Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/16/2023November 16, 2023 Page 1 of 31 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 16, 2023 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (attended remotely) Paul Shea Chuck Schumacher Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Joe Schmitt, Vice Chair Randy Sparrazza ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney November 16, 2023 Page 2 of 31 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Warm welcome to everyone on this 16th day of November 2023. This is the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Glad you're here with us. Everybody please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Secretary, please call the roll. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chair Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schmitt, no. Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Sparrazza is not here. Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did you hear me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we did, and I neglected to do what I always needed to before we call the roll, and that's just to get your request to participate electronically and give us a brief statement for cause. We'd appreciate that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I'm traveling today to a family wedding, and so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Granted, without objection, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which is -- I'm not going to be able to be there -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- in person, but I can -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Second. Have fun. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you for calling in. We appreciate that. All right. All absences have been excused. Addenda to the agenda; we have two requests for continuance. And I'm going to ask Mr. Bellows to go over this, but first I want to remind the Planning Commission what the standards are. Because these are not automatic, and sometimes when I see emails come in where, in this case -- and I'm not going to mention any names -- but one of the applicants -- one of the applicants, one of that applicant's agents, texted me to say that -- no need for a meeting because that item will be continued, and, of course, that's our decision to make. And there is a pretty clear standard in here. And I'm not making any judgments about whether the two matters in question today rise to the standard or not. That's for us to talk about. But I just want to be sure everybody understands, you know, the role that we play. And this follows Planning November 16, 2023 Page 3 of 31 Commission Resolution 2023-1 which was promulgated by us under authority of the Planning Commission organizational ordinance which authorizes us to adopt not only bylaws but rules of procedure as long as they're not in conflict with any other law. And so here's -- I'm going to just quote some excerpts out of this. And, again, I'm not trying to lean anybody to one thing or another. I just want everybody to know what the standard is of consideration on our part. It says, the Planning Commission expects that every item that has been advertised and public notification has been given shall only occur when both staff and the applicant are prepared to have the application heard by the Planning Commission. Should either the applicant or staff wish to continue the item, they may do so by requesting a continuance. The request for a continuance shall be in writing and shall state all the facts the requester contends justify a continuance. And the Planning Commission may grant a request for continuance if and only if good cause is shown. And good cause includes, but is not limited to the following: Number one, unavailability of a party, counsel, or material witness due to death, illness, or other extenuating circumstance; two, when the denial of a continuance creates a material and unavoidable hardship for the requesting party; and, three, where the cause of the request was unforeseeable and not the result of dilatory conduct. And that last one is pretty broad. Then it goes on to say, if the Planning Commission determines by majority vote that good cause for a continuation has been shown, then the item will be continued to a date no earlier than six weeks. Now, we could, by majority vote, set something earlier, but we're in a situation here -- and I'll say more about that after Mr. Bellows announces these requests -- we're jammed up at the Planning Commission for December and January, and so any request would -- if granted, would have to go no earlier than February 1st. And I just want to be sure that the applicants understand that, you know, we could hear them today, but if they continue to request a continuance, which, of course, they have a right to request, it's going to be moved all the way to February 1st at the earliest, probably February 1st, but we can't make any guarantees at this time. So that's the background that I wanted to present. And with that, Mr. Bellows. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess process-wise I don't understand. That means they submit a request, but they all have to come to the meeting prepared to talk because they don't know if it's granted until we meet. Isn't there a better way to do this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: There might be. This is the resolution we have in front of us, and we can always change it, although it gets very complicated when we can't talk to each other. It gets next to impossible. I suppose there's a way that staff could manage it, and we could consider doing that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, right now, what if we vote that we want to not approve the contingencies [sic]; they're not here to discuss it because they made an application that can't be approved until we say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- okay. Well, let me -- let me just pre -- let me preview my take on this. I've talked to both applicants, and in my personal view, they have -- they're able to show good cause. So I'm not worried about this particular one. But I wanted to be sure that they recognize that they're on the docket for today, and we November 16, 2023 Page 4 of 31 could hear them today, but if we do find good cause, it's going to -- it's going to not be in December or January pursuant to our resolution. And I just want to be sure that when the applicants come up, they have a full and complete understanding that that's the situation we find ourselves in, because we've got a lot of very -- numerous and consequential rezone hearings coming before us in December and January. So with that, turn it back over to Mr. Bellows to announce the first -- the first request we received. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. The first item is actually a companion item. It's 9A1 and 9A2. 9A1 is PL20220003804. It's the GMP amendment for JLM Living East Residential Overlay, and that companion item is PL2022 -- thank you -- 0003805, and that's the PUD for that JLM. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich, did you want to tell us -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want me to -- sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just give us some cause. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Well, briefly, two reasons: One, I did anticipate that we would be discussing the 30 percent set-aside. I was prepared for that. I wasn't prepared for the actual request to reduce the density 6.4 units per acre, but I could have addressed that. But most importantly -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You mean 9.4, I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they wanted to go down to a much lower density at a 25 percent set-aside. There were two options. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gotcha. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't prepared for that one. I was prepared for the other. But, more importantly, it was discovered that we -- our PUD, we were asked to have a 60 percent open-space requirement, which was fine. We originally had in our GMP amendment the ability to reduce it to 50 percent, just like all other affordable housing applications, if they went through typical 2.06 process in the LDC. Somehow -- and we can't all figure out how that original 50 percent came out of the document, the GMP amendment. So if you went forward today and approved the PUD and the GMP, the PUD would be inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan because the Growth Management Plan requires a 70 percent set-aside. So instead of doing all of this on the fly, we would prefer to continue this, make sure all the right documents are in front of you. We've already told staff we are going to agree to the increase to 30 percent. So we didn't want to do all that on the fly. We wanted to have the complete documents in front of you, in front of the public, and that's the basis for our request, because we really can't go forward because of the Growth Management Plan text not being accurate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I -- as I mentioned, I'm inclined to grant the request, but you've had these materials since last Friday and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I called Mike on Thursday when we first got them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I told him we were going to ask for the request. The county was closed on Friday. November 16, 2023 Page 5 of 31 CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: So as soon as we knew it, we got ahold of staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's some scrivening that's needed, and it seems to me that you had enough time to do the scrivening so that we could have gone ahead today or, if not, we could have had a hearing today, and if we approved the PUD and the GMP with the concept of language, we could have then brought it back on consent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the problem is the ordinance that was advertised to the public didn't have the complete GMP text. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I was concerned about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That -- I was going to -- I was about to say that. And that's what tilted it for me. So I want to hear from staff before we deliberate up here. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I mean, that was accurate. I did have the conversation with Mr. Yovanovich on -- late Thursday. We did receive it on Friday. We were closed. It was forwarded to the Planning Commission from -- and from that perspective, staff does appreciate the ability to have the time to get all the documents correct as agreed to, and then -- so what you'll be hearing when you hear this item, whenever that date would be, you know, it's going to be what's contained within the ordinance, within the GMP and within the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any members of the public here who came in order to speak on this matter, please raise your hand. There's one. All right -- two, three. Okay. What we're going to do is we're going to give the public speakers an opportunity to speak now if they wish or to come back on the day that this is rescheduled to but not both. If you want to speak, you can take your choice. My recommendation is is that if you can come back, you do so, because it would be more fresh in our minds what your comments were. But we'll find out about that after we have a discussion up here. And so I'll open it up for discussion. And first to Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just want to give a historical perspective. In my recollection of how this rule came about is because we became frustrated. We were reading hundreds of pages. Members of the public were showing up. And I think it came to a head. I don't think it was Rich; it was another land-use attorney kind of gave a last-minute request for continuance and then didn't show up just assuming it was going to be continued, which is fair on their part because there was no rule. So I think that Paul's pointed out, the rules probably need some adjustment, and that's fairly typical. You know, you make a rule, and then you see, well, it's not quite working, so we probably need to adjust the rule. But my recollection is I'm the one who pushed for a rule because, you know, if we're in a courtroom and there's rules, then everybody knows what to follow. And the problem was we just didn't have much consistency. We'd kind of gripe about it and then let it happen. And I think the rule is big progress. I did sort of -- in my mind, I noted that we -- I got an email a few days before. Candidly, I didn't get a chance to look at it because I was working. But I said, wow, the rule's kind of working, you know. It's -- so I feel like we're making progress. I think we need to make a little more progress. And the land-use community is so small that everybody who works in this county should be aware of it. You know, folks who -- like Rich, as long as they know November 16, 2023 Page 6 of 31 what the rule is, I think they can comply with it. And, frankly, if you're coming in from out of town, it's your duty to learn the rules. And if you don't know them, that's your problem. And I think once we get the rule kind of just the way we want it, we just enforce it. And we always have the discretion to change our minds, but I don't think we should feel bad about enforcing the rules once it's settled on what it is and once, you know, people get used to it. So that's my thought. I don't have any problem with continuing it today, although it bothers me that members of the public showed up. That's -- and that's one thing that frustrated us. It wasn't fair for them to take off work and then have to come back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if we do continue this, it will be my recommendation that we allow the members of the public to speak either today or when this is rescheduled, but not both times. And if they do want to speak today, we could ask that the transcript of their comments be included in the staff report when it comes to us next time, presumably in February. We can talk about all of that. All right. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't have a problem, but I'm going to -- with Rich's proposal. I do have a process problem, the same one that Chris is talking about. And it's not going to go away, and I don't know if there's a legal -- I mean, it just makes absolutely no sense that we can't -- everybody has to show up in anticipation of maybe we will or maybe we won't continue it. Process-wise, it makes no sense. We should have some way of knowing or allowing a granting of a continuance ahead of time; otherwise, you kind of defeat the whole purpose, and you create more chaos than if we just proceeded with it sometimes. To me, it's not a good process that everybody has to show up and wait for this group to decide when probably most of the time it wouldn't come to us unless it probably met the criteria. I mean, Mr. Bosi wouldn't put it forward as a request if he didn't think it met our criteria but, yet, still they don't have a definite yes or no until they come here. And I think -- I don't know what we can do about it, but it makes no process sense to me at all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I have a suggestion, but I'm going to hold onto it until we act upon this request. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And I don't know whether we want to or need to solve it today. I definitely would like to have it on the agenda if we don't solve it today. But just brainstorming, I don't know that this can be delegated to the staff and -- or delegated to the staff and the Chair to make the decision so that you don't have really expensive experts and lawyers showing up just to say, hey, I wrote you about the continuance. Can we have the continuance? I don't know that that's legal, but, if so -- you know, and I would say that the -- I don't know how you deal with the discretion, but once we get the rule settled on, the default should be that it's denied unless there really is good cause or it's due to a mistake by the county as opposed to the applicant. I don't know -- I don't know whether that's even legal, but that may solve Paul's problem. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I mean, staff's going to administer this however you'd like it to be administered. I can tell you that Mr. Yovanovich did give me a call, I November 16, 2023 Page 7 of 31 think it was last week, about the omission of the text regarding the open space in the GMP, and he told me that he was going to request a continuance. And I forgot about the issue being the omission, Mr. Fryer, when we spoke yesterday. So I agreed with Rich that I thought that was the best way for the record to be clear. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And it sounds like that is -- the rule is working the way it's supposed to with respect to this particular applicant. And the only problem that Paul raised is, well, the applicant still doesn't know, and they have to show up; the public has to show up. How do we fix that? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have to show up. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And the closest thing I can think is to delegate it to the staff to make that decision. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it happens -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- that was -- that was what I was going to propose. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But let's -- in fairness to this applicant, let's act on this request and perhaps take up the potential amendment of our resolution under new business if we want to talk more about it today. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that make sense? Okay. That's what we'll do. All right. Any further discussion on the request for continuance? COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is for 9A1 and 9A2? CHAIRMAN FRYER: 9A1 and 9A2, yeah. And, again, let me clarify with staff so that I haven't -- I'm not making a mistake. Am I correct that the first convenient date that's not jammed up is February 1? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director, again. On the 4th of January, we have the three Fiddler Creek petitions. We anticipate that to be a pretty demanding day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No doubt. MR. BOSI: And then we have -- on the 18th we have five individual petitions. We have -- right now we have -- we have zero petitions on the 20 -- or February 1st. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Now -- all right. So unless there are further questions or comments, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion, if I may, and that is to grant the continuance to February -- well, first to establish a finding of good cause as required under the resolution and, based upon that finding, to grant a continuance of both of these matters, the GMP and the PUD, to February 1. Is that -- would that be satisfactory, Mr. Yovanovich, to your client? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to -- the answer is -- can I ask you to just say to the next available date, which currently now is February 1st? During my discussions with Mr. Bosi about this continuance, he enlightened me about some comments that are coming my way on the Fiddler's Creek matter, which I haven't discussed with my client yet, and I would hate to end up continuing that while we're still talking, and then all of a sudden that date became an available date for the hearing. So that's my only -- I'll do whatever you request. I just wanted to kind of give you a heads-up. It may be a sooner date based upon what Mike just said as far as November 16, 2023 Page 8 of 31 scheduled hearings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not trying to preclude that if that makes the most sense for everybody, but at the present time it doesn't look like it's going to. But, certainly, if it turns out that it is and you can get the advertising out -- Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: I was going to say, we have until -- for the -- the 4th, the advertising deadline is today. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the 4th? CHAIRMAN FRYER: For February? MR. YOVANOVICH: For January? MR. BOSI: Oh, I'm sorry. It's December. I'm sorry. It's December 5th is the advertising deadline. So we've got two weeks -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, as long as there's an understanding and an acceptance on the part of the applicant that the probability is this is going to go on February 1st unless all other factors align in a way that makes it convenient for all concerned. MR. YOVANOVICH: We understand that it may -- it may not happen until February 1st. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And, in fact, it may not happen February 1st. Probably will. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you guys take the day off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I mean, what if we don't get a quorum? MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It may not; it probably will. That's as much as I can say. All right. Any other comments before we vote? I made a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I would just like to say I realize, you know, the problem that's posed, and I realize there's probably not a great solution, but I just want to make note that, you know, ultimately, it's the residents or citizens in the community that have a stake, that are neighbors or -- somehow will be affected. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, your point -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- (unintelligible) by whatever petition is requesting the continuance. They're the ones -- they're the ones that are harmed regardless of how we proceed, because if we're reasonable -- I mean, the reason we wanted everybody to show up, in case we say no, is to make sure, you know, that we're in charge as a commission and that we get to actually have a meaningful decision -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and whether to grant the continuance. Ultimately, this system is -- you know, it just -- it's not -- I think we need to make sure that we're just as lenient to -- you know, to the people in community who want, you know, to participate in the hearings. And I don't know as, you know, there's a way to improve that, but it seems like they're the ones getting the shaft. And, obviously, I think it rubs us all the wrong -- November 16, 2023 Page 9 of 31 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, unfortunately, you're cutting out. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I just want to emphasize that. You know what, I'll switch -- that's fine. I'll switch to a different audio. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Don't worry about it for this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. I think I need to amend my own motion or request an amendment of my own motion to include that we give the members of the public who are here to speak on this their choice of either speaking on it today or speaking on it when this matter is resumed. May I have a second to my proposal to amend my own motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All those in favor -- now, this is just of amending the motion -- please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's been amended. And again, Mr. Yovanovich, I take it you don't object to what we're doing so far? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. If it's -- if it's the possibility of it being sooner than February 1st, that would be great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, understood. Okay. So now a vote on the main motion, which is to continue with the other caveats that I put in. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: The matter's been continued. Thank you, applicant. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye, aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very important thing; I didn't ask. The members of the public, who would -- who would like to -- who would like to speak today? We have one person -- two. Oh, yeah. Two people would like to speak today. All right. Well, this was clumsy on my part, and I apologize to all. Without objection from the applicant, without objection from the Planning Commission, we will -- well, I guess that the continuance can still stand because we've provided for hearing the people who want to be heard today, so that's what we'll do. All right. So have the two of you registered? All right. You probably haven't November 16, 2023 Page 10 of 31 been sworn in yet. So let's ask you to rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Disclosures starting with Ms. Lockhart, please. MS. LOCKHART: Text materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I have had conversations with applicant's representatives and with the staff and matters of public record. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Text materials and email correspondence with residents surrounding the property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. So the way this is going to -- I'm sorry, Court Reporter. THE COURT REPORTER: Robb? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah, thank you. Commissioner Klucik, disclosures, please, sir. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll catch him when he comes back. All right. So I think the way this is going to go down in history, or should, is that we will begin hearing this today, but no one -- no one from the applicant's side or the staff are required to present any part of their case. If they want to reply to something that a member of the public says, I think they can, but they're not -- they don't have to put all their cards on the table today. When this comes back, they can start afresh, and if we have three speakers today, we'll probably be attaching the transcript of their comments to the staff report so everybody has it. All right. Who's the first registered speaker, please? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, these two speakers are State Road 846. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So they're -- all right. Well, we haven't called that one yet. I thought I was clear. Maybe I wasn't. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm back with -- is this audio better? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, much, so far. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And I have no disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone here wanting to speak on JLM, please raise your hand. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have one Zoom speaker. We're going to try to contact them. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's me, and I'll defer to the 1st. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You'll defer to the 1st? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So we're not going to have any public speakers today on JLM. That matter's been continued, and we will call the next matter. MR. BELLOWS: ***Okay. The next item for continuance is 9A4, which is PL20220006213. It's the SR846 Land Trust Earth Mine. November 16, 2023 Page 11 of 31 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER SHEA: If I could bring up one procedural matter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I usually turn off my phone before we start, and then I can't check my calendar. And I purposely left it on so that we could chat about the next meeting and availability. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So do you want to do that before I turn off my phone so we see if we have a quorum? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure, yeah. Our next -- let me get back to my cheat sheet here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You don't need to. I just -- I know you usually do it, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, thank you. Okay. So this -- our next meeting is going to be on December 7; is that correct? Yeah, December 7th, Pearl Harbor Day. Anyone know -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a double meeting, isn't it, a 3 and a 5? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Does anyone know if he or she cannot be at that meeting? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I've already put in a request. I'm not going to be here. I'll be out of town. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's -- there's a 5 o'clock, second meeting? COMMISSIONER SHEA: There's a 3 -- well, on my notes it's to start at 3 and then 5 for the after-5 content. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we've got an evening meeting. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I don't know whether I can make it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can be an "I don't know" for now. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, you okay on that date, December 7? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. And then just for your calendars, our December 21, 2023, meeting has been canceled, so that will take us into January, and we'll poll on that on December 7. All right. So back to Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: That was Agenda Item 9A4. I read the petition number. Do you want the full title? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. No, that's fine. I'm not going to give the same introduction, because it applies exactly, unless the Planning Commission wants to hear it again. But I think -- I think we're all primed now to know what we need to do, and so I'll ask -- it's Mr. Arnold or another representative who's going to come up and make the case November 16, 2023 Page 12 of 31 of good cause. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. Wayne Arnold here, for the record, with Grady Minor & Associates. So we had -- we represent the applicant for the 846 mine. Staff is recommending approval; however, on Monday of this week we received an email from your Transportation Planning staff asking us to agree to a new commitment to show a road reservation across this property. And we've had some dialogue back and forth with Mr. Sawyer and Ms. Lantz regarding that project. And then, in fact, last night we received another request to modify and add additional language. And in conferring with Mr. Yovanovich, our counsel, and our client, they're not comfortable agreeing to that until we can sit down and talk to staff regarding this new request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And you heard -- you were here, of course, when the other applicant was at the dais. And I just want to be sure that your client understands that he could have gone forward today. I understand your reason, and we'll talk about good cause in a moment. But yours is also probably going to go to February 1. MR. ARNOLD: We understand, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I want to be sure that you understand and you agree to that. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. All right. The subject -- Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Yeah, I did want to -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I wanted to put on the record for the 9A1, 9A2, and 9A4, the ones that are requesting the continuance, whether they fall upon the January 4th meeting or whether it be the February 1st meeting, new public notices will have to be provided, and the items will have to be readvertised as well. So I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And there are costs, as the applicants, I'm sure, know. I think it's $500. And also additional costs of advertising and related costs. Okay, thank you. So where does that take us? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have to vote on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah, we do. Discussion of this request? Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And just to remind the Chair, I do believe we had two individuals that did want to speak to this today if you do grant the continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much for reminding. Any other -- any comments on good cause? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I would -- I'm prepared to accept the explanation as good cause. Having said that now, we know that we do have two members of the public who are to be given the choice of either speaking now or waiting until the matter comes up again, presumably February 1st. Members of the public, if you want to speak today, please raise your hand. Okay. They both are raising their hands, and so we will hear from them. And I'll call the matter. November 16, 2023 Page 13 of 31 And you do understand that you will not be invited to speak again a second time, so this is -- this will be it for you. And also applicant understands that we're not waiving. We don't -- we don't consider this to be a waiver of any part of your case; that you would start from the beginning. All right. So let me -- okay. This is PL20220006213. It is a PUDZ -- oh, no, it's a CUA, excuse me. And so we're going to ask that the witnesses first be sworn in. Please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures starting with Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, matters of public record, meeting with staff, meeting -- or conversations with the applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, email with staff. That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, nothing to disclose. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. I guess we did need to have a vote on the continuance subject to these speakers. So I'd entertain a motion to continue to the first available date, presumably April -- February 1st. Is there a -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, of course, it's subject to us hearing these two speakers today. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It passes unanimously. Call the speakers, please. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers in person. We have one online. Mr. Carlos Garcia and Robert Dixon. There's two podiums, if you could both walk up there, please, and then we'll get to the online speaker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we'll ask you first to state your name. Which one is going first? MR. DIXON: That will be me, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. State your name, and then you've got three November 16, 2023 Page 14 of 31 minutes. MR. DIXON: All right, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correction, five minutes. MR. DIXON: I appreciate it. Thank you. Robert Dixon. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. So I prepared pretty much a statement, because I know we're on a time frame here. I usually like to just ad lib, but -- so we're talking about the land trust mine. The State of Florida's allowable blast limit peak particle velocity, which is abbreviated PPV -- and you'll see that in a bit -- as I've been told, is a value of 1. Collier County set their PPV limit at .5, which is half of what State of Florida allows. That's great. The recordings in the recent blasts, I have been told by the blasting company, the PPV has been well below even the allowable .5. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm so sorry to interrupt. I must be screwed up here. I thought we were talking about Union Road, the 109 units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, no. This is the second continuance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to hear that in its entirety. COMMISSIONER VERNON: My apologies for interrupting. MR. DIXON: No, no problem. So at this point everything looks great on paper. Quality Enterprises is the company that's in charge of blasting, is following Collier County code, but the reality is that homeowners are experiencing structural damage to their homes specifically on the blast that took place on 9/14/23 at 1:02 p.m. So if the state gives allowable limit of 1, county adopted .5, they're blasting well below the Collier County adopted limit, everything looks great on paper, but the reality is is we are suffering damages to our houses. I've got over 12 to 15 cracks in my house from the September 14th blast. So moving on. Barry Blankenship, he's the representative for Quality insurance, came out on 9/29/23 to some of the homeowners' residences to evaluate the damage that was caused by the 9/14 blast. My house -- excuse me. My house alone sustained over a dozen cracks by itself. Barry Blankenship came out to my house. He acknowledged the damage and stated, future blasts, he's going to reconfigure the blast and use smaller amounts to prevent any further damage to our houses, which he did follow through with on the 9/29/23 blast and the most recent one as of yesterday, which made a big difference. QE blasted with less explosives and blasted from the direction south to north, first north to south, which was done on the 9/14/23 blast. So it's a long sequence of blasts that has to start in one direction, ends in another direction, and the 9/14 blast, they started from north, and they shot it south where all the houses are. Everything north, there's no houses. So that was probably a really big mistake on their part for the 9/14 blast. Barry stated not to fix any of the existing damage and see if it gets any worse after he continues to reconfigure the blast and the amount of explosives. Barry stated to my neighbor, Harold Hoosman (phonetic), which actually -- excuse me -- which is here, and I that once we establish that no more damage will be incurred from the future blasts, that he will arrange restitution on how the damage will be corrected. November 16, 2023 Page 15 of 31 Barry also installed a seismic monitor on my neighbor's property, Harold's, next door to monitor future blasts. Barry was very sincere, and he seemed committed to do his best to prevent any further damage from taking place in the future, which was great news, and he has to date. But I want to emphasize that Barry also stated that he's doing this on a voluntary basis only and that QE is operating under Collier County code. Barry also stated that they incur a minimum charge per blast, meaning QE is paying for a minimum of 200 blast holes even if they only blast 100 holes. So the fear is although Barry's good faith seems to be sincere, you know, money talks; they are a business. The previous approved allowable .5 PPV limit is way too high, and the allowable limit needs to be significantly reduced and made to code. We are already experiencing damage to structures now, and we're not even close to the .5 PPV. We cannot and should not rely solely on blasting companies to just practice under a voluntary basis. What happens if they decide that it's no longer convenient or cost effective to work under a voluntary basis, or another company comes in or the representative no longer works for that company, and now we're starting all over again? If QE were to blast anywhere near the .5 PPV, it would destroy thousands of structures, making them unsafe and inhabitable, displacing thousands of Collier County residents. We are already facing a housing crisis here in Collier County, and this would be catastrophic. My closing comments is it's imperative that Collier County Commissioners and staff recognize the potential disaster of future blasts if these blast protocols are not reevaluated and allowed to go unchecked. So we ask to please help and protect us and put more stringent rules in place to prevent any further damage. You know, if they go to their .5 and they've, like, gone even less than half that at times -- I -- literally, I've already sent pictures in to Eric Ortman. He's seen everything. Barry's come out; he's acknowledged the damage. It's clearly from the blast. He said he's going to fix it, which is great. I'm hoping they're all superficial. He said he's going to keep moving in the right direction, which he's been doing. Yesterday's blast, it was regular rumble; no problem. The blast they did on 9/29, which he said he was going to reevaluate, was the regular rumble. But that 9/14 specific blast, our house felt like a pirate ship out on the open sea. I mean, it rocked like there was no tomorrow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Shea has a question or comment. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just -- sir, just to understand better, do they have the PP -- peak particle velocity measurement device near your house running continuously or just occasionally they do a test? MR. DIXON: Well, I'm not -- he set it up permanently. He never had one in our direction. It was always in every other direction but ours. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But is it by your house? MR. DIXON: It's literally on Harold's property. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's by your house, yeah. MR. DIXON: Now, he installed that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: And he monitors continuously? MR. DIXON: As far as I know. I don't know exactly how it works, but it's there November 16, 2023 Page 16 of 31 24/7 with a solar panel, and I'm assuming it's taking readings. And the big problem with the readings is is they're well under, but I don't know if we're on a fault line or if there's -- there's definitely something wrong, which it caused damage to the house without a doubt. And if it was to continue, it would make the structures unsound and inhabitable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. GARCIA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Carlos Garcia. I'm here to reinforce everything Mr. Dixon just talked about. I've lived at this address for 21 years. Mr. Dixon owns two properties on the street, and I own five on the same street. I have gone through this entire scenario before the other neighbors have. They've actually set up a seismic monitor on my property for one blast, and I never heard a response back from the company. My house has difficulties opening windows because of the angle of the window. We have tenting on the tiles, on the floor tiles. We have significant cracks in the stucco and the CBS block. And I want to back up a little bit and give you a little bit of history on who I am and what I know. I'm 100 percent familiar with Dyno Nobel. Dyno Nobel provides the explosive emulsifier for these blasts when the holes are dug, okay. In my chosen career path as an explosive expert with the military, I understand how it works. I've actually done, to say, a field trip, per se, at Dyno Nobel with my profession. We've experienced exactly how they work and how everything happens. These companies are out here exploding or imploding land and dirt for a fee. Like Mr. Dixon said earlier, it's about money. Unfortunately, many of us have been there many years, and we're sustaining damage to our homes as well, okay. I don't think it's fair. I've already spoken, before we've even got to this far, with Mr. Dixon and the other neighbors where now the neighborhood is more inhabited. There's a lot more homes going up now, and there's a lot more people complaining. I'm not here to ask them to stop their operation. I'm not asking that. I understand they have to do business, but what's on paper makes no sense with what's actually happening on the ground. One thing is what you put on a piece of paper and feel that that's an allowable limit, and another thing is reality, what's really happening and what we're really experiencing and feeling. It's not normal for a house that's built with the South Florida building code to experience that kind of shaking and rattling. We're talking about significant movement and shifting. We're talking about damage to our homes. I actually had people come over -- from these companies come over and evaluate the damage. They took pictures of the tile. They saw it. They're aware of it. They know it. This is our second runaround. This is my second runaround with this -- this issue. I'm requesting -- I'm here to request that we examine or evaluate the amount of allowable limits and the direction of the blast. When they changed the direction of the blast, we had almost no recognition of what was going on. It didn't even -- we didn't even feel it. It wasn't bad. But the last blast that they did that Mr. Dixon was talking about, it violently shook our home, and that's not common of concrete and rebar. It shouldn't be happening. November 16, 2023 Page 17 of 31 So we're not new to the neighborhood. We're not new people. We're, like I said, 21 years in this county. I understand how things work. We're here full time. We're full-time residents and voters in this county. I don't think it's right, and I'm here to reinforce everything that was being said here and just take -- you know, with a grain of salt, just understand that there are the way things are and the way things should be. One thing is what you see on paper, and it looks very good and scientific and perfect, but that's not the reality. Reality is in a whole 'nother ballpark. So if we can please, to reiterate what I just said earlier, I encourage you to go out there; take a look at it. I don't know if you guys get field time. Go out there and take a look and see what's going on. Go out there during the blast and see how high that rock flies out there. I mean, this is a big operation. And, you know, that's -- I just want you to be aware of it. Maybe you're not aware of what's going on. But it's our homes; it's our property. It's a lot of money of property. It's not just one house. It's several properties. Okay. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question, sir. MR. GARCIA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just wanted to make sure I understood. MR. GARCIA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When they changed the direction, were they below the .5? MR. GARCIA: When they changed the direction -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: When they changed the direction of the blast away from the residence. MR. GARCIA: That's a great question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: They met the .5? MR. GARCIA: That's a great question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You don't know? MR. GARCIA: Now, for me as a -- you're right. For me as a constituent, how would I know? I wouldn't -- I wouldn't know. And then there is no seismic machine on my property, and I'm at -- so it's important to note that I am at the very end of the property [sic]. Our house is at the very end of the street, the last property. So, you know, as a constituent, we don't know. We take their word for it, and then when we called the county and said, hey, you know, what's going on? They're blasting again. The gentleman that answers the phone is like, well, we didn't know nothing about this. So now it's just a big runaround, like a big circle. So it feels to us like they have a liaison, and we don't have anyone. So we're here because we're hoping that you can help us, because nobody else is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you very much. MR. GARCIA: Thank you. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Arnold, do you want to say anything, you or Mr. Yovanovich, at this time? You don't have to. MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. I think we're fine. The comments were understood, and as he indicated, we've had folks on site, and we're looking into the matter. November 16, 2023 Page 18 of 31 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Did you signal again? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is for Mike Bosi. When this comes up, I would like to have somebody from the county here that can talk to the questions that this gentleman had about measurements and county regulations. We really need to hear that at this level, what the process normally is. It's only a comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'll -- if I may, I'll address that for Mr. Bosi. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The Florida Fire Marshal has exclusive jurisdiction over the blasting activities. The county does, I believe, monitor it. I do not believe he has delegated the authority for the regulation and enforcement to the county, but I'll verify that before it comes back. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have a different standard than the state, so how do we enforce ours if we -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm not sure what that's about because Section 552.30 does give that jurisdiction, and the county's preempted -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'd like -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- unless it's been delegated. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- something clear -- explained before we go through -- when we get to the next hearing, hopefully ahead of time, how the structure of the regulatory part of it works, and what do citizens do -- what is their recourse? Who do they call? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi's nodding in the affirmative, so I assume that that will be in the staff materials when -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I don't need a discussion on it now, but I will ask it later. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm sorry. I didn't follow that. Did you say it was the county fire marshal that has jurisdiction, or state? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: State. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So the state fire marshal has that, because I believe the DEP is also involved when it comes to blasting permits. It requires time of day, weather conditions, so on and so forth, correct? MR. BOSI: I believe so. And we will have someone from the -- from our engineering department who will be able to answer these questions when we hold -- when we hear the matter. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Because the limited research I did online with the DEP states that they have to make neighboring properties aware of what they're doing and when they're going to do it. So if somebody could be here to clarify that -- because I agree with Mr. Garcia that, you know, they need an advocate on the county's side. But if the county doesn't have jurisdiction and it goes through the state fire marshal, it's just layers upon layers of bureaucracy, and we need to figure out a way to clean this up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: True. Just as a reminder to ourselves, there are going to November 16, 2023 Page 19 of 31 be 37, 38 conditions, somewhere in that range, where we're going to have proactive input into how the mining and blasting operations are conducted. So we'll -- that -- you know, we'll have some involvement there. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think -- I'm not sure, you may have just answered my thought/question, Mr. Chairman. But I guess I'm just wondering -- I feel like I'm a little out of my element. I ask the staff/legal if the -- it sounds like -- it sounds like to me the applicant's trying to be a good neighbor. And so my nightmare scenario, thinking down the road, what if the good neighbor applicant sells the property, and the new owner feels very differently about being a good neighbor. So I'm just wondering if the applicant and the neighbors get together and sort of -- this is probably the wrong word -- codify or agree to what it sounds like the applicant's already willing to do, and that becomes part of the application, and then that's the -- that's the protocol, whether he sells it or not. So I'm sure I'm using a lot of the wrong language, but do you -- Mike and you guys, do you understand what I'm asking? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, but Mr. Perry, who worked on this petition, did advise me there is a condition about the vibration that occurs at the -- where is it. The ground -- yeah. The ground vibration shall be allowed up to a not to exceed a calendar monthly average of .20-inch per second. So that is a condition that currently exists. If they're not complying with that, then it could be a code enforcement issue if a complaint is filed. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that a county code issue, then? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, as to -- because that's a current condition in the conditional use. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You said .2 PPV? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, .2. What did I say? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm getting confused with 1, .5, and .2. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it wasn't PPV, sorry. What was it? I lost the page. MR. PERRY: It's how much the ground can shake, essentially, on a monthly average. I don't know -- there's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, it's measured as PPV, the particle. It's got to be -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to suggest, if I may, that we -- that we defer further discussion on this because we haven't even heard the applicant's initial report and request. And it's good that they had the opportunity to hear what some of our concerns are, but let's not try to play out the whole thing on the merits yet. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Agreed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I concur. When we have the full hearing, we'll have our blasting expert here, seismologist here, as well as the mine operator. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anything further from the Planning Commission on this? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry to -- I just feel -- you know, I'm not opposed to enforcing our code. I just feel like -- that you've got an applicant trying to be a good November 16, 2023 Page 20 of 31 neighbor on the practical side as opposed to a bunch of numbers, as Mr. Garcia said. And thank you for your service, sir. That I'd rather see something that the neighbors think is good and the applicant think is good rather than a bunch of numbers which are different than what's boots on the ground, what's going on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I think we've well signaled the concerns we have at this point, this very preliminary point, to both staff and the applicant, and we'll expect to hear back -- Mr. Perry, did you want to say something? MR. PERRY: There will be an opportunity when it comes back for a -- if the applicant and staff choose, to have an amended document. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, okay. Good. All right. Then that matter stands continued. ***And it's 9:53. Let's see how well -- how quickly we can dispose of the first and only matter now on our calendar is PL20220004175. This is the 1,200 -- 12425 Union Road RPUDZ. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Disclosures starting with Ms. Lockhart, please. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public materials, discussions with staff, and a conversation with applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Nothing to disclose. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. With that, the Chair recognizes Ms. Passidomo. MS. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. Good morning, Planning Commission. Francesca Passidomo for the record. I'm just pulling up the presentation. Again, Francesca Passidomo, 4001 Tamiami Trail, on behalf of the applicant, who is here with me today, Lindsay J. Case. Sitting here with me is the owner of the property, and his limited liability company is the applicant for today's petition. Wayne Arnold is the planner for the project, also with me today; Rich Yovanovich, obviously, you all are very familiar with Rich, land-use attorney; Mike Delate from Grady Minor; and traffic -- I'm sorry. Jim Banks on behalf of the traffic planning. I'm sorry. I'm a little bit frazzled, so bear with me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, while you're unfrazzling, let me slightly amend -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I do it all the time, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Slightly amend my disclosure. I have -- I have been by this site many, many times, but not particularly recently, because I'm a customer of the gun club. Okay. Go ahead. MS. PASSIDOMO: Thank you for the amendment. November 16, 2023 Page 21 of 31 That's the introduction. Thank you, Mr. Fryer. This property is located in Port of the Islands. It's approximately one mile north of U.S. 41. You can see the location here on your screen. To the north is the gun club, which is zoned conservation. To the west is also zoned conservation protected lands. To the south is a residential development known as Orchid Cove, and the project itself bisects a road known as Union Road, which is a road owned by Port of the Islands. It's an independent special district that operates utilities specific to this location of Collier County. And to the west is also conservation and a canal. The total project acreage is approximately 51 acres, again, bisected by Union Road. The future land-use designation is urban mixed-use, and the current zoning is RT residential. A small portion is also zoned conservation. Importantly, and as noted in the staff report, the project, as a matter of right today, allows for 16 dwelling units per acre in the RT zoned area, which equates to over 630 units of density. This represents, as you can see by the proposed PUD zoning, which is a downzone to single-family, approximately one-sixth of the acreage that's permitted as a matter of right. There's also a significant reduction in -- minimization, rather, in the development standards, as you can see, as height, increase in buffers and, from the perspective of the residents who we've been working with significantly through the course of this project, compatibility of use by eliminating uses like hotel and transient lodging to just single-family residential uses. This is a depiction of the master plan. Again, bisecting Union Road. There is one amenity tract within the project that's on the east side of Union Road. It's specifically designated on the master plan and would have typical amenity uses that would be complementary to the residential property; clubhouse, et cetera. The PUD, as typical through a PUD, designates us permitted uses as to each tract, the residential and amenity tract. The proposed development standards are typical for single-family and -- both attached and detached, as well as typical amenity area standards. The height for the amenity area is the same as the height for the residential. So, again, that's a significant reduction in zoned height. We provide here a few conceptual building elevations just to give you a sense of how the project would look. We don't have a -- obviously, a fully developed concept yet as to elevations, so this is conceptual. The only -- excuse me. The only deviation which has received staff report is for minimum roadway width within the project, and this is to -- this is very customary for residential projects, and it's to facilitate a more compact development. The deviation is from a 60 feet minimum width to 50 feet minimum width. In conclusion, the project has received a recommendation of staff approval. The traffic study and TIS -- sorry -- submitted with this application shows that the number of trips would be approximately 108. That is obviously a substantial reduction to what the number of trips would be under the current permitted zoning. In addition, the TIS demonstrated that the adjacent roadway links have sufficient capacity to support this project. That's a quick summary of our presentation, and I open it up to any questions you may have for me or any of the professionals. November 16, 2023 Page 22 of 31 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling quite yet. I've just got a couple of questions or comments. First of all, with respect to the TIS, there is an imperiled road segment, and that's 95.3 of the East Trail. It's at F with minus 113 capacity left. But since this is a downzoning, the result is is that there will be fewer automobiles and other motor vehicles on the roads than there would have under the current zoning, so... MS. PASSIDOMO: And I also believe that that -- that was based on a trip count that will be -- the staff report notes that's based on a trip count that will be more properly reflected in updates. So it's obviously a state road, so we'd be working with -- the county would be working with Florida Department of Transportation to make sure that that grading of that roadway segment is correctly reflected in the future. But, of course, this is a significant downzoning as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Then a question, and that is, how will notice be brought home to the purchasing residents that there is a gun club north of there? MS. PASSIDOMO: As a matter of fact, with the closing with the Port of the Islands development, we worked with the gun club to ensure their access was retained. So we actually granted the gun club a specific access easement through the property. And in conjunction with that access easement, we provided, at the gun club's request but also prudency for our own end-users to your point, we provide notice specific in the document. So it will be a matter of record that this project abuts a gun club to the north. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is the plan that that notice will find its way into a deed? MS. PASSIDOMO: Well, it is a matter of title, so it's reflected in public record. When we're crafting the homeowners association documents, that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: -- some time from now, but perhaps we incorporate it. That would be -- that would be in our interest, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So the HOA documents, which are filed for record, that's how it gets to be a matter of public record? MS. PASSIDOMO: Well, it already at this time is. But if you're asking whether it would be incorporated into some other future documents -- so it's already a matter of record at this point in time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That's all I need to know. Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aren't there two gun clubs there? MS. PASSIDOMO: There's a gun club to the north, excuse me, and that is all I'm personally aware of. So just right there north of the yellow line, that's the gun club which I believe Mr. Fryer was speaking to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I can elaborate a little bit. I'm not sure whether there are two ownerships, but there is a clay pigeon shotgun course with, you know, a high house and a low house, and then there's a long-distance rifle and the short distance pistol course a little farther north. COMMISSIONER VERNON: In the back? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, farther north of the -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are those common ownership? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't know. MS. PASSIDOMO: We only worked with one owner of the gun club in the access November 16, 2023 Page 23 of 31 easement, so my presumption would be there's a single entity owner. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that all you have right now? MS. PASSIDOMO: It is, and I apologize for the start, but I appreciate your patience. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, you recovered nicely. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You did great. Anybody objecting to this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll find out. MS. PASSIDOMO: Not in the -- not based on the record in front of you -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: So you're not aware of -- MS. PASSIDOMO: -- or in the correspondence. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You're not aware of any? MS. PASSIDOMO: I personally can speak to that we've worked extensively with the district through this process. So it would be my expectation that we're all holding hands at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, since Commissioner Vernon's asking the question, let me take the initiative to ask, if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to be heard in this matter as a member of the public, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands, I think that's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner [sic]. MR. SABO: We have a speaker on Zoom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. So we're going to hear from somebody. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Don't we hear from Mike first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah, yeah. But I just was -- he asked, you know, whether there would be public comment, and so I wanted to get an answer to him. But we're -- yeah, we're ready to go. Assuming the applicant's finished, we'll now turn to staff and have staff's report. Go ahead, sir. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As indicated within the staff report, from our analysis of the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code and the Concurrency Management System, staff is recommending approval. I do believe that we have received one comment not of support of the proposal. The person who provided it lives on the south side of Port of the Islands, and they indicated that they moved there for its rural character and low density, and they wanted to keep it that way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: More of an educational question. I probably should know the answer, but it seems like everything around it is zoned conservation. What does that mean? November 16, 2023 Page 24 of 31 MR. BOSI: It means there is no development scheduled or permitted within that area. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So why -- why was this approved in the middle of a conservation area? This is a historical thing. I'm not -- it has nothing to do with the application, so... MR. BOSI: This is a settlement that dates back well before my time with the county back, I believe, to the '80s. The future land-use designation carves out this area that's being rezoned as urban residential. All the rest is conservation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BOSI: It's an exception. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything further from staff? MR. BOSI: Nothing from staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We have -- oh, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. What -- the old burned-out hotel, the county owns that? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do we have any plans to do something with it? MR. BOSI: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have our retreat there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's like a camp-out. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Future commission meetings. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, nothing on the books? MR. BOSI: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. No one else is signaling, so we'll go to our registered -- our speaker on Zoom, please. MR. SABO: Chairman Fryer, it is Kathryn Kehlmeier on Zoom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Kehlmeier, are you there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Kathryn Kehlmeier. MS. KEHLMEIER: I'm here. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, ma'am, now we can. MS. KEHLMEIER: Thank you so very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. You have five minutes. MS. KEHLMEIER: Thank you so very much for hearing me. I would just like to show my support for Mr. Case's plan for the 109 single-family homes on what the CID calls as Parcel 13 and what you used to be the old dormitory. I think the single-family homes will be a better fit for the new construction that has been going on the south side of 41 and also, if it was to remain RT, when the property was up for sale, we had numerous interest in putting in a motorcoach resort, which would bring 300 pads, possibly, to that 50 acres back there. So in my opinion -- and I would appreciate the Commission going ahead and approving the zoning change to the residential; better fit for Port of the Islands, better use of the land, and that's all I have to say, and thank you so very much for the time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is really for Mike, not for the speaker. November 16, 2023 Page 25 of 31 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay, yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just confirming, this site is not on septic; it has a public wastewater facility that goes -- that's built into the project, or are they all on septics and wells? MR. BOSI: I believe the proposal will be for an eventual connection to the existing utility that the Port of the Island provides. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what I thought I read. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any other public comment registered? If not, any -- Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I just wanted to wrap up by saying I really, Ms. Passidomo, appreciate the conciseness of your presentation and your preparation and ability to answer the questions, and it's nice to see a new face rather than the same old guys. So thank you. Look forward to seeing you again soon. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree completely with that. Thank you. MS. PASSIDOMO: No slight. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. So we'll close -- no. Anybody else in the room want to be heard on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands up, we'll close the public comment segment of this hearing, and the matter falls to us to deliberate. There is no EAC vote because the property's already been cleared. So what do I hear? Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Chair. Ms. Passidomo, thank you for your presentation. I think as you pointed out, you're going to 2.1 dwelling units per acre, which it could be at 630. So I think -- I think it's a no-brainer. I think it's -- I'll make the motion to approve as presented. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I didn't ask you if you had any rebuttal, but I don't think you do, do you? MS. PASSIDOMO: I don't. I just -- I just respectfully request your recommendation of approval. And just factually, to Mr. Bosi's point, we have worked with the POI to reserve utility hookup. So it will be on -- eventually on actual sewer and water. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So this is an RPUDZ, and it's been moved and seconded to approve for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: (No verbal response.) November 16, 2023 Page 26 of 31 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Many thanks to Ms. Passidomo, applicant team, staff. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: It just came to my attention -- Mr. Bellows reminded -- I don't believe that we approved the minutes that were before you at the beginning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We sure didn't. Thank you. MR. BOSI: As well as -- and I wanted to know if -- does the Planning Commission, after your approval of minutes, do you want to talk a little bit about potential modifications to the continuance policy under new business? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Thank you for reminding me on that as well. I appreciate that. THE COURT REPORTER: Chair, I didn't hear Mr. Klucik vote, if you could just ask him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You didn't hear Mr. Bosi? THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, Mr. Klucik vote. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear his vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, we haven't -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, his previous vote. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Previous vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, his vote was a yes. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Klucik, can you revote, please? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Robb? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we will -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I thought I heard him, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, but she's got to hear him. COMMISSIONER SHEA: She's got better ears. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. You might want to put "inaudible" in. It's not going to matter. Yeah. Okay. We have two sets of minutes before us this morning for action. First for the October 5 meeting and then the October 19 meeting. Is there any need to vote on these separately? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve both sets of minutes. Is there such a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of approving the minutes of the two meetings, October 5 and October 19, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. November 16, 2023 Page 27 of 31 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He said "aye." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, are you -- you're able to hear us, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I voted yes on both of the last two votes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the one -- well, those two votes plus the prior one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. We've got -- it will show that, then. Thank you. ***All right. So that concludes our hearings for today, and it takes us to old business. And, you know, I guess we could call this old business. It really doesn't matter, but the question is, is do we want to polish up our Resolution 2023-01? And one of the -- one of the thoughts I had would be that we would be authorized or we could delegate to staff with specific criteria, and the specific criteria we might want to make more clear and more detailed than the ones we have here, to grant the continuance on our behalf with or without consulting with me. It was mentioned that that would be one approach. That's fine if you think it's necessary. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But that way we would -- and, certainly, if a matter is continued without our action, we would want to know that immediately so that we don't have to spend time on the matter. So it -- it would behoove the applicant, if they're really wanting to see a continuance, to get that request in soon enough so that we can prevent people from having to work the weekend before our Thursday meeting on a matter that's not going to be heard. So do we want to have -- Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I think that it would be appropriate for Mike to, in essence, make that decision and bring it to you and say, these are the reasons for the continuance, and you as the Chair say, yes, I think that's appropriate. I think that at that time if there's a discord and you don't -- and you disagree with the staff's recommendation for a continuance, I think that's the only time it should come before us. But I think nine out of 10 times Mr. Bosi's going to be, like, there's a reason for a continuance, it's a correct reason. It's not like they just aren't ready to go. It's -- there's something factual there, and we should -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- move forward in that manner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We could -- I'd entertain a motion for staff, working with the County Attorney's Office, to revise our resolution to incorporate the comments that would involve staff making the decision. And we want you -- we want you to draft more explicit criteria for you to follow than the ones that are in here. There November 16, 2023 Page 28 of 31 are three different ones. But think it through and see if you can tighten it up a little bit to squeeze the subjectivity as much as possible out of it, and then I believe it's the consensus of the Planning Commission that you and I would then consult over that. And if we agree, then it would be considered a continuance. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And not -- and I agree that would be an improvement, and staff will definitely take that action and bring you back something that follows that accord. The one thing that we will not be able to address, and I just don't know how to do it, our advertising is 20 days before our hearing, so that's -- that horse is out of the barn 20 days, and most times we don't get -- if we get a continuance request prior to 20 days, we pull the ad. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. BOSI: So once it's advertised, I have no idea how that we can -- when I get -- when I get it a week before -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can't. You can't. MR. BOSI: -- I don't know what I can do to notify the public because -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can't. But the fail-safe, the stopgap here for the public is that if we have people show up and want to be heard on the day in question, we'll hear them. And we're going to incorporate those comments into the transcript. So that's, I think, about as much as we can do. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you publish the agenda package on the web page. You could update it. At least go there the day before, check and see if the agenda's been revised. MR. BOSI: We did update -- we did update this agenda to give a note that these items were being continued. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BOSI: Yes. It was only -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's probably the best that you can do. MR. BOSI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think so. MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it's been moved. Was there a second? I don't recall. Oh, Commissioner Vernon, did you want to be heard first? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, yeah. I just -- I guess my thought -- and it's never going to be perfect, and I don't think it needs to be perfect. We're just trying to deter this careless last-minute throw at, hey, we're not going to be there. So it seems to me, however we tighten the rule up and pull the subjectivity out of it, as the Chairman suggested, I think that if they don't follow the rules, the staff should deny it. And then if it's legal, then -- if it's denied, allow the Chairman to exercise his discretion without communicating with us to override that. Because if it's -- if every time somebody asks for a continuance they find a way to say, come on, Mike, and you grant it, it's not going to have any teeth. So I want it to sort of -- I want people to actually be a little worried; if they don't follow the rules, it's actually going to be enforced. MR. BOSI: And as I understand your motion, whether I make a decision to grant a continuance or not grant a continuance, that's only after consulting with the Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe we need to even put another tooth in there that the November 16, 2023 Page 29 of 31 Chair needs to concur. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would that work? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, yeah. Like I said, I don't think there's a perfect, so whatever you think works. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then the other thing is, you know -- and Robb brought this up as well, and so did Paul. The concern is -- the second big concern is the public, and they take a day off work, come, it's very frustrating. Would it be appropriate to let them speak twice if they want to? I mean, if they show up twice, they can speak twice. I mean, it's three extra minutes or five extra minutes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I kind of did that on the fly. Based upon how we have previously done it, the people get one shot at it, but that's more my view of what -- how we have historically done it rather than how we're required to do it. And so I think if it's the wish of the Planning Commission, we can allow people to speak again, you know. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And we can suggest to them, if you're just going to say the same thing over, we heard it the first time. But we're trying to sort of put some teeth into it to sort of deter these willy-nilly continuances at the last minute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, how about this, that we will allow a member of the public who's already spoken to provide new material. And we're going to have the transcript of what they say in front of us. So if we -- if they're talking and we're reading along the transcript, and we'll say, hold on now; you've already made that point. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think that works for me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm okay if they make the same point again. I mean, if they hadn't come today, we wouldn't have realized we needed more information to make sure we get the right experts at the next one, and I think they should have the right to say the same thing next time. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm okay with that. I mean, I'm not -- you know, none of these are hills to die on. I'm just throwing out ideas. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And I want to clarify. That -- we have no -- there's no provision in the continuance policy to addresses this issue. That's a procedural issue that you guys are making the determination in terms of how -- if you want them to be able to speak at both hearings. That's -- each case will be up to -- will be up to you, and I think you're just kind of arriving upon a consensus of what you think of how your policy should move forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. I'm thinking, though, we'd like to squeeze some discretion out from us as well. And if we're going to allow some public speakers to speak twice, we probably ought to say they all can, within the framework of the three- or five-minute time limit each time. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree with the Chair. And I think, as you said, if it's new information, it's appreciated, if it's the same thing they had already stated. The other concern I would have is if, like, for example, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Garcia show up, and then they give their time to somebody else and they had already spoken -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- so there's no reason for them to give up November 16, 2023 Page 30 of 31 their time so somebody else has an extra 10 minutes to present your case. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would agree. I would make that caveat that if you've already spoken, you have to use that time if you want to speak again. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But I like hearing it again because I'm old, and my memory -- I thought they were both very good, and I'd like to hear it again in six weeks when they -- but -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm with you. According to my wife, I don't listen at all. So I will gladly hear that a second time over. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And if it becomes cumbersome, we can change it, since it's a process, a procedure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So are we asking staff to put all of that additional stuff into the resolution? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: What do you think, Mr. Bosi? Do you think it should be procedural at that point in time? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let's just put the continuance information in that you requested to delegate the authority to Mr. Bosi to grant a continuance with the Chair's approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What about, though, allowing people to speak on both days? Because if we do put it in there, it takes some discretion away from us, which I think is advisable. But what do you think? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I personally think that you should have the discretion at the hearing as to whether you want to hear a second time. There are also some Florida Statute considerations regarding the right of speakers to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We'll leave that out. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Bosi, is that okay with you? MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So we're going to see a redraft of this resolution and -- probably at our next meeting, but maybe not. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Just for clarity, Mr. Bosi, those could -- if -- according to Mr. Yovanovich, if his client pulls the Fiddler's Creek, the next available would be -- I'm sorry, what was that? The -- MR. BOSI: January 4th. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: January 4th, and then if Fiddler Creek still is on the agenda, then it would be pushed to February 1st? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the current plan. All right. Any other old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we'll be seeing a draft coming back on what we just talked about. November 16, 2023 Page 31 of 31 Any new business to come before us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't see any members of the public, so I assume there is not. And, therefore, 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 10:22 a.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 FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 12/7/23 ✔