Agenda 03/11/2025 Item #11B (Golf Course Conversion process - PL20230012905)3/11/2025
Item # 11.B
ID# 2025-390
Executive Summary
Recommendation to provide staff direction pertaining to the Board of County Commissioners' request for modifications
to the existing Land Development Code 5.05.15, Golf Course Conversion process to minimize the County’s exposure to
Burt Harris claims associated with the current codified conversion process.
OBJECTIVE: To direct staff on the next steps for the regulatory requirements for an existing golf course
seeking to convert to an alternative use.
CONSIDERATIONS:
On February 14, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to bring back a Land
Development Code (LDC) amendment to clarify that the Board has the discretion to grant deviations to reduce the
minimum average greenway width of a proposed golf course conversion during the rezoning process. Additionally,
on April 11, 2023, the Board recognized that the existing Golf Course Conversion Intent to Convert (ITC)
application process has not been effective in bringing the developer and stakeholders together early in the process
to resolve issues, as initially intended, and directed staff to bring back recommendations for an amendment that
could improve the process and remove potential "Bert Harris" (Florida Statutes, Chapter 70) claims. The Board
also discussed the possibility of repealing the ITC process in its entirety.
The Board adopted the existing Golf Course Conversion regulations and ITC application requirements on March
28, 2017. Since then, the County has received three ITC applications for the proposed conversion of an existing
golf course to a non-golf course. All three ITC applications have been completed, resulting in the approved
conversion of one (Golden Gate Golf Course) but litigation for the other two.
Following the Board directives of February 14, 2023, and April 11, 2023, staff originally intended to modify only
the existing golf course conversion regulations as a means to improve the section by removing requirements that
could be deemed superfluous. Staff later determined that the proposed modified regulations would not
considerably improve the conversion process. Staff then created a new draft to include the core intentions of the
existing section:
1. to require the applicant to engage surrounding property owners early in the design process and
2. to require preserving a portion of the greenway in a proposed conversion project.
The draft amendment seeks to promote a simplified, streamlined process to minimize potential Burt Harris claims
for proposed golf course conversion projects by removing the ITC application requirement as an "extra step"
before the traditional rezone application process. Instead, the proposed conversion projects will be required to hold
a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) before their rezone application is submitted. The intention of the pre-
submittal NIM would be for the applicant to involve the public prior to the submittal of the rezone application in
order to better identify potential existing neighborhood compatibility concerns. The proposed golf course
conversion project will also require a greenway in the design of the proposed non-golf course use. This greenway
requirement aims to retain an open space along the perimeter of the golf course conversion project and adjacent to
an existing residential development. A provision is also included to specify that the Board has the authority to
grant deviations to the greenway requirement as part of any rezone request and to provide direct certainty that any
and all requirements of the golf course conversion process can be waived by the Board, depending on the
circumstances of the individual project.
While maintaining the additional Neighborhood Information Meeting and the requirement for a Greenway, the
following steps were removed from the golf course conversion process:
1. Stakeholder Outreach process
2. Stakeholder Outreach Report eliminated.
3. Compatibility Design Review.
Page 308 of 4027
3/11/2025
Item # 11.B
ID# 2025-390
4. Requirement to satisfy the Intent to Convert process
5. Requirement to provide a Developer's Alternative Statement.
6. The option for County purchase of the golf course
7. Requirement for multiple Conceptual development plans.
8. Requirement for Web-based visual surveys
9. Requirement for a pre-verse post-development stormwater runoff analysis
At the August 11, 2024, Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) public hearing, the streamlined, simplified
version of the proposed golf course conversion amendment was presented to the CCPC. The CCPC did not accept
the proposed modification, stating that staff took a "hatchet" according to the existing regulations and that the
CCPC felt only a "scalpel" was needed. The CCPC identified the following issues to be addressed within a revised
version:
1. Eliminate the average width of the greenway
2. Ensure that the intent of the greenway issue is preserved.
3. Eliminate the "sole discretion" language for the Board to eliminate the greenway.
4. Clarify that the process only applies to golf courses that are zoned residential rather than used as residential.
5. The conversion project cannot utilize the golf course as an open space.
6. Conversion projects must meet all state and federal requirements.
7. Eliminate the terminology of Stakeholder Outreach Meeting (SOM) and Notice to Convert (NTC) and simply
incorporate a series of.NIMs
It should be noted that the third attachment to this executive summary are comments from members of the Riviera Golf
Estates community, who oppose modifications to the current conversion process.
In support of the Strategic Plan, this item attempts to minimize potential costs and risks related to future Burt Harris
claims that are associated with golf course conversion projects.
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient budget allocation has been provided to the Zoning Division to account for staff
time, materials and the cost associated with the development of a Land Development Code Amendment to
modify Section 5.05.15, pertaining to the golf course conversion regulations.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
The Growth Management Plan (GMP) specifically allows for golf course use within the Rural and Urbanized
designated areas of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Managed Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address
the specific requirements for how an existing golf course converts to an alternative use, therefore the modifications
to LDC Section 5.05.15 will not impact the GMP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This item is approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote of the Board for Board direction.
However, an affirmative vote of four will be needed at a future meeting to adopt an ordinance amending the
LDC. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATIONS: To direct staff to bring back the simplified golf course conversion process at a future
advertised public hearing to minimize future Burt Harris claims associated with additional requirements of
5.05.15 of the LDC.
PREPARED BY:
Page 309 of 4027
3/11/2025
Item # 11.B
ID# 2025-390
Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PL20230012905 Golf Course Conversion - LDCA (02-05-2025)
2. CCPC Minutes 08-01-2024-Golf-Course-Conversion
3. RGE-CCPC-Objections
Page 310 of 4027
1
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION
PL20230012905
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
This amendment introduces comprehensive updates to the current
provisions in the Land Development Code (LDC) related to the conversion
of golf courses. LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board, Collier
County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of
the DSAC (DSAC-LDR). Procedural changes to the Administrative Code
are also part of this amendment.
ORIGIN
Board of County
Commissioners (Board)
HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED
Board TBD 3.05.07
5.05.15
10.03.06
Preservation Standards
Conversion of Golf Courses
Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions
CCPC 08/01/2024
DSAC 02/07/2024
DSAC-LDR 01/31/2024
01/16/2024
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR
Approval with
recommendations
DSAC
Approval with
recommendations
CCPC
TBD
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2023, the Board directed staff to bring back an LDC amendment to clarify that the Board has
the discretion to grant deviations to reduce the minimum average greenway width of a proposed golf course
conversion during the rezoning process. Additionally, on April 11, 2023, the Board recognized that the existing
Golf Course Conversion Intent to Convert (ITC) application process has not been effective in bringing the
developer and stakeholders together early in the process to resolve issues, as initially intended, and directed staff
to bring back recommendations for an amendment that could improve the process and remove potential “Bert
Harris” (Florida Statutes, Chapter 70) claims. The Board also discussed the possibility of repealing the ITC
process in its entirety.
The existing Golf Course Conversion regulations and ITC application requirements were adopted by the Board
on March 28, 2017. Since that time, the County has received three ITC applications for the proposed conversion
of an existing golf course to a non-golf course use. All three ITC applications have been completed, resulting in
the approved conversion of one (Golden Gate Golf Course) and pending litigation for the others.
Following the Board directive, Staff originally intended to only modify the existing conversion regulations as a
means to improve the section by removing requirements that could be deemed as superfluous. Staff later
determined that the modified regulations would not considerably improve the conversion process. Staff then
created a new draft to include the core intentions of the existing section: 1. to require the applicant to engage
surrounding property owners early in the design process, and 2. to require preservation of a portion of the
greenway in a proposed conversion project.
This amendment seeks to promote a streamlined process for proposed golf course conversion projects by
removing the ITC application requirement as an “extra step” before the traditional rezone application process.
Proposed conversion projects will instead be required to hold one Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)
before their rezone application is submitted. This pre-submittal NIM is intended to require the applicant to involve
Page 311 of 4027
2
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
the public prior to the submittal of the rezone application. The proposed conversion project will also be required
to include a greenway in the design of the proposed non-golf course use. The purpose of this greenway
requirement is to retain an open space along the perimeter of the conversion project and adjacent to existing
residential development. A provision is also included to specify that the Board has the authority to grant
deviations to the greenway requirement, as part of any rezone request.
Corresponding revisions to other LDC sections are also included to maintain consistency from the proposed
updates. Updates to sections of the Administrative Code to reflect the proposed procedural changes reflected in
this draft amendment are also included in Exhibit A.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The cost associated with advertising the
Ordinance amending the Land Development
Code are estimated at $1,008.00. Funds are
available within Unincorporated Area General
Fund (1011), Zoning & Land Development
Cost Center (138319).
GMP CONSISTENCY
The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by
Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed
consistent with the GMP.
EXHIBITS: A) Administrative Code Updates
Page 312 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
3
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
Amend the LDC as follows:
1
3.05.07 Preservation Standards 2
3
All development not specifically exempted by this ordinance shall incorporate, at a minimum, the 4
preservation standards contained within this section. 5
6
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 7
8
H. Preserve standards. 9
10
1. Design standards. 11
12
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 13
14
e. Created preserves. Although the primary intent of GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 15
is to retain and protect existing native vegetation, there are situations where 16
the application of the retention requirements of this Policy is not possible. 17
In these cases, creation or restoration of vegetation to satisfy all or a portion 18
of the native vegetation retention requirements may be allowed. In keeping 19
with the intent of this policy, the preservation of native vegetation off site is 20
preferable over creation of preserves. Created Preserves shall be allowed 21
for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the required on-site 22
preserve area and the proposed activity. 23
24
i. Applicability. Criteria for determining when a parcel cannot 25
reasonably accommodate both the required on-site preserve area 26
and the proposed activity include: 27
28
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 29
30
(e) When small isolated areas (of less than ½ acre in size) of 31
native vegetation exist on site. In cases where retention of 32
native vegetation results in small isolated areas of ½ acre or 33
less, preserves may be planted with all three strata; using 34
the criteria set forth in Created Preserves and shall be 35
created adjacent existing native vegetation areas on site or 36
contiguous to preserves on adjacent properties. This 37
exception may be granted, regardless of the size of the 38
project. Created preserves may exceed the ½ acre size 39
limitation for a rezone or SRA amendment application for 40
the conversion of a golf course to another use conversion 41
applications in accordance with LDC section 5.05.15. 42
43
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 44
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 45
46
47
48
49
50
Page 313 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
4
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses 1
2
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to require an additional step of public 3
involvement and to add a greenway requirement for the proposed conversion of an 4
existing golf course to a non-golf course use. The intent is to involve the public prior to 5
the submittal of a rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) amendment application 6
and to require the applicant to engage residents, property owners, and the surrounding 7
community early in the conceptual design phase of the conversion project, in order to 8
better identify potential compatibility issues to the existing neighborhoods. 9
10
B. Applicability. This section applies to a proposed change of use of a constructed golf 11
course, in whole or in part, to a non-golf course use where a rezone or amendment to an 12
SRA is needed to allow the non-golf course use. 13
14
C. Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from this section: 15
16
1. Golf courses zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC) where a permitted, 17
accessory, or conditional non-golf course use is sought. 18
19
2. Golf courses constructed prior to [effective date of Ordinance amendment] as a 20
conditional use in the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District. 21
22
3. Golf courses that do not abut and/or are not adjacent to residentially zoned 23
property. 24
25
D. Additional pre-submittal application requirements for golf course conversions. 26
27
1. A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required after the initial pre-28
application meeting and before the submittal of a formal application. This NIM does 29
not replace the NIM requirements after submittal of the application. 30
31
2. After completing the required pre-submittal NIM, the application will follow the 32
procedural steps required of all rezone or SRA amendment applications. 33
34
3. A title report that identifies the current owner of the property and all encumbrances 35
shall be required as part of the rezone or SRA amendment application. 36
37
E. Greenway requirements. The proposed rezone or SRA amendment application shall 38
provide for a greenway as part of the project. The purpose of the greenway is to retain an 39
open space along the perimeter of the project and adjacent to the existing residential 40
development. 41
42
1. The greenway shall be contiguous to the existing residential properties 43
surrounding the existing golf course, shall generally be located along the perimeter 44
of the proposed development, and shall maintain an average width of 50 feet. 45
46
2. The greenway may be counted towards the open space requirement for the project 47
as established in LDC section 4.02.00. 48
49
3. Existing trees and understory (shrubs and groundcover) are encouraged to be 50
preserved and maintained within the greenway, except where minimal 51
Page 314 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
5
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
improvements are needed that provide a passive recreational use. At a minimum, 1
canopy trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1:2,000 square feet within the 2
greenway. Existing trees may count toward the ratio; however, trees within 3
preserves shall be excluded from the ratio. 4
5
4. The greenway shall not include the required yards (buffers and/or setbacks) of any 6
proposed individual lots. 7
8
5. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed 9
development; however, should a wall or fence be constructed, the fence shall 10
provide habitat connectivity to facilitate movement of wildlife in and around the 11
greenway. 12
13
6. A portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management; however, the 14
greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake area than exists 15
pre-conversion in the greenway. 16
17
7. The owner shall record a restrictive covenant at the time of subdivision plat or Site 18
Development Plan (SDP) approval, in the County's official records, describing the 19
use and maintenance of the greenway as described in the zoning action or SRA 20
amendment. 21
22
8. Notwithstanding, the Board has the authority to grant deviations at its sole 23
discretion, including, but not limited to, reduction of the greenway requirement. 24
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to assess and mitigate the impact of 25
golf course conversion on real property by requiring outreach with stakeholders during the 26
design phase of the conversion project and specific development standards to ensure 27
compatibility with the existing land uses. For the purposes of this section, property owners 28
within 1,000 feet of a golf course shall hereafter be referred to as stakeholders. 29
30
1. Stakeholder outreach process. The intent is to provide a process to cultivate 31
consensus between the applicant and the stakeholders on the proposed 32
conversion. In particular, this section is designed to address the conversion of golf 33
courses surrounded, in whole or in part, by residential uses or lands zoned 34
residential. 35
36
2. Development standards. It is the intent of the specific development standards 37
contained herein to encourage the applicant to propose a conversion project with 38
land uses and amenities that are compatible and complementary to the existing 39
neighborhoods. Further, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate reasonable 40
input provided by stakeholders into the development proposal. 41
42
B. Applicability. The following zoning actions, Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments, 43
and Compatibility Design Review petitions, hereafter collectively referred to as 44
"conversion applications," shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.15. A conversion 45
application shall be required when an applicant seeks to change a constructed golf course 46
to a non-golf course use. However, where a permitted, accessory, or conditional use is 47
sought for a golf course zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC), the applicant 48
shall be exempt from this section except for LDC section 5.05.15 H. 49
50
Page 315 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
6
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
1. Zoning actions. This section applies to a golf course constructed in any zoning 1
district where the proposed use is not permitted, accessory, or conditional in the 2
zoning district or tract for which a zoning change is sought. Zoning actions seeking 3
a PUD rezone shall be subject to the minimum area requirements for PUDs 4
established in LDC section 4.07.02; however, the proposed PUD shall not be 5
required to meet the contiguous acres requirement so long as the PUD rezone 6
does not include lands other than the constructed golf course subject to the 7
conversion application. 8
9
2. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. This section applies to a golf course 10
constructed on lands within a Stewardship Receiving Area where the proposed 11
use is not permitted, accessory, or conditional in the context zone for which the 12
change is sought. 13
14
3. Compatibility Design Review. This section applies to a golf course constructed in 15
any zoning district or designated as a Stewardship Receiving Area that utilize a 16
non-golf course use which is a permitted, accessory or conditional use within the 17
existing zoning district or designation. Conditional uses shall also require 18
conditional use approval subject to LDC section 10.08.00. 19
20
C. Application process for conversion applications. 21
1. Intent to Convert application. The applicant shall submit an "Intent to Convert" 22
application to the County prior to submitting a conversion application. The following 23
is required of the applicant: 24
25
a. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and 26
application submittal requirements, including: a title opinion or title 27
commitment that identifies the current owner of the property and all 28
encumbrances against the property; the Developer's Alternatives 29
Statement, as provided for below; and the public outreach methods to be 30
used to engage stakeholders at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, as 31
established below. 32
33
b. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the 34
requirements of LDC section 10.03.06. 35
36
2. Developer's Alternatives Statement requirements. The purpose of the Developer's 37
Alternatives Statement (DAS) is to serve as a tool to inform stakeholders and the 38
County about the applicant's development options and intentions. It is intended to 39
encourage communication, cooperation, and consensus building between the 40
applicant, the stakeholders, and the County. 41
42
b. Alternatives. The DAS shall be prepared by the applicant and shall clearly 43
identify the goals and objectives for the conversion project. The DAS shall 44
address, at a minimum, the three alternatives noted below. The alternatives 45
are not intended to be mutually exclusive; the conceptual development plan 46
described below may incorporate one or more of the alternatives in the 47
conversion project. 48
49
Page 316 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
7
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
i. No conversion: The applicant shall examine opportunities to retain 1
all or part of the golf course. The following considerations are to be 2
assessed: 3
4
a) Whether any of the existing property owners' association(s) 5
reasonably related to the golf course are able to purchase 6
all or part of the golf course; and 7
8
b) Whether any of the existing property owners' association(s) 9
and/or any new association reasonably related to the golf 10
course can coordinate joint control for all or part of the golf 11
course. 12
13
ii. County purchase: The applicant shall coordinate with the County to 14
determine if there is interest to donate, purchase, or maintain a 15
portion or all of the property for a public use, such as a public park, 16
open space, civic use, or other public facilities. This section shall 17
not require the County to purchase any lands, nor shall this require 18
the property owner to donate or sell any land. 19
20
iii. Conceptual development plan: The applicant shall prepare one or 21
more proposed conceptual development plans, consistent with the 22
development standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 G, 23
depicting the proposed conversion. The applicant shall share the 24
conceptual development plan with the stakeholders at the 25
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings as described below. The 26
conceptual development plan shall include a narrative describing 27
how the plan implements and is consistent with the goals and 28
objectives identified in the DAS. The conceptual development plan 29
shall depict the retained and proposed land uses, including 30
residential, non-residential, and preserve areas; existing and 31
proposed roadway and pedestrian systems; existing and proposed 32
trees and landscaping; and the proposed location for the greenway, 33
including any passive recreational uses. The narrative shall identify 34
the intensity of the proposed land uses; how the proposed 35
conversion is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses 36
and any methods to provide benefits or mitigate impacts to the 37
stakeholders. Visual exhibits to describe the conceptual 38
development plan and amenities, including the greenway, shall also 39
be provided. 40
41
3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs) for conversion applications. The SOMs 42
are intended to engage the stakeholders early in the conversion project and inform 43
the applicant as to what the stakeholders find important in the neighborhood, what 44
the stakeholders consider compatible with the neighborhood, and what types of 45
land uses they would support to be added to the neighborhood. An assigned 46
County planner shall attend the SOM and observe the process. The following is 47
required of the applicant: 48
49
a. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and application 50
submittal requirements. 51
Page 317 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
8
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
1
b. The applicant shall conduct a minimum of two in-person SOMs and a 2
minimum of one web-based visual survey on the proposed conceptual 3
development plan(s). The web-based survey web address shall be 4
incorporated in the mailings notifying the stakeholders of the in-person 5
SOMs. 6
7
c. At the SOMs, the applicant shall provide information to the stakeholders 8
about the purpose of the meeting, including a presentation on the goals 9
and objectives of the conversion project, the conceptual development plan, 10
the greenway concept, and the measures taken to ensure compatibility with 11
the existing surrounding neighborhood. A copy of the full Developer's 12
Alternative Statement shall also be made available at each SOM. The 13
applicant shall facilitate discussion on these topics with the stakeholders 14
using one or more public outreach method(s) identified in the 15
Administrative Code. 16
17
d. SOM report for conversion applications. After completing the SOMs the 18
applicant shall prepare a SOM report. The report shall include a list of 19
attendees, a description of the public outreach methods used, photos from 20
the meetings demonstrating the outreach process, results from outreach 21
methods, and copies of the materials used during the SOMs. The applicant 22
shall also include a point-counterpoint list, identifying input from the 23
stakeholders and how and why it was or was not incorporated in the 24
conversion application. The report shall be organized such that the issues 25
and ideas provided by the stakeholders are clearly labeled by the applicant 26
in the list and the conversion application. 27
28
4. Conversion application procedures. An applicant shall not submit a conversion 29
application (e.g. rezone, PUDA, SRAA, Compatibility Design Review) until the 30
Intent to Convert application is deemed completed by County staff and the SOMs 31
are completed. Thereafter, the applicant may proceed by submitting a conversion 32
application with the County as follows: 33
34
a. Zoning actions. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.1., the applicant shall file 35
a PUDA or rezone application, including the SOM report. Deviations to LDC 36
section 5.05.15 shall be prohibited; further, deviations to other sections of 37
the LDC shall be shared with the stakeholders at a SOM or NIM. 38
39
b. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. For projects subject to 5.05.15 40
B.2., the applicant shall file a Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment 41
application, including the SOM report. Deviations to LDC section 5.05.15 42
shall be prohibited; further, deviations to other sections of the LDC shall be 43
shared with the stakeholders at a SOM or NIM. 44
45
c. Compatibility Design Review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3., the 46
applicant shall file a Compatibility Design Review application, including the 47
SOM report. 48
49
Page 318 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
9
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
D. Criteria and staff report for conversion applications. In addition to the requirements 1
established in LDC sections 10.02.08, 10.02.13 B., or 4.08.07, as applicable, the staff 2
report shall evaluate the following: 3
4
1. Whether the applicant has met the requirements established in this section and 5
development standards in the LDC. In particular, that the proposed design and 6
use(s) of the greenway, as applicable, meet the purpose as described 5.05.15 G.2. 7
8
2. Whether the SOM report and point-counterpoint list described above reflect the 9
discussions that took place at the SOMs. 10
11
3. Whether the applicant incorporated reasonable input provided by the stakeholders 12
to address impacts of the golf course conversion on stakeholders' real property. 13
14
4. Whether the applicant provided an explanation as to why input from the 15
stakeholders was not incorporated into the conceptual development plan. 16
17
E. Supplemental review and approval considerations for zoning actions and Stewardship 18
Receiving Area Amendments. The report and recommendations of the Planning 19
Commission and Environmental Advisory Council, if applicable, to the Board shall show 20
the Planning Commission has studied and considered the staff report for conversion 21
applications, reasonable input from the stakeholders, the criteria established in LDC 22
section 5.05.15 D, as well as the criteria established in LDC sections 10.02.08 F, 10.02.13 23
B, or 4.08.07, as applicable. In particular, the Planning Commission shall give attention to 24
the design of the greenway and how it mitigates impacts to real property. Further attention 25
shall be given to who can use the greenway. The Board shall consider the criteria in LDC 26
section 5.05.15 D, as well as the criteria established in LDC sections 10.02.08 F, 10.02.13 27
B, or 4.08.07, as applicable, and Planning Commission report and recommendation. 28
29
F. Compatibility Design Review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3., this section is intended 30
to address the impact of golf course conversion on real property by requiring the 31
conceptual development plan to be reviewed for compatibility with the existing surrounding 32
uses. The following is required: 33
34
1. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for 35
the compatibility design review application. 36
37
2. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements of 38
LDC section 10.03.06. 39
40
3. Compatibility Design Review. The Planning Commission shall review the staff 41
report as described in 5.05.15 D, the Compatibility Design Review application, and 42
make a recommendation to the Board based on the following criteria: 43
44
a. Whether the applicant has met the applicable requirements established in 45
this section and reasonably addressed the concepts identified in LDC 46
section 5.05.15 D.2. - D.4. 47
48
b. Whether the conceptual design is compatible with the existing surrounding 49
land uses. 50
51
Page 319 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
10
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
c. Whether a view of open space is provided that mitigates impacts to real 1
property for the property owners that surround the golf course. 2
3
d. Whether open space is retained and available for passive recreation. 4
5
4. The Board shall consider the criteria in LDC section 5.05.15 F.3., above, the staff 6
report and the Planning Commission report and approve, approve with conditions, 7
or deny the application. Upon approval of the application, the applicant shall obtain 8
approval of any additional required development order, such as a SDP, 9
construction plans, or conditional use. 10
11
G. Development standards. The following are additional minimum design standards for 12
zoning actions and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. The Compatibility Design 13
Review process shall only be subject to LDC section 5.05.15 G.6. 14
15
1. Previously approved open space. Golf course acreages utilized to meet the 16
minimum open space requirements for a previously approved project shall be 17
retained as open space and shall not be included in open space calculations for 18
any subsequent conversion projects. 19
20
2. Greenway. The purpose of the greenway is to retain an open space view for 21
stakeholders, support passive recreational uses, and support existing wildlife 22
habitat. For the purposes of this section the greenway shall be identified as a 23
continuous strip of land set aside for passive recreational uses, such as: open 24
space, nature trails, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, beach frontage, disc golf 25
courses, exercise equipment, and multi-use paths. The Board may approve other 26
passive recreational uses that were vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings. 27
The greenway shall not include required yards (setbacks) of any individual lots. 28
29
a. The greenway shall be contiguous to the existing residential properties 30
surrounding the golf course and generally located along the perimeter of 31
the proposed development. The Board may approve an alternative design 32
that was vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, as provided for in 33
LDC section 5.05.15 C.3. 34
35
b. A minimum of 35 percent of the gross area of the conversion project shall 36
be dedicated to the greenway. The greenway shall have a minimum 37
average width of 100 feet and no less than 75 feet at any one location. 38
39
c. Maintenance of the greenway shall be identified through the zoning or and 40
Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment process. 41
42
d. The greenway may be counted towards the open space requirement for 43
the conversion project as established in LDC section 4.02.00 except as 44
noted in G.1. above. 45
46
e. Existing trees and understory (shrubs and groundcover) shall be preserved 47
and maintained within the greenway, except where minimal improvements 48
are needed that provide a passive recreational use. At a minimum, canopy 49
trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1:2,000 square feet within the 50
Page 320 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
11
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
greenway. Existing trees may count toward the ratio; however, trees within 1
preserves shall be excluded from the ratio. 2
3
f. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed 4
development; however, should a wall or fence be constructed, the fence 5
shall provide habitat connectivity to facilitate movement of wildlife in and 6
around the greenway. 7
8
g. A portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management; however, 9
the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake area 10
than exists pre-conversion in the greenway. Any newly developed lake 11
shall be a minimum of 100 feet wide. 12
13
h. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant in the County's official 14
records describing the use and maintenance of the greenway as described 15
in the zoning action or SRA Amendment. 16
17
3. Preserve requirements. The following preserve standards supplement those 18
established in LDC section 3.05.07. 19
20
a. Where small isolated areas (of less than ½ acre in size) of native vegetation 21
(including planted areas) exist on site they may be consolidated into a 22
created preserve that may be greater than ½ acre in size in the aggregate 23
to meet the preserve requirement. 24
25
b. Existing County approved preserve areas shall be considered as follows: 26
i. Golf courses within a conventional zoning district. All County 27
approved preserve areas shall be retained and may be utilized to 28
meet the preserve requirements for the conversion project. 29
30
ii. Golf courses within a PUD. All County approved preserve areas 31
shall be retained. Preserve areas in excess of the PUD required 32
preserve acreage may be used to meet the preserve requirement 33
for the conversion project. 34
35
4. Stormwater management requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate that the 36
stormwater management for the surrounding uses will be maintained at an 37
equivalent or improved level of service. This shall be demonstrated by a pre versus 38
post development stormwater runoff analysis. 39
40
5. Floodplain compensation. In accordance with LDC section 3.07.02 floodplain 41
compensation shall be provided. 42
43
6. Soil and/or groundwater sampling may be deferred by the applicant to Early Work 44
Authorization (EWA), SDP, or PPL submittal, whichever is the first to occur, if the 45
sampling has not been completed by the rezoning, SRA amendment, or 46
compatibility design review public hearings. See LDC Section 3.08.00 A.4.d. 47
48
7. All other development standards. The conversion of golf courses shall be 49
consistent with the development standards in the LDC, as amended. Where 50
Page 321 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
12
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
conflicts arise between the provisions in this section and other provisions in the 1
LDC, the more restrictive provision shall apply. 2
3
H. Design standards for lands converted from a golf course or for a permitted use within the 4
GC zoning district shall be subject to the following design standards. 5
6
1. Lighting. All lighting shall be designed to reduce excessive glare, light trespass 7
and sky glow. At a minimum, lighting shall be directed away from neighboring 8
properties and all light fixtures shall be full cutoff with flat lenses. Lighting for the 9
conversion project shall be vetted with stakeholders during the SOMs and the 10
public hearings, as applicable. 11
2. Setbacks. All non-golf course uses, except for the greenway, shall provide a 12
minimum average 50-foot setback from lands zoned residential or with residential 13
uses, however the setback shall be no less than 35 feet at any one location. 14
15
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 16
17
10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions 18
19
This section shall establish the requirements for public hearings and public notices. This section 20
shall be read in conjunction with LDC section 10.03.05 and Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code, 21
which further establishes the public notice procedures for land use petitions. 22
23
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 24
25
W. Intent to Convert, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 C.1. 26
27
1. The following notice procedures are required: 28
29
a. Mailed notice sent by the applicant after the Intent to Convert application 30
has been reviewed and deemed satisfactory by staff to proceed to the 31
mailed notice and Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, and at least 20 days 32
prior to the first Stakeholder Outreach Meeting. For the purposes of this 33
application, all mailed notices shall be sent to property owners within 1,000 34
feet of the property lines of the subject property. 35
36
b. Posting of a sign after Intent to Convert application has been reviewed and 37
deemed satisfactory by staff to proceed to the mailed notice and 38
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, and at least 20 days prior to the first 39
Stakeholder Outreach Meeting. 40
41
X. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 C.3. 42
43
1. The following notice procedures are required: 44
45
a. Newspaper advertisement at least 15 days prior to the Stakeholder 46
Outreach Meeting. 47
48
b. Mailed notice sent by the applicant at least 15 days prior to the required 49
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings. For the purposes of this application, all 50
mailed notices shall be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the 51
Page 322 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
13
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
property lines of the subject property. This mailed notice may include both 1
required Stakeholder Outreach Meeting dates. All mailed notices shall 2
include the web address to participate in the required web-based visual 3
survey. 4
5
Y. Compatibility Design Review, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 F. 6
7
1. The following advertised public hearings are required. 8
9
a. One Planning Commission hearing. 10
11
b. One BCC hearing. 12
13
2. The following notice procedures are required: 14
15
a. Newspaper advertisement at least 15 days prior to the advertised public 16
hearing. 17
18
b. Mailed notice sent by the applicant at least 15 days prior to the required 19
public hearings. For the purposes of this application, all mailed notices shall 20
be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the 21
subject property. 22
23
WZ. Events in County Right-of-Way, pursuant to LDC section 5.04.05 A.5. 24
25
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 26
# # # # # # # # # # # # # 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Page 323 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
14
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing
K. Compatibility Design Review
Reference LDC sections 5.05.15, and LDC Public Notice section 10.03.06 Y.
See Chapter 4.N of the Administrative Code for Intent to Convert Applications and
Chapter 8.F for Stakeholder Outreach Meetings for Golf Course Conversions.
Purpose The Compatibility Design Review process is intended to address the impacts of golf course
conversions on real property by reviewing the conceptual development plan for
compatibility with existing surrounding uses.
Applicability This process applies to a golf course constructed in any zoning district or designated as a
Stewardship Receiving Area that utilize a non-golf course use which is a permitted,
accessory, or conditional use within the existing zoning district or designation.
This application is not required for golf courses zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses
(GC) seeking another use as provided for in LDC section 2.03.09 A.
Conditional uses shall also require conditional use approval subject to LDC section
10.08.00. The conditional use approval should be a companion item to the compatibility
design review approval.
Pre-Application A pre-application meeting is required.
Initiation The applicant files an “Application for Compatibility Design Review” with the Zoning
Division after the “Intent to Convert” application is deemed complete by County staff and
the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs) are completed.
See Chapter 4 of the Administrative Code for information regarding the “Intent to
Convert” application and Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for requirements for SOMs
and additional notice information.
See Chapter 1 D. for additional information regarding the procedural steps for initiating
an application.
Application
Contents
The application must include the following:
1. Applicant contact information.
2. Addressing checklist.
3. Name of project.
4. The proposed conceptual development plan.
5. The name and mailing address of all registered property owners’ associations that
could be affected by the application.
6. Property Ownership Disclosure Form.
7. The date the subject property was acquired or leased (including the term of the
lease). If the applicant has an option to buy, indicate the dates of the option: date
the option starts and terminates, and anticipated closing date.
Page 324 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
15
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
8. Property information, including:
a. Legal description;
b. Property identification number;
c. Section, township, and range;
d. Address of the subject site and general location;
e. Size of property in feet and acres;
f. Zoning district;
g. Plat book and page number; and
h. Subdivision, unit, lot and block, and metes and bounds description.
9. If the property owner owns additional property contiguous to the subject property,
then the following information, regarding the contiguous property, must be included:
a. Legal description;
b. Property identification number;
c. Section, township and range; and
d. Subdivision, unit, lot and block, or metes and bounds description.
10. Zoning information, including adjacent zoning and land use.
11. Soil and/or groundwater sampling results, if available, as described in LDC section
3.08.00 A.4.d and 5.05.15 G.6;
12. The approved Intent to Convert application, as described in LDC section 5.05.15 C.1;
and
13. The SOM Report, as described in LDC section 5.05.15 C.3.
14. A narrative describing how the applicant has complied with the criteria in LDC section
5.05.15 F.3, including:
a. A list of examples depicting how each criterion is met;
b. A brief narrative describing how the examples meet the criterion; and
c. Illustration of the examples on the conceptual development plan that are
described above.
15. Affidavit of Authorization.
Completeness and
Processing of
Application
See Chapter 1 D.5 for the acceptance and processing of an application
Notice Notification requirements are as follows.
See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information.
1. Newspaper Advertisements : The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15
days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement
shall include at a minimum:
a. Date, time, and location of the hearing;
b. Description of the proposed land uses; and
Page 325 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
16
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
2. Mailed Notice: For the purposes of this mailed notice requirement, written notice
shall be sent to property owners located within 1,000 feet from the property line of
the golf course at least 15 days prior to the advertised public hearings.
3. Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing date.
See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template.
Public
Hearing
1. The Planning Commission shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing.
2. The BCC shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing.
Decision
Maker
The BCC, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Review
Process
Staff will prepare a staff report consistent with LDC section 5.05.15 F and schedule a
hearing date before the Planning Commission to present the petition. Following the
Planning Commission’s review, Staff will prepare an Executive Summary and will schedule
a hearing date before the BCC to present the petition.
Updated 2021-143
Page 326 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
17
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 4 | Administrative Procedures
N. Intent to Convert Application for Golf Course Conversions
Reference LDC sections 5.05.15, and LDC Public Notice section 10.03.06 W.
See Chapter 8.F for Stakeholder Outreach Meetings for Golf Course Conversions.
Applicability This process applies to applicants seeking to convert a constructed golf course to a non -
golf course use. Approval of this application is required prior to submitting a conversion
application (rezone, PUD, SRAA or Compatibility Design Review petition). T his application
is not required for golf courses zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC) seeking
another use as provided for in LDC section 2.03.09 A.
Pre-Application A pre-application meeting is required.
Initiation The applicant files an “Intent to Convert” application with the Zoning Division.
See Chapter 1 D. for additional information regarding the procedural steps for initiating
an application.
Application
Contents
The application must include the following:
1. Applicant contact information.
2. Addressing checklist.
3. Name of project.
4. The name and mailing address of all registered property owners’ associations that
could be affected by the application.
5. Disclosure of ownership and interest information.
6. The date the subject property was acquired or leased (including the term of the
lease). If the applicant has an option to buy, indicate the dates of the option, date the
option starts and terminates, and anticipated closing date.
7. A title opinion or title commitment that identifies the current owner of the property
and all encumbrances against the property.
8. Boundary survey (no more than six months old).
9. Property information, including:
a. Legal description;
b. Property identification number;
c. Section, township, and range;
d. Address of the subject site and general location;
e. Size of property in feet and acres; and
f. Zoning district.
10. If the property owner owns additional property contiguous to the subject property,
Page 327 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
18
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
then the following information, regarding the contiguous property, must be included:
a. Legal description;
b. Property identification number;
c. Section, township and range; and
d. Subdivision, unit, lot and block, or metes and bounds description.
11. Zoning information, including adjacent zoning and land use.
12. Existing PUD Ordinance, SRA Development Document, Site Development Plan, or Plat.
13. An exhibit identifying the following:
a. Any golf course acreage that was utilized to meet the minimum open space
requirements for any previously approved project;
b. Existing preserve areas;
c. Sporadic vegetation less than ½ acre, including planted areas, that meet
criteria established in LDC section 3.05.07 A.4; and
d. A matrix demonstrating the following as required in LDC section 5.05.15 G.3:
• For conventionally zoned districts:
• County approved preserve acreage; and
• Any sporadic vegetation acreage used to meet the
preserve requirement for the conversion project.
• For PUDs:
• County approved preserve acreage; and
• Any County approved preserve acreage in excess of
the PUD required preserve acreage that is used to
meet the preserve requirement for the conversion
project.
14. Stormwater management requirements as required by LDC section 5.05.15 G.4.
15. Floodplain compensation, if required by LDC section 3.07.02.
16. Soil and/or groundwater sampling results, if available, as described in LDC
sections 3.08.00 A.4.d and 5.05.15 G.6.
17. List of deviations requested, as described in LDC sections 5.05.15 C.4.a-b. The specific
LDC sections for which the deviations are sought shall be identified. The list of
deviations shall be shared with stakeholders at the SOM or NIM.
18. Electronic copies of all documents.
Applica
tion Contents
Required for
Presentations
at SOMs
In addition to the application contents above, the following must also be submitted
with the Intent to Convert application and used during SOM presentations:
2. The Developer’s Alternatives Statement as described in LDC section 5.05.15 C,
including:
a. A narrative clearly describing the goals and objectives for the conversion
project.
Page 328 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
19
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
b. No Conversion Alternative: A narrative describing the timeline of
correspondence between the applicant and the property owners’
associations relating to the applicant’s examination of opportunities
to retain all or part of the golf course as described in LDC section
5.05.15 C.2.b.i, and copies of such correspondence. It shall be noted
in the narrative whether a final decision has been made about this
alternative or whether discussions with the property owners’
associations are ongoing.
3. County Purchase Alternative: A narrative describing the timeline of
correspondence between the applicant and the County to determine if there is
interest to retain all or portions of the property for public use as described in
LDC section 5.05.15 C.2.b.ii, and copies of such correspondence. It shall be noted
in the narrative whether a final decision has been made about this alternative or
whether discussions with the County are ongoing.
4. Conceptual Development Plan Alternative : A conceptual development plan
consistent with LDC section 5.05.15 C.2.b.iii, and as described in the following
section.
5. The conceptual development plan shall include all information described in LDC
section 5.05.15 C.2.b.iii, and the following:
a. An Access Management Exhibit, identifying the location and
dimension of existing and proposed access points and legal access
to the site.
b. A dimensional standards table for each type of land use proposed
within the plan.
i. Dimensional standards shall be based upon the established zoning
district, or that which most closely resembles the development
strategy, particularly the type, density, and intensity of each
proposed land use.
ii. For PUDs: Any proposed deviations from dimensional standards of
the established zoning district, or of the most similar zoning
district, shall be clearly identified. Provide a narrative describing
the justifications for any proposed deviations that are not
prohibited by LDC section 5.05.15 C.4.
c. A plan providing the proposed location and design of the greenway
(this may be included on the conceptual development plan):
i. Greenway Design: A plan providing the proposed location and
design of the greenway and illustrating the following (including
any alternative designs as described in LDC section 5.05.15 G.2.a):
a) The proposed location of passive recreational uses;
b) Existing and proposed lakes, including lake area calculations;
c) Preserve areas;
d) Any structures or trails related to passive recreational uses;
Page 329 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
20
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
e) Greenway widths demonstrating a minimum average
width of 100 feet and no less than 75 feet shall be
identified every 100 feet;
f) Locations of existing trees and understory (shrubs
and groundcover) shall be located on the plan in
accordance with LDC section 5.05.15 G.2.e;
g) A matrix identified on the plan shall demonstrate
tree counts used to calculate the ratio described in
LDC section 5.05.15 G.2.e; and
h) Location of any proposed wall or fence pursuant to
LDC section 5.05.15 G.2.f.
d. A narrative describing how the applicant proposes to offset or minimize
impacts of the golf course conversion on stakeholders’ real property and
provide for compatibility with existing surrounding land uses. Identify the
compatibility measures on the conceptual development plan.
3. A narrative statement describing how the greenway will meet the purpose as
described in LDC section 5.05.15 G.2 to retain open space views for stakeholders,
support passive recreational uses, and support existing wildlife habitat.
4. A narrative statement describing the public outreach methods proposed for the
SOMs, consistent with Administrative Code Chapter 8.F.
5. Web-based survey, including the following:
a. A copy of the web-based survey;
b. The user-friendly website address where the survey will be available; and
c. The dates the survey will be available.
Comple
teness and
Processing of
Application
See Chapter 1 D.5 for the acceptance and processing of an application.
Notice for
the Intent to
Convert
Application
After the Intent to Convert application has been submitted, notice is required to inform
stakeholders of a forthcoming golf course conversion application. However, no mailing
is required if the applicant chooses to withdraw the Intent to Convert application.
See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information.
1. Mailed Notice: For the purposes of this mailed notice, written notice shall be sent to
property owners located within 1,000 feet from the property line of the golf course.
The notice shall be sent after the Intent to Convert application has been reviewed
and deemed satisfactory by staff to proceed to the mailed notice and SOMs, and at
least 20 days prior to the first SOM. The mailed notice shall include the following:
a. Explanation of the intention to convert the golf course.
b. Indication that there will be at least two advertised SOMs and one web-
based visual survey to solicit input from stakeholders on the proposed
Page 330 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
21
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
project. The date, time, and location of the SOMs does not need to be
included in this mailing.
c. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
d. Applicant contact information.
2. Sign: (see format below) Posted after the Intent to Convert application has been
reviewed and deemed satisfactory by staff to proceed to the mailed notice and SOMs,
and at least 20 days before the first SOM. The sign shall remain posted until all SOMs
are complete. For the purposes of this section, signage, measuring 16 square feet, shall
clearly indicate an applicant is petitioning the county to convert the golf course to a
non-golf use (e.g. residential). A user-friendly website address shall be provided on the
signs directing interested parties to visit Collier County’s website to access materials for
the SOM and the web-based visual survey. The sign shall remain posted for 7 days after
the last required SOM. The location of the signage shall be consistent with Chapter 8 of
the Administrative Code.
Public
Hearing
No public hearing is required for the Intent to Convert application. Public hearings will
be required for subsequent conversion applications.
Decision
Maker
The County Manager or designee.
Review
Process
The Zoning Division will review the Intent to Convert application and identify whether
additional materials are needed.
Updated 2021-143
Page 331 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
22
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 7 | Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications
E. Additional Requirements for Applications for a Proposed Golf Course
Conversion – Rezones and Stewardship Receiving Areas
Reference LDC section 5.05.15
Applicability The following items are required for any rezone or SRA application that is submitted for the
proposed conversion of an existing golf course into a non-golf course use:
1. A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required after the initial pre-
application meeting and before the submittal of a formal application. This NIM does
not replace the NIM requirements after submittal of the application.
See Chapter 8 A.1 of the Administrative Code for NIM procedures.
See Chapter 1 D.4 of the Administrative Code for Pre-Application Meeting
procedures.
2. A title report that identifies the current owner of the property and all
encumbrances shall be required as part of the rezone or SRA application.
Application
Contents
Applicants shall include a written summary of the NIM (See Chapter 8 A.1 of the
Administrative Code for NIM procedures) and the title report with Submittal 1 of the
rezone or SRA application or the application is deemed incomplete.
Notice N/A
Public Hearing N/A
Decision Maker N/A
Review Process The Zoning Division will review the supplemental items and identify whether additional
materials are needed as part of the review of the rezone or SRA application .
Updated
Page 332 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
23
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 8 | Public Notice
F. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting for Golf Course Conversions (SOM)
Reference LDC sections 5.05.15 and LDC Public Notice section 10.03.06.
See Chapter 4.N for Intent to Convert Applications for the Application Contents
Required for Presentations at SOMs.
Purpose Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs) are intended to engage stakeholders early in the
design of a golf course conversion project and to encourage collaboration and consensus
between the applicant and the stakeholders on the proposed conversion.
Applicability This process applies to applicants seeking to convert a constructed golf course to a non -
golf course use. A minimum of two in-person meetings and one web-based visual survey
are required. This section shall be used in connection with LDC section 5.05.15.
Initiation The SOMs may be held after the “Intent to Convert” application has been received by the
County and deemed sufficient by staff to proceed. It is encouraged that SOMs take place
in a timely manner so as to support stakeholder involvement.
SOM Notice
Requirements
Each SOM shall be noticed as follows:
1. Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15
days before the SOM in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall
include at a minimum:
a. Date, time, and location of the SOM;
b. Petition name, number and applicant contact info;
c. Notice of the intention to convert the golf course to a non-golf course use;
d. Brief description of the proposed uses; and
e. 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
2. Mailed Notice: For the purposes of this mailed notice requirement, written notice
shall be sent to property owners located within 1,000 feet from the property line of
the golf course at least 15 days before the first SOM. The mailed notice shall include
the following:
a. Date, time, and location of each SOM included in the mailed notice;
b. Petition name, number and applicant contact info;
c. Notice of the intention to convert the golf course to another use;
d. A brief description of the proposed uses;
e. A statement describing that the applicant is seeking input through a
stakeholder outreach process;
f. The user-friendly web address where the meeting materials, such as the
Developers Alternatives Statement, can be accessed;
Page 333 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
24
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
g. A brief description of the visual survey and the user-friendly web address
where the survey can be accessed; and
h. The dates that the web-based visual survey will be available online.
Location
The applicant must arrange the location of the meeting. The location must be reasonably
convenient to the property owners who receive the required notice. The facilities must be
of sufficient size to accommodate expected attendance.
Timeframe SOMs must be held between November 1st and April 1st.
Conduct of
SOMs
A minimum of two SOMs shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
a. An assigned County planner shall attend the SOMs and observe the
process. The planner shall note any commitment made by the applicant
during the meetings.
b. Meeting Conduct: The applicant shall conduct the meetings as follows:
i. Use at least one public outreach method during the in-
person meetings as described below; and
ii. The applicant shall facilitate dialogue and encourage input on the
conceptual development plan from the stakeholders regarding the
types of development the stakeholders consider compatible with
the neighborhood, and the types of land uses they would support
to be added to the neighborhood.
c. Presentation: The applicant must provide the following at the SOM for
review and comment:
i. The current LDC zoning district uses and development regulations;
ii. Information about the purpose of the meeting, including the
goals and objectives of the conversion project;
iii. A copy of the Developer’s Alternatives Statement shall be made
available at the SOM, as described in LDC section 5.05.15 C.2;
iv. Visuals depicting the conceptual development plan(s) and
the greenway; and
v. The list of deviations requested, as described in LDC section
5.05.15 C.4.a-b.
d. Public Outreach Methods: The applicant shall use one or more of the
following at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings to engage
stakeholders:
i. Charrette. This public outreach method is a collaborative design
and planning workshop that occurs over multiple days. Through a
charrette, the applicant designs the conceptual development plan
and greenway with stakeholders’ input. During a charrette,
stakeholders are given the opportunity to identify values, needs,
and desired outcomes regarding the project. Through a series of
engagement activities the conceptual development plan and
greenway are designed and refined. Throughout the sessions,
Page 334 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
25
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15 Converison of
Golf Courses .docx
stakeholders have an opportunity to analyze the project, address
and resolve issues, and comment on multiple iterations of the
project.
ii. Participatory Mapping. This public outreach method produces
maps using stakeholder knowledge and input. To start, the
applicant hosts a workshop and shares information about the
project through exhibits such as poster boards, written or
electronic materials, etc. Participants are then given sticky dots,
markers, or other tactile/visualization tools in conjunction with
maps of the conceptual development plan and greenway to
identify options to address compatibility, adverse impacts, or types
of desirable usable open space for the project. For example:
stakeholders are asked to place red dots on the map where there
is a perceived pedestrian hazard and place a green dot where they
support additional tree plantings in the greenway.
iii. Group Polling. This public outreach method polls participants at
the meeting and provides instant results. The poll can include a
wide range of topics about the project, such as density, greenway
uses, vehicle/pedestrian transportation networks, etc. The
applicant provides sticky dots or uses electronic devices to
conduct the polling.
iv. Visioning Exercise. This public outreach method invites
stakeholders to describe their core values and vision for their
community. In a workshop setting, the applicant presents a wide
variety of reports, maps, photos, and other information about the
project. The applicant then poses questions to the participants,
such as, but not limited to the following:
1.“What do people want to preserve in the community?”
2.“What do people want to create in the community?”
3.“What do people want to change in the community?”
The applicant collects the responses and works with the
participants to create a vision statement for the project that
incorporates the goals, concerns, and values of the community.
Page 335 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
26
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\2024\08-01\Materials\Word Versions\02-05-2025 LDCA 5.05.15
Converison of Golf Courses .docx
Web-based
Visual
Survey
Requireme
nts
The web-based visual survey is intended to increase engagement with stakeholders. The
survey should engage the stakeholders in the design of the project and assist in
determining what stakeholders find important to the neighborhood, what is considered
compatible with the neighborhood, and what types of land uses they support adding to
the neighborhood.
a. The survey shall provide visual representations of the proposed
development, in particular the types of land uses proposed, streetscapes,
public spaces, design characteristics, and depictions of the greenway design;
b. The survey questions shall be worded so as to elicit responses to the
stakeholders’ preferences or support for the visual representations.
c. The survey shall allow for additional comment(s) to be made by the
stakeholders.
SOM
Report
After the SOMs and the web-based survey are complete, the applicant will submit a
report of the SOM to the County, including the following information:
a. A list of attendees, a description of the public outreach methods used,
photos from the meetings demonstrating the outreach process, results from
outreach methods described above;
b. Copies of the materials used during the meeting, including any materials
created at the meeting, such as any participatory mapping or related
documents;
c. A verbatim transcript of the meetings and an audio (mp3 or WAV format) or
video recording in a format accessible or viewable by the County;
d. A point-counterpoint list, identifying the input from the stakeholders and
how and why it was or was not incorporated into the application. Input from
stakeholders may be categorized by topic and the applicant may provide a
single response to each topic in narrative format; and
The report shall be organized such that the issues and ideas provided by the
stakeholders that are incorporated in the application are clearly labeled in the
point-counterpoint list and in the conversion application.
Meeting
Follow-up
After each SOM is completed and prior to the submittal of a conversion application, the
applicant will submit to the assigned planner a written summary of the SOM and any
commitment that has been made. Any commitment made during the meeting will:
a. Become part of the record of the proceedings;
b. Be included in the staff report for any subsequent conversion application;
and
c. Be considered for inclusion into the conditions of approval of any
subsequent development order.
Updated
Page 336 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 43 of 85
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 6 to -- 5-1. Thank you very much --
MS. JAHN: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- to all concerned members of the public. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I could -- I'm sorry. If I could say one more time, I
just --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think -- and, again, doing this four years now, that you
were -- you were directly answering our questions. We asked you some tough questions. I
appreciate the candor, the credibility, the professionalism. You're very good at your job, and your
employer should know that.
MS. JAHN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I second that.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So do I. Thank you, Ms. Jahn. I know I was a
pain, but I appreciate your patience --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
I've had comments from several people that if we extend all the way until 2 p.m. without a
lunch break, that's asking a bit too much of everyone concerned. So I'm going to try to avoid that
today. We're right up against a time when we would usually have lunch. If not, we'd have a court
reporter break anyway. So I'm going to propose that we do take a 30-minute pause for lunch,
unless there's objection to that. In fact, we'll make it for 42 minutes to take it all the way to 12:30.
If not -- no objection, then we stand in recess until 12:30.
A luncheon recess was had from 11:48 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.)
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi.
Planning Commission has returned to session, please. Take your seats.
Our final hearing today will be PL20230012905. This is the conversion of golf
courses Land Development Code amendment. The matter's purely legislative in nature, no
quasi-judicial companion; thus, no need for swearing in of witnesses or ex parte disclosures.
And with that, Chair recognizes Mr. Bosi.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon. Again, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Just to start off the
process, this is an LDC amendment requesting modifications to 5.05.15, which -- in the Land
Development Code, which is the golf course conversion process which was adopted in 2017 by the
Board of County Commissioners.
In the package that you received for the LDC amendment, I just wanted to read the first
paragraph, the background, just to give you the context of why we're here.
On February 14th of 2023, the Board directed the staff to bring back an LDC amendment
to clarify that the Board has the discretion to grant deviations to reduce the minimum average
greenway width of a proposed golf course conversion during the rezoning process.
Additionally, on April 11th, 2023, the Board recognized the existing golf course
conversion intent-to-convert application process had not been in effect in bringing the developer
and the stakeholders together earlier in the process to resolve issues as initially intended and
directed staff to bring back recommendations for an amendment that could improve the process and
remove potential Bert Harris claims. The Board also discussed the possibility of repealing the
intent-to-convert process in its entirety.
So what -- so what staff was tasked with was try to make this process more defensible
against Bert Harris claims, because one of the things the Board recognized, we were having -- we
were having claims of Bert Harris against the county before any application for a development was
actually denied. They were saying that the individuals that were -- that intended and are suing the
county -- and this is -- it's happening right now with The Links of Naples, which is suing the
county because we had indicated that they would have to go through the intent-to-convert process.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 151
Page 337 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 44 of 85
We are now in the Bert Harris process of settling that claim because we indicated that they
would have to -- they would have to go through the intent-to-convert process to convert a golf
course to a residential subdivision without even denying that by saying that they had to go through
the conversion process was sufficient enough for that -- for the claim to be made in that regard. So
that's one aspect.
The second aspect was the intent-to-convert process was designed to try to promote
conversation between the developer or the redeveloper of that golf course and the residential
communities that surrounded that golf course, and there was a whole formulaic systematic
approach towards what the developer had to do to try to help promote discussion in terms of
preferences, visual preferences, surveys, stakeholder outreach meetings, developer's alternative
scenarios.
These formulaic approaches towards how they had to try to promote better conversation,
and the end goal of that was so when it goes to the rezoning process, those conversations could
help inform and bring more consistency and agreement.
What staff had provided -- or what staff had observed and what staff had recognized, that
that wasn't happening. It wasn't happening during the golf course conversion. I was at the second
Riviera Golf Course conversion SOM meeting, and understandably, the residents were entrenched
within their position. They don't want to see the golf course transition into anything else.
The developer wanted to develop the -- said that the golf course was no longer fiscally
feasible, and they needed to transition into an alternative design.
Both parties became entrenched. Both parties were not exchanging dialogue. There was
no ideas that were -- that were provided for that brought any compromise in the intended purpose.
So based upon those recognitions and based upon the Board of County Commissioners'
direction, staff attempted to try to find a middle ground that could alleviate the pressure in the
ability for Bert Harris claims to be levied against the county before an application would be denied
but also recognizing that there is benefit if there is some additional dialogue that goes before
the -- before the application would be submitted for a rezoning application, and that was kind of
some of the thinking in the mindsets and the factors that staff utilized to try to provide the
amendment.
What we have proposed is a two-page intent-to-convert process. The prior version was
nine pages with a lot more substantive activities that were being required and prescribed of the -- of
the developer.
And the intent to convert -- and you can see it on the screen. You know, the purposes of
this section is to require additional public steps -- of public involvement and to add a greenway
requirement for the proposed conversion of an existing golf course to a nonexisting golf course.
It's an intent to involve the public prior to submittal of a rezone or an SRA amendment application
to require the applicant to engage residents, property owners, and the surrounding community early
in the concept design phase of the conversion project in order to better identify compatibility issues
in existing -- within existing neighborhoods.
So similar to the -- similar to the same type of intent, we've just really minimized the
prescribed activities that are going to be required.
We provided a section for exemptions. What we found was in the first -- and, please, if
you have questions.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm going to interrupt you, Mike, because I was
waiting for you to finish the introduction.
I think I'm the only member of the Planning Commission that was here when we passed the
2017 amendments, I believe. I think.
As you well know, and the residents from both Riviera and Lakewood who participated, it
was, if I recall, it had to have been at least 40 hours’ worth of, maybe more, of LDC hearings, and
it had to go on over at least four or five meetings, if I'm not mistaken.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 152
Page 338 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 45 of 85
And the reason for that was the process was developed, and -- it was a bit onerous, there's
no doubt. And some of it I had some misgivings about it because it was rather onerous in regards
to all the steps you had to go through. But the fact is, the input from the public, the LDC
amendments, which were -- went through public-hearing process, were approved by both Board of
County Commissioners -- or by the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners. Of course, they even went through the DSAC at that time, Development Services
Advisory Council. It was approved.
I really do not understand how, if we have a developer who says we're at an impasse -- and
I don't even understand, Heidi, how there can even be a Bert Harris claim without -- if they say,
Gee, this is too hard, so I'm going to file a Bert Harris claim," there's no claim. Where is the
claim? It has to be turned down.
And I've got to tell you, I'm not really very excited about the changes. Now, there could
be some modifications, but what -- and I know we're going to hear some opposition. But what's
happened is you have taken what I think is a very laborious and strenuous process, but the process
was there to protect all parties. We now just are converting to what I summarize as no more than
two NIMs.
And I -- and even if the developer threatened to file a Bert Harris claim, it's not a claim
until he's been denied, he or she's been denied. Where is this claim? And why -- what drove the
Board of County Commissioners and the staff to decide that we need to change this? I really need
to understand how we got to where we are now.
And, Mike, I know you said it, but there's still no -- there's no issue here. The issue is
we're at an impasse. Well, okay, big deal. Then put it before the public in a public-hearing
process. Meaning, bring the amendment forward -- not the LDC amendment, but bring the
petition forward and let it go through the public-hearing process and get denied or get approved.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that was one of the problems, and we have had, I believe,
three Bert Harris claims filed. And so one of the problems with the intent-to-convert process is
that when it was formulated, it was intended to say, "Check, check, check," they did all these items
that they were supposed to do.
But what happened is the petitioners were trying to -- or felt that the merits of what they
were submitting was being decided, and that's because there was no flexibility, or at least the
developer was arguing that there was no flexibility in some of the requirements. That's why they
proceeded, and they filed their Bert Harris claims.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, but there's no claim until it's denied through
the public-hearing process. They might have not liked it. They may have not -- I don't remember
the developer being here when we went through the LDC amendments either. They may have
participated; I don't recall. They certainly had an opportunity at that time to influence the process.
But if the developer just wrang his hands and say, "Gee, this is too hard, and I think I'm going lose,
so therefore I'm going to withdraw." Gee, that sounds familiar. No, I'm not going down that
road.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So the litigation team assessed the cases, and they
have -- the cases are still pending, so there are some --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not a lawyer. Again, you are, and I turn to our
attorneys. But until it's denied through a public-hearing process --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that would be the county's position.
And so the litigation team did ask for flexibility. They did not ask for removing some of
the more cumbersome requirements. In working with staff, some of the items that were removed
were, like, the developer's alternatives because it wasn't providing any more than just additional
paperwork, and the SOMs were reduced to a proposed third NIM, which is a NIM that occurs
before the petition is filed, so...
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for my colleagues up here, it's -- the two golf courses
we're talking about, the homes that surround the golf course are not part of the zoning of the golf
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 153
Page 339 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 46 of 85
course. They're separate entities. The golf course is a separate tract. The homes just happen to
be built around the golf course. And we got into the whole discussion about protecting perceived
rights and my -- what I built on and all that kind of thing.
So without getting into the whole background of it -- at the same time the golf course was
going -- was going belly up or did go belly up, and somebody bought it and wanted to develop it,
and they have every right to do that.
I just don't understand -- there may have been an impasse, as Mike said, but it's still -- the
impasse -- they could still proceed through the rezoning process and wait to see if it gets denied.
I -- this is sort of like, let's change the rules so we can make it easier and avoid the pain and
agony, and I'm waiting to see what the residents think, because I don't know if you-all -- I'm
waiting to hear is if these amendments were passed to you-all in a way that you-all agreed that,
Okay. Well, we'll agree to acquiesce and withdraw some of the requirements so that we can get
through the rezoning process."
It seems like this is pretty one-sided, and I know what we went through to put these LDC
amendments together.
MR. BOSI: And I'll respond directly to that, Joe.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: It was directed by the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: Staff didn't initiate this. This was directed by the Board of County
Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. BOSI: -- to staff to modify -- to modify under the premise of the two directions they
provided within the hearings in February and April.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did the staff, then, initiate any contact with the
communities that were impacted to get their input on this?
MR. BOSI: No, no.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the first hearing, then, that they're -- they're
basically being made aware of these changes without any consultation prior to this that there were
these pretty significant changes.
MR. BOSI: I mean, the DSAC -- the DSAC meetings were open and available.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. BOSI: But, you know, this was the direction that was provided to staff from the
Board of County Commissioners, and at that -- at that meeting, there was serious discussion during
that meeting whether they wanted just to eliminate the intent-to-convert process altogether.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I'll be frank, I mean, some of it, I thought, was
pretty onerous, but it is what it is. We got to that because of all the input that came into it. But it
seems sort of disingenuous now to just say, "Oh, gosh. Thank you-all for your input, and we
appreciate this, but now we're changing our mind and we're going to make it a lot easier."
And the intent here was not to make it easy. The intent was so the public would be aware
that a developer was going to come in and develop on a piece of property they don't own.
I remember even back then one of the petitioners, I said, "Well, the community ought to
just buy the golf course." Well -- and then they turned to the county, and they wanted the county
to buy the course. And I mean, I can go through the whole history. But the fact is, we are now
here trying to -- trying to change a process that I thought was put in place to protect both the
applicant and the surrounding property owners, and I hope that's still the case. But I read this, and
I'm -- when we go through it, I'll have -- I do have some concerns. And I know we got input from
Tony Pires, and it's going to be pretty valuable to go through some of those issues as well.
MR. BOSI: There's also Katie Berkey representing Riviera --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't get anything from Katie.
MR. BOSI: It's in your package. It's --
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 154
Page 340 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 47 of 85
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My error.
MR. BOSI: -- the second attachment.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's hard to see. Her comments appear as balloon notes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those are hers.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Oh, those are hers. Thank you. Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I want to -- before I call on the other commissioners, if I
may, I share Vice Chairman's misgivings about this for mostly the same reasons going back to what
Jimmy Carter's assistant, Bert Lance, said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I think that the
system is working pretty well.
Now, from the county staff's perspective, they were instructed by the Board of County
Commissioners to do something, and they did something. So, you know, they're -- this -- the
criticisms or the objections that may be forthcoming from the dais are not necessarily going to be
directed at staff, because staff was just doing what the bosses of this county asked it to do, the five
county commissioners. And so, you know, staff did what it was asked to do.
My concern is that the result, though, is a significant tilt toward the development
community away from the individual homeowners in specific ways that I will enumerate when it
comes time to talk specifics. But that -- I find that very worrisome, and I will -- I'll be heard on
that at a later time this afternoon.
And before I turn it back to you, Mr. Bosi, I've got two commissioners who want to be
heard. First Commissioner Shea.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I'm behind these guys. I need some context.
I look at most of the golf communities -- I'm looking forward -- I know we have two
particular ones that we're talking about, but I'm looking at it going forward. I live in a golf
community. It's part of a PUD. The development density for that section of land is what's in the
PUD.
So if the owner of the golf course -- and it's not us -- decides he wants to put homes, he's
got to ask for increased density from us.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I guess I don't understand -- I mean, the PUD, for me, is
the protection for me as a resident in our community, but I'm guessing it's not helping --
MR. BOSI: No, you're correct 100 percent. Staff's not really -- isn't abundantly
concerned about golf courses that are within PUDs. Golf courses within PUDs are developed as a
part of a whole single project. That project includes the golf, the residential development that
surrounds the golf, and intertwined, and the other amenities that are provided for within that PUD.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But they get --
MR. BOSI: That's a bundle.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But they get the maximum -- more density by having the golf
course.
MR. BOSI: That's a bundle.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
MR. BOSI: There's interrelationship, there's an interdependency, that is an understanding
between that interrelationship.
The golf courses that we're going to be dealing -- you're going to hear the public from are
individuals who are in straight residential zoning and are adjacent to a golf course that's zoned
golf course," so they're not part of a PUD.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay.
MR. BOSI: And they may have been developed together, but over time they have
different zoning districts, they have different ownership, and that ownership of the golf course may
want to take that golf course in a different direction than those individuals who live on those
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 155
Page 341 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 48 of 85
properties. They don't have the same type of interrelationship that the -- and the protections that
the PUD gives to them.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the documents recognize that. And what percentage of
the golf courses in the county don't have a PUD protection?
MR. BOSI: There's -- I would say there's nine out of the 72, so roughly about 13,
14 percent.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That are outside a PUD?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. So that's really what this is focused on is that
13 -- okay, thank you.
MR. BOSI: Yes. And those are the ones that this court -- this conversion process was
really intended to do. Because staff recognizes if someone comes in on a golf course within a
PUD, there's a whole set of negotiations and interrelationships that they're going to have to deal
with that's unique, that's not like these individuals where you've got separate ownership, separate
zoning districts, and they're related, but they're not intertwined.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And if -- if I may -- I'm sorry to interrupt.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, that's okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I did not see any provision in this language that limits it to
non-PUD situations.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
MR. BOSI: No, no. If someone went through the PUD request to amend it, they would
still have to go through the intent-to-convert process that is currently on the books.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: So currently on the books we've got two intent-to-convert
hearings. What are they called, SOMs?
MR. BOSI: SOMs, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And they take place pre-application, right?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I guess the practices are somewhat less formal than the NIMs,
but there's notice that goes out to the stakeholders and nearby residents, and they have an
opportunity before the application is filed to make their views known and for the developers to hear
what those concerns are and maybe could be addressed before the application was filed. And so
the proposal here is to reduce the number of encounters with the public before application from two
to one, and the one that we would have would be called a NIM.
The other thing that I want to say, and I -- I interrupted you, and I apologize. I should let
you finish. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: At my age, I forget what I was going to say.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well --
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But I -- but at some point in time, that piece of property, it
became a golf course, and it was zoned.
What does the Growth Management Plan -- you've got an area -- does the Growth
Management Plan say that you can -- that was planned to convert into residences and now we're
going to have ten hundred -- or a thousand more residences on the golf course? Wouldn't that be
a --
MR. BOSI: These golf courses are within the urban residential subdistrict of the Growth
Management Plan, and golf courses and residential development are both uses that are provided
for, so it's -- it doesn't say anything in terms of -- it allows those uses to be permitted, but it
does -- has no -- it doesn't talk to the individual relationship between those individual uses.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: They have a right, then, to -- I guess it confuses me. I don't
know how you plan infrastructure if you have these golf courses that all of a sudden you could
have four of them, and you've got 4,000 more homes that you weren't planning on because they're
golf courses, and now you've got to figure out your infrastructure. It just seems like you get out of
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 156
Page 342 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 49 of 85
control.
MR. BOSI: That's what -- no.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know how you manage it.
MR. BOSI: Right. That's why we have a concurrency management system. We have a
concurrency management system that says, if you want to convert that golf course from golf course
to a residential development, you would have to go through the platting process or the Site
Development Plan process, and at that time that's called a development order. That development
order would be put through the concurrency management process where you would check the
capacity within your road system, check the capacity within the school system, check the capacity
within the utility system. Is there available -- is there available capacity within those systems?
They would have to address any deficiencies to be able to move forward. So that's how
our Growth Management Plan would protect that there's assurance that there's adequate
infrastructure. It doesn't -- it doesn't speak to that specificity within the GMP, but it does have the
requirement for the concurrency management system to be applied.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, they have the right.
MR. BOSI: They have the right to ask.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, more than a right. I could see where the Bert Harris
would come in because they don't -- they're not stopped. They're told it's one of the options they
could do.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to comment, if I may. The Bert Harris concern -- and
I -- look, I'm a taxpayer in this county, and so I commend the County Attorney's Office for trying
to avert as many lawsuits as possible, but I don't think the way of doing that is just to concede
every issue that comes up to the development community.
Bert Harris, for instance, the cases that are out there, I believe -- and you can correct me if
I'm wrong -- are cases where the plaintiff, the aggrieved party, is the developer. And maybe that's
what was intended in Tallahassee when Bert Harris came in. But, you know, individual property
owners should have Bert Harris rights as well, particularly within PUDs but, arguably, even in a
situation where you're next to another kind of zoning. And just because individual property
owners can't afford zillion-dollar-an-hour lawyers and law firms to represent them doesn't mean
that their Bert Harris rights should be ignored. So that was a point that I wanted to make, and now
I want to call on Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I do not disagree with, I don't think, anything
that's been said so far, but I kind of want to jump to -- and I think I saw Chuck light up. He may
have some other thoughts substantively on this.
But I want to jump more to the approach because it seems like there was a significant
process, as Commissioner Schmitt said, to get this thing in place. I'm guessing we went too far,
and I'm guessing the lawyers are claiming they have standing because we've put such onerous
burdens on them. That gives them the right -- they don't have to go through this futile process in
order to be able to go before a court. I'm assuming that's their position. And given the fact that
there's multiple claims, they're probably on pretty solid ground in terms of having standing.
But the commissioners who -- I guess in some ways our boss -- they want to -- they want to
change this thing for whatever -- you know, I don't think we're going to convince them that they're
just wrong on that point.
So, you know, I think what I would like to see us do is protect as much as we can of this
lengthy process we went through while trying to insulate us somewhat from a Bert Harris claim.
You can't fully insulate it because it costs 300 bucks to file a lawsuit. And if it's a ridiculous
claim, it's probably worth fighting. But it seems to me the approach of having staff come up with
a new system is the wrong way to go.
It seems to me that we should take the existing system, take the lawsuits that have been
filed, take the Bert Harris statute and case law, and go back and redline what we did to see where
we might have weaknesses legally and be subjected to a Bert Harris Act claim rather than sort
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 157
Page 343 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 50 of 85
of -- you're not starting over, but rather than you guys having built from the ground up something
that's lesser, why don't we take what we've got, what Commissioner Schmitt was talking about, and
see where our lawyers think it ought to be redlined, and we listen to our lawyers, and then we make
a decision, and we ship something back up with redline changes from what it was rather than
something that's arguably too low a hurdle, and now we've got -- we swung the pendulum too far,
and now property owners are going to be saying, "Well, I'm going to be bringing a Bert Harris Act
claim," or "This isn't fair."
So I just think -- I almost feel like -- and I don't know if this is a timing issue. I almost
feel like we ought to adjourn -- I'm not suggesting this. I'm just throwing it out -- adjourn and
take -- if you guys agree with me, have the approach of taking what is here now and seeing where
our lawyers think we ought to trim it up. That seems like the right approach, rather than the
approach we're taking. And there may be some back office stuff going on I don't know about.
Maybe that is the approach we took, but it doesn't seem like that.
MR. BOSI: What I -- what I could say, Commissioner Vernon, is we didn't start over
again. What we did is we took a scalpel -- we took a hatchet to this. We didn't scalpel. We took
a hatchet. And it was influenced by the ineffectiveness of the regulations that we were being sued
upon. That was the motivation of why we took such draconian steps to minimize what was
required.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, then the question becomes, could we try it again and
take a scalpel instead of a hatchet and protect the -- protect the county from extensive litigation and
still keep in place a lot of protections that were well thought out from a right and wrong
standpoint?
MR. BOSI: I think that's what you're going to get from this hearing. I think you're going
to get the skinny version, or the drastic reductions that staff is proposing. You're going to have
comments from the public from two affected golf courses that are going to raise issues that they
feel were maybe more important and shouldn't be eliminated, and there's going to be staff's original
effort that's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners and whatever is going to be
recommended by the Planning Commission as well to be an alternative to what staff has provided.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: My only problem with that -- and I think -- I listen -- I
think everybody knows, I listen to the public a lot, but to me, I'm not -- I think the public input is
not as valuable as it might be in a lot of other cases because I don't need them to convince me to
protect what we already have which protects them. I'm already -- that's been done.
I'm more interested in how do we protect us from valid Bert Harris claims by developers or
applicants. To me, that's not really a public issue. It's a legal issue.
And so I'm throwing this -- and I don't usually do this, but it seems like the bulk of the
work here, thought process, should be from our lawyers, not our staff and not the public. Because
we have a system. We're just -- I think the commissioners don't want to get sued every week on a
Bert Harris claim on this.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you only have nine communities that could do that that
you're worried about. Two of them are in the room. Isn't that what you said?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The input that we received from the litigation team was to add
one sentence, okay. So --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Who's the litigation team, I should ask?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Jeff Klatzkow and a few of the litigators.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, it's your colleagues?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it's from our in-house litigation team, was to add one
sentence.
Now, when this went to the Board -- because it's gone to the Board two different times.
One based on the direction Mr. Klatzkow wanted, and then the second time the Board directed,
Go through it. See what you can get rid of," rather than repealing the whole thing. So that's why
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 158
Page 344 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 51 of 85
staff undertook trying to make it easier for everyone, because it was also difficult for staff to
implement. But we can go back to the -- if you feel that changes shouldn't be made, then we can
do the very minimal change needed to protect it from Bert Harris claims.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: What was the one --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: The minimal change that's been made was a one-sentence
addition by the litigation team, which makes perfect sense to me.
Hey, litigators, how do we need to change this?"
Okay. We're going to add a sentence."
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: It went back to the county commissioners. They said,
That's not good enough."
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it didn't go back to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Board of County Commissioners has directed twice to proceed and do LDC amendments to
this section.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Ashton, what is that sentence? Can you quote it, or --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's the one -- oh, go ahead.
MR. BOSI: It's 8. It's on your screen. "Notwithstanding, the Board has the authority to
grant deviations at its sole discretion including, but not limited to, reduction of the greenway
requirements."
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, let me ask that -- because that -- I had a fair
amount to say on that sentence. Doesn't the Board have sole discretion to grant deviations and
variations from almost everything, if not everything in the LDC? Why is this any different?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was one of the arguments that the property owners were
making based on some of the language that's in this section. They thought it was contradictory.
And so that sentence would have clarified any controversy.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it raises -- the negative inferences are very powerful because
then you look at all the other cases where the language doesn't say "sole discretion." You're going
to create arguments that the Board doesn't have its sole discretion to grant those deviations.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I think -- just to jump in so I understand. I think
what the Chairman's saying is implicitly that's the case with everything, but the applicants were
using the lack of this sentence as an excuse to say, "There's no discretion"; therefore, it's too
onerous, blah, blah, blah; therefore, I have a valid claim, and the litigators are saying, "If you add
this sentence explicitly, then we protect ourselves in the courtroom by having this sentence being
clear even though it may already be implicit." Is that what you're saying?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. There is some text within the section itself that provided
an argument for the property owners to say, "No, there is no flexibility."
Mr. Bosi had reviewed the LDC section. He's the interpreter of the code, and he said,
Yes, the Board has the ability."
But we're still getting the Bert Harris claims, and that's why the litigation department
recommended the language that they did.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Wait, wait. Okay. The last part you said,
Recommended the language they did," is that what we're looking at now?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Number 8.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Number 8.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, No. 8. Just No. 8.
Well, I mean, if that's all they recommended, what I'm getting from that is this may -- well,
then you said they're still getting the claims, so then --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that language --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't know. Maybe we're just doing this -- and I'm
being thickheaded about it. But it just seems like all we need to do other than to get something
that the commissioners will agree to -- because if we can't get something the commissioners will
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 159
Page 345 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 52 of 85
agree to, we're wasting our time, because they're going to do what they want.
So I want -- but other than that, all we need to do is we need some good lawyers to say, "If
we have this, this, and this, we will be insulated from valid or arguably valid Bert Harris claims."
You can never insulate from bogus Bert Harris claims.
But I don't think the applicants -- with the quality of attorneys they have, I don't think
they're going to just file a completely bogus claim unless then they can bully the county, which,
you know, arguably that's what's going on here.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it is.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: But I think -- I think if we bulletproof ourself a little bit
more -- and maybe it's just one sentence. Maybe it's a little bit more -- than we just take one of
them on, and then we're done -- we win it and we're done with it if we're on strong legal ground.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to call on Commissioner Schumacher, who's been
waiting patiently.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you.
Mike, quick question. So nine out of 72 are not surrounded by a neighborhood. So those
that are not part of PUD -- I'm going to try to go backwards on this because you said there's, like,
two different zonings.
So if a developer back in, I don't know, the '70s, right, developed a golf course and owned
the land around it and then started selling lots off around the golf course -- so that's basically one
owner who's now selling the lots to different developers, so on and so forth.
Like Palm River. Let's take Palm River, for example. That's a good one. It was a public
golf course, and then LaPlaya bought it and turned it private, but all those homes around there that
were built, that whole thing would have been, basically, one developer who then just sold lots.
So if that's two different zonings, of course, the homes -- some of them may have
memberships, some of them don't, whatever. But that golf course wasn't part of the PUD. But
the intent originally was this developer owned all this land, he built this golf course, then he put
these homes and sold the homes to different developers, whatever, and that's a different zoning.
Could we go back to those and kind of put it back under a PUD and say, "That was the
original intent" versus, like, a developer coming in saying, "Well, this golf course is defunct. I
want to build this on here even though it's surrounded by all these homes," and that was the original
intent was for it to be a golf course versus a golf course that has nothing surrounding it so there
isn't an impact to those residents surrounding but in another neighborhood it would? Like, do you
understand what I'm saying? Is there any -- how do we --
MR. BOSI: Well, I would say that we don't have the right to be able to go back and revert
and try to -- based upon intent. But what would happen and what has been in the place of Riviera
is there, is there's remnants of that connectivity between their golf course and the residential
development.
And in the case of Riviera, Riviera has a component towards where the golf course is, by
the Water Management District, the area for where the stormwater is to be maintained. So their
argument -- if Riviera -- which went through the intent-to-convert process. They could -- the
developer of that golf course could submit a rezone application.
What they would argue, though, is that this golf course is essentially tied to our residential
development, and unless they can provide the assurance that that stormwater could be handled in a
different way, then that's -- that's not something that they could legally do. But they could also
make the argument that shows the relationship that these -- this -- our residential houses have with
this golf course, therefore supporting why they should -- why the Board of County Commissioners
would not approve that rezoning, because of that relationship.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Gotcha. No, that's -- I'm trying to just figure out a
way.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, you said something about the golf course property
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 160
Page 346 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 53 of 85
was deemed an area that was identified as stormwater management?
MR. BOSI: Within -- within the plats, yes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And they're recorded drainage easements against many of the
courses that those drainage easements, the land rights have to be resolved before they can go
through their rezoning, or they can complete their rezoning.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Regardless of the intent to convert, if I were to go in there
and develop today, I would still have to go through the ERP process, environmental resource
permit process. I may have to go through -- there may be jurisdictional wetlands. And for my
colleagues, they would do a JD, jurisdictional determination. It may require a Section 404 permit
from the Clean Water Act, which would then trigger consultation of other federal agencies.
It does not preclude or circumvent any requirement for federal permitting or through state
permitting. So if it's identified as a stormwater management area, if I were the developer, I have
to come in with all my calculations, I have to demonstrate that I can capture this water, store this
water, and displace this water, and I have to have -- of the 90 acres or 100 acres that's developable,
I may only be able to develop 20 acres.
That's not the county's problem. That's the developer's problem. It's not a Bert Harris.
If the developer is concerned about stormwater -- has to meet stormwater management
requirements, that's part of the ERP process, South Florida Water Management District. It's
separate from the intent to convert.
That's -- and likewise with the contamination. Water -- a 401 water-quality certification
for arsenic or other types of requirements that are required by the State, those are -- those are
requirements regardless of what I'm going to do.
Again, I don't understand how the county has to worry about whether I take something
away from a developer, because that developer still has to go through the permitting process
whether it's -- whether it's a jurisdictional determination through the feds, whether it's the
Endangered Species Act. It could be sensitive habitat or water quality. Those --
MR. BOSI: This isn't being motivated by a concern for the developer. This is being
motivated by the number of Bert Harris claims we've had against us because of the
intent-to-convert process that's on the books.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the -- again, the Bert Harris claim -- the Bert Harris
claim is not -- he can claim all he wants, but he can go fight the feds then, he or she, the developer.
They've got to meet the requirements of the State. And there are -- there are strict rules right now
in the State to convert golf courses to ensure that there's -- the soil contamination -- because over
the years -- it's a lot better now than it had been, but fertilizers and other types of things that are
used. They have to go through arsenic determination. They have to go through all the other
requirements for water quality and other requirements from a developer -- from the standpoint of
soil contamination.
Those -- those are covered, I guess, in the intent, but we don't waive those. You can
attempt to waive them, but you cannot -- you cannot forgive them of that requirement.
So I mean -- so, again, I look at this and say, well, if he -- if the developer believes that
they're being denied development, go complain to the South Florida Water Management District or
go to the feds and sue them.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Chair, can I -- I was trying to finish what --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: How many of those -- what I was getting at was
how many of those was that type of instance where a developer built a golf course, owned all the
land, and then sold off the lots around it?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good question.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do we know?
MR. BOSI: The only thing I can think is there's nine individual golf courses that are
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 161
Page 347 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 54 of 85
zoned golf course and have residential development that are -- that are in its own separate zoning
district. So I can -- I can --
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The reason I'm saying that is because when that
developer built that golf course then sold those lots, that lot that abutted the golf course was worth
more money than the one that would have been across the golf street. Even if they didn't get a
membership, it was still worth more because of the view, and that's what I'm trying to dig down to.
Because if then -- if they try to sell it to somebody else who then wants to put houses there, you're
taking away from the original intent as presented by that developer.
Okay. I'm done.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chuck, that's a good question. I don't know that answer.
You know, even when we -- that was one of the reasons why, when we looked at this in 2017, we
were -- we did this in a way to -- I'll quote, "protect" what was a perceived view corridor and view
right, and I know it's legally -- I can't guarantee that, but it was an intent to somehow say, you
purchased this house on a golf course whether it was separate and -- separate and distinct from the
golf course itself or part of when the golf course was developed. But we were looking at trying to
ensure that at least they'd get some protection. That led to the greenway.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The original intent.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The original intent was the developer built this golf
course then sold this lot for more money than he would have for one across the street because it
looked at a golf course.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's correct. Absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So that's kind of what I was trying to figure out
because that's where I would --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good question. We never addressed that issue
back then. Which came first, the golf course or the house, or did the golf course come in? It was
the same -- the chicken or the egg. We -- I think it was at that time Riviera was -- I believe the
golf course was there many years before the houses were built. It's similar -- I mean, I'll give you
an example. Where I live in Fiddler's Creek, the golf course out there, the Marriott golf course
was out there for years before the --
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Before anybody else was.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before the Fiddler's Creek development came in. But
now it sort of became part of it, but it's -- this never became a PUD. It was just a residential
community built around -- probably a golf course built, I don't know when, in the '70s I think some
of those go back.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Wow.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a good question. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi.
MR. BOSI: Sure. I wanted to address your point related to the Board's ability to deviate
from all portions of the LDC -- or similar portions to the LDC.
5.05 has a specific provision that states that deviations of LDC Section 5.05.15, which is
the golf course conversion, shall be prohibited.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh.
MR. BOSI: The golf course conversion process says the Board of County Commissioners
can't deviate from this process except for within G. G.2.B -- or 2.A does say, "The Board may
approve an alternative design" -- it's talking about the greenway. It says, "The Board may approve
an alternative design that was vetted at the stakeholder outreach meetings as provided for within
the section."
So in one section it says you can't deviate from any portion of it, and then the one portion
does says about the greenway, the greenway has an average width of 75 feet. It requires 100 foot
but can't go below 75 feet.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 162
Page 348 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 55 of 85
The Board does have the ability per 5.05.15 to have an alternative design to
that -- specifically related to that provision, but then it says you can't deviate from any other section
of the intent-to-convert, and that's a portion of what has been a little bit of ambiguity in terms of the
application of the code.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that prohibition language -- it seems as though a lot of the
concerns that I've heard from the Planning Commission would be obviated if you just took that
language out. I mean, we don't need to create a sole discretion standard, because the Board has the
discretion to do what it wants with the LDC unless it's already closed the door, as apparently it did
with this prohibition language. Take the prohibition language out. Wouldn't that solve the
problem?
MR. BOSI: That most certainly would give the Board a much greater degree of flexibility
in terms of what they ultimately would be allowed to decide upon.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how we're going to
proceed with this, because -- I want to do two things. Maybe you can highlight the significant
changes, but I'm really anxious to hear from the public, because whether you call it an
intent-to-convert or NIM 1 or NIM 2, I don't care what we call it. Somehow these names came up
years ago, but the fact is it was intended to notice them, allow them to provide input, hopefully the
developer and the community would work together to create what was the conversion and the
acceptable green space. That was -- that was what the intent was.
So I don't know how we want to proceed. If you want to just highlight and go through the
changes, then we could hear the public.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a very good question, and I was going to try to address it,
and then I'll ask Mr. Bosi also to do so.
My recommendation is, is that we go through what staff has prepared --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and provide our input. We also hear from the public and from
counsel for the various homeowners associations and get all of those ideas in place, and then find
out from Mr. Bosi where the county has issues with our proposed changes and where it would
concede those, and then continue this and have staff come back with whatever changes staff
believes it wants to make based upon what it's heard from the public and what it's heard from the
Planning Commission.
And we may go forward with the Planning Commission recommendation and staff's
recommendation or, more preferably, we may go forward with something that we can all sign up
to.
Does that sound right?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now, Commissioner Vernon. And, I'm sorry, Mr. Bosi. Let
Commissioner Vernon go, and then I'll ask you to talk.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: So following the Chairman's suggestion, as we go through
this, are we going to be looking at a redline version of what was put together in 2017?
MR. BOSI: We have a redline version. Almost the entire -- almost the entire process is
redlined, but I'll go through it.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's what we're -- that's what we're going to go through.
So we're going to see the original --
MR. BOSI: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then the other question is for Heidi on -- the
Chairman mentioned about -- well, you mentioned and then the Chairman commented on that there
is prohibition language in there, and if we remove that, as the Chairman says, is that one -- I guess
the question, is that one of the key elements -- and I'm sure there's more than one -- but is that one
of the key elements of the three Bert Harris Act claims that there is that prohibition in there?
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 163
Page 349 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 56 of 85
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. The width of the greenway is an issue in each of the cases.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: The width of the greenway but also the lack of --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Discretion.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Discretion, thank you.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point.
Mr. Bosi.
MR. BOSI: What I would say, overall for the intent-to-convert process, so this is how it
works: For -- to convert a golf course from its current GC zoning district to an alternative use,
before they're even allowed to submit a rezoning application, they have to go through the
intent-to-convert process, and that requires two SOM meetings. There's a lot of procedural things
that they have to do that -- that help promote or are trying to promote dialogue.
But I think where you're going to hear the objections from the public is related to the
green-space requirements, the greenway requirements, and the open-space requirements. Those
are the things that have to carry over and be incorporated withinto whatever development that is
being proposed.
How they -- how they exchange the dialogue in terms of the stakeholder outreach meeting,
the visual survey preference, these type of things, those are just to promote better dialogue. But
the hard components, I think, that are most important to the communities that surround the golf
courses that would be eventually -- would be the greenway buffers that are provided that are
instructed to be 100 feet along the outside of any converted golf course as well as the open-space
requirements and the tree requirements.
So think about those as we're going through the things that are being proposed as a
replacement and then as I go through the redlines, and then I think you're going to
probably -- you'll hear the perspective -- the public will be able to provide the clarification if I was
offset on any one of those areas.
So looking at what staff had proposed, we had said instead of having those two stakeholder
outreach meetings that are required, we're saying a neighborhood information meeting is required
after a pre-application meeting is held. They have to -- they have to have a neighborhood
information meeting before they could submit an application. That's intended to try to promote
that dialogue that we said.
Let's have the developer hear what their concerns are and maybe find some areas of
agreement that they're able to incorporate withinto whatever they're being proposed, but also -- and
this is really important -- is No. 3, under D, a title report that identifies the current owner of the
property and all encumbrances that are required as part of a rezone or an SRA application. That
really gives us the understanding of this golf course. Does it have any drainage commitments?
How is it tied -- you know, what are -- what are the easement restrictions that would be associated
that we have to know about before we go to -- before we go -- or when we go through a rezone
application, because those are things that are going to dictate, you know, what needs -- you know,
where the priorities -- or what things need to be taken care of.
Then we retain -- we retain the greenway requirements of a proposed conversion. It's
supposed to be continuous [sic] to the existing residents and all properties surrounding the existing
golf course and shall generally be located on the perimeter, maintaining an average width of
50 feet. That's a reduction from the 100 feet that's currently required by the code, and I think that's
obviously going to be something that the surrounding property owners are probably concerned
about.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not only a reduction, but it's also based upon an average
calculation.
MR. BOSI: Yes, yes.
The greenway may be counted towards open-space requirement for the project as
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 164
Page 350 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 57 of 85
established by LDC 4.02. That's another component that's retained. The greenway has always
been able to be counted towards the open space of the proposed development.
Existing trees and understories encouraged to be preserved and maintained within the
greenway with minimal improvements needed to provide for -- and the canopy tree, the ratio is
basically the same as what's contained within it. So that's another hard fact, a hard commitment
that has been retained from the intent-to-convert that has to be provided for within the new
development.
Greenways shall not include the required yards of any proposed individual lots. That's
another one that's retained from the current development -- or the current ITC requirement.
A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed development, but if
it is, it has to be connected in a way to allow for wildlife to have movement within those facilities.
A portion of the greenway may be -- may provide stormwater management; however, the
greenways shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake areas that existed pre-conversion
of the greenway, another component that was carried over from the ITC to the proposed
amendment.
Another one, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant at the time of the subdivision
or plat or SDP, describe the use, maintenance of the greenway, and who's to take care of it related
to the zoning action. That's another one that was carried over from the existing regulations.
And then, finally, 8 we spoke about. That's the one that we did from the legal team that
said that we absolutely needed to have this in here, and the Board has the ability and authority to
grant deviations as a sole discretion, not limited to but including the reduction within the greenway.
Now, I will say that currently within the existing -- the existing regulations, as I pointed it
out, it does give the Board the ability to provide alternative designs if they were spoken about
during any SOMs. So that's -- that provision takes the existing provision that gives the Board
some limited discretion in terms of deviation and expands it, and we do not retain that prohibition
of any other deviations against 5.05.15.
So that is -- that -- not carrying that restriction over doesn't give the Board more flexibility
to be able to deviate from anything that has a dimensional standard. Because the way that the
Board operates is anything that has a dimensional standard within our Land Development Code,
you can seek a deviation from. You can't seek deviations from use. They're not allowed to do
use variances. But you can seek a deviation from anything that's dimensional. So that restriction
that is currently in 5.05.15 that the Board can't make any deviations other than what's the
greenway, that's been removed.
And then now I will just kind of highlight, the next seven to eight pages are the existing
regulations as they exist.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you do so, I'm trying to decide what is really the best and
most efficient way for us to proceed. And I'm going to offer this to the Board, and whatever the
Board decides is what we'll do.
We now -- we now have the proposed new 5.05.15 in front of us, and it's all blue language.
So a page and a half. I probably have six comments addressed to this, and then I probably have a
greater number -- I know it's a greater number of comments addressed to what is being taken out,
that is to say the things that are redlined. But they're kind of two separate subjects, the way I see
them.
And so my idea would be that we pause -- that we ask Mr. Bosi to pause for a moment
while we offer our comments to the proposed new stuff and then see how we go after that with
respect to what is being removed from the old stuff.
Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Bosi, is that okay with you?
MR. BOSI: Sure. Your discretion, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is signaling at this point. Why don't I start, if I may.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 165
Page 351 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 58 of 85
And so this is -- it starts at Page 799 of 850 of the packet, and it's the beginning of the blue
lined -- the blueline language, 5.05.15, conversion of golf courses.
Subsection Capital A says, "The purpose of this section is to require an additional step of
public involvement and to add a greenway requirement." I would respectfully submit that the
language goes far beyond those two stated purposes. In some ways taking away from them, in
some ways adding provisions that don't relate to either of those two. Whether that's a good thing
or a bad thing, I don't know, but I just don't think that that sentence is a fair statement of what then
follows.
Then I'll just continue here, and we can talk about it. Then in C.3, "Golf courses that do
not abut and/or are not adjacent to." So my question is, but residences could still be close by but
not directly adjacent to, and we talked about this in my meeting with staff on Tuesday. And the
example I use is, what about if there's a road that comes between the resident's property and the
golf course proper? Does that -- does that break the continuity? And I believe -- I believe,
Mr. Bosi, you said that it breaks the abutment but not the adjacency.
MR. BOSI: Yeah, the adjacency still provides that that would be -- the relationship would
be there.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then I go to D.2 after the "completing the required
pre-submittal NIM." So now there would be two NIMs, a pre-submittal and a post submittal. But
at present, before this were to be changed, you've got two SOMs and one NIM. And so my
question is, is how is the public better served by having two NIMs versus three opportunities for
input?
MR. BOSI: I'm not sure if the public is better served. This was a reflection that the
outcomes of the SOMs did not yield the benefits that were expected. So the idea was this was that
first opportunity for the public, before an application is submitted, to identify the issues most
important to them or the most concerning to them to the development community. If you would
think that it would be improved by two individual NIMs before an application was submitted, I'll
defer to, you know, the Planning Commission's discretion on that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure we need three of anything. But I guess my question
is, is that what does a -- what would one NIM accomplish that two SOMs wouldn't accomplish?
Because you say the outcome was is that we weren't getting agreement. We weren't getting
public --
MR. BOSI: My estimation is that pre-submittal NIM would probably have the same
results that the SOMs have, is that there would just be entrenchment in terms of the residents not
wanting the development and the developer saying that they had to convert their golf course to an
alternative use.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But -- so staff believes that there is a greater likelihood of some
concessions being made by the developer if it takes the format of one NIM versus two SOMs?
MR. BOSI: Staff feels that there's not a tremendous amount of concessions that are made,
whether there's one, two, four, or six. We're proposing one in the hope that there could be some
compromise or there could be some issues that were identified prior to an application that could
inform that application of those concerns.
But having two NIMs doesn't seem like it's a benefit, in staff's perspective, from what
we've experienced from the entrenchment of both parties during this process, that we found that
those outcomes aren't yielding themselves.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to jump in on this point?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, because I just want to make sure we don't create
this new definition of a NIM. A NIM is nothing more than the developer advising the community
of the intent of the rezone and to garner input. It is not a staff meeting. It is not an approval
meeting. Staff is only there to record and to assure the public that the staff POC is identified, and
if any issues, they can contact that point of contact.
The NIM is not an agreement process. It's just nothing more than an information meeting.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 166
Page 352 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 59 of 85
So that's -- I think that's why we avoided calling it a NIM in the first place, because the
intent-to-convert was to receive input from the community and hopefully that, between the
developer and the community, would make adjustments accordingly.
MR. BOSI: That's really what our NIMs are, Joe.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they are. Yeah, I agree. That's what a NIM is.
But it's not meant to come to a resolution. It's nothing more than an information process. I don't
know. I just want to make sure we don't --
MR. BOSI: And I think the stakeholder outreach meetings were intended and similar -- in
the similar vein --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it was.
MR. BOSI: -- trying to promote that conversation. I'm not sure if we expected that
resolution was going to be provided. But the intent of why we crafted it the way we did with all of
the procedures was trying to find areas of compromise.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further to that point -- and I agree with what you said -- I would
take it an additional step that if we were going to go from two SOMs to one NIM -- which you can
make a case for it, but I want to be sure that all of the current NIM rules would apply to both
NIMs --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- including the full transcript.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. That's what I -- basically, we don't now change
the definition of a NIM.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. No, no. I'm not looking to put more -- more content into
the NIM, but I just want it to be the same kind of a NIM that we already have, just the timing is is it
occurs pre-application.
All right. I'm going to retain the floor, if I may --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- for a moment, and then I'll be finished with the blue
underlining.
The -- E.1, average width, when you have average width, of course, that could result in, at
some points in the perimeter, there being no separation at all because the average there would be
zero, and you'd have to have 100 feet somewhere else in order to balance it out.
And I could -- I could find some numbers that I could be comfortable with, but they would
involve also having a "but not less than," a minimum, a floor, if you will. In other words, an
average width of X, but not less than X -- not less than Y. So that's a comment that I have on that.
Then on E.3, there's this word "encouraged" again that I raised with Mr. Weeks, and he and
I had comments about this back in the days of Rivergrass, that it really is a word that means
nothing and requires nothing, and I just -- I don't like language like that. I mean, either -- either
trees and understory shrubs should be required to be preserved, or we take the language out. But
encouragement" is just wasting words because it's -- you know, it doesn't accomplish anything.
MR. BOSI: And I would say we'd still have that minimum requirement for the tree ratio
in terms of the one to 2,000 square feet, one tree per every 2,000 square feet of the greenway. So
we are encouraging more than that, but we're requiring the minimum of that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I get that.
MR. BOSI: And we can strike that if that's the discretion of the Planning Commission,
because it doesn't do anything, like you said.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We saw -- yeah. Thinking back to the Rivergrass experience,
there was an effort on the part of Mr. Weeks to encourage a lot of things, but they were ignored,
and they were ignored by a developer who was acting within his rights.
So the teaching of that matter to me was -- is that this is a legally nugatory or nullity and
shouldn't -- shouldn't be included in here. That's just -- so I'm just putting these ideas out. I'm not
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 167
Page 353 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 60 of 85
trying to resolve anything at this point.
Then I go down to Section 7, "The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant." And
Mr. Bosi and I spoke about this on Tuesday. I just wanted to insert the word "perpetual," because
that -- and I think that's what staff intended, and I think Mr. Bosi agrees to that; do you not, sir?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Then it gets to 8, Section 8. "The Board has the authority to grant deviations at its sole
discretion," I didn't know when I raised this at our Tuesday meeting that there was this prohibition
language. It's in here, but I just hadn't seen it.
And so something needs to be done about the prohibition language, I believe, because I
don't think the Board of County Commissioners should tie its hands with respect to anything since
it doesn't have any more of a crystal ball than we do. And my solution would be to delete the
prohibition rather than introducing new concepts like "sole discretion," because if you -- if you
were to include that comment in here, you have this -- what is this expression, "expressio unius
exclusio alterius," which means if you say something in one place, then you raise a question of
whether it doesn't exist in all the other places where you could have said it. So you're creating
problems by doing it.
Did I say that right, Commissioner Vernon?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think you just made that up. I don't think that's actually
a term.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: You want to see if you could get away with it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: He called me. I quit.
No, I --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You lawyers. My God.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you can take it --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I'll stick up for us engineers. Come on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I've got some more Latin for you.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I didn't understand a word he said.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here's one for you to add a little levity in the room.
Semper ubi sub ubi. Do you know what that means? Always wear underwear. Thank
you very much.
All right. Now -- so to get serious again, if I may. I just don't think it's a good idea to
introduce a sole discretion concept into the Land Development Code. I think the solution is to
take the prohibition language out and give the Board of County Commissioners the authority to do
what they have in all other respects in here, which is to grant deviations. So that takes me through
the blue language. Does anybody else want to be heard on the blue language without reference to
Latin?
Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And at the -- and it's really not -- it's a big picture,
and I'm probably being a little stubborn here. But I want to say this a different way. I think
what's driving the county commissioners, what's driving this, the only thing is we're getting sued on
Bert Harris Act claims.
I'm operating under the assumption that in 2017 there was a really good, solid process, and
Commissioner Schmitt's indicated this, that this was well thought out and well put together. And
at the end of the day, assuming the county commissioners buy into whatever we're suggesting,
there's going to be a litigator; a trial lawyer's got to walk into court. And if there's four or five
bases for the Bert Harris Act claims, the three that have been made, probably most of the
allegations have already been asserted.
And I would very much like our litigators to go in and say, we address these five points
and that's it. Because if we start changing stuff that is not the basis for the Bert Harris Act claims,
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 168
Page 354 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 61 of 85
those good lawyers representing the developers are going to come in and say, "Oh, they totally
rewrote this," and we're just going to give them more ammunition.
So I don't want to give or take away -- I mean, the whole purpose of this, I think, was to
protect residents, and I'm not interested in taking away any residents' rights unless it is subjecting
us to a Bert Harris Act claim, but I'm also not interested in trying to tweak it to make it better, only
because I think it's going to make the litigator's job, the person representing the county's job harder
in defending the Bert Harris Act claim.
So that's the reason I'm being sort of stubborn about this. And let's just make the changes
we have to make and leave the rest alone. And I'm assuming it was done well the first time, other
than the Bert Harris claims.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm in general agreement with that. I'd also caution that if
we're -- the only thing, I think -- and please, County Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong -- there may
be some adjacency requirements and standing issues. But Bert Harris was -- is not just a
pro-developer protection. It's also calculated to protect the property interests of adjacent
landowners. And let's not lose sight of that, because if adjacent landowners get together and
manage to raise sufficient funds to hire a big-time law firm to bring a Bert Harris claim, we've got a
Bert Harris claim again. And so while I applaud all efforts to save taxpayers money by avoiding
unnecessary litigation, let's keep in mind that Bert Harris could be a two-way street.
Now -- so here we are at the redlining. And, Mr. Bosi, I think you're proposing that you
take us through the high points of what has been -- what are you suggesting?
MR. BOSI: I can do that, or we can -- I mean, you can open it up to the public to hear
what their concerns are to have a better context so when we review what's being removed, you
could hear -- and I think what they're probably going to do is probably point out the areas where
they have some objections to things being removed.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, as do I. And I think that's a good suggestion.
What about the Planning Commission? Should we go right to the public at this point?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I like that idea. And, again, you probably -- most
of you have never seen me before, but, you know, I usually very much want to listen to the public.
All I -- I think I'm being clear. I'm -- and this is just me, not everybody, but I'm not interested in
making any changes to this thing because I think it's pretty public friendly other than to protect
against a valid Bert Harris Act claim.
So I don't -- I don't need to hear 40 people -- this is just me. I don't need to hear 40 people
say, "Let's make a change" other than what I just said. And I don't know that -- I see -- I'm
guessing that's an attorney over there that you're -- somebody's represented. So, you know, I'm
sure your attorney will speak for you.
So I'm not trying to prevent anybody from talking, but I'm just saying I don't -- you've
heard what I've said. So I don't know that I need to hear the same thing over and over, is what I'm
trying to say.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's good.
And I think -- I want to be liberal, as we hear these, to allow Mr. Bosi or other members of
staff to comment immediately after a member of the public says what they have to say so that we
have the continuity, and I think that would be a pretty effective substitute for, Mr. Bosi, you going
through in advance, if that's agreeable with you.
MR. BOSI: I take the discretion of the Board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so I -- let's see. We've got -- we have two lawyers
out there who are representing groups?
MR. BOSI: I believe Mr. Pires and Mr. Lombardo are here for Lakewood. I'm
not -- Mr. Lombardo is here, I know. I think that's the only -- we have the written document that
was provided by Ms. Berkey, but I don't believe she is --
MS. CAMBELL: She's on Zoom.
MR. BOSI: Oh, she's on Zoom.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 169
Page 355 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 62 of 85
CHAIRMAN FRYER: She's on the phone, do you say?
MS. CAMBELL: I believe she is.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. So Mr. Pires and Mr. Lombardo are from the same
firm?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: He says no one's on the phone.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one's on the phone.
MR. BOSI: We have Zoom speakers, but I don't believe Ms. Berkey is on.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Well, we've got her -- I was hoping she would be here
because she made some very good comments. They appear as those balloon comments in one of
the iterations of the staff redlining that we had. Many are self-explanatory, and we can just go
through her comments and take them for what they're worth and have staff respond.
So unless there's objection from the Planning Commission, I'm going to suggest that we
start off with the lawyers and, within a reasonable amount of time, present their points of view so
that we can consider them, and we'll give staff an opportunity on the spot to respond and us, of
course, to ask questions and make comments. Does anybody object to that approach?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then that's how we'll proceed. Mr. Lombardo.
MR. LOMBARDO: Good afternoon. For the record, Zach Lombardo here on behalf of
Lakewood Community Services Association. For reference, Tony's associate.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And you've been sworn in, sir?
MR. LOMBARDO: I don't know that I was sworn in, but is this a quasi-judicial hearing?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, it's not. Thank you. Never mind.
MR. LOMBARDO: I'm happy to be. I'll be honest.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. We're going to take you as George Washington
chopping down the cherry tree.
MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you're absolutely right, this is not quasi-judicial.
MR. LOMBARDO: Before getting into some of my more specific comments on the
proposal, I did want to comment a little bit about the Bert Harris observations, because I think this
is a very important part of this process.
There are two filed lawsuits that I'm aware of. If there are more, I think that should be
more specifically outlined to you-all so you can see specifically what these claims are.
The most recently filed one, 2024-CA-315 involving the Riviera course, this has been
stayed. The county filed a motion to stay and contingently a motion to dismiss for ripeness issues,
kind of addressing some of the comments you-all had made about how could there be a Bert Harris
claim at this point in this process?
So the county has taken this position. The case has been stayed because, in a separate
action, there's a question about what restrictions, what private restrictions apply to that property
and whether it can be changed from a golf course at all.
So that claim at the current status isn't in a -- in a place where it can provide helpful
instructions as to what the problem is because the Court hasn't weighed in at all as to whether it
believes it's a valid claim.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for that information. It also means that we're not
under unusual pressure to get this resolved, and if we do send it back, if we continue this for further
drafts, we're not going to be slowing down the process.
MR. LOMBARDO: That's certainly my observation, but I absolutely would defer to your
counsel.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. LOMBARDO: The other, an older case, 2023-CA-1795, Naples Golf Development,
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 170
Page 356 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 63 of 85
this one I think is important to point out, that is not a golf course zoned property. It's an
agriculturally zoned property, so it's a little bit of an apples-and-orange issue when it comes to this
particular situation.
And in that case, your attorneys have filed a motion for summary judgment that is being
heard in September. And I want to point out, there's a great line at the end of the motion. This is
the County Attorney's, Greg Woods' writing. "If plaintiff would simply stop using the property as
a golf course and use it only as a residential property, as it claims it wishes to do, the county would
have no grounds to attempt to apply the golf course conversion ordinance to the property." That's
the county's motion.
So the significance of pointing this out is that property seems to be in a very different
position than a lot of what the residents here are in and a lot of what this typically applies to, which
is the nine neighborhoods where there are golf course zoned properties in the middle of them.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What was that other property, then?
MR. LOMBARDO: This is the Naples Golf Development case, which I believe this
property is --
MR. BOSI: The Links of Naples down on the East Trail, the one -- I believe they have
night golf there.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. LOMBARDO: And that's -- that -- and in the summary judgment motion, your
attorneys are also arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to follow various
processes. And there will be a hearing on this, according to the docket, in September. And so I
think after September, you-all will have a lot more information as to validity of these claims,
because I think reacting to the filing of a lawsuit is very different than reacting to, for example,
losing at trial or losing at summary judgment.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But The Links -- there's no homes around The Links, per
se. There's nothing out there.
MR. BOSI: There's -- there's --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They were -- that was an intent-to-convert as well?
MR. BOSI: They were instructed that they had to follow the intent-to-convert.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh.
MR. BOSI: And that's one of the improvements we've made is to clarify that that would
not -- that would not fall within the intended process for intent.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree, but I'd defer to the County Attorney. But
I have to agree, that probably would not have been required to go through an intent-to-convert
because there's really nothing else out there. There's car storage and some other things.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're probably not going to get too much out of the County
Attorney because it's pending.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's right. Enough said.
MR. LOMBARDO: And I just -- my only point is, let's look at the filed claims and make
sure that we're addressing them. And I would submit that one is an orange to these apples, and the
other one is way too early to decide.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
MR. LOMBARDO: Getting into the actual proposed amendments here, the -- in the staff
report, there's a statement that what was attempted to be accomplished here was to require
preservation of a portion of the greenway in a proposed conversion project. And I think the major
objection coming from Lakewood is that these changes really eviscerate that concept.
And the first place I'd like to point to is under the new 5.05.15.E in the greenway
requirements, this average width of 50 feet. In addition to objecting to the idea of switching to an
average measurement tool, the prior standard was -- had an average of 100 with a minimum of 75.
That's in G.2.B of the current ordinance. So dropping down to 50, removing any minimum,
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 171
Page 357 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 64 of 85
and -- it leads to a situation where I think you do step into this space where Bert Harris claims can
go different directions.
So the standard is an inordinate burden to property. There are questions about
investment-backed expectations. And so the whole concept here is to protect property owners
who bought on an open space, essentially.
And so the greenway piece of this is a critical component to make sure that the open space
piece is preserved. And if we're doing averages, that means behind one particular house maybe we
can get down to two or three feet as long as this is a long enough greenway span.
So it's -- if we're getting to the point that there is going to be a general ability for the
County Commission to allow for deviation, which I don't know that we're contesting that point,
why would we change the base standards as well to remove this? Let's keep what we have,
because that is not something that in and of itself is a problem, at least not that I'm aware of.
So my second comment, similar to that, is that if we're going to add this sole discretion
language -- I think you-all have thoroughly discussed this, and I think your analysis makes the most
sense. Instead of saying "sole discretion," the prohibition can be removed, and it can be treated
like the balance of the Land Development Code and not create a sort of alternative standard.
Because there's more than just the Bert Harris law out there when it comes to how we regulate in
local governments. One of the standards is that the decisions made by the governing bodies
themselves cannot be arbitrary. There has to be some kind of framework for these things.
So to put in language like "sole discretion," arguably a decision that could be made under
that is simply, well, we would just like to not have a greenway here because four of us or three of
us, whatever the standard is, feel that way.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: In other words, arbitrary.
MR. LOMBARDO: Arbitrary. And so at the end of the day, that's not protecting the
county because we're having an arbitrary and capricious issue.
One note -- and I think this was present in the prior version, but if we're going to go back
and do some cleanup, I think it's important to focus on consistency of language. And all of this, by
the way, is in our submitted written materials.
But when we're talking about the development that's around these golf courses, there's
three different phrases used: Residentially zoned properties, residential development, and
residential properties. I think this can be cleaned up to avoid some confusion to make sure that
we're always talking about the same thing here when it comes to these properties. And I think
some of that might help clean up this issue with The Links as to whether that was something that
this should have triggered at all if we're very clear as to what the surrounding properties are to
trigger this entire process.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi and I talked about this on Tuesday, and my question
was, is there any reason why we can't go to the term "residential uses" instead? And so I'd ask
Mr. Bosi what staff's response is to Mr. Lombardo's point.
MR. BOSI: That would trigger The Links of Naples to have to go through the process
because it's zoned agricultural but there's residents' houses that are adjacent to that golf course;
therefore, you can trigger it saying, because it's residentially used, therefore, the golf course
conversion should apply. That's why we use "residentially zoned."
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not a golf course. It's ag.
MR. BOSI: It's developed as a golf course.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. It's being used as a golf course, but it's not zoned a
golf course. It's ag.
MR. BOSI: I don't believe the intent-to-convert requires that the golf course be zoned golf
course.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it should be. I mean, that was the intent. Why
would we prohibit --
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 172
Page 358 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 65 of 85
MR. BOSI: We can't go back and talk about --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You guys can -- you need to look at that. I mean, I
would agree.
MR. LOMBARDO: And to be clear, I'm not advocating -- we're not here saying it should
say "residential use." I'm just saying it should be the same term, because you're using "residential
development" in the current proposed new one, which would still trigger The Links because it's
residential development.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I could put cows out there tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So staff is going to take those comments and --
MR. LOMBARDO: And then turning a little bit to the things that have been deleted, there
is a 5.05.15.G.1, previously approved open space. It talks about not being able to use this area for
open space if it's previously approved for the project. This makes a lot of sense. A lot of these
developments are using the golf course area as the open space for their development, and so
we're -- you had language in here that acknowledged that, and that language has been stricken. I
don't know if there's a reason for this or if that can be explained, but I didn't see it.
And this may dovetail into Commissioner Schmitt's comment about these Environmental
Resource Permits, because one thing we don't know -- and by the way, the county pointed this out
in one of their motions in the Bert Harris claim. They filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join
South Florida Water Management District because there are -- a lot of these golf courses are part of
the stormwater permits for these developments.
And so it's not accurate to say that the developer could come in and just do whatever they
want on these golf courses. They'd have to solve the stormwater problem, which in some cases
may not be possible, in which case I would suggest the county has no liability because -- because
of an intervening cause, it would not be possible to redevelop these golf courses. But, obviously,
that's your attorney's discretion to provide that.
The design standards, the lighting, and the setback requirements in 5.05.15.H have been
deleted. I don't know why those have been deleted. I don't know if there was a reason provided
for that.
There was some stormwater language in 15.G.4 that was deleted and, again, not sure why
that would be pulled out. I mean, hopefully the South Florida standards would cause that strikeout
to not be necessary, and maybe that's the reasoning. Maybe staff's consideration is that there's a
second level of regulation here that would come in. But if that's the case, I think it should be
explained.
There is some language about tree removal -- hold on one second -- to address kind of the
exotic and prohibited trees. I'm looking at 15.G.2.
So -- but in general -- and I think our letter goes into some depth. And certainly Katie
Berkey's letter. And hopefully she'll join Zoom -- goes into even greater depth with suggested
edits. But I don't know that that approach -- and I agree with Commissioner Vernon on this. I
don't know that this entire approach makes sense because you have, again, as I'm aware, two filed
Bert Harris claims. If there's more, I think that should be put onto the record.
And if we're just totally rewriting this system without understanding why we're totally
rewriting the system -- for example, if we're rewriting it because of Links, which is not a property
that we're all clear should be in the system and another one where the Court has taken no
dispositive action whatsoever, that's a very reactive response to something that had an extensive
amount of time going into these hearings, because this -- and I understand it's coming from the
County Commission, and that's not a criticism of staff at all.
But it does seem like what was talked about today is that there is very small adjustments
that could be made that would aid the county's litigation efforts and manage the investment-backed
expectations of all of the many homeowners that live around these golf courses. In Lakewood
specifically, there's actually two golf courses. So there's two possible places where this could be
triggered.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 173
Page 359 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 66 of 85
And so if there's any --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon.
MR. LOMBARDO: -- specific questions.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Zach, I thank you for that. It's a good
presentation -- that was a good presentation.
Who are the -- if you know -- because it sounds like you've studied it. On the two
cases -- it sounds like there's three, but you're aware of two. Is that one law firm bringing both
cases; do you know?
MR. LOMBARDO: No.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Are they in-town or out-of-town lawyers?
MR. LOMBARDO: The Riviera case is Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh.
MR. LOMBARDO: And the Naples Development case, I don't believe that's an in-town
firm, but I have the signature block right here.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So Yovanovich is on one of them?
MR. LOMBARDO: Yes. And then the other firm is Bartlett, Loeb, Hinds & Thompson
out of Tampa for the Naples Golf Development.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: They do a lot of land use?
MR. LOMBARDO: I do not know, sir.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. And then you -- I think you agree with the
Chairman on the -- there's that prohibition language in there, and it's -- if we take the prohibition
language in there, then we don't need Paragraph 8. I think that's what the Chairman's suggesting.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: My only concern -- again, I always defer to the guy
standing in the courtroom talking to the judge -- it's going to take a while -- it may take a while,
depending on the judge and the situation, to explain, "Well, Judge, they have that discretion
anyway." Even though, technically, the Chairman's right, is there a downside to simply adding
that sentence so in court Greg Woods, or whoever's representing us, can say, "Judge, it's right
here," as opposed to, "Well, Judge, they have that authority anyway," from your perspective?
MR. LOMBARDO: From my perspective, and purely my perspective, obviously -- the
County Attorney has to provide you advice. But from my perspective, the downside is creating
something that is different than anywhere else in the Land Development Code and doing it in an
extremely specific way that suggests an arbitrary level to it, because there is an existing practice for
how the county handles deviations. It's understood, and it's throughout the code.
So to specifically in this section use the phrase "sole discretion," I think opens up the
county to a different type of exposure. But that's -- I don't -- again, I do agree with the concept
that that's the direction of this amendment. It should be something more specific like that.
I thought it was very interesting that County Attorney's review indicated there was one
sentence to add, and that was it. And then what we're looking at is major changes.
And so we -- I guess, if I had to summarize everything that we're saying on behalf of
Lakewood, it's we would prefer that route. We think that's what makes the most sense, and we
think that's what makes the most sense for the county given the two cases that we've looked at.
But if you are going to get into it, we think some of these substantive provisions should be there,
because even in the discretionary world where they have the ability to do deviations, it helps to
have some framework as to what it should look like.
So if they're going to have -- the Board's going to have the ability to do deviations, why are
we worried about reducing the greenway size and removing the minimum size and switching to an
average? It seems like it's too much of a reduction for no reason, because they have the discretion.
If there's some compelling feature of the land or there's maybe, perhaps, a water feature that makes
this very unworkable, that's the time when the county can -- and you-all can and the planners can
find a way around this. But by keeping the baseline, the minimum widths and the higher averages,
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 174
Page 360 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 67 of 85
you're going to get a better result for the surrounding property owners, and I don't think it's
unworkable for the developers.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: So you like -- you like -- I'm just restating to make sure I
understand. You like the simplistic approach used by the county, they simply added one sentence,
but you'd probably do it -- and this is your opinion -- do it a little different. You'd do it like the
Chairman's suggesting. You wouldn't add one sentence. You'd drop the prohibition language,
and you'd be done?
MR. LOMBARDO: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And maybe if there -- if there's concern about doubt, you could
say, "And for the avoidance of doubt, the deviations here should be treated exactly like other
deviations in other circumstances."
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thoughts?
MR. LOMBARDO: I think that would, again, kind of get into the territory of making it
different than elsewhere in the Land Development Code. But I'm not -- that would be -- in my
view, any version of that, including the one sentence, I think, would be preferable to rewriting all
of the code, I think, is my bigger point here. I don't -- I'm certainly not your planner, and I'm not
your attorney.
But I feel that there's -- to go back to Commissioner Schmitt's point, there was a lot of
work that went into this process, and the communities are clearly impacted by this. And,
interestingly, this is a very narrow and specific issue because it's not -- it's really nine
neighborhoods. And so when those people come out and show up and participate, I think it's
important to listen to them.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you were to go with the existing text, you know, the LDC text
as it exists without the proposed strikethroughs, you would still need the deviation language,
because we have deviations expressly authorized by the PUD section, but we don't have it for
conditional uses, and we don't have it for straight rezones. So you would need to have that added
in.
MR. LOMBARDO: And I think all we're looking to avoid is the "sole discretion"
language. I think there needs to be some kind of basis for the deviation, so --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes.
MR. LOMBARDO: -- deferring to your County Attorney, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Schumacher.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. That was a great presentation, Zach.
I agree with the majority of what you said. The one thing I was kind of wondering, Lakewood's
completely built out, no extra land could be developed.
MR. LOMBARDO: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Traffic-wise, they probably see the same
thing as everybody else during season, right? So if somebody was to put application in for
something in Lakewood to build another residential community in there, that would, obviously,
quadruple the amount of cars on their roads.
MR. LOMBARDO: There's a significant concern about traffic with these applications.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I think that would be a good place to start with
these is -- I know the traffic portion or transportation portion of it comes into play during the
application process, but I think that when we're looking at this process, it needs to be presented up
front that the current roadways, obviously, cannot be expanded to four lanes in most of these
communities. They are what they are. They're already built.
And that the additional transportation in there that would be over and above whatever the
membership was for said golf course that was there previously, it would be too much of a strain on
that transportation system within the community. I mean, does that make sense to you, Mike, or
am I off -- or am I way off topic?
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 175
Page 361 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 68 of 85
MR. BOSI: Those would be -- those would be issues that would be analyzed during the
rezone process.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Anything further, Mr. Lombardo?
MR. LOMBARDO: No. Thank you very much for receiving my comment.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Mike wants to say something.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Mr. Bosi.
MR. BOSI: I would point out that the comments that Zach made were exclusively really
to the development standards contained in G within the intent-to-convert. Some of the issues that
we have found with the stakeholder outreach meetings is to prescribe activities that the developers
have to provide for in that regard, that they have to provide for specific alternative development
statements. They have to provide for an aspect, a narrative of no conversion. They have to
provide for a county purchase, a conceptual development plan that shows the various -- the various
aspects for how they could -- they would redevelop.
So I think some of those procedural steps were things that staff found that weren't yielding
those results. But just to let you know that I think what you're going to hear -- the majority of the
objections will be modifications that we -- are being proposed against the existing development
standards that are contained in 5.05.15, because I didn't hear -- I didn't hear any objections to the
removal of the -- some of -- the visual preference survey or the alternative development statements.
There really wasn't any commentary towards that.
So just in the back of your mind, as we're going through this, I think, try to focus upon if
these are all on the development statements, then maybe that's -- that could be a course that we
retain some of those or retain the majority of those based upon some of the decisions you want to
make and the minimal amount of changes that you want to make, just for -- just for thought.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. LOMBARDO: Can I briefly respond to that?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please.
MR. LOMBARDO: Because, in part, my comments -- and typically in public comment
we're sort of triaging with time. And so I think we're mainly -- we're mainly focused on the
development standards because those are the long-ranging pieces that are going to impact these
communities.
But, again, our position is to go with the County Attorney's more scalpel approach which
would leave all of those pieces in place, and I think it's a little hard to talk about some of those
pieces because there are -- there's very helpful things that come out of these meetings, and one of
the big pieces about all of those options is it helps tee up a better conversation, potentially, about
the community purchasing the property.
And I think -- I can't go into some details on some of that, but in Lakewood this has been
somewhat effective to be able to have these meetings and these -- additional information so that the
community can really evaluate this. Because at the end of the day, there does have to be a line
where a neighbor can't influence the next property owner because they don't own it, but maybe in
this unique situation, if enough information is gathered and provided, a meaningful conversation
about purchase can be started.
So we do think that all of those provisions should remain. It's just that when we're looking
at the long-range effects, and when we're looking at the lawsuits, the focus seems to be not on that.
The focus seems to be on the actual greenway and the buffering space.
And so, again, going back to the direction that came from the Board, the Board's very
focused on these lawsuits. And unless I'm missing something, and Heidi can correct me, but I
don't believe the lawsuits emphasize the administrative process. They're focused on the actual
dimensional requirements, so that's why my comments focused that way.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 176
Page 362 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 69 of 85
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
It seems to me as though we are headed for sending this back to staff. Anybody who
disagrees, please let me know. Maybe we can get it completed today, but I doubt it, because I
want to see some revised language in a number of these things, and I want staff to have had the
benefit of the comments we made and that were made by counsel and members of the public.
So that, I believe, is where we want to be headed. And it may turn out that there are three
options. Option number one, to just go with a single sentence -- the single-sentence option, which
I don't personally favor, partly -- maybe largely because I don't think the Board of County
Commissioners is going to go with that. I think they had a -- they had a more sweeping idea of
what needed to be done maybe without -- without having homed in on exactly the provisions that
they were unhappy with. But -- so one option would be the single-sentence option.
A second option would be that staff helps us craft a Planning Commission preferred option
where we can agree, at least by a majority vote, if not unanimously, and send that on, and staff
would have its own recommendation which may incorporate some of our suggestions like the word
perpetual" and "easement" and a few other things, but they may still want to go with their own
independent version, and that's fine.
And then a third possibility would be that we and staff can get together and send something
to the Board of County Commissioners that we like and staff likes and we all believe is something
that meets the request of the Board of County Commissioners.
So anybody want to comment on that?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Somebody got it before me. Who's 1? Somebody --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Vernon is first.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I was going to say I guess a nuisance is do we go with
the single sentence, or do we also remove the prohibition, or you suggesting we do that? When
you say "single sentence," you mean remove the prohibition?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I should have been more clear. We must remove the
prohibition if we go with the single sentence; otherwise, you can have a conflict.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So my -- I guess my comments -- I think
you -- you've got a pretty good idea. But my comments is, I just feel like this ought to go to legal
with staff helping as opposed to staff with legal helping because, again, the only reason we're doing
this is because of litigation.
And then I guess the last comment I'd make, I'd probably go with No. 2 and maybe make a
few more changes simply because I do fear that the County Commissioners will not accept what
we propose if we just change one sentence. That -- and that sounds like a crazy way to do it, but I
do want to do what they ask us to do, again, through the filter of how do we win the lawsuit and
nothing more, which is Mr. Lombardo's point.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And I agree with your comments.
One thing I'll say here, and I can only operate at the outer perimeter, the outskirts of what
might be an understanding that has been reached over the years between the County Attorney's
Office and the Growth Management Department. But there is a -- I think preceded by some long
sessions of perhaps disagreement arriving at a compromise as to whose authority is the Growth
Management and whose authority is County Attorney.
I learned rather early on, sitting up here, that what I think should be a matter for the
attorney, as a result of this compromise that's been reached years ago, may not be the way that the
county internal government works. And I'm not trying to change the way the government works
by saying "this needs to be primarily the County Attorney or primarily Growth Management." I
think we need to just rely on, you know, if we send it back, that they're going to -- they're going to
address it in a way that they have -- that's consistent with the understanding that they've reached
over the years.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 177
Page 363 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 70 of 85
Any comments from the County Attorney or Growth Management? Am I way off base?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The zoning director has clear authority.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: To interpret.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on --
MR. BOSI: There's matters --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- state statutes.
MR. BOSI: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. The county -- the state statutes clearly empowers
the zoning director with that authority. The County Attorney, my understanding, is the legal
advisor and the advisor to the Board of County Commissioners. But under state statute, that -- that
does fall under the zoning director.
MR. BOSI: And the interpretation of the Land Development Code and the GMP has been
designated to the County Manager or designee, which falls upon me.
The County Attorney Office does not work for -- is not part of general-purpose county
government staff. They work for the County Attorney, Mr. Klatzkow, who has a specific -- who
works for the Board of County Commissioners.
We work in hand and good team work, but there is most certainly a line of responsibilities
and a chain of command that is different between myself and what Ms. Ashton deals with.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. The only point I was making -- and I'm in agreement what
the Vice Chairman -- is when we say we're sending this back, we're not prescribing who is to do
what, because there are state statutes, and there are many years of compromise and understandings
reached, I know, because I've had conversations with Jeff Klatzkow. And we're not trying to upset
any of that. So when we say send it back, we know that you'll handle it in the way that is
consistent with the statutes and your long-term agreements of who's responsible for what.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Any action that comes to us usually -- there's certainly a
paragraph that says legal sufficiency and the legal comment.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I offer, I think -- we're probably going to need to take
a break here soon, but...
CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I don't want to get into trying to write legislation on
the fly here. I have about six or seven points I want to add. I'm waiting to hear from the public,
and then I think we can provide what I think is a comprehensive list of items for staff to look at and
come back to us with a -- I would say a rewrite, because I certainly want to -- I concur with many
of the points Mr. Lombardo brought up and Tony Pires brought up, and also I think -- I think that
we could give them some ammunition, and they can come back to us. We're not going to -- we're
not going to solve this today.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. You're exactly right, and I agree completely. But first
things first, we need to take a break. It's 2:14. We'll be back at 2:24. We're in recess.
A brief recess was had from 2:14 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.)
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi.
My plan for this afternoon, subject to what Planning Commission wants to do, we're going
to go for another two hours to around 4:30, plus or minus, and within that time, I want to have
heard from all members of the public, and having talked to staff, who's monitoring this, that's not
an insurmountable opportunity or option for us within that time.
Then after we've heard from people who want to speak, if we have time remaining, I'd like
to turn to Ms. Berkey's comments, which are in those balloons. But if we don't get to those, I'm
going to ask the Planning Commission members to be sure that they have read and understand
them. And the comments are quite clear. And ask staff, when it takes all of this under
submission and does its rewrite, to give appropriate affect to Ms. Berkey's comments.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 178
Page 364 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 71 of 85
Does anybody disagree with that as a way of proceeding?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. That's how we will.
So then Mr. Lombardo's finished, and we've got four commissioners, and then we'll go
back to the public. Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think -- I'm done.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, me too.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, we all --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schumacher.
COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We're done.
Okay. So now let's -- let's go to registered speakers, if we may, please. Who do we
have?
MR. SUMMERS: All righty. Our first speaker is Peter Osinski, and he is ceded extra
time by David Bartos.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And, sir, if you'd give us the spelling of your last
name, I'd be appreciative.
MR. OSINSKI: O-s-i-n-s-k-i.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right.
MR. OSINSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good afternoon.
MR. OSINSKI: My name is Peter Osinski. I am a Board member at Riviera Golf
Estates. I'm also the Chairman of the Golf Course Work Group Committee that has been
following the developments on this issue for a couple of years now.
As an aside, not only have we been to all of the appropriate meetings here, we have also
been represented -- personally, myself, Tricia Campbell, and Alan Carpenter went to the two
DSAC meetings also and made our understandings clear.
But first of all, I'd like to point out that on April 23rd, the Board of County Commissioners
discussed the golf course conversion regulations, and those deliberations were alluded to by
Mr. Bosi.
Our review of that video -- it is on video. It's still on my computer. I've watched it a few
times. Our review of that meeting is that they had no problem with the 100-foot greenway. It
was alluded to a couple times, and nobody said, "No, it should be less."
But they -- as they discussed the item -- and the item was brought up by an agenda item
brought up by Commissioner McDaniel, and the item was repeal of the golf course regulations,
which started the whole discussion.
The discussion, again, considered the greenway to be a given, the 100 foot, and there was
no question about that. But they did seem to want the authority to approve lesser dimensions,
which is understandable. I'd rather they didn't, but I understand their point of view. And they
unanimously rejected the idea of limiting -- on eliminating the golf course conversion regulations
and made a motion asking the Planning department to draft modifications that would streamline the
process and provide them more defense against Bert Harris claims. All right. So that's -- that's
what the Board asked for.
We, myself, Tricia Campbell, and Alan Carpenter, shortly thereafter, went to all three -- all
five commissioners. We went there after the first DS -- the proposed DSAC changes to the
regulations. We went there to tell them about what is being worked on in the DSAC and what is
being eliminated from our protections and gauged their receptiveness to them.
Most of them didn't know that that was happening. There were a variety of opinions about
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 179
Page 365 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 72 of 85
what was happening, but none of -- them, none of them said, "Oh, this is what I want to see
happening." Most of them said, "No, this isn't -- this isn't right."
We had a couple that clearly said, "We are going to be against this."
So I'm not saying that for you to rely on as the gospel truth or a clear indication of where
they are. But we went through the trouble of going to the two DSACs. We went to the trouble of
speaking to every commissioner in their offices. And this is what we've come up with.
But, of course, after -- after they were asked at the meeting, the Planning department went
ahead, and we all know it, they reduced the greenway to an average of 50 feet, they eliminated the
35 percent open-space rule, and they eliminated the two prescribed SOM meetings, which as far as
I'm concerned has neutered our ability to be -- to have influence in the process.
Now, Mr. Bosi talked about the SOM meetings and the anecdotal understanding that the
SOM meetings were ineffective. Well, maybe they were, and maybe there's a reason why.
We had our first SOM meeting, and it was in a space that was too small. So the second
SOM meeting was scheduled, and we had that second SOM meeting. And, yes, both sides very
clearly articulated their positions, and they didn't match very well. One of the reasons was is
because the applicant was proposing a 20-foot greenway. How would you respond? All right.
But we all stated our case, and that was the first SOM.
Now, the second SOM happened three days later. Nothing changed between the first
SOM and the second SOM. So all parties simply restated their positions, maybe in a different
way, but restated their positions.
I was part of that. My impression was the SOMs did get people to express their opinions
about what was going on, but there was no extra step that would kind of distill what was learned
and maybe turned them into a number of viable alternatives for both parties to discuss. But that's a
discussion for another day.
Of the proposed changes, obviously the greenway is the most onerous one for us at Riviera
Golf Estates, because once you give the Board the power to change the greenway, it becomes a
negotiable item; therefore, reducing it from 100 feet to 50 feet means that now the bidding starts at
an already unacceptable level. Go from 100 to 50. And the process then incentivizes the
applicants to negate it -- negotiate it even lower. And we, the property owners, are the losers.
I bought my property in 2019. I was very much aware of the golf course conversion
regulations and considered the county I lived in as a very enlightened one because of them. Now
I'm looking at this, not so much. It is very disturbing. And you have already made that point and
understand our point of view, I'm quite sure of that.
So we can't help but wonder why these proposed regulations are so clearly hostile to RGE,
to our quality of life, to our security, to our property values. Because they are. It's very clear.
So in the process of considering these proposed regulations -- and I am so encouraged to
hear your deliberations thus far. But I come up with a few questions myself that you might
consider. Is it appropriate to make these significant changes to the Collier County Land
Development Code to address only a few specific properties?
Number 2, do these proposed regulations properly address, or do they go beyond what the
Board intended in its April 11th motion, to streamline the ITC process and provide some Bert
Harris protection?
Number 3, does the public benefit of these proposed regulations justify the significant
reduction of the protections for the property owners that are most affected by them?
Number 4, if the stated goal was to improve and make these regulations Bert Harris proof,
was it necessary to make such radical changes with some minor modifications to lessen the burden
on applicants?
And Mr. Bosi alluded to some concerns that we heard in the DSAC meetings, which I
think were considerable. To ask an applicant to produce two plans, both of which they have to pay
architects and all kinds of other people to do, is onerous. Is it necessary? It's something worth
looking into. Look at how to streamline that and make it better without compromising the intent
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 180
Page 366 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 73 of 85
but also giving the BCC the authority to make the changes to the greenway. Really, that was all
that was needed.
And when you boil it down, Section G -- this is from memory now. Section G,
Paragraph -- Paragraph G, Sentence A, says, "The Board has the discretion to make changes to the
greenway design." The next -- the next sentence is B, and the B says, "The greenway shall be
100 feet, minimum 75 feet." And the Section B does not give the Board the discretion to change
that. That's really the nub of the problem right there and something you can look into.
Number 5, are the authors aware that these radical changes still don't protect the county
against Bert Harris claims? Because the Bert Harris law states that a claim can be initiated from
any action of a government entity which affects real property, including action on an application or
permit or adopting or enforcing any ordinance.
So how do we defend against that? Well, I don't think we do. I think we do the right
thing and defend it. That's public policy.
Has anyone considered these proposed changes will give abutting property owners Bert
Harris claims of their own? Of course, you do.
So we do appreciate you looking into all of these things. We also hope that you view
them in the context of whether or not they contribute to the overall public good, these changes, or,
more specifically, does revising the LDC to enable golf course property developers to cram more
housing into smaller tracts to the undeniable detriment of the surrounding property owners really
serve the public good?
I guess one of the things I wanted to say before I started this, but I'll say it at the end, is
this -- what I've been watching today reminds me of a Chinese proverb that goes, "Do not use a
hatchet to remove a fly from a friend's forehead."
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please.
Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- if you don't mind refraining from applause.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a comment on the last statement he made, though.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Almost any rezoning action could be deemed an
infringement on neighboring property. So that's inherently built in the code, and that's inherently
part of our deliberation process when we look at all the criteria involved, whether it's compatibility,
density, traffic, all the other things. So I mean, that -- I understand your statement, but certainly
it's in every rezoning action, not simply the rezoning from golf course to residential.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. SUMMERS: Next speaker we have is Tricia Campbell, and she is ceded time by
Phyllis Bartos.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Campbell.
MS. CAMPBELL: Tricia Campbell, 149 Estelle Drive. I'm president of Riviera Golf
Estates Homeowners Association and have been since 2022. Riviera's a senior living community
with over 1100 Collier County taxpaying residents.
There was a couple of things -- I don't want to just talk about Riviera, but there were a
couple of things that I wanted to clarify. First of all, yes, the golf course was designed in 1971,
and the homes were starting to be built in '73 to '78, in that area there.
The sole purpose, to build around the golf course. And they did put a deed restriction on
the property in 1973, and because of the MRTA Act, it was -- for some reason it was taken off the
deed, and because of MRTA, we had 30 years.
So 19 -- in 2017, there was no developer on the property. What happened was they had
the deed restriction till 2020, so when that was taken -- when the deed restriction was in the
MRTA, you know, Act, it ended up ending in 2020. We now have a litigation on that to
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 181
Page 367 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 74 of 85
investigate if the property is still under the deed restriction.
After they started the development, there was a Bert Harris claim in 20 -- I believe it was
2021 that Attorney Yovanovich put in a Bert Harris claim. That was dismissed by the board of
directors in that year.
Okay. Some of my notes I ended up crossing off because we already hit that subject. But
normally you'd have this room packed with Riviera residents. Because it's off season, a lot of
people are not here. But we totally disagree with the drastic regulation changes for the golf course
conversion. We find that this is a protection for any homeowners that are existing properties
outside of these -- the golf courses that were built.
Most of us paid a premium to live on the golf course. Not for the view, but for the open
space. After living here 14 years and going through two hurricanes and many rainstorms, I know
that existing abutters need the open space to avoid major stormwater damage.
Land absorbs the water. Swales divert the water. Striking out many important factors on
the golf course conversion will lead to [sic] many residents in RGE and other golf course
communities a feeling of uncertainty.
We feel that these changes are not needed at all because they're just proposed to assist a
landowner and a prospective buyer and not to safeguard the existing property owners. We see that
this a process driven by one attorney in opposition to the overwhelming public support for these
protective regulations to all communities surrounding golf courses.
We think adoption by the county will only lead to more lawsuits, as you had stated a
possibility with homeowners doing Bert Harris claims themselves, not helping to avoid lawsuits.
Last year Collier County did a survey to assist us in the purchase of the property. This
isn't the first time that we have approached the owners to purchase the property. We had one vote,
but we lost the vote in the community. We had a private group that put together over a million
dollars pledged to them and had offered Mr. Grund at RGE a proposal to buy the course.
And this particular one, the assistance with the county, I wanted to make it clear that we
never were against the proposal, but we have a lot of senior citizens on fixed income. With a price
tag of 17- to $2200 a year, a lot of our taxpayer -- I mean, excuse me, our seniors were unable to
pay that.
In closing, I feel in my heart that you, as the county -- the Collier County Planning
Commission, will make the right decision for the good of Collier County and all the taxpaying
residents by rejecting these proposed changes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
Next speaker, please. Oh, before we go to the next speaker, give me a tally of how many
more there are.
MR. SUMMERS: We have one more in person and one online.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. So we've got plenty of time. Okay. Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. SUMMERS: All right. Our next speaker is David Hurst.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Sir, if you don't mind spelling your last name, I'd appreciate it.
MR. HURST: H-u-r-s-t.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
MR. HURST: Thank you for your time today, gentlemen. This is my umpteenth time in
front of the Collier board. But being brought up today, a lot of my co-residents had covered a lot
of ground which I now understand.
As a contractor, understanding properties and what you have to look at, the major cost that
Collier County's not observing is this: If the property gets developed, to bring the property up to
code, the rainwater is a huge discussion. The potential purchaser of the property, developer, is
going to have to spend several million dollars to bring the water off the property, which then
becomes Collier County's problem. And in my discussions briefly with Mr. Bosi, are you aware
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 182
Page 368 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 75 of 85
that to remove the water from the property is going to cost, best guesstimate, 25- to $50 million to
redo the city's waterworks?
That's all I wanted to say about it.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please.
MR. SUMMERS: All right. We're going to move to our online group. First off we
have Alan Carpenter.
Mr. Carpenter, you have permission to unmute yourself whenever you're ready.
MR. CARPENTER: Thank you very much.
Chairman Fryer and other commission members, I am Alan Carpenter of 205 Estelle Court.
I'm the secretary of the Board of Directors for Riviera HOA.
You have received detailed comments from our association counsel, Attorney Berkey,
who, unfortunately, had an overlapping hearing today, but I believe you can read those comments
and understand them. They're fairly straightforward.
But I'm not here to discuss specifically the proposed changes to process, whether two
NIMs and two SOMs and so forth. The point, I think, is that input from people impacted in the
community around golf courses that might be rezoned is important.
But more importantly, and what I want to speak to, are the standards for which are applied
in those rezonings, and I think that's where the redlines really concern us. The redlines are
significant.
Our three main areas of concern are greenway and open space. As already discussed, the
elimination or the restriction of the greenway to a point where there are minimal buffers devalues
property, and as already noted by many, that leads to litigation prospects in the future.
The Growth Management department, back in 2017 when the original code was put in
place, published two papers which -- research papers, white papers. One titled "Findings on Golf
Course Conversions and Recommended LDC amendments." Second was "Follow-up to the LDC
amendment 5.05.15 conversion of golf courses." This research identified the best practices across
the state when others were grappling with the same issue of golf course conversions.
Among other things, this research determined that the LDC amendment must include a
substantial buffer or greenway along the perimeter of the golf course. Typically 50 to 200 feet
minimums were identified in regulations of other communities and should also include a sizable
open space, much like our current residential and PUD zones require. And these have been
neutered or eliminated in the redlines that have been included in this proposed revision.
The staff analysis during that time appraised values of properties adjacent to golf course in
Collier County at a 31 percent amenity premium in taxable value over comparable properties
within -- that did not have the open space and greenway buffers. This is the county's own
research.
So planning staff went before the Board of County Commissioners in 2017 and addressed
these concerns. Hundreds of people showed up. The hall was filled to overflowing. People
were upstairs. The community was obviously in favor of these changes, save for one attorney who
voted in -- who voiced opinion in opposition.
This was largely a community agreement that these were good regulations. The Board of
County Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of adoption and commented it represented a
good balance between homeowners' interests and those of the landowners of golf courses.
So as my colleagues on the board, Tricia Campbell and Peter Osinski, have said, this is not
just a matter of minor wordsmithing. A single line change may be sufficient, maybe two, to
address the Board of County Commissioners' concerns. We should not throw the baby out with
the bathwater.
Our major concerns can be summarized in three points: Greenway and open space and
how it impacts property values; safety, stormwater systems, and traffic controls. As already noted,
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 183
Page 369 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 76 of 85
these communities are abutting golf courses that act as stormwater systems and, indeed, have very
limited traffic controls and roadways into and out of the communities; and compatibility. Our
community is an age-restricted community, and the last thing that makes sense is to put in
affordable family housing in the midst of an elder community.
So I ask that the Board here consider seriously the option of making de minimis changes to
what is already a well-vetted and well-established code. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, sir.
Next speaker, please.
MR. SUMMERS: All right. Next up we have Frank Wood. Mr. Wood, if you could
unmute yourself.
MR. WOOD: Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir.
MR. WOOD: My name is Frank Wood, and I live at 994 Charlemagne Boulevard in
Riviera Golf Estates.
Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I
came to Collier County in 2016 and taught high school physics. My community is full of retired
teachers, postal workers, plumbers, electricians, and other folks that have worked hard.
Home purchases since 2017 have relied on this 2017 golf course conversion blueprint.
And in 2020, our community had to replace our pool. We were required to upgrade our 1970s site
to the 2022 Collier County standards. Our $550,000 pool became a $950,000 project. We
obeyed the rules. We would appreciate it if you would not water down any of these protections
we received in 2017.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
Any further registered speakers?
MR. SUMMERS: That is all for today, sir.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Any people in the room -- any persons in the room who wish to be heard although they
haven't registered, please raise your hand, and we'll recognize you.
No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't see any hands raised.
So with that, we will close the public speaking comment -- public comment portion of this
hearing. And we do have ample time at this point to go over Ms. Berkey's comments, which is
what I would like to do at this point, without objection from the Planning Commission, and hear
from staff and also hear from the planning commissioners what they -- what they feel about these.
And if you have your agenda packet in front of you, they begin on Page 822 of 850. And
they are -- they take the form of, like, balloon comments in the margins of the summary that went
to the DSAC.
And before I go into that, I want to be sure that everybody understands and knows what
DSAC is and, for that matter, what it's not. DSAC is an officially sanctioned advisory committee
to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. It is not, however, quasi-judicial. And it
is designed and populated by members of the various subgroups of the development industry such
as developers themselves, lawyers who represent developers, and consultants who also represent
developers.
So as you can see, their point of view is going to be aimed at the development community
and advocating for the interests of the development committee [sic]. It's not a bad thing at all, and
it's something that, as I say, was officially established by the Board of County Commissioners.
But they're not like us. They're not quasi-judicial, and they're not disinterested.
So having said that -- and I just want to be sure that everyone keeps that in mind when we
hear references to DSAC.
So with that -- go ahead, sir. Yes, please.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 184
Page 370 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 77 of 85
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a question on --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Maybe I missed it, but did DSAC comment on this?
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, but DSAC has been referred to multiple times. And when
we turn to Page 822, we're going to be working off of the DSAC advisory board recommendations.
And so that's why I thought it would be a good idea to preface.
You want to say anything?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I just -- I guess they've had input into this.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, my goodness, yes. Yeah. And I asked Mr. Bosi about this.
I wanted to be sure that this did not originate with DSAC, and it did not. And I'm not aware of the
extent to which their input found its way into staff's recommendations, but I think that's a
legitimate question to ask as we go through this. And, again, I'm not -- I do not mean to be critical
of DSAC. I just think we have to recognize what it is.
Vice Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The DSAC reviews all LDC amendments. They can
even approach staff to initiate. They're the practitioners who implement, to put it bluntly. DSAC
are the -- many of them are either contractors, engineers, or other interested parties, but they are
the -- sort of the practitioners who actually have to live with the code.
So it's been a policy for, Mike, what, 25 years at least that the DSAC is sort of the first
vetting committee, the committee to first vet all the changes to the LDC.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the process was Mike's staff developed some changes --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- gave them to DSAC, we got some comments.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe that's right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, they -- Mike would -- staff would then go
back, tweak it one way or another, then it comes to us. We very seldom really see the comments
that are specific to the DSAC, but they just typically are either incorporated or not incorporated. I
mean, it's --
MR. BOSI: They're either incorporated, or sometimes they're within the narrative. They
may be highlighted in terms of --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I used to tell them sometimes "noted."
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got it.
MR. BOSI: This is a unique situation is we're going back to DSAC on August 7th,
because DSAC has not read -- or has not reviewed the version that the Planning Commission
reviewed.
The staff had a prior version of the modifications to the golf course conversion that wasn't
as drastic of a change from discussion internally to meet with the Board of County Commissioners'
direction that we felt to provide the most Bert Harris defensible. We went with a much more
abbreviated version. So the comments that DSAC made were not upon this version. It was a
different version. So they really have no bearing upon what is being proposed to you today.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I'm still -- it's late in the day. I haven't heard any
reason why we should be changing anything, personally, other than somebody upstairs said you
should change it. I haven't heard anybody jump up and say, "No, no, no, you've got to change it
for this reason." Everybody has said, "Why change it?"
So my question is, why change it? Why not go with a minimalistic approach of putting
one sentence, however the lawyers think it should be, to protect us?
I just haven't heard anybody champion a reason to change anything. And for us to spend
hours wordsmithing something that may be accepted when we don't even know what they were
looking for to begin with, I think, is a waste of our time, personally.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a -- I mean, that's a potentially valid way of looking at it. I
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 185
Page 371 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 78 of 85
don't necessarily disagree, but the Board of County Commissioners has requested that this be done.
Now, what the "this" is is open to some discussion. I'm not sure we're all in total agreement, and it
sounds like there was some ambiguity at the meeting, what was it, April 7th. Whenever the Board
of County --
MR. BOSI: April 23rd.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: April 23rd. But I mean, an edict came down from the BCC for
staff to do this, and staff did it.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if we, as a group, think it's not broke and we want to go
with -- why don't we just say what we believe? We're an advisory group. To cater to something
we're not sure we want but we don't agree with I don't think is worth our time.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The only thing that I will say -- and then Mr. Bosi should
comment -- as a -- and I'm not a politician.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: You play one on TV.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Neither do I play one on TV. I play a Planning Commission
chairman on TV.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Stayed at a Holiday Inn.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we all want to demonstrate to the Board of County
Commissioners that we have carefully followed what we thought they asked us to do. And we
might stand a better chance of influencing the outcome of this if we do not take the two-sentence
approach even though my heart and my brain is probably more with the two-sentence approach.
As a practical matter, I think we might have a greater impact on this process if we take what staff
has done and try to adapt it -- or adapt it to our concerns even though it's going to take some time.
I think we've got -- we've got time. And I don't think there's a lot of pressure to get this done
immediately. And I think we stand a better chance of influencing the outcome.
Mr. Bosi, how do you feel about that?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: We might have a better chance of influencing the outcome if
we tell them we don't think you need to do anything.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's also possible.
Mr. Bosi, do you want to speak? And then Commissioner Vernon.
MR. BOSI: No, I wouldn't hazard to try to guess the Board's ultimate decision upon this.
I mean, there's too many factors within it. At the discretion, whatever the Board -- however the
Planning Commission would like to move forward, you know, I'm willing to walk down that path.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you.
Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, the only new information I have at the first
speaker -- that was a good presentation. And, you know, you may be able to comment on this.
But what he said he heard at that meeting with the County Commissioners is streamline and make
it more Bert Harris proof.
So unless the greenway or some of these other changes make it more Bert Harris
proof -- maybe they do, but if they don't, all we've been -- all we've been -- all we need to do to sort
of compromise between the Chairman and Commissioner Shea, we change the one sentence, which
may include changing the prohibition language -- it may be a little bit more than one sentence, and
then we drop one of the SOMs, NIMs, whatever you want to call them, which streamlines it, and
that way we've made the two changes. We've left the body of it pretty much exactly the same, and
we're done. I'm not saying we should stop now. I mean, I know we've got more -- you've got
more to present and more to think about and discuss.
But that would sort of achieve the goal -- big-picture goal of Commissioner Shea and also,
I think, help on my thought process, which is consistent with the Chairperson's process, that we've
been asked to do something, and unless we vehemently object, we can do it.
And you've suggested maybe cut out -- we've got three meetings; cut it down to two.
You've still got more than normal, but you've got less. It's more streamlined, and we're done.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 186
Page 372 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 79 of 85
And also he said that they met with the commissioners and, you know, I'm sure they've got a lot on
their agenda, and they don't study everything perfectly. They may have said that a little flippantly
and a little quickly, and maybe they do have a change of heart.
So I don't want to go any further than -- I don't want to -- I don't want to violate the concept
Commissioner Shea's trying to accomplish, which is kind of keep it much the same but make
enough changes that they'll be comfortable that we've done what they asked us to do, and we don't
disagree with those changes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other planning commissioners want to weigh in on this? I don't
think there's much space between me and Commissioner Shea, but Vice Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't see any need to go through the comments that
were sent in --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- because Mike has those.
I can summarize it. Basically say, keep the intent of the LDC. The Board gave you
direction. You have to comply with the Board. The Board looks to us to help you do that
process. As was said, they really don't study this as much -- as intently as we do.
I would make seven recommendations. The greenway, drop the average. As was stated,
you have to address whether there's a minimum. You need to correct that. Ensure that the intent
of the greenway issue is preserved, so that has got to be done. Remove the "sole discretion"
language. We've discussed that. Clean the use of "residential use" -- and slash "properties" the
clear up this issue with The Links property.
What was that -- cannot use -- the developer cannot use -- count the golf course as open
space to meet their requirements. I don't -- that's mutually exclusive. I don't know -- I don't think
we ever intended that a developer can use open space or use the golf course for open space. I'm
not sure -- there was a comment about that, but you need to look at that.
You absolutely have to meet all state and federal requirements. That solves the issue with
stormwater runoff. There was a comment made about stormwater and the county. All that is
dealt with in the Environmental Resource Permit process, the ERP process.
We can put language in there, but it's superfluous, because to go through the ERP process
is a requirement of the state, federal -- and federal permitting process. Of course, they're going to
have to go through the federal permitting process if there's jurisdictional wetlands or if there's
identified listed species. You have to address the soil contamination issue; that's in state statute as
well.
And eliminate the terminology if you want the SOM, the stakeholder outreach meeting,
and the notice to convert. Those names came up for whatever reason, I can't recall, but somehow
they evolved and morphed. If it's just going to be a NIM -- but there has to be some kind of a
pre-meeting to tell the folks what's going to happen, and then the NIM process.
As we often do, as you well know, and the folks from the two communities, oftentimes the
NIM is exactly what it is. It's the information meeting. The applicant comes in here, and then we
take a ball-peen hammer and try and drive, you know, a round peg into a square hole, or vice versa
as they come to us and present the issues. But they tend to use the Planning Commission as sort of
the sounding board.
If you want to do that elsewhere prior to coming here, I don't care. If the Board is looking
to streamline, then maybe eliminate the SOM and the notice to convert and somehow create the
NIM process, whether that's two meetings or whatever.
But those are sort of my recommendations. But I agree with the intent. The intent was
there. I don't want to throw the whole thing out. I think the intent was to protect the property
owners and to give the developer the opportunity to come in and ask for a rezoning. If it -- if you
want to cull this down somehow, okay, but we still cannot throw out the intent, which was to
protect both the developer to give them the opportunity if they want to submit for a rezoning action
and to the homeowners who reside around the golf course. Enough said.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 187
Page 373 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 80 of 85
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you -- you had seven points. Did you cover them all?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anybody else want to -- oh, Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I would -- subject to what the other
commissioners' thoughts are, I would create a universe of potential changes which would be Joe's
seven changes, and if there's others in addition to that that anybody has, that's your universe of
changes. And I would propose that each of those changes, you, with legal, determine does this
streamline the process. I'm assuming what this gentleman said is actually what the commissioners
said: Streamline it, Bert Harris proof.
So you run each of those seven changes through a filter. Does it streamline it? Does it
materially protect us more from a Bert Harris claim? If it does, do it. If it doesn't, I'd suggest we
don't make that change.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. My question for the Planning Commission and partly for
staff is this: If something like staff's work product is going to be going to the Board, I want an
opportunity to comment on it primarily from the standpoint of what Mr. Lombardo said and what
Ms. Berkey has said.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I would agree. I think it needs to come back here
before it goes to the Board.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I want to make that clear.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I was thinking the same thing.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't want this to go to the Board without coming back
here.
MR. BOSI: I would have to agree because there's not a lot of specificity in what you
guys -- what you guys have provided me is -- there's a lot of ambiguity. There's -- you want to
streamline. We'll talk about the intent-to-convert process. The number of procedural steps that
the applicant's required to do within -- for the SOMs, the alternative development statements, the
conceptual development plans, the visual survey preferences, all these other options that have to
require [sic]. There's some opportunities for streamlining, but if you want to retain it, I mean,
there's -- there's -- your first suggestion was, eliminate the -- no deviations from 5.05, give the
Board the discretion for deviations but remove the "at the sole discretion" and eliminate the two
SOMs to one SOM.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: NIM.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here's -- here's my -- what I'm trying --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought you were calling it a NIM. I don't care what
they call it.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I'd like it called -- well, I don't care either, but I like the
idea of a NIM because I want a transcript.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: And what I'm trying to say -- maybe you're clear on it, but
just so -- to me, you're going to get a list from us of conceptual changes. You're not going to go
beyond those conceptual changes. At most, you're going to make conceptual changes, but you're
not even going to make all of those conceptual changes because each one you're going to go, talk to
the lawyers, say, "Does this materially reduce our chance of a Bert Harris claim?" If so, make the
changes. "Does this streamline the process?" If so, make the change. If it does neither, don't
even make those changes.
And then when you come back before us, we'll have a redline thing, and you can explain
the changes you didn't make, and let's say three of them you don't think streamlines it or reduces
the chance of Bert Harris, so you make four changes that either streamline or reduce the chance of
Bert Harris, and then we can vote on it and Paul can vote -- or whoever can vote, say, "I don't even
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 188
Page 374 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 81 of 85
want to make those changes. I just want to make two of those changes."
So I just wanted you to understand we're not asking you to go out into the ether and look at
every line and see if it streamlines or Bert Harrises it better; rather, here's the -- "Here's the things.
Make zero to seven of these changes based on the two filters." That's what I'm trying to say.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask a question about reducing the Bert Harris exposure.
Are we -- are we discounting the potential Bert Harris exposure from homeowners on the grounds
that they can't afford counsel? Because I don't think that's fair.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with you totally.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so if we're reducing Bert Harris exposure, we should -- we
should keep in mind that that exposure could come from both sides.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I agree with you, but the fact is, and what's driving this, is
two to three claims by applicants, not homeowners. And this is primarily designed to protect
homeowners.
So that, I think -- me and, I think, Commissioner Schmitt and certainly Commissioner
Shea, we want to make as few changes as possible.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: To the current?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right, which continues to protect the homeowner as much
as possible, so I think we're being cognizant of that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So what you -- three of you are saying -- and if it's the
case, I agree -- that we should go back to the nine pages, or however many it was that have been
redlined out, and preserve as much of that as we can consistent with the guidelines that we've
talked about. And I have -- I have asked that we be mindful of Bert Harris claims from both sides
of the equation. Just because a party can't afford to vindicate their rights doesn't mean that their
rights shouldn't be protected by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I put it -- also include the input from the two
attorneys that have provided --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: By all means, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because they're very applicable.
MR. BOSI: As long as these are within the confines of the direction you're giving me,
correct, because --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- there could be suggestions that they have that don't fall within those areas.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Some of them. I didn't go -- I mean, I read them all.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: You're right.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: The comments are in the form of "please don't take this out" --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because they're comments directed to redlined material. So, I
mean, I'm in basic agreement with almost all, if not all, of those comments. It doesn't mean I
wouldn't listen carefully to an argument about why something doesn't [sic] need to be taken out.
But I want to have that discussion before --
COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- before we don't honor Ms. Berkey's comments.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think Ms. Berkey and Mr. Lombardo agree with
Commissioner Shea, and I think you are just a little nuanced from Commissioner Shea. You
agree -- maybe a few more changes, a little bit like Joe and I, and I think Joe and I want to make
minimal changes.
So I think that nobody here wants to -- we all want to start with the document we had, give
him a list of things to consider, create a couple of filters, and then we can vote to make -- not even
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 189
Page 375 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 82 of 85
agree to what his changes are if we want -- if you guys think about it and decide you want to just
make it almost identical as it currently is.
MR. BOSI: And that's what we're -- we're going to be working off the redline. We're not
working off of staff proposed minimum. This will be an evaluation of the existing 5.05.15 as
provided for within the LDC currently based upon the seven areas that you're providing
instructions to make modifications to.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I like that. That's good.
Commissioner Sparrazza.
COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you, sir.
Possibly a suggestion for staff. Since we're going back to the redline 5.05, 5.15 [sic], is it
appropriate to take the two filters that were just discussed and review those with each of the items
in the redline proposal again to make sure this fluff that's not needed at all -- no, this is a valid point
because it's what we worked so hard to do in 2017, obviously years before me, put it through those
two filters, and just, more or less, review that entire package making sure you're going after either,
A, does it minimize the possible [sic] of a Bert Harris and, B, does it -- I just lost my --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Streamline.
COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- streamline, recognizing that the Board, when they
said streamline, I'm assuming there weren't really any qualifications around that. Streamline, that
could mean take out one sentence. That could mean, as you folks did, boil it down to a page and a
half.
But is it appropriate to look at all of that redlined nine-page document and apply those
filters to it again? I open this up for discussion.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think what I am hearing -- first of all, I think we're about
95 percent in agreement up here, and to the extent that we differ at all, it's in nuances.
But I think what I'm hearing is we want staff to look back at what is currently in effect,
we'll call it redline or nine pages, whatever, but what is currently in effect for conversions and
evaluate each suggested change or deletion against the goals of streamlining and Bert Harris claims
from either the homeowner or the developer.
So I think if that -- if that is the case, then you'd come back with something that would be
probably pretty close to nine pages -- you know, maybe seven pages -- but would look much more
like what we have now than what staff is proposing.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: That goes back to what Mike said at the beginning. He
said, "We've kind of taken a hatchet to it instead of a scalpel," and we're suggesting the scalpel and
giving you some guidance on what -- the seven things to look at and the filters to use.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody disagree with what I said?
COMMISSIONER SHEA: No.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comment.
Mike, why did we require two distinct proposals from a developer? I -- was that
something that came up during the public meeting process so there would be either/or? I mean, it's
the only process in the county where we actually -- they're actually required to present two
different designs, and I sort of vaguely remember the discussion. But if you wanted to streamline,
I don't see a need for two distinct. I mean, tell me what you want to do, and let's deal with that.
MR. BOSI: Joe -- I'm sorry -- Commissioner Schmitt. I would say -- Mike Bosi, Zoning
director.
I would say that the reason why was they wanted to force options, and those options could
be utilized if they're presented at the stakeholder outreach meetings to promote, "Okay, which of
these options, what do you like about each one of them?" to be able to identify things that maybe
there's some commonalities or suggestions.
So that's the only reason why I can think. But that -- I think that was maybe the
motivation for why those were -- were they specifically culled out for two -- two options.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 190
Page 376 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 83 of 85
I think one provision -- and I could talk about the intent-to-convert process and the things
that are required. One of the things that I think has absolutely no real value -- and as I'm thinking
about some of your guidance -- and it's related to the intent-to-convert process -- but for -- we
require that the applicant show why it's fiscally unfeasible for them to continue on as a golf course.
I don't know what value we get from that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No value in that.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: No.
MR. BOSI: So it's things like that is what you're saying --
Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- eliminate.
MR. BOSI: -- would be under the needs to be streamlined, and is there a cost-benefit
analysis that justifies the cost for the benefit that could be received from it? Is that the -- kind of
the general approach that you would like us to take?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, answer, if nobody -- it won't stay as a golf course,
it would be, nobody wants to buy it, nobody wants to run it, I mean, period, end of story.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And that's the type of suggestion I had of, as we're
doing this, go ahead and knock off each of those points in the redline, because that was never
mentioned but it's still in the redline, so maybe that comes out. That's a review of it and makes it
more streamlined.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know at some of those -- at some time all those things
were discussed as part of the requirement, but some of those onerous requirements could be
eliminated, like the two designs. I just -- I just want to know, "What is your intent?" The public
should know what the intent is. But the clear -- clear and concise to address the open space,
groundwater, if you want to call it, you know, stormwater retention, all those kinds of things, it's
going to -- they've got to go through it anyway, through the ERP process. But you've got to make
sure that the residents are aware. And, oh -- and for the residents, you need to understand, they
cannot trespass their water onto your property. That is clearly a trespass.
MR. BOSI: Just to provide a clarification. We keep saying "open space." Remember,
any residential community that's going to be approved through a rezone process through this, the
county's going to have to have a 60 percent open space. That's a requirement of our zoning.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: The intent-to-convert process doesn't change that.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct.
MR. BOSI: It is not proposed to change that. So I'm going to -- this statement of
somehow that we are altering the open-space requirements of the ultimate development that would
be proposed, that's not true.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree with the Vice Chairman about not requiring two
alternative options, because I think that's unrealistic. And, you know, you could supply two
options by taking the one you really want and then coming up with one that nobody could live
with, and so you -- let's just find out what they want, and that's --
COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Find out what they want.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And go with that.
MR. BOSI: That was the same comment that a member of DSAC made. He said, I
would -- "What I want and then what I really don't want, no one's going to want, so obviously, this
is what we want."
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. So that's just a way -- and that falls under the heading of
streamlining, because that doesn't yield us any important value. So is it -- Mr. Bosi, is it -- may I
assume -- may we assume that you have sufficient guidance what we would like you to do between
now and when we come back?
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 191
Page 377 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 84 of 85
MR. BOSI: I believe I have sufficient guidance, and the catch safe is we're coming back.
We're going to come back, and if we didn't get it right, we'll go back and do it again. I mean, I
don't want to have to do that, but I think I have enough guidance from you to be able to be a little
more precise in the things that we suggest for elimination and the things that we have heard from
the Planning Commission that they view that should remain. So we'll go back. And I can't tell
you if it's going to be in the September meeting, but we will -- we'll make sure it's going to be a
quick turnaround, and we'll get back to you.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Rather than waiting, though, can we allow you to be their
sounding board just to help them so they don't come back and we make this a longer process and
we --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm willing to do that if you want.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think you have a good understanding of where we all are.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If that's what the Planning Commission wants to do, I'd be happy
to do it.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think that's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, then we'll work together. I think I understand what
the Planning Commission is looking for.
And my hope is that we don't -- that at the conclusion of this process, we don't have the
staff version and the Planning Commission version, two competing -- you know, the war of the
versions going to the Board of County Commissioners. I think we're all much better served if we
can -- if we can find a way to come together with staff and speak with one voice. If we can't, we
can't. But I hope we can.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Using the Vernon filter.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody else want to be heard on this?
No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then I think Mr. Bosi has guidance, and I'm more than
happy to participate in whatever way staff, you think, I could be useful in helping hit the points that
the Planning Commission has made.
MR. BOSI: And what we will do is we're going to make our first run at -- based upon the
criterias and the areas of concern and this approach, and once we get a draft, we'll get it to you and
get some feedback from you, and then we'll reiterate it again, get it back, and then hopefully at that
period of time, we could be in agreement that we can bring it back to the full.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. So we want to continue this, but I guess we're going to
continue it indefinitely?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: That means re-notification?
MR. BOSI: Yeah, there's no notification requirement. It's only an advertisement
requirement.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right.
So without objection, the matter will be continued indefinitely, and we'll be working -- I'll
be working together with staff, and we'll be coming back to the Planning Commission for
comment.
And that concludes our hearing of that matter for today, it being continued indefinitely.
And so it takes us to old business, if there is any? I don't believe there is.
Is there any new business to come before the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER VERNON: I was going to say one thing.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon.
COMMISSIONER VERNON: If you're going to take a while on this, it wouldn't hurt,
before you come back before us, maybe do a double-check on the status of those two Bert Harris
claims or three Bert -- just to see if there's any development on the law or rulings --
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good point.
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 192
Page 378 of 4027
August 1, 2024
Page 85 of 85
COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- which may impact something you do.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good point. We'll do that.
All right. There's no new business at this point. Any public comment on a matter -- any
matter that is not on our agenda for today, now would be the time to be heard.
No response.)
CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I see no one approaching the microphone. Therefore,
without objection, we're adjourned.
I'm sorry. I was thinking about this anyway, but if we collaborate before the meeting,
send it out to the full Planning Commission --
MR. BOSI: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- because I may not get it entirely right. I'll try.
Okay. Thank you.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 3:25 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
26(3+6&+0,77 9,&(50$1
These minutes approved by the Board on __as presented ;_______ or as corrected _______.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L.
LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
LLIER COUNTY PLANNING CO
26(3+6&+0,77 9,&(
Page 379 of 4027
1
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION
PL20230012905
ORIGIN
Board of County
Commissioners (Board)
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
This amendment introduces comprehensive updates to the current
provisions in the Land Development Code (LDC) related to the conversion
of golf courses. LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board, Collier
County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of
the DSAC (DSAC-LDR). Procedural changes to the Administrative Code
are also part of this amendment.
HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED
Board TBD
CCPC 08/01/2024
DSAC 02/07/2024
DSAC-LDR 01/31/2024
01/16/2024
3.05.07
5.05.15
10.03.06
Preservation Standards
Conversion of Golf Courses
Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR
Approval with
recommendations
DSAC
Approval with
recommendations
CCPC
TBD
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2023, the Board directed staff to bring back an LDC amendment to clarify that the Board has
the discretion to grant deviations to reduce the minimum average greenway width of a proposed golf course
conversion during the rezoning process. Additionally, on April 11, 2023, the Board recognized that the existing
Golf Course Conversion Intent to Convert (ITC) application process has not been effective in bringing the
developer and stakeholders together early in the process to resolve issues, as initially intended, and directed staff
to bring back recommendations for an amendment that could improve the process and remove potential “Bert
Harris” (Florida Statutes, Chapter 70) claims. The Board also discussed the possibility of repealing the ITC
process in its entirety.
The existing Golf Course Conversion regulations and ITC application requirements were adopted by the Board
on March 28, 2017. Since that time, the County has received three ITC applications for the proposed conversion
of an existing golf course to a non-golf course use. All three ITC applications have been completed, resulting in
the approved conversion of one (Golden Gate Golf Course) and pending litigation for the others.
Following the Board directive, Staff originally intended to only modify the existing conversion regulations as a
means to improve the section by removing requirements that could be deemed as superfluous. Staff later
determined that the modified regulations would not considerably improve the conversion process. Staff then
created a new draft to include the core intentions of the existing section: 1. to require the applicant to engage
surrounding property owners early in the design process, and 2. to require preservation of a portion of the
greenway in a proposed conversion project.
This amendment seeks to promote a streamlined process for proposed golf course conversion projects by
removing the ITC application requirement as an “extra step” before the traditional rezone application process.
Proposed conversion projects will instead be required to hold one Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)
before their rezone application is submitted. This pre-submittal NIM is intended to require the applicant to involve
Commented [RGEHOA1]: Why is the second planned
DSAC meeting on 8/7/24 not listed for the public’s benefit?
Commented [RGEHOA2]: Why does this not note
pending further review by DSAC on 8/7/24?
Page 380 of 4027
2
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
the public prior to the submittal of the rezone application. The proposed conversion project will also be required
to include a greenway in the design of the proposed non-golf course use. The purpose of this greenway
requirement is to retain an open space along the perimeter of the conversion project and adjacent to existing
residential development. A provision is also included to specify that the Board has the authority to grant
deviations to the greenway requirement, as part of any rezone request.
Corresponding revisions to other LDC sections are also included to maintain consistency from the proposed
updates. Updates to sections of the Administrative Code to reflect the proposed procedural changes reflected in
this draft amendment are also included in Exhibit A.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The cost associated with advertising the
Ordinance amending the Land Development
Code are estimated at $1,008.00. Funds are
available within Unincorporated Area General
Fund (1011), Zoning & Land Development
Cost Center (138319).
GMP CONSISTENCY
The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by
Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed
consistent with the GMP.
EXHIBITS: A) Administrative Code Updates
Page 381 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
3
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
Amend the LDC as follows:
1
2 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
3
4 All development not specifically exempted by this ordinance shall incorporate, at a minimum, the
5 preservation standards contained within this section.
6
7 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
8
9 H. Preserve standards.
10
11 1. Design standards.
12
13 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
14
15 e. Created preserves. Although the primary intent of GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1
16 is to retain and protect existing native vegetation, there are situations where
17 the application of the retention requirements of this Policy is not possible.
18 In these cases, creation or restoration of vegetation to satisfy all or a portion
19 of the native vegetation retention requirements may be allowed. In keeping
20 with the intent of this policy, the preservation of native vegetation off site is
21 preferable over creation of preserves. Created Preserves shall be allowed
22 for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the required on-site
23 preserve area and the proposed activity.
24
25 i. Applicability. Criteria for determining when a parcel cannot
26 reasonably accommodate both the required on-site preserve area
27 and the proposed activity include:
28
29 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
30
31 (e) When small isolated areas (of less than ½ acre in size) of
32 native vegetation exist on site. In cases where retention of
33 native vegetation results in small isolated areas of ½ acre or
34 less, preserves may be planted with all three strata; using
35 the criteria set forth in Created Preserves and shall be
36 created adjacent existing native vegetation areas on site or
37 contiguous to preserves on adjacent properties. This
38 exception may be granted, regardless of the size of the
39 project. Created preserves may exceed the ½ acre size
40 limitation for a rezone or SRA amendment application for
41 the conversion of a golf course to another use conversion
42 applications in accordance with LDC section 5.05.15.
43
44 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
45 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
46
47
48
49
50
Page 382 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
4
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses
2
3 A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to require an additional step of public
4 involvement and to add a greenway requirement for the proposed conversion of an
5 existing golf course to a non-golf course use. The intent is to involve the public prior to
6 the submittal of a rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) amendment application
7 and to require the applicant to engage residents, property owners, and the surrounding
8 community early in the conceptual design phase of the conversion project, in order to
9 better identify potential compatibility issues to the existing neighborhoods.
10
11 B. Applicability. This section applies to a proposed change of use of a constructed golf
12 course, in whole or in part, to a non-golf course use where a rezone or amendment to an
13 SRA is needed to allow the non-golf course use.
14
15 C. Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from this section:
16
17 1. Golf courses zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC) where a permitted,
18 accessory, or conditional non-golf course use is sought.
19
20 2. Golf courses constructed prior to [effective date of Ordinance amendment] as a
21 conditional use in the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District.
22
23 3. Golf courses that do not abut and/or are not adjacent to residentially zoned
24 property.
25
26 D. Additional pre-submittal application requirements for golf course conversions.
27
28 1. A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required after the initial pre-
29 application meeting and before the submittal of a formal application. This NIM does
30 not replace the NIM requirements after submittal of the application.
31
32 2. After completing the required pre-submittal NIM, the application will follow the
33 procedural steps required of all rezone or SRA amendment applications.
34
35 3. A title report that identifies the current owner of the property and all encumbrances
36 shall be required as part of the rezone or SRA amendment application.
37
38 E. Greenway requirements. The proposed rezone or SRA amendment application shall
39 provide for a greenway as part of the project. The purpose of the greenway is to retain an
40 open space along the perimeter of the project and adjacent to the existing residential
41 development.
42
43 1. The greenway shall be contiguous to the existing residential properties
44 surrounding the existing golf course, shall generally be located along the perimeter of the
45 proposed development, and shall be a minimum width of 75-feet maintaining an average
46 of width of 50-feet and in no event a width of less than 30-feet at any one location.maintain
47 an average width of 50 feet.
48
49 2. The greenway may be counted towards the open space requirement for the project
50 as established in LDC section 4.02.00 and/or LDC section 4.02.07 as to a PUD.
Commented [RGE HOA3]: Some DSAC
recommendations have been overlooked, such as providing
2 distinct redevelopment plans to consider for golf course
conversions. Alternative redevelopment plans are in the
best interests of the County and neighboring property
owners.
Commented [RGE HOA4]: FOR CLARIFICATION, ADD
TEXT: "This section is to be applied in conjunction with LDC
section 10.02.08, as well as other existing regulations
relating to the requirements for rezoning of property."
Page 383 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
5
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 The greenway requirement in no way relieves the applicant of the open space
2 requirements under these LDC sections.
3
4 3. Existing trees and understory (shrubs and groundcover), particularly native
5 vegetation, are encouraged to be preserved and maintained within the greenway
6 to the maximum extent, except where minimal de minimis improvements are
7 needed that provide a passive recreational use. At a minimum, canopy trees shall
8 be provided at a ratio of 1:2,000 square feet within the greenway. Existing trees
9 may count toward the ratio; however, trees within preserves shall be excluded from
10 the ratio.
11
12 4. The greenway shall not include the required yards (buffers and/or setbacks) of any
13 proposed individual lots.
14
15 5. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed
16 development; however, should a wall or fence be constructed, the fence shall
17 provide habitat connectivity to facilitate movement of wildlife in and around the
18 greenway.
19
20 6. A portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management; however, the
21 greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake area than exists
22 pre-conversion in the greenway.
23
24 7. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant at the time of subdivision plat or
25 Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, in the County's official records, describing
26 the use and maintenance of the greenway in perpetuity as described in the zoning
27 action or SRA amendment.
28
29 i.8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any proposed
30 deviations from property development standards shall be clearly
31 identified by the applicant as part of a proposed rezone or SRA
32 amendment application with a narrative describing the justifications for
33 any proposed deviations.t The Board has the authority to review and grant
34 reasonable deviations that are justified and which are still consistent with
35 the spirit and intent of the Land Development Code and Growth
36 Management Plan at its sole discretion, including, but not limited to,
37 reduction of the greenway requirement.
38 A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to assess and mitigate the impact of
39 golf course conversion on real property by requiring outreach with stakeholders during the
40 design phase of the conversion project and specific development standards to ensure
41 compatibility with the existing land uses. For the purposes of this section, property owners
42 within 1,000 feet of a golf course shall hereafter be referred to as stakeholders.
43
44 1. Stakeholder outreach process. The intent is to provide a process to cultivate
45 consensus between the applicant and the stakeholders on the proposed
46 conversion. In particular, this section is designed to address the conversion of golf
47 courses surrounded, in whole or in part, by residential uses or lands zoned
48 residential.
49
Commented [RGE HOA5]: At the Feb 14, 2023 BCC
meeting, the only revision to the GC rezone Development
Standards which was discussed was to provide the
Commissioner's flexibility in deviating from the dimensional
widths of the greenway (i.e. changing mandatory language
such as "shall" to "may"). The wholesale deletion of the vast
majority of these development standards goes against the
purpose of the GC conversion regulations, which was to
protect the property rights and property values of abutting
homeowners while allowing for residential redevelopment
of golf courses.
Commented [RGE HOA6]: Current LDC for conversion of
GCs includes a minimum % of open space of 35%. Other
residential and PUD zone regulations include open space
requirements. Why is this removed?
Commented [Author7R7]: Recommend reduction in the
lake area percentage permitted in the greenway, due to
how noise carries over water
Page 384 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
6
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 2. Development standards. It is the intent of the specific development standards
2 contained herein to encourage the applicant to propose a conversion project with
3 land uses and amenities that are compatible and complementary to the existing
4 neighborhoods. Further, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate reasonable
5 input provided by stakeholders into the development proposal.
6
7 B. Applicability. The following zoning actions, Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments,
8 and Compatibility Design Review petitions, hereafter collectively referred to as
9 "conversion applications," shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.15. A conversion
10 application shall be required when an applicant seeks to change a constructed golf course
11 to a non-golf course use. However, where a permitted, accessory, or conditional use is
12 sought for a golf course zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC), the applicant
13 shall be exempt from this section except for LDC section 5.05.15 H.
14
15 1. Zoning actions. This section applies to a golf course constructed in any zoning
16 district where the proposed use is not permitted, accessory, or conditional in the
17 zoning district or tract for which a zoning change is sought. Zoning actions seeking
18 a PUD rezone shall be subject to the minimum area requirements for PUDs
19 established in LDC section 4.07.02; however, the proposed PUD shall not be
20 required to meet the contiguous acres requirement so long as the PUD rezone
21 does not include lands other than the constructed golf course subject to the
22 conversion application.
23
24 2. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. This section applies to a golf course
25 constructed on lands within a Stewardship Receiving Area where the proposed
26 use is not permitted, accessory, or conditional in the context zone for which the
27 change is sought.
28
29 3. Compatibility Design Review. This section applies to a golf course constructed in
30 any zoning district or designated as a Stewardship Receiving Area that utilize a
31 non-golf course use which is a permitted, accessory or conditional use within the
32 existing zoning district or designation. Conditional uses shall also require
33 conditional use approval subject to LDC section 10.08.00.
34
35 C. Application process for conversion applications.
36 1. Intent to Convert application. The applicant shall submit an "Intent to Convert"
37 application to the County prior to submitting a conversion application. The following
38 is required of the applicant:
39
40 a. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and
41 application submittal requirements, including: a title opinion or title
42 commitment that identifies the current owner of the property and all
43 encumbrances against the property; the Developer's Alternatives
44 Statement, as provided for below; and the public outreach methods to be
45 used to engage stakeholders at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, as
46 established below.
47
48 b. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the
49 requirements of LDC section 10.03.06.
50
Commented [RGE HOA8]: The deletion of this text
suggests that golf courses within PUDs could be
redeveloped without compliance to the original open space
requirements of 4.07.02 which were applied at the time of
approving the PUD. This seems like a Bert Harris legal risk
for the County from the owners of property within PUDs
Page 385 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
7
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 2. Developer's Alternatives Statement requirements. The purpose of the Developer's
2 Alternatives Statement (DAS) is to serve as a tool to inform stakeholders and the
3 County about the applicant's development options and intentions. It is intended to
4 encourage communication, cooperation, and consensus building between the
5 applicant, the stakeholders, and the County.
6
7 b. Alternatives. The DAS shall be prepared by the applicant and shall clearly
8 identify the goals and objectives for the conversion project. The DAS shall
9 address, at a minimum, the three alternatives noted below. The alternatives
10 are not intended to be mutually exclusive; the conceptual development plan
11 described below may incorporate one or more of the alternatives in the
12 conversion project.
13
14 i. No conversion: The applicant shall examine opportunities to retain
15 all or part of the golf course. The following considerations are to be
16 assessed:
17
18 a) Whether any of the existing property owners' association(s)
19 reasonably related to the golf course are able to purchase
20 all or part of the golf course; and
21
22 b) Whether any of the existing property owners' association(s)
23 and/or any new association reasonably related to the golf
24 course can coordinate joint control for all or part of the golf
25 course.
26
27 ii. County purchase: The applicant shall coordinate with the County to
28 determine if there is interest to donate, purchase, or maintain a
29 portion or all of the property for a public use, such as a public park,
30 open space, civic use, or other public facilities. This section shall
31 not require the County to purchase any lands, nor shall this require
32 the property owner to donate or sell any land.
33
34 iii. Conceptual development plan: The applicant shall prepare one or
35 more proposed conceptual development plans, consistent with the
36 development standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 G,
37 depicting the proposed conversion. The applicant shall share the
38 conceptual development plan with the stakeholders at the
39 Stakeholder Outreach Meetings as described below. The
40 conceptual development plan shall include a narrative describing
41 how the plan implements and is consistent with the goals and
42 objectives identified in the DAS. The conceptual development plan
43 shall depict the retained and proposed land uses, including
44 residential, non-residential, and preserve areas; existing and
45 proposed roadway and pedestrian systems; existing and proposed
46 trees and landscaping; and the proposed location for the greenway,
47 including any passive recreational uses. The narrative shall identify
48 the intensity of the proposed land uses; how the proposed
49 conversion is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses
50 and any methods to provide benefits or mitigate impacts to the
51 stakeholders. Visual exhibits to describe the conceptual
Page 386 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
8
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 development plan and amenities, including the greenway, shall also
2 be provided.
3
4 3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs) for conversion applications. The SOMs
5 are intended to engage the stakeholders early in the conversion project and inform
6 the applicant as to what the stakeholders find important in the neighborhood, what
7 the stakeholders consider compatible with the neighborhood, and what types of
8 land uses they would support to be added to the neighborhood. An assigned
9 County planner shall attend the SOM and observe the process. The following is
10 required of the applicant:
11
12 a. The Administrative Code shall establish the procedure and application
13 submittal requirements.
14
15 b. The applicant shall conduct a minimum of two in-person SOMs and a
16 minimum of one web-based visual survey on the proposed conceptual
17 development plan(s). The web-based survey web address shall be
18 incorporated in the mailings notifying the stakeholders of the in-person
19 SOMs.
20
21 c. At the SOMs, the applicant shall provide information to the stakeholders
22 about the purpose of the meeting, including a presentation on the goals
23 and objectives of the conversion project, the conceptual development plan,
24 the greenway concept, and the measures taken to ensure compatibility with
25 the existing surrounding neighborhood. A copy of the full Developer's
26 Alternative Statement shall also be made available at each SOM. The
27 applicant shall facilitate discussion on these topics with the stakeholders
28 using one or more public outreach method(s) identified in the
29 Administrative Code.
30
31 d. SOM report for conversion applications. After completing the SOMs the
32 applicant shall prepare a SOM report. The report shall include a list of
33 attendees, a description of the public outreach methods used, photos from
34 the meetings demonstrating the outreach process, results from outreach
35 methods, and copies of the materials used during the SOMs. The applicant
36 shall also include a point-counterpoint list, identifying input from the
37 stakeholders and how and why it was or was not incorporated in the
38 conversion application. The report shall be organized such that the issues
39 and ideas provided by the stakeholders are clearly labeled by the applicant
40 in the list and the conversion application.
41
42 4. Conversion application procedures. An applicant shall not submit a conversion
43 application (e.g. rezone, PUDA, SRAA, Compatibility Design Review) until the
44 Intent to Convert application is deemed completed by County staff and the SOMs
45 are completed. Thereafter, the applicant may proceed by submitting a conversion
46 application with the County as follows:
47
48 a. Zoning actions. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.1., the applicant shall file
49 a PUDA or rezone application, including the SOM report. Deviations to LDC
50 section 5.05.15 shall be prohibited; further, deviations to other sections of
51 the LDC shall be shared with the stakeholders at a SOM or NIM.
Page 387 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
9
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1
2 b. Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. For projects subject to 5.05.15
3 B.2., the applicant shall file a Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment
4 application, including the SOM report. Deviations to LDC section 5.05.15
5 shall be prohibited; further, deviations to other sections of the LDC shall be
6 shared with the stakeholders at a SOM or NIM.
7
8 c. Compatibility Design Review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3., the
9 applicant shall file a Compatibility Design Review application, including the
10 SOM report.
11
12 D. Criteria and staff report for conversion applications. In addition to the requirements
13 established in LDC sections 10.02.08, 10.02.13 B., or 4.08.07, as applicable, the staff
14 report shall evaluate the following:
15
16 1. Whether the applicant has met the requirements established in this section and
17 development standards in the LDC. In particular, that the proposed design and
18 use(s) of the greenway, as applicable, meet the purpose as described 5.05.15 G.2.
19
20 2. Whether the SOM report and point-counterpoint list described above reflect the
21 discussions that took place at the SOMs.
22
23 3. Whether the applicant incorporated reasonable input provided by the stakeholders
24 to address impacts of the golf course conversion on stakeholders' real property.
25
26 4. Whether the applicant provided an explanation as to why input from the
27 stakeholders was not incorporated into the conceptual development plan.
28
29 E. Supplemental review and approval considerations for zoning actions and Stewardship
30 Receiving Area Amendments. The report and recommendations of the Planning
31 Commission and Environmental Advisory Council, if applicable, to the Board shall show
32 the Planning Commission has studied and considered the staff report for conversion
33 applications, reasonable input from the stakeholders, the criteria established in LDC
34 section 5.05.15 D, as well as the criteria established in LDC sections 10.02.08 F, 10.02.13
35 B, or 4.08.07, as applicable. In particular, the Planning Commission shall give attention to
36 the design of the greenway and how it mitigates impacts to real property. Further attention
37 shall be given to who can use the greenway. The Board shall consider the criteria in LDC
38 section 5.05.15 D, as well as the criteria established in LDC sections 10.02.08 F, 10.02.13
39 B, or 4.08.07, as applicable, and Planning Commission report and recommendation.
40
41 F. Compatibility Design Review. For projects subject to 5.05.15 B.3., this section is intended
42 to address the impact of golf course conversion on real property by requiring the
43 conceptual development plan to be reviewed for compatibility with the existing surrounding
44 uses. The following is required:
45
46 1. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for
47 the compatibility design review application.
48
49 2. Public Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements of
50 LDC section 10.03.06.
51
Commented [RGE HOA9]: By deleting reference to
other applicable sections of the LDC it creates the false
impression that GC conversions are not subject to the rest
of the relevant sections of the LDC
Page 388 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
10
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 3. Compatibility Design Review. The Planning Commission shall review the staff
2 report as described in 5.05.15 D, the Compatibility Design Review application, and
3 make a recommendation to the Board based on the following criteria:
4
5 a. Whether the applicant has met the applicable requirements established in
6 this section and reasonably addressed the concepts identified in LDC
7 section 5.05.15 D.2. - D.4.
8
9 b. Whether the conceptual design is compatible with the existing surrounding
10 land uses.
11
12 c. Whether a view of open space is provided that mitigates impacts to real
13 property for the property owners that surround the golf course.
14
15 d. Whether open space is retained and available for passive recreation.
16
17 4. The Board shall consider the criteria in LDC section 5.05.15 F.3., above, the staff
18 report and the Planning Commission report and approve, approve with conditions,
19 or deny the application. Upon approval of the application, the applicant shall obtain
20 approval of any additional required development order, such as a SDP,
21 construction plans, or conditional use.
22
23 G. Development standards. The following are additional minimum design standards for
24 zoning actions and Stewardship Receiving Area Amendments. The Compatibility Design
25 Review process shall only be subject to LDC section 5.05.15 G.6.
26
27 1. Previously approved open space. Golf course acreages utilized to meet the
28 minimum open space requirements for a previously approved project shall be
29 retained as open space and shall not be included in open space calculations for
30 any subsequent conversion projects.
31
32 2. Greenway. The purpose of the greenway is to retain an open space view for
33 stakeholders, support passive recreational uses, and support existing wildlife
34 habitat. For the purposes of this section the greenway shall be identified as a
35 continuous strip of land set aside for passive recreational uses, such as: open
36 space, nature trails, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, beach frontage, disc golf
37 courses, exercise equipment, and multi-use paths. The Board may approve other
38 passive recreational uses that were vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings.
39 The greenway shall not include required yards (setbacks) of any individual lots.
40
41 a. The greenway shall be contiguous to the existing residential properties
42 surrounding the golf course and generally located along the perimeter of
43 the proposed development. The Board may approve an alternative design
44 that was vetted at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, as provided for in
45 LDC section 5.05.15 C.3.
46
47 b. A minimum of 35 percent of the gross area of the conversion project shall
48 be dedicated to the greenway. The greenway shall have a minimum
49 average width of 100 feet and no less than 75 feet at any one location.
50
Commented [RGE HOA10]: Per earlier comment, the
current 35% open space standard is to be removed per this
proposed amendment; creating another legal risk from the
devaluation of adjacent properties
Commented [RGE HOA11]: Minimum standards
removed creating another risk of a Bert Harris claim from
affected property owners
Page 389 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
11
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 c. Maintenance of the greenway shall be identified through the zoning or and
2 Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment process.
3
4 d. The greenway may be counted towards the open space requirement for
5 the conversion project as established in LDC section 4.02.00 except as
6 noted in G.1. above.
7
8 e. Existing trees and understory (shrubs and groundcover) shall be preserved
9 and maintained within the greenway, except where minimal improvements
10 are needed that provide a passive recreational use. At a minimum, canopy
11 trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1:2,000 square feet within the
12 greenway. Existing trees may count toward the ratio; however, trees within
13 preserves shall be excluded from the ratio.
14
15 f. A wall or fence is not required between the greenway and the proposed
16 development; however, should a wall or fence be constructed, the fence
17 shall provide habitat connectivity to facilitate movement of wildlife in and
18 around the greenway.
19
20 g. A portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management; however,
21 the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake area
22 than exists pre-conversion in the greenway. Any newly developed lake
23 shall be a minimum of 100 feet wide.
24
25 h. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant in the County's official
26 records describing the use and maintenance of the greenway as described
27 in the zoning action or SRA Amendment.
28
29 3. Preserve requirements. The following preserve standards supplement those
30 established in LDC section 3.05.07.
31
32 a. Where small isolated areas (of less than ½ acre in size) of native vegetation
33 (including planted areas) exist on site they may be consolidated into a
34 created preserve that may be greater than ½ acre in size in the aggregate
35 to meet the preserve requirement.
36
37 b. Existing County approved preserve areas shall be considered as follows:
38 i. Golf courses within a conventional zoning district. All County
39 approved preserve areas shall be retained and may be utilized to
40 meet the preserve requirements for the conversion project.
41
42 ii. Golf courses within a PUD. All County approved preserve areas
43 shall be retained. Preserve areas in excess of the PUD required
44 preserve acreage may be used to meet the preserve requirement
45 for the conversion project.
46
47 4. Stormwater management requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate that the
48 stormwater management for the surrounding uses will be maintained at an
49 equivalent or improved level of service. This shall be demonstrated by a pre versus
50 post development stormwater runoff analysis.
51
Commented [RGE HOA12]: Are stormwater
management requirements really being deleted for golf
course redevelopment? Heightened protections as to
stormwater management to benefit the public are
appropriate as compared to other types of rezoning actions
given that golf courses were frequently approved to also
accept runoff and serve as open space to allow for increased
density in the surrounding residential development.
Page 390 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
12
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 5. Floodplain compensation. In accordance with LDC section 3.07.02 floodplain
2 compensation shall be provided.
3
4 6. Soil and/or groundwater sampling may be deferred by the applicant to Early Work
5 Authorization (EWA), SDP, or PPL submittal, whichever is the first to occur, if the
6 sampling has not been completed by the rezoning, SRA amendment, or
7 compatibility design review public hearings. See LDC Section 3.08.00 A.4.d.
8
9 7. All other development standards. The conversion of golf courses shall be
10 consistent with the development standards in the LDC, as amended. Where
11 conflicts arise between the provisions in this section and other provisions in the
12 LDC, the more restrictive provision shall apply.
13
14 H. Design standards for lands converted from a golf course or for a permitted use within the
15 GC zoning district shall be subject to the following design standards.
16
17 1. Lighting. All lighting shall be designed to reduce excessive glare, light trespass
18 and sky glow. At a minimum, lighting shall be directed away from neighboring
19 properties and all light fixtures shall be full cutoff with flat lenses. Lighting for the
20 conversion project shall be vetted with stakeholders during the SOMs and the
21 public hearings, as applicable.
22 2. Setbacks. All non-golf course uses, except for the greenway, shall provide a
23 minimum average 50-foot setback from lands zoned residential or with residential
24 uses, however the setback shall be no less than 35 feet at any one location.
25
26 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
27
28 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions
29
30 This section shall establish the requirements for public hearings and public notices. This section
31 shall be read in conjunction with LDC section 10.03.05 and Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code,
32 which further establishes the public notice procedures for land use petitions.
33
34 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
35
36 W. Intent to Convert, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 C.1.
37
38 1. The following notice procedures are required:
39
40 a. Mailed notice sent by the applicant after the Intent to Convert application
41 has been reviewed and deemed satisfactory by staff to proceed to the
42 mailed notice and Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, and at least 20 days
43 prior to the first Stakeholder Outreach Meeting. For the purposes of this
44 application, all mailed notices shall be sent to property owners within 1,000
45 feet of the property lines of the subject property.
46
47 b. Posting of a sign after Intent to Convert application has been reviewed and
48 deemed satisfactory by staff to proceed to the mailed notice and
49 Stakeholder Outreach Meetings, and at least 20 days prior to the first
50 Stakeholder Outreach Meeting.
51
Commented [RGE HOA13]: Is floodplain compensation
no longer required for GC redevelopment projects?
Heightened protections as to floodplain management to
benefit the public are appropriate as compared to other
types of rezoning actions given that golf courses were
frequently approved originally to serve as a floodplain/open
space to allow for increased density in the surrounding
residential development.
Commented [RGE HOA14]: Golf courses are known to
have used petroleum and arsenic containing chemicals, vis-
a-vis the Golden Gate Golf Course. Heightened protections
as to soil and groundwater quality to benefit the public are
appropriate as compared to other types of rezoning actions.
Commented [RGE HOA15]: This minimum standard
setback has been in Code for decades....is it proposed that
this standard will not be applicable to golf course
conversions?
Page 391 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
13
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1 X. Stakeholder Outreach Meeting, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 C.3.
2
3 1. The following notice procedures are required:
4
5 a. Newspaper advertisement at least 15 days prior to the Stakeholder
6 Outreach Meeting.
7
8 b. Mailed notice sent by the applicant at least 15 days prior to the required
9 Stakeholder Outreach Meetings. For the purposes of this application, all
10 mailed notices shall be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the
11 property lines of the subject property. This mailed notice may include both
12 required Stakeholder Outreach Meeting dates. All mailed notices shall
13 include the web address to participate in the required web-based visual
14 survey.
15
16 Y. Compatibility Design Review, pursuant to LDC section 5.05.15 F.
17
18 1. The following advertised public hearings are required.
19
20 a. One Planning Commission hearing.
21
22 b. One BCC hearing.
23
24 2. The following notice procedures are required:
25
26 a. Newspaper advertisement at least 15 days prior to the advertised public
27 hearing.
28
29 b. Mailed notice sent by the applicant at least 15 days prior to the required
30 public hearings. For the purposes of this application, all mailed notices shall
31 be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the
32 subject property.
33
34 WZ. Events in County Right-of-Way, pursuant to LDC section 5.04.05 A.5.
35
36 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
37 # # # # # # # # # # # # #
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Page 392 of 4027
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added.
Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted.
14
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page 393 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
15
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 3 | Quasi-Judicial Procedures with a Public Hearing
K.Compatibility Design Review
Reference LDC sections 5.05.15, and LDC Public Notice section 10.03.06 Y.
See Chapter 4.N of the Administrative Code for Intent to Convert Applications and
Chapter 8.F for Stakeholder Outreach Meetings for Golf Course Conversions.
Purpose The Compatibility Design Review process is intended to address the impacts of golf course
conversions on real property by reviewing the conceptual development plan for
compatibility with existing surrounding uses.
Applicability This process applies to a golf course constructed in any zoning district or designated as a
Stewardship Receiving Area that utilize a non-golf course use which is a permitted,
accessory, or conditional use within the existing zoning district or designation.
This application is not required for golf courses zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses
(GC) seeking another use as provided for in LDC section 2.03.09 A.
Conditional uses shall also require conditional use approval subject to LDC section
10.08.00. The conditional use approval should be a companion item to the compatibility
design review approval.
Pre-Application A pre-application meeting is required.
Initiation The applicant files an “Application for Compatibility Design Review” with the Zoning
Division after the “Intent to Convert” application is deemed complete by County staff and
the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs) are completed.
See Chapter 4 of the Administrative Code for information regarding the “Intent to
Convert” application and Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for requirements for SOMs
and additional notice information.
See Chapter 1 D. for additional information regarding the procedural steps for initiating
an application.
Application
Contents
The application must include the following:
1.Applicant contact information.
2.Addressing checklist.
3.Name of project.
4.The proposed conceptual development plan.
5.The name and mailing address of all registered property owners’ associations that
could be affected by the application.
6.Property Ownership Disclosure Form.
7.The date the subject property was acquired or leased (including the term of the
lease). If the applicant has an option to buy, indicate the dates of the option: date
the option starts and terminates, and anticipated closing date.
Page 394 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
16
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
8.Property information, including:
a.Legal description;
b.Property identification number;
c.Section, township, and range;
d.Address of the subject site and general location;
e.Size of property in feet and acres;
f.Zoning district;
g.Plat book and page number; and
h.Subdivision, unit, lot and block, and metes and bounds description.
9.If the property owner owns additional property contiguous to the subject property,
then the following information, regarding the contiguous property, must be included:
a.Legal description;
b.Property identification number;
c.Section, township and range; and
d.Subdivision, unit, lot and block, or metes and bounds description.
10.Zoning information, including adjacent zoning and land use.
11.Soil and/or groundwater sampling results, if available, as described in LDC section
3.08.00 A.4.d and 5.05.15 G.6;
12.The approved Intent to Convert application, as described in LDC section 5.05.15 C.1;
and
13.The SOM Report, as described in LDC section 5.05.15 C.3.
14.A narrative describing how the applicant has complied with the criteria in LDC section
5.05.15 F.3, including:
a.A list of examples depicting how each criterion is met;
b.A brief narrative describing how the examples meet the criterion; and
c.Illustration of the examples on the conceptual development plan that are
described above.
15. Affidavit of Authorization.
Completeness and
Processing of
Application
See Chapter 1 D.5 for the acceptance and processing of an application
Notice Notification requirements are as follows.
See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information.
1.Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15
days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement
shall include at a minimum:
a.Date, time, and location of the hearing;
b.Description of the proposed land uses; and
c.2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
Page 395 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
17
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
2.Mailed Notice: For the purposes of this mailed notice requirement, written notice
shall be sent to property owners located within 1,000 feet from the property line of
the golf course at least 15 days prior to the advertised public hearings.
3.Sign: Posted at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing date.
See Chapter 8 E. of the Administrative Code for sign template.
Public
Hearing
1.The Planning Commission shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing.
2.The BCC shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing.
Decision
Maker
The BCC, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Review
Process
Staff will prepare a staff report consistent with LDC section 5.05.15 F and schedule a
hearing date before the Planning Commission to present the petition. Following the
Planning Commission’s review, Staff will prepare an Executive Summary and will schedule
a hearing date before the BCC to present the petition.
Updated 2021-143
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Page 396 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
18
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
Chapter 4 | Administrative Procedures
N.Intent to Convert Application for Golf Course Conversions
Reference LDC sections 5.05.15, and LDC Public Notice section 10.03.06 W.
See Chapter 8.F for Stakeholder Outreach Meetings for Golf Course Conversions.
Applicability This process applies to applicants seeking to convert a constructed golf course to a non -
golf course use. Approval of this application is required prior to submitting a conversion
application (rezone, PUD, SRAA or Compatibility Design Review petition). This application
is not required for golf courses zoned Golf Course and Recreational Uses (GC) seeking
another use as provided for in LDC section 2.03.09 A.
Pre-Application A pre-application meeting is required.
Initiation The applicant files an “Intent to Convert” application with the Zoning Division.
See Chapter 1 D. for additional information regarding the procedural steps for initiating
an application.
Application
Contents
The application must include the following:
1.Applicant contact information.
2.Addressing checklist.
3.Name of project.
4.The name and mailing address of all registered property owners’ associations that
could be affected by the application.
5.Disclosure of ownership and interest information.
6.The date the subject property was acquired or leased (including the term of the
lease). If the applicant has an option to buy, indicate the dates of the option, date the
option starts and terminates, and anticipated closing date.
7.A title opinion or title commitment that identifies the current owner of the property
and all encumbrances against the property.
8.Boundary survey (no more than six months old).
9.Property information, including:
a.Legal description;
b.Property identification number;
c.Section, township, and range;
d.Address of the subject site and general location;
e.Size of property in feet and acres; and
f.Zoning district.
10.If the property owner owns additional property contiguous to the subject property,
then the following information, regarding the contiguous property, must be included:
a.Legal description;
Page 397 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
19
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
b.Property identification number;
c.Section, township and range; and
d.Subdivision, unit, lot and block, or metes and bounds description.
11.Zoning information, including adjacent zoning and land use.
12.Existing PUD Ordinance, SRA Development Document, Site Development Plan, or Plat.
13.An exhibit identifying the following:
a.Any golf course acreage that was utilized to meet the minimum open
space requirements for any previously approved project;
b.Existing preserve areas;
c.Sporadic vegetation less than ½ acre, including planted areas, that meet
criteria established in LDC section 3.05.07 A.4; and
d.A matrix demonstrating the following as required in LDC section 5.05.15 G.3:
•For conventionally zoned districts:
•County approved preserve acreage; and
•Any sporadic vegetation acreage used to meet the
preserve requirement for the conversion project.
•For PUDs:
•County approved preserve acreage; and
•Any County approved preserve acreage in excess of
the PUD required preserve acreage that is used to
meet the preserve requirement for the conversion
project.
14.Stormwater management requirements as required by LDC section 5.05.15 G.4.
15.Floodplain compensation, if required by LDC section 3.07.02.
16.Soil and/or groundwater sampling results, if available, as described in LDC
sections 3.08.00 A.4.d and 5.05.15 G.6.
17.List of deviations requested, as described in LDC sections 5.05.15 C.4.a-b. The specific
LDC sections for which the deviations are sought shall be identified. The list of
deviations shall be shared with stakeholders at the SOM or NIM.
18.Electronic copies of all documents.
Applica
tion Contents
Required for
Presentations
at SOMs
In addition to the application contents above, the following must also be submitted
with the Intent to Convert application and used during SOM presentations:
3.The Developer’s Alternatives Statement as described in LDC section 5.05.15 C,
including:
a.A narrative clearly describing the goals and objectives for the conversion
project.
b.No Conversion Alternative: A narrative describing the timeline of
correspondence between the applicant and the property owners’
Page 398 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
20
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
associations relating to the applicant’s examination of opportunities
to retain all or part of the golf course as described in LDC section
5.05.15 C.2.b.i, and copies of such correspondence. It shall be noted
in the narrative whether a final decision has been made about this
alternative or whether discussions with the property owners’
associations are ongoing.
4.County Purchase Alternative: A narrative describing the timeline of
correspondence between the applicant and the County to determine if there is
interest to retain all or portions of the property for public use as described in
LDC section 5.05.15 C.2.b.ii, and copies of such correspondence. It shall be noted
in the narrative whether a final decision has been made about this alternative or
whether discussions with the County are ongoing.
5.Conceptual Development Plan Alternative: A conceptual development plan
consistent with LDC section 5.05.15 C.2.b.iii, and as described in the following
section.
6.The conceptual development plan shall include all information described in LDC
section 5.05.15 C.2.b.iii, and the following:
a.An Access Management Exhibit, identifying the location and
dimension of existing and proposed access points and legal access
to the site.
b.A dimensional standards table for each type of land use proposed
within the plan.
i.Dimensional standards shall be based upon the established zoning
district, or that which most closely resembles the development
strategy, particularly the type, density, and intensity of each
proposed land use.
ii.For PUDs: Any proposed deviations from dimensional standards of
the established zoning district, or of the most similar zoning
district, shall be clearly identified. Provide a narrative describing
the justifications for any proposed deviations that are not
prohibited by LDC section 5.05.15 C.4.
c.A plan providing the proposed location and design of the greenway
(this may be included on the conceptual development plan):
i.Greenway Design: A plan providing the proposed location and
design of the greenway and illustrating the following (including
any alternative designs as described in LDC section 5.05.15 G.2.a):
a)The proposed location of passive recreational uses;
b)Existing and proposed lakes, including lake area calculations;
c)Preserve areas;
d)Any structures or trails related to passive recreational uses;
e)Greenway widths demonstrating a minimum average
width of 100 feet and no less than 75 feet shall be
identified every 100 feet;
Page 399 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
21
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
f)Locations of existing trees and understory (shrubs
and groundcover) shall be located on the plan in
accordance with LDC section 5.05.15 G.2.e;
g)A matrix identified on the plan shall demonstrate
tree counts used to calculate the ratio described in
LDC section 5.05.15 G.2.e; and
h)Location of any proposed wall or fence pursuant to
LDC section 5.05.15 G.2.f.
d. A narrative describing how the applicant proposes to offset or minimize
impacts of the golf course conversion on stakeholders’ real property and
provide for compatibility with existing surrounding land uses. Identify the
compatibility measures on the conceptual development plan.
3.A narrative statement describing how the greenway will meet the purpose as
described in LDC section 5.05.15 G.2 to retain open space views for stakeholders,
support passive recreational uses, and support existing wildlife habitat.
4.A narrative statement describing the public outreach methods proposed for the
SOMs, consistent with Administrative Code Chapter 8.F.
5.Web-based survey, including the following:
a.A copy of the web-based survey;
b.The user-friendly website address where the survey will be available; and
c.The dates the survey will be available.
Comple
teness and
Processing of
Application
See Chapter 1 D.5 for the acceptance and processing of an application.
Notice for
the Intent to
Convert
Application
After the Intent to Convert application has been submitted, notice is required to inform
stakeholders of a forthcoming golf course conversion application. However, no mailing
is required if the applicant chooses to withdraw the Intent to Convert application.
See Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for additional notice information.
1.Mailed Notice: For the purposes of this mailed notice, written notice shall be sent to
property owners located within 1,000 feet from the property line of the golf course.
The notice shall be sent after the Intent to Convert application has been reviewed
and deemed satisfactory by staff to proceed to the mailed notice and SOMs, and at
least 20 days prior to the first SOM. The mailed notice shall include the following:
a.Explanation of the intention to convert the golf course.
b.Indication that there will be at least two advertised SOMs and one web-
based visual survey to solicit input from stakeholders on the proposed
project. The date, time, and location of the SOMs does not need to be
included in this mailing.
c.2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
d.Applicant contact information.
Page 400 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
22
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
2.Sign: (see format below) Posted after the Intent to Convert application has been
reviewed and deemed satisfactory by staff to proceed to the mailed notice and
SOMs, and at least 20 days before the first SOM. The sign shall remain posted until
all SOMs
are complete. For the purposes of this section, signage, measuring 16 square feet, shall
clearly indicate an applicant is petitioning the county to convert the golf course to a
non-golf use (e.g. residential). A user-friendly website address shall be provided on the
signs directing interested parties to visit Collier County’s website to access materials for
the SOM and the web-based visual survey. The sign shall remain posted for 7 days after
the last required SOM. The location of the signage shall be consistent with Chapter 8 of
the Administrative Code.
Public
Hearing
No public hearing is required for the Intent to Convert application. Public hearings will
be required for subsequent conversion applications.
Decision
Maker
The County Manager or designee.
Review
Process
The Zoning Division will review the Intent to Convert application and identify whether
additional materials are needed.
Updated 2021-143
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 7 | Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications
Page 401 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
23
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
E.Additional Requirements for Applications for a Proposed Golf Course
Conversion – Rezones and Stewardship Receiving Areas
Reference LDC section 5.05.15
Applicability The following items are required for any rezone or SRA application that is submitted for the
proposed conversion of an existing golf course into a non-golf course use:
1.A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required after the initial pre-
application meeting and before the submittal of a formal application. This NIM does
not replace the NIM requirements after submittal of the application.
See Chapter 8 A.1 of the Administrative Code for NIM procedures.
See Chapter 1 D.4 of the Administrative Code for Pre-Application Meeting
procedures.
2.A title report that identifies the current owner of the property and all
encumbrances shall be required as part of the rezone or SRA application.
Application
Contents
Applicants shall include a written summary of the NIM (See Chapter 8 A.1 of the
Administrative Code for NIM procedures) and the title report with Submittal 1 of the
rezone or SRA application or the application is deemed incomplete.
Notice N/A
Public Hearing N/A
Decision Maker N/A
Review Process The Zoning Division will review the supplemental items and identify whether additional
materials are needed as part of the review of the rezone or SRA application.
Updated
Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual
Chapter 8 | Public Notice
F.Stakeholder Outreach Meeting for Golf Course Conversions (SOM)
Page 402 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
24
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
Reference LDC sections 5.05.15 and LDC Public Notice section 10.03.06.
See Chapter 4.N for Intent to Convert Applications for the Application Contents
Required for Presentations at SOMs.
Purpose Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (SOMs) are intended to engage stakeholders early in the
design of a golf course conversion project and to encourage collaboration and consensus
between the applicant and the stakeholders on the proposed conversion.
Applicability This process applies to applicants seeking to convert a constructed golf course to a non-
golf course use. A minimum of two in-person meetings and one web-based visual survey
are required. This section shall be used in connection with LDC section 5.05.15.
Initiation The SOMs may be held after the “Intent to Convert” application has been received by the
County and deemed sufficient by staff to proceed. It is encouraged that SOMs take place
in a timely manner so as to support stakeholder involvement.
SOM Notice
Requirements
Each SOM shall be noticed as follows:
1.Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15
days before the SOM in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall
include at a minimum:
a.Date, time, and location of the SOM;
b.Petition name, number and applicant contact info;
c.Notice of the intention to convert the golf course to a non-golf course use;
d.Brief description of the proposed uses; and
e.2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location.
2.Mailed Notice: For the purposes of this mailed notice requirement, written notice
shall be sent to property owners located within 1,000 feet from the property line of
the golf course at least 15 days before the first SOM. The mailed notice shall include
the following:
a.Date, time, and location of each SOM included in the mailed notice;
b.Petition name, number and applicant contact info;
c.Notice of the intention to convert the golf course to another use;
d.A brief description of the proposed uses;
e.A statement describing that the applicant is seeking input through a
stakeholder outreach process;
f.The user-friendly web address where the meeting materials, such as the
Developers Alternatives Statement, can be accessed;
g.A brief description of the visual survey and the user-friendly web address
where the survey can be accessed; and
h.The dates that the web-based visual survey will be available online.
Page 403 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
25
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
Location The applicant must arrange the location of the meeting. The location must be reasonably
convenient to the property owners who receive the required notice. The facilities must be
of sufficient size to accommodate expected attendance.
Timeframe SOMs must be held between November 1st and April 1st.
Conduct of
SOMs
A minimum of two SOMs shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
a.An assigned County planner shall attend the SOMs and observe the
process. The planner shall note any commitment made by the applicant
during the meetings.
b.Meeting Conduct: The applicant shall conduct the meetings as follows:
i.Use at least one public outreach method during the in-
person meetings as described below; and
ii.The applicant shall facilitate dialogue and encourage input on the
conceptual development plan from the stakeholders regarding the
types of development the stakeholders consider compatible with
the neighborhood, and the types of land uses they would support
to be added to the neighborhood.
c.Presentation: The applicant must provide the following at the SOM for
review and comment:
i.The current LDC zoning district uses and development regulations;
ii.Information about the purpose of the meeting, including the
goals and objectives of the conversion project;
iii.A copy of the Developer’s Alternatives Statement shall be made
available at the SOM, as described in LDC section 5.05.15 C.2;
iv.Visuals depicting the conceptual development plan(s) and
the greenway; and
v.The list of deviations requested, as described in LDC section
5.05.15 C.4.a-b.
d.Public Outreach Methods: The applicant shall use one or more of the
following at the Stakeholder Outreach Meetings to engage
stakeholders:
i.Charrette. This public outreach method is a collaborative design
and planning workshop that occurs over multiple days. Through a
charrette, the applicant designs the conceptual development plan
and greenway with stakeholders’ input. During a charrette,
stakeholders are given the opportunity to identify values, needs,
and desired outcomes regarding the project. Through a series of
engagement activities the conceptual development plan and
greenway are designed and refined. Throughout the sessions,
stakeholders have an opportunity to analyze the project, address
and resolve issues, and comment on multiple iterations of the
project.
ii.Participatory Mapping. This public outreach method produces
Page 404 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
26
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
maps using stakeholder knowledge and input. To start, the
applicant hosts a workshop and shares information about the
project through exhibits such as poster boards, written or
electronic materials, etc. Participants are then given sticky dots,
markers, or other tactile/visualization tools in conjunction with
maps of the conceptual development plan and greenway to
identify options to address compatibility, adverse impacts, or types
of desirable usable open space for the project. For example:
stakeholders are asked to place red dots on the map where there
is a perceived pedestrian hazard and place a green dot where they
support additional tree plantings in the greenway.
iii.Group Polling. This public outreach method polls participants at
the meeting and provides instant results. The poll can include a
wide range of topics about the project, such as density, greenway
uses, vehicle/pedestrian transportation networks, etc. The
applicant provides sticky dots or uses electronic devices to
conduct the polling.
iv.Visioning Exercise. This public outreach method invites
stakeholders to describe their core values and vision for their
community. In a workshop setting, the applicant presents a wide
variety of reports, maps, photos, and other information about the
project. The applicant then poses questions to the participants,
such as, but not limited to the following:
1.“What do people want to preserve in the community?”
2.“What do people want to create in the community?”
3.“What do people want to change in the community?”
The applicant collects the responses and works with the
participants to create a vision statement for the project that
incorporates the goals, concerns, and values of the community.
Page 405 of 4027
Exhibit A – Administrative Code Updates
27
C:\Users\metadactuser\AppData\Local\Temp\MetadactCore\1748113\lmdeC520.docx
Web-based
Visual
Survey
Requireme
nts
The web-based visual survey is intended to increase engagement with stakeholders. The
survey should engage the stakeholders in the design of the project and assist in
determining what stakeholders find important to the neighborhood, what is considered
compatible with the neighborhood, and what types of land uses they support adding to
the neighborhood.
a.The survey shall provide visual representations of the proposed
development, in particular the types of land uses proposed, streetscapes,
public spaces, design characteristics, and depictions of the greenway design;
b.The survey questions shall be worded so as to elicit responses to the
stakeholders’ preferences or support for the visual representations.
c.The survey shall allow for additional comment(s) to be made by the
stakeholders.
SOM
Report
After the SOMs and the web-based survey are complete, the applicant will submit a
report of the SOM to the County, including the following information:
a.A list of attendees, a description of the public outreach methods used,
photos from the meetings demonstrating the outreach process, results from
outreach methods described above;
b.Copies of the materials used during the meeting, including any materials
created at the meeting, such as any participatory mapping or related
documents;
c.A verbatim transcript of the meetings and an audio (mp3 or WAV format) or
video recording in a format accessible or viewable by the County;
d.A point-counterpoint list, identifying the input from the stakeholders and
how and why it was or was not incorporated into the application. Input from
stakeholders may be categorized by topic and the applicant may provide a
single response to each topic in narrative format; and
The report shall be organized such that the issues and ideas provided by the
stakeholders that are incorporated in the application are clearly labeled in the
point-counterpoint list and in the conversion application.
Meeting
Follow-up After each SOM is completed and prior to the submittal of a conversion application, the
applicant will submit to the assigned planner a written summary of the SOM and any
commitment that has been made. Any commitment made during the meeting will:
a.Become part of the record of the proceedings;
b.Be included in the staff report for any subsequent conversion application;
and
c.Be considered for inclusion into the conditions of approval of any
subsequent development order.
Updated
25272456v.3
Page 406 of 4027