff, was we got together
with the sheriff's office and based on the programing analysis that
was conducted back in '89/'90, we tried to see if the jail expansion
could still occur, not in a due northerly direction as is shown in
that sketch, but more of a northeasterly direction, and still
accomplish it in an effective manner. And we think we can
accomplish it in an effective manner; relocating the perimeter road,
building the jail expansion to the northeast and still having land
available for the juvenile detention center area.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I assume that "J" on this
handout is the existing jail; correct? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. And then the new, proposed,
somewhere-down-the-road one is the slash lines. And then just
adjacent to that to the north is the new juvenile detention center?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which makes sense, Kathleen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. This is generally --
although we did have to get specific about the location in that we
needed legal descriptions and more specific information, I was clear a
year ago when we talked about this that this was the area. We just
needed to get legal descriptions of the area. I think -- that's why I
thought that today's discussion would be --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just know about once a
year the gentleman who owns the Ryder truck place next to us comes to
us and says, You guys want to buy this property? Boy, don't you have
any new needs? And every year thus far we've been able to say, No,
we're not going to make that purchase because we have ample property.
And I think, again, I've said it and I won't repeat it again, but
we're going to have needs in the next 50 years. And I'm not sure I'm
prepared to suggest that this land is not needed for any county
purposes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I think this is a county
purpose and it's a present need. And we do have the space available
and it's an urgent county need, in my judgment.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I need to ask if we have
any more speakers on the subject. MR. DORRILL: No, we do not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel has something he wants to
add.
MR. WEIGEL: I'd just bring the board's attention back
to Item 1 of the executive summary, which talks about the disposition
of the building fixtures on the premises at the termination of the
lease period. Paragraph 10.1 of the lease would appear to provide
that the building and those materials remain at the possession and
ownership of the lessee. Typically that's not the case with the
county leases on property where permanent creations become the
property of the county. It may be problematical in the sense that to
the extent that they remain on the parcel of land that reverts back to
full ownership interest, end of the lease interest to the county, that
the county doesn't own the building that's on it and would have to
negotiate in some respect to satisfy that difference that exists,
that it has the land, the lease is terminated, but the building still
is there under the ownership pursuant to this lease of the lessee.
Maybe Ms. Passidomo could respond to that.
MS. PASSIDOMO: This lease agreement was modeled on the
lease that the county entered into with the Department of Juvenile
Justice for the drill campsite. And so that's the basis. And I had
questioned that as well, and apparently that's the way the state does
all of its leases. As a practical matter, in 50 years that building's
value will be nothing. And so I can't -- you know, there's a
provision in the standard state form lease that you can negotiate, or
I guess the state would have to remove it. It's not going to have
much of a value at the end of 50 years, so how much can they charge
you for it if you want it. And if you don't want it, then they'd have
to remove it, and that would be up to the county.
SHERIFF HUNTER: May I make a quick comment on the
building issue? My name is Don Hunter, sheriff of Collier County.
Good morning.
The building, this reversion issue pertaining to the
building as constructed, I would remind the board that we are
currently enjoying occupancy down at Carnestown, Florida, right out of
Everglades City, in a Florida Highway Patrol building that was
constructed by the State of Florida, and it's still, as far as I know,
owned by the State of Florida, but has been granted -- we've been
granted use of that over a number of years as a result of a
relationship that we have with the State of Florida. And I know that
that is the common method that the state uses. So if we have a
detention facility built just north of the existing jail, a hard
structure with security steel, I would imagine -- I know I'm going out
on a limb, but I would imagine that if the state loses interest in
that facility for some reason over a period of time that we're going
to enjoy the use of that facility if it remains in some usable form.
And we're currently in the Immokalee jail center that
was constructed in 1964. Security steel doesn't deteriorate the way
we would imagine if it's well maintained. And I would imagine that we
would at some point in the future occupy that space as a usable
detention facility. I would want to allay your fears, is my point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. As I recall our initial
discussions on this, it was always a part of the discussion that the
property or the building would be located on this particular property.
So --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I don't see anything different.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm going to move approval
that we proceed with the agreement between Collier County, Florida,
and the Department of Juvenile Justice with the following provisions:
One is that upon termination of the 50-year lease if a new lease
cannot be negotiated, the existing building will be either demolished
or turned over to the county at the county's -- you know, really at
the county's discretion. I don't want to be stuck with a tag of
either demolishing a decrepit building, nor do I want to be asked to
buy it from the state.
The second thing is that the water, sewer and road
relocation cost be a part of the project construction and borne by
the state.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nobody has addressed the
issue of the DRI. I assume there is some expense involved if we do
have to go through the DRI process? I'm just asking if you can
address that now.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. Yesterday we had a
teleconference with members of the Regional Planning Council, and we
received a little bit of optimistic information from them. Their
opinion is that correctional facilities, jail facility, jail support
functions, may not be folded into the office space thresholds for DRI.
They all have regional impacts, which is one of the concerns of this
campus, our total office space area. They're going to confirm that
with the Department of Community Affairs. If that is the case, our
DRI project for the campus should not hold up the construction of
either the detention center or the planned jail expansion in the
future. With respect to the DRI issue, it's most likely that if we
let out, if we delete all of the buildings built before 1973, I think
it is -- and also delete all of the correctional facility functions on
this campus, we may just be over or just under the DRI threshold, in
which case, if we're that close, at least the Regional Planning
Council is willing to consider amending our binding letter agreement
that we had with them dating back to 1986, I think it was, which
simply acknowledges we're right on the threshold, it may not impose
any DRI types of impacts, we can proceed with the current campus.
With respect to future development of this campus office
space, that will most likely trip the DRI threshold, in which case we
need to proceed with applying as a developmental regional impact for,
let's say, a future office tower and parking deck to be built on this
campus if need be in the future.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's separate from this
calculation, because this calculation is for detention beds, which is
not included in office space calculations. So this is irrelevant to
that issue for the county going forward.
MR. GONZALEZ: Correct. That's their first blush
impression that correctional facilities including a detention center
facility would fall under that. It wouldn't be classified as office
space.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to add a third element
to my motion because Mr. Gonzalez used the critical word "may" in his
first statement. And the third element of the motion is should the
juvenile detention center trigger the need for a DRI amendment, that
this item come back to the Board of County Commissioners so that issue
can be dealt with and the fiscal impact of same can be presented to
us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second for that motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second then --
Mr. Weigel wants to interrupt.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hancock, does your
motion also provide for the approval of the joint use agreement which
is also included in the package?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It certainly does, Mr. Weigel.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As does the second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Thank you, Sheriff, for coming over here to help us with
that today.
Item #SD1
SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT TITLED THE ESTATE OF DANIEL O'BRIEN VS. COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 91-2468-CA-01-WLB - APPROVED
Our next item is the former -- formerly known as the
16(D)(4) is now 8(D)(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any discussion --
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Again, I'm just bringing this to the board in the public hearing
setting as required by state statute.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to
approve that item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 96-528 REQUESTING ENACTMENT OF THE SPECIAL ACT INTO LAW FOR
THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO ELIMINATE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PRIVATE
BISECTING EASEMENTS AND PRIVATE PERIMETER EASEMENTS IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, your item is next, 9(A).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this one we
discussed a couple of weeks ago. This seems pretty cut and dried. It
hopefully will go a long way toward solving the problem that's been
splitting the property owners in these estates for years. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that, I'll make a motion
to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers on that one?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #9B
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED SPECIAL ACT TO EMPOWER COUNTY PARK
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ISSUE CITATIONS TO ENFORCE ANY COUNTY ORDINANCE
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY COLLIER COUNTY PARK, COUNTY OPERATED
PARKING FACILITIES, PUBLIC BEACHES, BEACH ACCESS AREAS AND PUBLIC AREAS
ADJACENT TO COUNTY PARKS - CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 3, 1996
The 9(B) is a resolution, another special act.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I've
had a staff request that this be continued for one week, if you would.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any objection for a continuation for
one week?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No objection. Move continuance
of 9(B) for one week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That'll be continued then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of course, we don't meet --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think one week would be
perfect. We won't be here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, we will.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we will.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will. Never mind, I was
going somewhere else.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10A
DISCUSSION AND UPDATE REGARDING LOBBYING COALITION - DECISION NOT TO
PARTICIPATE AND MONEY TO REMAIN IN TRAVEL FUND; ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANCE TO COMHUNICATE SAME TO CHARLOTTE COUNTY
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, the next item
Lee County has opted out of participating, the memorandum tells us.
Obviously if all three counties don't participate, the coalition
probably doesn't need to go forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been not as supportive,
frankly, since we started this. I think it's a waste of money, to be
blunt.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: With Lee County out, I think the issue
is fairly cut and dried. And I think if we have issues that we see
coming up that are important to Collier County and we want to be
involved in, I think we would probably be more effective to pinpoint
issues rather than to shotgun like we have in the past. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And if we can still get our
neighboring counties to join with us in providing resolutions and so
forth when we need to lobby an item, I think we can do that on an
individual legislative issue basis and probably still be within our
budget, but more effective.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, do you need a
motion, or are we just all in agreement on this?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we can -- let's take an
official motion, because that way the other counties will know that
we're not going to participate in a joint effort.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we opt out
of the lobbying coalition for the 1997 legislative year and that money
be rolled over into the commission travel budget in the event that we
need to actually go to Tallahassee for a specific issue. I suspect
next year we probably won't budget that item at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we need to roll it in, or can
we just roll it into the general fund?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason there are at least two
issues that are very, very important to this county. One is
telecommunications, and the other is regulatory authority and
jurisdiction for water and wastewater. So we are going to have
occasion probably to be in Tallahassee this year, at least on those
two issues, and particularly during the last week of session.
What I'd like to do is -- I think, Commissioner
Constantine, your motion indicated earmarking those funds solely for
the purpose of going to Tallahassee for lobbying efforts, and before
someone decides to do that, I think the consensus of this board would
be required before expenditure of any of that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to
reflect that. Obviously we don't need to expend that money, and if it
doesn't get spent by the end of September, we'll roll it into the
general fund.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we'll need Ms.
Filson then to send a letter to Charlotte County advising them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll be happy to accept
their check.
Item #11A
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO IMPOSE
A MANDATORY COST TO BE ASSESSED IN SPECIFIC CASES FOR THE FUNDING OF
THE JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER AND SUSPENSION PROGRAM THROUGH COUNTY
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION FINES - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next on, ll(A) and ll(B) are fairly
similar. This is just a request to advertise; is that correct?
MR. BROCK: Dwight Brock. I'm Clerk of Courts of
Collier County. Commissioner, good morning. What we're asking the
board to do is to essentially direct the county attorney's office to
work with the participants in the teen court committee that has been
established and the Juvenile Justice Council for studying and
implementing proposal to the board for an ordinance that was
authorized by Florida law this year that would collect $3 per case for
funding of the teen court program and for the juvenile justice center
and after-school care.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just thank you for paying so much
attention to get this in front of us quickly, because it's a wonderful
idea, new legislation from last year. We appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to
approve the clerk's request for Item ll(A). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't it be appropriate at the
time it comes back to discuss what funds to be collected and expended
and how so? Is that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is just a request to advertise.
MR. BROCK: The statute, Commissioner -- we don't really
need to go into it, but the statute is very clear as to what those
funds can and cannot be spent for. It's limited statutorially.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to know the structure, how
we're going to do that.
MR. BROCK: No problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll ask those question later. Thank
you.
MR. BROCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #lib
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FINALIZE AND ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AN
ORDINANCE IMPOSING A $3.00 ASSESSMENT CHARGE AS A COURT COST BY BOTH
CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS AGAINST EVERY PERSON WHO PLEADS GUILTY OR
NOLO CONTENDERE TO, OR IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF A STATE CRIMINAL
STATUTE OR A MUNICIPAL OR COUNTY ORDINANCE - APPROVED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve staff
-- clerk's request on Item ll(B) as well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
PUBLIC COHMENT - DISCUSSION BY AL PERKINS REGARDING AN INTERCHANGE AT
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you do have a public comment today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perkins.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Welcome back, A1.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Missed you last week.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen, people at home. Listen up. They're getting trained; that
means they're listening. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for
Constitutional Property Rights.
This morning I want to get very -- I actually want to
get dead serious. I would like to have this board pass two different
resolutions. Stop the hunting south of the Alley, in the Golden Gate
Estates south of the Alley, the Fakahatchee and the Belle Heade.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mean the area the state's
referring to as the Picayune State Forest? MR. PERKINS: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the state own all that
property yet?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not just yet, no.
MR. PERKINS: No, the state does not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You get that on the record every
week.
MR. PERKINS: But they have assumed all the
responsibilities out there. And by the way, on their brochures you
can find the statements. I highly recommend you people go out and
find out that they're promoting hunting on private property.
The second one that I need to take and get your
attention on here is an update of DOT. Took place last Tuesday. Now,
the state and the people that work for the state are very coy on how
they approach different things. Now, they came in here with a
presentation about future improvement to 1-75, the big accent being on
an interchange at Golden Gate Parkway and 1-75. They anticipate that
with public input that they could possibly put it in place within
seven to ten years. Now, the seven-to-ten-year span is done
deliberately because of Buddy HacKay's possible election as governor.
Now, that is the carrot being hung in front of the people of Collier
County.
The exchange or the interchange at Everglades Boulevard,
there was quite a few people there with input about the fact that they
need that interchange put in place especially when you're going to
take and four-lane Golden Gate Boulevard. Now, at that time in the
morning, when you get ready to take and tear that road up, we're going
to have big problems. We have dump trucks out
there and school buses and school buses and school buses and pickup
trucks and school buses. When that road gets torn up, the response
time for emergency ambulances to get in there is going to be
prohibitive. Now, I give a darn about the kids that could be involved
in this thing and them sitting in a doggone bus several hours waiting
to get to school and waiting to get home from school.
This interchange also needs to be able to take and
protect the people who will go to the Picayune State Forest for
enjoying of horseback riding, camping, and the fishing and all the
rest of it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1, if that's a state forest,
and the state doesn't own that property, how is it they've named it a
state forest?
MR. PERKINS: The state uses the people's ignorance to
dominate their money. And not only that, you've heard me say that the
state, when it comes down to the truth, varies quite a bit.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. PERKINS: The fact is the recommendation that this
whole thing has been political needs this board's pressure at the DOT
to establish that interchange. By the way, in case you don't know it,
everything's in place at that interchange from when they built the
overpass. They own the land. The asphalt is there in some places.
All they're got to do is take the fences down, put it in place, and
now you have a route for emergency vehicles to get in for as far as
saving lives and putting out fires and protecting the people of this
county. Also relieving the pressure that's going to be on Golden Gate
Boulevard needs to be done.
One other thing and I'll be out of here. This ruse that
these people have presented is a coverup for the $800 million for the
bullet train that they propose to take and send from Miami to Orlando,
from Orlando to Tampa. That's the first stage of it. Needless to
say, I think Michael Eisner has a lot to do with that. From Tampa,
the anticipated next phase would be from Tampa to Tallahassee,
Tallahassee to Pensacola. Then on the back side, when we get done
paying for this, will be from Tampa down this coast and across to
Miami.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whoever's wearing it, that's your
pager.
MR. PERKINS: I think I've made my point this morning.
Please, drive this home. This needs to be for saving lives. Thank
you very much.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-72 RE PETITION PUD-87-7(2), J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE, ESQ., OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON REPRESENTING ROYAL WOOD HASATER
ASSOCIATION, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD TO PROVIDE
FOR THE USE OF A RESTAURANT BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ADDITION TO
MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. We're ready
to get to our afternoon agenda now. 12(B)(1), Petition PUD-87-7(2).
If no one's here for that, I will skip forward to --
MR. GOODLETTE: I'm sorry. I was waiting on your staff.
I'm here, Mr. Chairman.
MR. DORRILL: He's looking for his file, I believe. And
he's probably never had cornbread dressing for Thanksgiving either.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to move this
along, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me Royal Wood has been using this
and open to the public for all these years anyway, and no one seems to
have had any objection. There doesn't seem to -- as a matter of fact,
we had a birthday party there for Mr. Dotrill earlier this year. And
I'm not sure if there's any objection.
MR. GOODLETTE: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
I'm happy to make a presentation. I asked your manager; there is one
person who is registered to speak. I don't know whether he's going to
speak in favor or opposition to it. If you want to hear him, and then
I'll be glad to make a presentation if need be. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's do that.
MR. DAWSON: I'm speaking against you, but I believe
that you should make your presentation first.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I believe that we'll run the
meeting as we see fit, sir. If you'd like to speak, you're welcome to
do so. Please state your name for the record and take five minutes.
MR. DAWSON: I did think that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your name, please.
MR. DAWSON: My name is William Dawson. I live at 608
Westborough Drive in Royal Wood. I'm here today against -- to speak
against the zone change. By way of background, I have 34 years -- I
served 34 years on town boards. I served 17 years on town planning
and zoning, the greater part as chairperson. I was active for 17
years and on the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning. Also
at the Royal Wood board of directors, I oversaw the lease, the -- I
oversaw the lessee of -- the previous lessee of the Royal Wood
Restaurant.
I and other Royal Wood neighbors that I represent live
adjacent to the restaurant. We don't live a quarter of a mile, a half
a mile or one mile away. Royal Wood was approved and developed as a
deed-restricted residential development with a clubhouse and
restaurant. The clubhouse has been in operation in a residential zone
since the development of Royal Wood eight-plus years ago, serving
both the residents and the public, not unlike Embassy Woods or any
other similar development in Collier County.
The restaurant, I understand in talking to the officials
of Royal Wood, has exercised a verbal agreement to a two-year
extension. The original lease was two years plus a two-year option.
They're more than halfway through this lease agreement. Today, 18
months -- today, eight months later, no signed contract has been
consummated. We have a restaurant operator with an unsigned lease
requesting, through the board of directors, a zone change from
residential to commercial in a deed-restricted community.
Any responsible town planning or zoning board would
hesitate to grant -- to grant a zone change resulting in spot zoning.
The restaurant operator at Royal Wood has no capital investment in his
operation. Draperies, tables, chairs, eating utensils, pots and pans
are all owned by the Royal Wood property owners. Eighteen months ago
we invested $60,000 to upgrade these
facilities. We and the adjacent property owners have a substantial
investment in our homes and are the ones directly impacted by this
spot zoning change request. At a recent single-family homeowners
meeting, members expressed their displeasure with this proposed zone
change. The individual who raised the issue no longer lives at Royal
Wood.
This year Royal Wood members voted to privatize our
public roads. The proposed zone change request goes against the
privatization vote to restrict public use of this development. The
restaurant operator who continues to serve Royal Wood residents and
the public has shown no hardship, which is a basic requirement for
spot zone change. He has four options: Continue operating as he has
for the past eight months without a signed lease agreement; sign a
lease agreement retroactive to March 1996; terminate his option; or
contest and proceed with litigation. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if I can,
there's a couple things that need to be clarified here. This is not a
spot zone change, quote. It's a request to change a PUD, and there's
a difference there. Unless my executive summary is wrong, this
request is being made by the Royal Wood Master Association, which I'm
under the impression represents the homeowners of Royal Wood. Unless
somebody's --
MR. NINO: That's correct. Ron Nino, for the record.
Your statement is correct, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DAWSON: Obviously there's disagreement --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't mind if I speak, do you?
MR. DAWSON: No, go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not our job to solve
internal squabbles in associations. Mr. Nino, do we have a valid
application for the master association for this change? MR. NINO: Yes, we do, Commissioner.
MR. DORRILL: We have one additional person. He's going
to ask to speak. Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: For the record, my name is Gil
Erlichman, and I'm speaking for myself. I live in Royal Wood, and I
own Unit D-105 in Amherst Cove, which is one of five areas in Royal
Wood outside of the homeowners association.
You're correct, Mr. Constantine, about the master
association. In fact, they had a meeting yesterday. And I don't know
who this gentleman is. I don't think I've ever met him before. But I
don't know anything about a group opposed to this application for
change in the PUD. I enjoy the restaurant, and I've had friends come
there and so forth to eat there. And I don't see any reason why the
PUD should not be changed to allow the -- legally, to allow the public
to participate in the restaurant. And we have sufficient parking
there. I don't see where there's any type of hardship for people that
have homes in the area. I'm -- I have to say that I hope
that you approve this change. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Goodlette, if you want to
make a presentation, you're welcome to. But in my mind, it's -- all
that's being asked is to change a PUD to meet what in reality has been
happening for eight years anyway.
MR. GOODLETTE: Commissioner Constantine, for the
record, Dudley Goodlette with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman &
Johnson. We do represent the master association here this morning.
And the simple housekeeping change is embodied on page 20 of your
agenda materials where you see the changed language. And it merely
permits technically under the PUD document this club to be operated as
it has been operated from the day the developer opened the restaurant.
That's simply all this petition's about, Mr. Chairman, Members of
the Commission. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all for --
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
make a motion we approve Petition PUD-87-7(2).
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I second it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a couple of
seconds. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #1282
ORDINANCE 96-73 RE PETITION PUD-96-8, COHMUNITY ENGINEERING SERVICES,
INC., REPRESENTING BRUCE HOYT REQUESTING A REZONING OF CERTAIN DEFINED
PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM "A" TO "PUD" VANDERBILT PINES PUD FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF C.R. 951 AND
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Next item is 12(B)(2), Petition PUD-96-8, Vanderbilt
Pines.
MR. MILK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Bryan Milk. I'm presenting Petition PUD 96-8. This
petition seeks to have certain property as herein defined rezoned from
A rural agricultural to PUD, planned unit development. The Vanderbilt
Pines PUD is a residential golf course community within which
single-family and multifamily dwelling units will be constructed. The
plan proposes a maximum of 800 dwelling units, an 18-hole golf course,
a clubhouse facility, lakes, common areas, water management
facilities, and landscape buffers. The project provides approximately
62 percent or 206 acres of open space on site and restricts building
heights to 35 feet. Each of the residential parcels have frontage
along the proposed golf course and lake/water management system. The
internal roadway system is looped and provides ingress/egress to CR
951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. According to the petitioner, the
project will be a gated community and the internal roadway system will
be privately owned and maintained.
Water and sewer service is available and the gross
project density is 2.5 dwelling units per acre. On November 7th the
Planning Commission heard and approved this petition 7 to 0. At the
planning commission there was a comment with regards to the water
management of the surrounding area and the area to the north. That
has been addressed prior to the Planning Commission with Mark HcCleary
and the South Florida Water Management District; their permit and a
stipulation in the PUD document to also conclude that.
I'd like to pass out some information in regards to a
text -- some text changes to the PUD document as far as the table of
contents, some information in regards to the design criteria, and an
additional comment about agricultural uses on the subject property.
The petitioner is asking that he be allowed to farm the property for
two years, and that would be two years from today's date. And that
would be available to the petitioner as it has been in the past for
other projects approved in Collier County. I'd like to pass that out
at this time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you're passing that out,
Mr. Milk, I have one question. And that is, you mentioned 62 percent
open space which would equal roughly 206 acres. How much is the
taxpayer being charged to preserve that 206 acres in perpetuity?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We already had that vote.
MR. MILK: I don't know. But it allows approximately
100 acres of development. It's actually 60 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no taxpayer money
being expended on this project; is that correct? MR. MILK: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a question for the petitioner,
if you're finished, Mr. Milk. MR. MILK: Thank you.
MR. HcCLEARY: Mark HcCleary, community engineering
services.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You are representing the petitioner?
MR. HcCLEARY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My question goes to the request for an
agricultural exemption.
MR. HcCLEARY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The question is, is this being rezoned
for speculative purposes, or is this intended to be an immediately
ongoing project?
MR. HcCLEARY: It's been designed to be an immediate
ongoing project. We've submitted to South Florida Water Management,
early work is in line to go in front of staff here in Collier County
with the idea of trying to start digging in January for this project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That being the case, I'm not
sure why you would need a two-year agricultural exemption. It seems
to me if you're planning to go forward, that that would be not
effective in any case. So --
MR. HcCLEARY: Hay I just add to that? Mr. Hoyt, the
owner of the land, is either going to develop it himself or sell it to
some interested parties that he has, some people interested in it
right now. We've made this application for the idea of getting a golf
course community on line as soon as possible, and he does have people
in mind, but he does not have it sold to a particular U.S.
Homes or anybody at this particular point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It would be my preference, sir, to
have a firm plan in mind and then come for a request. If this is just
being rezoned for a resale potential or to increase the value of the
property, I don't think I can support that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Shouldn't we just let the facts
speak for themselves? I mean, I don't like the idea of getting in Abe
Skinner's business. I mean, if it's agricultural, he'll continue to,
you know, appraise it that way. And if it's not, he'll appraise it
that way.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I've got to agree. I
mean, it looks like a fine project, and if you're looking to put that
together, fine. But I think maybe we're mixing two unrelated issues.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll add to that. I have no
interest in the ag. Provisions themselves. Commissioner Norris, on
the speculative zoning nature of a lot of projects like this, we have
PUDs sitting out there, they've been there for years, decades, and
never been acted upon. We have a five-year sunset provision that I'm
sure you're aware of, but the PUD comes back in and is updated to meet
current code at that time. If nothing happens on this project within
five years, would you be agreeable to a reverter clause to ag. zoning?
MR. HcCLEARY: I wouldn't have a problem with that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But apparently Mr. Skinner does.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. There is an Attorney General opinion that
states that in zoning regulations you cannot put automatic reverters
in.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if they agree to it, I can,
Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they agree to it. There's a
difference there between mandating. Am I wrong?
MS. STUDENT: Well, this opinion extended to the zoning
ordinances in general, and I think it's because it does away with the
public hearing requirement --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An ordinance would be a
mandate, and it would do away with the public hearing. We're having a
public hearing here. It sounded as though the petitioner was going to
agree to that. It's not part of an ordinance; it was a request simply
made by one commissioner, sounded like the petitioner was agreeable to
it. That's not a mandate at all.
MS. STUDENT: Well, it would seem that there would have
to be a provision in the PUD document and it would become part of the
ordinance. It's just my job to advise the board as to the legal
parameters.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. Do you anticipate
receiving a commercial excavation permit for this site? MR. McCLEARY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're going to go in, dig the
lakes, haul the material off-site?
MR. McCLEARY: No, sir. The intent for the commercial
excavation is to dig 20 feet deep -- up to 20 feet deep, if need be,
to make it balance on-site. It's not the intent to take it off-site.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Does the PUD, Mr. Milk,
read that no material would be hauled off-site, or is that a
stipulation of the excavation permit?
MR. MILK: That is a stipulation of the excavation
permit. However, a maximum 20,000 cubic yards could be hauled off-
site, and that's a common practice in every excavation permit issued
at the county. And that is in the ordinance itself, standard
language.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What I didn't want was a
commercial excavation and then moonscape left for 20 years running.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would defer to any other
questions board members may have.
MR. MILK: My only comment here is that typically in a
planned unit development the petitioner will submit a quote "bubble
diagram." I think the engineer and applicant here went to great
details in looking at the developable portions of the site in both
right-of-way and parcels for development. I can't say that that adds
to the speculation, but it looks like to me they're ready to come in
for a plat and site plan; that's the level of detail they have
provided. If they choose to change that, it would have to come before
this board and ask for a master plan amendment. So that level of
detail is something that somebody is willing to develop at this point
or request a change later on.
MR. DORRILL: No registered speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further questions for the
petitioner or the staff?
Close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Still looking for a way on that.
With the public hearing closed, can I speak with the petitioner?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do whatever you want.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You had mentioned a -- no problem
with a reverter that after five years substantial construction has not
occurred, that property would revert to ag. zoning? MR. McCLEARY: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to move approval
of PUD-96-8 with the addition, and on the record the petitioner has
agreed, that they're willing to initiate a five-year provision that at
the five-year sunset the reverted clause of the property will revert
to ag. status if substantial construction has not occurred.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Substantial -- I'm sorry, but as
defined under the PUD sunset --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that definition of
substantial?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. Consistent with the PUD
definitions. The second area is I'd also like to include that the
maintenance area on 951 be buffered 100 percent from the roadway
within one year of construction of that facility so you can't see the
maintenance shed from the roadway. Those are the two elements I added
and I'll contain in my motion.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does your motion contemplate granting
an agricultural exemption for two years as requested?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It does not. I specifically did
not include that.
Do I need to exclude it, Mr. Milk? It's not a part of
our package, is it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just make it that --
MR. MILK: It's part of the --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll tell you what. I'll just
stipulate the motion does not include a two-year ag. Exemption for the
property.
MR. MILK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second amend.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #12B3
ORDINANCE 96-74 RE PETITION PUD-84-7(5), GEORGE VARNADOE REPRESENTING
951 LAND HOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE, REQUESETING A REZONE FROM "A" AND
"PUD" TO "PUD" REPRESENTING AN ADDITION TO THE AREA OF FIDDLER'S CREEK
WITHIN THE MARCO SHORES PUD BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO
SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD COMPANION ITEM TO 12C4 AND 12C5) - ADOPTED
WITH CHANGE
Next item is 12(B)(3), Petition PUD-84-7(5) and has a
couple of companion items with it as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll take those with it.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll hear them all. We'll have to
vote on them separately, but we'll hear them all at the same time.
MR. NINO: -- with the planning services department.
PUD-84-7(5) is an application to amend the Marco Shores/Fiddler's
Creek development of regional impact. I believe you are very familiar
with the location of that project. You only recently dealt with it in
terms of adding 22.9 acres of land to it and consolidating it within
the existing Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD and development of
regional impact. This petition would have you add -- would have you
fezone 690 acres of land that's now zoned agricultural to PUD, and
concurrently consolidate it within the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek
PUD and development of regional impact. The land use is residential.
However, it will not contribute any additional dwelling units to the
project. The 690 acres will be used to spread the existing authorized
number of dwelling units over an additional 690 acres. And indeed --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understand this. In essence, this adds 690 acres of open space?
MR. NINO: No. That 690 acres of land, about half of
which will be open space --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much --
MR. NINO: -- at no cost to the taxpayers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. NINO: It ought to be obvious that the net effect of
this action would be to reduce the density that's now authorized in
the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek development from 3.55 to 2.55
dwelling units per acre.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, do we have public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: One.
MR. NINO: The Planning Commission heard this petition
and unanimously recommended its approval. I might add, Commissioners,
that one of the advantages that this brings to the county in addition
to the obvious density is that it's going to help the county resolve
some drainage problems in the U.S. 41, and those conditions have been
incorporated within this PUD. This PUD will facilitate the historical
flow of water through the project. It is entirely consistent with all
elements of the Growth Management Plan. And we recommend your
approval to the PUD as is currently in your package.
I have need to advise you your PUD may be short some
pages. I'm not sure. The one I have is short some pages. And if
that's the case, I'm going to have to either replace the PUD document
or you could acknowledge that the PUD document that we have in our
possession is the one that is being approved. Similarly with the
development order, I'm advised that the development order may be short
one page, the last page in your executive summary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you just submit the
official copy for the record? MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, let me just make
sure I understand. They're looking to get more land, no more homes,
so lower density, and the whole thing will improve the drainage
situation down there?
MR. NINO: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We should send a thank-you note.
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Chairman, I have one thing I need to
put on the record, if I could, sir. John Drury, on behalf of the
Airport Authority -- George Varnadoe, for the record, attorney for the
petitioner. John Drury, on behalf of the Airport Authority, had asked
us to expand the avigation easement that we had over Fiddler's Creek
to include Section 13. We met with Mr. Drury, and the Airport
Authority is going to work with us on some noise abatement procedures
to lessen their impact on us. And we have agreed to expand the
avigation easement to include Section 13. And I told Mr. Drury I
would put that on the record this morning. So I have a presentation
ready, or I can respond to anything that comes up from the public,
whichever the board prefers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I have just one, Mr. Koolhof.
And he's the only one, Mr. Chairman.
MR. KOOLHOF: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Russ
Koolhof. I live in the Westwind Condominium Estates. My major
concern with this entire operation and addition of land to housing is
drainage. Mr. Nino says that it's going to improve the drainage. I'm
not so sure.
I'd like to apologize, first of all, for my late getting
into this thing. I had other things that I was doing when this was
going on. But I do appreciate this opportunity to address this forum
and bring the concerns of my neighbors to your attention. The people
in Westwind are certainly not opposed to development. It helps us
all, increases our economic community and provides jobs for citizens.
So development is not in itself a bad thing, however, poorly planned,
can have disastrous effects on the upstream community, which is part
of us.
We're concerned. I talked to -- or my wife talked to
the Phoenix Environmental Corporation concerning runoff waters and how
it would affect us. And the EIS, he said, has nothing to do with
water runoff. An environmental impact statement that doesn't address
those problems doesn't seem to be very good to me. We need to know
how this runoff water is going to be treated to grant upstream
property owners or adjacent property owners. We're also concerned
that these wetlands that are in this, and there's certainly some in
there, has not been permitted by the U.S. Corps of Engineers under
Section 04 -- 404 of the Clean Waters Act. These wetlands serve as an
important flood storage. If these are changed or filled, what's going
to happen to them?
It seems to me to be a reasonable question to raise. We
are upstream property owners, and we are concerned that there will be
flooding impacts that will directly affect our community. We're not
here today to ask how stormwater management will be provided on this.
We are here to ask how it's going to be provided to prevent flooding
impact on our community. The Code of Federal Regulations 320 to 330
covers the wetlands. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think that's
a valid question. I've got to assume someone here with Mr. Varnadoe
can answer the question.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. Let me -- I'll -- let me address
on-site, and I have Steve Means, actually from Wilson, Miller, can get
in more detail. And John Boldt's here to talk about the upstream.
The gentleman in question lives in this area here (indicating). And
the property in question we're seeking to add is here (indicating).
And let's get rid of the wetlands question first.
As everybody can plainly see from this aerial
photograph, that section I'm adding is under active row crop
production and has been for some 30 years. Steve Means will talk to
you about our on-site, but it's a fairly simple system that you-all
are used to; a series of lakes heading downstream, finally coming in
and outfalling into our spreader swale system that runs three miles
along the southern border with the wetlands which will then overflow
into the wetlands. That's the on-site. And, John, would you come up
and talk about this off-site?
While he's coming up, Mr. Boldt has asked us to take the
drainage from a couple of big culverts that go under U.S. 41 and take
that drainage which now he's having to run north up to Henderson --
you can better see it here -- up to Henderson Creek and down and route
that through our project, which we are proposing to do at the present
time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would include this
gentleman's community, would it not? Okay.
MR. BOLDT: For the record, John Boldt, stormwater
management director. For some ten years plus I've been attempting to
solve some drainage problems that were initiated by the concerned
citizens of Westwind Mobile Home Park, my so-called U.S. 41 outfall
swale project. And one of the problems I've had is retaining the
easements for that swale. And this Section 13 addition is going to
solve that problem, in that my outfall swale comes down along the east
side of the Imperial Wilderness RV Park along the north line of this
property and then went south along their west boundary. And they've
made commitments to provide those easements as part of this project to
solve the outlet situation there.
In addition to that, there are two other crossings under
U.S. 41 up near the northeast corner of that project that had no
particular outlet also because the berm had been around the farm
property for all these years. And again, they've -- we've asked for
and they've given us permission to route that water, probably instead
of going west, along the north line and join our outfall swale.
we're going to be picking up effectively four culverts underneath U.S.
41 that provide drainage for the Westwinds area and at this point in
time do not have a sufficient outlet. And this project will be the
key element in opening up those four culverts and providing some very
good flood protection.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, when the South Florida
Water Management District -- which, as this gentleman knows, is the
permitting agency for stormwater management of this size -- when they
issue a permit on this property, they will have to factor in the
receding waters from upstream into the capacity for this system. Is
that true?
MR. BOLDT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And what we're going to
see here is really an improvement to the carrying capacity for the
upstream property such as Westwind?
MR. BOLDT: That's also correct.
MR. DORRILL: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No other speakers. Do you have
anything else that you need to get on the record, Mr. Varnadoe?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. Not unless there's questions
from the board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions from the board?
No questions. I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the statements regarding
stormwater management and the permitting methods known both for
wetlands and for stormwater, I'm comfortable moving approval of
Petition 84-7(5).
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. And, sir, if
you're not -- if you're still not comfortable with the drainage
aspect, you're certainly welcome to get with the people. I'm sure
they'll explain it to you in greater depth.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #12C4
RESOLUTION 96-529 DETERMINING THAT REVISION TO THE MARCO
SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A
SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REGARDING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
REVIEW (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS 12B3 AND 12C5) - ADOPTED
The companion items are 12(C)(4) and (5).
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of Item
12(C)(4).
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #12C5
RESOLUTION 96-530/DEVELOPMENT ORDER 96-4 GEORGE VARNADOE REPRESENTING
951 LAND HOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO
SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT ORDER (COMPANION ITEM TO 1283 AND
12C4 - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval of Item 12(C)(5).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-75 AND RESOLUTION 96-531 ALLOWING THE POSTING OF HURRICANE
PASS AS AN IDLE SPEED ZONE - ADOPTED
Next item, 12(C)(1), Hurricane Pass as an idle-speed
zone. Mr. Dugan, this is just a continuation of the process we
started back a couple months ago?
MR. DUGAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No changes?
MR. DUGAN: One change. For the record I'm Kevin Dugan,
Collier County Natural Resources. The county attorney's office called
me yesterday and requested that we continue one of the resolutions
that's going before you. The resolution was the one amending the
Collier County Hanatee Protection Plan by designating Hurricane Pass
as a no-wake zone. That's the Hanatee Protection Plan that we
discussed this morning. Once that rule change is in effect, it no
longer addresses Hurricane Pass, so we feel it's just adding confusion
to the point right now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So rather than leaving it in
limbo, it's your recommendation to go ahead and approve the resolution
presented today?
MR. DUGAN: Approve the resolution requesting that the
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Resources,
approve the no-wake zone and also the ordinance amending the ordinance
to include the no-wake zone.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers. If there's no questions
from the board --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel has something.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will require
a separate vote on the ordinance and the one resolution that's going
forward. I would also request that the ordinance recognize the full,
legal description that's provided in the accompanying resolution for
Hurricane Pass. As opposed to merely providing an exhibit, which will
be provided, we have the opportunity to place in the ordinance the
full, legal description also, which I advise that we include. And
that's provided in the general record, and then in the accompanying
resolution that very legal description will be placed in the ordinance
itself.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We need to close the
public hearing, and we need a motion first on the ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move approval of amending Ordinance
96-16 with the stipulation that the full, legal description be
included.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
We need a motion for the resolution.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the motion, I believe, is to
repeal?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two resolutions. We can take them
together; right?
MR. WEIGEL: Just do one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be 89-4167
MR. DORRILL: Kevin?
MR. DUGAN: No. It's the resolution to the DEP to
approve the idle-speed zone.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so -- all right. Rather than
initiating a number, I'm going to move approval -- or that we repeal
the resolution indicating the Hurricane Pass area as a -- was it
35-mile-per-hour zone? Was it, Mr. Dugan?
MR. DUGAN: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to repeal that
section.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that sufficient, Mr. Dugan?
MR. DUGAN: That should do it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: For the record -- pardon me, but for the
record, this is a motion to adopt the resolution with the request that
you've just made to repeal?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: We do actually have a resolution before the
board. It's the first resolution that appears in the packet. There
is an ordinance and two resolutions in this agenda. I believe it's
the first resolution that appears following the ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know what we're trying to do.
I'm just trying to put the right words to it here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just to adopt a resolution repealing
the old resolution. That's what we're trying to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case, I'll move approval
of adopting the resolution repealing the old resolution.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what the second intended.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I make it that time,
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I think that's not --
MR. DUGAN: No. That's not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DUGAN: We want to continue that resolution.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. Mr. Weigel, I want to
conform to staff recommendation. Give me some wording here so we can
save some time.
MR. WEIGEL: That you are -- that the motion is to adopt
the first resolution appearing following the ordinance in the agenda
packet for 12(C)(1). And that is a resolution requesting that the DEP
study an area within the navigable waterways of Collier County called
Hurricane Pass.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Does that complete this item, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe it does.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let us pray.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all you need?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for your verbal assistance.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 96-76 ADDING SECTION SIX TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.
89-06 AS AMENDED, THE MINIMUM HOUSING ORDINANCE, TO PROVIDE FOR
REGISTRATION OF RENTAL UNITS, THE DESIGNATION OF A LOCAL CONTACT AND
NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATIONS TO HORTGAGORS TO FACILITATE CODE ENFORCEMENT
OF HOUSING VIOLATIONS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12 (C) (2) ·
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this item a
number of professional and homeowner groups have been working on,
including from Naples Park community, Golden Gate, I believe from
Naples Manor, Naples Area Board of Realtors, Naples Area Fireman's
Association and so on and so on. Virtually everyone involved, after a
long, long effort, I think is in agreement at this point. This may
certainly benefit local rental agents, but more importantly benefits
our code enforcement efforts. And the key line in here is
"designation of a local contact," because one of the problems our code
enforcement folks have had with rental properties, which are the
primary violators in residential areas, are absentee owners. And it
takes them several weeks, sometimes several months, to track down the
owner to notify them of a problem before they can ever get into code
enforcement action. And this simply designates a local contact,
speeds up the effort, and allows us to actually enforce our local
codes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Two, and there may be one --
MR. HIHALIC: We have one language correction,
Commissioner, if I may bring it up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HIHALIC: Agenda page 4, your stamped agenda page 4,
on lines 30 and 31 we'd like to strike the last sentence that begins
with the "Said local agent" and substitute the language "A real estate
agent or broker of the owner shall not be deemed a local agent for the
purposes of this section unless said real estate agent or broker is
registered in accordance with this section."
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that makes sense.
MR. HIHALIC: Excuse me. I'm Greg Hihalic, housing and
urban improvement department. I'd also like to say that the board of
realtors, the past president of the board of realtors has mentioned
that this is not a perfect document. In fact, we may have a
registered mortgagor, mortgage holder, under this ordinance. That may
change over time, so we may indeed have the wrong mortgage holder at
times under this ordinance. But I think it's certainly more
streamlined than what we have right now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a step in the right
direction. I am a little concerned about the local contact person. I
know people who are absentee landlords and good at it. And is it kind
of placing a hardship on them because of the irresponsible actions of
others? And that's the only concern I have. It may not be
answerable, but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This has been hammered out
over probably eight or ten months -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- maybe longer, with all
these different associations.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just trying to reconcile that
for myself. I'd like to hear the speakers also.
MR. DORRILL: There are two, Mr. Chairman. I believe
that they're in support. Not knowing what your inclination is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no intention of voting
against the ordinance. I'm just wrestling with that wording and its
application a little bit.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll be glad to have the speakers
come up here and talk us out of it. Otherwise it looks like it's
going forward.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wilt.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Wilt is going to come up and talk
us right out of this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He could waive.
MR. DORRILL: And, Ms. Phillyss, if you could come stand
by, please, if you're still inclined to speak.
MS. PHILLYSS: If it would make the board happier that I
don't speak, I'll be glad not to speak.
MR. WILT: My name is Glenn Wilt. I live in Golden
Gate. Good Morning, Commissioners. Six minutes. I won't take much
of your time. This ordinance has traveled many different routes to
this amendment since November 1, 1994, when we started it. We ask for
your full support to pass it. It's a needed thing if we're going to
clean up our neighborhoods out there. It has points in it that need
to be done. I find no one in discussing that is opposed to it. Some
have reservations of certain things.
I would ask Mr. Hihalic, if I could, one question about
the -- I'm not sure I quite understand that additional language you
put in on it "must be a registered agent" per se.
MR. HIHALIC: No, just --
MR. WILT: Let me ask you this question. If I own a
rental property here and I want to be registered as the agent with the
county, I don't have to be a real estate agent to do it?
MR. HIHALIC: Not -- the proposed language is just the
opposite of that. If there's a registered local real estate agent or
broker, they're not automatically the contact person under this.
MR. WILT: Okay. That answers my question. The only
other thing I have I would like to put on the record, there will be
some budget impact on this. I'm quite sure you're all aware of that.
And, of course, the fees that the county's come up with I think are
fair and equitable. I think the fees will cover part of the budget
impact, and a year down the road you may want to review that. But I
ask for your support of this, and let's get it on the books so we can
get some cleanup done out in our area. Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, I think the
fees were designed so the program takes care of itself.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my question. I mean
because we put a lot of pressure on Mr. Cautero to be sure that this
computer system and the changes in development, permit fees, that
these -- their programs pay for themselves. Is that your analysis
too, that this one will?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero. It's not designed
specifically to pay for itself. It's designed to offset the cost of
the registration which we'll use by existing staff. We're
recommending a $15 initial registration fee and $10 a year after until
such time as we can determine how many people register, because it's
voluntary. In the first year, I don't expect you'll have that many,
but as time goes by and as enforcement is beefed up, I think you'll
have thousands of people registering for it. At that time the fees
may have to be increased, but at this point we don't have any
base data to give you. I believe the fees are fair. Those fees are
coming to you as part of the resolution package December 17th. We're
recommending the $15 first year, $10 thereafter for at least the first
year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And this will be part of the
monitoring, the time monitoring, program that you'll be watching to be
sure that this is carefully --
MR. CAUTERO: It could be. This is 111, not 113; and
that was designed for the building permitting and current planning
functions. It could be done though, but it wasn't planned to be done
as part of that time management.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it should be.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no further questions, then
I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
motion we add Section 6 to Collier County Ordinance No. 89-06 as
amended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 96-77 CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
REFERRED TO AS THE NORTHSORE LAKE VILLAS PUD ON THE EAST SIDE OF C.R.
951 - ADOPTED
Item 12(C)(3) is a scrivener's error. Is anyone here
speaking against it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One quick question, is the
acreage still 18.3 acres?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing, and then we'll
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #12C6
RESOLUTION 96-532/CWS 96-14 RELATING TO COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT SERVICE BOUNDARIES TO INCORPORATE OLDE FLORIDA GOLF COURSE -
ADOPTED
The next item is 12(C)(6), resolution adding service
boundaries to the water and sewer district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Going once.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Going twice.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently no interest in the
item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sold to the lowest bidder.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't we have like a department
for this?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They must all be working.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anyone going to speak on this?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Mihalic, see if Mr. Newman is still
standing in the hall from public works.
I can tell you the board has currently adopted service
areas that run out and include communities along the Immokalee Road
corridor as far as the Orangetree community, and I suspect what we're
doing is incorporating for purposes of future water delivery inside
the north county water treatment plant. It's not adjacent but nearby
the Olde Florida Golf Course. Unless they incorporate their property
into our service district, we wouldn't intend to serve them. Is that
right, Mr. Newman?
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Newman
for the record, your water director. The item you have before you
this morning is back in the '90s, '91/'92, you approved a development
called the Olde Florida Golf Course, which was just slightly outside
of the current water/sewer boundaries at that time. And the
resolution you have before you this morning is to adopt that area
into, officially into, the water/sewer district so that we can
officially serve them as a customer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What would be the net fiscal
impact to the county in this? Is this a win for us, or is this
something where we're putting money out to provide future service?
MR. NEWMAN: There's no cost to the county as a result
of this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that answer.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How big of a project is Olde
Florida, do you know?
MR. NEWMAN: Currently it's just a golf course. They
intend somewhere down the road to put in some sort of single or
multifamily, very low density from what my understanding was at the
beginning of this project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: What we were attempting to check was if the
advertising requirements under Chapter 88-499 had been met, which is
advertisement two consecutive weeks prior to the resolution being
heard. We don't know for sure if that's the case, but it may be the
case. If it hasn't been advertised the two times as opposed to one
time, we'll just bring this back for reratification after the proper
advertisement.
MR. DORRILL: Otherwise you're at liberty to go ahead
and approve it and submit it today. And if it needs to be advertised
a second time, then we'll bring it back.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing
then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve or adopt the
resolution extending water/sewer district to incorporate Olde Florida.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Continuing the pattern today of
Commissioner Hancock making motions and my seconding them, second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 96-533 RE PETITION CU-96-20, COLLIER COUNTY COHMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "23" OF THE "A' ZONING DISTRICT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF C.R. 858 - ADOPTED
13(A)(1), Petition CU-96-20.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is essentially ratifying
the agreement we talked about before?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Feel free to continue that pattern.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Whoop, whoop. We haven't closed the
public hearing. There's no changes into this?
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Belflower is here I presume to answer
any questions that you might have, and also Ms. English, who are both
agents for the affected party and petitioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All my question amounts to is are there any
changes from the last time.
MS. ENGLISH: Excuse me. I'm not here on behalf of the
petitioner. The county's the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He said the affected parties.
MR. DORRILL: Affected party and/or the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The answer to my question, Mr.
Weigel, is there is no substantive or any other kind of changes since
the last time we heard this?
MR. WEIGEL: None that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #15
RAY MILLER TO ACT AS INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR - DISCUSSED
Commissioner Berry, anything further this morning?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. It's going to
be going to Mr. Dotrill in a memo, but I continue to be concerned as
we reach about nine weeks until the kickoff of the golf tournament
that we don't have our audit in on last year's golf tournament money.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was scheduled for -- December 27th was
the deadline for that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's the deadline.
MR. DORRILL: The clerk's internal auditor is well aware
of that. And at least two members of this internal audit team have
been in the budget office in the last two weeks doing just that. I'll
determine when your completion date is, but they are doing it
and it is in progress.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have no
items.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I have one, Mr. Chairman. You may have
noticed at the beginning of the meeting that Ray Miller was here
today. And I just wanted to advise the board that on an interim basis
of approximately 90 days that we're going to bring Mr. Miller out of
retirement. You may recall he retired at the end of the summer from
Wilson, Miller and is chairman of the board. And he's going to be the
interim public works administrator.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me get this straight. Ray
Miller is going to work for the county manager who works for this
board?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Aside from being forever indebted to his
wife who will never forgive me for employing him for less than a month
after he had promised her that he would retire after 40 years, that's
one of the housekeeping things that I have to take care of.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, everyone have a nice
Thanksgiving, at the risk of being somewhat cannibalistic of eating
our own county symbols on Thursday --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: With cornbread dressing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- With cornbread dressing, we're
adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 96-517 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60311-028; OWNER OF RECORD - JEROME BIENENFELD, ET UX
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-518 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60506-027; OWNER OF RECORD - JOHANNA H. PRINDIVILLE
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-519 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60514-071; OWNER OF RECORD - ALFREDO L. RAMIREZ, ANNE C. RAMIREZ
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 96-520 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60528-066; OWNER OF RECORD - NANCY E. MILLS
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 96-521 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NO.
60606-043; OWNER OF RECORD - VITO A. DIPALMA, THERESA H. DIPALMA,
LEONARD A. DIPALMA
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 96-522 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60606-045; OWNER OF RECORD - H N H VENTURES
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 96-523 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60617-021; OWNER OF RECORD - EDWARD J. PELC AND LAVERDA PELC
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 96-524 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60618-062; OWNER OF RECORD - EMILIO ROLAND STILLO, ET AL
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 96-525 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60624-095; OWNER OF RECORD - SUSAN DOWNS, MARION TUZZOLO
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 96-526 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60626-023; OWNER OF RECORD - LEONARD J. BUBRI, NICHOLAS KARALIS
Item #16All
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR TURTLE CREEK - WITH STIPULATIONS AND
CASH BOND
Item #16B1 - Withdrawn
Item 1682
APPROVE A WORK ORDER WITH HOLE, HONTES & ASSOC., FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE COUNTY RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM
BACK-PRESSURE SUSTAINING VALVES
Item #16C1
APPROVAL OF REPAIRS TO BE MADE AT THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC FACILITY
Item #16C2
AUTHORIZATION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT/GOLDEN GATE
COHMUNITY CENTER TO PURCHASE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT UTILIZING THE PALM
BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ANNUAL BID
Item #16C3
WAIVE THE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND APPROVE A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE
REQUISITION WITH SEAHAWK DEEP OCEAN TECHNOLOGY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, TO
CUSTOM DESIGN AND INSTALL A SPECIAL SEASONAL EXHIBITION AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY MUSEUM ON THE SPANISH TREASURE FLEETS IN FLORIDA
Item #16D1
RELEASE OF LIEN AGAINST LOT 5, ROCK CREEK PINES SUBDIVISION NO. 2
OWNER: CHARLES R. KELLER
Item #16D2
SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN ON MICHAEL P. JONES, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
DEL TRUST, 6001 JANES LANE
Item #16D3
SATISFACTION OF NOTICES OF PROMISES TO PAY AND AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND
PAYMENTS OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16D4 - Moved to Item #SD1
Item #16D5
APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND TAX COLLECTOR
FOR SERVICES RENDERED FOR THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 90-30,
AS A_MENDED AND SECTION 197.363(2) AND 8(C) FLORIDA STATUTES
Item #16D6
AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF UPGRADES TO THE COUNTY'S TELEPHONE SWITCHING
EQUIPMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $142,429.78, AND DECLARE LUCENT
TECHNOLOGIES INC. THE SOLE SOURCE VENDOR
Item #16El
APPROVE THE SPONSORSHIP AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED FIRST ANNUAL
"NAPLES - COLLIER COUNTY CULTURAL FESTIVAL AND PARADE" ON APRIL 26,
1997, WITH A CONTRIBUTION NOT TO EXCEED $1,000.00
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-017, 97-018, 97-019, 97-025 AND 97-047
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATE FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995 Real Property
No. Dated
256, 258/259 10/23 - 10/29/96
1996 Real Property
2, 4, 6, 9,13, 15 10/21 - 10/29/96
28 - 32 11/05 - 11/07/96
39 - 48 11/13 - 11/14/96
1996 Tangible Personal Property
28/29 11/08 - 11/14/96
Item #1662
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1663
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
APPROVAL OF THE ACCEPTANCE DOCUMENT FOR THE $900,000 COPS UNIVERSAL
HIRING SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT #95CCWX0265
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:04 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara J. Grant, CSR