Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/03/2021June 3, 2021 Page 1 of 49 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 3, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:30 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (participating remotely) Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Derek D. Perry, Assistant County Attorney June 3, 2021 Page 2 of 49 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. HENDERLONG: We're good to go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Good morning -- afternoon, excuse me. Time flies. This is the first or regular session of the June 3rd, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: For those of you watching this either in person or on TV and notice that we started late, we had some technical difficulties, but we seem to be up and running at this time. With that, I'll ask the secretary to please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe I was one of the technical difficulties. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You were. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Eastman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Commissioner Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead. Oh, we need to approve you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I would ask my fellow commissioners to please allow me to participate remotely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we like you pretty much, so I think it's going to go okay, but I'll ask for a motion. May I have a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion that he -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Welcome to our meeting, Commissioner. June 3, 2021 Page 3 of 49 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're welcome. Commissioner Schmitt's absence is excused, and Mr. Eastman's absence has also been excused. Let's see. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: We have no changes to the 2:30 agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on June 17, 2021. Does anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sounds like we're going to be good to go for a quorum. That is a good thing. Approval of minutes. We have one set of minutes before us, and those are our minutes of May 6th, 2021. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second? Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: They pass unanimously. Thank you very much. Let's see. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the May 25th Board of County Commissioners meeting, they heard the presentation for the villages, the SRA villages. We got through the applicant's presentation, staff presentations, and the public's questioning. The vote was deferred or moved to the first meeting in June to allow for a commissioner to participate who was out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bellows. Chairman's report. I'm going to cede my time to Ms. Jenkins, and I'd ask her to provide us with a brief explanation of why we must hear certain matters in the evening, such as the privately initiated text amendment that's coming before us this evening. And our newer commissioners may find this explanation helpful. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Anita Jenkins, the zoning director. So Collier County follows the state statute on these requirements. The state statute requires that anytime we add a permitted use or a conditional use to a list of uses in any zoning district, that that must be heard by the Board at 5:00 or after 5:00 unless they defer it to a different time. So the Board can elect to hear that at a different time, and then our code would ask that the Planning Commission hears it after 5:00 on a basis so participation can be had by those that are working in the evening. So it's only for those items that are changing a use in the Land Development Code. That's why you're going to hear some Land Development Code amendments today, this afternoon, that are not changing, specifically, any permitted or conditional uses but are just changing; other June 3, 2021 Page 4 of 49 notifications requirements, for example. So that's the difference of why we hear things at night because we feel that -- and the state feels that it's more important for people to be able to participate when we're actually adding different uses to different zoning districts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I appreciate the explanation. Does anybody have any questions of Ms. Jenkins about that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's why we're here -- we're going to be here at five after 5:00. All right. For this afternoon's agenda, 9A, advertised, we have three staff-initiated LDC text amendments today. They are PL20190002818, PL20200002505, and PL20200002512. Respectively, they are, number one, to clarify the density calculation for single-family and two-family or duplex dwelling units on legal nonconforming lots of record in the RMF-6 district; second is to increase the public notification of distances for land-use petitions within the rural and urban Golden Gate Estates; and, third, to clarify soil and groundwater sampling requirements in the development review process for the conversion of golf courses. And all items that we have both this afternoon and evening are legislative in nature, and thus we may dispense with the need for swearing in witnesses and making ex parte disclosures. So with that, we'll begin with staff's presentation. Mr. Henderlong, it's yours, sir. MR. HENDERLONG: Good afternoon, sir, Commissioners. Rich Henderlong, principal planner with the Land Development Code section. ***This first item is a calculation of density, and it should be on your screen there, for legal conforming lots of record in the RMF-6 district, and it also clarifies the definitions for nonconforming lots of record and lot of record. The purpose of this amendment, as earlier stated, is to clarify how to resolve the calculation of the density for single-family, two-family, or duplex dwelling unit for legally platted nonconforming lots of record in the RMF-6 district. Further, it clarifies the definition of lot of record and nonconforming lots of record. The amendment seeks to achieve the following: One, resolve the prior administrative staff memorandums and reduce staff time in determination of nonconforming lots of record for RMF -- for the RMF-6 district. And this has been going on for some time since -- oh, several decades. Third, clarify that the type of the nonconformity for this amendment is limited to just the RMF-6 district, and that's where it appears as a new section in LDC Section 9.03.03.A.86. And, lastly, is to allow the staff reviewer to use a precalculated minimum lot area of 9,750 square feet to determine if a duplex or two-family unit could be built on a particular nonconforming -- legally platted nonconforming lot. This next slide is taken directly from the LDC code for the definition of residential density. This is why we're here. Basically, the bottom line, which is highlighted in yellow, is for the purpose of calculating distance that the number of dwelling units can be rounded up to a whole number of up to .5 or greater. So building upon that, what we have here is -- and I'll see if I can work -- I don't know how to expand that. But this is an example of one of the zoning letters of verification that staff would undertake. And midway down you'll see -- I think I can try -- I'm learning how to work this. Yeah, I just need the line, right? There. How about that? I'm learning. This is my first shot at this. As you can see in this letter, it's a very complicated formula to try and figure out how to do that density. We've been able to mathematically figure out, rather than the 1.26, he's using the lot areas of 9,147 here and divided by the seventy-two six -- 7,260 and nets out to 1.26. The bottom line is that the duplex could not be constructed on that subject property. So what -- the new standard of the calculation will allow them -- they'll just be looking for that number, 9,750, and they know they would get that extra unit. So that's what we're trying to June 3, 2021 Page 5 of 49 resolve here. And that basically concludes the presentation for the LDC amendment. If you've got any questions, I'm happy to go over it with you, or it starts on Page 109 of your packet and 110. If you look on Line 9 for 109, you'll see that, for which an agreement for deed was executed prior to October 14, 1974. If it's within the Coastal Planning District and it's different, it would be for an agreement for deed prior to January 5, 1982, if it's within the former Immokalee Area Planning District. Let's see if I can get the text up here. That probably would be better for you to display the text. There we are. On the screen this is where we're clarifying the definition for lot of record. We struck the prior May 1, 1979, because there's no nexus that ties any ordinance to code. Why that's there, we could not, in our research, find any code of law that basically addressed or an ordinance that addressed that period, so that's been deleted. Nonconforming lots of record, we're clarifying that the Coastal Area Planning Commission is 1982, and then for the nonconforming lots of record, we're cross-referencing the brand-new section, 9.03.03.A. So as we scroll down, you will find -- so, again, this is under types of nonconformity. It's limited to just the RMF-6, single-family, two-family duplex, and this is how it reads: A two-family duplex may be constructed on a legal nonconforming lot of record when a minimum area is 9,750 square feet or greater and agreement for deed or deed was executed prior to January 5, 1982. And it's a different date for the single-family dwelling unit, January 5, 1982. And this historical table is pretty comprehensive. It starts all the way back in '74. It covers a lot of -- the main bottom line here in 04-41 is you'll see, the current dimensional stance for a single-family is 6,500, for a two-family it's 1,200 [sic], and it's 5,500 for single-family -- multifamily units per unit. I also have prepared a list of -- there's about 11 subdivisions that are being affected by this that would help clarify that are on the book for nonconforming -- legal nonconforming lots of record or platted lots of record. And if you have any questions, happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Did you say you had a list of 11 developments? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. Would you like to see it? COMMISSIONER FRY: Absolutely, sure. My main question is, I've read the materials and heard your description. So we seem to be just cleaning up something that's been an irritation for staff. And has it created significant issues with the public in terms of lawsuits, major conflicts, disputes over what a person could build on their property? Is it just, really, a minor cleanup item -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- or is it more? MR. BELLOWS: -- Ray Bellows. The staff has been relying on a staff clarification memorandum in helping the public determine what they're eligible for on their RMF-6 zoned properties. And it has become an arduous task to go through all these various memorandums and clarifications to make sure we've got the latest one. And we certainly don't want to keep regulating through memorandums and staff clarifications. We should amend the code to fix it, and that's what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So those are the developments? MR. HENDERLONG: The yellow highlight shows the nonconforming, the ones that we're having the problems with because of the lower interior lot dimensions. You'll see the first one was in 1957. They go back in times. But these are 11 subdivisions we've identified. Two of them are in Immokalee where staff would see nonconforming lots of record coming in seeking June 3, 2021 Page 6 of 49 redevelopment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where did the 97 -- was it 9,725; where did that come from? Is that 1.5 of the 7,200 number in that? MR. HENDERLONG: It's 1.5. On the screen here, the lot area right here, 6,500, 1.5. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's -- okay. MR. HENDERLONG: Times 1.5. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just an educational question. What's a nonconforming lot of record in your terms? MR. HENDERLONG: When zoning ordinances set the side-yard setbacks, every -- depending upon the year, if they change from previous zoning ordinances, they're either increased or decreased, or the lot area got changed. So, for example, in 1982, the county had an old -- two zoning ordinances, Immokalee and coastal. They combined them in 82-02. At that time, they changed the nomenclature for the districts. The densities were higher back prior to 82-02. Some 12 units as opposed to which is now down to six units to an acre. So the dimensional standards for both the lot area and the setbacks can change over time. MR. BELLOWS: And lot width. MR. HENDERLONG: And lot width; I apologize. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So these are areas that were built according to the codes at the time and now are grandfathered because they don't comply with the updated codes? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. KLATZKOW: And if they burn down, they've got to rebuild to code. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: If they burn down or are destroyed in a hurricane, at that time they typically have to rebuild to code. COMMISSIONER SHEA: New code. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's where the problems come in. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRY: On a somewhat related matter, but just a matter of interest, in Golden Gate Estates, one dwelling unit per two-and-a-quarter acres minimum but there are a lot of lots that were split in half at some point and they have a home on half that, basically. MR. BELLOWS: Seventy-five-foot-wide lot. MR. HENDERLONG: Seventy-five-foot-wide lot. COMMISSIONER FRY: Seventy-five-foot-wide lot. MR. HENDERLONG: That's a good example. COMMISSIONER FRY: They -- as Jeff said, if they burn down, are they able to be rebuilt? Those are nonconforming lots, correct, under today's rules? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I wanted to make the distinction between a nonconforming -- legal nonconforming lot and a nonconforming structure. Nonconforming lot -- a legal nonconforming lot can be rebuilt on. It's a buildable lot. But a structure on it that's nonconforming, if it's damaged, it has to be rebuilt to current setbacks. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the matter that is before us today is a nonconforming lot? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, and how density's calculated. MR. HENDERLONG: Just a lot area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I have a question, and it has to do with what may not be legally possible. And we discussed this at our staff meeting on Tuesday, and the question goes June 3, 2021 Page 7 of 49 to the agreement for deed. Now, if you have a deed, it's going to be recorded, and the time for grandfathering starts when it's recorded, but if it's an agreement for deed, the time for grandfathering, the way this is written, starts when it's executed. Now, it may be that since that's the way the language has been, that the people have vested rights in that, but it also -- it opens the door potentially for fraud. And so I guess my question may be for the County Attorney. Are we bound by this language as a result of vested rights? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't understand the question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The language says that the grandfathering time for a deed begins when it's recorded, filed for record so the public knows when that happens. But the grandfathering for an agreement for deed that might not have been recorded starts potentially at a much earlier time when it was executed, and it could have been executed fraudulently dated back. But since this language has been here for a while, the executed part I'm thinking we probably can't change it to "recorded" for agreements for deed as a result of vested rights arguments. Am I correct or incorrect? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know why we're doing this, to be frank with you, because it does raise that issue, and it does raise the issue of people creating fraud. I don't know what to tell you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that's -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I understand staff is concerned because they've got some old interpretations here, but every time you change the code, you get these unintended consequences. And, you know, I just -- if it's a significant problem, that's one thing, but if this is just a cleanup, sometimes you get these unintended consequences. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would we be out of line if we -- if we did the grandfathering start clock at recording an agreement for deed the way we -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know how many people don't record their deeds. I mean, you know, my entire time practicing law, I've never seen anybody deed property and not record it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, this is an agreement for deed. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, okay. And, again, I've never seen that not recorded. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Would you advise us against changing "executed" to "recorded," because that's what I'd like to do? Because it would remove the potential for fraud, but I don't want to get us into a situation -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm okay with that, because if somebody happens to come along and finds one of those things, they can bring it up, and we'll look at it at any point in time. You know, back in the 1980s, we used typewriters and, you know, you could sort of see if something's been frauded. But, again, I've never seen an instance of that. Everybody records their deeds -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: -- or your agreements and deeds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I, then, am going to ask the Planning Commission if it would entertain a change to this language so as to require agreements for deed, for them to start the grandfather clock, that they would have to be actually recorded rather than just executed. Does anyone -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, I like the idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I've got some language here that -- MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, I've got it highlighted for you, Line Item 9 on the screen, where it uses -- which an agreement's in the definition. You want to strike "was executed" and just say "was recorded" prior to that date? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is one place where -- MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- it would be done. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. You're at Line 9. Yeah, that would be an easy way to June 3, 2021 Page 8 of 49 change it. But then also in Line 13 we have the same problem; any lawful lot or parcel which was recorded or for which an agreement for deed was executed, and so I think we want to say an agreement for deed or a deed was recorded. MR. HENDERLONG: Agreement for deed or a deed -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. An agreement for deed or deed was recorded, and just not use the word "executed." MR. HENDERLONG: Got it. And we would do that in both the highlighted text on the screen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: In both places? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Very good. Anybody want to comment on that or -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I was just going to see if the staff has any concerns about that change. I know it's kind of on the spot here. But does that bother you, that change? MS. JENKINS: I have no concerns. MR. KLATZKOW: Have you ever had, in all these years, somebody come forward with an unrecorded agreement for deed? MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge. For the record, Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon, I did speak with staff about this last Tuesday, but it's a good -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a good question -- good point to make. MR. KLATZKOW: Just real quick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Does this affect Naples Park? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it does. MR. HENDERLONG: It would affect all those subdivisions we have up on the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Because right now Naples Park is going through a transformation where people are trying to convert these into short-term rentals, and it's been a problem for the neighborhood. And is this going to make it easy for people to put duplexes in there that they can then rent out? MR. HENDERLONG: No. The rounding up is a matter of calculation based upon that lot area, and that's how -- it does not entitle them to a duplex or to -- it's just when the lot -- say you've got a 6,000-square-foot lot, two lots are combined, it makes 6,000, and we use the 9,750. You divide that math. If it goes 1.5 feet, one-and-a-half times that, above that, they can get the duplex; otherwise, I have a letter here where they rejected one in the Naples Park area, the other particular division. MR. KLATZKOW: Ray understands the issue. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I think what the question is -- MR. KLATZKOW: I've got a lot -- MR. BELLOWS: -- we are not doing anything with this amendment that creates a better opportunity to get a duplex. It's a just an easier way for staff to calculate. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So, fine. So this is not going to make it easier for somebody to knock down a single-family house and put up a duplex? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. It's just for staff to understand that if they qualify. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion on this first of three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Henderlong, I think maybe we should probably vote on these one at a time -- MR. HENDERLONG: I think that's great. June 3, 2021 Page 9 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- since we've got it fresh in our minds. MR. HENDERLONG: I think that's great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd entertain a motion to approve with the proposed amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: I move to approve with the change stipulated by the Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Henderlong. THE COURT REPORTER: Hold on. I'm not hearing Mr. Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Klucik, would you cast your vote again, please, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's quite a delay from Immokalee -- I mean from Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What? COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you on the surface of the sun, Robb, or are you in Ave Maria? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we like to think of ourselves as the center of the universe. COMMISSIONER FRY: Good comeback. MR. HENDERLONG: ***This next amendment pertains to the public notice distance requirements for the urban and the rural Golden Gate Estates area as designated by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The GMAP policy states the following: The goal is to implement this policy for the rural and, as I mentioned, the urban area. Specifically, the policy has been -- reads accordingly. Recognizing the low density in rural and urban Golden Gate Estates, the county will initiate a review of written notifications in the Land Development Code and the administrative code related to land-use petitions in the Golden Gate Estates within one year of adoption and consider increasing the specified distance with particular attention to properties located on dead-end streets. So given that directive, staff undertook a comprehensive -- it's the second bullet there -- of four Golden Gate Estates designated areas under the master plan. We used various notification distances. There were two components to it. One was the rural area, and the three areas that were selected, we took their subdistrict area plus the respective transitional conditional-use zone that abuts that particular subdistrict and, from there, drew the lines out to figure out what would be the notification distances as well as how they intersected dead-end streets. So there are three designated areas for the rural area and one for the urban area. The last one indicates on the bullet that that is the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict located in the Urban Golden Gate Estates. That's in your packet. So the results of the property notification study indicated that when we were combining that with designating the zones, we used 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 2,500. It's important to understand that currently how it works is the 500 feet for the urban area of the Estates, it is 1,000 feet for the June 3, 2021 Page 10 of 49 rural area of the Golden Gate Estates, and it is also -- 1,500 was recently codified for golf courses once they intend to convert. Those are the three current LDC notification distances that the county consistently has used. So this is going beyond the 1,500, 1,000. So Exhibit A in your packet lists the number of all the parcels that are on a dead-end street that was traversed by the related polygon distance and the percentage of those parcels for each of the dead-end-street segments. The percentage of the dead-end-street segments located within 1,000 versus 2,500 resulted in an increase from 12-and-a-half percent to 52.4 percent for the Golden Gate Estates Boulevard center; 43.9 percent to 94.8 percent for the Parkway institutional subdistrict; 22.2 to 54.8 for the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict and, finally, 16.2 to 54.1 for the Wilson/Golden Gate Boulevard. So based upon that, the recommendation is that the analysis indicated that more than 50 percent of the dead-end parcels could be captured within that notification distance for 2,500. Without having to perform a manual review of the dead-end streets, staff was recommending the 2,500 for the entire text for both the rural and the urban area. This recommendation was modified by the subcommittee, DSAC subcommittee, and DSAC consequently approved it to reduce the mail notification in the Golden Gate Estates area to 1,500. That effect would show a mail notification reduction from 94.8 percent to 72.3 percent for dead-end parcels. Since that time, we've been directed to -- upper management has brought it to their attention, and some people in the Estates have talked about extending it beyond the 2,500. So we were requested to take a look at a notification distance for one mile versus three miles and five miles. So in the shortness of time, we quickly put together -- we instructed our GIS staff to go back and take the parameters in your packets where you see those -- and I can put a color chart up on the visualizer to give you an idea. So before I get into this slide, let me switch to the visualizer. Oh, you just did. All right, thanks. The different colors here show the inner ring is 1,000 feet, 1,500, 2,000, and that outer bright green is 2,500. This was the one urban area that the subcommittee had problems because they felt, as you can see, the green area here -- I guess I can move my hand around. There you have a ring. Basically, it was going over the interstate, and it was clipping the City of Golden Gate which added quite a few more parcels. That's why they reduced it from 2,500 to 1,500. If you were to go one mile, using this example, we would be way over here on the right-hand side, and you'll be over here. You would capture all of that. If we go three miles out to the west, we're going to be connecting a portion of the City of Naples, and three miles to the east you get all of the City of Golden Gate in it. So let me go back -- switch back to the podium. There we go. Okay. So the highlighted area shows the 2,500. This is just for the rural area. And you can see the amount of parcels tripled. For the one mile -- they increase by at least three times more on the one mile, and then it really jumps, almost quadruples, if not, goes up to 7,000, gets you into some pretty heavy mailed notices for three miles and five miles. So we've been asked to present this to you and also indicate whether -- and I've got, I think, one more slide here to help you make a decision as to whether you're going to accept the recommendation of DSAC or modify it to address either the one-mile, three-mile, or five-mile radius which were being asked to be considered. So to help in that deliberation with the Planning Commission, we took a quick look at other Florida community distances analyses and found that Sarasota has a rural -- semi rural criteria of 1,500; the Miami-Dade County has a one-mile requirement for mail notices for a DRI, but applications -- it reduces to half a mile for all other applications other than a DRI, and it does a unique thing. For residential uses less than 10 units, it would be 500 feet. Alachua County has, for designated rural agriculture, 1,320 feet. So, this gives you just a comparative analysis to let you know what these other Florida June 3, 2021 Page 11 of 49 communities are doing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So no matter what distance you choose, depending on the location, you could be notifying a neighborhood that isn't attached that is adjacent to it, correct? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So in a way it's arbitrary regardless of where you draw the line. It's just a question of getting enough homes to create a reasonable amount of notice, correct? MR. HENDERLONG: Well, it is, but to the extent that it's limited to all the Golden Gate Estates platted properties, as Commissioner Fryer -- or Commissioner Fryer indicated, when you look at the lots, they're two and a quarter for those five-acre lots to get out there. They're not getting -- that's been the residents' concerns. They're not getting notice with the 500-foot or even the 1,500-foot. So that's why we needed to expand it and pick up those larger areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, you know, I live in an area where the spine road is two miles long, and the streets are nine-tenths of a mile long, which is 4,600 feet or so, 4,700 feet. If you did 2,500 feet -- and I'll use Naples Senior Center as an example. That's at the north end of our neighborhood. It affects the entire neighborhood and also some neighborhoods that come through our neighborhood. So if you go to 2,500 feet, you go -- that's roughly half a mile; it's not quite half a mile. You'd go halfway down Oakes and you'd go halfway down some of the northern streets, basically. Is that a reasonable notice for something like that? I mean, I don't see how you can make an arbitrary judgment without the context of where the application is and what actual areas are impacted. So maybe just walk me through why it has to be this way. So I understand it would be hard to do it subjectively, but it seems like you are missing a lot of potentially impacted people with 2,500 feet, and you also may be extending into a neighborhood that isn't impacted at all across the boundary, even in Golden Gate Estates. If I go 2,500 feet and I go from Naples Senior Center, I'm getting Huntington Lakes, Tarpon Bay. It may not be affected by them at all. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. And I'll show you an example on this table why there's parcel versus owners. If you look at the far right-hand column, you'll see the numbers jump higher for owners. The reason that's there is because you're capturing multifamily units and condos. Now, when we did the study, I asked the GIS to eliminate condos out of this so that it didn't get convoluted. But we brought it back in to just help you clarify and understand that it really reaches out quite a bit if you go beyond the one-mile radius. So -- and also keep in mind the City of Golden Gate isn't in the Urban Estates or the rural area. That would still fall within the 500 rule. So if there's a rezoning within the city, more intense urban area, it would use the 500-foot parameter. COMMISSIONER FRY: But in Golden Gate Estates, a lot of the roads are nine-tenths of a mile or longer -- MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- correct? So you're going to -- even with 2,500 feet, you're going to go partway down the road. MR. HENDERLONG: Right. It's getting back half a mile of it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that -- does that meet the objective of the public notice? MR. HENDERLONG: Keep in mind that it's the perimeter of the subject parcel being rezoned. That's where it's being measured from. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. HENDERLONG: So the center, it could be even greater if -- when we're dealing with 30, 40 acres, which are what these examples are. There's 20 -- there's a 60-acre Randall commercial district, so it's going to capture more using the 2,500 or the one-mile. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you might -- let's say that you get half the people down a June 3, 2021 Page 12 of 49 dead-end street. You mentioned that the goal of this is to provide better notice for people on dead-end streets especially. MR. HENDERLONG: Well, yes, and one of the problems that staff struggled with is if we took a dead-end street where is traverses at -- let's say the line, whatever it is, say 1,500, it traverses at, and let's say that was the other table that showed your percentages, that up there we're only capturing -- we wanted to get more than 50 percent of all the property owners on that intersecting dead-end street. That was a criteria we looked at. Then we says, can we bump it higher? How do we get to a number that makes sense to get higher as opposed to asking staff to take all the property owners on the entire dead-end street and intersecting? Even though those residents will drive by, let's say it's a shopping center and you've got a dead-end street, it comes in there, and it captures in there, they're going to be driving by that center or on the edge of that center, okay. They would have to basically be concerned about the traffic impact. So it was a balancing act trying to figure out what's a reasonable distance to come up, and this is a result of our study. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess when you say "balancing act," you have the people that are not getting noticed on half the street that are just as impacted as the people that are within 2,500 feet. MR. HENDERLONG: Can be, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're trying to find a sweet spot of what's realistic cost-wise and just how far you should reach out to hit 50 percent of the people down a dead-end street on average; is that how you drew the line? MR. HENDERLONG: As far as the cost, the cost was not a consideration as a criteria. The expense is always for the applicant to pay these mailing notices, just to let you know that. But that was never a consideration. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But right now 2,500 is highlighted, and you think staff believes that's the sweet spot? MR. HENDERLONG: That's -- that was our initial -- yes, that was our recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think they've come off of that a little bit, but it I'll say more in a moment. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just to make sure -- I mean, the driver for this, for changing it at all, is just people are complaining they're not being notified of hearings that they should be notified of? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. Let me go back to the beginning and -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's okay. MR. HENDERLONG: This is it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: To me, there's no downside of making it bigger. MR. HENDERLONG: During the three years of vetting the master plan, this was a primary concern that came out from the residents of Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the only downside of making it bigger is more people get invited, and if they're interested, they come. So it seems like the bigger we can make it, the better it is, other than there is an expense associated when you triple the number of invites. But my experience would be, if you're not interested in it, even though you get an invite, you're probably not going to go anyway, so I would rather err on the side of bigger diameter; make sure we get the notice out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I agree. Mr. French, did you want to say something, sir? MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jamie French, deputy department head for the department. This really came out -- I hate to say it, but I'm back, and I'm three weeks on the job, Week No. 4. And so I've attended a slew of meetings, especially in the eastern lands, and I will tell you June 3, 2021 Page 13 of 49 that in the Golden Gate Estates, there's a difference. We've got an urbanized -- we're starting to see an urbanized area start to formulate as you get closer to the coastline, and you still have that rural area. And so those that are in the rural area, they're fine. This works. They may have some comment that they didn't get notice, but for the most part, these are for our rural area visitors and also our occupants, and when -- they come in and they see all this new construction, and nobody heard anything, nobody knew anything. And, typically, what you have out there is you've got one-mile dead-end streets. Now, clearly, within the villages that we'll -- that, you know, we may see come forward, and those that have already been approved, as well as some of those already developed communities, Orange Tree, Orange Blossom Ranch, those types of areas, they're pretty compact as far as the development, and those HOAs are very well involved. But if I live at the end of one of these roads, I'm already a mile away. And if this happens just two miles up the road from that dead-end road, I'm better -- from a GIS layer, as you can see, I'm probably better than three or four miles from it now. So this is the type of feedback we are getting from both -- the constituents in the area, and we've heard it through the neighborhood information meetings, and you've probably seen it from time to time, especially when you see the churches that would come forward and ask to develop out there. Many of the neighbors say, I didn't know but I came because someone told me, but I wasn't officially noticed. So we're trying to find that balance. And it's fair to our citizens out there and to our property owners to understand what's going on. And it has been discussion that we've had or that I've had with both staff as well as the manager's office and the staff there with how do we approach this. So, again, we may be back. And the great thing about our Land Development Code is it's dynamic in nature, and we come back and we amend it often, or as often as we're asked to, as often as we feel are best planning principles. So again, this the -- this is the reason, and I'm probably the fault for staff's last-minute audible, because I'm asking questions. And as you've -- most of you know that work with me, I typically don't ask questions that I don't already know the answer. So I've witnessed this in the community and, clearly, we think it's worth some consideration. So thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, Jamie, before you take off, your analysis makes perfect sense, but I think you guys have landed on 2,500 as the recommendation; that's the change, right? MR. FRENCH: I think that's where our study has led us up to, but we do believe that once we get this to the Board of County Commissioners that there may be some interest -- and I don't know this, so I'm only speaking for me. I'm not speaking for the agency nor am I speaking for the board. But we believe, or at least I believe, this will come up, and there will be some community members that will come up and question that at the Board level. So whatever this number is set at today, whatever your recommendation is, clearly, the Board may adopt something that may be a little bit larger of a distance. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. But it sounds like two of my colleagues at least, or maybe three, are already thinking we ought to propose something bigger rather than put this through at 2,500. So it sounds like you don't disagree with that. MR. FRENCH: I do not. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And so the notice is -- I guess it's a mailer. MR. FRENCH: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right? And the cost of the mailer -- who sends -- we send out the mailer? June 3, 2021 Page 14 of 49 MR. BELLOWS: Correct. For the record, Ray Bellows. We work through a company. We provide them with the names based on the distance measurement. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So we outsource it, and then we charge it to the developer? MR. BELLOWS: The applicant, correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The applicant. MR. BELLOWS: Along with two other forms of advertising. The applicant is responsible for placing a sign on the property plus a newspaper notification. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So we really don't even have any staff cost and sort of internal cost. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: A little bit, but not a lot. Okay. And then also at the end of the street, they get notice -- let's say they're at the end of the street and they're further than 2,500 feet, they will get -- if they drive by it every day, they'll see a big sign, so they'll get notice that way. MR. HENDERLONG: We just want to also bring to your attention, this does not apply to a variance. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do what? COMMISSIONER FRY: Could you say that again. MR. HENDERLONG: It does not apply for variances. It's for rezone applications. MR. FRENCH: So if you've got a setback violation where you encroached into the easement or into the setback, this is -- we keep it within that property. This is not -- we're talking, we've got an intensity change of use or an amendment to the GMP or something much more use intensive. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So as I see it, the only harm would be the cost to the applicant. We're increasing the cost to the applicant, but we're really not increasing the cost to the county. And -- okay. So I get it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are there any downsides the staff can tell us if we increase, let's say, to a mile rather than 2,500 feet, that we're not -- that we haven't discussed? MR. HENDERLONG: That is not a consideration for us to make that determination. You're the policy commissioners to make that recommendation. COMMISSIONER FRY: I simply -- MR. HENDERLONG: We've had no objection internal regardless of what the decision is by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRY: And it's not an exorbitant amount of money for the applicant, additional funds to go the additional -- MR. HENDERLONG: We don't think so. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess since a lot of the -- as Commissioner Fry said, most of these dead-end streets are nine-tenths of a mile. To me, why don't we just make it a mile. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's, frankly, where I am. And unless someone else wants to speak first, I've got a few comments I'd like to make. The sense I got from my meeting with staff on Tuesday was that there are voices in the community. A member of the Board of County Commissioners, perhaps the Chairman of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, echoing the concerns that I know I've heard sitting up here over the years from people who stand up and say, why didn't I get notice of this, and the reason is is the relatively short distance. And I believe that there is a sufficient concern on the part of folks, particularly in the Fifth District where there is less density than elsewhere for more notifications to be sent out and to be received by people who are affected by this and believe they're affected by it and want to weigh in June 3, 2021 Page 15 of 49 on it. And I want to say one other thing. Without, in any respect, meaning to cast aspersions on DSAC, it's an organization, a committee that was appointed pursuant to an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners so that, frankly, the members of the development community in this county can have a strong voice. And they are, like us, an advisory committee, but they're not a quasi-judicial group. They are an advocacy group, and their members represent the development community. So when, you know, they take the recommendation from staff of 2,500 and 2,500 and reduce it to 1,500 and 2,500, I think they're effectively representing their members who want not to incur the additional costs. So I get that, and that's certainly their role. But from our perspective, I think we need to sit in a more disinterested fashion and hear the voices of the residents in the community, many of whom, over the years that I've been hearing this stuff, believe that the notice radius should be larger. And staff has provided us with the numbers for one mile, three miles, and five miles. Where I am on this is I would recommend that we send to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation at the one-mile level recognizing that they can do really whatever they want, but at least we've shown sensitivity to the members of the community who believe that they're not getting sufficient notice. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh. I was just going to say that I was going to bring up the point, and I'm glad you did, and that's just simply that the Fifth District is definitely -- it's just different because it's -- you know, things are spaced out more, and the lots are bigger and, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So I think that makes sense, you know, precisely the point you made and, you know, I'm falling in line with that as far as that recommendation to increase the distance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling right now. Does anyone else wish to be heard? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I would -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry. Thank you. I would just -- I do want to weigh the cost to the applicant, but I did, and in the end, I think the mile is a better place to be given what I've heard from my colleagues and what I've heard from the staff. MR. KLATZKOW: There's two ways to skin this cat. What's the minimum number of time that a developer has the posted sign on the property itself? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There's one posting of a sign, and that's prior to the Planning Commission meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But how long? MR. BELLOWS: It's no earlier than 15 days prior to the meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, therein's your problem, because if you required, like, I don't know, two months, everybody in the neighborhood eventually is going to drive by it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: That's the other way to solve this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it seems to me maybe we want to lengthen that time as well. Fifteen days isn't very long. MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's the minimum. They usually go up, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, maybe we ought to raise the minimum. I don't know -- other members of the Planning Commission want to weigh in on that thought? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff want to be heard? MR. HENDERLONG: Would you want to isolate that just to the Fifth District or the June 3, 2021 Page 16 of 49 urban rural area Estates? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's a good question. Certainly -- Mr. French? MR. FRENCH: Thank you. Again, Jamie French, for the record. The only consideration that I would bring -- and, you know, I'm trying to balance in both representing our partners that we're bound to serve but also the community that we do serve. So both in the industry as well as the community. It's going to delay the timing of permitting -- MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. The development community is not our partners. MR. FRENCH: Well, they're -- what I'm saying, Jeff, is that we're bound to serve them by statute. That's what I did put on the record. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, but they're not our partner. MR. FRENCH: I look at all of our customers that come in -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. MR. FRENCH: And, again, I'm speaking for me. But they're a customer. So thank you. But nonetheless, it is going to -- it is going to change our timing because there's a minimum time period that it has to be. So you're asking for considerations. Just from the application side, it would push that back by that addition -- that additional time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, 15 days seems to me to be too short. Mr. French, what do you think would be a longer period that's still reasonable, if any? MR. FRENCH: Sir, you're asking -- 30 days is fine. You just asked for considerations, so staff is fine with that as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fine with 30? MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission? Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I just have a little bit of a concern that we're going to possible vote on something that, really, I'm not sure we've fully thought through. It's not that I'm against it, but I kind of really don't -- I prefer not to vote on it. It may be a great idea, but just -- nobody's raised this issue. Nobody from Golden Gate, to my knowledge, has said, hey, that sign needs to be up longer. So we may be solving a problem that doesn't exist. If we're going to move it to a mile, I think that's a good idea, there seems to be a lot of consensus around that, and I'm certainly not opposed -- because to me 15 days does seem kind of short, but I'm concerned about taking a vote to switch it to 30 days on -- without any staff report. I mean, Jamie gave some good insight, but I'd say let's come back and do that later if we want to do it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think there might be some unintended consequences in regards to an applicant trying to make a certain specific Planning Commission agenda where staff review is done, we've got this staff report ready, but in order to make the 30 days, it's pushing them to a later Planning Commission date than they had anticipated. So I think there might be some issues with timing, you know, because everybody's used to the current timelines in regards to scheduling, and if they're pushing it out another 15 days earlier than they're currently used to, they might be forced to hit a later Planning Commission date. So I would recommend that we allow us to come back with this at a subsequent Planning Commission when we analyze the possible impacts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I concur with that and with Commissioner Vernon in that you -- obviously, if you look at the research you've done on this issue, you've vetted, you probably have opened the ability for the developer community to weigh in as well -- they are aware of this -- and we haven't done that in terms of the notice requirement. So I would definitely support waiting on that until you guys have a chance to vet the issue better. June 3, 2021 Page 17 of 49 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We should run it by our Development Services Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I echo the same thing. I wouldn't touch the notice by -- if we're going to increase it to a mile, I think anybody that's interested will get a personal invitation, and doing both is not necessary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds to me like -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Whatever we do, though, I guess this can be heard -- this doesn't have to be an evening meeting, so this can be heard as an agenda item if it comes back to us during a regular meeting? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I think there are two possible ways we could move forward. One would be to continue this matter so that staff can test out the consequences, intended and unintended, on a lengthier notice period and then have the whole thing come back to us. Well, actually, there are three. The second thing we could do is we could approve it at a mile and then ask staff to come back on the notice period, and the third thing we could do is simply approve it at a mile and see what happens. So does anybody have strong feelings on how we should proceed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would vote for No. 3 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Number 3 -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Me, too. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- which is approve the mile and stay away from the 15-day notice. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Other planning commissioners? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I feel the same way. Do we have speakers? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I don't know. Do we have any speakers? Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, there are no speakers for this item or any of these items for today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. And we'll take a vote on it, but before we do, just a test vote. Does anybody object to us going with the Option No. 3, which is the mile only? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: At a mile. COMMISSIONER FRY: With the one mile, at one mile. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously as amended. Thank you. June 3, 2021 Page 18 of 49 Mr. Henderlong. MR. HENDERLONG: ***Okay. The next item on your agenda is the soil and groundwater sampling Land Development Code amendment. Basically, I'm going to let -- do you want to cover this or -- I was going to introduce to you Sean Kingston. Sean worked on this, and I'll let him give you an overview on it. MR. KINGSTON: Good afternoon. Sean Kingston, senior planner of the Land Development Code section of the Planning and Zoning Division. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good afternoon to you, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sean, that would be an excellent name for a hip-hop artist, by the way. MR. KINGSTON: It just happens to be the case, yeah. I'm more of a singer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sean Puffy Kingston. MR. KINGSTON: So this amendment shall clarify when soil and/or groundwater sampling is required in the development review process for the conversion of golf courses to non-golf-course uses. The purpose of this LDC amendment is to allow an applicant flexibility in the development review process by deferring the timing of required soil and/or groundwater sampling. There's two parts to this amendment. The Land Development Code amendment as proposed, as described, allows deferral from original timing of sampling, and the second part is that it relocates additional sampling requirements from the "conversion of golf courses" section to the "general environmental requirements" section. In addition to this Land Development Code amendment, a companion administrative code amendment is required. So part one -- there's two parts to part one. The first part is to change Land Development Code Section 5.05.15, which means you may by deferred from the time of application for the intent to convert, whichever comes first of these three things: Early work authorization, Site Development Plan, and subdivision plat submittal. The same thing is currently required at the time of application of all zoning actions, Stewardship Receiving Area amendments and compatibility design review applications which are processed subsequently to completing the requirements of the intent to convert application from a golf course to a non-golf-course use. So for this section only -- section of code only, it's noted that it may be deferred so long as it hasn't already been completed in rezoning, SRA amendment, or compatibility design review public hearings. The second part is the -- there's a deferral from the first development order to the first of the -- either of the three, EWA, SDP, or PPL for the LDC Section 3.08.00. The second part of the amendment is to relocate text of the additional sampling for golf course conversions. It's being moved from Section 5.05.15 to Section 3.08.00. Section 3.08.00 is the environmental section which has the soil and/or groundwater sampling. So we're moving from Section 5.05.15, which has the sampling for golf courses, to 3.08 so all the sampling is in one section. That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. I don't have a clue what you're doing here. MR. KINGSTON: I'm happy to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So additional sampling -- MR. KINGSTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- for golf courses only? What about regular sampling? I'm confused. I mean, if you're going to build something, you're going to do soil samples. So are we talking about that, or are we talking about contaminated soils? MR. KINGSTON: There's two changes. June 3, 2021 Page 19 of 49 MR. HENDERLONG: Soil sampling right now does occur, okay. It's in the LDC code. What we're doing is removing the materials up to when does that soil sampling occur, okay. Right now in the LDC it says that if you come in -- you're going to convert a golf course. If a buyer's buying it -- and we're all familiar with the fact that you have environmental audits that go in there. What we're looking for is that environmental audit, staff is, from the soil samplings to look at whether there's any hazardous materials or contaminates related to it, and come up with a mitigation plan at that time. This amendment is designed to deal with the timing of when that information has to be conveyed to the staff. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Am I reading it right that one of the options was before you begin earthwork? They're ready to put a dozer out there and start moving dirt, and then they're going to go sample. It would seem like you'd want to sample that way sooner. MR. HENDERLONG: No, we're saying just the opposite. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: We're just saying that if you come in and you want to do early work, we're going to require that sample then. If you're going to come in for an SDP, we're going to require it at that time. If you come in for a rezone on the golf course, that's the time we're going to look for it for a conversion process for a golf course. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And this only applies to golf courses? MR. HENDERLONG: No, it does not. It's just reclassifying it in terms of the timing for all soil sampling. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. But it is the -- it is contamination-type samples rather than structural geo tech samples? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: As a practical matter, you're trying to get this testing done sooner than currently done; is that right? MR. KINGSTON: No. This is to allow more flexibility in the development process so they can have it later than it already is. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So then my question is: Why are we doing this? Why are we having the contamination sampling done as a practical matter a little later than current? MR. HENDERLONG: My understanding is twofold. One, you can have an audit done on a sample. And I'm coming from my own experience when I used to be in land acquisitions. Naples Drive was a good example. You get in under due diligence. You're working towards the process, but you want to get an early work permit, a portion of the site can go forward with an early work. It may not be in the contaminated area, so you would go ahead and start early work, but you've got to have the soil sample in place to get that done. That's what this is encapsulating, okay. There's added expense. Normally, you would do it for the whole site, right? You'd come up with what that is. I've had experience at Kensington where that was a problem. When I came in, development had been fully underway. When we went to the third phase of the development of the project, that's when the sampling showed up. So what we're trying to do is accelerate that, get it up earlier. When you come in for the early work for that phase of that development, they're going to have to have the samples and materials in place. It's also so we can get that to DEP and the state agencies for them to look at, and for both parties to come down and come up with a mitigation plan before they begin to either do earthwork, start digging down, and where's that material going to go. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So we're trying to get the sampling done sooner? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, sir. June 3, 2021 Page 20 of 49 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And we still have no registered speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct, no registered speakers. Thank you. That being the case, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I move we approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Fry seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, staff. At this point, we've completed our afternoon agenda. And we've got about an hour and 20 minutes until we reconvene for our evening session. I know there are snacks available, and grateful thanks to our court reporter. Any further business? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you get those out to -- someone send one out to me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We'll put one in a cannon and shoot it out your way. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I have to say, this is either the best seat in the house or the worst because if I lean over this way, all I do is smell brownies. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. There being nothing further to come before the Planning Commission for this afternoon session, we stand in recess until 5:05 p.m. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. (A recess was had from 3:40 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good evening. Welcome to the second or special session of the June 3rd, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Addenda to the agenda. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We do have a change to the agenda, a continuance of Item 3A2, which is the LDC amendment for Goodland with regards to oyster processing. The reason for the request is co-counsel has been newly engaged to represent the petitioner as an applicant before the Planning Commission, and they are requesting time for the new co-counsel to be brought up to speed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is the applicant present? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I just wanted to, you know, make sure that I'm here. I don't know if you have -- we don't take roll or anything? We're just continuing -- considering this a continuation of what we -- of our prior meeting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. June 3, 2021 Page 21 of 49 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there anyone representing the applicant here at this time? MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins, for the record. No, sir, there's no one representing the applicant. They did e-mail us to ensure that we did receive, and we will enter into the record a written request for the continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. JENKINS: They did, Mr. Chair, ask for a continuance to June 17th at 5:05, and we were able to tell them that we couldn't guarantee that time, but we would ask and poll the Commission to see if that time would be available. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I know that there are some members of the public here for this matter. May I ask first all the people who are here with respect to this matter, please raise your hand. Okay. Do you have a representative by chance, someone who could speak? Would you mind approaching, then, please. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just say -- I mean, right now what we have is this continuance request. You know, my first thought is, I don't understand -- you know, first of all, it's an LDC amendment. It's not really a petitioner. It's -- you know, someone has made a request, you know, that we can consider. And I just find it a little frustrating that we have a special session, which is fine. I mean, I'm not frustrated by that. But now this person, you know, who wants this, wants this to be heard, you know, has basically just decided that, yeah, they can't -- you know, I don't know what the reasons are, but the bottom line is, it wasn't important enough to them to make sure that they were here for this. And I, for one, I don't think we should -- you know, my first thought is, I don't think a continuance is in order for that reason alone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I share some of the concerns you just expressed, Commissioner Klucik. I certainly don't think we should consider ourselves wed to the June 17th evening date. That may simply not be convenient for the Planning Commission, and we'll come to that in a moment. But first I do want to hear from and have a word or two with the representative of the people who did come in, so I'm going to ask that individual to please approach. MR. KLATZKOW: Before we do that, I think you need to make a decision whether you're going to continue the item or hear it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, and I -- I want to hear from this gentleman before I do that. I've got a question -- approach, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, your speaker is Jim Inglis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, my -- go over to a microphone. Sir, here's what I wanted to -- here is what I wanted to know from you, sir. We're not going to get into the merits of this right now, but I have a sensitivity about anyone who was not informed of the fact that this was going to be continued. And I believe most of your representatives knew in advance that it was going to be continued and, nonetheless, decided to come here this evening which, of course, is fine, but I want to be sure that that applies to everyone. And is there someone who came in from out of town without notice of the -- who would that be? MR. INGLIS: Jim Seegers. He's in the back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. The conundrum here -- this is a gentleman, I believe, who came in from out of town for -- MR. INGLIS: Wisconsin. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- from Wisconsin for the purpose of speaking and did not know June 3, 2021 Page 22 of 49 that a continuance was on our agenda until he got off of the plane here in Florida. MR. INGLIS: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What does the Planning Commission -- well, let me just frame it here. I think one thing we could consider doing -- and the County Attorney, please, correct me if I'm wrong but -- well, of course, the petitioner's not even here. But I think it's inequitable if we simply don't allow this gentleman to speak who came in from Milwaukee, but I want to hear what others have to say. So Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, my thought is, I want to defer to Jeff, because I don't want to do anything procedurally inappropriate. But it seems to me that we should be able to figure out a way to hear from everybody who's here. And there will be a record that the applicant can read. And if these people want to come back and haven't spoken, they can come back, or if they want to be heard today. I just don't like having 12 -- 12 people sitting here -- and some of them, I've seen them, because I was curious on what they were here for, for several hours. And -- but I definitely want to give the applicant a chance to respond. So I don't know that we can open the hearing, hear from them, leave it open, provide the applicant a chance to come back and present. So that would be my thoughts, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, before I ask you to speak, I'm going to ask the County Attorney to tell us what our legal obligations are. MR. KLATZKOW: It's been the custom of the Planning Commission that when people show up to an item that is to be continued they be allowed to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Go ahead, sir. MR. INGLIS: Am I speaking into the microphone now? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. MR. INGLIS: My name is Jim Inglis. I'm the treasurer of the Goodland Civic Association. Our president was not able to come, so he asked me to speak. I've been coming to Goodland since 19 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to stop you, sir. You're going to have an opportunity. I think the Planning Commission is going to allow the people who are here to speak, and you will have your turn, but you're second on the agenda for this evening. The reason I asked you up here is because I wanted to find out about people who didn't know that this had been continued. I think -- and I'll just put it up to a vote. Is there a motion about whether we hear the people who are present? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That carries unanimously. Then we will -- we will hear from the people on the second agenda item who have presented themselves here this afternoon. And when the time comes, sir, we'll be glad to hear from you. MR. INGLIS: Okay. Awesome. Thank you. June 3, 2021 Page 23 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Will we hear from staff, too? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we need to talk about that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I would rather hear from staff first and get a little background on it before we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Again, I need help from the County Attorney. The fact is is that the applicant is not here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is staff prepared? Because -- MS. JENKINS: Well, we're not because we have accepted a continuance on the item. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. JENKINS: And in all fairness to the applicant, we weren't prepared to open this item today. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. In all fairness, it is the decision of the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners, when somebody asks for a continuance, whether or not they're going to be granted. You do not get a continuance as of right. So in the future staff should be prepared to move ahead if that's what the decision of the Board of County Commissioners or Planning Commission is. The fact that they are not here right now I find to be insulting. I've never seen an applicant ask for a continuance and not show up, and they always show up because of the chance that the relevant board may say no to the continuance. This is an evening hearing, a Planning Commission of volunteers, all right. We don't have very many hearings in the evening. And, you know, I find this entire thing at this late in time, especially with people in the background, quite frankly, to be insulting on a lot of different levels. Planning Commission has a couple of options. You could decide to hear this item right now, or you could decide to continue this item right now. You have complete discretion. I would recommend if you decide to continue the item, that you do hear from the public. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I thank, you know, Attorney Klatzkow for that, you know, information. What I would say is, I -- you know, I think Mr. Bellows certainly -- you know, he was there with the gentleman who, you know, was -- I don't know, if he's not here, on behalf of the county, I certainly would hope that Mr. Bellows, you know, would be able to speak on behalf of -- you know, of the county on this item. I don't think that should be a reason that we don't go forward. And, you know, I feel very strongly that, you know, that we should not be giving a continuance just because, you know, someone is asking -- basically, you know, we don't give favors to anybody, but someone is asking for something that they don't have a right to, and they have -- a mechanism of the county has jumped through hoops, members of the public have jumped through hoops to make sure that we're all following the procedures and that we're all ready to hear this. And I feel just so strongly for any [sic] other reason to make sure that nobody else -- everyone realizes, send a message, that that's not how we do business. And I actually am going to move right now that we not grant a continuance and that we do hear from the members of the public who are here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon? Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I think it's a close call. So, you know, I really June 3, 2021 Page 24 of 49 appreciate what Jeff, our County Attorney, just said. And I guess if it were up to me, I would -- and just to be clear, I would give the people who are here a chance to speak now or to speak later. Some of them may prefer to come back. And because the staff is not ready to speak on this issue, I'd sort of lean towards letting them speak but grant the continuance, but I think -- you know, big picture, we all agree with Jeff and Commissioner Klucik -- or I shouldn't say we all agree. I agree that we don't want this to happen again. We want the staff to be prepared, and we're going to be inclined to decline a continuance if there's not a good reason and they don't even show up to explain themselves. But for today, I guess if I was voting I would say -- but I'm -- it's a close call -- but I would vote to allow the continuance and allow them to be heard if they want to be heard today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: I would also like to add that the continuance was to allow the applicant time to work with the residents to modify the request if they would seek some consensus on what changes need to be made. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a fair point. All right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would just say, you know, having said all that, you know, I am inclined, based on, you know, the information I have now to vote in favor, you know, of this -- you know, of this change that they're asking for. So, you know, it isn't in any way an animus against, you know, the party that's -- you know, I don't think they're an applicant. I think they're an interested party who's asked for this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Actually, they're an applicant, I think. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, they're an applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Applying for a change, okay, yeah. But the whole point of it is is that, you know, I don't have any animus against them or even their petition or their request. I am just -- I just -- I find it fascinating that the whole mechanism is all set up at their request, and now we're not -- you know, basically they're asking us to, you know, go out of our way and schedule another -- you know, a special hearing, and I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: And further to that concern, which I share, generally speaking, staff would make an effort. They do make an effort to bundle these together, to bunch them together so that if we have multiple evening hearings or multiple matters that we have to hear in the evening, they wait until they accumulate more than just one and then put it on the docket so that we're coming in in the evening for more than just one matter. And with that in mind -- and I want to hear any comments that are made and maybe a motion. Did you want to speak, Mr. Henderlong? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner Fryer, I have an e-mail from Mr. Inglis, which I'd like to put on the visualizer for you. He -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does it have to do with the merits, or does it have to do with this -- MR. HENDERLONG: It's about the continuance. They'd also like to be speaking at the June 17th. And my understanding is that they were -- they were in the process of getting their materials together and so forth for a fuller presentation and that they were not opposed to the continuance. But he's here today, and I don't want to steer you incorrectly, but I'm happy to put this e-mail up on the visualizer if you want to see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is an e-mail from a resident who is not opposing the continuance? MR. HENDERLONG: No. This is from Mr. Inglis here, who's here today. June 3, 2021 Page 25 of 49 MR. BELLOWS: The applicant. MR. HENDERLONG: Public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He's a resident? MR. HENDERLONG: The public. He's not a resident. He's public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Got it. MR. HENDERLONG: He may be a resident on Goodland Island. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, since he's here, I don't think we need to look at his letter. He'll have an opportunity to speak. All right. Let me make a suggestion. And if the Planning Commission thinks this makes sense, perhaps we can entertain a motion. But I believe that we should permit everyone who wants to speak on this matter and who's here today to be heard at the time when this item is called, and that after that, we continue it. Now, whether we continue it to June 17 or to some other date -- I would prefer to continue it to a date uncertain and let staff accumulate more than just one of these and then put it on so that when we come in, we come in for more than just one item. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Agreed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that sound right? COMMISSIONER SHEA: It sound great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would entertain -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, yeah, that certainly -- you know, the idea that we would have a meeting just for this item, it just makes my -- make me simmer a little bit, or even go beyond simmering. So yes, you know, if this means they have to wait until we have -- you know, several items, then that makes a lot more sense, and my simmering maybe will go back down where I'm okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. May I have a motion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I would adopt your statement as a motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I'll say is I'll withdraw my prior motion to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. HENDERLONG: I was just going to let you know that the applicant for the first item, Mr. Wester, said that he's willing to let this go forward if you-all want to resolve that. So, procedurally, if they want to have a discussion with them beforehand, he'll yield to them, and then we can take his application afterwards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What's the Planning Commission say? COMMISSIONER FRY: Are there speakers on the second issue -- on the first issue, the one that officially comes before this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Chokoloskee? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, we have four registered speakers present with us, and we have two online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think we ought to stick with the numbered agenda, then. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there a second to that motion, or was there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions about what we're going to be voting on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. June 3, 2021 Page 26 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, could I make -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It didn't fit within the motion, but I think it's a good idea, if anybody requests a continuance, that the staff tell them that staff does not make that decision, and I'd tell them that it's expected that they show up and explain the basis for the continuance so we don't have this confusion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point well taken. Thank you. ***All right. So the first item that we will hear in this second session is PL20200002306. It's the Chokoloskee Island privately initiated LDC text amendment to allow, by conditional use, for certain waterfront sporting and recreational camps. Please note that this LDC amendment proposal would be available to all properties zoned VR, and that that extends beyond just Chokoloskee Island to Goodland Island, Immokalee, and Copeland areas, so it has broad reach. And there is no need for disclosures or swearing in. So we will ask the applicant, who is not here, of course. MR. HENDERLONG: No, the applicant -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: He is, Mr. Wester, I'm sorry. Yeah, Mr. Wester, would you like to make a statement, sir? MR. WESTER: Sure. Do I go to this one? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. MR. WESTER: Hello. Brad Wester, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, Jacksonville, Florida, 32202. I did travel six hours for this. I'm glad and happy to be here. But I do a lot of work all over the state, including for this specific client. I thought we were going to do a presentation, but I will -- I'm here to answer any questions and answers. I did want to add one statement you made. It is eligibility for any VR, because it's listed under an umbrella of conditional uses that will be -- but they have to meet the criteria of those conditional uses. So it's not just carte blanche VR. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. MR. WESTER: That kind of raises some hair on people's necks. But they have to meet specific criteria, which we programmed into a waterfront-specific property. So -- but I'm here to answer any questions. We're really excited to have this. I think -- did you have some information on that -- more information you wanted to share, Rich? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we're going to call on staff next. MR. WESTER: Okay, great. Yeah. So I won't belabor this. I'll let staff do their report, and then I'm available for any questions and answers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commissioners? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can you give me any -- I'm sorry, I had a death in the family a couple weeks ago, so I'm not caught up on a lot of stuff. Can you just give me -- I don't need your whole report. Two minutes. I'm sure everybody else is prepared. Just give me two minutes on it. MR. WESTER: Sure. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm going to be in Chokoloskee Saturday fishing, so I want to hear. MR. WESTER: Yeah. We're, like, one of the furthest southwest points on that island. June 3, 2021 Page 27 of 49 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. WESTER: It's for a fish camp, essentially. Currently, it doesn't allow for overnight stay, and so we felt that, in keeping with a water -- dependent water-related fully functional in the VR zoning, similar to any kind of eco sport, eco recreational aspect -- and we are waterfront -- that we felt that adding this as a conditional use for a fish-camp-type sporting recreation -- it would include a main structure, modern, built to code, but looking rustic and coastal in character and blending with everything architecturally, and then allowing some amenities for fishing. There is an existing boat slip on the property. And then there's a seawall, which we would add, you know, a dock and some spaces for a boat. But the way, form-based-wise, it works is we've got about .6 acres of a property. It's fully undeveloped, fully cleared, previously developed, but currently undeveloped now. And so we'd have a camp house, with the second floor being the kind of habitable structure for a caretaker. So a caretaker would be allowed to live there and maintain it, and more than likely be the fishing charter captain. And then we'd hire all local people to come help maintain anything that's needed on the property, including stand-up paddle guides and whatever else is needed. And then below would be where we'd keep some of the -- like, 14-foot skiffs. Completely sealed around. It would look like a house with a garage door, but in there, protected from the environments, we'd have some boats and standup paddleboards and anything else. One really neat concept that we have in play here -- and this is getting into the conditional-use aspects because it's very site specific for a conditional use. But what we have done and shown as far as our story is, there's a big renaissance going on right now with Airstream Overlander trailers. It started in California; has moved its way over to the East Coast, and we see it kind of growing in Florida as well. So my client has properties in Boca Grande up in Gasparilla. This -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: And they're already doing this? MR. WESTER: Yes, this property, and the village of Islamorada. And so we, essentially, have air lander over stream -- I'm sorry -- Airstream Overlander trailers, which are about 26 feet long. Old, but redone; very, very nice, very high end. And those would be the guest quarters for people coming there to have a full service, you know, offshore/inshore charter fishing, the ability to be able to stay there. And they pay high dollar for it, because it's very, very nice, but it's a really neat accommodation. And we'd have, like, a little pool, a little fire pit, outdoor amenities, just all blended with the kind of eco-based recreation aspects of a fish camp. But what we wanted to further do was define what fish camp could be, including overnight stays and accommodations. But nothing like a hotel. It is not a lock-off accommodation. No hotels. This is not a hotel whatsoever. When it's built, it will look completely in character and blended within the community just like everything else on Choko. COMMISSIONER VERNON: What's the max capacity if you're full? MR. WESTER: There's only four Airstream trailers. So -- and most likely they will all know each other. It's just, you know, each has their own ability to have accommodation there. And then the house would have the caretaker, but the house would have a kitchen, big screen TV, front porch rocking chairs, you know, on the second deck, and amenities, air conditioning, and things like that. But, you know -- so it's a fish camp but added some things that aren't allowed in the VR district, and -- but if we can meet the criteria, being a water-dependent, water-related waterfront site, we felt that this fish camp terminology was very applicable and very compatible. So -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're going to do all that on six-tenths of an acre? MR. WESTER: We made it work. Yeah. It's a very big camp house. June 3, 2021 Page 28 of 49 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is somebody going to put up pictures or something so you can see what the neighborhood's -- I mean -- MR. WESTER: Rich, I'll turn it over to you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We're not really hearing -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, now -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- much detail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll -- when it's time for staff to speak, we'll get some more information. Before I call on Commissioner Fry, Mr. Wester, I want to complete the record and ask you to recount your expert credentials, please. MR. WESTER: Okay. So I am a -- I'm not an attorney. I'm a professional land-use planner of 25 years and -- but I do work for a law firm, real estate law firm. So I'm professional land-use and zoning planner for that law firm. And I represent this customer and -- at many locations across the state, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And if we don't have any further questions for Mr. Wester, it will be time for staff to present, and we can get -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Fry. Of course, you do. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Brad, so not being an avid fisherman myself, I just want to make sure I'm clear what the definition of a fish camp is. It sounds like it's a place where a small group of people can come, stay overnight, do chartered fishing activities, hang out in a nice area, entertainment, dinner, drinks, that kind of thing, but also some other water sports, paddleboarding, kayaking, that kind of thing. So it's kind of just a water-based destination for a small group of people. That's what you're looking for? MR. WESTER: Yes. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. That's exactly it. Everything eco, water-based, enjoying the views, enjoying the scenery with the ability to fish right there from the bulkhead or do inshore or offshore. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. WESTER: And we have the vessels to accommodate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you, Mr. Wester. We'll now hear from staff. Mr. Henderlong. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you, Commissioners. I have the text up on the screen shown for you to take a look at. When we approached the issue, we looked at the current definitions for camp and cabin sporting and recreation camp and then also for a hotel. Sporting/recreational camps currently are allowed in the conservation district and agricultural district. There's no other place in our Land Development Code or land uses that allows for it. So it was unique in that sense. So when we began to approach this, we realized that in order to be comprehensively complete with the Growth Management Plan, it had to be a water-related or a dependent use, and we narrowed it down to fishing, boating, and recreation on a property. The size of the acre I'll talk about in a minute here. But it had to be a waterfront, which was key, in order to be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The other aspect of it is the acreage size. As you know, we only have a one-acre minimum requirement in the VR zoning that's currently in there. So in order to do an analysis, we did a -- and that's in the staff report above -- lot analysis on all four areas that were zoned VR, and the study basically is saying that that's a reasonable threshold of .5 acres to accommodate four Airstreams, two boats, and a boat ramp. June 3, 2021 Page 29 of 49 And we also wanted to make sure that we weren't isolating it to just Chokoloskee Island. So that's why you see in your packet that the four areas where all the VR zoning is located in the county are either in Immokalee, Copeland, Goodland, and Chokoloskee. And the good news is is that there are waterfront properties where this could -- use could also be applied. So it isn't site specific in that regard. When it comes back for the conditional use, it will be required. I think the Commissioner asked for an aerial. There's an aerial. Let's see. Can I turn this? I don't know how to rotate this, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: That's Goodland, though. MR. HENDERLONG: Oh, I'm sorry. Let me get you down to Chokoloskee. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, if you click "view" at the top and then "rotate." MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. I'm looking. Gotcha. Rotate. There it is. Counterclockwise. Good. There we are. Now we're looking north. COMMISSIONER FRY: I contributed something. MR. HENDERLONG: This arrow's -- let me clear that. I'm going to clear that issue. I can't clear that arrow. Good, thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: While you're getting that set up, Commissioner Shea had asked about whether there's any kind of an image or a mock-up that we could see. Now, this is coming back. If this is approved, it will come back for conditional use and would -- MR. HENDERLONG: I'm prepared to put on the screen his concept plans for the floor plan and the layout on it so that you can see how it would lay out when it comes back for -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Before you do that, where is it? Are you going to point to where it is? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: But it will come back as a conditional use. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right there. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. This is it right here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right there, okay. Is that near the Smallwood Store? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. The Smallwood's to your west, to the side. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: It's right down there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Got it. So it is real close. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I know that property. Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: But it's right up there. Okay. All right. Any other questions on the aerial? If not, I'll go right to his site plan if you prefer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll ask Mr. Wester: Do you want to say something before we do that? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. The planner in me is wanting to jump out. So I also serve on a review board up in Ponte Verda Beach in St. John's County, chairman of that review board. But as a matter of practice, we are showing the site plan. That's not what we're here to approve today. Today is just the conditional use that's layered under the zoning. We will have to come back before you under the merits of its own criteria and its own site specificity for that approval in the PC. So you guys will see this again on the conditional-use permit side, and that does apply to anybody in VR zoning, that -- just because you have VR zoning doesn't mean you're going to go do a fish camp. You have to go prove it with its own merits, substantial competent evidence and the like. So I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: So when this comes back for a CU, you'll have some more pictures for us? MR. WESTER: Exactly, and I'll have the Airstream pictures, and we'll have details on the June 3, 2021 Page 30 of 49 landscaping, the setbacks, height, all that stuff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: Elevations, you name it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further from staff or the applicant? Any questions or comments from the Planning Commission? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A question for staff. Just a point of interest. What do they do for water/waste water? MR. HENDERLONG: There is sewer down there, I believe, and I'm not sure -- there's sewer. I believe it's there. I don't have anybody here to speak to public utilities. I can't answer the question, because we haven't gone that far to look at to look at how the site's going to be served. But it will have to meet the -- during the conditional use, the requirement by staff for public utilities connections. There is a system down there. I just don't know where the pipes are or where they're going to be located or where the connections will occur. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But there is public water and wastewater? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. MR. WESTER: And there's currently an abandoned septic and well on site that we will clean up and vacate officially once the development has taken place. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Question for staff. When this comes back on a CU, will it come to us or the HEX? MR. HENDERLONG: No. It will come to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Wester, what's the name of your law firm? MR. WESTER: Driver, McAfee, Hawthorne, and Diebenow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. We'll ask Mr. Youngblood if we have registered speakers. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers for this item that are present with us. Our first one is James Seegers, followed by Tara O'Neill. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Seegers. MR. SEEGERS: Thank you for your time and attention. I'm Jim Seegers. I've been a resident at Goodland for 20 years, and the weather here is much better than Wisconsin. I would just like to say that the changes -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You know we're talking about -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry to interrupt. Is he here -- are you here on both items? MR. SEEGERS: Can I explain that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. SEEGERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. I just want to make sure you weren't accidently talking in the -- MR. SEEGERS: We're a little bit confused ourselves as, perhaps, it seems apparent we weren't quite sure. I am speaking to the Chokoloskee change which directly affects Goodland, Copeland in an area that's unincorporated. So to that end, I was going to make a very brief -- a few-sentence statement, and we have a presentation for the 17th or whenever that occurs. I just wanted to make people aware here that this change that you're considering in Chokoloskee directly affects the overlay in Goodland. They are not isolated events. And I think it's important, because there's some other coincidences that we will make more clear in our presentation on the 17th. To that end, I just want to make a few statements about Goodland and about the changes June 3, 2021 Page 31 of 49 that made here in Chokoloskee will affect us very significantly and we feel in a bad way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed. MR. SEEGERS: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want these changes just to be for Chokoloskee and not for Goodland? MR. SEEGERS: We are against any changes that would affect Goodland, and if the changes in Chokoloskee affect Goodland, we would be against that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this is -- this is adding a CU to VR, and so it would affect Goodland -- MR. SEEGERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and Copeland, Chokoloskee, and Immokalee. MR. KLATZKOW: But you could limit it to Chokoloskee if you wanted to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, really? MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, if that's all -- if the entire opposition is we don't want this on Goodland and you've got the one fish camp applicant for Chokoloskee -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's ask the applicant, Mr. Wester, to come back up. MR. SEEGERS: Where do I go? CHAIRMAN FRYER: To get your reputation back? MR. SEEGERS: He can stand there. We can share the microphone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we usually clean them up. MR. WESTER: Yeah, I'm good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would the applicant agree that this be limited to Chokoloskee? MR. WESTER: A matter of process, yeah, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: We're not going to develop anything in Goodland. But just so everybody knows their due process, there are many conditional uses already in VR zoning that affect Goodland and all these other areas, right? They have -- anybody that wants to exercise those conditional uses has to go through that due process of being an applicant and submitting it for the public vetting. So anybody anywhere else that is listed in a VR zoning has a voice on that change to see if it's compatible to its site specificity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do understand. Thank you. But -- MR. WESTER: I wanted to clarify that for the folks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But what you're saying is is that your client would agree to limit this to Chokoloskee? MR. WESTER: Absolutely. If we can put in there that the criteria has to be Chokoloskee, then, sure. MR. KLATZKOW: Then is there any other opposition to this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are the other members of Goodland in opposition? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. All right. From staff, any objection to having this limited to Chokoloskee? MR. HENDERLONG: So long as it's water-related, water-dependent that was -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those conditions -- MR. HENDERLONG: All those conditions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- plus the additional condition of limiting it to Chokoloskee. MR. HENDERLONG: No. MR. WESTER: And that kind of makes sense because the others have overlays existing already. This one doesn't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Planning Commission, do we have any objection to such a limitation? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. I would suggest it anyway, because I'm not June 3, 2021 Page 32 of 49 comfortable with it applying to Goodland or anywhere else. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Then it sounds as though when it comes time for us to vote, we will add that condition that it be limited to Chokoloskee. MR. WESTER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other registered speakers? And if they pertain to this question, they can waive off their time. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our next registered speaker is Tara O'Neill, followed by Jim Inglis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. O'Neill. MS. O'NEILL: Good evening. This may be moot. I'm not sure I understand the procedure here. But I'm fast, so if I'm off target, you won't have to suffer me long. I am a Goodland resident. I grew up here. I've been here since the '60s. And my concern is that changes in Chokoloskee's VR usage can adversely affect codes in Goodland and the other village residential communities. If you change the rule for -- in one village, it sets a possible precedent for that to be used as an argument to change in another village. And little villages like ours can die from the death of a thousand cuts. When you start snipping away at existing rules, we lose our history, our way of life, our quality of life, and our sense of community. So I am opposed to any new conditional uses to these very small, very historic towns. That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask you one question, ma'am, just very quickly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. MS. O'NEILL: Take your time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just if -- you're here about Goodland, not so much Chokoloskee, right, and they've applied, really, in Chokoloskee. They're willing to limit it to Chokoloskee. Staff is willing to do that, too, so that it would not apply to Goodland. What would be your -- do you have a specific objection to what he's describing as a fish camp going into Goodland? I'm just curious if it's a -- MS. O'NEILL: If what he's describing were coming into Goodland, I would see that as finding myself living next to a compound equal to an Airbnb. There is -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. O'NEILL: -- nothing residential. These aren't people who live and care and participate in the community. They are there to have a vacation and, as we all know, Airbnbs can be lovely ways for people to have income. It can also destroy a community, neighbors, with people who have parties and loud events, and they're transient and they come and go. And it, again, further displaces. And it's these little communities where we feel the most displaced, where we have the tiniest voices. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. You've made that very clear. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Jim Inglis, followed by Joshua Erickson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Inglis. MR. INGLIS: So I also have been in Goodland for a long time as a Boy Scout, 1955, went there all the time. My family bought a house there in 1970, so I've been there 51 years. I'm pretty familiar with Chokoloskee and Everglades City, and I like to fish, and so that's one of the main reasons I'm there. And kind of my speech is moot because if it's only going to affect Chokoloskee, I'm worried about Goodland; however, Tara brought up the slippery slope. So if you-all decide it's okay for Chokoloskee, then they come and want to see, is it okay for Goodland? You've already decided it was okay there, so what's the harm in saying okay to the next one. And Goodland is quite different than Chokoloskee. And you talked about the size of the June 3, 2021 Page 33 of 49 lots and so forth. You go look at Goodland. Most of them are on the water. They're, like, .1 acres. That place that they're looking to change there, it's all residential. All residential, that whole street, all houses, and they're going to put a commercial business right between two houses. We have zoning for VR and zoning for commercial, and I think it ought to stay that way. So, anyhow, that's -- we're going to have a full detailed presentation to the committee before the 16th. We'll send something in writing thought through, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, did you have a question, sir? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a general question. They don't have NIMs for these types of applications? How do the residents find out about -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There is no neighborhood information requirement on a LDC amendment, but these are advertised and public notices are mailed out. COMMISSIONER SHEA: To the resident? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they get individual notices? MR. BELLOWS: To people within 500 feet of the property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it's just newspaper, isn't it? MR. INGLIS: There's nobody in Goodland that got a notice we're aware of, and we're out talking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The reason I believe -- and, again, ask the County Attorney to correct me, but there would be no NIM here because this is -- we're sitting legislatively. We're not -- this is not quasi-judicial. MR. HENDERLONG: But, Commissioner, if I can clarify that. The LDC has the notice requirements for LDC requirements. It's 10.05.3. And I can't remember whether it's K that goes through there. It does not require -- when it's a broad land use or conditional use that it's applied countywide, there are no individual notices sent out. You have the advertising requirements that are required. You have general newspaper, but there is no NIMs required for the LDC. That's also in our administrative code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: And when they go on for a conditional use, will they get the notice? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, they will get the notice for the conditional use. That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you. MR. INGLIS: Could I just make maybe one more comment? I need to save these for the meeting, but I can't help it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. INGLIS: I've got one more second. So our other thought is, if we're going to change the zoning and overlay and the processes that affect our community, the community ought to be requesting that and be involved in part of it, not one individual who's out for himself, and he changes the entire community's way of living, and he doesn't even have to tell us. He doesn't have to give us notice. So that kind of is difficult to live with also. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. INGLIS: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our final speaker on this item is Joshua Erickson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Erickson. MR. ERICKSON: Good evening. Josh Erickson. I own property at 237 Harbor Place, which is only about 350 feet from the proposed Goodland site, but I'm here speaking in regards to the village residential zoning potential change down in Chokoloskee. If it does -- if it is going to just pertain to Chokoloskee, then I guess my point is kind of moot. But I'm also here on behalf of my neighbors and some other people on Goodland that own June 3, 2021 Page 34 of 49 property and live in their houses in village residential zoned properties that are fishermen, crabbers, eco tours out of their homes. And I know that they're concerned about specific lot requirements and just changing the general code across the board. And so I guess I just want to voice my concern that, you know, we're not really in favor of any major changes that broadly address the VR change across Goodland, Chokoloskee, Copeland, Immokalee. So -- but, again, if it sounds like it's just going to stay down in Chokoloskee, we're not -- we're not opposed to that as long as it doesn't affect Goodland, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I believe that's at least going to be our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. ERICKSON: Great. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Any further speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any people who have not registered but wish to be heard on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, did you want to be heard again, sir? MR. WESTER: Yes, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. WESTER: Thank you. So one of the -- we've been working on this for well over a year prior to all the COVID standdown. And one big check that we had to do was to make sure it was consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And so we submitted a letter requesting that, and it -- and our use, our specific use was deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And that's a huge hurdle, if you will; thereby, just kind of sending it to the zoning side or the Land Development Code side of things. And had we not, we would have had to do a Growth Management Plan change, Comp Plan amendment type stuff, and a much, much bigger deal, more in-depth process. But this one, it's not a rezoning. And I know it's kind of semantics when we talk about it. But, you know, we're okay with it just applying to Chokoloskee. And that was always our intent. And we do own the property, and so we're not speculating on this. We have examples elsewhere. And so this is something that we feel is going to be a benefit to the community, and it will still act as a residential property because there will be a full-time caretaker that isn't somebody from out of town, that's somebody that living there permanently. And so we feel that -- and this is not a high-turnover use. This is a very, very specific almost concierge-driven use where in some cases they'll be picked up from the airport and brought to the property and be there for a week. And so it isn't a high-turnover use. It's folks that will enjoy the community, and it's partly economic development. And there is more mixture of uses. And the speakers are correct, the lots are a little bit more irregular and are bigger throughout Choko, and there are mixture of uses. There are some commercial there. There's, you know, marinas. But there is a -- we're No. 12 on the conditional-use list under VR zoning right now. So if anybody wanted to dig in a little bit deeper on what other conditional uses could go and apply to all VR, it's a little daunting when you look through it. You know, social clubs, fraternities, you know, group care homes, all kinds of stuff, if you meet the criteria. So I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, we will now close the public comment portion of the hearing -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Ray has -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ray, did you want to -- June 3, 2021 Page 35 of 49 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record. Ray Bellows. I just wanted to reiterate that we're establishing a conditional use for this particular type of activity that will result in an application that will require a neighborhood information meeting for site specific use where all the details are hashed out and the public involvement will take place. The LDC amendment is just dealing with allowing it as a conditional use but not permitting it by right. I think that's the big key to note here, that they have to come through the conditional-use process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Thank you. MR. WESTER: And if I could say one more thing just to add. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. WESTER: That's the one where we will notice everybody within a certain radius of the property, and we are required to have a public meeting out there with notes and minutes and everything, and we'll be fully engaged with everybody in the community out there as part of the next process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: You're very welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Again, without objection, we will -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Question for staff, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea first. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess the -- Ray kind of answered part of it is, the neighborhood will get their chance to input after we pass it, so that isn't -- isn't that kind of like after the horse left the barn? MR. BELLOWS: We're creating a process for allowing somebody to submit an application for a conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not granting a conditional use today. MR. KLATZKOW: If you think it's a terrible idea, you vote no now. If you think it's an idea that has merit, then they will come back and show you on a site specific why it is that you should grant it. But if you think it's a terrible idea right now, there's no point going through this two-point process. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But if we think we need more, but we think it's a pretty good idea -- MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- we can stop it later. We'll have a next chance to stop it. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: This is just basically opening the door so they can walk in and make a presentation to us as to what they're saying they want to do. MR. KLATZKOW: But this is legislative. The next one's going to be quasi-judicial. It's easier to kill it at this stage than at the quasi-judicial stage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I think I'm trying to decide whether I think this is a terrible idea or it's an okay idea. And I see a bunch of people here from Goodland who object to the idea if it was in Goodland, and we don't have anybody here from Chokoloskee because there's no notice requirement. So I guess I have to look to staff then. And describe for us -- Mr. Wester said there are a variety of other conditional uses. So describe those other conditional uses and tell us why this is a reasonable addition to those conditional uses that we're really not, I'll just say, you know, putting the people of Chokoloskee -- giving a chance -- opening the barn and letting -- opening Pandora's box, basically, for a commercial use, as the lady well spoke, in an area that doesn't have residential -- or doesn't have commercial uses otherwise. Mr. Wester says there are commercial uses in the conditional-use list. So I'm looking for some insight. June 3, 2021 Page 36 of 49 MR. HENDERLONG: Give me a minute here so I can get the amendment up on the site here. MR. KLATZKOW: And keep in mind that a conditional use is a permitted use that you can place some conditions to buffer the neighborhood on. So right now it's not a permitted use. They can't do this, okay. If you approve this, it is now, in essence, a permitted use but they can come back and say, well, with these conditions, we've buffered the neighborhood. It will -- our hours of operational will be this, this, and that. So it -- you've really got two separate things going on here between this particular proceeding and then the conditional-use proceeding. Again, if you think it's a terrible idea, this is where you kill it. You may not be able to kill it at the conditional use, because he may meet all the criteria. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, yeah. I just -- this is the weirdest one I've had since I've been on the Planning Commission for about a year, because -- and Karl even joked. Since I've been here, I've probably seen 30 or 40 things, and only one time have I said I love this idea, and that was affordable housing 100 percent paid for by the developer. And but for those people sitting in the back of the room, I would have said, I love this idea, because I've driven through Everglades City a hundred times and, you know, it looks to me like we need that area to be more vibrant. I'm not talking about Goodland. I'm talking about Everglades City. And I -- candidly, I've been on a boat fishing where we've talked about, you know what would be perfect here is exactly what he's describing. So, you know, in the sense that I think maybe there's some changes that would be good for that area, I think this is it, but I don't want to be the guy sitting up here pretending to be big brother, like I know better than the people who live there. And I want to be very respectful for that, because that's not -- you know, that's inappropriate. So I'm listening to these people really well, and I guess for tonight -- and I'm talking -- I'm basically talking to the people in the back of the room that, you know, I want you to be out here saying what's wrong with these types of projects. And I understand it may be easier to kill it now rather than later. But where I do come down, I think, in listening to everybody is we're limiting this to Chokoloskee, and I do think that it should -- I'm in favor of it with that limitation, because although there's some pretty vocal opposition right here, none of those folks do live in Chokoloskee. And I'm saying all this because I think we're going to -- you know, I'm going to look really careful of it and be super respectful of these folks and whoever comes from Chokoloskee in opposition to it when they come back and try to do this. But at the same time I don't want to be big brother. You know, I've lived here for 20, 30 years, I've been down there a lot, and I do think that this type of thing, if done right and not -- that this type of thing is not abused, I think it could be a benefit down there. So I wanted to really talk to you folks to tell you what my thoughts are and how you've changed my thoughts. And so I would vote in favor of it, but I'm not going to say I love this idea because there's some folks who live a lot closer to that than I do who seem to object to it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Chris, how would it be a benefit to the people that live in Chokoloskee? Not for people like yourself that want to go and fish and they think a fish camp would be great, but how would it actually benefit the people of Chokoloskee? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I do think it would be good for the economy without doing -- and still protect -- I mean, we've got this treasure down there, the Ten Thousand Islands, and it's kind of like -- almost like the RLSA. Let's find a way to make the economy more vibrant but do it in a controlled way that protects it and respects the rights of the citizen, and it would come under the heading of you have a choice of controlling what we do down there or just letting it happen or letting nothing happen. And I don't -- I'm not sure letting nothing happen is really going to be good for -- and I'm not talking about Goodland. I'm talking about more Everglades City, June 3, 2021 Page 37 of 49 which is right next to Chokoloskee and that area. So I just -- you know, do we -- do we have some involvement in how it evolves or do we not? COMMISSIONER SHEA: If you lived next door, would you want to live next door to a fishing group? You ever go to a hunting camp or a fishing camp? People get -- they don't fish all night. Would you like to live next door and somebody's partying in four of these trailers and, believe me, they're going to make noise. I don't feel we're protecting those people, and they're the ones that are most impacted. And, as Karl said, how does that benefit the community? It benefits somebody like you that wants to drive out there and have access to what they have, but I'm not big on it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'd just respond to that. I -- definitely, that's the abuse. You know, I think what they're trying to do -- and maybe I'm -- I use the work "snookered." Maybe I'm getting snookered. But I think what they're looking for is folks my age who are probably going -- you know, might have a scotch and go to sleep at 9:00 before the neighbors go to sleep. So I don't think it's really set up for a bunch of college kids to do it. I'm guessing the price point's going to be very different, the Airstream, the appeal of it. That's my guess. And that's why I say, "if it's abused." And I do think it will be good for the economy, I do, and I think it will help maybe have Everglades City -- I keep going back to that, even though it's in Chokoloskee -- evolve in a way that is best for that area -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- without sounding like big brother. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, thank you. Well, I tend to agree with Commissioner Vernon. I think the area, actually historical, you know, we heard someone talking about, you know, the historical use. I think people coming in to fish and leaving is actually probably pretty historical. You know, that's probably one of the uses that has been in these areas, you know, with people wanting to take advantage of the Ten Thousand Islands. I personally have been spending a lot of time down there fishing myself over the last six months, and what I would say is it's kind of a mixed bag as far as what you find in Everglades and in Chokoloskee, and I don't think this use -- I think we -- you know, it's a conditional use. Am I correct, Mr. Attorney, that there's no right to do it; is that correct? If we pass this -- MR. KLATZKOW: A conditional use is a use that's now a permissible use; however, the Board has the ability to place conditions on it so that it better fits with the neighborhood. That's about what a conditional use is. An example is a church in the Golden Gate Estates. It's a conditional use. They're allowed there, but when churches come before this board, the discussion is, what are the hours of operation? Is there going to be any outdoor music? What's the traffic management going to be like? Those are the questions you'll be talking about when they come back, not whether or not this is, you know, something that should be in that area. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So for those reasons -- and I agree that it brings -- it brings something in that does benefit the community. And, of course, if you're right next to it, you're concerned. I totally understand that. If this comes in and you have the property right next door, then you're concerned about it. But I would say, we don't have anybody from this particular area where we're making the -- you know, we're limiting the change to that. No one there -- from there is here before us, you know, concerned about it. I tend to think that it fits right in with what's happening at Chokoloskee based on my own recent -- you know, a dozen visits there, you know, over the last six months where I'm spending the whole day in the area. You know, I think that that's -- it doesn't seem too far off from what is a desired way to be -- you know, something desirable in the community to use -- make use of the land that's there, and I tend to see this as a favorable thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. June 3, 2021 Page 38 of 49 Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, I'm sorry. I already -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I think that's -- do you have something to say, Rich? MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. I was going to answer a question that you had earlier. COMMISSIONER FRY: Please. I saw you put an exhibit up. Go ahead. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. The conditional uses -- you asked what other conditional uses are. On the screen here, Note No. 1, boat yards and marinas, that's typically in C-5 and your other higher districts. There's a good example of a conditional use that can appear anywhere in the VRC. They'll have to come back with a site plan. Childcare, churches, civic, and cultural facilities, cultural -- cluster housing, fraternities, social clubs, schools, private. Group care facilities, Category 1 and 2. Recreational facilities intended to serve an existing or developing residential community as represented by all the property lots included in an approved preliminary subdivision plat PUD or Site Development Plan. The use of the said recreational facility shall be limited to owners of property of the occupants of residential dwellings and their guests with the area of the approved preliminary subdivision plat or Site Development Plan. Number 10, another conditional use is mobile homes. Mobile home sales subject to the compliance with other LDC requirements but not limited to Section 5.04.04. Eleven, public schools without agreement, et cetera. This is a new use being added as an example. Now, there are properties zoned commercial on Chokoloskee Island, C-4, and I can pull up the zoning map if you'd like on that to see what the existing zoning is on there, but most of it is all predominantly VR. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So on No. 12, we would add a parenthetical expression before the word "waterfront" that would say something like, for properties on the island of Chokoloskee, comma. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the exchange of ideas is why we're here, all these viewpoints, and I appreciate the viewpoints we've heard. So if there's one thing that gives me pause, it's that because this is not a conditional-use application, there's nobody here from Chokoloskee. We have people from Goodland who are saying, if this were in Goodland, we'd be adamantly opposed to it. And I'm just wondering, what would the people of Chokoloskee feel -- what's so different about Chokoloskee whether the people would welcome it versus the people of Goodland that would be adamantly opposed to it? Do you have an answer for that? This is what's bothering me is that we're making a decision for -- MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, I think they're two different, unique neighbors. They're not identical. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: They have different histories that have gone there. Goodland goes way back to even where there was commercial that had a huge clamming operation back in the 1900s. Trains used to go down there and comport that. It has emerged and changed over time. So the characteristics of these neighborhoods and communities emerged. When he comes back for a conditional use, all the residents -- the majority of them. I would expect to hear from the majority of the residents on Chokoloskee Island after the neighborhood information meeting to give you an opportunity to decide whether they deem it to be compatible or not. In our staff report, on Page 138, we talk about the conditional-use procedure, that he's committed to adhere to that procedure and process of LDC 10.08.00. In there is your seven or eight criterias for compatibility; surrounding properties, any noise, any glare, light glare, all those June 3, 2021 Page 39 of 49 features get talked about. It will assure the uses are compatible with that, it has to, with the adjacent properties and other property within the VR district. It's just not that one property. COMMISSIONER FRY: So let's fast forward to Brad Wester up at the podium where you are or Rich Yovanovich at the podium where you are I guarantee you their case will be that this case meets all the criteria, all the conditions, as Jeff said the mouthful of the century, which is, once it's a permitted use, they can come in and claim they meet the conditions and we have a hard time saying no to those things. And staff, generally, if it meets the conditions, staff, I think, has no choice but to say this is approved. So I believe our decision here is bigger than just kicking the can down the road to the conditional use. I feel I have more of a sense of responsibility, and I feel there's a missing element. Brad? MR. WESTER: If you don't mind, can I put something on the visualizer? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. MR. WESTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that the new iPhone? MR. WESTER: It's several years old. I don't know. I hope it doesn't turn off. Okay. So that sign is right in front of my property, literally right in front of my property. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you show -- can you put the visualizer up just so I can see it? MR. WESTER: Yeah, it's up right now. So that sign advertising Smallwood boat tours, sunset trips, dolphin, da, da, da, turn left there, and then captain, that charter captain is my neighbor. So that charter fishing -- you can see through the thicket right there, my property's behind that sign. You have to -- literally, your mirror will hit that sign when you pull into my driveway into that property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you next door to the Smallwood store? MR. WESTER: No. Smallwood store is right down the street. It's, like, literally around the corner. But that charter fishing captain is right next door advertising his services, and then this sign is advertising other commercial services on the island, including eco tours. So we're kind of basing our service -- and I want to put up the zoning map real quick. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, one thing you could do is continue the item and let the neighbors -- let him bring back letters from the neighbors saying no objection. COMMISSIONER FRY: I love that idea. MR. KLATZKOW: That's one thing you can do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I think also that -- having started this at 5:05, if we continue it, it doesn't have to go back to a 5:05. I think that's what the administrative code says. MR. KLATZKOW: You got me on that one. I don't know the answer. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a first. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, if that's the case then -- if that's the case, then, let's start the other one, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have counsel for the applicant present now on the other one, so we may be able to do that, and I will get a citation and show you. See if you interpret -- MR. KLATZKOW: We can figure it out. But I think that resolves many of the issues if we get letters of no objection from the neighboring properties. MR. WESTER: Well, that's part of the next process. That's part of the conditional-use process whether we apply for one that's there now or we're adding this use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: But if you get it now, they're more likely to pass your LDC amendment knowing that there's no objections. If you're telling us you're not going to do that, that's sort of telling us that you're sort of objecting. MR. WESTER: No, I didn't say I wasn't going to do that. What I'm saying is we're June 3, 2021 Page 40 of 49 adhering to the process that we've been working on for well over a year with the county, and -- the process at hand. And I will show you the zoning map. This shows you the commercial properties owned on Chokoloskee, and so there is a mixture of zonings on the property: Mobile home, marina, C-4, and then VR. So I just wanted to show you since you asked that question what other zonings are in place on Choko, which is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just do me a favor, please. Are you talking about the red areas are commercial? Which areas are commercial? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. The red areas are -- well -- okay. Yeah, so the red area, there's C-4 commercial, then there's another one that is right here (indicating), and then there's mobile home, then there's TTRVC. So some of these -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is VR? MR. WESTER: That's village residential. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So where -- okay. Where is this going to be compared to village residential? MR. WESTER: It's in village residential, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's the distinction is it's going to be right next to your nice happy little place that you've got now. Now there's going to be a trailer camp. MR. WESTER: Well, it's not a -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Whether it's high end -- high end or not, it's a trailer camp. That's what it is. It's just like, you know, some manufactured homes are really nice, but if you live in a -- you know, in a nice, you know, regular constructed home, you don't -- you don't appreciate it if a manufactured home comes next to you. I'm saying that because you need to be realistic with us -- you need to be realistic with us and not paper that over. If you're -- are you listening to what I'm saying? MR. WESTER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You know, if you're coming in, then you've got to be candid with us, and the candid situation, the candid assessment is this is very different than residential. And if you just -- if you glance over that and act like it's not, then you lose credibility, in my view. MR. WESTER: I understand. The -- okay. So I'm putting up a site plan here, and there will be a full-time resident caretaker on the property, so that will act as the residential component to this property. And there is a house on the property. There will be a house built on the property. So, I mean, I'm agreeable to go back and vet this with the residents, but this was a part of the process -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And let me just tell you, if it was up to me, I would be voting for this right, you know, today without any further, you know, discussion. MR. WESTER: Well -- and I appreciate that. So this is a site plan that we have up on the screen, and what you'll see is we have the camp house. And so that house, which will be built just in context and character with every other coastal kind of, you know, cracker, two-story house that's out there, that will be the fish camp, the two-story fish camp that I spoke to earlier. And then you have the four Airstreams, which are here, which are the 26 -- and these are really -- I mean, done really high end, really nice. This is not a clientele of a Daytona Beach party scene whatsoever. People pay a lot of money to have this really expensive charter service for inshore and offshore fishing. And through the conditional-use process, you can put hours of operation; you can't be outside; you can't have music outside. You could limit it all -- you could limit it -- you could pack it with all kinds of restrictions to help protect the integrity of the neighborhood to maintain its residential aspect. But we have a full-time caretaker there to make sure it's still maintained as a residential June 3, 2021 Page 41 of 49 property. We just felt that the overnight stay was the ability that -- and then the niche which -- the Airstream trailers. If we took away the Airstreams, you'd have a fish camp house that is permitted by right. It's just a fish camp house. But it still doesn't allow overnight stays. So we felt that people, if they're going to do inshore and offshore fishing, why not be able stay right on Choko? Go have dinner somewhere on Choko, come back, and you can stay right there overnight or two nights. It's no different than renting any other house on Choko. And Choko is very, very different than Goodland and all the others. It's very irregular-shaped properties. There is commercial. There's a mixture of uses. And then by that signage that I just showed you right at my frontage at my driveway, that is indicative of that fishing village. You walk in, and it's a happy fishing village. There's signage everywhere promoting commercial fishing. And we would like to partake in that and -- so... COMMISSIONER FRY: If all that is true, and I'm willing to believe that -- if all that is true, then I might be of the like mind of Commissioner Vernon that I love it, right? It looks wonderful, right? MR. WESTER: It will be; I promise. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just be more comfortable personally if there were a few residents from Chokoloskee that would walk in arm in arm with you and say, that's a wonderful idea, rather than we're totally against it. And all we have to judge from tonight is people from Goodland. It's a different community; I understand. I don't know the communities intimately. MR. WESTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: But I guess my -- personally I would feel better if you had some acceptance from the people there that this is a great addition, it's a great -- you know, a great complement to Chokoloskee. That's my own personal opinion. MR. WESTER: I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did Mr. Vernon want to go? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, I just have a real -- you know, it's to your point. Were there signs, or what was the process, you know, by which people were aware, or was there any awareness or any attempt to notify, you know, the people who were affected by this, for instance, in Chokoloskee? Would they have any reason to know that this was coming before us? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. There was an advertisement that was sent out in advance, local newspaper. It's about a quarter of a page in the Naples Daily News, local newspapers that go out in advance. We send over -- electronically to people that are on our community e-mail list making the public announcements for the LDC amendments. It goes out to all the civic associations. I don't recall if there's a civic association on Chokoloskee. If it's within the county's network system, they would have received a public announcement and notice as well a link that they can pick up and take a look at the staff report and the application. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the only notice they would have received is if they read the Naples Daily News. MR. HENDERLONG: That plus the electronic e-mails that we send out. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's kind of hit or miss. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would say that that -- yeah, that, to me, isn't a very effective notice. And, certainly, it's the lawful notice, and I certainly am not -- I'm not, you know, saying that anything wrong or anything, you know, should -- more should have been done. All I'm saying is that would indicate as to, you know, why there's nobody here. The reason there's no residents here is probably because they have no idea that we're talking about this. And to that end, you know, I understand that, you know, maybe we don't know what -- if June 3, 2021 Page 42 of 49 there's any opposition. What I would say is that there's always going to be time. There will -- won't there be signs and, you know, notices given to people, if we actually have someone coming up with an actual petition, if this were to get passed, you know, for this conditional use? And so everyone would have a chance to weigh in. And I'm -- like, I'm still inclined, you know, to vote on this today, because I don't -- I think -- I do think it's very much in keeping with this particular community and the uses that are there. Even this particular, you know -- you know, person who's before us -- I'm sorry. I forgot your name. But, you know, what you're planning to do is on a property that already seems like a much better use, and if you were the neighbor, you would like this use more than the current use. And I realize that's -- you know, that doesn't mean the next applicant is going to be the same, and I understand that. But, again, a conditional use means we can condition -- you know, put a ton of conditions on there that make it so that it is going to be nice for the neighbors. So that's all I'll say. I'm ready to vote for this right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would probably vote for it right now, but out of respect for my colleagues, I think they, you know, have very valid concerns about what do the folks in Chokoloskee think. I would support a motion to continue this. And I have comment and questions that may help so that we can make the most informed decision possible. It seems like one of the concerns is what's going to happen after 9:00 at night. You know, is this going to be -- it's going to be the quietest area in Chokoloskee because you guys are so tired, or is the party going to start? And I don't know how you address that, but I think that would be important to this group. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Chris? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let me just finish. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The next thing is, the condition, when I read it, it looks pretty customized. It looks like you wrote it, and so I don't know how we deal with that. But it might -- but it might make sense for -- it may not make a difference, but it may make a difference to us if it looked like it was actually written more what the staff thought would be appropriate in light of the comments you've heard so far, and then do they fit within that conditional use rather than -- I understand you wrote it with him. But I just -- it sort of matches your property as opposed to being, we're going to say churches are a conditional use, then this type of thing is a conditional use. The other is sort of a question, and this is -- I shouldn't stereotype, but do you expect a lot of offshore crowd? Because that is a little different crowd. I'm sure the captain here could tell you that the backwater crowd typically is a little different than the offshore crowd. Do you expect a lot of offshore fishing? MR. WESTER: We don't expect a ton of offshore. Most of it's going to be inshore. As a matter of fact, that structure right there -- and I don't know, Rich, if you can scroll to the elevation on the map. That is -- we have skiffs that store underneath the building. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I'm not saying -- MR. HENDERLONG: You want that floor -- do you want the -- MR. WESTER: No, the elevation, please. MR. HENDERLONG: Got it. MR. WESTER: Yeah, the elevation of the camp house. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm not going to say I'm going to demand this, but maybe you think about, do you really need offshore fishing? I'm not sure that's going to increase your revenue very much -- June 3, 2021 Page 43 of 49 MR. WESTER: I understand. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- and if you get rid of -- a concern of the panel what kind of crowd you're going to get. MR. WESTER: Yeah. And the idea is for them to bring fish right there and bring it into the camp house and cook it, whether it's inshore or offshore. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. That just seems like -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WESTER: We're putting so much money in these Airstreams. We're trailering them from other places around the country, renovating them to the nines. I mean, they are super high end. And this whole operation is going to be -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I get that. I get that. I'm familiar with the Airstreams. I know the old Airstreams. I know what you're talking about. MR. WESTER: Yep, yep. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then the last thing I'd say is, even though we can do this during the day, I think the folks from Chokoloskee, a lot of them, you know, I want to be make sure we get as many people from Chokoloskee out here who want to be here, and it may be better for Chokoloskee residents if we do it after 5:00 rather than try to do it in the middle of the day when they may not be able to make it out here, because that seems to be the really -- we want to hear from them. So those are the comments I had that might help you and the staff in presenting the best, most informed presentation you can at the next -- whenever we do it. MR. WESTER: So that's actually a floor plan. That works, too. So you can see with the skiffs are on the bottom floor there, and then the top floor just has the caretakers residence, but a kitchen and, you know, a table, and things like that so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Wester, you probably feel a little blindsided, because you followed the process, you've spent a year on this, and you're here, and now we're saying, hey, maybe we want more. But I'll quote Commissioner Shea who several times in the past has said where he's found pause is where he feels like we are deciding for residents what's best for them rather than without their input or without -- or not listening to what they say, and I just feel that element is missing here. So I'm going to -- I'm going to submit the motion, when the opportunity exists, to continue this, let you come back with -- and I'll come back for an evening meeting for this out of respect for -- MR. KLATZKOW: You don't need an evening meeting for this. I've gone through the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. Then I'll come back in the day for a meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: But you could do an evening meeting if you want. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He works. He's better off in the evening. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll take day anytime. MR. WESTER: And I would be a little jealous if we applied -- if we got the conditional-use list approved, No. 12 on the conditional uses, and then we got the conditional-use permit denied but then somebody else was able to use it. I'd feel a little jealous. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WESTER: So listen, I've been doing this for 25 years. I'm okay with going back to the community, knocking on doors. We've already met people, and -- but we feel that this is so in character with that community. I promise you, you drive around Choko, you're like, oh, yeah, it fits. MR. KLATZKOW: You could do as -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) June 3, 2021 Page 44 of 49 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a community homeowners association for the island? THE COURT REPORTER: I can't get all of you at the same time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a homeowners association for the island? MR. WESTER: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No association? No civic? No? CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: You could do this as a companion item. In other words, instead of coming back here another two times, come back here one more time, finish this off, and at the same time present the conditional use. MR. BELLOWS: That is a great idea. MR. WESTER: Yeah, that's a really good idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's good. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you had Chokoloskee Island support. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WESTER: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: That would -- I mean, that would grease the wheels -- MR. WESTER: I understand. MR. BELLOWS: A conditional-use process would require the neighborhood information meeting. It would require the public notice of mailings of 500 feet. Everything that you want now would be brought as the conditional-use application. It's the risk of the applicant to bring them both as companion items, though. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think you might consider advertising in the Coastal Breeze and not the Naples Daily News, because that's who -- Chokoloskee and Goodland will read that paper. MR. WESTER: Well, in this -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Do we need to do a site visit as a group? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if we do a site visit, it shouldn't be as a group. MR. WESTER: It's not that pretty out there, I promise you, on our property, specifically. It's just a piece of dirt. And this does make sense, because the site plan's going to drive this ship, you know. So this makes sense to package it up concurrent with this conditional-use application and just kind of -- and chart forward. So the community was always going to be involved. It was just part of the next process. It took us a while to get to where we are right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's -- Vice Chair, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I like the idea of doing them both together later. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Same here. I like Jeff's idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do, too. All right. I think we're ready for a motion unless we want to -- anything further from staff or the applicant? MR. WESTER: Thank you for your time. MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, are you okay with that approach; bring it back at the same time? MR. WESTER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So, what, do we continue this? COMMISSIONER SHEA: What are we voting on? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think the motion would be that we will continue the hearing on the LDCA. MR. WESTER: Yeah. I think to a date to be determined, right, because we've got to get that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can do that to a date to be determined. MR. WESTER: Because we've got to get the conditional-use application submitted June 3, 2021 Page 45 of 49 officially and then help the staff to package it up concurrently and then go meet, do our rounds out there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't know the date -- MR. KLATZKOW: Sine die, right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sine die, yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: It's usually a three-month process for a conditional use. MR. BELLOWS: A little more than that. MR. HENDERLONG: Three to four. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But getting started now on that should get you to the endgame sooner. MR. WESTER: We were going to have to do it anyway. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. That's good. MR. WESTER: Staff's been great. I know it will help expedite. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And this will require further notices anyway, won't it? MR. WESTER: And signage on the property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So I think -- I think the motion is that we will continue the privately initiated LDCA, adding Conditional Use 12, and then we will schedule as a companion -- companion item the hearing on the conditional use itself. MR. KLATZKOW: And so that the good people of Goodland don't have to come back, we will limit it just to Chokoloskee. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it will be limited to Chokoloskee, and we will be able to hear it during the daytime. MR. WESTER: And out of respect to this conditional-use permit, I will have a full presentation for you, which I didn't think was applicable here, just based on the criteria and the due process. But I'll have a full presentation of all the site plan, the elevations, pictures of the whole property, the area. It will be fully -- you don't have to visit Choko. I will visit it for you and show you everything. I know the property; I know the island. So I'll have a full presentation prepared completely that will be tailored to the CUP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WESTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So may I have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. MR. WESTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER FRY: Now, if we just -- I'm just curious, because this is an LDC June 3, 2021 Page 46 of 49 amendment which would tend to be a general application, but we've limited it to Chokoloskee and, really, we're talking about one property here, one conditional use. I mean, is this -- this sounds to me almost like spot zoning, an application of spot zoning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not just one property in Chokoloskee. It's any property in Chokoloskee that meets the criteria. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So this one -- if this gets approved, then it opens the door for other ones to get approved, but now we'll know. And I'm very comfortable with that. Thank you for your flexibility. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. We should probably take a 10-minute break. And it's 6:28. Let's come back at 6:38, please. We stand in recess. (A brief recess was had from 6:28 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in session. Thank you very much. ***And we are ready to call the second item, and then we'll talk about how we're going to proceed on that momentarily. All right. This is an item that we had received a request for a continuance on from the applicant as a result of co-counsel being brought in with a need to be gotten up to speed on the file, which is completely understandable. We also have a large group of people who appeared this evening with the intent of speaking on this matter. And in the interest of taking care of our public, we want to allow them to speak but, of course, we want to be sure that we provide fully for the due process rights of the applicant. And I see that Mr. Davies is at the podium and I ask you, sir, have you been informed of what we're proposing to do at this point? It's essentially what I just said. MR. DAVIES: Yes. For the record, Noel Davies from the law firm of Davies Duke on behalf of the petitioner for this item. Yes, sir, I believe I've been informed as to that. No objection from applicant to allow the Planning Commission to hear comments from members of the public. To add one note, if I may, to the basis for the continuance, which I would like to formally reassert. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. DAVIES: Certainly, I was recently retained on the matter and trying to get up to speed but more importantly, frankly, as the primary basis for the continuance is for my client and me directly, on behalf of my client, personally to work with the residents of Goodland, try to work through any open items, the substance of which I'm still trying to fully grasp, but that's my first priority is to try to engage with them and understand any miscommunication that's there. I would also, if I may, Mr. Chairman, like to apologize for not being here at the 5:05 p.m. I believe that that was a result of miscommunication. It certainly was not my intent to not be here but I think was a misunderstanding as to the county's continuance process. So I just wanted to apologize to the Chairman and to the members of the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Certainly, we appreciate your getting over here as soon as, I guess, word reached you that we would like to have you present. MR. DAVIES: Absolutely, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You got over here quickly, and we appreciate that, and you and your client are to be commended for wanting some extra time to talk with the residents and see if you can't get the differences worked out. MR. DAVIES: If I may, one additional item for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. DAVIES: I would, just respectfully, like to reserve -- right to reserve some sort of rebuttal to the public comment, which I expect would be granted at the time of which the continued hearing takes place. June 3, 2021 Page 47 of 49 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. Understood, and it will be granted. MR. DAVIES: And as far as daytime, nighttime, whatever is the preference of the Commission, certainly no objection from my client as to the time of day of the hearing. I would like to try to do it as expeditiously as possible, and we'll also consider with my client the opportunity of potentially doing this as a companion item with conditional use based on the discussion with respect to the prior item; however, at this time, I have no authority with respect to that, so I'd like the two-week request for continuance to be considered by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And after consultation with the County Attorney, we have an opportunity to basically start these proceedings with the public comment or the comments from those of the public who are here, and you may reserve all of your rights of rebuttal, for sure. But having started the proceeding and then continuing it, we can then hear the remainder of the matter during the daytime, which -- do you object to that? MR. DAVIES: No objection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. MR. KLATZKOW: Does staff concur with that approach? MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Great. So, Mr. Davies, unless you have further matters that you want to put on the record at this time, we'll go to comment. MR. DAVIES: Nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, my apologies, all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Davies. Our first public speaker, please. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let me just throw out one thing. And I'm sure the folks in the back of the room know this, but I think the way we're proceeding is they can speak now, or they can speak when this matter comes back before us -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- but not both. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's usually how we do it, and that seems most fair that you get one opportunity to speak. And if you're here tonight and you would prefer to speak at the second hearing, then simply don't rise and speak this evening. Is that agreeable with the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: It is, but knowing that the next meeting will be during the day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good point. Yeah, good point. So if daytime meetings for you are difficult because of employment or otherwise, then this is an opportunity to be heard. All right. Our first speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have three registered public speakers for this item. They are all online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: They're all online? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our first, I'm going to call them companion speakers, Scott Kellett and Stacia Kellett. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before we proceed, there's a look of bewilderment up here. There are a number of people from Goodland who are here today physically present. None of them wish to be heard? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any registered speakers physically present for this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let me just say this, then. If anyone who's here and wishes June 3, 2021 Page 48 of 49 to be heard tonight, put in a speaker form. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Then we can't speak at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, let me try to clarify it again. If you would prefer to speak at the next meeting, then you don't need to submit a speaker form tonight. Okay? Okay. Thank you. The first registered speaker, then, remotely. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our first registered speaker is Scott Kellett, followed by Stacia Kellett. Mr. Kellett, are you with us? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Kellett. MS. KELLETT: Good evening. This is Stacia Kellett. Good evening. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is it Kellett or Keller, ma'am? MS. KELLETT: Kellett, double T. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Kellett. Thank you very much. MS. KELLETT: I would like to reserve our right to speak at the next meeting in two weeks, if I could. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, you may. You may. And your husband as well? MS. KELLETT: Same with him. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Jessica Thomas. Ms. Thomas, are you with us? MS. THOMAS: I am. I would like to reserve my right to speak at the next meeting, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be just fine with us. Thank you, Ms. Thomas. And that being the case, we have no further registered speakers. And just ask as a formality if there are any nonregistered speakers who wish to be heard this evening with the understanding that if they are, then they wouldn't be heard at the next session when this is continued to, let us know right now. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, any questions or comments or discussions of the Planning Commission before we adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we need a motion to continue? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes -- yeah, we do. We will. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to continue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have to have a date or no? No date? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's ask Mr. Davies. If we can do this during the day, we could do June 17, if you wish but, of course, you can't get the CU ready. MR. DAVIES: Again, Noel Davies. On behalf of the petitioner, two weeks during the daytime would be our preferred request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so it won't be a companion the way the previous item was. MR. DAVIES: No, it will not, and not at this time. That may change between now and then. I need to confer with my client, but I believe that the wish at this point is to proceed as contemplated today in two weeks' time at the daytime. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. And so is that the motion? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. June 3, 2021 Page 49 of 49 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Davies. Thank you, staff. Anything further to come before -- well, any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment on matters not on the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, we're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:47 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _________________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on __________, as presented _________ or as corrected _________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.