Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/01/2024August 1, 2024 Page 1 of 85 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 1, 2024 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 Joe Schmitt, Vice Chair Paul Shea Randy Sparrazza Chuck Schumacher Christopher T. Vernon Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Robert L. Klucik, Jr. ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Kevin Summers, Manager of Technical Systems Operations Eric Johnson, Planning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney August 1, 2024 Page 2 of 85 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, Mr. Bosi. Welcome everyone and pleasant good morning to you. The August 1, 2024, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission will now come to order. We'll begin. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Secretary, would you please call the roll, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sir, we have a quorum, six out of seven. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Addenda to the agenda -- oh, I want to excuse the absence of Mr. Klucik who had another commitment. Then addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. There are no changes to the agenda today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting -- amazing we're going to have two in a month -- August 15, 2024. Anyone know if he or she won't be able to attend that meeting? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I will not be able to attend. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Hoping that we have a quorum. Then on September 5, we will not have a Planning Commission meeting because the Board of County Commissioners has its -- the first installment of its annual budget workshop. So we will not be meeting for a first meeting in September. And furthermore, our meeting that ordinarily would take place on the 19th of September is also not going to take place on that date because, again, of a BCC budget workshop, but we will be meeting on the 19th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Twentieth. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Twentieth, excuse me. On the 20th, and that meeting will be on a Friday. So please check your calendars and be sure that you don't show up on Thursday unless you want to attend the workshop, which you may well want to do. But please be with us on Friday the 20th. Does anyone know if he or she cannot make that meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll just have to change my tee time, that's all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you. Thank you very much. August 1, 2024 Page 3 of 85 COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's probably true. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You drink tea? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Tee time is all day. All right. Approval of minutes, we don't have any minutes before us today. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***Public hearings, advertised. First on our agenda is PL20230017521, the large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment. These are some Growth Management Plan cleanup changes. It's a staff-initiated proposed amendment coming to us on transmittal, and it will come back again to us on adoption at a future time, assuming that it moves through the process, and so I recognize, with pleasure, Mr. David Weeks. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman, I was lit up. I've got one minor housekeeping matter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Given the schedule you just said, I think my last meeting is September 20th, and I may not do this, but if you don't mind, I'd love to be on the agenda for about 15 minutes, maybe less. I'm going to -- I'll tell you what I'm going to do. If I have time -- and I may not -- I'm going to try to come up with kind of lessons learned, you know, stuff that I wish I'd done differently or that I think I did well and I'm -- the purpose, really, is for whoever sits in my seat, if they care to, they would be able to read it and go from there, and then if I don't get to it on my "to do" list, then I'll just skip that 15 minutes, if that's okay with you, and if the schedule's not too heavy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's absolutely okay with me, and I'm sure it would be okay and welcome with all of us planning commissioners. So we hope that you do find time to prepare that. It will be educational for all. Now, the matter about to come before us is purely legislative in nature. No quasi-judicial pieces, thus no need for swearing in of witnesses or ex parte disclosures. And, again, I mentioned Mr. Weeks. Those of you who don't know, he's in an excellent position to offer us these cleanup items due to his long and valued service to Collier County Growth Management with an expert's closest-in view of the Growth Management Plan, and so the Chair's pleased to recognize Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I am David Weeks with Nova Engineering and Environmental, LLC. I'm a contract employee with Collier County. Mr. Chairman, what you already stated has covered probably half my presentation. There's not a lot to it. The objective of these amendments to the Growth Management Plan are to primarily add clarity and uniformity to the portions of the plan that are proposed for amendment. This is accomplished through restructuring, reformatting, making minor corrections, and the like. And the one thing I want to stress is what this amendment does not do. It does not make any changes to densities, uses, or intensities that are approved by the plan. These are, in staff's view, truly cleanup changes. Our recommendation is for approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I'm going to have a few small questions. It's nothing of any consequence, and I don't know if any of the other members of the Planning Commission as well. No one is signaling at this point. I will go ahead then, unless someone wants to go first. Again, no one is signaling. So all -- all really great work, Mr. Weeks, as always. And I note a sentence that is in the staff report, and I'm not at all disagreeing with it, but I want to -- I want to see if it's a complete statement of the definition of "cleanup." You, or whoever wrote this, said, "Cleanup is something that doesn't affect land-use intensities or residential densities." Certainly that's the case, but are there other -- are there other characteristics of cleanup, something that does not fall into that definition? MR. WEEKS: Not of a substantive nature. That phrase was not intended to be August 1, 2024 Page 4 of 85 restrictive. It does not affect uses, intensities, densities, development standards, and the like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that's not intended to limit the meaning of "substantive" or "material." It's just by example. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gotcha. Thank you very much. Let's see. I go to Page 16 of the staff report. I guess it's Page 16 of the agenda; Page 5 of the staff report. And there is reference in the second paragraph of No. 9 which pertains to the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. And in the second paragraph, it says, "The Density Rating System is not applicable to Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict," and you note -- in staff notes, No. 12, which are explanatory notes, it's stated that, "This is to add clarification that the Density Rating System is not applicable to this subdistrict which correlates to a change." And I guess my question is: Is this -- is this a change that is yet to come or already been put in place? MR. WEEKS: A change that's part of this amendment petition. Let me explain further. Under the Density Rating System within the Future Land Use Element, there are listed a handful of exceptions or exemptions to the Density Rating System. One of the things this amendment does is remove that list of exemptions or exceptions and instead, within each individual subdistrict, include that phrase or statement that the Density Rating System is not applicable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So the inapplicability to these sections, that's something that's already been voted on by the BCC? MR. WEEKS: It's already -- yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: It's already in effect. It's already true. So this is not -- it's not taking a subdistrict that's presently subject to the Density Rating System and changing that to no longer be. It already is not subject to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. So this is really a conforming change and truly immaterial? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Something had already been done. Thank you. Now I go to Page 14 of the staff report, which is Page 25 of the agenda packet. And this has to do with the Airport Carlisle, and Subsection B, "allowable uses are limited to." This has been moved rather than added, right? Moved to this position from another position. My only question is really mostly really for confirmation purposes. All you did was move this. You didn't change any of the language, or if you did, please tell me how. MR. WEEKS: You're correct. It's just a relocation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: A significant amount of these amendments are restructuring and reformatting the text. In some cases, moving sentences; in some cases, moving whole paragraphs. But again, the language itself and its meaning has not changed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that on the record. Thank you. Okay. I don't -- this is not a strongly held point of view on my part, but at the beginning of the staff report, it was mentioned that clarity and cleanup are important. Grammatical changes have been made, which to me really is important. And so my question to you is, as we all know, and you especially, here in this county we refer to the Comprehensive Plan as the Growth Management Plan. My preference would be to call it the Growth Management Plan everywhere in the Growth Management Plan rather than relate back to the more generic term of Comprehensive Plan. Am I overlooking some reason why you use Comprehensive Plan? MR. WEEKS: The terms are interchangeable. Florida statutes use the term August 1, 2024 Page 5 of 85 "Comprehensive Plan," not Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand that -- MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- but we have opted to call it a Growth Management Plan pretty much everywhere else. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So is there any reason why we should default back to the statutory language for this -- for this piece? I can't think of any. MR. WEEKS: There's not. It probably goes back to the original adoption of the plan in 1989 where I suspect that there was the usage of both terms, and over time we've continued to maintain both terms. But to answer your question directly, no, sir, there's no reason to have a separate -- two separate terms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Would there be any objection from you or staff if we just make the conforming change and call it the Growth Management Plan? Because that's what we call it here in this county. MR. WEEKS: Not at all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I follow up on that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: David, I would just, in clarity then, and in the introduction or otherwise to make sure that you clarify, because the State clearly calls it the Comprehensive Plan. And in almost all of the statutory language it's referred to as the Comp Plan or Comprehensive Plan. So you'd probably have to put some kind of introductory statement in there that the terms are, in fact, the same or interchangeable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be fine with me, yeah. Thank you. And if you would do a global search of this document and catch all the changes so that I don't have to go through them one by one. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can I get a clarification? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So just as to the amendments that are before you, you want any reference to Growth Management Plan changed to -- I mean, Comprehensive Plan changed to Growth Management. Because we have a bunch of other elements, and this isn't a complete rewrite of the various sections he's cleaning up. So we will have both references in future. I want to make sure we're all clear and that we'll -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do understand that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's just that -- my philosophy is, let's clean up as we go rather than try and do a wholesale full LDC global change. And so here we are as we go, so we're -- it looks like without objection we'll be making that change, which I think is a good idea. All right. Okay. Then on Page 21 of the staff report, 32 of the agenda packet, the very top says, "The boundaries of mixed-use activity centers have been delineated on the maps located at the" -- and that's been deleted. But actually, we're not deleting the maps. We're changing the maps, correct? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So why would we delete this language? MR. WEEKS: Let me find that specifically. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's at the top of Staff Report, Page 21, and it's crossed out. MR. WEEKS: And, Mr. Chairman, are you reading from the resolution Exhibit A? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's probably what it is, yeah. MR. WEEKS: Showing strikethrough, underline, I believe you said? August 1, 2024 Page 6 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Starting with, "The boundaries of mixed-use activity centers," that has been stricken. And it -- and there's a map series at the end of this, and there still is. It's just a different set of maps. So I'm not sure why we want to strike that language. Just -- it's a question. I don't know how else I can refer to this other than the page of the staff report and the page of the agenda packet. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask if you would please help me out here and look at the heading of the section, capital letter C, Urban Commercial District, and then immediately below that after short paragraph is No. 1, Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict. CHAIRMAN FRYER: On what page? MR. WEEKS: I don't have an agenda packet, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I apologize for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, look, if -- assuming we approve this, if it's the -- if there is a reason to take it out, take it out. If there's no reason to take it out, leave it in. It seems to me, since we're going to still have these maps at the end, that we want to refer to them, to give them the dignity of being an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan -- Growth Management Plan. Do you see where I am now? MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry, I don't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, let's keep moving. Maybe before we adjourn here, we can get confirmation. And if there's a reason to take it out, any kind of reason, that's fine. But if not, I think it should be left in. I have another question on that same page, and the stricken language says, "If choosing to designate a mixed-use activity center or portion thereof as a master planned activity center, the property owners within such mixed-use activity centers shall be required to utilize the master planned activity center process provided below." So my question, I guess, is we're talking about consolidating or possibly consolidating activity centers? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. The master planned activity center is a provision where if a property owner controls one or more quadrants of an activity center, actually, through the rezoning process, they are allowed to change the boundaries. An example would be at the north -- excuse me -- southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard where the Baumgarten PUD is located. Now, the original activity center boundary was a square, and through that rezoning application, they changed the boundary to a rectangle. Same acreage, but they changed the shape. And that's one of the things a master planned activity center allows. Another would be if an applicant controlled, say, two quadrants, they could actually shift acreage from one quadrant to another; make one smaller, make another one larger. That has occurred up the street here where Grey Oaks is located. They availed themselves of that opportunity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe what confused me is the use of the plural word "center." "The property owners within such mixed-use activity centers." Really, we're only talking about one at a time here, right? We're changing the boundaries of one. MR. WEEKS: In all likelihood, it would be one at a time, but there are multiple activity centers that are eligible to be a master planned activity center. I believe that's the reason for the plural. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I see what you're saying now. That's fine. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe I found where you were referring to earlier. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: The boundaries of mixed-use activity centers have been delineated on maps located at the end of this section. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-huh. August 1, 2024 Page 7 of 85 MR. WEEKS: It continues on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-huh. I just wanted to know why it's being deleted. MR. WEEKS: Right. I think the reason is because it's no longer located at the end of this section. When the Comprehensive Plan -- Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1989, the activity center maps were physically located within the text. You go through half the text, and then you'll come across a series of maps, and then more text. They are no longer physically located within. All maps -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. MR. WEEKS: -- are separate maps. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good explanation. Thank you. Then I go to Page 33 of the agenda packet, 22 of the staff report, which is Mixed-Use Activity Center No. 7 provisions, and this is another global one that is grammatical in nature and wholly so. The phrase "is comprised of" has found its way into many places in our Land Development Code, and it's recognized as a colloquial in some dictionaries. But strictly speaking, the proper phrasing is either "is composed of," if you want to use passive voice, or "comprising," if you want to use active voice. And I have -- I brought this up several times over the number of years that I've been on this Planning Commission. Again, it's not something I'm going to fall on my sword about, but when we come in seeking to make grammatical corrections and I come across this, I can't help but mention it. Do you have any thoughts on it or staff or any other members of the Planning Commission? MR. WEEKS: My thought will be I'll consult with the County Attorney's Office, and if they concur, I'll happily make that change -- or don't object to it, I should say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's the pleasure of the Planning Commission. MR. WEEKS: I'll make that change, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Unless there -- without objection. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. And do a global search -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because it does appear in a number of places. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. Okay. This is on Page 35 of the agenda packet, 24 of the staff report, and it has to do -- it's under Section 2, interchange activity center subdistrict, and Subsection A says, "Dual Future Land Use Map designation." And I understand this concept. This is really more a question of curiosity than a suggestion for a correction. How common is this? I guess it's like dual overlays. MR. WEEKS: I would say this is unique -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is? MR. WEEKS: -- in our Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right here -- I mean, by "unique," this is the only place it would occur? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I mean, I don't have a problem with it. I was just wondering. Okay. And then I go to the -- Page 37 of the agenda, 26 of staff report, Subsection F, "Interchange Activity Center No. 9 provisions," and the first sentence says, "All new projects within Interchange Activity Center No. 9 are encouraged to have," dot, dot, dot. Well, Mr. Weeks, you and I lived through the "encouraged" language a few years ago and saw that it really doesn't have any legal meaning. I don't believe we should resort to a word like that because it's -- it August 1, 2024 Page 8 of 85 doesn't obligate anybody to do anything, really, does it? MR. WEEKS: It does not. It has no regulatory meaning. In this particular case, this is a relocation of the language that already exists. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, that's, I suppose, a pretty good argument. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the language is very clear in the LDC on the criteria for the -- especially -- what do you call it, No. 9. I mean, isn't the language pretty clear, all the architectural language? Activity Center No. 9 is very clear in the LDC on the requirements? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, the language may be fuzzy here, but it's clear and spelled out in the language of the LDC, my recollection. I haven't looked it up, but my recollection is very, very specific, especially for LDC -- or, I mean, Activity Center No. 9. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, you're correct, and this particular language is referring to a unified plan of development which typically is translated into either a PUD zoning or Site Development Plan, some way that ties a project into a whole. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the concept of unification's already in the LDC, Vice Chair? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't -- I don't know. I thought it was. MR. WEEKS: It is in the context I just explained, that is through a PUD zoning or my experience, the Site Development Plan, either one of which takes a project and pulls it together as a whole to create that unity, such as uniform architectural materials or signage or landscaping. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, over the last probably 10 years, I think there's probably been about two or three amendments in regards to Activity Center No. 9. MR. WEEKS: Oh, definitely. It's been modified, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's helpful, Vice Chairman, thank you. And I'm not going to ask for a change, because it's being moved, and a change would be subjective, so we don't want to do that. Thank you. That answers the question. Then on Page 33 of the staff report, 44 of the packet, it says, additional -- well, it's right above subsection large D, "additional TDR provisions." So this does not concern additional TDRs, but physically it is located immediately above that subsection, and it has to do with clustering. And it says -- and you don't even need to find this, Mr. Weeks, because I think once I explain it, you shouldn't have a difficulty with it, but of course if you do, you do. This is Section 11, and it had an A and a B. So we're taking out A and changing A to B -- or B to A. But my point is, is since there's only one subsection, we don't need an A at all. If you have an A, you'd expect it to be followed by a B or a C, and now it won't be followed by anything, so why not just take out the numbering, the A? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, my reluctance to agree with you was because you see the row of asterisks right below that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. MR. WEEKS: -- which is a text break, and what I don't know is if there are subsequent -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's a good question. And so if they were, they'd all have to be changed, too, and it's not -- that's not being offered to us. But it would be nice to see -- if someone could look at the LDC or, rather, the Growth Management Plan and verify that it would now just be sort of a naked Subsection A standing by itself. MR. WEEKS: Be glad to do that, and if it is standalone, then I would make the change you suggest, removing the letter A. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Yeah. And if it's not standalone, we probably should have seen the other ones, because they're being changed, too. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fair enough. All right. On Page 48 of the staff report, 37 -- excuse me, 37 of the staff report, 48 of the agenda packet, there's a sentence that says, "As noted above, approximately 585.13 acres are August 1, 2024 Page 9 of 85 designated as sending lands as shown on." And I guess my question is, if it's noted above, why are we noting it again? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, is this under the Immokalee Road Rural Village Overlay? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it is. And if you don't have an immediate answer, in the interest of time, I'll defer to you. If there's a reason to repeat it after we act on this, go ahead and repeat it. If there's no reason, in the interest of efficiency of language, take it out if it's already been said. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I can answer that question, I think. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: This particular overlay is related to a settlement that the county had, and as part of the settlement, there was a certain amount that had to be designated for sending, and that's why it's shown on the map. So I think that additional language relates to the display of the sending lands on the map. MR. WEEKS: If I could add to that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The preceding sentence makes reference to that settlement agreement, and in that settlement agreement, a specified number of acres was to be changed to sending lands; however, through the Comprehensive Plan amendment that established this overlay, a different acreage figure was changed from receiving to sending. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So that's to make clear the distinction between what the settlement agreement required and what actually occurred. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a satisfactory explanation for my purposes. Thank you. Then I go to Page 53 of the packet and 42 of the staff report. Again, the word "presently." The historical, sort of, Oxford English meaning of "presently" is in the near future, but some dictionaries now recognize the modern colloquial as a secondary meaning "at present." But that -- but that -- I think you're better off using "at present" rather than "presently" in No. 1, urban design -- urban designation, the third-to-last line where it says, "Not all areas presently receive central utilities." I would prefer to see "at present." It clears up an ambiguity. MR. WEEKS: Okay. I found it. Will do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. I go to 71 of the packet, 60 of the staff report. It says -- and this -- this is in the affordable housing bonus by right, and it says, "The Land Development Code shall be amended to implement this provision." Straightforward enough. This is a drafting style that I'm asking about. Has the Board of County Commissioners mandated itself in other provisions of the GMP to do something? If so, I'm fine with it. If this is new, then let's talk about it. MR. WEEKS: Yes, the Board has. There are instances where the Board has adopted language in the Growth Management Plan that will specifically indicate what they must do or shall do. In other cases it's "encourage" or, within a certain time period, "consider" and other more vague terms, but yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thank you. That's all I needed to know. And I'm coming to the end here. Okay. That's all I have, and no one else is signaling at this point. I'll ask, any planning commissioners want to be heard on this? Okay. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a follow-up on some of the comments that you've been discussing. Just to make sure for the record, it does reference some changes to maps on the activity centers. Again, you said there are no changes that affect densities or anything like that. So the map changes aren't moving boundaries or anything like that? They're giving the ability to move the boundaries but not change the density of the activity center. MR. WEEKS: There are -- there's at least one instance of where an activity center August 1, 2024 Page 10 of 85 boundary is changing. That happens to be at the Airport/Immokalee Road intersection. It's a minor change on the north side of Immokalee Road north of Piper Boulevard. It's reflecting the PUD zoning that's in place. So it's aligning the boundary of the activity center, a minor adjustment to follow the boundaries of the commercial PUD zoning. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I assumed that was -- the answer was that it's not making any changes. But I just saw that section that said changes to the activity center mapping. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good question and good answer, yeah. Thank you. All right. So no one else is signaling at this point. I'm going to ask, do we have any registered speakers? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have no registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Anything further from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, the matter then comes to us for action. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I make a motion to approve PL20230017521 with the subject -- or the amendments as discussed during this -- during the presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Weeks, for all your work. MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. ***Next, we will hear PL20230002800. This is the Golden Gate Golf Course MPUDA. 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: Ex parte disclosures from Planning Commission beginning with Ms. Lockhart, please. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record and a meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had a brief question prior to the meeting with Wayne, that was it, concerning the size of the golf course. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. August 1, 2024 Page 11 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Very good. And with that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold, a certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates. I'm here representing Collier County through our subcontract with Davidson Engineering. And I'm not sure Brian DeLony's in the room, but Brian DeLony's our contact through Facilities Management and can answer some specific questions comprehensively about the overall project if you have some. The project itself is -- really was initiated because of the veterans' nursing home and the progression that that's made. I'm sure you all have heard the Board of County Commissioners discuss their interest in having the veterans home here and the State efforts to get it to be located here. So this was initiated to really re-establish the location for the veterans facility. Once the BigShots golf course recreation complex went away as a use, this opened up the site to allow the veterans home to be relocated on the property, which necessitated most of the changes we're talking about, but there were a couple of other cleanup items that we wanted to take care of that, through the other amendments, we didn't have the luxury. If you recall, the last time you saw this project was for the possible conversion of the hotel to allow for residential uses on the old hotel property that is also part of the PUD. So we're making some changes, and I'll explain those as we move along. Okay. That's not advancing for me. I got it. Thank you. So on the screen is the image of the overall Golden Gate Golf Course master plan, and it stretches from Collier Boulevard on the east along Golden Gate Parkway and then south to the Golden Gate Canal. So the project -- part of project was in a special subdistrict that was created under the Golden Gate Master Plan, part of it then was part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and then all of the property was rezoned to a mixed-use planned development. So today what we've done is incorporated some of those revisions to codify the document from the last 2023 amendment that dealt with the hotel conversion. We're asking for two new deviations relating to the golf course. We're relocating the public-use tract by essentially deleting it, and then we're relocating the community-facility tract that would have the nursing home. There's a greenway deviation that I'll get to in a moment. There's a pro shop deviation, which we're not sure, in consulting with staff, that were absolutely necessary. There's a provision that is in the golf course zoning district designation that limits the size of clubhouses. And in this facility that will house the nine-hole public golf course as well as the First Tee group that will have a training facility, they need a clubhouse that is a little bit larger than that standard. So we thought, out of caution, we would ask for the deviation so it was clear that somebody wouldn't try to relate it back to the old golf course zoning. As I mentioned, we're expanding the community-facility tract from 8.3 acres to a little over 26 acres to accommodate the veterans nursing home, and we've added a new access point for the nursing home on Collier Boulevard. And we've also revised some tree calculations that you'll see on our master plan. This, I think, was an initial -- this was the original intent-to-convert golf course project. This was the first one that has gone through the process, and they included all trees on the golf course as part of the conversion for tree preservation. That probably shouldn't have been the case, so we're going back and cleaning that up. So Ms. Cook and her staff took the tree inventory that was prepared for the project, isolated the areas that were converted from those that were not, and we came up with a new tree preservation count that's based on that analysis. So here's your approved master plan. And in the northeast corner of your page, which was really the northwest corner of the project, is the public-use tract. That's being deleted because that will become part of the golf course area, and then you can see the community-facility tract, which is in sort of the southern portion of the tract, and it's in this area. August 1, 2024 Page 12 of 85 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Sorry. North -- okay. You've got north is -- MR. ARNOLD: North is to your right, yes, sir. That's Golden Gate Parkway that's right here. So the community-facility tract is located here. And on the next slide, you'll see that the community-facility tract has grown significantly to come all the way over to Collier Boulevard, and then the public-use tract, which was up in the northwest corner of the site, becomes part of the golf course again. And then here's the new access point that we're adding for the facility, and it's envisioned to have an access point that takes it all the way out to Golden Gate Parkway. We have a lot of changes. I can go through as many details as you'd like to walk you through some of these, or I can just sort of make my way through the presentation and then come back as you all may have questions, whatever your preference. But I think, starting to look at the more specifics of the site, this is still a conceptual plan, but this shows you the latest concept image for how the veterans nursing home would fit into the project. So you can see its relationship to the hotel still keeping large portions of green space around it in this concept. This is the golf course routing plan that Arthrex provided to us that's going through review with the county, and you can see that they've now taken advantage up in this area that was the public-use tract, and they've re-established a couple of greens and fairway up in this area. And then this area down -- that connects next to the nursing home still remains part of the golf course, but it's largely going to be rough and a golf cart crossing for the carts to connect the two holes. And then the larger component that's going to be part of their project will be the clubhouse, parking, the First Tee organization, and then a driving range. And it's my understanding that the veterans home is being designed so that they can have possibly some use of the driving range from that side, too. So that would be a nice asset for them. And then -- so to bring it sort of all together, what you have is -- I showed you the nursing home, I showed you the golf course, and then going to construction in just another month will be the Renaissance project which was the affordable housing component that was previously approved for the project. So it is permitted and ready to go, and I think the Board has dealt with a couple of funding issues related to it, but it's really on its way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you dive into greater detail, which may or may not be necessary, I want to ask the Planning Commission how much detail we want to hear. I believe I'm thoroughly familiar with this project, and I'm not going to -- I don't think I'm going to have any questions or comments, but I don't want to preempt any member of the Planning Commission who might. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just have one question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to ask it now? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, since we -- just to kind of appease my mind here, when we did the affordable housing one, we had the environmental issue when we tested the soil. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When they tested the soil, did they test it on the whole site so we know this area here doesn't have any contaminated soil, or it's already in the plan to remediate it? MR. ARNOLD: One of the other things that's in here as one of our conditions that it's going to allow us -- technically, I think the county can do it, but they wanted to make it clear that fill can be removed from the site and taken to other county property. It's my understanding that there's arsenic in other places other than just under the affordable housing site. I believe they're capping it there, so they're bringing in additional fill to cap the contaminated soil. Not possible necessarily with the golf course or the veterans home, so there's a provision that we added that will allow for offsite removal of that material to other county -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But they haven't tested it to know what's there yet? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. DeLony is indicating that it has been tested. August 1, 2024 Page 13 of 85 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And I'll give you more information if you'd like. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's fine. I just didn't want any surprises. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And good question, and that also reminds me that we're going to have to act as the EAC on this as well as on the LDC amendment. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wayne, the location of the driving range, it's fairly close to Collier Boulevard, especially -- I mean, seriously, most people who play golf know that the majority of people that have a bad swing typically -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are you talking about me? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, you're left-handed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm talking about Brian's dad. Don't tell him I said that. Brian's dad and I served together in the Army, so we go way back. Is there going to be a net along there or some -- I would have to believe they're going to put up poles and a net, won't they? But it doesn't show on there. I'm just saying from an architect's standpoint, it's something you guys need to look at. MR. ARNOLD: Well, one of the things that -- if you recall, the prior plan allowed the BigShots golf facility, which is similar to a Topgolf concept, it was going to have large netting along there. We left the language in that allows there to be netting as high as 200 feet along that portion of Golden Gate Parkway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just wanted to -- MR. ARNOLD: Or it's Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it's typical a slice prone will be into Collier Boulevard, and so -- just so the folks know that there may be a net up there. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Joe, you never played with me. How'd you know that was my problem? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a question now. Is it -- does it allow for or require netting? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know the answer to that. We've made provisions for it. I think most golf courses do provide some sort of safety netting. There are standards for golf course design for errant tee shots, et cetera. So you lay out those templates when you design the golf course. And I don't know -- Brian, you may know more than I do about the Arthrex plan. But I would be shocked if they did not include some form of netting. It may not be 200 feet high, but there may be some form of netting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just don't want it to be a surprise. And it needs to -- the language needs to be in there because it -- that's the only place on the golf course that, I mean, could be a potential safety problem, especially to people on Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would staff have any problem if we added a condition that there be adequate netting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's only if the -- it's deemed required. I mean, that's up -- that's up to the architect. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, not a -- I'm not a golf architect or -- I don't -- who's the architect for this, you said; Arthrex? MR. ARNOLD: Arthrex -- MR. BOSI: Arthrex is the sponsor. MR. ARNOLD: -- is the -- yeah. Arthrex was -- was selected by the County Commission to be the golf course developer, and they will operate it under a foundation. That's my understanding. August 1, 2024 Page 14 of 85 But the language that's there, it's on Page 179 of your agenda packet. It's Page 6 of 20 in the PUD document. And it's a footnote to the Development Standards Table that says netting and supporting infrastructure for golf driving range are exempt from maximum height limitations but will not exceed 200 feet, and then there's also a parking lot lighting standard as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I don't mind deferring to experts as to whether such a thing is necessary, but right now the language doesn't do that, and I think before we pass on this, we would want to either defer to an appropriate third party expert's opinion or put in a requirement of a condition. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the only thing I would say -- and I'll defer to the County Attorney's Office for this -- we're not specifically modifying that golf course Development Standards Table. That hasn't been something that's been proposed through the process. We are -- we're relocating the golf course tract to replace the public-use tract, but we were not necessarily -- I put this configuration in here for the benefit of you so you could see kind of the whole picture of what's happening for the overall project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I understand that, but the Vice Chairman raised a potential safety issue. I don't think we can just blow that off, whether it's existing language or not. MR. ARNOLD: Understood. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If the county's retaining ownership -- is the county retaining ownership, and then Arthrex is operating it? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the county does have control over the netting that goes in as the owner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In your view, is that sufficient for safety purposes? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I -- safety, there's two things. You get -- you worry about hitting balls. Well, I can tell you during Hurricane Irma, our safety nets came down, the whole thing. And I'd hate to see something -- so I think it needs to be appropriately designed not just to contain golf balls, but to weather a hurricane or procedures for taking it down before the hurricane comes, like you would do with a crane boom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. When this was going to be -- when it was going to be Topgolf, Topgolf serious -- they have serious poles. I mean, you've seen it driving up towards Tampa, or even in Fort Myers. The driving range going down Collier Boulevard down towards Marco Island, the only -- the last driving range, that has netting up, and it did, some of it blew done, because it was up by wooden poles. But this shows trees along the side as well, and other golf courses do use trees to sort of mitigate and create a safety barrier, as I look at this. So I would -- again, I have to leave it up to the county. They're going to operate it. They're the one that -- somebody's -- if somebody has damage, the deep pocket is the county. That's who they're going to go after legally. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, but they don't have very deep pockets. Statutory limits, so you can't -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I have to say that it really has to be up to how they design this and the golf course architect who will describe and basically validate who signs off on this and validates whether there's a safety concern. I just noted it, because this is not the same location where the range was going to be originally. MR. ARNOLD: It's a little farther south. The other range was just a little bit farther north into the nursing home site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Where the nursing home is, right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I guess I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I'd put language in there. August 1, 2024 Page 15 of 85 COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's got the -- he's got the option. And if they deem it's not needed, then it's not needed. I'm not going to -- I don't think we need -- I need to stipulate that. It's required. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What about we add a condition that the county shall evaluate -- "the county itself, or through a third-party expert, shall evaluate the necessity of putting up netting and act accordingly," something to that effect. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Appropriately designed netting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, if I might? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: Staff just pointed out language that is in your general commitments for the project, and it's Item 1E of your developer commitments in the PUD document, and it says, "At the time of plat or Site Development Plan, the applicant shall provide errant golf ball netting or other engineering solutions for development in the golf course tract limited to the golf course and driving range. This shall include signed and sealed engineering drawings, including but not limited to, the proposed location layout plans, errant golf ball device design, and details to ensure that no golf balls exit the golf tract." CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's perfect. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Perfect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Thank you. I guess, thank you, Mr. Sawyer. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm done. They took care of it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, done also? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just wish there was more language on the structural part of it, but I guess that's a design issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So no one else is signaling. May I infer from that that the Planning Commission doesn't need to hear more detail, or do we want to hear more detail? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the third time, at least, that this thing has been before us. I think we're very familiar with the details. The changes are to accommodate the veterans home but also based on the direction of the Board of County Commissioners when they validated the potential lease for this, so I'm fine with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then let's see if we have any registered speakers and then -- MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have no registered speakers that are in person. We do, however, have one person on Zoom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Who is that person, please? MR. JOHNSON: His name is Mr. William Cannon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Cannon, can you hear us? Mr. Cannon? MR. CANNON: Can you hear me now? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Cannon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we can. Go ahead, sir. MR. CANNON: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Bill Cannon, 169 Fleur De Lis Lane in Naples. I've been following Golden Gate Golf Course conversion since it is the first use of the golf course conversion rules of the Land Development Code Section 5.05.15. In particular, I was interested in how Collier County, as a developer, treated greenways. I see in their current application, which is the one you're currently looking at, they asked for a deviation on a greenway total percentage of area. I also noted that the master plan submitted with this application had greenways of 100-foot width, 81-foot width, 69-foot width, and 29-foot width. I have followed many of the submittals that Collier County made on the development of August 1, 2024 Page 16 of 85 golf course -- Golden Gate Golf Course conversion. Have not heard any discussion of seeking approval of the less than 100-foot greenways from the Board of County Commissioners. This is allowed by the Land Development Code 5.05.15, Section G.2.A. The most I found was recorded, I believe, a PUD presentation to the Collier County Planning Commission wherein the presenter began to address greenways but was interrupted by a commissioner, and the discussion was never completed. I believe that this PUD was approved by the Collier County Planning Commission and subsequently presented to and approved by the consent agenda -- on the consent agenda by the Board of County Commissioners. My concern here is that if the nine 100-foot greenways have never been formally presented to the Collier County Planning Commission and the BCC, they should be listed as additional deviations in today's presentation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Mr. Arnold, did you want to reply? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. You and the Board of County Commissioners have approved the greenway configuration that's in place today. The deviation that we're requesting is simply because the public-use tract is growing in size. That technically would require additional greenway as a percentage of the site, but the relationship of the community-facility tract to any residential use doesn't change. The adding more greenway for the sake of other areas that aren't being converted made no sense to me and to your staff, and that's why we thought it was appropriate to ask for that deviation. The other configuration -- to talk about the dimensional criteria, there are changes that don't require deviations. The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to approve alternate designs for the greenway, and that's what they did in this case. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I noticed that the greenway provisions that are in this project are more stringent than what would become available to developers if we approve the language that comes up at the last agenda item. How would those two provisions live with one another? MR. ARNOLD: I'll defer to Mr. Bosi, who's had his hand in writing those new provisions. MR. BOSI: The new provisions that provide for the ultimate ability for the Board of County Commissioners to provide for deviations to what's being proposed is the same -- the same concept that's being -- that's embraced by this PUD. This PUD doesn't maintain as it -- when this PUD was approved, the requirement for the 100-foot deviation with a minimum 75-foot were in place. Those aren't maintained throughout this golf course. There's modifications. There's deviations that have been approved, originally, when it was amended previously, of last year, and as proposed today. So the ability for the Board of County Commissioners to deviate from what's required from the golf course conversion process has been embraced by this PUD at every turn that has been provided and before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I don't object to it in this situation because it really is more stringent than what we're going to ask to be approved, and I'll give you a preview. I have some real problems with the greenway -- the average greenway concept and the Board's so-called absolute discretion to change that, but we'll come to that in the last hearing of the day. But for purposes of this matter, I'm fine with -- I'm fine with that, and I'm going to ask if other planning commissioners feel otherwise. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I don't see or hear anything. All right. So from the back of the room, yes, please. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we do have one other registered speaker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Who would that be? MS. ROJAS: Maria Rojas. August 1, 2024 Page 17 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Ms. Rojas, when you come up, would you tell us if you've been sworn in, and if not, we'll take care of that. Have you been sworn in? MS. ROJAS: Not yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. 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? MS. ROJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And state your name, please, and then we'd like to hear from you. MS. ROJAS: My name is Maria Rojas. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. ROJAS: And I'm here because it was new for me to receive the letter and -- you know, for the project. I'm very happy and grateful because the county is doing something for the community as, the -- you know, the affordable housing, the nursing home. And I'm very excited, and I do -- I don't know if I'm too far off. This is very new for me. When I see the plan in here, and I see this is beautiful -- and very, very happy. And my question is, we -- well, I think there are a few people. I own a few properties in that -- in the corner on the Collier -- in the Golden Gate Parkway. It's -- they used to be the hotel, you know, in -- but I -- this is -- I don't know. It later will be meetings where, you know, they're going to contact us, how the project is going to take care of the -- you know, is it -- because I was reading in here they're going to be removing everything and take care of -- I mean, using the land for the project. So I'm -- I don't know if I'm off. This is new for me, so I want to see if we'll be meeting later, how they're going to explain how is it going to go, the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And we'll ask for an explanation. Thank you for your questions/comments. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can she -- can you show us where your land is so we know just -- MS. ROJAS: You know the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can you just touch the map. MR. ARNOLD: I think it's right here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Upper right, I think. Oh, lower right. MS. ROJAS: I'm here and over here somewhere. I have a few -- 12 units in there. MR. ARNOLD: Ma'am, do you own part of the condominiums that are existing? MS. ROJAS: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Those are located -- and they're not part of the PUD. They're located right here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's that -- that's what I thought. MR. ARNOLD: It's another part of the project that -- not part of the project, but if you drive out there, you would think it would be part of it, but it was not part of the hotel complex and not part of the county's ownership. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that answer your question? MS. ROJAS: Yes. So that mean they won't touch those? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. No change for you. MS. ROJAS: So we get no changes. So we're going to keep those, and we don't have to worry about it? MR. ARNOLD: No, not as part of this action, not at all. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is she -- are you worried about what's happening around you or just what's happening to you? MS. ROJAS: No, no. Around, no -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. ROJAS: -- you know, but when I see that -- and I thought because it's going to August 1, 2024 Page 18 of 85 be -- you know, if the project is going to be expanding because it is all -- it's going to have beautiful buildings in there, and we're going to have it all, you know, hotel, whatever they call it before -- or complex in there, and we thought that it will be part of the other project. They're going to use the land to be able to complete the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for your questions and comments. They were good ones, and I hope you've been assured, then, that since you're not part of this PUDA, that it's not going to affect you. MS. ROJAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Heaven only knows what might happen in the future in another rezone hearing, but that's not -- that's not before us today, and nothing's going to happen as an outcome -- nothing's going to happen to your properties as an outcome of our action. MS. ROJAS: Okay. That's -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: If I can ask something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is your worry that the county may come and say we need to take your land? Is that -- is that a concern or -- MS. ROJAS: Yeah. Well, if will -- they will, you know, take our land, they're going to compensate to do something. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right, right. MS. ROJAS: That will be, you know, just up to the county. We don't have to -- you know, they have a project and people agreed to. And to do something better, you know -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. But I'm just trying to -- MS. ROJAS: Everything is welcome. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm trying to figure out whether you have a specific worry, or you just want to make sure you're kept -- you keep up with what's going on? And you have a -- are able to attend meetings, or did you have a specific concern? MS. ROJAS: I was -- you know, like, when I see the letter, I thought, but I have no idea what it was, you know, how is the project laid out, you know. They say they're going to -- I keep calling few people, and they say they're going to have a nursing home and couple things, or buildings in there. But -- and they say they're going to take whole -- the whole thing. That's why I say, okay, so I better go to the meeting and see what's, you know -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MS. ROJAS: Because we thought -- I thought they going to be -- they going to take the whole land, you know. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But now you understand -- MS. ROJAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- that it's not -- MS. ROJAS: They're not going to touch it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So you're good? MS. ROJAS: Yeah, I'm good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for being here this morning, ma'am. MR. ARNOLD: And Planning Commission members, I put back up the aerial photograph, you can see along Golden Gate Parkway there's a piece of the aerial that's not yellow. That's the condominiums that are not part of the project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was confused because the other -- the other photo didn't have north up. MR. ARNOLD: Gotcha, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I see now. All right. I think -- I think we're wanting to save you some time. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. August 1, 2024 Page 19 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: And any other -- I guess I should ask, there are no other registered speakers, I take it. Anyone in the room who has not registered nonetheless wish to be heard on this matter, now would be the time to raise your hand, please. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing. And the matter is in our hands for action, and our action would be both on the amendment to the PUD and also EAC action. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Seeing nobody, I will make proposal both as Planning Commission, and we can vote combined then and sitting as the EAC. I recommend approval of Petition PL20230002800, Golden Gate Golf Course PUDA. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It passes unanimously. Thanks to everyone. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is Brian here for the next -- make you earn your money. MR. DELONY: I do. I've got to go back and actually work. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***Okay. The next matter -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Say hi to your dad. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And if the next matter goes longer than 25 minutes, we'll have a midmorning break just to -- everyone, give you a heads-up on that. So the next hearing will be on PL20220003008, the Palmetto Ridge 2 cell tower conditional use. 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: Thank you. Disclosures starting with Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon has no disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record and a meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials, public record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Jahn, you have the floor. August 1, 2024 Page 20 of 85 Uh-oh. It may take more than 25 minutes. MS. JAHN: Hopefully not. It's funny I was as -- this is Mattaniah Jahn, 935 Main Street, Suite C4, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695. And I was actually discussing my love of paper with one of my witnesses this morning, and very early on -- not to take too much of the morning -- I used to come up with all these paper files and put paper under the Elmo until a friend of mine showed me a video of me setting up on the Sarasota lectern, and I just -- I was laying everything out. She said, "Take a look at this. Like, imagine how you look there. You're kind of in the last century." And then she remarked how ironic that was given that I'm a cell tower attorney. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. MS. JAHN: But, unfortunately, I can be a bit of an old soul. Anyways, I'm Matt -- as I said, I'm Mattaniah Jahn, and I have taken an oath. I have Bill Compton with Verizon Wireless; he has taken an oath as well. And Olga Maffeo, an RF engineer with T-Mobile, and she has taken an oath. As your materials state, I come before you today with staff recommendation of approval to allow a conditional use to authorize 180-foot-tall monopine-style communication tower upon Parcel 04171120002, and the parent parcel is partially cleared land and partially a single-family home that is owned by our landlord. And just to clear up parties, the tower company that is developing this is Bridger Tower Corporation. They are developing it on behalf of Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and AT&T. So we have three carriers who are planning to collocate on this tower. CHAIRMAN FRYER: With the potential for a fourth, I take it? MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. So I'm showing -- in all maps I show you today, up will be north unless I state otherwise. And I'm currently showing you a Property Appraiser aerial of the area around Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard. You can see Immokalee Road off to the west. It's the yellow -- it is the yellow line that curves off. You can see Oil Well Road running east/west, and then there's a white line that runs north/south. It's not as pronounced. That's Everglades Boulevard. And just to help give a little bit of a contextual primer for how communication towers work in the Estates, your code, when you open it up, encourages having towers -- places towers along these corridors. You have to have qualifying parcels in the Estates in that they have to have frontage along these roads. So you would expect towers along Everglades Boulevard, Oil Well Road, and the like. I've added a yellow arrow pointing to the approximate -- pointing to the location of the parent parcel, and that's located at the northeast intersection of Everglades and 31st Avenue Northeast. As we get in closer -- and this is a closer Property Appraiser aerial -- the parent parcel is highlighted in yellow, and I am applying a yellow arrow. You can see Oil Well Road running east and west, and off to the northeast, you can see the Sky Sail RSA project. Way off to the east outside is Big Cypress, and then immediately to the west of our parent parcel -- and our parent parcel actually runs under half of it -- is Everglades Boulevard. So to the north are ranchettes on Estates lots, and you have 33 Avenue Northeast and then Oil Well Road. And, of course, as you go north, you've got some retention ponds and then more ranchettes in the Estates. To the south you have 31st Avenue Northeast, and then ranchettes in the Estates. Of course, as you go to the east, you move to non-qualifying parcels for tower purposes, and that's all ranchettes in the Estates, and as you go west, you hit Everglades Boulevard, and then ranchettes in the Estates as you move further out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What does the term "ranchette" mean? I know what a ranch house is. MS. JAHN: I apologize for the colloquialism. It might be a Midwestern influence from spending summers in Crawfordsville, Indiana. But, basically, a ranchette is a small house -- a August 1, 2024 Page 21 of 85 small house by today's standards. I mean, you can go out to Atlanta and find mansions that are huge, right? But are houses that are on a bit of land, so you've got some space around you. So you could have outbuildings or the like, but they're not particularly farmland, per se. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: And then here's our closer view. Again, you can see the houses on those -- you can see those houses on those Estates lots, and you can see the extra space, which is why I'm referring to them as ranchettes. This is the landlord. The landlord owns this house off to the west. It's my understanding that his daughter actually lives there. The area to the east is the cleared land, and the middle of that is where you're going to see the monopine. This is your zoning GIS just showing that we're zoned Estates. And then your future land-use designation is Estates as well. I'm now showing you Sheet Z3 from the parent -- from the plans on record. And, of course, this project qualifies as an essential service for -- under your LDC because wireless communication providers provide 911 locationing services. So all three of the service providers that will be collocating on this tower are part of the E911 system and then, of course, you may have -- you may recall from prior presentations that AT&T is part of the FirstNet network. For anyone needing context on that, FirstNet is a federally encouraged public/private partnership for basically creating a secondary first responders network as a backup to your 700, 800 megahertz system. So it basically has phones that connect on separate channels for first responders only. Of course, this area is a known dead zone. Just, again, providing my own personal context, when I was here before you back in 2021, I believe, for the Green Boulevard tower -- it may be 2020 -- the area in and around Oil Well Road was showing up on the news as a dead zone. There it was more -- because the concentration was more around the Publix off by Immokalee Road, that's where more of the complaints were, but this area is a known dead zone, I would respectfully submit to you. The monopine provides the required 50 percent tower height separations from Estates-zoned land. And basically the way your tower code works, as it -- as it stands today is that if this was an uncamouflaged tower, you'd have to provide 100 percent tower height separation from residentially zoned properties, so the Estates-zoned properties. And if you go camouflage, such as the monopine, it becomes 50 percent. So to the north, you have 147 feet, or 1.6 times tower height separation. To the east, 197, or 2.1 times -- I'm sorry. Not tower height; 2.1 times the code-required 50 percent separation. To the south you have 177 feet, or 1.9 times the code-required separation. To the west, you have 477 feet, or 5.3 times the code-required 50 percent tower height separation. Just to take and also discuss this -- unfortunately I'm using that word "context" again -- within the context of your code specifically in spirit. If you were to look at this comparing to the 100 percent tower height separation, when you look at it, while it wouldn't meet it to the lot lines, it would exceed that separation to the nearest residential structures in all directions with the closest residential structure being the house that the landlord owns on that -- on his own property. So this meets both the letter -- I would respectfully submit that this exceeds both the letter and the spirit of your Land Development Code. You will notice that there is a square in the middle that's white. That is the equipment compound, and there is adequate space for up to four carriers. It is enclosed by an 8-foot-tall concrete, architecturally finished masonry wall as required by your code. And then around that, you can see a shaded area; that is the code-required 15-foot landscape buffer. In the very middle is the monopine, in that little circle, and then you can see a wider circle. That is a hundred and -- that is 130-foot fall zone radius. And just for the benefit of the record, fall-zone technology is essentially a pre-engineered crimp point that would allow the monopine to fold over upon itself. I'm not reinventing any wheels here. This is known technology. Usually August 1, 2024 Page 22 of 85 I -- the story that I give for an example of that are the interstate lights on Kings Highway when -- in 2004 when Charley came through, all those lights were folded over at the same height because they all had fall-zone technology to keep them out of the travel lanes. This is just a closer view of the compound to show that there's adequate space for four carriers. Of course, Verizon's equipment is depicted. You can see also around it a darker gray line. It's not quite as evident. That's the concrete wall. And then outside of that is the code-required landscape buffer. This is an elevation of the monopine just showing that it's designed as a tree. I'm not really bringing any new designs into this. This is the -- I would respectfully submit, or I would hope that it is a known quantity at this point in Collier County. It's been deployed at the Wilson Professional Center as well as at 4111 Green Boulevard in my personal experience, and it also came before the HEX at Cracklin' Jack's. Essentially, the design is a monopole underneath that's been structurally -- that's been designed to be beefier, essentially, and larger, so that way cables are routed inside of the monopine itself, and then it supports a pre-engineered foliated canopy that extends to the top of the -- that extends up in the top -- the upper portion of the monopine. The antennas are nestled on platforms, nestled inside of the canopy itself, and then the antennas are also covered with socks that are foliated to help them better blend in. And you can see that there are four -- there are four collocation centers. You have Verizon and then, of course, AT&T and T-Mobile shown below. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea has a question. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just so I understand -- so there are no support wires with this? MS. JAHN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And there's no break in the mid -- so if it goes down, the whole thing, it goes down the entire length of the height, right? There's not a break -- a weak point created in the middle of it so if it was going to go down during bad weather, if it would break in half or something like that? The whole tower would go down. MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. And I apologize for lack of clarity. That is not the case. This is designed with a breakpoint in it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, it does. Okay. MS. JAHN: Yes. So, essentially, the -- it's designed to fold over and be contained within 130 feet of the base. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: This had -- just to provide a little bit of history on this site, it had originally been a lattice-style communication tower, and as a product of our neighborhood information meeting that we held in February, we were asked to convert to a monopine. I took three months talking that through with Bridger and the carriers, and we're happy to be able to say that we have come back and are providing a monopine instead of a lattice. Just as a very quick reference, the Olympics are going on. You know the Eiffel Tower. Lattice is, like, a less pretty version of that. Running through photo simulations. So this one is from the intersection of Everglades Boulevard and Oil Well. You can see the monopine sticking up there. You can see it from -- the next view is from 33rd Avenue Northeast looking south. My fourth location is 31st Avenue Northeast, and this is looking north up the driveway. My fifth location -- and I did skip my third. I apologize. I can dig out -- unfortunately, this copy doesn't have the third version, or the third simulation, which is down the street, which basically shows the monopine sticking up over the canopy, but you can't see the base. Location 5, Everglades Boulevard and 29th Avenue Northeast looking north. Location 6, you can see the house that's owned by the landlord in the foreground. This is August 1, 2024 Page 23 of 85 at the intersection of Everglades and 31st and then as you move further away Everglades Boulevard to the west looking northeast. And then this is from Oil Well Road looking southeast. Moving into RF need, the monopine is designed to support four carriers, and this monopine has three initial carriers, as I stated before: Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile. So I'm currently showing Verizon's existing tower map from the RF package that is on file, and you can see that there's a number of towers labeled A through I. And this shows the location these neighboring towers are trying to serve. They're trying to serve this portion of the Estates, and this might also help explain why there's still a dead zone here. So you've got locations -- the handoffs are pretty far away. You're up on Immokalee Road after it goes east/west, you're out in Ave Maria, you're out east of Ave Maria. As we move around south, you're down towards the south end of the Estates down near -- there's a test track down there near the interstate. Of course, you have the Naples Park tower. You may remember that from a few years ago. And then you have sites over towards the east. One site that's shown as Z with a red dot is the Golden Gate Boat site, and that one, my understanding is that it's still in your Site Development Plan process, so it hasn't come on air yet, but we have shown it in our propagation maps to show that once it's on air, it wouldn't solve this gap. So this is just Verizon's general area based on their network conditions today where they could place the monopine and be able to meet their gaps or meet their RF objectives. Of course, you overlay that with T-Mobile and AT&T and end up with a location that works for all three. So here is Verizon's -- here's Verizon's proposed coverage, and they're currently showing capacity band. That's what takes and catches all the traffic, and that's very important as the Estates continues to build out. So you can think of it much like how Orlando's -- or Orlando residents think of I-4, right? Coverage is the fact that the interstate's there. Capacity is whether it has enough lanes or managed traffic solutions on it to actually handle the traffic, and that's the concurrency battle that the carriers are always fighting, just like you are fighting as the county continues to grow and expand. Again, you can see the neighboring towers. So we've got Immokalee Road. We've got our two Ave Maria towers. The one off to the east is the one that is carrying the capacity bands. And then as you move around south, of course, you've got the one down by I-75, Naples Park. You can also see where Golden Gate Boat will be. So this is just showing the network as it stands. And then you can see the network showing it with the -- with the Everglades and 31st Boulevard, the Palmetto Ridge 2 tower with the blue dot. And you can see that coverage greatly improves along Oil Well Road and as you proceed south into the Estates, which is where you're trying to serve, and you can also see Golden Gate Boat off to the southwest. AT&T has stated that they're supportive. They provided the area where they are willing to -- where the tower would work for them, so this is their search area. It basically centers on the intersection of Everglades Boulevard and Oil Well Road. Unfortunately, they didn't give me coverage maps, so I don't have color-coded maps for AT&T to show you, but I do have their letter of intent and also their search ring showing their place -- their -- what you would have previously called a lesser effective radius. And then we have T-Mobile. So you can see T-Mobile -- this is a map showing T-Mobile's network, and you can see that they're basically on the same towers as Verizon. You know, you're over by Oil Well Road. You are up off of Immokalee east/west, Ave Maria east, down by the test -- I'm going to continue to call that the test track site, and I apologize. Of course, our proposed tower is the red marker. And, you know, you're looking at distances ranging between a minimum of 3.6 miles and a maximum of 9.04 miles with 5. -- 5 and a half up to the northwest and 8 and a half down to the southeast. So these are pretty far spread apart. This is AT&T's existing coverage, and this is showing their 4G coverage is trying to get signal out there, trying to put the road in, essentially. August 1, 2024 Page 24 of 85 And green is reliable, and blue is no service. There's some signal that the phone can see, but it's not usable. And you can see where the tower's located. The area around it has no signal. There might be some that would register, but it isn't usable, and then the rest just isn't. There's nothing. And then you can see the proposed coverage, and you can see the area -- this portion of the Estates picks up strong coverage. Are there any questions on the RF materials at this point? I do have my RF engineers available. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just have some general questions. And, you know, as an old lawyer, you know, part of my job is coaching and mentoring folks at my firm. So I want to -- I appreciate good legal work. You're extremely well prepared and, you know, I think we need more land-use lawyers in this town, and you're -- you just -- you're very organized. But one of the problems with somebody as efficient and organized as you, you throw out a lot of information. I was having a hard time keeping up because I didn't prepare well enough for this. So I want to cover stuff you've already covered, and it's really just about safety and maintenance. So the breakpoint, it will drop 130 feet. Maybe -- I don't know, maybe pull up whatever slide you want to put up, because I just want to talk about distances and safety. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So I'm going to start by taking -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's a good one, yeah. MS. JAHN: -- us back to Sheet Z3. And I don't know if this will let me zoom in. Maybe if I step out of -- actually, there might be a zoom button here. All right. So we're on Sheet Z3, and I'm zoomed in on the eastern side. Where may I start, sir? COMMISSIONER VERNON: And 1.2, is that the closest one? You have, like, four green spots. MS. JAHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So 1.21 is the closest one? MS. JAHN: The closest one is actually the landlord's house, but -- he's the landlord. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But he's approving of this, so I'm not worried about him. I mean, he likes it. So let's talk about the 1.2. Show me what -- it's going to break, and where is it going to land? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So 1.2, it's 222 feet. The monopole is 180 feet, so it's physically impossible -- even if it did not have fall-zone technology, it would be physically impossible for that monopine to reach the house. It would have to cartwheel. And I would respectfully -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: But you could reach their property line, though? MS. JAHN: It could, if it did not have fall-zone technology. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Which is, when you say "fall-zone technology," it breaks in the middle, as Commissioner Shea said. MS. JAHN: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. What -- what is to keep it connected if it breaks in the middle? MS. JAHN: So it has to do with the way the thickness of the wall is engineered and, essentially, it's a crimp point. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MS. JAHN: So it's -- basically, in that spot, the stresses cause it to fold. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So it doesn't just snap off and -- MS. JAHN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: What is the -- estimate, if you know. What does the August 1, 2024 Page 25 of 85 whole thing weigh? MS. JAHN: I don't know the weight of it. I could, if you wanted to take -- if Chair Fryer wants to take that midmorning break, I can probably call up a project manager and figure it out. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let's -- let me see if we can get through it without that, and if everybody else wants to know, too, we'll do that, but -- MS. JAHN: Understood. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So it's a crimp, so it's not just going to fly off. MS. JAHN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then the other thing is less important, but I don't understand the concept of, well, if you make it pretty, we're going to reduce the safety distance, which seems to be what the rule is, I think, if I understand it. But that's not for you to answer. But I do have a question: What does this thing look like in 10 years? Do you have a duty to maintain it? Is it going to look like a 10-year-old metal thing that used to look like a tree and now looks worse than just a pole? MS. JAHN: Yes. So that's a very good question. And, of course, the monopine design, you know, came from -- the monopine design came as a request of our neighbors. I'm sure Mr. Bosi can discuss the separation being a matter of compatibility as opposed to safety, given fall-zone technology. But to get more dialed into the canopy, there usually is a re-foliation requirement. And you did so on the Green Boulevard tower where you put a provision in there saying that the foliage will be maintained, and then that way your county code enforcement could act on that as a violation of the conditional use. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do we have that in your proposal, or do we need to add that if we want that? MS. JAHN: You would probably need to add it to the face of your conditional use, but we would not object to that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then I know you covered this, but again, you were throwing out a lot of great information, very efficient, in your presentation. It showed you prepared so well. But what's the barrier between the lot lines of that -- all of them, but let's just focus on this one we're looking at. What's the barrier there between the lot line, if any? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So at the base here, you have -- of course, you have the monopole shown in the center, and then you have the white square, which is where your equipment would be. And I'm taking your question to ask about what's between this white square and the -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I'm saying is there a wall -- again -- MS. JAHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is there a wall -- move to the right -- where the lot line is between the house and the property? There you go. Right there. What's there, if anything? MS. JAHN: From -- there is -- as was stated from the gallery, there is a fence there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Currently. MS. JAHN: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Like a 6-foot -- what kind of fence? Do we know? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Chain link. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And who maintains that? Whose fence is it? MS. JAHN: That one, I don't have an answer -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's not yours or your client? MS. JAHN: It's -- no, sir. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's the landowner's. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Got it. Oh, the landowner, which is the -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay with this. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I know it's not -- August 1, 2024 Page 26 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is Ms. Jahn back there? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's okay. You're actually helping. So I'll save that. She's -- I think she's going to speak. So -- all right. I think that answers all my questions. MS. JAHN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. At this point, I do want to take our midmorning break, as I warned everyone before we started the hearing. So it's 10:32. We'll be in recess until 10:42. (A brief recess was had from 10:32 a.m. to 10:42 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi, for keeping us on clock. I appreciate that. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats, and we'll continue. Let's see. Is Ms. DeJohn -- Ms. Jahn, rather, you have more to say? You're welcome to. MS. JAHN: I do. This is Mattaniah Jahn, again, for the record. And just in the break, just to help follow up on at least one of the questions about maintenance of the canopy -- and I apologize. This wasn't registered on my radar earlier, because I treat it as my mind filed it away. Your proposed resolution that is in your staff packet actually already has that as a condition of approval on Exhibit C. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The re-foliation? MS. JAHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, good. MS. JAHN: And that's the same condition as was placed on -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: What does it say? How often or as needed, or is it -- what are the words? MS. JAHN: Bridge Tower Corporation, its successor or assigns, shall maintain the tower as a monopine-style tower including, but not limited to, tree branch canopy in good condition/repair in accordance with the appearance and condition at time of installation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's good. MS. JAHN: All right. So, of course, I've taken you through the fact that I have three carriers, I've shown you the service maps for Verizon with red being unreliable service and green being reliable service, and, of course I've shown you T-Mobile's maps. That's based on 150 feet -- their antennas being at 150 feet, which puts them at the third collocation. Just as housekeeping, and then I will step down so you can move on to hearing from the public. Of course, we held our NIM on 2/8/24. There's a one-mile notice radius. Fourteen hundred recipients. I had 13 attendees. We had a variety of topics discussed. The biggest thing that -- the biggest action item that came out of that for me was a request to change to a monopine, which we are happy to say that we are able to provide. We revised that design and submitted it in May. You'll notice in the record that there's an analysis of properties researches alternates. That goes back to before this was camouflaged, just to show that they did research in the area. And then you have your wellhead map. Let me see if I can get out of here. And it went right back the way it was supposed to. We are not in the Collier County wellheads. I skipped that. Okay. We do have Mosquito Control approval, and I'm also going to just finally close with the 911 statistics for Collier County, and then I also have Orange County. In 2021, 84 percent of all 911 calls in Collier County came from wireless numbers. That's not including SMS, which is text. So that's a conservative number. And then Orange County is 89 percent, just to help show an across-the-state picture, at the risk of saying "context" yet again and turning my presentation into -- and saying -- to use "context" too many times in my August 1, 2024 Page 27 of 85 presentation. I would respectfully submit that underscores the importance that this serves in our everyday life and why these are essential services. With that, Bridger Tower Corporation, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T would respectfully request that you recommend this monopine to the Board Of adjustments as proposed -- as shown in the staff report and proposed by staff with staff's proposed conditions of approval, and I adopt those all into my presentation by reference. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Great presentation. Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Wellfield Protection Zones, can you go over that real quick. What is it, and why is it diagrammed the way it is? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So Wellfield Protection Zones are areas that different jurisdictions have. So in my home county of Pinellas County, we have Wellfield Protection Zones up on the north end of our county. And, basically, it's where municipal wells are. And when you look at your wellfields, what's out there, I believe, is the City of Naples wellfield, and what you're trying to do is prevent pollution into the wellfield. So things like you wouldn't -- you probably would not want to put an oil refinery in a Wellfield Protection Zone. You may be cautious to put a gas station or a field depot in a wellhead protection zone. Communication towers get a closer look when they're in wellhead protection zones because that our -- our foundations work in order to make them hurricane resistant is that they drill a caisson down into the earth about 30 feet to take and anchor the tower. So in those situation they look at it a little closer, and usually also when we're in Wellfield Protection Zones, generators are required to be propane. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Got it. There's no -- there's no issue with RF contaminating those wells? MS. JAHN: No, sir. That is not an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's not an issue, okay. Because that's kind of what I wanted to go through is because I -- in researching some of this, I see that there's a lot of municipalities across the country that don't allow cell phone towers within, you know, a thousand to 1600 feet of homes or schools, and we're obviously a lot closer than that, and I'm trying to understand, as these things go through, what your stance is on that. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So actually the most restrictive jurisdiction in the state of Florida from separations, as far as I've observed, is Orange County, and they have a seven times tower height separation which if you go camouflage you can reduce in half. And then if you're down at 140 feet, it is -- it goes from five times tower height to two and a half. So you're talking about being 2- to 300 feet away, so in the range of what we're talking here from structures. So I don't know where the thousand-foot separation comes from, but I'd respectfully submit that doesn't come from sound planning programs in Florida. I would also, just so I'm not remiss, just put into the record that the Telecom Act of 1996, of course, prevents local jurisdictions from making -- regulating communication towers upon the environmental effects of RF emissions. That said, what you can ask is, "Will these comply with the safety regulations and the like?" And I will actually now have both of my RF engineers come up and confirm that Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile operate their networks in compliance with those, with the FCC regulations. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's an interesting point. So if local jurisdictions can't stop a telecommunication tower, how come you have school districts, like in Palo Alto, that did not renew their leases for cell phone towers? How do they get around that? MS. JAHN: Yeah. So they're making a decision as a proprietary property owner, and there is -- when you go into telecom act case law, right, there is a distinction between the county August 1, 2024 Page 28 of 85 acting as a regulator of land uses of lands not owned by the county and the county making a decision as a landlord on whether a use is the proper fit. And where you see those, those are decisions where they're deciding whether to allow or renew a lease. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. I'm just trying to get as much clarity on this as possible, so I appreciate the depth of that. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: That's all I have for now, Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I understand what you said, and I -- this is just a comment. But I talked to the staff, and it just seems -- this is not your issue, but it's crazy that a local government can't protect its citizens if -- and I'm not suggesting that it is harmful, but it's -- to Chuck's point, it's -- it's crazy that that law is in place, but I do understand it's in place, and we have to abide by it. And I'm not suggesting there is anything dangerous about it, but it just -- it's weird. And now I understand why Chuck's saying "I give you examples," because if you're a landowner, you're not really regulating. You're just making a decision. And we're not landowners in this case. MS. JAHN: Correct. And -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's all about 911, really. I mean, that's what's made it an essential service. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, and I do understand that. But it looks like there would be some discretion in the local authorities, and it appears there's none. That just seems odd to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's some on aesthetics. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But not -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not on RF. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. MS. JAHN: And for what it's worth, there are -- if you go out -- and I do believe it's the Palo Alto tower, there was a tower that Sprint removed because of -- out in California because the lease was not renewed. And then it turned out that the issue that was getting everyone worked up was actually groundwater pollution from a Nestle plant making decaffeinated coffee. So, you know, the FCC regulates RF emissions and keeps things safe there to the point where I would respectfully submit to you from my personal experience, not making a statement on behalf of the carriers, you see more energy from the fluorescent light over your head than from a tower. And that's why we talk about aesthetics and compatibility. My apologies. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And to follow up to that, Palo Alto wasn't the only one. You had Portland, Oregon, school district, and then you also had, in Maryland, there was another one that have all done the same thing, and then -- I mean, this was just a simple search I did online, and I pulled this off of Environmental Health Trust, which obviously is not a big fan of cell phone towers. So I bring that forward only to question it because I want to try to get as much clarity as possible, because I don't want to -- I understand, as Commissioner Vernon said, you know, the county, we can't try to help protect our citizens because this land is owned by somebody else. So it's allowing them that conditional use, and it is about 911, which is where that comes from. But what I want is as much clarity as possible as to any type of risk that we're possibly putting in front of the public. So that's just kind of where I stand on that. Thank you. MS. JAHN: Understood. All right. I'm going -- would it -- at this time, I'm going to have my RF engineers testify that their networks comply with the FCC safety regulations. Okay. All right. I'm going to start with Ms. Maffeo. So ladies first. Please state your name and address for the record. August 1, 2024 Page 29 of 85 MS. MAFFEO: Good morning. Olga Maffeo is my name. My address is 10818 River Glenn Drive in Boca Raton, 33428. MS. JAHN: All right. And do you work for T-Mobile? MS. MAFFEO: I do work for T-Mobile as an RF engineer. MS. JAHN: All right. And what is your education and experience? MS. MAFFEO: I have a bachelor degree in engineering. MS. JAHN: All right. And are you familiar with this tower that we are referring to colloquially as Palmetto Ridge 2 at the -- in Collier County at the intersection of 31st Avenue North -- Northeast and Everglades Boulevard? MS. MAFFEO: Yes. Actually, I approved that location for our network. As a matter of fact, we need that tower because all that area, it has a lack of coverage, and we have many complaints about it, and we're aware of the need. MS. JAHN: All right. Does T-Mobile operate its network in compliance with FAA -- or FCC safety regulations? MS. MAFFEO: We do. Basically, that's our main concern when we -- you know, we follow all the directions from the FAA. The frequencies that we use have to be at exact frequencies and, you know, at the levels that they tell us to do. MS. JAHN: All right. Thank you. MS. MAFFEO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jahn, we can stipulate that your other witness would say the same thing if you want us to. MS. JAHN: Thank you. And, again, I would remind the Board of County Commissioners as Ms. Maffeo just -- or the Board of Planning Commissioners, that, you know, as Ms. Maffeo said, there's calls being dropped out there, and there is a life-safety-welfare aspect for -- for the general public in that regard because we have disconnected our corded lines so much, and that's before we get to the everyday operating my life, you know, connecting for classes, for phone calls, et cetera. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher and then the Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I actually had a question for your engineers. What is their experience with the 5G antennas that they can mount on light poles and those type of things? What's the difference between that technology and what you're presenting here today? MS. JAHN: Okay. I'm going to bring Bill Compton up. Please state your name and address. MR. COMPTON: Yes, absolutely. William Compton, 7701 East Telecom Parkway, Tampa, Florida. MS. JAHN: And what is your line of work? MR. COMPTON: I'm an RF design engineer for Verizon Wireless. MS. JAHN: And what is your education and experience? MR. COMPTON: I have a bachelor's degree in engineering from UCF. I heard someone speaking about UCF. And I've been doing this since Nextel days. So January of '98 is when I started doing this. MS. JAHN: And are you familiar with the tower project that we're discussing today colloquially referred to as Palmetto Ridge 2 at the intersection of Everglades Boulevard and 31st Avenue Northeast in Collier County, Florida? MR. COMPTON: Yes, I am. I originally did the search ring for this site and then the reevaluation and the re-approval of this site, so yes. MS. JAHN: All right. And, Commissioner Schumacher, just to -- just to make sure I understand your question, since I just ran him through a litany here to explain who he is, your question was, is Verizon familiar with 5G antennas? August 1, 2024 Page 30 of 85 COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No, I didn't. What I said was, "What's the difference between the technology of the 5G that they can mount on the streetlights versus what's being presented today?" COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. 5G and 4G, there's very little difference. The actual antennas themselves are literally just pieces of metal that radiate RF energy. The difference between 4G and 5G is technological, and there's books of information available for that. To answer your question, when we go on the light poles and stuff like that in towns and in dense areas, we put 4G and 5G on those same poles through those same exact antennas simultaneously. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Why wouldn't that be an option for this area that has no coverage versus a large tree-looking apparatus? MR. COMPTON: I've got it. There's two reasons for this. The primary reason is a lot of the Estates area, the way it's zoned. The tel -- further telecom law in the state of Florida where telecom companies are allowed to put small cells, which is what we call them, in right of -- public right-of-ways. The problem with the Estates area is those public right-of-ways do not exist. When the parcels were platted, there is no right-of-way. We basically have to go back to whoever owns each one of those pieces of land not only to put the pole in, but also to run the infrastructure that we need to connect them together. Even though it's a wireless facility, it still has to have a back hall, basically, a fiber connection back to the nearest cell site or back to back hall, which basically prohibits us from ever trying to string something like that together in the Estates area just the -- all it takes is one landowner along that route to say no, and you can't do anything. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I appreciate it. My daughter goes to UCF. So go Knights. MR. COMPTON: Go Knights. Golden Knights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: May I ask one follow-up question? MR. COMPTON: Yes, absolutely. MS. JAHN: Do small cells have pickup power -- MR. COMPTON: No. MS. JAHN: -- when a hurricane or power goes out? MR. COMPTON: No. Typically, we do not install backup power. There's a couple of reasons for that. The main reason is just the weight of the batteries and that kind of thing up in the air next to a right-of-way; it creates a safety hazard. So typically we do not put backup power. So, therefore, if there's any kind of a storm, if the power goes out, everything goes out, where a macro site tower like we're talking here would have a backup generator. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Just a general question. When you -- and this is regarding the determining requirements. You balance -- with the public, you said there was only 13 that attended the public hearing? MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn, and yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So where -- where in the process do you evaluate the need because people are screaming "there's no coverage" versus the aesthetics? I would assume that -- just human nature, most people complain about things, and they'll complain about the aesthetics, or they'll complain about no coverage. So how much -- what's the balance? You propose this. And do people realize that this is a benefit, and they're going to have coverage versus the impact of the aesthetics? I'm trying to -- where in this process do you evaluate that or do you explain to the public, yes, you may have a line-of-sight issue here, but we're -- this is providing a service that's to the benefit of the public in whole, and the person with the cell -- everybody has a -- almost everybody August 1, 2024 Page 31 of 85 has a cell phone now. So I'm just kind of wondering in the whole process how the companies evaluate the express need to provide coverage versus those who don't want the cell phone -- or cell tower there because of the aesthetics. MS. JAHN: Of course. And Mattaniah Jahn, again. And, essentially, when a tower hits my desk, it's because one or more carriers has noticed that they have a gap in their system. Their metrics are coming back saying -- and it's usually a combination of different things like the measured signal strength is not good, and they're getting degradation, they have complaints in an area, things like that. The typical process is that carriers then look at their existing network and go "How can we" -- Mr. Compton would use the word "optimize." "How can we adjust, tune, upgrade our existing network?" Because that's just switching out an antenna, that's a building permit and a couple of antennas. It's not building a -- building any facilities, right? If they can't do that, then they look to see if there's tall structures in the area. Of course, we're in the Estates. That really rules that out. Again, it's not public hearing zoning, so it's not three years -- two to three years of walking hand in hand with an applicant through Collier County's zoning process and then proceeding for another nine months to a year through your Site Development Plan process quite often, as I alluded to with the Golden Gate Boat tower. That is my understanding, it was still in site plan as of the summer. Once it hits my desk, you know, tower designs, unfortunately, Bridger, you know, was -- maybe it's because they're from Texas. They thought that it would make more sense to just have a simple gray tower out there and have it be a lattice instead of having it be a tree. So I'll blame that on them being Texans. Your staff asked right away, "Hey, you know, trees are usually what works in this county. Would you do it?" And you know they -- unfortunately, they said, "It makes more sense for it to be gray." We go along. We go through our staff review, so I'm not presenting something that's raw to my neighbors and saying, "Well, here's what it could be if staff is okay with it," right? Once I get through that, I hold my neighborhood information meeting. And in that presentation, I show them the plans. The same sheets I show you; the photo simulations that I have at the time, which back then would have been the lattice; and, of course, the RF package to show what it's doing for them and why I'm pulling them out of their homes and taking that time out of their evening. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I want to offer my compliments to you, Ms. Jahn, and also to the Bridger company, your client, and your client's carriers as well, all of whom were responsive to the requests of the NIM, and that matters greatly to us up here. The NIM is a very important step in what we do, and we look very favorably upon applicants who come in and report that they heard what the neighbors said and responded in a significant way. So my thanks to all of you. Let's see. I just want to, again, be sure the record is complete. You've got your Mosquito Control letter in. That was one condition. And the other condition about not splitting or altering the parcel, I think you orally agreed to that -- that was the second of staff's conditions -- am I correct? MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn. Yes, that is correct. And we have provided the written -- the notarized consent to that from Mr. Moran, the property owner. It probably missed the cutoff date for your RF packet -- or for your staff package, but that is in the county's files. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Okay. So my question may be for Mr. Bosi, may be for the County Attorney. Are we missing something by not insisting that this be in the form of a perpetual easement or a perpetual restriction of some kind, or is this -- a notarized letter of this sort be equally binding so that it locks itself into, let's say, perpetuity? August 1, 2024 Page 32 of 85 MR. BOSI: And I'm not -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure in terms of the agreement from the individual property owner. But the condition that we've imposed upon this property is -- most certainly will be imposed regardless of who owns the property or whether that property owner agrees or disagrees with the condition. If there was a split, that would be a zoning violation, a code enforcement, and there would have to be a remedy to address that violation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so if someone wanted to split it, they'd have to come in with a rezone? MR. BOSI: If they wanted to remove -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: This condition. MR. BOSI: -- this condition -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- they would have to seek a -- they would have to seek a new conditional use, a rezone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public hearings and all? MR. BOSI: Public hearings, and it would have to be ultimately decided by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They wouldn't be able to remove the condition without placing the conditional use on the entire five acres, and so that's how, you know, we came up with the condition. The owner has acknowledged the condition, so it would be enforceable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I'm not trying to add additional steps and documentation. I just want to be sure that it's reasonably connected to the perpetuity unless someone has public hearings, and that's what public hearings are for. I don't have any further questions or comments, and no one is signaling. Do we have any -- and, Ms. Jahn, you're finished, right? MS. JAHN: Yes. This is Mattaniah Jahn. Yes, I do reserve time for rebuttal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Of course. Do we have any public speakers, please? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, we have three public speakers, two of which are in person. The first public speaker is Dwinell Bedard. Mr. Bedard, please come up to the podium. You'll need to be sworn in. And Mr. Bedard will be followed by Roselyne Dorval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Sir, have you been sworn in yet? MR. BEDARD: I have not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have not? Okay. We can take care of that. 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? MR. BEDARD: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please state your name again for the record, sir. MR. BEDARD: My name's Dwinell Bedard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. BEDARD: Good morning to the chairpersons and everyone in attendance. My name is Dwinell Bedard. My property address is 3170 31st Avenue, the property directly across the street from the proposed site. I have several concerns about this. First and foremost, not just the aesthetics, but concerns of health. There are several independent studies that show that these types of cell phone towers cause a lot of cancer. During the initial hearing -- it wasn't a hearing; rather it was a forum where they were proposing this. There were several people in the community which have cancer, and they were very concerned. I don't think they're here today. But I have small children, and there are many independent studies that show -- I know they won't show you these studies, but that cause cancer not only to people but livestock and animals. I know there are a lot of wildlife preserves August 1, 2024 Page 33 of 85 around, and this can cause a lot of issues for those natural habitats. My second issue is I know when I purchased my home there were a lot of setback rules, and building this would also impede in the setback to the property that's next to it. My neighbor -- I don't know if they were able to get notification about this, but I will speak on their behalf. There are setback rules that I think that impedes on that setback. And, again, the aesthetics as well as the issue of selling. This might cause property value decreases and things of that nature. Are there any contingencies to protect the people who own properties now in place? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Do you have any other questions or comments? MR. BEDARD: And if there aren't, are there anything that -- the companies that are pushing for this, is there a way that there are potentially buy-outs? If they're not going to protect the community, is there any way that people who oppose there, they'll just buy out that land so that way they don't have to worry about any opposition? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we'll have the applicant respond to those if she wishes. The only thing I would say, the first point you raise, we have absolutely no jurisdiction. We've been completely preempted by the federal government on the RF cancer issue. MR. BEDARD: Roger that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's nothing we can do. And I wanted -- I didn't want to interrupt you because I wanted you to have a chance to speak -- MR. BEDARD: Roger that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and express your concerns but, unfortunately, our hands are tied. All right, sir. MR. BEDARD: Roger that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Next speaker? MR. JOHNSON: Roselyne Dorval, followed by Robert Anderson, who's on Zoom. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And if you would give us your last name, please, and then you have the floor. MS. DORVAL: My name is Roselyne Dorval. I am a wife, a mother of four children. They're here in attendance. They've been patiently listening and learning as well. And I wasn't at the community meeting that they had, but I'm glad that I saw the big sign letting me know that there would be this hearing. I heard a lot about -- I want to first address the -- when the attorney was speaking, they mentioned dead zone. And I truly feel that by putting this, it will become a literal dead zone when it comes to our overall health. A lot of the things that were talked about today pointed towards vanity, but I'm talking about the vulnerability of the people. And I know that you just mentioned from the last speaker you have no control, but I am someone that lives on that street, so I am worried about the cancer risk. I'm worried about the neurological effects. I'm worried about the reproductive health. I'm worried about the electromagnetic hypersensitivity. And I, myself, I have a bachelor's degree in alternative and functional medicine. So these are very real concerns that I researched. And I talked about let's not focus just on the vanity of what it looks like. Let's talk about the vulnerability. And I mentioned that I have four children, and they're the most vulnerable population, and there has been numerous studies that explain being in close proximity -- and I'm telling you I live on that street -- being in close proximity messes with their overall development of their brains, their body, their overall mood. And I understand that the chairperson spoke about schools removing this. I homeschool, so my home is the school, so I don't have that option of saying I don't want this, and it want [sic] to be removed. One of the first things that I told my husband when I saw the sign and looked it up, I said, "If this has already gone too far and we missed the boat on trying to stop this and voicing how we August 1, 2024 Page 34 of 85 feel, we will have to move." Because it's not just about our generation or the people sitting here. It's about future generations and the overall impact that it will have. And even people that are on that street that are wanting to have a family that don't have kids, it impacts their reproduction. So it might be just the focus of vanity for this board, and that's all you have control over, but as a member of the community, I would like to tell you that it's deeper than just what you're looking at. It's deeper because these things impact our internal health. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker. MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Robert Anderson, who's on Zoom. We're going to prompt you to unmute. Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson, please, speak if you can. Unmute yourself. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds as though perhaps he's disconnected. I'll ask if there's anyone in the room who has not registered to speak but, nonetheless, would like to be heard -- and I see a hand up -- please raise your hand. So I see one hand up. Are there any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Please approach, and we'll get you sworn in, if you haven't already been. 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? MR. JEAN MARY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name. MR. JEAN MARY: My name is Terry Dorval Jean Mary, and we have no problem -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you mind if I ask you to spell your last name. MR. JEAN MARY: J-e-a-n, M-a-r-y. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. JEAN MARY: I live on the street, at the end of the street by the canal, and we have no problem dialing 911 over there, at no point, at no time. Anytime, any day we can dial 911. We have no problem calling anybody, even standing on the street or be on the balcony of our house. We don't have that problem over there. And those people that want to put that tower there, if they have a problem calling 911, they can put it at their house because they don't -- they have the problem, because we don't. We do not have that problem at all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you for speaking. Anybody else in the room wish to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Was -- the gentleman on the phone, is he -- MR. JOHNSON: We think we can connect with him right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Let's try. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Anderson, are you there? Robert Anderson? (No response.) MR. JOHNSON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we tried. With that, we will now call for rebuttal, if Ms. Jahn wants to offer any. We'll close the public comment segment of the hearing as well. MS. JAHN: All right. Mattaniah Jahn, again, for the record. I know the Chair has acknowledged the preemption in federal law, but I am going to put a copy of the Telecom Act in the record. There's also a state-level preemption in 365.172 Florida Statutes, but I'm going to put 47 U.S.C., Section 332, in the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will you have a copy to give the court reporter? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. If I may approach, I will give a copy to Madam Court Reporter August 1, 2024 Page 35 of 85 and Counsel Ashton Cicko. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. You know, it's funny, I had -- and, again, me talking as a practitioner, just my personal experience, I had someone who once claimed that they would lose their organic farm certification because of the proximity of a tower. And we actually had -- this was up in Marion County, and I had to go to IFAS and have them look at it and confirm, no, they would not lose their organic certification. And then I underscore that while these are very present concerns for people, right, because change scares us, right, they're not competent substantial evidence, and they're not addressing the issues of compatibility. Compatibility is -- I would respectfully submit to you, compatibility isn't sameness; otherwise, we wouldn't have a zoning code. We would just have the same thing all over the county, whatever that one thing was, because that's all there would be. But compatibility is how we make different uses work together, in balance, a need that is known in your code and known and acknowledged in your code as an essential service. And we've done that through meeting the different requirements of your Land Development Code. I know that there was a concern brought out that there was a setback requirement that wasn't being met. This exceeds the code-required setbacks for the tower, and it also exceeds the spirit of what the code-required setbacks would be functionally for a non-camouflage tower to those neighboring residential uses. Sometimes I do get a question, or that concern can also stem from the idea that somehow a setback will be placed on the neighboring properties, and that's not the case. Your staff would confirm that as well. Property value drops, if you -- I'd respectfully submit that's not a question of compatibility. It is a concern that does come up from time to time. I have previously provided property value study letters basically showing -- the last one I did was for the Green Boulevard tower and just showing that the presence of a tower doesn't change the property values when you look at the hard data. I do have copies of a property value study from a tower that I recently zoned up -- last year, so it's more present data -- up in Pasco County, if that would be helpful in your decision today, but -- or if you need me to provide a property value study, I would have to come back in October, but I would respectfully submit that the monopine will not affect property values. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe it was Mr. Bedard who raised that question, so if you have materials, you might give him a copy if he's here. MS. JAHN: I'll be happy to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Good. Thank you. MS. JAHN: All right. Of course, you have known gaps. I went through the process -- you know, I went through the process that informs these. The carriers don't build these unless they have to. I think I have covered everything. Are there any questions that are still on the Planning Commission's mind? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have four signalers, please, starting with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I know -- whether it's our right or duty to talk about the health impacts, I'd like to learn more about it. You say there's no competent research showing an impact. Is there any competent search showing no impact? MS. JAHN: So, yes. I mean, there are -- there is research out there that's outside the scope of this hearing, but there is research out there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A lot of times in the future it would be good to present it only because I'm like people in the audience, I don't know. I mean, everybody says there's competent information, but it would be good -- there's -- there must be some central source that the government relies on before they set these standards. It would be nice to see more of it. I know August 1, 2024 Page 36 of 85 it's not really our right, but... MS. JAHN: I understand. I hear you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't like it when one arm says it's not a -- I can't ask you that question because it's not our responsibility. I think our responsibility is to protect the public, and sometimes it's good -- it's been something that's been digested nationally probably for years, but it hasn't been here. We don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: These are all good questions. And as a matter of general knowledge, it would be helpful to all of us; however, we have to be careful, because if someone here were to vote against this and their reason was RF signals or danger from RF, that would be a disqualifier of your vote, because it's outside our jurisdiction. So we'd -- you know, if anybody wants to vote against this, they need to base it on the things that are still within our legal purview. Next is Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I have a lot of thoughts, but I'm trying to parse through and see what my questions are. You said -- in response to Commissioner Shea, you said there's research out there, and that was the end of the sentence. Can you complete that sentence? CHAIRMAN FRYER: As to what the research shows? COMMISSIONER VERNON: You said "research is out there." Stop. MS. JAHN: Yeah. There are studies that can be performed to analyze that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: All right. Let me -- and I apologize for interrupting. Let me rephrase the question and just -- are you able to cite or aware of, even if you can't cite, studies out there that indicate that there are no harmful effects from these types of towers to human health or even animal health? Or are you simply saying -- so it's a choice, or you can just explain -- that there's no competent evidence out there showing that does cause harm, if you understand my distinction. MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. I do. Can I have a moment? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And while you're taking your moment, I want to caution members of the Planning Commission, I mean, there are some outer limits to the reasons upon which we can cast our vote. And so if someone feels compelled to vote against this, I would urge them to state a reason that is within our jurisdictional purview. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And if I may, a lot of times, you know -- and I think you've seen me do this -- I will -- I will -- and I think other people do this, too, on the dais -- I will explore areas that -- and I understand exactly what our standards are, but given the public speakers, I do want to explore this, not because I think that -- I understand the federal law and, apparently, the state law, which I wasn't aware of. So I'm with you, but I do want to explore it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm certainly not going to cut you off. We can explore this all we want. I just want whatever action we take to have validity under applicable law. But I think I've made my point. Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Wait. I think she was going to answer my question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. JAHN: So where I'd have to send you back to would be the FCC itself as well as going back to just the recorded discussions that were around the Telecom Act when it was passed -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Which -- MS. JAHN: -- which are public record. COMMISSIONER VERNON: When was that? MS. JAHN: That was 1996. But the FCC has continued to reevaluate that. They reevaluated it as of -- I'd have to go pull my rule. It was recent. It was within the last three years. They went through and had a public-hearing process, and half the country commented on it and August 1, 2024 Page 37 of 85 came back to the deliberation that the safety standards still apply and that, you know, this is safe. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And probably not a fair question. I don't expect you to answer it. But during that last process, do you know whether there was -- the conclusion more resembled "there's insufficient evidence to show harm" or that "based on the evidence we've seen -- seen, the FCC's seen, we believe this does not cause human harm"? if you understand the distinction I drew there. MS. JAHN: I do. And I don't have that order memorized by any stretch of the imagination. It is Federal Register. But they did -- basically, you ended up with parties who wanted higher restrictions provided a basis of evidence to the FCC, right? And then, of course, you know, the industry and operators provided others, and then the FCC went through and balanced that and said that they believed -- that given everything that's come before them, their safety standards are good -- are good. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Could you address the issue raised by the gentleman in the back corner there? I believe he raised an issue in regards to what legal action or what can he do if he wanted to seek compensation for what he perceived to be either an impact on the value of his home or an impact on his health or his family's health? And I believe that, in summation, was what he was asking. So I'm not an attorney. And so I'm not going to attempt to even address it, but I would wish you put something on the record in regards to if any of the public feels that there's -- what is their -- what's the open avenue of approach in regards to what they could or could not do in regards to seeking some kind of compensation. MS. JAHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I believe, sir, was that your -- that was -- addressed your question? MR. BEDARD: Yes, sir. MS. JAHN: So that is -- actually goes -- the reason that there's no special tools for that in anything like the Telecom Act and federal laws is because the tool for that goes back to the common law, and it's the concept of nuisance and a nuisance on a neighbor's property harming me. There is -- it's a very strong and alive concept, right, the idea of nuisance, the idea of negligence. It is alive in Florida. You can see by driving down the road -- once you leave Collier County, of course, because you guys don't have billboards. But when you go to places that do have billboards, people like Morgan & Morgan are everywhere. That is strong and vigorously enforced without -- without cost to the injured parties, usually. So there is a very sophisticated apparatus that's been there since before towers even existed to make sure this doesn't happen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I heard everything, but from the standpoint of the gentleman raised the issue, does he approach the cell company, does he approach the provider, or does he approach you as their representative because -- MS. JAHN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- if he wants to raise an issue, as the Chair pointed out, you know, we're restricted, as you well know, on land use and compatibility and the criteria that are defined in the Land Development Code. But if they want to seek relief elsewhere, is it they hire an attorney or do they write a letter to Verizon? That's what I'm looking -- I just want something on the record so they understand what their -- what their approach would have to be. MS. JAHN: Yes. So different solutions, trying to keep it $1 answers. One, reach out to Bridger or, two, reach out to the carriers. Three, hire an attorney, right? Four, contact the FCC and report a complaint. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. August 1, 2024 Page 38 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. I just -- to follow up on Commissioner Shea, so in doing my light research on this, the World Health Organization in 2011 classified RF as a Class 2 -- Class 2 carcinogen. So that's where -- I guess that's -- World Health Organization was relied upon heavily during COVID. So, again, I don't know how that transmits to this because the tower's so high in the air. So, Ms. Jahn, again, I'm not trying to speculate here or pick on you guys. I'm just trying to get thorough answers so that everything's gone through. I think the conformity wouldn't be as much of a problem if it was kind of like where the tower's at on Green where you actually have trees that kind of come up to the base of that where those branches are out on that tower versus here there is no real foliage out there at all. It's all kind of cleared land, so it stands out like a sore thumb, which I understand why the concern there is. One of the other concerns I have is you had stated that is a literal dead zone, like, there is no cell phone coverage. We had testimony where the gentleman said he could dial 911. When I went onto both Verizon and T-Mobile's website, both of them show 5G coverage for this exact area that you're saying there is none. So is that just mis -- is that a marketing mistake on their side? Because it says there's 5G and 4G available exactly where this tower needs to go, where it said that there is no -- that you're saying there is no coverage. So I'm trying to understand. MS. JAHN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Is that just a mistake on their end? MS. JAHN: So Mattaniah Jahn, again. What is lacking here is service, and service is both coverage and capacity. Marketing maps show at least some form of signal. It may not be reliable signal, but we deal in terms, for zoning purposes, of reliable signal. So in terms of your phone being able to reliably function, this -- this area has a dead zone. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So 5G would be reliable service, because that's what's highlighted on Verizon's website as being exactly where this tower needs to go. MS. JAHN: No. 5G is like saying a car. So it is a type of technology. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MS. JAHN: Whether it is reliable in the specific situation is a matter of individual facts based upon that individual site, and that's why we provide these RF -- these RF coverage maps. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. I'm just trying to understand, because if both Verizon and T-Mobile have these coverage maps which show the whole area, and they're bright colors and dark colors, I don't understand why they're saying there's no coverage when both companies market it as such. MS. JAHN: My apologies. I was pulled aside by a carrier. So may I please hear your question again? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I said, both companies advertise as though there is coverage on both 5G and 4G and service, meaning that there is coverage there, and you're stating there's not. And I'm trying to understand why both companies would market as such if that's not actually the truth. MS. JAHN: So they are saying that there is signal there; that's coverage. Service is coverage plus capacity. So it's more than just the fact that there's signal there, right? I could turn these lights down to 10 percent, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you can read on the dais. So there's a difference between the presence of signal and the level and the reliability that they're trying to establish. I have a late entrance into the room, an RF engineer from AT&T, if you would like to hear from them at all. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: One more question. So does T-Mobile and August 1, 2024 Page 39 of 85 Verizon have some type of data on how many calls they're actually dropping and how many they cannot serve in that area right now? MS. JAHN: They do have data on that. It is proprietary, so I'm not -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So we can't -- so you're saying that it's about capacity, but you're also saying that you can't tell me what capacity they're operating at or who they're dropping or how many of their customers they're not serving because the capacity's over what it can handle, correct? MS. JAHN: That is the case for Verizon. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea would like to hear from the witness that you mentioned a moment ago. MS. JAHN: Understood. 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? MR. YANEZ: I do. MS. JAHN: Please state your name and address for the record. MR. YANEZ: Good morning. My name is Michael Yanez. I'm an engineer for AT&T. Office is -- I forgot my -- oh, okay. We just moved offices, so I'll give the home address. 7203 Loch Ness Drive, Miami Lakes, Florida 33014, is the home address. Good morning. There was a question specifically that I can address, I guess, from the side of AT&T. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, what did you want to hear from? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think the question was the same one you asked: Is there any kind of data that would make the people that are living near by feel a little better that they're not going to be impacted negatively by the RF? MR. YANEZ: I mean, I could state in general terms. I guess, you know, the kind of statements that I would make at these hearings is that RF emissions are based on the proximity to the signal is one of the large -- the largest components to this. The FCC sets limits for the exposure to -- for human exposure to RF based on, you know, the latest available research. Now these -- you know, and all the carriers and tower operators are required to comply with these limits. In the case of a tower, the amount of RF energy on the ground is so low relative to that limit, it's almost not -- you know, nonexistent. Where we worry about these things is in building situations and rooftops where people can walk up near the antennas. And, generally, I, as an engineer, somebody who works around these facilities, the rule of thumb is stay six to 10 feet away from the front of an antenna at the same level. Now, when it's up 150 feet in the air, most of the energy's going well over the top of your head. In fact, the signal from a tower inside the house will generally be much, much lower than from what the WiFi router inside the house, just because of the distance and the attenuation from the building itself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you also compare the EMF and RF energy that's coming off of a tower to that which comes off of the cellular phone that I put up to my ear; which is more dangerous? MR. YANEZ: Absolutely. The cell phone near your ear will have many thousands of times greater energy entering your body than from the tower. As a matter of fact, placing the tower in the vicinity means that your phone now operates at a lower power level, and you may actually get less exposure to RF than your phone operating at the maximum to reach a tower many miles away. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else, Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, that was very helpful. August 1, 2024 Page 40 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Another unfair question for you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Qualified. COMMISSIONER VERNON: To your knowledge -- if you feel you can answer this -- have any of your clients ever bought out neighbors despite the fact that they don't actually need to buy them out to get something approved? MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. And, no, that hasn't happened in the -- in my experience zoning towers since 2013. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MS. JAHN: And that's across Florida and Georgia. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything from -- further on rebuttal? MS. JAHN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Then I guess we will take the matter under submission and deliberate and vote. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We don't hear from the county at all, huh? They never -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, did I neglect to call on the county? If I did -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. That's quite all right, Chair. As stated within our staff report, staff has placed some additional conditions of approval upon the tower, but we are recommending approval, and we do recognize that with three carriers, this is a tower that, obviously, is in high demand from the industry regarding the location and the opportunity to improve the system. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Vice Chairman Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to make a motion to approve. I certainly understand -- great discussion from the public. In fact, I'm impressed with how prepared they came in regards to their concerns, both health and the financial impact this may have. But both of those areas are out of our purview. I'm sorry that -- for the public that the criteria that we have to vote on has to be compatibility, safety, those kind of things in regards to the land development. And then without any substantial evidence to refute or substantiate any claim that there's an impact on the future value of your home, as was presented by the counsel in regards to the evidence that she presented, I find no justification to deny this request. So I'm going to recommend approval of this request, PL20220003008, and this is the Palmetto Ridge tower. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So I just wanted to -- point of discussion. When FPL built that power center on Collier Boulevard, that home that was on that -- I think that was 13th -- was pretty much deemed unusable, which is why the zoning was approved to put a storage center there. There is no other communication towers anywhere close to this one out there. There is no compatibility. I understand the health concerns, and I understand the FCC says we can't -- we can't weigh those in, and I respect the Chair on that, and I understand that -- the last testimony kind of changed my mind as to what AT&T said about the waves being that much less than the cell phone you put next to your ear. August 1, 2024 Page 41 of 85 The compatibility is what I'm looking at for that area. And none of those homes -- I don't even see the owner's personal radio tower up. So there is nothing out there that matches this. The one on Green does have compatibility because there is foliage around it. You've got a taller building, with the hospital being in front of it. This, there is no compatibility. Now, although the applicant has stated that there's no service, both of their corporate websites show differently. So compatibility and actual need -- which we had testimony from an owner who said, "I have no problem dialing 911. I have no problem taking phone calls." The lack of the data that shows me that there's actually a coverage issue there, I can't vote for this, and that's the reasons why I would be against it is compatibility, usage, and what's actually going on there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you. Any further discussion before we take a vote? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. For the record, that home that you were citing at the corner, I think when we discussed that rezoning action, they deemed that that home was not marketable. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah, because there was a power station -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Power station and a substation. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not that was -- you know, somebody could buy that and live with it, but they said it was basically not marketable. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree with you. And like I said, when it comes to compatibility, if there was other towers around there, that would be compatible to it, or if there was even foliage that was even half the height so that it blended in, that would make it compatible, but this -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. Yeah. MS. JAHN: Point of order. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. JAHN: I'll just put it on the record, and then if you say I can't speak, then -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. JAHN: But I would request a chance to respond just so that I get the sandwich from a procedural standpoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MS. JAHN: So I know that part of the compatibility logic spoken of by Mr. -- by Commissioner Schumacher was the idea that there's other towers out there, and that's called tower clusters or tower farms, and that's actually a concept that tower codes try to avoid. And that's actually why most codes, including your code, encourages the sharing of towers. This is a use where, since it is network-wise, it does have to be spread across the county. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I don't -- this is probably going to be a ramble, but I'm going to vote in favor of it. I think that there's a lot of concern. And I heard Chuck's comments. And I just feel like you've got a good actor before us. You know, you guys are acting in good faith, following the law. Great presentation. Great -- you went through the process, you know, is there another way to do this? But it's the system is the problem. And so the system, to me -- I mean, you've got to -- you've either got to change federal and state law, which is kind of outrageous to ask somebody in the room to go do that, or become an activist and get the word out with studies or -- and it came up last week -- the legal system. And you even mentioned it. You know, the great thing about our country is we have a robust private legal system instead of a gigantic government covering everything. And just sort of to respond to Commissioner Schmitt's questioning, you know -- and I just August 1, 2024 Page 42 of 85 generally tell people, when you're involved in a negotiation, the first thing you do is you go -- you talk to a lawyer who knows what they're doing in this area and see what your legal rights are, and then armed with that knowledge -- and a lot of lawyers will talk to you without charging you, get a sense of what your rights might be, and they might be zero or they might be significant. And then -- I'm not saying it will do any good, but, again, I've been doing this for about four years now, and I've seen people stand before us that I felt like were not good actors -- sort of bad actors, and I've seen good actors, and I think you've got somebody standing -- or presenting this application that is a good actor and will at least listen to what you have to say. I don't know that it will get you anywhere, but I think for public, just generally speaking, figure out your legal rights on a micro -- micro scale for your personal self and your family, figure out your legal rights, and then talk to the person on the other side of the table after you do that. So I'm going to vote for it, because, you know, we've had a number of these before us. And I agree with Commissioner Schmitt, and we just -- we don't have the power to deal with this. And I'm not sure a protest vote is a way to fix the problem. But I think there is potentially a problem, whether true or not. I've heard 100 times of the concerns of these towers, not on this board, just in life. You know, I grew up around them. So, you know, I always wondered did it affect -- you know, so the concern is out there. It's not crazy conspiracy theory. And when I questioned you hard on the study showing it's not a problem -- you know, I heard the AT&T engineer, but still, I did hear, "Oh, we have conclusive studies" -- and they're not your studies, but conclusive studies out there that says it doesn't. So I think it's a big-picture issue for your client, and I'm sure you've heard this before and in front of other planning commissions, but this is sort of the first time we've really delved into this. And thank you to the public for really highlighting it and having us address it. So I -- hopefully that gives some help to the public as well as the applicant on at least my take on it, and I am going to vote for it, but I feel like I'm going to vote for it, in part, because I'm constrained to vote against it due to, I think, the same concerns that we all have, but Chuck particularly has. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I'm going to vote for it, but I think in the future -- I mean, this has got to be the same exact thing you encounter every time. There needs to be more education in your presentation that RF -- by not putting RF as not harmful in your presentation, the assumption is you're hiding something. I would go out of my way to put in educational material as part of your presentation to the public, because this is a very common discussion. We can't do much about it, but you could make your life a lot easier if you had the studies in the -- at the NIMs and things like that, because it's the first question everybody asks. But I'm going to -- I, like Commissioner -- like Chris, I don't have any other basis, so I'm going to vote for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other planning commissioners want to be heard at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it's been moved and seconded to approve the conditional use, and this project does not require EAC review. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Nay. August 1, 2024 Page 43 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 6 to -- 5-1. Thank you very much -- MS. JAHN: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- to all concerned members of the public. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I could -- I'm sorry. If I could say one more time, I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think -- and, again, doing this four years now, that you were -- you were directly answering our questions. We asked you some tough questions. I appreciate the candor, the credibility, the professionalism. You're very good at your job, and your employer should know that. MS. JAHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I second that. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So do I. Thank you, Ms. Jahn. I know I was a pain, but I appreciate your patience -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I've had comments from several people that if we extend all the way until 2 p.m. without a lunch break, that's asking a bit too much of everyone concerned. So I'm going to try to avoid that today. We're right up against a time when we would usually have lunch. If not, we'd have a court reporter break anyway. So I'm going to propose that we do take a 30-minute pause for lunch, unless there's objection to that. In fact, we'll make it for 42 minutes to take it all the way to 12:30. If not -- no objection, then we stand in recess until 12:30. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:48 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Planning Commission has returned to session, please. Take your seats. ***Our final hearing today will be PL20230012905. This is the conversion of golf courses Land Development Code amendment. The matter's purely legislative in nature, no quasi-judicial companion; thus, no need for swearing in of witnesses or ex parte disclosures. And with that, Chair recognizes Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Again, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Just to start off the process, this is an LDC amendment requesting modifications to 5.05.15, which -- in the Land Development Code, which is the golf course conversion process which was adopted in 2017 by the Board of County Commissioners. In the package that you received for the LDC amendment, I just wanted to read the first paragraph, the background, just to give you the context of why we're here. On February 14th of 2023, the Board directed the staff to bring back an LDC amendment to clarify that the Board has the discretion to grant deviations to reduce the minimum average greenway width of a proposed golf course conversion during the rezoning process. Additionally, on April 11th, 2023, the Board recognized the existing golf course conversion intent-to-convert application process had not been in effect in bringing the developer and the stakeholders together earlier in the process to resolve issues as initially intended and directed staff to bring back recommendations for an amendment that could improve the process and remove potential Bert Harris claims. The Board also discussed the possibility of repealing the intent-to-convert process in its entirety. So what -- so what staff was tasked with was try to make this process more defensible against Bert Harris claims, because one of the things the Board recognized, we were having -- we were having claims of Bert Harris against the county before any application for a development was actually denied. They were saying that the individuals that were -- that intended and are suing the county -- and this is -- it's happening right now with The Links of Naples, which is suing the county because we had indicated that they would have to go through the intent-to-convert process. August 1, 2024 Page 44 of 85 We are now in the Bert Harris process of settling that claim because we indicated that they would have to -- they would have to go through the intent-to-convert process to convert a golf course to a residential subdivision without even denying that by saying that they had to go through the conversion process was sufficient enough for that -- for the claim to be made in that regard. So that's one aspect. The second aspect was the intent-to-convert process was designed to try to promote conversation between the developer or the redeveloper of that golf course and the residential communities that surrounded that golf course, and there was a whole formulaic systematic approach towards what the developer had to do to try to help promote discussion in terms of preferences, visual preferences, surveys, stakeholder outreach meetings, developer's alternative scenarios. These formulaic approaches towards how they had to try to promote better conversation, and the end goal of that was so when it goes to the rezoning process, those conversations could help inform and bring more consistency and agreement. What staff had provided -- or what staff had observed and what staff had recognized, that that wasn't happening. It wasn't happening during the golf course conversion. I was at the second Riviera Golf Course conversion SOM meeting, and understandably, the residents were entrenched within their position. They don't want to see the golf course transition into anything else. The developer wanted to develop the -- said that the golf course was no longer fiscally feasible, and they needed to transition into an alternative design. Both parties became entrenched. Both parties were not exchanging dialogue. There was no ideas that were -- that were provided for that brought any compromise in the intended purpose. So based upon those recognitions and based upon the Board of County Commissioners' direction, staff attempted to try to find a middle ground that could alleviate the pressure in the ability for Bert Harris claims to be levied against the county before an application would be denied but also recognizing that there is benefit if there is some additional dialogue that goes before the -- before the application would be submitted for a rezoning application, and that was kind of some of the thinking in the mindsets and the factors that staff utilized to try to provide the amendment. What we have proposed is a two-page intent-to-convert process. The prior version was nine pages with a lot more substantive activities that were being required and prescribed of the -- of the developer. And the intent to convert -- and you can see it on the screen. You know, the purposes of this section is to require additional public steps -- of public involvement and to add a greenway requirement for the proposed conversion of an existing golf course to a nonexisting golf course. It's an intent to involve the public prior to submittal of a rezone or an SRA amendment application to require the applicant to engage residents, property owners, and the surrounding community early in the concept design phase of the conversion project in order to better identify compatibility issues in existing -- within existing neighborhoods. So similar to the -- similar to the same type of intent, we've just really minimized the prescribed activities that are going to be required. We provided a section for exemptions. What we found was in the first -- and, please, if you have questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm going to interrupt you, Mike, because I was waiting for you to finish the introduction. I think I'm the only member of the Planning Commission that was here when we passed the 2017 amendments, I believe. I think. As you well know, and the residents from both Riviera and Lakewood who participated, it was, if I recall, it had to have been at least 40 hours’ worth of, maybe more, of LDC hearings, and it had to go on over at least four or five meetings, if I'm not mistaken. August 1, 2024 Page 45 of 85 And the reason for that was the process was developed, and -- it was a bit onerous, there's no doubt. And some of it I had some misgivings about it because it was rather onerous in regards to all the steps you had to go through. But the fact is, the input from the public, the LDC amendments, which were -- went through public-hearing process, were approved by both Board of County Commissioners -- or by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Of course, they even went through the DSAC at that time, Development Services Advisory Council. It was approved. I really do not understand how, if we have a developer who says we're at an impasse -- and I don't even understand, Heidi, how there can even be a Bert Harris claim without -- if they say, "Gee, this is too hard, so I'm going to file a Bert Harris claim," there's no claim. Where is the claim? It has to be turned down. And I've got to tell you, I'm not really very excited about the changes. Now, there could be some modifications, but what -- and I know we're going to hear some opposition. But what's happened is you have taken what I think is a very laborious and strenuous process, but the process was there to protect all parties. We now just are converting to what I summarize as no more than two NIMs. And I -- and even if the developer threatened to file a Bert Harris claim, it's not a claim until he's been denied, he or she's been denied. Where is this claim? And why -- what drove the Board of County Commissioners and the staff to decide that we need to change this? I really need to understand how we got to where we are now. And, Mike, I know you said it, but there's still no -- there's no issue here. The issue is we're at an impasse. Well, okay, big deal. Then put it before the public in a public-hearing process. Meaning, bring the amendment forward -- not the LDC amendment, but bring the petition forward and let it go through the public-hearing process and get denied or get approved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that was one of the problems, and we have had, I believe, three Bert Harris claims filed. And so one of the problems with the intent-to-convert process is that when it was formulated, it was intended to say, "Check, check, check," they did all these items that they were supposed to do. But what happened is the petitioners were trying to -- or felt that the merits of what they were submitting was being decided, and that's because there was no flexibility, or at least the developer was arguing that there was no flexibility in some of the requirements. That's why they proceeded, and they filed their Bert Harris claims. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, but there's no claim until it's denied through the public-hearing process. They might have not liked it. They may have not -- I don't remember the developer being here when we went through the LDC amendments either. They may have participated; I don't recall. They certainly had an opportunity at that time to influence the process. But if the developer just wrang his hands and say, "Gee, this is too hard, and I think I'm going lose, so therefore I'm going to withdraw." Gee, that sounds familiar. No, I'm not going down that road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So the litigation team assessed the cases, and they have -- the cases are still pending, so there are some -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not a lawyer. Again, you are, and I turn to our attorneys. But until it's denied through a public-hearing process -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that would be the county's position. And so the litigation team did ask for flexibility. They did not ask for removing some of the more cumbersome requirements. In working with staff, some of the items that were removed were, like, the developer's alternatives because it wasn't providing any more than just additional paperwork, and the SOMs were reduced to a proposed third NIM, which is a NIM that occurs before the petition is filed, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for my colleagues up here, it's -- the two golf courses we're talking about, the homes that surround the golf course are not part of the zoning of the golf August 1, 2024 Page 46 of 85 course. They're separate entities. The golf course is a separate tract. The homes just happen to be built around the golf course. And we got into the whole discussion about protecting perceived rights and my -- what I built on and all that kind of thing. So without getting into the whole background of it -- at the same time the golf course was going -- was going belly up or did go belly up, and somebody bought it and wanted to develop it, and they have every right to do that. I just don't understand -- there may have been an impasse, as Mike said, but it's still -- the impasse -- they could still proceed through the rezoning process and wait to see if it gets denied. I -- this is sort of like, let's change the rules so we can make it easier and avoid the pain and agony, and I'm waiting to see what the residents think, because I don't know if you-all -- I'm waiting to hear is if these amendments were passed to you-all in a way that you-all agreed that, "Okay. Well, we'll agree to acquiesce and withdraw some of the requirements so that we can get through the rezoning process." It seems like this is pretty one-sided, and I know what we went through to put these LDC amendments together. MR. BOSI: And I'll respond directly to that, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: It was directed by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Staff didn't initiate this. This was directed by the Board of County Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- to staff to modify -- to modify under the premise of the two directions they provided within the hearings in February and April. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did the staff, then, initiate any contact with the communities that were impacted to get their input on this? MR. BOSI: No, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the first hearing, then, that they're -- they're basically being made aware of these changes without any consultation prior to this that there were these pretty significant changes. MR. BOSI: I mean, the DSAC -- the DSAC meetings were open and available. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: But, you know, this was the direction that was provided to staff from the Board of County Commissioners, and at that -- at that meeting, there was serious discussion during that meeting whether they wanted just to eliminate the intent-to-convert process altogether. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I'll be frank, I mean, some of it, I thought, was pretty onerous, but it is what it is. We got to that because of all the input that came into it. But it seems sort of disingenuous now to just say, "Oh, gosh. Thank you-all for your input, and we appreciate this, but now we're changing our mind and we're going to make it a lot easier." And the intent here was not to make it easy. The intent was so the public would be aware that a developer was going to come in and develop on a piece of property they don't own. I remember even back then one of the petitioners, I said, "Well, the community ought to just buy the golf course." Well -- and then they turned to the county, and they wanted the county to buy the course. And I mean, I can go through the whole history. But the fact is, we are now here trying to -- trying to change a process that I thought was put in place to protect both the applicant and the surrounding property owners, and I hope that's still the case. But I read this, and I'm -- when we go through it, I'll have -- I do have some concerns. And I know we got input from Tony Pires, and it's going to be pretty valuable to go through some of those issues as well. MR. BOSI: There's also Katie Berkey representing Riviera -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't get anything from Katie. MR. BOSI: It's in your package. It's -- August 1, 2024 Page 47 of 85 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My error. MR. BOSI: -- the second attachment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's hard to see. Her comments appear as balloon notes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those are hers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Oh, those are hers. Thank you. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I want to -- before I call on the other commissioners, if I may, I share Vice Chairman's misgivings about this for mostly the same reasons going back to what Jimmy Carter's assistant, Bert Lance, said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I think that the system is working pretty well. Now, from the county staff's perspective, they were instructed by the Board of County Commissioners to do something, and they did something. So, you know, they're -- this -- the criticisms or the objections that may be forthcoming from the dais are not necessarily going to be directed at staff, because staff was just doing what the bosses of this county asked it to do, the five county commissioners. And so, you know, staff did what it was asked to do. My concern is that the result, though, is a significant tilt toward the development community away from the individual homeowners in specific ways that I will enumerate when it comes time to talk specifics. But that -- I find that very worrisome, and I will -- I'll be heard on that at a later time this afternoon. And before I turn it back to you, Mr. Bosi, I've got two commissioners who want to be heard. First Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I'm behind these guys. I need some context. I look at most of the golf communities -- I'm looking forward -- I know we have two particular ones that we're talking about, but I'm looking at it going forward. I live in a golf community. It's part of a PUD. The development density for that section of land is what's in the PUD. So if the owner of the golf course -- and it's not us -- decides he wants to put homes, he's got to ask for increased density from us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I guess I don't understand -- I mean, the PUD, for me, is the protection for me as a resident in our community, but I'm guessing it's not helping -- MR. BOSI: No, you're correct 100 percent. Staff's not really -- isn't abundantly concerned about golf courses that are within PUDs. Golf courses within PUDs are developed as a part of a whole single project. That project includes the golf, the residential development that surrounds the golf, and intertwined, and the other amenities that are provided for within that PUD. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But they get -- MR. BOSI: That's a bundle. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But they get the maximum -- more density by having the golf course. MR. BOSI: That's a bundle. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. MR. BOSI: There's interrelationship, there's an interdependency, that is an understanding between that interrelationship. The golf courses that we're going to be dealing -- you're going to hear the public from are individuals who are in straight residential zoning and are adjacent to a golf course that's zoned "golf course," so they're not part of a PUD. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BOSI: And they may have been developed together, but over time they have different zoning districts, they have different ownership, and that ownership of the golf course may want to take that golf course in a different direction than those individuals who live on those August 1, 2024 Page 48 of 85 properties. They don't have the same type of interrelationship that the -- and the protections that the PUD gives to them. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the documents recognize that. And what percentage of the golf courses in the county don't have a PUD protection? MR. BOSI: There's -- I would say there's nine out of the 72, so roughly about 13, 14 percent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That are outside a PUD? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. So that's really what this is focused on is that 13 -- okay, thank you. MR. BOSI: Yes. And those are the ones that this court -- this conversion process was really intended to do. Because staff recognizes if someone comes in on a golf course within a PUD, there's a whole set of negotiations and interrelationships that they're going to have to deal with that's unique, that's not like these individuals where you've got separate ownership, separate zoning districts, and they're related, but they're not intertwined. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And if -- if I may -- I'm sorry to interrupt. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, that's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I did not see any provision in this language that limits it to non-PUD situations. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. MR. BOSI: No, no. If someone went through the PUD request to amend it, they would still have to go through the intent-to-convert process that is currently on the books. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So currently on the books we've got two intent-to-convert hearings. What are they called, SOMs? MR. BOSI: SOMs, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And they take place pre-application, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I guess the practices are somewhat less formal than the NIMs, but there's notice that goes out to the stakeholders and nearby residents, and they have an opportunity before the application is filed to make their views known and for the developers to hear what those concerns are and maybe could be addressed before the application was filed. And so the proposal here is to reduce the number of encounters with the public before application from two to one, and the one that we would have would be called a NIM. The other thing that I want to say, and I -- I interrupted you, and I apologize. I should let you finish. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: At my age, I forget what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But I -- but at some point in time, that piece of property, it became a golf course, and it was zoned. What does the Growth Management Plan -- you've got an area -- does the Growth Management Plan say that you can -- that was planned to convert into residences and now we're going to have ten hundred -- or a thousand more residences on the golf course? Wouldn't that be a -- MR. BOSI: These golf courses are within the urban residential subdistrict of the Growth Management Plan, and golf courses and residential development are both uses that are provided for, so it's -- it doesn't say anything in terms of -- it allows those uses to be permitted, but it does -- has no -- it doesn't talk to the individual relationship between those individual uses. COMMISSIONER SHEA: They have a right, then, to -- I guess it confuses me. I don't know how you plan infrastructure if you have these golf courses that all of a sudden you could have four of them, and you've got 4,000 more homes that you weren't planning on because they're golf courses, and now you've got to figure out your infrastructure. It just seems like you get out of August 1, 2024 Page 49 of 85 control. MR. BOSI: That's what -- no. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know how you manage it. MR. BOSI: Right. That's why we have a concurrency management system. We have a concurrency management system that says, if you want to convert that golf course from golf course to a residential development, you would have to go through the platting process or the Site Development Plan process, and at that time that's called a development order. That development order would be put through the concurrency management process where you would check the capacity within your road system, check the capacity within the school system, check the capacity within the utility system. Is there available -- is there available capacity within those systems? They would have to address any deficiencies to be able to move forward. So that's how our Growth Management Plan would protect that there's assurance that there's adequate infrastructure. It doesn't -- it doesn't speak to that specificity within the GMP, but it does have the requirement for the concurrency management system to be applied. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, they have the right. MR. BOSI: They have the right to ask. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, more than a right. I could see where the Bert Harris would come in because they don't -- they're not stopped. They're told it's one of the options they could do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to comment, if I may. The Bert Harris concern -- and I -- look, I'm a taxpayer in this county, and so I commend the County Attorney's Office for trying to avert as many lawsuits as possible, but I don't think the way of doing that is just to concede every issue that comes up to the development community. Bert Harris, for instance, the cases that are out there, I believe -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- are cases where the plaintiff, the aggrieved party, is the developer. And maybe that's what was intended in Tallahassee when Bert Harris came in. But, you know, individual property owners should have Bert Harris rights as well, particularly within PUDs but, arguably, even in a situation where you're next to another kind of zoning. And just because individual property owners can't afford zillion-dollar-an-hour lawyers and law firms to represent them doesn't mean that their Bert Harris rights should be ignored. So that was a point that I wanted to make, and now I want to call on Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I do not disagree with, I don't think, anything that's been said so far, but I kind of want to jump to -- and I think I saw Chuck light up. He may have some other thoughts substantively on this. But I want to jump more to the approach because it seems like there was a significant process, as Commissioner Schmitt said, to get this thing in place. I'm guessing we went too far, and I'm guessing the lawyers are claiming they have standing because we've put such onerous burdens on them. That gives them the right -- they don't have to go through this futile process in order to be able to go before a court. I'm assuming that's their position. And given the fact that there's multiple claims, they're probably on pretty solid ground in terms of having standing. But the commissioners who -- I guess in some ways our boss -- they want to -- they want to change this thing for whatever -- you know, I don't think we're going to convince them that they're just wrong on that point. So, you know, I think what I would like to see us do is protect as much as we can of this lengthy process we went through while trying to insulate us somewhat from a Bert Harris claim. You can't fully insulate it because it costs 300 bucks to file a lawsuit. And if it's a ridiculous claim, it's probably worth fighting. But it seems to me the approach of having staff come up with a new system is the wrong way to go. It seems to me that we should take the existing system, take the lawsuits that have been filed, take the Bert Harris statute and case law, and go back and redline what we did to see where we might have weaknesses legally and be subjected to a Bert Harris Act claim rather than sort August 1, 2024 Page 50 of 85 of -- you're not starting over, but rather than you guys having built from the ground up something that's lesser, why don't we take what we've got, what Commissioner Schmitt was talking about, and see where our lawyers think it ought to be redlined, and we listen to our lawyers, and then we make a decision, and we ship something back up with redline changes from what it was rather than something that's arguably too low a hurdle, and now we've got -- we swung the pendulum too far, and now property owners are going to be saying, "Well, I'm going to be bringing a Bert Harris Act claim," or "This isn't fair." So I just think -- I almost feel like -- and I don't know if this is a timing issue. I almost feel like we ought to adjourn -- I'm not suggesting this. I'm just throwing it out -- adjourn and take -- if you guys agree with me, have the approach of taking what is here now and seeing where our lawyers think we ought to trim it up. That seems like the right approach, rather than the approach we're taking. And there may be some back office stuff going on I don't know about. Maybe that is the approach we took, but it doesn't seem like that. MR. BOSI: What I -- what I could say, Commissioner Vernon, is we didn't start over again. What we did is we took a scalpel -- we took a hatchet to this. We didn't scalpel. We took a hatchet. And it was influenced by the ineffectiveness of the regulations that we were being sued upon. That was the motivation of why we took such draconian steps to minimize what was required. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, then the question becomes, could we try it again and take a scalpel instead of a hatchet and protect the -- protect the county from extensive litigation and still keep in place a lot of protections that were well thought out from a right and wrong standpoint? MR. BOSI: I think that's what you're going to get from this hearing. I think you're going to get the skinny version, or the drastic reductions that staff is proposing. You're going to have comments from the public from two affected golf courses that are going to raise issues that they feel were maybe more important and shouldn't be eliminated, and there's going to be staff's original effort that's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners and whatever is going to be recommended by the Planning Commission as well to be an alternative to what staff has provided. COMMISSIONER VERNON: My only problem with that -- and I think -- I listen -- I think everybody knows, I listen to the public a lot, but to me, I'm not -- I think the public input is not as valuable as it might be in a lot of other cases because I don't need them to convince me to protect what we already have which protects them. I'm already -- that's been done. I'm more interested in how do we protect us from valid Bert Harris claims by developers or applicants. To me, that's not really a public issue. It's a legal issue. And so I'm throwing this -- and I don't usually do this, but it seems like the bulk of the work here, thought process, should be from our lawyers, not our staff and not the public. Because we have a system. We're just -- I think the commissioners don't want to get sued every week on a Bert Harris claim on this. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you only have nine communities that could do that that you're worried about. Two of them are in the room. Isn't that what you said? MR. BOSI: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The input that we received from the litigation team was to add one sentence, okay. So -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Who's the litigation team, I should ask? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Jeff Klatzkow and a few of the litigators. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, it's your colleagues? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it's from our in-house litigation team, was to add one sentence. Now, when this went to the Board -- because it's gone to the Board two different times. One based on the direction Mr. Klatzkow wanted, and then the second time the Board directed, "Go through it. See what you can get rid of," rather than repealing the whole thing. So that's why August 1, 2024 Page 51 of 85 staff undertook trying to make it easier for everyone, because it was also difficult for staff to implement. But we can go back to the -- if you feel that changes shouldn't be made, then we can do the very minimal change needed to protect it from Bert Harris claims. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What was the one -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: The minimal change that's been made was a one-sentence addition by the litigation team, which makes perfect sense to me. "Hey, litigators, how do we need to change this?" "Okay. We're going to add a sentence." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It went back to the county commissioners. They said, "That's not good enough." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it didn't go back to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners has directed twice to proceed and do LDC amendments to this section. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Ashton, what is that sentence? Can you quote it, or -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's the one -- oh, go ahead. MR. BOSI: It's 8. It's on your screen. "Notwithstanding, the Board has the authority to grant deviations at its sole discretion including, but not limited to, reduction of the greenway requirements." CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, let me ask that -- because that -- I had a fair amount to say on that sentence. Doesn't the Board have sole discretion to grant deviations and variations from almost everything, if not everything in the LDC? Why is this any different? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was one of the arguments that the property owners were making based on some of the language that's in this section. They thought it was contradictory. And so that sentence would have clarified any controversy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it raises -- the negative inferences are very powerful because then you look at all the other cases where the language doesn't say "sole discretion." You're going to create arguments that the Board doesn't have its sole discretion to grant those deviations. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I think -- just to jump in so I understand. I think what the Chairman's saying is implicitly that's the case with everything, but the applicants were using the lack of this sentence as an excuse to say, "There's no discretion"; therefore, it's too onerous, blah, blah, blah; therefore, I have a valid claim, and the litigators are saying, "If you add this sentence explicitly, then we protect ourselves in the courtroom by having this sentence being clear even though it may already be implicit." Is that what you're saying? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. There is some text within the section itself that provided an argument for the property owners to say, "No, there is no flexibility." Mr. Bosi had reviewed the LDC section. He's the interpreter of the code, and he said, "Yes, the Board has the ability." But we're still getting the Bert Harris claims, and that's why the litigation department recommended the language that they did. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Wait, wait. Okay. The last part you said, "Recommended the language they did," is that what we're looking at now? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Number 8. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Number 8. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, No. 8. Just No. 8. Well, I mean, if that's all they recommended, what I'm getting from that is this may -- well, then you said they're still getting the claims, so then -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that language -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't know. Maybe we're just doing this -- and I'm being thickheaded about it. But it just seems like all we need to do other than to get something that the commissioners will agree to -- because if we can't get something the commissioners will August 1, 2024 Page 52 of 85 agree to, we're wasting our time, because they're going to do what they want. So I want -- but other than that, all we need to do is we need some good lawyers to say, "If we have this, this, and this, we will be insulated from valid or arguably valid Bert Harris claims." You can never insulate from bogus Bert Harris claims. But I don't think the applicants -- with the quality of attorneys they have, I don't think they're going to just file a completely bogus claim unless then they can bully the county, which, you know, arguably that's what's going on here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it is. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But I think -- I think if we bulletproof ourself a little bit more -- and maybe it's just one sentence. Maybe it's a little bit more -- than we just take one of them on, and then we're done -- we win it and we're done with it if we're on strong legal ground. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to call on Commissioner Schumacher, who's been waiting patiently. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Mike, quick question. So nine out of 72 are not surrounded by a neighborhood. So those that are not part of PUD -- I'm going to try to go backwards on this because you said there's, like, two different zonings. So if a developer back in, I don't know, the '70s, right, developed a golf course and owned the land around it and then started selling lots off around the golf course -- so that's basically one owner who's now selling the lots to different developers, so on and so forth. Like Palm River. Let's take Palm River, for example. That's a good one. It was a public golf course, and then LaPlaya bought it and turned it private, but all those homes around there that were built, that whole thing would have been, basically, one developer who then just sold lots. So if that's two different zonings, of course, the homes -- some of them may have memberships, some of them don't, whatever. But that golf course wasn't part of the PUD. But the intent originally was this developer owned all this land, he built this golf course, then he put these homes and sold the homes to different developers, whatever, and that's a different zoning. Could we go back to those and kind of put it back under a PUD and say, "That was the original intent" versus, like, a developer coming in saying, "Well, this golf course is defunct. I want to build this on here even though it's surrounded by all these homes," and that was the original intent was for it to be a golf course versus a golf course that has nothing surrounding it so there isn't an impact to those residents surrounding but in another neighborhood it would? Like, do you understand what I'm saying? Is there any -- how do we -- MR. BOSI: Well, I would say that we don't have the right to be able to go back and revert and try to -- based upon intent. But what would happen and what has been in the place of Riviera is there, is there's remnants of that connectivity between their golf course and the residential development. And in the case of Riviera, Riviera has a component towards where the golf course is, by the Water Management District, the area for where the stormwater is to be maintained. So their argument -- if Riviera -- which went through the intent-to-convert process. They could -- the developer of that golf course could submit a rezone application. What they would argue, though, is that this golf course is essentially tied to our residential development, and unless they can provide the assurance that that stormwater could be handled in a different way, then that's -- that's not something that they could legally do. But they could also make the argument that shows the relationship that these -- this -- our residential houses have with this golf course, therefore supporting why they should -- why the Board of County Commissioners would not approve that rezoning, because of that relationship. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Gotcha. No, that's -- I'm trying to just figure out a way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, you said something about the golf course property August 1, 2024 Page 53 of 85 was deemed an area that was identified as stormwater management? MR. BOSI: Within -- within the plats, yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And they're recorded drainage easements against many of the courses that those drainage easements, the land rights have to be resolved before they can go through their rezoning, or they can complete their rezoning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Regardless of the intent to convert, if I were to go in there and develop today, I would still have to go through the ERP process, environmental resource permit process. I may have to go through -- there may be jurisdictional wetlands. And for my colleagues, they would do a JD, jurisdictional determination. It may require a Section 404 permit from the Clean Water Act, which would then trigger consultation of other federal agencies. It does not preclude or circumvent any requirement for federal permitting or through state permitting. So if it's identified as a stormwater management area, if I were the developer, I have to come in with all my calculations, I have to demonstrate that I can capture this water, store this water, and displace this water, and I have to have -- of the 90 acres or 100 acres that's developable, I may only be able to develop 20 acres. That's not the county's problem. That's the developer's problem. It's not a Bert Harris. If the developer is concerned about stormwater -- has to meet stormwater management requirements, that's part of the ERP process, South Florida Water Management District. It's separate from the intent to convert. That's -- and likewise with the contamination. Water -- a 401 water-quality certification for arsenic or other types of requirements that are required by the State, those are -- those are requirements regardless of what I'm going to do. Again, I don't understand how the county has to worry about whether I take something away from a developer, because that developer still has to go through the permitting process whether it's -- whether it's a jurisdictional determination through the feds, whether it's the Endangered Species Act. It could be sensitive habitat or water quality. Those -- MR. BOSI: This isn't being motivated by a concern for the developer. This is being motivated by the number of Bert Harris claims we've had against us because of the intent-to-convert process that's on the books. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the -- again, the Bert Harris claim -- the Bert Harris claim is not -- he can claim all he wants, but he can go fight the feds then, he or she, the developer. They've got to meet the requirements of the State. And there are -- there are strict rules right now in the State to convert golf courses to ensure that there's -- the soil contamination -- because over the years -- it's a lot better now than it had been, but fertilizers and other types of things that are used. They have to go through arsenic determination. They have to go through all the other requirements for water quality and other requirements from a developer -- from the standpoint of soil contamination. Those -- those are covered, I guess, in the intent, but we don't waive those. You can attempt to waive them, but you cannot -- you cannot forgive them of that requirement. So I mean -- so, again, I look at this and say, well, if he -- if the developer believes that they're being denied development, go complain to the South Florida Water Management District or go to the feds and sue them. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Chair, can I -- I was trying to finish what -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: How many of those -- what I was getting at was how many of those was that type of instance where a developer built a golf course, owned all the land, and then sold off the lots around it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do we know? MR. BOSI: The only thing I can think is there's nine individual golf courses that are August 1, 2024 Page 54 of 85 zoned golf course and have residential development that are -- that are in its own separate zoning district. So I can -- I can -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The reason I'm saying that is because when that developer built that golf course then sold those lots, that lot that abutted the golf course was worth more money than the one that would have been across the golf street. Even if they didn't get a membership, it was still worth more because of the view, and that's what I'm trying to dig down to. Because if then -- if they try to sell it to somebody else who then wants to put houses there, you're taking away from the original intent as presented by that developer. Okay. I'm done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, that's a good question. I don't know that answer. You know, even when we -- that was one of the reasons why, when we looked at this in 2017, we were -- we did this in a way to -- I'll quote, "protect" what was a perceived view corridor and view right, and I know it's legally -- I can't guarantee that, but it was an intent to somehow say, you purchased this house on a golf course whether it was separate and -- separate and distinct from the golf course itself or part of when the golf course was developed. But we were looking at trying to ensure that at least they'd get some protection. That led to the greenway. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The original intent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The original intent was the developer built this golf course then sold this lot for more money than he would have for one across the street because it looked at a golf course. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's correct. Absolutely right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So that's kind of what I was trying to figure out because that's where I would -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good question. We never addressed that issue back then. Which came first, the golf course or the house, or did the golf course come in? It was the same -- the chicken or the egg. We -- I think it was at that time Riviera was -- I believe the golf course was there many years before the houses were built. It's similar -- I mean, I'll give you an example. Where I live in Fiddler's Creek, the golf course out there, the Marriott golf course was out there for years before the -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Before anybody else was. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before the Fiddler's Creek development came in. But now it sort of became part of it, but it's -- this never became a PUD. It was just a residential community built around -- probably a golf course built, I don't know when, in the '70s I think some of those go back. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a good question. I don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Sure. I wanted to address your point related to the Board's ability to deviate from all portions of the LDC -- or similar portions to the LDC. 5.05 has a specific provision that states that deviations of LDC Section 5.05.15, which is the golf course conversion, shall be prohibited. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. MR. BOSI: The golf course conversion process says the Board of County Commissioners can't deviate from this process except for within G. G.2.B -- or 2.A does say, "The Board may approve an alternative design" -- it's talking about the greenway. It says, "The Board may approve an alternative design that was vetted at the stakeholder outreach meetings as provided for within the section." So in one section it says you can't deviate from any portion of it, and then the one portion does says about the greenway, the greenway has an average width of 75 feet. It requires 100 foot but can't go below 75 feet. August 1, 2024 Page 55 of 85 The Board does have the ability per 5.05.15 to have an alternative design to that -- specifically related to that provision, but then it says you can't deviate from any other section of the intent-to-convert, and that's a portion of what has been a little bit of ambiguity in terms of the application of the code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that prohibition language -- it seems as though a lot of the concerns that I've heard from the Planning Commission would be obviated if you just took that language out. I mean, we don't need to create a sole discretion standard, because the Board has the discretion to do what it wants with the LDC unless it's already closed the door, as apparently it did with this prohibition language. Take the prohibition language out. Wouldn't that solve the problem? MR. BOSI: That most certainly would give the Board a much greater degree of flexibility in terms of what they ultimately would be allowed to decide upon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how we're going to proceed with this, because -- I want to do two things. Maybe you can highlight the significant changes, but I'm really anxious to hear from the public, because whether you call it an intent-to-convert or NIM 1 or NIM 2, I don't care what we call it. Somehow these names came up years ago, but the fact is it was intended to notice them, allow them to provide input, hopefully the developer and the community would work together to create what was the conversion and the acceptable green space. That was -- that was what the intent was. So I don't know how we want to proceed. If you want to just highlight and go through the changes, then we could hear the public. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a very good question, and I was going to try to address it, and then I'll ask Mr. Bosi also to do so. My recommendation is, is that we go through what staff has prepared -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and provide our input. We also hear from the public and from counsel for the various homeowners associations and get all of those ideas in place, and then find out from Mr. Bosi where the county has issues with our proposed changes and where it would concede those, and then continue this and have staff come back with whatever changes staff believes it wants to make based upon what it's heard from the public and what it's heard from the Planning Commission. And we may go forward with the Planning Commission recommendation and staff's recommendation or, more preferably, we may go forward with something that we can all sign up to. Does that sound right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, Commissioner Vernon. And, I'm sorry, Mr. Bosi. Let Commissioner Vernon go, and then I'll ask you to talk. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So following the Chairman's suggestion, as we go through this, are we going to be looking at a redline version of what was put together in 2017? MR. BOSI: We have a redline version. Almost the entire -- almost the entire process is redlined, but I'll go through it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's what we're -- that's what we're going to go through. So we're going to see the original -- MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then the other question is for Heidi on -- the Chairman mentioned about -- well, you mentioned and then the Chairman commented on that there is prohibition language in there, and if we remove that, as the Chairman says, is that one -- I guess the question, is that one of the key elements -- and I'm sure there's more than one -- but is that one of the key elements of the three Bert Harris Act claims that there is that prohibition in there? August 1, 2024 Page 56 of 85 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. The width of the greenway is an issue in each of the cases. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The width of the greenway but also the lack of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Discretion. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Discretion, thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: What I would say, overall for the intent-to-convert process, so this is how it works: For -- to convert a golf course from its current GC zoning district to an alternative use, before they're even allowed to submit a rezoning application, they have to go through the intent-to-convert process, and that requires two SOM meetings. There's a lot of procedural things that they have to do that -- that help promote or are trying to promote dialogue. But I think where you're going to hear the objections from the public is related to the green-space requirements, the greenway requirements, and the open-space requirements. Those are the things that have to carry over and be incorporated withinto whatever development that is being proposed. How they -- how they exchange the dialogue in terms of the stakeholder outreach meeting, the visual survey preference, these type of things, those are just to promote better dialogue. But the hard components, I think, that are most important to the communities that surround the golf courses that would be eventually -- would be the greenway buffers that are provided that are instructed to be 100 feet along the outside of any converted golf course as well as the open-space requirements and the tree requirements. So think about those as we're going through the things that are being proposed as a replacement and then as I go through the redlines, and then I think you're going to probably -- you'll hear the perspective -- the public will be able to provide the clarification if I was offset on any one of those areas. So looking at what staff had proposed, we had said instead of having those two stakeholder outreach meetings that are required, we're saying a neighborhood information meeting is required after a pre-application meeting is held. They have to -- they have to have a neighborhood information meeting before they could submit an application. That's intended to try to promote that dialogue that we said. Let's have the developer hear what their concerns are and maybe find some areas of agreement that they're able to incorporate withinto whatever they're being proposed, but also -- and this is really important -- is No. 3, under D, a title report that identifies the current owner of the property and all encumbrances that are required as part of a rezone or an SRA application. That really gives us the understanding of this golf course. Does it have any drainage commitments? How is it tied -- you know, what are -- what are the easement restrictions that would be associated that we have to know about before we go to -- before we go -- or when we go through a rezone application, because those are things that are going to dictate, you know, what needs -- you know, where the priorities -- or what things need to be taken care of. Then we retain -- we retain the greenway requirements of a proposed conversion. It's supposed to be continuous [sic] to the existing residents and all properties surrounding the existing golf course and shall generally be located on the perimeter, maintaining an average width of 50 feet. That's a reduction from the 100 feet that's currently required by the code, and I think that's obviously going to be something that the surrounding property owners are probably concerned about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not only a reduction, but it's also based upon an average calculation. MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. The greenway may be counted towards open-space requirement for the project as August 1, 2024 Page 57 of 85 established by LDC 4.02. That's another component that's retained. The greenway has always been able to be counted towards the open space of the proposed development. Existing trees and understories encouraged to be preserved and maintained within the greenway with minimal improvements needed to provide for -- and the canopy tree, the ratio is basically the same as what's contained within it. So that's another hard fact, a hard commitment that has been retained from the intent-to-convert that has to be provided for within the new development. Greenways shall not include the required yards of any proposed individual lots. That's another one that's retained from the current development -- or the current ITC requirement. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed development, but if it is, it has to be connected in a way to allow for wildlife to have movement within those facilities. A portion of the greenway may be -- may provide stormwater management; however, the greenways shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake areas that existed pre-conversion of the greenway, another component that was carried over from the ITC to the proposed amendment. Another one, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant at the time of the subdivision or plat or SDP, describe the use, maintenance of the greenway, and who's to take care of it related to the zoning action. That's another one that was carried over from the existing regulations. And then, finally, 8 we spoke about. That's the one that we did from the legal team that said that we absolutely needed to have this in here, and the Board has the ability and authority to grant deviations as a sole discretion, not limited to but including the reduction within the greenway. Now, I will say that currently within the existing -- the existing regulations, as I pointed it out, it does give the Board the ability to provide alternative designs if they were spoken about during any SOMs. So that's -- that provision takes the existing provision that gives the Board some limited discretion in terms of deviation and expands it, and we do not retain that prohibition of any other deviations against 5.05.15. So that is -- that -- not carrying that restriction over doesn't give the Board more flexibility to be able to deviate from anything that has a dimensional standard. Because the way that the Board operates is anything that has a dimensional standard within our Land Development Code, you can seek a deviation from. You can't seek deviations from use. They're not allowed to do use variances. But you can seek a deviation from anything that's dimensional. So that restriction that is currently in 5.05.15 that the Board can't make any deviations other than what's the greenway, that's been removed. And then now I will just kind of highlight, the next seven to eight pages are the existing regulations as they exist. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you do so, I'm trying to decide what is really the best and most efficient way for us to proceed. And I'm going to offer this to the Board, and whatever the Board decides is what we'll do. We now -- we now have the proposed new 5.05.15 in front of us, and it's all blue language. So a page and a half. I probably have six comments addressed to this, and then I probably have a greater number -- I know it's a greater number of comments addressed to what is being taken out, that is to say the things that are redlined. But they're kind of two separate subjects, the way I see them. And so my idea would be that we pause -- that we ask Mr. Bosi to pause for a moment while we offer our comments to the proposed new stuff and then see how we go after that with respect to what is being removed from the old stuff. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Bosi, is that okay with you? MR. BOSI: Sure. Your discretion, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signaling at this point. Why don't I start, if I may. August 1, 2024 Page 58 of 85 And so this is -- it starts at Page 799 of 850 of the packet, and it's the beginning of the blue lined -- the blueline language, 5.05.15, conversion of golf courses. Subsection Capital A says, "The purpose of this section is to require an additional step of public involvement and to add a greenway requirement." I would respectfully submit that the language goes far beyond those two stated purposes. In some ways taking away from them, in some ways adding provisions that don't relate to either of those two. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know, but I just don't think that that sentence is a fair statement of what then follows. Then I'll just continue here, and we can talk about it. Then in C.3, "Golf courses that do not abut and/or are not adjacent to." So my question is, but residences could still be close by but not directly adjacent to, and we talked about this in my meeting with staff on Tuesday. And the example I use is, what about if there's a road that comes between the resident's property and the golf course proper? Does that -- does that break the continuity? And I believe -- I believe, Mr. Bosi, you said that it breaks the abutment but not the adjacency. MR. BOSI: Yeah, the adjacency still provides that that would be -- the relationship would be there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then I go to D.2 after the "completing the required pre-submittal NIM." So now there would be two NIMs, a pre-submittal and a post submittal. But at present, before this were to be changed, you've got two SOMs and one NIM. And so my question is, is how is the public better served by having two NIMs versus three opportunities for input? MR. BOSI: I'm not sure if the public is better served. This was a reflection that the outcomes of the SOMs did not yield the benefits that were expected. So the idea was this was that first opportunity for the public, before an application is submitted, to identify the issues most important to them or the most concerning to them to the development community. If you would think that it would be improved by two individual NIMs before an application was submitted, I'll defer to, you know, the Planning Commission's discretion on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure we need three of anything. But I guess my question is, is that what does a -- what would one NIM accomplish that two SOMs wouldn't accomplish? Because you say the outcome was is that we weren't getting agreement. We weren't getting public -- MR. BOSI: My estimation is that pre-submittal NIM would probably have the same results that the SOMs have, is that there would just be entrenchment in terms of the residents not wanting the development and the developer saying that they had to convert their golf course to an alternative use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But -- so staff believes that there is a greater likelihood of some concessions being made by the developer if it takes the format of one NIM versus two SOMs? MR. BOSI: Staff feels that there's not a tremendous amount of concessions that are made, whether there's one, two, four, or six. We're proposing one in the hope that there could be some compromise or there could be some issues that were identified prior to an application that could inform that application of those concerns. But having two NIMs doesn't seem like it's a benefit, in staff's perspective, from what we've experienced from the entrenchment of both parties during this process, that we found that those outcomes aren't yielding themselves. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to jump in on this point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, because I just want to make sure we don't create this new definition of a NIM. A NIM is nothing more than the developer advising the community of the intent of the rezone and to garner input. It is not a staff meeting. It is not an approval meeting. Staff is only there to record and to assure the public that the staff POC is identified, and if any issues, they can contact that point of contact. The NIM is not an agreement process. It's just nothing more than an information meeting. August 1, 2024 Page 59 of 85 So that's -- I think that's why we avoided calling it a NIM in the first place, because the intent-to-convert was to receive input from the community and hopefully that, between the developer and the community, would make adjustments accordingly. MR. BOSI: That's really what our NIMs are, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they are. Yeah, I agree. That's what a NIM is. But it's not meant to come to a resolution. It's nothing more than an information process. I don't know. I just want to make sure we don't -- MR. BOSI: And I think the stakeholder outreach meetings were intended and similar -- in the similar vein -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it was. MR. BOSI: -- trying to promote that conversation. I'm not sure if we expected that resolution was going to be provided. But the intent of why we crafted it the way we did with all of the procedures was trying to find areas of compromise. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further to that point -- and I agree with what you said -- I would take it an additional step that if we were going to go from two SOMs to one NIM -- which you can make a case for it, but I want to be sure that all of the current NIM rules would apply to both NIMs -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- including the full transcript. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. That's what I -- basically, we don't now change the definition of a NIM. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. No, no. I'm not looking to put more -- more content into the NIM, but I just want it to be the same kind of a NIM that we already have, just the timing is is it occurs pre-application. All right. I'm going to retain the floor, if I may -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- for a moment, and then I'll be finished with the blue underlining. The -- E.1, average width, when you have average width, of course, that could result in, at some points in the perimeter, there being no separation at all because the average there would be zero, and you'd have to have 100 feet somewhere else in order to balance it out. And I could -- I could find some numbers that I could be comfortable with, but they would involve also having a "but not less than," a minimum, a floor, if you will. In other words, an average width of X, but not less than X -- not less than Y. So that's a comment that I have on that. Then on E.3, there's this word "encouraged" again that I raised with Mr. Weeks, and he and I had comments about this back in the days of Rivergrass, that it really is a word that means nothing and requires nothing, and I just -- I don't like language like that. I mean, either -- either trees and understory shrubs should be required to be preserved, or we take the language out. But "encouragement" is just wasting words because it's -- you know, it doesn't accomplish anything. MR. BOSI: And I would say we'd still have that minimum requirement for the tree ratio in terms of the one to 2,000 square feet, one tree per every 2,000 square feet of the greenway. So we are encouraging more than that, but we're requiring the minimum of that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I get that. MR. BOSI: And we can strike that if that's the discretion of the Planning Commission, because it doesn't do anything, like you said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We saw -- yeah. Thinking back to the Rivergrass experience, there was an effort on the part of Mr. Weeks to encourage a lot of things, but they were ignored, and they were ignored by a developer who was acting within his rights. So the teaching of that matter to me was -- is that this is a legally nugatory or nullity and shouldn't -- shouldn't be included in here. That's just -- so I'm just putting these ideas out. I'm not August 1, 2024 Page 60 of 85 trying to resolve anything at this point. Then I go down to Section 7, "The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant." And Mr. Bosi and I spoke about this on Tuesday. I just wanted to insert the word "perpetual," because that -- and I think that's what staff intended, and I think Mr. Bosi agrees to that; do you not, sir? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Then it gets to 8, Section 8. "The Board has the authority to grant deviations at its sole discretion," I didn't know when I raised this at our Tuesday meeting that there was this prohibition language. It's in here, but I just hadn't seen it. And so something needs to be done about the prohibition language, I believe, because I don't think the Board of County Commissioners should tie its hands with respect to anything since it doesn't have any more of a crystal ball than we do. And my solution would be to delete the prohibition rather than introducing new concepts like "sole discretion," because if you -- if you were to include that comment in here, you have this -- what is this expression, "expressio unius exclusio alterius," which means if you say something in one place, then you raise a question of whether it doesn't exist in all the other places where you could have said it. So you're creating problems by doing it. Did I say that right, Commissioner Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think you just made that up. I don't think that's actually a term. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You want to see if you could get away with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He called me. I quit. No, I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You lawyers. My God. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you can take it -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I'll stick up for us engineers. Come on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I've got some more Latin for you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I didn't understand a word he said. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here's one for you to add a little levity in the room. Semper ubi sub ubi. Do you know what that means? Always wear underwear. Thank you very much. All right. Now -- so to get serious again, if I may. I just don't think it's a good idea to introduce a sole discretion concept into the Land Development Code. I think the solution is to take the prohibition language out and give the Board of County Commissioners the authority to do what they have in all other respects in here, which is to grant deviations. So that takes me through the blue language. Does anybody else want to be heard on the blue language without reference to Latin? Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And at the -- and it's really not -- it's a big picture, and I'm probably being a little stubborn here. But I want to say this a different way. I think what's driving the county commissioners, what's driving this, the only thing is we're getting sued on Bert Harris Act claims. I'm operating under the assumption that in 2017 there was a really good, solid process, and Commissioner Schmitt's indicated this, that this was well thought out and well put together. And at the end of the day, assuming the county commissioners buy into whatever we're suggesting, there's going to be a litigator; a trial lawyer's got to walk into court. And if there's four or five bases for the Bert Harris Act claims, the three that have been made, probably most of the allegations have already been asserted. And I would very much like our litigators to go in and say, we address these five points and that's it. Because if we start changing stuff that is not the basis for the Bert Harris Act claims, August 1, 2024 Page 61 of 85 those good lawyers representing the developers are going to come in and say, "Oh, they totally rewrote this," and we're just going to give them more ammunition. So I don't want to give or take away -- I mean, the whole purpose of this, I think, was to protect residents, and I'm not interested in taking away any residents' rights unless it is subjecting us to a Bert Harris Act claim, but I'm also not interested in trying to tweak it to make it better, only because I think it's going to make the litigator's job, the person representing the county's job harder in defending the Bert Harris Act claim. So that's the reason I'm being sort of stubborn about this. And let's just make the changes we have to make and leave the rest alone. And I'm assuming it was done well the first time, other than the Bert Harris claims. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm in general agreement with that. I'd also caution that if we're -- the only thing, I think -- and please, County Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong -- there may be some adjacency requirements and standing issues. But Bert Harris was -- is not just a pro-developer protection. It's also calculated to protect the property interests of adjacent landowners. And let's not lose sight of that, because if adjacent landowners get together and manage to raise sufficient funds to hire a big-time law firm to bring a Bert Harris claim, we've got a Bert Harris claim again. And so while I applaud all efforts to save taxpayers money by avoiding unnecessary litigation, let's keep in mind that Bert Harris could be a two-way street. Now -- so here we are at the redlining. And, Mr. Bosi, I think you're proposing that you take us through the high points of what has been -- what are you suggesting? MR. BOSI: I can do that, or we can -- I mean, you can open it up to the public to hear what their concerns are to have a better context so when we review what's being removed, you could hear -- and I think what they're probably going to do is probably point out the areas where they have some objections to things being removed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, as do I. And I think that's a good suggestion. What about the Planning Commission? Should we go right to the public at this point? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I like that idea. And, again, you probably -- most of you have never seen me before, but, you know, I usually very much want to listen to the public. All I -- I think I'm being clear. I'm -- and this is just me, not everybody, but I'm not interested in making any changes to this thing because I think it's pretty public friendly other than to protect against a valid Bert Harris Act claim. So I don't -- I don't need to hear 40 people -- this is just me. I don't need to hear 40 people say, "Let's make a change" other than what I just said. And I don't know that -- I see -- I'm guessing that's an attorney over there that you're -- somebody's represented. So, you know, I'm sure your attorney will speak for you. So I'm not trying to prevent anybody from talking, but I'm just saying I don't -- you've heard what I've said. So I don't know that I need to hear the same thing over and over, is what I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's good. And I think -- I want to be liberal, as we hear these, to allow Mr. Bosi or other members of staff to comment immediately after a member of the public says what they have to say so that we have the continuity, and I think that would be a pretty effective substitute for, Mr. Bosi, you going through in advance, if that's agreeable with you. MR. BOSI: I take the discretion of the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so I -- let's see. We've got -- we have two lawyers out there who are representing groups? MR. BOSI: I believe Mr. Pires and Mr. Lombardo are here for Lakewood. I'm not -- Mr. Lombardo is here, I know. I think that's the only -- we have the written document that was provided by Ms. Berkey, but I don't believe she is -- MS. CAMBELL: She's on Zoom. MR. BOSI: Oh, she's on Zoom. August 1, 2024 Page 62 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: She's on the phone, do you say? MS. CAMBELL: I believe she is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. So Mr. Pires and Mr. Lombardo are from the same firm? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He says no one's on the phone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one's on the phone. MR. BOSI: We have Zoom speakers, but I don't believe Ms. Berkey is on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Well, we've got her -- I was hoping she would be here because she made some very good comments. They appear as those balloon comments in one of the iterations of the staff redlining that we had. Many are self-explanatory, and we can just go through her comments and take them for what they're worth and have staff respond. So unless there's objection from the Planning Commission, I'm going to suggest that we start off with the lawyers and, within a reasonable amount of time, present their points of view so that we can consider them, and we'll give staff an opportunity on the spot to respond and us, of course, to ask questions and make comments. Does anybody object to that approach? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then that's how we'll proceed. Mr. Lombardo. MR. LOMBARDO: Good afternoon. For the record, Zach Lombardo here on behalf of Lakewood Community Services Association. For reference, Tony's associate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And you've been sworn in, sir? MR. LOMBARDO: I don't know that I was sworn in, but is this a quasi-judicial hearing? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, it's not. Thank you. Never mind. MR. LOMBARDO: I'm happy to be. I'll be honest. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. We're going to take you as George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you're absolutely right, this is not quasi-judicial. MR. LOMBARDO: Before getting into some of my more specific comments on the proposal, I did want to comment a little bit about the Bert Harris observations, because I think this is a very important part of this process. There are two filed lawsuits that I'm aware of. If there are more, I think that should be more specifically outlined to you-all so you can see specifically what these claims are. The most recently filed one, 2024-CA-315 involving the Riviera course, this has been stayed. The county filed a motion to stay and contingently a motion to dismiss for ripeness issues, kind of addressing some of the comments you-all had made about how could there be a Bert Harris claim at this point in this process? So the county has taken this position. The case has been stayed because, in a separate action, there's a question about what restrictions, what private restrictions apply to that property and whether it can be changed from a golf course at all. So that claim at the current status isn't in a -- in a place where it can provide helpful instructions as to what the problem is because the Court hasn't weighed in at all as to whether it believes it's a valid claim. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for that information. It also means that we're not under unusual pressure to get this resolved, and if we do send it back, if we continue this for further drafts, we're not going to be slowing down the process. MR. LOMBARDO: That's certainly my observation, but I absolutely would defer to your counsel. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. LOMBARDO: The other, an older case, 2023-CA-1795, Naples Golf Development, August 1, 2024 Page 63 of 85 this one I think is important to point out, that is not a golf course zoned property. It's an agriculturally zoned property, so it's a little bit of an apples-and-orange issue when it comes to this particular situation. And in that case, your attorneys have filed a motion for summary judgment that is being heard in September. And I want to point out, there's a great line at the end of the motion. This is the County Attorney's, Greg Woods' writing. "If plaintiff would simply stop using the property as a golf course and use it only as a residential property, as it claims it wishes to do, the county would have no grounds to attempt to apply the golf course conversion ordinance to the property." That's the county's motion. So the significance of pointing this out is that property seems to be in a very different position than a lot of what the residents here are in and a lot of what this typically applies to, which is the nine neighborhoods where there are golf course zoned properties in the middle of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What was that other property, then? MR. LOMBARDO: This is the Naples Golf Development case, which I believe this property is -- MR. BOSI: The Links of Naples down on the East Trail, the one -- I believe they have night golf there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. LOMBARDO: And that's -- that -- and in the summary judgment motion, your attorneys are also arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to follow various processes. And there will be a hearing on this, according to the docket, in September. And so I think after September, you-all will have a lot more information as to validity of these claims, because I think reacting to the filing of a lawsuit is very different than reacting to, for example, losing at trial or losing at summary judgment. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But The Links -- there's no homes around The Links, per se. There's nothing out there. MR. BOSI: There's -- there's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They were -- that was an intent-to-convert as well? MR. BOSI: They were instructed that they had to follow the intent-to-convert. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh. MR. BOSI: And that's one of the improvements we've made is to clarify that that would not -- that would not fall within the intended process for intent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree, but I'd defer to the County Attorney. But I have to agree, that probably would not have been required to go through an intent-to-convert because there's really nothing else out there. There's car storage and some other things. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're probably not going to get too much out of the County Attorney because it's pending. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's right. Enough said. MR. LOMBARDO: And I just -- my only point is, let's look at the filed claims and make sure that we're addressing them. And I would submit that one is an orange to these apples, and the other one is way too early to decide. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. LOMBARDO: Getting into the actual proposed amendments here, the -- in the staff report, there's a statement that what was attempted to be accomplished here was to require preservation of a portion of the greenway in a proposed conversion project. And I think the major objection coming from Lakewood is that these changes really eviscerate that concept. And the first place I'd like to point to is under the new 5.05.15.E in the greenway requirements, this average width of 50 feet. In addition to objecting to the idea of switching to an average measurement tool, the prior standard was -- had an average of 100 with a minimum of 75. That's in G.2.B of the current ordinance. So dropping down to 50, removing any minimum, August 1, 2024 Page 64 of 85 and -- it leads to a situation where I think you do step into this space where Bert Harris claims can go different directions. So the standard is an inordinate burden to property. There are questions about investment-backed expectations. And so the whole concept here is to protect property owners who bought on an open space, essentially. And so the greenway piece of this is a critical component to make sure that the open space piece is preserved. And if we're doing averages, that means behind one particular house maybe we can get down to two or three feet as long as this is a long enough greenway span. So it's -- if we're getting to the point that there is going to be a general ability for the County Commission to allow for deviation, which I don't know that we're contesting that point, why would we change the base standards as well to remove this? Let's keep what we have, because that is not something that in and of itself is a problem, at least not that I'm aware of. So my second comment, similar to that, is that if we're going to add this sole discretion language -- I think you-all have thoroughly discussed this, and I think your analysis makes the most sense. Instead of saying "sole discretion," the prohibition can be removed, and it can be treated like the balance of the Land Development Code and not create a sort of alternative standard. Because there's more than just the Bert Harris law out there when it comes to how we regulate in local governments. One of the standards is that the decisions made by the governing bodies themselves cannot be arbitrary. There has to be some kind of framework for these things. So to put in language like "sole discretion," arguably a decision that could be made under that is simply, well, we would just like to not have a greenway here because four of us or three of us, whatever the standard is, feel that way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In other words, arbitrary. MR. LOMBARDO: Arbitrary. And so at the end of the day, that's not protecting the county because we're having an arbitrary and capricious issue. One note -- and I think this was present in the prior version, but if we're going to go back and do some cleanup, I think it's important to focus on consistency of language. And all of this, by the way, is in our submitted written materials. But when we're talking about the development that's around these golf courses, there's three different phrases used: Residentially zoned properties, residential development, and residential properties. I think this can be cleaned up to avoid some confusion to make sure that we're always talking about the same thing here when it comes to these properties. And I think some of that might help clean up this issue with The Links as to whether that was something that this should have triggered at all if we're very clear as to what the surrounding properties are to trigger this entire process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi and I talked about this on Tuesday, and my question was, is there any reason why we can't go to the term "residential uses" instead? And so I'd ask Mr. Bosi what staff's response is to Mr. Lombardo's point. MR. BOSI: That would trigger The Links of Naples to have to go through the process because it's zoned agricultural but there's residents' houses that are adjacent to that golf course; therefore, you can trigger it saying, because it's residentially used, therefore, the golf course conversion should apply. That's why we use "residentially zoned." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not a golf course. It's ag. MR. BOSI: It's developed as a golf course. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. It's being used as a golf course, but it's not zoned a golf course. It's ag. MR. BOSI: I don't believe the intent-to-convert requires that the golf course be zoned golf course. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it should be. I mean, that was the intent. Why would we prohibit -- August 1, 2024 Page 65 of 85 MR. BOSI: We can't go back and talk about -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You guys can -- you need to look at that. I mean, I would agree. MR. LOMBARDO: And to be clear, I'm not advocating -- we're not here saying it should say "residential use." I'm just saying it should be the same term, because you're using "residential development" in the current proposed new one, which would still trigger The Links because it's residential development. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I could put cows out there tomorrow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So staff is going to take those comments and -- MR. LOMBARDO: And then turning a little bit to the things that have been deleted, there is a 5.05.15.G.1, previously approved open space. It talks about not being able to use this area for open space if it's previously approved for the project. This makes a lot of sense. A lot of these developments are using the golf course area as the open space for their development, and so we're -- you had language in here that acknowledged that, and that language has been stricken. I don't know if there's a reason for this or if that can be explained, but I didn't see it. And this may dovetail into Commissioner Schmitt's comment about these Environmental Resource Permits, because one thing we don't know -- and by the way, the county pointed this out in one of their motions in the Bert Harris claim. They filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join South Florida Water Management District because there are -- a lot of these golf courses are part of the stormwater permits for these developments. And so it's not accurate to say that the developer could come in and just do whatever they want on these golf courses. They'd have to solve the stormwater problem, which in some cases may not be possible, in which case I would suggest the county has no liability because -- because of an intervening cause, it would not be possible to redevelop these golf courses. But, obviously, that's your attorney's discretion to provide that. The design standards, the lighting, and the setback requirements in 5.05.15.H have been deleted. I don't know why those have been deleted. I don't know if there was a reason provided for that. There was some stormwater language in 15.G.4 that was deleted and, again, not sure why that would be pulled out. I mean, hopefully the South Florida standards would cause that strikeout to not be necessary, and maybe that's the reasoning. Maybe staff's consideration is that there's a second level of regulation here that would come in. But if that's the case, I think it should be explained. There is some language about tree removal -- hold on one second -- to address kind of the exotic and prohibited trees. I'm looking at 15.G.2. So -- but in general -- and I think our letter goes into some depth. And certainly Katie Berkey's letter. And hopefully she'll join Zoom -- goes into even greater depth with suggested edits. But I don't know that that approach -- and I agree with Commissioner Vernon on this. I don't know that this entire approach makes sense because you have, again, as I'm aware, two filed Bert Harris claims. If there's more, I think that should be put onto the record. And if we're just totally rewriting this system without understanding why we're totally rewriting the system -- for example, if we're rewriting it because of Links, which is not a property that we're all clear should be in the system and another one where the Court has taken no dispositive action whatsoever, that's a very reactive response to something that had an extensive amount of time going into these hearings, because this -- and I understand it's coming from the County Commission, and that's not a criticism of staff at all. But it does seem like what was talked about today is that there is very small adjustments that could be made that would aid the county's litigation efforts and manage the investment-backed expectations of all of the many homeowners that live around these golf courses. In Lakewood specifically, there's actually two golf courses. So there's two possible places where this could be triggered. August 1, 2024 Page 66 of 85 And so if there's any -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. MR. LOMBARDO: -- specific questions. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Zach, I thank you for that. It's a good presentation -- that was a good presentation. Who are the -- if you know -- because it sounds like you've studied it. On the two cases -- it sounds like there's three, but you're aware of two. Is that one law firm bringing both cases; do you know? MR. LOMBARDO: No. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are they in-town or out-of-town lawyers? MR. LOMBARDO: The Riviera case is Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh. MR. LOMBARDO: And the Naples Development case, I don't believe that's an in-town firm, but I have the signature block right here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So Yovanovich is on one of them? MR. LOMBARDO: Yes. And then the other firm is Bartlett, Loeb, Hinds & Thompson out of Tampa for the Naples Golf Development. COMMISSIONER VERNON: They do a lot of land use? MR. LOMBARDO: I do not know, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then you -- I think you agree with the Chairman on the -- there's that prohibition language in there, and it's -- if we take the prohibition language in there, then we don't need Paragraph 8. I think that's what the Chairman's suggesting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: My only concern -- again, I always defer to the guy standing in the courtroom talking to the judge -- it's going to take a while -- it may take a while, depending on the judge and the situation, to explain, "Well, Judge, they have that discretion anyway." Even though, technically, the Chairman's right, is there a downside to simply adding that sentence so in court Greg Woods, or whoever's representing us, can say, "Judge, it's right here," as opposed to, "Well, Judge, they have that authority anyway," from your perspective? MR. LOMBARDO: From my perspective, and purely my perspective, obviously -- the County Attorney has to provide you advice. But from my perspective, the downside is creating something that is different than anywhere else in the Land Development Code and doing it in an extremely specific way that suggests an arbitrary level to it, because there is an existing practice for how the county handles deviations. It's understood, and it's throughout the code. So to specifically in this section use the phrase "sole discretion," I think opens up the county to a different type of exposure. But that's -- I don't -- again, I do agree with the concept that that's the direction of this amendment. It should be something more specific like that. I thought it was very interesting that County Attorney's review indicated there was one sentence to add, and that was it. And then what we're looking at is major changes. And so we -- I guess, if I had to summarize everything that we're saying on behalf of Lakewood, it's we would prefer that route. We think that's what makes the most sense, and we think that's what makes the most sense for the county given the two cases that we've looked at. But if you are going to get into it, we think some of these substantive provisions should be there, because even in the discretionary world where they have the ability to do deviations, it helps to have some framework as to what it should look like. So if they're going to have -- the Board's going to have the ability to do deviations, why are we worried about reducing the greenway size and removing the minimum size and switching to an average? It seems like it's too much of a reduction for no reason, because they have the discretion. If there's some compelling feature of the land or there's maybe, perhaps, a water feature that makes this very unworkable, that's the time when the county can -- and you-all can and the planners can find a way around this. But by keeping the baseline, the minimum widths and the higher averages, August 1, 2024 Page 67 of 85 you're going to get a better result for the surrounding property owners, and I don't think it's unworkable for the developers. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So you like -- you like -- I'm just restating to make sure I understand. You like the simplistic approach used by the county, they simply added one sentence, but you'd probably do it -- and this is your opinion -- do it a little different. You'd do it like the Chairman's suggesting. You wouldn't add one sentence. You'd drop the prohibition language, and you'd be done? MR. LOMBARDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And maybe if there -- if there's concern about doubt, you could say, "And for the avoidance of doubt, the deviations here should be treated exactly like other deviations in other circumstances." COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thoughts? MR. LOMBARDO: I think that would, again, kind of get into the territory of making it different than elsewhere in the Land Development Code. But I'm not -- that would be -- in my view, any version of that, including the one sentence, I think, would be preferable to rewriting all of the code, I think, is my bigger point here. I don't -- I'm certainly not your planner, and I'm not your attorney. But I feel that there's -- to go back to Commissioner Schmitt's point, there was a lot of work that went into this process, and the communities are clearly impacted by this. And, interestingly, this is a very narrow and specific issue because it's not -- it's really nine neighborhoods. And so when those people come out and show up and participate, I think it's important to listen to them. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you were to go with the existing text, you know, the LDC text as it exists without the proposed strikethroughs, you would still need the deviation language, because we have deviations expressly authorized by the PUD section, but we don't have it for conditional uses, and we don't have it for straight rezones. So you would need to have that added in. MR. LOMBARDO: And I think all we're looking to avoid is the "sole discretion" language. I think there needs to be some kind of basis for the deviation, so -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. LOMBARDO: -- deferring to your County Attorney, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. That was a great presentation, Zach. I agree with the majority of what you said. The one thing I was kind of wondering, Lakewood's completely built out, no extra land could be developed. MR. LOMBARDO: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Traffic-wise, they probably see the same thing as everybody else during season, right? So if somebody was to put application in for something in Lakewood to build another residential community in there, that would, obviously, quadruple the amount of cars on their roads. MR. LOMBARDO: There's a significant concern about traffic with these applications. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I think that would be a good place to start with these is -- I know the traffic portion or transportation portion of it comes into play during the application process, but I think that when we're looking at this process, it needs to be presented up front that the current roadways, obviously, cannot be expanded to four lanes in most of these communities. They are what they are. They're already built. And that the additional transportation in there that would be over and above whatever the membership was for said golf course that was there previously, it would be too much of a strain on that transportation system within the community. I mean, does that make sense to you, Mike, or am I off -- or am I way off topic? August 1, 2024 Page 68 of 85 MR. BOSI: Those would be -- those would be issues that would be analyzed during the rezone process. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Lombardo? MR. LOMBARDO: No. Thank you very much for receiving my comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mike wants to say something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: I would point out that the comments that Zach made were exclusively really to the development standards contained in G within the intent-to-convert. Some of the issues that we have found with the stakeholder outreach meetings is to prescribe activities that the developers have to provide for in that regard, that they have to provide for specific alternative development statements. They have to provide for an aspect, a narrative of no conversion. They have to provide for a county purchase, a conceptual development plan that shows the various -- the various aspects for how they could -- they would redevelop. So I think some of those procedural steps were things that staff found that weren't yielding those results. But just to let you know that I think what you're going to hear -- the majority of the objections will be modifications that we -- are being proposed against the existing development standards that are contained in 5.05.15, because I didn't hear -- I didn't hear any objections to the removal of the -- some of -- the visual preference survey or the alternative development statements. There really wasn't any commentary towards that. So just in the back of your mind, as we're going through this, I think, try to focus upon if these are all on the development statements, then maybe that's -- that could be a course that we retain some of those or retain the majority of those based upon some of the decisions you want to make and the minimal amount of changes that you want to make, just for -- just for thought. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. LOMBARDO: Can I briefly respond to that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. LOMBARDO: Because, in part, my comments -- and typically in public comment we're sort of triaging with time. And so I think we're mainly -- we're mainly focused on the development standards because those are the long-ranging pieces that are going to impact these communities. But, again, our position is to go with the County Attorney's more scalpel approach which would leave all of those pieces in place, and I think it's a little hard to talk about some of those pieces because there are -- there's very helpful things that come out of these meetings, and one of the big pieces about all of those options is it helps tee up a better conversation, potentially, about the community purchasing the property. And I think -- I can't go into some details on some of that, but in Lakewood this has been somewhat effective to be able to have these meetings and these -- additional information so that the community can really evaluate this. Because at the end of the day, there does have to be a line where a neighbor can't influence the next property owner because they don't own it, but maybe in this unique situation, if enough information is gathered and provided, a meaningful conversation about purchase can be started. So we do think that all of those provisions should remain. It's just that when we're looking at the long-range effects, and when we're looking at the lawsuits, the focus seems to be not on that. The focus seems to be on the actual greenway and the buffering space. And so, again, going back to the direction that came from the Board, the Board's very focused on these lawsuits. And unless I'm missing something, and Heidi can correct me, but I don't believe the lawsuits emphasize the administrative process. They're focused on the actual dimensional requirements, so that's why my comments focused that way. August 1, 2024 Page 69 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It seems to me as though we are headed for sending this back to staff. Anybody who disagrees, please let me know. Maybe we can get it completed today, but I doubt it, because I want to see some revised language in a number of these things, and I want staff to have had the benefit of the comments we made and that were made by counsel and members of the public. So that, I believe, is where we want to be headed. And it may turn out that there are three options. Option number one, to just go with a single sentence -- the single-sentence option, which I don't personally favor, partly -- maybe largely because I don't think the Board of County Commissioners is going to go with that. I think they had a -- they had a more sweeping idea of what needed to be done maybe without -- without having homed in on exactly the provisions that they were unhappy with. But -- so one option would be the single-sentence option. A second option would be that staff helps us craft a Planning Commission preferred option where we can agree, at least by a majority vote, if not unanimously, and send that on, and staff would have its own recommendation which may incorporate some of our suggestions like the word "perpetual" and "easement" and a few other things, but they may still want to go with their own independent version, and that's fine. And then a third possibility would be that we and staff can get together and send something to the Board of County Commissioners that we like and staff likes and we all believe is something that meets the request of the Board of County Commissioners. So anybody want to comment on that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Somebody got it before me. Who's 1? Somebody -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Vernon is first. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I was going to say I guess a nuisance is do we go with the single sentence, or do we also remove the prohibition, or you suggesting we do that? When you say "single sentence," you mean remove the prohibition? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I should have been more clear. We must remove the prohibition if we go with the single sentence; otherwise, you can have a conflict. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So my -- I guess my comments -- I think you -- you've got a pretty good idea. But my comments is, I just feel like this ought to go to legal with staff helping as opposed to staff with legal helping because, again, the only reason we're doing this is because of litigation. And then I guess the last comment I'd make, I'd probably go with No. 2 and maybe make a few more changes simply because I do fear that the County Commissioners will not accept what we propose if we just change one sentence. That -- and that sounds like a crazy way to do it, but I do want to do what they ask us to do, again, through the filter of how do we win the lawsuit and nothing more, which is Mr. Lombardo's point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I agree with your comments. One thing I'll say here, and I can only operate at the outer perimeter, the outskirts of what might be an understanding that has been reached over the years between the County Attorney's Office and the Growth Management Department. But there is a -- I think preceded by some long sessions of perhaps disagreement arriving at a compromise as to whose authority is the Growth Management and whose authority is County Attorney. I learned rather early on, sitting up here, that what I think should be a matter for the attorney, as a result of this compromise that's been reached years ago, may not be the way that the county internal government works. And I'm not trying to change the way the government works by saying "this needs to be primarily the County Attorney or primarily Growth Management." I think we need to just rely on, you know, if we send it back, that they're going to -- they're going to address it in a way that they have -- that's consistent with the understanding that they've reached over the years. August 1, 2024 Page 70 of 85 Any comments from the County Attorney or Growth Management? Am I way off base? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The zoning director has clear authority. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To interpret. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on -- MR. BOSI: There's matters -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- state statutes. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. The county -- the state statutes clearly empowers the zoning director with that authority. The County Attorney, my understanding, is the legal advisor and the advisor to the Board of County Commissioners. But under state statute, that -- that does fall under the zoning director. MR. BOSI: And the interpretation of the Land Development Code and the GMP has been designated to the County Manager or designee, which falls upon me. The County Attorney Office does not work for -- is not part of general-purpose county government staff. They work for the County Attorney, Mr. Klatzkow, who has a specific -- who works for the Board of County Commissioners. We work in hand and good team work, but there is most certainly a line of responsibilities and a chain of command that is different between myself and what Ms. Ashton deals with. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. The only point I was making -- and I'm in agreement what the Vice Chairman -- is when we say we're sending this back, we're not prescribing who is to do what, because there are state statutes, and there are many years of compromise and understandings reached, I know, because I've had conversations with Jeff Klatzkow. And we're not trying to upset any of that. So when we say send it back, we know that you'll handle it in the way that is consistent with the statutes and your long-term agreements of who's responsible for what. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Any action that comes to us usually -- there's certainly a paragraph that says legal sufficiency and the legal comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I offer, I think -- we're probably going to need to take a break here soon, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I don't want to get into trying to write legislation on the fly here. I have about six or seven points I want to add. I'm waiting to hear from the public, and then I think we can provide what I think is a comprehensive list of items for staff to look at and come back to us with a -- I would say a rewrite, because I certainly want to -- I concur with many of the points Mr. Lombardo brought up and Tony Pires brought up, and also I think -- I think that we could give them some ammunition, and they can come back to us. We're not going to -- we're not going to solve this today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. You're exactly right, and I agree completely. But first things first, we need to take a break. It's 2:14. We'll be back at 2:24. We're in recess. (A brief recess was had from 2:14 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. My plan for this afternoon, subject to what Planning Commission wants to do, we're going to go for another two hours to around 4:30, plus or minus, and within that time, I want to have heard from all members of the public, and having talked to staff, who's monitoring this, that's not an insurmountable opportunity or option for us within that time. Then after we've heard from people who want to speak, if we have time remaining, I'd like to turn to Ms. Berkey's comments, which are in those balloons. But if we don't get to those, I'm going to ask the Planning Commission members to be sure that they have read and understand them. And the comments are quite clear. And ask staff, when it takes all of this under submission and does its rewrite, to give appropriate affect to Ms. Berkey's comments. August 1, 2024 Page 71 of 85 Does anybody disagree with that as a way of proceeding? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. That's how we will. So then Mr. Lombardo's finished, and we've got four commissioners, and then we'll go back to the public. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think -- I'm done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, me too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm done. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, we all -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We're done. Okay. So now let's -- let's go to registered speakers, if we may, please. Who do we have? MR. SUMMERS: All righty. Our first speaker is Peter Osinski, and he is ceded extra time by David Bartos. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And, sir, if you'd give us the spelling of your last name, I'd be appreciative. MR. OSINSKI: O-s-i-n-s-k-i. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. OSINSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good afternoon. MR. OSINSKI: My name is Peter Osinski. I am a Board member at Riviera Golf Estates. I'm also the Chairman of the Golf Course Work Group Committee that has been following the developments on this issue for a couple of years now. As an aside, not only have we been to all of the appropriate meetings here, we have also been represented -- personally, myself, Tricia Campbell, and Alan Carpenter went to the two DSAC meetings also and made our understandings clear. But first of all, I'd like to point out that on April 23rd, the Board of County Commissioners discussed the golf course conversion regulations, and those deliberations were alluded to by Mr. Bosi. Our review of that video -- it is on video. It's still on my computer. I've watched it a few times. Our review of that meeting is that they had no problem with the 100-foot greenway. It was alluded to a couple times, and nobody said, "No, it should be less." But they -- as they discussed the item -- and the item was brought up by an agenda item brought up by Commissioner McDaniel, and the item was repeal of the golf course regulations, which started the whole discussion. The discussion, again, considered the greenway to be a given, the 100 foot, and there was no question about that. But they did seem to want the authority to approve lesser dimensions, which is understandable. I'd rather they didn't, but I understand their point of view. And they unanimously rejected the idea of limiting -- on eliminating the golf course conversion regulations and made a motion asking the Planning department to draft modifications that would streamline the process and provide them more defense against Bert Harris claims. All right. So that's -- that's what the Board asked for. We, myself, Tricia Campbell, and Alan Carpenter, shortly thereafter, went to all three -- all five commissioners. We went there after the first DS -- the proposed DSAC changes to the regulations. We went there to tell them about what is being worked on in the DSAC and what is being eliminated from our protections and gauged their receptiveness to them. Most of them didn't know that that was happening. There were a variety of opinions about August 1, 2024 Page 72 of 85 what was happening, but none of -- them, none of them said, "Oh, this is what I want to see happening." Most of them said, "No, this isn't -- this isn't right." We had a couple that clearly said, "We are going to be against this." So I'm not saying that for you to rely on as the gospel truth or a clear indication of where they are. But we went through the trouble of going to the two DSACs. We went to the trouble of speaking to every commissioner in their offices. And this is what we've come up with. But, of course, after -- after they were asked at the meeting, the Planning department went ahead, and we all know it, they reduced the greenway to an average of 50 feet, they eliminated the 35 percent open-space rule, and they eliminated the two prescribed SOM meetings, which as far as I'm concerned has neutered our ability to be -- to have influence in the process. Now, Mr. Bosi talked about the SOM meetings and the anecdotal understanding that the SOM meetings were ineffective. Well, maybe they were, and maybe there's a reason why. We had our first SOM meeting, and it was in a space that was too small. So the second SOM meeting was scheduled, and we had that second SOM meeting. And, yes, both sides very clearly articulated their positions, and they didn't match very well. One of the reasons was is because the applicant was proposing a 20-foot greenway. How would you respond? All right. But we all stated our case, and that was the first SOM. Now, the second SOM happened three days later. Nothing changed between the first SOM and the second SOM. So all parties simply restated their positions, maybe in a different way, but restated their positions. I was part of that. My impression was the SOMs did get people to express their opinions about what was going on, but there was no extra step that would kind of distill what was learned and maybe turned them into a number of viable alternatives for both parties to discuss. But that's a discussion for another day. Of the proposed changes, obviously the greenway is the most onerous one for us at Riviera Golf Estates, because once you give the Board the power to change the greenway, it becomes a negotiable item; therefore, reducing it from 100 feet to 50 feet means that now the bidding starts at an already unacceptable level. Go from 100 to 50. And the process then incentivizes the applicants to negate it -- negotiate it even lower. And we, the property owners, are the losers. I bought my property in 2019. I was very much aware of the golf course conversion regulations and considered the county I lived in as a very enlightened one because of them. Now I'm looking at this, not so much. It is very disturbing. And you have already made that point and understand our point of view, I'm quite sure of that. So we can't help but wonder why these proposed regulations are so clearly hostile to RGE, to our quality of life, to our security, to our property values. Because they are. It's very clear. So in the process of considering these proposed regulations -- and I am so encouraged to hear your deliberations thus far. But I come up with a few questions myself that you might consider. Is it appropriate to make these significant changes to the Collier County Land Development Code to address only a few specific properties? Number 2, do these proposed regulations properly address, or do they go beyond what the Board intended in its April 11th motion, to streamline the ITC process and provide some Bert Harris protection? Number 3, does the public benefit of these proposed regulations justify the significant reduction of the protections for the property owners that are most affected by them? Number 4, if the stated goal was to improve and make these regulations Bert Harris proof, was it necessary to make such radical changes with some minor modifications to lessen the burden on applicants? And Mr. Bosi alluded to some concerns that we heard in the DSAC meetings, which I think were considerable. To ask an applicant to produce two plans, both of which they have to pay architects and all kinds of other people to do, is onerous. Is it necessary? It's something worth looking into. Look at how to streamline that and make it better without compromising the intent August 1, 2024 Page 73 of 85 but also giving the BCC the authority to make the changes to the greenway. Really, that was all that was needed. And when you boil it down, Section G -- this is from memory now. Section G, Paragraph -- Paragraph G, Sentence A, says, "The Board has the discretion to make changes to the greenway design." The next -- the next sentence is B, and the B says, "The greenway shall be 100 feet, minimum 75 feet." And the Section B does not give the Board the discretion to change that. That's really the nub of the problem right there and something you can look into. Number 5, are the authors aware that these radical changes still don't protect the county against Bert Harris claims? Because the Bert Harris law states that a claim can be initiated from any action of a government entity which affects real property, including action on an application or permit or adopting or enforcing any ordinance. So how do we defend against that? Well, I don't think we do. I think we do the right thing and defend it. That's public policy. Has anyone considered these proposed changes will give abutting property owners Bert Harris claims of their own? Of course, you do. So we do appreciate you looking into all of these things. We also hope that you view them in the context of whether or not they contribute to the overall public good, these changes, or, more specifically, does revising the LDC to enable golf course property developers to cram more housing into smaller tracts to the undeniable detriment of the surrounding property owners really serve the public good? I guess one of the things I wanted to say before I started this, but I'll say it at the end, is this -- what I've been watching today reminds me of a Chinese proverb that goes, "Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from a friend's forehead." Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- if you don't mind refraining from applause. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a comment on the last statement he made, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Almost any rezoning action could be deemed an infringement on neighboring property. So that's inherently built in the code, and that's inherently part of our deliberation process when we look at all the criteria involved, whether it's compatibility, density, traffic, all the other things. So I mean, that -- I understand your statement, but certainly it's in every rezoning action, not simply the rezoning from golf course to residential. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SUMMERS: Next speaker we have is Tricia Campbell, and she is ceded time by Phyllis Bartos. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Campbell. MS. CAMPBELL: Tricia Campbell, 149 Estelle Drive. I'm president of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association and have been since 2022. Riviera's a senior living community with over 1100 Collier County taxpaying residents. There was a couple of things -- I don't want to just talk about Riviera, but there were a couple of things that I wanted to clarify. First of all, yes, the golf course was designed in 1971, and the homes were starting to be built in '73 to '78, in that area there. The sole purpose, to build around the golf course. And they did put a deed restriction on the property in 1973, and because of the MRTA Act, it was -- for some reason it was taken off the deed, and because of MRTA, we had 30 years. So 19 -- in 2017, there was no developer on the property. What happened was they had the deed restriction till 2020, so when that was taken -- when the deed restriction was in the MRTA, you know, Act, it ended up ending in 2020. We now have a litigation on that to August 1, 2024 Page 74 of 85 investigate if the property is still under the deed restriction. After they started the development, there was a Bert Harris claim in 20 -- I believe it was 2021 that Attorney Yovanovich put in a Bert Harris claim. That was dismissed by the board of directors in that year. Okay. Some of my notes I ended up crossing off because we already hit that subject. But normally you'd have this room packed with Riviera residents. Because it's off season, a lot of people are not here. But we totally disagree with the drastic regulation changes for the golf course conversion. We find that this is a protection for any homeowners that are existing properties outside of these -- the golf courses that were built. Most of us paid a premium to live on the golf course. Not for the view, but for the open space. After living here 14 years and going through two hurricanes and many rainstorms, I know that existing abutters need the open space to avoid major stormwater damage. Land absorbs the water. Swales divert the water. Striking out many important factors on the golf course conversion will lead to [sic] many residents in RGE and other golf course communities a feeling of uncertainty. We feel that these changes are not needed at all because they're just proposed to assist a landowner and a prospective buyer and not to safeguard the existing property owners. We see that this a process driven by one attorney in opposition to the overwhelming public support for these protective regulations to all communities surrounding golf courses. We think adoption by the county will only lead to more lawsuits, as you had stated a possibility with homeowners doing Bert Harris claims themselves, not helping to avoid lawsuits. Last year Collier County did a survey to assist us in the purchase of the property. This isn't the first time that we have approached the owners to purchase the property. We had one vote, but we lost the vote in the community. We had a private group that put together over a million dollars pledged to them and had offered Mr. Grund at RGE a proposal to buy the course. And this particular one, the assistance with the county, I wanted to make it clear that we never were against the proposal, but we have a lot of senior citizens on fixed income. With a price tag of 17- to $2200 a year, a lot of our taxpayer -- I mean, excuse me, our seniors were unable to pay that. In closing, I feel in my heart that you, as the county -- the Collier County Planning Commission, will make the right decision for the good of Collier County and all the taxpaying residents by rejecting these proposed changes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Campbell. Next speaker, please. Oh, before we go to the next speaker, give me a tally of how many more there are. MR. SUMMERS: We have one more in person and one online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. So we've got plenty of time. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. SUMMERS: All right. Our next speaker is David Hurst. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sir, if you don't mind spelling your last name, I'd appreciate it. MR. HURST: H-u-r-s-t. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. HURST: Thank you for your time today, gentlemen. This is my umpteenth time in front of the Collier board. But being brought up today, a lot of my co-residents had covered a lot of ground which I now understand. As a contractor, understanding properties and what you have to look at, the major cost that Collier County's not observing is this: If the property gets developed, to bring the property up to code, the rainwater is a huge discussion. The potential purchaser of the property, developer, is going to have to spend several million dollars to bring the water off the property, which then becomes Collier County's problem. And in my discussions briefly with Mr. Bosi, are you aware August 1, 2024 Page 75 of 85 that to remove the water from the property is going to cost, best guesstimate, 25- to $50 million to redo the city's waterworks? That's all I wanted to say about it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. SUMMERS: All right. We're going to move to our online group. First off we have Alan Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter, you have permission to unmute yourself whenever you're ready. MR. CARPENTER: Thank you very much. Chairman Fryer and other commission members, I am Alan Carpenter of 205 Estelle Court. I'm the secretary of the Board of Directors for Riviera HOA. You have received detailed comments from our association counsel, Attorney Berkey, who, unfortunately, had an overlapping hearing today, but I believe you can read those comments and understand them. They're fairly straightforward. But I'm not here to discuss specifically the proposed changes to process, whether two NIMs and two SOMs and so forth. The point, I think, is that input from people impacted in the community around golf courses that might be rezoned is important. But more importantly, and what I want to speak to, are the standards for which are applied in those rezonings, and I think that's where the redlines really concern us. The redlines are significant. Our three main areas of concern are greenway and open space. As already discussed, the elimination or the restriction of the greenway to a point where there are minimal buffers devalues property, and as already noted by many, that leads to litigation prospects in the future. The Growth Management department, back in 2017 when the original code was put in place, published two papers which -- research papers, white papers. One titled "Findings on Golf Course Conversions and Recommended LDC amendments." Second was "Follow-up to the LDC amendment 5.05.15 conversion of golf courses." This research identified the best practices across the state when others were grappling with the same issue of golf course conversions. Among other things, this research determined that the LDC amendment must include a substantial buffer or greenway along the perimeter of the golf course. Typically 50 to 200 feet minimums were identified in regulations of other communities and should also include a sizable open space, much like our current residential and PUD zones require. And these have been neutered or eliminated in the redlines that have been included in this proposed revision. The staff analysis during that time appraised values of properties adjacent to golf course in Collier County at a 31 percent amenity premium in taxable value over comparable properties within -- that did not have the open space and greenway buffers. This is the county's own research. So planning staff went before the Board of County Commissioners in 2017 and addressed these concerns. Hundreds of people showed up. The hall was filled to overflowing. People were upstairs. The community was obviously in favor of these changes, save for one attorney who voted in -- who voiced opinion in opposition. This was largely a community agreement that these were good regulations. The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of adoption and commented it represented a good balance between homeowners' interests and those of the landowners of golf courses. So as my colleagues on the board, Tricia Campbell and Peter Osinski, have said, this is not just a matter of minor wordsmithing. A single line change may be sufficient, maybe two, to address the Board of County Commissioners' concerns. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our major concerns can be summarized in three points: Greenway and open space and how it impacts property values; safety, stormwater systems, and traffic controls. As already noted, August 1, 2024 Page 76 of 85 these communities are abutting golf courses that act as stormwater systems and, indeed, have very limited traffic controls and roadways into and out of the communities; and compatibility. Our community is an age-restricted community, and the last thing that makes sense is to put in affordable family housing in the midst of an elder community. So I ask that the Board here consider seriously the option of making de minimis changes to what is already a well-vetted and well-established code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. SUMMERS: All right. Next up we have Frank Wood. Mr. Wood, if you could unmute yourself. MR. WOOD: Good afternoon. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. MR. WOOD: My name is Frank Wood, and I live at 994 Charlemagne Boulevard in Riviera Golf Estates. Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I came to Collier County in 2016 and taught high school physics. My community is full of retired teachers, postal workers, plumbers, electricians, and other folks that have worked hard. Home purchases since 2017 have relied on this 2017 golf course conversion blueprint. And in 2020, our community had to replace our pool. We were required to upgrade our 1970s site to the 2022 Collier County standards. Our $550,000 pool became a $950,000 project. We obeyed the rules. We would appreciate it if you would not water down any of these protections we received in 2017. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Wood. Any further registered speakers? MR. SUMMERS: That is all for today, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any people in the room -- any persons in the room who wish to be heard although they haven't registered, please raise your hand, and we'll recognize you. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't see any hands raised. So with that, we will close the public speaking comment -- public comment portion of this hearing. And we do have ample time at this point to go over Ms. Berkey's comments, which is what I would like to do at this point, without objection from the Planning Commission, and hear from staff and also hear from the planning commissioners what they -- what they feel about these. And if you have your agenda packet in front of you, they begin on Page 822 of 850. And they are -- they take the form of, like, balloon comments in the margins of the summary that went to the DSAC. And before I go into that, I want to be sure that everybody understands and knows what DSAC is and, for that matter, what it's not. DSAC is an officially sanctioned advisory committee to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. It is not, however, quasi-judicial. And it is designed and populated by members of the various subgroups of the development industry such as developers themselves, lawyers who represent developers, and consultants who also represent developers. So as you can see, their point of view is going to be aimed at the development community and advocating for the interests of the development committee [sic]. It's not a bad thing at all, and it's something that, as I say, was officially established by the Board of County Commissioners. But they're not like us. They're not quasi-judicial, and they're not disinterested. So having said that -- and I just want to be sure that everyone keeps that in mind when we hear references to DSAC. So with that -- go ahead, sir. Yes, please. August 1, 2024 Page 77 of 85 COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a question on -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner, yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Maybe I missed it, but did DSAC comment on this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, but DSAC has been referred to multiple times. And when we turn to Page 822, we're going to be working off of the DSAC advisory board recommendations. And so that's why I thought it would be a good idea to preface. You want to say anything? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I just -- I guess they've had input into this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, my goodness, yes. Yeah. And I asked Mr. Bosi about this. I wanted to be sure that this did not originate with DSAC, and it did not. And I'm not aware of the extent to which their input found its way into staff's recommendations, but I think that's a legitimate question to ask as we go through this. And, again, I'm not -- I do not mean to be critical of DSAC. I just think we have to recognize what it is. Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The DSAC reviews all LDC amendments. They can even approach staff to initiate. They're the practitioners who implement, to put it bluntly. DSAC are the -- many of them are either contractors, engineers, or other interested parties, but they are the -- sort of the practitioners who actually have to live with the code. So it's been a policy for, Mike, what, 25 years at least that the DSAC is sort of the first vetting committee, the committee to first vet all the changes to the LDC. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the process was Mike's staff developed some changes -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- gave them to DSAC, we got some comments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe that's right, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, they -- Mike would -- staff would then go back, tweak it one way or another, then it comes to us. We very seldom really see the comments that are specific to the DSAC, but they just typically are either incorporated or not incorporated. I mean, it's -- MR. BOSI: They're either incorporated, or sometimes they're within the narrative. They may be highlighted in terms of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I used to tell them sometimes "noted." MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got it. MR. BOSI: This is a unique situation is we're going back to DSAC on August 7th, because DSAC has not read -- or has not reviewed the version that the Planning Commission reviewed. The staff had a prior version of the modifications to the golf course conversion that wasn't as drastic of a change from discussion internally to meet with the Board of County Commissioners' direction that we felt to provide the most Bert Harris defensible. We went with a much more abbreviated version. So the comments that DSAC made were not upon this version. It was a different version. So they really have no bearing upon what is being proposed to you today. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I'm still -- it's late in the day. I haven't heard any reason why we should be changing anything, personally, other than somebody upstairs said you should change it. I haven't heard anybody jump up and say, "No, no, no, you've got to change it for this reason." Everybody has said, "Why change it?" So my question is, why change it? Why not go with a minimalistic approach of putting one sentence, however the lawyers think it should be, to protect us? I just haven't heard anybody champion a reason to change anything. And for us to spend hours wordsmithing something that may be accepted when we don't even know what they were looking for to begin with, I think, is a waste of our time, personally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a -- I mean, that's a potentially valid way of looking at it. I August 1, 2024 Page 78 of 85 don't necessarily disagree, but the Board of County Commissioners has requested that this be done. Now, what the "this" is is open to some discussion. I'm not sure we're all in total agreement, and it sounds like there was some ambiguity at the meeting, what was it, April 7th. Whenever the Board of County -- MR. BOSI: April 23rd. CHAIRMAN FRYER: April 23rd. But I mean, an edict came down from the BCC for staff to do this, and staff did it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if we, as a group, think it's not broke and we want to go with -- why don't we just say what we believe? We're an advisory group. To cater to something we're not sure we want but we don't agree with I don't think is worth our time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The only thing that I will say -- and then Mr. Bosi should comment -- as a -- and I'm not a politician. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You play one on TV. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Neither do I play one on TV. I play a Planning Commission chairman on TV. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Stayed at a Holiday Inn. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we all want to demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners that we have carefully followed what we thought they asked us to do. And we might stand a better chance of influencing the outcome of this if we do not take the two-sentence approach even though my heart and my brain is probably more with the two-sentence approach. As a practical matter, I think we might have a greater impact on this process if we take what staff has done and try to adapt it -- or adapt it to our concerns even though it's going to take some time. I think we've got -- we've got time. And I don't think there's a lot of pressure to get this done immediately. And I think we stand a better chance of influencing the outcome. Mr. Bosi, how do you feel about that? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We might have a better chance of influencing the outcome if we tell them we don't think you need to do anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's also possible. Mr. Bosi, do you want to speak? And then Commissioner Vernon. MR. BOSI: No, I wouldn't hazard to try to guess the Board's ultimate decision upon this. I mean, there's too many factors within it. At the discretion, whatever the Board -- however the Planning Commission would like to move forward, you know, I'm willing to walk down that path. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, the only new information I have at the first speaker -- that was a good presentation. And, you know, you may be able to comment on this. But what he said he heard at that meeting with the County Commissioners is streamline and make it more Bert Harris proof. So unless the greenway or some of these other changes make it more Bert Harris proof -- maybe they do, but if they don't, all we've been -- all we've been -- all we need to do to sort of compromise between the Chairman and Commissioner Shea, we change the one sentence, which may include changing the prohibition language -- it may be a little bit more than one sentence, and then we drop one of the SOMs, NIMs, whatever you want to call them, which streamlines it, and that way we've made the two changes. We've left the body of it pretty much exactly the same, and we're done. I'm not saying we should stop now. I mean, I know we've got more -- you've got more to present and more to think about and discuss. But that would sort of achieve the goal -- big-picture goal of Commissioner Shea and also, I think, help on my thought process, which is consistent with the Chairperson's process, that we've been asked to do something, and unless we vehemently object, we can do it. And you've suggested maybe cut out -- we've got three meetings; cut it down to two. You've still got more than normal, but you've got less. It's more streamlined, and we're done. August 1, 2024 Page 79 of 85 And also he said that they met with the commissioners and, you know, I'm sure they've got a lot on their agenda, and they don't study everything perfectly. They may have said that a little flippantly and a little quickly, and maybe they do have a change of heart. So I don't want to go any further than -- I don't want to -- I don't want to violate the concept Commissioner Shea's trying to accomplish, which is kind of keep it much the same but make enough changes that they'll be comfortable that we've done what they asked us to do, and we don't disagree with those changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other planning commissioners want to weigh in on this? I don't think there's much space between me and Commissioner Shea, but Vice Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't see any need to go through the comments that were sent in -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- because Mike has those. I can summarize it. Basically say, keep the intent of the LDC. The Board gave you direction. You have to comply with the Board. The Board looks to us to help you do that process. As was said, they really don't study this as much -- as intently as we do. I would make seven recommendations. The greenway, drop the average. As was stated, you have to address whether there's a minimum. You need to correct that. Ensure that the intent of the greenway issue is preserved, so that has got to be done. Remove the "sole discretion" language. We've discussed that. Clean the use of "residential use" -- and slash "properties" the clear up this issue with The Links property. What was that -- cannot use -- the developer cannot use -- count the golf course as open space to meet their requirements. I don't -- that's mutually exclusive. I don't know -- I don't think we ever intended that a developer can use open space or use the golf course for open space. I'm not sure -- there was a comment about that, but you need to look at that. You absolutely have to meet all state and federal requirements. That solves the issue with stormwater runoff. There was a comment made about stormwater and the county. All that is dealt with in the Environmental Resource Permit process, the ERP process. We can put language in there, but it's superfluous, because to go through the ERP process is a requirement of the state, federal -- and federal permitting process. Of course, they're going to have to go through the federal permitting process if there's jurisdictional wetlands or if there's identified listed species. You have to address the soil contamination issue; that's in state statute as well. And eliminate the terminology if you want the SOM, the stakeholder outreach meeting, and the notice to convert. Those names came up for whatever reason, I can't recall, but somehow they evolved and morphed. If it's just going to be a NIM -- but there has to be some kind of a pre-meeting to tell the folks what's going to happen, and then the NIM process. As we often do, as you well know, and the folks from the two communities, oftentimes the NIM is exactly what it is. It's the information meeting. The applicant comes in here, and then we take a ball-peen hammer and try and drive, you know, a round peg into a square hole, or vice versa as they come to us and present the issues. But they tend to use the Planning Commission as sort of the sounding board. If you want to do that elsewhere prior to coming here, I don't care. If the Board is looking to streamline, then maybe eliminate the SOM and the notice to convert and somehow create the NIM process, whether that's two meetings or whatever. But those are sort of my recommendations. But I agree with the intent. The intent was there. I don't want to throw the whole thing out. I think the intent was to protect the property owners and to give the developer the opportunity to come in and ask for a rezoning. If it -- if you want to cull this down somehow, okay, but we still cannot throw out the intent, which was to protect both the developer to give them the opportunity if they want to submit for a rezoning action and to the homeowners who reside around the golf course. Enough said. August 1, 2024 Page 80 of 85 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you -- you had seven points. Did you cover them all? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anybody else want to -- oh, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I would -- subject to what the other commissioners' thoughts are, I would create a universe of potential changes which would be Joe's seven changes, and if there's others in addition to that that anybody has, that's your universe of changes. And I would propose that each of those changes, you, with legal, determine does this streamline the process. I'm assuming what this gentleman said is actually what the commissioners said: Streamline it, Bert Harris proof. So you run each of those seven changes through a filter. Does it streamline it? Does it materially protect us more from a Bert Harris claim? If it does, do it. If it doesn't, I'd suggest we don't make that change. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. My question for the Planning Commission and partly for staff is this: If something like staff's work product is going to be going to the Board, I want an opportunity to comment on it primarily from the standpoint of what Mr. Lombardo said and what Ms. Berkey has said. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I would agree. I think it needs to come back here before it goes to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I want to make that clear. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I was thinking the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't want this to go to the Board without coming back here. MR. BOSI: I would have to agree because there's not a lot of specificity in what you guys -- what you guys have provided me is -- there's a lot of ambiguity. There's -- you want to streamline. We'll talk about the intent-to-convert process. The number of procedural steps that the applicant's required to do within -- for the SOMs, the alternative development statements, the conceptual development plans, the visual survey preferences, all these other options that have to require [sic]. There's some opportunities for streamlining, but if you want to retain it, I mean, there's -- there's -- your first suggestion was, eliminate the -- no deviations from 5.05, give the Board the discretion for deviations but remove the "at the sole discretion" and eliminate the two SOMs to one SOM. CHAIRMAN FRYER: NIM. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here's -- here's my -- what I'm trying -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought you were calling it a NIM. I don't care what they call it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I'd like it called -- well, I don't care either, but I like the idea of a NIM because I want a transcript. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And what I'm trying to say -- maybe you're clear on it, but just so -- to me, you're going to get a list from us of conceptual changes. You're not going to go beyond those conceptual changes. At most, you're going to make conceptual changes, but you're not even going to make all of those conceptual changes because each one you're going to go, talk to the lawyers, say, "Does this materially reduce our chance of a Bert Harris claim?" If so, make the changes. "Does this streamline the process?" If so, make the change. If it does neither, don't even make those changes. And then when you come back before us, we'll have a redline thing, and you can explain the changes you didn't make, and let's say three of them you don't think streamlines it or reduces the chance of Bert Harris, so you make four changes that either streamline or reduce the chance of Bert Harris, and then we can vote on it and Paul can vote -- or whoever can vote, say, "I don't even August 1, 2024 Page 81 of 85 want to make those changes. I just want to make two of those changes." So I just wanted you to understand we're not asking you to go out into the ether and look at every line and see if it streamlines or Bert Harrises it better; rather, here's the -- "Here's the things. Make zero to seven of these changes based on the two filters." That's what I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask a question about reducing the Bert Harris exposure. Are we -- are we discounting the potential Bert Harris exposure from homeowners on the grounds that they can't afford counsel? Because I don't think that's fair. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with you totally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so if we're reducing Bert Harris exposure, we should -- we should keep in mind that that exposure could come from both sides. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I agree with you, but the fact is, and what's driving this, is two to three claims by applicants, not homeowners. And this is primarily designed to protect homeowners. So that, I think -- me and, I think, Commissioner Schmitt and certainly Commissioner Shea, we want to make as few changes as possible. CHAIRMAN FRYER: To the current? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right, which continues to protect the homeowner as much as possible, so I think we're being cognizant of that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So what you -- three of you are saying -- and if it's the case, I agree -- that we should go back to the nine pages, or however many it was that have been redlined out, and preserve as much of that as we can consistent with the guidelines that we've talked about. And I have -- I have asked that we be mindful of Bert Harris claims from both sides of the equation. Just because a party can't afford to vindicate their rights doesn't mean that their rights shouldn't be protected by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I put it -- also include the input from the two attorneys that have provided -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: By all means, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because they're very applicable. MR. BOSI: As long as these are within the confines of the direction you're giving me, correct, because -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. MR. BOSI: -- there could be suggestions that they have that don't fall within those areas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Some of them. I didn't go -- I mean, I read them all. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You're right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The comments are in the form of "please don't take this out" -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because they're comments directed to redlined material. So, I mean, I'm in basic agreement with almost all, if not all, of those comments. It doesn't mean I wouldn't listen carefully to an argument about why something doesn't [sic] need to be taken out. But I want to have that discussion before -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- before we don't honor Ms. Berkey's comments. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think Ms. Berkey and Mr. Lombardo agree with Commissioner Shea, and I think you are just a little nuanced from Commissioner Shea. You agree -- maybe a few more changes, a little bit like Joe and I, and I think Joe and I want to make minimal changes. So I think that nobody here wants to -- we all want to start with the document we had, give him a list of things to consider, create a couple of filters, and then we can vote to make -- not even August 1, 2024 Page 82 of 85 agree to what his changes are if we want -- if you guys think about it and decide you want to just make it almost identical as it currently is. MR. BOSI: And that's what we're -- we're going to be working off the redline. We're not working off of staff proposed minimum. This will be an evaluation of the existing 5.05.15 as provided for within the LDC currently based upon the seven areas that you're providing instructions to make modifications to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I like that. That's good. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, sir. Possibly a suggestion for staff. Since we're going back to the redline 5.05, 5.15 [sic], is it appropriate to take the two filters that were just discussed and review those with each of the items in the redline proposal again to make sure this fluff that's not needed at all -- no, this is a valid point because it's what we worked so hard to do in 2017, obviously years before me, put it through those two filters, and just, more or less, review that entire package making sure you're going after either, A, does it minimize the possible [sic] of a Bert Harris and, B, does it -- I just lost my -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Streamline. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- streamline, recognizing that the Board, when they said streamline, I'm assuming there weren't really any qualifications around that. Streamline, that could mean take out one sentence. That could mean, as you folks did, boil it down to a page and a half. But is it appropriate to look at all of that redlined nine-page document and apply those filters to it again? I open this up for discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think what I am hearing -- first of all, I think we're about 95 percent in agreement up here, and to the extent that we differ at all, it's in nuances. But I think what I'm hearing is we want staff to look back at what is currently in effect, we'll call it redline or nine pages, whatever, but what is currently in effect for conversions and evaluate each suggested change or deletion against the goals of streamlining and Bert Harris claims from either the homeowner or the developer. So I think if that -- if that is the case, then you'd come back with something that would be probably pretty close to nine pages -- you know, maybe seven pages -- but would look much more like what we have now than what staff is proposing. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That goes back to what Mike said at the beginning. He said, "We've kind of taken a hatchet to it instead of a scalpel," and we're suggesting the scalpel and giving you some guidance on what -- the seven things to look at and the filters to use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody disagree with what I said? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comment. Mike, why did we require two distinct proposals from a developer? I -- was that something that came up during the public meeting process so there would be either/or? I mean, it's the only process in the county where we actually -- they're actually required to present two different designs, and I sort of vaguely remember the discussion. But if you wanted to streamline, I don't see a need for two distinct. I mean, tell me what you want to do, and let's deal with that. MR. BOSI: Joe -- I'm sorry -- Commissioner Schmitt. I would say -- Mike Bosi, Zoning director. I would say that the reason why was they wanted to force options, and those options could be utilized if they're presented at the stakeholder outreach meetings to promote, "Okay, which of these options, what do you like about each one of them?" to be able to identify things that maybe there's some commonalities or suggestions. So that's the only reason why I can think. But that -- I think that was maybe the motivation for why those were -- were they specifically culled out for two -- two options. August 1, 2024 Page 83 of 85 I think one provision -- and I could talk about the intent-to-convert process and the things that are required. One of the things that I think has absolutely no real value -- and as I'm thinking about some of your guidance -- and it's related to the intent-to-convert process -- but for -- we require that the applicant show why it's fiscally unfeasible for them to continue on as a golf course. I don't know what value we get from that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No value in that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. MR. BOSI: So it's things like that is what you're saying -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- eliminate. MR. BOSI: -- would be under the needs to be streamlined, and is there a cost-benefit analysis that justifies the cost for the benefit that could be received from it? Is that the -- kind of the general approach that you would like us to take? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, answer, if nobody -- it won't stay as a golf course, it would be, nobody wants to buy it, nobody wants to run it, I mean, period, end of story. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And that's the type of suggestion I had of, as we're doing this, go ahead and knock off each of those points in the redline, because that was never mentioned but it's still in the redline, so maybe that comes out. That's a review of it and makes it more streamlined. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know at some of those -- at some time all those things were discussed as part of the requirement, but some of those onerous requirements could be eliminated, like the two designs. I just -- I just want to know, "What is your intent?" The public should know what the intent is. But the clear -- clear and concise to address the open space, groundwater, if you want to call it, you know, stormwater retention, all those kinds of things, it's going to -- they've got to go through it anyway, through the ERP process. But you've got to make sure that the residents are aware. And, oh -- and for the residents, you need to understand, they cannot trespass their water onto your property. That is clearly a trespass. MR. BOSI: Just to provide a clarification. We keep saying "open space." Remember, any residential community that's going to be approved through a rezone process through this, the county's going to have to have a 60 percent open space. That's a requirement of our zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: The intent-to-convert process doesn't change that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. BOSI: It is not proposed to change that. So I'm going to -- this statement of somehow that we are altering the open-space requirements of the ultimate development that would be proposed, that's not true. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree with the Vice Chairman about not requiring two alternative options, because I think that's unrealistic. And, you know, you could supply two options by taking the one you really want and then coming up with one that nobody could live with, and so you -- let's just find out what they want, and that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Find out what they want. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And go with that. MR. BOSI: That was the same comment that a member of DSAC made. He said, I would -- "What I want and then what I really don't want, no one's going to want, so obviously, this is what we want." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. So that's just a way -- and that falls under the heading of streamlining, because that doesn't yield us any important value. So is it -- Mr. Bosi, is it -- may I assume -- may we assume that you have sufficient guidance what we would like you to do between now and when we come back? August 1, 2024 Page 84 of 85 MR. BOSI: I believe I have sufficient guidance, and the catch safe is we're coming back. We're going to come back, and if we didn't get it right, we'll go back and do it again. I mean, I don't want to have to do that, but I think I have enough guidance from you to be able to be a little more precise in the things that we suggest for elimination and the things that we have heard from the Planning Commission that they view that should remain. So we'll go back. And I can't tell you if it's going to be in the September meeting, but we will -- we'll make sure it's going to be a quick turnaround, and we'll get back to you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Rather than waiting, though, can we allow you to be their sounding board just to help them so they don't come back and we make this a longer process and we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm willing to do that if you want. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think you have a good understanding of where we all are. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If that's what the Planning Commission wants to do, I'd be happy to do it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think that's a great idea. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, then we'll work together. I think I understand what the Planning Commission is looking for. And my hope is that we don't -- that at the conclusion of this process, we don't have the staff version and the Planning Commission version, two competing -- you know, the war of the versions going to the Board of County Commissioners. I think we're all much better served if we can -- if we can find a way to come together with staff and speak with one voice. If we can't, we can't. But I hope we can. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Using the Vernon filter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else want to be heard on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then I think Mr. Bosi has guidance, and I'm more than happy to participate in whatever way staff, you think, I could be useful in helping hit the points that the Planning Commission has made. MR. BOSI: And what we will do is we're going to make our first run at -- based upon the criterias and the areas of concern and this approach, and once we get a draft, we'll get it to you and get some feedback from you, and then we'll reiterate it again, get it back, and then hopefully at that period of time, we could be in agreement that we can bring it back to the full. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. So we want to continue this, but I guess we're going to continue it indefinitely? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That means re-notification? MR. BOSI: Yeah, there's no notification requirement. It's only an advertisement requirement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So without objection, the matter will be continued indefinitely, and we'll be working -- I'll be working together with staff, and we'll be coming back to the Planning Commission for comment. And that concludes our hearing of that matter for today, it being continued indefinitely. And so it takes us to old business, if there is any? I don't believe there is. Is there any new business to come before the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I was going to say one thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If you're going to take a while on this, it wouldn't hurt, before you come back before us, maybe do a double-check on the status of those two Bert Harris claims or three Bert -- just to see if there's any development on the law or rulings -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good point. August 1, 2024 Page 85 of 85 COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- which may impact something you do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good point. We'll do that. All right. There's no new business at this point. Any public comment on a matter -- any matter that is not on our agenda for today, now would be the time to be heard. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I see no one approaching the microphone. Therefore, without objection, we're adjourned. I'm sorry. I was thinking about this anyway, but if we collaborate before the meeting, send it out to the full Planning Commission -- MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because I may not get it entirely right. I'll try. Okay. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:25 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _________________________________________ -26(3+6&+0,779,&(&+$,50$1 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. LLIER COUNTY PLANNING CO ______________________________ -26(3+6&+0,779,&(&+