The URL can be used to link to this page

Item O2 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Item Summary Meeting Date: July 17,2002 Bulk Item: Yes [] No . Division: Board of County Commissioners Department: George R. Neugent AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Report from Kieran Mahoney, Chairman of the Citizens Code Committee on its completed review of the Monroe County Code Section 9.5 (Land Development Regulations) ITEM BACKGROUND: PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: CONTRACT I AGREEMENT CHANGES: \. " STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: TOTAL COST: ~/A BUDGETED: YES [] NO [] COST TO COUNTY: $ REVENUE PRODUCING: YES [] NO [] AMT PER MONTH: YEAR: APPROVED BY: COUNTY ATTY [] OMB/PURCHASING [] RISK MANAGEMENT [] APPROVAL: r Commi sioner GEORGE . NEUGENT DISTRIcr II DOCUMENTATION: INCLUDED. TO FOLLOW [] NOT REQUIRED [] DISPOsmON: AGENDA ITEM # ~~- Citizens Code Committee June 19, 2002 TO: Mayor Sonny McCoy Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Dixie Spehar Commissioner Murray Nelson Commissioner Bert Jimenez FROM: Kieran Mahoney, Chairman RE: Transmittal of Final Report Dear Commissioners: Pursuant to your directive, your Citizens Code Committee has completed its review of Monroe County Code, Section 9.5 (Land Development Regulations). We enclose herewith a list of "trouble spots" that we feel need to be addressed to assist you in determining "what parts of the Code are incomprehensible to the layman". Over the course of our six-month review, we were ever mindful of your request for us to compile a list of code sections that we "felt were antiquated, needed to be deleted, or needed to be significantly revised... with reason and cause fully specified". We found early on that any meaningful review of the Land Development Regulations necessitated an understanding of the Policy Document, from which the Land Development Regulations are derived, as well as access to the many Interpretations, which govern implementation. Sitting as a Committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners with two extremely capable and knowledgeable staff assistants, we were able to complete our review and develop an understanding of these complex and sometimes confusing regulations in a manner not readily available to the ordinary citizen. Unfortunately, the volumes of material that make up our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, of which Section 9.5 is only a part, in itself might seem intimidating and incomprehensible to the layman. Your appointees to this Committee were representative of varied backgrounds, interests and desires as they relate to development, or non-development here in Monroe County, and worked diligently towards delivering a report aimed at facilitating the pursuit of your "goal to clarify and simplify County Code". We established a methodology, which enabled individual voting members of the Committee to rank changes to the code proposed by committee members. Each member ranked each proposed change from 1 (lowest priority) to 5 (highest priority) and prioritized our concerns at a final ranking session at our May meeting. It should be noted that the highest possible score any single item could receive is 40 points due to the fact we had only 8 voting members who were present, at our May meeting. Although the highest rankings and most common areas of concern relate to RaGa and Flood Plain Management Regulations, all committee members share a common belief that other, lower ranked, concerns should not be viewed as any less important when considering changes and/or rewrites aimed at simplifying the Code. Committee members put forth a significant effort listening to each other and discussing varying points of view. We also considered input from members of the public communicated at our meetings and directly to individual committee members. We understand the frustration felt by those looking for a logical or common sense approach to some of our most controversial regulations. Although there doesn't appear to be an easy answer or quick fix, your appointment of a Citizens Code Committee is admirable and should be viewed by many as a constructive first step. We do believe that public understanding of, and ease of participation in, the decision making process is essential to generating a positive public perception of the rules and regulations that govern the development and use of property here in Monroe County. As you proceed ahead over the coming months with your review of planned rewrites to the code, we trust you will find our recommendations informative and useful. However, this committee, as well as members of the public who have followed our proceedings, are concerned as to how our recommendations will be accepted and what action will be taken by the Commission and Administration. We would respectfully request a staff report back to you, within a reasonable time period, assessing the viability of our concerns and recommendations, especially as they relate to the proposed rewrites of Section 9.5. The ongoing benefits to the Commission, the Administration and the public of a well-balanced, independent group such as the Citizens Code Committee could be substantial. We, as a committee, recommend some sort of continued citizen involvement such as your Citizens Code Committee in the future provided the relevancy of this committee and the previous code committee's input can be demonstrated. On behalf of all who served on this Citizens Code Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in your process to "clarify and simplify" a Section of County Code that has such a profound effect on those who seek to develop, use and enjoy property here in Monroe County. Kieran J. Mahoney Chairman Citizens Code Committee encl. CITIZEN CODE COMMITTEE "FINAL REpORT" PREPARED FOR: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7/17/02 Citize11 Code COlnmittee Floodplain Management Ordinance-Remove Requirement for Deed Restrictions 35 Points SECTION 9.5-317(b)(1)(d)(iii) The requirement for Deed Restrictions, Affidavits and Mandatory Inspections for using approved finish materials below the base flood elevation should be removed from the Ordinance. DISCUSSION: Chairman Mahoney stated that deed restrictions with regard to downstairs enclosures were unnecessary and showed a distrust of its citizens. Implementation of Community Master Plans 33 Points The implementation of the CommuniKeys Planning Program will answer the need for a workable definition of the term "Community Character". The Planning Division, however, should not settle on final "community" definitions for the development of Community Plans without further exploration and discussion with local people to be certain that the "communities" selected have already established internal, formal and informal, social linkages. II Potable \Vater Standards II 32 Points The County should explore ways to actively support, and not just "encourage", the installation and use of cisterns to reduce demand for potable water. This support could take the form of property tax credits, waiver of permit fees, securing grants, and sponsorship of County-wide publicity. Floodplain Management Ordinance (change ""limited storage" to storage) I 32 Points Except as noted in paragraph 7 of this subsection (B), the space below the lowest floor of an elevated structure shall be used exclusively for parking of vehicles, elevators, limited storage or building access purposes. For the purpose of lawn mowers, rakes, wheelbarrows and similar equipment. Limited storage does not apply to household items such as furniture. 06/27/02 Page 1 of 18 Provide policy for permits in central sewer areas 32 Points Some areas of the keys have been identified as "hot" areas with large concentrations of septic pits. Plans and funds have been allocated for a central sewer system. Residents in these areas that would like to perform minor renovations and additions to their homes are currently required to install a sewage treatment plant that typically costs $15,000.00 to $20,000.00. They will then be required to abandon these plants and hook up to the central system. There should be an amnesty policy for sewage treatment plants for residence in these areas. DISCUSSION: Members generally believed that interim systems may be a good idea in designated hot spots, but noting consistent delays, thought that the stage in the central sewage process should be of an advanced level before interim systems are considered. ROGO - Elimination of high wind ROGO points 3 I Points Elimination of high wind ROGO points - currently additional ROGO points are awarded for 165 and 175 mph wind loading. The newly adopted Florida Building Code requires product testing for impact and wind testing to ISO mph. Manufactures do not test to 165 or 175mph. This is in direct conflict with the ROGO award. DISCUSSION: The Committee generally agreed that extra points should not be given for something that has not been tested. II Code Index II 31 Points For the layperson, the Code Index is perplexing. Reorganization and greater detail is required for ease of referencing specific subjects. DISCUSSION: Ms. Patterson believes a more detailed index would help citizens more easily locate topics Vice- Chairman Craig stated that this would not have the same problems as addingfootnotes. Floodplain Management Standards 30 Points The County's Ordinance should reflect the minimum standards as required by FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program. 06/27/02 Page 2 of 18 DISCUSSION: Chairman Mahoney believes that the County should adopt the minimum FEMA standards. Certificates of Occupancy: Inspections & C.O. at time of transfer 29 Points The County should amend its Code to provide that a Certificate of Occupancy be issued, following County inspection, before the deed to a residential property can be transferred. Such an inspection should confirm that County ordinances are being met and that septic systems are in good working order and properly sized for the occupancy. DISCUSSION: Mr. West would like to see a an inspection take place and a C/O issued on the sale of all residential property in order to eliminate people buying illegal downstairs enclosures. Mr. Stone expressed his displeasure with the idea of allowing the County on the property. Commissioner Neugent noted that Mr. West has a valid point that if this had been in place we may have been better off. He also notes that he has concerns similar to Mr. Stone regarding the intrusion aspect. He added that the fact the County is in quite a mess in doing things illegally and it is costing the taxpayers a lot of money. He believes that the Committee should take a hard look at the issue. In addition he has been hearing that realtors have been misinforming the public by telling them that illegal enclosures in place for more than four years are now legal. He believes that this may not be the case. Chairman Mahoney noted that he too has heard that a lot of the realtors are purporting that idea. He recommended that the County provide the realtors specific language on what to tell potential buyers. Mr. Coleman noted that this process is more regulation, not less. He also added that it should be insured that staff can perform the inspections in a timely manner. Commissioner Neugent added that a system such as this may also help the County when they negotiate with FEMA. A sample ordinance from Long Beach Township, New Jersey and a list of inspection requirements for a resale certificate of occupancy are found in Appendix A. Floodplain Management Or-dinance - r-estrictions on workshops 29 Points No enclosure below the base flood elevation shall be constructed or equipped for such uses as a kitchen, lining room, family room, recreation room, office, bedroom, bathroom or workshop. The Monroe County zoning laws address all of these items with the exception of recreation rooms and workshops. Recreational use of a downstairs enclosure would be a reasonable use of private property, especially considering the lack of recreational facilities in the Lower Keys. A workshop located on private property, is and has always been a necessary part of the household. Routine maintenance on a home certainly requires a variety of tools and shop facilities. If you factor in a disaster, a boat, automobile, chain saw and various mechanical appliances, you'lI find that you will need a workshop. 06/27/02 Page 3 of 18 II ROGO - lottery system II 28 Points The placement of ROGO with a newer fairer system. Straight lottery system might be the answer. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chairman Craig summarized his thoughts saying that the current ROGO system favors the wealthy and suggested a Lottery system while setting some permits aside for affordable housing. Mr. Pike suggested that he believed that the system did not need to be eliminated, just "tweaked". Vice-Chairman Craig added that building would still have to meet a minimum level of standards. Mr. West and Chairman Mahoney added that ROGO is a grossly unfair system. Office in the Home - eliminate requirement for public hearing 29 Points It should not be necessary to have a hearing if you wish to have an office in your home. Providing that: No impact on community No traffic No signs Proposing: a home office should be licensed with stated business and reasonable license fee paid. DISCUSSION: The item was amended to allow for a notice to the public allowing the decision to be appealed by the public. I ROGO - Eliminate credit for low volume plumbing fixtures Points 26 Elimination of the "low volume plumbing fixture credit" - Most if not all plumbing fixtures already meet the minimum requirements - it's a waste of ROGO point - reinstate the energy efficiency credit. DISCUSSION: Some members of the Committee believe that extra points for recommended plumbing fzxtures was unnecessary as the environmentally responsible fixtures are pretty much the industry standard. Environmental Standards - Compliance with Policy I and funds Points 26 SECTION 9.5-347 and SECTION 9.5-348(0)(6) In order to assure consistency with Policy of the Comp Plan, the BOCC should request that the Planning Department, in cooperation with the Property 06/27102 Page 4 of 18 Appraiser's Office, make an immediate effort to estimate the current "Just Value" of all unimproved parcels and lots that will become unbuildable under the newly revised Environmental Standards ~ivision ofthe LOR's. This report should be forwarded to the BOCC in a timely manner. DISCUSSION: Chairman Mahoney reiterated his stand regarding the County making sure funds are available to buy land deemed unbuildable. II Footnotes in the LDRs II 25 Points It should be clearly understood that it might be some time before all the LORs have footnotes and that this is not a request to burden Planning Staff in an immediate research process. The cross-referencing would be accomplished as the LOR rewrites are completed. Footnotes are currently being used during the draft rewrites. However, the footnotes are removed before the final copy goes to print. These footnotes would need to be recognized as a "reference" tool only and not to be construed as legally binding. DISCUSSION: Ron Stone agreed with Ms. Patterson that adding footnotes to the LDR's may help clarify the document for the lay person. Vice-Chairman Craig noted that he has some concerns with the legality issues of having footnotes as well as concerns the problems it may create when crafting ordinances, Floodplain Management Ordinance - inspections non-permitted enclosures 25 Points The County should implement the agreement with FEMA to conduct inspections of FEMA insured homes to provide information to FEMA regarding insurability, The question of insurability is one to be settled between owners, FEMA and private insurers who may be interested in this market. The County should use the FEMA inspection program to identify ground level enclosures constructed since 1996 without permits. These enclosures should be removed at owners' expense. The County should use the FEMA inspection program to identify duplex apartments, in districts where they are prohibited, that have not been permitted as variances or non-complying uses under Monroe County ordinances or that, absent proof of continuing use as second family dwellings, have been abandoned. These facilities should be removed at owners' expense. Allow for the filing of applications electronically Points 25 06/27/02 Page 5 of 18 More notification to surrounding property owners Points 25 Market Value or Fair Market Value (definition) Points 24 Should be added as a definition. Market Value is defined as: "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite of a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus." Market Value should not be confused with Assessed Value. DISCUSSION: Chairman Mahoney believes adding a definition for F MV would bring clarification to the LDR's Definition Needed: Principal uses or structure Points 23 II Definition Needed: Gross floor area (gfa) Points 22 Higher per'centage of drought resistant exotic species Points 22 II Direct consulting firm, MAXIMUS, to set objectives & monitor performance Points 22 Growth Management Division should direct its consultant, Maximus, in its analysis of the Division's management processes to identify specific performance measures that can be used by the Division in setting objectives, monitoring performance, benchmarking with similar units of government in other jurisdictions, and in reporting to the Administrator, the Bacc and the Public. 06/27/02 Page 6 of 18 Assess Value of unbuildable lots & notification propert~. owners Points 21 Send a letter of "NOTIFICATION" to all owners of unimproved property in Monroe County informing them that recently approved revisions, as well as future amendments, to Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan may affect the future use of their property. The letter, or letters, should be of such form and content that affected property owners gain a clear understanding of County Policy as it relates to the development potential of unimproved properties in the Keys. Particular emphasis should be placed on the County's intent to: Undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program; revise the existing residential permit allocation system; and retire development rights on privately owned vacant lots. Specific "NOTIFICATION: should go to all owners of lots in the Improved Subdivisions whose properties are designated with KEYWEP scores that render them "un buildable" or requiring mitigation. The Monroe County Property Appraiser should be furnished with list ofRE#'s of all lots on the County's wetland list. DISCUSSION: Chairman Mahoney reiterated his stand regarding the County making sure funds are available to buy land deemed unbuildable. Appeals from administrative actions Points 21 The following filing fees are hereby established pursuant to this chapter: For any proposal by a landowner or person having contractual interest in property desiring to petition the board of county commissioners for an amendment to the land use district map......................................,... $250.00 Any person filing an appeal from an administrative interpretation or decision by any administrative official with respect to the provisions of this chapter and/or the comprehensive land use plan......... ......... ......... ............ ... $250.00 This section needs to be significantly revised, The only appeal fees specified in the LDRs are as stated above. However, when an Application for Administrative Appeal to the Planning Commission is submitted to the Monroe County Planning Department, the applicant is required to pay other non- refundable fees in addition to the $250 Appeal Application Fee. Other fees (which are not part of, or specified in the LDRs) include, but are not limited to, "A packet reproduction fee... to be assessed at a later date" - essentially a "blank check". 06/27/02 Page 7 of 18 DISCUSSION: Vice-Chairman Craig stated that citing fees in the LDR's as conditions may change over time. Ms. Patterson clarified that she merely wanted the LDR's to acknowledge that there are fees, but did not intend for them to give exact figures. II Revision to Planning Department II Points 20 This section needs significant revision. Some suggestions are listed below but this does not necessarily cover every point that should be considered. Possibly change the title to Department of Growth Management. Sec. 9.5-24 (d) (1) should be corrected; the director of planning does not select the building official. The Annotation on page 800.23 states - "... that the building official report to the county administrator through the planning director." Need to create sections reflecting the following existing positions (description to include minimum qualifications, jurisdiction, duties and authority): Director of Growth Management Planning Commission Attorney Planning Staff Attorney DISCUSSION: Vice-Chairman Craig suggested creating a planning department to create a community plan, creating a zoning and permitting department, and limiting the planning commissions authority to reviewing only Comp Plan amendments. Mr. West was uncomfortable recommending such a change as an outsider looking in. He noted however that if a meeting with MAXIMUS would have helped. Vice-Chairman Craig noted that he was invited to attend the focus group with MAXIMUS. He added that there were only three participants in his session. Mr. West stated that he attended the other focus group and that there were only two other attendees. It was his opinion that they were looking more for confirmation of their findings rather than citizen input, Ms. Patterson added that she was an observer at a focus group and that she too was disappointed in the turn out. Chairman Mahoney added that MAXIMUS' inability to meet with the CCC, Ms. Conaway's prior memo to Commissioner Williams requesting not implementing a Citizen Code Committee due to staff limitations, and the hiring of an outside firm to complete the LDR rewrites all demonstrate the lack of support the CCC has had in attempting to complete it's task. 06/27/02 Page 8 of 18 Change in process for making Administrative Interpretations Points 20 Implement my earlier suggestion for change to the process for making administrative interpretations, earlier presented to the committee. Reorganize entire Code by District Points 20 Reorganize the entire Code by district to include within each zoning district description all the applicable bulk and other standards rather than referring to other sections of the Code. Rearrange Code by placing seldom used parts towards rear Points 19 Structurally, place seldom-used parts of the Code toward the rear of the Code for ease of use by the public and others. Change Code to req uire Developmcnt Ordcr within 10 days of hearing II Points 19 Change the Code to require the development order to be rendered within ten (10) days of the public hearing. Clarify meanino of ""Iibcrally construcd" bv addinoverbaue . ~ . . ~ ~ Points 19 All provisions, terms, phrases and expressions contained in this chapter shall be liberally construed in order that the true intent and meaning of the Board of County Commissioners may be fully carried out. The phrasing of this paragraph allows and perhaps encourages unelected officials to make policy. The paragraph should include the wording from article I in general 9.5-1 p. 773. DISCUSSION: This item was amended by Mr. Stone. Rather than removing the phrase liberally construed he would like to amend the sentence to stry "liberally construed infavor of the property owner". 06/27/02 Page 9 of 18 Housing above commercial proper~' 19 Points The County should consider amending density impacts, traffic studies, sewage concerns, and height limitation etc. to increase availability of affordable housing. Utilizing upper level space on commercial structures for apartments would be a zero impact way of addressing this issue. Commercial property owners should receive credit for participation in a solution to the affordable housing crisis, and certainly not be penalized, as is the current practice. Floodplain Management Ordinance ""manufactured homes" - ""mobile homes" 18 Points Subsection (b).(4) on pages 800.190.5-800.190.7 refers to "manufactured homes" with respect to placing them in flood hazard areas, replacing them, etc. The term "manufactured home" is ambiguous. Both "mobile" homes and "modular" homes are manufactured off-site, but that's about all they ha'.'e in common. Modular homes and mobile homes are both defined in Sec. 9.5-4, but no definition exists for "manufactured" homes. It's fairly obvious that "mobile homes" IS what was intended, as the subsection also refers to "manufactured home parks". All references to "manufactured" homes in the subsection should be changed to "mobile" homes. DISCUSSION: General consensus was that the language on this item needed clarification. Reference Moor'oe County OR Unincorporated Monroe County 18 Points To eliminate misunderstanding or misinterpretation, specific references should be made to Monroe County or unincorporated Monroe County. DISCUSSION: Mr. Opperman stated he did not believe this issue was not worthy enough to mention. Mr. West added that he supported Ms. Patterson's work. 06/27/02 Page 10 of 18 Revised Structure for Planning Department 18 Points Create a Director of Permitting and Development and a Planning Director position. At the same time, restructure the Planning Commission to review no projects, but only Comprehensive Plan amendments, historic place designations and zoning changes. The Director of Permitting and Development would prepare reports for consideration by a "hearing officer" who could hear from the applicant, the County and the public hearing conducted in the style of the quasi - judicial hearings now conducted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission could concentrate on the completion of the Community Plans that are now the priority of the County BOCC. This would allow the planning staff now in place to concentrate on the areas of their expertise, which is obviously not the day to day permitting of projects. The sections of the Code affected by this suggested change are numerous, from definition section all the way through to the appeals sections. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chairman Craig suggested creating a planning department to create a community plan, creating a zoning and permitting department, and limiting the planning commissions authority to reviewing only Comp Plan amendments. Mr. West was uncomfortable recommending such a change as an outsider looking in. He noted however that if a meeting with MAXIMUS would have helped. Vice-Chairman Craig noted that he was invited to attend the focus group with MAXIMUS. He added that there were only three participants in his session. Mr. West stated that he attended the other focus group and that there were only two other attendees. It was his opinion that they were looking more for confirmation of their findings rather than citizen input. Ms. Patterson added that she was an observer at a focus group and that she too was disappointed in the turn out. Chairman Mahoney added that MAXIMUS' inability to meet with the CCC, Ms. Conaway's prior memo to Commissioner Williams requesting not implementing a Citizen Code Committee due to staff limitations, and the hiring of an outside firm to complete the LDR rewrites all demonstrate the lack of support the CCC has had in attempting to complete it's task. II Existing Definitions: Lot II 17 Points Lot means a parcel of land occupied or intended for occupancy by an individual use including one (1) main structure together with accessory structures, yards, open spaces, buffer areas and parking spaces. 06/27/02 Page 11 of 18 The current definition is inaccurate and subject to misinterpretation. Not all lots are occupied or intended for occupancy. AdditionaIly, the definition does not address whether boundaries are limited and fixed, nor does it address how a lot may be identified. II Clear Statement "Preface'" II 1 7 Points Preface the LORs section of the code with an explanation (front and back), directing the user how the LORs work and how they fit into the Monroe County Code. DISCUSSION: Mr. Opperman believed that the current mission statement is adequate. Vice-Chairman Craig added that to go beyond what is already there would be to risk inconsistencies. He added that there is a 40 page book, completed while he worked for the county available in the library explaining the LDR's II Pineland Hammock II 16 Points This section requires those damaging pineland hammock to replace 'slash pine'. County LDRs SHOULD require rapacious, greedy developers to replace damaged areas. However, 'slash pine' is not available in the Florida Keys or South Florida area nurseries. Dade County pine is considered essentially the same as 'slash pine' and without change in this LDR language, a person required to replace 'slash pine' is forced to go to another pineland and commit a crime i.e. remove 'slash pine' from another undamaged area. Suggest language be changed to reflect available live pine stock. Existing Definitions: Recreation Vehicle 16 Points Should be changed to conform to the National Highway Transportation Administration's definition. The definition in the LOR's is outdated. Many of the newer Class A type motor homes today are 40'-45'in length with slide-outs. The current definition in the LOR's limits an RV to 35' in length 400 Sq. Ft. when measured at the largest horizontal projection. DISCUSSION: Chairman Mahoney believed the LDR's should be revised to accommodate the increasing size of RV's in the county. 06/27/02 Page 12 of 18 II Existing Definitions: Open Space II 16 Points Open space means that portion of any parcel or area of land or water which is required to be maintained such that the area within its boundaries is open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky. Open space is not always scarified land as implied by "unobstructed from the ground to the sky". Existing Definition: Parcel of land 16 Points Parcel of land means any quantity of land and water capable of being described with such definiteness that its location and boundaries may be established, which is designated by its owners or developer as land to be used or developed as a unit, or which has been used or developed as a unit. The current definition is inaccurate. Not all parcels of land are used or developed. The definition of a parcel ofland should not be interpreted by "whatever a development is". Additionally, the definition does not address contiguity, ownership, limited or fixed boundaries, shared lot lines and there may be other factors to consider. Definition Needed: Club or meeting house 16 Points Principal use or structure and club/meeting house should have a definition comparable to the existing definition of (A-2) Accessory uses or accessory structures. Amount of change regarding amendment of a presumed conditional use 14 Points What often happens is that when a developer proposes a speculative office, he is required to undergo a higher level of review because there is a presumption that the office will be use for high intensity uses. Alternatively, in other case, the County has required that an owner be required to undergo conditional use review from one somewhat retail to another, such as furniture sales to bakery. The County should relate the level of review to actual changes that would involve a change in intensity of use. Reference should be made to the ITE manual for intensity of traffic generation, and a change of use review should only occur when the changes is within a range of 205 increase in traffic generated. This is within a reasonable change of use and for small facilities of 2,500 measurable square feet. Better yet, allow existing commercial uses to rebuild existing square footage without having to undergo Planning Commission approval; just review as a minor use only at staff level. 06/27/02 Page 13 of 18 II Setback Variance II 13 Points Setback variance for canvas awnings and shutters. There should be an ordinance governing setbacks for secondary window and door treatments such as canvas awnings and or shutters. These items should have setbacks but not as stringent as primary building setbacks. DISCUSSION: Ms. Patterson noted that she thought setbacks were an individual community issue. Non-conformities to recognize pre-existing residential & commercial uses 13 Points This is especially important when one considers the present emphasis on redevelopment embodied in the NROGO equations. For example, recognize existing outdoor drainage areas in existing restaurants: otherwise, no restaurant owner would propose a redevelopment for fear for of losing valuable serving area. DISCUSSION: Vice-chairman Craig would like pre-existing uses be extended to lawfully established transient Hotels. He adds that the latest change to additional residential dwellings will not provide protection for commercial uses or lawfully established transient hotels that now find them over density. Commissioner Neugent added that the Commission had directed Mr. McGarry to make changes that would allow the rebuilding of both commercial and residential after a hurricane. Vice-Chairman Craig stated he believes that although staff followed the Commissions directive the Planning Commission changed things. Mr. Coleman added that he believed the Planning Commission only expanded on the directive. Mr. West & Ms. Pattersonfelt they did not have afull grasp of the issue and ranked the project "0". ConditionallJses - citizen input & open dialogue 12 Points Our Comp Plan calls for appropriate mechanisms allowing citizens continued oversight and involvement in the planning of their communities. Our Comp Plan also calls for a continuing open dialogue with different participants involved in planning issues. Some of the greatest impacts on our communities are conditional uses. These are complex for both the applicant and the community impacted. Not all conditional uses go to a public hearing before the Planning Commission in the area they affect. With the potential of the Development Review Committee 06/27/02 Page 14 of 18 (DRC) being discontinued, there is concern that the potential for citizen oversight and involvement will be diminished rather than improved. Conditional uses are permitted if certain conditions are met... and continue to be met after development. To ensure continuing open dialogue and citizen involvement in the planning process, there should be more "open dialogue" meetings regarding new development and redevelopment. Perhaps initial and final approval meetings should be heard at the Planning Commission level. The initial meeting would be to approve the concept, with preliminary plans. A final meeting to be heard before the permits are issued would include the final revised plans and documented checklist showing all conditions met. Progressive meetings could also be heard at the Planning Commission level, if there are significant changes and the project is deemed to have a large impact on the affected community. The conditions placed on a project should become part of an annual (or regular) inspection checklist and be ongoing to ensure compliance - especially after change of ownership. When conditional uses are issued this should require an update of the area Community Master Plan existing conditions, stating, among other impacts, how the project will affect the level of service. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chairman Craig had concerns over the suggestion of a public hearing after Planning Commission approval where there is risk of an appeal. He believes inserting the public at that point was going too far. Conditional Uses - citizen input & open dialogue 11 Points The code enforcement department should ignore anonymous complaints. The significant abuses of this process by individuals with a personal agenda are well known to the community. The case for an individual being intimidated in an extreme situation however, has merit. DISCUSSION: Mr. Stone noted that if anonymous complaints should not be allowed and that the number of complaints a citizen can file should be limited. It was also noted that it may be a good idea to allow anonymous complaints for those occasions when someone may be intimidated. Mr. West and Chairman Mahoney oppose limiting the number of times a citizen can complain. Vice-Chairman Craig thinks that it may be infringing on a person's free speech. The item was amended to ending anonymous complaints only. Significant fee to appeal a Development Order 6 Points Require those appealing a development order issued by the Planning Commission or Development Review Committee to post a significant fee for appeal, approximately the same as the applicant paid for the application. 06/27/02 Page 15 of 18 DISCUSSION: Mr. West and Ms. Patterson feel that this may not be appropriate because the appellants may not be in the same economic position as the developers. 06/27/02 Page 16 of 18 APPENDICES 06/27/02 Page 17 of 18 APPENDIX "A" 06/27/02 Page 18 of 18 i 64-7 LONG BEACH CODE i 64-7 164-7. Certificate of occupancy. [AuMtuded 4-2-1976 by Om. No. 76-4C; 6-4-1982 by Ont. No. 82-1OC; 2-17.1989 by Ord. No. U-9C; 5-5.1989 by Onl. No. 89-24C] A. A certificate of occupancy shall be obtained from the Code Enforcement otlicer upon: (1) The completion of the construction of any new building. (2) The completion of constrUCtion of any addition to aD existing building, which addition required a building permit (3) The change in use of any building. (4) The change in ownership by transfer of title to any existing SU'Ucture in the Township of Long Beach. B. Prerequisites to issuance. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued. by the Code Enforcement Officer until the applicant shall have complied with. the following prerequisites: (1) Approval in writing shall be delivered 10 the Code Enforcement Officer from the Long Beach Utilities Dcparunent certifying that all roles and regulations of the Utilities Department have been complied with. The Code Enforcement Officer shall request in writing the approval or denial from the Long Beach Utilities Department. and the Department sball respond in ..mting within three days of the receipt of the wrinen request by the Code Enforcement Officer. (2) The Code Enforcement Officer shall receive a certification from the Tax Collector of Long Beach Township that all taxes and water and sewer charges bave been paid and are current on the premises for which a certificate of occupancy is sought. In lieu of the required certification from the Tax Collector of Long Beach Township that all taxes and water and Eewer chargee have been paid and are current. the Code Enforcement Oftlccr may issue it cenificalC uf uccupancy fur u prupu:ted ~rc::r uf tide upon receipt of a certification, executed by the attorney for the proposed transferee, guaranteeing that. at the time of the transfer of title, he or she shall personally be responsible for seeing to it that a certified check or an attorney' s ttust accOUDt check for all taXes and water and sewer charges, through and including the quarter in which the certificale of occupancy is sought. will be forwarded to the Tax Collector of the Township of Long Beach within 20 days of the date of the certification, and upon failure to so do, the said attorney shall be personally liable for the full amount thereof. [Amended 7-6-1990 by OnL No. 9O-22C] (3) The Code Enforcement Officer or a township official designated by him or her shall have entered upon and e.um;ned the stnlcture or sttuctures, subject of the certification of occupancy application, in order that the Township Code Enforcement Offer shall detennine for his or her records that the structure conforms with Chapter 205. ZOning, as a permitted use or exists as a valid nonconforming use. (4) The Code Enforcement Offer shall have received from the applicant a written applicatIon, togetner wlln an appucauon fee of :b2:i. h..11 n Ii _ 1<<' _ .."'" INSPECllON REQUIREMENTS FOR RESALE CERTIFICATE OF OCCtJPANCY INSPECrION av BUILDING omCIAL CONSISTS OF A VISUAL INSPECTION ONLY. IT IS NOT A THOROUGH, IN DEPTH STRUC'l'URAL JNSPEcnON OF THE STRUCTURE. A COMPLETE INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE OBTAINED FROM A REGISTERED HOME INSPECTION AGENCY. 1. CeDenI condition of lot uul merior of Itrueture, iDcludiDg but not limited to proper state of repair of sidewalks. steps, docks aad bulkheads. right-of-way free of obsttuctiou. Comer properties must be fn:e of all ob.ItNctions higher tben 10 inchn for a diItmce nf2S feet from the eomcr on each street. 2. Stain ad parebes: every intmior md exterior stair, porch. deck and balcony shall be safe to use and maintained in sound ccmditionlDd good repair. bvery fiight of smira which ii thrc.; (3) risen or more shall have a handrail on a least ODe side of cbc stair, and every opeD portion of a stair. fire escape. pcm:b, l2ontfn,g or balcony which is more than 30 iDcbes (762 mm) above the grade below aball have guardJails. Handrails ahaJl be IlOt less than 30 inches (762 mm) nor more thaD 34 inches (864 mm) high. measured vertically above the DOSing of the treads. Gumhails sbaIl be DOt less than 30 inches (762 mm) hiRb above the floor of the porch, lmdiDg or baleouy. Bvery haDdrail aDci guudrail &ball be finnly fasteaed and capable ofbeariag normally imposed loads aDd sbaIl be mainWned in good wudition. Maximum fOUf inch spacing between balusters. All cvmmerciaJ blllldiDp, ~ height minimum 42 incbel. 3. Smoke deteetiDg systems shall be ill proper operating C01J~itiou. and ill suitable locations for their intended use. Each dwcJlU1g must be equipped with a minimnm gf ODe (I) operational &moke detector or each floor. 4. HOUle Namben: All house ~ shall be displayed on the s~ legibly. S. The applicaot muat submit a ewrent plot piau of the premisca, which plot plan sha1l5bow the location of all improvements, buildiug, sttuct\1re$, fences aDd of any swimming pools on site. 6. For aU structures built after Many 1984, the applicant DIUSt submit a certification by a ficensed uchitect or engineer. certifying compliance with aU provisions of Olapter 94. Flood Damage Prevention, of the Code ofthc Township of Long Beach and all National Flood Insurance Program regulations. 7. Properties located on Long Beach Boulevard between Ship Bottom and Beach Haven: All properties shall provide concrete curbs and &idewalks. THIS IS ONLY A GENERAL LIST OF REQUIREMENTS AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. OTHERS MAY BE NOTED, ESPECIALLY IN NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCl'URES NOTE: A $25.00 RE-lNSPECTION FEE wn.L BE ASSESSED FOR ALL RE-INSPECTIONS