Agenda 09/28/2010 Item # 8A
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28. 2010
Page 1 of 49
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve a Compliance Agreement between the Florida
Department of Community Affairs and Collier County, including Petitioners-in-
Intervention, setting forth proposed Remedial Amendments to the Growth
Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, pertaining to Section 24 in
North Belle Meade.
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to review and approve a Partial
Stipulated Settlement Agreement (Compliance Agreement) between the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), Collier County, and Petitioners-in-Intervention Florida Wildlife
Federation, Collier Audubon Society, Buckley Enterprises, Hideout Golf Club, LId, and John L.
Cowan and Jane Ann Cowan, Trustees, and approve its transmittal to the DCA. In the
Compliance Agreement, the BCC commits to subsequently adopt remedial amendments to the
Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) that should be formally acted upon by the BCC
within sixty (60) days.
Included with this Executive Summary are copies ofthe materials to be transmitted to the DCA -
the Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement (Compliance Agreement); Exhibit A to that
Agreement, DCA's 2007 Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in
Compliance; and. Exhibit B to that Agreement, the Settlement Terms to Resolve the Finding of
Non-Complianc", with accompanying map of Section 24.
CONSIDERA nONS: The Rural Fringe GMP amendments were adopted in 2002. These
amendments established: the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) with its Sending,
Receiving and Neutral Lands; a Transfer of Development Rights program applicable to the
RFMUD and, to a limited extent, portions of the coastal Urban area; additional Natural Resource
Protection Areas (NRP A); native vegetation retention requirements to correlate with the
RFMUD and NRP A designations; and, the North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO). Within the
NBMO, there was a requirement that red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nesting and foraging
habitat be mapped and protected, and that the County conduct an RCW study specific to Section
24 (Township 49 South, Range 26 East). which was designated as RFMUD Neutral Lands. The
NBMO specifically provided that "within Section 24, the Neutral designation may be adjusted
based upon the findings of the updated RCW nesting and foraging habitat study."
~--
The required RCW study was prepared by a County consultant and confirmed the presence of
RCW nesting and foraging habitat within large portions of Section 24. Subsequently, County
staff prepared GMP amendments recommending Section 24 be re-designated as RFMUD
Sending Lands - which greatly restricts land uses and residential density while allowing density
transfer at same ratio of I dwelling unit per 5 acres, and requires retention of 80% of the existing
native vegetation on site. (These amendments pertaining to Section 24 were part of a massive set
of amendments based upon the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, a state-mandated process
that occurs every seven years.) At the Transmittal hearing, the Board approved the re-
designation to RFMUD Sending Lands. However, at the Adoption hearing, the Board approved
amendments that retained the RFMUD Neutral Lands designation but imposed greater habitat
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28. 2010
Page 2 of 49
protection standards and use restrictions, via text provisions, than would apply to other Neutral
Lands; this designation for Section 24 has come to be referred to as "enhanced Neutral." The
standard Neutral Lands designation allows essentially the same uses and density as was allowed
prior to establishment of the RFMUD, but requires retention of 60% of the existing native
vegetation on site (not to exceed 45% of the total site). At both Transmittal and Adoption
hearings, there was opposition to the re-designation to Sending Lands by one or more property
owners and support for re-designation by one or more environmental organizations.
After reviewing the adopted amendments for Section 24, the DCA issued its determination in
May 2007 that those amendments were not in compliance with state law; the DCA determined
the designation should be RFMUD Sending Lands as such designation was warranted ba~ed
upon the RCW study. (The only other amendments found to be not in compliance pertained to
the Capital Improvement Element; those amendments were the subject of a previously approved
partial stipulated settlement agreement, and subsequently adopted remedial amendments.) The
Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society intervened on behalf of DCA;
Buckley Enterprises, Hideout Golf Club, LId, and John L. Cowan and Jane Ann Cowan, Trustees
(three owners of property in Section 24), intervened on behalf of Collier County. All parties
have participated in settlement discussions since that time and have supported continued
abeyance of the pending case at the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), which
the presiding Administrative Law Judge has granted as periodically requested. Finally, in April
2010, DCA, all interveners, and County staff (Land Development Services Dept., County
Attorney's Office) reached agreement on settlement terms. Now it is up to the Board to approve
this Agreement, should the Board agree with the terms of settlement proposed. Per protocol of
the DCA, BCC approval and signature occurs first then is followed by signatures of all other
parties to the Agreement. Should the BCC approve this Agreement, then the implementing
remedial GMP amendments would be required to be adopted within 60 days. Said amendments
are tentatively scheduled for the Board's meeting on November 9,2010.
In addition to previously referenced documents, attached to this Executive Summary is: (a) the
amendment text pertaining to Section 24 as approved by the Board in January 2007, and
subsequently found not in compliance by the DCA; (b) a comparison table of the major
provisions of the non-compliant FLUE text and the proposed settlement agreement; (c) the
NBMO Future Land Use map, which depicts Section 24 in context of the entire Overlay and
surrounding lands; and, (d) an aerial of Section 24, which reveals the amount of developed and
undeveloped lands.
Section 24 contains approximately 651 acres and is comprised of 244 tax parcels. The three
intervener property owners plus Collier County own ] 9 of those parcels but account for 431
acres, or 66% of the acreage in Section 24. The remaining 225 parcels account for the remaining
220 acres. Of those 225 parcels, only three parcel s are 10 acres or larger in size; four parcels are
between about 5 and 8 acres; the balance arc less than 5 acres, most being ::=:1 acre. The
relevance of these parcel sizes is that the density limitations proposed in the settlement
agreement should have minimal impact; only the owners of the three > I O-acre parcels would be
subject to a density reduction as all other parcels are presently only eligible for one DU (based
on density of I DU/5 acres or per legal nonconforming lot). For those three owners, their
properties are subject to a density reduction - without compensation. Staff attempted,
2
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 3 of 49
unsuccessfully, to have the Agreement include an allowance for those three parcels to retain the
residential density of 1 dwelling unit/5 acres. One of those three parcels (:t16 acres) is
undeveloped and wooded; one parcel (:t10 acres) contains a single family residence; the third
parcel (:t26 acres) contains a plant nursery. It is unknown whether those owners will pursue
development, or further development, of their properties with residential use and, if so, when.
For the property owned by the three property owner interveners, under the proposed settlement
agreement, their density is the same as that for all other properties (I DU/parcel) unless they
choose to cluster their DUs, in which case density is 1 DU/5 acres; this density increase is their
incentive to cluster. However, when clustering, there is a greater native vegetation retention
requirement; the project is subject to clustering standards in the FLUE and Land Development
Code; there is a requirement to participate in an RCW habitat management plan; and, the
developer must pursue a "safe harbor agreement" with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which,
if successful, will trigger a financial commitment from the developer to implement the associated
RCW habitat management plan. Only the interveners' property ownership is large enough to
cluster, given the 64-acre minimum size requirement. Below is a density comparison for the
intervener properties with and without clustering.
Hideout
Cowan
Bucklev
Sum
Without Clustering
3 DUs*
6DUs
6 DUs
15 DUs
With Clustering
37 DUs
19 DUs
16 DUs
72 DUs
*
No DUs assigned to existing Hideout golf course development or the two parcels for which no
development is allowed.
Under the proposed settlement agreement, for all 244 parcels in Section 24, a total of 240 DU s
may be developed without clustering (no DUs a'isigned to golf course property, County property,
or two parcels for which no development is allowed) and 302 DUs with clustering (no DUs
generated from County property); the difference is 58 DUs. Under the 2007 non-compliant
FLUE text, approximately 284 DUs could have been developed (no DUs assigned to golf course
property) .
In the event of clustering, the native vegetation retention requirement is 80%. However, if DUs
are not clustered, there is no broad vegetation retention requirement, rather only a requirement to
retain 90% of the slash pine trees on site.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the Agreement will necessitate preparation of the
implementing remedial GMP amendments, advertising those amendments before the Board, and
then sending copies of those remedial amendments, upon approval by the Board, to DCA and
other state and regional agencies. Collier County's proportionate share of the required legal ad
would be approximately $312.50. All other costs associated with the amendments (staff time,
office supplies, mailing costs) are presently budgeted. Additionally, because approval of the
Agreement and subsequent remedial GMP amendments will settle the case pending at DOAH, it
will save the County the [not quantified] expense of preparing for, and participating in, the
3
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28,2010
Page 4 of 49
administrative hearing (there is no certainty of the outcome of such hearing nor subsequent
action by DCA or the Administration Commission, as applicable).
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of this Agreement, combined with the
subsequent adoption of implementing remedial GMP amendments, would resolve the remaining
outstanding non-compliance issues from the May 2007 Statement oflntent from DCA.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement is to settle the
Division of Administrative Hearing case initiated by the DCA who found the amendments
relative to Section 24 Not in Compliance. County staff, DCA representatives and the Interveners
have agreed upon terms to satisfY the DCA' s concerns, as set forth in Exhibit B to the
Agreement. Once the Agreement is executed by all parties, the County may proceed with
remedial amendments to the GMP. These amendments would reflect the terms set forth in
Exhibit B. When the remedial amendments are adopted, found to be "in compliance " with
Florida Statutes by the DCA, and the 21-day challenge period ends without a challenge to that
compliance determination, then that part of the DOAH case, which is all that remains, will be
dismissed. - STW
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approves the proposed stipulated settlement
agreement.
Prepared by: David Weeks, A1CP, GMP Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Land
Development Services Department, Growth Management DivisionJPlanning and
Regulation
Attachments: I) Non-compliant FLUE and CCME text approved January 2007; 2) Comparison
table of major provisions in non-compliant FLUE and CCME text vs. proposed settlement
agreement; 3) NBMO map; 4) Aerial map of Section 24; 5) Second Partial Stipulated Settlement
Agreement; 6) Exhibit A, Statement of Intent; 7) Exhibit B, Settlement Terms; 8) Section 24
Map for Exhibit B
EXSUM for Sec. 24 Compliance Agreement - Bee 9-28-10
G:\Comprehensive\David\Sec. 24 SettlementlSec. 24 SA ExSum etc for Sept. 282010 Bee
dw/8127/10 \\\ last revised 9-17-10
4
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 5 of 49
8A
Recommendation to approve a Compliance Agreement between the Florida Department of
Community Affairs and Collier County, including Petitioners-in-Intervention, setting forth proposed
Remedial Amendments to the Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended,
pertaining to Section 24 in North Belle Meade
9/28/2010 9:00:00 AM
Prepared By
Oavld Weeks, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Manager ~ Planning
Comprehensive Planning
Date
9/2/20101:23:16 PM
Approved By
Judy Pulg
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Date
912/20101:26 PM
Approved By
Nick Casalanguida
Transportation Division
Director. Transportation Planning
Transportation Planning
Date
9'10/20102:37 PM
A pproved By
William D. Lorenz. Jr., P.E.
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Director ~ COES Engineering Services
Engineering & Environmental Services
Date
Approved By
91111201010:24 AM
Norm E. Feder, AICP
Transportation Division
Administrator. Transportation
Transportation Administration
Date
91141201010:10 AM
Approved By
Steven Williams
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
County Attorney
Date
9/14/201010:22 AM
Approved By
Therese Stanley
Office of Management &
Budget
Manager. Operations Support ~ Trans
Office of Management & Budget
Date
9f16/2010 10:20 AM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
Date
Approved By
9/17/201011:51 AM
Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
County Managers Office
County Manager
County Managers Office
Date
9/18f2010 3:24 PM
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28,2010
Page 61.of 49
Section 24 EAR-based GMPAs
(adopted January 2007)
FLUE
B,
North Belle Meade Overlay:
[No changes to text, pages 75, 76, 77, 7S, 79, SO]
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
1. IN GENERAL
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Planning Considerations
d. Red Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW)
[Revised text, page 77]
'RCW nesting and foraging habitat has been mapped and used to delineate areas that are appropriately
designated as Sending Lands sR;:)I! Be FR8f:1f38a aAB f3r:stertes fr:SIT1 taRs WSE aeth:ities 'NitRiR EeAsiAg
laRes, aRB SeetisR 2~ ee!;igRatea ~Jel:ltral LaRss. /\ltR8wgR RC\A' RestiAg 3RS fSfagiAg R;3aitat st:lall Be
FR31313eet witRiR all ESASiAg areas witRiA tRe ~JBP.q Over:lay, tRis sFialll3e aS88FF1f3/isRss BY a ShlSY 5f:1eEifi€:
t8 EeEtisR 21 eSRe:h::leteGl s'/ Callier CSblRty \'/itRiR eAe year sf tHe ef.feEtive elate af tRE ~J8J\q O\'erla',.
\).'itl=liR SectisR 21, tR€ ~Jebltral eJesigAatisR A4ay Be 3ejl:H:tea Bases b1J'BR t!::le fiReJiAgS af tRt? b1l3sates
ROIl RestiRg JAS feragiAg R3aitat stl-.IE:t.,'.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
3.
RECEIVING AREAS
[Revised text, page 7S]
Within the NBM Overlay, Receiving Areas are identified for clustering of residential dwelling
units, central water and sewer service, and for the transfer of deveiopment rights and comprise
:t 3,368 acres in the northern and northwestern portions of the NBM Overiay. The Receiving
Areas are generally located in the northern portion of NBM Overlay and are generally contiguous
to Golden Gate Estates. Two sections are directly to the south ofthe APAC Earth Mining
Operation. The Receiving Area exhibits areas of less environmental sensitivity than other
portions of the NBM Overlay, because of their proximity to Golden Gate Estates and prior
clearing and disturbance to the land. Within the Receiving Area of the NBM Overlay, are located
Sections 21, 28 and the west Y. of Sections 22 and 27, which have been largely assembled under
one property ownership. These lands are located south of the existing APAC earth mining
operation and have been iargely impacted by agricultural operations. The location of Sections
21 and 28 is just to the south and west of Wilson Boulevard located in the southern_portion of
north Golden Gate Estates. Because an earth mining operation and asphalt plant uses have
existed for many years in the area, and the surrounding lands in Sections 21,28 and the western
quarters of Sections 22 and 27 are reported to contain Florida Department of Transportation
Words underHned are added; words !::tr:b1Eh tRrsblgR are deleted.
*** *** *** *** Indicates break in text *** *** *** ***
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 720f 49
grade rock for road construction, these uses are encouraged to remain and expand. However,
until June 19, 2005, mining operations and an asphalt plant may be expanded only to the
western half of Section 21 and shall not generate truck traffic beyond average historic levels. If
by June 19, 2005, an alignment has been selected, funding has been determined, and an
accelerated construction schedule established by the Board and the mining operator for an east-
west connection roadway from County Road 951 to the extension of Wilson Boulevard, mining
operations and an asphalt plant may expand on Sections 21 and 28 and the western quarters of
22 and 27 as a permitted use. If no such designation has been made by June 19, 2005, any
mining operations or asphalt plant in these areas, other than continued operations on the
western half of Section 21 at historic levels, shall be permitted only as a conditional use, unless
the mine operator upon failure to attain Board selection of an alignment commits by June 19,
2005 to construct a private haul road by June 19, ~ 2010 without the allocation of any public
funds. The County's existing excavation and explosive regulations shall apply to all mining
operations in these areas.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
S. NEUTRAL LANDS
Within the NBM Overlay there are :t 1,280 acres of land that are identified as Neutral Areas. The
Neutral Areas consist of two Y, sections located at the northeast corner of this Overlay and
Section 24 located in the northwest portion of this Overlay. The preservation standards for
Neutral Lands shall be those contained in CCME Policy 6.1.2 for Neutral Lands. The County has
performed an RCW study for Section 24 and determined the appropriate designation is Neutral.
The following additional requirements and limitations shall apply to Section 24. , if tRe res~lts
sf tt:1e ~tHEl,/ 'N2IrraRtl tRg PlaR will Be ameRseEi.
a. Prior to site development. a survev to identify RCW cavity trees shall be required.
b. The retained native vegetation, as required bv CCME policv 6.1.2, shall be managed for the
red-cockaded woodpecker where the vegetation is suitable RCW habitat. Mechanical
means to manage the understory will be allowed.
c. Allowable uses shall be limited to:
1) Single family residential dwelling units;
2) Multi-familv residential structures. subiect to the Residential Clustering provisions of the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands. except that there is no minimum proiect
size:
3) Agricultural uses consistent with Chapter 823.14(6). Florida Statutes (Florida Right to
Farm Act)
4) Habitat preservation and conservation uses;
5) Passive parks and other passive recreational uses;
6) Essential services necessarv to serve allowable uses identified in Section c.l) through
c.5) such as the following: private wells and septic tanks: utilitv lines: water pumping
stations: and,
7) Essential services necessarv to ensure public safetv.
Words underlined are added; words !:trbl(;;l~ tRreblgl=l are deleted.
*** *** *** "''''* Indicates break in text *** *** "''''''' ***
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28,2010
Page 1llof 49
d. Conditional Uses:
The following uses are conditionallv permitted subject to approval through a public hearing
process:
1) Essential Services not identified above in c.6):
2) Commercial uses accessorv to permitted uses c.3), cA) and c.5), such as retail sales of
produce accessorv to farming, or a restaurant accessorv to a park or preserve. so long as
restrictions or limitations are imposed to insure the commercial use functions as an
accessorv, subordinate use:
3) Oil and gas field development and production. Where practicable. directional-drilling
techniques and/or previouslv cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize
impacts to native habitats.
e. Residential clustering is encouraged so as to allow preservation of the greatest amount of
contiguous red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. If residential units are clustered. central
water and sewer are required. If clustering is emploved. the retained vegetation shall be
placed in a preserve subiect to the requirements of Policv 6.1.2 (3\.
f. Vegetation Retention requirements are identified in CCME Policv 6.1.2.
CCME
Policy 6.1.2
For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, as designated on the FLUM, nativeyegetation shall be
preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention
standards and criteria:
Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards:
a. Receiving Lands:
A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area
shall be preserved.
b. Neutral Lands:
A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area
shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the
North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed
70% of the total site area, shall be preserved, Additionallv. for residential development in
Section 24. if the dwelling units are not clustered. a minimum of 90% of the slash pine trees
Words underlined are added; words my,l, tRr"yeR are deleted.
"''''* "''''* "''''* *** Indicates break in text ",,,,oj< *** "'** ***
Agenda Item No. SA
September 28, 2010
Page 9lof 49
present shall be retained. Further restrictions are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlav in
the FLUE.
c. Non-NRPA Sending Lands:
Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be
permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE;
d. NRPA Sending Lands:
Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be
permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE.
e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set
forth under CCME Objective 6.2.
f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of
smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future
Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22,
1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (S) acres in
size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel
or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15-
foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less
than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be considered a
maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing
amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under-story
vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources.
EAR-based GMPA text for Sec. 24
G:\Comprehensive\David\Sec.24 Settlement dwJ
Words underlined are added; words strblGI, tRr:SygR are deleted.
*** *** *** *** Indicates break in text *** *** *** ***
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 10 of 49
Comparison Table:
Major Provisions of Non-compliant FLUE text vs. Proposed Settlement Agreement
Category
2007 EAR-based provisions
Settlement Agreement provisions
Maximum density 1 DU/5 acres or legal non- 1 DU/5 acres (DUs clustered) OR 1 DU/lot of
conforming lot record or legal non-conforming lot (DUs not
clustered)
Maximum # of DUs :t284 :t302 (DUs clustered) OR :t24O (DUs not
allowed clustered)
Native vegetation 70% (DUs clustered) OR 70% 80% (DUs clustered) OR 90% of slash pine
retention plus 90% of slash pine trees trees (DUs not clustered)
requirements (%) (DUs not clustered)
Clustering required? Yes for MFDU; no for SFDU, but No, but encouraged and incentivized
encouraged and incentivized
Minimum lot size 4,500 s.f. (DUs clustered) OR 5 4,500 s.f. (DUs clustered) OR existing lot of
acres or legal non-conforming record size or legai non-conforming lot size -
lot size (DUs not clustered) varies from :to.5 acre to :t26 acres (DUs not
clustered)
Maximum lot size none 1 acre average, excluding r/w (DUs clustered)
OR none (DUs not clustered)
Land use changes Uses restricted but residential Uses restricted but residential density
for 222 small density unchanged unchanged
perimeter parcels
Land use changes Uses restricted but residential Uses restricted and residential density
for 3 larger density unchanged lowered - without compensotion
perimeter parcels
(non-interveners)
RCW management RCW cavity tree survey required; If clustering DUs or developing Neutral Lands
plan requirements the required retained native non-residential uses, then must pursue Safe
vegetation must be managed for Harbor Agreement, create an RCW Habitat
RCWs if that vegetation is I Management Plan, and set aside $30,000.00
suitable RCW habitat to implement the RCW HMP
Who pays for RCW Every property owner seeking Only property owners that cluster DUs or
requirements? development approval develop Neutral Lands non-residential uses
HUM designation Neutral, with additional Neutral, with additional requirements and
requirements and limitations limitations
Minimum project none 64 acres
size for clustering
Allowed uses ALL PROPERTIES: (1) Single ALL PROPERTIES EXCEPT INTERVENERS:
family dwellings; (2) Multi- Residential uses; (2) agriculture consistent
family dwellings; (3) agriculture with Florida Right to Farm Act; (3) habitat
consistent with Florida Right to
Farm Act; (4) habitat
preservation and conservation;
(5) passive parks and
recreation; (6) essential
services to serve allowed uses;
(7) essential services to insure
public safety. Conditional Uses:
(1) additional essential
services; (2) commercial uses
accessory to agricultural uses,
preservation! conservation
uses, passive parks and
recreation uses; (3) oil and gas
production and development
Agenda Item No_ 8A
September 28,2010
Page 11 of49
preservation and conservation; (4) passive
parks and recreation; (5) sporting and
recreational camps; (6) essential services to
serve allowed lIS~; (7) essential services to
insure public safety; (8) oil and gas
exploration.
INTERVENER PROPERTIES [COWAN1: (1)
residential uses; (2) essential services; (3)
parks, open space, and recreational uses.
[HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB1: Same as above for
Cowan for the 3 green parcels on map. For
the 7 yellow parcels on map (existing golf
course development), may be redeveloped
with any non-residential use allowed in
Neutral Lands designation (agriculture;
group housing; sporting and recreational
camps; zoo, aquarium, botanical garden;
private school; facilities for collection,
transfer, processing and reduction of solid
waste; church; day care; fraternal
organization; earth mining; etc.). For the 2
striped parcels on map, no development is
allowed. [BUCKLEY]: (1) residential uses; (2)
all non-residential uses allowed in Neutral
Lands designation except facilities for
collection, transfer, processing and
reduction of solid waste.
Abbreviations and Notes:
1. DU = dwelling unit
2. MFDU = multi-family dwelling unit
3. SFDU = single family dwelling unit
4. s.f. = square feet
5. RCW = red-cockaded woodpecker
6. HMP = habitat management plan
7. Assumes all parcels <5 acres are legal nonconforming parcels.
8. Collier County parcels assigned 0 dwelling units.
9. Hideout golf course parcels (yellow) assigned 0 DUs in no clustering scenario.
10. Reference to green, yellow and striped properties, and to Hideout Golf Club, Cowan and Buckley
properties, all correlate to the Section 24 map attached to Exhibit B, settlement agreement terms.
II. This comparison table is not all inclusive; the intent is to compare the major provisions of the two
documents but not to explain or accountfor all details.
Comparison of major provisions of FlUE.CCME and SA G:\Comprehensive\David\Sec. 24 SettlementlSec. 24 SA ExSum for June 23 and Sept. 14 2010 Bee
dw/6-17-10 & 8.27.10
~
~~
Co 1 Eo'
.. ~ "I~
,
~ ~ !Hi
e 8 .
, 8 ~ ~ 2
,. ~ 0 ~W
'0 i 0 ;1'1
ci N ~ .. ~
~ .ri....... -i....... 1! 8~
.. NIO ~ W 2
I - ~"
!l!1! 0 )- I WI ,,~
i N Q:.f-.. mt--
'" 8 ;8 ~8
:e " 0
. N zN UN .. 81;
< .w ,-, . " r
ci ""0 00 .
~ ~ Cig 6~ . ~
w I:!-! z
z ~-- ~..... ~g
'" Z Z w
W W J-;: '<<
i!: ci ~ ~ ~~
< < CI)
is iO' N f5 ;;;;j
~ " " U
'" '0 ~
~ ~ J-;: ww
~ ~"
- ~!5
z ~
D.. ~~
g '0 W ~~
c( w 20
00
:E I!l;tJ H
~ 0: lZll ~
~ ~ z.
LlJ
a:: 5
w
> I:!-!
0 = . ~
~ ~ B
W B
. .
C ~~
~ Cl
c5 e ffi
:E <!> ~
c' 0
W Z <%
;; .~
.J ~ ~~
.J . ~~
W .
m I
:I: r
~ h
-, I
0
z ;;
~
,
~ " 0 g~~
Cwo
~~7
~ , ~~g
fr<('';'
Y ?nz'a:
~ -,~:r
- (i5~
3J;:
\fl " ~~*
c ~
0:::,1
.. '" 0 ~~~
j!j:! ~ .. tl'iw
= " 0' ~ N g:~E'
<0
""
"u
I . ;;:~Q
o 0
(t96 '~f:J) QMVA::nn08 M3/T1O:J etS
z_ ~~.~
~..:~
o::~.o:
0.00
:;::-
C/)
(U
W
<.0
C\l
CD
Cl
c:
(U
a:
.r::.-
....
:l
.. 0
C/)
(j)
'<t
0..
:2
(f)
c:
3=
o
I-
'-'
'<t
C\l
Z
o
I-
()
W
C/)
."
:2 ...s..
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28.2010
Page 14 of 49
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS,
Petitioners,
and
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION
and COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON
SOCIETY
Petiti oners- in -Intervention
v.
DOAH Case No. 07-23l7GM
COLLIER COUNTY
Respondent
and
BUCKLEY ENTERPRISES, HIDEOUT
GOLF CLUB, L TD, JOHN L. COWAN
and JANE ANN COW AN, TRUSTEES,
Respondents-in - Interven ti on.
SECOND PARTIAL STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the
State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs: Petitioners-in-Intervention Florida Wildlife
Federation and Collier County Audubon Society: Respondent Collier County: Respondents-in-
Intervention Buckley Enterprises, Hideout Golf Club, L TD, and John L. Cowan and Jane Ann
Cowan, Trustees, as a complete and final settlement of all claims related to Ordinance No. 07-18
raised in the above-styled proceeding.
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 15 of 49
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs (DCA or
Department), is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce
the Local Govemment Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter
163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, Collier County (Local Government) is a local government with the duty to
adopt comprehensive plan amendments that are "in compliance;" and
WHEREAS, the Local Government adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment 07-1ER
(Plan Amendment) by Ordinance Nos. 07-18 on January 25, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Amendment proposes changes to the Future Land Use Map and the
Future Land Use Element as it pertains to Section 24; and
WHEREAS, the Department issued its Statement ofIntent on May 1,2007, and
published its Notice ofIntent regarding the Amendment on May 2,2007; and
WHEREAS, asset forth in the Statement ofIntent, the Department contends that the
Amendment is not "in compliance" for failure to protect certain natural resources; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, DCA has initiated the
above-styled formal administrative proceeding challenging the Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society
were granted petitioners-in-intervention status on June 4, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Buckley Enterprises, Hideout Golf Club, Ud, and John L. Cowan and Jane
Ann Cowan, Trustees were granted respondents-in-intervention status on July 24, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government and the respondents-in-intervention dispute the
allegations of the Statement of Intent regarding the Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of lengthy
litigation and to resolve this proceeding under the terms set forth herein, and agree it is in their
respective mutual best interests to do so;
2 of 12
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28. 2010
Page 16 of 49
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises
hereinbelow set forth, and in consideration of the benefits to accrue to each of the parties, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby represent and agree
as follows:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Definitions. As used in this agreement, the following words and phrases shall
have the following meanings:
a. Act: The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act, as codified in Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
b. Agreement: This stipulated settlement agreement.
c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Plan Amendment: Comprehensive
plan amendment 07-lER adopted by the Local Government on January 25. 2007, as Ordinance
No. 07-18.
d. DOAH: The Florida Division of Administrative Hearings.
e. In compliance or into compliance: The meaning set forth in Section
163.3184(1 )(b), Florida Statutes.
f. Notice: The notice of intent issued by the Department to which was
attached its statement of intent to find the plan amendment not in compliance.
g. Petition: The petition for administrative hearing and relief filed by the
Department in this case.
h. Remedial Action: A remedial plan amendment, submission of support
document or other action described in the statement of intent or this agreement as an action
which must be completed to bring the plan amendment into compliance.
1. Remedial Plan Amendment: An amendment to the plan or support
document, the need for which is identified in this agreement, including its exhibits, and which
the local government must adopt to complete all remedial actions. Remedial plan amendments
adopted pursuant to this Agreement must, in the opinion of the Department, be consistent with
3 of 12
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28. 2010
Page 17 of 49
and substantially similar in concept and content to the ones identified in this Agreement or be
otherwise acceptable to the Department.
J. Statement of Intent: The statement of intent to find the Plan Amendment
not in compliance issued by the Department in this case.
k. Support Document: The studies, inventory maps, surveys, data,
inventories, listings or analyses used to develop and support the Plan Amendment or Remedial
Plan Amendment.
2. Department Powers. The Department is the state land planning agency and has
the power and duty to administer and enforce the Act and to determine whether the Plan
Amendment is in compliance.
3. Negotiation of Agreement. The Department issued its Notice and Statement of
Intent to find the Plan Amendment not in compliance, and filed the Petition in this case to that
effect. Subsequent to the filing of the Petition the parties conferred and agreed to resolve the
issues in the Petition, Notice and Statement of Intent through this Agreement. It is the intent of
this Agreement to resolve fully all issues between the parties in this proceeding.
4. Dismissal. If the Local Government completes the Remedial Actions required by
this Agreement, the Department will issue a cumulative Notice ofIntent addressing both the
Remedial Plan Amendment and the initial Plan Amendment subject to these proceedings. The
Department will file the cumulative Notice of Intent with the DOAH. The Department will also
file a request to relinquish jurisdiction to the Department for dismissal of this proceeding or for
realignment ofthe parties, as appropriate under Section l63.3l84(16)(f), Florida Statutes.
5. Description of Provisions not in Compliance and Remedial Actions; Legal Effect
of Agreement. Exhibit A to this Agreement is a copy of the Statement of Intent, which identifies
the provisions not in compliance. Exhibit B contains Remedial Actions needed for compliance.
Exhibits A and B are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference. This Agreement
constitutes a stipulation that if the Remedial Actions are accomplished, the Plan Amendment will
be in compliance.
40f12
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28.2010
Page 18 of 49
6 Remedial Actions to be Considered for Adoption. The Local Government agrees
to consider for adoption by formal action of its governing body all Remedial Actions described
in Exhibit B no later than the time period provided for in this Agreement.
7 Adoption or Aporoval of Remedial Plan Amendments. Within 60 days after
execution of this Agreement by the parties, the Local Government shall consider for adoption all
Remedial Actions or Plan Amendments and amendments to the Support Documents. This may
be done at a single adoption hearing. Within 10 working days after adoption of the Remedial
Plan Amendment, the Local Government shall transmit 3 copies of the amendment to the
Department as provided in Rule 9J-ll.0 131 (3), Florida Administrative Code. The Local
Government also shall submit one copy to the regional planning agency and to any other unit of
local or state government that has filed a written request with the governing body for a copy of
the Remedial Plan Amendment and a copy to any party granted intervenor status in this
proceeding. The Remedial Plan Amendment shall be transmitted to the Department along with a
letter which describes the remedial action adopted for each part of the plan amended, including
references to specific portions and pages.
8. Acknowledgment. All parties to this Agreement acknowledge that the "based
upon" provisions in Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes, do not apply to the Remedial Plan
Amendment.
9. Review of Remedial Plan Amendments and Notice ofIntent. Within 30 days
after receipt of the adopted Remedial Plan Amendments and Support Documents, the
Department shall issue a Notice of Intent pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, for the
adopted amendments in accordance with this Agreement.
a. In Compliance: If the adopted Remedial Actions satisfy this Agreement,
the Department shall issue a cumulative Notice of Intent addressing both the Plan Amendment
and the Remedial Plan Amendment as being in compliance. The Department shall file this
cumulative notice with DOAH and shall move to realign the parties or to have this proceeding
dismissed, as may be appropriate.
5 of 12
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28. 2010
Page 19 of 49
b. Not in Compliance: If the Remedial Actions do not satisfy this
Agreement, the Department shall issue a Notice of Intent to fmd the Plan Amendment not in
compliance and shall forward the notice to DOAH for consolidation with the pending
m:~ceeding.
"..... .
10. Effect of Amendment. Adoption of any Remedial Plan Amendment shall not be
counted toward the frequency restrictions imposed upon plan amendments pursuant to Section
163.3187(1), Florida Statutes.
II. Purpose of this Agreement; Not Establishing Precedent. The parties enter into
this Agreement in a spirit of cooperation for the purpose of avoiding costly, lengthy and
unnecessary litigation and in recognition of the desire for the speedy and reasonable resolution of
disputes arising out of or related to the Plan Amendment. The acceptance of proposals for
purposes of this Agreement is part of a negotiated agreement affecting many factual and legal
issues and is not an endorsement of, and does not establish precedent for, the use of these
proposals in any other circumstances or by any other local government.
12. Approval by Governing Body. This Agreement has been approved by the Local
Government's governing body at a public hearing advertised at least 10 days prior to the hearing
in a newspaper of general circulation in the marmer prescribed for advertisements in Section
163.3184(16)(c), Florida Statutes. This Agreement has been executed by the appropriate officer
as provided in the Local Government's charter or other regulations.
13. Changes in Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve either
party from adhering to the law, and in the event of a change in any statute or administrative
regulation inconsistent with this agreement, the statute or regulation shall take precedence and
shall be deemed incorporated in this Agreement by reference.
14. Other Persons Unaffected. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to affect
the rights of any person not a party to this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to benefit
any third party.
6 of 12
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28. 2010
Page 20 of 49
15. Attornev Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorney
fees, incurred in connection with the above-captioned case and this Agreement.
16. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective immediately upon
execution by the Department and the Local Government.
17. Filing and Continuance. This Agreement shall be filed with DOAH by the
Department after execution by the parties. Upon the filing of this Agreement, the administrative
proceeding in this matter shall be stayed by the Administrative Law Judge in accordance with
Section 163.3184(16)(b), Florida Statutes.
18. Retention of Right to Final Hearing. Both parties hereby retain the right to have a
final hearing in this proceeding in the event of a breach of this Agreement, and nothing in this
Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of such right. Any party to this Agreement may move to
have this matter set for hearing if it becomes apparent that any other party whose action is
required by this Agreement is not proceeding in good faith to take that action.
19. Construction of Agreement. All parties to this Agreement are deemed to have
participated in its drafting. In the event of any ambiguity in the terms of this Agreement, the
parties agree that such ambiguity shall be construed without regard to which of the parties
drafted the provision in question.
20. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties and no verbal
or written assurance or promise is effective or binding unless included in this document.
21. Governmental Discretion Unaffected. This Agreement is not intended to bind the
Local Government in the exercise of governmental discretion which is exercisable in accordance
with law only upon the giving of appropriate public notice and required public hearings.
22. Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of originals,
all of which evidence one agreement, and only one of which need be produced for any purpose.
23. Captions. The captions inserted in this Agreement are for the purpose of
convenience only and shall not be utilized to construe or interpret any provision of this
Agreement.
7 of 12
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 21 of 49
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
undersigned officials as duly authorized.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Approved as to form and legality:
By:
Charles Gauthier, AICP, Director
Division of Community Planning
Lynette Norr
Assistant General Counsel
Date
Date
8 of 12
COLLIER COUNTY
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
Date
Approved as to form and legality:
Steven T. Williams
Assistant County Attorney
Date
9 of 12
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 22 of 49
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORlDA
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
Date
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION
By:
Nancy Anne Payton
Date
COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY
By:
Bradley Cornell
Date
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 23 of 49
Approved as to form and legality:
Thomas Reese, Esquire
Date
Approved as to form and legality:
Thomas Reese, Esquire
Date
100f12
Agenda Item No. SA
September 28, 2010
Page 24 of 49
BUCKLEY ENTERPRISES
Approved as to form and legality:
By:
Richard Y ovanovich, Esquire
Date
Date
HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB, L TD
Approved as to form and legality:
By:
Richard Y ovanovich, Esquire
Date
Date
11 of 12
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28. 2010
Page 25 of 49
JOHN L. COWAN and JANE ANN COWAN, TRUSTEES
Approved as to form and legality:
By:
John L. Cowan
Michael A. Durant, Esquire
Date
Date
^"-,
12 of 12
OS/23/2007 12:00
8509222579
Ma~ 232007 11:53
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
Agenda It~l\Plilo. ':al12
September 28, 2010
Page 26 of 49
STATE OF FLORlDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
IN RE: COLLIER COUNTY
COMPREHENSrvE PLAN AMENDMENT
07-IER At'vIENDfNG FUTURE LAND USE ~ocket No. 07-ER-NOI-I 101-(A)-(N)
ELEMENT MAP AND TEXT, THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT.
STATEMENT OF fNTENT TO FIND
COMPREHENSrvE PLAN AMENDMENTS
NOT fN COMPLIANCE
The Florida Department of Community Affail'll (Department), pursuant to Rule 9J-
11.012(6), Florida Administrative Code, hereby issues this Statement ofmtent to find the Collier
County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map series relating to Section 24 in North Belle
Meade and the associated text amendments to the Future Land Use Element adopted by
Ordinance Number 07-18, on January 25, 2007 not "in compliance". and also finds the Capital
Improvements Element, adopted by Ordinance Number 07-07, on January 25, 2007, not "in
compliance" based upon the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report issued by the
Department on July 28,2006, which is hereby incorporated by reference. The Department finds
thaI the Amendments are not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3 I 84(1)(b), Florida
Stall/tes, because they are not consistent with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statl/res, the State
Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida Statutes), and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative
Code, for the following reasons:
L CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA STATUTES. AND RULE 9J-5.
FLORIDA ADMrNISTRA TIVE CODE
A. INCONSrSTENT PROVISrONS
05/23/2007 12:00
8509222579
May 23 2007 11:53
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
Agenda ItgllPlilo. ~W 12
September 28, 2010
Page 27 of 49
1. Ordinance No. 07-18: Future Land Use Element and MaD Series Amendment: The
inconsistent provisions of the Future Land Use Element and Map series pertain to changes to
North Belle Meade Overla)' as follows:
Natural Resource Protection: The Future Land Use :-rap as it pertains to Section 24,
and the text changes on page 45 of the strike through and underline version of the 'plan as
it pertains to Section 24 are not in compliance because:
1. It is internally inconsistent with the provisions ofBJ.d, on page 44 of the
strikethrough and underline version, pertaining to Red Cockaded Woodperkers
(RCW) because the best available data indicate that Section 24 contains RCW habitat
and therefore should be designated as Sending Lands consistent with the definition of
Sending Lands in the County's comprehensive plan. According to the
Comprehensive plan Sending Lands "are those lands that have the highest degree of
environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands,
uplands, and habitat for listed species".
2, The Future Land Use Map as it pertains to the Section 24 is also inconsistent with
Rule 9J-5.013(2)(b)4 which requires the County to conserve, appropriately use and
protect wildlife habitat. This is because the best available data indicate that RCW
habitat is present on Section 24 and as sueh the property should be designated as
Sending Lands.
3. Furthennore, these amendments arc not "in compliance" because they fail to respond
appropriately to the best available data regarding environmental characteristics of
Section 24. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) FAC. requires the comprehensive plan. as well as
~-<"
plan amendments to bc based upon relevant and appropriate data and analyses.
2
OS/23/2007 12:00
8509222679
Ma~ 23 2007
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
11 :54
Agenda It~o. 1l,ll;/12
September 28. 2010
Page 28 of 49
(Chapter I 53.3 I 77(6)(a), (d), & (8)., Florida Statutes (F.S.); 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-
5.005(3)(b)4., (3)(c)I., & 5.; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3., & 4., & (2)(c)5., 6., & 9., Florida
Administrative Code (FAC)].
2. Ordinance II: 07-07: Canltal Improvements Element Chanlles: The inconsistent
provisions of the Amendment under this subject heading are as follows:
1. The Schedule of Capital Impro\'ements covers four years instead of five years as
required. This is inconsistent with the requirement thatlacal governments adopt and
maintain as part of their comprehensive plan a Five- Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements.
2. The funding sources for the identified improvements are not stated per year of
improvement. Instead, it is stated for aU the projects listed on the schedule for each type
of capital facility. For example, in the case of roads, revenues will come from gas tax,
impact fees, bond, carry forward, grants, developer contribution (i.e., Ave Maria), general
fund, and transfers. As a result, it is not possible to detennine if the project is funded by
committed or planned sources in order to demonstrate the financial feasibility of the
schedule. State law requires that projects be funded with committed sources of funds for
years 1 through 3, and with committed and or planned sources in the 4th and 5th years.
3. The projected revenues for each of the identified sources are not provided; as a result, it
is not possible to demonstrate and detennine the financial feasibility of the schedule, i.e.,
to detcliTline that the County will indeed generate the funds from lhose sources to pay for
the improvements.
[Chapter 163.3164(32), 163.3177(2) & (3)(a), l63,J177(6)(a), (c), (8), & (lO)(e), F.S.,
and 91.5.005(2)(a), (c), & (e), 91-5.006(2)(a). 9J-5.0l1(l)(b), (1)(0, (2)(b)\. & 2., &
(2)(c)I., and 9J-5.016(1), (2), (3)(b)1, 3, 4,5, (3)(c)6, & 8, and (4), and 9J-5.019(4)(c)\.,
FAC]
3
OS/23/2007 12:00
8509222679
May 232007 11:54
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
Agenda ItElft\3l'lo. ~12
September 28. 2010
Page 29 of 49
B. Recommended remedialllctions: The above inconsistencies may be remedied by taking the
following actions:
t. Ordinance No. 07.18: Future Land Use Element and Map Series Amendment:
Revise the North Belle Meade Future Land Use Overlay Map to change the land use
designation for Section 24 from Neutral Lands to Sending Lands in order to be consistent
with the Sending Lands provisions ofthe Plan, as well as with amended Section of the
plan pC!taining to Red.Cockade<! Woodpeckers (ReW), (page 44) of the revised Future
Land Use Element (strikethrough and underline version). At the same time, the County
should delete the additional requirements and limitations imposed on development in
Section 24 (page 45) of the revised Future Land Use Element (strikethrough and
underline version) and treat the Section 24 Sending Land the same way as other Sending
Lands in North Belle Meade.
2. Ordinance No. 07-07: CaDital ImDrovements Element Cbaol!es:
I. Revise the Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements to cover five years as required.
2. Indicate the funding sources for each improvement included on the schedule for every
year listed for that improvement. If the funds are coming from multiple sources, indicate
the percentage of the funds for that project that will come from each stated funding
source. [fa project is to be funded by State, County, or private contributions, the
schedule should indicate that, and in addition show the percentage that will come from
each contributor. For private contributions, the agreement between the county and the
private contributor that guarantees the funds should be referenced in the schedule and
included as an attachment. For the first three years the funds must come from committed
4
OS/23/2007 12:00
8509222579
Ma~ 23 2007 11:54
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
Agenda Irillll'No. '8~12
September 28, 2010
Page 30 of 49
sources while for the remaining two years it could come from committed and or planned
funding sources. You could use abbreviations to denote the funding sources and provide,
as a footnote. the meaning of each abbreviation.
J. Provide data and analysis projecting the revenues and expenditures of the County for
each ofthe sources that will be used to fund the capital improvements listed on the
schedule and covering the duration of the schedule. The projections should include a
brief historical perspective of the County's ability to raise money from each source and
based on that provide a projection of funds for the future. The analysis should show that
there are sufficient funds, after the expenditures are removed, to pay for the capital
improvements listed on the schedule.
II, CONSISTENCY WITH THE 51 A IE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. Inconsistent provisions. The Amendment is inconsistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies set forth in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, including
the following provisions:
1. Natural Systems and Recreation Lands Goal (9)(a), Policy(b)I., 3.,4., regarding the
protection ofwiJdlife and wildlife habitats, with respect to Ordinance No. 07-18; and
2. Land Use Goal (15)(a), Policy(b)2., regarding the development of a system of incentives
and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting,
among other things, wildlife habitats, with respect to Ordinance No. 07-18; and
3. Public Facilities Goal (17)(a), Policies (b)6, & 9. regarding the provision of public
facilities, with respect to Ordinance No. 07-07.
8. Recommended remedial action. These inconsistencies may be remedied by revising
the Amendment as described earlier in this statement of intent.
5
OS/23/2007 12:00
8509222679
Ma~ 232007 11:54
DCA GEI~RAL COUNSEL
Agenda It~o. $,ll,/12
September 28, 2010
Page 31 of 49
CONCLUSIONS
I. The Amendment is not consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Amendment is not consistent with Chapter 91-5, Florida Admi/listrative Code.
3. The Amendment is not consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes.
4. The Amendment is not "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b) Florida
Statutes.
5, In order to bring the Comprehensive Plan amendment into compliance, the County may
complete the recommended remedial actions described above or adopt other remedial actions
that eliminate the inconsistencies.
~
Executed this.L day of May 2007, at Tallahassee, Florida.
}vt (L~7 5'f)~.J
Mike McDaniel, Chief,
Comprehensive Planning
Division of Community Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
6
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28,2010
Page 32 of 49
EXHIBIT B
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS et aI. v. COLLIER COUNTY et
aI.
DOAH CASE NUMBER 07-2317GM
DCA Docket Number 07-ER-NOI-llOl-(A)-(N)
This proposal will settle the issues cited in the Department's Statement of Intent to fmd
the Collier County Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted by Ordinance 07-18 Not in
Compliance.
The terms below apply to Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the
North Belle Meade Overlay of Collier County (Section 24).
1. Sending Lands non-residential uses as they exist at the time of the adoption of this
agreement, in Section 1l.B.1.C) of the Future Land Use Element of the
comprehensive plan, are allowed, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement
for certain properties. Some or all Neutral Lands non-residential uses are allowed
on certain properties as provided for later in this Agreement.
2. Residential uses are allowed. The development density shall be one (1)
residential dwelling unit per lot of record or legal non-conforming lot of record as
it exists on the date of adoption of this Agreement if no clustering takes place.
3. For any clustered development, the maximum density shall be one (1) residential
dwelling unit per five (5) acres, or 0.2 residential dwelling units per acre. The
minimum gross acreage for clustering a single residential development shall be 64
acres.
4. For any clustered development, the lot size shall not exceed an average of one
acre, exclusive of areas to be dedicated, conveyed or set aside for right-of-way
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 33 of 49
purposes. Depending on the recommendations of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
(RCW) Habitat Management Plan required in paragraph 12 for clustered
development, the lot size may be required to be less.
5. Interim, private water and sewer facilities shall be allowed to serve clustered
developments until such time as County central water and sewer service becomes
available.
6. For any clustered development, a minimum of eighty percent (80%) ofthe native
vegetation shall be preserved in a manner which is consistent with the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Policy 6.1.2e.-g., as it exists on
the date of the adoption of this agreement.
7. For any development that is not clustered, ninety percent (90%) of the slash pine
trees shall be preserved, and a greater amount may be preserved at the discretion
of the property owner, unless the RCW Habitat Management Plan recommends a
lesser amount.
8. Any clustered residential development requires participation in a RCW Habitat
Management Plan and the requirements set forth in Paragraph 12 of this
Agreement. Any non-residential development consistent with Neutral Lands non-
residential uses, as authorized later in this Agreement for certain properties,
requires participation in a RCW Habitat Management Plan and the requirements
set forth in Paragraph 12 of this Agreement.
9. Specific additional development standards and use limitations/allowances for the
Hideout Parcels in Section 24:
2
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28. 2010
Page 34 of 49
a. Hideout will be authorized to cluster and construct 37 residential dwelling
units on its parcels, in a single cluster, within the areas colored green on
the attached map of Section 24. These dwelling unit figures are based
upon total Hideout ownership in Section 24 (approximately 187 acres).
b. Clustered residential development by Hideout shall take place only in the
parcels colored green on the attached map, and shall be located in an area
of the property determined by the RCW Habitat Management Plan to be
most appropriate for development. For the location of the clustered
development, the RCW Habitat Management Plan shall consider areas
already developed and highly impacted, as well as areas contiguous to
areas in the southeast part of Section 24 that are already developed and
highly impacted.
c. No development shall take place on the two Hideout parcels adjacent to
the existing Hideout Golf Course (identified by striping pattern on the
attached map of Section 24).
d. All other cluster provisions and requirements for Neutral Lands shall be
applicable to the three green Hideout parcels (identified on the attached
map of Section 24) set aside for development purposes. These cluster
provisions and requirements are set out in the Rural Fringe
Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted June 19,2002, by Ordinance
number 2002-32, and incorporated into the comprehensive plan, and
subsequently adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code,
Ordinance No. 04-4], as amended.
3
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28,2010
Page 35 of 49
e. The three Hideout parcels colored green (identified on the attached map of
Section 24) are limited to residential uses and associated accessory uses,
essential services, and parks, open space, and recreational uses, as well as
necessary infrastructure to serve such development - all as provided for in
the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands of the Future Land Use
Element in the Comprehensive Plan, and as stated in paragraph 12.f.(4)(b)
of this Agreement.
f. For the three Hideout parcels colored green and the two striped Hideout
parcels (as depicted on the attached map of Section 24), which total
approximately 81 acres, the native vegetation requirement in accordance
with paragraph 6. of this agreement shall be approximately 65 acres.
g. Hideout's approximately 65 acres of native vegetation shall be conveyed
to Conservation Collier, a Home Owners Association, or other like entity,
for the purposes of conservation and preservation. The conveyance shall
be in the form of a conservation easement (CE), or other instrument
acceptable to the entity.
(1) The entity in whose favor the CE is granted shan be obligated to
implement and maintain the RCW Habitat Management Plan that
win be developed for this area in association with the Safe Harbor
Agreement as described below.
(2) Such entity shall provide financial assurances to Collier County, in
the form of a bond, letter of credit, or equivalent, of its ability to
4
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 36 of 49
implement and permanently maintain this RCW Habitat
Management Plan.
h. As set forth in paragraph 8., for any clustered residential development and
for any non-residential development, Hideout will participate in the
Habitat Management Plan and all other requirements of Paragraph 12 of
this Agreement.
1. For any future redevelopment of the seven Hideout parcels colored yellow
(identified on the attached map of Section 24) to change the use from golf
course, these parcels are allowed to develop with any of the non-
residential uses provided for in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
Neutral Lands of the Future Land Use Element in the Comprehensive
Plan, and are subject to all requirements and limitations of Neutral Lands.
10. Specific additional development standards and use limitations for the Cowan
parcels in Section 24:
a. In accordance with paragraph:2 of this Agreement, on Cowan's parcels
totaling 97.7 acres, Cowan is entitled to develop one (1 ) residential
dwelling unit on each of his six (6) lots ofrecord as they exist on the date
of adoption of this settlement agreement if no clustering takes place.
b. For clustered development, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this
Agreement, the maximum density shall be one (1) residential dwelling
unit per five (5) acres, or 0.2 residential dwelling units per acre, not to
exceed 19 residential dwelling units on the Cowan property.
5
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 37 of 49
c. If Cowan chooses clustered development, Cowan, or his assigns, will
participate in an RCW Habitat Management Plan and the requirements
outlined in Paragraph 12 of this Agreement, and shall expend a sum of
money to promptly implement the RCW Habitat Management Plan for
Cowan's parcels totaling 97.7 acres. This initial amount ("Initial
Management Amount") shall be no greater than $30,000.00. Once the
RCW Habitat Management Plan is implemented, Cowan, or his assigns,
agrees to fund the Initial Management Amount plus five percent (5%) per
year, which shall accrue annually, as an inflation adjustment.
d. Up to two (2) clustered developments shall be permitted on Cowan's 97.7
acres. The cluster( s) shall be located in an area( s) of the property
determined by the best available data, including the RCW Habitat
Management Plan, to be most appropriate for development.
e. Development within the Cowan southernmost approximately) 6-acre
parcel (Lot 35, Naples Farm Sites, Inc., identified on the attached map of
Section 24, the "Lot 35 Parcel") next to the existing Hideout Golf Course
(the seven parcels colored yellow on the attached map of Section 24) shall
consist ofroad access and up to three clustered dwelling units. These
dwelling units shall be part of the total number of clustered dwelling units
assigned to the Cowan property. Accordingly, if three dwelling units are
developed in the Lot 35 Parcel, then three dwelling units shall be
subtracted from the total number of dwelling units, and Cowan may
develop the remainder of units in a single cluster elsewhere on Section 24
6
Agenda Item No. SA
September 28,2010
Page 38 of 49
Cowan property as set forth above. The lot sizes of the Lot 35 Parcel
clustered dwelling units shall not exceed an average of one acre per lot,
exclusive of areas to be dedicated, conveyed or set aside for right -of-way
purposes.
f. If clustering occurs, all other cluster provisions and requirements for
Neutral Lands shall be applicable to the Cowan parcels set aside for
development purposes. These cluster provisions and requirements are set
out in the Rural Fringe Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted June
19,2002, by Ordinance number 2002-32, and incorporated into the
comprehensive plan, and subsequently adopted into the Collier County
Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended.
g. The Cowan parcels are limited to residential uses and associated accessory
uses, essential services, and parks, open space, and recreational uses, as
well as necessary infrastructure to serve such development - all as
provided for in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands of the
Future Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan, and as stated in
paragraph 12.f.(4)(b) of this Agreement.
h. If clustering occurs. Cowan's approximately 78 acres of native vegetation
shall be conveyed or granted by a conservation easement (CE) or deed (as
determined by Cowan or his assignee) to Conservation Collier, a Home
Owners Association, or other like entity, its successors and assigns, a non-
exclusive easement, license, and privilege to enter upon, maintain,
preserve and conserve such property and wildlife.
7
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 39 of 49
(I) The entity in whose favor the CE is granted shall be obligated to
implement and maintain the RCW Habitat Management Plan that
will be developed for this area referenced in paragraph I Dc above
and in association with the Safe Harbor Agreement as described
below.
(2) Such entity shall provide financial assurances to Collier County, in
the form of a bond, letter of credit, or equivalent, of its ability to
implement and permanently maintain this RCW Habitat
Management Plan.
1. As set forth in paragraph 8., for any clustered residential development and
for non-residential development, Cowan will participate in the Habitat
Management Plan and all other requirements of Paragraph 12 of this
Agreement.
11. Specific additional development standards and use allowances for the Buckley
parcels in Section 24:
a. In accordance with paragraph 2 of this Exhibit B, on Buckley's parcels
totaling approximately 81 acres, Buckley is entitled to develop one (1)
residential dwelling unit on each of his six (6) lots of record as they exist
on the date of adoption of this settlement agreement ifno clustering takes
place.
b. For clustered development, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Exhibit
B, the maximum density shall be one (I) residential dwelling unit per five
8
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28, 2010
Page 40 of 49
(5) acres, or 0.2 residential dwelling units per acre, not to exceed 16
residential dwelling units.
c. If BuckJey chooses to cluster development, Buckley will participate in an
RCW Habitat Management Plan and the requirements set forth in
Paragraph 12 of this Agreement and agree to expend a sum of money to
promptly implement the RCW Habitat Management Plan. This amount
shall be $30,000.00 plus five (5) percent per year as an inflation
adjustment. Once the RCW Habitat Management Plan is implemented,
Buckley agrees to fully fund the ongoing maintenance costs.
d. Only one clustered development shall be allowed on Buckley's
approximately 81 acres, and that cluster shall be located in an area of the
property determined by the best available data, including the RCW Habitat
Management Plan, to be most appropriate for development. For the
location of the clustered development, the RCW Habitat Management Plan
shall consider areas already developed and highly impacted, as well as
areas contiguous to areas in the eastern portion of Section 24 that are
already developed and highly impacted.
e. If clustering occurs, all other cluster provisions and requirements for
Neutral Lands shall be applicable to the Buckley parcels set aside for
development purposes. These cluster criteria are set out in the Rural
Fringe Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted June] 9,2002, by
Ordinance number 2002-32, and incorporated into the comprehensive
9
Agenda Item No. SA
September 28, 2010
Page 41 of 49
plan, and subsequently adopted into the Collier County Land Development
Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended.
f. If Buckley chooses to cluster residential development, the native
vegetation requirement in accordance with paragraph 5. of this agreement
is approximately 65 acres.
g. If Buckley chooses to cluster residential development, approximately 65
acres of native vegetation shall be conveyed to Conservation Collier, a
Home Owners Association, or other like entity, for the purposes of
conservation and preservation. The conveyance shall be in the form of a
conservation easement (CE), or other instrument acceptable to the entity.
(1) The entity in whose favor the CE is granted shall be obligated to
implement and maintain the RCW Habitat Management Plan that
will be developed for this area in association with the Safe Harbor
Agreement as described below.
(2) Such entity shall provide financial assurances to Collier County, in
the form of a bond, letter of credit, or equivalent, of its ability to
implement and permanently maintain this RCW Habitat
Management Plan.
h. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph Il.a.-g. above, the Buckley
parcels are not restricted to residential use, but rather are allowed to
develop with any of the uses provided for in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District Neutral Lands of the Future Land Use Element in the
Comprehensive Plan.
10
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28,2010
Page 42 of 49
1. The following conditions apply if Buckley chooses to develop any of the
non-residential uses provided for in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
Neutral Lands of the Future Land Use Element:
(I) Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Land uses, with the
exception of facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and
reduction of solid waste and the exception of earth mining, may be
developed if Buckley participates in a RCW Habitat Management
Plan and agrees to expend a sum of money to promptly implement
the associated RCW Habitat Management Plan. This amount shall
be $30,000.00 plus five (5) percent per year as an inflation
adjustment. Once the RCW Habitat Management Plan is
implemented, Buckley agrees to fully fund the ongoing
maintenance costs.
(2) Non-residential Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Land uses
shall be located in an area of the property determined by the best
available data, including the RCW Habitat Management Plan
studies, to be most appropriate for non-residential development.
(3) For Non-residential Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Land
uses in Section 24, native vegetation shall be preserved in a
manner which is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and
the County's Conservation and Coastal Management Element,
Policy 6.1.2e.-g., as it exists on the date of the adoption of this
agreement.
11
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28.2010
Page 43 of 49
12. Safe Harbor Agreement
a. Hideout (and Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan or Buckley
chooses to cluster residential density) shall apply for and pursue a Safe
Harbor Agreement with associated RCW Habitat Management Plan with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the approximately 81 acres (Cowan
97.7 acres and Buckley 81 acres) ofland they own in Section 24 that are
described in paragraph 9 J.
b. If approved, the RCW Habitat Management Plan will require such
management techniques as the mechanical or manual thinning of trees and
understory, and the removal of combustible materials to levels which
would permit a "controlled bum" that would not destroy, but would
maintain, the presence of a sufficient amount of slash pine trees for RCW
foraging and cavity tree nests.
c. Hideout (and Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan or Buckley
chooses to cluster residential density) agrees to pay all legal and
permitting fees related to their effort to obtain approval of the Safe Harbor
Agreement. Additionally, if successful in obtaining a Safe Harbor
Agreement, Hideout (and Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan or
Buckley chooses to cluster residential density) agrees to expend a sum of
money to promptly implement the associated RCW Habitat Management
Plan. This amount shall be $30,000.00 plus five (5) percent per year as an
inflation adjustment. Once the RCW Habitat Management Plan is
implemented, Hideout (and Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan
12
- - - -~"--,-"------'''~-'-'--"-'->-'~---'''~~-~-'-
Agenda Item No. SA
September 28,2010
Page 44 of 49
or Buckley chooses to cluster residential density) agrees to fully fund the
ongoing maintenance costs.
d. The Safe Harbor Agreement and associated RCW Habitat Management
Plan must provide that Hideout (and Cowan or Buckley at such time either
Cowan or Buckley chooses to cluster residential density) can develop 37
residential dwelling units (Cowan 19 units and Buckley 16 units) in the
areas colored green (Cowan blue, and Buckley uncolored) as set forth on
the attached map. The RCW Habitat Management Plan must also delineate
the maximum area that may be cleared, in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Growth Management Plan, within the green areas
(Cowan blue, Buckley uncolored) set forth on the attached map. The Safe
Harbor Agreement must allow 20% of Hideout's approximately 8] acres
(approximately 16 acres) (Cowan 19.54 acres and Buckley approximately
16 acres) to be cleared when development occurs.
e. The County, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Florida Wildlife
Federation (FWF), and Collier County Audubon Society (CCAS)
acknowledge that once the RCW Habitat Management Plan is
implemented, the County shall defer to the federal and state agencies as to
protection of other state and federal listed species that may be present on
the approximate 81 acres ofland owned by Hideout (97.7 acres owned by
Cowan and approximately 81 acres owned by Buckley) and described in
paragraph 9.f. Hideout (and Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan
or Buckley chooses to cluster residential density) agrees to comply with
13
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28.2010
Page 45 of 49
all federal and state listed species criteria for development within the areas
that will be allowed to be cleared pursuant to the Safe Harbor Agreement.
f. The County, DCA, FWF, and CCAS agree to not comment to any of the
state and federal permitting agencies during the permitting process for the
Hideout (and for Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan or Buckley
chooses to cluster residential density) parcels so long as the following
takes place:
(I) The projects are clustered; and
(2) The Safe Harbor Agreement with associated RCW Habitat
Management Plan is approved and being implemented; and
(3) The referenced CE or fee simple title is granted to the appropriate
entity for management of the RCW habitat; and
(4) Permit applications are consistent with this Stipulated Settlement
Agreement and all provisions of the Collier County comprehensive
plan, except they are not subject to:
(a) the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Objective
2.1 and subsequent policies; Goal 6 and subsequent objectives
and policies, excluding policies 6.1.2e.-g., 6.1.4, 6.1.5, and
6.1.7; and, Goal 7 and subsequent objectives and policies; and,
(b) the Future Land Use Element, Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District, Neutral Lands, paragraph 2., ,Clustering,
subparagraph d), minimum project size; Paragraph 3.
Allowable Uses, subparagraphs 3.a), d) through h), j) through
14
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28.2010
Page 46 of 49
p), r) and s) [these excepted uses are prohibited]; paragraph 5.
Density Blending [this provision is not available for these
parcels ].
g. The FWF and CCAS further agree to use their best efforts to persuade the
National Wildlife Federation and Audubon Society of Florida to refrain
from commenting to any state or federal permitting agencies during the
permitting process for the Hideout developments (and Cowan or Buckley
developments at such time either Cowan or Buckley chooses to cluster
residential density) so long as the following takes place:
(1) See Subparagraphs 12.[ (1) through (4) immediately above.
h. Should Hideout (and Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan or
Buckley chooses to cluster residential density) be unable to secure an
acceptable Safe Harbor Agreement with associated RCW Habitat
Management Plan, or should the cost of implementing the RCW Habitat
Management Plan exceed the sum of $30,000.00 plus the inflation factor
set forth herein and no additional funding can be obtained, then Hideout
(and Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan or Buckley chooses to
cluster residential density) shall be deemed to have satisfied their Safe
Harbor Agreement and associated RCW Management Plan obligations
pursuant to this Agreement with the contribution of $30,000.00 toward
management of the RCW habitat. In such an event, the remaining
provisions and requirements relating to density, clustering, preservation
and any other applicable development standards of this Stipulated
15
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28,2010
Page 47 of 49
Settlement Agreement, and the Collier County GMP, except as excepted
in paragraph 12.f.(4) of this Agreement, remain effective and applicable to
the Hideout (and Cowan or Buckley at such time either Cowan or Buckley
chooses to cluster residential density) parcels in Section 24.
The Collier County Comprehensive Plan will be amended as necessary to recognize and
implement this Stipulated Settlement Agreement. This amendment will be initiated by
Collier County at Collier County's expense, except that public notice expenses will be
paid on a proportionate share basis by Collier County and the intervener property owners
entering into this agreement.
16
.._,.."..._.,...,._"--""",,--=-,.._._,--'-~'
f:H
I~
I n=t--1
xi I I
II ! I
[Hi
I . !
i ~ 1 '
I~
II I..
I ,I
i I
"
'.
I~
il~
I'
Ii
I. 'mow
il
II
YELLOW
II
!
I,
II
IJ
"
o
o
w
o
50
30
"
o
o
w
o
50
I
I
r~-I
31
"
"
o
o
w
o
50
"
YE~lOW
"
o
o
w
o
50
32
YELLOW
!
I
9
!
,
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28.2010
Page 48 of 49
NAPLES FARM SITES, INC.
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
!
I
>
w
.
.
u
o
.
>
w
~
.
u
o
.
"I
!
I
,
4
2
>
w
"
.
u
o
.
>
w
"
.
u
o
.
>
~
.
u
o
.
>
~
.
u
o
.
17
18
19
"
o
o
w
o
50
"
~
IH
h
:~
.I-~
H~
~
o
g
Q
z:'
'"
"
o
Q
w
Q
50
22
YELLOW
GREEH caREEN
GREEN
"
o
o
w
o
50
!~.. im. ~
i ~37 '~ 8
~=rL .,
R~
~..I I
: : Ii,' I I
KtANAVENllE
l
33
36
YELLOW
YELLOW
IUll!:;'
SCALE i
,-
_~OQ n Mon
PREPARED BY. GIS/CAD MAPPING SECTION
CQMl.lUNITY DEVELOP~ENT AND ENV1RON~ENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
DATI_ 6/2010 FilE NFS-24H26DWG
Agenda Item No. 8A
September 28.2010
Page 49 of 49
...."._"C_,,_.~..~H~~'~"^""
~.....^.."......,"..._-^_...,
18D . Wednesday, September 15, 2010 · Naples Daily News
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER STIPUlATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will
hold a Public Meeting on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 in the Boardroom. 3rd
Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building (Bldg. F), Collier County Government Center,
3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, ~lorida. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider executing a settlement agreement per-
taining to OOAH CASE NUMBER 07-2317GM, DCA Docket Number 07~ER.NOI-l101.
(A)-(N), betwe~n the Florida Department of Community Affairs et al and Collier
County, Florida et al. .
The Agreement title is as ,follows:
SECTION 24 SffiLEMENT AGREEMENT. DOAH CASE NUMBER 07-2317GM. DCA
Docket Number OHR-NOI.l101.(A)-(N) BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ET AL AND COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA ET A~ IN RESPONSE
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS' STATEMENT OF INTENT TO FIND
THAT PORTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AMENDMENT 07-1ER PERTAINING TO
THE FUTURE .lAND USE MAP DESIGNIITION AND TEXT PROVISIONS FOR SECTION
24. TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST NOT IN COMPLIANCE, ISSUED ON MAY
1,2007.
All interested parties are in....ited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed
settlement agreement are available for inspection at the land Development Serv-
ices Department. Comprehensive Planning .Section, .2800 N. Horseshoe Driv@,
Naples. Florida between the hours of 8;00 A,M. and 5:00 P.M.. Monday through Fri-
day. Any questions pertaining to these documents should be directed to the Land
Development Services Department, Growth Management Division . Comprehensive
Planning Section.' (239-252-2306). Written comments filed with the Land Develop--
ment Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section prior to Tuesday, Sep-
tember 28, 2010, will be read and considered at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he. will need a record of that rroceeding, and for such purpose he may
need to ensure that a verbatim record 0 the proceedings is made, whIch record in-
dudes the testimony imd evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs an accommodation in order to par-
tiCipate in the proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost. to you, to the provision of
certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Depart-
ment, located at 3301 Tamiami Trait East, Building; W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)
252-8380. Assisted hstening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the
County Commissioners' Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: IslPatricia Morgan
Deputy Clerk (SEAL)
c;f1ntpmhpr 1 Ii 7010
Nn1RllR10a
"""
.~Jl~