On Dec. 7, 2006, we demolished our Deltona circa 1968 home. From design and throughout construction of our new home, we were excited. (Correction: I was, my wife was sometimes). In June, 2008 our dream hit a snag. Our builder had arrived at City Hall to pay final inspection fees and obtain the final certificate of occupancy after receiving notice that the final inspection was complete and signed off.

January, 2008 my wife being concerned (I say confused) on landscaping and driveway standards met with building inspector to confirm if shell is allowed and exactly how many and what type of trees are required to meet minimum code. They both read the codes and agreed that shell was allowed and reviewed the regulations regarding landscaping.

Unbeknownst to our builder upon his arrival to City Hall, he was approached by Code Compliance who advised that we were going to be served with code compliant violations. The officer had recently visited the site and found a host of non-compliant conditions that ranged from a dilapidated dock, original outbuilding and the infamous shell driveway.

This lead to a flurry of discussions with the community development director, which in essence lead to our confusion as to why we had problems at this final hour and why code compliance was involved given the fact that we had an open permit for construction of a home which had just been given a final inspection and signoff by the Building Department.

We immediately removed the outbuilding and repaired the dock, but questioned the community development director as to why this was not handled through the normal permitting and building inspection protocols. We understand errors and oversight in normal day to day operations by municipal employees, but we did not come to a mutual understanding as to interpretation of driveway standards.

As we questioned, those who could assist us with regard to the driveway, we were advised to file for a variance. When we reviewed the application for a variance, we concluded that we could not justify filing for an exemption to the code since we agreed with the existing language.

The question hinged on the meaning of a single word “dustless.” Within the discussion of the ambiguity of the language, we went on a journey through a labyrinth (at least to us) of offices relegated to managing city operations. We eventually were directed to the planning board to assist in reviewing our plight. That review lead to the discussion of the environmental impact of pervious driveways and resultant benefits to water runoff management on a barrier island.

This sounded great, environmental benefit would add to a growing list of benefits including ours which was simply one of aesthetics. It was in keeping with the mission statement of the planning board found on their Web page.

“The Planning Board’s focus is to enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors on Marco Island while managing growth and development and protecting the island’s tropical small town character.”

After three Planning Board meetings throughout 2009, the first public reading of the ordinance finally arrived on November 13. At this meeting, there was an issue of safety as stated in memo dated November 12th from Marco Island Fire Marshall to Community Development and Chief Murphy.

The memo states: “It is the Fire Departments position that the approval of pervious drive surfaces such as sand, gravel and shell would hinder the smooth transport of patients and put undo strain on responding personnel. A solution would be to require any pervious driveway installation to include a paved sidewalk installed parallel to the pervious drive.”

We live in a country that has reams of regulations with the intent to protect society. We have safety codes to address everything we consume, operate, and everywhere we roam, in essence everything we use and interact with.

Name it, do it and it is regulated. Within the body of the codes of ordinance and articles, are preambles with reference to reviewing safety for the benefit of its citizens. It is apparent that safety is of utmost importance to all regulating bodies, be it in the form of the Florida Fire Safety Code, Florida Building Code, OSHA regulations, etc.

Why did safety become an overriding issue at the first public reading? Why did the fire chief need to demonstrate the difficulty in rolling a gurney on a strip of landscaping stone alongside a building by untrained personnel? I will let the public decide.

Planning Board review began in November, 2008 and ended today with a demonstration of a gurney rolling on landscaping material and a final 5-1 vote to send its recommendations to council.

I look forward to the council’s review of this ordinance, but before we continue onward, we wish to personally thank (in chronological order) Councilman Kiester for introducing and directing us to the Planning Board, to Vince McGee for personally calling us at the onset of this issue, to all Planning Board members with a special thanks to Marv Needles for setting the record straight on the meaning of the word “dustless,” to Kris Van Lengen for his fair and balanced approach in the review of the discussion, and to all who encouraged us to persevere.

Hopefully, this long and winding road (driveway) will lead us to a final resolution so we may obtain our final Certificate of Occupancy.

Alfred Marchand

Marco Island