Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/16/2025January 16, 2025 Page 1 of 44 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 16, 2025 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: Chuck Schumacher, Acting Chairman Joe Schmitt, Chairman (appearing remotely) Paul Shea, Secretary Randy Sparrazza Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod Charles "Chap" Colucci Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I Ashley Eoff, Administrative Support January 16, 2025 Page 2 of 44 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning. Welcome. I'll wait for everybody to take to their seats. Item No. 1 is Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Item 2, roll call. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which, Commissioner Chairman Schmitt, is he going to tie in? Are you there, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I'm present. Yes, I'm present. Thank you for allowing me to preside or at least attend via the web. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schumacher? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commission Petscher? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair, all present and accounted for. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Addenda to the agenda. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me. Vice Chair Schumacher, we do need a motion to approve the attendance of Chairman Schmitt via -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And a finding of an extraordinary circumstance is part of the motion. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Under the extraordinary circumstance, I have a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No addenda to the agenda. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Good morning, Commissioners. On your agenda, the first two items, 9A and 9B, are being requested for a continuance to the February 20th CCPC meeting. I think we need a formal motion by the Board on that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Was there a reason for the request? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There were some issues that came up during the staff review that they weren't thinking was going to be part of the staff recommendation, and they wanted time to January 16, 2025 Page 3 of 44 resolve those issues. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. So is there any registered speakers on these two items? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes. So the way the procedure works, if you speak on this item now, you can't come back and speak on it again. And with the absence of, really, any of us receiving any information on it because it was then -- it was then moved to the February, my only concern is I don't want to have your words lost in today's meeting when they would probably weigh more when we're actually reviewing the item, when we've all had a chance to actually review the information. So if there's anybody that would still like to speak, I'm not going to withhold that from you. MS. SCOTT: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, ma'am. MS. SCOTT: Can you please come up to the podium. This is Lisette Scott. I'm not speaking, but I'm just asking a question to clarify, okay. So when the meeting actually does take place, I'll be able to speak? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, ma'am. MS. SCOTT: Okay. I just want to clarify, then, did any of the committee members for the Planning Commission or the commissioners receive record of the over 600 petitions yet? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Not yet, because that would all be in the staff materials. So when that whole packet comes to us, all those things would be within that packet. MS. SCOTT: Okay. And you didn't get copies of the e-mails either? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No, because that's within the same packet. MS. SCOTT: And you didn't get a copy of the petition letter on behalf of Valencia Trails? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Did you send it to each of the commissioners, or did you send it to the county staff? MS. SCOTT: Collier County Growth Management staff. Parker Klopf and Timothy Finn received it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It would all be part of that packet that then they give to us. MS. SCOTT: So they -- you have not received it? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Have not received that. I haven't even had a chance to review the item, no, ma'am. MS. SCOTT: Okay. All right. So then -- so then I should wait to speak? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We'll tell you that sometimes people send the packages directly to us, so it's got to be okay. I'm not inviting packages, but you can do that. MS. SCOTT: So at the end of the meeting, I'll stick around. Is there any way I can get your e-mail addresses and addresses so that I could visit your offices to provide you the information? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Being volunteers, we don't have offices. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: But our e-mail addresses are on the -- MS. SCOTT: You know your e-mail address, though, right? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Right. Our e-mail addresses are on the website for CCPC. MS. SCOTT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: And we're happy to receive them. MS. SCOTT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DUNNING: I have a question as well, if I may. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: If you want to come to the podium, please. MR. DUNNING: Good morning. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning. January 16, 2025 Page 4 of 44 MR. DUNNING: My name's Rick Dunning. Just a point of clarification, apparently there's been some change with staff and a request from the developer to postpone this consideration today; is that correct? Is that my understanding? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Correct. MR. DUNNING: All right. Is the information that was presented by the developer to the staff public record? Is that something that we can have access to? MR. BELLOWS: (Nods head.) MR. DUNNING: Very good. And how would I go about getting that information? MR. BELLOWS: I'll be glad to give you my contact information, or we have a planner back there, Nancy Gundlach, she can give you my -- MR. DUNNING: I'll talk to -- Nancy, is it? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. DUNNING: I'll talk to Nancy. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time today. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: You're welcome. MS. SCOTT: Can I ask another question? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Come on up. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. This is Lisette Scott again asking another question. We originally received a notice in the mail about this public hearing notice meeting. Will we receive another letter in the mail about the next public hearing for this subject? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mike? MR. BOSI: Chair, no. It's still within the five -- the five-week. They've been made aware of it. It is the 20th of February the hearing will take place. That is -- and it's been noted on your agenda. It's been verbally communicated. Because it's within the five-week, it does not require advertisement or re-notification. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. MS. SCOTT: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So how do -- how does everybody know that it's going on? What should they be looking for to find that out? MR. BOSI: Find what out? The agenda -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, they have an announcement with a date, and now you switched the date, but they don't know that. How do you -- how do they know? MR. BOSI: I instructed my planners, anybody who sent an e-mail, that they should have received -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- an e-mail notifying that -- and this is the quandary staff's in. Staff has received a request from the applicant. We don't make the decision. The Planning Commission makes the decision. So I can only let the public know that an applicant has requested a continuation. I can't say that it's going to be continued. It can only be noted that they've requested a continuation until the February 20th. But until the -- until the Planning Commission approves that, it's not official. Staff doesn't have that discretion based upon the resolution. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if we approve that today, what's the next step for them to know? MS. SCOTT: Right. Because I thought, legally, we needed to be notified by e-mail. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know. I'm -- obviously I don't understand it. We're going to -- if we approve the extension, what happens next in terms of public notice? MR. BOSI: There is no -- there's no requirement for additional public notice. The public notice has been provided. The public notice has been provided. We've notified on the agenda that it's going to be continued to the 20th of February. The sign has been updated to reflect the January 16, 2025 Page 5 of 44 new date; so, therefore, the requirements for advertising and notice have been satisfied. MS. SCOTT: Okay. But -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I could just interject, the Florida Statutes does allow for continuances for advertised public hearings. This is continued to a date-certain, which is February 20th. On the February 20th agenda, it will either be heard, or it will say it's continued indefinitely, or it will continue it to a specific date. So that's what you'll need to do is review the agenda for February 20th for the Planning Commission, if you continue it today to that date. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And when will that agenda be available on the website for them to see? MR. BOSI: A week prior to the meeting. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They can also reach out to Nancy Gundlach, because if there's -- if she has any information before that date, she can share that with them. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And if I could -- if I could add, just to be clear, as Mike stated, that the -- even though most people don't notice it, the signs all have to be updated that are posted as required by the -- by the regulations in regards to the public hearing notice. The signs that are placed around the property that's being asked to be rezoned all have to be updated as well with the new information. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The planner is Tim Finn. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Tim Finn. MS. SCOTT: Okay. So to clarify for the Valencia Trail member communities, members who are here, it will be up to us to communicate to our residents the continuance of 2/20 and the possible continuance after that? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, I think, as Mr. Bosi has said as well, anybody who sent an e-mail in is also going to get an e-mail notification of the continuance and when the reschedule will be, as will the sign as well. MS. SCOTT: But not a letter? But not -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: But not a letter, no, ma'am. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Hold on. Commissioner Petscher, go ahead. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Are we allowed to approve the continuance with the notation of "they have to send another letter out"? MR. BOSI: I mean, that could be a condition of your approval for a continuation. I mean, if that's the discretion of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you said you'd do that as procedure. MR. BOSI: It has been done. Anybody who wanted to attend this meeting would have attended it, and they are being informed today that it is moved to the 20th. The sign on -- at the location will indicate it is being moved to the 20th, but they are not required to send new notification or readvertise on the Clerk's website. If the Planning Commission feels it's appropriate for them to send a new notification, that could be a condition of your -- of your granting the continuance. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. I'll -- if we're going to continue this, I would like to make a motion to continue with their -- with the caveat that they have to renotify the residents. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: I'd like to make a statement that are we setting a precedence now? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Anytime something -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. January 16, 2025 Page 6 of 44 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: -- has to be continued? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: And I disagree with that. If there is ample information on the website, if there is ample information on the sign itself, and as it -- as it appears here in our documents and that -- what is online that it's continued, then let's not put the petitioner through more time and aggravation when they could be using that time to address their questions and concerns. Move forward with the continuance on February 20th. So I would be against that, sorry to say. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It would be a first. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: It would set a precedent -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It would set a precedent. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- if it's case by case? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, generally, as an advisory board, the Planning Commission doesn't put those kind of financial conditions on an applicant. But, you know, obviously if -- you really can't hear it today because you don't have a record. So now it's just an issue of what date are you going to hear it. If you want them to go through the whole re-notification process, I guess you can ask them to do that, and readvertise, but I think that there's ample chain of notification via the website, via the county planner, via your agenda that state if you approve the extension or the continuance to the 20th, I mean, there's ample opportunity to get information on this petition. So... COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: I would like to move that we accept this continuation and move it to February 20th. MS. SCOTT: Another question, please. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I've got a motion on the table. You're going to have to hold that, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It has been continued to the 20th. Yes, ma'am. MS. SCOTT: Another question, please. Again, this is Lisette Scott. We just need clarification whether it really is February 20th or February 11th, because the sign over there in front of the proposed building site says 2/11/15 [sic] at 9 a.m. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: With the motion that was just made to continue the item to the 20th, it will be the 20th. MS. SCOTT: Okay. So the sign will be corrected? MR. BOSI: The February 11th date was the original BCC date, not the Planning Commission date. So the sign has -- has to be updated with the 20th and then the new revised March BCC date. Those will be required to be done by the applicant. MS. SCOTT: So it will not be on the 11th? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No, ma'am. It has to come here first before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The 11th's not a meeting day for the Planning Commission. MS. SCOTT: Okay. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. MS. ROME: Can I speak, or do I give up my right to speak on the 20th? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, you still have that right because we already closed January 16, 2025 Page 7 of 44 the item. But you can come up and make your comment if you'd like. MS. ROME: I'm Lena Rome. A lot of concerns are here. And I know you don't understand the project yet, but please keep in mind adding another 120 families to this little area, is anyone considering emergency services? Have they already planned to take care of the additional people in a crowded area? We can't even get out of our neighborhood now. It took -- all of us that came here, it took quite a while to get here. We all planned to get here a half hour early. You saw when we all walked in. The accidents are one after the other in this area. So I'm just asking you to please keep this in the back of your mind. You should have planning for emergency services if you're going to add the volume of people and the density in this area. It has really, really been a very sad issue. No ambulance can get through. There's no shoulder on the road. People's lives are going to be affected in a negative manner. So whatever you're trying to do, please keep this in mind. Also, try to give people the opportunity to purchase their residence by keeping it at what it is now instead of increasing it, over 120, to all rentals. And as you can see, we are concerned people that live right there. And I may not be here on the 20th of February, so I just wanted to enlighten you on what's involved in that project. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I appreciate that, Mrs. Rome, and that's why I am for this continuation, because I see the input from your neighbors, and I want to make sure that it is weighed properly versus kind of fly by night. MS. ROME: And some people have made sure they were here today because of what the sign said as the date. I understand you have to postpone it for whatever reason, that you didn't get the information, but understand that people have made a major effort here. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MS. ROME: Thank you very much. MS. PAVLICA: I had a question. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Yes, ma'am. Come on up and state your name. MS. PAVLICA: My name is Dorothy Pavlica, and I also live in Valencia Trails. I was wondering, if we e-mail each of you with our concerns, do we waive our right to speak on the 20th? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No, ma'am. MS. PAVLICA: So we can tell you all our concerns, and we will not lose our right to speak? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would give you one note of advice. We had one where we got 6,000 letters saying the same thing. It would be nice if you had a leader, spokesman or whatever, that sent us a note that put it all together saying you represent that -- rather than us getting bombarded with duplicate e-mails. MS. PAVLICA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MS. PAVLICA: As long as I don't lose my right to speak. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No, ma'am. MS. SCOTT: The petition you haven't received yet, a copy? You should get that in the packet that you received, the signatures and our petition letter. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So we'll get that -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: With the packet. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- a week before the 20th is the way it usually works. MS. SCOTT: Hopefully, yes. Because Timothy Finn and Parker Klopf have that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to the next item, please, which is -- MS. KAPLAN: Can I ask one last question? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, ma'am. January 16, 2025 Page 8 of 44 MS. KAPLAN: New lady. My name is Grace Kaplan. I want to make sure that the effort we put in to documenting that gets to you. So if you don't mind, you need to receive it a week before February 20. Can we send it directly to one of you -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MS. KAPLAN: -- or does it have to go a different way? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. You're more than free to send it to all of us. MS. KAPLAN: Great. How -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: The e-mail addresses are right on the Collier County Planning Commission website. MS. KAPLAN: For all of you? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, ma'am. MS. KAPLAN: Okay. So whatever packet we put together that we already sent, we should make an effort to send -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Forward it right to us, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Then we get to see it sooner. And if it's a big package, that would be appreciated. MS. KAPLAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. All right. Last question. Come on up and state your name. MR. MARINO: Cliff Marino, also Valencia Trails. Just a quick comment. I know it sounds like you're meeting the legal requirement by posting this on the sign. The sign on Immokalee Road, you all know Immokalee Road. The only thing you see when you go by is "Peninsula Engineering" with a little logo. You can't read anything. If you try to slow down and read something on the sign, you're going to get killed. It's just a comment. I mean, I know it meets the legal requirement, but in the spirit of doing the right thing, it's not very helpful. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Planning Commission absences. When's our next meeting, Mike? When would the next meeting be? MR. BOSI: February 6th. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: February 6th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm good. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will be there. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sixth, then the 20th. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Chair Schmitt will be here. What's on that agenda; nothing? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: He always leaves me with the tough ones. So I'm just trying to figure out, like -- MR. BOSI: Right now we have three petitions. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right. Three petitions. All right. Thank God. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be there the 20th as well. Chuck could you make it -- or at least I'd like to make sure that any documents or any information that we receive via the Internet or -- correction -- via e-mail, that those copies also be forwarded to staff so they're part of the record. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Good point. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Everybody heard what Chair Schmitt had said there? That whatever you receive, forward over to the staff as well, just to make sure it's on record and it's within everybody's packets when we get to it. January 16, 2025 Page 9 of 44 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Do we consider Ray is our point person, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: So you're going to get a copy of everything we receive? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It should go to Nancy. I think Nancy's name is on the sign. So it should go to Nancy Gundlach as well. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: I just want to make sure I have the procedure, because if we're getting hundreds of e-mails, let's not make it thousands that all of us have to be reading here, so... MR. BOSI: And just for clarification, Tim Finn is the zoning planner. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: And just procedurally, all the correspondence Tim has received from anyone objecting has been placed in the packet, and you will be getting a copy of that. But if it works better for those individuals to send it to you earlier, you can contact me, and I can get you the list, or go to our web page. I have a business card, if you want to pick it up. That way we'll make sure that you get the copies of everything. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And then the following meeting, on the 20th, any conflicts? Everybody be available for that? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: So far. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: So far? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Good. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good? Good? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be there on the 20th as well. It sounds like it's going to be a long meeting on the 20th. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I think so. MR. BELLOWS: And on the 6th. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Next item, approval of meeting minutes, December 19th, 2024. Take a motion or edits or -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: So motioned as is for the current -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: December 19th. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: -- December 19th minutes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: May I have a second, please? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Next item, BCC report. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On January 14th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Myrtle Lane commercial PUD. That's the project with the U-Haul. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: That was approved by the Board 5-0. They also approved the Barefoot Williams rezone, and that was the car wash issue, and that was approved 5-0. And then on the summary agenda, they approved the Metro South communication tower. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Chairman's report. Chair Schmitt, have you got anything you want to share? January 16, 2025 Page 10 of 44 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing at this time, thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Great. Consent agenda, we have nothing on the consent agenda, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: ***And that would move us into public hearings, which our first two have been continued to the 20th, which would bring us to PL20210002929, Polly Avenue rezone for 6145 Polly Ave. All those wishing to testify, please rise to be sworn in. 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 SCHUMACHER: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Excuse me. Chair, I was informed by Ailyn that we needed to take a two-minute recess. They need to reset the Zoom. I guess there has been an issue with the Zoom link, and Commissioner Schmitt is on the Zoom link. So it would be, I think, critical for us to kind of reset. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: How about we give him three minutes. We'll recess and reconvene at 9:26. MR. BOSI: Sounds good. (A brief recess was had from 9:23 a.m. to 9:34 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. I believe we have corrected the technical difficulties, and, Ailyn, can we confirm that -- is Joe -- Joe, can you hear us? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I'm on. I'm not sure what happened. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I'm back on. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: There's so many viewing from across the world, Joe, that it caused Zoom to crash. Before we -- before the petitioner presents, I wanted to ask for disclosures, ex parte disclosures, please. MS. LOCKHART: Text materials only. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Provided materials only. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Visited the site and met with staff on this. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And staff materials only for me as well. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Perfect. Thank you, sir. MR. FILPOTT: I didn't realize there was so much interest that it crashed the Zoom. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: These Planning Commission meetings, I tell you, they're... MR. FILPOTT: Good morning, Commissioners and staff. Thank you for allowing us to be here this morning. We are here to present the Polly Avenue rezoning. My name -- and let me -- Josh Filpott. I'm a principal with Stantec and a planner with 23 years of experience in Southwest Florida. I also have Michael Crijan here with me as well representing the owner, and he can be available for questions at the end if there are any. But just to go through -- this is a fairly straightforward request, but I will run through the presentation. The subject property is 6145 Polly Avenue. It is approximately 7.4 acres and in the Urban Residential Future Land Use classification. It is currently zoned Rural Agricultural, and the rural January 16, 2025 Page 11 of 44 agricultural has a minimum lot size of five acres, and that's -- the majority of the discussion today is about minimum lot size and the request for the rezoning. So the request is to rezone this from Rural Agricultural to Estates, and the purpose of that rezoning is to allow for the subdivision of this property into three single-family lots with the rezoning from Rural Agricultural to Estates. The Estates minimum lot size changes from five acres to a minimum lot size of 2.25 acres. So this is the conceptual site plan for the proposed rezoning and subdivision of the property. A couple of things to note on this -- and this is derived from the boundary survey. There is a single-family home on the lot, as you can see. And I don't know if I can do the point -- yeah -- as you can see in this location, and actually one of the proposed lot lines runs straight through the middle of that house. And then there is a garage that is constructed on the south side of the property. Just to back up a little bit -- and I meant to touch on this in the previous slide. To the north is Polly Avenue. To the south is Everett Street. The surrounding area is primarily residential with a range of lot sizes between roughly approximately one acre. There are one or two five-acre lots, but the majority of the lots are much smaller. So again, the predominant land use in the area are single-family residential. There is one undeveloped lot to the southeast adjacent to the -- excuse me -- the southwest corner of this property right here, so... I wanted to talk a little bit about this lot size issue. So, again, the overall area is zoned agricultural, which has a minimum lot size of five acres; however, the majority of these lots in this area are -- do not meet that minimum lot size. And as a matter of fact, the average lot size in the surrounding area -- and this is an exhibit showing a buffer of -- excuse me -- approximately 500 feet around the property. The average lot size of those properties within 500 feet is below even the minimum lot size for Rural -- excuse me -- Estates, and it is 2.2 acres, not the minimum of 2.25 for Estates. So not only do they not meet the existing minimum lot size for agricultural of five acres, they are well below the actual -- or they're below the actual lot size that we're recommending or we're requesting with the Estates zoning category. There are, along -- north of -- between Everett and Polly, there are no 5-acre lots. None of them are -- even meet that agricultural zoning category. So with the request of rezoning to Estates and allowing 2.25-acre lots, we -- it would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses. In short, we agree with staff's recommendation of approval in the findings and conditions. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding development, consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and complies with all the Land Development Code regulations. I want to address two quick things. So staff recommended approval with a couple of conditions, and one of which is prior to approval of the plat that they must submit a building permit on the south property to -- which is where the garage is along with a permit to demolish -- or request to demolish the single-family home that is on the lot. We agree with that condition and plan to comply with that at the time of plat. So the intent is to subdivide this into three family homes with Michael Crijan and his family to have three homes on the property, or between the three properties. They are family residences. They are working through the building -- I mean, excuse me, the residential plans now, and as those roll forward and are completed, they'll move forward with the subdivision of the property and demolition of the house and building the other home. So we agree with those conditions, and we're here to answer any questions. Fairly short and sweet, but if there are any questions or discussion... CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Petscher. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Oh, no. That was old. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Oh. That was old? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. January 16, 2025 Page 12 of 44 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Maybe this is a question for Mike, but what could you do on that property under the Growth Management Plan? Obviously, you don't need a growth management amendment, so it's something less. MR. BOSI: Correct. The Growth Management Plan would allocate a density -- a base density of eligibility of four units an acre. So this seven -- this seven could achieve probably 30 individual units consistent with the GMP. This is, obviously, a much reduced ask; therefore, there's no need for a Growth Management Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And this is public water -- I mean, private water, private sewer? MR. BOSI: It is well and -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well and septic. MR. BOSI: Well and septic. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And conditions where the garage and the house have to come down before the plot can be done, Mike? MR. BOSI: Correct. And just -- I just put it on the visualizer, but that is correct. It's -- the existing house, where it sits, as we said, is bisected by the proposed parcel line. So before the plat could be approved, a demolition permit would have to be required to remove that house. And then the garage, being on the south proposed parcel, an accessory use can't exist unless you have a primary use. So the requirement is a building permit for a single-family home has to be applied for prior to plat approval to be able to legitimize that garage staying on that property while a house is constructed. And if you would like to, I can just -- overview of staff's perspective, agree with the applicant 100 percent. The majority of these lands are legal nonconforming ag lots. The average is 2.2, which is slightly below the 2.25, as proposed. A low density environment being proposed is fitting within a low density environment, so we think there's no issues from a compatibility. We think it's -- obviously, it's consistent with the GMP. With the two conditions, staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Vice Chair, I have a comment. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, Chair Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to note, on Page 4 of 11 of the report -- but let me look at the actual Page 51 of 245 of my packet. The yellow line delineating the subject parcel does not match the highlighted area. And I just want to note for the record that I assume that that yellow line was supposed to match the same configuration as the highlighted green area, and then that would either be changed or at least so noted on the record so that it reflects correctly what the subject parcel is. If the staff can look at that and see the drawing, they'll know what I'm talking about. MR. BOSI: And staff -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, Mike, I think -- MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, Joe. Staff -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you for -- go ahead. MR. BOSI: Staff does recognize that. Unfortunately, what happens when we draw a line on a picture but then we put it within the agenda system, sometimes it shifts over the actual line. So you're correct. But what is going -- will be contained within the rezone ordinance that goes to the Board of County Commissioners most certainly will reflect the actual correct property boundaries of the 7.4 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And I wasn't clear on the requirement for the single-family residential permit, but now that you've mentioned it, it was the -- there has to be the January 16, 2025 Page 13 of 44 single-family residence to legitimatize the barn or the garage, so that clarified it. Thank you very much. MR. BOSI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any other comments from staff? MR. BOSI: None other. Any questions, staff would be happy to address. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I have a question for staff with -- relating to utilities. Is there -- MR. BOSI: Yeah. Anthony Stolts is representing from Utilities. He's in the back if you want to ask the question. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Yes, so -- MR. STOLTS: Anthony Stolts, Collier County Public Utilities. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: With the state's efforts to get rid of septic tanks and our local efforts to do everything that we can to eliminate septic, and then I see this project is bringing in septics, what is our plan to provide water and sewer to this area? MR. STOLTS: We don't convert all those areas from septic to sewer. It's based on density of the area, and so there's no current plan to be in the area. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Because it looks pretty -- it's getting pretty dense. I mean, is there a plan? Is it coming? When will it come? MR. BOSI: I can make a comment. I think I discussed with you a little bit. There is a statute that requires jurisdictions that have an area that's served by septic and well, over 50 lots, if they're under one acre, a jurisdiction and a utility is required to have plans to convert those. The average -- the average density within here is 2.2, well beyond that one acre. So per the statutes, we are not required, and I don't believe we've ever received any direction from the Board of County Commissioners to explore the feasibility or the cost feasibility of extending water or wastewater down the finger streets that attach to Santa Barbara. So as of now, Utilities has never received a direction from the Board of County Commissioners to explore that feasibility. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Well, I bring it up to consider this for the future because, again, there's so much money being spent to eliminate septics, and it's a great project. I would just love to have seen water and sewer being sent to it. MR. BOSI: And, Commissioner McLeod, we can, within our executive summary, put a comment related to that, that you had asked, and asking the Board for consideration to provide future direction to the utilities relating to sewer and water within this area. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Great. Excellent. Thank you so much. MR. STOLTS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Is there any -- any other questions? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: No. I just wanted to -- can I talk? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I just wanted to simplify for my mind what we're -- what we're talking about doing here is taking -- it's rezoning a parcel of land from Agriculture to Estates, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: And once that's done, we're asking, then, to have three 2.5-acre lots for single-family residences; is that -- is that right? MR. FILPOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: That's the essence of what we're talking about here? MR. FILPOTT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: 2.25 acres. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Or 2.25 acres. Okay. That's easier for me to understand. MR. FILPOTT: Yes, sir, understood. January 16, 2025 Page 14 of 44 COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Is there any public comment? MS. EOFF: Good morning, Mr. Chair. No, we do not have any -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No registered speakers? MS. EOFF: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Is there anyone that would like to speak on the matter who has not registered to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Close the matter for Board deliberation. Deliberation, if there's no -- if there is no, then we'd entertain a motion to approve or deny. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: So moved. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I move that we approve this petition. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: As presented? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: As presented. COMMISSIONER SHEA: With two conditions that -- recommended by staff, right? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, sir. Okay. That closes item Polly Avenue. ***Moving on to PL20240009067. This is guesthouse rentals in Urban Estates. Do we have to swear in for this? Is this quasi-judicial? MR. BOSI: This is legislative, and Mr. Johnson from our zoning team is here to present. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, everyone. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Good morning, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Let me just queue up my presentation. I have a PowerPoint with 10 or 11 slides. Okay. Good morning. For the record, my name is Eric Johnson. I'm a planning manager in the Zoning division. I work along with Ray Bellows and another planning manager. My role, for those who don't know, typically bring forward Land Development Code amendments. So here I am. So guesthouses. The prospect of changing the code to remove the prohibition of renting them. The guesthouse provisions were first adopted in the LDC, the Land Development Code, in 1974. It's defined as an accessory dwelling unit to be used by friends or relatives of occupants of the principal dwelling. Back in 1976, the provisions were clarified to prohibit the leasing and rental of guesthouses. Fast forward to 2023, the Board of County Commissioners discussed the prospect of allowing the rental of guesthouses within the Urban Golden Gate Estates, asking Commissioner Hall to bring the topic before the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and to direct staff to assess the options and ramifications of allowing the rental of guesthouses. So the county moved forward with hiring Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage to assist with the study and the development of a white paper, and then later in 2023, staff presented the topic and January 16, 2025 Page 15 of 44 the affordable -- and the AHAC, as it's called, was supportive of looking at the rental of guesthouses as a possible solution to the overall housing shortage and the affordable housing shortage within the county. AHAC directed staff to gather feedback from the residents of the topic. We, as in staff, along with our consultant held three public information meetings in 2023. Then in 2024, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to move forward with an LDC amendment with the provision in writing of the one-year revisit and specific report from Code Enforcement. So staff's five bosses said, "Move forward. Do an LDC amendment. Go through the -- go through our process as we normally would with any other Land Development Code amendment," and that's to remove the prohibition of renting guesthouses for the Estates zoning district, but only for a certain area of the Estates zoning. So this is the Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map of the GGAMP. GGAMP stands for Golden Gate Area Master Plan. You can see the general area. This is a formal recognition of the Urban Golden Gate Estates. There's three sub-elements to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. There's the City Gate, there's Urban and Rural, and this deals with the Urban. So the study area for this amendment is that Urban area of the GGAMP plus some Estates-zoned parcels that are outside the GGAMP but still west of Collier Boulevard, and they're shown in blue. I think you guys can see it. I know it's kind of small, but, you know, just trying to show you the general area. You see the number of parcels. There's -- now, as of 2023 when the study was done, there were 393 parcels with guesthouses, and then there were 2,752 improved parcels without guesthouse. So I just wanted to give you some context. The Growth Management Plan is the highest regulatory document that we have in Collier County, and so we have to make sure that the Land Development Code is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and that includes the GGAMP as well. The GG -- the GMP and the GGAMP recognizes that guesthouses are considered accessory dwellings, okay -- not principal dwellings but accessory dwellings -- and are not counted toward density. That's a big deal. Typical lots within the Estates designation of GGAMP are 2.25 acres. There are some which are less than 2.25 acres. So that's the code requirement in your Land Development Code that Estates-zoned lots have to be at least 2.25 acres. Multifamily dwellings, duplexes, and other structures containing two or more principal dwellings are prohibited in all districts and subdistricts in the Estates designation in the Urban GGAMP. Here are some of the definitions that we have in the code for -- that I thought maybe would be appropriate for you guys to see and kind of digest. We have a definition for a dwelling, accessory -- accessory unit, and I'll read that for the record. An accessory unit is a separate structure related to the primary residence for uses which include, but are not limited to, library, studio, workshop, playroom, or guesthouse. Bingo. And there you have your definition for guesthouse as well. This is not proposed. This is existing. So the current provisions that we have in Section 5.03.03 relate directly to guesthouses. I wanted to highlight some of the more important existing regulations. The leasing or renting of guest accommodation facility is a violation of the LDC. That's the -- what's in there right now. If a main residence is leased or rented, a guest accommodation facility accessory to it may not be occupied by the property owner since that would constitute the unlawful utilization of single-family zoned property for two-family dwelling purposes. The minimum lot size to have a guesthouse -- this is not just specific to the E zoning district -- this is wherever guesthouses are allowed -- you have to have at least one acre. Now, in the Estates zoning district, you're supposed to have 2.25 acres. The minimum lot width, if you're going to have a parcel that has a guesthouse, you have to have at least 105 feet width; the maximum floor area is 40 percent of the principal dwelling. That's generally the air-conditioned area of the principal dwelling; and if it's going to be a detached guesthouse, the minimum -- it has January 16, 2025 Page 16 of 44 to be a minimum of 20 feet from the principal dwelling. Guesthouse may be constructed prior to the principal dwelling. Now, with this proposed LDC amendment, what we want to do is clean up the agricultural district to indicate one guesthouse rather than guesthouses. That's not considered a substantive change to the A zoning district. It's more of a cleanup. We're proposing to change the words "main residence" to "principal dwelling." That's on -- let's see. Where is that? That's C, as in "Charlie," on your -- if you look on 5.03.03, you can -- and I'll show you the changes with blue and red ink. So we want to change "main residence" to indicate "principal dwelling." Property zoned Estates west of Collier Boulevard -- so if you have an Estates-zoned property that's east of Collier Boulevard, that's not a part of this exercise. We weren't directed by the Board to move forward with anything other than the Urban Estates, all right. So I just want to make that clear. It's not my choice. It's my directive -- or it was a directive that was given to me. The subject property must be owner-occupied with a homestead exemption. During the Board discussion, Commissioner McDaniel said, you know, that this applicability should be for homesteaded properties, and the idea was that if an owner is occupying the main residence and renting out the guesthouse, that there's a little bit better policing of it, you know, for rentals. You have to understand, our properties, generally speaking, are our greatest asset. So this is a -- I guess in Commissioner McDaniel's mind was a means to protect that asset. But that's my conjecture. A guesthouse must contain sleeping facilities, a bathroom, and a kitchen. The minimum lease duration, nine months. So staff felt that it would be a good thing to bring forward a minimum number of months for a lease. And so we looked at a number of apartment complexes throughout the county and kind of saw what their minimum leases are. And again, we weren't directed to do this. This is just, in our estimate, to protect the health, safety, and welfare to have a minimum duration. It could be more; it could be less. But staff felt that nine months is a good starting place. And the provision for guesthouses, the renting of them, would sunset in five years unless extended by the Board. So we brought this Land Development Code amendment to the DSAC LDR subcommittee. DSAC stands for Development Services Advisory -- Development Services Advisory Committee, Land Development Review subcommittee. And so that's what our Land Development Code amendments is they go to the DSAC subcommittee, and then it goes to the DSAC, and then it goes to the Planning Commission, and then, ultimately, the decision-makers are the Board of County Commissioners. On November -- between the DSAC subcommittee and the DSAC, we added the nine months, did another change. The DSAC saw the full changes and wanted -- they recommended approval as well. They wanted to make sure that you, as the CCPC, and the Board of County Commissioners will be fully apprised of the potential tax implications that are associated with renting the guesthouse, and also the staff report should be revised to indicate this LDC amendment may have a fiscal impact to both the county and to the property owner. Okay. So when you rent out your guesthouse, you're going to lose your homestead exemption on that guesthouse structure. The idea is that you're going to have your homestead exemption and the 3 percent cap -- remember Save Our Homes. I think that's what it was called, back in the -- you know, years ago. So you're going to lose the tax shelter on that guesthouse structure. So a clever property owner is going to have to make an economic decision to determine whether or not, if they so choose to move forward with the renting of their guesthouse, that their taxes can go up. I don't know how much it's going to go up, but it will go up, generally, I mean, unless property values fall like they did back in 2008 and 2009. So we're the zoning people. We care about zoning matters. That's the Property Appraiser issue, and that's what each homeowner who is contemplating the renting of their guesthouse is January 16, 2025 Page 17 of 44 going to have to kind of make a business decision for themselves. Again, we were directed to move forward with this. You guys know that there's going to be a loss of the homestead exemption, but that's what we were directed to do. And again, each property owner is going to have to make their own business decision. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Johnson, if I could ask you to hold for one second. I've got some questions up here I'd like to have covered first. Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That was old. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Oh, is that old? I'm sorry. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Great. Thank you, sir. Mr. Johnson, two quick questions to clarify for myself. Did I understand you to say that if they turned the guesthouse into a, quote, "rental property," they're going to lose homestead on the primary property? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: Just on the guesthouse structure. That's what we understand. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: How could they have had homestead on the two properties within one lot? That's allowed? MR. JOHNSON: Well, a guesthouse is an accessory to the main building, to the principal dwelling. So, yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: So that allowed homestead on both? MR. JOHNSON: I'm not the Property Appraiser. That's my understanding. MR. BOSI: Yes. The homestead exemption applies to the guesthouse, the garage, any accessory structures in the primary dwelling unit for homesteaded property. If you're -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: So pretty much the entire building lot? MR. BOSI: Yes. And if you're going to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But if you rent, you lose it. MR. BOSI: If you're going to rent that, you lose that cap for that square footage that is encapsulated with your guesthouse because you're no longer -- that's no longer part of your homesteaded property. That is part -- you're gaining commercial -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Commercial. MR. BOSI: You're gaining commercial revenue associated with that; therefore, that is taxed differently than the rest. And what -- we're going to have a registration process for this -- for this proposal. And what we will tell every individual homeowner, that they need to contact the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser so they can understand what the tax implications are for the individual circumstances of their property. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Right. All said and good. What is to stop -- once they get up and running -- and I appreciate the nine-month minimum -- for them to turn it into an Airbnb at a week at a time besides improper zoning -- well, maybe not improper zoning, but code ordinances being followed up upon? I mean, Airbnbs are everywhere, sad to say. MR. JOHNSON: Sorry to interrupt. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: No, no. MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Eric Johnson. If they do start renting it out less than nine months, I mean, that would be a violation of the code, and I guess code enforcement action would be taken. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Code Enforcement's reactive, not proactive, correct? MR. JOHNSON: Generally speaking. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: You had stated earlier in the presentation with regard to Code Enforcement review, was there any review that was completed? Was there any findings in January 16, 2025 Page 18 of 44 that? In the beginning of your slide it said that you had gone to Code Enforcement and maybe looked to see. MR. BOSI: There was no coordination with Code Enforcement related to this -- MR. JOHNSON: I think after -- if and when this gets -- if this gets approved by the Board of County Commissioners, Code Enforcement has to produce a report. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Now I understand. MR. BOSI: They asked for an annual report. Say this was adopted in February of this year by the Board of County Commissioners, in February of 2026, we would be -- we would have Code Enforcement provide a report if there's been any issues -- code-enforcement related issues with the rental of guesthouses within the Urban Estates. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Petscher. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I've got a few questions. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: So this, what you're presenting today, only deals with the Urban Estates, correct? MR. JOHNSON: Correct, and also the blue areas that were outside. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Are there any other restrictions besides Golden Gate Estates for guesthouse leasing throughout Collier County? MR. BOSI: The prohibition of renting your guesthouses are throughout the entire county. It is -- currently, right now, the entire county is prohibited from renting of a guesthouse. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. Is there a study for other areas besides -- I'm not asking you to do this, I'm just asking if you did a study for the other areas to find out how many guesthouses are throughout Collier County as in general? MR. JOHNSON: We weren't -- COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I know they didn't ask you. I'm just asking. MR. JOHNSON: We did not do a study. MR. BOSI: One of the recommendations we heard from the public during our public information meetings, which we will pass on to the Board of County Commissioners, is we had a lot of attendees who were at the meetings but they owned Estates lots within the rural areas, east -- or east of 951, and they had asked "Why can't it be extended to the rural areas?" And that's one of the considerations we're going to put forward to let the Board know that this was a comment we received more than once at the three public information meetings, that they felt that the allowance for guesthouses to be rented in the Rural Estates would be appropriate as well. And the Board will have to take an action or give direction to staff related to that individual public request. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. And that was what I was getting at is, because why wasn't it considered for the rural areas? So what happens after the five-year -- five-year? Does it go back to the prohibition? MR. BOSI: At that five-year period of time when we provide the -- when we provide an update prior to the expiration of the five-year period, we will seek direction from the Board of County Commissioners of would they like to extend it indefinitely, would they like to extend it for another specific time period, or would they like to cease and desist the allowance. So it will be a Board decision as to whether they want to continue on with it. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Going back to the nine months. So someone -- so someone could Airbnb their main house but not their guesthouse? MR. BOSI: No. MR. JOHNSON: No. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Okay. MR. BOSI: And the guesthouse, we suggest a nine-month prohibition [sic]. State statutes says -- state statutes is -- says that we cannot regulate the duration of rentals related to Airbnb, so there is a conflict that is being created. Locally, we're saying nine months, but -- and I would have to defer to the County Attorney's Office, but the statutes, I believe, at the end of the January 16, 2025 Page 19 of 44 day, take precedent over local rule. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I think that's all I have. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I'm kind of going through that in our community now. What's a rental? All of a sudden somebody says, "Well, it's my second cousin from Alabama, and I've let him come in for a couple of months." How do you -- how do you determine when they're in violation of not being able to rent? Because most people work a deal with somebody they know if they're going to move onto the property. So what's the enforcement on that? MR. JOHNSON: Well, first off, in your packet, it includes a change to the Administrative Code where we create an application that's called "Administrative guesthouse leasing or rental for Urban Estates-zoned lots." So there's going to have to be a submittal to the county and an application fee. I think we're programming it maybe for -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: If they want to rent it. MR. JOHNSON: If they want to rent it, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. But if they just don't submit it and fill the house, what do you -- MR. BOSI: I think what your question was, currently how do we know that it's not going on right now? COMMISSIONER SHEA: How do you know that -- I just say it's family, it's a close friend from Massachusetts. It's their son that's going to college, and I'm letting him stay there for free. You know, there's -- I've been through all these stories. So I -- I'm trying to learn how to take care of it where I live. MR. BOSI: And I would tell you if it's for their son who wants to -- he's going to live there for free, that's not a violation. That's what it's intended for. The guesthouses currently are intended for family members, staff members, not for commercial gain. The allowance for rental is what we're proposing to change. And the only way that we would be able to police that is neighbors or a code enforcement violation. So the enforcement will be difficult. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Vice Chair, this is Commissioner Schmitt. I'd like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Of course, I've been around the staff and the Planning Commission, well, almost 20-something years now between my time with staff and with the Planning Commission. And as Heidi certainly can attest, from the County Attorney's Office, this has been an issue probably for 25 years with the county in regards to leasing or renting of guesthouses. It goes on. It's habitual. My only comment is, this is a way to legitimize what is already taking place. I believe that, certainly, it's going to be hard to enforce, but Code Enforcement has been trying to enforce the prohibition for years and really, quite frankly, has been unsuccessful. This is a way to legitimize. Eric brought up an excellent point about -- regards to it becomes a business decision, and it becomes an income property, so therefore it can't fall under the homestead. And I think that's another decision, whether somebody will continue to do it under the table or legitimize it. But it's been going on for years. And I believe this was an attempt by the Board of County Commissioners to -- at least to add some legitimacy to something that's already taking place. It's a good proposal. It is going to be hard to enforce. But as Paul stated, we've all heard the excuses in trying to legitimize rentals for years in regards to, "Oh, it's my second cousin, third family member, or whatever" and, you know, that just living there. But I don't know, without any other real restrictions, this, again, is a way to legitimize what's already taking place. So I'm all in favor of it. Thanks. January 16, 2025 Page 20 of 44 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: I have on the slide maybe a guidance as to what you would recommend. I would like to point out that the existing code already has parking requirements for guesthouses, and so any proposed language that I had here regarding parking I'd like to delete, which would be -- we would strike out the proposed LDC Section 5.05.03.F.5, as in -- F, as in "foxtrot," No. 5. So if you were so inclined to agree with me, this would be the language that you would maybe read into the record, and it includes an Administrative Code amendment. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I'm not there yet. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: What I am going to ask you -- and I know this was just your directive -- but why would we not include the properties west of 951? Because they're -- obviously, anybody who lives in Golden Gate can tell you there is guesthouses out there. So why in the world would we exclude those folks? Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The Board wanted to test -- have a test run, so to speak, before they applied it to all of the Estates, and because of the number of Estate lots within the eastern portion of the county, they wanted to make sure that maybe this was -- that the urban area, with 3,553, I think, was the number -- number of Estates-zoned lots. It was a little bit more able to be controlled, and then the feedback they get from this -- from this five-year program. And like I said, we did receive a number of comments from public at the public information meeting requesting that it be applied to the Rural Estates as well. So that will be part of the decision that the Board has to make currently, and then eventually, as they see how the program has run, they may expand it. And just a background, one of the reasons -- one of the motivations for this is specifically one of the recommendations from the ULI study was to allow the legitimacy of ADUs, and ADUs are accessory dwelling units, to allow for more density and more housing opportunity to be able to help with the housing shortage that we do have in this county. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That's going to lead me into my next point. There's a lot of -- there's a lot of benefits to doing affordable housing, as we see when the developers come in. You get a density bonus. I wish Cormac was here because he'd explain it further about the availability of funding to improve properties for that affordable housing aspect. I think that if somebody's going to lease out their guesthouse and they're going to do an affordable housing aspect to it, such as a teacher, firefighter, 80 percent AMI, 100 percent AMI, I don't think they should lose their homestead exemption because then you're opening up the door to that homestead exemption. As it's pointed out in your comments from the public, it's open to creditors, which is one of the important things of having a homestead. Now we're taking that accessory unit, which is now un-homesteaded, which -- however that may parse out itself. But is there a possibility to add in something here to where if I had a guesthouse and I lease it out to a teacher -- which reminds me of a conversation I had with a colleague up here on the panel who told me the story of a teacher losing a guesthouse that they were renting so that the people could do an Airbnb, which is clearly against code. But that teacher was forced out in favor of a transient rental. Is there a way to add back in some type of equity to bring those houses into the fold that may already be rented, without those folks being afraid of losing their homestead? MR. JOHNSON: We do have representation from the Property Appraisers' office -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Oh, great. MR. JOHNSON: -- with us. They were kind enough to join us, and I figured, you know what, since they're here, let them say what they need to say on the record, and hopefully that will make things a little bit easier to understand. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you for coming. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Can I piggyback on that for a moment? If we wanted to look at it almost as a more simple approach, builders and petitioners that come in and request a January 16, 2025 Page 21 of 44 project to be approved that has affordable housing receive a benefit. How can we give a similar benefit to the owner of that primary resident if they're helping with affordable housing specifically to -- however we designated -- I don't want to say first responders, but that team of folks that we offer up the affordable housings first, the teachers firefighters, police, county workers, whatever. Is there a way that we can at least suggest or investigate? If this homeowner's doing the county a favor by making their guesthouse now available for rent, I'll say long term, nine months, to a first responder, for not a better term, how can we help that homeowner? And just as was said, maybe it's not by losing the homestead act on that second dwelling. What's it officially called? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Accessory dwelling. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Accessory dwelling. I don't know. I know we can't answer it here, but is it something we can review? COMMISSIONER SHEA: They're not -- they're not restricting these affordable -- these dwelling units to affordable people. They're just assuming because they're smaller, the rent's going to be lower, if there's more rentals out there, the rents will come down, but there's no guarantee they have to go to affordable housing needs. MR. BOSI: And I think that's the essence of the question. I mean, it's not a zoning matter. It's related to a taxation matter. I don't know if there's flexibility within the statute that says if you rent an accessory dwelling unit to an income-restricted individual, that you -- that they have the allowance to provide for an exception. That would be something that is outside of our realm of expertise, but I would turn to -- MS. YBACETA: Annabel Ybaceta, director of exemptions for the Property Appraiser's Office. And, unfortunately, no. We're governed by Florida Statute, and it only allows the homestead exemption to apply to the portion of the property that's owner-occupied. So that accessory dwelling, regardless of who you're renting it to and the amount that you're charging in rent, would not fall under the homestead exemption. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But if you're just allowing them to be a guest, like your mother-in-law, they don't lose -- MS. YBACETA: That's a family. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- their exemption. Only if it's a commercial business for income purposes. MS. YBACETA: If it's being used by anyone other than family -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Family. MS. YBACETA: -- it's no longer a single-family residence. Then it becomes a multifamily. So the house where the owner lives and makes their primary residence maintains the homestead exemption. The guesthouse, which is being occupied by someone else, does not. It would fall under what's called a 10 percent non-homestead cap. So they still would receive a cap, but it was significantly more, and it doesn't apply to the school taxes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I see what you're saying. So how do you value that? You just take the 3 percent cap away, put it at 10 percent? MS. YBACETA: Well, what happens -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Or do you put a value on that accessory structure? So that accessory structure, let's say it's -- MS. YBACETA: Two hundred thousand dollars. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, if it's 800 square feet under air, and it's got a two-car garage, so it's around -- MS. YBACETA: Well, let's just say it's $200,000. So if we have -- everything's as of January 1st, so if somebody rented the property today -- and by the way, although it is not allowed right now, we do already have guesthouses that we have outside of homestead exemption on properties, because we find out that they are renting it, so those properties are already falling under January 16, 2025 Page 22 of 44 this same scenario whether or not it is allowed. It's already happening, and it's happening in the Urban and the Rural Estates. It's happening everywhere. But what happens is that $200,000 of value, the next January 1st, which is our date of assessment, that will come out of the homestead cap, go on at full market value. So that 200,000 goes on at full market value. So you're talking roughly about $1,900 increase in property taxes in one year. Then that $1,900, that 200,000 will increase 10 percent year after year, after its initial year, while the value of the home, the dwelling that the owner's living in, is capped at no more than 3 percent or the CPI, whichever one is less. So that guesthouse five, six, eight years down the road if they decide, "I no longer want to rent it. My mother needs to move into it now," whatever the reason is, and now it's worth $500,000, that $500,000 guesthouse will now go back into the homestead at full market value. So now that 200,000 guesthouse -- $200,000 guesthouse that was taxed at 1,900, fast forward, you know, five, six, seven years, is now worth 500-, and now it's going to go on at $4,700 at full market value back into the tax dollars. So it's going to be a significant increase to property owners, not just to the income that they're making off of renting this for nine months, a year, whatever the case may be. It's going to be an increase to their property taxes. And unfortunately, the statute doesn't have wiggle room for us to make because you're renting it to someone or someone for less money or whatever the case may be. MS. BLAJE: I'm Jenny Blaje. I'm the director of tax roll compliance for the Property Appraiser's Office. So what -- I just want to make it clear what she's talking about with the tax dollars is over and above the tax dollars they're already paying, right. That's a $2,000 increase the first time they decide to rent it, and a $5,000 increase when they decide to stop renting it, as we've been paying taxes all these years. MS. YBACETA: You won't ever go back. The only way to go back is, basically, like they said, if the value were to drop like it did because the entire value of the property were to drop. But there's no going back. Once you have flipped the switch to that portion of the property not falling under the homestead and being taxed at a different rate, you don't go back to the rate [sic] and say, "It didn't work out. I didn't like all the people coming into my house, and I want to go back to not being rented. I'm going to let my son, who, you know, is of age to live in there now. I want my taxes to be what it was before." It's not going to. And I speak of this of experience. As I said, this is already happening. So we have these people that we know are renting the properties. They know they're not being taxed on it as a homestead exemption. Then they stop renting it. They let us know, "That's it. I'm not renting it, so everything's back to normal." No, everything's not back to normal. We're, from that next January 1st value, full market value going forward. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: A suggestion, if I may. This is incredible information that I'm guessing all of us are learning for the first time now. Before this rolls out, should it be approved by both councils, could there be a packet put together that is distributed to these 3,200 folks that summarizes just what you did, because -- MS. YBACETA: All this is information that I have been communicating for over a year to all the parties that have communicated with our office. We met for the first time over a year and a half ago with the contracted person. MS. BLAJE: That AB&B study, yeah. MS. YBACETA: Yeah. So we have been communicating this several times with everyone. So this should have been information that was already put out. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: To the 3,200 folks that possibly -- MS. BLAJE: We communicated with your county staff and to the person who did the study, so -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: All I'm saying is, if I was an owner and said, "I've done January 16, 2025 Page 23 of 44 a little bit of renting. I think I'm going to try this out," not knowing that, quote, "I can never go back," I would definitely do a long-term five-, 10-, 15-year assessment on what this financially could do to me. And I may say, "I'm not doing this." But I'd hate for folks to come back and be upset with all of us. MS. YBACETA: Us. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Yeah, yeah. They'll probably be knocking on your door, yeah. I'm probably safe up here, but they'll be knocking on your door saying, "I didn't know this. How can I fix it?" And you're going to say, "I'm sorry." So maybe some education is appropriate. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning director. And that is why I said at the very beginning of this, anybody who registers their house, they will be advised that they need to talk to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser to understand the taxing implications so they can make an informed decision before they move forward. MS. YBACETA: And just quickly, an informed decision, yes, but remember, we're predicting what's going to be a value of something in the future. So although -- we can talk about what's happening right now, but that snapshot of what the value will be in the future nobody can tell, because who was going to know what happened in 2008 and who was going to know what happened in 2022? So, you know, it's just going to be a guesstimation of what happens, but nobody really knows. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's the best guess of what's going to happen. I'd love to see you type up what you just said to us and hand it to people. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Yeah, a one-page. COMMISSIONER SHEA: One page. MS. YBACETA: It's on our website about rental and how it doesn't fall under homestead exemption and everything like that, so -- and this, you know -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you run through even an example of the tax differences? I mean, when you said $1,900, I mean, that -- you got my attention. MS. YBACETA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I don't think the average people, they might think, "well, it's $300," you know. MS. YBACETA: Well, they think it's fine when you're getting -- every month you're getting a check for the rent. So everything's good until you stop getting that monthly check when you decide you're not going to do this for whatever the reason is. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I'm not at public comment yet, ma'am. So when we get there, I'll let you know. Commissioner McLeod, I saw you had your -- did you have questions for staff? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: No. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I did -- I had one thing. If you could do me a favor and send me that statute -- MS. YBACETA: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: -- please, thank you. MS. YBACETA: Okay. There's multiple, but I can -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I know. Whichever ones you want to cite there. Especially when it comes to the leasing, that aspect, where you lose that homestead, that's just the main one I want, please. MS. YBACETA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: It's Florida Statute. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah, I know. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And to attest -- to attest what they're saying, they are going January 16, 2025 Page 24 of 44 out into the community explaining all of this -- I'm part of the housing alliance and ULI -- talking about affordable housing, and they're there at those meetings explaining all this, so -- I so appreciate your information as well. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I do. Thank you for your time as well. I know these meetings are riveting, so... COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I had a question. Mr. Johnson, you had brought up the DSAC, which made me think of something. And I have a question on procedure. So how does this work? This is a legislative matter, and so it goes to DSAC first for recommendations and then comes to us? And then where does AHAC come into this -- MR. JOHNSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- for their recommendation? And then do we make recommendations? MR. JOHNSON: Eric Johnson. All right. So our policy is that, if we have a Land Development Code amendment, that we do bring it to those -- the subcommittee, the DSAC and the -- the subcommittee of the DSAC and the DSAC, and then the Collier County Planning Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners. It's not written that we have to do this. I think it's more of, like, a privilege that the development community gets a time when they can kind of opine on this. I include the DSAC's recommendation in our packet. It doesn't have to go to DSAC by law. It could go straight to Planning Commission as the local planning agency and then to the Board of County Commissioners. I think sometimes we do bring matters before the AHAC when they deal with affordable housing. There was some discussion about -- and even today -- discussion about, well, maybe we should have these be -- these rented out for affordable housing only, and then it was in, I think, the AHAC's wisdom that they didn't want to restrict it to only AHAC; that it -- I'm sorry -- affordable housing; that it should be market rate. Mike, did you want to chime in? MR. BOSI: Yeah. Mike Bosi, again. And we did, we took it to AHAC, and AHAC debated, and they felt that having it income restricted and with the tax implications, it didn't align with participation, and they felt there would be more benefit if it was just unrestricted. So they did provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that they support the program without any income restrictions associated with the renting of the guesthouses. Normally, it's -- as Eric said, it's DSAC subcommittee, DSAC, Planning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners. Each one of the advisory committees makes recommendations. This one we had an additional recommendation from AHAC because it was directed by the Board of County Commissioners, taken to them. So we'll have a recommendation from DSAC, recommendation from AHAC, and a recommendation from the Planning Commission, and then ultimately the Board of County Commissioners will take those recommendations, the presentation, the public comments, and then they'll make a final decision on that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. So, then, are we required -- not required, but tasked with possibly making recommendations to this? MR. BOSI: You're obligated to make a recommendation. MR. JOHNSON: You're the local planning agency. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And then, Paul, you're on -- you're our rep for AHAC, right? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And then the only concern I have is this minimum duration of nine months. And I thought maybe we could have a discussion about this, because I've heard of situations like this where all these new apartments are coming up, and they haven't gotten January 16, 2025 Page 25 of 44 their COs yet, but they're getting all these renters, and then there's a delay and a delay. And I'm seeing the need for some of these people to find temporary housing before they find -- get into their apartment. And nine months seems like a long time. Like, I'm thinking that it should be shorter. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, I think -- and Eric can back me up on this, but at what point does the -- where you have to register with Florida Department of Hotels and collect a bed tax? At what month does that -- does that expire? Six months and a day? I believe it's around six months. Yeah. So if it's anything shorter than that six months, you have to collect a bed tax, you have to pay the county tax, you have to register it with the state, which means you also have probably the same thing as you do with the rental with fire extinguishers, marked exits, so on and so forth. I think the nine months encourages that workforce housing. It encourages people that are not here seasonally, and it adds to the availability of units for the working class that need it the most right now. So I understand the nine months. It could be seven months. But I think if you're an owner of a guesthouse and you've now got to go through the process of registering with multiple entities and then collecting that tax, the benefit might not be worth the work, because you're already paying higher taxes, as we heard, so now you've got to factor that in, plus the usage, plus -- plus deterioration and repairs, and then now you've got to add in the tax on top of that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. I'm not recommending anything under six months, but I just thought -- you know, how did we get to nine months? Like, is it seven? Is it eight? Is it 10? I think I need something substantial to make sense of that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I've wondered about the nine also, but I would think it should be 12 months, because that's kind of what properties are rented for, a year lease. Why is it any different from the thousands of other rental contracts that we have? It just makes it different, and it would probably work better if it was the same, one year minimum. MR. BOSI: And I believe it was based upon our inquiry to multifamily apartment complexes, and the range was 12 to nine months, and we just -- we settled upon nine months. If you wanted to make a recommendation of 12 months, 11 months, seven months, whatever the Planning Commission feels appropriate. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm not smart enough to make a recommendation like that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Anything else? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's it. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I assume that this proposal is an attempt to do something about affordable housing shortage; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, in the context of adding supply. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: All right. It's also an admission that, "Hey, let's go ahead and just legalize and codify what's going on anyway," right? MR. JOHNSON: We were directed to move forward with this. If that's one of the reasons, then... COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. Because I was kind of wondering what's the -- what's the genesis of this? Were you asked to do this by who? MR. JOHNSON: The Board. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: By this board? MR. JOHNSON: No, the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. So now I understand the genesis of this. My issue is is this, if approved, likely to lead to any kind of meaningful increase in the erection of guesthouse buildings? And is that a good thing? MR. BOSI: If the intended purpose was just to add supply and put a downward pressure upon rental prices, I would say yes. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So it's a good thing to have homes right now that sit on a January 16, 2025 Page 26 of 44 lot and have -- conceivably, they'd be checker-boarded here and there with new guesthouses. That's a good thing. Is that what you're implying? MR. BOSI: I'm implying that the positive outcome of the addition of supply has a downward pressure upon prices. I think there's other residuals that have to be balanced. There's never one factor. There's always a multitude of factors, and we have to weigh -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah, you're good. MR. JOHNSON: Chair, Commissioner Locucci [sic] -- Locucci [sic], I have a comment. Guesthouses are allowed anyway, so just -- I wanted to make sure that you were, you know, fully aware of that. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. MR. JOHNSON: As far as, like -- you had characterized it like a checkerboard. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I'm aware of that. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Very good. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: All I'm saying is, hey, is it conceivable if me, as an owner of a home on a two-and-a-half-acre parcel of land, find out there's an opportunity to put up a guesthouse and maybe earn some money, barring the tax issues, is that likely to increase the number of these things being erected? On the one hand, yeah, it's good for affordable housing, but on the other hand, I'm not sure it's so good for how things look. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, you typically -- if I can comment on that. Your guesthouses are built behind the rear structure of the main house, so you don't see them from the street. In addition, building one of those guesthouses is not cheap whatsoever. I can tell you from having to put a septic in in one of my own, the cost of the construction, buildout, plus your well, plus your septic that you go into it, it's not something you'd recoup in the first 18 months of renting it out, that's for sure. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So if this is unlikely -- if my scenario is unlikely to happen, then the reason to do this is simply to legalize and codify what's going on anyway. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: As well as open up the opportunity for people to rent out guesthouses to those that need them, because there is people that don't rent them out now. There is. I could give you examples probably all day long. But there is -- there is owners that have guesthouses that do not rent them out because it's not allowed by the code. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I understand. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: There are probably a small percentage that actually follow the rules, but there is a -- there is a percentage of them. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I understand. I just like to look at the pros and cons of everything we do and bring them all up, that's all. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, I know for a fact the City of Jacksonville is attacking this right now, and they've reduced the size of the lot required for what they call a cottage, which is basically to add back into the workforce housing shortage that they have, which when you do that affordable housing aspect, it opens up an availability to funding to help you improve that property. So you could have the excess funds to improve that guesthouse if you are -- if you're meeting that, but you've got to get to -- that's why Cormac was here, because he could add to the conversation. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So let me ask one last question. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: What's the downside for going ahead and saying, "Yeah, let's do this"? Is there a downside? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: The only downside I see right now is not including everything east of 951. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That's the only downside I see right now. January 16, 2025 Page 27 of 44 COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: All right. So if there's no downside, then it's a good thing. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: I believe we briefly touched on this before. Is there discussions about allowing west -- I'm sorry -- east of 951, or is it after the five-year review? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. When we bring this item to the Board after the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, we will let the Board know that there was a number of public, and there could be consideration within your motion as well that may ask the Board of County Commissioners to consider expanding this program to Estates properties east of 951. Those could all -- that -- those recommendations may sway the Board to say, "Let's do -- let's do it earlier than we anticipated." So there hasn't been conversation with the Board of County Commissioners because we haven't brought the item back to them yet. It's not until we bring the item back to them with your recommendations, with all the comments we heard from the public, that we will provide them that, you know, it's been requested by a number -- by the public, and it may be requested by the Planning Commission to consider expanding it to the full Estates throughout the county. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: So I'm wrong in assuming -- something got in my head that said at the five-year sunset review, they may go to east of Collier. So that was wrong -- that was -- MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: My mistake. Okay. All right. Sorry. MR. BOSI: It will be part of our presentation to the Board of County Commissioners that a number of folks had requested that it be expanded to the Rural Estates east of 951 as well. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Great. Thanks for the clarification. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Yes. I was wondering if there had been any -- and I know how difficult it is because we just don't know what's going to happen. Like the gentleman next to me was saying, we don't know how successful this is going to. But has there been any good guesses on the impact on infrastructure -- I'm thinking of myself as schools -- but transportation? Of course, not water and sewer, but -- and if not, could there be, in the five-year period that you're taking a look at it from west of -- west of 951, an analysis of how did it impact infrastructure? I mean, could there be something like that? There's going to be -- potentially, if one road a mile long has all of a sudden -- say, they have 90 homes on there and they have -- all of a sudden they have 45 guesthouses, you know, safety issues for evacuation, various things. So I just wanted to throw those things out there. MR. BOSI: There was no infrastructure analysis. We did discuss that, and we -- the unknown of the participation and the limited number within the Urban Estates didn't arrange itself to an easy answer regarding that. I think it would be more reflective in terms of the end reports we give in terms of code enforcement complaints/issues, feedback we get from individuals that live within the Urban Estates communities. If they feel that guesthouses and the renting of guesthouses have been an issue, we'd be able to pick that up and carry it forward to the Board of County Commissioners in terms of -- in terms of school impact, you're right, the infrastructure has not been analyzed. But we looked at the 3,000 -- 3,500 individual parcels spread throughout the urbanized area, and we've really kind of -- I don't want to -- I don't want to discount it, but it was almost di minimus to the number of structures that we do have within the urbanized area. MS. LOCKHART: Yeah. It has five elementary schools. It impacts five elementary schools, I think four middle, and five high schools. The major -- but very -- it's all spread out. But the major probably two elementary schools would be Osceola and Poinciana, maybe. Yeah, so it's -- it's something -- oh, in Vineyards. It's probably going to take a look -- keep following that through, I guess, building permit, too, and also the application for rentals. I think that's where we could track it. January 16, 2025 Page 28 of 44 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I don't think you're going to find a lot of students in these -- MS. LOCKHART: Well -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Because with the 40 percent of the main structure -- was that 40 percent total square footage, or was that 40 percent under air? MR. JOHNSON: I believe it's under air. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Forty percent under air. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: So, I mean, you're talking about two to three -- 800 square foot, which is typically a one-bedroom. MS. LOCKHART: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: So that's why it's -- these are more geared toward your working class and the folks that really need it versus, you know, having a two-bedroom with a pool or, you know, actually an activity area around there, because it's not like renting in a community where you have the pool, the basketball courts, the tennis courts. A guesthouse is pretty much just the guesthouse, so... MS. LOCKHART: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: So that could be there. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it sounds like, Mike, you've -- we're kind of viewing this as a pilot before we look at the east side of Collier. I guess I kind of have the same analogy as Commissioner Colucci. There's probably no downside to doing it. Personally, I'd be shocked, with the tax implications, if anybody would do it. I mean, if we can't overcome that, I don't think we're going to accomplish much more than, as you said, legitimizing what's already going on. I don't think we're going to help the affordable housing market, but I don't see any downside as well. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: You brought up a point. I'm curious as to -- you say it's already happening. How many households are doing this right now? We have a population of what, 400,000? MR. BOSI: Four hundred and fifteen. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And then how many households -- what's the percentage? MS. YBACETA: That we know of right now -- roughly less than a dozen that we know of in the urban is already having their guesthouse value factored out. Now, that's just that we know of. You know, we get complaints from neighbors. We have documents recorded that, you know, trigger a second family at an address. Different things like that trigger us to investigate and look into do we think another -- somebody else other than the homeowner is occupying that guesthouse. So until that trigger happens -- because, obviously, since it's not allowed right now, there's no application for us to review at any time. So it's only triggers that may happen that comes to our attention. Right now, there's a little under a dozen. I think there's, like, 10 or 11 that are actually in the urban getting their guesthouse factored out of the value. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. So not very much. But this test program will -- will shed the light on this if people really want to do it. And so my question -- my other question is, with regards to expanding this to the east of 951, is there enough staff to regulate all this, and who does -- is it Code Enforcement, and then the Appraiser's Office is going to have to increase their workload, too. Is -- I guess I'm trying to figure out is west of 951 a good test site, or do we have the staffing to open it up to the whole area, the whole county? MR. BOSI: In regard to staffing, I would not think that this would place an inordinate burden upon staff. I mean, you've got 3,500 properties that are within the urbanized area; 400 and January 16, 2025 Page 29 of 44 some of them have guesthouses. With the taxing implications, I don't think that it's going to be an overburden towards staff. And from a Code Enforcement standpoint, they're -- the same issues that currently exist with guesthouses would be applicable to the future, and it hasn't been an inordinate burden to Code Enforcement staff. So I don't think, from a staffing perspective, it would be difficult. But once again, unless the Board of County Commissioners tells us to expand it to the entire -- you know, to all Estates-zoned properties in the county, it's going to be a very limited sample size that it's going to have to deal with. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Eric Johnson. I just wanted to highlight that we did have our Transportation Planning staff review this, and they determined that there will be minimal impacts on the road network based on -- and they gave us some findings that are in your staff report. So I know that when Commissioner [sic] Lockhart mentioned infrastructure, she was focused on school. You know, when I hear "infrastructure," I also include other things such as, but not limited to, transportation. MS. LOCKHART: I was also -- just from an experience when we had wildfires -- and I live out in the Estates, and you have to get out immediately if it's -- it was coming right up close. We didn't have to. But that would -- that would have been really tricky if you start -- maybe it won't have such an impact. Maybe it will just be a few. But if you did have, you know, 20 more households, it would be a little tough. So anyway, that was it, yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I had promised our court reporter a break at 10:45, so can we stand in recess till 11? (A brief recess was had from 10:48 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Any other Board comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No? Any other questions? Mr. Johnson, you had something you were going to say before we went to break. MR. JOHNSON: You see how it says, "LDC Section 5.05.03?" I meant to say 5.03.03. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: 5.03.03, okay. I'm going to open it for -- I'm sorry. I was thinking. I'm going to open it for public comment at this time. MS. EOFF: Good morning, Chairman. Our first speaker is Doreen Vachon. MR. VACHON: She just went to the lady's room. She'll be right back. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. We can wait. MS. EOFF: Go to the next one. It's L.I. Boulder Smith. MR. SMITH: I think I got my name changed. It's Buddy. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Buddy. MR. SMITH: Maybe it's my writing. I don't know. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: What's your last name, Buddy? MR. SMITH: Smith. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All right, Buddy Smith. MR. SMITH: I chose "Smith" to go with "Buddy." CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Got it. MR. SMITH: Because nobody can spell or pronounce my first name. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Welcome, sir. MR. SMITH: You'd think after four generations, seven generations in Collier County, that somebody could spell my name and pronounce it. I graduated from high school under January 16, 2025 Page 30 of 44 "Buddy." It's just a nickname. Okay. I want to talk about both the urban area and the rural area. Rural area is east, okay. We got that settled? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Keep them straight, yes. MR. SMITH: Some years ago the county built a wall, and that wall was called 951, and they said there would not be any major construction east of 951. And that also applied to the road system. Let me give you a little review on that. But in reading this, the five points made -- I guess everybody's got one of these. The five points made were all about the utilities, the infrastructure, and especially the road system that would accommodate the guesthouses in the urban area. So it works, okay. There's roads everywhere that go north, east, south, and west. I'm going to reveal something that maybe you haven't thought about. There's one road from the rural area that goes to Naples. And I'll explain that statement. Davis -- we'll start on the south end; is that okay? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes. MR. SMITH: Everybody knows south from north, east from west, okay. Davis Boulevard dead-ends at 951. Golden Gate Parkway dead-ends at 951. Pine Ridge Road dead ends at 951. Vanderbilt Beach Road has dead-ended at 951, okay. There's nothing that goes on out there, and we're talking about maybe traffic. How do you get to Naples from the rural area? It's called Immokalee. It's the only one that will go all the way to 41 from the rural area. Now you know why Immokalee Road is a death trap; it actually is. Now, can you get to these other roads, Pine Ridge Road? Yeah. You turn down -- you go out Immokalee Road, you turn south, and then you go west. Well, 951 is a death trap. Pine Ridge Road is a death trap. The only really nice road in all of that is Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is the newest road. It's six-lane, okay. If you go down to the Parkway, it's jammed. If you go down to Davis Boulevard, it's jammed. If you live out in the rural area, any appointment you have on 41 is an hour and a half away, if -- okay, if you go from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock in the morning, if you go from, let's say, 3 o'clock -- for some reason the traffic starts at 3, if you start down there or going back the other way, 3 o'clock to till 7 o'clock. So when we look at this staff report on the urban transportation, it looks very good. Now, we've had discussion about, "Well, why don't we go to the east side of 951 and look at the guesthouses out there, count them, and legalize them and all that good stuff?" How are these people going to make it back and forth to work? You can't get to work in the morning. You can't get back home in the afternoon. I spend an hour and a half to get to 41 on any day. So I want to make sure that there is a separation from the urban area -- oh, let me explain. I have -- I'm a retired Realtor, okay. I have properties in the urban area. I have properties -- I'm not going to tell you where. I have properties in the rural area. My family and I, we own both. Okay. But -- and they have guesthouses, by the way, but -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: That your family's in? Your family's in those guesthouses? Yes. MR. SMITH: Yes. Oh, yes, for sure, yeah, my twin. I won't tell you his name either. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. MR. SMITH: Okay. So I have a concern about the traffic. Whether or not we're talking about a guesthouse or whether we're talking about just my main house, how in the world do I get to Naples? It was over an hour this morning to get to here. I knew I was going to be late, but I knew this wasn't the first topic on your agenda. So what I'd like to know is our only savior at this point in time from the Rural Estates is the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I'd like to know for sure -- because I see it every day, twice a day going back and forth across the construction site -- when is that going to be completed? January 16, 2025 Page 31 of 44 And why -- you got it? You got the answer to that? Okay. I said two years when they started. I'm going to five years now. And why does it turn out to be a two-lane road? Planning Commission? Somebody probably knows that answer. It started off as a six-lane, went to four-lane, and now the majority of the distance of it is two-lane. You've got a development just to the east of it -- and I think this is going to be the main gate for them to get into town -- of 10,000 homes. How many cars does 10,000 homes represent? Twenty thousand. That's being conservative. That's two cars per house. No kids. That's mom and dad working. So how many is three cars per house? Thirty thousand. You've got a two-lane highway that's going to accommodate an additional 30,000 cars? That's crazy. So anyway, as I look at this, I'd like to see us focus -- Planning Commission, County Commissioners, I'd like to see us focus on the transportation issues that we have in the rural community. Now, I don't know if you guys knew about it, but there was a move some months back to separate the Rural Golden Gate Estates. And when you say "Estates," make sure you put Golden Gate on it if it's in Golden Gate, because I see these little spots around the county now they call estates, estates, estates. They're not Golden Gate Estates. They're just called estates because of the zoning that they have imposed on the property at two and a quarter acres or whatever. Anyway, I'd like to see us focus maybe on transportation. I'm not concerned about who's renting their house, their guesthouse. I know that the information we got about the penalties on renting your guesthouse, the value that you're going to lose, your Save our Homes you're going to lose. If that is publicized to the owners of guesthouses, I think you might see a change in direction of who they rent it to, because that's a big -- that's a big knot right there. I don't know why the county has decided to do it that way. They say, "Oh, we want affordable housing, but here, you're going to lose all these benefits." CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, I don't think it's the county. That's the statute on that, Mr. Smith. That's the Florida legislature. We can't override what they've written. That's just the rule. That's the state. That's the state law. To change that, it would have to come down from the legislature. MR. SMITH: State law of what? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Florida. MR. SMITH: Of what? Excuse me. I didn't hear that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It's a Florida state law that we can't override that. That's why you would lose your homestead if you -- MR. SMITH: Because you rented it out? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: -- were renting out your guesthouse. Exactly. So -- MR. SMITH: Okay. Well -- see, that wasn't explained that I heard. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I know. MR. SMITH: Okay. Okay. And the fact that this thing is sunset in five years, I think you're going to see a lot of people probably oppose this of moving beyond 951 to the east because of the information that's going to be provided, I hope, to the property owners out there that you're going to lose all these benefits of your guesthouse. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, I mean, technically, right now, you'd lose them if they caught you. Technically, if you're -- and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're leasing out your guesthouse, you're going to lose your homestead. MR. SMITH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. MR. SMITH: And Save our Homes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And your Save your [sic] Homes, because that's -- MR. SMITH: And you can't regain that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. MR. SMITH: Well, to me, that hasn't been made public. I've attended some of these January 16, 2025 Page 32 of 44 meetings, and that has not been discussed. It was mentioned -- excuse me. It was mentioned. But, anyway, that's all I've got to say, and I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate you, sir. MR. SMITH: Okay. And it's Buddy Smith. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Buddy Smith. MR. SMITH: They can look it up. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MS. EOFF: Yes. Good morning, Chairman. Our last speaker is Doreen Vachon. MS. VACHON: Thank you for all of you volunteering. And I realize you're volunteer staff, and I think it's wonderful that you guys give your time. And the first meeting that I went to, they told us this was about affordable housing, and they had these great big charts that said, "We need rentals, and we want them west of 951 because of the convenience of people to be able to get into town and have a cheap rental," okay. We have charts with -- "We need $600 a month rent to $1,200 a month rent." And I went, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa." I'm a Realtor, and I just helped somebody build a guesthouse and put them with a contractor, and it was 250,000. Okay. So 250,000. Let's take 6 percent interest. How much is that? And I said, "Your cost is going to be around two grand to put up a guesthouse, a month, if you're taking your money and taking it out of the bank, and you're getting a mortgage." And so then they said, "Well" -- I said, "So your numbers are skewed, and this doesn't work for affordable housing." Then they did have people come and tell us that you would lose the homestead, but the numbers that she quoted today were not exposed. They were not exposed. And I beg you to let everybody know those numbers. You know, you're trying to encourage guesthouse building, is what they told us at this meeting. And a lot of people didn't come because they felt that -- okay, I'm going to say this: We all knew that copying a VCR tape was against a federal law, okay. How many of you in this room have ever copied a VCR tape? Okay. It's the same thing with a guesthouse. I know it's a different comparison, but as they know, they said they know it exists. We know people. I have sold houses to people who have said, "Oh, my parents were elderly. They lived next door to me." They said, "We really want to travel. We want to be able to go to North Carolina in the summer. We're going to sell our house, give you the money, you're going to build a house on our property, and we're going to live next to you." Okay. They said, "Okay." Now they've come to me and they go, "We're going to sell out. We're leaving Naples. Our parents died. That roof is old. The house is dated inside the guesthouse," and now you're telling me if they were to try and rent it to improve the property, which I heard one of you say, which you're going to want to do after 20 years and your parents die off, you know, to improve it and maybe make a dollar, I think that you're really -- you're attacking the American dream. You're taking away homeownership, the entrepreneurial freedom of financial independence, the ability to create and preserve wealth through real estate. You're hindering the consumer/renter even more, and it's getting out of sight. We have a trickle-down effect, which will -- you know, that the future of guesthouses being built, it's just -- it's not feasible. The prices of construction are going up. Insurance is going up. I had a County Commissioner that I sold his house -- he got ill -- and he had two guesthouses on one of his investment properties. And I said to him, "You know, it's illegal to rent a guesthouse." And he went, "Yeah." And I says, "So what are you doing here?" And he said, "Oh, I charge a maintenance fee." January 16, 2025 Page 33 of 44 I said, "You do?" He says, "Yeah. I provide water and lawn care for them." And there is a -- there is -- that is a true fact. If you're giving somebody housing, there usually is an exchange, whether they cut your grass for you or whatever. And I'm going to say that every person that I've talked to that has a guesthouse and has persons on their property, one, they're picky about who lives next to them. You're sharing part of your residence with them. You know, you're coming in contact with them. They become friends, and they do become family. I believe that. I don't -- you know, you're -- I think this is a money grab for the county. I think it started out as we're going to call it affordable housing, but they knew that the tax ramifications were behind it with the state statute. You know, if you can't change the state statute, please leave it like a VCR tape. Don't change it. It ain't broke; don't fix it. It's affordable for people. Everybody's looking for a guesthouse to rent; they are. And just -- I just don't see the -- you know, the proposal is going to do anything good. It's an invasion of privacy. And if you looked at their fine print, they want to charge a $135 registration fee. Now the homeowner's going to get taxed on the other end. It's not going to make it affordable. It's doing just the opposite. If anybody has any questions for me -- I'm a Realtor. I just see the real world. I get calls from people since Christmas that are living in a fifth wheel. They've got a ton of kids. And I had two women that were on disability living in a motel. I said, "I will give you the phone numbers for rentals that are 1,600 a month," and they go, "That's outrageous. We were paying $1,000 a month for a lot rent for our trailer, but we got kicked out, and they sold the trailer out from under us." I mean, I'm getting calls of people that are desperate in this county for housing. I'm not -- I'm not the greedy person that, you know, you want to be. I would like to solve the affordable housing. But the cost of land in Naples is astronomical. And I just think that the government needs to stay out of the guesthouse taxing district. I just think that you should live and let live so if somebody can make a family member live next to them -- and we do have multi-generation people sharing houses. We're already -- that's already happening in this county. So -- and there are people with fifth wheels in their yard, and there are people living in motels. And -- I got a teardown house for 250- that I'm getting calls that people are begging us to rent it to them. I'm like, "It's a teardown." I mean, there is a housing problem, but this proposal is just going to tax and make -- and the homeowner is going to have to pass it on. The property owner is going to have to pass it on. So you're not solving it. You really aren't. Please, if not, get the state statute changed. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Any other comments? Questions? MS. PADRON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. We have no additional speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Board discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Vice Chair? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Vice Chair, Commissioner Schmitt. Yeah, you know, I -- all good comments from the public. I would caution the Board two things: We are not tax advisors. We should not get into the tax advising business. That is a private matter between the homeowner, their tax consultant, or whomever they have to review or prepare, review, and approve their taxes. So I would caution that we just stay away from that, because we should not be getting into the business of trying to provide financial advice. I think the Property Appraiser well documented. Great presentation. That information is open and available to the public. Turning a blind eye to what's been going on for years is not the answer. I think that's why Commissioner Hall proposed this. And I would say that, as was stated, there's no downside to this. The fact is that the January 16, 2025 Page 34 of 44 property owner is going to have to make a choice whether they register and actually legitimize what they're doing or continue to do it under the table. But, frankly, that's not our business. It becomes a code enforcement issue. It's been a code enforcement issue for years in this county. It's sort of the hidden secret; been going on for years. But I would recommend that we move this forward to the Board of County Commissioners for discussion and for approval. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. I mean, the only -- I understand all the comments, and I feel the same. It's just I wish that -- I wish that the League of Cities would lobby Tallahassee to change that to open it up so that you could get the affordable housing -- open up that funding that you can get through grants to improve that property if you are doing an affordable. And affordable housing, we're talking about 80 percent AMI. You're not talking -- you're talking about teachers. You're talking about firefighters. You're talking those that need it. Even 100 percent AMI still qualify. So when you open up that funding, which we're seeing going out for large-scale developments, but we bring it back on a smaller side, just as the last speaker had stated, you know, you've got a house that's 20 years old, it's got a bad roof, it's got a bad kitchen, you've got an open -- an open area for funding to try to help improve that and also help your community at the same time. I think -- either way, if you pass it or do nothing, it stays the same. If you pass it, nobody's going to come forward and say, "I'm renting out my guesthouse." As we just heard, there's 12 of them that they found, which comes about. It's not that Code Enforcement's going around knocking on doors. We don't have the staff for that. That's coming from neighbor complaints into their office. So it's -- I don't know. In a perfect world, you wouldn't lose your homestead, you could do an affordable aspect to it, we'd expand it to the eastern side of 951, and that would at least allow people to bring it into the fold, do it legally, at the same time be able to access some funding to improve their property. That's really my comments on the subject. Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, Eric Johnson. If you were so inclined to be interested in east of 951, into the rural, it may be a different type of infrastructure situation than urban, and so, you know, that should be studied, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I would say, like, east and south of Vanderbilt extension. What's the extension tie into, 16th? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yep. Because that opens up the other side of Golden Gate, which is the already improved area where we already have roads. I see you back there, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. Just to be clear, as far as the extension of VBR, what we're looking at -- it's in two phases. First phase goes to 16th. Phase 2 goes from 16th to Everglades. As part of that, the first phase goes from a six-lane segment down to a two-lane, and then Phase 2 is a two-lane segment. It is designed to be built out to, eventually, a potential six-lane all the way through. That's what we've got right-of-way for. Everglades itself is also going to be scheduled to be improved to a four-lane divided segment, and we've got other improvements out in the network. And that's how we look at things. We look at network-wide improvements. And so to answer your question, that's what we're currently looking at. As far as this particular subject goes, our comments were directed specifically to the west of 951. And the reason for that is there's a different character in the network on the west side of January 16, 2025 Page 35 of 44 951 than there is on the east side. You will find that, generally speaking, you've got a bit better network on east/west, north/south major roadways in that area. You've got more of them. The traffic in that area tends to be a bit better distributed in that network. And you are also going to find that you've got more goods, services, and jobs in that area. So you're also -- you take all of that, and what you're looking at is shorter distances being traveled on the network, which is what we want to try and encourage. When you go on the east of 951, it does change. You've got longer distances, and you've got a network that is -- you know, we're working on improving it, but it's still -- it's -- those are the -- those are the improvements that we're still working on. We're still studying them. And we are making improvements, but those are the areas that we still need to basically concentrate on more. Everything on the west side, those are areas where we're looking at improvements on intersections and making those types of improvements in order to improve the network. Most of those roadways are on the built-out, you know, area as far as the amount of right-of-way that we have available, generally speaking. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. I got two. Commissioner Shea. Three. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just wanted to follow up again. I don't see the downside. I personally don't think it's going to accomplish what it wants to accomplish. I remember when we talked about it at affordable housing, the thing that kept -- we kept going around and around about was the homestead. And, of course, back then we never got any answers like you just gave us. That was -- I wish I would have heard that back then, because I don't -- I don't see it helping other than, as you say, Mike, it would increase -- maybe increase the supply. I don't see a downside. So I guess I would support Joe's comment that we approve it. It's really up to the commissioners on this stage. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Nothing's easy, that's for sure. It's -- it's becoming, I think, somewhat obvious that approving this to make it okay to rent out your guesthouse as opposed to it's not okay to rent out your guesthouse, I don't know what -- it really sounds like it's not going to accomplish much, because if I suddenly knew that I could rent out my guesthouse and had half a brain, I'd probably consult with my tax advisor before I did it to know what I'm up against. And when I find out what I'm up against, I'm sure as hell not going to do it. So this is a real conundrum. You leave it alone or make it okay, but making it okay isn't going to accomplish much. So what do you do? Are we spinning our wheels? I don't know the -- I don't know the right way to go here. I honestly don't, simply -- simply because if you listen to everyone, it's not going to accomplish its intended purpose because of the tax implications, I think, and we're not going to get the state to change next -- anything probably in the next decade on this. Who knows? So I don't know -- I don't know what to do. I don't know what the right way to go is. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Mike, you can just nod. But in our conversations that we've heard and with what you just stated, you would need a totally new and different evaluation and review for opening this up to the east of 951, correct -- MR. SAWYER: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: -- because it's not going to follow the plan, the thought, the review process that you did for west of 951? MR. SAWYER: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: So being good stewards here on the Board, I think we January 16, 2025 Page 36 of 44 should not even contemplate including anything to be reviewed or to be included for the parcels east of 951. I'm just trying to make that statement for all of us. We should only consider what is written for west of 951, should we do it. And my personal view is whenever something like this comes up in your own personal matters, you have to do your due diligence to find out what is the tax implications for income tax, what's the tax implications on my property. And you have to be well educated. And as we've all heard and found out, it may not be worth it at all to consider, quote, "legally renting" your guesthouse with what we have learned. But that's not up to us to decide, I believe. That's up to that individual to figure out. And with that, with no other amendments to what's been presented, I would be in favor of what they're asking us to forward to the BCC. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any other questions, comments, concerns? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Did Joe make a motion when he said -- or is he just stating his opinion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, that was in verbiage of a motion. I make a motion that we present -- we approve this as written and present it to the Board of County Commissioners for their final consideration and approval. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: And including the admin code amendment contingent upon deleting the provision related to parking LDC Section 5.05.03.F.5? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. As Eric presented, correct. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: As Eric presented. MR. JOHNSON: Clarification, 5.03.03. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: 5.03.03, yes. Sorry. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: How do we let the Commission know that -- I think we all feel this could backfire on you. It's not going to do any good. It could backfire on you. How do we let the Commission know that, conceptually, we're in favor of this, but realistically, it's not going to work? How do we let them know? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Mr. Bosi, is there going to be a summary in that to the Board that would summarize that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, saying that it's not going to work is just an opinion. We have to base it on fact, and we're just -- we're just surmising based on statements that are made. I think when the -- when this goes before the Board of County Commissioners, just as was presented to us, the Tax Collector's Office provide the pertinent information for the Board to consider. And as Randy stated, it's very pertinent information, but we're not in the tax advisory business. We're in the business of moving forward Land Development Codes that we think will benefit the county. It's up to the individual to make a decision based on their personal income level and their financial -- the financial impacts that they may incur on proceeding with this is up to them. That's not -- really, that's not our purview. They would have to consult their own tax advisor or investment counselor or whomever. So I don't think -- I think, though, we could just point out that there are flaws, and let the staff summarize our opinion that there are potential flaws to this and that there are -- that the downside is actually what would happen if, in fact -- the property owner could, in fact, face serious financial implications by implementing -- by, I guess, going with this policy. But that, again, is up to the property owner. Thanks. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Commissioner McLeod. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. The only thing that's holding me back from agreeing to this is my concern for the homeowners not knowing the implications here. And you had mentioned, you know, it's up to the individual homeowner to do their homework. Some January 16, 2025 Page 37 of 44 people don't have the wherewithal to know how to do all of that. So I think I would be in favor of this if we could make the suggestion/recommendation that it -- that it be very clearly explained in the application as to what the implications are so that we're kind of, like, educating the residents through that application, because if we don't do that, I don't think that they'll get that education, and they're going to suffer greatly down the road. So that would be my recommendation. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I believe staff from the Property Appraiser's Officer said it's on their website, correct? MS. YBACETA: Rental information is on our website, but I think she's referring to the application that would be submitted to Code Enforcement. So I mean, yes, in the application to Code Enforcement, something could be -- with Code Enforcement when they're registering their guesthouse, they can indicate that this can affect your property taxes. You know, they can also call our office. It can say, "Call the Property Appraiser's Office with any questions prior to implementing this." Unfortunately, we have over 106,000 homesteaded properties in Collier County. It isn't just Golden Gate Estates that rents additional dwellings. So these same problems happen everywhere. And whether it's allowed or not allowed, like discussed, people are doing it already. So people are understanding and are knowing it. And this happens not just with guesthouses. But if you decide you're going to travel in your RV for a year and a half and you're going to rent your house, this same thing is going to happen to your house. You know, your homestead exemption comes off. It's back at full market value. And when you decide to come back and make it your primary residence, you start this all over again. So none of this is new information in the Florida State Statutes, but not everybody looks into it properly. And unfortunately, you know, whether you're discussing -- talking to different tax consultants, Realtors, you know, accountants, whatever the case may be, they don't all understand it or visit our website or contact our office as well. MS. BLAJE: And the examples that we gave to you today about the tax dollar amounts, you know, those were hypotheticals given to help you understand what could happen in the future. But even the information on our website, we are never going to say, "This is the amount you're going to pay in the future" because we have no way of knowing what the market's going to do or what the millage rate's going to be at that point, so... COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So I have a real estate license. Like they say, "More people in Florida have a real estate license than a driver's license." But I have a real estate license I have to renew every two years. And in the educational material that they give you, they do give you hypotheticals with numbers that, you know, if you were to buy a house at $500,000. So I'm thinking if we could provide that kind of information to the public, then that's how we educate them. MS. YBACETA: And our website does have a tax estimator on there where you can go onto a property and estimate values and things like that, but it's not going to pull out the value of a guesthouse. It's a very tricky, you know, matter of -- a value of a property is the whole value of the property. You know, we have to look at, internally, what the value of that guesthouse is specifically to be able to make that determination of that value is what's going to be going on. And like she said, in that given year, what's market value going to be doing, and what are the millage rates that are going to be set. So if millages drop or millages increase any given year, you can see a higher number or a lower number as well. MS. BLAJE: Just one more thing. We're talking about an existing guesthouse. If you're talking about -- so, okay, I'm going to build a guesthouse to be able to rent. By the time you get the guesthouse built in a year and a half or two years, I have no way of telling you what the value of that's going to be, not even if you bring the plans in to me. I don't know what base rate -- you know, building costs are going to be then. I don't know what the exact quality of construction's January 16, 2025 Page 38 of 44 going to be. I can't estimate for you what it's going to be in the future. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you can estimate what it would be today. And I think you're right, we should -- I would recommend that we approve it with a caveat that you put a presentation together with some typical examples so they can see that number and understand that it doesn't go back. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, where do they see that? On the application? COMMISSIONER SHEA: They won't see it. They'll just get caught with their pants down and go, "Oh, damn. What happened?" I think -- I'd like to see that presented to the commissioners so they see those kinds of numbers. I think it would change their view of how successful this may or may not be. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you for your time. Just -- I'm sorry. I want to ask you one more question. How much time would you say staff has to put in whenever you receive a complaint that somebody's renting out a guesthouse to a non-family member? How much time would you say would have to go into that review and meeting and staff time? Could you quantify that in some type of monetary amount? Like -- MS. YBACETA: It kind of -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Would it -- would it -- here's a better question. Would it match the increase in the property tax collected? MS. YBACETA: No. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Or would it -- no. MS. YBACETA: No. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It would not? Thank you. MS. YBACETA: Because we're talking more staff to be able -- we visit these properties. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: You do? MS. YBACETA: We have an investigator that actually goes to the property. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: There's hours and hours. MS. YBACETA: But before they even go out to the property, we're talking about driver's license check, voter's check, vehicle checks. Do they own any property out of state, contacting other states, finding out if there are other exemptions. So before we even say to Mr. Smith -- not you, Mr. Smith. So Mr. Smith -- Mr. Jones that your guesthouse is being rented, I'm going to first make the determination, am I even leaving your homestead on at all? What if I find out that, you know, yes, your guesthouses is being rented, but Mr. Jones is actually in Ohio, and he got a driver's license and registered for the two-and-a-half-percent rollback as a residency exemption. Now I'm taking all your homestead off. So all that has to be looked at prior to us even stepping foot on the property to determine whether that is being used as a guesthouse or not -- as a rented. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: This is not revenue driver for -- MS. YBACETA: No, not for -- not for our office. Additionally, our office has -- gets no income from this whatsoever. You know, we put a value on the property. That's the only thing we're doing, putting a value on the property and granting an exemption or not granting an exemption. Beyond that -- that's all we do. Millage rates are coming from taxing authorities. The Tax Collector collects the actual dollar amount. We don't do anything else other than that. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I think it's an important point that the amount of time and labor invested into each one of those is not -- does not equal what comes back from those that are renting out. MS. YBACETA: And, again, it is already happening, so we are already doing that. It's just the volume of being -- there are people that are doing it, like they said, no matter what because they want to do it. But it's those people that now know I can do it legally. Would that increase the number of people that will start doing this or not? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Can I have a -- ask a question, too? January 16, 2025 Page 39 of 44 CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Does the Collier Appraiser's Office -- would they like to see something like this put into place? MS. YBACETA: Again, I don't have an opinion. It's already happening, you know, so -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. It's already happening, but do you want to legalize it? MS. YBACETA: I don't think I have an opinion on whether I want to legalize it or not. I think I want people to understand what happens with it, you know. And it's not just property taxes. You have a homeowners insurance, which is already hard enough. You know, all those things change and all those are factors that come into all this. And I think as long as people are aware of what they're doing and, long run, it makes, you know, sense for that property owner, then that's that property owner's, you know, decision. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Commissioner Colucci, did you have something? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: How about if we approve this proposal and inform the Board of Commissioners, who are the final deciders on this, of the potential downside from a tax standpoint for people who take advantage of this opportunity? Let the Board of Commissioners decide. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Well, that's pretty much what we do. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I think that's what we're saying, but we advise them -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: But they need to know -- they need -- the Board needs to know what we're concerned about. It's sort of like we approve this, but... CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: We're concerned about the tax implications, which, I think, the other subcommittees had already highlighted in their recommendation coming up. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So that's what I think we should do. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, but like Paul said, AHAC and probably DSAC didn't have this information when they were coming up with those recommendations. And then I have another question. I just -- it came to mind when I said, "legalizing it." Don't we already have the laws in place for this? You can't rent out a guesthouse. If you do, these are the implications. Like, isn't it already in place? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It's a -- yeah. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So then why are we doing this? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It's an ordinance to allow people to. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But aren't they already -- they're not allowed to have -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: They're not allowed to do it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- to rent guesthouses? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: No. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: They're not allowed. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So, again, I would propose that we approve it but we put a detailed cost analysis on the taxes, not just say they should research it. We can put that together before the meeting, and they can see the numbers, have a presentation so they fully understand. You could create two or three typical scenarios in today's dollars that -- I don't think they realize how big of a financial impact it would have in today's scenario by legal -- by legalizing my rental. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Who's "they"? COMMISSIONER SHEA: The commissioners. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Or the people. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Or both. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. But one other question, though. If you can't rent January 16, 2025 Page 40 of 44 guesthouses, why is the Appraiser already handling guesthouses? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Two separate issues. One would be a code enforcement issue, correct, Mike? And one's a tax issue. MR. BOSI: Correct. The Property Appraiser appraises property. They don't enforce the rules -- they don't enforce the rules of the Board of County Commissioners. They -- they assess property based upon the statutory guidelines as provided to them from the Florida Statutes. That's what they do. They -- if there is illegal guesthouse renting, that's a code enforcement issue, not an issue of the Property Appraiser. They're tasked -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- with only appraising the property within the guidelines directed by the statutes. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I was just going to say there's a first and a second. So we've got a first and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: I'd like to add to this, if I may, with the first and second that's been presented, that we request a detailed report from our wonderful folks in the taxation department, the Property Appraiser's department, to be included in the packet that the Board see or/and the public sees, because I think that brings a whole new light on, as we've all said, "What is this doing?" But the details they gave us today, basically, "Once you start this, you can't go back" is extremely important for all parties, the Board and the public, public renter/landlord, to know and understand. If we could agree for that to be included for the BCC, I think that covers a lot. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Would it be sufficient if we provide the portion of the transcript where the Property Appraiser described the implications? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Are you happy with that? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm not. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Me, either. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think she could -- she just rattled that off. She could rattle off three or four -- I'd like to see two or three different typical scenarios, and I don't think it would take that much. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Yeah, maybe one-page review -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: -- a one-page summary of today's current tax implications -- Property Appraiser tax implications if a homeowner goes through with this. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But I think that all recommendations should be to the -- to include hypotheticals in the application, not so much in the packet to the commissioners. Of course, the commissioners are going to hear all of this, but our recommendation to the commissioners are to -- to include hypotheticals in the application so that when people go to do this, that's where they're being educated. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Since the Property Appraiser is a separate constitutional officer, we can only request. It will be up to the Property Appraiser whether they're willing to put something together, because they may have, you know, some implications of providing this -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- at your request, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, Commissioner Schmitt. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead, Chair. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eric -- I think Eric can put something together. He can work with the Property Appraiser's Office. They can put an example together. It can January 16, 2025 Page 41 of 44 very -- simplify -- it could be part of the PowerPoint presentation or just a simple description that Eric can include as part of the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners that gives an example of just what was described, and I think that should be sufficient. Because an example that shows the implications, all that's what the commissioners really need to understand. But, again, we're not -- we're not in the business of trying to, I guess, legitimize the illegal renting of units, and to turn a blind eye is certainly irresponsible on our part. I know -- I heard that from one of -- the member of the public, but that's not our job. Our job is to -- if we see a bulk, we have to correct it. Turning a blind eye is not the answer. Anyways, my motion still stands. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: And we have a second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I second what Joe said, with the addendum that we put something together in the package to describe the tax implications along with a recommendation to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Excellent. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye (delayed). CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yeah, Joe's delayed. Let the record reflect it was unanimous. Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, everybody. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, everyone. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you, members from [sic] the tax office. ***Next item, PL20240004018, RLS town size GMPA. Refresh me if this is legislative or if we've got to swear in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Legislative. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Legislative. Thank you, Rich. You didn't have to ask me to swear anybody in today. I know the last two meetings you've been reminding Joe. Reminding me. I was like, I've got to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm doing my best. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I saw you, and that's the first thing that came to mind is I've got to swear everybody in. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a habit. It's a habit. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of Ave Maria Development, LLLP. You have seen these Growth Management Plan amendments in the past. I don't know if, Mr. Petscher, did you see this before? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We've seen this, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. If you've all seen this before, I'm not going to go into a detailed presentation. The way the process works is, since it's a large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment, we do two steps. The first step is to go here, and the Board, then it goes to the state. The state comments or doesn't comment, then it comes back, and we come back again to the Planning Commission and the BCC for final adoption of these Growth Management Plan amendments. (Interruption by the stenographer for clarification.) January 16, 2025 Page 42 of 44 MR. YOVANOVICH: We're doing two things in these Growth Management Plan amendments. We're eliminating the maximum size of a town. You're still going to approve the towns as they come forward. And the second thing we're doing is clarifying the definition of what counts as goods and services. We're back again asking you to finally recommend approval for the adoption of these two changes to your Growth Management Plan. And if you need more of an explanation, I'm happy to give it to you; otherwise, we're requesting you follow staff's recommendation and forward this to the County Commission with a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Did we get any comments from the state? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. So nothing's different from when we heard it the first time? MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything's exactly the same as you saw it the first time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I guess we'd be kind of silly to not approve it again. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. You did it once, but you have the right to change your mind. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I'd like to open up -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Please don't. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: -- to public comment. Public comment. MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll try to get you out of here before lunch. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any Board discussion or comment? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck? CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, Commissioner Schmitt. Of course, this is a long evolving process, and I think the proposals fit well with the evolution of the Rural Land Stewardship Program, and we've seen this in the past. I would recommend approval. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I second that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I -- yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye (delayed). CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: "Aye," as in approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Excellent. I know that we don't have any old business. Commissioner, I know you wanted to speak on something under "new." COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. I wanted to make a special request that -- can we, in the -- a future meeting have a presentation from staff as to kind of like a Planning Commission 101? I, myself, would like a greater understanding of what we, as the land planning agency, is tasked to do; exactly what's in our purview, what's in our duties, what's in our purpose, and what's not. So is there a way that we could have, like, a -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Set that up with Mike. I mean -- January 16, 2025 Page 43 of 44 COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Well, I talked to Mike about it, and he -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Do you want to do it with the whole board? MR. BOSI: I can do it -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I could do it -- we could put the presentation together, and we could have it individually, or we could have it with the entire -- the Board. I'm not sure -- I mean, the individual members -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It could be good to do the whole board just to refresh some of our memories, too. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Like, at the last meeting, I had met with staff about an issue that they're, like, "Okay. Yeah, you can bring this up," but then I brought it up, and it was like, no, you shouldn't bring it up. So I just think that we need that clarification. MR. BOSI: And it's going to be based upon the statutory provisions that provide the allowance and guidance for what the Planning Commission's role and responsibilities are, so it will be an overview of that. So I don't think it's going to be a long presentation, but it will be informative. And I think -- we'll put it together. I'll choose an agenda where hopefully we have -- where it's probably only a half day, so we can get it done in 25, 30 minutes and have opportunities for questions, and then everyone has a little bit better understanding of the -- of what the statute says that you guys are supposed to be doing. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: All right. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Awesome. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I agree. MR. BOSI: And I do have one other question. We have the housing plan LDC amendments that are going -- have been -- have satisfied staff review. They will require a nighttime hearing because they are going to add additional uses to the LDC. May 6th, 2025, would the Planning Commission be available for a nighttime hearing? Right now there is no petitions scheduled. So it would be you scheduled -- you would be showing up at 5:05. We would have the housing plans. They're pretty comprehensive. There's about 80 to 90 -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: May 6th or May 8th? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: That's a Tuesday. MR. BOSI: Did I say -- I meant March, March 6th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're in March. Oh. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Thursday. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: Do you provide dinner? Just checking. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No. MR. BOSI: Normally the court reporter provides some sort of a treat. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: March 6th at what time; 5? MR. BOSI: 5:05. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I can't be there then. I have a 5 o'clock commitment, but -- CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: I mean, I'll make myself available if I need to, yeah. Anybody else have a conflict? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZA: As of now, no, but I never know my schedule. MR. BOSI: And if we can -- it sounds like maybe there's a tentative. I will -- I can send out an e-mail, and then you can double-check your schedules. And then we'll get the responses back. Hopefully we can get the responses back within a timely fashion so we can be able to kind of make a decision as to whether we can -- we're going to have a quorum. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Yes, sir. MR. BOSI: And then we can -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you want to put two dates on, like the 6th or the 20th? Is there an urgency to it? MR. BOSI: It's been a long time coming. We'd like to get it done. But we could -- the 6th or the 20th, we could -- January 16, 2025 Page 44 of 44 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I'm just saying, like send out a survey -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: -- and we check the ones -- MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: -- and the ones that you get the better quorum at -- MR. BOSI: We can. The only issue with the 20th is -- oh, no. Right now we have zero petitions. So I will send out with both dates, and then we'll see whatever date is going get the best response, and then we can go from there. So expect an e-mail that's going to be coming from our office to you asking whether March 6th or March 20th would be a better date for that 5:05 start. Perfect. Thank you. And nothing else from staff. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No other public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: No other comment, then we stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: When's our next meeting. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:56 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _________________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ________ or as corrected ________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. ______________________________ JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN X