BCC Minutes 04/17/1996 S (LDC Amendments) SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 17, 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 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Robert J. Hulhere, Planning and Services Technical
Manager
Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Wayne Arnold, Planning Director
Ron Nino, Chief Planner
Lt. Paul Kanady, Sargent at Arms, Sheriff's Office
Item #3A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD 5/8/96
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the meeting to order on Wednesday, April
17, 1996. And Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us in an invocation and
pledge to the flag, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening for this
opportunity to come together and have the county commission spend time
on important community development and land use issues. We would ask
as always that you bless our time here together this evening. We pray
these things in your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere, take it away.
MR. HULHERE: Thank you. Bob Hulhere, current planning
manager. This is the first of two required public hearings on the
Land Development Code. The second meeting is scheduled for Hay 8 in
this room.
These amendments were reviewed by the Collier County
Planning Commission on April 4, and the Planning Commission
recommended approval as they are submitted to you. There were two
separate votes due to the fact that Mr. Davis, a Planning Commission
member, recused himself on the sign issues, because he made public
comments on those. The balance of the amendments approved seven to
one by the Planning Commission.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So one person opposed all of them
except one?
MR. HULHERE: I think that Commissioner -- opposed one
aspect of the balance of the amendments, but he chose to vote --
Commissioner Nelson. I just wanted to let you know that these
amendments have been submitted to the Development Services Advisory
Committee for their review and comment, and they support the
amendments. We also submitted to the Environmental Advisory Board --
those amendments that have environmental impacts were submitted to the
Environmental Advisory Board, and we have not received any comments
from them either in opposition or in favor.
So with that I think we can move into the amendments
which are on -- begin on page -- agenda page 10. This first group of
amendments deals by board direction with -- with requiring a
conditional use hearing for boat houses. As Collier County
develops -- boat houses were a permitted use by right, but as Collier
County develops, we have experienced over the years a number of
complaints dealing with view blockage. And as technology has
advanced, most people having boat lifts need to have a boat house, or
a large boat house seems to be much less than it used to be. And so
by board direction, we have created a conditional use for boat houses
with specific criteria.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hulhere, I notice on page
13 --
MR. HULHERE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it states in that paragraph
that such appeals shall be filed with the community development
environmental services administrator within 30 days of date of action
by the Planning Commission.
MR. HULHERE: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My only question on that is if
someone files an appeal 30 days later, the property owner may have
already proceeded with work. And my concern was that that appeal
period should be shorter to ensure that we don't end up with some
level of work stoppage or reversal, to maybe a seven-day time frame.
Can you give me an idea of your thoughts on that?
MR. MULHERE: Well, sure. I think, you know -- I hope
that anybody that would feel aggrieved -- an adjacent property owner
that might feel aggrieved by a boat dock petition that was approved by
the Planning Commission would move fairly swiftly, but if -- if we --
that says within 30 days. So nothing would preclude them from doing
it quicker.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd rather --
MR. MULHERE: In other words, what we're saying is if
they don't do it within 30 days, then they have lost their
opportunity. We have to provide some perimeter of time.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd rather it be shorter.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'd like to take it
shorter, because if you really want to stick it to your neighbor, you
wait until 29 days and then appeal.
MR. HULHERE: I can appreciate that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And sometimes these are some
pretty petty run-ins, so I would like to shorten it to seven days,
okay?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, on the other hand, though, you
need to balance this with the -- with the -- the ability of an
aggrieved party to have sufficient time to generate an appeal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do I hear 147 I suggested
seven.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we get an opinion from
Mr. Weigel as to whether seven days or fourteen days is a reasonable
period.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't want to restrict somebody's
right to an appeal either. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're trying to grant a right to an
appeal, so we really don't want to restrict it unduly.
MR. WEIGEL: I think the very discussion you're placing
on record shows you have concern with the reasonableness. And I was
going to say I think that if you're at seven days or beyond, you're
not going to have any problem at all if that's your direction for this
ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I feel seven days is
probably sufficient, but if, again -- I know this occurs significantly
on -- Marco deals with it quite a bit.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Vanderbilt does, too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Vanderbilt does, too. I
haven't heard from the public on this. It just stood out to me as
something that I thought extensive, so seven days, fourteen days.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's get a consensus. I'll say 14.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- that's reasonable.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fourteen, and if that works a
hardship, then, you know, we can address it again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll amend it next time if it doesn't
work out. Let's go to 14, then, that's fine.
MR. HULHERE: Okay. On page 14 there's just a couple of
diagrams -- just an update that shows a couple of setbacks related to
boat docks.
And now lots on page 15. Within the Estates district,
even conforming lots, the property line extends out to the middle of
the right-of-way, but we measure setbacks from the edge of the
easement, because it is a right-of-way, although we know that those
properties will never -- those roads are not going to be widened.
this -- the result of that is that you could have a 150-foot wide lot
and end up with a very minimal building area. And so we already
provide this exemption for nonconforming corner lots, and we're
proposing to extend that to conforming corner lots, and it would --
there would still be a substantial setback at 75 feet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Hulhere. Let me go
back to the -- to the section we were on just before. MR. HULHERE: Okay. Page 137
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, actually before that. Back in the
boat house section here. I'm trying to determine -- we've got --
let's see -- we -- we have -- one of the amendment allows an appeal to
zoning appeals for a boat dock -- MR. HULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- extension. Is that --
MR. HULHERE: That is on page 13 --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, now --
MR. HULHERE: -- on the top. That's the one we just
changed to 14 days. That allows for an appeal by an adjacent or
aggrieved, you know, property owner to come and appeal the decision by
the Planning Commission or vice versa. There already is an appeal
mechanism in place. If I come in for a boat dock and I'm denied, I
can appeal that to the Board of County Commissioners. That already
exists, but an aggrieved neighbor did not have an appeal mechanism.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So we're just -- we're just
leveling the playing field on that one. MR. HULHERE: Right. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But my question is, the Planning
Commission now has the final authority on variances?
MR. HULHERE: On the boat dock extensions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On the boat docks themselves.
MR. HULHERE: Extensions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And we're not making an
extension of a boat dock a conditional use. MR. HULHERE: No, no.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But we are making boat houses a
conditional use.
MR. HULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And therein lies the difference.
MR. HULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So they would come --
MR. HULHERE: To the board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to the board in any case on that
and have a public hearing.
MR. HULHERE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, all right.
MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. I believe there is a
gentleman, Mr. Furfey, in the audience. Generally you will determine
whether or not anybody wants to speak on a specific issue before we go
through all of it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we -- we have finished our
discussion on that particular issue. So if there's anyone that wants
to speak on that particular issue, now is your chance.
MR. FURFEY: Good evening, Commissioners, Wayne Furfey
from Custom Dock. I just have one other issue I want to bring up
in -- in conjunction with the boat docks and that is I have had
multiple requests lately to put in boat lifts on waterways less than
60 foot wide. Considering the fact that if somebody has a 5-foot dock
and a 7 or an 8-foot wide boat, they're extending into the water
approximately 13 feet. If we go ahead and put a boat dock -- a boat
lift in against the wall and only extend it out 10 or 11 feet, we're
actually lessening the impact in the waterway. Currently the
guidelines prohibit us from even applying for a dock extension to do
this. And my request here is that we would be able to actually apply
for that. Obviously we understand they have to be, you know, treated
individually. There's no way of even trying to do that at this point
in time.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. Anything on a waterway of
less than 60 feet in width, you're only permitted 5 feet. There's
no -- there is no ability to ask for more in any way, shape, or form.
I think what Mr. Furfey is asking for is either through a special
exception or through conditional use or through a revision to the boat
dock extension. But I would be inclined to say there would be
relatively few circumstances where we might support that because of
the navigational hazards in such a narrow waterway. There could be
some. I -- I don't say that --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Furfey's point is that if you
have a five-foot dock and a boat sitting next to it, you extend out
the boat width plus five feet. If you put in a boat lift, you extend
out the boat width plus probably less than three feet. MR. FURFEY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we do this. Mr. Furfey, if
you would like to work with the staff to try to develop some language
for our next amendment cycle, would that be acceptable?
MR. WILT: Yes, I'd be glad to.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's good.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could we do it it that way since we're
this far along?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a really smart move.
MR. FURFEY: Thank you, Mr. Norris.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: None others I don't believe, Mr. Chairman,
on that one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then go ahead, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: The other amendment that we were
discussing was the providing an exception for conforming corner lots
in the estates, allowing them to provide the full depth setback along
the shorter lot line, which would be the lot line which the house is
facing, so they would still have a full depth lot line along their
frontage -- the street frontage in which the house is facing and a
shorter or one half -- up to one half of the required setback along
the longer street. This is something that we already provide for
nonconforming Estate lots, but the staff is in agreement that there's
a significant hardship in terms of providing flexibility to develop
these lots if we require that they measure the setback from the inside
edge of the easement. I probably wasn't very clear, but if you have
any questions, I'll try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions from the board?
MR. MULHERE: On the next page is a very minor change
also directed by the board. You may recall we had a variance for an
individual who had a physically handicapped son who was living in a
TTRVC district, and we made a provision for an exception so that they
can develop -- so that they can -- they can go ahead and put in the
utility room for the bathrooms and be -- to such a size that they will
meet the ADA requirements if necessary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only addition I want to make
there is the minimum -- the minimum necessary to accomplish ADA
access, because I did see the ability there to expand a portion of it,
slap ADA on the side of it -- or slap access on the side of it, and it
would qualify. Are we isolating this only to disability access?
MR. HULHERE: Yes, we are. And I can just provide
pursuant to standards set forth in ADA.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HULHERE: Next page. This is a change to -- this is
one of the changes that have environmental impacts. I have Barb
Burgeson here from my staff who authored this change, and I would like
to have her give you just a very brief overview of that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, are you keeping track of
speakers registered on the different items?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I have got one sign and twelve
trucks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One sign and twelve trucks. Do you
have any signs on the trucks?
MR. DORRILL: That's illegal.
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with
current planning. This section was put together by staff in response
to probably all of the ST permits that we have brought in front of the
board in the past three to five years. The freestanding
ST ordinances -- or freestanding ST permits have been on single-family
homes where they are in ST property. They are looking for a permit to
be able to impact a minimal amount of that wetland area to put their
home in there. And we felt that rather than bring these in front of
the board each time, that these could go in front of the EAB for final
authority with an appeal section and with an exemption section to
encourage exotic removal, plant management, and the removal of
non-native vegetation. When an ST -- for instance if a PUD comes
through with a large area of ST on that, it will still come in front
of the board, because it will be reviewed as a PUD that will have to
go through the entire process. The board will still see any ST
sections incorporated into larger projects.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see there's three instances here on
page 19 where the term Board of County Commissioners is struck through
and Environmental Advisory Board is inserted. MS. BURGESON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Those are the changes?
MS. BURGESON: We have changed everywhere that the Board
of County Commissioners is stated in here for the final authority on
the ST permits -- we have put the EAB for final authority with an
appeal within 30 days to the board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But isn't the -- by its very nature,
and even the name Environmental Advisory Board, advisory in nature and
should it have, in fact, final authority on anything?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That might be a legal question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It might be a policy question is what
I'm getting at.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I concur. I mean,
we've gone around a couple of times since I have been on the board and
having a discussion of whether or not to eliminate EAB, let alone give
them final authority on things. But I think Commissioner Norris is
right, and the "A" stands for advisory. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And in that case we more than
welcome their advice, but I don't know if --
MR. HULHERE: We'll be happy to delete that one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's one thing about the
Planning Commission, for example, that makes me a little uncomfortable
is that -- and that's why we just did the changes here earlier -- is
that they were pretty much final authority on boat dock variances.
And I felt that even that was not appropriate because they are an
appointed, not elected, board. And it just -- in my philosophy, I
think the final decision on these matters should be left to an elected
board. There's a lot of criticism with appointed boards. The Big
Cypress Basin Board and South Florida Water Management get criticism
because they're sort of untouchable.
MR. HULHERE: Our philosophy was that we were really
expediting the process. There was and there still is included in this
an appeal to the board. But that was -- that was our premise to try
to expedite the process a little bit and not necessarily did we feel
that the board had to review all of those. But certainly we will be
happy to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Currently -- currently the
process is that you go to the EAB, and you go to the Planning
Commission, and then to the board, right, on all of these? MS. BURGESON: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what this says is you go to
the EAB and if everything is hunky-dory and everyone likes it, it
moves ahead?
MR. HULHERE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And is that where the problem
exists? You feel that, you know, if you want to expedite the process,
you just send it right to the board? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was this board direction to
expedite the process?
MR. HULHERE: I recall that there was a question over
one of these petitions, and then the question, I think, was why do we
see this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do we see this. Commissioner
Hac'Kie, would you like to jump in here, because I think it was your
question?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sure it wasn't.
MR. HANCOCK: It wasn't?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
MR. HULHERE: I certainly don't remember the specific
commissioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Boy, that's a great memory. I'm glad
you have that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears we have consensus.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It appears we have consensus not to
make the change.
MR. HULHERE: We do have -- on that we do have just one
section that we'd like to keep in or get your opinion on and that
would be the exemption exception where we are exempting certain types
of land use issues.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Where is that?
MS. BURGESON: The exemption section is at the end.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Okay.
MS. BURGESON: On page 21.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have no objection with those.
MS. BURGESON: That allows for removal and control of
exotic vegetation, prescribed firebreaks, and the removal of
non-native vegetation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any objection from the board members
on that one?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Leave that delegation of
authority there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The board consensus is to leave
that one in, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: You do want that to go to the Planning
Commission? From the EAB to the Planning Commission?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's where it goes now.
MR. MULHERE: That's where it goes now. We'll leave
that one. Okay. Page -- page 22.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I notice this is at the request
of, I guess, Art Lee.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Here is -- my only concern
is is there a minimum size -- first of all, what's the approximate
cost per acre, and what is the minimum size criteria? So we're not
out there, you know -- somebody who happens to be in an archeological
zone but is building a shed in the back of their house that doesn't
disturb much ends up having to do an archeological survey. I'm
looking for some scope on this.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. This would only kick in if you were
required to get a clearing permit. And in most cases to do something
like a shed or that type of structure, you wouldn't have to get a
clearing permit. But this came about because there was some -- there
was some clearing that was done as a result of vagrants staying on
individuals' properties and -- and so those properties -- the
underbrush was cleared and they were clearing out all this so that you
could see through there so that they could, you know, make sure there
weren't any vagrants camping out on property. And I believe one of
those properties has some historical and archeological significance.
There may have been some mounds or something on them, and the clearing
permit was issued. I think there was no damage. It was assessed
after the fact. But the clearing permit was issued without a review,
so that was our intent.
But to answer your question, I did not -- I do not have
a specific cost. I can certainly find out for you and bring it back
to the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the reason I'm concerned is
if I live, say, in the Estates, and I want to clear a little bit more
than what is required just for my home, that requires a clearing
permit. I can then have an archeological survey attached to the cost
of building my home.
MR. MULHERE: If you're in a --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And I just want to know
what fiscal impact we're tying to that.
MR. HULHERE: Yeah. I can find out an average cost to
have an assessment on a per-acre basis.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm opposed. It's just one
more government regulation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have one opposed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to support it
without more information.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have one opposed and a sort of
opposed. Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think I would like to leave it
out.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I am, too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's at least three opposed,
so that's no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In response to Mr. Lee, let's
find out more specifics and come back in the next cycle with -- as far
as I'm concerned with a specific cost and more application than what's
presented here. I'd be willing to consider it, but what's presented
here is just too general for me.
MR. HULHERE: Okay. On page 23 --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we get some benefit analysis
along with that, not just cost but some benefit analysis along with
the costs?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Burden analysis. Seriously,
that is cost.
MR. HULHERE: The burden to the property owner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MR. HULHERE: Page 23 is just a clarification as to
where to measure your 16-foot parking spaces from. It's a minor
change. On page 24 there's a typical diagram showing a parking
layout. You have got a lot of people coming in and doing restriping
and reconfiguring parking lots. Because they really don't have any
experience, this would help them to design it properly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HULHERE: Division 2.3, off-street parking, is just
minor changes to the numbers that were not properly applied during the
last cycle. And that goes to page 30 -- 25 to 30. And then we get
into --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Just on that -- not
relevant to this particular item, but the next cycle, I am going to
provide you with copies of some ordinances from other communities. I
thought they used some graphics that were really sharp, so --
MR. HULHERE: Yeah, we'd like to use more graphics.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It might be able to clarify some
of that, so I will be sending that to your office along with some sign
stuff.
MR. HULHERE: Thank you.
Now, we're into signs. And the first -- let's see, it
starts on page 31, but the entire ordinance is struck through all the
way to page 51. So the changes begin on agenda page 52. And I just
want to let you know a little bit about why we did that. We felt as
though the sign ordinance as it existed was a little bit difficult to
read. It was a little bit difficult to find where things were
located. They were grouped in kind of confusing ways. And so we
basically revamped -- not necessarily in all cases -- content, but
certainly the location and how we titled sections in there. So we
struck through the whole thing. Actually Mr. Badamtchian from my
staff worked on this, and he's here if you have any questions -- if
you have any questions that may be more specific than I am prepared to
answer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have some recommendations. On
page 57 in paragraph 4, we have a 25-foot height on maximum
allowable. I would like to see that go to 20 feet. The same number
appears on page 59, a 25-foot height under item 4. I would like to
see that go to 20 feet. I'm just going to hit on the changes I'm
looking at. On page 60 under paragraph -- or I'm sorry Section
2.5.5.2.3.7.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The last paragraph on the page.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Instead of having "Comprehensive
sign plans are encouraged within PUD design," I would like to replace
that with required.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we're going to use the
word "encouraged," let's spell it right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, at least spell it
correctly. But the City of Naples requires signage plans. I think
they go a little far with what they require, but, you know, putting it
in here encouraged, it does absolutely no good. So I would like to
see it required so the larger-scale PUDs have a consistent sign plan.
MR. MULHERE: I would agree. I attended an APA
convention in Orlando this past couple of days, and I attended a
session on signs and economic development. It was very informative,
and, in fact, they encouraged or suggested that would be the
appropriate way to handle the larger PUDs. And we're even looking at
other applications for a full-scale design implementation for signs.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion that the
language reflect that a sign plan is required if signs are to be
utilized, because there may be PUDs that don't have any signs.
MR. MULHERE: There would be some residential PUDs where
there would be no signs, so we could say within -- within districts
containing nonresidential uses.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's just -- I just like the
idea, you know, if signs are going to be utilized, you must have a
sign plan.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. There's an
interesting word that I have heard here is larger PUDs.
MR. HULHERE: This would -- might all be --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This applies to all PUDs?
MR. HULHERE: As long as they're -- as long as they're
going to have some capacity to put signs up. There may not be a
requirement for a PUD that simply has single-family homes in it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or a commercial PUD that has one
sign. When you have multiple signs, that a consistent sign plan would
be required. Obviously it doesn't apply to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. We have had a couple PUDs
come to us and want additional signs, and they --
MR. HULHERE: That's correct, after the fact.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- asked for a variance to
accomplish that, and I believe they have always been turned down.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one exception.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there one exception?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Host of them are turned down.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Host of them are, and I'm -- I'm
just questioning whether -- whether we should have this apply to all
PUDs, because some are very small, and it's -- it's probably not
realistic.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does all of this have to do with
signs that comply with code anyway?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's not all they're going
to do.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, but what I mean is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I meant was if in a PUD you
want to do something other than conform with the existing ordinance,
you should have to pay a consultant to come up with a plan. But
otherwise if what you're going to do conforms with the code, why
should you have to?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but that --
MR. HULHERE: We can put some language in there that
says -- basically it says that they have complied with the existing
sign code unless they want something different or more than.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: In which case we can then require a
comprehensive --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I support.
MR. MULHERE: I understand -- I think -- I think one of
the issues is even if they're doing what's in the sign code, I
think -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're getting at
is the fact that we don't want a whole bunch of different size,
different type signs. We want some thought to go into where they're
going to be located, what they're going to look like, what size are
they, what color are they.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly it. I want some
thought to go into this ahead of time, because these are the community
aesthetics that we're stuck with for the next 20 years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The places we're having these
problems just aren't in the PUDs.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not the ones that built last year
or the year before, but we don't know what's going to be built in
three years, and I'm just -- I think for the longest time we have left
aesthetics out of our Land Development Code.
MR. MULHERE: It wouldn't be very difficult for a small
PUD to adhere to this if they're only going to have a couple signs.
It would be very easy to come up with a design.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They could sit down and write it
up themselves. They don't need to hire someone to do it. I'm just
saying if someone is going to have multiple signs within their
project, to go to the additional expense, which isn't that great, to
create a consistent signage plan within the project that benefits the
community. And if they don't think it benefits their project, tough,
it does. I just -- I don't want things going awry like when you drive
up to south Lee County. Take a look at some of the shopping centers.
Look at what's on the front of the stores compared to what's out by
the road, and it's inconsistent as all get out. It's ugly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's where our code ought to
control. Our code ought to be good enough that that can't happen.
MR. MULHERE: I think it is. I think it is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my support is going to be
if somebody wants something that would be a variation to the existing
code, they have to come up with a plan. If they're complying with
code, we need to revise the code if it's not good enough.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to support that. I
think a comprehensive sign plan should be required in a PUD, period.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Very well, we have a divergence here
on this particular issue, so let's poll the board. We have one --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Start at the other end.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Start at the other end, okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't want it required.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You don't want it required unless
there's a variance?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I -- I want -- if they want
to vary from what our sign code says, then get a plan, get a variance,
whatever, but I don't want it automatically required just because
you're a PUD.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I'm pretty clear.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I'm comfortable with having no
plan if they comply with code, but to supply a plan if they want to do
anything other than code.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do any of our assigned
speakers want to address this particular topic?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We only have one sign speaker.
MR. DORRILL: You only have one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's guess.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have any other issues on the
sign ordinance?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
MR. DAVIS: For the record, Mike Davis, vice president
of Sign Kraft. Just this one issue, Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Signs in general would be
appropriate, too.
MR. DAVIS: Okay. I think there was some more --
MR. MULHERE: I have some additional.
MR. DAVIS: Well, maybe I can work my way up to this
point. On the reorganization of the ordinance, I think that's been a
long time coming and I applaud it. It's a lot easier to find stuff in
it now, and Mr. Badamtchian and Mr. Mulhere, I think, did a good job.
The other things the -- all the changes that staff has come up with,
I'm in full support of. There was, in fact, a public workshop held
for the various sign contractors. A lot of these issues, not all,
were discussed at that, and -- but I personally am here to speak in
favor of them.
Commissioner Hancock has brought up two items, the
reduction in height from 25 feet to 20. I don't see any adverse
effect on the signage needs of the commercial community in Naples.
Twenty feet is what Lee County has required for many years. They
don't -- they don't go back and make people lower their signs, but at
some point in the future when they come in to permit a change to the
sign, at that point they require them to lower it to 20 feet, so that
works pretty well.
And on the requirement for the PUD, it struck me as I
was listening to you that maybe the single occupancy parcel PUDs
wouldn't be required. That gets to the issue of the small ones. But
I'll have to admit -- I don't see any sign people in the audience with
guns or anything -- that I would fully support the idea that all PUDs
be required to have a uniform sign plan. And the reason I say that is
when you look at one like Pelican Bay, for instance, had. They
weren't required, but they cared enough to have a uniform sign plan.
Now, while they were allowed some signage that wasn't allowed in the
code such as off-premise signage for the two hotels, other areas they
did things more restrictive than the code. I think if you drive
through there today, it looks very nice. So it's -- our code, while
it is good I think and it's -- of the seven we work in, I think
probably one or two it's the most restrictive -- does a good job. I
think when you look at a PUD, be it one like Carillon Shopping Center
or even a residential PUD, for us as a community it's in our best
interests for it to be a unified sign plan.
MR. HANCOCK: Carillon is the one that stirred me
because the entrance signs are architecturally connected, but the pole
sign for First Union and the sign for Applebee's -- you know, the
individual pole signs are not architecturally connected. And I just
think it's -- it's better across the board for all those to have a
similar theme and presentation. And that's really what kind of
spurred me to look at that and say I think this can be done better.
MR. DAVIS: I think in the case of PUDs it provides that
developer the opportunity to maybe do some things that aren't in the
code as demonstrated by the Pelican Bay PUD and those two off-premise
signs I mentioned.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they had opportunity. They
have -- they can always do more, and -- and if -- I agree with you
that the Carillon doesn't look great, but I just think if that is
permitted, would that be permitted under the new and improved code?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Yes, it would.
MR. MULHERE: Those are individually-owned parcels, and
as long as they have 150 foot of frontage, they're permitted a pole
sign. And we don't have any design or architectural standards. We do
not have any design or architectural standards in our code.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No unified development, you know,
plan?
MR. MULHERE: Apparently not.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And these are all -- all
development now when you do a large-scale commercial PUD, everyone
does out-parcels like Arby's, McDonald's, and the banks in there, and
there's no required consistency from one out-parcel to the next. That
doesn't mean that Arby's and Barnett have to have green signs. It
just means that the supporting poles and the structure of the sign has
to be consistent with the architecture of the center. And if we don't
require that level of planning, the folks that do it on their own are
few and far between. And so are we talking about increased
regulation, sure, but not all increased regulation is bad. And if it
betters the community as a whole, then it's worthwhile. And -- and
this is something that I would rather not see -- the same thing as
Carillon, which it's not bad, but it's new.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about commercial PUDs? I
mean, I -- I don't see anything --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd settle for that as opposed to
nothing.
MR. DAVIS: I think a lot of the residential PUDs --
Vineyards is a good example. You drive through the community, it
looks quite nice. All the signage is uniform. But that developer did
a lot of that on their own, because they wanted it to look nice. And
we're seeing that more and more, I think, in residential PUDs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we have to be careful.
Everybody can't afford to live in Vineyards and Pelican Bay, and I
don't want to price us out of the market on this. So I'll --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commercial PUDs?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commercial PUDs?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll take commercial.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's three. I'll make four.
Commercial PUDs is fine, then. Required for commercial PUDs.
MR. MULHERE: Just a couple of issues. Within the sign
code there were a number of opportunities -- there were a number of
specific situations where the board asked us to look at putting some
flexibility, and I'll remind you of a couple of them. We had the --
the issue of K-Mart coming in and not being able to put more than one
sign on the face for the garden center. And we have resolved that
issue. And there were some other changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How did we resolve that issue?
MR. MULHERE: Well, we allowed them to put a maximum of
three signs as long as they have 200 feet frontage to the store front,
however, and as the board directed, they could not exceed the maximum
of 250 square feet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aggregate.
MR. MULHERE: And there were some other circumstances
where we have provided, I think, some flexibility and some
administrative relief from setbacks and some other things that I
believe makes sense. There is one issue, I had proposed a change to
the ordinance which would allow existing non -- let me read it to
you. This is under the nonconforming section. I had proposed a
change that stated that in the case of signs which would be permitted
by and conformed to the regulations of this code, except that such
signs violate the maximum height, maximum setback from property lines
and other similar development standards, the planning services
director may approve structural alterations on written request
provided the sign is redesigned so as to remove one or more of the
conforming aspects of the sign.
Now, the reason that I put that in there is there is a
significant -- there would be a significant burden on code enforcement
if all nonconforming signs regardless of the issues have to be removed
immediately. This does -- this is not unlike other -- how we treat
other nonconforming structures. As long as they're making them less
nonconforming, we allow them to continue to exist. And slowly --
albeit it a little bit more slowly, they do come into compliance.
This is how some other communities handle this, and that was my
suggestion, a development services advisory committee. And this would
only be for signs that could be permitted. That doesn't mean that an
illegal sign can stay there. It's only signs that would be permitted
under our code except for some development standards that they don't
meet. The development services advisory committee prefer we not place
that in there, however, the Planning Commission's recommendation is to
include that. So I bring that to your attention for consideration.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have not officially resolved the
issue of the 25-or 20-foot height. We didn't poll the board on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Twenty.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twenty.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Five twenties.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's maybe think of something
that I wondered where it is. We had talked did our code need to be
revised to avoid -- so that when Wal-mart comes in the future, we can
make them do something other than the box Wal-mart. We could make
them -- that our development standards would have to be redone. Is
that going to be in this cycle or are we going to do that later? The
idea being that Wal-mart has other more attractive designs if we
could -- if we had our code revised to require it.
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold with planning
services staff. That's the sort of provision that's not contemplated
in this set of amendments. That is something that we discussed with
you as part of the evaluation and we feel it's important to the
comprehensive plan and something we might, if the board endorsed that,
develop that over the coming year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll take that one step further
and ask -- and I would be happy to work with you on this. I know I
have talked to some communities that do that, and I think we need to
have the ability to ask for more than just the base on some of
those -- those -- those projects.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's two.
MR. ARNOLD: I think the issue has been that continuous
wall of 200-plus feet, and that's been debated. Mr. Hulhere attended
the same conference, and it seems to be the national standard is about
a 75-foot run before you have some -- some distinction in the
architecture of the building or facade separations.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three. I'll go with that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll make four, but my question
is if we have the ability to ask, what's -- what's the trade-off to
have them do it? We have to be careful in our Land Development Code
about trading stuff off, don't we, Mr. Weigel?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What are we trading?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think we could -- and,
again, I don't know the terms that other communities use. It will
take a little bit of research. I know APA --
MR. HULHERE: Standards. There are standards.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With a couple of phone calls
American Planning Association has got communities that have done this,
but what we -- what you end up requiring is that the final elevation
of their building conform with local, you know, character -- it's
rather broad, but what it requires them to do is put some thought into
it ahead of time. And it gives you a crack in the door to say, you
know, a 200-foot gray box building is not what this community is
about.
MR. HULHERE: I suspect that Wal-mart has dealt with
this issue in many places.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, they have.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have spent --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can get something better.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They spent hundreds of thousands
to conform when asked.
MR. HULHERE: We would look at it and come back to you
with some specific provisions that they would have to adhere to, and
they would -- that would give them some options.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds good.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can take it to whatever
extreme you want. The Freeport HcDonald's looks like a
hundred-year-old colonial house, because they won't allow the standard
HcDonald's.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The sign in Vermont for
HcDonald's is six feet tall with brick on both sides, and it's
wooden. And I'm not saying we go to that extreme --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Somewhere in between.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but if we at least get
somewhere in there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We might see this coming in -- in
how many months?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next cycle.
MR. HULHERE: The next cycle begins in July. Here, I
think, generally it gets to you I think in October.
MR. DORRILL: Jim and I have two quick questions if the
board is finished.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hulhere, I need a little help on two
issues. One of the things I had talked to Mr. Cautero about was the
two areas of complaints that we get in our office. First is what I
call defacto signs. That's where someone is conspicuously parking a
truck or a vehicle or a trailer adjacent to the curb or the road that
says, "Eat lunch here" '-
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Truly Nolen.
MR. DORRILL: -- or those types of things. Have we
incorporated any provisions in here that would otherwise prevent
conspicuous parking of vehicles or trailers or boats that are
otherwise drawing attention to the commercial establishment?
MR. HULHERE: Yes, in a couple of ways. Starting on
page 67 under prohibited signs 2.5.7.7 which is about midway down, it
says, "Signs located upon, within, or otherwise encroaching upon
county or public right-of-way." That's encroaching. I understand
you're talking about within a parking lot, not necessarily
encroaching, but that also s addressed. And I have to find it.
MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Cautero said within Citrus
County --
MR. HULHERE: Here it s.
MR. DORRILL: -- they won't let them be within 20 feet
of the right-of-way or something.
MR. HULHERE: On the top of page 218, let's see,
adjacent -- obtain the permit required. I know it's in here, because
I did see it.
MR. DORRILL: That satisfies me. The other area that we
do get some complaints on in our office are off-site directional signs
that the public refers to as mini billboards. And the most notorious
one is the one that's from time to time at the corner of
Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge. It's advertising the Villages of
Monterey that are probably two miles away, but they would otherwise
appear to meet the requirements of off-site directional signs. We do
get complaints in our office. I know the other one that's fairly
notorious is The Olde Florida Golf Club, and that one is usually
illegal, because it's in the right-of-way, but it's on 951, but
there's like a sign that says -- points this way, and I just wonder
what the overall -- because that's something that was added in our
last cycle, maybe the one before that. We -- we get a fair number of
complaints on off-site directional signs. And I'm wondering what the
overall rationale for those are. They seem to be growing, and we've
gotten some calls.
MR. HULHERE: They're permitted. You have to be located
not -- you have to be not visible from the arterial or collector, and
then you are permitted only two in opposing directions, and they have
to be, I believe, within a thousand feet -- within a thousand feet.
It seems that that one may be an illegal sign. We'll look into that.
Maximum 32 square feet.
MR. DORRILL: Am I correct, though, in that that's
something that's fairly new? And if so, what was the original
rationale for having off-site directional signs?
MR. HULHERE: I don't know when it was placed into the
code offhand, but the rationale was that certain uses are not visible
or easy --
MR. DORRILL: Maybe I can get some help from Mr. Davis,
then, because we do get a fair number of complaints about off-site
directional signs and the appropriateness of those within the current
code.
MR. DAVIS: Once again, Mike Davis for the record. Mr.
Dotrill, about two or three cycles ago that came up. I know there was
a heated debate about the Crossings. And at that time, it's my
recollection that if the prior -- it had been in the code for a long,
long time, I think back to the '84 ordinance. But at that point in
time it was changed to where they could not be double-faced. They
could only be single-faced, which reduced them in number, and there
was a change in the square footage, I believe, to six square feet. MR. HULHERE: Right now it reads 12 square feet.
MR. DAVIS: Well, it used to be six. It was increased
to 12 at that cycle.
MR. DORRILL: Are these things common in most sign
ordinances?
MR. DAVID: Yes, sir.
MR. HULHERE: Public safety is the premise. They
wouldn't otherwise be able to find it and they would be looking for
it. We can certainly -- I would suggest maybe monitor how many
requests we're getting, and if there is proliferation, I think it's
something we'll want to look into.
MR. DORRILL: Those are the only two questions I have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere, see if you can help me
out on this, on 68 the third one down 2.5.7.16. MR. HULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would that help us with the -- the
vehicle-type signs?
MR. HULHERE: On the bottom of that page, 2.5.7.25,
signs mounted on the top of a vehicle be it on the roof, hood, truck,
bed and so on, intended to attract or may distract the attention of
motorists, and then it says whether the vehicle is parked, driven, and
it excludes emergency vehicles, taxicabs and delivery vehicles where
the roof sign does not exceed two square feet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This says -- that says on the top of
the vehicle, and a lot of times it's on the side of the truck or
something, side of a van.
MR. HULHERE: Right. There is another section, and I'll
have to find it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And there's another section at the top
of the next page, second one in, point 27, which says any sign -- any
sign that advertises or publicizes an activity not conducted on the
premises.
MR. HULHERE: Except as otherwise permitted.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the other one you
referred to?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This one, 16.
MR. DORRILL: Would that also cover trailers? The most
recent one I have seen was a boat trailer that had a piece of plywood
that was latched to the boat trailer and it was parked adjacent to the
sidewalk. It's otherwise advertising a business that's within a strip
commercial center.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, well, number 16 will take care
of that, because it's any sign located adjacent to a county
right-of-way that hasn't been permitted. So that would take care of
that one immediately.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you talking about the Pacer
down on Davis Boulevard that's never moved since I have lived here
that has a restaurant on it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. I would strike
16.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Strike it completely?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, never, never.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point being?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why would you strike it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't like it.
MR. HULHERE: On section 2.5.7.25 at the bottom of 68,
we would change that language to say on top or on -- mounted on a
vehicle.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On top?
MR. HULHERE: Just mounted on a vehicle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Take off the top?
MR. HULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Anything else on the sign?
MR. HULHERE: That, I believe, is it. The only issue,
again, as I brought up is the issue of the existing nonconforming
signs that could be permitted.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, I need a little
clarification on 17.
MR. HULHERE: Sixteen?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, 17. Sixteen I already
think we should strike.
MR. HULHERE: Prohibited.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whatever form.
MR. HULHERE: It's missing something. I'll check on
that for you. Any description or representation, in whatever form, of
nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement, and on and on, so we'll
check on that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is sexual excitement a legally
definable term, Mr. Weigel?
MR. HULHERE: It's based on the sexually-oriented
business.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do I feel like we're going to
break into --
MR. HULHERE: Actually, it -- it refers to the section
right underneath it which should be a subsection, and we will correct
that. It should be 2.5.7.17, one, and that it is patently offensive
to contemporary standards in the adult community as a whole and so on
and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like it, but don't ever ask me
to enforce it. That would be a long discussion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There wouldn't be a picture
of patent leather shoes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Item 17, there's a
continuation?
MR. MULHERE: That would be 17.1, correct.
MR. DORRILL: No other speakers.
MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, just one more
comment on -- Mr. Mulhere brought up the idea of the nonconforming --
legal nonconforming signs -- that I would just support the idea that
if -- if a particular business owner over a period of time due to road
widening and changes in the code finds himself with a freestanding
sign that for three reasons is nonconforming, while it will take a
period of time as sign changes are permitted, as the reduction in
height occurs would which pick up over a period of time the thoughts
you all had today about dropping it from 25 to 20, and eventually we
get where we want to go, but it's not as onerous to the business
owner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I have a question on 16.
What is that supposed to accomplish? MR. MULHERE: 2.5.7.167
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, sir. I mean, we're already
saying it is illegal to have signs in -- adjacent to the right-of-way
in the unincorporated area of the county if you don't have a permit,
isn't it? And this is merely clarifying that it's illegal, and we're
going to take it down?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It does appear redundant.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think if you look at the bottom --
or the last sentence in there that it also reinforces the travelling
signs.
MR. MULHERE: I believe it was placed in there at the
request -- originally placed in there at the request of code
enforcement to clarify the vehicles that are parked either adjacent to
the right-of-way or the tent signs or any of those signs that are
placed in the right-of-way. But you're correct, they're already --
they are prohibited and elsewhere described in the code especially if
they're not permitted. I think it's just --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I have lettering on my Pacer
and you cite me, do you have a problem pointing to a place in the code
and saying this is where it says it's not legal and it's clear?
MR. MULHERE: Well, that would not necessarily be
illegal, but like you said, it was a hypothetical --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's been there for six months
and never moved.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, out by the right-of-way, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that this section?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, then leave it in.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's two votes to leave it in.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just confused. Is it legal
to leave a vehicle parked adjacent to the right-of-way for any period
of time?
MR. MULHERE: Sure, as long as it doesn't have -- as
long as it's not being used for the purpose of attracting the motoring
public to your business or, you know, as a sign. If that's -- if
that's what you're doing -- I have seen tent signs placed in the back
of pickup trucks, placed next to the right-of-way. Or I have seen a
disabled truck parked with big painting on the side of the step van,
left there for six months, never moved. That is what this is intended
to get to.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it's legal to leave the
vehicle sit for six months?
MR. HULHERE: It would otherwise be legal as long as it
had -- as long as it had a license plate and --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's on private property and --
MR. HULHERE: Unlicensed vehicles are not legal, but,
yes, a licensed vehicle, you can leave it there as long as you
maintain it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But with 16 you can't?
MR. HULHERE: You can still do it as long as it's not a
sign.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sign. I like leaving 16 in, so I
think that's three.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's three.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins did ask to speak.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, A1 Perkins, Belle-Heade
Groups Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. Property rights.
Constitution. Signs. Signs on the sides of the vehicles such as the
Collier County transportation, and the Collier County churches, and
all the rest of them. Now, there's a point here someplace that these
advertisements on the signs, you can't have it both ways. Now, if
you're going to take and force all people to remove signs on the side
of their vehicles, then you're going to have to remove all the signs,
not just some.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't say we can do
that.
MR. HULHERE: Those are not prohibited. You can have a
sign on the side of your vehicle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You can have a sign on your truck that
says Big Al's Plumbing. You can do that. You can't have a sign on
there that says "Eat at Joe's."
MR. PERKINS: What about Office Depot? Because I see a
box van very frequently.
MR. HULHERE: Perfectly legal.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. No problem with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just can't have a box van
in my driveway.
MR. PERKINS: There's nothing wrong with that. As long
as you're not spending my money. You do it yourself.
Okay, signs on the corners, okay. Are you ready for
this one? Hang on. We're coming up to election, and I can see Don
Hunter signs on my stinkin' corner every doggone time I turn around.
Now, along with that, every one of the candidates nail up a sign,
stick it in the ground, and on every corner throughout this town and
every post, every telegraph pole has one. Now, where do we go with
that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you ever heard of the fox
watching the chicken coop?
MS. STUDENT: If I can address that, there is case law
that political and noncommercial speech can't be regulated like you
can commercial speech. And when you separate it out and, you know,
start having content based, you start running a failed first
amendment. That's why.
MR. PERKINS: Okay, I'll buy the first amendment, you
know that. The only thing is if you're attracting and you get
somebody to watching something when they shouldn't -- now, I'm
thinking about traffic in the morning. I'm thinking about school
buses and kids, and people looking at signs or whatever's going on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are limiting the number
anybody can have in any one location.
MR. DORRILL: There's an entire section, and I would be
happy to give you mine.
MR. PERKINS: So you're up to speed on that. Yard sale
signs same thing?
MR. DORRILL: Same thing.
MR. PERKINS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did that the last time.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Shall we move along, then? Mr.
Mulhere, next section, please.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I just want to mention that we
added on page 75 a definition pursuant to the attorney's office for
noncommercial flags.
MS. STUDENT: I just want to address that. Recently
there was a case -- it wasn't in effect when we drafted that
opinion -- out of the City of Clearwater that federal court struck
down a provision in the City of Clearwater ordinance that identified
flags as governmental flags or county, country, state or local flags,
and that's why that's in there to attempt to meet the requirements
from the case law.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the Green Bay Packer flag
would be legal now?
MS. STUDENT: Depending upon the intent. If the intent
was because you were a Green Bay Packer fan, yes. If it's -- you
know, has a commercial intent to it, then maybe not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Green Bay paraphernalia
shop, you can't have it in there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just kidding. Didn't mean to
cause a discussion.
MR. DORRILL: Keep us going, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Page 76, temporary use permits for model
homes. The code used to require that they submit an application to
extend that prior to the expiration, and we found that they weren't
even finding out. Often times they weren't coming in, so we wanted to
give them some time period to get that process going. So now we're
suggesting it be made within 30 days of the expiration which is
consistent with how we handle other types of expirations.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The language says within 30 days. I
would assume that they mean forward or backward?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Page 77 is, I think, what there's an awful
lot of people here to speak to and that is some amendments to the
section 2.6.7.3 which is parking of commercial vehicles or commercial
equipment in a residential area. Linda Sullivan from code enforcement
is here to speak to this issue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's have her do it.
MS. SULLIVAN: I'm Linda Sullivan, code enforcement
director, and I simply am at a loss as to where to start here, but I
will try. This proposal came about because I more or less inherited
an enforcement problem. That is the -- shortly after I got here, we
realized that the commercial vehicle ordinance as written was not
being enforced as written. I think the problem came in with the
interpretation that there is -- it says now that you can have
passenger -- automobiles, passenger vans, and pickup trucks with the
weight load capacity of under one ton. I believe that it was being
enforced to have the one-ton limit apply to all those vehicles. As a
result, what's been done for the last few years is people are being
told if you have a vehicle over one ton, it's got to go. If it's
under one ton, it can stay. The provision of the ordinance that has
to do with box vans and step vans was being completely ignored. So
you could have anything depending on the weight.
When we discovered that this was not correct, I brought
it to my staff, and I said we're going to have to, you know, start
enforcing this ordinance as written. I was quickly told that it would
have a very large impact on certain communities who were told a month
ago or a year ago your vehicle is okay, now get rid of it. So rather
than go out without any warning to the public, I thought that as a
courtesy that the public should at least be told that the enforcement
policy was going to be changed. So I got together the members of
Golden Gate, Naples Park, The Manor, the sheriff's office,
Commissioner Constantine and people who I thought would be most
affected by this. And what came out of the meeting was, yes, it is
very difficult to define a passenger van. And I even called the
manufacturers and asked them if they had a definition. And they said,
no, they didn't have a definition. What is a box van? What is a
cubed van? Nobody could tell us. So we checked around other
jurisdictions and found out that a size and weight limit seems to
work, because the size limit will automatically eliminate things like
box vans, flat-bed trucks, that kind of thing. So that's where we
are.
The other problem was with commercial equipment. The
way the ordinance reads now it is -- it can be argued that if
something is hooked to a vehicle it's legal, and if it's parked on its
own it's illegal, because the ordinance reads commercial equipment,
things like earth-moving machinery, contractors' equipment, you know,
what is that? We didn't know what that was.
So the whole purpose of changing this ordinance was not
only to make it easier for our people to enforce it equally and not
have to make judgment calls on each vehicle, but to allow the public
to know and have a chance to speak before the enforcement policy was
changed and to know what would be legal and what wouldn't be legal.
The -- the -- I will have some pictures here that might explain it
better that were taken this week.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In case anyone is here on the
pickup truck ban, that's not a part of this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's 45 miles north.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. These were pictures which you
could look at and right away you can tell these are commercial
vehicles or commercial equipment. But if you really look at the
ordinance the way it's written, you can argue that these are not. All
of these vehicles that you're looking at would be illegal under the
new ordinance. It would just be easier to define.
I have had some concerns lately that we had either not
fully considered or hadn't thought of, one of which is I'm informed by
some of the communities that there is a creature called the Ford 350
which is an extended-cab pickup. It is 21 feet and 6 inches.
Apparently a lot of people have these, and I have suggested that it be
changed if the measurement requirements are adopted to 21 feet 6
inches.
The other question that's come up is what to do about
emergency vehicles. And it was our intent that emergency vehicles
which served the general public would be exempted from this. For
example, the sheriff's vehicles, the county vehicles who are on-call
to address sewer and water problems, but it would not include things
like tow trucks which are private and generally don't benefit the
public, only one or two people. Things like Florida Power and Light
especially during an emergency would be allowed because, you know,
when people's power go out, they want their power put back on. The
other two things I would tell you is that this ordinance would exclude
the Estates and any agriculturally-zoned areas. So now I'll answer
any questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, let me thank you. I
realize you have taken some personal hits on this, and those are
inappropriate at best. Whether you agree or disagree with where we
have arrived at here, I think you're just trying to solve a problem as
you see it exists.
MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have read through your
memo, and I understand your frustration on how the process has gone.
I also appreciate Commissioner Hancock's comments that we're not
dealing with a Cape Coral type issue here. If somebody parks a box
van for Cynthia's Party World next door, then I have got to have a way
to enforce not having that there any more. And I think that's all
we're trying to do. My concern is -- and I have expressed this to,
again, and a couple of others who have worked on this issue -- I have
gone back and kind of tried to rework this in my head and rework this
in my head. I have a discomfort level, though, with the proposed
change, not the intent, but with the proposed change. I have handed
each of the board members a memo from our county attorney's office and
I have highlighted part of it. And it says, "Only the following
commercial vehicles are permitted to be parked in residential zoning
districts in accordance with the appropriate subsection. They include
automobiles, passenger-type vans and pickup trucks having a rated load
capacity of one ton or less." It's my opinion that the weighted load
capacity of one ton or less applies only to the pickup truck
situation. And I agree and I think that gets part of our answer when
we're dealing with one ton. If we keep the same ordinance, then maybe
we need to play with the English and make sure that one ton only
addresses the pickup portion. But I think you could change a sentence
there and do that. But if our own attorney has said the one ton
situation only deals with the pickup situation, that should correct
the concern with vans or automobiles.
The other is -- I look at each of those photos and my
hope is -- I don't know how any of these could be construed to be
passenger vehicles, under the existing ordinance or not.
MS. SULLIVAN: My pictures of the passenger vans didn't
get here. What we're talking about are very large service vans which
people will go and put more seats into to avoid the ordinance. That's
the problem with those. They're modified.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if they're going to
put seats in every night when they come home, then they're going to
beat this thing one way or another.
MS. SULLIVAN: Well, they put two seats in where they
normally have one seat, and then it becomes a passenger van according
to the manufacturer or the people we talked to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I wonder if the FTA, the
Federal Transportation Administration, may have some better definition
than what the manufacturers have.
MS. SULLIVAN: They don't have any better definition.
In fact, they have a different load capacity and different things than
the manufacturers. Usually what you go on is what it says on your
title or whatever that thing is as to what size your truck is or what
the weight limit is of your truck.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it just to me -- and
Greg or some of the other investigators may be able to help me with
this -- but to me if I go out and it's Al's Plumbing Service and I
look in the back and, yeah, there's an extra seat but there are a
number of fixtures to go and do my work, then clearly it's being used
for work and not for plumbing (sic). It doesn't seem like that hard
of a burden. And when we have our code enforcement hearings,
witnesses are all under oath and are subject to penalties -- at least
they were when I was on the Code Enforcement Board -- and you can ask
the people what they do, what their daily exercise is with that
vehicle, and it seems like there is a mechanism to get to that other
than this.
My real worry is as we get to the description -- you
know, I tried to draw a picture of what a 7-1/2-foot tall, 7-foot
wide, 21-foot long vehicle looks like, and that's not the vehicle that
I want to see in my next door neighbor's driveway. Now, if somebody
has the Ford F-350 and -- as a matter of fact, the man that lived next
door to Janet when she was in her villa had one of those, and I know
exactly, it's just a good-looking pickup. But that is clearly a
passenger type, everyday vehicle that he drove as opposed to -- I can
picture -- I don't know what happened to those pictures, but I don't
know if any of those fall into the 7/1/2-foot category, but I can
picture a pretty darn big vehicle. At 7-1/2 feet or 7 feet 5 inches
and 21 feet 5 inches long, so it complies, but it's clearly not a
vehicle for somebody's personal life.
MS. SULLIVAN: Actually, I'll let Greg tell you, because
he went out and measured a lot of vehicles, and I thought it sounded
extensive, too, but it really isn't when you look at one that size.
MR. OSSORIO: For the record, my name is Hike Ossorio
with Collier County code enforcement. I actually work in Golden Gate
City. I went out and we measured 100, 125 different kinds of vans,
step vans, box vans, commercial vans, and the problem we come across
is the citation process. What do you write down for a citation? And
you go to somebody's door and knock on the door and say you have a
commercial vehicle in your driveway, and he says I use that to go to
the grocery store, or I take my kids to work (sic) in it, and I use it
for my commercial business. But at home I use it for primary
residence.
And what we're trying to do is trying to clarify what is
commercial. So if it's 7-1/2 feet high, length and width and all
those kind of aspects, it makes it a lot easier on me to go ahead with
the public and do it that way. Right now when I cite someone for CEB,
we usually write date of witness, commercial vehicle over one ton.
And there can be exceptions. You can have your commercial vehicle on
your property if you're doing construction. There's certain other
aspects of that as well. Or if it's over one ton, it would be in
violation. And that's what we need defined.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like I look at this Ford
F-150, Dell's Lawn Care on here, and it says 7 feet 9 inches in
height. He has a screen on the back where he throws all his clippings
and such it looks like. So if that screen were 3 inches shorter, he'd
be allowed. What bothers me here is this says under one -- currently
under one ton allowed now. And according to our county attorney's
memorandum of August 25, 1995, it is not allowed now. And just,
again, going to your memo -- this multi-paged memo, you conclude by
saying, "My job as I see it is simply to enforce whatever ordinance or
ordinances are adopted by the Board of Commissioners." And we have an
ordinance that's been adopted by the board, and we have opinion from
the County Attorney's Office telling us that a) it's legal, b) it can
be enforced, and yet we're told this is legal under the current. I
don't understand.
MS. SULLIVAN: If you will look at the definition of
commercial equipment, we added "including but not limited to" just to
catch that kind of vehicle, with the thing on the back of this,
because people were saying the way it reads it has to be like an earth
mover or something. This is attached to my vehicle. This is not
commercial equipment. This may be a commercial vehicle, but it still
fits the definition of the code, it's legal. That's why we added that
on there.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is the writing on
this picture indicates that it is currently legal. MS. SULLIVAN: Arguably legal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Arguably I am sure by the
owner of the vehicle, but according to our county attorney with this
memo, it's not legal under the current ordinance. So what I'm saying
is we have an ordinance that was backed by the board, we have an
opinion from the attorney that says it is enforceable, and if that's
the case, I'm not sure why we want to change it. I understand the
intent of what you're trying to do is let's make it as enforceable as
possible, but if our county attorney is saying we can do that under
the existing code, my concern -- and, again, I know it's not your
intent -- but my concern is if by having 21-1/2 feet long and 7 feet
high and all that, that suddenly there are loopholes to fly through
that currently aren't allowed. And I understand you're saying
arguably, but that's what the Code Enforcement Board or ultimately a
court of law is for. And that's their job to hear both sides of the
argument.
MS. SULLIVAN: We're just thinking it makes it more
clear but, again, I don't have any problem enforcing the ordinance as
it's written. At some point I will have to get some definitions on a
passenger van, box van, cubed van, all that kind of thing. That's the
first thing I did was look them up and I couldn't find any.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would like to make an observation
here if I might. I think we're focussing in on trying to craft an
ordinance with -- with one element in it and element being size, when
clearly size alone is not the only element that we're going to be
addressing here. Because you could have a small pickup with a
plumbing bed on it and all sorts of plumbing equipment hanging all
over it, and that's obviously a commercial vehicle, but it would fit
within the size requirement so --
MS. SULLIVAN: Well, it wouldn't fit --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sorry to talk while you were
interrupting, but I wasn't quite finished.
MS. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead.
MS. SULLIVAN: I think the new definition of commercial
equipment makes it clear that whether -- even if it is attached to the
truck, then it's illegal. So that would catch the situation you're
talking about.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My thought is just that I'm
not sure it's broken. I think everybody is trying to do the same
thing here. We don't want to make it -- we're not trying to make it
more difficult for anybody that has an existing business, but we don't
want to make it less stringent either. That's not the intent, but I'm
convinced that the existing code can be enforced to solve the problems
that we have had. He and several folks from Golden Gate that came
forward on this in the first place when -- actually pre-you, when Bill
was having trouble and was concerned about enforcing this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask this question then. Let's
get an attorney ruling on what exactly this new change says. If you
look under definitions 6.3 commercial vehicles, any vehicle used in
conjunction with a commercial or business activity including but not
limited to, it says, and then at the end of that it -- it then
specifies the dimensions. Does that phrase, "but not limited to"
include the size limitations? In other words, a commercial vehicle
wouldn't necessarily -- if it -- if it fell within the size
limitations, if it was smaller than the size limitations, the
conditions are then not limited to only the size conditions but just
the fact that it is a commercial vehicle which would be open to
interpretation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, which is what we're trying
to avoid in the first place. So if it's over 7-1/2 feet, it
automatically gets excluded. But if it's not we're back in the
interpretive position that you were trying to avoid. Is that -- is
that where we're heading?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's what I'm asking.
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That a boy, Dave.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, I would like to make an
additional comment to what has been offered here and that is the
commercial equipment amendment to the definition of commercial
equipment probably is of assistance and I don't think creates any
problem whatsoever in the interpretation of the rest of the ordinance
as it's currently in effect or any other change that you may have. In
regard to -- I would say turning to the next page -- to the top of the
next page, section 2.6.7.3.1, Ms. Sullivan talked a bit about vehicles
on the premises for construction, services, and things of that
nature. I would suggest that paragraph one of that section I cited
read, "If the vehicle is engaged in a construction or service
operation." I think that's a non-secular there that can be corrected
so that not only construction vehicles that are on premises for
particular reasons but service vehicles such as moving vans that are
there and in the operation of providing a service are clearly there,
and that would be a clarification to the ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I fully appreciate what you're
trying to do. When you say you go to someone's door and you say,
"That's a commercial vehicle." And they say, "No, it's not." And
you cite it anyway, you know, there's -- all of a sudden the
discussion ensues and so forth, but this comes down to me to
contemplating a way to employ common sense. You have to try to employ
it every day, yet you don't feel you have the code that backs it up.
That's a tough thing to try and fix. But I have one turn that seems
to put this thing in perspective for me and that is a vehicle
obviously modified for commercial purposes. And that's what we're
talking about. And I know that the county attorney made -- that may
drive him crazy, but that seems to be the purpose. If it's obvious
that it's been modified for commercial purposes, you know, is there
anything that -- that would not be clear about -- to the layman?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, again, I think you need to look to
the ordinance as a whole, because it's not just size that we're
dealing with, and it's not just commercial that we're dealing with,
but it's an interrelation of both. Because you have a commercial
vehicle of whatever size, but if it fits in the garage or is shielded
by vegetation in the back, it can continue to exist in the residential
neighborhood. So you can lose maybe what the importance of the
ordinance is tending toward by concentrating on just one issue of size
or the fact that there's commercial lettering. Pickup trucks which
are one ton or less can have all the lettering on them they can want,
but they can reside in the neighborhood, one, because they are
specifically exempted in subsection number four there, but also
probably they could be garaged, too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we go to the public
speakers. Maybe we will get a couple of insights. Unless Mr. Cautero
has something to add right quickly.
MR. CAUTERO: It can wait.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ross (sic), Bill Ross. Then
Mr. Mohrbacher, you will be next. I would like to have you stand by
in the interest of time, please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For the purposes of those who -- or
for the information of those who may be speaking for the first time in
front of the commissioners, we normally allow five minutes. And if
someone else has already made your point, we would also ask that
perhaps you wouldn't be redundant in making your points. Please go
ahead.
MR. ROSE: For the record my name is Bill Rose. I live
at 2111 41st Terrace, S.W. in Golden Gate. I applaud the staff in
their efforts to bring some light to this. I am not one for wanting
more government and more regulations, but in our area in Golden Gate,
the city part has gotten well out of hand with commercial vehicles and
these things, and we'd like to see some sort of regulation put on
them. Golden Gate is not going to turn around. It didn't get there
overnight; it's not going to get changed overnight. So we have to
work with it.
These box vans, the box trucks, cubed trucks and things
of that nature, I spoke with our code enforcement about one that was
on our street. It was parked in the driveway and was I informed that
that truck was legal under the current ordinance. The truck was not
being moved. It was used as a storage facility for a gentleman to
operate his business out of his house. He's in the construction
business, parked the truck, backed it in there, and it was used. And
I wrote it up as one of the code enforcement people out there. We
couldn't do anything about it, because it was an arguable point that
it was not a commercial vehicle, because it fit the definition of one
ton or under. So that was clearly a violation, but we couldn't do
anything about it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bill, I am going to interrupt
you there. It seems to me that's a problem on our end. If we're not
taking somebody to the Code Enforcement Board, that's a mistake we're
making. The guy can argue that, but he should do that in front of the
Code Enforcement Board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I've got to think that if
you have got seven common sense-oriented people as we have on our Code
Enforcement Board, they're going to say, sorry, Bob, you're full of
mud, and that's not accurate, and it is being used in such and such a
way, and you're in violation. So if we haven't taken it to the Code
Enforcement Board, then we are in error. But to just say, well,
there's an argument there so we're not going to do it, then, yes, it's
the county's fault. But I don't think the changing in wording is the
thing that's necessarily going to achieve that. I think by us
actually following the existing code and taking it to Code Enforcement
Board, we can achieve the same thing.
MR. ROSE: Well, that's what makes a horse race, Mr.
Commissioner, is difference of opinions. But it's clearly a
commercial vehicle that's being used for storage. It doesn't haul
passengers. It's a commercial vehicle.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What this board is telling our
code enforcement department is we don't care if there is an argument
that can be made. Cite them, bring them in, let them make their
argument in front of the Code Enforcement Board, but let's be -- just
because they have an argument doesn't mean that we're going to go
away.
MR. ROSE: Well, the new ordinance would clearly ban
that vehicle. It would be an illegal vehicle. There wouldn't be an
argument about it at all. Pickup trucks -- we're not trying to limit
pickup trucks in Golden Gate. That's not the issue. The one ton
dualies that are used today -- crew-cab dualies, as long as they're
covered -- some of them pull some mighty expensive fifth-wheel
trailers. They are personal vehicles. They are used for recreational
purposes. We have no problem with that. I do have a problem with a
crew-cab dualy with a big air compressor mounted in it where he goes
out and changes tires on the side of the road. I don't think that
that's a passenger vehicle; that's a commercial vehicle. But I am in
support of the ordinance. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hohrbacher. Then Ms. Hohrbacher.
MR. HOHRBACHER: Do you want us both at the same time?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. You go right ahead.
MR. HOHRBACHER: Okay, thank you. John Hohrbacher. I
have been in this county for 20 years. I have driven a commercial
vehicle home for 20 years. I have been in Golden Gate City now 10
years. I have been harassed constantly, and to find out all these
years, you know, that there was nothing you guys could do about it.
But every time you get a new county code enforcement officer, they
must send them to my house, the new guy. Anyway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are you parking at your
house?
MR. HOHRBACHER: Well, I own a local business, a pool
company, Master Pool and Solar Company, and we have several trucks.
And I will drive whatever truck is left at the end of the day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How big? What kind is it?
MR. HOHRBACHER: Well, anywhere from a half ton to one
ton.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whatever commercial vehicle
is left at the end of the day?
MR. HOHRBACHER: Yes. But, granted, I also have a
station wagon that's a commercial vehicle, and is that against the
law, too? It's a commercial vehicle. The only one that truly knows
what a commercial vehicle is is the IRS. There's -- do any of you
guys write your car off on expenses? Business trips? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I do.
MR. HOHRBACHER: Now, you have a commercial vehicle, and
it better be in the garage when you get home.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's not the issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hohrbacher --
MR. HOHRBACHER: No, the issue here --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, the issue is you are
trying to argue the absurd. If your vehicle -- what is on your
vehicle that's not on your station wagon that makes them want to cite
it?
MR. HOHRBACHER: Okay. I have got pool chemicals in
the back of my vehicle, a pool pole sticking out. I happen to do
solar work, so I have a ladder on my truck. That makes it -- it's in
the limits.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have the aluminum cage on
it?
MR. HOHRBACHER: Who's joking who? Right. Now, if I
can get these people to stop taking pictures of my house, which was
very annoying for two years because of taking -- strangers taking
pictures of my children. I don't know what's going on. So finally I
got them to stop taking pictures, but if you go down to code
enforcement, I have got a file in there for 20 years bigger than the
bible, okay?
Now, my point is, if we can -- apparently the white
collar workers find it offensive to have a working truck next to their
house. They can drive their little four-door car home, use it for
work. They have got their briefcase and cellular phone. But I can't
drive my pool truck home. I find that offensive. If you drive around
Golden Gate city, it's the working, the blue-collar community. You
have people that drive that vehicle home. It is used for work, taking
the kids to school. It's a benefit for that employee. It's figured
in their income.
Now, you have gated communities in this town. If --
somebody was in the paper saying they're willing to pay more taxes for
more code enforcement. If you can afford more taxes, then I suggest
you go to a gated community. I moved to Golden Gate City because I
knew what flew. I didn't move to a gated community.
Now, apparently everybody has been breaking the law for
20 years, that I know, driving a commercial vehicle home. Now, I
think if the public, when they do find out that everybody is in
violation, then you're going to get a little outcry like the Cape
Coral deal. And in the paper the other day there was an editorial --
the paper on our side -- is put it to a vote. Why do you guys have to
decide? How about the general public in Golden Gate City? How about
if they decide if they want those working trucks there, because 70
percent of those people are working people. Let's put it to a vote
with the public.
I do not find any offense with my next-door neighbor.
Now, incidentally, my neighbor works for me, so he's got my pool truck
next door. But his wife's a cop, and she has her cop car. Now, you
guys just exempted them, but you can't exempt the pool guy. Can I get
some exemption? Now, there was some -- something about electricians,
you know. They drive that home. They're on 24-hour call. Air
conditioning companies, they're on 24-hour call. It's their job
during a hurricane to go take care of these elderly people and get
their air conditioning running so they don't drop dead. It's a safety
issue. Pools aren't a safety issue. But I've had some customers
claim it, but -- but I spoke my piece.
I just -- I think we need to rally the general public
together and get a group going because either everybody can drive a
commercial vehicle home or nobody. Now, you know the original rules
20 years ago, they were to eliminate the dump truck in the front yard,
the big backhoe in the side yard. Nobody does that. I mean, at least
if they do, you can catch that, it's obvious.
But the last thing is I do have one of these
350-whatever you're talking about. It is not used for my business.
It is personal. It has nothing to do with work. I happen to tow my
stock car with it. That is not a business. That is a hobby.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Time is up, sir. That's what the
buzzer was.
MR. HOHRBACHER: My wife will cover the rest. The bed
is 37 feet long by the way.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hohrbacher and then Ms. Partridge.
MS. HOHRBACHER: Yes, my name is Lora Hohrbacher, and if
you can't tell, I'm married to John over there. The thing that
bothers me the most is our commercial trucks. And it's just as John
says, we drive whatever is left over at the end of the day. We are a
family business. So between me and my brother-in-law and my husband
and my sister-in-law, we all drive a commercial vehicle. We cannot
afford to own a vehicle to keep at home and then a vehicle to have for
work and keep parked wherever we would have to pay to keep it parked
because we are no longer allowed to park it at home.
The truck I drive the majority of the time is a regular
Toyota 1986 pickup truck. It is not -- it does not exceed the length,
weight, or height limit, but I am told because I put a chlorine jug in
the back of it that I am in violation of the law. That is what I am
here to clarify. They are telling me there is commercial equipment in
the back of my truck and that is why I am being cited for that truck.
Now, I have also been reported to hazardous waste for the things in
the back of my truck, which after two weeks of research, they did
discover that there is nothing hazardous in the back of a pool truck.
So it seems to me that it is an interpretation of the
law at this time. One code enforcer will feel that it's this. One
will feel that it's that. Then if they can't get me on that, they
call hazardous waste on me. I am looking for something definite. I
have to have that truck. I can't sell that truck. If I sell that
truck, you lose another business in the community. I don't want to
lose my business. I don't want to lose my livelihood. And it's not
something -- the shop that we rent over in -- off of Radio Road has
one little bay in it. We cannot park five commercial vehicles in one
little bay. And if we would leave them outside, no doubtedly (sic) we
would have nothing left in our trucks at all.
So -- and the last thing is the truck that John was
talking about that we use to carry our stock car on. If I want to
bring that home on Saturday afternoon when we load up the stock car
for ten minutes, I do not want a code enforcer at my door Monday
morning because of that truck. It's totally recreational. It is not
kept there 24 hours a day. We do keep that one garaged elsewhere
because of all the complaints we had on it. But if I pull it in my
driveway for 10 or 15 minutes, I do not want to be red-tagged for it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not a violation.
MS. PARTRIDGE: Right. ANd this is what we are trying
to -- it is not a commercial vehicle. This is where I have my biggest
problem with the commercial vehicle code, and I have had this for
years. Just because you say it is so long, you are saying it is a
commercial vehicle. I don't see how you can legally do that.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's only there for 10 or
15 minutes, it's not a violation anyway, so it's a moot point.
MS. PARTRIDGE: How come I have been red-tagged for it
several times for that, then?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Probably because it's there
more than 10 minutes.
MS. HOHRBACHER: No, it's not, sir, okay?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't -- we don't know the answer
to that.
MS. HOHRBACHER: I know you don't.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I am not going to argue that
question. Let me ask you a question, though. This appears to be a
photo of your truck.
MS. PARTRIDGE: Let me check that. No, that is not a
vehicle (sic) of my truck, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not?
MS. PARTRIDGE: That is a vehicle of my brother-in-law
Jerry's --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's a photo of somebody's truck.
MS. PARTRIDGE: Who owns SLS Pool Service. That is my
brother-in-law's truck, and he also lives in Golden Gate city.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that in front of your
house?
MS. PARTRIDGE: No, that is not at my house. That is my
brother-in-law's house.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a garage?
MS. HOHRBACHER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't you put the truck in the
garage?
MS. HOHRBACHER: Because right now we're restoring a '79
Trans Am that is being kept in the garage, and I cannot put it in the
garage. And plus we drive two commercial vehicles home so, you know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And you have a two-car garage?
MS. PARTRIDGE: I have a two-car garage in the backyard,
but part of that is being taken up by the other car that we are
currently storing there, because if I leave it outside without a tag
on it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're asking for an exemption from
the law for this reason or that reason.
MS. HOHRBACHER: Well, when you're taking -- when you're
talking about taking away people's livelihood then I guess, yes, I am
asking for an exemption.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not talking about
that. We're talking about making priorities. If you put your
commercial vehicle in the garage, you're complying with the law. MS. HOHRBACHER: Okay, if --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you choose -- let me
finish, please. If you choose to put a Trans Am in there instead or
you choose to put a stock car in there instead or any number of other
things, that's your choice. But then you're choosing not to comply
with the law.
MS. PARTRIDGE: This is what I was told, though. I was
told whether it was put behind a fence or whatever -- this is what I
was told at the Golden Gate Homeowners' Association meeting that I
went to -- if it is back there, they will find me and they will cite
me for it, okay? This is why I am here, because I am --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By whom were you told that?
Were you told that by someone on the county staff?
MS. PARTRIDGE: I -- times up. I was told -- that was
just blurted out at the meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it's not from anybody
representing '-
MS. PARTRIDGE: It was at the code enforcement meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it was not from someone
representing the county?
MS. PARTRIDGE: No, because every time I call the county
they say they don't have any jurisdiction over the Golden Gate
Homeowners' Association.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is true.
MS. PARTRIDGE: Right. So what's -- if the enforcers
are going to say -- or volunteer enforcers are going to say one thing
and the county is going to say something else, what --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Partridge.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just by the way, code
enforcement, the next time they're red-tagged, make sure you bring in
their testimony today that it is a commercial vehicle. They have
acknowledged they're bringing home commercial vehicles.
(Off the record to allow the court reporter to make a
paper change.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Back on line? Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question, Ms.
Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When this started, help me that
I heard you correctly that this -- that this applies only to
residentially-zoned property, that estate-zoned and agricultural is
exempted.
MS. SULLIVAN: The Estates are specifically exempt in
the code, and agricultural is exempt by definition of
residentially-zoned areas.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that any estate-zoned area or
Golden Gate Estates?
MS. SULLIVAN: Golden Gate Estates.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the only estates-zoned
area we have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think there's some estates on Marco
Island.
MS. SULLIVAN: Any -- any estates area; is that
correct?
MR. HULHERE: Any zoned E-estates, but the area on Marco
is zoned residential even though it's called the estates. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, agriculturally-zoned area
within the urban area is exempted from this, also?
MS. SULLIVAN: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MS. PARTRIDGE: For the record I'm Shetee Partridge, and
I'm also a small business owner in Golden Gate City. We also own a
cubed van, one ton. We have lived in this house for 10 years with
this vehicle. We have invested a lot of money in the vehicle and all
the contents that are in it. When we got red-tagged after nine years
of living in this house with the vehicle parked on the side of the
house or behind it, we were overwhelmed. I mean, where are we going
to park it? Where are we going to put it? I mean, where could we --
were we going to have to take on an extra charge of having to pay to
store it somewhere when for nine years we had the vehicle -- the
commercial vehicle at our house?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me for interrupting. Did
you say you were red-tagged when the vehicle was parked behind your
house?
MS. PARTRIDGE: Well, actually it was on the side of the
house when he red-tagged us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Yeah, that's -- that's against
code.
MS. PARTRIDGE: But is it okay if it's parked behind the
house?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I said that's against the code twice,
because it's a commercial vehicle and it's beside the house, so that's
double.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if '-
MS. PARTRIDGE: But my point is it's like I have lived
in this house for 10 years. We have had this business for 10 years.
I mean, we have invested thousands of dollars in this vehicle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Partridge, just because you
haven't conformed with the code for 10 years doesn't mean that you're
grandfathered. It doesn't work that way.
MS. PARTRIDGE: Well, it's like we -- you know we could
have got rid of the vehicle when the amendment went into effect in
1991.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, well, I'm sorry we didn't get
out there and red-tag you earlier so '- MS. PARTRIDGE: Well, the point is -- the point is that
it's overwhelming --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, that's not the point.
MS. PARTRIDGE: -- to the working-class people.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not the point. The point is
it's a violation of code, and whether it took 10 years for the people
to cite you is not really the issue.
MS. PARTRIDGE: So you're not interested in the
working-class people that have a small business in Golden Gate?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's hard for you to make that kind of
stretch. You can't extrapolate that, and I'm not going to allow you
to do that. You're not going to extrapolate the fact that there are
codes existing into I don't care about working people. I'm not going
to let you make that stretch. You can't do that.
MS. PARTRIDGE: That's where my issue is. It's like
we're working-class people. If I could afford to store it somewhere
else or keep the vehicle somewhere else, I would have had it somewhere
else.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The fact is it's against the law to
have a commercial vehicle parked in your yard unless it's behind your
house or in an enclosure behind your house screened. It has to be
screened.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned that you did
have it behind house some of the time?
MS. PARTRIDGE: Yes. We only -- actually we only bring
our vehicle home on the weekend due to the fact that Dave has side
jobs sometimes he'll do, or he'll come home and straighten the vehicle
out. We don't keep the vehicle there. We don't store it there. We
don't have lumber laying all over the yard. We bring it home in
between his jobs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it behind the house and
shielded from the public view, because that does conform?
MS. SULLIVAN: It's shielded from the neighbors' view
and from the street.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's shielded in some
manner -- and I don't know, you maybe have to get a little creative on
doing that. But if it's shielded from the neighbors and from the
street, then you're legal behind the house. You just can't park it
where it's readily visible.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I say one thing that I
checked on to try to find out just how difficult this shielding is.
The sea gate -- the seagrape hedge is pretty opaque.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ficus hedge, same thing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I -- I priced one today.
A hundred feet, you need a three gallon -- plants, you're double
rowing it, 330 bucks for a hundred feet of double row sea gate
hedge -- seagrape hedge. And I didn't check on how much the 6-foot
high wooden fencing is at Home Depot, but that's not much. I just
think that you're screening for the comfort of your neighbors and to
beautify your neighborhood. It is not too much to ask -- I don't want
you to -- I want you to be able to bring your vehicle home if you need
to, but I want your neighbors not to have to look at it if they don't
want to.
MS. PARTRIDGE: But the thing is there wasn't a problem
with any of them, and, you know, in our whole area we never had a
violation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I speed on Interstate 75
from now until three years from now, and I get a ticket three years
from now, I can't make that argument to the cops. I understand your
point.
MS. PARTRIDGE: My point is, yeah, we were -- you know,
we were totally devastated when we got it after nine years. And the
money we have got invested in this vehicle, we can't turn around and
sell it and modify it to your 7 feet --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For a couple hundred bucks
you can put up a little cedar fence or a hedge or something. A couple
hundred bucks along the edge.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so it's screened and you
comply with code, and you can go about the way you have been for nine
years. You just have to make sure it's screened, that's all.
MS. PARTRIDGE: Even though it's a cubed van?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's move along here. Do you have
something new with a different point?
MS. PARTRIDGE: No, that's strictly it, you know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's move along. I don't know that
we really need to sit here and listen to anecdotal stories. It's
really -- they're trying to excuse themselves from the code. That's
improper argument. We can't sit here and try to excuse people from
complying with the code.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioners, can I suggest that
after this meeting if you will explain your particular scenario to
Ms. Sullivan, you can get a very clear decision on what is allowable
and what is not so that you have no question. I think that's probably
the most important thing. So if you do that, that will probably
answer those questions for you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Partridge, come on ahead. And
Mr. Rein, Jerry Rein, you will follow Mr. Partridge. Go ahead.
MR. PARTRIDGE: David Partridge and I own Partridge
Carpeting Company. You see a year -- we have been through this with
the zoning a year ago and what the one-ton rule was, and everything
was fine. And they said, "Okay, we won't bother you any more."
now they're back, you know. And my neighbors don't complain about
that truck. Now, I help my neighbors by working or else I bring my
truck home to service my house and to service things at my house. And
that truck -- I only bring that truck home when I need the tools in
that truck to use. Now, there's only one person complaining about
that truck. In Golden Gate there's one person and that's it. But,
you know, the point is I'm not allowed to bring that truck to my house
at any time at all; is that the law?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that's not the law.
MR. PARTRIDGE: I mean, I can stop? Do I have to keep
the motor running or something?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're stretching it into
something that doesn't exist.
MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, I'm just trying to understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then let us answer.
MR. PARTRIDGE: Okay, go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You can bring that truck
home. If it's there for a period -- and someone correct me if I'm
wrong -- is there for a period in excess of 24 hours, it must be
screened appropriately; is that a fair statement?
STAFF PERSON: Basically you have 24 hours. If you go
home for lunch, construction, during the day in and out of the job,
that's fine. Overnight, if it's in the backyard fully screened from
the neighbors, that's fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're saying parking overnight
is really the key here?
STAFF PERSON: Parking overnight, two, three, four
hours, that would be prohibited. In his case he has a yard that's
real small and narrow, I don't see him blocking the view from his
neighbors with his box van.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even when it's in his backyard?
STAFF PERSON: We get a lot of complaints. If somebody
calls in a complaint --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no, the question was, can
you describe a scenario -- since you're familiar with this particular
property -- can you describe a scenario where like I'm saying go get a
sea grape hedge, you're telling -- there's not a scenario where they
can shield that vehicle on their property? I want them to be able to
keep it there overnight. What can they -- what can they do to keep it
there?
STAFF PERSON: If he put up a 20-foot fence or a hedge,
he could keep it there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twenty feet high?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How tall is this thing?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's 9 feet high, so how about a
10 foot?
STAFF PERSON: It's more than that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a reminder, the question
tonight -- the question before us right now is do we want to keep the
old one and enforce it fully or do we want to go to new wording and
enforce it. I mean, it's not a question of are we going to stop
enforcing the law. If there are ways for you to comply and you need
the help --
MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, tell me how to comply. I don't
understand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And our staff will help you
do that. And as a matter of fact, before we go tonight maybe you will
help them do that. But the point is we have got some laws that have
to be conformed with somehow. And obviously if you haven't been doing
it for a while, there's got to be a way for you to work as well. But
it's not a question of backing off and not having any law any more.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, it
might be a good idea that we'll have discussion on this this evening
but that we schedule maybe a workshop in Golden Gate on how to
properly screen your vehicle.
MR. PARTRIDGE: Good idea, good idea.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The one question I have, too, or,
frankly, a direction for my one vote to staff is that a screen -- for
the vehicle to be screened from the neighbors view doesn't mean a
20-foot high hedge. Do you guys think that? I mean, is that our
instruction to our staff that one foot of the truck can't show at
top? Does it have to be completely blocked from view, buffered from
view, screened from view? I don't think they should have to.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not even on the agenda night.
And we're not going to allow any more Code Enforcement Board type
conversations here tonight. We are here to discuss the changes -- the
proposed changes in that ordinance, and we're not going to make
rulings on people's individual situations here tonight. So if you
have something to say along those lines, say that please.
MR. PARTRIDGE: I'm opposed to the amendment.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rein.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, Linda, will you get with
him before you go tonight?
MS. SULLIVAN: Sure.
MR. DORRILL: And, Mr. Wilt, you will follow Mr. Rein.
Go ahead, Mr. Rein.
MR. REIN: Well, my name is Jerry Rein. I live in
Golden Gate City. I am a member of the volunteer code enforcement
code committee, so I'm one of the hatassets. I haven't read the full
text of the proposed changes. I have gotten bits and pieces. From
what I have read of the original ordinance, my understanding of it is
that ordinance pretty well takes care of all of the problems that we
have. It's a matter of enforcement, making sure that we don't have
junkyards on wheels out in Golden Gate City. The -- some of the
changes that some -- rambling here -- some of the minor wording
changes that have been suggested I think would probably be appropriate
for the ordinance. A few minor clarifications, but the ordinance
itself pretty much says it without getting into a lot of extra mumbo
jumbo. I am one of the people that has taken pictures. I haven't
gone on people's property. I use telephoto lens in case anybody wants
to know. That photograph that was passed out are similar to the ones
that have been mentioned previously. I have not -- never cited a
pickup with one jug of chlorine in it. I have cited junkyards on
wheels, pool service trucks with hoses, solar panels and everything
hanging all over it. So that's really all I have to say. I think the
ordinance we have got right now takes care of itself, takes care of
all the problems we have got. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wilt and then Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILT: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Evening.
MR. WILT: Good evening. I stand corrected. My name is
Glenn Wilt. I live at 5019 31st Avenue Southwest in Golden Gate City,
and yes, I'm one of the people that are pushing this ordinance. I am
going to speak directly to the ordinance and this proposed change. I
have heard a lot of discussion this afternoon about the commercial
vehicle ordinance the way it's currently written. I have heard the
legal description -- the legal interpretation here. I am going to
digress here for a minute. I want to cite a couple of examples. If
the answer can be found in the legal staff or in our current code, I
would be happy to back off from any proposed changes to this
ordinance. This situation I would like to point out is -- and let me
digress here for just a minute.
We started a volunteer code enforcement approximately
two years ago in Golden Gate City. That's where a lot of this stuff
is coming up. I know you people have taken a lot of heat this
afternoon. Well, I have lived there for nine years when the community
was going downhill, and we've turned it around. That's why we're
encountering these type problems today.
Let me get back to the vehicle ordinance. The vehicle
that's manufactured -- there's a VIN number placed on that vehicle,
and here's where the problem starts. You take a one-ton pickup, buy
it from the factory, and any time that vehicle is identified for any
purpose from there on, it's known as a one-ton vehicle, because it's
on the VIN number that way. You take it home and take the pickup bed
off of it, put an eight-foot box van on the back of it, and if that
vehicle stops anywhere for any purpose, it's still a one-ton pickup,
and it meets the current code.
My question is this -- and that's the problem we have
and that's why we tried to address all other issues and all other
aspects. That's why we even went so far as to come up with a 21 foot
by 6 inches. By the way, that new Ford vehicle costs $35,000. If I
lived next door to you, Commissioner, and you wouldn't let me park in
my driveway, I'd be upset. That's why it's 21 foot 6 inches. We
asked them to be.
But here's the problem. It's a one-ton pickup and
nowhere in the ordinance does it say, okay, it's got that box van on
it, it must weigh over one ton. But where is the requirement to make
them go weigh the vehicle? The only identification you have on that
vehicle is the one ton. That is the big loophole the way we see it.
That's where the argument comes in all the time with the residents,
with staff, and as far as legal, also, as far as I'm concerned.
I have been through measuring a number of these vehicles
out there, and I have discussed this at quite some length with the
Golden Gate Contract Association, our own Golden Gate Area Civic
Association, and also with our code volunteers. They support a need
to do something to remove a certain number of these type vehicles from
the community. There's no writing on the side of them. They don't
fit. I don't want them in the driveway next to me. We always have
this argument. That's why we came up with a compromise working with
the North Naples group and also our group in Golden Gate that maybe
the size was one way to do it.
I would emphasize one point. I do not want to be any
part of a Cape Coral issue. When it gets into pickups or it gets into
vans being driven home with lettering on the side of it, I will not be
part of any support for the argument on that. That's a working
community out there. But these type vehicles and commercial vehicles
loaded with 50 one-gallon containers of chlorine sitting in the
driveway have got to go. Thank you very much for your time. If you
have any questions, I will be glad to answer them.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wilson. Then Mr. Whittenberg.
MR. WILSON: Good evening, gentlemen, ladies. My name
is Maynard Wilson. I live in Golden Gate City, and I'm here to
discuss your new ordinance. From what I understand of it, you're
going strictly by size, and I think that's a complete misnomer.
You're going to get into more trouble than you can shake a stick at.
One of the big problems you have is we talk about what's a commercial
vehicle. Nobody knows. Code doesn't know. I have talked to them
until my ears about fell off. They don't know what a commercial
vehicle is. You talk about weight, one ton or over, they don't know.
As I have told them before, I have had case after case of trucks with
dual wheels on them. And they say, "Well, what's that got to do with
it?" You look at the manufacturers' specifications. The minute you
put dual wheels on it, you're over one ton limit. Same way they talk
about 220 inches long or 20 feet long, 240 inches long. The minute
you do that, you're getting into something that may be legal
weight-wise, but I don't know how it could be, because if you look at
the manufacturers' specifications, anything that big has got GVW of
about 10,000 pounds. Take GVW, subtract the vehicle weight and as
Mr. Mulhere has told me, at that point, the truck is illegal. I would
like to show you a couple of examples of trucks that I have had in my
neighborhood that's been -- who do I give these to -- that's been
disposed of through my efforts.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just wait when you talk until you get
back on the microphone. Just wait until you get back up there.
MR. WILSON: Now, the smaller vehicle there on the xerox
copy shows a truck that was in the neighborhood. It's an F-350, come
through with what they call just a short cab, a chassis cab. So the
guy puts a big steel bed on the back of it, and he's hauling pallets
of concrete, bags of concrete. He's in the pool business. That truck
legally, according to the manufacturer, is capable of carrying two and
a half tons. And I was told it's -- it's a one-truck truck. I said,
"Well, who told you it's a one-truck truck?"
"Well, I went to the dealer, and the dealer says, well,
that's what we call a one-ton truck."
And as I said, "I don't care what you call it. It's GVW
minus its truck weight is its load-carrying capacity, and it's two and
a half tons."
Same thing was called to the attention of the motor
vehicle department when I called them to give them the license number
and wanted to know who this belonged to. They told me -- they says
where did you get that number? I says off this particular truck.
They said that can't be. That series of license plates are only
issued to pickup trucks, and this is not a pickup truck. This
gentleman is hauling on our highways with two and a half tons and
paying for a license plate of a pickup truck.
Now, you talked about what are we going to do here about
these ordinances. They need to be rewritten. They're bad, terribly
bad. Motor homes, pickup trucks or commercial vehicles, overweight
trucks, boats. One ordinance says this has to be behind the house
covered with vegetation or screened in. Another one says, oh, no, you
can park it over here in the carport, in an open carport. Now, where
is the screening on that?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's not actually accurate.
MR. WILSON: Please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not actually accurate. That's
not what it says. It says parked in a garage, carport, or totally
enclosed structure and cannot be seen from the street.
MR. WILSON: It does say carport, though, doesn't it?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Cannot be seen from the street.
MR. WILSON: Well, okay. Now, I like your
interpretation. I like your interpretation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not my interpretation. That's
what it says.
MR. WILSON: That would have been my interpretation,
too, but unfortunately that's not the interpretation of other
persons. This particular item -- you will notice that xerox copy --
was made in 1989. 1994 we finally got rid of those trucks. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. WILSON: Could I have my pictures back?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure, absolutely. Which ones are
his?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are they needed for the record?
MR. WILSON: If you want them you can keep them.
MR. WEIGEL: They won't be a part of the record if he
doesn't submit them for the record, that's all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you submitting them for the
record?
MR. WILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, then they will become part of
the record.
MR. WITTENBERG: Am I on?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're on.
MR. WITTENBERG: I'm Hike Whittenberg. I'm a resident
of Golden Gate, and I'm a property owner in the Golden Gate City
area. I am a member of the board of the Golden Gate Civic
Association, and I was also present as the sheriff's representative in
the meeting Ms. Sullivan was talking about that we had to try to
discuss the ordinance. Again, I am going to try to relate this to the
ordinance, but I want to give a little history of why this ordinance
came about.
The Golden Gate -- Glenn mentioned that Golden Gate was
going downhill. This is very true, and we have been working as a
community to bring it back up. And what became evident is that the
commercial vehicles, especially in the rental property which are our
main thoroughfares in Golden Gate, were being degrading to our
neighborhoods. What I got with Ms. Sullivan and the group on is the
lack of a clear way for the public to understand what's legal and
illegal and the code enforcement to enforce it. And I think the first
part of my statement as far as what the public understanding what's
illegal and legal is probably the most important part.
And whether this ordinance changes -- passes or not, I
would ask the commission to mandate to whomever they need to to make
staff prepare something that maybe isn't legally sufficient but will
be in plain English that these people can understand how they can
screen. They don't have to go to a public hearing. If they're cited
for a violation, they can be handed something that's written in plain
English that they can understand what they can do to comply with the
law. Or if there's no way to comply, then they know they have to move
it to a different location. I would like to see that available when
they're given the 30 days to comply with their violation.
Rather than have to have them come to the Code
Enforcement Board, allow them the chance to comply with the ordinance
and make this a voluntary compliance thing rather than a forced
compliance. I feel that forced compliance through enforcement is
probably the least efficient method that we have. If we can get
voluntary compliance, we have reached our goals. And our goal isn't
to take people to court. Our goal is just to beautify our
neighborhoods. And I think that is the way we can do it through
education. And make that a mandate that staff prepare things that
could be clearly interpreted by the general public that don't have to
have a legal background to interpret them. And they would know
whether the sea grapes -- and that was mentioned by the one
commissioner -- would be acceptable or not, and it would be clear to
staff, also, what's acceptable then, too. Because otherwise it's
subject to interpretation whether the sea grapes or whether a picket
fence is -- or does it have to be an opaque picket fence or can it be
one that has little cracks in it. You know, something that we can
clearly tell people that this is acceptable, and then we're going to
avoid this controversy that these people invest hundreds and thousands
of dollars in equipment and fencing and screening just to be found
that it's legally insufficient. And that's where we're going to make
everybody mad, and we don't want to make people mad. We want to make
our community more beautiful.
Two questions for Ms. Sullivan. Did I understand that
commercial vans would be outlawed just because they were not passenger
vans? And I will try to get this into my minute and 49 seconds.
MS. SULLIVAN: Under the -- under the current ordinance
it says that the only thing allowed are automobiles, passenger vans,
and pickup trucks under one ton.
MR. WITTENBERG: Okay. But what I want -- what I don't
want to happen is that because somebody has the name of a business on
a van - -
MS. SULLIVAN: Signage doesn't have anything to do with
it.
MR. WILSON: Okay. Only if somebody is hanging off the
outside. Okay, the other question I have is -- I realize you're not
from Florida, but is a "peekup" truck the same as a pickup truck? MS. SULLIVAN: Pretty much.
MR. WITTENBERG: Okay, that's the only comment that I
have, and I thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's important to say
Hike is right in that I think the county's goal is the same and that's
compliance, not punishment. And actually these numbers might not
still be accurate, but I know when I was on the Code Enforcement
Board, it was something like 90 percent of everybody that was cited
would actually comply and would have to go to Code Enforcement Board.
But for those who don't think that they have to follow the law like
some people here earlier, then we do have the process to go through
Code Enforcement Board and determine who's right and who's wrong. But
I think you're right that the emphasis has to be on compliance, and
once somebody complies and hopefully through the assistance of us and
our staff then, you know, everybody is happy, and we don't need to go
through the board or CEB.
MR. WITTENBERG: I think I had a couple seconds left.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have got to be on the microphone.
We usually don't let you come back up so make it real quick.
MR. WITTENBERG: Okay. It's just that the
commissioner -- if we have been working on this and legal staff said
that we had a problem since last October, I was thinking if we just
had a mandate from the commissioners to ask that to be done, it would
probably happen. Otherwise we may be back here again for something
similar. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: The next speaker is Bill Kerrigan followed
by Vera Fitz-Gerald.
MR. KERRIGAN: Good evening. My name is Bill Kerrigan.
I am representing the Poinciana Civic Association of which I am
president of. Just let me ask one question first. Is a one-ton truck
that you see the lawn services driving around now considered legal?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you mean in what is proposed?
MR. KERRIGAN: What is proposed, what is now.
MS. SULLIVAN: For what is proposed, if it didn't exceed
the size of the size dimensions, it would be legal. Under the
proposed ordinance you have to meet both criteria. You have to be
under the size and you have to be under one ton, so that if your lawn
care vehicle had commercial equipment hooked to it, then it would be
illegal. Otherwise it would be legal.
MR. KERRIGAN: Well, we in Poinciana Village want
aggressive code enforcement. It is what, you know, maintains our
property values. That's how we look at that. I just think this idea
of the size and all -- look, it's one ton, it shouldn't be in there.
The city doesn't allow anything over three-quarters. I mean, what are
we going to do when we are going to call code enforcement? Are we
supposed to go into somebody's yard with a tape measure before we do
that? I mean, which civic association is going to have somebody shot
first? You know, this needs to be done. But I mean, you know, box
vans, you know, these F-350 recreational vehicles, they're huge. To
me you're talking Winnebago. I mean, if anything, the new ordinance
isn't tight enough. You know, we want aggressive code enforcement. I
don't want to see us turn into Cape Coral. I mean, I drive an Isuzu
pickup truck. I drove it here. But I mean, you know, we want
aggressive code enforcement, but we don't want, you know -- I mean,
there's a time and a place for anything. We don't want our
neighborhoods turned into industrial parks. So, you know, if anything
maybe you need to tighten this up. That's what we would like to say.
I mean, I don't want to see one-ton trucks, Winnebagoes, whatever, you
know. And I don't think the ordinance is that bad. When somebody
does have an RV vehicle and they visit their kid or something from up
north, I mean, they have got like what, two days, three days?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty-four hours, I think.
MR. KERRIGAN: You know, it's not, you know, there, but
I mean, it's, you know -- I think we need to look at this even more,
maybe get in there. And probably on May 20th we'd like to invite you
to our civic association meeting so you can show us and say that this
is the worst-case scenario. This is what is allowed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Poinciana Village a member of
the Second District Association? MR. KERRIGAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got a letter from the chairman
saying the board voted unanimously to oppose any change to the present
zoning regs.
MR. KERRIGAN: I abstained from it. We thought that
their -- that they are legible, I mean, that you can enforce them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that we're on the
same track. I don't think we need to change the ordinance, but I
think we need to enforce it more stringently.
MR. KERRIGAN: Well, I think like a one-ton truck is,
you know -- we used to call them up and they used to red-tag them.
But now from what I'm hearing here, they're not going to do it any
more?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not under the new regulations
they won't.
MR. KERRIGAN: I mean, it just seems to me to be, you
know, a loosening of the ordinance if anything.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know we have a couple more
speakers, but I might have crafted something that will solve a lot of
these, and I might not have. But after the speakers let me throw it
out there, and if it sticks, great. If not, I'll play never mind.
MR. KERRIGAN: I also appreciate the board for saying to
code enforcement don't be attorneys, be cops. That's what we need.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Bill.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No offense, Ms. Sullivan.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's Officer Sullivan to
you.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald. I live in
Naples Park. Just before I start speaking on this, I just want to say
one thing about the advertisements for the LDC meetings. They are so
esoteric that you absolutely have to be on the in to know what's going
on. You have no idea what you're going to talk about. And it took me
awhile. I'm not alone obviously.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rich King made it pretty clear.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I don't listen to Rich King. And
forget that editorial. I didn't know that Jeff Lytle drove a pickup.
The top of the trucks would be a gray area. I don't
want to see the top of a truck, because the next thing -- who's going
to determine how much of a truck you can see? Screen the whole
thing. I don't want to see any of it. I agree with the gentleman
from Poinciana. I would like to see this thing even tighter, like
three-quarters of a ton. The problem is the one ton has proved to be
unenforceable, and I know there's been cases -- and Ed Moran has told
me about cases that he himself has had and taken them to the code
enforcement. A lawyer has successfully argued that there was a
passenger seat in that vehicle, therefore, it was a passenger van.
And he wiggled out of it, and the guy got off. And so I want to see
this thing tightened up. The one ton is not quite sufficient. It is
not exact enough. A lot of people are getting away with very ugly
things. Like in our community there's a caterer that has two large
box -- silver box things on the back of his one-ton rated trucks. And
it would pass, and that's awful. But the two speakers -- the early
speakers I thought gave us the best arguments to tighten up this
regulation or ordinance that I have heard of. And I think the time to
comply, 30 days, is a bit long, also. What else did I want to say?
Others have said most of the points I had here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tick tock.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I don't want -- I would like to see it
remain at no more than 20 feet. I don't want to see it get bigger
than that. I can't think of anything else. Everyone has said the
points that I had. But I would like to see that ordinance tightened
up, please, really, to eliminate these ugly vehicles. If a person
can't afford to park a vehicle with a business, the business isn't
viable any way. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Back again. A1 Perkins, Belle-Meade
Groups Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. You got your work
cut out for you for the simple reason that you're going to have to try
to save the little guy that's trying to earn a buck so he can take and
move out onto a bigger piece of property, so he can grow his business
bigger and bigger and better, and keep throwing money into the
community, support his family, support this courthouse and you
commissioners and everybody else through his tax money. Every one of
these items are an issue, need to be addressed. I have a problem with
the code because of the extra traffic. If you require people that
they can park their trucks in a commercial area that needs security,
additional insurance, time on the road, traffic, impact on the road.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're just talking about
putting it in the backyard behind a screen.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. I'll address that also, okay?
First, compliance versus voluntary, that's very good. Mike did a good
job on this thing. Florida Power and Light trucks were brought up,
tow trucks. And when it comes down to my parking my motor home which
is 34 feet, 8 feet wide and 12 feet high right next to Cynthia's Party
World at Tim's house just because he wasn't invited to the party. Any
how, I'm sure code compliance would be out there on my back. One
other thing, too. Take into consideration when these vehicles -- if
you're going to run these vehicles out of the Estates, the impact at
the time of day --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We didn't cover the Estates, A1.
MR. PERKINS: Not -- in the Golden Gate. Not in the
Estates, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that I, you know --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not rule them out, screen them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Screen them in the city.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. I have no problem with that
providing that the people have an opportunity to earn their way out of
the situation they're in, because some of them are in a situation.
For example, if I sold my house or you sold your house and you moved
to an apartment waiting for your house to be built in the Estates
where you can put your equipment, what do you do with it in the
meantime? It takes five to eight months. So now you have a problem.
You have still got to take your kids to school. And your wife works,
too, just to make the ends meet. You need to take this into
consideration, okay? Let me go with this because you talked about the
fences and the plants in the backyard hiding them. What about the
fire trucks that may need to get into that backyard? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Emergency vehicles.
MR. PERKINS: Something has to be -- you know there has
to be some thought on this thing.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's parked in the front
or the side, they're going to have a heck of a time getting around to
the backyard anyway, A1.
MR. PERKINS: That's right. That's right. You got a
very good point, because some of the lots are too small to even get
down the side. This is something that's -- it's going to be a gray
area. And other than put an oppression on the people, some place down
the middle of this road here it needs some common sense, which you
already stated.
One thing that I do take exception to, if there is a
complaint made to the Code Enforcement Board, it's to be done in
writing with a signature at the bottom so that whoever is being
accused can face their accuser. This bunch of nonsense of doing it
over the telephone and nobody knows who did it and chasing people
around all over the place, that's out. Let's get down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there ever a time -- like at a
code enforcement hearing, do they get to face their accuser, I mean,
if there's concern about due process, constitutional issues? MR. PERKINS: Nobody knows who it is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The accuser is staff. If a
citizen calls in a complaint, staff follows up, and staff either
provides information or doesn't. They either create a file and file a
complaint or they create a file and say there is no valid base for the
complaint.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's not valid, it's never
made.
MR. PERKINS: Right. Okay, but let me go with a
harassment situation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perkins, we're talking about an
amendment to our --
MR. PERKINS: Right. Okay, well, I'll quit with that.
But at the same time take that into consideration that the person has
the right to confront his accuser.
Oh, one other thing, too. With the -- at one of the
meetings on code enforcement, somebody mentioned about calling code
enforcement because the garbage cans are rolling around the street
after six o'clock at night. And I thought it was ridiculous, and I
thought the person was ridiculous. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: The next speaker is Russell Wadsworth
followed by Sheri Barnett.
MR. WADSWORTH: For the record my name is Russ
Wadsworth, owner of Word of Mouth Painting. I would like to know,
when I licensed my vehicle, which is a '69 step van -- I upgraded from
a very rusty Suburban that was sitting in my driveway. I have
upgraded it over $8,000 for safety and specification reasons for what
I need. The total contents is about $19,000. It sits in my driveway,
has never been red-tagged, and when someone walks on my driveway, the
lights go on and light up my house, the road, and the house in front
of me. No one messes with it, okay? I cannot afford to take -- it's
undue hardship if I'm going to have to take that vehicle and park it
someplace else. Because if I park it in my backyard and it rains,
it's gonna stay there. I won't be able to get it out. And if you
want me to put muddy ruts all the way around my house to get to that
foliaged area, that ain't going to cut it. When I moved to Golden
Gate, I upgraded my house. I made it look much better than what it
was. And the people with their cameras should spend a little bit more
time on slumlords than vehicles like mine. My situation --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is your suggestion, then,
there should be no rules for --
MR. WADSWORTH: No, no. Mine is a foot and a half
above. It's never been red-tagged, but the guy down the street has,
okay? I need to -- when I went and I paid Collier County to license
this vehicle for my business, no one handed me any information saying
I couldn't park it on the property where my business is located at.
Collier County's problem, Collier County's fault. Nobody handed me
anything. They took my money, made sure I was insured, and that's all
that happened. Now, I found out after investing seven grand into this
vehicle, I have no way of knowing until a neighbor shows me a
photocopy of these rules and regulations. Now, no one has ever
red-tagged me, no one has complained, okay? I would like to know if I
took this vehicle, which is a foot and a half over size, and dug ruts
a foot and a half in the ground next to my driveway so I was down to
code, whether that would be legal?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Of course not. And just obviously one
of the basic tenants of law is just because you don't know about a law
doesn't excuse you from that law.
MR. WADSWORTH: But when I bought the truck and licensed
it as a commercial vehicle out of this house in Golden Gate, no one
notified me
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. We are not going to try as
a Code Enforcement Board your particular anecdotal case here now. MR. WADSWORTH: But I'm just explaining.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you didn't know that you weren't
supposed to kill people, would that excuse you from murder? It
doesn't. And the same thing applies here.
MR. WADSWORTH: It was taught in my school, the county
school, when I went to school, okay? This was not --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're wrong.
MR. WADSWORTH: Had I known --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're wrong, and if --
MR. WADSWORTH: Collier County is wrong for not
notifying me. Now, my situation is I have one other vehicle that my
wife uses.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. You're not going to try
your case here tonight in front of this board. We're talking about
amendments to the ordinance. If you have something to say -- MR. WADSWORTH: So what is the solution to my -- where
do I park my vehicle?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Take him.
MR. WADSWORTH: Where do I park my vehicle? That's my
question. If I can't park it there, where do I park it?
SARGENT CANADY: Time's up. Step outside just a minute,
please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the next one, please.
MR. WEIGEL: Sheri Barnett followed by the last speaker,
Tom Henning.
MS. BARNETT: I'm not sure I want to come up here. Good
evening. My name is Sheri Barnett, and I represent the Golden Gate
Civic Association. I am the president. I basically -- a lot of the
points have been covered. And I think just from listening to what I
have heard tonight, Iwm wondering if we might just need a definition
of commercial.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thatws exactly what we need.
MS. BARNETT: If we have that definition and it is
defined, then it would be enforceable, because it doesnwt matter if
itws size, height, weight, is it commercial or is it not commercial?
And thatws basically what Iwm going to say.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Point is well taken.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thatws exactly what we need.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Someone had mentioned earlier
well, yeah, I take my kids to school in the morning or whatever.
Wewre not saying a commercial vehicle is used exclusively for
commercial purposes. I could have an 18-wheeler and drop my kid off
at school in the morning, but it would still be fairly clear that that
wasnwt my family vehicle.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could be very popular with the
kids.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very popular.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Blow the horn again.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But, you know, I mean, it
doesnwt have to be exclusively commercial. It seems like some common
sense. I think youwre right, we need it.
MR. HENNING: Commissioners, I donwt want to be
repetitive. Mike Whittenberg, I think, is -- COURT REPORTER: Could I get your name, sir?
MR. HENNING: Oh, Tom Henning. Mike Whittenberg cleared
up some of the things that I wanted to say, and some of that,
identifications of commercial vehicles. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Is that the last speaker?
MR. WEIGEL: That was the last speaker, sorry.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We asked for -- we talked
defining commercial. I have yet to see a passenger step van, a
passenger cubed van, a passenger box van, or a passenger flat-bed type
truck. There are some types of vehicles that exist solely for
commercial purposes, and that is -- you know, thatws not disputable so
as far as -- you know, wewre looking for clear definition here. We
have a problem with the one-ton rating because some things they want
covered and theywre not and therews all kinds of modifications. If we
put size restrictions on it, again, wewre establishing rules that
therews going to be exceptions to. Therews going to have to be some
level of discretion on the part of the code enforcement officer, and
thatws why therews an appeal process to the Code Enforcement Board.
If therews any modification to be made to this, in my opinion -- I
have just kind of crafted something together. Either itws appealing
or not. If itws not, thatws fine, and wewll just leave it as is.
Any vehicle used in conjunction with a commercial or
business activity including but not limited to any step van, cubed
van, box van, flat-bed type truck or passenger vehicle, structurally
modified specifically for commercial application.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What are we going to do about
the automobiles and station wagons which are definitely passenger
vehicles but have commercial signage on their sides? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay, I just want to make that
clear.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, they have not been
structurally modified for commercial application. Putting a camper on
a truck does not count, because you can do that to a passenger
vehicle. But once you make a structural modification with commercial
application, it triggers.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it seems to me then what
you're talking about doing is that this -- we do not want to include
passenger-type vehicles that are specifically manufactured by the
manufacturer as a passenger vehicle?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Provided they have not been
modified with -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, what would be code?
Simply modify and put a seat in it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a guy on my street that
has a van with one seat in it and he stores things in it. But if I
have to look in his window to find out if it's a passenger vehicle or
not, I think that's going too far. What -- what we're talking about
is has it been modified so when it sits in the driveway it looks like
a commercial vehicle.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're looking in his
window, you are going too far.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I am, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with your point. I
think -- first of all I understand what you're saying, but we're not
going to craft wording that covers every single instance that's ever
going to come up and that's where the discretion of the code
enforcement officer is important. And that's ultimately why there's a
Code Enforcement Board and a court of law --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly.
MR. CONSTANTINE: -- so if it's disputed, they can
decide. But I think you have covered a lot of ground there that
wasn't previously covered or clarified ground that wasn't previously
clear but still keeps the strong intent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if you have that one-ton
vehicle with a big metal box on the back, you have altered it for
commercial application. It triggers. I'm having a tough time under
this finding the gray area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to hear from staff.
It sounds good to me. I'd like to hear what their opinion is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're also going to need to
come back in two weeks so that during the two weeks ensuing we can
work with the folks who have been putting it together to start with.
MS. SULLIVAN: Staff, like I told you, brought this
matter to the public forum just because we knew if we suddenly started
trying to enforce the ordinance as it has not been enforced for a long
time, we would get a public outcry. And I think there's been some
indication of that. The public needed some courtesy here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Exactly. That point has been raised,
yes.
MS. SULLIVAN: Staff, you know -- as long as staff can
get some direction as to -- to what you want, we will be happy to do
it or write it. We want to be clear as to what you want, actually.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
another question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ms. Sullivan, when these people
who were here tonight telling us that suddenly after X number of years
their vehicles were being cited, were they first given a warning
before they were cited and asked to correct and maybe somebody worked
with them to identify what ways that they could correct the problem,
i.e. screening?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Along the same line if I
understand the question, is our regular policy according to the
ordinance, even though you red-tag, to try to work with the people, or
do we just try to take them to court immediately?
MS. SULLIVAN: No, no. There is -- there is one other
issue which I -- which I think I need to bring up. The reason that we
don't take these cases to the Code Enforcement Board -- if you will
look at the Code Enforcement Board ordinance, it says that when we
take something to the Code Enforcement Board, the violation has to be
existing or be dismissed. What happens is somebody parks their
vehicle there the day before the Code Enforcement Board. They knew
when we go to the Code Enforcement Board and they said is the
violation existing, no, dismiss it. It's back the next day. That's
why we're trying to get this citation procedure through. Either the
Code Enforcement Board ordinance needs to be changed or, you know --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you start talking
about how we need to change it, let's talk about how it was enforced
originally. But I think in answer to your question, why don't we
do -- the first step isn't to go to CEB or to court. The first step
in to try to work with them and get compliance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's see if we can make some
closure on this. Go to page 77 and division 6.3, definition of
commercial equipment. I don't see anything in there that I object
to. I think that helps the Code Enforcement Board --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I mean, the code enforcement
department to operate the changes that are there. Because we have had
problems because a trailer was left connected to a truck of some sort.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But under commercial vehicle
I like Mr. Hancock's definition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me restate that if I may,
because it would then be my request to move that this language be
included for our hearing in two weeks.
Under commercial vehicle, colon, any vehicle used in
conjunction with a commercial or business activity including but not
limited to any step van, cubed van, box van, flat-bed type truck or
passenger vehicle structurally modified specifically for commercial
application.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have got problems, because
you're saying any vehicle, any commercial vehicle. And I think you're
then pulling the cars and station wagons into it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they have been modified
specifically for commercial purposes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're talking about the first
part that says any vehicle used in conjunction with a commercial or
business activity including --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Including but not limited to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then Mr. Weigel might have an
answer, because the statement, "including but not limited to," states
perimeters but not absolutes. So what follows, then, says these are
the guidelines that we will go by but they are not absolute
guidelines. We can go outside of them. And a passenger vehicle with
commercial signing on it is not cited there; is that a fair approach?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. But remember to take into
context the fact that that's only the definition that you're dealing
with right there of commercial vehicle. But under Section 2.6.7.3.1
at the top of the next page of the agenda packet is, in fact,
paragraph number four which specifically exempts automobiles and
passenger-type vans. So if you take those two paragraphs together,
the one, the definitional paragraph, commercial vehicle and looking at
this section I just cited which starts out saying it's unlawful to
park a commercial vehicle, you have got your definition keying into
the first sentence there, and then you have got the exemption under
sub part four, and I think that they will work together that way.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me craft that exemption more
appropriately for the wording.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Delete number four altogether.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Delete four except that you would
have to leave in automobiles, passenger-type vans and pickup trucks
not structurally modified specifically for commercial application.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can deal with that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that takes care of
Commissioner Matthews' concerns.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. It's better.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll give Mr. Weigel the
leeway to tweak that a little bit between now and two weeks from now
before we hear it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Beyond the language I suggested
on commercial vehicle, I would also suggest a change under item four
of Section 2.6.7.3.1 would be revised to read as follows: Automobiles
and passenger-type vans and pickup trucks not structurally modified
specifically for commercial application.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Vince has a comment.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vince Cautero
for the record. I believe that's easily interpreted, and I believe
that the way it's reading -- reads now is easily interpreted, but we
did have that debate and slash four. I would suggest you put in
semicolons or bullet items or something like that, because we can
still get into the situation with the new language that we have with
the current language. I agree with Ms. Student's opinion that she
rendered last year with the one ton. I know you're not talking about
weight in this case, but the -- the latter part of that sentence says
pickup trucks having the weight load capacity of one ton or less. My
staff's opinion is the same as legal's in this case in that the latter
part of the definition deals just with the pickup trucks when you're
talking about one ton or less. We still may get into a situation with
the wording that you're proposing, so I believe and/or is needed or
semicolons or bullet items to make it clear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That it applies to all vehicles.
MR. WEIGEL: All of which -- all of which are not
structurally --
MR. CAUTERO: Maybe something like that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whatever can be crafted to
accomplish that, I am fully agreeable to.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think Mr. Weigel has his direction
on that. And that's 2.6.7.3.1 paragraph four. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, now, let's go back. The
definition for commercial equipment, we all agree that that will stay
as amended?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the commercial vehicle definition
we will take as amended or suggested by Commissioner Hancock and ask
Mr. Weigel to make sure that meets the need.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To dot my I's and cross my T's.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That it's legally sufficient. And
that I think clarifies the definition of a commercial vehicle which is
what we're trying to do.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask one final question?
We are eliminating, then, the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Size.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- restrictions on size?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're going to call a
commercial vehicle a commercial vehicle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what we're trying to do.
Okay. So we are done with that item, Mr. Hulhere.
MR. HULHERE: On page 79 it's just a minor change.
Certain requirements for submissions for conditional uses. It was
permissive. It said "may" and we require that people submit them
so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shouldn't that be "shall"
instead of "should"?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you want to require it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you want to require it, it
should be "shall".
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It should say "shall"? Okay.
MR. HULHERE: On page 80 it starts -- again, I believe
to an extent over the years we have had some questions on certain
variances that have come through, and we decided to take a
comprehensive look at how other communities and how the current
professional literature treats variances. The traditional language
that, you know, there be a hardship related to the land is
basically -- I think Ms. Student can testify -- comes from the
original Police Powers Act which is 75 years old. We have tried to
really update our language. Mr. Nino looked at the research and
worked on this.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We heard about this in a variance
hearing that we were having trouble with. And it is exactly what
Mr. Nino told us we would be seeing as an improvement. I think it's
an improvement, so unless somebody has questions about it, I would
rather not discuss it all night.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with the
wording proposed.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a big improvement.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tell me again what this accomplishes,
this change in wording.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My understanding on the direction
was it takes away the only criteria that we have been using which is
hardship and basically says, look, if it doesn't hurt anybody and it's
really immaterial to everyone else, then it's okay.
MR. HULHERE: Or if it promotes the public health,
safety, and welfare.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Which is something that
we were missing because we have been using the strict test of
hardship. We found over time that some of these made sense but didn't
meet a hardship test, and we had no ability under a consistent
approach to approve it.
MR. HULHERE: We don't -- we don't think it in any way
weakens the ability to deny a variance that isn't justified. It just
gives us a little bit more grounds to look at unique circumstances.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's say we had a variance to a zero
setback on a side yard, for example. We would then lose the ability
to require landscaping along that side yard because there's no room
because we went to zero; is that a health safety?
MR. HULHERE: It could be. It certainly could be argued
that way. It certainly could be argued that way.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So with this modification we
would have the ability to say you can't landscape, that's a health,
safety, welfare issue?
MR. HULHERE: I think somebody could make that
argument. And if the board felt that was a valid argument, you'd have
to wait until you got to the hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would read that section as
diminution of regulation is found to have no measurable impact on the
public interest, safety, or welfare. I think that would have a
diminution on public interest because the community would be impacted
by it, so, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Back to buffering.
MR. HULHERE: Or whether it was out of character with
the surrounding neighbors. I really think this increases our
ability -- the staff's ability and the board's ability -- to look at
specific issues rather than the broad -- there's no land use hardship,
but we feel that this is a justified request or a not justified
request. We should be tied basically to a land-related hardship.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In your opinion, this does not
provide the ability for variance requesting approved as a right in any
given situation?
MR. HULHERE: No, sir. No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sufficiently vague.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The lawyers read it.
MR. HULHERE: Page 84. Tom Cook is here, engineering
section manager. This is some language, and the next few pages
actually are some language proposed by he and his staff. I'm going to
let Mr. Cook speak to the issues if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions from the board?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nope. Good practical changes is
what they look like to me.
MR. HULHERE: Okay. Moving along to page 90 -- nope,
page 94. Oh, page 97. This is another change which this board, based
on your previous action, may not wish to entertain -- go out on a
limb. This was a staff-proposed change to allow for EAB approval for
some coastal construction control line setback variances.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, same argument. I don't
believe that EAB ought to have board authority.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I'm saying I agree.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim? He's nodding. That's five.
MR. HULHERE: Then the very last change proposed is a
definitional change to building height. I just want to let you know
that this has been the -- administratively determined. In other
words, this is how we have determined the code to date. But we felt
it was something we should clarify and explain and even put some
perameters on. Thus the 20 foot maximum number height for structures
on the top of the roof that would contain, for example, fire
suppression equipment, and the one-story limitation on recreational
facilities. You have tennis courts or pools sometimes up on top of
the high-rise building, and they put a little either like a lanai-type
structure or some sort of a -- get them out of the sun type thing.
And it's not habitable, and we don't feel as though that should be
included in the definition of height.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To answer that serious rooftop
tennis concern that's floating about the community. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Say that again, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: I think this is specific generally to some
of the high-rise buildings. There are requirements for certain types
of infrastructural equipment, and they put them on the roof, whether
it be telephone equipment or whether it be fire suppression equipment,
and they usually put a housing or a structure over that to protect it
from the elements. And we have -- we have traditionally not counted
the height of that structure toward the maximum height requirement.
We talk about habitable floors, and so we have not had that. We just
wanted to spell that out in the code a little more clearly.
Additionally, there are some recreational facilities on top of those
same types of structures. You might have a swimming pool or tennis
court. I don't know if we have many swimming pools, but I know we
have some -- or just to be able to take advantage of the view, and so
they will put a little structure. And we said, you know, if it's
limited to one story, that's fine. It's not habitable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But this gives it 20 feet; is that
necessary to go that high?
MR. MULHERE: That actual dimension was placed by the
Planning Commission on their -- it was fairly arbitrary, I think. It
just --
STAFF PERSON: From the planning review standpoint, I
have done a few of the buildings in Pelican Bay and on Gulf Shore. I
don't remember ever seeing anything over about 12 or 13 feet unless
they did an architectural peak on a roof or something.
MR. MULHERE: I think you're probably right unless they
designed it. I can think of one -- I think there's one on Cape Marco
that has a little sort of building on top that's architecturally
designed with a roof. But, yeah, it may be well within the 20 feet
guidelines or below, or 15. That was really a fairly arbitrary
figure. We just didn't want it to go too high but recognizing some of
that mechanical equipment probably exceeds 10 feet.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think it's going to be
problematic.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: What do you mean by habitable?
MR. MULHERE: Living space. In other words, you don't
have the night watchman or there's no kitchen.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. But if you had a pool or
a tennis facility or something up there, if it's not habitable, would
that also include a small lounge or a club room? MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we could extrapolate just a
little bit further and have a snack bar and kitchen?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that there are some
circumstances where that exists today. You do have a recreational
facility for the people that live in the building, yes, maybe a wet
bar or even a bathroom facility.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Isn't habitable where there's a
kitchen? I mean, I know in the City of Naples they have made a real
clear distinction about if you can have a microwave, you can't have a
stove, you can have an oven. It's real clear what's habitable. It's
if you're going to live there.
MR. HULHERE: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. HULHERE: And we don't want to give the impression
that we're allowing someone addition living space up there, but there
are circumstances where that exists.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A community room with a sink in
it. Take advantage of the view.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ice maker.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ice maker, rest room with a
shower.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Microwave but no oven.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next thing you know you have got
a sleep sofa.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would they do it this way, and I
haven't had complaint one or problem one so this is just a
clarification. I understand we could probably pick it to death.
MR. HULHERE: Commissioner Constantine mentioned two
weeks. Actually, just for clarification, the next meeting is on the
8th, so it's three weeks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's not here so never mind.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The last one is 6.102.
MR. HULHERE: Yeah, the last change is just a change in
the bond format that we used, indications that the current bond form
is unclear as to expiration date. You have cleared that up, and it's
been reviewed by the county attorney's office in support of that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further comments from the board?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nope.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything further?
MR. HULHERE: We'll bring back these changes with your
corrections in three weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:45 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
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: Debra J. Peterson